Sitting of 14 October 1996

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  DEATH OF A MEMBER
  Madam Speaker: I regret to have to report to the House the death of Terry Patchett Esq., Member for Barnsley, East. I am sure that hon. Members of all parties will join me in mourning the loss of a colleague and in extending our sympathy to the family and friends of the hon. Gentleman.
Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL HERITAGE

    Museums and Galleries
    Mr. Mans: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much her Department is spending in the current financial year on capital projects at museums and galleries. [37920]
    Mr. Pope: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the funding of museums and galleries. [37930]
    The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): The 17 museums and galleries sponsored by my Department will receive over £205 million in grant in aid. The lottery has made 139 awards totalling over £250 million to capital projects at museums and galleries. The Government's position on the funding of museums and galleries was recently set out in "Treasures in Trust". Copies were sent to hon. Members and placed in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Mans: Has any of that money gone to service museums and, in particular, to any museum in Lancashire?
    Mr. Skinner: It has all gone to Gilbert and Sullivan.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I hope that it will be possible in due course for lottery money to go to Gilbert and Sullivan and the D'Oyly Carte, but its arm's-length relationship with the Arts Council is not a matter for me to comment on. I am sure that many hon. Members would favour that proposal strongly.
    I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) that a substantial amount has gone to service museums, including £6.5 million to the imperial war museum's new American air museum at Duxford and £61,000 to the King's Own Royal Lancaster Regiment museum in Lancaster.
    Mr. Pope: The Secretary of State mentioned "Treasures in Trust", which made no reference to the introduction of compulsory competitive tendering in local authority museums. Can she assure the House that CCT will not be introduced?
    Mrs. Bottomley: There are no plans to introduce CCT in local authority museums. The document is an excellent framework for the standards for which we should all be looking in museums, ranging from the great national museums to the equally important local museums. It is a timely account and a spur to action which I hope will unite the House.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: May I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the welcome donation to the museum in Lancaster? It is a superb museum already, but it will be infinitely better when it is

    445
    finished. At the last Armistice day, there was avid talk about what improvements could be made to the museum, and these can now be made.
    Madam Speaker: Order. This is Question Time. I did not hear a question.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I said, "Would she accept my thanks?"
    Madam Speaker: Order. That is hardly the sort of pertinent question that we get in this House. If the Secretary of State wishes to make a brief comment, I will accept it but I would like to hear questions in future.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I accept the thanks of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), and I should add that that museum uses a lot of volunteers. Volunteers are the life-blood of museums, which are the focal point of many communities. I hope that the additional resources from the national lottery will lead to greater use of museums by both young and old.
    Mr. Fisher: Do not these figures reveal the truth—that the Government are using the receipts from the national lottery to conceal and compensate for their inadequacy in meeting the capital needs of the galleries and museums for which the Secretary of State is responsible? Are they not covering up for the past 17 years of neglect? Did not the Prime Minister promise that lottery money would not be used in that way? Is that not yet another broken promise from the Prime Minister?
    Mrs. Bottomley: One of the most enjoyable features of recent months has been watching the Labour party's agony as it tries to cope with the formidable success of the national lottery, which has produced more money than anyone expected. If Labour had had its way, it would have increased operating costs, reduced the amount of money going to good causes and meddled with the distribution. I am delighted that, in addition to the £205 million given to the key 17 museums, a further £250 million has been provided by the lottery. As the document sets out, another £500 million is likely to be provided between now and the end of the century.

    Tourism
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many tourists visited Britain in the first six months of (a) 1996 and (b) 1995. [37924]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The latest figures indicate that there were 11.8 million visits to the UK by overseas tourists in the first half of this year. That is an increase of nearly 14 per cent. on the 10.4 million visitors to the UK during the same period in 1995.
    Mr. Coombs: I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging answer, which demonstrates once again that a small island like Britain can hold up its head and compete successfully with the fine weather giants of the tourism industry. What lessons does she think that we
    446
    might learn from the fact that Euro 96 was a success not merely for London, where most tourists usually go, but for the regions as well? How can we build on that success?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend, who is extremely knowledgeable on these matters, is right: Euro 96 was a formidable success. Our earnings for overseas tourism in June this year were £1.2 billion—20 per cent. higher than for the same month last year. I have asked David Quarmby, chairman of the British Tourist Authority, and the English tourist board to chair a group with people from the sports, museums and arts worlds to find out how we can do more to promote British tourism by building on many of our great sports and arts events.
    Dr. John Cunningham: In respect of the right hon. Lady's recent activities on tourism, does she recall that the day before the House rose in July the Prime Minister told us
    "No one can buy access to Ministers"?—[Official Report, 23 July 1996; Vol. 282, c. 144.]
    Why then did the right hon. Lady charge tourism industry people £500 each to have breakfast with her last week in Bournemouth? The letter sent to people clearly states:
    "For £500 you would be able to discuss issues of concern to you … over breakfast with Virginia Bottomley and members of her National Heritage team."
    Is that proper? Does it not make the Prime Minister's statement to the House in July absolute rubbish?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Anyone who thought the only way to speak to me was to pay £500 would be wasting a great deal of money. It is well understood that I am only too easy to meet in any number of settings, particularly in the tourism industry, where there is huge potential. The meeting was very successful. It is my understanding that if one wants to go to one of the Labour party's nosh-ups in Park lane, one has to pay £1,000.
    Mr. Gale: Tourists to the United Kingdom in 1995 and 1996 will in the main have been spared exposure to the sort of hard-core pornography in our hotels that they might experience elsewhere on the continent. What steps will my right hon. Friend take to ensure that the rest of the residents of the United Kingdom are also spared such exposure?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I have already made an order proscribing a recent porn satellite channel; that makes it a criminal offence to sell equipment and smart cards or to market or provide any programme material for such channels. With the huge development of cable, satellite and television channels in this country we will not be a centre for filth and pornography and I intend to take every action to make that clear.

    Rugby Union
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what funds she provides for the support of rugby union. [37925]
    The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): The Sports Council, which is funded by my Department, provided £125,558 in

    447
    support of rugby union football in England in 1995ߝ96, of which £80,000 went to the Rugby Football Union for the development of the game at grass-roots level and £45,558 for the development of the game in the regions. In addition, since November 1992, Sportsmatch has awarded nearly £1.4 million for grass-roots rugby union schemes in England and £201,747 for those in Scotland, which has been matched by a similar sum from businesses.
    Mr. Kirkwood: The Minister's well-known concern for and interest in the game are acknowledged. I have even seen him recently at Border Sevens competitions and that is welcome—I am sure that it was in the course of his ministerial duties. However, the large amount of new money that has found its way into the game has come in at a national level. None has reached the junior clubs or the district level of the sport. The welcome work that the Government have done in creating new opportunities through academies of sport and all the rest has been at the elite end of the sports world. The sums that the Minister announced are welcome, but can he not do more and find more resources to produce extra facilities for the junior clubs and the district level, which after all is the level at which future stars are bred?
    Mr. Sproat: I will certainly use my good offices, such as they are. Even as we speak, the home countries rugby football unions are discussing with the television authorities the money that they might get from televising games. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about wanting as much as possible of that money to go to youth and district sport and about ensuring that clubs that he knows well, such as Hawick, Gala, Jed Forest, Melrose and Kelso, do not fall out of the game because they are in towns with small populations. I hope that the professional game would never drive out their great tradition of rugby.
    Sir Donald Thompson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best thing that he could do would be to knock a few heads in rugby union together? Both the professional sports association and the RFU have seriously embarrassed us in the past year. Will my hon. Friend take note of what the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said and ensure that the money goes to the grass-roots until the big boys learn how to behave themselves?
    Mr. Sproat: I will do everything I can that is proper to ensure that the governing bodies know the view of the Government—and, indeed, of the House—that as much as possible of the money that they get from television sports rights should go into youth sport.

    National Lottery
    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the total sum paid in prizes and the total sum contributed to charitable and community causes since the establishment of the national lottery. [37926]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: As at 7 October, Camelot had paid a total of £3.032 billion in prize money. The National Lottery Charities Board has made 4,757 awards for a total of £318.4 million to charities and voluntary
    448
    organisations. In addition, more than 85 per cent. of all lottery awards made so far have gone to charities or voluntary organisations.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Do not these enormous sums demonstrate how unfair the critics of the national lottery have been? In offering my right hon. Friend my sincere congratulations on a fantastic achievement, I ask her to ensure that as much as possible of that money goes to good causes in Southend-on-Sea.
    Mrs. Bottomley: As we have passed the 100th national lottery draw, we have the opportunity to take stock and see how lottery awards are falling in constituents across the country. In my hon. Friend's constituency, eight awards, amounting to £1.25 million, have been made— from the tennis club, to the Jewish youth centre, to an art gallery and to a cricket club. I have sent all hon. Members a copy of the leaflet "It could be your good cause" so that those who feel that their constituencies have not understood the opportunities inherent in the national lottery can offer advice and encouragement to take them.
    Mr. Faulds: Has the right hon. Lady yet established, or will she be establishing, or will she be getting one of her ministerial colleagues to establish, an investigation into the appalling social and economic damage that the national lottery is doing to the poorer families in every one of our constituencies? These are the people who most need to dream this unrealisable dream.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I respect any hon. Member who believes that we should continue to monitor the effect of the national lottery, but there is very careful observation of it. The family expenditure survey last year suggested that the average weekly household spend is £2.30, which is not excessive. When one considers the good that is being done to causes up and down the country and the number of charities, and sports and arts projects— especially in inner-city areas—that have benefited, one has to accept that overall the lottery has had a monumentally good effect on the country.
    Sir Alan Haselhurst: Despite the publicity to which my right hon. Friend referred, does she feel that the full potential of the national lottery has yet been appreciated by many community groups and will she consider the possibility of more direct advertising, perhaps on television, to bring home to them their opportunities to apply?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I will consider all options because I want every group to understand how to access the money. It is interesting that bowls clubs have benefited from the national lottery. I understand that that is because they were circulated about the application procedures. I welcomed the results from our Building Communities Week this year, in which we went to various parts of the country, especially those which I believed had not yet realised the full potential of the national lottery, and not only to areas which were clear success stories. Together with all the distributing bodies, I will make further efforts to ensure that, if there are parts of the country that have not yet achieved the full benefit from the lottery, they will have the information to do so.
    Dr. John Cunningham: Did the right hon. Lady approve the speech of her right hon. Friend the Deputy

    449
    Prime Minister at Bournemouth last week, when he said that, after 1999, it was his intention to use Millennium Commission money to fund information technology projects in schools? As the right hon. Gentleman is simultaneously proposing that, after 1999, Millennium Commission money should be used to shore up the millennium exhibition, which seems to be escalating out of control, and since that money cannot be spent twice, which of those projects of the Deputy Prime Minister does she support?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The answer is yes: I did approve of what my right hon. Friend said. He said that there was a commitment to make good any difficulties concerning the millennium festival through Millennium Commission funds before allocating them to a further purpose. It is important, however, to make sure that the operating company for the festival is properly established and that good value for money is achieved. I have no doubt that it will be a magnificent festival which will set an example to the world in the year 2000.

    Heritage Green Paper
    Dr. Twinn: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on progress on consultation on the heritage Green Paper. [37927]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The closing date for response to the consultation paper "Protecting our Heritage" was 30 September. A substantial number of comments have been received. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I are studying them carefully.
    Dr. Twinn: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and for the money from the Millennium Commission that has already been given to enhance our architectural heritage through the Church Floodlighting Trust. Has my right hon. Friend had any consultations about the importance of our historic churches and chapels? Does she agree that they often represent the most significant part of our local architectural heritage? Will she support them in order to maintain that heritage for the future?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I can indeed give my hon. Friend great encouragement. Apart from the Millennium Commission funding for church projects, the heritage lottery fund has already made 104 awards. Later this week, English Heritage, together with the heritage lottery fund, will announce an extremely welcome further initiative to streamline assistance for churches and to add significantly to the resources available for that. I think churches are part of our national heritage and that that announcement will be an extremely popular further development.
    Mr. Dalyell: Could the House have a rather less frivolous answer to the first important question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)? If there is to be consultation, are we to assume that those who pay £500, or whatever, for breakfast, or whatever, are entitled to privileged access over those who take part in the established civil service
    450
    view of consultation—the kind of precedent that has been set hitherto by the civil service in serious consultations? Is money going to buy the Minister's ear?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The right hon. Member for Copeland had a very serious answer from me: I am available at virtually every major tourist event and I am only too happy to hear directly from people about their concerns and about the real issues. I find that a great number of people are extremely worried about Labour's tourism taxes and the threat that they would pose to a very important industry. A great number of new jobs are expected to be created in that industry, but they would be jeopardised by the minimum wage and the social chapter. It is quite simple: the Conservative party, like the Labour party, and even like the Liberal party, organises a number of events that are sponsored. A sponsored event is such that the meeting is open to anyone who wants to pay £7.50 for breakfast.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, welcome as her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn) was, the fact remains that churches are paying more in value added tax than they receive in grants from English Heritage, important as those grants are? Will my right hon. Friend talk to her Treasury colleagues in the next few weeks to try to ensure that something is done to put that right?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I find myself having many close discussions with the Treasury at this time of year and I shall seek to ensure that my hon. Friend's comments are added to them. My hon. Friend has made a crucial contribution to the step change in the amount of money available to churches. Many congregations feel that they would rather raise money for the poor and any number of other good causes and are worried about the amount of money that goes into preserving their buildings. The initiative will be a proper and popular use of lottery money.

    BSkyB
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to encourage BSkyB to invest in programme making; and if she will make a statement. [37929]
    Mr. Sproat: Broadcasters will need to invest in programming if they are to attract viewers in the increasingly diverse and competitive television market. The Government have no plans to introduce further regulation of cable and satellite broadcasters.
    Mr. Mullin: That is a disappointing and naive answer. The Minister is surely aware that Sky Television has invested virtually nothing in original programming other than sport and news and has very few plans to do so. Is there not a danger that, ultimately, Mr. Murdoch will drag his television competitors down to the same level as he has dragged his competitors in British journalism? While we are on the subject, the Minister will also be aware that Mr. Murdoch will shortly obtain monopoly access to

    451
    digital television. I know that the Minister has received strong representations on the subject from the BBC and ITV. Does he have plans to do anything about that?
    Mr. Sproat: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is no. The answer to his second question is that I shall consider the matter carefully in light of what the BBC, in particular, said last week.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Will my hon. Friend note that Granada Television has become part of BSkyB's package? It launched seven new channels on 1 October— many of the programmes that it makes are made in Manchester, which is good news and a boost for jobs in the north-west.
    Mr. Sproat: What my hon. Friend says is true: it is good news. We must remember that this country has become the satellite capital of Europe, and we want to keep it that way.
    Mr. Grocott: Does the Minister agree that any investment in programming by BSkyB would be bad news for the viewer if it was investment to obtain further exclusive coverage of major national sporting events? As he joins me and the rest of the House in congratulating Damon Hill on his magnificent achievement yesterday, will he acknowledge the simple truth that the reason why it was a major event of national interest was precisely that it was available to everyone on television? There would not have been the same interest had the event been confined to an exclusive minority channel, available to a few hundred thousand subscribers. What steps is he taking to ensure that major sporting events remain available for the majority of viewers?
    Mr. Sproat: I am sure that the whole House will want to offer tremendous congratulations to Damon Hill on his magnificent achievement.
    As for the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question—that matter was debated at great length during the passage of the Broadcasting Bill. The hon. Gentleman will know that the listed events have been protected and that there is now a code that means that any important athletic event, such as the Five Nations, will be shown on free-to-air as well as pay television. I believe that the House reached the right conclusions at the time and we have no plans to change them.
    Mr. Congdon: Does my hon. Friend agree that cable and satellite television have significantly extended the range and choice of television programmes available to the public of this country? Does he agree that they have provided much extra sport on television and, more important, have ensured that significant extra resources have been made available to sports, particularly football?
    Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend is right. Access to watch sporting events has greatly increased. The amount of money that has come into the sport will benefit it enormously. Some £700-odd million has been invested in soccer. The rugby deal is still being discussed—£87.5 million is already on the cards—and £40-odd million is to go to cricket.
    In answer to the earlier question of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), I hope that a lot of the money will go to youth sport.

    Soccer
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions she has had this season with the Football Association about the current problems facing premier league soccer. [37931]
    Mr. Sproat: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular meetings with the governing bodies of football.
    Mr. Banks: I am very reassured by that answer. As the sweeper in the ministerial team, is the hon. Gentleman succeeding in communicating some of the problems that affect premier football at the moment? He mentioned the £700 million that BSkyB is putting in, which is going to a limited number of clubs. The admission price excludes many people, and the Marc Bosman judgment has implications for the domestic transfer market. Those are all serious matters, causing football supporters concern, and I hope that the Minister will show some concern himself.
    I hope that, if the Minister does nothing else this week, he pays close attention to the welfare of British supporters travelling with their clubs to European cup competitions. When Manchester United went to Turkey—it will return this week—its supporters were used for baton practice by the Turkish police. Will he ensure that British travelling supporters are well looked after?
    Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important point. What happened to Manchester United the last time it visited Turkey was disgraceful, but that is unusual. Leeds at Eindhoven was another example. But by and large—I have investigated this matter as far as I can—there is no evidence that British fans are picked on when they go abroad. I very much hope that Manchester United fans get a smooth passage, as they wish.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend join me in condemning the yobbo-like behaviour of the Aston Villa goalkeeper on Saturday? Does he agree that yobbo-like behaviour by premier league players can only encourage yobbo-like behaviour in the crowds?
    Mr. Sproat: I agree with my hon. Friend without reservation.
    Mr. Pendry: The Minister will be aware that the present Government have failed to provide any significant structural or financial support to the hosting of the Euro 96 football tournament. He will also be aware that the Football Association plans to bring the World cup here in the year 2006. Will he therefore be more proactive, and seek a meeting with the FA to discuss its problems and offer practical support?
    The Minister, Euro-sceptic or not, might like to consider the approach of the French, who are hosting the next World cup. They have established an interministerial committee, based in their Prime Minister's office, to co-ordinate their World cup activities. Or must we accept that only under a Labour Government will a World cup bid receive such positive support?
    Mr. Sproat: We will give every possible promotional help to the FA or to the other football authorities in the

    453
    United Kingdom, to help them bring the World cup here. In the past few days, I had a discussion with Mr. David Davis about that matter, and we have arranged to hold a further meeting, at which I and other members of the FA can decide what best may be done.

    Public Libraries
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the level of book loans from public libraries over the last year. [37932]
    Mr. Sproat: The total number of book loans in English public libraries was 450.5 million in 1994ߝ95, the latest year for which confirmed figures are available.
    Mr. Amess: Does my hon. Friend agree that the library service is cherished throughout the country? That being the case, does he share my disappointment that Labour and Liberal-controlled Essex county council cut the libraries' budget by £1 million, thus raiding the book fund for the first time in living memory, meaning that no new books could be purchased in the current year, including my own?
    Mr. Sproat: Yes. It was very disappointing indeed that that was done, not least because the amount that is spent on libraries throughout England—about £500 million— has actually increased by 2 per cent. in real terms on average in the country as a whole, so it was a pity that Essex was not able to follow what other authorities apparently were doing. However, I pay tribute to the efficiency and courtesy of my local Essex public library, in Frinton-on-Sea.

    National Lottery
    Mr. MacShane: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps she is taking to stop under-age participation in the national lottery. [37933]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I have directed the Director General of the National Lottery not to license games which, in his opinion, do not have sufficient controls to prevent the participation of young people under the age of 16.
    Mr. MacShane: Is the Secretary of State aware that, for the public, one of the most disturbing aspects of this sleaze-ridden Government is their complete indifference to under-age gambling? She may be aware that the Office of the National Lottery and the British Medical Journal have both recently published reports showing the number of 12 to 15-year-olds gambling on the national lottery.
    Is she aware, in the light of her statement, that Camelot last year terminated only one retail outlet for under-age gambling? What steps is she taking to ensure that our children keep their pocket money in their pockets instead of swelling the already swollen profits of Camelot?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I agree that it is quite wrong that children who are under age should play the national lottery. The director general has repeatedly reinforced that message to Camelot. I can inform the hon. Gentleman that two retailers have lost their licences and another has been
    454
    suspended. That can have a powerful effect, since the value to a retailer of having a lottery outlet averages £8,750 a year.
    I am encouraged by Dr. Sue Fisher's second report, which suggests that fewer under-age children are playing the lottery. It is of course wrong that any should, or that they should buy cigarettes or alcohol. The enforcement measures are similar, and require trading standards officers and police commitment as well as renewed energy on the part of the director general of Oflot and Camelot.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is another sense in which we want to encourage the participation of young people in the national lottery? It was the idea of the founding fathers and mothers of the national lottery that a large sum of money should be used to provide artistic and sporting outlets that would take young people off the streets and away from the temptations of juvenile crime. Can she report good news on that front?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I certainly can. I announced only last week that directions will shortly be issued to enable lottery money to go to revenue grants for young people in sport and the arts, to encourage participation and to promote excellence. The Millennium Commission has already announced an award to Operation Raleigh, which particularly involves young people; and about £7.5 million has been given in the form of 257 awards to children's play projects and children's charities. Thus, in many ways, the lottery is providing worthwhile activities for young people.
    Mr. Pike: Has not Camelot expressed the view, as regards its scratch cards, that it would be quite happy to have the playing age raised to 18 because it recognises the problems associated with them?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I am not aware of Camelot's having expressed any such view, but I believe that the whole of the national lottery should be kept under review. It is carefully regulated by Oflot, but if we reach a stage where it needs further regulation or controls, I shall certainly implement them. I am, however, mindful of the fact that the Select Committee's comment on this subject endorsed the Government's position.

    National Lottery Sport Awards
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many awards from national lottery proceeds have been made to individual potential sportsmen; on the basis of which criteria; how much has been the average award; and if she will make a statement. [37934]
    Mr. Sproat: None as yet. The Sports Council has recently undertaken a nationwide consultation exercise to help it determine and develop the proposed schemes and priorities It will announce the new arrangements shortly.
    Mr. Greenway: I welcome the progress that my hon. Friend has made in this area. Does he agree that good sportsmen who achieve a great deal internationally give a good lead to lesser sportsmen and children who are not

    455
    very good at games? How much will be spent in total on assisting gifted athletes and sportsmen to success? Will he bear in mind that Charlotte Dutton, a leading snowboarder, and Ryan Cadogan, both of Ealing, lead their respective fields in the 15 age group?
    Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend has been in touch with me about both his constituents. I congratulate him on his assiduity. We shall have to wait until the Sports Council makes its announcement about how much money will be spent, but I expect about £10 million to £15 million to be set aside to help young sportsmen and women.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Minister will recall that he and I have corresponded about the amount of support available to disabled athletes. In the light of the success of the United Kingdom team at the paralympics in Atlanta, can he confirm that disabled sportsmen and women will be eligible for awards of the kind he has just described from the lottery?
    Mr. Sproat: Yes, I certainly can. This might be a suitable occasion on which to say that the young sportswoman about whom we corresponded, Miss Caroline Ellis, had great success. I congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman on the assiduity with which he carried that matter, through. I confirm that athletes with disabilities will be eligible for the revenue funding that we shall announce shortly.
    Mr. Jamieson: The Secretary of State announced today that individuals can get funding for dance and drama Will the Minister note that Lord Gowrie said today that that is just an interim solution? Will youngsters such as Natasha Cornish in my constituency, who started on a course this September, be able to apply for funding next year and in subsequent years? What are the long-term prospects for funding for dance and drama students? Is the Secretary of State's announcement genuine or just a temporary measure?
    Mr. Sproat: It is a genuine announcement. In case my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) does not catch your eye on this matter, Madam Speaker, may I thank him for all the help that he has given on this matter? Some £15 million will come from the lottery and some £10 million will come through the Department for Education and Employment, so it is not temporary in the sense that it is here today, gone tomorrow. If we can improve the scheme, obviously we shall. The hon. Gentleman's constituents should be absolutely clear that we want to ensure that many dance and drama students who have been unable to promote their abilities because of a lack of funds and because local authorities' discretionary ability to give them money has not been taken up will be enabled to do so through this scheme.

    European Art and Culture Exhibition
    Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will stage an official national
    456
    exhibition to promote the United Kingdom's participation in European art and culture. [37936]
    Mr. Sproat: The United Kingdom has a flourishing cultural sector. Its artists, actors, musicians and performers demonstrate throughout the year that they can compete with the best in the world.
    Mr. Dykes: I thank the Minister of State for that broad answer, but will he be a little more specific? In view of anxieties about the excessive domination of so-called American culture, should not the Government promote the virtues of the age of enlightenment, the renaissance, and 18th and 19th century romanticism rather than the present-day xenophobia of spokesmen who reside in Billericay and Southend?
    Mr. Sproat: Xenophobia has no place in the Department of National Heritage. My hon. Friend asked for a specific example. Fair enough. I can tell him that 10 British applicants have won funds under the Kaleidoscope programme of the European Union to promote artistic and cultural activities with a European dimension. I congratulate them on that, which is exactly the sort of thing that my hon. Friend wants.
    Mr. Bayley: Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the work of the British Tourist Authority in encouraging people from overseas to come to Britain to enjoy our arts, culture and heritage? Given that every £1 grant in aid that the BTA receives brings in £27 of business to this country, of which £4 goes back to the Treasury in taxes, will the Minister give an undertaking to the House that there will be no further cuts in funding to the BTA in the current spending round?
    Mr. Sproat: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his command of recondite figures, but I cannot give him the assurance that he seeks. He must wait until the Budget, like the rest of us. He is right to say that the role of the arts is important in tourism. I was near his constituency— in Harrogate—the other day to address the Museums Association. Some 62 per cent. of visitors to museums are foreign tourists and well over half of those who come to London theatres are foreign tourists, so the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the arts are extremely important.

    National Lottery
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many good causes have been awarded funds from the national lottery in London. [37937]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Some 861 good causes in London have received lottery grants so far. My hon. Friend may be glad to know that eight projects in his constituency have received lottery funds totalling £654,000.
    Mr. Hughes: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. We are grateful for the aid and look forward to the next eight projects and the eight after that. Does she agree that London is not only the capital of our country but the cultural capital of the world, so big investment in

    457
    projects in London is very much in our national interest? Does she also agree that the lottery and my right hon. Friend should carry on pumping money into London in our national interest rather than listen to the sneering attitude of too many Labour Members from outside London who do not understand London's place in our national life?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I shall speak this evening to the Royal Society of Arts about our heritage and our future and set out Britain's exciting creative position with the present magnificent investment. A third of the population lives in the south-east, so it is understandable that London, as the capital city, should receive substantial sums of lottery money. However, I do not underestimate the significance of investment in Newcastle, Liverpool, Sunderland, Birmingham and Portsmouth. We are now seeing across the nation the remarkable regenerative effects of substantial lottery awards.
    Mr. Eastham: Does the Secretary of State consider the Churchill family to be a good cause? I can assure her that my constituents were outraged by the £12 million award to that so-called good cause.
    Mrs. Bottomley: There have been a great number of substantial awards; they are part of Britain's heritage. Alongside the large awards are numerous small awards. Some three quarters are for less than £100,000, and they are making a formidable difference. Only the Labour party would wish away our heritage and our inheritance and shred everything that we stand for. We understand that new Labour has no principles and no history.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Judiciary
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he is taking to ensure that the judiciary are drawn from a wider range of social and educational backgrounds; and if he will make a statement. [37951]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Gary Streeter): The Lord Chancellor's policy is to appoint entirely on merit those best qualified for judicial office. Those among the legal profession who are eligible to apply for judicial office are encouraged to do so.
    Mr. Mullin: Did the Minister notice that, of the most recent batch of appointments to the High Court, all had been to public school, five of the six had attended Oxford or Cambridge universities, and all were men? Are there any serious plans to break up the old boy network in the higher levels of the judiciary? If not, should we give the task of appointing members of the higher judiciary to someone other than the Lord Chancellor's Department?
    Mr. Streeter: The hon. Gentleman had an opportunity recently to put his approach to the Home Affairs Committee, and it was soundly rejected. He did not persuade Committee members then and he has not persuaded me this afternoon. He appears to be launching
    458
    a dramatic attack on the old school tie network—I wonder whether he has cleared it with the Leader of the Opposition.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that most people would prefer, and indeed expect, to be tried by their elders and betters rather than by some ghastly politically correct, cooked-up judiciary?
    Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend is right of course. When appointing judges, it is important to get the right people for the job. Their skill, experience and expertise are fundamentally important issues.
    Mr. Skinner: Why cannot judges be elected?
    Mr. Streeter: Is it not typical of the Labour party that its members want to tear up 500 years of legal history? Judges are elected in America and I do not see any encouraging signs that we should follow them down that route.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Will my hon. Friend confirm that judges are drawn from the legal profession because knowledge of the law is important when sitting on the bench? The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) is really being critical of entrants to the legal profession. It is clear from looking at the Front Benches in this place that lawyers are doing quite well everywhere.
    Mr. Streeter: We are delighted to hear that. It is a fact that the background of judges today reflects the entrants to the legal profession 20 or 30 years ago. Most judges are experienced, skilful and senior people. As the profile of entrants to the legal profession changes dramatically— as it has over the past 17 years— we can expect judges' backgrounds to change, and they will do so in the next few years.

    Peerage Act 1963
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what responsibility he has for overseeing the provisions of the Peerage Act 1963. [37952]
    Mr. Streeter: I have no such responsibilities. The Lord Chancellor has personal responsibility for supervising the working of the Act, which is exercised not through the Lord Chancellor's Department but through the office of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Why will not the Government agree with the Opposition's modest proposition to modernise Parliament by ending the hereditary right to sit and vote in the House of Lords? Does not the Minister understand that it is absurd for a seat in Parliament to be decided, as in the case of the late Lord Moynihan, by whether and when a person made love to someone in the far east? Did the Minister notice that, on 28 and 29 August, Conservative peer Lord Noel-Buxton said that he went to the House of Lords for free meals, heating and lighting?

    459
    If we switched the lights off in the other place in December, half of the peers would not be facing the Lord Chancellor but St. Peter. It is time for reform.
    Mr. Streeter: I am proud to be British and proud of our history, constitution and heritage, but here we have another Labour Member who wants to tear all that up. The issues raised by the hon. Gentleman have nothing to do with my Department. I can only speculate that the hon. Gentleman's sudden interest in life peerages flows from his anxiety about his prospects in Thurrock at the next election.
    Dr. Spink: Does my hon. Friend agree that the other place works well and with great integrity? Does he also accept that, at times, the other place has given even his Department some difficulties in reviewing legislation? Does he agree that tinkering with the other place would damage it, as tinkering with the rest of our constitution would damage it?
    Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. I believe in the maxim, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The truth is that our constitution works well and is the envy of the world.

    Legal Aid
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received from people in West Yorkshire over his proposals to change the procedure for the allocation of legal aid; and if he will make a statement. [37953]
    Mr. Streeter: My Department has received many representations about the Lord Chancellor's plans to reform the legal aid scheme in England and Wales, two of which came from people in West Yorkshire. Neither was from the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. O'Brien: Will the Minister accept that there is much concern in West Yorkshire about the way in which the current legal aid system, and the Government's plans for it, is causing harm to many people who rely on legal aid to pursue justice through courts? Will he ensure that people from lower income groups are able to obtain legal aid more easily?
    Mr. Streeter: We wish to ensure that no one is denied access to justice simply because of the depth or shallowness of his pockets. Indeed, our reforms are designed to increase access to justice. The hon. Gentleman appears to be slightly out of the touch with the people of West Yorkshire. Only two of them have written to me about our legal aid reforms. One of them, a Mr. Nickolls from Bradford, wrote:
    "Anyway, on legal aid at least, the correct things are now being said … so British justice might not be entirely dead yet—just taking a long time to come out of intensive care! Don't take years to get something done"
    Sir Donald Thompson: Does my hon. Friend realise that in my part of West Yorkshire all the complaints are
    460
    from people who are being pursued, often frivolously, by those who can get legal aid? Those with legal aid put down people who cannot, often wrongly.
    Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend is right. There is now a dramatic imbalance between those who are entitled to legal aid suing those who are not entitled. Our reforms are designed to get to the heart of the problem and to redress that imbalance, which has crept in over the past few years.

    Departmental Administration
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to improve the administration of his Department. [37954]
    Mr. Streeter: A wide range of measures is constantly being undertaken to improve administration. They currently include: taking forward the management improvements set out in the civil service White Paper "Continuity and Change"; use of the private finance initiative to deliver better computerisation, services and accommodation; and other measures to enhance the quality of service and provide better value for money for court users and the taxpayer.
    Mr. Flynn: Would not administration be improved if the Minister's Department had more resources, obtained possibly by clawing back some of the millions of pounds that have been looted from legal aid by criminal millionaires? If we cannot claw the money back from the millionaires, possibly because they have fled abroad, should not we claw it back from those who have benefited from the work of those crooks? Can we make a start by demanding that the Conservative party pays back into the public purse some of the £400,000 given to it by Asil Nadir in an attempted bribe?
    Mr. Streeter: We are all concerned about cases where there appears to have been an abuse of legal aid money. My Department has already moved to take steps to close the loophole that has been used by the apparently wealthy. Our legal aid reforms are designed to crack down on weak and trivial cases and to ensure that a stiffer merits test is applied, which is the very thing that the hon. Gentleman has urged us to do. I thank him for his support for our White Paper reforms.
    Mr. Dykes: Will the improved administration plans for the Department include more training for judges, including senior judges, particularly after the most unfortunate decision made in the Maxwell case, which undermined the meticulous preparatory work of the Serious Fraud Office?
    Mr. Streeter: When introducing the reforms brought forward by Lord Woolf, the judiciary will have to undergo serious training, which it is enthusiastic to do. Resources will be made available. It is our intention to have a legal system fit for the 21st century which is safe in Conservative hands.
    Mr. Boateng: Talking of elders and betters, what is the Minister's response to the criticism of the Government by the judiciary over the weekend? The Master of the Rolls

    461
    described our civil justice system as a "no-win casino". The head of the chancery division described the Government's proposals for court fees as "mistaken". When will the Minister's Department publish Lord Woolf's report? Will he cost it so that we can reform a system that is increasingly falling into disrepute?
    Mr. Streeter: We are about to announce our response to Lord Woolf' s report. We shall take seriously any comments made by the judiciary. As I understand it, some comments were made in relation to the prospect of the Opposition Front Bench trying to outdo my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who is introducing tremendous reforms that are supported by the nation at large. The hon. Gentleman's response appears to be, "Mine is bigger than yours."
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the administrative reforms that he is undertaking will enable his Department sufficiently to pursue contempt of court cases? In particular, will the reforms enable his Department to examine the clear contempt of court of those who quote privileged court documents, including the disgraceful conduct of the right hon. Members for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) in quoting privileged documents?
    Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend raises a serious matter. The disclosure of documents in the case to which he refers clearly needs to be carefully scrutinised. I shall refer the matter to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General for full consideration.

    Land Registry, Plymouth
    Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects to visit the land registry and land charges offices in the Plymouth, Devonport constituency to discuss the work of the offices. [37955]
    Mr. Streeter: I visited the Plymouth district land registry on Wednesday 18 September 1996, and I was greatly impressed by the enthusiasm and efficiency of all the officers whom I met.
    Mr. Jamieson: I am pleased to note that my tough and exacting question, which I tabled before the summer recess, precipitated a long overdue visit by the Minister to the land registry in my constituency.
    I note that the Minister said that he was impressed by the very good work that the staff are doing—so will he now give a guarantee that the morale of the staff and the excellent work that they are doing will not be undermined by the threat of privatisation?
    Mr. Streeter: My visit was set up well before the hon. Gentleman tabled his question. We have no plans
    462
    whatsoever to privatise the land registry. I know that that will come as a disappointment to the hon. Gentleman, who loves to scaremonger. Indeed, he is happy only if he has frightened people into not being able to sleep at night. On this occasion he has well missed the target.

    Small Claims Courts
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to make the small claims court more efficient and accessible to people on low incomes. [37958]
    Mr. Streeter: The National Audit Office's report on the small claims procedure, published in March, disclosed that most people who had pursued small claims had found the procedure cheap and easy to use. Considering the NAO's finding, the Committee of Public Accounts made a number of recommendations aimed at improving the efficiency and accessibility of the small claims procedure. The Department has responded to the Committee's conclusions in the minutes of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.
    Mr. Cohen: I welcome the Minister's answer, but as cuts in legal aid will damage the legal rights of those on low incomes, is it not incumbent on the Government to improve the efficiency of the small claims courts? Should not the Department be introducing measures immediately to increase financial limits, to improve the representation of those using the courts and to achieve a faster throughput of cases with swifter judgments?
    Mr. Streeter: The hon. Gentleman is, uncharacteristically, out of touch. At the beginning of this year, we increased the limit for small claims from £1,000 to £3,000. We are monitoring that measure carefully. The hon. Gentleman is right: we want a small claims system that is cheap and easy to use. We believe that we have that, but we will monitor it carefully.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that some people, who succeed in gaining awards through the small claims courts, do not obtain them because procedures are not enforced? Can something be done urgently to improve that?
    Mr. Streeter: As usual, my hon. Friend makes a good point. We are considering a range of ways in which to improve the enforceability of judgments so that people who obtain a judgment in the courts are guaranteed to receive the money. We will report in due course.

Madam Speaker's Statement
3.30 pm
Madam Speaker: I have a short announcement to make. While the House has been adjourned, very serious allegations have been widely made about the conduct of a number of Members. Indeed, the reputation of the House as a whole has been called into question. As Speaker, I am bound to be concerned about that. It is not for me to make any kind of judgment on the merits of the complaints made; but I would not be doing my duty as Speaker if I allowed this situation to pass without saying that I believe very strongly indeed that these matters must be resolved as soon as possible.
I hope that the Committee on Standards and Privileges will find it possible to make an early special report to the House, so that the full nature and scope of any investigations that it undertakes may be made known. If the Committee or the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards needs additional powers, no doubt the House will be invited to decide whether they should be granted. I can assure the House that all necessary steps will be taken to ensure that the Committee and the Commissioner are adequately staffed for whatever investigation they may undertake.
A number of other things need to be added. I will not allow allegations of misconduct to be made across the Floor of the House. Wherever the complaints are heard, the Members concerned are entitled to know precisely what it is they have to answer. The proceedings should be as transparent as possible so as to maintain public confidence and at the end, the issues ought to be resolved by a decision of the House.

Selective Cattle Slaughter
3.32 pm
Dr. Gavin Strang(by private notice): To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the future of the selective cattle slaughter programme which was agreed at the Florence European Council.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I welcome the opportunity to give further information to the House this afternoon about the selective cattle slaughter programme, also known as the selective cull.
Right hon. and hon. Members will recall that, in an Adjournment debate just before the House rose in July, I presented draft legislation to implement the selective cull. During the debate I said that it was likely, although not certain, that Ministers would sign the relevant orders in the course of the next few weeks.
On 19 September, the Government issued a statement about the future of the selective cull of cattle in relation to bovine spongiform encephalopathy. My colleagues and I wrote to right hon. and hon. Members on 23 September to explain our position, which in substance is as follows.
First, the Government remain committed to making decisions on the basis of public and animal health and of objective scientific criteria. That was the approach agreed at Florence.
Secondly, since June, the Government have been working actively within the terms of the Florence agreements so as to take all the steps envisaged by the framework—with, of course, the exception of the selective cull.
Since the Adjournment debate on 24 July, the scientific assessments that formed the basis of the culling programme have been further developed. We have received valuable assistance from Professor Roy Anderson and his team. They published an analysis in Nature on 29 August, which shows that the epidemic will virtually die out around 2001, irrespective of any further measures. It is clear that there is no credible cull policy that will substantially accelerate the rate of decline or bring forward the date when BSE will be eliminated.
Moreover, interim findings reported in July showed that the calves of dams infected with BSE were more likely to develop BSE than the calves of unaffected dams. That was interpreted as evidence for "maternal transmission". Further work that has become available since July has shown that the findings are not necessarily caused by the passage of infection from mother to calf: there are other and equally plausible explanations. Further analysis of the study is being undertaken by Government and Oxford university scientists and will be considered shortly by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee.
For those reasons, the Government are not, at least for the time being, proceeding with a selective cull. However, we shall consider the position further in the light of the developing science and other relevant matters. The Commission decision that implements the Florence agreement specifically recognises that the UK's plan for the eradication of BSE may need to be adapted in the light of scientific and epidemiological developments.

465
Moreover, there is another development. It has become increasingly clear during the summer that the prospect of other member states agreeing to an early and substantial lifting of the export ban for the United Kingdom has lessened. That fact is likely to diminish the support that right hon. and hon. Members would wish to extend to a substantial accelerated cull policy.
There will be further consultations with the European Commission on proposals for relaxing export restrictions for animals and products from herds that can be certified to have had no history of BSE. The idea of certified herds is referred to in the Florence framework. The beef assurance scheme for specialist beef farmers with late-maturing animals is one example of that approach. We are in discussion with the Commission about other possible options. Clearly, if there were a prospect of early progress on exports from certified herds, we would need to take account of that when considering the options for a selective cull. Equally, if there were clear evidence of maternal transmission, which for the moment there is not, we would need to take account of such evidence too, when looking at other cull options.
In conclusion, I recognise the importance of the issue for the farming industry and the interest that it arouses in the House. I shall continue to report to the House as circumstances warrant.
Dr. Strang: Accepting that it will be some time before we know whether there is an increase in the number of cases of the new variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, and accepting that it will be some time before we know whether there is any link at all, any cause whatever, between the eating of contaminated beef and beef products and the new variant of CJD, I put it to the Minister that he has a responsibility to do all that he reasonably can to minimise the suffering in the farming and the beef industries that has resulted from the BSE crisis.
I remind the Minister of what the Prime Minister said on 24 June, reporting on the Florence European Council, when he informed the House that he expected to be in a position to take a major step towards lifting the ban on the export of our beef and beef products in October, and that he hoped that in November we would be in a position whereby we could export all the meat overseas that we are unable to sell in this country. I also remind the Minister that, on the last day that the House sat before the summer recess—on 24 July—he himself described the Florence agreement as a great success and said that it was solidly pointing the way forward.
I put it to the Minister that, of course, the results of the experiment on maternal transmission and the results of the statistical analysis carried out by Professor Roy Anderson and his colleagues at Oxford on the issue mean that we can redirect the selective slaughter programme to make it more effective in terms of reducing the number of BSE cases for a given number of cows slaughtered.
Neither of those pieces of evidence can be used to justify not implementing our side of the Florence agreement. Surely the Minister is aware that the only way to regain the jobs and rebuild the beef industry is to secure a lifting of the ban, and that the only mechanism on the table for achieving that is the Florence agreement. Is he
466
walking away from that agreement as a concession to the increasingly strident anti-European faction in the Conservative party? Does the decision to suspend the selective slaughter programme have something to do with the confusion and chaos that has resulted from the Government's complete inability effectively to implement their own over-30-month slaughter scheme?
On the day the House rose, the Minister said that he hoped to clear the backlog in that scheme by about the middle of October. We are now told that it will be December. Does he intend to wait to at least the end of December before embarking on the selective slaughter programme? He has not justified his decision to suspend that programme and is adding to the uncertainty in the industry.
Finally, may I draw to the Minister's attention the fact that the National Farmers Union of England and Wales last week passed a motion of no confidence in him? The union explicitly said that he had lost touch with the industry and was unable effectively to represent the interests of the industry or those of the country in the European Union. Is he aware that the National Farmers Union was speaking for beef farmers the length and breadth of this country, for the beef industry and for the country as a whole? Is it not clear as each month passes that, yes, we need a new Minister, but we also need a new Government if we are to tackle the BSE crisis effectively and decisively?
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman effectively made four points. He began by saying that it was important to address the financial difficulties in farming, and I agree. He will recall that in July, in negotiation with the European Union, we brought forward a package of £109 million to help beef producers. In September, I announced a further package of £60 million on hill livestock compensatory allowances, and the hon. Gentleman will recall that we have increased the advance payment of premia from 60 to 80 per cent. payable in November, which increases the sum payable for beef to about £25. If the hon. Gentleman had been at the Bournemouth conference, he would have heard me announce a further package of beef support of £29 million. He will also bear it in mind that we are in discussions with the European Union about a further beef package.
I think that the hon. Gentleman was pressing me to present a selective cull policy. I have two observations. First, it would not be appropriate to announce a large-scale selective cull policy unless it was fairly clear that there would be a rapid and substantial lifting of the ban. It is fairly clear that there will not be such a lifting of the ban, because the other member states do not want that. As to the other justification for a selective cull, if there was a free-standing scientific reason for it, I might announce one. There might be in relation to maternal transmission, for example, if the evidence proves that there is such transmission, but at the moment it does not.
We are not walking away from the Florence agreement. The hon. Gentleman asked about the over-30-month scheme. He would have enjoyed my Bournemouth speech, because he would have heard me announce a further £16.6 million to clear the backlog. He will be extremely pleased to know that last week we slaughtered about

467
40,000 beasts under the over-30-month scheme. That is a large step towards achieving the 55,000 a week that we hope to reach fairly shortly.
Mr. John Bitten: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many hon. Members fully appreciate the intractable nature of the problems? To enable the House the better to make an assessment, can he say what has been the reaction of our European Union partners, either explicitly or informally, to the findings of Professor Anderson and his Oxford team?
Mr. Hogg: They are still considering the significance of the findings. There is no substantial challenge to the central proposition that the disease will have been largely eradicated from the national herd by around the turn of the century. There will be some debate as to the extent of the tail past 2001, but the plain fact is that the disease is dying away from its high point of 36,500 confirmed cases in 1992. The figure last year was about 15,000, while this year we shall see about 8,000 cases. The numbers are falling by 40 per cent. year on year, so we are fairly confident about the 2001 date. However, there will be some dispute about the size of the tail.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I shall be interested to hear how the Minister justifies his statement that he is not walking away from the Florence agreement. How does he square his announcement this afternoon with that statement? Does he agree that the selective cull cannot start until the over-30-month cull has been completed? Will he give an assurance that he will take emergency powers to clear the OTM backlog unless it has been cleared by Christmas? How does this afternoon's announcement square with the possibility of getting a partial lifting of the export ban on the basis of regional and accredited herds?
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Florence agreement explicitly stated that proposals should be considered in the light of the most up-to-date scientific and objective criteria, and we are invoking that. He will have heard me tell the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) that last week we succeeded in slaughtering just short of 40,000 cattle under the 30-month scheme. I intend to increase the weekly slaughter to about 55,000, and I very much hope that we shall clear the backlog by the end of the year.
We are working on the concept of certified herds, which will be a scheme involving herds that one could plausibly describe as having had no association with BSE—the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) will forgive me for using shorthand here—of which the beef assurance scheme is one sub-set, and we are in contact with the Commission about that. The schemes are general in their application in the United Kingdom, although it may well be that some parts of the United Kingdom—especially with regard to the certified herds scheme—will find it easier to satisfy the criteria sooner than others.
Mr. Michael Alison: In his helpful letter to colleagues on 23 September, my right hon. and learned Friend referred to his recognition of the fact that the specialist beef industry had been hard hit in the past six months. He went on to state that a £60 million cash
468
injection was to be made available under the less-favoured areas scheme. Will he bear it in mind that the disease hits indiscriminately the less-favoured and better-favoured areas? The vale of York has been particularly hard hit, and needs the kind of support that is being provided to the less-favoured areas. In saying that, I represent the views not only of my constituents, but of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who cannot be with us this afternoon.
Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend is entirely right. He will forgive me if I remind the House about the package of £109 million that I announced in July which is general in its application. He touched on the £60 million for HLCAs, and he will forgive me if I refer again to the £29 million that I announced at Bournemouth, which again is general in its application. As I also mentioned at Bournemouth, there are discussions within the EU about the nature and shape of a future beef support package. We shall make a judgment on whether there are further national steps that we can take when we have seen the outcome of those discussions.
Mr. Martyn Jones: The Minister has had more than three months to negotiate a timetable for the lifting of the ban, but he is no further forward. Is it not time that someone else had a try?
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is not right to say that I am no further forward. There is a recognition that there may be scope for movement in respect of certified herds in the beef assurance scheme, but the plain truth is that there is an unwillingness on the part of a number of member states—for example, Germany—to lift the ban rapidly and substantially. The reason for that is the concern that EU Agriculture Ministers feel about demand in their countries, and their political anxieties about the reaction of their farming constituents to lifting the ban. That is clearly an obstacle to a rapid and substantial lifting of the ban. It should not be, but it is and the House needs to face that fact.
Sir Jim Spicer: My right hon. and learned Friend is right, but is it not true that the Commission is being fair and impartial in examining the scientific evidence, whereas all the other member states— particularly Germany—are determined that they will not lift the ban until BSE is eradicated in this country, whatever we do? If that ban is to remain in place until 2001 plus—probably 2002, 2003 or 2004—why on earth are people suggesting that we should go down the road of a massive additional slaughter, with nothing to show for it?
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend puts the argument clearly. As to our relations with the Commission, we have worked closely with it, and our working relations with the Commissioner and his officials are good. It is true that a number of member states have proved pretty obdurate. I am not as pessimistic as my hon. Friend about the date when the ban will be lifted. I have already mentioned certified herds, so I shall not repeat that. If confidence in beef were restored in EU member states, those states might be willing to make more rapid progress than seems likely at the moment.
Sir James Molyneaux: Does the Minister accept that the case for the exclusion of Northern

469
Ireland from the ban rests not on territorial or political considerations, but on the uniquely high standard of animal health and the traceability even of individual animals? Will he bear that very much in mind when he is considering those further options?
Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. There have been under 2,000 confirmed cases of BSE in the Province—I am using figures off the cuff, so I might be marginally wrong, but I think that there have been about 1,700. I think that there have been 46 cases this year—again, that figure is off the cuff—which is very low. Northern Ireland has a much better traceability scheme than the rest of the United Kingdom. That is a reflection of its computer-based movement-recording system. The concept of certified herds was worked out with Northern Ireland very much in mind. It is not specific to Northern Ireland in the sense that it excludes any other part of the United Kingdom, but I fancy that Northern Ireland will find it easier to satisfy the criteria.
Sir Hector Monro: I appreciate the excellent work that my right hon. and learned Friend and his colleagues in the four countries are doing. Does he appreciate that the day-to-day complaints that one gets on farms concern the 30-month scheme? Despite the excellent figures that he has given, which show an improvement in the past week or two, will he try to speed things up even more? With winter approaching, cattle now have to come in and that is costing farmers a great deal of additional money while the value is dropping.
Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend is right. I am conscious that the farming industry and right hon. and hon. Members are particularly concerned about the backlog. That is why I announced the £16.6 million last Tuesday, which we shall use to take up cold storage facilities of various kinds. Last week, we were a few score short of 40,000 killed, which is a huge improvement on what we have been averaging. I hope that we shall get the weekly cull rate up to 55,000. If we can, and if we can sustain it, I hope that we shall clear the backlog by around Christmas or the end of the year.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The Minister has repeatedly stated that our European partners are stopping us selling our meat in Europe and arguing that the ban should not be lifted. If that is the case, why does he not stand before a committee of European Members of Parliament? They have asked him to give evidence to such a committee, so that he can reassure them. Is the real reason why he will not meet them and give evidence the fact that he has something to hide? Is not the truth that in so far as the whole market for beef throughout the Community has been destroyed, the Minister should be prepared to give evidence directly?
Mr. Hogg: That is an interesting question, because it tells us something about the Labour party's attitude to the relationship of Ministers to the House and to the European Union. Let me state clearly to whom I am accountable: I am accountable to this House and to the British electorate and this is the only place to which I am accountable. In
470
furtherance of that accountability, I have given evidence to a joint meeting of the Health and Agriculture Select Committees and I have appeared in this place many times to answer questions, today being an example. However, I was not aware that I was accountable to the European Parliament.
Sir John Cope: My right hon. and learned Friend's statement is welcome in the circumstances, for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir J. Spicer), but the acceleration of the existing cull is the immediate problem. On acceleration, will he give special attention to the south-west where, as far as I can see from the figures, we are further behind than are most parts of the country? The problem is made more difficult by the reduction in the price offered for animals sent for slaughter in that way.
Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend will recall that I had a very spirited meeting in the south-west some two weeks ago. What we need to do—and we shall be in a better position to do it with the registration scheme—is to identify the areas of greatest pressure. When we have identified them—and I am quite sure that the south-west will be one—it will be possible to give greater emphasis to those areas in the course of making rendering and slaughtering facilities available.
Mr. Peter Hardy: While some areas may suffer more pressure than others, does the Minister accept that the smaller beef farmers in many places face real and urgent crises? I spent several hours on Saturday with a small beef farmer in my constituency. He cannot wait until Christmas if he is to survive. European Ministers may be looking after their farmers, but can we have some guarantee that small beef farmers in Britain will survive the next few months?
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is right to focus on the small specialist beef producer who does not have any other products and does not run a mixed farm. That is the point behind his observation, and it is perfectly true. We took account of that to some degree when we targeted the last £29 million, which was part of the July tranche. He will also remember the July package and the various other measures that we have outlined. We have a further £29 million to spend, which I announced on Tuesday last. We shall certainly discuss with the industry how best to give assistance to beef producers. I am conscious of his point, and I shall take account of it in the course of the negotiations within the European Council.
Mr. Robert Key: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear it in mind that small farmers simply cannot bear the cost of feeding their cattle off the fields? As the acceleration of the scheme is what matters most, he should consider the incineration of carcases in the open, because the bottleneck with the Tenderers is insupportable. There would be much public sympathy and understanding for that position, in view of our experience with foot-and-mouth disease.
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the importance of clearing the backlog. That is wholly correct. I hope that he will accept that we are doing our utmost to get that done. On open field incineration, I am

471
bound to say that I am extraordinarily unenthusiastic about it. There is a range of legal and environmental problems—I suspect that we would be taken to court if we tried it—but my real objection is different. I ask myself what the effect would be on consumer confidence in beef if we were to burn hundreds of thousands of carcases in the fields, which presumably would be shown on television. I very much doubt that that is in the interests of the farming industry.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: May I remind the Minister that there are only two abattoirs in Wales that are certified for the purposes of the cull and which serve the whole country? At present, only a trickle of animals is going through. One of the abattoirs is now importing animals from Scotland for slaughter, thereby leaving Welsh farmers with nowhere to take their animals. May I ask the Minister's Department to intervene as soon as possible in that argument, to ensure that Welsh farmers have fair play?
Mr. Hogg: I do not want to deal with the specific points raised by that particular problem, but the hon. Gentleman has correctly highlighted some of the problems that have arisen in Wales. We have been able to address those matters, but the registration will give us a clearer view and will enable us to decide whether further action is justified.
Mr. Richard Alexander: I should like to give a particularly warm welcome to my right hon. and learned Friend's decision not to kill perfectly healthy young cattle unnecessarily. Is he aware that abattoir capacity for the over-30-month scheme is not being allocated fairly over the whole country? Is he aware that Newark cattle market, for example, is particularly affected? If the OTM scheme is to be accepted, it must be dealt with fairly across the country and people must feel that all is being done for them as fairly as possible.
Mr. Hogg: We try to allocate fairly. Our overriding objective is to clear the backlog. There is a certain amount of rough justice because we are trying to maximise throughput. That is why we have been able to kill 40,000 cattle a week, as we achieved to all intents and purposes last week. The substantially increased throughput will go a long way to meeting the anxiety of my hon. Friend's constituents. I hope that we shall clear the backlog by the end of the year. We shall certainly strive strenuously to achieve that.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I find it difficult to reconcile the Minister's remarks with the reality in my constituency. It is clear that the existing cull will not be cleared by the end of the year. It may not be cleared by March. There are already problems with incineration and with renderers, and impossible situations have arisen with far more carcases than anyone can deal with at the moment. The farming community has a legitimate complaint against the Minister for incompetence. Worse than that, the vets in my area are not now able to deal with sick or injured animals. Unless the Minister takes urgent action, the chaos will continue. The sooner he hands over to someone who knows what he is doing, the better.
Mr. Hogg: I am not as pessimistic as the hon. Lady on any of the points that she made. She has overlooked my
472
announcement last week of £16.6 million, to enable us to increase the slaughter throughput substantially. I am glad to say, as I have mentioned several times already, that we have increased the throughput to 40,000 a week. The hon. Lady's conclusions are therefore mistaken.
Casualties are an issue of concern. If the hon. Lady would care to discuss it further with my Department—
Mrs. Dunwoody: Again.
Mr. Hogg: Again. The hon. Lady is never backward. My colleagues will be happy to discuss the issue further, because we want to address the specific problems that have been identified by right hon. and hon. Members.
Mr. David Harris: While I appreciate the steps already taken by the Government and the huge sums already earmarked to deal with the horrendous situation, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the dire situation here and now in the south-west, particularly the far end of Cornwall? Will he listen to the representations that I have made and those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) to increase the abattoir capacity in that part of Cornwall? If he does not do that, he will have to reconsider having to resort to open-air burning of carcases, even though one appreciates that that would cause difficulties and bad publicity.
Mr. Hogg: My right hon. and hon. Friends have taken account of what my hon. Friend has said about the backlog in the south-west. Points made by him and other colleagues caused us to conclude that a further injection of public money—£16.6 million—was justified to clear the backlog. I am grateful for the advice that he has given us on that. I remain cautious about incineration in the fields. I do not want to advocate such a policy, because it would be damaging for the reputation of beef in Britain.
Mr. Nick Ainger: Is the Minister aware that one reason why his colleague the Secretary of State for Wales is not with him on the Front Bench may be that on two occasions today he has been barricaded in at his appointment by angry west Wales farmers and has had to be rescued by the Dyfed-Powys police helicopter? Perhaps the Secretary of State for Wales now appreciates the anger—particularly in Wales, but presumably throughout the farming community—at the Government's inaction, particularly over the cull programme. Can he give us an assurance today on the current regulation operated by the Intervention Board that prevents former abattoirs—slaughterhouses—with European Union approval from being used for the current cull programme? I have a letter from his colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), stating that those abattoirs cannot be brought back into the scheme because they are not currently operating. That is utter nonsense, but unfortunately it illustrates only too well the Government's incompetence in handling the programme.
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is just mouthing words and has clearly not been paying attention to what I have been saying in my reply to the private notice question. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is extremely aware of the difficulties in Wales and has been

473
active in meeting the requirements and demands of the farming community there. It was partly because of those demands, along with representations made by my hon. Friends and others, that I announced a substantial package last week, which included the £16.6 million to clear the backlog and the additional £29 million to meet the beef producers' requirements.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: We shall now move on to the business statement.

Business of the House
4.6 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Madam Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement. The business for this week will be as follows:
MONDAY 14 OCTOBER AND TUESDAY 15 OCTOBER— Debate on a Government motion to approve the Defence Estimates 1996 (Cm 3223).
At the end on Tuesday—motion on the Asylum (Designated Countries of Destination and Designated Safe Third Countries) Order.
Motion to suspend further proceedings on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill until the next Session of Parliament.
WEDNESDAY 16 OCTOBER—Until 2.30 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Debate on a motion to take note of the outstanding reports of the Public Accounts Committee to which the Government have replied. Details will be given in the Official Report.
The House will also wish to now that on Tuesday 15 October, there will be a debate on the Merger Regulation in European Standing Committee B.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
The House will meet for prorogation at 9.30 am on Thursday 17 October and the new Session will be opened on Wednesday 23 October.
Tuesday 15 October: European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community Document: No. 9961/96, The Merger Regulation. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 51-xxvi (1995–96).
Wednesday 16 October: Debate on a motion to take note of the outstanding reports of the Public Accounts Committee to which the Government have replied. The relevant reports are as follows:

Number

Report Title

HC Number

Date of publication

Reports Session 1994–95

41

MOD: Management of the Capital Works Programme

454

22 November

42

NHS: Outpatient Services in England and Wales

448

23 November

43

Medical Research Council: Sale of the Mount Vernon Site, Hampstead

502

29 November

44

MOD: Major Projects Report 1994

487

30 November

45

Sale of County Hall (Riverside Building) to Shirayama Shokusan Company Ltd

408

6 December

46

MOD: The Risks of Fraud in Defence Procurement

365

7 December

47

London Docklands Development Corporation: The Limehouse Link

574

13 December

1

Number

Report Title

HC Number

Date of publication

Reports Session 1995ߝ96

1

Department of Social Security: Appropriation Accounts 1993ߝ94: Child Support Agency

31

20 December

2

Health Care International (Scotland) Ltd

32

21 December

3

Health and Personal Social Services in Northern Ireland (Transport Services)

55

17 January

4

Community Economic Regeneration Scheme and Community Regeneration and Improvement Special Programme

56

18 January

5

Financial Controls in Training and Enterprise Councils

108

24 January

6

A Review of the Controls-Over Indirectly Funded Operations of the Metropolitan Police Service

109

25 January

7

The Meteorological Office Executive Agency: Evaluation of Performance

216

28 February

8

Department of Social Security and Benefits Agency: Purchase of Postal and Courier Services

232

29 February

9

Protecting and Presenting Scotland's Heritage properties

233

6 March

10

The Annual Report of the European Court of Auditors and the Statement of Assurance

250

13 March

11

Selective Financial Assistance for Tourism in Northern Ireland

266

14 March

12

Selective Financial Assistance for Tourism in Northern Ireland

267

20 March

13

The Operations of the Student Loans Company Ltd

110

21 March

14

Excess Votes 1994ߝ95

285

27 March

15

Financial Viability of the Teachers' Superannuation Scheme (England and Wales)

158

15 May

16

Metropolitan Police Service: Responding to Calls from the Public

33

16 May

1

Number

Report Title

HC Number

Date of publication

35

HM Customs and Excise: Account Matters

29

19 August

36

Vehicle Excise Duty: Evasion and Enforcement

375

1 August

37

Home Office Support for Voluntary Organisations

376

7 August

38

Lord Chancellor's Department and the Court Service: Handling Small Claims in the County Courts

410

26 July

39

NAO Estimates 1996ߝ97

176

14 August

40

N1AO Estimates 1996ߝ97

177

14 August

41

Evaluating the Applications to run the National Lottery and the Director General's Travel and Hospitality-Arrangements

96

31 July]

Mr. Tom Cox: In view of that statement, will the Leader of the House say whether there is to be a statement from someone at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about the brutal murder in Cyprus at the weekend of an unarmed Greek Cypriot, which followed two equally brutal murders—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House long enough to know that the business statement is narrow and deals with only two matters. The Leader of the House is responsible only for the short statement that he has made and the debate cannot be widened. We shall now move on to the defence estimates.
Mr. Peter Hain: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you had notice from the Government of a statement on the death last Thursday of two Neath council workers who were poisoned in a local sewer? More than 100 people were so badly affected that they had to be admitted to hospital. Surely, there should be a public inquiry into the incident—it is a serious matter when lethal substances are illegally dumped in a sewer. If it can happen in Neath, it could happen throughout Wales or, indeed, Britain. Something must be done about it.
Madam Speaker: I have not been informed that any Minister is seeking to make a statement on that matter.

DEFENCE ESTIMATES

  FIRST DAY
  [Relevant document: The Seventh Report from the Defence Committee of Session 1995ߝ96, entitled 'Statement on the Defence Estimates 1996', House of Commons Paper No. 215.]
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  4.9 pm
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Portillo): I beg to move,
  That this House approves the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1996 contained in Cm. 3223.
  I welcome the opportunity for the House to debate the "Statement on the Defence Estimates", and the Select Committee's report. I also want to report to the House on developments since the House last met.
  It is common ground that Britain's armed forces are highly disciplined, professional and effective—a credit to themselves and to the nation. That high regard has been sustained by their work in Northern Ireland. Few other armed services could have dealt with such a delicate situation so well. They provide security and reassurance to the Province, without being heavy-handed. The private soldier and the non-commissioned officer handle provocation with exemplary self-control.
  Throughout the ceasefire our forces remained alert, aware that it could end at any time. Now that it has ended they face again the bomb, the mortar and the sniper's fire.
  The House will condemn the bomb attack on HQ Northern Ireland. It was savage and it was intended to plunge the Province into a mayhem of terrorist action and counter-action. It cost Warrant Officer Bradwell his life, and the House will be thinking of his family, and all those who were injured, to whom we extend our sympathy and our respects.
  I do not wish to rush to comment on how security was breached. The Royal Ulster Constabulary is conducting a criminal investigation and the Army is mounting a security investigation in parallel. The Army has applied new measures that it thinks necessary, and I want it exhaustively to analyse the evidence from Monday's bomb, to draw final conclusions about what happened and what can be learnt.
  Through so many years of violence, the terrorist has not shaken our resolve—not the resolve of the people of Northern Ireland, nor of those on the mainland, nor of those in the armed forces. The political process demonstrates that reconciliation can be achieved between those committed to democratic means. Change can be effected, but only if it is the will of the people of Northern Ireland. The armed forces remain there, supporting the police, so that, in Northern Ireland as in every other part of the United Kingdom, the people can determine how they are governed.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I ask the Secretary of State a question of which I gave his office notice on Thursday 10 October? Has his Department—he is not responsible because it happened many Secretaries of State for Defence ago—considered the case of Colin

  479
  Wallace? My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and I were rubbished from the Dispatch Box in several Adjournment debates for saying that which the Court of Appeal now upholds. Should not the Ministry of Defence consider the lessons to be learnt from what has happened to Colin Wallace?
  Mr. Portillo: I will be happy to think about that issue. I do not wish to rubbish anything that the hon. Gentleman says today or on any other occasion, but nor do I want to give off-the-cuff answers about a complex subject. If the hon. Gentleman wants to raise with me—perhaps by letter—issues that he believes arise, I will be happy to consider them.
  In the first days of this month, another matter touching the well-being of our forces has also been in our minds. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces announced that we now know that organophosphate insecticides were more widely used in the Gulf than we had thought. Some were bought locally and used to control insects that might have posed a risk to health. I regret that the House has been given misleading information in answers that Ministers have given in good faith on the basis of advice.
  As our first concern is the health of our veterans, the records of those who have attended the medical assessment programme are being re-examined, to see whether using insecticides provides a clue to their condition. More broadly, the Medical Research Council will take it into account in making its recommendations on the research programme on Gulf war health.
  We shall also examine minutely who used the sprays, what safety procedures applied to the spraying and whether they were complied with. Until those steps have been taken, I believe that we should all be cautious about making links between that important new information and a broad range of health complaints which may or may not be linked and may or may not constitute a syndrome. The Minister of State and I are determined to get to the bottom of this matter.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: Will the study also give consideration to whether organophosphates and the anti-malarial treatment given to our armed forces may have had some link to this syndrome?
  Mr. Portillo: Yes. Let me distinguish between two things: there are people who are sick; there are medical conditions. We have a new piece of information, and we need to see whether there is a link between it and people's medical conditions. We also have a much broader study to undertake; the Medical Research Council is giving us advice as to what form it should take. It certainly needs to be broad, and it needs to investigate the incidence of illness among veterans and compare it with the incidence of illness in the population in general. It must also take into account all possible factors and the links between them.
  As the Gulf conflict demonstrated, our armed forces remain equipped to play their part in enhancing security and defending our interests world wide. An important change for Britain will occur in 1997, when sovereignty over Hong Kong is transferred to China and the British garrison withdraws. Asia Pacific is important to us. The
  480
  United Kingdom is the largest European investor in the region, and the second largest exporter of goods. It is also the biggest exporter of invisibles.
  The region has its fair share of potential trouble spots. In recent months there have been tensions between North and South Korea and China and Taiwan, and between nations that dispute the sovereignty of islands. Britain can play a part in urging restraint and in urging a peaceful resolution of disputes, and by maintaining a reassuring presence.
  In Asia Pacific as elsewhere the reputation and standing of our armed forces is high. We will continue to participate in combined training and will send our largest ever contribution to next year's Exercise Flying Fish, organised by the five-power defence arrangements. We shall improve our links with Japan and with United States forces in the Pacific. We will maintain the Gurkha battalion in Brunei.
  To our many friends in the region, our message is clear: we may be leaving Hong Kong but we are staying in Asia Pacific.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: On Britain's interests in Asia Pacific and the peaceful resolution of disputes, has the right hon. Gentleman noted the award of the Nobel peace prize to Bishop Belo and Jose Ramos Horta? Is he aware of Jose Ramos Horta's testimony in the Grand Committee Room of this House and in Liverpool Crown court that British Hawk aircraft, sold by Britain to the Indonesian regime, are being used in the repression of the people of East Timor—a repression of peculiar, indeed genocidal cruelty? Does he understand that if ever the Government could get away with affecting ignorance of the atrocities being perpetrated using these and other British military exports, they can certainly no longer do so? If the right hon. Gentleman will not condemn these practices by the Indonesian Government and forthwith announce a ban on any further sales of arms or military assistance to them, he and the Government must stand condemned in the dock of international opinion—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. That is a very long intervention. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that interventions are meant to be short.
  Mr. Portillo: We are having a two-day debate, and I would have thought that if the hon. Gentleman had a speech to make he could have saved that intervention until then.
  Mr. Keith Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the Opposition defence spokesman, who has made it clear that these aircraft lack the range to attack targets in East Timor? Perhaps that spokesman would like to have a word with his Back Bencher.
  Mr. Portillo: I have no evidence that Hawk aircraft have been used against the population of Indonesia, but there will be many—not least in my hon. Friend's constituency—who will be interested to hear that members of the Labour party are leading a campaign that would have serious consequences for the people of this country, based on what I regard as very flimsy evidence. This Government have a great concern for human rights and will always consider any evidence that is produced.

  481
  Some events over the summer reminded us of challenges to international order and British interests. Conflict between states and peoples continues to be a threat. Ethnic and territorial disputes are always with us. We cannot abolish greed, intolerance and extremism. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles can only further heighten instability. Saddam Hussein remains a serious threat to stability, and he is for ever probing our resolve, testing us to see how far we will let him go.
  An important legacy from the Gulf war is the United Nations Special Commission, which has done excellent work to require Saddam's compliance with UN resolutions on the elimination of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Throughout the commission's years of operation Saddam has lied and cheated, using every ploy to maintain his deadly programme. In 1991, the United Nations adopted Security Council resolution 688 against Saddam's repression of the civilian population. No-fly zones were established over northern and southern Iraq. We have 400 personnel, tornadoes and VC-10 tankers helping to enforce the no-fly zones.
  The Iraqi military build-up this summer and the subsequent attack on Irbil could not go unchallenged. The Iraqi mobilisation was large scale: 45,000 troops and more than 300 tanks. We fully supported the United States' action against Iraqi missile sites and agreed that United States aircraft could use the facilities at Diego Garcia. Following the American action, Iraqi troops were not heavily involved in the further KDP advance on Sulaymaniyah. The extension of the southern no-fly zone to the 33rd parallel enables more effective monitoring of compliance with UN Security Council resolutions, and prevents Saddam from using air bases and aircraft over most of Iraq south of Baghdad. That sharply reduces his ability to use force against his own people or his neighbours.
  As the House knows, much larger numbers of British forces have been involved in Bosnia.
  Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Portillo: On Iraq, yes.
  Mrs. Clwyd: Does the Minister agree that the policy, such as it was, was a complete shambles because it consolidated Saddam's foothold in northern Iraq and did not dislodge him in any way? What is the Minister's concept of a safe haven, because the people of northern Iraq no longer understand that concept?
  Mr. Portillo: The hon. Lady seeks to broaden the commendable initiative of safe havens, which was undertaken by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, to include a concept that we have not been in a position to guarantee: the safety of all Kurds in northern Iraq. We have not been in a position to bring about that broader concept. She asked me what we have achieved. First, we achieved the realisation in Saddam's mind that if he mobilises vast numbers of troops there will be a reaction—certainly from the United States and Britain, and from allies and partners too. Secondly, as I said in
  482
  my speech, Iraqi troops were not then involved in the further advance of the KDP towards Sulaymaniyah. Thirdly, Saddam has lost something important: the ability to operate his aircraft over almost half his country. That is not only a humiliation to him but a considerable military impediment, should he try to mobilise for an attack either on his own people or on a neighbouring state.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: My right hon. Friend spoke about the new dangers that we face in Iraq and our continuing commitments to Bosnia and other parts of the world. Does he agree that it is only right that we ensure that our armed forces have the best equipment possible? News over the weekend has therefore been worrying. The chairman of the German defence committee says that the Germans will drag their feet over the Eurofighter 2000. My right hon. Friend knows my constituency's involvement in the production of the Eurofighter 2000. Will he use his influence with the Germans to ensure that they do not drag their feet over their commitment to the Eurofighter and restate his commitment to that valuable project?
  Mr. Portillo: I do so happily. My hon. Friend is an assiduous champion of the project. We are determined to press on with it and we would like to see the Germans and our other partners participating in order to get it under way quickly. I shall make some considered comments on the subject later in my speech.
  As the House knows, much larger numbers of British forces have been involved in Bosnia, first as part of UNPROFOR and now with the peace implementation force, IFOR. IFOR's success in separating and disarming the factions has enabled us to reduce British numbers to around 9,000 troops on the ground and 500 elsewhere. That includes some 1,200 reservists, who are making a crucial contribution. We remain the second largest IFOR contributor.
  IFOR troops helped to ensure that the Bosnian elections in September took place peacefully. They verified the location of every polling station and ensured that they were in safe areas with free access. On election day, they were ready to guarantee freedom of movement and to provide security. Afterwards, they supplied logistic support to the counting of votes. A number of hon Members have told me of their experiences as election observers and the pride that they felt as they saw how British forces helped to conduct those peaceful elections.
  The overall land operation has been admirably led by General Sir Michael Walker, who commands the headquarters of the Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps. That multinational, but largely British-manned, headquarters has been a huge success. It has been in Bosnia for almost a year and will shortly begin its handover. Our forces in HQ ARRC will be home for Christmas.
  The United Kingdom also leads the multinational division in the south-west sector of Bosnia. It has successfully presided over the largest transfer of land under the Dayton agreement and has firmly established itself with the local communities on both sides. It has brokered agreements between the factions, while ensuring strict compliance with the military provisions of Dayton. Many colleagues in the House have admired the way in which British forces have conducted themselves.

  483
  Since April, the division has completed more than 210 projects funded by the Overseas Development Administration at a cost of £5.7 million. Utilities, schools and hospitals have been rebuilt, roads have been repaired and new light industry has been set up, providing tangible benefits for the people of Bosnia from the peace agreement.
  The international community will not abandon Bosnia in 1997. The primary focus must be the continuing civil operation: there is no purely military answer to this difficult political problem. The overarching political strategy of the international community needs to be put in place over the next two months and the London conference in early December may put the seal on it.
  A continuing military presence may be part of the strategy. If so, we expect it to be NATO-led, like IFOR. NATO Defence Ministers, meeting in Bergen in September, set in train contingency planning for a range of possible mission objectives which would each imply different force levels.
  We are anxious that a strategy, and clear objectives flowing from it, should determine whether to send a new force and, if so, of what size. We should avoid decisions on the nature of the force being taken before that strategy is in place. However, if there were to be such a force, our policy is that Britain should continue to play an important part.
  Mr. James Couchman: My right hon. Friend rightly pays tribute to the work of our forces in Bosnia, particularly in the area of civil reconstruction. He will know that the Royal Engineers, substantial numbers of whom are based in my constituency, have played a part in that work. Will he bear in mind the fact that the active duty tours of specialist corps, such as the Royal Engineers and the Royal Signallers, are occurring ever faster? Does he understand the overstretch to which that leads within those specialist corps?
  Mr. Portillo: I understand that. The balance of skills required in the armed forces has been changed by events such as Bosnia and the demand for engineers is much greater than we predicted. I do not know whether life will continue to be like that, but we shall certainly bear in mind the lessons that we have learnt from Bosnia. If it looks as though that operation, or others like it. will continue, we shall have to weigh the implications for the balance of our forces. I join my hon. Friend in the tribute that he paid to the Engineers.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: When the Secretary of State discussed the possibility of a follow-on force, he chose his language scrupulously. He was careful about precisely what he said, but can he confirm that, if the international community in general and NATO in particular conclude that there should be a follow-on military force, the United Kingdom will be part of that force?
  Mr. Portillo: Yes. Although the hon. and learned Gentleman did not ask, I shall volunteer the information that the United States also needs to be part of that force.
  The IFOR operation has reinforced respect for NATO and underlined the importance of American participation in European security. Perhaps most strikingly that: has been true in command and control, in which an American contribution has been shown to be indispensable.
  484
  Few people now believe that a European security and defence identity should be developed outside NATO, and Britain is working with our allies to increase the visibility of such an identity within the alliance. I believe that we have carried the point that there can be only as much identity as there is capability. European identity rests not so much on institutional changes as on European nations being able to perform military tasks.
  NATO is embarked on creating combined joint task force headquarters. It will do the contingency planning and establish the infrastructure to allow the alliance to respond rapidly to a crisis by dispatching a multinational force.
  As part of the debate on European identity, it has been agreed that were there to be an operation involving only European powers, the Western European Union could exercise political control even though the assets of NATO would clearly be involved. That agreement gives a new role to the WEU, which I welcome. It reinforces British reasons for wishing to ensure that the European Union does not absorb or subordinate the WEU. European Union political direction over NATO assets is inconceivable.
  The alliance is making progress with reorganising its command structures. If that reorganisation can be satisfactorily resolved, it could pave the way for France to play a full part in the revised military structure. The British Government warmly welcome that prospect; it would be an ideal background for NATO's decision next year on which countries from eastern and central Europe will be the first to join NATO. That timetable will be stuck to.
  NATO recognises the importance of ensuring that those applicant countries who will not join then do not feel isolated or ignored. Indeed, the same is true for those who are not applicants, such as Ukraine and Russia. NATO will wish to thicken its contacts with such countries, especially by developing the programme called "Partnership for Peace". Britain has put forward ideas to make its activities more effective.
  The strategic thinking that has led NATO to the concept of a combined joint task force has led us to focus also on joint tri-service activity, rapid reaction and power projection. Those are the themes of the 1996 White Paper and I am grateful to the members of the Defence Select Committee for their positive comments.
  The Joint Rapid Development Force became operational on 1 August and it will markedly improve our ability to undertake a wide range of short-notice missions. In July, the capability of the permanent joint headquarters at Northwood was evaluated in Exercise Purple Viva and it came through with flying colours. On 1 August, it was declared fully operational and began to take on live operations. It currently has responsibility for our contribution to IFOR; current operations in the middle east; disaster relief; and the day-to-day management of overseas commands.
  Even with 17,000 troops committed to Northern Ireland and a large force in Bosnia, we were able to send 12,000 troops to take part in Exercise Purple Star in April and May. That exercise was an early test for the PJHQ and involved elements of the JRDF in the largest combined United Kingdom and United States deployment since the Gulf.
  The formation of the JRDF required us to reassess our priorities and to continue the shift in our planning away from cold war configurations. But that also reinforced my

  485
  belief that we should get on with placing orders for the new assault ships for the Royal Navy. Albion and Bulwark will replace Fearless and Intrepid.
  The Government are committed to providing the armed forces with the manpower and equipment they need to undertake the tasks that our defence policy places on them. The Government have made it clear that the big upheavals in the armed forces are over. We shall continue to provide the stability that our armed forces need.
  The outturn for defence spending in 1995ߝ96 was £21,522 million, an underspend of £203 million. I had anticipated an underspend of £500 million, but that was reduced as suppliers' performance increasingly met our original expectations.
  Last year the defence budget was set at £21.9 billion in 1997ߝ98 and £22.6 billion in 1998ߝ99. We were able to commit ourselves to continuing the investment in defence equipment that permits our armed forces to provide the operational capability that we require of them. We are committed to providing the resources necessary to sustain the front line. We have world-class armed forces. As long as there is a Conservative Government, they will be provided with world-class equipment.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Against that background, and given the Secretary of State's statement about stability and underspend, may I take it that in no circumstances will the national air traffic service be sold, which would have a direct effect on service control? Presumably the matter has been discussed in considerable detail with the heads of the Royal Air Force.
  Mr. Portillo: The service's future has been a matter of discussion and I am not in a position to make a statement about it today.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Shortly before the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), the Secretary of State mentioned world-class equipment for our armed forces. Will he comment on the F3 Tornado that crashed just off Blackpool beach on the first day of the Labour party conference? Is he able to confirm that it was the pre-certification trial flight of the first of the 14 aircraft that have been damaged by defective contractor work carried out by Airwork Ltd. at RAF St. Athan? Three of 17 aircraft have already been written off. If the damage to the aircraft that crashed at Blackpool was so serious, does that mean that the other 14 aircraft will be written off? How does that square with the Government's willingness and desire to provide world-class equipment for our armed forces?
  Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman is getting rather carried away. The aircraft was being flown by British Aerospace. A consequence of that is that any investigation comes, I believe, under the Department of Transport and not under the Ministry of Defence. However, the investigation must be properly conducted. It does no one a service to rush to conclusions.
  The aircraft was one that had been serviced badly by another contractor, but British Aerospace would not take up into the air any aircraft unless it was satisfied that it
  486
  was airworthy. The hon. Gentleman is leaping to conclusions. I am not sure what vendetta he is trying to conduct.
  The House had already risen for the summer recess when the Government announced in another place three important decisions on missiles and aircraft. Each led to large orders for British companies. I am grateful for the support from hon. Members which the decisions attracted.
  British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce won their bid to build Nimrod 2000 as the new maritime patrol aircraft. To be able to detect and hunt the new generations of stealthy submarine is essential to a maritime power like Britain.
  We chose Storm Shadow, the air-launched cruise missile from British Aerospace, for the RAF, and Brimstone from GEC will meet our requirement for an air-launched anti-armour weapon.
  These orders total nearly £4 billion and directly sustain about 5,000 jobs. The people whose livelihoods depend on them will view with dismay the motions submitted to the Labour party conference calling for defence cuts, and the motion on today's Order Paper calling for cuts and the abandonment of the nuclear deterrent, which has been signed by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), the hon. Members for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and the other usual suspects.
  The Labour leadership responds predictably by pandering to its left wing. The Labour leadership offers our forces the bleak prospect of a defence review. There is no need for one. We have made the adjustment to the end of the cold war. Our smaller forces reflect that. But one cannot take a peace dividend more than once.
  Labour's refusal to commit to anything more than a defence review makes the defence community highly suspicious. Labour is committed to spending increases in a number of policy areas about which its Back Benchers feel passionately. However, it is perfectly clear that Labour Back Benchers do not care about defence at all. Indeed, many want it cut. Defence would be a soft touch for a Labour Government and easy pickings for a Labour Chancellor.
  Dr. John Gilbert: The Secretary of State speaks for a Government who have unilaterally deprived this country of all its sub-strategic nuclear capability without negotiating any comparable reductions by possible hostile powers. Will he confirm that the conventionally armed stand-off missile is capable of being fitted with a nuclear warhead—which, I believe, is what the French intend to do? Were it to be fitted, would we retain any aircraft capable of using it in such a role?
  Mr. Portillo: The right hon. Gentleman is incorrect: we have not given up our sub-strategic capability. Indeed, we have deployed the Trident submarine fleet with a sub-strategic capability. We shall stop using the WE177 free-fall bomb for that purpose in the near future. Cruise missiles could carry a range of warheads, but the British Government do not intend to equip our cruise missiles with nuclear warheads.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: As the Secretary of State has at last got round to the issue of nuclear weapons, will he tell us for what purpose this country wishes to retain such weapons, given the danger

  487
  that they pose to the rest of the world? What is the Government's response to the World Court judgment concerning the legality and safety of and the environmental damage done by the manufacture and possession of nuclear weapons? Does not that judgment give us the opportunity to start down a road of peace rather than following the road of continual nuclear arming and rearming?
  Mr. Portillo: A Government with less resolve than the present one would take any opportunity to disarm the country. Under this Government, the country does not want to take that opportunity. The Government will maintain nuclear weapons because we need to maintain a deterrent that keeps this country safe. Nuclear weapons have not been uninvented in the rest of the world; indeed, they are proliferating and being developed by other states. I do not propose that this country should stand naked before such a threat to its security and survival.
  Would Labour commit itself to beginning production of the Eurofighter, which is so much wanted by the Royal Air Force? I have made it clear that the British Government are ready to proceed. We are working with our partners, trusting that they, too, will be ready to move to the next stage. If it is to have good export prospects, the aircraft needs to be produced without further delay. If collaborative projects are to offer European nations a competitive alternative to buying American, we need to improve markedly on our performance to date.
  Part of the answer for the future may be industrial restructuring in Europe. There are important opportunities for British companies, a number of which are in pole position. The Government have made clear their willingness to offer political support to mergers or joint ventures that make industrial sense, enhance the world competitiveness of industry and safeguard indigenous capabilities required for the effective support of our armed forces.
  Part of my duty as Secretary of State is to ensure that the defence budget is spent in ways that maximise value for money in the front line and its support. The House debated thoroughly the question of the sale of the married quarters estate—
  Mr. Edward Leigh: On the subject of the Eurofighter, is not it ironic that that example of European co-operation—perhaps one of the greatest examples of such co-operation in recent history— is being endangered by the Maastricht convergence criteria, which have put pressure on the German budget?
  Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: The Secretary of State will be aware that John Weston of British Aerospace foresees the creation of a single European defence company by the end of the decade as the only means of withstanding the weight force of the United States mega merged companies. In his Farnborough
  488
  speech in early September, the Deputy Prime Minister endorsed that view. Is that also the view of the Secretary of State for Defence?
  Mr. Portillo: Collaboration in Europe serves two purposes. The first is to provide competition against American products in the short term. In the longer term, America and Europe will face strong competition from the far east. In both instances, European industry must strengthen itself to face the competitive challenges that lie ahead. [Interruption.]I am sorry, did I miss the hon. Gentleman's point?
  Mr. Anderson: The point that I made was that in Farnborough the Deputy Prime Minister appeared to endorse the move towards a single European defence company by the end of the decade. Was he speaking with the concurrence of the Secretary of State for Defence?
  Mr. Portillo: The point that I made—which I make again and rest on—was that the Government want to give political support to changes in Europe that are industrially driven. Industrial logic should dictate the formation of industries in Europe, not political diktat. Clearly, we are in for a period of change.
  Mr. Bill Walker rose—
  Mr. Portillo: I shall give way, but I am beginning to abuse the time of the House.
  Mr. Walker: Would not Rolls-Royce find it difficult to be merely a European company?
  Mr. Portillo: Absolutely. Nothing that I have said about European collaboration should be held to be exclusive. British companies also have important joint ventures with American companies. It is extremely important for British companies to maintain the flexibility to operate with partners in both continents—and, indeed, even more broadly than that.
  On European competition, we face the problem that the United States has production lines for its armed forces which are 10 times as long as the production lines of any one European country. We should think about how to restructure and produce collaboratively so as to have longer production runs. We must do better than we have done on Eurofighter, because the delays are making the product uncompetitive.
  I was about to say that the House debated thoroughly the sale of the married quarters estate. Over the summer, we achieved an excellent sale. We exchanged contracts with Annington Homes on 24 September for a sale price of £1,662 million, which significantly exceeded general expectations.
  Annington does not wish to exercise the site exchange option during the first 25 years. As that has been a cause of some anxiety, I hope that that decision will increase further the House's confidence in the sale. Sir Thomas Macpherson, a distinguished ex-soldier and chairman of Annington, has expressed clearly his understanding of the importance of family security to the serving soldier, sailor or airman. His support for the integrity of the patch matches my own. Such issues are important if we are to

  489
  recruit and retain the right number and quality of personnel. The Select Committee on Defence has expressed its concern on that issue too.
  Sir Michael Bett's independent review of the services' manpower, career and remuneration structure focused on some of the issues. In July, I informed the House that much work was still required on the detailed options contained in it. There are complex issues to be considered, and we are taking the necessary time to get them right.
  It is no part of Government policy to recruit below establishment. We want to see the Army's shortfall of 4,000 made good. We recognise the impact of excess cadreisation on effectiveness, and the consequences of a shortfall in numbers for tour intervals—and hence for family life. Pushing up the numbers is a top priority for the Government and for the Army board. One of our enemies in that effort is a false impression that numbers in the armed forces are in decline and opportunities with them. It is not so. The forces are recruiting and they offer to young people the prospect of great experiences and a fine career.
  Today no employer offers a job for life. The services can give more assurance about job security than most. Few other jobs offer the range of experience provided by the armed forces; nor the opportunities for teamwork, personal development, leadership, responsibility and excitement. It is a wonderful career for a young person. Anyone who enlists will be joining an elite of fine people who work to defend us and our values, and who are seen by the world to be doing so with enormous skill and professionalism.
  I end by reverting to the subject of NATO, with a word of caution. NATO was formed to provide collective defence and, as it evolves, hard defence must remain its core. There is a danger of learning the wrong lessons from Bosnia. The situation was risky and NATO has had a great success there, but, in the event, we have faced no major attacks on our forces and therefore no test of NATO's fighting capability.
  Not all future operations will be like that. As recently as 1991, against Iraq, we were involved in high-intensity conflict, against a huge army with enormous quantities of armour, a stock of chemical weapons and some capability in ballistic missiles. It is not difficult to imagine another such conflict, but as time goes by the missiles and the weapons of mass destruction will be vastly more effective. Therefore, we should not assume that all future conflicts will be like the Gulf, with a small number of allied casualties. We could in time face a highly capable adversary.
  NATO must not go soft on defence, nor must it be lured into seeing itself as primarily a peacekeeping organisation. The non-alliance countries which have made a valuable contribution to IFOR have had a valuable experience of operating with NATO forces, but they have not yet experienced what NATO is. NATO must remain ready for high-intensity conflict, with all its members committed to collective defence and to sustaining the military capabilities needed for it. The alliance must be capable of rapid and effective response to serious threats to its security.
  490
  Britain under this Government will be a dependable ally. We will live up to our responsibilities and provide to national defence and to the alliance highly capable forces trained and equipped to meet any threat that might be presented in modern warfare.
  4.52 pm
  Dr. David Clark: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  'declines to support the policy of the Government as set out in the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1996; condemns the instability caused to Britain's armed forces by Government mismanagement; recognises that the UK defence industry is a strategic national asset in both defence and economic terms; notes that the shortfall in the strength of the British Army numbers 4000 personnel; is concerned that the resulting overstretch is undermining the morale and operational effectiveness of the armed forces; condemns the manner in which the defence forces and defence industry are being run down in an ad-hoc and piecemeal way; recognises that the armed forces and defence industry require a long-term strategic overview which can only be achieved through the establishment of a strategic defence review; condemns the continued financial waste and mismanagement by Ministers; urges the Government to take action to address the world landmine crisis and to ban the export, import and transfer of all forms of anti-personnel landmine; urges a positive approach to the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty negotiations; and congratulates the work carried out by British forces in the defence of Britain and her interests in helping to maintain international stability in peacekeeping operations throughout the world.'.
  Over the past few years, I have had the honour of meeting many members of our armed forces both here and abroad and those who support them in the Ministry of Defence and, indeed, the defence industry. The commitment and the skill demonstrated by those people in the service of their country is vital to our overall defence capability.
  The expertise and resourcefulness of the men and women who serve in our Army, Navy and Air Force is recognised world wide. Whenever the United Nations requires help, its first port of call is invariably Britain. It is a matter of pride—I know that the Secretary of State agrees with me—that at one time last year more British troops were serving in United Nations forces than troops from any other nation. Currently, our troops are serving, and contributing their knowledge and prowess, in no fewer than 33 countries. That is a matter of pride. I pay tribute to their dedication and commitment, which often truly goes beyond the call of duty. That was tragically brought home to all of us last week when we heard of Warrant Officer James Bradwell. I know that the whole House will join me and the Defence Secretary in condemning the cowardly attack on the Lisburn Army base. Our thoughts are with James Bradwell's family and his loved ones.
  I also pay tribute to the people who often do not get any recognition: members of the reserves—more than 1,200 of whom are in Bosnia—and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, who ply the seas, ensuring that our Royal Navy is able to sail. We really are most fortunate to have them, as I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree.
  Since taking on the shadow defence portfolio, I have striven to establish consensus, wherever possible, on issues that affect Britain's defence and our security. The Opposition have done that because we believe that it

  491
  should be possible, in many spheres, to strike a bipartisan approach on many of the fundamental issues. Furthermore, many of the decisions that we are taking today will have far-reaching implications, running into many decades to come. Many of the questions to which the Secretary of State alluded—the expansion of NATO, perhaps planning the next attack aircraft for the second quarter of the next century—are matters that different Governments may have to handle. We in the Labour party are willing to offer a consensual approach on the critical matters that affect the security of our country.
  In that spirit, I shall make a few comments in support of certain issues in the Defence White Paper. In paragraph 106, emphasis is placed on the need for "collective defence", a point with which the Secretary of State concluded his speech, and a point with which the Labour party concurs whole-heartedly, as I shall try to demonstrate. Labour is completely in agreement with that strategy. The days are gone when we could do everything alone. We are proud that it was a Labour Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin, who was the key player in the establishment of NATO, an alliance which, as the Secretary of State agreed, has stood the test of time for more than 50 years. I look forward to the expansion of NATO, as my party says in its documents.
  In a sense, the whole thrust of Labour's policy, as outlined in our policy document, is that a secure Britain can be best guaranteed in a secure world, and with the end of the cold war it is imperative that we seek to establish international stability, not only through NATO but through other avenues, such as the United Nations or the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe.
  I also support the White Paper's arguments in paragraphs 127ߝ28 against the European Union having responsibility for Britain's defence policy. Again in our policy document we state quite clearly—I shall quote it to the House so that there can be no misconceptions—
  "Labour does not support the establishment of a European army or proposals to give the European Union a military competence … We believe that efforts to develop a common defence policy should concentrate on strengthening the Western European Union as the European contribution to NATO."
  I believe that, with that statement, we are not very distant from the Government.
  For that to be realised, however, our European allies must begin to take defence, especially the necessity of spending adequate resources, more seriously. To put it bluntly, NATO can do very little without the involvement of the United States. The UK and France may have considerable resources, but even our actions are limited without American intelligence and airlift and sealift capabilities.
  We may have had the force structures in Europe to fight a static conventional war against the Warsaw pact, but we are ill-equipped for the future task of peacekeeping and peacemaking, or indeed any challenge to our sovereignty and our soil, to which the Secretary of State alluded. There is no point in European Union countries bemoaning the fact that American troops are everywhere, even in Bosnia, when those same countries refuse to allocate resources. Rhetoric without action does not make for credible defence. That is the lesson of the century.
  The size and might of the United States military machine cannot be over-emphasised. It has personnel and equipment capabilities on a scale that Europe simply
  492
  cannot match. This summer I had an opportunity to spend a little time with the American military, seeing its capabilities and hearing about its plans for the future. Its defence capability is quite awesome and that was graphically brought home to me as I flew into San Diego. In that port alone, I counted more United States naval vessels than are in the whole of the Royal Navy. That shows the commitment and capability of the United States.
  In many spheres, the United States is a decade ahead of we Europeans and the gap is widening, especially in intelligence gathering, man-surveillance, information technology and logistics, air and sea transport. Although the American budget may have been reduced—it is interesting to note that it is rising again this year—the United States still spends twice as much on defence as the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Italy put together. Our defence capability would be greatly weakened without active American participation in NATO. When defence is being discussed at this year's intergovernmental conference, that fact will constantly need to be recalled.
  In turn, the Americans often quote Bosnia as an example of where the Europeans have failed, and they are correct. Too many European nations lack the will and especially the resources to solve the problem. The US involvement following the Dayton accord and IFOR has moved the process forward and I am delighted that British forces have played such an important part in UNPROFOR and IFOR. All three services have played a crucial role and we are proud of that.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: My hon. Friend mentions Bosnia and the Secretary of State also spoke about the crucial role of the Americans there. Does my hon. Friend agree that the lesson to be learned is that if America did not play a role in Bosnia it would be impossible for European powers to play a constructive role in that country? If that is the lesson to be learned, should we not pay some heed to the future possibility of a European role in another conflict, perhaps in an area in which America was not prepared to play a role? Does my hon. Friend agree that we might want to prepare for that eventuality?
  Dr. Clark: I understand the thrust of my hon. Friend's point and I know that he was in Bosnia observing the elections. The whole purpose of strengthening the role of the Western European Union within NATO is so that it can undertake in future those roles in Bosnia that we were not able to undertake. In the Petersberg approaches, as it is commonly known, we should be able to act as a European pillar of NATO to carry out such functions without relying on the Americans.
  As the IFOR mandate draws to a close, I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State say that he intended to try to ensure that, if there is international agreement so to do, British troops would play a part in IFOR 2 or whatever it is to be called. As he knows, that is also my view and after my last visit to Bosnia in May-June, I communicated to the House and to the Minister my view that that is exactly what we should do. However, given our other problems, almost 10,000 troops there are too many and we should consider a brigade size of 5,000 to 6,000.
  Such is the consensus that I agreed with virtually everything that the Secretary of State said in the first 38 to 39 minutes of his speech. However, it is what he did

  493
  not say that causes us great concern. Although we seek consensus, we also have the right to be critical of many aspects of the Government's approach such as the absence of strategic planning; the dominance of short-term and ad hoc decision making; the mistreatment of the interests of our armed forces—for example, through the sale of housing estates and the response to the Gulf war veterans—and the indecision and vacillation over the Devonport and Rosyth royal dockyards. Such matters annoy us and make us critical of the Government.
  Ms Rachel Squire: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have been guilty of gross mismanagement in connection with Rosyth dockyard and that it is completely unacceptable that the Secretary of State made no announcement today on the proposed privatisation of the dockyard although we were assured that a statement would be made by September last year?
  Dr. Clark: As my hon. Friend knows, I have had the pleasure of visiting Rosyth a number of times with her. She has fought hard and doughtily for that dockyard. Some months ago, the workers and management at Rosyth drew up plans to go forward and it is not good enough for those people to be kept on a piece of string by a Government who seem incapable of making a decision. I plead with the Minister of State for Defence Procurement to make an announcement about that, and especially about Rosyth dockyard, in his winding-up speech so that the workers and management there will know where they are. It is important that the process of rebuilding that community is started quickly.
  Conservative Members used to claim with great pride that theirs was the party of defence, but the record in recent years shows that it is the party of defence cuts. As a percentage of gross domestic product, defence spending has been slashed by the Government by some 46 per cent. since its peak in 1985. Rumours persist that more defence cuts are to come in this year's Budget in an attempt to fill the black hole in Britain's public finances. Of course, we have seen this before and should not be surprised.
  Just 12 months ago, I remember the Prime Minister thundering, if he does thunder, at his party conference, "No more defence cuts under me." Just 12 months ago, I remember the House approving a defence budget of just over £22 billion and Conservative Member after Conservative Member expressing concern about the level of spending and calling for no more cuts. However, just six weeks later, the Chancellor announced in the Budget further cuts of £700 million. Therefore, it is no surprise to see that the Select Committee on Defence, which is chaired by the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), concludes its good report by stating:
  "We cannot recommend the 1996 Statement on the Defence Estimates to the House unless Ministers make clear in the debate that this year's Statement will not again be undermined by further defence cuts in the 1996 Budget or by any other means."
  Although I listened carefully to the Secretary of State, I heard no such commitment. I hope that the Minister will give the House that commitment in his winding-up speech, otherwise I expect those hon. Members who serve on the Select Committee on Defence and others to join us in the Lobby. I hope that Ministers will respond positively on that issue.
  494
  I was not surprised by the Select Committee's reaction because in the debate on the defence estimates on 17 October 1994, 1 warned the House that there was a shortfall in the Government's spending plans for defence for the financial year 1996ߝ97 of some £2 billion. In the end, the Government could make up the shortfall only by cutting defence spending by £700 million and selling off the married housing estate for £1.6 billion. If one adds up those figures, the total matches the amount of underspend referred to by the Secretary of State. What a way to run the defence of our country!
  The large cuts in defence spending have resulted in large reductions in service manpower. Since the end of the cold war, the Conservative Government have cut the size of our armed forces by a third. It is worth recalling the claim in the Conservative party's 1992 election manifesto that Labour
  "would devastate our armed forces by cuts of at least 27 per cent., which would lead to huge job losses".
  It was not a Labour Government who made those cuts, but the Conservative Government.
  Mr. George Foulkes: My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Is that the reason why so few Conservative Back Benchers are here today? In my 18 years in the House I have not seen a defence debate take place with so few Conservatives waiting in the Chamber to speak. Are they covered in embarrassment for the reasons that my hon. Friend is so eloquently outlining?
  Dr. Clark: I am trying to be consensual, so I will not follow my hon. Friend's comments. However, the House will have heard what he said.
  I enjoyed the Secretary of State's speech to the Conservative party conference last week. It was a huge improvement on last year's speech, and I am glad that he has listened to the advice given by not only the Labour party but the professionals and his right hon. and hon. Friends. He was wise not to talk too much about defence, and he was on much stronger ground when launching his bid to be the leader of the Tory party after the election. I know that I speak for the whole House in wishing him well in his efforts to be the Leader of the Opposition. He has our full support.
  The Secretary of State got carried away by his own eloquence in one part of his speech and informed the nation:
  "Dogs bark, birds sing, and Labour Governments cut defence".
  He forgot the truth—that the Government have cut our Royal Air Force by 38 per cent., our Royal Navy by 31 per cent. and our Army by 28 per cent. That is the real record of the Conservative Government on defence. Before anyone tries to jump in, I must state that it is a matter of record that each post-war Labour Government has spent a higher percentage of GDP on defence than the Conservatives. The record is there to be seen and to be judged.
  The problems have been exacerbated by the manner in which the Government have approached the cuts. There has been an unco-ordinated series of ad hoc and piecemeal cuts based not on a military or strategic rationale but merely on the demands of the Treasury. The result has been a mismanagement of our armed forces on a scale never seen before. What type of Government can reduce

  495
  our Army by 28 per cent. but then find that they have a shortfall of 4,000 troops? It takes a special kind of genius to achieve that—and, of course, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), is in charge of the armed forces.
  While troop numbers have been reduced, our troops have been involved in more operational duties throughout the world—33, as I have mentioned—than at any time since the end of the second world war. The Government have made the cuts but increased our commitments. The Secretary of State rightly said that there are about 10,000 British troops in Bosnia, and almost double that number are in Northern Ireland. Almost a third of our Army is tied up at any one moment in just two theatres of operation. Equal numbers of troops are training to go to those theatres and equal numbers have just returned, needing rest and recuperation. That overstretch is one of the most serious problems affecting our armed forces today.
  Mr. Mans: I presume from the hon. Gentleman's remarks that he thinks that we have too many commitments and not enough troops to carry them out. Which commitments would he get rid of?
  Dr. Clark: At the end of the cold war, we ought to have had a strategic defence review to assess the risks and threats facing Britain—
  Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: Answer the question.
  Dr. Clark: I am answering the question. Only then could we have made judgments about the necessary commitments—that is the key—for Britain.
  Mr. David Jamieson: Does my hon. Friend agree that now that the Ministry of Defence service stock has been sold and the money passed to the Treasury, the lease-back arrangements that will cost hundreds of millions of pounds per year are in effect a defence cut? Would he welcome—as I would—a statement from the Government on what they will cut from the defence budget to pay for the leasing back of those properties?
  Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point, but Ministers are not concerned about the on-going costs of the defence budget. They think only as far as May, and they know that another Government will have to pick up the pieces and make sure that the defence of our country is viable.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Clark: I shall make a little progress, and give way later.
  The problem of recruitment and retention is particularly acute. It is unbelievable that the Minister of State for the Armed Forces has not foreseen this problem, and I wonder what he has been doing. Any demographic analysis will have shown a reduction in the pool of potential recruits,
  496
  but Ministers have ignored that. By their cuts to our armed forces, the Government have not only lowered morale but reduced the attraction of pursuing a military career.
  The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the services find themselves in a difficult position because they are trying to recruit the high-quality young men and women who are also being sought by the burgeoning British industry? What measures would he adopt to improve recruitment to our armed forces that the Government have not adopted?
  Dr. Clark: Let me make one general point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I shall answer the Minister by making some positive suggestions, which may surprise him. Five of the best areas for recruitment into the infantry in this country are the northern counties of Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear, Durham and Teesside.
  Mr. Mans: And North Lancashire.
  Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman is correct, but I am referring to the King's Own Border Regiment. In those areas, there are still massive levels of unemployment among the under-25s. In Tyneside, the figures are between 10 and 20 per cent. It is remarkable that our armed forces have been unable to attract recruits from those traditional areas.
  Let me try to give some reasons for that, because the Minister has challenged me on this. By their failure to recruit from all sections of society, the Government have made the problem worse. Labour has long argued that insufficient effort is being expended on recruiting young people from the ethnic minorities. [Interruption.] The Minister may disagree, but he should know that that is the case—he has been hauled before the race relations board.
  Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman—as he did on "Newsnight" the other night—is falsifying my position most disgracefully. Would he care to withdraw his final remark? I have never been hauled in front of the race relations board.
  Dr. Clark: I withdraw the personal allegation. The hon. Gentleman has not been called before that board, but, as he knows, it found the Ministry of Defence wanting and is undertaking a monitoring exercise—the report is due in March next year—such is the level of concern.
  The Minister's arrogant attitude explains the problem with recruiting from ethnic minorities. The newspapers repeatedly carry reports of cases of racial bullying in the forces. The latest involved a black recruit being forced to carry a spear. I am sure that all hon. Members on both sides of the House find that almost incomprehensible. I think that the Minister is saying that I am barmy—I do not know if that is what he said—but does he deny that there is racial abuse in the armed forces? Does he deny that that recruit was forced to parade around with a spear? I am giving him an opportunity to deny it and if he does not do so, I must take it that that is the case.
  Clearly, standard recruitment requirements need revising. Does the Minister realise that, unless a special dispensation is given, any recruit with a debt in excess of

  497
  £750 is barred from entering the services? That debt includes a mortgage, a car loan or a student loan. That is pure nonsense. The hon. Gentleman nods his head. I can assure him that I went into the matter carefully with a recruitment officer from one of our major regiments only last month.
  Are Ministers aware that, unless both parents were born in Britain, Ireland or the Commonwealth, a dispensation has to be given for a son or daughter to be eligible for recruitment? I think that I am right in saying that the Secretary of State would not meet current recruitment criteria and yet no one would doubt his pro-British sentiment. The children of European Union citizens should be good enough for eligibility for recruitment to the British Army.
  The Government have been far too complacent about recruitment and retention—an attitude that has led to the problems of overstretch. I have talked mainly of the Army, but I am thinking also of the Royal Navy. We have a proud naval tradition. Ninety-two per cent. of our goods come to and go from this country via the sea and 400 ships dock in Britain each day.
  Dr. John Reid: None of them British.
  Dr. Clark: No, none of them is British. One would not have thought that we had that tradition from the way in which the Government have treated the Royal Navy. Under the Conservatives, 30,000 jobs have gone and the Royal Navy is now smaller than the American coastguard.
  Lady Olga Maitland: I fear that the hon. Gentleman is shedding crocodile tears. Would he be kind enough to spell out exactly what he means by a comprehensive strategic review, bearing in mind the fact that six successive Labour party conferences have voted for a reduction in defence spending of £4.5 billion, which would mean no force levels?
  Dr. Clark: I shall come to the substantive point of the hon. Lady's intervention about the defence review. As regards cuts in defence spending, that is old hat in the Labour party. There was insufficient interest in the issue in the constituency Labour party for it to be debated for the past two years.
  Let us move on to the Royal Navy and a matter that Conservative Members will not be comfortable with. We have only 27—not 35—operational frigates and destroyers and the average age of our support ships is 18 years. Not a single new one is being ordered. Even new procurement orders have been delayed. The Horizon frigate will not now come into service until 2006, even if it is on time. There is a gap in frigate cover. It comes as no surprise, therefore, to read the comments of Captain Richard Sharpe—an acknowledged expert in naval matters—in Jane's Fighting Ships about the Government's approach to the Navy. He says:
  "Someone needs to cut the Gordian Knot of overwhelming national complacency before the damage becomes irreparable if it has not already happened."
  Mr. Bill Walker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that I am one of the hon. Members who constantly
  498
  calls for additional defence expenditure. On the basis of what he has been saying, will he confirm that he, too, will be calling for additional defence expenditure?
  Dr. Clark: We have always said that we will provide whatever resources are necessary for the defence of Britain. That is what we said at the last election and that is what we shall say at the next. The hon. Gentleman is knowledgeable and interested and he has a lot of background experience in the Royal Air Force. He knows, as I know, that things are far from comfortable in the RAF. He knows that, because of lack of spares, on many occasions only six out of 48 Tornado GRls are available, and that those fly only because others have been cannibalised. Equipment delays have caused all sorts of problems and one has to wonder whether the loss of so many aircraft in the past 12 months is in some way related.
  In a letter to the Daily Mail in May, the Gulf war hero Right Lieutenant John Nichol suggested that overstretch was a major factor in the increase in accidents.
  Mr. Soames: Oh Lord!
  Dr. Clark: Thanks for the accolade, but do not call me that yet.
  John Nichol—a respected RAF pilot and hero of the Gulf war—wrote:
  "Our aircrew are trying to achieve more with fewer resources, being stretched to a point where safety is compromised."
  Those are not my words, but the words of an expert.
  When I talk to the men and women of our armed forces, time and again they say that they are being asked to do too much with too few resources.
  The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. James Arbuthnot): We have still not heard an answer to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker). Is the hon. Gentleman committing himself to additional expenditure? He is accusing the Government of cutting resources. He can fudge as much as he likes about expenditure being whatever is necessary, but is he committing himself to additional expenditure?
  Dr. Clark: I do not think that the cavalry has come to the Government's rescue. Let me say it again. At the last election, we pledged that we would provide whatever resources are necessary for the defence of Britain. I think that that is pretty clear and in a moment I will say how we shall reach a conclusion about what is necessary for the security of our nation.
  One of the criticisms of the Government by politicians on both sides of the House and certainly by professionals in the military has been its failure to grasp the very nettle that the Government raised about taking key strategic decisions. It is remarkable that, of all the countries in the world, we are the only one that has not had a strategic defence review. The Government played around at the edges. We know that the Government had "Options for Change"—although they initially failed to involve the chiefs of staff in that, such was their confidence in them.
  Later, the defence costs study was announced not by the Defence Secretary but by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As I have told the House before, it was a

  499
  defence costs study, not a defence needs study. What else could we expect from the Government? Decisions are made not on strategic or defence criteria but mainly on criteria demanded by the Treasury.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend ask Ministers again whether they intend to go ahead with the privatisation of national air traffic services, even though there has been no consultation with the RAF or the civil aviation authorities? Only those who seek to make enormous amounts of money for themselves from privatisation have been consulted.
  Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend raises a pertinent point. It was not good enough for the Secretary of State to avoid answering the very direct question that she put to him earlier. I hope that the Minister will address that. I hope that it is not another example of selling the nation's assets to the friends and bankers of the Conservative party.
  A Labour Government would be prepared to face up to the responsibility. We shall establish a strategic defence review. We have made it clear in our documents and discussions that the review will not be a cost-cutting exercise. It will report within six months of its establishment and will provide not only a blueprint for our security but stability for our armed forces and defence industry. On top of that, Labour will institutionalise long-term strategic thinking in the MOD. That is critical and I wish that the Government had faced up to that reality. Without it, there can be no strategic plan to the size and shape of our forces.
  Mr. Soames: Will the hon. Gentleman define what he means by stability for the armed forces?
  Dr. Clark: It is the opposite of the situation that prevails under the Government. The armed forces complain that they have no sense of direction. They do not know what is being asked of them. They know only that they get more and more commitments, based on no strategic plan, with fewer and fewer resources.
  Mr. Portillo: Is the hon. Gentleman claiming that the armed forces and the chiefs of staff favour a defence review?
  Dr. Clark: I would not expect the chiefs of staff, given their constitutional position, to come out against the declared policy of the Government because they, like us and the Government, believe that the Defence Secretary is the constitutional head of our defence effort, not of the military.
  Mr. Peter Hardy: Does my hon. Friend accept that a sensible, properly conducted review would not only serve this country's interest but might provide material with which we could persuade our European partners to carry a fairer share of the burden? Unfortunately, over the past few years, the Government have seemed most reluctant to do anything to persuade them to change their approach.
  Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend again makes a powerful added argument for a strategic defence review.
  500
  I know that the Government will not have it, but many members of the armed forces feel let down by them. There are many examples, such as the treatment of our Gulf war veterans. I heard what the Defence Secretary said about that. For three and a half years, we have argued that the Government have a moral duty fully to investigate the occurrence of illnesses among our Gulf war veterans. It is a moral duty because we asked our soldiers to serve in that conflict. We must do all that we can to ascertain whether there is something wrong with those soldiers. If we have to send our troops to the Gulf again, we would owe it to them to be able to give them assurances about their health.
  There may or may not be a Gulf war syndrome but there appears to a concentration of unexplained illnesses among our soldiers who served in the Gulf. Three and a half years ago, I called for an independent medical inquiry and a full epidemiological study to examine the allegations. Three and a half years later, Ministers are still dragging their feet. It is clear that the Government had made up their mind before any medical research had been undertaken. That is the action of a Government who are not committed to the welfare of our armed forces. It was only after concerted pressure from veterans' groups and from the House that the Minister of State for the Armed Forces conceded and established an epidemiological study this January. It is a scandal that such grudging and limited action has been taken more than five years after the Gulf war.
  Last week, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces wrote to the Chairman of the Defence Select Committee to point out that an error had been made in evidence given by the Ministry about the Gulf war. Concern was expressed about the use of organophosphate chemicals, about which I learnt much when I was handling the agricultural portfolio and which have had a devastating effect on many sheep farmers. Many of the symptoms associated with those chemicals have been experienced by Gulf war veterans.
  I read carefully what the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said. He accepted full responsibility and in December 1994 told the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin):
  "I advised you at the time"—
  note the use of the personal pronoun—
  "that one OP pesticide was used to treat Iraqi prisoners of war and that, while OP insecticides were available to British Forces in the Gulf, they were not used."
  The Minister discovered that that information was wrong. In my exuberance, I may have offended him and I apologise. I retract the comment that I made about him but I want to challenge him on several specific points. He knows, or should know, that that information was wrong because an Army document of 31 March 1991 headed, "Post Operational Report: Hygiene—4th Armoured Brigade", made it clear that organophosphates had been used.
  Will the Minister confirm that paragraph 1 of that document begins:
  "The theatre requirements were misinterpreted causing confusion, this lead to a half hygiene section being wrongly deployed to BAOR"?

  501
  Will he further confirm that paragraph 3 states:
  "Soldiers SOP"—
  standard operating procedure—
  "Equipment—inferior issue to junior ranks … NBC canisters had expired, no bergens"—
  rucksacks—
  "issued, soldiers had to locally purchase this essential item"?
  The next paragraph states:
  "No hygiene equipment was sent to theatre with the deployment of the fourth brigade."
  Perhaps the Minister can now understand why I was angry. He should have read that document, which should have been available for him in his red box in December 1994 with the memorandum that went to the Select Committee.
  Mr. Robathan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Clark: First let me make this important point.
  The truth is that at no time was personal protective equipment issued to those troops applying the insecticides—often organophosphates. Furthermore, orders were given that nuclear, biological and chemical suits should not be worn for insecticidal spraying since that would undoubtedly have led to a degradation of the equipment. In other words, the integrity of the equipment was placed above the safety of our soldiers. I do not apologise for my anger, but I apologise for the words I used against hon. Members. If that information was withheld, however, what else is being withheld from the public?
  Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman raises a serious matter which needs a full airing. Can the hon. Gentleman please inform the House who wrote the report and what rank he held? That report contains serious, devastating comments, but if it was just written by one person, who perhaps did not have the full facts at his fingertips, it is important to know that. If it was written by someone in a more senior position, that is also important to know.
  Dr. Clark: I know that the hon. Gentleman served for a period in the British Army. In the past, he and I have discussed senior non-commissioned officers, and I know that he shares my great respect for them and that he holds them in the highest regard. That document was written by a sergeant in the 4th Brigade who was responsible for hygiene. It was repeatedly drawn to the attention of the majors in command of that particular detachment and it was submitted as an official paper on 31 March 1991. I have made my point and the House can judge on it.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Is it not a fact that not only was there evidence in the documents that my hon. Friend has cited, but, had a proper investigation been conducted, the evidence from individuals who were directly involved and responsible would also have been made available? The real gravamen of the charge against the Government is that no political directive was issued for a full investigation that should have been conducted earlier on. If there had been, not only the documents quoted by my hon. Friend but evidence from individual witnesses would have become known.
  Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend once again explains clearly my concern and that of so many other Opposition
  502
  Members. I must say that the Minister of State for the Armed Forces has accepted personal responsibility for the issue on a number of occasions because he is involved in resolving the problem. He has repeatedly told me that he considers it a personal issue and I know that he cares about it, but we have a strong feeling that the Government have not treated the problem with the same thoroughness and commitment as the United States forces have.
  Mr. Hargreaves rose—
  Dr. Clark: I have gone on far too long and I must make some progress.
  Earlier, I was challenged about Labour's policy on the defence industry. Let me make it clear that a Labour Government will order Eurofighter, if the Government have not gone ahead and done so. I hope that by then they will have done so, and, unless the Secretary of State tells us about an early general election, we expect that order to go ahead. We have always supported the Eurofighter and we believe that our RAF needs it. If it needs it, it must have it because if we are to send our young men and women up in aeroplanes in dangerous areas, they must have the very best equipment.
  It is a bit thick for the Government to hint that the Opposition are half-hearted about Britain's defence industry. I must admit that we have a different approach from the Government on the defence industry. We have made that quite clear. The Tories' hands-off approach continues to fail Britain, with our defence industry under-performing time and time again.
  Labour believes that our defence industrial base is a strategic asset for our defence effort and economy. It is a preserve of high-tech innovation that Britain cannot afford to lose. It is for that reason that, two years ago, we published our document, "Strategy for a Secure Future" in which we argue for a coherent strategic review of our defence industry. Such a review has been warmly welcomed by every defence factory that I and my team have visited in the past two years. It stands in sharp contrast to the charade that masquerades as the Government's approach to the defence industry. It therefore came as no surprise to read a recent Government document for Britain's submission to the United Nations arms register, which candidly described their position as:
  "the United Kingdom does not have an industrial strategy which aims to develop such a capability".
  That is the Government's comment on our defence industry. There we have it, clear and concise: there is no strategy for the defence industry. No wonder that on 29 June The Economist reported that, since the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot)
  "became procurement Minister a year ago, policy has appeared to lurch in all directions."
  We now know why that is the case—the Conservative Government have no strategy for our defence industry. What a critical time to have no strategy, when Europe is crying out for a new order. We could take the lead in Europe, but no, our Government are not prepared to do that.
  Over the years, the Conservative Government have proclaimed that they are the party of strong defence. People actually believed it, at least some of them did, but the Government are believed no longer. They have simply slashed defence spending while continuing our

  503
  commitments. Overstretch is the order of the day. By their failure to conduct a strategic defence review, by their obsession with privatisation and by their inability to plan long term, they have shown not only their incompetence, but that the security of Britain is no longer safe in their hands.
  5.46 pm
  Sir John Cope: First, I endorse the tribute paid by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the Army and other services in Northern Ireland. As the House knows, for a short while I was security Minister for Northern Ireland and I saw the work of the armed forces at first hand. My right hon. Friend was right to emphasise the role of private soldiers and the junior non-commissioned officers on whom a particular strain is placed when on duty. Of course, the recent murder of the warrant officer in Lisburn makes it absolutely clear that everyone in the armed forces is at risk.
  We have just listened to a speech from the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) in which he started by calling for a bipartisan defence policy. For the bulk of his speech, however, he departed from that theme. I found the content of his speech and that of the official Labour amendment contradictory. The amendment starts off by criticising instability in defence policy, but then calls for another review. Whatever else is required, it is not another great review. We all know, however, that that is Labour's only defence policy, and has been for some years.
  Later, the hon. Gentleman tried to give the impression that he would increase defence spending without actually saying that. I take it that that means that he does not have the permission of the shadow Chancellor to say anything of that sort. Instead, like some of his colleagues in the shadow Cabinet, he tries to give the impression that he would increase spending, without saying so. If those on the Labour Front Bench wish to carry conviction on defence matters, they need to be much more specific than the hon. Gentleman has been.
  The only clear Labour policy is that set out in the other Labour amendment, which has not been selected, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) and 20 of his right hon. and hon. Friends. It reveals that the call of the hon. Member for South Shields for consensus and a bipartisan approach falls not merely on deaf ears, but blocked ones in his party.
  The policy put forward in the second amendment is at least coherent and consistent, but it is misguided and wrong. It also makes clear the difficulties that a Labour Government— should such a thing come about—would encounter. Twenty Labour Members are fundamentally against Labour's official defence policy—and that is when we are still in the run-up to a general election, when Labour Members are supposed to be behaving themselves.
  Among other things, the second amendment would stop all conventional arms trade from the United Kingdom. My constituents who work in the aerospace industry will note that carefully, and I shall not be reticent in pointing it out to them. Governments have an important part to play in selling arms, and their attitude to the trade matters. The amendment also mentions diversification and retraining. The idea that British Aerospace or Rolls-Royce can be taught something about civilian sales is ludicrous. Both
  504
  companies have large, effective civilian aerospace business and do their expert best to ensure that it flourishes.
  The main subject that I wish to talk about is defence procurement. My right hon. and hon. Friends have often heard me extolling the benefit of programmes in which I have a constituency interest through Rolls-Royce, British Aerospace and the many other smaller suppliers in this highly complex industry. I wish to mention briefly some specific programmes. METEOR is an excellent European system that has been offered in response to the RAF's air-to-air requirement—SR(A) 1239. It will go extremely well, both operationally and industrially, with the Eurofighter 2000. The announcements in July, to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred— particularly those relating to Nimrod 2000 and the conventionally armed stand-off missile—were welcome, but there was a nasty day or two in July when it seemed that there might not be an announcement and, instead, a great rethink of the parameters and a change in the rules.
  The bidding process is incredibly complex and expensive for the companies involved. It would have been wrong on two grounds to change the rules at that late stage in the competition. First, it would be grossly unfair and highly damaging to the companies taking part to make them waste money tendering for a contract that, eventually, was not awarded to anyone. Secondly, it would ultimately cost the Government more. The tenders for their next contracts—whatever they might have been—would inevitably have had an extra safety margin built in against the possibility of the Government abandoning the operation. For many firms, the additional risk of tendering in the face of such a threat would not make it worth while. It is important that the Government—in their own interest and in the interest of value for money—retain the integrity of the tender process.
  Value for money is extremely important—as an ex-Treasury hand, I am concerned about it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was responsible for the spending side when I was at the Treasury—I was helping to raise the money. When people talk to me about public expenditure and Government money, I think about the companies that we were pressing for VAT and the difficulties that we had extracting it from them. I also think of the pleas that are always made to Treasury Ministers at this time of year about the difficulties that the tax burden creates for the public, companies and employers.
  The first duty of the House is to safeguard the public purse. The money that we extract from taxpayers must be spent wisely. The tendering process is important in that context. We all realise that it is difficult for the Government and the armed forces to decide which weapons and equipment they will need and be able to afford many years ahead when they come into service, and to stick to those decisions to the end. That is what should be done as much as possible if we are to secure value for money. I know that Ministry of Defence Ministers realise that, but there was a day or two in July when it seemed that the Government collectively might not have realised it.
  As the Ministry of Defence is the largest single customer of British industry, it should also be the most intelligent. The future of a large section of British industry, as well as the future of British defence, depends

  505
  on it. What is more, if British industry does not continue to flourish, we will not be able to afford British defence, which would have damaging consequences not only for Britain, but for the world. I agree with the tributes paid to the British armed forces, who carry out fantastic work and are a fine example to all.
  I wish to make two general points about the defence procurement process. First, when asking for tenders, it is important to allow the supplier the flexibility to achieve the effect required by different methods that may be more effective or better value for money. A good example is the anti-tank missile. In the summer, different companies proposed different methods of achieving the same result. Another example involves air mobility. I do not want to dwell on the future large aircraft today, although the Minister knows that I am a strong supporter of it both for industrial reasons—it is important to Airbus Industrie in my constituency—and for defence reasons. It is a good example of what I mean by setting the parameters by the results to be achieved. In this case, the result to be achieved is the movement of military personnel and hardware from one place to another by air. The FLA can carry more and bigger items much further than the Hercules airframe—whatever else may be done to it.
  The Ministry of Defence needs to allow industry to consider the concept from start to finish, not just the individual parts, if it is to obtain the best results when letting contracts and inviting tenders. I recently had a brief conversation with my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement on the logistics aspect and was encouraged by his reply.
  My other general point on defence procurement involves co-operation between our companies and overseas companies. As we have heard today, both the European and American defence industries are being radically reshaped in response to technology and the global challenges facing all industries. It is important to retain competition among suppliers, and it will undoubtedly become more difficult to do so globally, let alone within the United Kingdom. The Government should not attempt to set down a strategy for British industry, as the hon. Member for South Shields suggests.
  Individual companies have to work it out for themselves, but the restructuring of the various individual industrial companies is mirrored by the Government's behaviour and by the collaborative purchases—as is shown in table 10 on pages 66 and 67 of the defence White Paper. It shows the procurement projects across the three services involving collaboration with other countries. Some 26 projects involve collaboration with France; 23 projects involve collaboration with Germany; 20 projects involve collaboration with the United States and 14 projects involve collaboration with Italy. The combinations are different; each project is different— which is as it should be—and a patchwork is produced. Hence the efforts, which I applaud, to try to co-ordinate the operational requirements more efficiently and more systematically. Co-ordination of the requirements—and hence the purchasing—obviously helps to secure value for money and is also in the interests of British, European and all industry.
  The western European armaments group, operating under the Western European Union, does good work. In the White Paper and elsewhere, discussions are reported
  506
  about a European armaments agency. Before anyone gets excited, that is not an initiative of the European Union or anything of the sort, and will not have the same membership. Key members would be the United Kingdom, France and Germany. On a transatlantic basis, there is the NATO conference of national armaments directors.
  I hope that those initiatives are developing fast and that, tonight, we shall hear something about the progress that has been achieved in them and about what is expected for the future. Whatever we do, the defence business will continue to be multinational. Joint and parallel decision making by Governments and by armed forces—both ours and those of our allies—is therefore essential.
  I add a postscript on a completely different subject. Tonight, we have heard little about the reserve forces. I recently visited one of our local Territorial Army units, as I do from time to time, and I was delighted to find that the new arrangements for it, and for the reserve forces generally, have been well received. The increased professionalism of, and the greater opportunities for, TA soldiers and the other reserves, are excellent.
  When I was in the Territorial Army many years ago, its professionalism resulted from the fact that most of us had done national service—we had served in the forces full time. Although, when I was in the TA, continuing service was voluntary, doing a little of one's national service in the TA had been compulsory. That has been gone for a good while, which makes it much more difficult to sustain the professional quality of the reserves. I was therefore glad to find professionalism high, partly due to the Reserve Forces Act 1996—a piece of legislation that we considered recently and which is an important step forward.
  6.1 pm
  Dr. John Gilbert: I start by referring to a couple of subjects that were mentioned earlier. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) spoke forcefully and fluently; I was delighted to hear his speech. I dissented from him on only one minor point. He said— I hope that he will correct me if I do not quote him accurately—that Europe cannot afford to spend the same amount of its resources on defence as the United States does.
  Dr. David Clark rose—
  Dr. Gilbert: I should be grateful for clarification.
  Dr. Clark: That was not the message which I tried to convey. I was arguing that many of our European allies do not spend as much as they should if they are serious about the defence of Europe and about playing a bigger part in NATO.
  Dr. Gilbert: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I agree entirely. I also happen to think that this country does not spend enough on defence. We, as a European Union, have started bragging to the Americans that we have a larger gross domestic product than they do, yet we continue to rely on them to defend us. It is no surprise that the Americans get a bit shirty about that from time to time. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his clarification, and I

  507
  am confident that he will be diligent in persuading our European allies to live up to their responsibilities in those matters.
  I intervened during the speech by the Secretary of State regarding the unilateral abandonment of this country's sub-strategic nuclear capability. I believe that I can say without danger of being corrected—I am sure that Ministers are listening, so let us see whether they trip me up—that only in the most recent defence White Paper was there any mention of Trident being used in a sub-strategic role. I should be grateful to hear from any Minister, or any hon. Member, of a scenario in which they envisage using Trident in a sub-strategic role.
  What would have happened in the Gulf war, had Saddam Hussein decided to use chemical weapons, not against his people, but against the forces that were invading his country? Is it the Government's position that we would have responded with a Trident attack on the Republican guard or Iraqi front-line troops, or would we have sent a Trident into Baghdad or Basra? As soon as one considers those propositions, their ludicrousness and the disproportionality of any such deployments become immediately apparent.
  This country has been, or is in the process of being, unilaterally denuded of any sub-strategic nuclear capability, and in Europe that capability will shortly repose solely in the hands of the French.
  The main theme of my speech is NATO enlargement. It may come as a surprise to some of my friends in this place, among whom I may have a reputation for being a hawk, that I view NATO enlargement with considerable dismay and concern.
  I hope that the Government will give an assurance that any discussions about NATO enlargement will take place country by country, and not by groups of countries; in other words, that there will be no suggestion that, for example, the Visegrad group of countries will be considered as a bloc for admission, but individual countries will have to meet the criteria of NATO membership before they are considered.
  This question remains, however: should the geographic expansion go ahead if a decision is confirmed? Should it include Poland, Hungary, or the Czech Republic? Most people consider those to be likely candidates. What about Slovakia? Should NATO eventually include the Baltic states? Once one starts to consider the ramifications of one or two of those possibilities, which I shall discuss, the difficulties soon emerge.
  One aspect that has not been considered is the enormous cost to the existing members of NATO of further expansion. If one expands NATO, by definition one expands the remit of article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty, and that article refers to common defence. Common defence means nothing without an infrastructure, and without reasonable commonality of weapon systems and, above all, of communications equipment. No one can seriously believe that Poland, the Czech Republic or Hungary—let alone the Baltic states— are in an economic condition to make anything like a proportional contribution to the costs of that extension of NATO's capability towards the east. It follows that those contributions will have to be made by the existing members of NATO, and from that it follows—
  Mr. Donald Anderson: My right hon. Friend may be well aware that the United States Department of Defense
  508
  commissioned a study from the Rand Corporation in relation to the most likely applicant countries—Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic—and that the study's conclusions, published this year, were surprisingly favourable. As I understand it, those countries are aware that there are costs and have said that they are prepared to pay those costs. Indeed, they query whether the Rand conclusions are inflated, because they are based on United States comparables rather than the actual costs in the Visegrad countries.
  Dr. Gilbert: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for reminding the House of that extremely interesting analysis, but I remain persuaded that the additional costs will have to be borne proportionally by the existing members of NATO and will have to be found from existing defence budgets.
  I am also concerned about certain geostrategic considerations. The first is the reaction of the senior members of the armed forces in the former Soviet Union—the generals. We all know that generals do not necessarily dictate policy, but it was interesting to note that General Lebed recently came to Brussels and made some mild remarks about the possibility of NATO expanding towards the east; as soon as he got back to Moscow, however, he sang a very different tune.
  In the former Soviet Union, the morale of the armed forces is very poor. In that I include the land forces, the tactical air forces and the surface fleet. By winning the cold war, we hoped to see the end of revanchist nationalist Governments in what was the Soviet Union. It would be a serious miscalculation on our part to provoke public opinion in that country by deploying NATO troops on the eastern borders of these candidate member countries. That would send all the wrong signals to Russia, the Ukraine and Belarus. It would give them the impression that we still regard them as possible enemies, at a time when we are trying to woo them into the comity of western civilisation and culture.
  If we start increasing the size of NATO, moreover, we shall immediately dilute its decision-making power. It is difficult enough to get decisions taken within the 16 member countries; once NATO is enlarged to include the three or four most likely member states, the problems will be infinitely worse. After all, we are not talking about countries with similar value systems, such as Sweden or Finland; we are talking about countries that have had dictatorships for more than 50 years. It would therefore be very difficult to keep the decision-making process as satisfactory as it is at the moment.
  NATO, with enlargement, would face additional costs, a dilution of its decision-making powers, and conversion from a successful defensive alliance to a generalised security arrangement.
  It might be argued, alternatively, that we should offer these countries non-aggression treaties. That, too, would be extremely dangerous. NATO should not try to give security guarantees which it is in no position to honour. The Poles have still not forgiven the west, especially Britain and France, for the guarantee that we promised them, but never delivered, in 1939. They are still extremely bitter, and it would be absolutely wrong to offer that sort of guarantee again.
  The idea that this House would approve putting the lives of British troops at risk—quite apart from the logistical problems—in order to protect Estonia's eastern border is pure moonshine.

  509
  we need to continue energetically to develop confidence-building measures with the Russians and to develop the "Partnership for Peace": not to try to expand NATO in an easterly direction.
  Most Russians these days no longer see a threat from the west. They used to think there was one, just as we used to think that there was a threat from the east. Their view today is that the west is yesterday's problem, the south is today's problem and the east is tomorrow's problem—none of which makes it advisable to push NATO further east.
  Some people opine that we must not allow the Russians, especially their generals, to dictate our policy. That is the language of the cold war. It is, rather, a question of deciding on the most sensible policies that will enable us to live in peace with the former members of the Warsaw pact.
  Some say that it does not matter what the Russians think because they are now militarily incompetent. People draw attention to the performance of their land forces in Afghanistan and Chechnya. Morale is low and they have had virtually no new equipment for years. Before we become too self-satisfied, however, we ought to remember the state of the British Army of the Rhine at the time of the Gulf war, when we had to cannibalise just about every piece of kit that moved in order to make a modest but none the less worthwhile contribution. In terms of equipment and logistics, the Gulf war seriously stretched our capabilities. And in military terms, it was not a war but an incident.
  We may be tempted to congratulate ourselves on the state of the Russian surface fleet, which is now virtually invisible. The Russians should be grateful for the fact that they have got rid of that incredibly expensive incubus, a burden laid upon them by Admiral Gorshkov. The Russian surface fleet was never relevant in any possible Warsaw pact-NATO conflict. I can remember how unhappy it used to make the navy department in the MOD, but the United States admiral who used to be in charge of Naples, C in C South, never worried when the Minsk and the Kiev were prancing around the western Mediterranean or coming around the north cape. What did worry him was when those ships returned to port. The admiral knew perfectly well that, in the event of a conflict, the Russians would never risk their high-value surface fleet units at sea. So we should be careful about congratulating ourselves on the loss of that Russian capability.
  The Russian tactical air forces are still the beneficiaries of some excellent new aeroplanes, although I was recently told that their fast jet pilots get between 15 and 30 hours' flying time a year. It is clear that a modern tactical air force cannot be sustained in that way.
  There are other areas, however, where the successor states of the Soviet Union retain a major capability— ballistic nuclear submarines and hunter-killer SSNs. In many ways, they are the equivalent of the most modern American submarines, and they are probably more capable than the most modern British ones in terms of how deep they can go, their modernised missiles and their silence. Those are not the only criteria, I am well aware, that establish a submarine's effectiveness. Computer software is also very important and the Americans are still well ahead in that sphere.
  510
  The fact remains that these forces are being well trained. They are rehearsing their role, their morale is good and, as far as I know, the officers and men are being paid regularly. The same is true of their land and air-based strategic nuclear forces, which are both getting new kit— land-based missile systems and sophisticated long-range bombers. Moreover, there must be at least a question mark over whether the Russians are trying to develop a biological warfare capability. I make no allegation that they are doing so, but I insist that we simply do not know. Not so long ago, when the Russian leadership was not telling us the truth about the Russians' capabilities, there were suspicions that they were.
  Another subject on which I should be grateful for a response from the Minister, if not tonight, then by way of a letter when he returns to his office, is the development of non-lethal warfare techniques. I referred to the matter in the Chamber a couple of debates ago, but did not even get the courtesy of a note from the Ministry of Defence, which I thought was a bit poor, either saying that I had got it all wrong or at least giving me an anodyne response. The Americans take the matter seriously and have already had a Department of Defense directive on it. I believe that they have a current programme of investment of some $37 million or £25 million in a private scheme to study the matter and have tried out the weapons in areas such as Somalia. Some of the weapons are pretty diabolical because they end up blinding instead of killing men and women, but other techniques are worthy of study because they can immobilise both electronic and moving equipment, and aeroplanes.
  One of the great advantages of non-lethal warfare techniques, other than minimising the risk to human life, is that they reduce the escalation of conflicts and create far less collateral and physical damage to the environment in which they are used. I am not yet convinced of their usefulness, but it would be valuable if the Ministry of Defence were to set up a study. Perhaps it has and I do not know about it, but I read nothing about such a study in this year's defence White Paper. I am prepared to be corrected if there is such a reference.
  The Government would do a great service to the whole country if they were to set up a serious investigation into that matter. I hope that, whether they do so or not, my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields will give a commitment on behalf of the Labour party that, once we come to office, we shall give high priority to setting up a study into the possibilities of developing non-lethal methods of warfare.
  6.22 pm
  Mr. Michael Colvin: It is always a pleasure to listen to the right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) in a defence debate because he speaks with a wealth of experience. His remarks on the former Soviet Union and the expansion of NATO were extremely relevant to today's debate on the possibility of a Labour party strategic review, the Government's views, the intergovernmental conference and a common foreign security policy. I acknowledge what he says about the current state of the Russian army. An army that has not been paid for six months or, in some cases, a year, and where soldiers' families must become blood donors to find the money to live, shows that the position is serious and we should not ignore it.

  511
  Military interventions often take place not because of generals but because of the internal collapse of a country's economy. Argentina was standing by ready to invade someone; it did not care whether it was the Falklands or Chile. Eventually, the collapse of the Argentine economy led to an external adventure that cost us dear. So when the European Union develops plans for a common foreign and security policy, it must realise that the word "security" does not just mean defence; it means helping to develop the economies of those countries with which we may one day be at war if things go seriously wrong.
  I endorse the opening remarks of the Front-Bench spokesmen on both sides, particularly their expressions of disgust at the breaking of the ceasefire by the IRA in Northern Ireland and their messages of sympathy to the family of Warrant Officer Bradwell, who sadly lost his life in the Lisburn bombing. I also endorse what was said about the performance of our forces serving in IFOR in Bosnia and Herzegovina. I was fortunate enough to be in Bosnia during the recent elections and saw their work at first hand. I certainly endorse what has been said about our reserve forces. In all future operations, our reserve forces will clearly play an increasingly important role. I particularly applaud what our Royal Army Medical Corps territorials are doing to support our other forces in Bosnia.
  I endorse what the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) said about the need for consensus in defence matters. The Defence Select Committee, which I currently have the honour to chair, has always succeeded in that respect. We never need to vote on matters. We always have full agreement on our reports, which is more than can be said for some Select Committees. It is often as well to leave a matter on the table and not reach a conclusion, as we did in the case of Gulf war syndrome and the married quarters proposals, with the reservation that we can always return to those matters at a later date once more information is at hand. I was sorry that the hon. Gentleman's call for consensus lasted for only the first third of his speech.
  The hon. Member for South Shields said that we need to study again the requirement for air lift and sea lift with regard to overseas operations. When the Select Committee meets on Wednesday one of the proposals that I shall put forward is for an inquiry, in what remains of this Parliament—we shall not have a very long Session—on the question of generic heavy lift, because we must look at land, sea and air. We cannot mount overseas operations with a rapid reaction force when we must wait for Ukranian or United States ships to come and move our forces. So I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that.
  Mr. Dalyell: May I ask the hon. Gentleman, as Chairman of the Select Committee, a factual question? At what stage were the concerns to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) referred, relating to Sergeant Anthony Worthington, environmental officer in the Gulf war, brought to the attention of the Select Committee when it discussed Gulf war syndrome?
  Mr. Colvin: Without looking at the record, I cannot say. But I do not believe that that matter was brought to the Select Committee's attention. The Minister of State may have more to say on that matter when he winds up this evening, but I shall return to it later in my speech when I discuss Gulf war syndrome.
  Mr. Dalyell: Without being partisan, as a long-standing member of the House of Commons I find it lazy and idle
  512
  of the Ministry of Defence, when asked specific questions, not only in the House repeatedly by a range of Members from both sides but by the Select Committee, not to come up with that kind of information. It is an appalling treatment of Parliament, for which Ministers must be responsible.
  Mr. Colvin: It is important to know what one is looking for. In the case of Gulf war syndrome, new evidence is coming to light all the time on both sides of the Atlantic. The Americans are having exactly the same difficulty as the Ministry of Defence. I shall return to the matter later in my speech and try to assist the hon. Gentleman.
  As to the Labour party's offer of a strategic defence review, the hon. Member for South Shields revealed a clue about its proposals. I wrote down his words. In answering a question about defence cuts, he said that a Labour Government would spend whatever was necessary for the defence of Britain—I think that he used the word "Britain", which may be a subtle disguise for retrenchment from overseas. Lord Healey, as Secretary of State for Defence, was responsible for reducing Britain's overseas commitments. I hope that any future Government—of whatever political complexion—will continue to honour Britain's commitments regarding our worldwide investments and interests, including our commitments to our allies. My only other comment about the hon. Gentleman's speech is that he may come to regret his unfortunate remark that our armed forces are "under-performing".
  The Defence Committee's report on the "Statement on the Defence Estimates" was published, as usual, shortly before the House rose for the summer recess—we must ensure that hon. Members have something constructive and interesting to read at the beach. The Committee's main conclusions were that our armed forces were managing to meet their commitments but that the strain shown by factors such as tour intervals, shortage of training and serviceability of equipment demonstrated that in an emergency they would be hard pressed to operate effectively at a higher level of activity or undertake any additional operational commitments.
  The report reminded the House of the Committee's repeated warnings about overstretch in the Army since the "Options for Change" exercise. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that, if many new demands arise, we will probably have to make some choices. His words may prove prophetic sooner than the Government expected, especially in light of the recent tragic resumption of violence in Northern Ireland.
  Dr. David Clark: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy. I must correct him as he clearly misheard what I said. I said that the Conservatives' hands-off approach continued to fail Britain, with our defence industry under-performing. I hope that he accepts that that is what I said.
  Mr. Colvin: I thank the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that point. We can read Hansard tomorrow to see precisely what was said.
  I believe that the Committee was correct—I am sure that the House will endorse its view—to state that the United Kingdom must retain the capability to mount high

  513
  intensity conflict at strategic, tactical and operational levels anywhere in the world while maintaining the quality of life of our service men and women. The Committee fired a shot over the Secretary of State's bow in its conclusion—it is already on record because the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for South Shields, mentioned it during his speech, but I shall explain the details.
  The SDE 1995 contained plans for defence spending of £66 billion in the three years to 1997ߝ98. However, buried in the Budget details we found cuts of £900 million over three years. Those cuts were partly disguised by a promise to carry over some of the underspending of previous years. However, the Committee's report shows that the net effect would be a reduction in defence spending of £686 million in real terms over three years.
  As many hon. Members have said, the 1995 SDE offered stability following the adjustments required by the ending of the cold war. Further cuts in defence spending in this year's Budget would deny our armed forces that stability and would not be acceptable to anyone. I trust that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has succeeded in fighting his corner against the annual Treasury onslaught. In case he has not, I must inform him that the Committee plans to hold a meeting the morning after the Budget statement at which he may explain the Budget's impact on the nation's defences. I hope that it will not be necessary to convene that meeting, but I agree with other hon. Members that even a nod and a wink from the Front Bench today would be welcome. Perhaps the Minister will reassure us in his wind-up speech that the "Statement on the Defence Estimates" that we are agreeing today will remain in force after the Budget.
  Although our armed forces do their best to perform whatever tasks are given to them, there are obvious examples of strain. Two thirds of Army units deployed in 1995ߝ96 did so within 24 months of a previous tour, which is a breach of the tour interval target. The MOD expects average tour intervals to deteriorate further this year, with the average for the infantry falling to 20 months. That is bad for morale, it affects families and is therefore bad for recruiting—it is little wonder that the infantry is short of soldiers.
  Reduced expenditure on spares has contributed to the decline in the serviceability of RAF fighter aircraft. The recent Army exercise in Poland was the first full brigade size field training exercise for five years. The two new amphibious ships have been delayed by 17 months due to what is described as "budgetary constraints", while £40 million has been spent to keep HMS Fearless operational. There are many other examples of urgent equipment orders being pushed to the right, as they say, in order to comply with the Treasury's insistence upon cuts.
  The published version of the "Major Projects Report" for 1995 gives more details. The batch 2 Trafalgar class nuclear-powered submarines are 28 months late. The Bowman combat radio system, which will replace the Clansman, has also been delayed by 28 months. The BR90, which is the Bridging for the 90s project, is six months late on each of four projects. In 1995, the Trigat
  514
  anti-tank weapon was delayed by 24 months, making a total delay of 60 months. The Rapier field standard C has been delayed by 12 months.
  Mr. Miller: In challenging the Minister to make a statement to the Committee the day after the Budget, does the hon. Gentleman believe that the batch 2 Trafalgar class submarines will not go ahead? Is he satisfied that the project will go ahead?
  Mr. Colvin: I am as satisfied as I can be. However, I am concerned about its timing. Many orders have been placed which, thanks to Treasury constraints, have been edged to the right. If a wife wants a new kitchen, her husband might say, "Yes, darling, of course you can have it." However, if there is not enough money, he could delay, perhaps by saying, "I couldn't get the one you wanted," or, "The colour scheme is wrong." It could be pushed into next year's household budget: we all know that it can be done.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: There would be trouble in the marriage.
  Mr. Colvin: I take the point. Such delays deprive our armed forces of much-needed equipment and add to industry costs. Although it may help the Treasury to balance the books this year, it will add to the long-term costs.
  While on the subject of defence industries, I draw the attention of the House to the equipment section in the Committee's report. During our visit to Washington last June, we studied the state of the so-called "two-way street" regarding reciprocal sales and purchases of defence equipment between the United Kingdom and the United States, particularly the extent to which United Kingdom companies get offset defence business from US companies when our Government buy American. The two-way street when the Government came to power was about 15:1 in favour of the United States. During 17 years of Conservative Government, that ratio has improved, but it is still 2:1 in favour of the United States and that is too much.
  Since the end of the cold war, there has been an enormous restructuring of defence industries on both sides of the Atlantic. That restructuring has hit the United States defence industrial base much harder than it has hit ours, because we were restructuring anyway. There has been a dramatic loss of jobs in the United States.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope) earlier referred to the question of diversification and conversion in the defence industries and he picked up a point made in the Opposition amendment. The United States of America has thrown $300 million at the conversion of its defence industries with not a single dollar in return. It has been a complete waste of money and is not the way to use public funds.
  Another factor is the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Russians' desperate need for foreign currency. They are flooding world markets with defence hardware, including Kilo class submarines and even Scud missiles. That is dangerous and it is also bad for our overseas sales prospects.
  While in Washington, we met Dr Paul Keminski, who is the Department of Defense Under-Secretary for Acquisition and Technology. We had an interesting

  515
  discussion and Dr Keminski gave every indication that the United States is beginning to have a change of heart about what is known as the "buy American" policy. He saw the advantages of an open market for defence products. He told us of 20 equipment programmes that offered opportunities for co-operation with the United Kingdom and he held out exciting prospects for research and development programmes.
  Dr Keminski also told us that because of the shrinkage of the US defence industrial base, it was difficult to obtain competitive quotations within the United States and his Department had to look to Europe, and in particular the United Kingdom, for competition. He wanted the business to start further upstream—in other words, research and development programmes would be open to United Kingdom bids as well as to American companies. The Americans intend to spend $45 million in 1997 on 34 such projects, and Britain is already involved in a third of them. It is therefore doubly important that the Ministry of Defence should react positively to the call from the Society of British Aerospace Companies for Government help with demonstration programmes, because otherwise we run the risk of losing our technological lead.
  One big question is whether the United States and the United Kingdom are becoming more protectionist. Both countries are in an election mode and there is a tendency for orders to be placed at home. We see that in the United States at the moment. We have heard calls from Congressmen on the hustings for an expansion of the "buy American" policy. In the UK, we want to see a better balance of transatlantic trade in defence hardware and the Government's decisions on the Nimrod replacement and the stand-off missile and anti-armour weapon for the RAF are welcome examples of that.
  The key to the Nimrod replacement is the opening up of world markets, because there is a market of some £9 billion waiting for a replacement maritime patrol aircraft. Japan, for example, wants a jet maritime patrol aircraft that can fly higher, is pressurised and has a longer range, and the co-operation between British Aerospace, Boeing and McDonnell Douglas may assist our access to that market. This product has tremendous prospects.
  If I may wear for a moment my constituency hat rather than my Select Committee hat, I wish to seek support for the United Kingdom's two leading military communications companies, Siemens Plessey Systems and Racal Radio—both of which have facilities in my constituency—in their bid for the MOD's Bowman contract to succeed the Clansman communication system. Their bid meets all the MOD's requirements and the companies have already spent enormous sums of their own money on the development of the project. The companies are British and they would create some 6,500 new jobs if they won the contract. The tremendous export potential would mean still more jobs.
  Earlier, the subject of Gulf war syndrome was mentioned. We have heard much about organophosphate pesticides in recent years, but not usually in defence debates. They are now on the agenda. Ten days ago, my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces revealed that those pesticides were used more widely in the Gulf than was previously thought and he corrected evidence that had previously been given—not by him, but by an official—to the Defence Committee. That is an example of open government, because there was no pressure on my hon. Friend and he voluntarily came
  516
  forward with the information. The Select Committee was pleased to have it although we want to know why it has taken so long for the Ministry of Defence to review the records of all the environmental and operational conditions to which British forces were exposed in the Gulf. We will consider any new evidence and I welcome the offer from my hon. Friend the Minister to meet the Select Committee with his officials to review the welcome and major research programme that will be undertaken into Gulf war syndrome. In particular, we wish to know more details about the epidemiological survey and the Medical Research Council's intentions.
  Since the House last sat, the Ministry of Defence has also announced the successful bidder for the married quarters estate—the consortium led by Annington, which has some distinguished military figures on the board. Annington's expertise as a property management company will be more important than the nationality of the various financial institutions that have put up the money. The Select Committee produced an interim report in July and we will consider the details of the sale. Service families will welcome the deletion from the scheme, for the first 25 years at least, of the site exchange option, because it had caused considerable uncertainty.
  The sale has not been a tremendous public relations achievement for the Ministry of Defence and, combined with the rise in rents, it has made service families very unhappy. The onus is now on the Ministry of Defence, the Defence Housing Executive and Annington to demonstrate the benefits of the new arrangements, not least the upgrading of the existing service accommodation and the preservation of the integrity of the "patch".
  Before I conclude, I will say something about the future of NATO and may take up what the hon. Member for South Shields said, but first I wish to mention one other procurement matter. The Warrior has given stalwart service in Bosnia and it has been the envy of all our allies, which demonstrates the enormous export potential for that vehicle. GKN needs an interim order to maintain the skill base at Telford, where the Warrior is manufactured. The company has made an imaginative proposal for the supply of Warriors in the mortar vehicle role to replace the old, slow F-432s. The mortar proposal is based on the private finance initiative and no payments would need to be made until 2000. That should please the Treasury. It is vital that the production line of the much respected Warrior is maintained. It is the flagship product of GKN Defence and I hope that the proposal wins favourable consideration from the MOD.
  When my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement winds up, I hope that he can tell me whether he has had any further thoughts about the decommissioning of our nuclear submarines. At the moment, the plan is to leave them alongside at Rosyth for the half-life to take effect and to remove the radioactivity in due course, but other nuclear reactors exist. For example, questions have been raised about a small reactor used for training purposes at Greenwich and I would like to know my hon. Friend's thoughts on the decommissioning of that facility.
  In conclusion, I shall consider the question of NATO and European security. NATO has now become, de facto, the enforcement arm of the United Nations, but—as we have seen with IFOR—our forces and those of our allies are far more effective when they can operate without the encumbrance of the dual key that was one of the

  517
  disadvantages of UNPROFOR. It is interesting that many of the forces now deployed in former Yugoslavia are from non-NATO and even ex-Warsaw treaty states, which are all doing their best to prove their worthiness with a view to joining NATO. There is no doubt that there are countries in central and eastern Europe that feel isolated and in a security vacuum. NATO membership remains a principal objective for them. It is important that NATO extends its horizons beyond the strict terms of the Washington treaty. The principal question is not whether NATO wants to expand but the manner and pace in which it does so. To embrace those suitably qualified European countries that want to join the organisation is both necessary and desirable. In the long run their membership will enhance European security. The alternative of leaving a security vacuum in central and eastern Europe is unacceptable.
  I doubt whether any of the potential new members could bring positive military benefits to NATO. NATO membership must mean full membership.
  Dr. Gilbert: The question is whether we are expanding NATO to enhance our security or to enhance the security of the new candidate member states. The countries that are the most qualified are those that least need their security enhanced, whereas the countries that most need their security to be enhanced, such as the Baltic states, are those that are least qualified. Estonia, for example, has a terrible problem. It has a population of 1.5 million, no means of self-defence and 600,000 Russians.
  Mr. Colvin: The right hon. Gentleman's point is valid. What he says proves that there should be no associate membership, no half membership and no semi-alliance status. A new member country will enjoy the rights and privileges of membership of the alliance and must share to the full its political and military obligations, including the mutual security obligation—the so-called article 5 guarantee of the Washington treaty.
  There are 65 NATO headquarters around the world. There has been some discussion about restructuring and a reorganisation. The NATO Secretary-General, Mr. Solano, has recently been floating the idea of reorganising NATO's structures in the western Europe, Mediterranean and Iberian Atlantic area, as part of moves, perhaps, to bring Spain and France within NATO's integrated military structure. His suggestion that NATO might close down GibMed and the command centre on the rock of Gibraltar as a precondition for Spain joining the integrated military structure of NATO is, I believe, both premature and probably wrong.
  When the Select Committee was examining the southern flank of NATO we, its members, visited both GibMed to see the facility within the Rock and NATO IBERLANT in Portugal. We were more impressed with the Gibraltar facility than with IBERLANT, where soon after our arrival the lights fused and the entire command system went down.
  If there is to be any reorganisation, the command centre at Gibraltar should be retained and not the other one, even if that means that Spanish service personnel might one day be helping to man the command centre within the Rock. The long-term benefits to Gibraltar as a NATO base
  518
  would be significant. There would be the opening of the frontiers on a permanent basis, and there would be no more obstruction by the Spanish authorities. That would be very much in Gibraltar's favour.
  As I have said, the members of the Select Committee visited Gibraltar as part of their southern flank study. The possibility of threats from north Africa must be reassessed before we start changing the existence of NATO structures within the region. There seems to be a crescent of crisis stretching all the way from Afghanistan to the western Sahara, with trouble all the way. There is a proliferation of arms along with a growth of fundamentalist tendencies and the collapse of some economies. There is trouble there which NATO will have to address. The security of the Mediterranean is becoming much more important. As the Russians find oil in the Caucasus the route for it will be out through the Mediterranean at the Straits of Gibraltar. That stresses again the importance of Gibraltar.
  The problem that I have outlined calls for an extension of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe to cover north Africa so that we might try to help the economies of countries in that area and thus prevent from arising the circumstances that could trigger the military adventures to which I have referred. If the OSCE, which has 53 members already, is too cumbersome for that purpose, perhaps a southern partnership for peace, as suggested by the North Atlantic Assembly, could be set up.
  Whatever is decided, Britain will continue to play its part. British forces will demonstrate their quality, as they are doing now while deployed on active service in 33 countries worldwide. I welcome the opportunity to pay them credit for a job well done. I trust that the resources that are being promised to them in this year's estimates will not be plundered, as they were last year, by the Treasury.
  6.55 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: I welcome the opportunity to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), who is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, of which I am a member. He presides over our proceedings with great elegance and considerable ability. However, his domestic analogy in relation to the postponement of procurement projects, which he likened to persuading one's wife that she should not have a new kitchen, found him treading on dangerous ground. I have met Mrs. Colvin and I would not like to be the man who stood in the way of her new kitchen. I suspect that the truth is that the hon. Gentleman does not stand very much in the way of anything that Mrs. Colvin wishes to do.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Campbell: No. The hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside was on dangerous ground and I am on even more dangerous ground. It is time to move on.
  We pay tribute in this debate every year to the armed services wherever they are called upon to serve. Over the years, as the tension ebbs and flows in Ulster, it has been obvious to us all that the lives of men and women serving on our behalf there are more or less at risk. Last week, at

  519
  Lisburn, once again there was injury and death. As has already been said, a brave man, Warrant Officer Bradwell, died in the course of serving his country.
  We have an obligation to protect such men and women to the utmost of our ability. In the aftermath of the events at Lisburn, we must ask ourselves whether we are satisfied that, in that case, we did. It is extremely serious that terrorists were able to penetrate the security of the Army's headquarters in Northern Ireland.
  I was glad to hear the Secretary of State say that there are Army and Royal Ulster Constabulary investigations. It will be in the nature of those investigations that hon. Members will not be entitled to know all that is discovered. Nothing would be more foolish in an investigation of security to make all the elements of the investigations public. I hope, however, that in due course the House will receive an assurance from the Secretary of State, or the appropriate Minister, that a full and comprehensive inquiry has been carried out. I hope also that if there are lessons to be learnt from that inquiry, those lessons will be learnt and that all the necessary steps will be taken.
  Mr. Mans: I am certain that the hon. and learned Gentleman agrees that a full inquiry should take place. Does he agree also that it was entirely inappropriate for Channel 4 News, when it reported the incident a day or two ago, to show on screen a complete plan of the barracks at Lisburn, and sensitive buildings in it, so anyone might know exactly what existed there and where to go?
  Mr. Campbell: Anything that reduces the security of those who continue to serve on our behalf in Northern Ireland is to be deprecated. It was an editorial judgment which I certainly would not have made.
  Towards the end of his speech, the Secretary of State reminded us, correctly, that in Bosnia NATO had not been seriously tested. In the Gulf war, to which the right hon. Gentleman also alluded, we were not seriously tested either. It is important to realise that the capacity to continue to fight a high-intensity conflict depends on adequate numbers of men and items of equipment and clear political objectives. One of the reasons why we have been successful in Bosnia is the number of men and the quantity of equipment available and the clarity of the political objectives—in sharp contrast to those of the previous four years under the aegis of the United Nations Protection Force.
  It is important to realise that, if we maintain our high-intensity warfare capability, modifying our troops and our approach to peacekeeping or peacemaking may not be easy, but such changes can be made. If, on the other hand, we maintain our forces and equipment at the peacemaking and peacekeeping level, it is impossible to move from that to the level of high-intensity warfare.
  It is the proud boast of Canada that its troops have participated in every United Nations peacekeeping operation since they began. However, as a consequence of that wholly laudable commitment, the configuration of Canada's armed forces has been geared to peacekeeping and peacemaking, so that its capacity to fight high-intensity warfare has been substantially eroded.
  It is no secret that I, along with some of my hon. Friends, believe in far greater integration with our European partners in defence matters. Nothing that has
  520
  happened in the past year—since we last debated these matters—has persuaded me otherwise. I say again, as I said then, that these issues will be driven by economics rather than by institutions. Against the background of reducing defence budgets in Europe, we shall be able to maintain a range and depth of capability only by greater co-operation. It has at last been recognised that the European defence industry must be much more cohesive so that it can compete sensibly with the much larger and more powerful defence industry of the United States.
  Common procurement and force specialisation will, of necessity, be the way ahead for European defence. We already have common procurement in the Eurofighter— to which I shall return in a moment—and in the common new generation frigate. Operational co-operation already takes place: the Franco-British air group, Franco-British nuclear co-operation—which, I am led to believe, takes place at a higher and more detailed level than is publicly known—the recently formed Dutch-Belgian joint naval command, the new Franco-Belgian naval accord, the Eurocorps and the Anglo-Dutch amphibious force are the components of organic policy development.
  Let us be clear and lay a myth. No country will give up the right to determine when and where its troops will fight. That is a responsibility that national Governments and national Parliaments can never vacate, nor should they. Imagine France, with its proud military history, agreeing that a determination as to how and when French troops should fight should be made elsewhere. Imagine Germany, cautiously emerging from the constitutional presumption against its forces operating outside its boundaries, agreeing that such decisions should be made elsewhere.
  Will the European security and defence identity develop further? Of course it will, and for the reasons that I have already given. On these occasions, I am always reminded of the remarks made in May 1994 by the Foreign Secretary who, as Secretary of State for Defence, was quoted in The Daily Telegraph as saying that the evolution of an EC defence policy was an inevitable consequence of Maastricht. Later that year, the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), spoke to the Franco-British Council and called for practical co-operation in European defence
  "putting our military assets … at the service of European defence".
  Since those days, the emphasis of the Government's language has changed from time to time, no more so than when they are under the influence of the sea breezes of seaside conference towns. The march of events and the pressure of economics remain inexorable. In my judgment, the development of a European defence policy is an inevitable consequence with which we shall all have to learn to live, however enthusiastic or unenthusiastic we may be about the concept.
  During the summer, the Prime Minister told us that we had a moral duty not to take too much of citizens' resources by way of unnecessary taxation. This is an interesting philosophical issue. Does that moral duty create a higher obligation than the obligation to provide for the aged, the sick and the poor?
  I have a moral question for the Prime Minister. Why does this country continue to permit arms exports to Indonesia? Hawk jets, Scorpion tanks and water cannon are already exported, and further exports are being

  521
  contemplated. There is evidence that the water cannon have been used in Jakarta against pro-democracy demonstrators.
  Once such equipment leaves the United Kingdom, we have no control over its use, no matter what undertakings have been given. Are we prepared to accept the word of an Administration who say that they will not use equipment for a particular purpose, when at the same time they are engaged in the brutal suppression of the civil rights of the people of East Timor? I feel that, given Indonesia's ever worsening record on human rights, it is wrong for the United Kingdom to continue those exports. I say that as one who has supported British Aerospace, both on the Eurofighter and, more recently, by my robust opposition—along with other hon. Members, some of whom are in the Chamber—to the suggestion that we should lease in F16 aircraft rather than embark on the mid-life update of the Tornado. I will take no lessons from anyone about the need to assist British Aerospace, but I do not believe that the future of that company depends on, or should depend on, the export of Hawk aircraft to Indonesia.
  If the debate has underlined anything, it has underlined the need for a general election. On the Conservative side of the House there is complacency, while on this side— perhaps the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) will not be cheering quite so much in a moment—there is caution. If we are to have a fundamental, full-scale strategic defence review, we must accept in advance that if it throws up circumstances in which an increase in expenditure is required, we must be prepared to make that increase and spend the money. That is the part of the jigsaw constructed by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) which has never been entirely clear.
  If I have another criticism of the debate, it is the remarkable absence of any long-term thinking—perhaps that is due to the closeness of the general election. During the summer, the Canberra commission on the elimination of nuclear weapons published its report. Hon. Members may not agree with everything in that report, but it represents a detailed analysis of the steps that could be taken to achieve multilateral nuclear disarmament. No one has so far seen fit to refer to that.
  We are left with the conclusion that the Government tend to stagger from one public expenditure settlement to another. It is true that announcements were made in the summer about the replacement of the maritime control aircraft, which I support, the conventionally armed stand-off missile and the anti-armour missile. I seek the assistance of the Minister of State for Defence Procurement on a technical point. As I understand it, the anti-armour weapon on the Apache is the Hellfire, whereas for fixed-wing Royal Air Force aircraft it is to be Brimstone. Have we lost something by not using the same anti-armour weapon both for rotary wing and for fixed wing? If not in this debate, perhaps the Minister might advise me by letter whether there is anything in what I just said.
  We also know that the operational effectiveness of the armed services has been inhibited by a shortage of spares, reduced opportunities for training and a lack of manpower. For example, for the Royal Air Force,
  522
  expenditure on Tornado spares has fallen by one third, resulting in the cannibalisation of aircraft. In December 1995, six out of 36 aircraft at Brüggen were serviceable.
  I understand from the announcement in the White Paper that we are coming home from Germany. When I suggested that last year, Ministers dismissed it. Now it is Government policy. It makes good financial sense.
  On spares, I sometimes feel that we have not learnt the lesson of the Gulf war, to which the right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) referred. It took three armoured divisions in Germany to produce one that was capable of going to war in the Gulf. We should have taken that serious lesson into account. After "Options for Change", so considerable has been the draw-down in forces that there is no reservoir from which to draw. In relation to spares, I believe that our situation is dangerously fragile.
  On recruitment, the Army is only now recovering from the mistakes that were made during "Options for Change". Manpower shortage inevitably exacerbates overstretch. In the spring of 1996, 25 per cent. of the Army were deployed, while 11 per cent. were either preparing for, or were on leave after, operations.
  I was glad to hear the Secretary of State confirm that if there is a military follow-on force in Bosnia—a follow-on force to IFOR—the United Kingdom will be part of it. I think that today is the first time that that commitment has been made publicly. There was, however, one caveat. He said, in response to my intervention, that a United States presence was also necessary. He did not specify whether he meant a United States presence on the ground or a United States presence by offering or contributing assets of another kind.
  I am in no doubt that IFOR's effectiveness has been as a result of the United States' presence on the ground. It seems to me that if we are to have an effective and successful follow-on force under the aegis of NATO, a component from the United States on the ground will be fundamental. We must not have a return to the morass, over which UNPROFOR was obliged to preside, of ambiguous objectives and inadequate resources.
  On the Navy, only reduced deployments in the Adriatic have allowed the achievement of the guidelines that apply to time spent in home port.
  One had a sense that there was a touch of Dr. Pangloss in the Secretary of State's speech—all is for the best in the best of possible worlds. I hope that he will not regard it as overly personal if I say that, outside the ranks of the adoring blue-rinsed matrons in the Bournemouth conference hall, not many people believe that; certainly not the Defence Committee, which was unanimous in its conclusion that no more reductions in expenditure are tolerable. One might put the question slightly differently and say: if further cuts in expenditure are to be effected, tell us which commitments are to be abandoned.
  The emergence of the use—much more widely than was appreciated—of organophosphates in the Gulf has been mentioned. It is fair to say that Ministers have not been slow to criticise their critics on this topic, but I believe that the House will be united in a desire to ensure that we do the best for the veterans of the Gulf conflict, and that we do the best that we can to ensure the fullest investigation of the contribution, if any, that ssthe extended use of organophosphates has made to the condition of those who now claim to be suffering from Gulf war syndrome.

  523
  I have a number of questions that I wish to put to the Government. They are not for answer today, but they should lie at the very heart of the investigation and, in due course, the information should be given to the House. The first question is simple: who gave the instruction to use organophosphates? At what rank was the decision made? Were civilian employees of the Ministry of Defence aware that organophosphates were being used? If so, at what level within the Department? Were detailed instructions issued to minimise contact with service men and women? What investigation was carried out to determine whether it was safe to use organophosphates in the amounts in which they appear to have been used?
  Was the MOD aware of the contents of the Health and Safety Executive's written guidance of 1987, which clearly identifies the risks attached to the use of organophosphates? I am no clinician, but are not the symptoms of organophosphate poisoning, as set out in that written guidance, remarkably similar to the complaints of those who now claim to be suffering from Gulf war syndrome? Why has this information emerged only now? Will the Government publish all the documents that contain information relevant to the use of organophosphates in the Gulf?
  Finally, can we now be satisfied that we have all the information? As I have reasonably been prompted from the Labour Front Bench, what did the Government know and when did they know it? That is the crucial question, which, at least in Mr. Richard Nixon's case, proved very difficult to answer.
  Mr. Corbyn: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. I did not want to interrupt the flow of his argument. Is he aware that there is an historical parallel to this, which is as unpleasant as it is apposite? Work by the national poisons laboratory in this country revealed that, around 1987, organophosphates were used as a poison against Kurds in Iraq by the Saddam regime? It was commonly known at that time just how dangerous they were, and on that occasion they were put into the bread of very hungry people who then unwittingly ate them and subsequently died.
  Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman has the advantage in that that information serves to underline the fact that the use—or abuse—should, in an ideal world, have given rise to very considerable apprehension.
  Mr. Dalyell: May I add to the hon. and learned Gentleman's very pertinent list of questions just one more? What use was the information that the Department now has put to in August and September of this year when preparations were being made for—heaven help us— further action in the Gulf? British troops were being prepared for possible further action during the summer recess. Were they in any way the beneficiary of the information and experience that the Government should have brought to the House?
  Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman's question stands on its own merits. I do not need to add to it.
  There is now no immediate procurement project more important and significant than Eurofighter 2000. It is important for the Royal Air Force, British Aerospace and, indeed, Europe. It is important for the RAF because that
  524
  force requires an agile fighter, and Eurofighter was designed to the highest standards to meet that requirement. It is important for BAe because that company requires to work and to produce at the cutting edge of the most modern technology. Its future and that of the British aircraft industry depends not entirely on the success of the Eurofighter programme, but in substantial part. It is important for Europe because Europe requires a successful joint procurement programme that involves European industry. That is clear beyond any question—the preliminary skirmishes between the European defence industrial base and that of the United States give a clear foretaste of the industrial battle that is undoubtedly to come.
  The failure of the Eurofighter project would damage all three of the interests that I have identified and make even more difficult the path towards the future offensive aircraft. A collaborative programme in Europe would be much more difficult to mount successfully against the failure of Eurofighter. The question that must be asked is: if Germany withdraws from the programme will the United Kingdom proceed with that programme in concert with the other partners?
  I have already bemoaned what I have described as a lack of long-term thinking. The issue of multilateral nuclear disarmament should be addressed by the House and the Government. We have successfully concluded a non-proliferation treaty and, although it is not in the form that everyone would have preferred, the comprehensive test ban treaty has attracted more than 100 signatories and supporters.
  Another long-term issue that we should consider is ballistic missile defence for the United Kingdom, because a proliferation of missiles is being sold by manufacturing countries which are insufficiently fastidious about their customers. The House—certainly the Government— should bear such long-term considerations in mind.
  At the beginning of my speech, I said that it was customary to praise the men and women who serve in our three armed services. That is more than a ritual, more even than a convention. During this Parliament, they have served in Bosnia, Northern Ireland and many other theatres, and their loyalty and professionalism are a lesson to us all. They give of their best and, sometimes, as we saw last week, they have to give of their lives. They deserve the very best that we can give them.
  7.20 pm
  Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: It is an honour and a privilege to follow the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). In particular, I agree with what he said about those who serve in Northern Ireland because my brother is currently serving there. I congratulate him on his remarks about the rather extraordinary speech by the Opposition defence spokesman, the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) about a comprehensive, strategic defence review. The hon. Gentleman would say neither what would be in it nor what would be out of it and spoke about commitments without saying what they would be. He totally failed to persuade us that any defence review that has ever taken place has done anything other than cut defence expenditure, often without sufficiently reducing the commitments that went with the cuts or detailing the commitments.

  525
  Recently, we have heard much from Labour about the priority of education. As the father of two sons of nine and 11, I am passionately concerned about that area of our responsibility. In the 1920s and 1930s, both Austria and Czechoslovakia had enviably well-educated societies, as did part of Belgium. If we do not have the will to find the funds for strong defences, we shall end up as the world's best-educated slaves. History teaches us that it is never safe to relax our guard. A nation that does not have the will to provide for its defence is no longer a nation but a collection of communities. A nation that spends much more on social security than on national security has lost its will to survive or to influence for the better the world around it or the lives of those who live within it. One could look at modern Belgium and, soon, Holland to illustrate the point.
  This year, we shall spend 13.4 per cent. of our gross domestic product, or more than £90 billion, on social security as against 3 per cent. of our GDP on defence. That is a decline from 4.5 per cent. of GDP in 1979. It is relentless year by year and there is a further 0.3 per cent. cut this year—and that from a Conservative Government who are committed to defence. I say that not to make a party political point, although I may make some later, but because I know that some Opposition Members, of whom the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East is one, are desperately concerned and committed to defence and to the services. Should another party come to power, it might find even greater difficulty than Conservative Back Benchers encounter in trying to keep the Treasury's hands off the defence budget.
  The world is more dangerous today than it was during the cold war. If anything, our forces are more likely to be called upon to protect British lives or interests and to place themselves in harm's way than during the period of the cold war. Although the danger of an all-out nuclear war has receded with the changes in eastern Europe, the escalation of nuclear proliferation—the sale of highly advanced weaponry to highly unstable militaries, let alone third-world countries—means that almost any conflict is capable of becoming high intensity, if not nuclear, at very short notice. The Gulf war demonstrated that but luckily it did not result in great damage to our forces.
  To the bleeding hearts brigade in the Opposition who hanker for defence cuts on the one hand and for our troops to be sent to prevent massacres, ethnic cleansing or civil wars in a League of Nations dream world on the other, I say that that is hypocritical and morally indefensible. The call is to, "Send your own family but do not send mine, ill-equipped and overstretched, into those situations." That is what our troops would be. To the Chancellor and those Treasury civil servants who are cynical about defence expenditure I simply say that if they fail to provide the money now for military deterrence—as the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East has said, that must include money for a joint anti-ballistic missile defence system—when the first new generation Scud that is fired, or even threatened to be fired, from a container ship in the Mediterranean or from the Atlantic approaches, it will be not just their families that they have endangered nor they who will curse them.
  Those threats are real and we must find the money to protect our country and our forces from them. The Prime Minister has promised a period of stability for our armed
  526
  services and, therefore, for the defence budget. I urge the Government and the Secretary of State for Defence in particular to ensure that neither the Chancellor, or the Treasury, nor anyone else undermines the Prime Minister's commitment.
  We face an exceptionally unstable period made worse by the seemingly inevitable instability that is caused by the failure of the European Union to adjust its institutions, ambitions and strategies to take account of the accession of the Warsaw pact countries and the reunification of Germany—a country that is now the size of France and west Germany combined. It is not for nothing that the Russian tone has changed and that General Lebed now refers to the new German fourth reich.
  I congratulate the Secretary of State and his Department on the highly successful bilateral exchanges and visits between Russian and British officers and other personnel which have taken place since the last debate on the defence estimates. I urge him to do all that he can to continue to expand those bilaterally and within the "Partnership for Peace" or the North Atlantic Council frameworks, especially in view of the pressure in some quarters for the expansion of NATO. His Department's success in developing training exercises in Poland and, hopefully, soon in Ukraine is greatly to be applauded and one might dare to hope that if those in Ukraine succeed and are repeated, perhaps joint disaster relief, peacekeeping and even counter-terrorist training may ultimately be possible in Russia, too.
  The Secretary of State and his team must also be congratulated on their success in resisting the Treasury's insidious attempts to undermine the Prime Minister's undertaking and that of the Secretary of State's predecessor by delaying or indefinitely postponing the announcement of any of the three major equipment orders that he announced at the end of July just before the House rose. They were the orders for 21 maritime patrol aircraft with Nimrod, costing some £2 billion, to British Aerospace; for the conventionally armed stand-off missile—CASOM—with Storm Shadow to British Aerospace Matra, which is a welcome order in terms of Anglo-French armaments co-operation; and for the advanced air-launched anti-armour weapon with Brimstone to GEC-Marconi.
  The value of those orders to the respective services, to the proper equipping of our forces and to employment in the defence industry is even greater than the substantial figure of some £4 billion involved. Of course I am delighted that Lucas Aerospace in my constituency will benefit from some of those orders. It would be remiss of me not to mention again—as our previous debate on the defence estimates preceded the decision—my gratitude to Ministers for selecting Land Rover for the Army ambulance and TUL-TUM—utility truck—orders at the beginning of the year.
  Friends in the Royal Navy will welcome the further batch of three type 23 frigates, but would no doubt give it a warmer welcome if Ministers could speed up the resolution of the problems with the battlefield communications software on those ships so that they can play their full part and exploit their potential. Doing that would relieve the pressure on other ships. Everyone in the Royal Navy, and no doubt everyone in the Marines, will welcome at last the finalisation of the order for Albion and Bulwark, the replacements for Fearless and Intrepid. Linked with the order for HMS Ocean, that at last puts

  527
  flesh on the bones of a strategic emphasis on flexible intervention and interdiction forces. With the acquisition of ro-ro ferries, the amphibious role has been enhanced.
  The only minor cloud on the increasingly sunny picture is my concern that, following the withdrawal from service of HMS Polaris, or the last Polaris submarine—I can never remember which it is—our nuclear deterrent is now based, if only temporarily, on the two new Trident submarines alone. I assume that that means that they will be constantly deployed—with all the resultant strain—but that the decision was taken on the basis that that could be done without harming the effectiveness of our deterrent because the boats were so new and so early in their service life. However, it poses some awkward questions on which I would be grateful for a comment from my hon. Friend the Minister the Minister of State for Defence Procurement in his winding-up speech.
  Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us that he has a greater than usual number of conventionally armed SSNs available on deployment in the period before the two further Tridents come into service, or that he will be exploiting the flexibility of the submarine-launched cruise missiles. Better still, he might say that he has brought forward the order for the further five batch 2 Trafalgar boats. I hope that my hon. Friend will allay my concerns, if not during the debate, then by other means. My right hon. and hon. Friends have made a good start on the pledge made at the time of both "Options for Change" and the defence cost studies that our forces would be leaner but better equipped. They deserve to be congratulated on that.
  All hon. Members interested in defence pay close attention to equipment orders because of their value not only to the services but to jobs in their constituencies. The aerospace sector alone employs some 134,500 people, and the defence industry, and its value in terms of jobs and exports, is a national asset. Such an asset would be threatened by Labour's defence review because such a review would be bound to take six months, if not longer. In addition, who can remember a review that did anything other than reduce defence expenditure and orders, let alone manpower? We would have to postpone crucial orders during the period of the review at great hazard to all those whose jobs depend on the sector.
  Finally, on this topic, I make a plea to my right hon. and hon. Friends to ensure that the whole equipment sector is thought of in a strategic sense when decisions on orders have to be taken, rather than there being a concentration on the benefit to one or other of the major companies. I speak as someone with companies such as Lucas Aerospace in my constituency.
  The last matter on which I will touch is manning and overstretch. That was mentioned at length by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), so I shall not dwell upon it. The Select Committee has identified a number of specific areas to which my hon. Friend the Minister will respond in his winding-up speech. Overstretch in equipment terms is demonstrated by reduced serviceability and readiness. That manifests itself as an operational issue where making savings on spares and reducing ammunition levels can and probably has seriously impaired the safety, effectiveness and fighting capability of the services. Cannibalisation is neither cost-efficient nor manpower-efficient, and I strongly urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to set up a
  528
  team to examine that concern and make any changes deemed necessary before the problem becomes dangerous or an embarrassment.
  It is now generally recognised that the Ministry of Defence's recruitment and manpower policy in implementing "Options for Change" was in some respects wrong, particularly with regard to the recruitment of school leavers. The Army in particular is still under-recruited by 4,000, but I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces for his recent efforts in that matter. Undermanning means that companies and battalions are not up to strength, and that places greater burdens on those who are serving— particularly in Northern Ireland. It also places strain on the time spent on training, and thereby impairs the effectiveness and ultimately the safety of those who serve.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends will be concerned that we are still failing to meet the Army's objective of a 24-month interval between emergency tours. With the stalemate in Northern Ireland likely to deteriorate before it improves and with the prospect of a speedy withdrawal from Bosnia becoming even more remote, there can be no prospect of events alleviating the position. I hope that my hon. Friend has further plans to remedy the problem which he can share with us in his winding-up speech. I have been relieved to see a much more proactive recruitment drive for the British Army in the media in recent months.
  Finally, I add my remarks to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside and of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East concerning our troops serving in Bosnia and Northern Ireland. It behoves all of us who take part in these debates to recognise that it is one thing to sit and speak in the comparative safety of the Chamber and quite another to serve in extremely dangerous and uncomfortable positions. I hope that we all do not forget that we owe them not just a debt of gratitude but an obligation to ensure that they can perform their duties with the right equipment, planning and supplies at all times to make their jobs as safe as possible. I commend the estimates to the House.
  7.36 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I rarely get the chance to take part in defence debates, and I have been honoured to listen to the carefully measured speeches that have been made. I came here because I thought that the Secretary of State—who is so against the idea of a strategic review of the needs of our armed forces and of the United Kingdom—would lay out in considerable detail how he saw the future of this country and the amount of money that was to be spent in this important field.
  I was—to put it mildly—deeply dismayed that at no point did the Secretary of State raise the question of the proposed privatisation of the national air traffic services. It was agreed that the privatisation of NATS was not only going to be difficult to carry out, but would have enormous implications because it was not only a civil service, but a service that was fully integrated with the Royal Air Force. The service has a direct impact on the training patterns of the RAF and the way in which the service is organised.
  It was clear that if the privatisation were to go ahead, a number of urgent steps had to be taken first. The Select Committee on Transport, which looked at the matter in

  529
  great detail, said that there was already enormous turmoil and change in the air traffic control services. There was a move afoot for the Civil Aviation Authority to move NATS from West Drayton to a new purpose-built building at Swanwick. The civil service had made it clear that it understood the implications of the dual nature of air traffic control.
  The Select Committee said that before any decisions on privatisation were taken, certain basic safeguards would have to be accepted. First, it is vital that the United Kingdom retains two air traffic control centres. One does not need to be particularly brilliant to work out that a nation with a great deal of air traffic but only one basic air traffic control centre will get into great difficulty if anything goes wrong at that centre. There would be a danger of crashes across the United Kingdom. That would concern not only British traffic but traffic coming from all points of the globe. It was essential, therefore, that the Scottish centre as well as the centre in Swanwick near Southampton be retained.
  Furthermore, it was clear that because of the changes the RAF had taken a value judgment—a very useful one—that it should carefully integrate much of its work with that of the civil air traffic controllers. They have always worked in tandem, but there were physical barriers and there was always a division. It became clear during the move that the services were prepared to take on board not only the need to work just as closely with civil air traffic controllers, but to integrate the work in such a way that they were all working superbly.
  Suddenly, in the middle of all that and at short notice— less than three weeks ago—the rumour began to circulate that a new Civil Aviation Authority boss, coming in with great expertise from an industry that has nothing to do with air traffic control, had considered the matter and decided that we needed privatisation.
  Conservative Members, who have made so much of the fact that we should protect the defence budget from the predations of Treasury Ministers, might like to know that there is a clear sign that the new reversal in policy comes directly from the Treasury, not because anyone has studied air traffic control operations and said that they need to be organised differently but because the Treasury is looking to pick up £600 million in a short time frame through privatisation because it wants the money before the next general election.
  The Select Committee on Transport considered the matter and took evidence. The airlines do not want the services privatised. No one who knows anything about the matter believes for one minute that one can deal with the real needs of British defence or aviation by privatising an important and fundamental service. It is not like water, where one could blackmail people into making a profit. This service is fundamental at every level of our life and it needs to be properly organised and protected.
  I saw the Minister with responsibility for aviation in another place. He was extremely courteous and explained, in his carefully chosen words, that the Department of Transport believed in "collective responsibility". I did not go to public school. I am sorry to say that, like a lot of people, I went to a state school. To me, that phrase means one thing—that someone else has taken decisions to which I am not a party and of which I do not approve.
  530
  That is exactly the case at the moment, but it is worse than that. It is now being suggested that Swanwick will be the only centre and the Scottish centre will be closed or will have just a shell operation, with all the facilities concentrated in Swanwick. Anyone who does not understand the risk that that presents to both civil and defence aviation is not taking a responsible attitude.
  Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of privatisation, to do such a thing would put at risk civil and defence aviation throughout the United Kingdom. The only way that the system could be maintained would be, for example, with some kind of contract with other national aviation centres. Is that what the Government want? Is that what they have decided? Why did the Secretary of State not take the opportunity to tell the House? He was here today. We have heard today how Ministers care about keeping the House informed. Why have they chosen not to do so? When I asked the Secretary of State, he had nothing to say. Indeed, he looked embarrassed.
  The reality is that Defence Ministers should have asked and answered a number of important questions today. Do they intend to reinstate the privatisation of national air traffic services? If so, who has been consulted? The Select Committee on Transport criticised the Ministry of Transport last time because of its lack of consultation. Who has been asked for their views? Does the list include the chief of staff? If that has happened and the Government have accepted the move, on what basis have they done so?
  Is it true that the air traffic control services and software installed at Swanwick are not capable of dealing with the new traffic and show dangerous signs of being unable to deal with the services that they will be required to deal with, with an existing oceanic centre and the Scottish centre, and without having to face up to double the normal traffic? Is it true that the Treasury is so desperate for money before the next general election that it intends to push the measure through the House by next February?
  Is it true that the Treasury does not like the idea of a management buy-out and therefore wants to bring in someone else? Who is this magical someone? Who is to have total economic and political control of the airlines of this country, not just in times of war but in times of peace? That is what we are talking about. We are talking about a small island with crowded air space and a limited number of areas in which we can train our forces. We will be faced with a privatised service, run for profit not for defence and not in any way responsible to the House, as it should be.
  If that is what we are facing, the Secretary of State is not only in clear dereliction of his stated duty but has a responsibility to explain to the House how he got into this position. Those questions should not merely be asked but answered. Clearly, the Secretary of State had no intention of telling anyone what had happened until the decisions had been taken. That is unacceptable. It is simply another example of a Government who have no sense of national pride or duty and who do not understand that defence does not mean handing over control of one's air space to someone else, but knowing what is going on in one's area irrespective of the pressures.
  The Minister should remember when he replies that the House has a right to that information. It has a right not to be bounced into something rapidly, with decisions being taken and the sale going ahead. The House will reject

  531
  many of the thoughts behind this absurd idea because it knows that it does not work. Ministers should at least have the honesty to try to justify at the Dispatch Box what they think they are going to do.
  7.47 pm
  Mr. Keith Mans: I hope that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) will not mind if I do not follow her far down the road that she took. Suffice it to say that I am not quite as prescriptive as she is about the way in which air traffic control should be operated. There are plenty of small examples of military aircraft being controlled by civilians in the private sector. I hope that the hon. Lady has picked up that last point, which is important. Equally, it is important that we spend adequate resources on our traffic control to ensure that both airliners in the commercial sector and military aircraft are safe. The resources are important and in that respect I sometimes worry about the Treasury's short-termism in cutting capital budgets for the national air traffic control system only to discover that we have a crisis on our hands a few years later. Beyond that, I will not go. I want to concentrate on some of the earlier contributions to this excellent debate.
  Over the past five years our armed forces have been asked to do more with less. I see that myself as a Reservist; I meet people in the Army and the Royal Air Force and occasionally in the Royal Navy. There is a fine line between expecting service men who joined because of their can-do spirit always to go that little step further— to complete the task properly, go where they are asked and stay up that extra hour at night or get up that extra hour early in the morning—and asking them to do too much, with too few people on the ground or in the air to carry out the task safely and properly. An element of frustration creeps into the system, particularly in the middle ranks, where people feel that they are not being given the tools to do the job or are apprehensive about personnel policies or about the latest study that they will have to analyse.
  We have reached the point at which we can go no further in cutting resources and expecting our aimed forces to complete the tasks that we set them as effectively as they do now. Sooner or later, something has to give. We are beginning to see that now in the difficulty that we have in recruiting infantrymen. That has happened for many reasons and many hon. Members have mentioned it tonight, so I shall not go into the details, but it is one symptom of the problems that arise if resources are cut too finely. We are under-recruited at present in all three services, although by only a small amount in the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force.
  I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to give us an idea, either in writing or later this evening, whether he thinks that under-recruitment will get worse next year or whether it has bottomed out, particularly in the infantry, and that the welcome steps that have been taken to improve it are having an effect. I should like the Government to go further and to reopen a few more of the recruiting offices that they have closed because they are an important shop window for the armed forces. They show that they are open for business rather than being closed to business which, I am sad to say, is the impression given over the past year or two.
  It is also worth mentioning the Bett report, which has often been referred to in previous debates but has not come up so much today. Those of us who still serve, as
  532
  Reserves or as Regulars, would like the report to be put on one side for a little longer, to give us a bit more stability in the armed forces. I am sure that that would aid recruitment.
  I said that we had gone far enough on spending. Some hon. Members will have heard me use this analogy before the increase—just the increase—in social security expenditure in the past five years is greater than this year's entire defence budget. That is worth reflecting on when it comes to priorities. In that context, I warmly welcome my party's commitment, made in writing at the party conference last week:
  "Only the Conservatives can offer a period of stability both in terms of size and funding of the Armed Forces."
  It is on the understanding that that stability in funding means no more cuts that I shall be prepared to support the Government tomorrow night. That commitment is important because it shows that this party believes that the cuts have gone far enough.
  I was interested when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned that last year's underspend was only £220 million, whereas last year we were told that it was likely to be in the region of £500 million and that that amount would be rolled forward to this year's defence budget. We were told that there would therefore be no cut in the actual amount spent in the current financial year. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to tell me whether, as a result of last year's smaller than estimated underspend, this year's outturn will be £280 million higher than estimated last year or whether there has been a £280 million cut from the figures that we were given then. Where have those cuts fallen, if they have occurred at all? Last year we seemed to be saying that we had not cut defence expenditure, because we had that extra £500 million, but now we are told that the underspend was not as large as we then thought.
  Having said that, I warmly welcome many of the savings that have been made in the defence budget in the past few years because they have enabled us to meet our commitment to ensure that the services are properly equipped. We have had a number of orders, and I commend my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and others, who fought hard for those in the summer; that they achieved them was no small feat. They were all desperately needed and included the Nimrod 2000, Storm Shadow, Brimstone and replacements for Fearless and Intrepid. They have ensured that we shall have a viable defence industry in the foreseeable future as well as achieving the primary task of equipping our armed forces properly.
  I am surprised that the Labour party constantly goes on about the need for defence diversification agencies. The fact is that as a result of the orders, companies such as British Aerospace are taking on staff. Many people will have seen the full-page colour photograph of Nimrod in the appointments section of The Times a few months ago, which clearly shows that the number of people employed in our defence industries has now bottomed out. We now have highly efficient defence industries that can look to the future with confidence, largely a result of the Government's commitment to the orders that I have already mentioned.
  I also warmly welcome the Secretary of State's commitment to Eurofighter 2000. The comments in the Daily Mail and the Daily Express this morning were sadly

  533
  ignorant of the facts. It is not a European Union aircraft. It follows a number of other aircraft that we have built together with our European partners outside the European Union but inside NATO: the Jaguar, built with the French, and the Tornado, built with the Italians and the Germans, are two examples. Eurofighter is coming in with fewer cost overruns than those two aircraft and in real terms is cheaper than the Tornado when one considers what it can do.
  The best indication of how good the aircraft is came in a comment made to me by a senior United States general, who said that if it had been produced on the other side of the Atlantic the United States air force would probably have ordered 1,000 by now. That is what the Americans think of the product and that is why it is a little sad that some of our national newspapers have not grasped the fact that it is a world-beating aircraft. One of the reasons for there being so much criticism of it is that the Americans are genuinely—and rightly—worried about its tremendous capabilities.
  I should like to dwell on one or two other projects. I sincerely hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to give a decision within the next few months on the METEOR 1239 future medium-range air-to-air missile. It is a state of the art missile. When money is spent on a platform, sufficient money must be spent on the weapons on that platform to ensure that it is used most effectively.
  I should also like to mention the future large aircraft project. It would be nice to know when we shall finally sign up to the European staff requirement. If we genuinely believe that the European part of NATO must be enhanced and we have an independent ability on this side of the Atlantic for strategic air lift, we need an aircraft of that sort. I am not saying that we must necessarily choose the FLA, but I should be interested to know whether any other aircraft is as cost-effective. I genuinely believe that current proposal to be good.
  Mr. Barry Jones: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Mans: Again, I am receiving support from the Labour party.
  I also very much welcome the fact that, should we procure the aircraft, it will be procured in a new and more cost-effective way, with much of the development money coming from industry. The aircraft will be procured as an airliner is procured by an airline rather than in the more ponderous way in which we have tended to procure military aircraft.
  Over the past five years, our armed forces have had to undergo two defence reviews "Options for Change" and the defence cost study. They may not have had the word "review" in the title—there may be a reason for that; I do not know—but to all intents and purposes they were defence reviews. It might be worth while for everybody to admit as much. I should have thought that the worst way to restore stability in our armed forces would be to have another defence review, as proposed by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) in an article in The House Magazine this week. I understand that she was stating the policy of Her Majesty's Opposition.
  534
  I do not believe that any further defence reviews would enhance stability. They would do the opposite, making it harder for us to recruit the right calibre of people for the armed forces and making it harder for those people to do the jobs that we assign them.
  If we are to have a review—or, more specifically, if the Labour party says that we should have one if it gets into Government—surely the country is entitled to know what Labour Members mean by a defence review. The document "New Labour New Life for Britain" contains fewer than 300 words on defence—shorter than the article by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West this week. That gives an indication of the priority attached to defence by the Labour party.
  It is also significant that the photographs take more space than the text. The most significant photograph—I shall not mention the other two—is of a British soldier with a UN helmet. That clearly shows the defence priorities of the Labour party.
  Mr. John Spellar: May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the text attached to the picture of the soldier, which he did not quote? It says:
  "The British army plays a critical role in UN operations".
  I believe that that is agreed across the House, unless the hon. Gentleman disapproves of the involvement of the British Army in that role.
  Mr. Mans: Not at all. I agree that, under certain circumstances it is right that British soldiers should be involved in UN operations. I am pointing out that the choice of a British soldier wearing a UN helmet rather than a NATO helmet shows the relative priorities attached by the Labour party to different aspects of defence.
  Let me pass on. [Interruption.] All right, I shall not pass on. I am much more interested in knowing what the defence review will do. The British people will want to know. That is what elections are all about. If the commitments are to change, where is the list of priorities? Will we reduce our commitment to NATO? Will we withdraw part of the British Army from Europe? Will we shut the base in Cyprus and perhaps withdraw our commitment to the UN in separating the Greek and Turkish Cypriots? Are we to cut the Royal Air Force and perhaps combine some of its functions with our European partners? Are we to get rid of our amphibious capabilities in the Royal Navy?
  Those are a few ideas, but Labour Members could easily tell us now. They have all the information. They can tell us what their defence priorities are for this country, but they do not want to go beyond the general statement that they want a defence review.
  Mr. Miller: The hon. Gentleman was present when I intervened earlier on the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin). As he is asking important questions, will he tell the House whether the Government will confirm the order for the Batch 2 Trafalgar class submarine? That is much more imminent than the issues which he is talking about, which are eight or nine months away.
  Mr. Mans: I am not a member of the Government. [Interruption.] I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I am as hopeful as he is that the Government will confirm the

  535
  order, but that is a different issue. He has raised a specific procurement order. I am talking about a political party's commitment to defence, which ought to be put before the public before the election is called.
  I strongly believe that soldiers, sailors and airmen join the armed forces to defend this country, either directly or through NATO or other alliances, allowing the rest of us to go about our lives in peace. They do not join, in the first instance at least, to don a white helmet and keep apart warring factions in third-world countries. They carry out such peacekeeping roles well, but that should never become their primary task. I get the impression that Labour Members would like that to be our armed forces' primary task. I associate myself completely with the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who made that point at the end of his speech much more eloquently than I could. Our armed forces exist to defend us rather than to carry out peacekeeping role.
  Finally, I am old-fashioned on expenditure on national security. I still believe, even in a post-cold war environment, that spending on defence should be the first call on the Treasury, not the last. Only when we have decided what we need to defend ourselves adequately do we cut up the remainder of the cake for the other, very worth while, public services.
  8.8 pm
  Ms Rachel Squire: I shall begin, as other right hon. and hon. Members have done, by expressing my sympathy for the family of Warrant Officer Bradwell, who was killed last week by terrorists. I am also deeply dismayed at the renewed bombing throughout the United Kingdom. We have to continue to hope that the wishes of the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland for peace and justice may yet be realised. We in this House will do all that we can to achieve that.
  As other hon. Members have said, the end of the cold war brought great uncertainty and insecurity to the world in which we live. In Europe, we are seeing a resurgence of aggressive nationalism that fosters bitter and deadly conflicts and instability. The peace settlement in former Yugoslavia is fragile. I think that it is holding only because of the excellent work undertaken by IFOR.
  While the former eastern bloc countries clamour at the door of NATO and the European Union for full membership, Russia is politically fragile and volatile, and deeply suspicious of NATO's intentions, whatever Mr. Lebed may have said in Brussels last week. I agree with the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) earlier this evening on that subject. There is widespread concern about the regulation and control of Russia's nuclear arsenal, about possible conflict in the Ukraine, about the possibility of renewed conflict in Chechnya and about the Russian reaction to the Taliban movement in Afghanistan.
  We dare not predict, even one day ahead, the next development in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the middle east, which threatens us all—as the Secretary of State said, so, too, does the heightened tension in Korea. Other problems include the activities of Iraq, the recent deaths in Cyprus, the continued military build-up in Turkey and the conflict in Algeria where, in the past four years, between 30,000 and 40,000 civilians and military personnel have died. I have mentioned just a few of the conflicts that are creating instability on the international scene.
  536
  It is against that background that our armed forces, which have been severely cut over the past six years, now have more operational commitments throughout the world than at any time since the second world war. We are proud of them and of the way in which they continue to be admired and respected worldwide. Their achievements have all too often been hindered, not helped, by the Government's gross mismanagement of defence policy, which has led to widespread overstretch and lack of morale. Increasingly, the armed forces are no longer clear on their purpose and what they are there to defend, which is why the Opposition are so determined that there should be a strategic review to bring some stability and security.
  I have not yet had the pleasure of seeing The House Magazine, on which the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) was commenting. I do not know who chose the photographs; I was not consulted, but was simply asked, at late notice, to provide 300 words. I disagree with the hon. Member for Wyre when he claims that the defence costs studies in "Options for Change" were defence reviews. My view—and certainly the view of my constituents, who have been heavily hit by the impact of those studies—was that they were Treasury-driven defence cuts. The comments of the Chairman of the Defence Select Committee, the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), and the comments made in the Select Committee's report on the defence estimates demonstrate the Committee's concern about the Treasury-driven nature of the defence costs studies and "Options for Change".
  Mr. Mans: How does the hon. Lady explain the fact that former Front-Bench spokesmen of the Labour party have called those two exercises defence reviews?
  Ms Squire: I do not recall them doing that.
  Mr. Mans: The hon. Lady was not here.
  Ms Squire: I may not have been here at the time but, equally, I am not sure that the hon. Member for Wyre was present when my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) was explaining in detail Labour's policy and our desire for a strategic defence review. I am certainly not here tonight to pretend that the decisions— both short and long-term—that need to be taken are easy. I intend to refer later to some of those crucial decisions, such as the enlargement of NATO and the role of the Western European Union. We must recognise the need to achieve some clarity and the sensible matching of military resources and commitments, and the importance of bringing security and stability to both our service personnel and the civilian work force who back them up.
  In that context, I do not think that hon. Members will be surprised if I say a few words about Rosyth, which has experienced another painful and turbulent 12 months at the hands of the Government's defence policies. It is easy for those cocooned in ministerial limousines and Whitehall corridors to ignore the harsh human consequences of their decisions. Ministers do not have to deal with grown men in tears because, after 30 years of loyal service to their country, they have been handed a compulsory redundancy notice. I want to pay tribute to the loyalty and commitment of all those who do not take the decisions, but who are placed in the firing line when it comes to implementing them.

  537
  Some of the statements in the defence estimates surprised me. For example, paragraph 538, which deals with civilian personnel, states:
  "Retaining and motivating staff of the quality needed to maintain a major Department of State"
  is a major priority. Ministers should try telling that to my constituents.
  Paragraph 614 states that negotiations are continuing for the sale of Rosyth royal dockyard. It then uses the dreadful phrase:
  "announcements will be made in due course."
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and I, and those involved at Rosyth, have been hearing that statement constantly for the past four and a half years. The defence estimates continue:
  "The Department has been seeking to improve the timeliness and quality of its reporting to Parliament".
  It has been dodging, diving and ducking crucial announcements and decisions. I agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who highlighted so well the way in which the Government are trying to deal with the privatisation of air traffic control.
  Will the Minister of State for Defence Procurement at least answer tonight some of the crucial questions involving Rosyth—questions that have been raised with him over months, if not years? Where is the contract for the allocated programme for the work of Rosyth dockyard? What is the Government's intention in relation to the pension fund surplus? Why has the Rosyth 2000 project not been given a complete go-ahead? Why is the only definite statement that we have heard that the decommissioned submarines are to stay until 2012, which, as I have told the Minister, contradicts what we were led to believe by previous Ministers and Secretaries of State? We were led to believe that if the submarine refitting work went from Rosyth, so too would the decommissioned submarines. Unless the Government are about to announce a change of plan for submarine refitting, what safety and security measures will there be? If the Minister will not make an announcement on the proposed privatisation of the dockyard tonight, will he at least give us a definite date when his Department will do so?
  Mr. Arbuthnot: I hope that the hon. Lady will agree that, when she met me to talk about the decommissioning of nuclear submarines, she accepted that the Government had not led anyone to believe what she suggests that they were led to believe, but that perhaps some people took certain meanings that they would have found more comfortable for themselves, so the Government have not misled anyone about decommissioning nuclear submarines.
  Ms Squire: I appreciate the points that the Minister made at that meeting, but I suggest to him that, at the least, the Government have not made their policies and their view as clear as they should have done to people employed by the Ministry of Defence. It has certainly been believed at Rosyth that the Government had made commitments that, if the submarine refitting work went, so too would the decommissioned submarines.
  538
  The Ministry of Defence police and guards have not been mentioned. I welcomed the Select Committee's eighth report on those issues and shared its fear that reducing costs might lead to lower standards. Will the Government act on the Committee's recommendations and call a halt to giving commercial security firms further contracts for additional work until there is legislation to regulate such firms and lay down minimum standards?
  I welcome the fact that the Select Committee has urged the Government to say that this year's "Statement on the Defence Estimates" will not be undermined, as it has been previously, by further defence cuts announced in the Budget.
  I repeat some points about the Navy that were made earlier. I welcome the statement on the replacement of Fearless and Intrepid, but I fully share the concern of the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside and the Select Committee about the size of the naval fleet. I support the Committee's recommendation that the next "Statement on the Defence Estimates" should include a table on the strength of the fleet, giving a clearer picture of the number of ships ready to go to sea within 30 days. I support the Committee's concern about the need for more frigates before the common new generation frigate project Horizon enters service, especially if we are to retain industrial shipbuilding capacity.
  That leads me to reinforce some of the arguments that have been made about how crucial our defence manufacturing industry is. The past few years have been a time of unprecedented change and uncertainty; defence employment has dropped by at least 47 per cent. since 1980. I welcomed the announcements that the Government made just before the summer recess in respect of Nimrod, the conventionally armed stand-off missile and some other defence procurement issues, because there was tremendous anxiety throughout the defence manufacturing industry that those decisions would be delayed. Such delays have led to the loss of employment, as is evidenced by the experience of the Kvaerner shipyard at Govan.
  Given some of the arguments that were made about the Government's policy on defence procurement, I wish to highlight strong criticisms of that policy made in the report by the National Audit Office. They show why it is important to have a clear policy on defence procurement and on defence diversification.
  I fully support the Eurofighter project, and I hope that the British Government will bring pressure to bear on the German Government to meet their commitments to support the project. Labour's policy on procurement issues, and on taking a lead in developing European partnership as well as developing technological exchanges with the United States, is spot on. We need a clear rationale, and we need a defence diversification agency to help us promote and develop research and development and education and training.
  I am aware that many hon. Members wish to speak, and issues that I intended to discuss, such as the Gulf, have been ably covered. I shall therefore move towards a conclusion by mentioning some of this country's future security challenges, which have been discussed.
  I began by highlighting some of the great instability that we face. One difficulty, referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, East and others, is that we do not always make it clear, when we speak about the

  539
  defence of Europe, what we mean by "Europe" and how far to the east and south that definition should extend. Some Conservative Members appear to believe that Europe should end at Dover. I would say to those who take such an isolationist view that no country can realise its security objectives in isolation, and that Britain's interests are bound up with stability and security in Europe and a stable international environment.
  I support the Government's commitment to NATO and its role in building security and stability in Europe in the wider field. We have witnessed the benefits of "Partnership for Peace" and several other mechanisms, especially in achieving wider military interoperability, which has been demonstrated by the implementation force in former Yugoslavia. We need to proceed with NATO enlargement, but to do so in a way that promotes and encourages peaceful behaviour among the would-be partners and does not create new barriers and divisions in Europe. Russia must be made to feel that she is a key player in that process, because not to do so will feed the enemies within her borders.
  I support those calling for a continuation of the implementation force in former Yugoslavia, as obviously there is not sufficient stability there for economic and civilian development to progress if those forces withdraw. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) spoke about trying to ensure that the United States is not persuaded by its own isolationists to withdraw from committing ground forces to such operations.
  In conclusion, we must ensure that the Western European Union is developed as the European contribution to NATO; we must continue to build on the joint task force approach; and we must push for an urgent review of the United Nations charter and organisation and the whole debate about peacekeeping and peacemaking.
  There are many challenges ahead. I look forward to the "dishonourable discharge" of Conservative Members and the introduction of a defence and security policy for this country by a Labour Government, who will promote the unique role of our armed forces, build international peace and security, and restore the pride and morale of all who serve this country so well.
  8.29 pm
  Mr. Robert Key: All that I can say to the conclusion of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) is: heaven forfend that that should ever happen.
  One of the intriguing aspects of taking part in a defence debate is that however many of one's lines may have been taken in the preceding four hours or so there is always a lot left to say. I do not intend to speak for four hours, hon. Members will be relieved to hear, but there are some things that need to be said which have not yet been said.
  One can hardly represent a constituency such as Salisbury, which has more than 11,000 Ministry of Defence jobs, without drawing attention to some of the issues that confront its Member of Parliament and which I believe the House may wish to consider. I refer first to the new shape and role of Land Command, which has been successfully up and running now for the best part of this year. Its relationship with the rest of the military structure has been a huge success.
  540
  Salisbury plain training area is being increasingly used, and it has been managed with great sensitivity by the defence land agent and by the commanding officer of the Salisbury plain training area. Great sensitivity and ecological care have gone into its management.
  The Royal Artillery at Larkhill has also played a notable role in the conservation of the Salisbury plain area. Boscombe Down has undergone huge changes to its function and role—as well as to its title, which seems to change every year or so. Still, we know it as Boscombe Down and I expect that the House will wish to know it as such too. It has undergone many changes of personnel and function, and those aspects remain under consideration.
  It is always a source of mystification and annoyance to local people that Porton Down should be referred to as such when there are two discrete organisations there—the centre for applied microbiology and research, and the protection and life services division of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. All these add up to a significant defence science base of crucial importance to the welfare of our forces and to their success—linked, of course, to the defence nuclear, biological and chemical centre at Winterbourne.
  Even the Royal Navy manages to get in on the act in my constituency, with the arms depot at West Dean. It would also be quite wrong to pass over the Tilshead cadet training centre, and the Old Sarum establishment, the headquarters of—among many other organisations—the Army Families Federation.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West mentioned MOD police, who are important in the Salisbury plain area, the military police and the MOD guard force. Following legislation on home service engagement, we also have the Military Provost guard service. Finally, if it is true that an army marches on its stomach, we have the NAAFI at Amesbury, which faces a challenging future under exciting new management.
  Bosnia has already been mentioned many times, and I should like to concentrate on one or two of its family aspects. I was immensely proud to be a member of the OSCE observer team at the recent elections. One incident in particular encapsulated my pride in the IFOR troops, especially the British contingent thereof. It took place in a little village called Kljaci, not far from Travnik and just up the road from Vitez. When the polls closed at 7 o'clock in the evening and things were getting a little tense—no one was quite sure how the ballot boxes were going to get down to the town hall—there came the familiar rumble of a Warrior in the village square, heralding the arrival of the 1st Battalion Royal Green Jackets, who had visited the village five times in the course of the day, taking it in turns to have cups of coffee with the villagers and obtaining their complete confidence in the IFOR presence. They rendered the whole election process believable, free and fair to that village. I pay them my compliments; the incident sums up the important role of the Royal Green Jackets and other IFOR troops in Bosnia.
  The Army Families Federation represents all who support the front line but who are at home coping with the problems faced by their spouses in theatre. I am delighted that the federation is so active in a practical and supporting role.
  Only last Friday the wife of a soldier serving in Bosnia came to see me in my surgery with an appalling mess to sort out while her husband was serving overseas. It was a

  541
  bureaucratic problem of the sort with which we are all familiar from our surgeries. In addition to doing my bit to help, I was able to tell her to get in touch with the AFF, which has someone who can deal with her problems and give her the support that she needs so much.
  The federation has brought several continuing problems to my attention. For instance, the telephone links between Germany and Bosnia are still not as good as they should be. That matters a great deal. Moreover, British families still feel that they are losing out financially while other nations' soldiers are making money out of being in theatre in Bosnia. I know that the MOD has a tenable explanation for that, but it still rankles with Army families.
  Overstretch continues to present problems for families too. Some men come back from Canada or Northern Ireland and have to leave again almost immediately for a year, and there is no guarantee of stability when they return. I do not know how much more of this the families are going to have to take. Sometimes the family dimension is overlooked when the problem of overstretch is under consideration.
  The Army Families Federation has also asked me to mention quarantine for pets, an issue about which I feel strongly. I have pursued it with the MOD and with Ministers in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The problem particularly affects Army families. Business men and diplomats can afford to put their pets in quarantine, and they have considerable freedom to decide whether to accept a posting overseas. Not so Army families, a number of whom have been to see me about this. They have bought dogs in Germany, or taken their dogs there, in the expectation of a two-year term—only to be relocated back to the United Kingdom within a matter of months. One family was then sent straight back to Germany. Meanwhile their pets languish, and children and parents alike miss them.
  I strongly support moves towards inoculation, microchipping and passports for pets. We should perhaps start with a trial with the rabies-free island of Cyprus.
  I turn next to procurement issues arising out of the Select Committee's response to the White Paper of earlier this year. Will the Minister of State for Defence Procurement let us know whether he has come to a conclusion about the future of the royal yacht Britannia? That is not of burning military significance but it is of great significance to many people in this country, to the Department of Trade and Industry, to our businesses and to the diplomatic services, whose members make use of the facility. The Select Committee had a great deal to say on the subject. I certainly hope that the successor to Britannia will be built in a British yard, will be run by the Royal Navy and will fly the White Ensign, fulfilling an important diplomatic and ceremonial role.
  Another issue arose from the Committee considering the Armed Forces Bill on which I had the honour to serve. We learned from our visit to Greenwich—quite apart from the issues surrounding the future of the royal naval college and the buildings—that there is also the issue of the nuclear reactor affectionately known as Jason. Has its future yet been decided? Perhaps it has been put in quarantine.
  A surprising problem faced by the military in the aftermath of the Gulf war and Bosnia derives from the fact that, for many years to come, in any fast-moving battle the
  542
  armoured infantry's effectiveness will be restricted by what is only a small element of the infantry's vehicles. It is clear from all the arms exercises that the FV 432, which is a mortar platform, is very slow. The whole Army has to go as slow as the slowest vehicle, which is the mortar platform. So either it goes without the mortar or everybody slows down. That seems crazy when we have staring us in the face a well-proven vehicle called Warrior. We need not invent it again but could simply put the mortars on the Warrior. We would then see a significant upgrading of our armoured infantry's capability. I hope that Ministers will consider the operational case for the Warrior, not least because it is made by GKN Defence, which is a significant part of the British and the west's procurement industry.
  Will the Minister address some defence procurement problems? The first is the private finance initiative. May I put it in the context of Yeoman, the £2.5 billion project to replace Britain's military radio communications capability. The contract has cost tens of millions of pounds for the two companies concerned, Racal and Siemens, and decision time is only a couple of years away. A PFI initiative looks extremely attractive. It will be an immensely complex process and will involve converting 25,000 land platforms, including tanks and helicopters, to give them access to major data highways. The entire Army must be retrained. If we are to turn it into a PFI, we need some clues about how the Ministry of Defence is thinking about the Bowman project. Much could be gained from a PFI, but blind man's buff is inappropriate for a sophisticated procurement project like Bowman. The two Racal facilities in my constituency would like a clue about what the Ministry of Defence wants.
  On export licences, British exports are undoubtedly being inhibited, particularly with regard to straightforward destinations for straightforward products. For example, Pains Wessex in my constituency took nine weeks to get a licence to export naval decoy rounds to Australia. It has a joint development contract with Saab of Sweden and has been doing the work for some three years, but the latest round of export licences took seven months to achieve. In the process, the Swedes felt discriminated against and could not imagine why they were causing so much trouble. There have been similar problems with Japan.
  A fast track administrative system should be available for straightforward destinations and products. The DTI has been looking at the matter for a long time. It receives about 50,000 applications a year for defence export licences and rejects only a handful after a long period. Subject to the usual inspection and audit, and to severe penalties, there could be a self-licensing system for some exports. A grading system could be introduced in which grade A would involve the sale of non-offensive products to non-offensive countries, such as smoke grenades to Norway, Denmark or Canada; grade B would involve offensive products to non-offensive countries, such as high explosives to NATO countries; and grade C would embrace the sale of offensive products to special countries, which would require special treatment. In none of those cases would licences be granted to prohibited countries such as Iraq or Iran.
  The other day on a wet Sunday morning I visited Salisbury plain. I congratulate the Government on their Youth in the Community initiative, and I thank the Home

  543
  Office and the Ministry of Defence for giving an important opportunity to young people in Wiltshire. I drove to Tilshead on Salisbury plain at the invitation of the Western Wessex reserve forces and cadets to attend part of a "challenger weekend". The chief constable of Wiltshire had kindly offered the services of his community officers to provide a link with those working among youths in our community who had strayed from the straight and narrow and received a police caution. The young people needed to be identified and their parents convinced of the value of such a project.
  That was the first time that the Wiltshire Army Cadet Force had ever conducted such an event, but I am sure that it will not be the last. Twenty-four hours earlier, some 70 aggressive and spiky individualists had arrived on Salisbury plain. They were used to violence from other young people and adult's. They had virtually no concept of self-discipline and certainly no concept of group discipline. The cadet force instructors, together with youth and social workers, had spent 24 hours taking them from one Army establishment to another, with initiative tests and assault courses. They had been out on the plain during the night map reading—or not—in the dark, and observing regular Army exercises through image intensifiers. After a few hours' sleep, they had woken to be piled in the back of armoured personnel carriers and given some real action on the training area. When I arrived on Sunday morning I found the beginnings of a coherent group of motivated young people who, although clearly exhausted, were bubbling over with enthusiasm for what one described to me as the most exciting weekend of his life. They had been shown and had to learn what group dependency and discipline mean, and had learnt about self-esteem and respect for others. When they had arrived on the Saturday, they had refused to do what they were told by adults and had to be cajoled into taking basic safety measures. By Sunday morning, they were talking happily with their Member of Parliament and standing in a straight line while the lord lieutenant chatted to them quietly about the value of discipline. I congratulate warmly the Wiltshire Army Cadet Force on the success of its first "challenger weekend" and I hope that the Government will extend and expand their successful Youth in the Community initiative.
  To hon. Members for whom defence is a critical issue, last year's defence budget came as a disappointment in the sense that it was less than we expected. A number of my hon. Friends have drawn attention to that and the Select Committee report spells it out. It was clear then, as it is now, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, with his inside knowledge of the Treasury, had fought successfully to claw back hundreds of millions of pounds and I congratulate him on that. I also congratulate him on tonight's speech and on last week's party conference speech. He has put down important markers about Britain's defence stance for the future in relation to NATO and Europe.
  If the Labour party was hoping that I and other Conservative members of the Defence Committee would join them in the Lobby, they could not have tabled a sillier amendment to tonight's main motion. Wild horses would not drag me through the Division Lobby if the vote had anything to do with yet another defence review. Moreover, I have yet to meet a serving member of the armed forces who thinks that it is a vaguely sensible idea, and I meet thousands of them. The Prime Minister has
  544
  given me an assurance about our defence stance in a letter of 22 August, so there is no doubt that I will support the Government on this. Defence Ministers must know that we know that the problem lies with the Treasury, so I for one will turn my fire on the Treasury and the Chief Secretary as we approach the Budget. I shall look carefully to see exactly how far down the pile of press releases from the Treasury is the section dealing with defence. So my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench can rest assured of my unfailing support for their efforts to fight in the public spending round not only for no further reductions in the defence budget but for an increase in it. That is what my constituents not only want but expect from the Government
  8.46 pm
  Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I remind the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) that, when arms sales to Iraq took place, there was no inhibition at all and Members of Parliament were not given straightforward answers to straightforward questions. While Ministers continue to shelter behind phrases like "disproportionate costs", I hope that the rules are tightly adhered to.
  I spent much of September following closely events in northern Iraq. After 12 days in the United States talking to people in the White House and the State Department and members of Congress, I am convinced that they are embarrassed by the United States' response to events in northern Iraq. Although at the beginning we thought that the response was necessary, it turned out to be the wrong response. As I said to the Secretary of State earlier, the result is that Saddam Hussein has consolidated his position in northern Iraq. In 1991 we promised the Kurds and the Iraqi Opposition that we would protect them against invasion by Saddam Hussein, but that has proved to be a very hollow promise. We have no short, medium or long-term policy regarding Iraq.
  I put one question to the Minister. When I visited northern Iraq in January in an attempt to arrange the release of prisoners taken by both sides during that country's unfortunate civil war, I discovered that both Kurdish leaders were ready to travel to Washington to sign the peace agreement. The Patriotic Union of Kurdistan released 44 prisoners and both sides were anxious to travel to Washington to sign the peace agreement which was the culmination of discussions that had taken place in Ireland and elsewhere.
  Upon my return from Iraq in January, I met a Minister from the Foreign Office and told him what the two Kurdish leaders had said. I also asked him to get Britain involved in the peace talks rather than allowing us to sit on the sidelines as the Turks had insisted. I thought that the Minister would take up my suggestion as both Kurdish leaders were in agreement: they said that the Americans were relatively inexperienced at dealing with the Kurds and that Britain had far more expertise in that area. They wanted Britain to be actively involved in the continuation of the peace process.
  However, nothing was done: Britain was content to sit on the sidelines because the Turks objected to our involvement in the negotiations. What kind of country is prepared to allow the Turks to push it on to the sidelines rather than play an active role in the peace process and thereby avoid loss of life and heavy expenditure? The Americans told me that the peace agreement was held up

  545
  because Clinton was having trouble with his budget—the Republicans had pulled the rag from under him and the budget was frozen. What happened between February and August when the budget was unfrozen? In February, it would have cost $3 million to install peace monitors in northern Iraq, but in September it cost $200 million to send 44 cruise missiles et cetera to southern Iraq as part of an exercise that proved absolutely useless. It did not fulfil its stated objective to protect the Kurds in northern Iraq. What sort of value for money is that—$3 million in February compared with $200 million in August?
  What did the British Government spend on that exercise and what is the British Government's attitude to the American response to the events? I suspect that Britain supported the US in a show of solidarity. At the time, I must admit that I was glad of some response from the British Government, but I was waiting for a further response and a commitment to fulfil our promise of 1991: to provide a safe haven and to protect the Kurds and the Iraqi Opposition from further incursion by Saddam Hussein.
  That policy clearly failed and has been changed. When I asked the Americans at all levels what had caused the delay, they looked embarrassed. When I posed that question at one meeting, a former American ambassador approached me and said, "I can answer your question it was incompetence and ignorance." In that case, were we also incompetent and ignorant? We allowed the space of time between January and August to elapse and failed to seize the opportunity to bring about peace in northern Iraq.
  One of those who chaired the negotiations said, "It may not have worked anyway." We do not know whether it would have worked; it may have, but we did not give peace a chance. That is a big failing on the part of those involved.
  I turn now to arms sales. It is estimated that at least 100 wars have occurred since 1945, resulting in the deaths of more than 20 million people. As usual, civilians are the major casualties of those kinds of wars—women and children are killed in disproportionate numbers. There are at least 27 million refugees world wide and probably the same number of displaced people within their own countries. The former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, northern Iraq and Afghanistan provide recent stark reminders of civil war.
  More than 1 billion people throughout the world—more than one fifth of humanity—live in abject poverty. In a world of plenty, lack of proper food and easily preventable diseases kill a quarter of a million children every week. The Brundtland report, which was hailed at the time, pointed out that major progress could be made in tackling four of the world's major problems—the lack of clean water, the destruction of tropical rain forests, the spread of deserts, and uncontrolled population growth— for the expenditure of less than one month's global arms spending.
  Of course, wars will not end nor the world's problems be solved simply by industrialised countries adopting more responsible arms export policies. However, in many countries—including our own—if only a quarter of military spending were allocated to health, housing and education, we would be much better off.
  546
  Today the United Kingdom seems to be particularly proud of its record as one of the world's largest arms exporters. The United Kingdom actually promotes the export of arms at the taxpayers' expense through the Defence Export Services Organisation and export credit guarantees. DESO, which is a branch of the MOD, exists to promote and support British arms sales throughout the world. Its running costs amount to at least £16 million per year. In 1994, more than £3 billion worth of military equipment left the United Kingdom destined for other countries. In 1994, almost £543 million was provided in export credit guarantees for those exports. Scott illustrated only too well how export credit guarantees supporting the sale of arms can go wrong—for example, the £652 million that was paid in export credit guarantees to promote arms sales to Iraq. If we were to provide that level of support to civilian industries in the future, it would be better for the British economy and British jobs. The construction industry, for example, employs about 1.3 million people and that is about three times as many as the defence industry. Construction exports amount to about £4 billion a year, which is more than the total of defence exports.
  Some people argue that if the United Kingdom will not sell arms to nasty dictators, someone else will. That may be true, but it cannot be ethical. We would not use that argument to support the state selling cocaine or child pornography. This country, which at least has some world reputation as a decent democracy, should not measure itself against such low standards.
  Those who argue that jobs must be the main consideration must also look at the facts. In the 12 years up to 1994, jobs directly or indirectly dependent on the military industry fell by more than half, from 740,000 to 360,000. Of those jobs, 40,000 are directly dependent on exports and 40,000 are indirectly dependent. The Government underwrite arms exports by £1 billion a year. That is a subsidy of £12,500 a job each year and I am sure that many non-defence industries are rightly jealous of such support.
  Even with the shrinkage in the number of jobs, the British economy is still more reliant on military production than any other in Europe, a specialisation which has proved something of a liability over the past few years as defence budgets have fallen. Given that the world market is set to decline by 20 per cent. by 2000, I think—and other people have made the same point—that the Government should develop a diversification strategy to avoid future job losses. That, of course, is the policy of the Labour party. The difficulty of shifting from making weapons to other products has been overcome in the past. Western countries adapted after the second world war and people went back to peacetime jobs.
  For a start, we could stop the sale of arms to some of the worst regimes. Surely the United Kingdom could lead the world, as a major arms-selling country, if we just stopped encouraging and subsidising the arms trade in countries with the worst human rights abuses. Unless the main exporters of arms take a responsible attitude, there is every likelihood that major weapons systems will become the properties of countries which give barely a thought to human rights. One of the many lessons taught by the Gulf war is that international arms sales should never be governed only by commercial considerations.
  The result of ignoring the morality of arms sales is now all too obvious, post-Scott. Arms are not like cars or fridges, since their function is to threaten or to kill. Their

  547
  export, therefore, must be considered with greater ethical care. Millions of innocent people have been killed in conflicts all over the world since 1990 and their deaths have been fuelled by the sale and export of weapons. As one of the world's leading suppliers, we must accept our responsibility for a deadly trade which ruins local economies, stunts development, increases regional instability and is responsible for massive human rights abuses.
  9.2 pm
  Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Lady is probably the real voice of the Labour party and I could see her colleagues on the Front Bench squirming at some of her comments. I shall not follow her route other than to say that if the job had been finished in Iraq—in my personal view—the problems in northern Iraq today would be different. We did not finish the job and we are paying the price for that.
  As the House knows, I have an interest to declare having served more than 40 years as a pilot and instructor in the volunteer reserve. I now hold an honorary appointment that gives me direct access to many aspects of RAF activity. I have recently spent a week flying at RAF Syerston and attending, at Cranwell, the making of a "This Is Your Life" programme about the life of the leader of the Red Arrows. My glider was used in some of the flying sequences, which was how I got in on the act.
  I, too, wish to express my condolences to the wife and family of Warrant Officer Bradwell. It is sad that all the hopes that we had about Northern Ireland have come to nought.
  I welcome my right hon. Friend's introduction to the debate and, in particular, I noted his comments about the armed forces' need for stability. We would all, of course, say "Hear, hear" to that and I would recommend that we would probably best serve that need by shelving the Bett report. It should be kicked into touch. If we are determined somehow to keep something happening, we could spend some time consulting the families involved. Perhaps that would keep things going for a while.
  I have no qualms about the future of military housing. Ownership is not as important as use. I take that view about many things. I am confident that those running military housing will have enough knowledge of the Royal Air Force and sufficient background—I have in mind Sandy Hunter of the RAF, an old friend of mine— to look after the interests of the military.
  I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench on the Nimrod replacement for the RAF and on the conventional stand-off weapon and the anti-armour weapon. We were told about the orders shortly before the House rose for the recess. I realise that it was touch and go whether we would get answers to our questions in time. I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on getting things done before the recess.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) that defence should have first call on Treasury funds, not last. Defence of the realm is the first duty of any Government.
  The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) talked about the new Scottish centre. I agree with her that there is a need for a new centre. Anyone who understands the operation of the national air traffic services, as I do, knows that the RAF has a substantial input.
  548
  I am not unhappy about the public finance initiative or privatisation. I support both approaches and the sooner we get ahead, the better. One of the problems with Government-run bodies is that funding is not available when required because the Government of the day will not allow spending from time to time. That is not the way to run the national air traffic services. That is why I welcome it getting into the private sector by one means or another.
  It will not surprise my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench to hear that, in the short time available to me, I wish to concentrate on a matter in which I have a deep interest—the Air Cadets and the Air Training Corps. I remind the House that the Air Cadets is both the ATC and the Combined Cadet Force Air Force Section— that is the RAF cadets of the Combined Cadet Force. It is often forgotten that there are two separate bodies.
  I remind the House that the Air Cadet charter states that the object shall be to
  "promote and encourage among young people a practical interest in aviation and the Royal Air Force; provide training which will be useful both in the services and in civilian life; foster the spirit of adventure and develop qualities of leadership and good citizenship.
  I further remind the House of the size of the Air Cadets. There are 34,000 ATC cadets, 3,500 probationers and 8,500 cadets in the Combined Cadet Force, RAF section. There are 46,000 boys and girls in the Air Cadets. In addition, there are 10,000 adult staff, of whom 4,250 are officers and adult warrant officers. The remainder of the adults are civilian instructors. That is a total personnel of 56,000.
  It is worth drawing attention to that figure, so as to understand that the Air Cadets and its parent service are now about the same size. That helps us to understand that in many parts of the country the only light blue uniforms ever seen are those worn by the cadets and the volunteer adults.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench will know that there is a review of the Air Cadet Council under way. The council is the senior body of the ATC. It acts as an adviser to the Royal Air Force Board on ATC matters. It is not the senior body of the Combined Cadet Force RAF section, which has separate funding arrangements from the Air Training Corps.
  I have no objections to the review of the council and its role, so I did not communicate views for or against the review when I was advised of it. I was, however, surprised and concerned when I heard that the Royal Air Force, through the personnel and training command, and Commandant Cranwell were to conduct a review of the public funding of the Air Cadet organisation. I was concerned about another review following so soon after the uncertainty of the defence cost studies, when Headquarters Air Cadets was moved from Newton to Cranwell, the AOC post of Air Cadets was removed from the Commandant Air Cadets to the Commandant Cranwell—a move to which I objected—and the budget was cut from £23 million to £18.7 million. The defence cost studies led to real cuts in air experience flying and to huge pressure on every budget, including public works and property budgets.
  The civilian members of the Air Cadet Council and I recorded our concern about how fragile the morale of volunteer staff is during defence cost studies. Increasingly, many of them are questioning the

  549
  commitment of the Royal Air Force, at all levels, to the Air Cadet organisation—although not at the highest level, because I have no doubt that the Chief of Air Staff and the Air Force Board fully support the Air Cadet organisation. I have no doubt that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench also support the Air Cadet organisation, and I know for sure that those on the Opposition Front Bench do.
  I warn my right hon. Friend that it will not be easy to sell this review to the adult volunteers. It will be essential to make it clear that this is not another device to cut the Air Cadet budget, because otherwise many of the volunteers may give up. At a time of increased crime among the young, it would be crazy to put at risk an organisation that, in the words of its charter, fosters qualities of leadership and good citizenship—and, boy, does it do that well. That is why I recommended to the Commander in Chief of Personnel and Training, Air Marshal Sir David Cousins, that the terms of reference and the make-up of the review team should recognise the fragility of adult morale, thus making it transparent that it is not a review to save money and reduce the Air Cadet budget and that savings would lead to an increase in the provision of flying and summer camp allocations.
  The Bulldog replacement programme is a good example of where the proposed replacement aircraft will bring about substantial revenue savings. I want to see those revenue savings ploughed back into additional flying for the cadets. I have been promised that that is what will happen, and I expect it to happen.
  I suggest that when an RAF base closes and is sold, part of the proceeds should be earmarked to cover the cost of rehousing the volunteer gliding schools and other air cadet activities. It is realistic to expect some of the proceeds to be used for that purpose.
  I have also made a specific recommendation that one member of the review body should be an individual with substantial volunteer experience. Sadly, I have to report that too many middle-ranking officers of the regular service have little understanding of the ethos and motivation of volunteers. They are not merely service personnel who can be used as numbers when making calculations; they are individuals who have to persuade their families of the importance of the job that they do. It takes some doing to persuade their families that they should go every weekend to fly the cadets and the volunteer units. I have known people who do that for 10, 20—even 30—or more years, and I expect the pledges that were given to me at the Dispatch Box about the Air Cadet budget and the range of activities not to be put in jeopardy by the review. I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench do not know in detail quite what the review involves; I am just alerting them to the fact that it is taking place and I want them to recognise that they have commitments that they are required to protect.
  I wish to place on record my appreciation and respect for the way in which the United Kingdom military has handled the complex problems that arose from the defence cost studies and "Options for Change". In my view, there is not another military in the world that would have done what the UK military has done and carried out the many tasks that it has carried out during the same period. I wish to mention the leadership of the Air Force board—people
  550
  whom I know well—and in particular Air Chief Marshall Sir Michael Graydon, the present Chief of the Air Staff. I doubt whether any other Chief of the Air Staff has ever had to deal with such complex and difficult problems affecting morale and equipment, and he has shown great leadership. He was the right man in the right job at the right time.
  I am glad to see that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has come back into the Chamber. He will not be surprised to know that I have used most of my time in the debate to speak about the Air Cadet Force. I alerted his office to the fact that I would be doing so. I do not expect during the winding-up speech to get detailed answers to my comments, because they will take a little time. I just want my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench to do what they have always done to apply their energy and wit to solving the difficult problems, if there are any, and to come back and tell me, "Bill, it's all right."
  9.16 pm
  Mr. Peter Hardy: I was reminded today of the fact that the Government pride themselves on having concern for the interests of agriculture and the armed forces we had the private notice question earlier today about bovine spongiform encephalopathy, and now we are debating defence, but the Government's heartland has been clearly imperilled, as speeches from some hon. Members—loyal though they may be—will have shown.
  I endorse the comments made by the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) about the Air Training Corps. It does a first-class job and those who give service to it deserve respect and commendation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), who opened the debate for the Opposition, referred to a letter in The Independent from Flight Lieutenant Nichol. I recall reading the letter and feeling that it was not terribly fair, because he criticised politicians across the board and senior officers. I acquit senior officers. The hon. Member for North Tayside paid tribute to Sir Michael Graydon and Air Marshall Cousins, who have had the most horrendous experience over the past few years in contracting the service to the point that it is hardly bigger than the Air Training Corps itself.
  Gulf war syndrome has been mentioned in the debate. I did not hear very clearly the Secretary of State's comments about the use of insecticides, but it is more than five years since people were squirting insecticides to protect themselves, and I do not think that they will be able to recall how they used the insecticides after such a time span. It is a serious matter and I am delighted that the Government are taking it seriously, although I hope that they will not encounter great delay if they go into excessive detail about personal conduct.
  What has astonished me most of all in the debate has been the reference to recruitment, or the excuse that was offered about burgeoning employment. My hon. Friend referred to recruitment in the northern counties. The coalfields of south Yorkshire have traditionally sent enormous numbers of young men into the armed forces. We certainly have not seen burgeoning employment opportunities. I would hate to call for the reintroduction of national service, as that would be ridiculous, but far too many of my young people could be usefully engaged in the services.
  The problem of air traffic control, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) referred, is serious. Given that the

  551
  Government are in the last months of their life—they should have gone by now, of course—it is reasonable to say that the House and the country should be given a clear picture of the views of the MOD and of the armed forces. One shudders at the prospect of profit dominating safety and about the possible threat to security. Whoever operates or owns our air traffic control system will inevitably be privy to important information, often confidential, about the capacities and activities of the Royal Air Force, the Fleet Air Arm and the Army Air Corps.
  Some Conservative Members might say that it is ridiculous to think that the Government would sell air traffic control to a foreign power. But who owned Matrix Churchill and who made the lathes which made the shells that were fired at the Air Force when it was engaged in the most hazardous missions in the gulf war? They were made in Britain with the Government's knowledge. The Scott report has bored people and has been forgotten, but we would do well to remember that security must be given rather more consideration.
  I said that there was a case for a review not merely for British reasons but because we need to present to our European partners a reasonable analysis of the enormous contribution that this country has made to NATO and to European security. With the exception of France, our contribution is far greater than that made by anyone else. We should argue that those countries which are pressing for a European pillar often make no contribution and have no consideration other than the commercial advantage that they think they can get from developing the European defence industry if Europe goes it alone. Since the second world war, Europe has never been able to go it alone and it could not do so now, not because this country is at fault but because our partners who are calling for the European pillar have not made the contribution that we were entitled to expect as equal members of the alliance.
  I carried out a survey for the WEU a couple of years ago about the capabilities of western European air forces and the results were quite surprising. For example, I found that there was a marked lack of all-weather strike capacity and a marked inadequacy in intelligence and reconnaissance and that most countries had no capacity whatever for air-to-air refuelling, which is an intelligent way to operate very expensive aircraft. There were many aircraft but some were obsolete and I suspect that many of them had not been flown frequently because the flying hours of the air crew were lower than those of our crews. One wonders whether many or any of them reached the level that NATO is supposed to require.
  Against that background, one is entitled to argue that a more intelligent and mature approach is needed. That could be assisted if we carried out a proper strategic review. I often wonder what our Ministers are doing when they are negotiating with our colleagues. We are paying heavily and making considerable national sacrifices. Our young men and women are repeatedly sent out to engage in hazardous tasks in insalubrious environments to fulfil the international cause, to serve humanity and to help to secure stability and peace. Our partners, who have a great deal to say, do little except applaud us.
  On another occasion in the House I may have mentioned the incredible debate in the WEU at the end of the Gulf war. I was the last speaker in that long debate and Lord Finsberg—who unfortunately passed away last week—and I took part in it from opposite sides of the
  552
  political spectrum. I think that the noble lord shared my view although he did not express quite the same irritation. I listened to, I think, seven Spaniards, six Portuguese, eight Italians and many others all rejoicing in jubilant triumph at this enormous victory. I was not popular when I said that those Parliaments had sent more parliamentarians to rejoice in the triumph than personnel to serve in the Gulf. From time to time we are entitled to speak out realistically because the current debate about Europe's future security is a serious matter. We are entitled not merely to punch our weight as members of the Security Council but to provide logical and, if necessary, firm arguments in the councils of deliberation of Europe during the next few months.
  I am worried about the Eurofighter, as I have heard German Members of Parliament referring to the qualities of the Mig-29. It is a good aircraft, as are those produced after it. It would not require a latter-day Bismarck to see certain advantages in moving German aircraft procurement eastwards and leaving the rest of Europe with an inferior air combat capacity. That capacity would be inferior if the Eurofighter does not proceed. History can change rapidly, and a latter-day Bismarck may appear on the horizon. Britain must ensure—one hopes with the co-operation of other western European states—that it is not left behind as a result of short-term calculations. That is why I am delighted that the Labour party is strongly in favour of the Eurofighter, and has been for a long time. We recognise the economic and defence realities.
  Many of today's transport aircraft are Hercules aircraft that—I have reminded the House before—entered squadron service in 1964. Those aircraft helped Britain in its east of Suez policy and they are probably being flown harder than ever before in former Yugoslavia. The Government recognise that they need to be replaced, and a partial replacement was agreed—following what seemed to be a fair compromise—with the purchase of part of the transport requirement from the new C130J. One assumed that the rest would come from the FLA, to which the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) has referred.
  I am extremely worried because I went to Toulouse some time ago to be brainwashed by Aerospatiale. I asked when the aircraft would enter RAF squadron service if everything went according to plan. The company told me, but it also gave the members of the WEU defence committee a time chart that showed that the aircraft would enter RAF squadron service 12 months before it made its maiden flight. I pointed out that this presented a rather anomalous situation, but the company said that a great deal could be done with simulators. That is true, but they hardly provide an alternative to the actual experience of flight.
  Given the cuts in the French defence budget and the uncertainty that exists, will the Minister tell us—or let us know by letter if it is not convenient to do so during the winding-up speech—what is to happen to the FLA? What will happen to it if it is delayed further than it might have been before the cuts that were announced a few months ago? That might mean that some of the Hercules that have been flying for 30 years in the RAF will have to continue for another decade. Those are the sort of questions that might be considered by a review rather than by the preposterous hand-to-mouth approach that the Government have operated for a long time.

  553
  As I said at the beginning, the Government have forfeited the support of the farmers and they ought to have forfeited the support of those involved in the services. There have been critical references to Labour Administrations, but I would point out—as did my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields—that the records of Labour Governments are superior to those of Conservative Governments. No Conservative Secretary of State has made the historic contribution to defence that was made by the noble Lord Healey in the 1960s when he provided the proper professional base for the armed forces to which many of them can still refer. I trust that the Government's gobbledegook of shallow and partisan insanity will not be repeated.
  I hope that I have not spoken for too long— increasingly, I am of the view that we should have 10-minute speeches during defence debates.
  9.28 pm
  Mr. John Spellar: May I, first, apologise to those hon. Members whose speeches I shall be unable to cover in the short time that I have to wind up? It is fair to say that the debate has been slightly more low key than last year's but, then again, so was the trailer at the Tory party conference. However, some things did not change. We still had a lot of shouting, bawling and unparliamentary language from the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, but we excuse him for that. He was probably still disoriented by the Prime Minister's recent attack on the old school tie.
  Ministers and Conservative Back Benchers seemed to spend more time on the Back-Bench amendment than the selected amendment. They also seemed slightly out of touch with the current decisions of the Labour party conference. It is rather like the newspaper editor in "The man who shot Liberty Valance" who said, "If you have to print the truth or the legend, always print the legend."
  That is probably why, for most of the debate, there were more Opposition Members than Conservative Members in the Chamber. It is also probably why the Secretary of State did not spend too much time at the Tory conference talking about his stewardship of the nation's defences. It is not surprising. He might have had to explain how in one year the Government have spent £500 million on redundancy and £100 million on recruitment and, as has been demonstrated in a number of speeches tonight, still got the figures wrong. It takes a special kind of genius to achieve that.
  Let us consider the figures for the Grenadier Guards, for example. They are 84 short on their complement, yet they have had 40 redundancies in the past three years. Is that an effective way to keep the troops up to strength? Is it not a considerable cost to the budget?
  At the Tory conference, and again today, the Secretary of State talked about possible Labour cuts. He has definitely learnt the value of diversionary tactics from the military. As Secretary of State, or in his previous incarnation as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, he has been one of the cutters-in-chief. During the 1992 election, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) said, the Government claimed that Labour would cut defence spending by 27 per cent.—yet they have cut it by 31 per cent.
  554
  Since 1990, personnel numbers are down 27 per cent. for the Army, 30 per cent. for the Navy and 42 per cent. for the Royal Air Force. Perhaps the Secretary of State, or the Minister in his reply, can tell us what further cuts the Treasury is demanding for next year. As the Secretary of State is well aware, it has been rumoured in the press that it will ask for £400 million. That is why the concluding paragraph of the Defence Committee report, which was amplified today by its Chairman, the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), and by the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans), is so relevant and weighty.
  It was remarkable that a number of Conservative Members attempted to dissociate themselves from their Treasury, as though it was a Ministry from another planet. Let us be quite clear—we have a Tory Treasury and a Tory Chancellor and they cannot escape responsibility for that, valiantly though the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) tried.
  It is not as though our commitments are reducing. As has been said, a bigger percentage of the Army is involved in operational commitments than at any time since the second world war. In spite of the bluster of Ministers, we need a strategic review of the relationship between our capability and our commitments. In reply to the question posed by the hon. Member for Wyre, it is self-evident— it has been said by Conservative spokesmen—that such a review can be undertaken only when in government with access to the relevant information. In such a sensitive Ministry, that information can be available only to Ministers.
  At all levels, and from a number of hon. Members, in the debate tonight we have heard of the problems of overstretch. Let us be frank; it is also widely reported that the Chief of the Defence Staff is incredibly worried about sustainability. Maintenance capability is a part of the problem. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) mentioned the Tornado accident off Blackpool. Thanks to the skill of the pilots, no one was injured. In spite of initial denials, it appears that it was one of the Tornados that had been damaged by the botched contract of Airwork Services. That is a salutary reminder that neither the work force nor the House have yet had a satisfactory report of the full cost of that fiasco.
  We are also concerned about the continuing accident rate for our aircraft. Frankly, it is regrettable that the Ministry of Defence still appears to be considering each crash separately rather than having an overall inquiry. We have raised that matter before. By investigating each accident, it becomes all too easy to ascribe the cause to pilot error rather than to question other factors, such as lengthening training cycles and overstretch of personnel and machines. Rather than analyse those factors, the fundamentalist zealots in the MOD are plunging ahead with yet more privatisation and contractorisation.
  It seems that the Government have adopted the simple mantra of their American Republican cousins: the Government sector cannot run anything. Nothing, and especially not the facts, will deter them. That runs disastrously contrary to the service tradition of our armed forces and of the civilians who work with and for them, yet still the Government plough on. RAF Valley has already been contracted out; Sealand, which has been mentioned several times by my hon. Friend the Member

  555
  for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), and St. Athan are in turmoil because of new tranches of privatisation. I reiterate what I said in the RAF debate on 6 June.
  "We firmly believe that any decisions on contracting work must be determined by pragmatism not dogmatism. We shall impose a moratorium on new contracts while we evaluate the schemes that are currently in the pipeline."—[Official Report, 6 June 1996; Vol. 278, c. 745.]
  My hon. Friends the Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) mentioned air traffic control services. We understand that the RAF shares the concern about privatisation and the proposals to cut the number of control centres from two to one. Will the Minister say what is the attitude of the MOD and what the proposals would mean for military and civil air safety and for Prestwick in Scotland? The people who work there, and the RAF, deserve a reply tonight.
  Sustainability also affects the defence industry. Unfortunately, neither the defence estimates nor the Secretary of State's speeches to the Tory conference and tonight recognise the need to back British industry in the way that our competitors back their industries—but what can we expect from a Government that considered the Austrian alternative to the Land Rover for the Army field ambulance and when Metropolitan police Volkswagen vans are parked in New Palace yard?
  I was at Land Rover last Friday and the only problem there is getting round the site for the number of contractors' vehicles there because of all the building work that is going on. Huge investment is going into Solihull from the new owners. Is not it a shame that its German owners seem to have greater faith in Land Rover than did the MOD? Was not it also a great shame that there had to be such a campaign to ensure that the orders finally went to Land Rover? It is a world-class product and we should have been backing it.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: We did back it; we bought it.
  Mr. Spellar: It required a Tory Back-Bench rebellion, Land Rovers parked in New Palace yard, uproar in the west midlands and consideration of the number of marginal seats there. What the hell were the Government doing even considering the Austrian alternative? No one else in the defence industry understands it.
  Mr. Mans: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should buy military equipment without competitions?
  Mr. Spellar: There was no proper alternative to the Land Rover. The hon. Gentleman should consider the practice of industry, which negotiates on the basis of preferred supplier status and works on partnership and open books. That happens increasingly in the defence industry around the world. It is happening with procurement policies in several other countries that actually back their industries and work in partnership with them. The Levene proposals have reached the end of their shelf life and we must find a new mode of defence procurement. The Government will not do it because they are attached to dogma. A Labour Government will do it because we will be looking to back British industry and work with it to get the best result.
  The Secretary of State's speech at the Tory conference—he repeated the same formula today— employed a clever use of words. He rightly praised our
  556
  world-class armed forces and equally rightly said that they should have world-class equipment, although whether his procurement policy will achieve that is another matter. He very clearly did not say that it would be British industry that would provide the world-class equipment. Once again, he slipped away from the key commitment that British industry and defence workers are seeking that the MOD will back Britain and buy British first. That is what they want to hear, but they are not hearing it from Tory Ministers.
  What about the extraordinary scenes that surrounded the award of the contract for the replacement maritime patrol aircraft—the RMPA—and the 1236 and 1238 missiles, which were referred to by the Secretary of State? I do not know whether to congratulate those on the Front Bench on having snatched the decision from their Tory Treasury colleagues at the eleventh hour or to castigate them for having let the situation deteriorate to such an extent. What I am sure about is that if we had not had a campaign in the country and rows in Parliament, the situation would have been allowed to drift and that contract would have dominated our debate today.
  It is reassuring to know that pressure in the Chamber, not only from the Opposition but from Conservative Back Benchers, is able to have that effect, but it was extremely unsettling for the industry and the armed forces, not to mention the unfortunate Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs who got caught in the crossfire right at the end of the Session.
  We have to look for a better way to undertake contracts and procurement. There are a number of lessons to be learnt from the RMPA and other recent contracts, the most significant being recognising the need for a shift in the system of defence procurement. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope) suggested some of the areas that we need to examine in his thoughtful speech. Whatever one's view of the Levene reforms, it is self-evident that they have reached the end of their shelf life. The joint report of the Defence and Trade and Industry Committees pointed clearly towards a reformulation of policy, but the Government's response still fudged the issue. We need to take on board that report and what is happening in the real world. The Government are starting to edge towards doing that, but they cannot match their rhetoric. The replacement orders for Fearless and Intrepid had to be undertaken on a NAPNOC—no acceptable price no contract—basis because the Government recognised that mergers and reduced competition mean that we must bring about a change.
  The defence estimates talk in fairly bland terms about Project Horizon, the common new generation frigate referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields. It is a joint programme with France and Italy but clear problems seem to be emerging. Britain still seems to be committed to 12 ships, but the French and Italians now seem to be down to two each. What does that do to the viability of the project? What about the delays, which are getting longer and longer? Can the Minister confirm that the first vessel is now due in 2006? Can he also confirm that the first type 42 destroyer that it is due to replace is scheduled to go out of service in 1999? What will be the effect of that gap? What extra maintenance costs will be incurred? Will those ships need a refit? What will be the consequences if that programme slips? Does the Minister recognise the great difficulties that have

  557
  arisen with the project? Is it not time that serious consideration was given to a fallback position? We await his answers tonight with interest.
  Before the recess, we had the drama of the married quarters housing, which was glossed over by the Secretary of State today in just a couple of sentences. The Government business managers down the Corridor were so worried that they dragged out the biggest attendance of backwoods Tory peers this Parliament—a scene described in The Times as
  "An Iolanthe-style parade of hereditary peers."
  In that debate, regular attending peers from all parties shredded the Government's argument, but Ministers won the day with those who never heard or listened to the debate. We know that, in this House, the Whips' pressure broke the resistance of Tory Back Benchers. I wonder if, on reflection, they think they did the right thing.
  The members of the Burma Star Association whom I met last month were not very impressed with the Japanese landlords of defence housing. I note that, in addition to Nomura, extra funds will be raised in New York. I simply ask, what is wrong with the City of London? Why are we having to bring in money from abroad? What is the secret agenda? Is it to bolster up the balance of payments and massage the figures? Will that money be included in the figures for inward investment? Was it a good deal for the services?
  During the debate in July, Tory Back Benchers justified their ignominious retreat by referring to the £100 million to be spent upgrading the property to grade 1 over five to seven years, but last year alone the Ministry of Defence spent £165 million on married quarters works, of which £40 million was spent on upgrading—£40 million a year over five years amounts to £200 million, which is double the allocation from the sale. Clearly, there is no guarantee of additionality from the Treasury. The housing budget is part of the defence budget as a whole and is not negotiated separately—we cannot know whether we are getting extra money. It is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow— fool's gold—and there is no guarantee that the money is in addition to the budget.
  We are not sure how much the Ministry of Defence will pay. The rental is linked to assured shorthold tenancy rents, which have rocketed up recently. The Minister believes that in future the rentals will grow in line with house prices. That is an unpredictable measure, which could claim an escalating share of the defence budget— all in the name of dogma and helping the Chancellor to balance his books in November. The capital value has gone to the Treasury and the unpredictable revenue charges will fall on the Ministry of Defence. That seems like a defence cut by any other name. There will be constant upward pressure on the rents paid by service personnel, which have already rocketed by between 10 and 25 per cent. in the past year alone.
  During the debates in the summer, and again tonight, we promoted the idea of consensus on defence. The idea received half a welcome from the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside. The suggestion does not mean that there will be no arguments about implementation and competence. I can understand why the Minister of State for the Armed Forces is so sensitive about that—we will regularly advance those arguments—but in an
  558
  increasingly uncertain world environment it would be better for the country and for our armed forces if we were able to achieve a broad national consensus.
  I understand the Tories' dilemma. They believe that the defence issue is a strong card for them in the election— they do not have many. They think that that card has played well in the past, but it is much weaker now, as tonight's debate has demonstrated. The Tories would gain more credit, both in the House and outside, if they took up our offer. In a triumph of hope over experience, we hope that they will, so that we can all give our defence industry and our armed forces the backing that they need and deserve.
  9.46 pm
  The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. James Arbuthnot): Today's debate has been notable for the tributes paid on both sides of the House to Warrant Officer Bradwell—I echo those tributes and offer to his loved ones the condolences of the House expressed on behalf of the country.
  This is a two-day debate, but right hon. and hon. Members may well raise important points that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces and I will be unable to cover during our speeches. We shall write to all those whose points we have been unable to cover.
  The debate opened with a speech by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and was followed by a speech by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) which was breathtaking in its rewriting of history. Before I turn to that speech—and I will because it was an important speech—I shall comment on the extraordinary speech that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar). He clearly abandoned the concept of competition and committed himself to buying British come what may—a policy that would be barking mad.
  I shall tell the hon. Gentleman why we bought Land Rover. We did so because it gives us the best. Without competition, we would never have had such an excellent product at such a price. That is the value of competition— a value that the hon. Member for Warley, West seems prepared to throw away.
  In his speech the hon. Member for South Shields criticised the instability that he suggested was produced by Government policies, but at the same time he called for a defence review. We know why he calls for an extraordinary defence review. He does so because he wants to mask the desire of most Labour Back Benchers—with some honourable exceptions—for defence cuts. Nothing would cause as much instability to our armed forces as a defence review. The hon. Gentleman has not been able to point to a single member of our armed forces who would like such a defence review. The Labour party's commitment is not to defence—it never has been and it never will be. We know that defence is not its priority. Defence under a Labour Government would always be the milch cow for their real priorities. Even the Transport and General Workers Union wants to cut £18 billion from the defence budget, and he who pays the piper calls the tune.

  559
  The hon. Member for South Shields did give an astonishing display of candour when he said that there was insufficient interest in the Labour party for the issue of Trident to be debated at the Labour party conference in the past two years—
  Dr. David Clark indicated dissent.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: He said that there was insufficient interest for the whole defence issue to be debated in the past two years.
  Dr. Reid: The Minister has obviously been given another bad briefing, a year out of date. We said that the whole debate surrounding the decision whether to cut defence expenditure was so lacking in interest and had so little backing that it did not appear on the conference agenda. The Trident issue was debated and, for the second year running, multilateralism won the day, so Labour's position on that is the same as that of the Government. At least I have cut the Minister's speech short, so that he has more time to devote to the real subject of procurement.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: But that is not the point; the point is that Labour Members are keeping shtoom. Last year, 43 Labour Members signed an amendment to the motion in the defence estimates debate—an amendment calling for a cut in defence budgets and for the removal of Trident. This year, only 20 have done so, but that does not suggest for a moment that the other 23 have changed their minds. They have not changed their minds; and if they have, are we not entitled to ask why?
  The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) called for the removal of all nuclear weapons from British territory. Has he changed his mind? It would seem that perhaps he has; yet he has never said why. The hon. Member for South Shields once said that he would not be prepared to use a nuclear weapon. Has he changed his mind? It would be interesting to find out. And if he has, why?
  Dr. David Clark: In 1981 I was deputy defence spokesperson for the Labour party, and I resigned when the party went unilateralist in the 1981 conference. [HON. MEMBERS "Wrong again."]
  Mr. Arbuthnot: So why did the hon. Gentleman say that he would not use a nuclear weapon? Saying something like that destroys the deterrent.
  I want to give the hon. Member for South Shields replies on the substance of some questions that he asked. He made an important issue of organophosphates and their use in the Gulf. I can confirm that the issue of the handling of the reports received by the Ministry of Defence and the reasons why they were not fully considered or acted on will be fully evaluated in the further work that we have immediately set in hand.
  I very much regret that the information given to the Defence Select Committee and other hon. Members in the past few years has proved to be incorrect. The answers were given by Ministers in good faith, on the basis of advice from senior military and civilian staff in the Department. We are urgently examining the exact circumstances in which organophosphate pesticides were used and the extent of their use. Hon. Members will
  560
  understand that I would not wish to prejudge the outcome of that work, but my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will report further to the House when the work is complete.
  Mr. Dalyell: The House of Commons might be forgiven for wondering why, when, as the Minister admits, the proper questions were asked, the Department or the Ministers—admittedly, previous to him—were so lazy, I repeat lazy, that they did not get the right answers years ago.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: Yes, and that is the point of part of the investigation that is taking place at the moment. I fully accept that the Department should have known the correct position much earlier, especially in the light of anxieties expressed about pesticide use. That is why my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces has commissioned a further investigation as a matter of urgency.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest— [HON. MEMBERS: "Wyre."] I apologise. My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) referred to the future medium-range air-to-air missile. The assessment of bids is under way, and we hope to complete that assessment and to reach a decision around the middle of next year.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre also referred to the defence budget, as did a number of other hon. Members. I can assure the House that the Government are committed to providing the armed forces with the manpower and equipment they need to undertake the tasks which our defence and security policies place on them. We will continue to provide the resources to sustain those capabilities.
  While efforts to achieve ever greater value for money in defence continue, we have made it clear that, under this Government, the big upheavals are over. We have undertaken to provide a period of stability in the plans for our forces.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), the Chairman of the Select Committee—
  Mr.Spellar rose—
  Mr. Arbuthnot: I have only five minutes left and a lot of points to cover, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I shall be making a speech tomorrow, but tonight I should like to answer as many questions as possible.
  My hon. Friend referred to the decommissioning of nuclear submarines. It is our policy to store decommissioned nuclear submarines afloat at the place where they are decommissioned until a decision about their final disposal is made. My hon. Friend also referred to Jason, the small teaching nuclear reactor at Greenwich. As part of future plans for the royal naval college site there I am pleased to confirm that the reactor will be decommissioned. The appointment of AEA Technology as project manager, and of Dr. Bryan Edmondson as independent safety adviser, illustrates our commitment to safety and openness during the process.
  Mr. Nick Raynsford:: The Minister will be well aware of the natural concern in Greenwich, which

  561
  will be the focus of world attention in millennium year, about the possibility of delay in the decommissioning, with consequential disastrous results if the work is still taking place at a time when the eyes of the world will be on us, with large numbers of visitors coming to see the historic buildings at Greenwich. What reassurance can he give the House that decommissioning will take place speedily so as to ensure that everything is completed safely by 1999?
  Mr. Arbuthnot: I could not have announced the decommissioning any earlier than today's debate this is our first day back from the summer recess. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Romsey and Waterside and for Salisbury (Mr. Key) raised the important issue of the Warrior mortar. My Department welcomes the private finance initiative proposals from industry; I understand the commercial concerns that have led GKN to make its current proposals to supply Warrior mortar vehicles to the MOD. We take full account of relevant industrial considerations when making decisions about equipment, and we actively support GKN in marketing Warrior overseas. I have made it clear before to the House that Warrior is an excellent vehicle which has performed extremely well in operational service in Bosnia, just as it did in the Gulf. My Department will respond to the company shortly.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) discussed deployment of the deterrent and the question of the two Trident submarines. Our current deterrent is provided by two Trident boats and by RAF Tornadoes carrying WE177 freefall bombs. We have always planned to have only two boats in service for a short period; the Trident fleet will reach four boats by the end of the century.
  Next, recruitment, which was raised by a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre, who asked whether we would have similar difficulties in the following year. I can give him details of the achievement targets that we have reached. Against the targets for the first six months of this year, the Royal Navy achieved recruitment of 89 per cent. for officers and 85 per cent. for ratings. Figures for the Royal Marines were 100 per cent. for officers and 84 per cent. for other ranks. The Army predicts that officer recruitment for the whole year will reach 86 per cent. of target. For the other ranks in the Army, recruitment in the first six months of this year reached 86 per cent. of target. The point is that it was an increase of 40 per cent. on the performance level for the same period last year. The most promising indicator was the increase in recruitment in the infantry, where 86 per cent. of six-month targets compared with 53 per cent. over the same period last year. The RAF is confident that it will have achieved a recruitment level of 90 per cent. of its target for both officers and airmen by the end of 1996–97.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury raised the issue of Bowman and suggested that blind man's buff was being played. The procurement executive, including the
  562
  Chief of Defence Procurement, regularly speak to the two consortia that have been developing systems to meet our Bowman requirement, so there is no question of blind man's buff being played. But I listened to my hon. Friend's view with interest.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) asked some important questions about the air cadet council. There is no question that the review is being undertaken as a cost-driven exercise. It is to look at the role of the air cadet council, and the RAF still attaches great importance to the role of the air cadets.
  It being Ten o 'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

PETITIONS

  Handguns
  10 pm
  Mr. Ernie Ross: This petition has been signed by the citizens of Dundee and area. I say "area" because, when civil servants look at the petition, they will see that, during the holiday period, visitors passing through the centre of Dundee insisted on signing the petition.
  The people of Dundee are concerned that the House should introduce legislation to ban the private ownership of handguns. On 13 March, Thomas Hamilton inflicted 17 death sentences and multiple life sentences on the innocent people of Dunblane. The petition that I am presenting this evening carries 3,250 signatures and says:
  The Petition of the citizens of Dundee and area:
  Declares that the private ownership of hand guns should be banned. Hand guns are particularly dangerous firearms, they are easily concealed and carried. They are capable of rapidly firing a large number of rounds without reloading and are therefore extremely dangerous in private hands.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons introduce legislation to ban the private ownership of hand guns, and the petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.
  10.1 pm
  Mr. John McAllion: I, too, wish to present a petition from the citizens of Dundee and area. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), I spent most of the summer recess helping to collect signatures in my constituency of Dundee, East, which was part of the citywide petition led by my hon. Friend and myself. Like his petition, mine declares that the private ownership of handguns should be banned, as handguns are dangerous firearms and are easily concealed and carried. They are capable of rapidly firing a large number of rounds without reloading and are therefore extremely dangerous in private hands. The petition reads:
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons introduce legislation to ban the private ownership of hand guns, and the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Maternity Services, Monklands
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Ainsworth.]
  10.2 pm
  Mrs. Helen Liddell: I am grateful for the opportunity to bring before Parliament an issue of great concern to my constituents. I am grateful to have this opportunity so soon after the House has returned from the summer recess, because the issue has exercised my hon. Friends and myself during the recess. I sought this debate urgently because of a developing problem that could deprive mothers in my constituency of local maternity services. That is bad enough in itself, but the impact of removing localised services could also have a bad effect on paediatric care in the local district general hospital, putting children, some of whom have life-threatening conditions, at considerable risk.
  The problem has arisen because of Lanarkshire health board's desire to close the local Bellshill maternity hospital, which is part of the Monklands and Bellshill hospital trust. It wants to locate maternity provision at a new hospital to be built at Netherton in Wishaw to replace the existing Law hospital. Let me make it abundantly clear at the beginning of my contribution: I do not oppose the establishment of maternity facilities at Netherton. Rather, I believe that the needs of Lanarkshire mothers and children would be best met, if Bellshill should close, by two-site provision at general hospitals in both Netherton and Monklands. It is ludicrous to suggest at the end of the 20th century that expectant mothers should face increased inconvenience, not to mention risk, when one of the main achievements of the first part of the century in Lanarkshire was the provision of more appropriate localised care in that county.
  Time is of the essence in this matter as the local health board is currently involved in a consultation exercise that I believe is based on a totally false premise. If the wrong decision is arrived at as a consequence of that exercise, it could have an adverse effect on health care in the northern part of Lanarkshire for a long time. I cannot overstress the importance of those issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) and I represent an area that has the dubious record as one of the unhealthiest places in Europe. I know that the Minister recognises that fact and I urge him to consider my remarks not just in the light of maternity provision, but in the face of the generally recognised need to concentrate on improving health care in Monklands generally. That is particularly true in relation to children.
  In seeking to effect the closure of Bellshill maternity, the health board has made an unwarranted attack on the safety of the service that is provided. It is a stand-alone specialist facility that provides top-class care from a committed staff. Both past and present mothers in my constituency have much to thank Bellshill maternity hospital for. Notwithstanding that fact, the health board has suggested that the facility is unsafe, based upon a misreading of the "Report of the Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths in the United Kingdom 1991ߝ1993", which states on page 193 that units on sites away from acute hospitals "should be regarded as unsafe".
  Based on that sentence, the health board has taken an insensitive line that is insulting to the staff at Bellshill and has caused alarm among mothers in my constituency who
  564
  expected to be delivered there in the near future. That statement is not true. The quotation upon which the health board is relying refers to very small units that do not have blood transfusion and anaesthetic services and are sited more than 20 miles from an intensive care unit. That is not the case with Bellshill—indeed, only a few units in England are affected. I contend that the health board is using the safety argument to avoid the economic arguments.
  Bellshill is the largest maternity hospital in Lanarkshire. It has obstetric, midwifery, anaesthetic and paediatric staff who care for between 3,700 and 4,000 women and their babies each year. They are experienced in dealing with normal and abnormal pregnancies. There is a neonatal intensive care unit, which has a successful record in treating very ill premature babies as young as 24 weeks gestation and 500 g birth weight.
  Neonatal care in Lanarkshire matches the best provided at the large teaching hospitals, resulting in Bellshill being used as a back-up by hospitals in the north of England and elsewhere in Scotland when their units are full. The staff are recognised widely within their profession, but were they included in the strategic analysis by the health board or invited to comment on the completed review? No, they were not. The board claimed that the working party comprised a sound body of local expertise, yet no identities were revealed. Why were local experts kept in the dark? Is that the way to devise an accurate and unbiased strategy?
  Furthermore, the board claims that it has based its conclusions on projected births to Lanarkshire women by 2005. How did it come to those conclusions? Where is the evidence that it has taken account of the significant inward investment in Lanarkshire from both Chunghwa and Lite on, which will inevitably cause an increase—we are very glad of it—in the number of people moving to Lanarkshire? The board assumes that 30 per cent. of mothers will want to give birth in Glasgow. On what does it base that conclusion? The geographic difficulties associated with travelling from the northern part of my constituency to Wishaw could leave mothers with no choice but to make the longer journey to Glasgow, as trans-county transport in Lanarkshire is extremely bad. If the birth rate in Lanarkshire falls to between 52 to 55 per cent., which is what the projections could lead to, the viability of the new unit at Netherton could be in question and mothers in my constituency would be further disadvantaged.
  In the past week, obstetricians and midwives in Lanarkshire have conducted a mini-survey of 100 mothers in antenatal units throughout the county. If Netherton were the sole Lanarkshire site, 91 per cent. of mothers in Coatbridge say that they would have to travel to Glasgow. In Airdrie, the largest town in my constituency, 69 per cent. would have to travel to Glasgow and, from Viewpark, 57 per cent. So it continues. Geography does matter and that is why I do not make an exclusive case for maternity facilities to be provided only at Monklands general hospital.
  Lanarkshire health board has a duty to provide health care for all the mothers of Lanarkshire, not to offload some of that responsibility to Glasgow to make its accounts look neater. Its approach will remove true choice from mothers and it looks suspiciously like an accounting exercise to reach the economically attractive figure of 4,000 deliveries. Any deliveries over that number would

  565
  make the proposed Netherton unit unsafe. I urge the Minister to challenge the health board on why it is discounting the needs of one third of Lanarkshire mothers.
  The health board survey that was conducted among mothers was also seriously flawed. The mothers consulted were those who had, thankfully, normal births and therefore did not require follow-on care. It is precisely the mothers who do not have normal births, or who have babies in need of neonatal intensive care, who should be taken into account. The sampling was not done by a professional polling organisation, as it was in Edinburgh when a similar case arose, and serious questions must be asked about how truly significant the analysis has been.
  The survey defies common sense, quite apart from random sampling techniques. If a mother is in a maternity hospital for more than two days, it is usually for a significant reason—either she or her child is poorly. If we site maternity provision at Netherton, mothers who are not physically or emotionally at their best will have to undertake a difficult journey. My constituency is not a wealthy area and we do not have high ownership of private cars as people do in other parts of Scotland. It is difficult to envisage how some of those mothers and their families could cope with the journey across the county to a facility at Netherton. It would be equally difficult for mothers from the south of Lanarkshire to travel to a unique facility in Monklands district general hospital.
  If Bellshill is to be closed, the costs of submerging a stand-alone facility into two general hospitals, with the economies of scale that that would involve—together with the clinical arguments—seem to make a self-evident case for a two-site facility. Why has that idea been given the brush-off by Lanarkshire health board?
  The local people, whenever I talk to them about the facility, say that they believe that the consultation has nothing to do with their needs and everything to do with cobbling together an attractive private finance initiative deal for the new hospital. If that rumour is true, it is a scandal that outweighs any that we have seen so far.
  I spoke earlier about general health in Monklands. An analysis of maternal morbidity in north Lanarkshire in the past three years shows that Hamilton, Airdrie, Coatbridge and Motherwell have the highest levels of morbidity requiring in-patient stay. Neonatal morbidity shows a similar pattern, and Hamilton, Airdrie, Coatbridge and Bellshill have the highest incidence of low birth weight babies. Even among so-called normal births, there is a shift towards the north of the county in relation to admissions to high-dependency neonatal care. Those figures show that there must be easy access to a unit close to those areas of high morbidity if the situation is to be contained and reversed.
  Paediatric care pops up almost as an afterthought in the health board's deliberations. That afterthought could completely destroy the advances of the past 20 years in ensuring that sick children in Monklands have the best care when they most need it. The issue of paediatric services did not form any part of the remit of the original strategic review. It has now sneaked in and could have the most serious repercussions for Monklands hospital and the patients it serves.
  I received a letter from Dr Marie Brookes, who is an accident and emergency consultant at Monklands district hospital. I urge the Minister to listen closely to what she
  566
  has to say. Dr. Brookes points out that 22,000 children under 15 years of age are treated in A and E at Monklands hospital. They comprise one third of the work load of her department. Two thousand of those children are ill enough to be admitted to hospital, yet under the health board's proposals, there will be no beds at Monklands. Four hundred children are currently admitted to the infectious diseases unit through A and E. That unit is to be taken away as well.
  Monklands provides the acute head injury service for children in north Lanarkshire; that will cease, too.Dr. Brookes says that her anaesthetist colleagues join A and E in the intensive care of critically ill or injured children who may require to be admitted to Monklands hospital or transferred to Yorkhill. If the paediatric A and E emergency service at Monklands is lost, children will face a journey without prior resuscitation. Is that acceptable?
  With her colleagues, Dr. Ian McLaren and Dr. Martin Watt, Dr. Brookes states that in line with national recommendations they would not be willing to provide an A and E service for children at Monklands without the on-site support of senior paediatric colleagues. She states:
  'The scenario of the transfer of up to 2,000 children by ambulance to other units is one which we would not wish to face and which will deplete the Department of Medical and Nursing Staff and increase the demands on the Scottish Ambulance Service."
  Dr. Brookes continues:
  "Your constituents and their children will be forced to take their sick and injured children either to Netherton or Glasgow. At best, this may be inconvenient, economically (for them) unacceptable, and for a minority of children, a life-threatening scenario. Our recent experience with meningitis confirms that time is of the essence and that the delays inherent in these plans are medically and ethically unacceptable."
  She concludes:
  "That these matters have not even featured in the discussion documents, must be a measure of ignorance or ineptitude of those who have formulated and promulgated these proposals."
  That is a warning that I find chilling.
  Dr. Brookes' remarks are backed up by Dr. John White, a consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist, by Dr. John Grant, also a consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist and the editor of the obstetric and gynaecology journal. Consultant haematologists, anaesthetists, midwives and general hospital staff have already contacted me with their grave concerns. The entire community, including Churches and voluntary organisations, is unanimous in its opposition to what is proposed.
  I urge the Minister to use his powers to insist that the consultation process starts again, with full involvement this time with those directly involved and with a more rigorous analysis of maternal preference and projected births. The survey of recently delivered mothers is not acceptable. There is potential for a greater number of births in Lanarkshire than that which has been taken into account. A wrong decision now could lead to a significant problem for my constituents and their children, probably for the next generation. I urge the Minister to use his good offices to ensure that it is not visited upon my constituents.
  10.18 pm
  Dr. John Reid: I am grateful to the Minister for his courtesy in allowing me to make a brief contribution to the debate. I declare three interests:I

  567
  am the Member who represents the constituency in which Bellshill maternity hospital is situated; I was born at Bellshill maternity; and I predicted as soon as the Lanarkshire health board became a trust that it would close the maternity hospital within 10 years. I was five years out because the decision has been made five years earlier than my prediction.
  I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in the debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) for initiating it. I wish to see the Bellshill maternity hospital remain. It has been a stalwart in the provision of medical services for the people of Lanarkshire for many years. I have never been convinced by the arguments for its closure and I remain unconvinced.
  The central argument is that there will be less risk to expectant mothers in pre-natal and maternity care if the unit is placed within the context of a general hospital. I know that we are talking of the very margins of risk. I know also that the emphasis that has been placed on that argument has been challenged by obstetricians, midwives and others. Even if I accepted that the argument was a logical reason for closing the maternity hospital at Bellshill, it would be offset if the facility were to be placed in a general hospital servicing a huge area, with the consequent inconvenience, cost and risk to health given the huge distances that would have to be travelled.
  I urge the Minister to consider sympathetically the case made by my hon. Friend. If Bellshill maternity hospital ultimately has to close after a proud record of service, it should be replaced by maternity services at Netherton and Monklands general hospitals—two general hospitals at either end of a vast area.
  10.20 pm
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) on her speech. There is also strong representation from Lanarkshire through the hon. Members for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) and for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), as well as from the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), not to mention the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire).
  The board proposes that paediatric services should be centralised at the site of in-patient services at the New Law hospital. They will be underpinned by appropriate out-patient and day care facilities at Monklands and Hairmyres hospitals and elsewhere, the purpose being to improve care available to the children of Lanarkshire.
  The hon. Lady can be assured that the board is not saying that care at Bellshill is currently substandard, but in reaching its decision it had regard to the publication earlier this year by the Department of Health of the report on confidential inquiries into maternal deaths in the United Kingdom between 1991 and 1993. That report contained the key message that consultant units on sites away from acute hospitals—Bellshill, for example—and without appropriate and adequate facilities are now in a significant minority, and should be regarded as substandard. It recommended that there should be renewed efforts by health authorities to correct those deficiencies. The board took that recommendation into account.
  568
  I must make it clear that no decisions have been made on this matter. Last month, Lanarkshire health board published its consultation paper on the future of maternity and related services. It was the product of a two-year review aimed at renewing maternity services in Lanarkshire to provide the best care possible for mothers and their babies into the next century. The future shape of maternity services for the residents of Monklands is a key element of the board's proposals. The board will consult widely on those proposals between now and early December.
  The issues that we are discussing this evening are at the heart of that programme of reinvestment for the future. No final decisions have been made. I can give hon. Members an assurance that no hospital closure can or will take place until new and better facilities are in place. I understand that the time scale in the proposal relates approximately to the year 2000.
  I welcome this debate as an opportunity to air views that can be fed into the consultation process—and they certainly will be. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for highlighting the concerns of her constituents: it is important that they are heard.
  In-patient facilities are a key aspect of the health board's service review. A key outcome is that the existing pattern of service provision in Lanarkshire will not be sustainable in the future in the context of the new, localised approach to maternity care in which the health board is investing. The review considered the position of Bellshill. Bellshill is a stand-alone maternity hospital, and currently provides care for around 3,300 births each year. Having consulted widely, the board rejected the option of centralising future in-patient services at Bellshill. Clear advice from national and local bodies is that such stand-alone maternity units, lacking the back-up facilities for more specialised care, should be phased out. Wherever possible, maternity units should have available the full range of clinical support services of a major acute hospital, especially for mothers who experience difficulties and complications giving birth. Both proposals for the site of a new in-patient unit, which I shall discuss shortly, envisage the closure of Bellshill maternity hospital once alternative accommodation becomes available. I would, however, like to take this opportunity to state clearly that the re-provision of in-patient services at another site is in no way a reflection of the dedication of the staff and the quality of care that they provide at Bellshill hospital. The hospital is much respected and admired in the community, and I am grateful to all who work hard there to provide care for mothers in Lanarkshire.
  The health board's review has recommended that in-patient maternity services should be centralised in a new unit on a district general hospital site. Two local acute trusts have submitted proposals for the location of the new unit. In considering the proposals, the board has weighed the need to provide the best quality of care possible alongside the need to offer accessible services. Although finely balanced, the health board has expressed a preference to locate the new in-patient unit at the new Law hospital to be built at Netherton, beside Wishaw.
  Importantly, in a patient-centred NHS, the board also took into account extensive consultations with mothers in making their decision. The key message from these discussions was that mothers attach greater importance to quality of care during pregnancy and to the facilities

  569
  available in the maternity unit than to the location of the in-patient unit itself. Of those who expressed a preference as to its location, 38 per cent. preferred Netherton and 33 per cent. preferred Monklands.
  For the residents of Monklands, this decision would enable an increased quality of service to be provided. New locally based day care facilities in the Monklands district general hospital care will be available for mothers in the Monklands area, with immediate access to on-site specialists. With in-patient accommodation in the new Law hospital, intensive neonatal and other specialist care would, for the first time, be available on-site for all mothers, with no need to transfer to another site should complications arise.
  The hon Lady raised an alternative option of providing in-patient facilities at two sites in Lanarkshire the new Law hospital at Netherton and Monklands district general hospital. This was a fundamental question addressed by the review. The size of future demand for services is an important consideration. The number of births per year to Lanarkshire mothers is expected to fall by almost 15 per cent. by 2005 to just over 6,600. Of these, around 4,400 will take place in Lanarkshire, reducing the need for local in-patient accommodation to around 80 beds. A single in-patient maternity unit remains the health board's preferred option for strong clinical reasons. There are five reasons, which I shall go through.
  First, with two sites, a neonatal intensive care unit for critically ill babies could be provided at only one location, resulting in around 50 per cent. of babies who need that level of care having to be transferred to the hospital with the unit. The advice that I have received is that transference is dangerous if a baby is critically ill. Secondly, with two sites, peaks in demand would result in some women being transferred at short notice to unfamiliar surroundings when their "local" unit was already full. That is unsettling to prospective mothers. Thirdly, two sites would reduce the availability of expert anaesthetic and paediatric staff, since the range of work at each site would be insufficient to attract top specialists. Obviously, anaesthetists and paediatricians of top quality are needed.
  Fourthly, the lower activity levels at two sites would not equip staff with sufficient expertise to deal with the range of potential birth complications as effectively. Only with higher activity levels at a single site could that be achieved. That might affect safety and would be a concern in securing continued accreditation from royal colleges and other national bodies. Fifthly, the consequences of having two smaller sites rather than one large one would also impact on recruitment and retention of staff. To develop their professional skills, many staff would be seeking experience in a unit with a greater volume of activity and offering a wider range of experience than could be offered in the two smaller units. For those reasons, the single-site option is preferred by the health board.
  570
  I should make it clear that the review of maternity services in Lanarkshire goes much wider than just in-patient care. The board wished to respond to the expressed wishes of mothers for increased community-based antenatal and post-natal care, which we think is extremely important. The board considering whether the 24 antenatal and post-natal clinics sited around Lanarkshire, including six in Monklands, should be increased in number, whether the range of services available at each clinic should be increased, and whether the opening times of clinics should be revised or extended.
  In addition, the board intended to build on the concept of day assessment centre services already provided in Bellshill and Law hospitals. It will provide four such centres, including a new centre in Monklands hospital. These centres will be staffed by midwives and will provide a wide range of services locally to avoid the need for women to travel to the in-patient unit if at all possible. The centres will be linked to the hospital day-bed facilities for conditions which do not need the full support of the in-patient unit.
  Finally, the board also intends to develop the concept of integrated care. With a unified clinical and organisational structure, each woman will have a named midwife and consultant with a midwifery team to ensure continuity of care from the first contact until after the birth. Importantly, the service will be both personal and local.
  I have been impressed by the extent to which local consultations have formed the bedrock of the service review and development of proposals. It is right to acknowledge the efforts of the board to consult as widely as possible and the response from so many interested parties. That has been of assistance. Consultations on the board's proposals are and will be actively pursued, with over 20 public meetings and meetings with professional and other bodies arranged in Lanarkshire. Several of these are being held in Monklands, and I know that the health board will shortly wish to invite the hon. Member for Monklands, East in particular, along with other hon. Members from Lanarkshire, to discuss the proposals.
  I am not in a position to anticipate the final outcome of the consultation exercise, or the Secretary of State's decision in relation to the possible closure of Bellshill hospital. [Interruption.] Opposition Members have put a number of arguments and they will be considered. That is right. Before the papers come to the Secretary of State, every conceivable contingency and possibility should have been properly considered. We are interested only in the provision of better care in the future than in the past.
  We are aiming for enhanced antenatal and post-natal clinics and day-care maternity facilities and we want to make certain that a new unit should have intensive care back-up and access to other specialities.
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes to Eleven o 'clock.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Gambia (Aid)
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the United Kingdom budget per annum in each year since 1979 committed to bilateral aid programmes in Gambia. [39600]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  United Kingdom gross bilateral aid to the Gambia since 1979 was as follows:

  1979–80—£2.00 million

  1980–81—£2.32 million

  1981–82—£2.48 million

  1982–83—£2.40 million

  1983–84—£3.64 million

  1984–85—£3.61 million

  1985–86—£9.90 million

  1986–87—£7.20 million

  1987–88—£6.53 million

  1988–89—£5.10 million

  1989–90—£6.37 million

  1990–91—£5.75 million

  1991–92—£4.88 million

  1992–93—£4.39 million

  1993–94—£2.76 million

  l994–95—£2.23 million

  Estimated spending in 1995–96 was £1.97 million.

  Miss Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the United Kingdom budget per annum currently committed to on-going bilateral aid programmes in Gambia. [39562]

  Dr. Fox
  Spending on on-going bilateral aid programmes in the Gambia is estimated at £1.2 million in 1996–97.

  Miss Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the United Kingdom budget for 1994–95 and 1995–96 committed to aid programmes in Gambia through the European Union; and what is the amount allotted for use in voter registration projects in that country. [39575]

  Dr. Fox
  The European Union committed 2.5 mecu to the Gambia from 1994 to 1996. The United Kingdom share is estimated at £0.29 million.

  The United Kingdom and the European Commission jointly provided about £0.9 million this year to fund a voter registration project in the Gambia.

  Miss Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out the conditions to be met before Her Majesty's Government will lift the United Kingdom aid embargo on Gambia; and what plans he has to review that embargo. [39599]
  644
  Dr. Fox
  The United Kingdom, along with other members of the European Union, will not consider making new aid commitments in the Gambia until there is a return to a democratically elected civilian Government.

  We have, however, jointly with the European Commission, provided help to prepare a voter register. We have made it clear that no further assistance for the elections will be given until the ban on political parties is lifted, political detainees are released or charged, and harassment of the press ceases.

  The situation is under constant review.

  Southern Rhodesia Public Service
  Sir Anthony Durant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from former officers of the Southern Rhodesia public service recruited and now living in the United Kingdom about the payment of their pensions; what response he has given; and if he will make a statement. [39588]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  In recent years, representations have been received from many former members of the public service in Southern Rhodesia about the decline in the sterling value of their pensions. Southern Rhodesia was an independent self-governing colony from 1923; recruitment to its public service was made directly by that Government, and staff served on local as opposed to expatriate terms of service.

  The Government of Zimbabwe is responsible for the payment of pensions to former Southern Rhodesia civil servants. Our responsibility is limited to those who were recruited by, or on behalf of, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and who were employed on expatriate terms in the central Government of a colony. There are large numbers of overseas pensioners whose pensions are being eroded by falling exchange rates and, indeed, many who receive no payment at all.

  The Government could not justify helping Zimbabwe pensioners in isolation; the financial consequences of assisting all overseas pensioners who find themselves in this position would be prohibitive.

  Sir Anthony Durant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what would be the cost, including the saving in state benefits, of honouring the undertaking by the Minister of State in 1979 in respect of safeguards under the Zimbabwean constitution for the pensions of former officers of the Southern Rhodesia public service; and if he will bring their pensions within the aegis of the Overseas Pension Act 1973. [39587]

  Dr. Fox
  The Government of Zimbabwe have honoured their obligation under the constitution by continuing to pay the pensions of those former officers who were employed in the public service in Southern Rhodesia, although the sterling value of these pensions has been eroded through the effects of inflation and adverse exchange rates.
  645
  The Government have no plans to bring Southern Rhodesian public service pensions within the scope of the Overseas Pensions Act 1973. The cost of doing so would necessarily be very substantial and would expose Her Majesty's Government to similar pressures from pensioners who served on local terms elsewhere.

  Reproductive Health and Family Planning
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications from non-governmental organisations have been received for funding for reproductive health and family planning projects from the seedcorn fund for the financial year 1996–97; and in how many and which countries these non-governmental organisations are based. [39644]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  The seedcorn fund has received 27 eligible applications from 17 non-governmental organisations for the financial year 1996–97. All applying organisations are based within the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 13 December,Official Report, columns 664–66, on allocations from the seedcorn fund for family planning and reproductive health projects, how many and which non-governmental organisations, additional to those listed in the reply, have received funding for reproductive health and family planning projects for each of the financial years 1995–96 and 1996–97; in which countries the NGOs receiving the grants are based; in which countries the funded projects are based; what are these projects; and what is the amount of funding granted and for what length of time. [39779]

  Dr. Fox
  The following table summarises seedcorn fund grants that have been provided since 13 December. In addition to these, three new projects have been approved in this period. Currently, only UK-based organisations are eligible to apply to the seedcorn fund.

  Organisation

  Title

  Country

  Budget (£000)

  Duration

  Marie Stopes International

  To Ascertain the Practicalities and Economics of Initiating a Social Publishing Programme in Almaty

  Russia

  6

  1 month

  Marie Stopes International

  Feasibility Study to Expand Depo-Provera through Nurse Aid Training

  Uganda

  21

  6 months

  International Family Health

  Community-Based Social Marketing: Testing and Piloting a new Health Production and Information Delivery Strategy

  India

  297

  2 years

  Hong Kong Public Service
  Sir Anthony Durant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what figure would be used under part II of the schedule to the Hong Kong (Overseas Public Servants) (Pension Supplements) Order 1996 to calculate the notional pension if it were based on 646
  a median average rather than a mean average of comparable Hong Kong and United Kingdom civil service grades; what would be the maximum potential cost to the United Kingdom Government if the sterling pension safeguard scheme were based on that figure; and if he will review the scheme in the event that the value of the Hong Kong dollar falls significantly after 30 June 1997. [39682]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  The notional pension under part II of the schedule to the Hong Kong (Overseas Public Servants) (Pension Supplements) Order 1996, based on the mean salary differentials between comparable grades in the Hong Kong and United Kingdom public service, is calculated at the rate of HK$21 to £1. If median as opposed to mean salary differentials were used this would not affect the rate. The hypothetical maximum liability to Her Majesty's Government would therefore remain unchanged at £130 million over the lifetime of pensions. The scheme was introduced on 1 July 1996 and is designed to provide a fair and reasonable level of pension protection in the event that there is a significant fall in the value of the Hong Kong dollar. The Government have no plans to make any changes to it.

  Burundi
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what assessment he has made of the current situation in Burundi; [40089]

  (2) if he will make a statement about the current
  situation in Burundi. [40091]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  We are deeply concerned about the situation in Burundi and are in close contact with regional leaders and partners. We support efforts by ex-President Nyerere to negotiate a political settlement and welcomed the outcome of the Arusha settlement. We continue to support contingency planning at the UN and within the region for possible international intervention.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received and what discussions he has had about the possibility of intervention in Burundi by the Organisation of African Unity. [40090]

  Dr. Fox
  The Organisation of African Unity Summit in Yaoundé endorsed the outcome of the Arusha summit. We welcome the decision by the OAU central organ to extend the mandate of the OAU observers and to sent a mission to Burundi.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what assistance the British Government have provided and are prepared to offer to Burundi in respect of the current internal conflict; [40092]

  (2) what reports he has received about forced repatriation of refugees from Burundi to Rwanda. [40094]

  Dr. Fox
  United Nations High Commission for Refugees estimates that 17,000 Rwandan refugees have been forcibly repatriated in the current conflict. UNHCR and UN human rights monitors are monitoring the condition of the returnees. Britain has made representations to the Governments of Burundi and Rwanda calling on them to ensure the safety of refugees in their care and that all repatriation is on a voluntary basis. Discussions are also taking place in the UN Security Council.
  647
  Britain has provided £2.6 million bilaterally and through the EU to Burundi since January 1996. My right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Chalker intends to visit the region early next month. She will assess further needs.

  Tropical Timber
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the meeting on tropical timber held in Geneva from 13 September. [40286]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  The International Tropical Timber Organisation met in Geneva on 13 September. It was decided that the new international tropical timber agreement, which has now been ratified or provisionally applied by 38 countries including the United Kingdom, should enter into force on 1 January 1997. The new agreement provides an important basis for continued efforts by the international community to improve the management of tropical forests and promote trade in sustainably produced tropical timber.

PRIME MINISTER

  Departmental Salaries
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister how many persons working in (i) No. 10 Downing street and (ii) the Cabinet Office are paid more than £43,000 per annum. [40220]

  The Prime Minister
  The number of payees whose national salary is more than £43,000 per annum in No. 10 Downing street, the Cabinet Office, including the Office of Public Service and its agencies, is as follows:No. 10: 12
  Cabinet Office (including the Office of Public Service and agencies): 116.

  Oman University
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what reports he has received regarding the involvement by Mr. Mark Thatcher, in respect of companies in receipt of export credit guarantees from the ECGD, in the construction of a university in Oman; and if he will make a statement; [40277]

  (2) what reports he has received that part of the university of Oman has been used for the storage of military equipment or for other military purposes; if these purposes were known to Her Majesty's Government when export credit guarantees were given by the ECGD in relation to the construction of the university; and if he will make a statement. [40215]

  The Prime Minister
  As far as my office is aware, none.

  Parliamentary Recall
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his letter to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 9 September, if he will state the conditions in which he believes the public interest requires Parliament to be recalled, with particular reference to the involvement of British personnel on active service. [40365]
  648
  The Prime Minister
  A decision to recall Parliament depends upon the prevailing situation. It is made after consultation with colleagues and through the usual channels.

  Academy of Sports
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Prime Minister what advice he sought from voluntary coaches and administrators in(a) athletics, (b) rowing, (c) canoeing, (d) swimming and (e) cycling (i) prior to and (ii) since his original announcements concerning his proposed academy of sports. [40404]

  The Prime Minister
  Details of the Government's proposals for the British Academy of Sport were included in the sports policy statement, "Sport: Raising the Game", which was published on 14 July 1995. The policy statement invited the Sports Council to bring forward proposals on what the structure and content of the academy might be, and to consult widely with the sports world on the ideas that might emerge. On 6 December 1995, the Sports Council published a consultation paper on the academy and comments were invited by the end of January. The Sports Council also held a series of consultation meetings with groups of administrators, coaches, performers and specialists from all sports, including representatives of the sports listed.

  A prospectus inviting bids to establish the academy was published jointly by the Department of National Heritage and the Sports Council on 24 July. A summary of the consultation was published with it. Bidders have until 31 October to submit their bids.

  British Legion
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minster what further correspondence has been received in his office from the Royal British Legion in relation to its call for the setting up of an ex-service affairs unit; what reply has been sent; what action he will be taking; and if he will make a statement. [40374]

  The Prime Minister
  I have received one recent letter directed from the Royal British Legion regarding the setting up of an ex-service affairs unit. A reply has been sent. The position remains as I detailed in my answer to the hon. Member on 11 March,Official Report, columns 434–35.

  Poverty Resources
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what policies Her Majesty's Government have established in support of the 1996 United Nations Year for the Eradication of Poverty: and what additional resources have been committed in support of these policies. [40491]

  The Prime Minister
  The United Kingdom has extensive social protection and assistance arrangements, among the most comprehensive in the world. It is by working to maintain and improve living standards through economic and social policies that we will fulfil the aspirations of the United Nations Year for the Eradication of Poverty, and in a way relevant to our society. The most effective way of eradicating poverty is to promote flexible labour markets since this reduces the level of
  649
  unemployment. Claimant unemployment has already fallen by over 125,000 so far this year. The UK has more of its people in work and a lower unemployment rate than any other major EU country.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Ethnic Minorities
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many women from ethnic minorities are employed by his Department and its agencies; at what grade; and what measures he has taken to encourage the(a) recruitment, (b) employment and (c) promotion of women from ethnic minorities within his Department and its agencies. [39898]

  Mr. Hanley
  Our records, based on voluntary declaration, show that this Department and its agencies employ the following numbers of ethnic minority women:

  higher executive officer and above: 8

  Executive officer: 19

  Administrative officer: 95

  Administrative assistant: 27.

  We are committed to encouraging the career development of all staff, irrespective of gender or ethnic origin. We have comprehensive programmes in place to ensure equality of access to recruitment, training, career development and promotion for all staff. We monitor all our procedures to ensure implementation.

  We actively encourage ethnic minority applicants through our recruitment literature and campaigns and work closely with the Windsor Fellowship. We are also active members of Opportunity 2000.

  Hong Kong (US Bombs)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent discovery by Customs at Hong Kong airport of US-made bombs in transit from China to Israel. [40072]

  Mr. Hanley
  A consignment of inert military ordnance was discovered by the Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department during a routine inspection on 24 May 1996. Charges were laid against the carrier, Hong Kong Dragon Airlines Ltd., for importing prohibited articles without a licence and failing to retain possession of the articles until a valid licence was produced. The airline pleaded guilty and was fined HK$80,000 or £6,600.

  Former Yugoslavia
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his estimate of the numbers of soldiers and civilians killed (i) in the attack by Bosnian troops on Serbian troops to the north and north west of Srebrenica and (ii) in the counter-attack by Serbian troops; how many soldiers were hiding their military identity by dressing in civilian clothing; and in what ways such casualties can be distinguished from Bosnians who it is alleged were illegally executed by Serbian troops. [40219]
  650
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia—ICTY—is still investigating the fall of Srebrenica last July. We await details. So far, ICTY teams have exhumed 400 to 500 bodies from four sites around Srebrenica. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that there are 6,000 missing people from the area.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reasons international warrants have not been issued against(a) President Tudjman of Croatia and (b) the leaders of the Bosnian Muslims. [40216]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  it is for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia to decide whom it should indict. We provide significant support for the tribunal's activities, and it has our full confidence.

  Western Sahara
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he plans to take to ensure the UN-sponsored referendum on the future of the Western Sahara takes place. [40285]

  Mr. Hanley
  We are active both in New York and bilaterally in urging Morocco and Polisario to co-operate fully with the UN and MINURSO—in the referendum mission—in order that the identification process can be restarted and lead to the referendum.

  I also took the opportunity during my visit to Morocco in June to make our views clear.

  Nuclear Co-operation
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy in respect of nuclear co-operation with Russia and China. [40248]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  In September we signed a bilateral agreement with the Russian Federation on co-operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The agreement provides a framework within which firms can pursue business and expert exchanges. With our G8 colleagues, we attended the Moscow summit on nuclear safety and security. The summit underlined the close co-operation between Russia and the G7 in solving nuclear safety problems in eastern Europe and in the former Soviet Union. It also identified further action to be pursued. Russia has now ratified the international convention on nuclear safety, and signed the Vienna convention on nuclear liability.

  China is becoming increasingly important in the civil nuclear power section. We are actively seeking to strengthen our civil nuclear co-operation with them at both official and industry levels. We welcome China's decision to attend the conference on nuclear safety in Asia, to be held in Tokyo on 5 and 6 November, which the United Kingdom will also attend.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department has a system for grading the human rights performances of individual countries. [40162]
  651
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We do not maintain any league table of human rights violators, though we receive detailed information from our embassies and high commissions as well as from outside bodies, including non-governmental organisations, on the human rights performance of various countries.

  Burma
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will estimate the value of the contribution made by British businesses to the economy in 1996 of Burma with particular reference to tourism; and if he will make a statement. [40136]

  Mr. Hanley
  The value of United Kingdom trade with Burma and of UK investment there is low. We are aware of only two UK companies which have made direct investment in the tourism industry in Burma. The amount of tourism-related goods and services exported from the UK is also small. More may be channelled through third countries, but it is difficult to estimate their value.

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list for the last year for which figures are available(a) the total number of persons who applied for entry clearance as a visitor to the United Kingdom, (b) the total number of refusals and (c) the countries of origin of those who were refused giving the numbers against each. [40196]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  The total number of applications for entry clearance to visit the UK in 1995 was 1,167,295.

  The total number of refusals for entry clearance to visit the UK in 1995 was 72,626.

  The countries of origin of those refused are not currently available. Details will shortly be available from the Home Office's Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom 1995.

  Galapagos
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 21 May,Official Report, column 103, what contribution has been made by Her Majesty's ambassador in Quito towards the goat eradication scheme on the Galapagos. [40367]

  Dr. Fox
  The British Ambassador in Quito donated £5,000 for the purchase of equipment required for the goat eradication programme. A contribution of £25,000 from an FCO fund for small environmental projects has also been approved to establish a base station for the programme and to protect threatened plant species, which form an important part of the tortoises' diet.

  Russia
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his letter of 13 May, in what ways he has kept up constructive pressure on Russia in relation to radioactive waste management. [40366]
  652
  Dr. Fox
  Meetings of the International Atomic Energy Agency's contact expert group provide regular opportunities to discuss radioactive waste management issues. Both the UK and Russia are full members. The group, which also co-ordinates and monitors aid for nuclear waste management projects in Russia, met last on 10 and 11 September 1996.

  Lake Kojanovskoe
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his letter of 3 April, what action he has taken with the European Commission to counter contamination of Lake Kojanovskoe. [40370]

  Dr. Fox
  We have yet to decide with our EU partners what concrete assistance might be made available to counter contamination of Lake Kojanovskoe pending consideration of the conclusions of the EU-financed study of contamination levels.

  Commission for the Restitution of Monetary Gold
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a formal request to the UK partners on the tripartite gold commission to produce annual reports regarding meetings and expenses. [40650]

  Mr. David Davis
  We will make a request. I shall write to the hon. Member with the results.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date and in what form he last reported to Parliament on the work of the tripartite commission for the restitution of monetary gold; and if he will make a statement. [40649]

  Mr. Davis
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, on 12 March 1991,Official Report, column 433.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Probate Service
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the future of the probate service. [37957]

  Mr. Streeter
  Public consultation on proposed changes to the structure of the probate service has now been concluded. The Lord Chancellor is considering the proposals and an announcement will be made as soon as a decision has been reached.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the review of legal aid. [37959]

  Mr. Streeter
  The Lord Chancellor published a White Paper on 2 July, setting out the Government's plans for reforming the legal aid scheme in England and Wales. Since then, work has been proceeding on implementing the reforms.
  653
  The Legal Aid Board published its plans for expanding block contracting of advice and assistance in the not-for-profit sector in August. It intends to publish proposals for piloting legal aid for family mediation in November, and on advice and assistance contracts with solicitors' firms in early 1997.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has recently received about the cost of the legal aid scheme. [37960]

  Mr. Streeter
  I frequently receive representations on this matter. As my hon. Friend knows, the Government's proposals for a radical reform of the legal aid scheme were announced by the Lord Chancellor on 2 July, and are contained in the White Paper, "Striking the Balance". These proposals will, among other things, improve control over the cost of legal aid and ensure that the taxpayer obtains good value for the money spent.

  Mediation
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will take steps to promote the concept of mediation in the civil and family law systems in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [37961]

  Mr. Streeter
  In England and Wales my Department has developed a number of initiatives to encourage the use of mediation where it is appropriate. In January of this year, my Department published the guide, "Resolving Disputes Without Going to Court". It contains information on a range of alternatives to litigation and is available free from county courts. A pilot scheme has been introduced at the Central London county court to help people settle a wide range of disputes through mediation.

  The Family Law Act 1996 contains measures designed to promote the use of family mediation as an alternative to litigation. The reforms of the legal aid scheme that the Lord Chancellor announced in July would allow new types of service to be provided under legal aid. Family mediation will he an early priority and, in time, the scheme could be extended to allow civil mediation services to be provided to people who qualify for legal aid.

  Public Record Office Papers
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which are the oldest papers in the Public Record Office which have not been placed in the public domain. [37962]

  Mr. Streeter
  The oldest papers in the Public Record Office which have not yet been placed in the public domain are some papers from Dublin castle records in a ledger dated 1853–1920, Public Record Office reference CO 904/6. These papers have now been cleared for release and will be available shortly.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many magistrates courts there were in Wales in 1978; and how many are operating in 1996. [37963]
  654
  Mr. Streeter
  There are at present 63 magistrates courts in Wales. No accurate record exists for the number of magistrates courts in Wales in 1978.

  Sheriffs
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he is taking to increase the public accountability of sheriffs and under-sheriffs. [37964]

  Mr. Streeter
  On 2 April my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) announced to the House,Official Report, column 87, the work currently planned in connection with the Lord Chancellor's review of civil enforcement agents. No decision has yet been made on the issue of the accountability of high sheriffs, under sheriffs and sheriff's officers.

  Children Act 1989
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 22 July,Official Report, columns 18–19, if he will make arrangements for all guidance on the provisions of and procedures under the Children Act 1989 for court staff and judiciary to be placed in the Library. [39929]

  Mr. Streeter
  Yes. The following will be placed in the Library:

  Children Act 1989—Court Staff Handbook

  Children Act 1989—Judicial Information Booklet

  Children Act 1989—Guidance to Listing Officers

  Children Act 1989—Court User Guide.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the report, "Domestic Violence and Child Contact Arrangements in England and Denmark" by Marianne Hester and Lorraine Radford, Policy Press 1996, a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement. [39930]

  Mr. Streeter
  The findings of this report will be considered carefully in connection with the implementation of the Family Law Act 1996. Where conflict occurs in connection with child contact arrangements, remedies are available within the Act and elsewhere to deal with it in order to ensure that both children and adults are properly protected against domestic violence.

  Legal Profession
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the reasons for the growth in both branches of the legal profession since 1970; and what assessment he has made of their optimum size. [37950]

  Mr. Streeter
  None. The legal profession is independent of Government and self-regulating. Its size is determined by the demand for legal services.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisoner Statistics
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the latest estimate of the numbers of prisoners in United Kingdom(a) open and (b) closed prisons; and what were the corresponding figures for 1991. [40053]

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

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Barry Jones, dated 14 October 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the latest estimate of the numbers of prisoners in United Kingdom open and closed prisons; and the corresponding figures for 1991.
  On 31 July 1996, there were 4,650 prisoners in open prisons and 51,500 persons in closed prisons in England and Wales. These figures include prisoners held in young offender institutions.
  Information for 30 June 1991 is published in "Prison statistics, England and Wales", table 1.7 of the 1991 edition, column 2157; annual average population figures are given in table 1.6. A copy of "Prison statistics" is available in the Library.
  Information for Scotland and Northern Ireland is the responsibility of the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women from ethnic minorities are employed by his Department and its agencies; at what grade; and what measures he has taken to encourage the(a) recruitment, (b) employment and (c) promotion of women from ethic minorities with his Department and its agencies. [39897]

  Mr. Howard
  The Home Office and its agencies employ a total of 1,252 women known to be from ethnic minorities. Details of their grades are given in the following tables. The Directors General of the Prison Service and of the Forensic Science Service, and the chief executives of the UK Passport Agency and the Fire Service College have provided the figures for their agencies.

  The Home Office follows the Cabinet Office's programmes for action to achieve equality of opportunity in the civil service for people of ethnic minority origin and for women. Recruitment advertisements, which encourage applications from people regardless of background—including ethnic origin or gender—are placed in the ethnic minority press. A number of measures are being taken to foster links with those from ethnic minorities, including substantial involvement with the Windsor Fellowship and the National Mentoring Consortium and links with community relations councils. In the Prison Service, governors have also been encouraged to make particular efforts to attract applications from women and from those of ethnic minority origin.
  656
  The Department has widely publicised procedures for combating harassment and discrimination.

  Steps are being taken to encourage more ethnic minority staff to train as members of recruitment and promotion boards with the aim that boards include one member of ethnic minority origin wherever possible. All advertisements for promotion boards carry a statement which makes it clear that the Department is committed to a policy of equal opportunity for all staff regardless of factors such as ethnicity or gender.

  The Department monitors the progress of staff according to ethnicity and gender, including aspects such as recruitment, grade level, promotion and staff report markings.

  Home Office (excluding agencies)

  Grades1

  Number of female staff from ethnic minorities

  Grade 7

  2*

  Senior executive officer (SEO)

  7

  Higher executive officer (HEO)

  14

  Executive officer (EO)

  160

  Administrative Officer (AO)

  378

  Administrative assistant (AA)

  225

  1 Grades given in this and the following tables include grade equivalents (except where Prison Service grades are shown separately).

  2 Asterisks denote five staff or fewer to avoid the possibility of individuals being identified.

  Her Majesty's (HM) Prison Service

  Grades

  Number of female staff from ethnic minorities

  Senior executive officer (SEO)

  1*

  Higher executive officer (HEO)

  1*

  Executive officer (EO)

  20

  Administrative officer(AO)

  101

  Administrative assistant (AA)

  53

  Senior officer2

  1*

  Prison officer2

  79

  Prison auxiliary2

  11

  Night patrol2

  12

  Chaplain2

  1*

  Nursing grades2

  35

  Psychologist grades2

  1*

  Medial officer2

  1*

  Professional and technical officer2

  1*

  Instructional officer2

  1*

  Pharmacist grades2

  1*

  HM Prison Service is in the process of transferring to a new computer system and as a result there may be inaccuracies in the above data.

  1 Asterisks denote five staff or fewer to avoid the possibility of individuals being identified.

  2 HM Prison Service grades.

  UK Passport Agency

  Grades

  Number of female staff from ethnic minorities

  Executive officer (EO)

  7

  Administrative officer (AO)

  48

  Administrative assistant (AA)

  42

  657

  Forensic Science Service

  Grades

  Number of female staff from ethnic minorities

  Senior forensic scientist

  1*

  Assistant forensic scientist

  12

  Higher executive officer (HEO)

  1*

  Administrative office (AO)

  1*

  Administrative assistant (AA)

  16

  1 Asterisks denote five staff or fewer to avoid the possibility of individuals being identified.

  Fire Service College

  Grade

  Number of female staff from ethnic minorities

  Nursing grade 1

  1*

  1 Asterisks denote five staff or fewer to avoid the possibility of individuals being identified.

  Nigerian Citizens
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Nigerian citizens have been compulsorily returned to Nigeria since November 1995, and what reports he has received of their present situation. [40283]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The statistics available relate to the total number of Nigerian citizens removed from the United Kingdom to all countries. Some 350 Nigerians were refused leave to enter and removed from the United Kingdom in the period November 1995 to July 1996. In addition, 290 Nigerians were removed as illegal entrants or persons subject to deportation action; this figure includes persons who departed voluntarily after enforcement action had been initiated. I have received no reports of their present situation.

  Casinos
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many registered casinos there are in England and Wales; and if he will list them. [40117]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  On March 31 1996, there were 107 licensed casinos in England and Wales. They were, by area:

  Birkenhead

  Stanley Wirral casino

  Birmingham

  China Palace casino

  Grosvenor casino

  Midland Wheel casino

  Rainbow casino

  Stakis Regency International casino

  Blackpool

  Castle casino

  Grosvenor casino

  Bolton

  Stanley casino

  Bournemouth

  Grosvenor casino

  Stakis Regency casino

  658

  Stanley casino

  Bradford

  Napoleons casino club

  Stakis Regency casino

  Brighton

  Grosvenor casino

  International casino club

  Bristol

  Annabelle casino

  Grosvenor casino (2)

  Stakis Regency casino

  Coventry

  Annabelle casino

  Stakis Regency casino

  Stanley casino

  Derby

  Carlton casino

  Hamblin Grand casino

  Dudley

  Castle Hill casino

  Great Yarmouth

  Grosvenor casino

  Kings casino

  Hove

  Grosvenor casino

  Huddersfield

  Grosvenor casino

  Kingston-upon-Hull

  Stakis Regency casino

  Leeds

  Grosvenor casino (2)

  Napoleons casino club

  Stakis Regency casino

  Leicester

  Annabelle casino

  Stanley casino

  Liverpool

  Grosvenor casino

  Stanley casino

  Stanley grand casino

  London

  Aspinall's club

  Barracuda club

  Chester's casino

  Clermont club

  Colony club

  Crockfords club

  Cromwell Mint

  Golden Horseshoe

  Golden Nuggett

  Grosvenor Connoisseur casino

  Grosvenor casino

  Grosvenor Victoria casino

  Les Ambassadeurs

  London Park Tower

  Maxims casino club

  659

  Napoleons casino

  Palm Beach casino

  Rendezvous casino club

  Ritz casino

  Sportsmen club

  Stakis Regency casino

  Luton

  Grosvenor casino

  Stanley casino

  Lytham St Annes

  Clifton casino

  Manchester

  Grosvenor casino (3)

  Stanley Midland casino

  Stanley Strand casino

  Margate

  Regal sporting club

  Stanley casino

  newcastle upon Tyne

  Casino Royale

  Grosvenor casino

  Stanley Grey's casino

  Northampton

  Stakis Regency casino

  Nottingham

  Stakis Chevalier casino

  Stakis Regency casino

  Plymouth

  Grand casino

  Grosvenor casino

  Portsmouth

  Grosvenor casino (2)

  Stanley casino

  Ramsgate

  Grosvenor casino

  Reading

  Grosvenor casino

  Reading sporting club

  Salford

  Stanley Albion casino

  Scarborough

  Grosvenor casino

  Sheffield

  Bonapartes casino club

  Grosvenor casino

  Napoleon Bonapartes gaming club

  Southampton

  Grosvenor casino

  Stanley casino

  Southend on Sea

  Waterfront casino club

  Westcliff sporting club

  Southport

  Stanley casino

  660

  Stockport

  Stakis Regency casino

  Stoke on Trent

  Stanley casino

  Sunderland

  Grosvenor casino

  Teeside-Middlesborough

  Stakis Regency casino

  Torbay

  Torquay casino

  Walsall

  Royal casino

  Wolverhampton

  Stakis Regency casino

  Cardiff

  Grosvenor casino

  Les Croupiers casino

  Stakis Regency casino

  Swansea

  Annabelle casino

  Grosvenor casino

  Internet
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures his Department is taking to outlaw the downloading and publication of obscene material from the Internet which would be illegal if produced in printed form. [40548]

  Mr. Sackville
  I will write to the hon. Member.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Millennium Exhibition
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the companies which have so far stated their intention to contribute to the millennium site. [40198]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  The companies which have so far publicly stated their intention to contribute to sponsorship of the millennium exhibition are Abbey National, Amec, BAA, Barclays bank, British Aerospace, British Airways, British Telecommunications, BSkyB, British Petroleum, General Electric Company, Hanson Energy, Lloyds bank, London Electricity, Marks and Spencer, Midland bank, National Westminster bank, Reuters and Siemens. The Corporation of London has also pledged support.

  Ministerial Accommodation
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what nursery accommodation is available to Her Majesty's Ministers in their Departments. [40265]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  Departments and agencies have delegated responsibility to establish nursery and childcare schemes for children of civil servants Departments wishing to establish a workplace nursery must be able to justify it in terms of value for money and contain the cost within existing running costs. Parents
  661
  wishing to use any of these schemes are normally required to make a contribution to the costs, comparable to private sector schemes.

  Ministers of the Crown are able to make use of a departmental nursery on the same basis as civil servants.

  Nationally, 53 civil service nurseries have been established and 120 holiday play schemes run during school holidays. In addition, the civil service is in partnership with other organisations in 23 nurseries and buys places in 16 others.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Publicity
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Attorney-General what is his Department's budget in 1996–97 for consultants to assist with information, publicity, press and media, specifying separately the Solicitor-General's staff. [39347]

  The Attorney-General
  No separate budget is held for this purpose.

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Crown Prosecution Service

  Not available (7+1 part-time)

  £283,800 (10+1 part-time)

  £288,800 (11+1 part-time)

  £277,700 (11+1 part-time)£93.000

  Serious Fraud Office

  £69,000 (3)

  £79,500 (4+2 part-time)

  £80,000 (4+1 part-time)

  £93.000 (4)

  Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers4 Treasury Solicitor's Department

  —

  —

  —

  £14,800 (1)

  Government Property Lawyers

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Figures before the brackets indicate the costs1 of staff engaged in providing information, publicity, press and media services. 2 Figures in brackets indicate the numbers of staff so engaged.3

  1 These figures comprise salary, superannuation (estimated where precise figure is unknown), ERNIC payments and allowances. CPS costs for 1993–94 are not available.

  2 It is not possible to distinguish between these categories of services since in practice they overlap and are provided by the same staff.

  3 These figures do not include staff providing these services incidentally to, or inseparably from, other functions.

  1 No separate costs are incurred in relation to the Solicitor-General.

  ISC-Ferranti
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement in respect of the removal by an agency of Her Majesty's Government of(a) files and (b) other evidence from the offices of ISC in west London, following the announcement by Sir Derek Alun Jones in respect of fraud at the company; what was the nature of such material; what steps were taken by his office to ensure that it was properly preserved and examined by investigating authorities; and what action was taken as a result of such an examination. [40209]

  The Attorney-General
  My answer relates only to the Serious Fraud Office for which I have ministerial responsibility. On 12 September 1989 an announcement was made by Sir Derek Alun Jones to the effect that the company was carrying out an internal investigation into some of its overseas contracts and that the annual general meeting of the company would be adjourned until 10 October 1989. Shortly thereafter the Serious Fraud Office commenced its preliminary investigation. Neither the Serious Fraud Office nor police officers working with it at any time removed files or other
  662
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) what is the cost budgeted for staff employed full time or part time to provide information and publicity in 1996–97 in his Department and that of the Solicitor-General; [39446]

  (2) how many staff are assumed in his Department's budget, employed (i) full time and (ii) part time, (a) to work on press and media and (b) to provide information and publicity in 1996–97; [39336]

  (3) what was the cost of staff employed full time or part time (a) to provide information and publicity and (b) to work on the press and media in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1994–95, and (iii) 1993–94, showing separately staff of the Solicitor-General; [39409]

  (4) how many staff were employed full time or part time (a) to provide information and publicity and (b) on press and media in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1994–95 and (iii) 1993–94; [39421]

  (5) what is the cost assumed in the budget of people employed full time or part time to work on the press and the media in 1996–97. [39982]

  The Attorney-General
  The information is shown in the table.

  evidence from the offices of ISC in west London. Certain documentation originating from the offices of ISC (London) plc and ISC (Technologies) Ltd. was however produced to the SFO by Ferranti's solicitors. Where copies were taken by the SFO, they were analysed and preserved in the normal way. The investigation was carried out in close co-operation with the United States' prosecuting authorities. Seventeen individuals and three corporations were subsequently indicted in the United States on charges of fraud in respect of which I refer the hon. Member to my previous answers to him of 24 July 1996, Official Report, columns 459–60.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Tourism
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will estimate how many tourists will visit Britain in 1996. [37938]
  663
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The British Tourist Authority currently estimates that there will be 25.8 million overseas visitors to the UK this year, up 7 per cent. on 1995, with expenditure at over £13 billion, an 8 per cent. increase on last year.

  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations she has received on the impact on the tourism industry of a minimum wage. [37946]

  Mrs. Bottomley
  Tourism industry leaders, including the main trade body, the British Hospitality Association, have expressed their concern about the introduction of a national minimum wage. A minimum wage would cause job losses and restrict the creation of new jobs. The impact on more vulnerable young and unskilled workers would be particularly damaging.

  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the level of investment in tourism projects in the North-west region. [39992]

  Mr. Sproat
  The North West tourist board receives funding from the English tourist board to develop the quality of the tourism product in north-west England. The ETB subvention to the NWTB was £414,000 in 1995–96. The NWTB raised a further £1.42 million in income from commercial activities and local authority and commercial members' subscriptions. Tourism in the region also benefits from the single regeneration budget, and from Objective 1 status for Merseyside and objective 2 status for Greater Manchester, Lancashire and Cumbria under the European regional development fund. Twenty-eight mecu is allocated to tourism and cultural projects within the 1994 to 1999 objective 1 programme in Merseyside, and 24 mecu within the 1994 to 1996 objective 2 programme in Greater Manchester, Lancashire and Cumbria.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions her Department has had with(a) the Arts Council and (b) the Sports Council on the subject of directing lottery funds to assist young talented individuals. [37939]

  Mr. Sproat
  My right hon. Friend announced today that lottery money, joined with funds from central Government, will be used to finance a three-year scheme to assist students of dance and drama to take up places at accredited training institutions in England. The scheme will be administered by the Arts Council of England.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the criteria by which lottery proceeds are distributed to specific projects. [37947]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The proceeds set aside from the national lottery for the five good causes are distributed by 11 bodies.

  Each of these bodies to set application criteria taking account of the directions issued to them under section 26 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993. Decisions on applications are made independently of the Government.

  Yorkshire County Cricket Club
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the representations made to her Department on the relocation of the Yorkshire county cricket club. [37941]

  Mr. Sproat
  My right hon. Friend and I have received a small number of representations about the relocation of the Yorkshire county cricket club away from Headingley, its current headquarters. Yorkshire county cricket club announced on 7 October that it intended to relocate to Wakefield. This is entirely a matter for the club.

  Film Industry
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent consultations she has had with representatives of the film industry. [37942]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have regular consultations with representatives of the film industry on a wide range of film-related issues. Specifically this summer I visited the United States of America where I met leading figures from the American film industry including representatives from MCA, Warner Bros. and the Motion Picture Association of America.

  More recently, I attended the Edinburgh film festival, and visited Shepperton studios and the Warner Bros. feature animation studio in central London.

  National Museums Day
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations she has received regarding National Museums Day. [37943]

  Mr. Sproat
  I understand that Museums Week was a tremendous success and my right hon. Friend is looking forward to the meeting she shall be having, on 17 October, with Mr. Loyd Grossman, chairman of the Campaign for Museums, who has been responsible for the campaign. Six hundred and ninety-nine museums took part in the Week, and over 300 Members of Parliament visited their local museums, many on National Museums Day.

  Arts Policy
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on arts policy. [37944]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  On 30 July 1996 I published "Setting the Scene: the Arts and Young People", the first major Government policy statement on the arts for many years.

  Minority Sports
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to encourage minority British sports. [37945]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Government encourage the development of all lawful sports throughout the country. A wide range of high-quality services and support are made available by the Sports Council to all recognised sporting activities.

  Arts Group Tours
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what measures she is considering to encourage touring by arts groups. [37948]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  On 1 April 1996 I announced a new direction to the Arts Council of England under the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 requiring it to take into account the desirability of facilitating access to and participation in the arts. I believe that enabling touring companies to travel to new venues and communities in isolated areas is an important priority in increasing access.

  Public Libraries
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the future of public library services. [37921]

  Mr. Sproat
  Work on the public library review is well advanced, and I expect to make an announcement about its conclusions in the near future.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many women from ethnic minorities are employed by her Department and its agencies; at what grade; and what measures she has taken to encourage the(a) recruitment, (b) employment and (c) promotion of women from ethnic minorities within her Department and its agencies. [39893]

  Mr. Sproat
  The numbers of women from ethnic minorities employed by Department of National Heritage and its agencies, by grade, are listed in the table. The following measures are taken by DNH and its agencies to encourage the recruitment, employment and promotion of women from ethnic minorities.

  The Department and its agencies are equal opportunities employers and state this when advertising all vacancies. When recruiting externally, normally through the Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency, vacancies are advertised in papers aimed at ethnic minorities.

  Two thirds of the Royal Parks agency staff are police officers and we always ensure that police vacancies are advertised in the ethnic press. The agency are also considering the recommendations of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary contained in its report "Developing diversity in the Police Service".

  The Department has an equal opportunities statement and policy and an equal opportunities officer. Every possible step is taken to ensure that decisions on recruitment, selection, training and promotion are based solely on objective and job-related criteria.

  Grade (shows new DNH grades and equivalent in the Agencies)

  Department of National Heritage

  Royal Parks Agency

  Historic Royal Palaces

  B=HEO/SEO

  1

  —

  —

  C=EO

  4

  1

  1

  D(U)=AO

  4

  3

  6

  D(L)=AA

  7

  1

  14

  666

  Grade (shows new DNH grades and equivalent in the Agencies)

  Department of National Heritage

  Royal Parks Agency

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Police Constable

  —

  1

  —

  Police Sergeant

  —

  1

  —

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Business Links
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many personal business advisers are currently employed by business links. [39855]

  Mr. Page
  It is estimated that there are currently around 530 personal business advisers working for business links.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will list the target group of growth businesses used by each business link, by number of employees; [39854]

  (2) what proportion of business links use (a) 10 to 200 employees, (b) five to 200 employees and (c) some other definition as their target group. [39852]

  Mr. Page
  The definition of target groups is a matter for each business link. Information is not held centrally.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of(a) personal business advisers, (b) export development councillors and (c) innovation and technology advisers at (i) each business link and (ii) in total have been appointed by business links without reference to his Department's personnel. [39853]

  Mr. Page
  Business links recruit personal business advisers, export development counsellors and innovation and technology counsellors against a background of criteria and guidance agreed by the national business link partners including my Department.

  Each business link is an independent private sector organisation and decisions on whom it employs are a matter for it. However, where requested by the business link, officials of my Department. or the relevant regional government office, have occasionally been involved by participating in the selection process for personal business advisers and innovation and technology counsellors; and have regularly been involved in the selection process for export development counsellors.

  Small Firms
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what research his Department has recently undertaken into barriers to growth for small firms; and what his Department has identified as the main barriers. [39859]

  Mr. Page
  The Department has undertaken and published a number of studies which examine particular barriers to growth for small firms:'Management Training for Growth SMEs' (1995) looked at linkages between small and medium enterprises investment in management training and business growth. It also identified factors that are likely to limit the ability of the firm to maximise the benefits of external management training.

  667
  'Globalisation of SMEs' (1994) discusses the factors affecting the globlisation process and the resource and organisational difficulties encountered by SMEs.
  'Small Firms in the Inner City' (1993) was involved in identifying the different opportunities for growth as well as the constraints on the development of firms in different types of location.
  The Department is due to publish shortly two other reports that relate to barriers to growth for small firms:
  'Growth Constraints on SMEs' explores barriers to growth of SMEs in internationally tradeable sectors. It will identify the main barriers and assess how companies identify and manage constraints.
  'Franchising' examines the role of business format franchising as a strategy to facilitate small firm growth.

  Large Firm Outsourcing
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what evidence his Department has evaluated regarding the proportion of large firm outsourcing which goes to(a) large firms, (b) small firms and (c) self-employed people. [39860]

  Mr. Page
  The information requested is not available.

  Company Sizes
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of the work force in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) European Union countries were in enterprises with (i) one to nine, (ii) 10 to 49, (iii) 50 to 249 and (iv) over 250 employees in the last year for which figures are available. [39858]

  Mr. Nelson
  Estimates of the percentage of the workforce by size class for non-government enterprises are given in the table. There are no figures available that include central and local government.

  Work-force by size distribution of UK and EUR 15 enterprises1

  Percentages

  Number of employees

  UK

  EUR 15

  1–9

  17.4

  23.1

  10–49

  16.4

  18.8

  50–249

  12.9

  14.9

  250+

  40.3

  33.8

  Notes:

  1 Excludes agriculture.

  UK 1994.

  EUR 15 1992.

  Source:

  DTI and Eurostat.

  Aggregates
  Sir Peter Hordern
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was(a) the value and (b) the volume of (i) exports and (ii) imports of aggregates from and to the United Kingdom in each of the last five years. [39621]

  Mr. Nelson
  The information is published by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in the "Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom", which is available in the Library of the House. Aggregates are classified to heading 273.4 of the standard international trade classification.

  Channel 35
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans his Department has for the allocation of the Channel 35 frequency for analogue or digital use. [39742]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Government announced on 16 September the arrangements for the future of frequency Channel 35. Channel 5 Broadcasting will have access to the frequency for five years to enhance the population coverage of its service. As the market for advanced digital services develops, channel 35 will be redeployed to facilitate the new broadcasting opportunities. The arrangements oblige Channel 5 Broadcasting to inform viewers in areas using Channel 35, at the point of their VCR retuning campaign, that access to the channel is time limited and that Channel 5 will need to consider other options for reception at the end of the five-year period.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many women from ethnic minorities are employed by his Department and its agencies; at what grade; and what measures he has taken to encourage the(a) recruitment, (b) employment and (c) promotion of women from ethnic minorities within his Department and its agencies. [39896]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  On 19 July 1996 the DTI, excluding its executive agencies, employed 454 female staff of ethnic minority origin in the following grade levels:

  Grade level

  Number

  Senior Civil Service

  0

  SEO-G6 level

  8

  HEO level

  19

  EO level

  64

  AO level

  223

  AA level

  140

  Recruitment levels are very low at the moment. However, where we run recruitment campaigns, vacancies are usually advertised in the ethnic minority press. We also, where appropriate, use positive action statements to encourage applications from the ethnic minority community.

  Since September 1994, line managers have been responsible for selecting staff for internal transfers and promotions to posts up to and including G7 level.

  All staff involved in recruitment and promotion decisions are trained in selection techniques and in avoiding discrimination. Equal opportunities awareness training also forms an integral part of the Department's induction and managerial courses. Ethnic minority women may also apply to undertake positive action training.

  I have asked the chief executives of the DTI's executive agencies to respond direct to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Jim Norton to Ms Diane Abbott, dated 14 October 1996:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply on behalf of the Radiocommunications Agency to your Parliamentary Question.

  669
  The Radiocommunications Agency employs 16 women from ethnic minorities. All are in the Administration and Secretarial Groups which cover typists and secretaries, administration and executive staff.
  The Radiocommunications Agency's Equal Opportunities Policy Statement and Programme of Action underpin our commitment as an Equal Opportunities employer. As such, all advertised posts are open to applicants from the ethnic minorities. The managers involved in the selection and promotion procedures are fully trained in equal opportunities to ensure fairness and impartiality. Indeed, at present, all of our staff are receiving training in equal opportunities.
  As part of the Agency's Training and Development Strategy, appropriate training is provided to help staff develop and prepare for career opportunities. Such training is available to all staff in the Agency.

  Letter from John S. Holden to Ms Dianne Abbott, dated 14 October 1996:
  You recently tabled a Parliamentary Question for the President of the Board of Trade on ethnic minority women employed within DTI and its agencies. I am responding as Chief Executive of Companies House.
  30 women members of staff have identified themselves as being of ethnic minority origin. Their grades are as follows:

  Grade

  Number

  HEO level

  1

  EO

  1

  AO

  8

  AA

  9

  SGB2

  11

  Total

  30

  Companies House is fully committed to the principles of equal opportunity and to recruiting and promoting on merit.
  We are training all staff, including managers, on the anti-discrimination legislation and Companies House policy in this area.
  The Agency monitors the recruitment, development and promotion of ethnic minority staff, men and women, to enhance awareness and equality of treatment.

  Letter from Peter Joyce to Ms Diane Abbott, dated 14 October 1996:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your question about the employment of women from ethnic minorities in The Insolvency Service.
  At 19 July 1996, The Insolvency Service employed on a permanent basis 86 female staff recorded as of ethnic minority origin in the following grade levels:

  Senior Civil Service: 0

  SEO-Grade 6 level: 2

  HEO level: 6

  EO level: 12

  AO level: 23

  AA level: 43

  Staff within The Service responsible for recruitment exercises are trained and certificated in selection procedures and techniques. Equal opportunities awareness, including best practice in the avoidance of unfair discrimination, forms an integral part of staff recruitment and promotion panel training.
  The Service is also responsible for internal promotions of staff up to Grade 6 level and each panel includes a member of staff from The Service's Personnel Section.
  To encourage the employment and career development of women of all ethnic origins, The Service offers a career break scheme, part-time working, flexible working hours and job-sharing where it is possible to do so.
  670
  Letter from J. C. Octon to Ms Diane Abbott, dated 14 October 1996:
  In the absence of the Chief Executive I am replying for the Patent Office to your Parliamentary Question to the President of the Board of Trade about the employment of women from ethnic minorities.
  The Patent Office currently employs fewer than five women of ethnic minorities. I therefore regret that I cannot disclose the precise number or their grades for to do so would risk identification of the individuals concerned and thereby contravene the Code of Practice governing the use of data on ethnic origin.
  The Patent Office has been reducing in numbers for some years and in consequence has carried out very little recruitment. However, we take our responsibilities in this field seriously. Our recruitment advertisements all state that we are an equal opportunities employer and that we welcome applications from men and women of all backgrounds and ethnic groups, including those with disabilities.
  Promotion opportunities have also been rather limited in recent years but our aim is to ensure that the best candidate is selected. Our training procedures for promotion boards reflect the need to keep bias out of the selection and promotion processes and to ensure that equal opportunities legislation is respected.

  Letter from Seton Bennett to Ms Diane Abbott, dated 14 October 1996:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory to your question about the employment of women from ethnic minorities.
  This Agency employs less than five people in the group specified in your question. I am therefore not able to provide a detailed response as to do so would contravene the Code of Practice on the use of ethnic origin data. The Code prescribes that data should not be disclosed in a form that would allow individuals to be identified.
  With regard to the second part of your question, NWML follows the guidance given by the "Positive Action" initiative. In this respect, we advertise vacant posts to ensure that all those eligible to apply have the opportunity to do so, including ethnic minority women. The same policy applies to promotion opportunities.

  Company Ownership
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of(a) manufacturing, (b) industrial production and (c) gross domestic product is produced by foreign-owned United Kingdom companies; and what are the equivalent figures for (a) other G7 countries and (b) other EU member states. [40247]

  Mr. Lang
  According to the annual census of production, 23 per cent. of UK manufacturing gross value added at factor cost was attributed to foreign-owned enterprises in 1992, the latest year for which data are available. Similar data are not available for industrial production or GDP for the UK. There are no similar international data for manufacturing, industrial production or GDP.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place in the Library a list of all United Kingdom-registered companies which are owned or majority-owned by foreign individuals or businesses; and if he will specify the type of industry of each company so controlled. [40246]

  Mr. Lang
  Disclosure of individual shareholder nationality is not a requirement of the Companies Act and therefore Companies House has no knowledge of the nationality of individual shareholders. If the company is a subsidiary, the directors are obliged to disclose its ultimate parent company, its name and country of incorporation. This information could only be obtained from Companies House at disproportionate cost.

  Low Pay
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to increase wage levels in respect of low-paid workers. [39999]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) on 24 July 1996,Official Report, column 482.

  Mobile Telephone Services (Contracts)
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to eliminate unfair contracts between mobile telephone service providers and consumers; and if he will make a statement. [40195]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  From 1 July 1995, the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1994 introduced a general concept of fairness into consumer contract law in the United Kingdom. Companies, including service providers in the mobile telecommunications industry, who deal with consumers and use standard form contracts must ensure that they do not use unfair terms. An unfair term is defined as one which, contrary to the requirement of good faith, causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer. A consumer is not bound by a standard term if that term is unfair. Subject to this, service providers and dealers in the mobile phone industry are free to set their own contract conditions in competition with the many other companies in the mobile telephone market. Consumers are also free to shop around to find the best possible package which suits their mobile phone needs and requirements. The Federation of Communication Services, the mobile phone industry's main representative body, has also introduced a quality initiative "FCSQ" which provides significant safeguards for the consumer. Those in the industry who are members of this scheme display a "Q" quality mark, and consumers may wish to look for this mark when taking out a mobile phone contract.

  Sasea Finance Ltd. and Sasea Intertrade
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what examination his inspectors have made of liquidators' reports on Finance Ltd. and Sasea Intertrade; what action his Department(a) has taken and (b) proposes to take as a result; and if he will make a statement [40169]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Sasea Finance Ltd. went into liquidation on 14 October 1992. The joint liquidators Messrs D. J. Pallen and S. G. Franklin lodged their report under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986—CDDA—on 5 May 1994. The liquidators reported that the company's accounting records were maintained abroad and had been impounded by the Swiss authorities for the purpose of other inquiries. All the directors were foreign nationals resident abroad.

  Sasea Intertrade Company Ltd. went into liquidation on 16 June 1994. Mr. Pallen was again appointed liquidator and he reported under the CDDA on 15 September 1994. Again the company's directors were all foreign nationals resident abroad and the company's records remained impounded by the Swiss authorities for other inquiries.
  672
  The reports were considered by the Department's disqualification unit, but in the absence of the companies' directors and of the companies' records the unit was not in a position further to investigate the conduct of the directors or able to form a view as to whether disqualification proceedings were appropriate in the public interest. As a result, no proceedings were instigated.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what records have been examined by inspectors of his Department relating to the movement of the assets of Sasea Finance Ltd. and Sasea Intertrade immediately prior to their liquidation; what action his Department proposes to take as a result of its examination; and if he will make a statement. [40168]

  Mr. Taylor
  It is not my Department's policy to comment on individual companies.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what claims and of what amounts were made by(a) Sasea Finance Ltd. and (b) Sasea Intertrade from the Export Credits Guarantee Department between 1985 and 1991. [40167]

  Mr. Nelson
  None. The ECGD has no record of having issued a guarantee to either Sasea Finance Ltd. or Sasea Intertrade 1985 and 1991.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what claims and of what amounts were made by companies associated with directors of(a) Sasea Finance Ltd. and (b) Sasea Intertrade from the Export Credits Guarantee Department between 1985 and 1991. [40166]

  Mr. Nelson
  None. ECGD has no record of having issued a guarantee to any company associated with the directors of Sasea Finance Ltd. or Sasea Intertrade between 1985 and 1991.

  Mr. Grapes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total deficiency at(a) Sasea Finance Ltd. and (b) Sasea Intertrade reported to his Department by the liquidators; and if he will list the principle creditors for each company. [40165]

  Mr Taylor
  Detailed statements of affairs of the companies were not submitted by the directors but the liquidators estimate that the total deficiency of Sasea Finance Ltd. was £184.9 million.

  The main liabilities were to Sasea Holding and connected companies £70.7 million; trade and expense creditors £109 million and shareholders £5 million.

  The estimated total deficiency of Sasea Intertrade Company Ltd. was £93.04 million. The main liabilities were to Sasea Holding £34.95 million, Sasea Trading Ltd. £45.86 million, non-group creditors £10.23 million and shareholders £2 million.

  Hot Rolled Coil
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the latest figures by(a) cash value and (b) tonnage relating to the import and export of hot rolled coil. [40054]

  Mr. Page
  The information for 1995 is given in the following table:
  673

  Imports

  Exports

  Value1

  105.9

  296.2

  Volume2

  276.2

  982.3

  Notes:

  1 £ million.

  2 Thousand tonnes.

  Source:

  The Iron and Steel Statistics Bureau.

  Military and Civil Aircraft
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the latest figures concerning the value of(a) military and (b) civil aircraft imported into and exported from the United Kingdom in the last available period. [40055]

  Mr. Nelson
  The information for 1995 is given in the following table:

  UK aircraft imports and exports

  £ million

  Imports

  Exports

  Civil

  804

  961

  Other

  38

  183

  Source:

  DTI analysis of overseas trade statistics of the United Kingdom.

  Export Credits (Oman)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what dates and for what amounts export credit guarantees given by the Export Credits Guarantee Department were drawn upon in relation to the construction of a university in Oman. [40164]

  Mr. Nelson
  The ECGD supported buyer credit loans are administered by the relevant agent bank which holds full details of advances made. While the ECGD has data about aggregate amounts which the bank declares as having been advanced and repaid, only part of the record for this particular case is available on the ECGD's current database. Research into the full information held by the ECGD could not be done, except at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what dates, and for what amounts export credit guarantees were given by the Export Credits Guarantee Department in relation to the construction of a university in Oman. [40172]

  Mr. Nelson
  The ECGD gave its guarantee for a US$235.19 million loan on 30 July 1982 for the construction of the University. The scope of this credit facility was extended to allow the financing of a teaching hospital which was within the terms of a contract variation order. A further loan of US$20.69 million was signed on 14 July 1988 for that purpose.

  Electricity Market (Liberalisation)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the implications for potential investors in, and users of, electricity generated by renewable technologies of the European Union decision to liberalise the electricity market. [40343]
  674
  Mr. Page
  The introduction of competition in the European Union electricity market will offer opportunities for all investors in the electricity industry and produce benefits for consumers. The text agreed by Energy Ministers allows member states to give preferential treatment to generating installations using renewable energy sources.

  Factory Closures
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many factories have closed in the United Kingdom since October 1989. [40272]

  Mr. Nelson
  The information requested is not available.

  Banana Audio Terminals
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President to the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the regulation of the use of banana terminals with audio speakers. [40290]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  It is not clear to which regulation the hon. Member refers. If he provides me with detailed information, my Department will look into the matter.

  Air Quality Strategy Document
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when his Department intends to publish the air quality strategy document. [40058]

  Mr. Page
  A public consultation draft of the United Kingdom national air quality strategy was published by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on 21 August.

  Radio Spectrum
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the outcome of the Government's view of the mechanism which provides independent oversight of spectrum management. [40317]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Government announced in their White Paper "Spectrum Management: into the 21st Century", Cm 3252, that, in the light of public consultation, they did not intended to set up a standing advisory committee on spectrum management issues at present. This position also reflects the views of the stage 3 spectrum review, conducted by Sir Colin Fielding CB, that such a committee would add little to the series of spectrum reviews, which the Government have agreed in principle to continue. The Radiocommunication Agency will keep under review the effectiveness of its consultative arrangements.

  Coal Investments (Liabilities)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement in respect of liabilities reverting to the Coal Authority following the collapse of Coal Investments and give the costs so far incurred in meeting those liabilities. [40335]

  Mr. Page
  This is a matter for the Coal Authority.

  JET Fusion Project
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what expenditure the United Kingdom has made via UKAEA—AEA Technology for(a) the JET fusion project and (b) other fusion projects (i) in the last year and (ii) since the beginning of the European fusion programme; [40324]

  (2) what expenditure the United Kingdom has made via Euratom for (a) the JET fusion project and (b) other fusion projects (i) in the last year and (ii) since the beginning of the European fusion programme. [40323]

  Mr. Page
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave her on 13 June,Official Report, column 265.

  Years

  Questions

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  (a) Number of subsidence claims made in year

  8,315

  7,868

  9,532

  10,458

  10,582

  9,259

  (b) Number of claims outstanding at year end

  16,512

  14,573

  13,269

  12,845

  13,582

  11,511

  (c) Total amount paid in respect of such claims (£)

  38,424,522

  41,502,787

  49,907,814

  47,501,244

  36,773,381

  30,850,816

  Departmental Press Office
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the cost assumed in the budget, of people employed full-time or part-time, to work on press and media in 1996–97.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  For 1996–97, the pay budget for staff employed in the Press Office is £891,000.

TRANSPORT

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what investigations his Department made into the registration of each of the fishing vessels Mar Azul and Mar Blanco owned by Messrs. Hooktowe of Ayr in respect of their(a) original builders and use, (b) previous owners, (c) previous registrations and (d) information relating to any de-commissioning grant authorised under the common fisheries policy. [39670]

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

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. Nigel Spearing, dated 24 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your question enquiring what investigations were made into the registration of the fishing vessels "Mar Azul" and "Mar Blanco" in respect of their (a) original builders and use, (b) previous owners, (c) previous registrations and (d) any information relating to any decommissioning grant authorised under the Common Fisheries Policy.
  The following information was supplied on application for registration:

  MAR AZUL

  (a) Original Builder & Use

  Astilleros De Santander SA. Spain.

  Information on usage not required by the regulations and not known by the MSA.

  (b) and (c) Previous Owners and Registrations

  Subsidence Claims
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list for each year since June 1990(a) the total number of subsidence claims lodged with British Coal and the Coal Authority; (b) the number currently outstanding and (c) the total amount paid in respect of such claims. [40334]

  Mr. Page
  The information requested is summarised in the following table. Figures are provided for financial years commencing from April 1990.

  The data have been extracted from the annual reports on coal mining subsidence damage submitted to the Secretary of State by the Coal Authority—previously by British Coal—which are available in the Library of the House.

  Vessel previously owned by Pesquerias Mar Azul SA and registered in Panama.

  Vessel transferred to UK register on 27 October 1992 as owned by Benno Ltd of 292 Upper Street, Islington, London.

  Vessel currently owned by Benno Ltd of Unit 1, Havens Head Business Park, The Docks, Milford Haven.

  (d) Information on Decommissioning Grant

  This information is not held by this Agency but by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  MAR BLANCO

  (a) Original Builders and Use

  Astilleros Del Atlanticos SA, Spain.

  Information on usage not required by the regulations and not know by the MSA.

  (b) and (c) Previous Owners and Registrations

  Vessel previously owned by Pesquerios Mar Azul SA and registered in Panama.

  Vessel transferred to UK register on 27 October 1992 as owned by Berga Ltd of 292 Upper Street, Islington, London.

  Vessel currently owned by Berga Ltd of Unit 1, Havens Head Business Park, The Docks, Milford Haven.

  (d) Information on Decommissioning Grant

  This information is not held by this Agency but by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  North London Line
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to visit the north London line. [40110]

  Mr. Bowis
  My right hon. Friend has no current plans to do so.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what statutory responsibilities he has in relation to plans to(a) modernise, (b) otherwise develop and (c) extend the use of the north London line by Railtrack. [40109]

  Mr. Bowis
  There are currently no plans to develop the north London line, following the recent completion of the electrification works to enable Eurostar services to run
  677
  north of London. In the event of any future proposal to extend the infrastructure, the Secretary of State would be called upon to consider whether powers should be granted under the Transport and Works Act 1992 to enable the development to proceed.

  In addition, under the Railway and Other Transport Systems (Approval of Works, Plant and Equipment) Regulations 1994, the Health and Safety Executive, acting for the Secretary of State, is required to approve any proposal to bring into use any new or altered railway works.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many applications he has received for consents by Railtrack with regard to the north London line. [40108]

  Mr. Bowis
  None. Railtrack's electrification work on the north London line, to enable Eurostar services to run north of London, was carried out under contractual arrangements between the company and the works contractors. That work is now complete.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the board of Railtrack or its representatives in relation to the north London line. [40106]

  Mr. Bowis
  There are no current plans for such a meeting.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what statutory responsibilities he has for the environmental impact of the activities of Railtrack. [40107]

  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack has, as required under the terms of its network licence, provided the Rail Regulator with a statement of its policy for protecting the environment from the effects of its licensed activities, together with operational objectives and management arrangements for giving effect to the policy. The policy, operational objectives and management arrangements are subject to review as appropriate.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last received a report on the consultative mechanisms utilised by Railtrack in furtherance of its statutory powers. [40111]

  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack's network licence requires it to comply with arrangements involving consultative committees. Oversight of these arrangements is the responsibility of the Rail Regulator.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to review the definition of track maintenance in relation to the activities of Railtrack. [40112]

  Mr. Watts
  None.

  Road Building
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in respect of which roads in the national roads programme his Department has completed a review of possible alternatives to road building. [40061]
  678
  Mr. Watts
  Before entering the national roads programme, every scheme is assessed to ensure both that it is the most practical and cost-effective method of dealing with the identified problem, and that it would be consistent with current policies. Once in the programme, schemes are subject to public scrutiny both at a public consultation and later before an independent inspector at a public inquiry. At both these stages, alternatives to road building can be suggested and will be objectively assessed.

  Electronic Retuning Equipment
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the potential environmental impact of the use of electronic retuning equipment to achieve maximum power from cars; and if he will make a statement. [40348]

  Mr. Bowis
  Electronic engine management chips containing a revised engine calibration to maximise power output are available. This practice is known as "hot-chipping". We have no data on how hot-chipping may affect engine emissions.

  However, it is an offence under regulation 61 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 to use or cause or permit a motor vehicle to be used on a road if, as a result of an alteration to the propulsion unit or exhaust system of the vehicle, it fails to meet any of the specific emission standards in that regulation to which the vehicle was originally built.

  Test Stations
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many MOT stations are registered with the vehicle inspectorate; and what has been the figure in each of the last five years; [40353]

  (2) how many inspections of MOT stations were conducted in each of the last five years; [40355]

  (3) how many prosecutions there have been in each of the last five years against MOT stations for illegally issuing MOT certificates; [40350]

  (4) how many vehicle inspectorate staff are employed to check that MOT stations comply with the requirements of the test; and what has been the figure in each of the last five years; [40354]

  (5) what is his policy for dealing with MOT stations which are found to have passed unfit vehicles; and if he will make a statement; [40356]

  (6) what estimate he has made of the number of vehicles used on the road (a) without an MOT certificate and (b) with an illegal MOT certificate. [40352]

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

  Letter from Ron Oliver to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 14 October 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions on:

  (i) the number of MOT stations registered with the Vehicle Inspectorate (VI) for the last 5 years;

  (ii) the number of inspections of MOT stations conducted in the last 5 years;

  679

  (iii) the number of prosecutions against MOT stations for illegally issuing MOT certificates;

  (iv) the number of Vehicle Inspectorate staff employed by VI to check that MOT stations comply with the requirements of the test for the last 5 years;

  (v) an estimate of the number of vehicles used on the road a) without an MOT certificate and b) with an illegal MOT certificate; and

  vi) the policy for dealing with MOT stations which have passed unfit vehicles.

  Details of the number of MOT stations authorised, the number of MOT station standards control inspections for the last 5 years, and the number of VI examiners employed to check that MOT stations comply with testing requirements over the past 2 years, are provided in the attached tables. The numbers of VI examiners employed on MOT supervisory activities before 1994/95 can only be provided at disproportionate cost.
  There are no precise figures on MOT evasion or the use of vehicles with an illegal MOT certificate. It is likely that the level of MOT evasion is similar to the level of VED evasion since a valid MOT test certificate must he produced at the time of VED relicensing.
  Procedures for dealing with MOT stations which fail to comply with MOT standards are outlined in the "MOT Testing Guide" available from HMSO bookshops. Depending on the severity of the case and the past history of the test station, action can range from advice and formal warnings through to the removal of the authorisation to test vehicles for up to 5 years. These sanctions are effective, and it is therefore seldom necessary to bring prosecution proceedings.

  Number of authorised examiners

  Private garages

  Others

  1991–92

  17,081

  470

  1992–93

  17,460

  463

  1993–94

  17,362

  451

  1994–95

  18,421

  453

  1995–96

  18,456

  438

  "Others" includes test stations operated by post offices, designated local authorities, the Crown, and some police authorities.

  Number of vehicle inspectorate enforcement vehicle examiners (average staff in post) employed on MOT standards control activity

  These figures exclude overtime and any training or project work that may have been undertaken directly connected to the MOT Scheme.

  1995–96: 97.2

  1994–95: 97.6

  Number of inspections conducted on MOT stations

  1991–92: 40,976

  1992–93: 38,827

  1993–94: 42,446

  1994–95: 43,785

  1995–96: 44,029

  Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he authorised the publication of his Department's proposals to extend the definition of electrically assisted pedal cycles which are exempt from the definition of motor vehicle found in the Road Traffic Acts; if he will list(a) the names of the members of the working group of the vehicle standards and engineering division of his Department and the names of the organisations which they represent and (b) the nature and
  680
  number of the bodies or persons to whom the letter of 21 August, which set out options for such extension, was distributed. [40446]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Government have made no such proposals. They have, however, sought views in this area. I authorised publication of this consultation document on 19 August. The working group was not an internal departmental working group. Representatives attended from the following outside organisations: the Electric Vehicle Association, the Motorcycle Industry Association, W. R. Pashley Ltd., Sinclair Research Ltd., Citibike Manufacturing Company Ltd. and TGA Electric Leisure. In addition, there were officials from the Department's vehicle standards and engineering division; road safety division; transport policy unit; deregulation unit; local transport policy division; and driver and vehicle licensing policy division; and from the Department of Trade and Industry's vehicle division and deregulation division.

  Approximately 450 organisations and individuals were sent a copy of the consultation document. They included road safety organisations, local authorities, associations, bodies representing the motor vehicle and pedal cycle industries, user groups, the police and transport consultants. They also included all the people who attended the forum on cycling policy organised by the Department on 10 July.

  Rail Services (North-East)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the Government's timetable is for franchising British Rail's Regional Railways' north-east passenger services. [40240]

  Mr. Watts
  The Franchising Director issued an information memorandum for the Regional Railways North East franchise on 23 September on which pre-qualifiers for the franchise can base their indicative, non-binding bids. The deadline to lodge indicative bids is 24 October. Formal invitations to tender will be issued later on in the franchising process. The Franchising Director expects to award the franchise in spring 1997.

  Bidders have been asked in their indications of interest to consider the options for older rolling stock which is nearing life expiry, and are invited to bring forward self-financing proposals for upgrading the trans-Pennine express services.

  Coach and Bus Accidents
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) deaths (b) serious injuries and (c) minor injuries were caused to coach and bus passengers in each of the last 10 years excluding motorway accidents; and what percentage of the passengers in each category were standing. [40308]

  Mr. Bowis
  The numbers of bus and coach passenger casualties in non-motorway accidents in Great Britain are as follows for each of the last 10 years, together with the proportion who were standing in each injury category.
  681

  Year

  Death

  Percentage standing

  Serious injuries

  Percentage standing

  Minor injuries

  Percentage standing

  1986

  22

  36

  757

  31

  8,128

  35

  1987

  12

  42

  727

  33

  7,600

  32

  1988

  14

  36

  793

  34

  7,996

  32

  1989

  18

  11

  757

  33

  8,627

  31

  1990

  16

  19

  682

  31

  8,361

  32

  1991

  25

  28

  624

  31

  7,444

  32

  1992

  13

  31

  567

  34

  7,718

  30

  1993

  22

  18

  610

  30

  7,845

  28

  1994

  19

  16

  703

  29

  8,395

  25

  1995

  21

  24

  699

  26

  7,643

  27

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) deaths, (b) serious injuries and (c) minor injuries were caused to coach and bus passengers in motorway accidents in each of the last 10 years; and what percentage of the passengers in each category were standing. [40470]

  Year

  Deaths

  Percentage standing

  Serious

  Percentage standing

  Minor

  Percentage standing

  1986

  1

  100

  24

  13

  92

  4

  1987

  3

  0

  30

  3

  187

  2

  1988

  0

  0

  26

  0

  101

  5

  1989

  1

  0

  4

  0

  126

  2

  1990

  0

  0

  39

  0

  194

  4

  1991

  0

  0

  14

  0

  110

  5

  1992

  3

  0

  10

  10

  114

  6

  1993

  10

  0

  24

  0

  146

  1

  1994

  1

  0

  29

  3

  196

  2

  1995

  13

  0

  17

  18

  143

  3

  Bus and Coach Safety
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated regarding the safety of standing passengers on buses and coaches; and if he will make a statement. [40309]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department has commissioned research to examine the safety implications of EU proposals for harmonised bus construction. Safety of standing passengers will form one element of this work. The programme is planned to conclude in mid 1997.

  Routemaster Buses
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement regarding the future of Routemaster buses. [40300]

  Mr. Bowis
  As long as Routemaster buses remain mechanically sound and meet the appropriate standards which apply to all public service vehicles, there is no reason why operators should not continue to keep them in service.

  Motorists (Mobile Telephones)
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many motorists have been(a) reported, (b) prosecuted and (c) convicted for using a hand-held mobile telephone while driving; and if he will make a statement. [39931]

  Mr. Bowis: Using a hand-held mobile telephone while driving is not an offence, but a driver doing so may well be prosecuted for careless or inconsiderate driving or for
  682
  Mr. Bowis
  The numbers of bus and coach passenger casualties in motorway accidents in Great Britain are as follows for each of the last 10 years, together with the proportion who were standing in each injury category.

  failing to exercise proper control of a vehicle. Information on how many cases relate to the use of hand-held mobile telephones could be obtained only from original court records and only at disproportionate cost.

  East London Line
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what plans he has to ensure that a co-ordinator is appointed to supervise the necessary preparatory work on the proposals for the southern extensions of the east London line; [40184]

  (2) how many companies have expressed an interest in bidding for construction of the east London line extensions; and if he will name them; [40186]

  (3) what is the potential number of passengers that his Department estimates could transfer from the roads to a southern extension of the east London underground line to East Croydon, travelling (a) northwards and (b) southwards; [40193]

  (4) what percentage of the east London line extensions costs he expects to be from public funds; [40187]

  (5) what discussions he has had with the Deputy Prime Minister regarding the significance of the possible southern extension of the east London line with regard to access to the Millennium site at Greenwich, including access from Gatwick airport. [40197]

  Mr. Bowis
  Extensions to the east London line are a matter for London Underground Ltd., which is examining the possibilities of a scheme under the private finance initiative for northern and southern extensions. This work
  683
  includes assessing demand for, and costs of, the possible routes of a southern extension, and consultations with the private sector on the scope for private finance. Some 40 companies have responded to those consultations, expressing interest in the project. I understand, however, that so far it seems likely that a significant proportion of the costs of any such scheme might need to be met from public fund; LUL will need to consider any proposals alongside their other spending priorities.

  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the east London line to reopen. [40185]

  Mr. Bowis
  I understand that London Underground is planning to reopen the east London line next summer.

  Traffic Increases (Millennium Site)
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what increase in road traffic in terms of passenger numbers, car journeys and road freight through the trunk routes of south-east London his Department estimates will occur(a) during the construction of the Millennium site at Greenwich and (b) following its opening; [40192]

  (2) what increase in rail and road traffic in terms of (a) passenger numbers and (b) car journeys from Gatwick airport his Department estimates will result from the Millennium site at Greenwich once it is opened; [40190]

  (3) what increase in rail and road traffic in terms of (a) passenger numbers and (b) car journeys from Waterloo station his Department estimates will result from the construction of the Millennium site at Greenwich. [40191]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department of Transport does not have this information. Forecasts of construction and visitor traffic levels for the exhibition are being prepared by consultants on behalf of the Millennium Commission.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve transport facilities for the disabled. [39964]

  Mr. Bowis
  The transport provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act will enable us to make regulations to require new buses, trains and taxis to be fully accessible to disabled people, including wheelchair users. Discussions on the shape of those regulations are already underway with the transport industries and the disabled persons transport advisory committee. Full public consultation will also take place.

  The Department's mobility unit has recently published its annual overview which sets out in more detail the work which is going on in this area. As in previous years copies have been sent to hon. Members.

  School Buses
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he plans to take to ensure that school buses are clearly recognisable. [39962]

  Mr. Bowis
  School buses are already required by the road vehicles lighting regulations to display a "school bus" sign on journeys to and from school. The 684
  Department has no evidence to suggest that these measures are not effective.

  London Commuter Services
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by how much investment in London commuter services is planned to increase over the next year. [39966]

  Mr. Bowis
  I cannot anticipate the outcome of this year's Budget, which will be a factor in determining the funds available for investment by public sector operators, including London Transport. Substantial investment is planned by private companies now running trains in the former Network SouthEast area: Prism intends to replace two thirds of the London, Tilbury and Southend rolling stock by 1999; South Eastern plans to spend £400 million on a modern fleet for its Kent services, London and South Coast plans a major refurbishment of its rolling stock and the newly-franchised Chiltern line has already placed an order for new rolling stock.

  Motor Vehicles
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current number of licensed motor vehicles on the roads; and what was the number in 1986. [39961]

  Mr. Bowis
  The information is as follows:

  Thousands

  1986

  1995

  Cars

  7,388

  21,395

  Taxis1

  26

  33

  Motor cycles

  1,176

  702

  Three wheelers

  60

  31

  Light goods

  1,670

  1,949

  Goods

  634

  556

  and coaches

  149

  153

  Agricultural vehicles2

  340

  282

  Other vehicles3

  256

  268

  Total

  21,699

  25,369

  1 These include mainly custom-built "black cab" design vehicles.

  2 Includes various types of harvesters, work trucks and mowing machines etc.

  3 Examples include ambulances, hire engines, road rollers, road construction vehicles, street cleaning.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much Government money is allocated to improving safety on the rail network over the planning period. [39965]

  Mr. Watts
  Since April 1994, Government support for the railway takes the form of grants paid by the Franchising Director. These grants enable the railway operators to meet their expenditure requirements, including those with safety benefits. Safety expenditure by the railway has not been separately identified since 1992–93, because the finance and resources to manage safety have been fully integrated with other management decisions and most investment includes a safety element.

  Rail Privatisation (York)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the date of privatisation of all the York-based British Rail businesses which have been privatised to date, the number of employees in the business at the time of privatisation and the amount of money received for the business; and if he will specify

  Business sold or franchised

  Date sale completed or franchise awarded

  Gross proceeds (£ million)

  Employees in whole business at date of sale/franchise award

  Civil Engineering Design Group York

  15 September 1995

  3

  159

  Eastern Track Renewals Company Ltd.

  15 March 1996

  11

  604

  InterCity East Coast Franchise

  28 March 1996

  1—

  2,900

  Northern Infrastructure Maintenance Company Ltd.

  18 June 1996

  9

  520

  1 Franchises are awarded as contracts to run passenger train services in return for the payment of support, where necessary, and may not generate receipts. Support for the InterCity east coast franchise will reduce to nil by the final year of the seven-year franchise period.

  The Franchising Director aims to award the Regional Railways North East franchise in spring 1997. The number of staff was 2,981 at 31 March 1996.

  Leicester A46-A47 Link
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which office of his Department will analyse the additional evidence on induced traffic for the Leicester A46-A47 link from Leicestershire county council. [40127]

  Mr. Watts
  Additional information received from Leicestershire county council in relation to induced traffic on the proposed Leicester A46-A47 link, will be evaluated initially by officials, acting on my behalf, in the local authority orders section, Newcastle upon Tyne. They have in turn sought expert advice, from within the Department, as required.

  Track access charge supplements

  £000

  Track possessions Schedule 4

  Railtrack performance regime Schedule 8

  Level Crossings

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1996–97

  Anglia Railways Train Services Ltd.

  200

  344

  1,203

  1,240

  995

  Cardiff Railway Company Ltd.

  60

  103

  357

  368

  127

  Central Trains Ltd.

  575

  989

  6,342

  6,538

  2,946

  Cross Country Trains Ltd.

  468

  805

  4,916

  5,068

  1,434

  Gatwick Express Ltd.

  35

  60

  832

  858

  73

  Great Eastern Railway Ltd.

  292

  501

  3,232

  3,332

  1,452

  Great Western Trains Company Ltd.

  493

  846

  5,835

  6,016

  1,168

  InterCity East Coast Ltd.

  712

  1,224

  7,032

  7,250

  1,788

  InterCity West Coast Ltd.

  673

  1,157

  5,710

  5,887

  640

  Island Line Ltd.

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  LTS Rail Limited

  0

  0

  1,648

  1,699

  766

  Merseyrail Electrics Ltd.

  130

  223

  1,615

  1,665

  310

  Midland Main Line Ltd.

  152

  261

  1,270

  1,309

  981

  Network SouthCentral Ltd.

  488

  839

  3,908

  4,029

  1,031

  North London Railways Ltd.

  221

  379

  1,586

  1,635

  370

  North West Regional Railways Ltd.

  554

  952

  3,421

  3,527

  1,315

  Regional Railways North East Ltd.

  774

  1,330

  4,648

  4,792

  5,035

  ScotRail Railways Ltd.

  859

  1,477

  4,222

  4,353

  1,064

  South Wales and West Railway Ltd.

  299

  513

  1,737

  1,791

  771

  South West Trains Ltd.

  601

  1,033

  4,460

  4,598

  1,421

  Thames Trains Ltd.

  171

  294

  1,054

  1,087

  479

  Thameslink Rail Ltd.

  179

  307

  1,669

  1,721

  915

  The Chiltern Railway Co. Ltd.

  74

  127

  433

  446

  465

  The South Eastern Train Co. Ltd.

  614

  1,055

  5,385

  5,552

  1,288

  West Anglia Great Northern Railways Ltd.

  376

  645

  2,488

  2,565

  1,471

  Total

  9,000

  15,465

  75,000

  77,326

  28,307

  686
  which further York-based British Rail businesses are in the programme for privatisation, the number of employees in each of these businesses, the expected date for disposal and the expected cash receipt from the disposal. [40241]

  Mr. Watts
  The following British Rail businesses, whose headquarters were based in York. have been sold or franchised as at 1 October 1996.

  Train Operators
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been paid to each train operator by the franchising director in order to allow them to meet supplementary access charges. [39934]

  Mr. Watts
  Supplementary access charges determined by the Rail Regulator and payable by train operators to Railtrack in 1995–96 and 1996–97 are detailed in the table. The Franchising Director has effectively funded all these either through support to passenger rail services paid to British Rail or to franchisees. Where the supplements were known before the final bids they are a component of the franchise payment. Where the supplements were not known they are paid as a pass-through supplement in addition to the franchise payment.

  M66
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list when each contract for the M66 Denton to Middleton motorway(a) was and (b) is expected to be let, the cost of each contract, when each contract is planned to be completed, when the completed road will open and what steps he is taking to ensure contract does not delay the opening of the road. [40372]

  Mr. Watts
  The M66 Manchester outer ring road scheme is split into four main contracts. There was also an advance work contract to construct a rail bridge.

  Contract 1 is a three year contract which was let in March 1996. The tender sum was £101,878,528. The contract is currently expected to be finished by its target completion date of spring 1999.

  Contract 2 is a two-year contract which was let in August 1994. The tender sum was £48,930,425. Problems have occurred during construction which have resulted in delays. Completion is now anticipated late in 1997.

  Contract 3 tenders have not yet been invited for this two year contract. The tender estimate is £80,000,000. The timing of this contract is under consideration but the aim, subject to availability of funds, is to have the whole scheme completed in 1999.

  Contract 4 was a two year contract let in May 1993. The tender sum was £18,229,262. It was completed in February 1996 and is now open to traffic.

  The advance works contract was for a rail bridge. It was let in March 1993. The tender sum was £2,044,174 and the contract was completed autumn 1994.

  BREL (Asbestos-related Disease)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many former employees of British Rail Engineering Ltd., York carriageworks, have submitted claims for compensation for contracting an asbestos-related disease; and, of these, how many have(a) died and (b) had their claims settled; what is the average length of time these claims have taken to settle; and what action British Rail is taking to speed up the settlement of such claims. [40234]

  Mr. Watts
  Forty-seven former employees submitted claims and 27 have been settled. Information on the number of people who have died since submitting claims is not available, as some may have died after their claims were settled. The average time to settle claims is 2.1 years. The time taken to settle claims is, to a large extent, beyond the control of Railway Claims Ltd. as claims can be processed only when all the relevant information is received from the claimant's solicitor.

  Railtrack (Oasis Concert)
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will instruct the health and safety inspectorate to investigate the safety implications of Railtrack's decision in respect of the running of trains through Stevenage station during the weekend of the Oasis concert at Knebworth; and if he will make a statement. [40349]
  688
  Mr. Watts
  The Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate is already investigating incidents which occurred at Stevenage railway station on 10 and 11 August 1996. The investigation will consider, among other issues, whether there have been any breaches of relevant legislation.

  Office of Passenger Rail Franchising
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by how much the grant to the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising has changed since the figure published in the Government's expenditure plans for transport in March 1996. [39933]

  Mr. Watts
  Parliament voted the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising £1,651,588k in the supply estimates for class V, vote 7 passenger rail services which is the figure set out in table 1 of the transport report. Any changes in funding will be through the normal parliamentary supply procedures.

  Road and Rail Freight
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies his Department has undertaken to estimate the comparative environmental cost of transporting freight by(a) road and (b) rail. [39950]

  Mr. Watts
  As part of the Government's commitment to ensuring that transport users pay their full costs, the Department is at the forefront of research trying to place monetary values on the environmental impact of transport. The economics of environmental valuation is still in its infancy and the complexities involved mean that it is not yet possible to derive robust values. However, the Department does take into account the environmental impacts of policies and projects. The Department makes use of freight facilities grants and track access grants to encourage the transport of freight by rail rather than road, which amongst other things recognises the environmental benefits of rail versus road in particular circumstances.

  European Airlines
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he collects regarding European airlines with special reference to the percentage share of slots each airline has at its principal base or hub. [40155]

  Mr. Bowis
  None. This is a matter for the slot co-ordinator at each of the airports concerned.

  Driving Test
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what steps his Department is taking to ensure that theory test venues are within a readily accessible distance from driving test centres; [40262]

  (2) what criteria his Department uses to determine whether a driving test centre has its own theory test venue. [40263]

  Mr. Bowis
  Theory test centres have been located balancing costs, travelling distances for candidates and the frequency of test sessions.
  689
  Tests are available:
  within five miles in districts (usually town or cities) with a population density of greater than equal to 1,250 persons per square kilometre;
  within 40 miles in sparsely populated districts with a population density of less than 100 persons per square kilometre;
  within 20 miles in other districts where the population density lies between these limits.

  While it is desirable that theory test centres are readily accessible by public transport, the quality of test routes is important for driving test centres. Therefore, we have no policy of co-locating theory test centres with driving test centres, although population centres often have both.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations his Department has received concerning the establishment of a venue in Huddersfield for the theory test element of the driving test. [40201]

  Mr. Bowis
  We have received two letters on this issue, one from my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) and one from a member of the public.

  Airports (Baggage Screening)
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of aircraft passengers' hold baggage is not screened by security at(a) Gatwick airport, (b) Heathrow airport and (c) Stansted airport. [39932]

  Mr. Bowis
  None.

  Oil Pollution(Braer Incident)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the implications for environmental protection policy for coastal waters of the decision of the Court of Session, announced on 16 September, on compensation claims made by Shetland islanders for oil pollution contamination arising from the Braer tanker accident of January 1993. [40393]

  Mr Bowis
  No decision was announced by the Court of Session on 16 September in relation to compensation claims arising out of the Braer incident.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what environmental benefits he expects to accrue from the coming into force of Statutory Instrument No. 1946, the Harbour Works (Assessment of Environmental Effects) (Amendment) Regulations 1996. [40476]

  Mr. Bowis
  These regulations simply clarify the existing procedures following discussions with the European Commission.

  Drink Driving
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in how many fatal motor accidents in each of the last three years the driver responsible has been found to have between 50mg and 80mg of alcohol in his blood. [40297]
  690
  Mr. Bowis
  The numbers of vehicle drivers and riders killed, and found to have from 50mg to 80mg of alcohol in their blood are as follows for the three most recent years for which statistics are available: 32 in 1992, 23 in 1993 and 25 in 1994.

  Statistics for blood alcohol levels are available only for fatal casualties and hence no data is available for fatal accidents in which the driver or rider was not killed. No information is available relating to whether the deceased driver was responsible for the accident.

  Vehicle Tax Evasion
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many cases of vehicle tax evasion were detected in the last three years; and how many(a) prosecutions and (b) convictions resulted. [40295]

  Mr. Bowis
  The number of vehicle excise duty offence reports received by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in the last three years was 5.2 million. These led to 657,000 evaders being successfully prosecuted, with a further 753,000 paying penalties out of court. Many of the remaining reports were duplication for the same vehicle. In other cases, it turned out that an offence had not been committed, or that enforcement action had encouraged relicensing, making any further action unnecessary.

  Cyclists (Pavements)
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he intends to take to prevent adult cyclists from riding their bicycles on pavements in central London. [39957]

  Mr. Bowis
  It is an offence to cycle on the footway—the pavement adjacent to the carriageway—in London. As elsewhere in the country, enforcement in London is a matter for the Metropolitan police.

  London Underground (Safety)
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much money is allocated in the current financial year to improving safety standards on the London Underground. [39960]

  Mr. Bowis
  Decisions on investment priorities are a matter for London Underground Ltd. It is impossible to estimate how much money is spent each year on improving safety standards because very many projects include some element of safety-related work.

  London Underground (Congestion)
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his plans to relieve current levels of congestion on London Underground. [39963]

  Mr. Bowis
  London Underground has in hand a range of measures which will help to relieve congestion, including increases in train frequencies and station improvements. Implementation of these plans is an operational matter for London Underground. Longer term improvements will come from major investments in new lines when current projects such as the Jubilee line extension and the Heathrow progress are completed.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many women from ethnic minorities are employed by his Department and its agencies; at what grade; and what measures he has taken to encourage the(a) recruitment, (b) employment and (c) promotion of women from ethnic minorities within his Department and its agencies. [39905]

  Mr. Bowis
  Two hundred and eighty, as at 8 October 1996.

  The information requested by grade cannot be provided without identifying individual members of staff which would be in breach of good confidentiality procedure. Staff are recruited on the basis of ability and irrespective of sex or race. The Department advertises all internal vacancies, open competitions and promotion on an equal opportunity basis.

  River Transport (London)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has received concerning public river transport on the Thames in central London as an integral part of London's existing public transport system; and what consequent action he is planning. [39677]

  Mr. Bowis
  I recently met the hon. Member and my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) with representatives of the group, Transport on Water.

  Earlier this year, London First published "The Business Case for a Passenger Transport Service on the River Thames". Building on this report, the cross river partnership is examining the potential for a public transport service on the Thames and possible requirement for new piers. I look forward to the results of the cross river integrated public transport study in the new year.

  I support the concept of passenger services on the Thames, but it is for the private sector to develop and operate these services. The Port of London Authority recently granted access to some of its piers to three companies that have expressed an interest in starting new passenger services on the Thames. This announcement is encouraging.

  Drug and Alcohol Screening
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what statutory requirements exist for compulsory drug and alcohol screening for employees of transport companies;692
  and what steps he is taking to encourage drug and alcohol screening amongst employees engaged in safety critical work. [39878]

  Mr. Bowis
  There is no statutory requirement for drug and alcohol screening of employees of transport companies. It is a criminal offence to drive or be in charge of a motor vehicle or work on the railways in a safety-related capacity while under the influence of drink or drugs or above the permitted alcohol limit. It is also an offence to act as a member of the crew of an aircraft, an aircraft maintenance engineer or an air traffic controller while impaired through the influence of drink or drugs.

  Railway operators may also be found guilty, where an employee has misused alcohol or drugs, if they fail to exercise "due diligence", which, in the Government's view, requires them to undertake some form of screening. A railway group standard sets out the rules and procedures for the screening of safety critical staff where there is suspicion that drug or alcohol may have been a factor in an accident, near miss, or in making an employee unfit for work.

  Constituency Visits
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many visits (i) he and (ii) his Ministers made to(a) the Newbury constituency and (b) other constituencies in the last 12 months. [39869]

  Sir George Young
  In the 12 months to July 1996, Transport Ministers have visited some 476 constituencies on official business. None of these were to Newbury.

  War Memorials
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy with respect to the removal of or change of site of war memorials(a) throughout the country and (b) in the district local authority area of Stafford district council on the grounds of (i) planning and (ii) movement of traffic around the war memorial. [40007]

  Mr. Bowis
  The removal or change of site of war memorials is essentially a matter for the local planning authority concerned. Before reaching their decision on whether to give planning permission, they are required to consider any representations received and to consult the local traffic authority, where this is a different authority, if the removal or re-siting of a memorial is likely to have traffic implications for the area. Where a war memorial is a listed building, listed building consent would also be required from the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Secretary of State for Transport has no role to play in the process.

SCOTLAND

  Multiple Births
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many sets of(a) twins, (b) triplets, (c) quadruplets, (d) quintuplets and (e) sextuplets were born in Scotland in each year since 1990; how many maternities there were in each year; and how many multiple births in each category were conceived as a result of (i) in vitro fertilisation, (ii) gamete intra-fallopian transfer and (iii) other forms of assisted conception. [39971]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is as follows:

  Type of birth

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Twins:

  2 live

  711

  682

  790

  751

  762

  780

  1 live, 1 stillbirth

  15

  22

  11

  25

  13

  31

  2 stillbirth

  5

  5

  6

  4

  3

  5

  Triplets:

  3 live

  14

  18

  15

  10

  16

  27

  2 live, 1 stillbirth

  2

  4

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1 live, 2 stillbirth

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Quadruplets:

  4 live

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3 live, 1 stillbirth

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Quintuplets:

  Sextuplets

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Number of maternities

  65,556

  66,630

  65,307

  62,946

  61,224

  59,271

  Information on the number of multiple births in Scotland attributed to assisted conception is not available. Some information on these matters is published in the annual reports of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Criminal Cases
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many criminal cases were dealt with by the procurators fiscal in each of the last 10 years; how many were marked no proceedings in each of these years; and if he will make a statement. [40176]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The number of criminal reports received by procurators fiscal, and the number of reports marked "no proceedings", are as follows:

  Criminal reports received

  Cases marked no proceedings

  1985

  339,317

  65,580

  1986

  343,488

  71,228

  1987

  338,739

  59,019

  1988

  335,304

  52,497

  1989

  358,960

  45,092

  1990

  357,704

  40,096

  1991

  375,298

  35,434

  1992

  353,776

  34,345

  1993

  283,145

  41,120

  1994

  268,722

  40,614

  1995

  259,680

  37,553

  Blind People
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce a Scottish-wide free travel concession scheme for registered blind people; and if he will make a statement. [40032]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In the light of representations made by organisations for the blind and disabled, my right hon. Friend last year sought the views of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities about the possibility of COSLA either organising a national scheme for the blind and disabled, or alternatively a scheme which was restricted in scope to blind people only. COSLA has now established a task group to investigate the practicalities and costs of introducing a national scheme for the blind in the first instance. The task group has undertaken to inform the Scottish Office of its findings and we await its conclusions.

  Court Waiting Times
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average length of time in criminal cases between the charging of a suspect and the subsequent bringing of the case before(a) district courts, (b) sheriff courts and (c) high courts in the last year for which figures are available. [40174]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not readily available. In summary cases, the average period between the police charging a suspect and the case calling in court will depend on the time taken by the police to submit a report to the procurator fiscal, the time taken by the procurator fiscal to serve a complaint on the accused and the availability of a court diet. If the police detain the accused, he must be brought before the court on the next lawful day. If the accused is released for report, the time taken to submit the report will vary according to the complexity of the case and other factors. The Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland has calculated that between 50 and 75 per cent. of such reports are submitted within 28 days. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate informs me that, between June 1995 and June 1996, the average period between receipt of a report by the procurator fiscal and service of a complaint was 5.1 weeks in the sheriff court and five weeks in the district court. In custody cases, the complaint will be served on the accused on the same day as the report is received by the procurator fiscal. The information requested is not available for solemn cases prosecuted in the sheriff or High Courts.

  Procurator Fiscal Service
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total budget for procurator fiscal offices in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [40202]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Expenditure on salaries and running costs for the procurator fiscal service in each of the last 10 years was as follows:

  Year

  Amount £000

  1986–87

  12,589

  1987–88

  13,678

  1988–89

  14,947

  1989–90

  16,536

  695

  Year

  Amount £000

  1990–91

  18,403

  1991–92

  20,821

  1992–93

  22,119

  1993–94

  25,138

  1994–95

  25,607

  1995–96

  27,799

  Ms Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total spending on staff salaries in procurators fiscal offices in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [40175]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Total spending on staff salaries in the procurator fiscal service in each of the last 10 years was as follows:

  Year

  Amount £000

  1986–1987

  9,331

  1987–88

  10,046

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Aberdeen

  10.5

  9.5

  11.5

  11.5

  12

  12

  11

  13

  14

  14

  13

  13

  Banff

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Dingwall

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Dornoch

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Elgin

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Fort William

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Inverness

  4

  4

  3

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  Kirkwall

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lerwick

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Portree

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Lochmaddy

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Peterhead

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Stonehaven

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Stornoway

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Tain

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0

  Wick

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Alloa

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  1.6

  Arbroath

  2

  2

  1

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  1

  Cupar

  1.5

  1.5

  1.5

  1.5

  2

  2

  2

  1.5

  1.5

  2

  2

  2

  Dundee

  8

  8

  8

  7

  9

  8

  9

  9

  8

  7

  8

  8

  Dunfermline

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4.6

  5

  Falkirk

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  5

  4.5

  6

  6

  6

  4.5

  Forfar

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Kirkcaldy

  4

  5

  5

  4

  4

  5

  3

  4

  6

  4.5

  5.8

  5.8

  Perth

  4

  4.5

  4.5

  5

  5

  5.5

  4.5

  5

  6

  5.5

  5.5

  4.5

  Stirling

  1

  2.5

  2.5

  2.5

  4

  3.5

  4.5

  4.5

  4.5

  4.5

  3.8

  5

  Duns

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Edinburgh

  23

  24

  22

  24

  24

  24

  26

  26

  27

  27

  27.5

  28.9

  Haddington

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  1

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Jedburgh

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Linlithgow

  4

  3

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  3

  5

  5

  Peebles

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Selkirk

  3

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Campbeltown

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Dumbarton

  5.5

  5.5

  6

  5

  6

  6

  7

  7

  7

  7

  6.6

  6

  Dunoon

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Greenock

  5

  5

  6

  5.5

  4.5

  4.5

  5.5

  4

  5

  5

  5

  5

  Kilmarnock

  8

  8

  7

  7

  5

  7

  9

  8

  8

  9

  8.7

  7

  Oban

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Paisley

  9

  9

  9

  11

  10

  11

  10.5

  11.5

  11.5

  11.5

  11.4

  12.4

  Rothesay

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Airdrie

  6

  6

  6

  6

  7

  7

  8

  7

  7

  7

  7.2

  6.8

  Ayr

  4

  4

  5

  4

  4

  5

  5.5

  5.5

  6.5

  5.5

  5.6

  5.6

  Dumfries

  4

  4

  4

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  6

  5

  5

  5

  Hamilton

  13

  14

  14

  16

  16

  17.5

  18

  18

  18.5

  18.5

  18.4

  19.4

  Kirkcudbright

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lanark

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2>

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Stranraer

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  2

  Glasgow

  56.5

  58.5

  57

  59

  57

  60.5

  62.5

  58.5

  63

  62

  62.3

  61.5

  696

  Year

  Amount £000

  1988–89

  11,202

  1989–90

  12,461

  1990–91

  14,365

  1991–92

  15,727

  1992–93

  16,888

  1993–94

  19,842

  1994–95

  20,332

  1995–96

  21,089

  Ms Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many (i) procurators fiscal and (ii) deputy procurators fiscal have been employed in each district in each year since 1985; and if he will make a statement. [40203]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The total number of procurators fiscal, assistant procurators fiscal, senior deputes and deputes employed in each district since 1985 is as follows:
  697
  There is a procurator fiscal for each of the districts listed. However in Dornoch, Kirkwall, Tain, Duns, Peebles, Rothesay, Lochmaddy and Kirkcudbright the procurator fiscal also has responsibility for a neighbouring district.

  Small Claims Procedure
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will increase the maximum sum in respect of which claims can be taken to the sheriff court under the small claims procedure to bring it into line with English practice; and if he will make a statement. [40235]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Fixing the small claims limit in Scotland is a matter for the Lord Advocate. Although the Lord Advocate has no plans at present to increase the small claims limit, he does keep the matter under review constantly.

TREASURY

  Ecological Sustainability
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will request from his officials a paper setting out the implications for the Treasury of a long-term shift in Government policy towards greater prominence to ecological sustainability. [40060]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Government are already fully committed to achieving sustainable development. This means ensuring that policy decisions take appropriate account of the environment alongside economic and other considerations. Our 1994 sustainable development strategy assessed the many challenges facing the UK over the next 20 years if we are to achieve that goal. Progress to date is reported in the annual Environment White Papers, which are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Climate Change
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what mechanisms and procedures he has set up within the Treasury to assess the implications of the Department of the Environment's review of the potential effects of climate change in the United Kingdom. [40069]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The degree of future climate change that is now inevitable will have implications for a broad range of policies across government. My officials are fully involved in inter-departmental discussions on climate change.

  Abortions
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give a breakdown by gestation according to technique of the number of abortions performed in the NHS South Thames region in the latest year for which figures are available. [40093]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Abortion data by technique are not available.

  Multiple Births
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many sets of(a) twins, (b) triplets, (c) quadruplets, (d) quintuplets and (e) sextuplets were born in England and
  698
  Wales in each year since 1990; how many maternities there were in each year; and how many multiple births in each category were conceived as a result of (i) in vitro fertilisation, (ii) gamete intra-fallopian transfer and (iii) other forms of assisted conception. [39969]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The information on multiple maternities and all maternities is given in the table.

  Number of maternities in England and Wales

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Twins

  7,934

  8,160

  8,314

  8,302

  8,451

  8,749

  Triplets

  201

  208

  202

  234

  260

  282

  Quadruplets

  10

  10

  8

  12

  8

  7

  Quintuplets

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Sextuplets

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Total number of maternities with multiple births

  8,145

  8,380

  8,525

  8,549

  8,719

  9,038

  All maternities

  701,030

  693,857

  683,854

  668,511

  659,545

  642,404

  The Office for National Statistics does not collect information about assisted conceptions when births are registered. Some information about multiple births following these treatments is contained in annual reports made by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to the Secretary of State for Health, copies of which are in the Library.

  Paymaster Agency
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of the privatisation of the Paymaster agency on the Treasury's access to information needed to monitor and control public expenditure; and if he will make a statement. [39909]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Paymaster General announced on 15 July,Official Report, column 372, that he had accepted the recommendations of the recently concluded prior options review of Paymaster, and the agency would be privatised. A copy of the report is in the Library. It concluded that, to retain control over public expenditure and information on Exchequer balances, such work should continue to be carried out within the public sector.

  Statistics
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the monthly figures for(a) M4, (b) M3, (c) inflation, (d) growth and (e) interest rates for the period 1979 to 1995. [39907]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The data requested are published in the relevant tables in "Financial Statistics and Economic Trends" for the latest data, and in the "Economic Trends Annual Supplement" for historical data. M3 data are not available after July 1989, and monthly M4 data are not available before 1982. All these publications are available from the House Library.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish for each month in the last three years(a) the rate of inflation and (b) the increase in the money supply for the month two years previously. [40218]
  699
  Mrs. Knight
  The data requested are published in table 3.1 of "Economic Trends" and table 3.1D of "Financial Statistics", both of which are available in the House Library.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 11 July,Official Report, columns 299–300, how many claims for unemployment benefit there have been in total; and how many people have made one or more new claims for unemployment benefit at each employment service jobcentre in the country since April 1992. [40271]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Earnings
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact on inflation curbs of the trends in earnings of(a) blue collar and (b) white collar workers. [40212]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Statistical data do not generally refer to employment as either blue or white collar work. Instead, this distinction is usually made with reference to manual or non-manual work. Data from the 1996 "New Earnings Survey" is given below for manual and non-manual workers. This survey covers a random 1 per cent. of all employees and, because of its sample size, is the most reliable official source of detailed information on earnings.

  1995–96

  Earnings growth

  Percentage of all employees

  Manual

  4.2

  35.1

  Non-Manual

  4.2

  64.9

  If we make the stylised assumption that employment costs comprise two thirds of final output costs, this suggests that growth in manual workers' earnings contributed approximately one percentage point to retail costs, while earnings growth of non-manual workers contributed about 1.8 percentage points.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of changes in the real earnings of blue collar workers since 1979 on the competitive position of UK manufacturers in home and overseas markets. [40214]

  Mrs. Knight
  Since 1979, strong productivity performance and affordable real wage growth have helped enhance the competitive position of UK manufacturers. Relative unit labour costs in the UK manufacturing sector improved by around 10 per cent. between 1979 and 1995.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the real terms change in the earnings of(a) postal workers and (b) white collar workers since 1979. [40213]

  Mrs. Knight
  Average gross earnings for postal workers and non-manual workers are shown in tables 1 and X3 of the "New Earnings Survey Report" each April from 1979 to date. Prior to 1984, male and female earnings were shown separately in tables 8 and 9. This 700
  report is available in the House of Commons Library. Real terms changes can be calculated using the retail prices index for April of each year.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what restrictions exist in relation to non-departmental public bodies in terms of their approach to(a) the allocation of budgets within each organisation as a result of the implementation of local pay delegation and (b) the effect of any additional external finance derived by each organisation both in terms of supplementing existing internal budgets and in terms of any future overall budget allocation. [40134]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The delegation of pay and grading to Departments on 1 April 1996 applied to home civil servants outside the senior civil service. It did not directly affect non-departmental public bodies, which do not generally employ civil servants, nor did it change the administrative arrangements affecting NDPBs. Where additional external receipts are generated by an NDPB, the use of such receipts will usually be governed by an appropriate provision in the body's financial memorandum. If no such provision exists, a proposal to finance extra expenditure by the body without any offset to the grant in aid would be subject to the approval of the sponsor Department and the Treasury. Special arrangements exist for dealing with the proceeds from the disposal of Exchequer financed assets by NDPBs. The details are set out in paragraph 39 of dear accounting officer letter 3/89, a copy of which is being placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if salary commitments entered into by non-departmental public bodies operating within their budget allocations require Treasury approval. [40135]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Many, but not all, non-departmental public bodies have a statutory framework which requires the Treasury to consent to or approve the pay and conditions of staff or board members.

  Value Added Tax (Hot Water)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money will be collected annually in respect of recent legislation applying VAT to hot water supplied to(a) hospitals, (b) universities, (c) hospices and (d) colleges. [40115]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The point of this legislation was not to collect money, but to nip a tax avoidance scheme in the bud. Hospitals and universities are funded on the assumption that they incur VAT on fuel and power, but in fact some of these bodies have been among those who benefited from this avoidance scheme. The cost of the scheme, across all sectors and if left unchecked, could have reached £170 million or so. This figure represents tax at risk not tax raised.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on recent legislation applying VAT to hot water supplied to hospitals, universities, hospices and colleges. [40116]
  701
  Mr. Oppenheim
  The VAT (Anti-avoidance)(Heating) Order—SI 1996, No. 1661—excludes heating water from the zero rate in group 2 schedule 8 of the VAT Act 1994. This ended a VAT avoidance scheme by which some organisations, otherwise unable to recover VAT, had been able to avoid VAT on fuel and power by exploiting the zero rate for supplies of water. Hospitals and universities are funded on the assumption that they incur VAT on fuel and power, but in fact some of these bodies have been among those who benefited from the scheme.

  The effect of the order is to ensure the correct VAT treatment of fuel and power. It taxes heated water because it is, in reality, either a means of distributing heat or is supplied for use as hot water, the value of which lies in the fact that it has been heated.

  It is expected that the artificial schemes will now collapse and users will revert to the normal practice of purchasing zero-rated cold water, and when heating it will use tax-paid fuel.

  Inflation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current rate of inflation; and what was the forecast of inflation for July 1996 made by the Governor of the Bank of England(a) one and (b) two years ago. [40217]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The current rate of inflation of the retail prices index excluding mortgage interest payments—RPI ex MIPs—was 2.8 per cent. for the year to August 1996. The Bank of England publishes quarterly, not monthly, forecasts of RPI ex MIPs, but does not publish RPI all items forecasts. The Bank of England's forecast of RPI ex MIPs inflation for Q3 1996, made in August 1995, was 3.7 per cent. The Bank of England did not make forecasts two years ahead in August 1994.

  National Debt
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost of servicing the national debt in each of the next five years. [40211]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  In the 1995 "Financial Statement and Budget Report", central Government gross debt interest payments were forecast as follows:

  1996–97: £26.5 billion

  1997–98: £28.0 billion

  1998–99: £27.9 billion

  1999–20001: £28 billion

  2000–20011: £27 billion

  'As in the Red Book, these forecasts are rounded to the nearest £ billion.

  In the 1996 "Summer Economic Forecast", central Government gross debt interest payments for 1996–97 and 1997–98 were revised to £26.7 billion and £29.4 billion respectively.

  Food Retail Employees
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total number of people, using full-time equivalents, employed in the food retail sector in the years(a) 1970, (b) 1975, (c) 1980,
  702
  (d) 1985, (e) 1990, (f) 1995 and (g) 1996; for each year what was the proportion of people working in companies employing (1) one to 10, (2) 11 to 24, (3) 25 to 49, (4) 50 to 99, (5) 100 to 199, (6) 200 to 499 and (7) 500 and above; and if he will make a statement. [40130]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Information on a full-time equivalent basis cannot be provided for all years. The tables provide total employees for each year and full-time/part-time where available. The earliest available information comparable with later years is at 1971.

  Information on workplace size is available from the census of employment and can be accessed through the NOMIS database by the House of Commons Library.

  Employees in Great Britain: at June (thousands)1 Standard industrial classification 1980—retail distribution of food

  Men2

  Women

  Total

  Full-time

  Part-time

  1971

  229

  171

  174

  574

  1975

  217

  153

  219

  588

  1980

  216

  155

  225

  596

  1 Unadjusted.

  2 Full-time/part-time split for men not available.

  Standard industrial classification 1992—retail trade in non-specialised stores selling mainly food, drink and tobacco retail sale of food in specialised stores

  Men

  Women

  Total

  All

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  1980

  2451

  —

  —

  171

  240

  656

  1985

  2371

  —

  —

  140

  254

  630

  1990

  —

  180

  82

  145

  335

  743

  1995

  —

  160

  120

  118

  418

  817

  1996

  —

  165

  128

  120

  429

  842

  1 Full-time/part-time split for men not available.

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people there were(a) in employment and (b) self-employed in each parliamentary constituency in the United Kingdom at the latest date for which figures are available. [40237]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Information on total employment and the self-employed by local authority district at spring 1996 is available from the labour force survey. Information on employees in employment by parliamentary constituency at September 1993 is available from the census of employment. Both series can be accessed through the NOMIS database in the House of Commons Library.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a sectoral breakdown of inward investment to Britain from(a) the US and (b) Japan. [40289]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The latest available information relates to direct investment by US and Japanese businesses in Britain in 1994. This is contained in table 2.7 of "Business Monitor MA4 (1994 Overseas Direct Investment)" published by the Central Statistical Office. A copy is in the House of Commons Library.

  Debt Reduction
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the debt reduction initiative proposed by the World bank. [40337]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Government have been pressing hard for a resolution to the debt problems of the poorest, most indebted countries. We therefore very much welcome the successful launch of the heavily indebted poor country initiative, which is based on UK proposals. We fully support its objective of ensuring that, having demonstrated a track record of sustained strong economic policy performance, these countries are able to achieve overall external debt sustainability. The Government welcome the participation in the initiative of all major creditors—the International Monetary Fund, the World bank, and the Paris club of official bilateral creditors—which have agreed to act in a co-ordinated manner, sharing the costs of the initiative equitably. We also welcome the decision to implement the initiative flexibly, on a case by case basis, and with full participation by debtor Governments. Implementation for the first potentially eligible countries is expected to begin before the end of the year.

  Prostate Cancer
  Sir Julian Critchley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people have died in each year of the last 10 years from prostate cancer. [40471]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The number of deaths from prostate cancer—ICD1 185—in England and Wales was published in "Mortality Statistics: Cause", series DH2 No. 13, 1986; No. 14, 1987; No. 15, 1988; No. 16, 1989; No. 17, 1990; No. 18, 1991; No. 19, 1992; No. 21, 1993–94; in "Office for National Statistics, Monitor" DH2 96/2–1995. Copies of these publications are available in the House of Commons Library.
  1International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision.

  Fuel Duty Rebate
  Sir Peter Fry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to increase fuel duty rebate for scheduled coach services to bring it into line with passenger rail services. [39889]

  Mr. Bowis
  I have been asked to reply.

  None.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Child Care Facilities
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to encourage the provision of child care facilities in the workplace. [39997]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Employers can claim a deduction for all expenditure on child care provision for employees when calculating their business profits for tax purposes. Since April 1990 employees have been exempt from paying income tax on the benefit in kind of workplace nurseries provided by their employer.

  On 28 August I published a consultation paper, "Work and Family: Ideas and Options for Child care", which seeks views on how policy might develop to encourage the development of good-quality child care, including by employers.

  Skill Shortages
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the major areas of employment where there will be skill shortage in the remainder of the 1990s; and what assessment she has made of the impact these shortages will have on manufacturing industry. [39995]

  Mr. Paice
  The Department commissions an annual survey of employers assessing the extent of hard-to-fill vacancies currently and in 12 months' time. Rapidly changing technology, international competition and customer needs mean skills shortages cannot be predicted too far ahead. It is for local training and enterprise councils to monitor labour market needs in their own areas. Government programmes such as training for work, national traineeships and modern apprenticeships provide the basis of provision for the identified needs.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement about the current level of unemployment in the north-west region. [39998]

  Mr. Paice
  Unadjusted unemployment in the north-west standard region fell by over 15,000 in the 12 months to August, from 256,550–9 per cent.—in August 1995 to 241,219–8.5 per cent.—in August 1996, the last month for which figures are available.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many women from ethnic minorities are employed by her Department and its agencies; at what grade; and what measures she has taken to encourage the(a) recruitment, (b) employment and (c) promotion of women from ethnic minorities within her Department and its agencies [39903]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The following table shows the number of women from ethnic minorities who are employed by the Department for Education and Employment and its agencies, broken down by grade.
  706

  Women of ethnic minority origin employed by the DfEE, ES and TPA at 1 July 1996

  Black

  Asian

  Other

  Total

  AA

  93

  84

  6

  183

  AO

  645

  793

  74

  1,512

  EO

  169

  207

  31

  407

  HEO

  15

  16

  10

  41

  SEO

  1

  4

  0

  5

  G7

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Total

  923

  1,104

  122

  2,149

  DFEE and its agencies are committed to equal opportunities and, have established a number of initiatives to encourage the recruitment, employment and promotion both of ethnic minority staff and of women. For example:
  Advertising of external posts is targeted and the Department's equal opportunity committments appear in advertisements.
  Most departmental vacancies are filled from within. The internal vacancy bulletin explains the Department's comittment to equal opportunity and that applicants are considered on merit regardless of age, disability, gender, race religion, marital status or sexual orientation.
  The gender and ethnic origin of all applicants are monitored during the recruitment process to ensure that advertising is effective and the recruitment procedure fair.
  Recruitment is based on competence rather than on subjective criteria.
  The Employment Service has a mentoring programme for staff of ethnic minority origin and DFEE is setting up a similar scheme.
  DFEE is a member of the National Mentoring Consortium and the Windsor Fellowship, providing support for ethnic minority undergraduates with the aim of encouraging them to consider a civil service career.
  DFEE has a development programme for staff from ethnic minorities of AA grade and above, called "Equal Chance" to help develop the skills and competences required for career progression within the Department.
  The Department has a commitment to flexible working including part-time, job sharing and remote working and is taking measures to encourage and extend opportunities for working this way.
  The Department has participated in double disadvantage focus groups as part of a Cabinet Office study to consider the double disadvantage which might be experienced by women of ethnic minority origin.

  It is of concern to the Department that staff of ethnic minority origin remain under-represented at senior levels. The Department's equal opportunities strategy has key priorities for action. These include ensuring that people from ethnic minority backgrounds have the same opportunities as everyone else to develop and progress and looking at strategies to enable women to progress on merit to senior posts. A research project has been mounted to identify barriers to progress for all ethnic minority staff. The findings from this research will inform future initiatives.

  Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she expects to receive
  707
  the 1996–97 corporate plan of the office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools. [39922]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This is a matter for Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools, who heads the Office for Standards in Education. That said, I understand that the corporate plan was published on Friday 27 September 1996, and a copy has been placed in the Library.

  Older Workers
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate she has made of the proportion of the population aged 55 years and over which will remain economically active during the next 10 years; and what plans she has to combat discrimination by employers on the ground of age. [39996]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Labour force projections of economic activity, broken down by age, were published in the May 1996 edition of "Labour Market Trends", which is available in the Library.

  Government policy is to continue to tackle age discrimination in employment through this Department's campaign for older workers. The campaign aims to persuade employers of the business benefits in recruiting, retraining and retaining workers on merit; raise awareness of the importance of older workers to the economy; and encourage older workers to remain active in the labour market.

  The campaign's message, that age has no bearing on the ability to do a good job, is being carried forward and disseminated through a series of booklets—publications have been issued for employers, older workers themselves, recruitment agencies and the recruitment advertising industry—and regional ministerial presentations.

  The campaign is currently being evaluated and the results should be available next spring.

  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on her Department's policy on the employment of older workers. [40288]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The Government's policy is to persuade employers to recruit, train and retain workers on merit, regardless of age. This is promoted through this Department's campaign for older workers.

  Primary School Pupils
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the number and percentage of pupils in maintained primary school classes of 31 or more in each year from 1991 and what figures are available for 1996 showing the percentage change between 1995 and 1996(a) by each local education authority in England, (b) by region and (c) in total. [40148]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information is shown in the following tables:708

  Numbers and percentages of pupils in classes of 31 or more in maintained primary schools in each local education authority area and region in England: 1991–96 (provisional)

  Position in January each year 1991

  LEA

  Number

  Percentage1

  Corporation of London

  0

  0.0

  Camden

  220

  2.8

  Greenwich

  1,216

  7.2

  Hackney

  341

  3.0

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  354

  5.2

  Islington

  315

  2.8

  Kensington and Chelsea

  187

  4.0

  Lambeth

  368

  2.4

  Lewisham

  698

  4.2

  Southwark

  1,389

  8.7

  Tower Hamlets

  487

  4.2

  Wandsworth

  373

  2.9

  Westminster

  218

  3.5

  Barking

  1,136

  8.5

  Barnet

  1,711

  8.9

  Bexley

  4,361

  26.4

  Brent

  1,544

  8.8

  Bromley

  6,133

  32.3

  Croydon

  2,875

  13.3

  Ealing

  3,277

  15.3

  Enfield

  4,652

  25.9

  Haringey

  528

  3.3

  Harrow

  4,320

  28.7

  Havering

  3,423

  19.1

  Hillingdon

  4,072

  24.3

  Hounslow

  5,024

  33.5

  Kingston upon Thames

  3,439

  42.4

  Merton

  1,540

  14.7

  Newham

  2,263

  11.4

  Redbridge

  8,333

  56.4

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,798

  20.3

  Sutton

  3,731

  35.3

  Waltham Forest

  3,283

  20.3

  Birmingham

  26,754

  28.3

  Coventry

  5,454

  21.3

  Dudley

  6,732

  29.8

  Sandwell

  8,800

  34.4

  Solihull

  4,998

  29.3

  Walsall

  3,713

  18.2

  Wolverhampton

  3,565

  17.9

  Knowsley

  3,593

  22.9

  Liverpool

  8,471

  18.5

  St. Helens

  4,836

  32.4

  Sefton

  7,831

  33.1

  Wirral

  2,295

  8.8

  Bolton

  8,594

  40.3

  Bury

  4,941

  34.7

  Manchester

  9,484

  23.6

  Oldham

  8,187

  41.2

  Rochdale

  6,889

  39.0

  Salford

  4,210

  20.0

  Stockport

  6,573

  28.6

  Tameside

  8,128

  41.9

  Trafford

  7,430

  43.4

  Wigan

  10,066

  40.4

  Barnsley

  3,266

  16.9

  Doncaster

  4,509

  17.8

  Rotherham

  2,334

  10.4

  Sheffield

  6,647

  17.3

  Bradford

  3,383

  11.4

  Calderdale

  5,103

  31

  Kirklees

  7,897

  26.6

  Leeds

  10,247

  24.1

  Wakefield

  8,058

  32.9

  Gateshead

  1,311

  8.0

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  5,040

  27.1

  North Tyneside

  1,527

  10.8

  South Tyneside

  1,906

  13.8

  709

  Numbers and percentages of pupils in classes of 31 or more in maintained primary schools in each local education authority area and region in England: 1991–96 (provisional)

  Position in January each year

  1991

  LEA

  Number

  Percentage1

  Sunderland

  4,716

  17.9

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0.0

  Avon

  21,212

  30.0

  Bedfordshire

  9,406

  27.9

  Berkshire

  16,930

  32.2

  Buckinghamshire

  17,251

  31.8

  Cambridgeshire

  13,596

  26.3

  Cheshire

  35,447

  43.6

  Cleveland

  12,897

  23.6

  Cornwall

  11,984

  32.4

  Cumbria

  6,895

  18.7

  Derbyshire

  20,325

  28.3

  Devon

  19,509

  27.0

  Dorset

  13,959

  37.8

  Durham

  12,995

  26.3

  East Sussex

  14,944

  33.5

  Essex

  29,219

  25.4

  Gloucestershire

  8,424

  21.9

  Hampshire

  39,623

  33.5

  Hereford and Worcester

  9,988

  22.5

  Hertfordshire

  17,022

  24.1

  Humberside

  16,528

  22.8

  Isle of Wight

  1,637

  25.0

  Kent

  41,865

  36.1

  Lancashire

  45,822

  40.7

  Leicestershire

  16,990

  24.2

  Lincolnshire

  13,517

  29.7

  Norfolk

  11,081

  19.6

  North Yorkshire

  11,975

  23.0

  Northamptonshire

  9,408

  21.6

  Northumberland

  7,600

  41.2

  Nottinghamshire

  13,213

  17.0

  Oxfordshire

  6,433

  18.0

  Shropshire

  6,630

  21.2

  Somerset

  9,813

  31.1

  Staffordshire

  18,648

  23.1

  Suffolk

  5,245

  13.6

  Surrey

  12,605

  18.9

  Warwickshire

  10,801

  28.4

  West Sussex

  10,088

  21.5

  Wiltshire

  8,596

  21.3

  By region

  North

  54,887

  22.1

  North-west

  182,797

  33.9

  East Anglia

  29,922

  20.4

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  79,947

  21.4

  West Midlands

  106,083

  25.3

  East Midlands

  73,453

  23.8

  Greater London

  73,609

  16.2

  Other South-east

  217,023

  28.5

  South-west

  93,497

  28.6

  England

  911,218

  25.5

  (1) Pupils in single teacher classes of 31 or more expressed as a percentage of all pupils in single teacher classes.

  Note:

  The comparable percentage of pupils in single teacher classes of 31 or more in 1979 was 35.3.
  710

  Position in January each year

  1992

  LEA

  Number

  Percentage1

  Corporation of London

  0

  0.0

  Camden

  541

  6.5

  Greenwich

  1,305

  7.8

  Hackney

  219

  1.9

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  649

  9.4

  Islington

  756

  6.6

  Kensington and Chelsea

  130

  2.7

  Lambeth

  630

  4.0

  Lewisham

  2,017

  11.4

  Southwark

  1,403

  8.4

  Tower Hamlets

  596

  4.9

  Wandsworth

  818

  6.1

  Westminster

  292

  4.3

  Barking

  1,531

  11.1

  Barnet

  1,986

  10.1

  Bexley

  5,021

  29.8

  Brent

  1,450

  8.3

  Bromley

  6,417

  33.1

  Croydon

  3,553

  16.4

  Ealing

  3,370

  15.3

  Enfield

  5,185

  27.5

  Haringey

  481

  2.9

  Harrow

  4,140

  27.1

  Havering

  2,585

  14.5

  Hillingdon

  4,745

  27.8

  Hounslow

  5,434

  35.3

  Kingston upon Thames

  4,705

  54.1

  Merton

  1,882

  16.3

  Newham

  1,294

  6.3

  Redbridge

  8,476

  56.6

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,353

  14.8

  Sutton

  3,540

  33.3

  Waltham Forest

  2,958

  18.0

  Birmingham

  23,741

  24.9

  Coventry

  5,758

  22.3

  Dudley

  4,447

  21.2

  Sand well

  8,571

  33.3

  Solihull

  5,077

  29.8

  Walsall

  4,313

  20.7

  Wolverhampton

  2,765

  13.8

  Knowsley

  4,107

  26.1

  Liverpool

  10,605

  22.9

  St. Helens

  5,100

  34.4

  Sefton

  8,027

  32.9

  Wirral

  3,314

  12.2

  Bolton

  8,269

  38.2

  Bury

  5,313

  35.6

  Manchester

  8,361

  20.9

  Oldham

  7,938

  40.6

  Rochdale

  8,371

  37.0

  Salford

  4,938

  23.4

  Stockport

  6,735

  28.6

  Tameside

  8,067

  40

  Trafford

  8,329

  47.6

  Wigan

  8,684

  34.9

  Barnsley

  3,482

  17.8

  Doncaster

  6,457

  24.8

  Rotherham

  2,970

  13.4

  Sheffield

  5,909

  15.1

  Bradford

  3,579

  12.3

  Calderdale

  3,914

  23.3

  Kirklees

  7,433

  25.2

  Leeds

  11,617

  26.8

  Wakefield

  8,322

  33.4

  Gateshead

  1,094

  6.8

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  5,240

  26.7

  North Tyneside

  2,928

  20.2

  South Tyneside

  2,139

  15.2

  Sunderland

  4,376

  16.9

  Isles of Scilly

  31

  18.8

  Avon

  20,297

  28.4

  711

  Position in January each year

  1992

  LEA

  Number

  Percentage1

  Bedfordshire

  7,467

  21.8

  Berkshire

  14,091

  26.4

  Buckinghamshire

  17,304

  30.9

  Cambridgeshire

  13,893

  26.4

  Cheshire

  31,286

  38.4

  Cleveland

  13,234

  23.5

  Cornwall

  13,502

  36.2

  Cumbria

  7,894

  21.5

  Derbyshire

  24,579

  34.0

  Devon

  20,230

  27.8

  Dorset

  14,553

  38.2

  Durham

  11,967

  23.9

  East Sussex

  16,382

  36.5

  Essex

  27,674

  23.9

  Gloucestershire

  8,883

  22.4

  Hampshire

  35,143

  29.5

  Hereford and Worcester

  8,437

  18.7

  Hertfordshire

  18,517

  25.7

  Humberside

  16,604

  22.8

  Isle of Wight

  1,477

  21.9

  Kent

  36,948

  31.5

  Lancashire

  44,711

  39.8

  Leicestershire

  14,056

  19.9

  Lincolnshire

  10,999

  24.1

  Norfolk

  10,271

  18.0

  North Yorkshire

  11,246

  21.3

  Northamptonshire

  8,648

  19.5

  Northumberland

  6,710

  35.9

  Nottinghamshire

  15,656

  19.9

  Oxfordshire

  5,302

  14.7

  Shropshire

  5,809

  18.2

  Somerset

  9,655

  30.1

  Staffordshire

  20,825

  25.2

  Suffolk

  4,878

  12.6

  Surrey

  13,108

  19.5

  Warwickshire

  12,822

  32.8

  West Sussex

  11,563

  23.7

  Wiltshire

  8,398

  20.5

  By region

  North

  55,582

  22.1

  North-west

  180,155

  33.2

  East Anglia

  29,042

  19.6

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  81,533

  21.7

  West Midlands

  102,565

  24.2

  East Midlands

  73,938

  23.7

  Greater London

  79,462

  17.1

  Other South-east

  204,976

  26.6

  South-west

  95,549

  28.7

  England

  902,802

  24.9

  1 Change in number of pupils in single teacher classes of 31 or more between 1995 and 1996 expressed as a percentage of pupils in single teacher classes of 31 or more in 1995.

  Note:

  The comparable percentage of pupils in single teacher classes of 31 or more in 1979 was 35.3.

  Position in January each year

  1993

  LEA

  Number

  Percentage1

  Corporation of London

  0

  0.0

  Camden

  452

  5.4

  Greenwich

  1,837

  10.8

  Hackney

  656

  5.0

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  719

  10.0

  Islington

  673

  5.5

  Kensington and Chelsea

  159

  3.3

  Lambeth

  762

  4.8

  Lewisham

  1,706

  9.8

  712

  Position in January each year

  1993

  LEA

  Number

  Percentage1

  Southwark

  1,894

  10.8

  Tower Hamlets

  619

  4.6

  Wandsworth

  1,572

  11.1

  Westminster

  391

  6.1

  Barking

  1,021

  7.3

  Barnet

  2,028

  10.1

  Bexley

  5,450

  30.9

  Brent

  2,145

  11.7

  Bromley

  7,461

  37.8

  Croydon

  4,022

  17.4

  Ealing

  4,261

  19.2

  Enfield

  6,081

  31.6

  Haringey

  631

  3..8

  Harrow

  3,740

  24.2

  Havering

  3,881

  21.1

  Hillingdon

  4,942

  28.7

  Hounslow

  4,528

  29.4

  Kingston upon Thames

  5,203

  55.9

  Merton

  2,499

  21.1

  Newham

  1,872

  8.8

  Redbridge

  8,754

  55.1

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,617

  16.7

  Sutton

  4,566

  40.5

  Waltham Forest

  3,766

  22.3

  Birmingham

  26,985

  28.0

  Coventry

  5,446

  22.0

  Dudley

  4,751

  21.4

  Sandwell

  9,243

  34.8

  Solihull

  5,399

  31.1

  Walsall

  5,997

  27.5

  Wolverhampton

  4,731

  22.1

  Knowsley

  5,013

  30.7

  Liverpool

  11,104

  23.7

  St. Helens

  4,305

  29.2

  Sefton

  7,984

  33.2

  Wirral

  4,726

  16.9

  Bolton

  8,684

  40.0

  Bury

  5,458

  37.1

  Manchester

  10,107

  24.6

  Oldham

  8,673

  41.6

  Rochdale

  8,651

  47.2

  Salford

  5,623

  25.6

  Stockport

  7,624

  31.7

  Tameside

  9,739

  47.4

  Trafford

  8,618

  49.1

  Wigan

  9,018

  36.2

  Barnsley

  4,094

  20.7

  Doncaster

  6,006

  22.8

  Rotherham

  2,198

  10.0

  Sheffield

  7,855

  21.1

  Bradford

  5,943

  19.2

  Calderdale

  4,672

  26.7

  Kirklees

  7,804

  26.5

  Leeds

  15,309

  28.2

  Wakefield

  8,536

  33.6

  Gateshead

  1,986

  12.3

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  5,927

  29.6

  North Tyneside

  2,962

  20.2

  South Tyneside

  3,023

  21.0

  Sunderland

  3,878

  15.0

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0.0

  Avon

  22,884

  31.0

  Bedfordshire

  8,541

  24.0

  Berkshire

  14,671

  27.0

  Buckinghamshire

  17,283

  30.6

  Cambridgeshire

  13,912

  26.2

  Cheshire

  30,297

  36.9

  Cleveland

  13,649

  23.7

  Cornwall

  13,492

  35.7

  Cumbria

  9,232

  24.2

  Derbyshire

  27,385

  36.8

  713

  Position in January each year

  1993

  LEA

  Number

  Percentage1

  Devon

  20,804

  27.5

  Dorset

  16,522

  41.5

  Durham

  14,038

  27.8

  East Sussex

  16,939

  37.3

  Essex

  28,575

  24.5

  Gloucestershire

  9,272

  22.6

  Hampshire

  35,902

  29.6

  Hereford and Worcester

  8,887

  19.6

  Hertfordshire

  18,667

  25.2

  Humberside

  20,519

  27.4

  Isle of Wight

  1,856

  26.9

  Kent

  38,705

  32.0

  Lancashire

  43,818

  38.2

  Leicestershire

  15,963

  22.3

  Lincolnshire

  11,649

  25.1

  Norfolk

  11,083

  19.1

  North Yorkshire

  12,118

  22.4

  Northamptonshire

  8,419

  18.7

  Northumberland

  6,461

  34.2

  Nottinghamshire

  18,878

  23.6

  Oxfordshire

  5,494

  15.1

  Shropshire

  7,164

  21.9

  Somerset

  10,336

  31.4

  Staffordshire

  30,794

  35.7

  Suffolk

  5,046

  12.6

  Surrey

  15,438

  22.0

  Warwickshire

  13,002

  31.9

  West Sussex

  9,108

  18.6

  Wiltshire

  11,151

  24.9

  By region

  North

  61,156

  23.9

  North-west

  189,442

  34.3

  East Anglia

  30,041

  19.9

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  95,054

  24.2

  West Midlands

  122,399

  28.1

  East Midlands

  82,294

  25.9

  Greater London

  89,908

  18.7

  Other South-east

  211,179

  26.8

  South-west

  104,461

  30.2

  England

  985,934

  26.5

  1 Pupils in single teacher classes of 31 or more expressed as a percentage of all pupils in single teacher classes.

  Note:

  The comparable percentage of pupils in single teacher classes of 31 or more in 1979 was 35.3.

  Position in January each year

  1994

  LEA

  Number

  Percentage1

  Corporation of London

  0

  0.0

  Camden

  542

  6.1

  Greenwich

  2,301

  13.3

  Hackney

  499

  3.7

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  795

  11.1

  Islington

  892

  6.9

  Kensington and Chelsea

  454

  9.0

  Lambeth

  816

  5.2

  Lewisham

  1,318

  7.2

  Southwark

  2,331

  12.3

  Tower Hamlets

  638

  4.9

  Wandsworth

  1,666

  11.8

  Westminster

  428

  5.9

  Barking

  1,415

  9.9

  Barnet

  2,434

  11.6

  Bexley

  5,910

  32.0

  Brent

  2,157

  11.4

  Bromley

  10,385

  47.5

  Croydon

  4,896

  20.5

  714

  Position in January each year

  1994

  LEA

  Number

  Percentage1

  Ealing

  4,146

  20.3

  Enfield

  7,237

  35.4

  Haringey

  732

  4.3

  Harrow

  3,544

  22.6

  Havering

  4,176

  22.1

  Hillingdon

  4,896

  27.5

  Hounslow

  5,319

  33.5

  Kingston upon Thames

  5,484

  57.9

  Merton

  3,114

  25.3

  Newham

  1,317

  6.0

  Redbridge

  8,456

  52.8

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,134

  11.4

  Sutton

  4,696

  40.1

  Waltham Forest

  3,200

  18.4

  Birmingham

  27,164

  28.4

  Coventry

  5,541

  21.9

  Dudley

  7,497

  31.1

  Sandwell

  10,175

  37.5

  Solihull

  6,711

  36.9

  Walsall

  5,577

  25.1

  Wolverhampton

  5,155

  24.1

  Knowsley

  5,915

  34.8

  Liverpool

  12,620

  26.6

  St. Helens

  5,437

  37.5

  Sefton

  8,258

  33.7

  Wirral

  5,928

  20.4

  Bolton

  9,046

  41.0

  Bury

  6,239

  40.0

  Manchester

  9,619

  23.4

  Oldham

  8,617

  41.1

  Rochdale

  8,020

  43.8

  Salford

  6,817

  30.6

  Stockport

  8,179

  33.8

  Tameside

  12,079

  56.4

  Trafford

  9,151

  49.6

  Wigan

  9,997

  38.2

  Barnsley

  5,656

  28.3

  Doncaster

  7,548

  28.4

  Rotherham

  2,569

  11.5

  Sheffield

  8,281

  21.9

  Bradford

  8,781

  27.3

  Calderdale

  5,268

  30.1

  Kirklees

  9,372

  29.9

  Leeds

  19,405

  32.7

  Wakefield

  9,996

  37.0

  Gateshead

  1,862

  11.2

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  5,843

  28.5

  North Tyneside

  3,905

  26.0

  South Tyneside

  3,456

  23.9

  Sunderland

  4,244

  16.2

  Isles of Scilly

  31

  18.5

  Avon

  26,753

  35.5

  Bedfordshire

  9,064

  24.4

  Berkshire

  16,290

  28.9

  Buckinghamshire

  19.072

  33.3

  Cambridgeshire

  15,079

  27.2

  Cheshire

  30,193

  36.2

  Cleveland

  13,386

  23.2

  Cornwall

  13,441

  35.1

  Cumbria

  9,385

  24.2

  Derbyshire

  29,982

  39.9

  Devon

  21,175

  27.3

  Dorset

  18,142

  44.0

  Durham

  15,012

  28.9

  East Sussex

  18,297

  40.7

  Essex

  30,729

  25.8

  Gloucestershire

  11,123

  26.5

  Hampshire

  44,304

  34.2

  Hereford and Worcester

  9,910

  21.1

  Hertfordshire

  21.344

  27.7

  Humberside

  25,914

  33.4

  715

  Position in January each year

  1994

  LEA

  Number

  Percentage1

  Isle of Wight

  1,862

  26.6

  Kent

  41,570

  33.6

  Lancashire

  45,112

  38.5

  Leicestershire

  14,433

  20.2

  Lincolnshire

  12,642

  26.6

  Norfolk

  11,175

  19.5

  North Yorkshire

  13,702

  24.8

  Northamptonshire

  9,590

  20.6

  Northumberland

  7,901

  41.4

  Nottinghamshire

  19,947

  24.2

  Oxfordshire

  5,850

  15.3

  Shropshire

  9,085

  27.2

  Somerset

  10,476

  30.1

  Staffordshire

  30,738

  35.3

  Suffolk

  5,608

  13.8

  Surrey

  13,741

  20.2

  Warwickshire

  12,740

  30.6

  West Sussex

  10,934

  21.6

  Wiltshire

  12,185

  26.5

  By region

  North

  64,994

  25.0

  North-west

  201,227

  35.7

  East Anglia

  31,862

  20.8

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  116,492

  28.6

  West Midlands

  130,293

  29.4

  East Midlands

  86,594

  26.8

  Greater London

  97,328

  19.6

  Other South-east

  234,057

  28.8

  South-west

  113,326

  31.9

  England

  1,076,173

  28.2

  1 Change in number of pupils in single teacher classes of 31 or more between 1995 and 1996 expressed as a percentage of pupils in single teacher classes of 31 or more in 1995.

  Note

  The comparable percentage of pupils in single teacher classes of 31 or more in 1979 was 35.3

  Position in January each year

  1995

  LEA

  Number

  Percentage1

  Corporation of London

  0

  0.0

  Camden

  605

  6.7

  Greenwich

  2,555

  14.5

  Hackney

  569

  4.0

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,294

  16.6

  Islington

  1,055

  8.1

  Kensington and Chelsea

  221

  4.5

  Lambeth

  540

  3.4

  Lewisham

  1,192

  6.4

  Southwark

  2,483

  12.7

  Tower Hamlets

  778

  5.1

  Wandsworth

  1,459

  10.3

  Westminster

  646

  9.4

  Barking

  1,317

  8.7

  Barnet

  2,291

  10.9

  Bex ley

  7,834

  39.2

  Brent

  2,444

  13.0

  Bromley

  11,596

  51.8

  Croydon

  5,973

  23.7

  Ealing

  4,137

  19.2

  Enfield

  8,192

  39.7

  Haringey

  1,045

  6.0

  Harrow

  4,152

  25.5

  Havering

  4,662

  24.1

  Hillingdon

  4,833

  26.4

  Hounslow

  5,691

  34.1

  Kingston upon Thames

  6,216

  64.0

  716

  Position in January each year

  1995

  LEA

  Number

  Percentage1

  Merton

  3,299

  26.2

  Newham

  2,680

  11.3

  Redbridge

  8,337

  51.5

  Richmond upon Thames

  2,040

  20.4

  Sutton

  4,328

  35.7

  Waltham Forest

  3.33

  18.8

  Birmingham

  28,251

  29.2

  Coventry

  7,875

  29.4

  Dudley

  6,935

  28.5

  Sandwell

  10,815

  39.1

  Solihull

  7,506

  40.3

  Walsall

  6,428

  27.9

  Wolverhampton

  5,846

  26.8

  Knowsley

  6,300

  34.7

  Liverpool

  12,541

  27.0

  St. Helens

  5,507

  37.4

  Sefton

  8,793

  35.1

  Wirral

  6,076

  20.7

  Bolton

  10,366

  45.9

  Bury

  6,434

  41.1

  Manchester

  10,211

  24.2

  Oldham

  8,823

  41.0

  Rochdale

  8,102

  41.8

  Salford

  6,975

  30.8

  Stockport

  7,858

  31.8

  Tameside

  11,291

  51.8

  Trafford

  9,689

  51.1

  Wigan

  11,375

  42.7

  Barnsley

  6,201

  30.9

  Doncaster

  8,338

  31.7

  Rotherham

  3,269

  14.4

  Sheffield

  11,119

  28.3

  Bradford

  10,707

  32.4

  Calderdale

  5,666

  30.9

  Kirklees

  12,290

  38.2

  Leeds

  21,245

  35.1

  Wakefield

  10,544

  37.8

  Gateshead

  2,237

  13.2

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  6,744

  33.1

  North Tyneside

  4,930

  32.7

  South Tyneside

  3,616

  24.7

  Sunderland

  3,601

  13.5

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0.0

  Avon

  26,919

  34.5

  Bedfordshire

  10,328

  26.7

  Berkshire

  15,605

  26.8

  Buckinghamshire

  21,248

  35.6

  Cambridgeshire

  14,946

  26.8

  Cheshire

  30,315

  35.5

  Cleveland

  13,859

  23.7

  Cornwall

  14,004

  35.6

  Cumbria

  11,452

  29.0

  Derbyshire

  32,959

  42.7

  Devon

  23,659

  29.8

  Dorset

  18,038

  42.8

  Durham

  15,455

  29.5

  East Sussex

  19,691

  40.8

  Essex

  31,875

  25.8

  Gloucestershire

  11,595

  26.7

  Hampshire

  43,976

  33.9

  Hereford and Worcester

  10,533

  21.8

  Hertfordshire

  23,054

  29.0

  Humberside

  26,842

  33.8

  Isle of Wight

  1,860

  26.4

  Kent

  44,208

  34.4

  Lancashire

  48,832

  40.4

  Leicestershire

  17,567

  23.6

  Lincolnshire

  14,632

  29.8

  Norfolk

  12,066

  20.5

  North Yorkshire

  17,758

  31.3

  Northamptonshire

  10,576

  21.9

  717

  Position in January each year

  1995

  LEA

  Number

  Percentage1

  Northumberland

  8,030

  41.8

  Nottinghamshire

  23,142

  27.8

  Oxfordshire

  6,422

  16.4

  Shropshire

  9,972

  29.0

  Somerset

  10,776

  30.1

  Staffordshire

  31,147

  35.3

  Suffolk

  6,396

  15.1

  Surrey

  12,118

  17.7

  Warwickshire

  13,980

  32.9

  West Sussex

  12,879

  24.2

  Wiltshire

  14,703

  31.0

  By region

  North

  69,924

  26.6

  North-west

  209,488

  36.4

  East Anglia

  33,408

  21.3

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  133,979

  32.2

  West Midlands

  139,288

  30.8

  East Midlands

  98,876

  29.8

  Greater London

  107,794

  21.1

  Other South-east

  243,264

  29.2

  South-west

  119,694

  32.7

  England

  1,155,715

  29.6

  1 Change in number of pupils in single teacher classes of 31 or more between 1995 and 1996 expressed as a percentage of pupils in single teacher classes of 31 or more in 1995.

  Note:

  The comparable percentage of pupils in single teacher classes of 31 or more in 1979 was 35.3

  Position in January each year

  1996 (provisional)

  LEA

  Number

  Percentage1

  Corporation of London

  0

  0.0

  Camden

  447

  5.2

  Greenwich

  1,412

  8.0

  Hackney

  664

  4.9

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,036

  13.2

  Islington

  982

  7.4

  Kensington and Chelsea

  187

  3.8

  Lambeth

  857

  5.5

  Lewisham

  917

  5.2

  Southwark

  2.051

  10.7

  Tower Hamlets

  859

  5.8

  Wandsworth

  2,373

  16.5

  Westminster

  544

  7.9

  Barking

  1,603

  10.6

  Barnet

  1,848

  8.8

  Bexley

  8,821

  42.7

  Brent

  2,259

  12.0

  Bromley

  11,850

  50.6

  Croydon

  6,341

  24.4

  Ealing

  5,508

  24.5

  Enfield

  8,840

  41.0

  Haringey

  984

  5.9

  Harrow

  3,833

  24.3

  Havering

  5,678

  28.7

  Hillingdon

  4,820

  25.8

  Hounslow

  5,674

  34.4

  Kingston upon Thames

  7,095

  70.1

  Merton

  3,955

  30.9

  Newham

  2,381

  9.8

  Redbridge

  9,060

  52.7

  Richmond upon Thames

  2,309

  22.3

  Sutton

  4,235

  32.8

  Waltham Forest

  3,282

  18.4

  Birmingham

  25,642

  26.3

  Coventry

  7,638

  28.3

  Dudley

  6,618

  26.9

  718

  Position in January each year

  1996 (provisional)

  LEA

  Number

  Percentage1

  Sandwell

  11,812

  41.5

  Solihull

  8,403

  44.0

  Walsall

  7,241

  31.1

  Wolverhampton

  6,762

  30.9

  Knowsley

  5,254

  29.2

  Liverpool

  12,051

  26.0

  St. Helens

  5,583

  37.7

  Sefton

  10,670

  42.5

  Wirral

  6,987

  23.7

  Bolton

  11,719

  49.7

  Bury

  6,968

  43.4

  Manchester

  9,687

  22.8

  Oldham

  9,434

  43.5

  Rochdale

  8,316

  43.0

  Salford

  6,997

  30.6

  Stockport

  8,247

  32.8

  Tameside

  11,508

  53.0

  Trafford

  9,389

  48.9

  Wigan

  11,087

  42.5

  Barnsley

  8,677

  42.3

  Doncaster

  9,609

  35.1

  Rotherham

  5,732

  24.6

  Sheffield

  11,181

  28.0

  Bradford

  11,449

  34.3

  Calderdale

  6,331

  34.3

  Kirklees

  14,395

  44.3

  Leeds

  21,455

  35.3

  Wakefield

  10,673

  37.7

  Gateshead

  2,443

  14.4

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  6,792

  33.1

  North Tyneside

  4,897

  31.7

  South Tyneside

  4,067

  27.6

  Sunderland

  4,148

  15.1

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0.0

  Avon

  26.647

  34.4

  Bedfordshire

  11,867

  30.4

  Berkshire

  18,308

  30.5

  Buckinghamshire

  22,753

  37.6

  Cambridgeshire

  18,065

  31.8

  Cheshire

  32,225

  37.3

  Cleveland

  13,869

  23.6

  Cornwall

  14,936

  37.5

  Cumbria

  11,382

  28.2

  Derbyshire

  41,217

  52.0

  Devon

  28,078

  34.8

  Dorset

  19,654

  44.5

  Durham

  19,881

  38.0

  East Sussex

  20,971

  42.4

  Essex

  34,741

  27.6

  Gloucestershire

  14,246

  32.1

  Hampshire

  44,938

  34.5

  Hereford and Worcester

  13,225

  27.2

  Hertfordshire

  23,396

  29.0

  Humberside

  27,832

  35.0

  Isle of Wight

  2,243

  31.1

  Kent

  44,212

  33.8

  Lancashire

  54,099

  44.5

  Leicestershire

  21,784

  28.8

  Lincolnshire

  13,962

  27.9

  Norfolk

  13,224

  22.0

  North Yorkshire

  18,663

  32.1

  Northamptonshire

  11,089

  22.4

  Northumberland

  8,478

  43.3

  Nottinghamshire

  32,931

  38.9

  Oxfordshire

  10,608

  25.7

  Shropshire

  13,425

  38.2

  Somerset

  13,649

  37.3

  Staffordshire

  32,163

  35.7

  Suffolk

  7,940

  18.2

  Surrey

  14,197

  19.9

  Warwickshire

  17,566

  40.7

  719

  Position in January each year

  1996 (provisional)

  LEA

  Number

  Percentage1

  West Sussex

  14,447

  26.7

  Wiltshire

  15,128

  30.8

  By region

  North

  75,957

  28.5

  North-west

  220,201

  38.0

  East Anglia

  39,229

  24.4

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  145,997

  34.6

  West Midlands

  150,495

  32.8

  East Midlands

  120,983

  35.7

  Greater London

  112,705

  21.8

  Other South-east

  262,682

  30.9

  South-west

  132,338

  35.5

  England

  1,260,587

  31.8

  1 Change in number of pupils in single teacher classes of 31 or more between 1995 and 1996 expressed as a percentage of pupils in single teacher classes of 31 or more in 1995.

  Note:

  The comparable percentage of pupils in single teacher classes of 31or more in 1979 was 35.3.

  Position in January each year

  Change

  LEA

  Number

  Percentage1

  Corporation of London

  0

  0.0

  Camden

  -158

  -26.1

  Greenwich

  -1,143

  -44.7

  Hackney

  95

  16.7

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  -258

  -19.9

  Islington

  -73

  -6.9

  Kensington and Chelsea

  -34

  -15.4

  Lambeth

  317

  58.7

  Lewisham

  -275

  -23.1

  Southwark

  -432

  -17.4

  Tower Hamlets

  81

  10.4

  Wandsworth

  914

  62.6

  Westminster

  -102

  -15.8

  Barking

  286

  21.7

  Barnet

  443

  -19.3

  Bexley

  987

  12.6

  Brent

  -185

  -7.6

  Bromley

  254

  2.2

  Croydon

  368

  6.2

  Ealing

  1,371

  33.1

  Enfield

  648

  7.9

  Haringey

  -61

  -5.8

  Harrow

  -319

  -7.7

  Havering

  1,016

  21.8

  Hillingdon

  -13

  -0.3

  Hounslow

  -17

  -0.3

  Kingston upon Thames

  879

  14.1

  Merton

  656

  19.9

  Newham

  -299

  -11.2

  Redbridge

  723

  8.7

  Richmond upon Thames

  269

  13.2

  Sutton

  -93

  -2.1

  Waltham Forest

  -48

  -1.4

  Birmingham

  -2,609

  -9.2

  Coventry

  -237

  -3

  Dudley

  —317

  -4.6

  Sandwell

  997

  9.2

  Solihull

  897

  12.0

  Walsall

  813

  12.6

  Wolverhampton

  916

  15.7

  Knowsley

  -1,046

  -16.6

  Liverpool

  -A9Q

  -3.9

  St. Helens

  56

  1.0

  Sefton

  1,877

  21.3

  Wirral

  911

  15.0

  Bolton

  1,353

  13.1

  720

  Position in January each year

  Change

  LEA

  Number

  Percentage'

  Bury

  534

  8.3

  Manchester

  -524

  -5.1

  Oldham

  611

  6.9

  Rochdale

  214

  2.6

  Salford

  22

  0.3

  Stockport

  389

  5.0

  Tameside

  217

  1.9

  Trafford

  -300

  -3.1

  Wigan

  -288

  -2.5

  Barnsley

  2,476

  39.9

  Doncaster

  1,271

  15.2

  Rotherham

  2,463

  75.3

  Sheffield

  62

  0.6

  Bradford

  742

  6.9

  Calderdale

  665

  11.7

  Kirklees

  2,105

  17.1

  Leeds

  210

  1.0

  Wakefield

  129

  1.2

  Gateshead

  206

  9.2

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  48

  0.7

  North Tyneside

  -33

  -0.7

  South Tyneside

  451

  12.5

  Sunderland

  547

  15.2

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0.0

  Avon

  -272

  -1.0

  Bedfordshire

  1,539

  14.9

  Berkshire

  2,704

  17.3

  Buckinghamshire

  1,505

  7.1

  Cambridgeshire

  3,119

  20.9

  Cheshire

  1,910

  6.3

  Cleveland

  10

  0.1

  Cornwall

  832

  6.7

  Cumbria

  -70

  -0.6

  Derbyshire

  8,258

  25.1

  Devon

  4,419

  18.7

  Dorset

  1,616

  9

  Durham

  4,426

  28.6

  East Sussex

  1,280

  6.5

  Essex

  2,866

  9

  Gloucestershire

  2,651

  22.9

  Hampshire

  962

  2.2

  Hereford and Worcester

  2,692

  25.6

  Hertfordshire

  342

  1.5

  Humberside

  990

  3.7

  Isle of Wight

  383

  20.6

  Kent

  4

  0

  Lancashire

  5,267

  10.8

  Leicestershire

  4,217

  24

  Lincolnshire

  -670

  -4.6

  Norfolk

  1,158

  9.6

  North Yorkshire

  905

  5.1

  Northamptonshire

  513

  4.9

  Northumberland

  448

  5.6

  Nottinghamshire

  9,789

  42.3

  Oxfordshire

  4,186

  65.2

  Shropshire

  3,453

  34.6

  Somerset

  2,873

  26.7

  Staffordshire

  1,016

  3.3

  Suffolk

  1,544

  24.1

  Surrey

  2,079

  17.2

  Warwickshire

  3,586

  25.7

  West Sussex

  1,568

  12.2

  Wiltshire

  425

  2.9

  By region

  North

  6,033

  8.6

  North-west

  10,713

  5.1

  East Anglia

  5,821

  17.4

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  12,018

  9.0

  721

  Position in January each year

  Change

  LEA

  Number

  Percentage1

  West Midlands

  11,207

  8.0

  East Midlands

  22,107

  22.4

  Greater London

  4,911

  4.6

  Other South-east

  19,418

  8

  South-west

  12,644

  10.6

  England

  104,872

  9.1

  1 Change in number of pupils in single teacher classes of 31 or more between 1995 and 1996 expressed as a percentage of pupils in single teacher classes of 31 or more in 1995.

  Note:

  The comparable percentage of pupils in single teacher classes of 31 or more in 1979 was 35.3.

  Infant School Pupils
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the number and percentage of pupils aged five, six and seven years in maintained infant school classes of 31 or more in each year since 1990 with figures which are available for 1996 showing the percentage change between 1995 and 1996(a) by each local education authority in England, (b) by region and (c) in total. [40149]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information on the sizes of classes as taught by key stage was first collected centrally in January 1996. Provisional information for key stage 1 is shown in the following table:

  Number and percentages of pupils at key 1 in one teacher classes of size 31 or more in maintained primary schools in local education authority area and region in England: January 1996 (provisional)

  Pupils

  Percentage

  Corporation of London

  0

  0.0

  Camden

  127

  4.0

  Greenwich

  470

  7.5

  Hackney

  413

  8.0

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  313

  11.0

  Islington

  443

  8.1

  Kennington and Chelsea

  62

  3.5

  Lambeth

  381

  6.7

  Lewisham

  567

  8.6

  Southwark

  707

  9.3

  Tower Hamlets

  349

  6.8

  Wandsworth

  1,118

  18.9

  Westminster

  224

  9.1

  Barking

  734

  12.0

  Barnet

  730

  8.5

  Bexley

  3,984

  45.3

  Brent

  786

  11.0

  Bromley

  5,121

  49.0

  Croydon

  3,497

  31.3

  Ealing

  2,499

  26.3

  Enfield

  3,621

  39.2

  Haringey

  566

  8.2

  Harrow

  1,929

  32.4

  Havering

  2,439

  29.2

  Hillingdon

  1,378

  19.6

  Hounslow

  2,354

  35.8

  Kingston upon Thames

  3,430

  82.4

  Merton

  1,958

  44.7

  Newham

  734

  7.7

  Redbridge

  3,307

  48.5

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,414

  31.3

  Sutton

  1.077

  23.5

  722

  Numbers and percentages of pupils at key stage 1 in one teacher classes of size 31 or more in maintained primary schools in each local education authority area and region in England: January 1996 (provisional)

  Pupils

  Percentage

  Waltham Forest

  1,020

  13.6

  Birmingham

  10,500

  25.7

  Coventry

  3,510

  30.9

  Dudley

  2,928

  29.9

  Sandwell

  4,303

  37.8

  Solihull

  3,917

  49.7

  Walsall

  2,392

  26.0

  Wolverhampton

  3,176

  35.5

  Knowsley

  1,594

  22.7

  Liverpool

  4,465

  23.9

  St. Helens

  2,179

  34.5

  Sefton

  4,540

  43.6

  Wirral

  2,342

  19.4

  Bolton

  4,861

  51.6

  Bury

  2,926

  45.6

  Manchester

  3,033

  19.8

  Oldham

  3,488

  40.5

  Rochdale

  3,084

  39.5

  Salford

  2,946

  32.8

  Stockport

  3,197

  29.7

  Tameside

  4,316

  48.3

  Trafford

  3,151

  41.8

  Wigan

  4,400

  40.7

  Barnsley

  2,278

  30

  Doncaster

  3,584

  31.9

  Rotheham

  1,438

  16.8

  Sheffield

  3,116

  19.8

  Bradford

  5,397

  31.6

  Calderdale

  2,461

  35.3

  Kirklees

  4,374

  35.2

  Leeds

  8,677

  35.0

  Wakefield

  2,680

  26.1

  Gateshead

  699

  10.3

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  2,590

  30.0

  North Tyneside

  2,248

  33.9

  South Tyneside

  1,314

  22.7

  Sunderland

  1,246

  11.2

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0.0

  Avon

  10,067

  31.6

  Bedfordshire

  5,785

  31.9

  Berkshire

  4,908

  22.4

  Buckinghamshire

  7,269

  35.8

  Cambridgeshire

  5,299

  22.2

  Cheshire

  10,142

  28.5

  Cleveland

  2,979

  13.4

  Cornwall

  4,399

  27.6

  Cumbria

  4,476

  28.8

  Derbyshire

  12,144

  41.1

  Devon

  7.589

  24.2

  Dorset

  8,266

  43.5

  Durham

  5,910

  28.3

  East Sussex

  8,927

  43.0

  Essex

  9,946

  19.3

  Gloucestershire

  5,083

  27.2

  Hampshire

  17,282

  30.8

  Hereford and Worcester

  4,435

  21.1

  Hertfordshire

  8,404

  26.0

  Humberside

  8,874

  28.7

  Isle of Wight

  904

  23.8

  Kent

  14,765

  26.7

  Lancashire

  20,425

  40.4

  Leicestershire

  6,071

  20.2

  Lincolnshire

  4,092

  20.2

  Norfolk

  4,096

  19.1

  North Yorkshire

  4,613

  20.1

  Northamptonshire

  4,780

  21.0

  Northumberland

  4,013

  40.9

  Nottinghamshire

  6,397

  21.0

  Oxfordshire

  2,333

  14.4

  723

  Numbers and percentages of pupils at key stage 1 in one teacher classes of size 31 or more in maintained primary schools in each local education authority area and region in England: January 1996 (provisional)

  Pupils

  Percentage

  Shropshire

  3,638

  27.6

  Somserset

  4,239

  26.5

  Staffordshire

  12,408

  33.2

  Suffolk

  3,009

  15.6

  Surrey

  6,848

  22.6

  Warwickshire

  7,062

  42.9

  West Sussex

  3,963

  19.2

  Wiltshire

  4,037

  20.3

  By region

  North

  25,475

  23.7

  North-west

  81,089

  34.5

  East Anglia

  12,404

  19.2

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  47,492

  28.2

  West Midlands

  58,269

  31.1

  East Midlands

  33,484

  25.1

  Greater London

  47,752

  23.3

  Other South-east

  91,334

  26.3

  South-west

  43,680

  28.6

  England

  440,979

  27.5

  1 Number of key stage 1 pupils being taught in single teacher classes of 31 or more expressed as a percentage of all key stage 1 pupils in single teacher classes.

  Physical Education
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the effect of the measures contained in the Nursery Education and Grant Maintained Schools Act 1996 on the provision of PE facilities. [37940]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The Nursery Education and Grant Maintained Schools Act 1996 has no effect on the premises requirements for maintained schools or for other institutions offering nursery education. The Act allows grant-maintained schools to borrow commercially, which will allow such schools to invest more in their facilities for physical education.

  ANNEX 1

  Name of workshop

  Location

  Number disabled workers supported by ES1 including blind

  Number blind workers2 supported by ES1

  Number non disabled workers not supported by ES1

  Number other disabled workers not supported by ES1

  Beltane

  Wishaw

  19

  1

  4

  0

  Blindcraft

  Edinburgh

  73

  45

  41

  0

  Dovetail Enterprises

  Dundee

  70

  28

  48

  0

  Matrix, Fife

  Dalgety Bay

  47

  8

  6

  0

  Blindcraft

  Glasgow

  118

  82

  72

  7

  The Sign Factory

  Falkirk

  38

  6

  5

  0

  Camphill

  Newton Dec

  82

  0

  30

  0

  Erskine Hospital Workshops

  Bishopton

  32

  1

  27

  3

  Hansel Village

  Symington

  30

  0

  11

  0

  Haven Products3

  Glasgow

  90

  3

  81

  6

  Lady Haig

  Edinburgh

  27

  3

  10

  0

  Lord Roberts

  Edinburgh

  8

  0

  5

  0

  New Trinity Industries

  Edinburgh

  53

  1

  20

  0

  Blindcraft

  Inverness

  21

  2

  7

  0

  Glencraft Group (Blindcraft Aberdeen)

  Aberdeen

  71

  25

  36

  0

  Scottish Braille Press

  Edinburgh

  26

  7

  7

  1

  Totals

  805

  212

  410

  17

  1 Employment Service.

  2 Includes partially sighted workers.

  3 Haven Products operates from four separate sites but has been counted as one workshop unit in the table above.

  724
  The Education (School Premises) Regulation 1996 recently revised many of the premises requirements for maintained schools. The requirements for PE facilities were, however, unaffected.

  Sheltered Workshops
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the number of blind and disabled people and the number of able-bodied people employed in each sheltered workshop in Scotland indicating the cost of each category in each workshop; and if she will make a statement. [40034]

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

  Letter from Mike Fogden to Mr. David Marshall, dated 14 October 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the number of people employed in Supported Workshops in Scotland. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  Information on the number of people in Scottish workshops supported by the Employment Service (ES) under its Supported Employment Programme is provided at Annex 1. The Programme is provided under contracts between the workshop owners (who are local authorities or voluntary bodies) and the ES and covers placements with employers as well as workshop places.
  Information on the costs of workshop employees in the requested categories (blind people, other disabilities and non-disabled people) is not available. It is not required for management purposes by the ES; no figures are therefore obtained or kept.
  Information on the per capita costs of disabled employees supported by the ES is gathered by the ES from voluntary body and local authority contractors as it is a requirement for funding. Contractors provide this information to the ES on a confidential basis as it is commercially sensitive and so individual workshop figures are not publicly available from the ES. However the average cost per disabled employee in Scottish workshops, in 1994/95, the latest year for which figures are available, was £10,695. In that year costs ranged from a loss of £18,783 per worker in one workshop to a loss of £4,421 per worker in another.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Schools (Staff Misconduct)
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) on how many occasions and on what dates since 1982 the proprietor of Bedales junior school has notified her Department of cases of dismissal of or resignation by members of staff on the grounds of misconduct as required under the Education (Particulars of Independent Schools) Regulations of 1982, 1991 and 1994; [40414]

  (2) how many proprietors of independent schools have reported cases of dismissal of or resignations by members of staff on the grounds of misconduct as required under the Education (Particulars of Independent Schools) Regulations of 1982, 1991 and 1994; and if she will list the schools and the dates of each report. [40415]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The Department's record are not kept in a form which would provide this information.

  Nursery Vouchers
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) Office for Standards in Education how many inspections of providers under phase 1 of the nursery voucher scheme took place in September; [40391]

  (2) what estimate she has made of how long it will take to complete Ofsted inspection of all the participating providers the Government predict will take part in phase 2 of the nursery voucher scheme at the current rate of inspection; [40387]

  (3) how many Ofsted inspections of providers under phase 1 of the nursery voucher scheme Ofsted plans to undertake (a) between October and the end of December and (b) between the end of December and the end of March 1997; [40382]

  (4) What estimate she has made of how many providers will require follow-up inspection based on completed Ofsted inspections of providers under phase 1 of the nursery voucher scheme and what is the planned timetable for follow-up inspections; [40392]

  (5) how many Ofsted inspectors have been trained to carry out inspection of providers under phase 1 of the nursery voucher scheme; and how many of these were previously primary inspectors; [40384]

  (6) what are the minimum qualifications required for Ofsted inspectors of providers under the nursery voucher scheme; and what training is given to qualify Ofsted inspectors to undertake inspection of providers under the nursery voucher scheme. [40388]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  These are matters for Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools, who heads the Office for Standards in Education. I have asked Mr. Chris Woodhead to write to the hon. Member.

  City and Guilds Courses
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what course replaced City and Guilds course 7790 in media techniques after its equivalent status was withdraw in December 1995. [40413]

  Mr. Paice
  A number of national vocational qualifications in the same occupational area as City and Guilds 7790 in media techniques (journalism and radio) have been accredited by NCVQ. The NVQ titles are broadcast journalism; newspaper journalism (graphics journalism); newspaper journalism (production journalism); newspaper journalism (writing); periodical journalism (subbing); periodical journalism (writing); periodical production; advertisement production. These NVQs are the approved outcomes for trainees now entering youth programmes and training for work following the change of status of City and Guilds 7790 on 31 December 1995.

  Assisted Places
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the(a) actual spending and (b) budgeted provision on the assisted places scheme in the academic year 1995–96; how many schools participated; how many assisted places were available; how many were taken up; and what percentage of the pupils in the schools involved were on assisted places. [40544]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Expenditure information is not available on an academic year basis. In the last financial year 1995–96, actual spending on the assisted places scheme in England was £104.762 million. Provision in the original Supply estimates was £104.413 million. There were 293 participating schools offering 33,906 assisted places, fo which 29,917 were taken up. Just over 14 per cent. of all pupils in the participating schools held assisted places in academic year 1995–96.

  GCSE Scores
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the average GCSE point score, where A*=7, for English language and mathematics for(a) girls and (b) boys in the maintained sector in (i) 1994, (ii) 1995 and (iii) 1996. [40546]

  Mr. Paice
  The average GCSE point scores for English and mathematics in the maintained sector in England where A*=7 are as follows:

  1994

  1995

  Girls

  Boys

  Girls

  Boys

  English

  4.4

  3.7

  4.4

  3.6

  Mathematics

  3.6

  3.5

  3.5

  3.4

  The figures for 1996 are not yet available.
  727
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many and what percentage of total school leavers in the maintained sector failed to attain five GCSEs at grades A to C in 1996(a) in total and (b) broken down according to gender. [40547]

  Mr. Paice
  This information is not available.

  School Ballots
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) schools, (b) primary schools and (c) secondary schools there were in 1995–96 in England and Wales and in each country;

  Total number of schools and number of parental ballots between 1 September 1995 and 31 August 1996

  LEA area

  (a) All schools

  Total number of schools

  Total ballots held

  Ballot percentage

  Yes ballot results

  Yes ballot percentage

  Barking and Dagenham

  61

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Barnet

  99

  2

  2.0

  1

  1.0

  Barnsley

  104

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Bath and NE Somerset

  80

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Bedfordshire

  273

  4

  1.5

  1

  0.4

  Berkshire

  312

  4

  1.3

  3

  1.0

  Bexley

  72

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Birmingham

  391

  1

  0.3

  0

  0.0

  Bolton

  117

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Bradford

  234

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Brent

  57

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Bromley

  75

  3

  4.0

  2

  2.7

  Buckinghamshire

  310

  2

  0.6

  2

  0.6

  Bury

  83

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Caldcrdalc

  91

  1

  1.1

  1

  1 1

  Cambridge

  286

  3

  1

  2

  0.7

  Camden

  51

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Cheshire

  491

  1

  0.2

  0

  0.0

  City of Bristol

  154

  0

  0.0

  0

  0,0

  City of Kingston upon Hull

  96

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Cornwall

  277

  1

  0.4

  1

  0.4

  Corporation of London

  1

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Coventry

  108

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Croydon

  106

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Cumbria

  301

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Derbyshire

  481

  2

  0.4

  0

  0.0

  Devon

  494

  2

  0.4

  0

  0.0

  Doncaster

  139

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Dorset

  240

  4

  1.7

  3

  1.3

  Dudley

  98

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Durham

  334

  1

  0.3

  0

  0.0

  Ealing

  69

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  149

  1

  0.7

  0

  0.0

  East Sussex

  253

  2

  0.8

  0

  0.0

  Enfield

  77

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Essex

  536

  5

  0.9

  4

  0.7

  Gateshead

  93

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Gloucestershire

  249

  1

  0.4

  0

  0.0

  Greenwich

  88

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Hackney

  67

  0

  0.0

  0

  O.0

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  44

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Hampshire

  629

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Haringey

  85

  1

  1.2

  0

  0.0

  Harrow

  63

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Hartlepool

  36

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Havering

  85

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Hereford and Worcester

  352

  3

  0.9

  3

  0.9

  Hertfordshire

  477

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Hillingdon

  63

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Hounslow

  76

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Isle of Wight

  67

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Isles of Scilly

  5

  1

  20.0

  0

  0.0

  728
  how many schools (i) held ballots to decide whether or not to opt out of local education authority control and (ii) decided to opt out of local education authority control in 1995–96; and if she will calculate (i) and (ii) as a percentage of (a), (b) and (c) for each country and for England and Wales. [40592]

  Mr. Forth
  Information on the number of primary arid secondary schools in England and the proportion whose governing bodies have given parents an opportunity to vote in a ballot on grant-maintained status is given in the following table.

  Education in Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
  729

  Total number of schools and number of parental ballots between 1 September 1995 and 31 August 1996

  LEA area

  (a) All schools

  Total number of schools

  Total ballots held

  Ballot percentage

  Yes ballot results

  Yes ballot percentage

  Islington

  65

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  27

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Kent

  597

  2

  0.3

  1

  0.2

  Kingston upon Thames

  41

  1

  2.4

  1

  2.4

  Kirklees

  186

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Knowsley

  73

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Lambeth

  72

  1

  1.4

  0

  0.0

  Lancashire

  690

  6

  0.9

  1

  0.1

  Leeds

  289

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Leicestershire

  407

  4

  1.0

  3

  0.7

  Lewisham

  82

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Lincolnshire

  296

  1

  0.3

  1

  0.3

  Liverpool

  201

  1

  0.5

  1

  0.5

  Manchester

  195

  1

  0.5

  0

  0.0

  Merton

  59

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Middlesbrough

  60

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  100

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Newham

  77

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Norfolk

  412

  1

  0.2

  1

  0.2

  North East Lincolnshire

  77

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  North Lincolnshire

  85

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  North Tyneside

  77

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  North West Somerset

  79

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  North Yorkshire

  375

  2

  0.5

  0

  0.0

  Northamptonshire

  308

  3

  1.0

  2

  0.6

  Northumberland

  204

  1

  0.5

  1

  0.5

  Nottinghamshire

  499

  1

  0.2

  1

  0.2

  Oldham

  117

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Oxfordshire

  282

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Redbridge

  68

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Redcar and Cleveland

  67

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Richmond upon Thames

  47

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Rochdale

  82

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Rotherham

  132

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Salford

  104

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Sandwell

  129

  1

  0.8

  0

  0.0

  Sefton

  115

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Sheffield

  165

  2

  1.2

  0

  0.0

  Shropshire

  238

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Solihull

  82

  1

  1.2

  0

  0.0

  Somerset

  259

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  South Gloucestershire

  112

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  South Tyneside

  69

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Southwark

  77

  1

  1.3

  1

  1.3

  St. Helens

  74

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Staffordshire

  485

  1

  0.2

  1

  0.2

  Stockport

  121

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Stockton on Tees

  80

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Suffolk

  334

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Sunderland

  116

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Surrey

  347

  4

  1.2

  3

  0.9

  Sutton

  46

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Tameside

  95

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Tower Hamlets

  90

  1

  1.1

  0

  0.0

  Trafford

  88

  1

  1.1

  1

  1.1

  Wakefield

  159

  1

  0.6

  1

  0.6

  Walsall

  113

  2

  1.8

  2

  1.8

  Waltham Forest

  76

  1

  1.3

  0

  0.0

  Wandsworth

  61

  6

  9.8

  4

  6.6

  Warwickshire

  259

  5

  1.9

  4

  1.5

  West Sussex

  287

  2

  0.7

  0

  0.0

  Westminster

  49

  1

  2.0

  0

  0.0

  Wigan

  138

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Wiltshire

  300

  7

  2.3

  5

  1.7

  Wirral

  123

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Wolverhampton

  112

  1

  0.9

  0

  0.0

  York

  74

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  England

  20,984

  108

  0.5

  58

  0.3

  The number of schools is derived from January 1996 DFEE schools census. Grant-maintained, independent and special schools are excluded from the table.
  730 731

  LEA area

  (b) Primary schools

  Number of primary schools

  Total ballots held

  Ballot percentage

  Yes ballot results

  Yes ballot percentage

  Barking and Dagenham

  53

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Bamet

  88

  1

  1.1

  1

  1.1

  Barnsley

  90

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Bath and NE Somerset

  69

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Bedfordshire

  214

  3

  1.4

  1

  0.5

  Berkshire

  266

  3

  1.1

  2

  0.8

  Bexley

  61

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Birmingham

  329

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Bolton

  KM

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Bradford

  157

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Brent

  55

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Bromley

  72

  1

  1.4

  0

  0.0

  Buckinghamshire

  276

  2

  0.7

  2

  0.7

  Bury

  69

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Calderdale

  85

  1

  1.2

  1

  1.2

  Cambridge

  258

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Camden

  42

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Cheshire

  427

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  City of Bristol

  132

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  City of Kingston upon Hull

  80

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Cornwall

  246

  1

  0.4

  1

  0.4

  Corporation of London

  1

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Coventry

  89

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Croydon

  95

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Cumbria

  274

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Derbyshire

  437

  2

  0.5

  0

  0.0

  Devon

  438

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Doncaster

  113

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Dorset

  194

  2

  1.0

  2

  1.0

  Dudley

  82

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Durham

  291

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Ealing

  62

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  131

  1

  0.8

  0

  0.0

  East Sussex

  218

  1

  0.5

  0

  0.0

  Enfield

  66

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Essex

  502

  4

  0.8

  3

  0.6

  Gateshead

  80

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Gloucesteshire

  236

  1

  0.4

  0

  0.0

  Greenwich

  73

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Hackney

  58

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  37

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Hampshire

  553

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Haringey

  76

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Harrow

  54

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Hartlepool

  30

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Havering

  71

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Hereford and Worcester

  282

  3

  1.1

  3

  1.1

  Hertfordshire

  416

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Hillingdon

  60

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Hounslow

  64

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Isle of Wight

  46

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Isles of Scilly

  4

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Islington

  56

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  24

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Kent

  538

  1

  0.2

  1

  0.2

  Kingston upon Thames

  35

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Kirklees

  156

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Knowsley

  63

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Lambeth

  68

  1

  1.5

  0

  0.0

  Lancashire

  592

  3

  0.5

  1

  0.2

  Leeds

  244

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Leicestershire

  333

  1

  0.3

  1

  0.3

  Lewisham

  69

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Lincolnshire

  260

  1

  0.4

  1

  0.4

  Liverpool

  171

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Manchester

  167

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Merton

  49

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Middlesbrough

  49

  0

  0.0

  0

  0 0

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  79

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Newham

  64

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Norfolk

  373

  1

  0.3

  1

  0.3

  732

  733

  LEA area

  (b) Primary schools

  Number of primary schools

  Total ballots held

  Ballot percentage

  Yes ballot results

  Yes ballot percentage

  North East Lincolnshire

  65

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  North Lincolnshire

  71

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  North Tyneside

  67

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  North West Somerset

  57

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  North Yorkshire

  328

  1

  0.3

  0

  0.0

  Northamptonshire

  257

  3

  1.2

  2

  0.8

  Northumberland

  144

  1

  0.7

  1

  0.7

  Nottinghamshire

  422

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Oldham

  102

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Oxfordshire

  238

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Redbridge

  54

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Redcar and Cleveland

  54

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Richmond upon Thames

  39

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Rochdale

  70

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Rotherham

  115

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Salford

  87

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Sandwell

  111

  1

  0.9

  0

  0.0

  Sefton

  93

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Sheffield

  140

  2

  1.4

  0

  0.0

  Shropshire

  209

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Solihull

  69

  1

  1.4

  0

  0.0

  Somerset

  222

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  South Gloucestershire

  98

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  South Tyneside

  58

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Southwark

  68

  1

  1.5

  1

  1.5

  St. Helens

  62

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Staffordshire

  405

  1

  0.2

  1

  0.2

  Stockport

  107

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Stockton on Tees

  66

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Suffolk

  256

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Sunderland

  99

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Surrey

  312

  3

  1.0

  3

  1.0

  Sutton

  40

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Tameside

  80

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Tower Hamlets

  76

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Trafford

  77

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Wakefield

  130

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Walsall

  100

  2

  2.0

  2

  2.0

  Waltham Forest

  62

  1

  1.6

  0

  0.0

  Wandsworth

  58

  6

  10.3

  4

  6.9

  Warwickshire

  230

  5

  2.2

  4

  1.7

  West Sussex

  246

  1

  0.4

  0

  0.0

  Westminster

  41

  1

  2.4

  0

  0.0

  Wigan

  117

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Wiltshire

  273

  6

  2.2

  4

  1.5

  Wirral

  104

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Wolverhampton

  95

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  York

  62

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  England

  18,032

  70

  0.4

  43

  0.2

  The number of schools is derived from January 1996 DFEE schools census. Grant-maintained, independent and special schools are excluded from the table.

  LEA area

  (c) Secondary schools

  Number of secondary schools

  Total ballots held

  Ballot percentage

  Yes ballot results

  Yes ballot percentage

  Barking and Dagenham

  8

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Barnet

  11

  1

  9.1

  0

  0.0

  Bamsley

  14

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Bath and NE Somerset

  11

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Bedfordshire

  59

  1

  1.7

  0

  0.0

  Berkshire

  46

  1

  2.2

  1

  2.2

  Bexley

  11

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Birmingham

  62

  1

  1.6

  0

  0.0

  Bolton

  13

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Bradford

  77

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Brent

  2

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Bromley

  3

  2

  66.7

  2

  66.7

  Buckinghamshire

  34

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  734

  735

  LEA area

  (c) Secondary schools

  Number of secondary schools

  Total ballots held

  Ballot percentage

  Yes ballot results

  Yes ballot percentage

  Bury

  14

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Calderdale

  6

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Cambridge

  28

  3

  10.7

  2

  7.1

  Camden

  9

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Cheshire

  64

  1

  1.6

  0

  0.0

  City of Bristol

  22

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.O

  City of Kingston upon Hull

  16

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Cornwall

  31

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Corporation of London

  0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Coventry

  19

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Croydon

  11

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Cumbria

  27

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Derbyshire

  44

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Devon

  56

  2

  3.6

  0

  0.0

  Doncaster

  26

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Dorset

  46

  2

  4.3

  1

  2.2

  Dudley

  16

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Durham

  43

  1

  2.3

  0

  0.0

  Ealing

  7

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  18

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  East Sussex

  35

  1

  2.9

  0

  0.0

  Enfield

  11

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Essex

  34

  1

  2.9

  1

  2.9

  Gateshead

  13

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Gloucestershire

  13

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Greenwich

  15

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Hackney

  9

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  7

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Hampshire

  76

  0

  0.0

  0

  0 0

  Haringey

  9

  1

  11.1

  0

  0.0

  Harrow

  9

  0

  0.0

  0

  0 0

  Hartlepool

  6

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Havering

  14

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Hereford and Worcester

  70

  0

  0.0

  0

  0 0

  Hertfordshire

  61

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Hillingdon

  3

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Hounslow

  12

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Isle of Wight

  21

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Isles of Scilly

  1

  1

  100.0

  0

  0.0

  Islington

  9

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  3

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Kent

  59

  1

  1.7

  0

  0.0

  Kingston upon Thames

  6

  1

  16.7

  1

  16.7

  Kirklees

  30

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Knowsley

  10

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Lambeth

  4

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Lancashire

  98

  3

  3.1

  0

  0.0

  Leeds

  45

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Leicestershire

  74

  3

  4.1

  2

  2.7

  Lewisham

  13

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Lincolnshire

  36

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Liverpool

  30

  1

  3.3

  1

  3.3

  Manchester

  28

  1

  3.6

  0

  0.0

  Merton

  10

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Middlesbrough

  11

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  21

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Newham

  13

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Norfolk

  39

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  North East Lincolnshire

  12

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  North Lincolnshire

  14

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  North Tyneside

  10

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  North West Somerset

  22

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  North Yorkshire

  47

  1

  2.1

  0

  0.0

  Northamptonshire

  51

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Northumberland

  60

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Nottinghamshire

  77

  1

  1.3

  1

  1.3

  Oldham

  15

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Oxfordshire

  44

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Redbridge

  14

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Redcar and Cleveland

  13

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Richmond upon Thames

  8

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Rochdale

  12

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  736 737

  LEA area

  (c) Secondary schools

  Number of secondary schools

  Total ballots held

  Ballot percentage

  Yes ballot results

  Yes ballot percentage

  Rotherham

  17

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Salford

  17

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Sandwell

  18

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Sefton

  22

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Sheffield

  25

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Shropshire

  29

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Solihull

  13

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Somerset

  37

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  South Gloucestershire

  14

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  South Tyneside

  11

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Southwark

  9

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  St. Helens

  12

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Staffordshire

  80

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Stockport

  14

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Stockton on Tees

  14

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Suffolk

  78

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Sunderland

  17

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Surrey

  35

  1

  2.9

  0

  0.0

  Sutton

  6

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Tameside

  15

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Tower Hamlets

  14

  1

  7.1

  0

  0.0

  Trafford

  11

  1

  9.1

  1

  9.1

  Wakefield

  29

  1

  3.4

  1

  3.4

  Walsall

  13

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Waltham Forest

  14

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Wandsworth

  3

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Warwickshire

  29

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  West Sussex

  41

  1

  2.4

  0

  0.0

  Westminster

  8

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Wigan

  21

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Wiltshire

  27

  1

  3.7

  1

  3.7

  Wirral

  19

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Wolverhampton

  17

  1

  5.9

  0

  0.0

  York

  12

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  England

  2,952

  38

  1.3

  15

  0.5

  The number of schools is derived from January 1996 DFEE schools census. Grant-maintained, independent and special schools are excluded from the table.

  School Overcrowding
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what legal safeguards exist against overcrowding in schools. [40583]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The legal safeguards are those set out in my reply of 19 March,Official Report, column 121. Regulation 17(3) of the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1996 requires that every part of a school building shall be such that the health, safety and welfare of occupants shall be reasonably assured. Regulation 7 requires that the buildings provided for a school shall be adequate to permit the safe and convenient passage of persons and movement of goods within the buildings.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Women's Ordination (Compensation)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, how many clergy who have resigned over the ordination of women have not claimed compensation to which they are entitled. [39262]

  Mr. Alison
  The commissioners' records relate only to clergy who have claimed assistance in accordance with the Ordination of Women (Financial Provisions) Measure.
  738
  They have no way of estimating how many other clergy eligible for financial provision have resigned as a result of the ordination of women.

  However, I understand from the Advisory Board of Ministry that, as at 31 December 1995, figures received from dioceses show no significant difference between the total number of stipendiary clergy who have resigned over the ordination of women and the number of those who have claimed assistance under the financial provisions Measure.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will publish the estimates of the purported cost of the compensation scheme for clergy resigning over women's ordination which the commissioners have undertaken for the latest period for which such calculations have been made. [39264]

  Mr. Alison
  A total of 314 clergy have resigned to date and an additional 29 have expressed their intention to resign. It is difficult to predict the final number of resignations. However, actual expenditure, including housing costs, in 1994 and 1995 and estimated costings based on an illustrative total of 400 resignations are set out in the table.
  739

  Illustration of costs for 400 Resignations

  Year

  Gross costs to be met from CC Income £

  Housing capital (funded by CC)£

  Net costs for Church £

  Net housing capital (funded by CC)£

  1994

  2,581,000

  5,011,000

  792,000

  5,011,000

  1995

  3,282,000

  2,094,000

  1,841,000

  1,745,000

  1996

  2,990,000

  1,325,000

  1,531,000

  974,000

  1997

  2,770,000

  840,000

  1,401,000

  329,000

  1998

  2,030,000

  350,000

  872,000

  46,000

  1999

  1,623,000

  182,000

  697,000

  (213,000)

  2000

  1,222,000

  189,000

  507,000

  (58,000)

  2001

  1,005,000

  197,000

  482,000

  (231,000)

  2002

  942,000

  204,000

  575,000

  (151,000)

  2003

  783,000

  213,000

  530,000

  28,000

  2004

  557,000

  —

  436,000

  (288,000)

  2005

  325,000

  —

  268,000

  (500,000)

  2006

  212,000

  —

  188,000

  (208,000)

  2007

  187,000

  —

  178,000

  (324,000)

  2008

  165,000

  —

  162,000

  (562,000)

  2009

  142,000

  —

  141,000

  (1,053,000)

  2010

  135,000

  —

  135,000

  (243,000)

  2011

  137,000

  —

  137,000

  (506,000)

  2012

  133,000

  —

  133,000

  (526,000)

  2013

  133,000

  —

  133,000

  (274,000)

  Total

  21,354,000

  10,605,000

  11,139,000

  2,996,000

  Year of resignation 1993

  Age at resignation

  Number of resigners

  Total payments in 1994 £

  Total payments in 1995 £

  Projected payments in 1996 £

  Projected payments 1997 to end £

  1993

  30–39

  6

  89,023

  37,983

  26,936

  0

  40–49

  5

  81,344

  37,711

  27,964

  0

  50–59

  2

  38,353

  18,414

  17,517

  94,175

  60–64

  2

  22,034

  9.302

  8,758

  261

  Total

  15

  230,754

  103,410

  81,175

  94,436

  1994

  30–39

  49

  508,473

  481,273

  309,820

  142,483

  40–49

  51

  520,563

  544,668

  424,176

  188,699

  50–59

  79

  793,197

  859,500

  691,198

  2.705,302

  60–64

  38

  389,256

  334,917

  184,681

  107,093

  Total

  217

  2,211,488

  2,220,359

  1,609,874

  3,143,577

  1995

  30–39

  6

  —

  50,847

  64,965

  77,279

  40–49

  12

  —

  134,015

  117,001

  133,783

  50–59

  27

  —

  295,610

  300,037

  1,438,696

  60–64

  22

  —

  233,355

  230,400

  321,095

  Total

  67

  0

  713,827

  712,403

  1,970,854

  1996(1 January-30 June)

  30–39

  2

  —

  —

  25,617

  49,102

  40–49

  1

  —

  —

  10,600

  27,028

  50–59

  8

  —

  —

  104,028

  495,290

  60–64

  4

  —

  —

  51,979

  77,635

  Total

  15

  0

  0

  192,224

  649,056

  Turnbull Report
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, if the Church Commissioners have considered how many of the Turnbull report recommendations can be implemented without seeking parliamentary approval; and if he will place a copy of their considerations in the Library. [39672]
  740

  1. The number of resignations shown (400) is a broad estimate, and the final costs could vary substantially.

  2. Actual costs are show for 1994 and 1995 based on resignations totalling 232 and 67 respectively in those years, including housing subsidy. A similar pattern of costs has been assumed for future years.

  3. The figures make allowance for future increases in house prices and stipends.

  4. The net figures take account of such variables as stipends savings (assuming at least a temporary reduction in the payroll), allowance for retirement housing provision which would otherwise have arisen on retirement, and the possibility of some people redeeming loans or leaving rented accommodation once they have obtained alternative employment.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, how many clergy resigned over women priests and gained payment from the compensation scheme in each year since its first payments were made broken down by age of the clergy grouped in convenient decades; and what was the size of the payments made. [39263]

  Mr. Alison
  A breakdown of this information in respect of the 314 clergy who have resigned to date is shown in the following table.

  Mr. Alison
  The Church Commissioners have consulted the Standing Committee of the General Synod and the synod's legal advisor has been asked to provide, in conjunction with the official solicitor of the Church Commissioners, an assessment of what could be done without legislation. The results will be considered by the archbishops' advisory group, the standing committee and the Church Commissioners with a view to a response to the recommendation then being made.

  Pensions Report
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, when he expects the Church Commissioners to be able to respond fully to each of the main recommendations and requests for further information contained in the fifth report of the Social Security Committee of 1995–96, on Church of England pensions, HC 340. [39606]

  Mr. Alison
  The Church Commissioners have consulted the Standing Committee of the General Synod and careful consideration is being given to each of the main recommendations of the Social Security Committee. We hope to provide a full response as soon as possible in the autumn.

WALES

  Trunk Roads
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to integrate trunk road planning into the process of land use planning. [40063]

  Mr. Hague
  "Planning Guidance (Wales) Planning Policy" published in May this year includes an outline of the Government's transport planning aims and indicates how development plans can contribute towards integrating transport and land use planning.

  Any further consideration of linkages between transport and land use planning will be set out in my transport policy statement in due course.

  GP Pharmacies
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many dispensing general practices there are in Wales. [40048]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Eighty-nine.

  M4 Relief Road
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what investigations have been carried out into possible alternatives to road building in the case of the M4 relief road; and if he will publish the terms of reference of those investigations. [40062]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The development of proposals for the M4 relief road will include an assessment of alternative transport modes. My right hon. Friend and I have no plans to publish the terms of reference.

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 23 July,Official Report, column 274, what factors underlay his judgment that release of the breakdown of cases of CJD in the form requested would compromise confidentiality. [40131]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Some CJD patients' friends and family have been very distressed following identification in the press. Details on the number of CJD cases in Wales have already been given and geographic distribution of cases is given in the fourth annual report from the CJD 742
  unit. In view of the low numbers involved I do not propose to provide further information which might lead to the possible identification of patients.

  I appreciate the present interest in the disease and the need to put statistics in the public domain more frequently. For this reason, Sir Kenneth Calman, Chief Medical Officer at the Department of Health announced on 26 July that CJD statistics will be published on a regular basis. This will provide statistical information only on the number of cases and deaths and will not be specific to individual authority areas.

  Birds (Pembrokeshire)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent assessment he has made of the effects on the bird population of the Sea Empress accident off Pembrokeshire in February. [40397]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The daily counts of dead and oiled birds made in the wake of the accident have ceased. The Countryside Council for Wales is undertaking a range of research projects commissioned by the Sea Empress Environmental Evaluation Committee to establish what impact there has been on both breeding and wintering bird populations.

  Initial results suggest that Auk colonies on St. Margaret's island and the Castlemartin coast have been severely affected while the internationally important seabird concentrations on Skokholm, Skomer and Grassholm have been relatively unaffected. The impact on the Common Scoter is difficult to assess due to considerable variations in estimated numbers prior to the accident. In all cases longer term data are required.

  All results will be reported to Government by SEEEC in its final report due in autumn 1997.

  Prescribing costs
  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 regarding the late supply of information on prescribing costs to health authorities by the Prescription Pricing Authority. [40674]

  Mr. Hague
  The Prescription Pricing Authority does not operate in Wales. My officials have written to the Chief Executive of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority about the late supply of information by his prescription information and pricing services division. He has replied with an assurance that the division will be completely up to date by the beginning of March 1997. I am monitoring the situation and have asked for monthly progress reports.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to initiate discussions on reviewing the number of trusts in the Welsh national health service; and if he will make a statement. [40673]

  Mr. Hague
  None. However, I am prepared to consider proposals put forward by the service.
  743
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what arrangements he has made for ensuring the financial viability of NHS trusts; what part he has assigned to health authorities for ensuring such viability; and if he will make a statement. [40661]

  Mr. Hague
  In order to attain trust status an application containing detailed financial projections for the first three years of operation is submitted for approval. These projections are analysed by both of my officials and independent external consultants. Only if the outcome of the analysis is positive is trust status approved.

  Once established, a trust is required to report its current and projected financial performance at regular intervals to my officials. Should the financial performance of a trust be unsatisfactory they would have to produce plans for recovery against which they would be monitored.

  The health authorities in Wales have no specific role assigned to them in this monitoring process but are involved in the agreement of recovery plans.

  University Hospital of Wales Healthcare NHS Trust
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to publish his decision letter on the application for public funding for the new accident and emergency unit at the University hospital of Wales, Heath, Cardiff. [40670]

  Mr. Hague
  The University Hospital of Wales Healthcare NHS trust is currently preparing a full business case for the development; only when this is completed and approved will a decision on public funding be made.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the University Hospital of Wales Healthcare NHS Trust concerning the application for inclusion in the current public expenditure survey of(a) the flyover connecting the hospital to the A48 and (b) its proposed new accident and emergency unit. [40671]

  Mr. Hague
  None.

  Drugs Budget
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his current estimate for the aggregate drugs budget overspend for the year 1995–96 and the year 1996–97. [40667]

  Mr. Hague
  The overspend in 1995–96 expressed in terms of the net ingredient cost was £3.4 million against a total allocation of £267.4 million. At this stage of the year it is impossible accurately to forecast the likely outturn in 1996–97 but the cost of all drugs prescribed will continue to be met.

  NHS Computer Software
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairmen of the Welsh health authorities concerning the performance of LK Global and Amsys 20 computer software for general practice fundholders and its impact on management information on prescribing expenditure relative to budget. [40666]
  744
  Mr. Hague
  None. This is a matter for the parties concerned.

  Road and Rail Construction
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what(a) subsidies have been made available for road construction and (b) investment has been made in railway track construction in Wales in each year since 1979. [40510]

  Mr. Hague
  Since 1979, total spending by central Government on the roads programme in Wales is nearly £3 billion, including £510 million in transport grants to local authorities. In addition there are a number of other grant programmes which may support road construction but which have wider overall objectives. Details of the extent to which these funds have been allocated to road construction over the period requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. Figures for expenditure on railway track construction are not available on a Wales only basis. However, details of investment in railway infrastructure in Great Britain are produced by the Department of Transport and published annually by Her Majesty's Stationery Office as "Transport Statistics, Great Britain".

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

  Mr. Hague
  [pursuant to his reply, 24 July 1996, c.379]: I regret that three NHS organisations were inadvertently omitted from the answer. The complete list of extra-contractual referrals received is therefore as follows:

  Clwydian Community Care NHS Trust

  Derwen NHS Trust

  Rhondda NHS Trust

  Carmarthen and District NHS Trust

  Nevill Hall and District NHS Trust

  Cardiff Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  Gwent NHS Trust

  North Wales NHS Trust

  Powys Healthcare NHS Trust.

  School Exclusions and Expulsions
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, if he will publish for the last available three years for each county and for Wales as a whole, the number of school exclusions or expulsions recorded for(a) primary schools, (b) secondary schools and (c) all schools, indicating the percentage of such exclusions or expulsions as a proportion of overall pupil numbers in each case. [38944]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  [pursuant to his reply, 23 July 1996, c.276]: I regret that the table provided was incorrect. The correct table is as follows:
  745

  Permanent exclusions during 1994–95 academic year from:

  Primary schools

  Secondary schools

  Total primary and secondary schools

  LEA

  Number

  Exclusions as percentage of roll

  Number

  Exclusions as percentage of roll

  Number

  Exclusions as percentage of roll

  Clwyd

  17

  0.04

  61

  0.23

  78

  0.11

  Dyfed

  2

  0.01

  34

  0.14

  36

  0.06

  Gwent

  9

  0.02

  89

  0.29

  98

  0.13

  Gwynedd

  2

  0.01

  25

  0.16

  27

  0.07

  Mid Glamorgan

  23

  0.04

  75

  0.19

  98

  0.1

  Powys

  1

  0.01

  8

  0.1

  9

  0.04

  South Glamorgan

  16

  0.04

  58

  0.2

  74

  0.10

  West Glamorgan

  3

  0.01

  48

  0.20

  51

  0.08

  Wales

  73

  0.02

  398

  0.20

  471

  0.10

  All figures are provisional.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Ethnic Minorities
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many women from ethnic minorities are employed by his Department and its agencies; at what grade; and what measures he has taken to encourage the(a) recruitment, (b) employment and (c) promotion of women from ethnic minorities within his Department and its agencies. [39894]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Staff of the Northern Ireland Office (London) are monitored through the provision of information is voluntary.

  Responses show that the following women from ethnic minorities are currently employed:

  Grade 7: One

  Executive Officer: Five

  Administrative Officer: Two

  Personal Secretary: One

  Typist: Four

  Administrative Assistant: Two.

  The Northern Ireland Office has an equal opportunities policy of non-discrimination in recruitment and promotion on the grounds of race, sex, disability or political/religious beliefs.

  Equal opportunities awareness training is given to all staff.

  It is not possible to provide the information requested in respect of the Northern Ireland civil service. The Race Relations Act 1976 does not apply to Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland civil service does not undertake ethnic monitoring of staff. However, the NICS equal opportunities policy embraces all staff and applicants for employment, including those who are members of ethnic minority groups.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will investigate all community representatives' complaints about the conduct of the RUC in recent weeks. [39951]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Any complaints made by community representatives to my right hon. and learned Friend about the alleged conduct of the RUC are carefully examined and treated by the most appropriate method,746
  according to the nature of the complaints. Those alleging misconduct by individual officers are referred to the RUC complaints and discipline branch for investigation under the oversight of the Independent Commission for Police Complaints. Those which concern police operational policies are referred to the Chief Constable of the RUC for advice. In all cases, a reply is issued from Government.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what intimations of resignation from the RUC he has been informed about in recent weeks because of policy on the control of marches; and what action has been taken. [39968]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Royal Ulster Constabulary's personnel branch is not aware of any resignations, or intimations of same, as a result of policy on the control of marches.

  Cookstown Blockade
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the Police Authority for Northern Ireland's investigations into the involvement of one of its members in a blockade at Cookstown in the period 5 to 11 July. [39906]

  Sir John Wheeler
  This is a matter for the Police Authority for Northern Ireland. I am advised that the authority held a special meeting on 30 July at the request of a member against whom allegations had appeared in the press. A report was presented to the authority and the member concerned gave an account of his actions. The authority accepted his account of the events at issue and agreed that no further action was necessary. The authority now regards the matter as being closed.

  Multiple Births
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many sets of(a) twins, (b) triplets, (c) quadruplets, (d) quintuplets and (e) sextuplets were born in Northern Ireland in each year since 1990; how many maternities there were in each year; and how many multiple births in each category were conceived as a result of (i) in vitro fertilisation, (ii) gamete intra-fallopian transfer and (iii) other forms of assisted conception. [39970]
  747
  Mr. Moss
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Type

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  11995

  Set of:

  (a) twins

  267

  315

  258

  308

  303

  324

  (b) triplets

  5

  6

  8

  9

  6

  7

  (c) quadruplets

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  (d) quintuplets

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (e) sextuplets

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  IVF2

  (i) twins

  12

  11

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  (ii) triplets

  2

  1

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  GIFT3

  Maternities

  26,338

  26,058

  25,425

  24,729

  24,119

  23,663

  1 Provisional.

  2 These figures are as result of IVF by year of conception.

  3 Gamete intra-fallopian transfer (GIFT) was available in Northern Ireland only in 1986 and 1987.

  n/a = not available.

  Mr. Lindsay Robb
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 23 July,Official Report, column 254, what payments have been made by the RUC to Mr. Lindsay Robb other than those made under the witness protection scheme; and on what dates. [40140]

  Sir John Wheeler
  No payment has been made to Lindsay Robb out of RUC expenditure, but as stated in my answer of 23 July, he received taxpayer-funded financial assistance under the witness protection scheme.

  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will make a statement on the eligibility of people from Northern Ireland to be members of the Northern Ireland Criminal Cases Review Commission; [40307]

  (2) if he will make a statement on progress towards the establishment of a Northern Ireland Criminal Cases Review Commission; [40305]

  (3) what will be the (a) functions and (b) powers and remit of a Criminal Cases Review Commission in Northern Ireland. [40306]

  Sir John Wheeler
  A Criminal Cases Review Commission is being established to investigate alleged miscarriages of justice and, if necessary, to refer cases back to the Court of Appeal. Its remit will cover England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Home Secretary and Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who are currently responsible for considering such cases, will cease to do so once the commission is established.

  The commission is a statutory body whose functions, powers and remit are set out in the Criminal Appeal Act 1995. It will comprise a chairman and a minimum of 10 board members. At least one third of the members must be legally qualified, whilst at least two thirds must have previous experience of the criminal justice system. One member, at least, must have knowledge or experience of the Northern Ireland criminal justice system. Subject to these provisions, selection is through open competition and is in accordance with the recommendations of the
  748
  Nolan Committee on Standards in Public Life. Accordingly, advertisements for the recruitment of members appeared in the press in May, including the three Northern Ireland daily newspapers.

  The selection process is under way and it is expected that the commission will begin work early in 1997.

  341 and 342 Rathfriland Road, Dromera
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of state for Northern Ireland what was(a) the original distance between the entrances to 341 and 342 Rathfriland road, Dromara submitted to and passed by the Department of the Environment in 1988, (b) the distance inthe amended plan accepted by the Department and (c) the actual distance now the work has been completed and passed by the Department. [40380]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Planning Service under its chief executive, Mr Wesley Steward. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from W. D. Glass to Rev. Martin Smyth, dated 14 October 1996:
  o Mr Moss has asked me to reply, in the absence on annual leave of Mr. T W Stewart, Chief Executive of the Planning Service, to your Question about the approved and actual distances between the entrances to Nos. 341 Rathfriland Road, Dromara.

  I would respond to the three specific points raised in your Question as follows:

  (a) The distance between the entrances of 341 and 342 Rathfriland Road, Dromara, as submitted and approved under planning application Q/88/0208 in 19988 was 16 metres.

  (b) The distance between the entrances as approved in the amended application Q/89/013 was 4 metres.

  (c) The actual distance between the entrances as constructed is 10.5 metres.

  All of the above dimensions are measured between the centre-line of the two accesses.

  High-risk Prisoners
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what is his policy in relation to periods of temporary release of unescorted high-risk prisoners from top security gaols; when the policy was last reviewed; and if he will make a statement; [40542]

  (2) what policy is followed when an unescorted high-risk prisoner is given temporary release in relation to procedures for informing airports to be used by the prisoner and the police force in the area into which he will be travelling; and if he will make a statement. [40543]

  Sir John Wheeler
  This is a matter for the Prison Service under its chief executive, Mr. Alan Shannon. I have asked him to reply.
  749
  Letter from Alan Shannon to Mr. Alfred Morris, dated 14 October 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to the two Parliamentary Questions you tabled about the policy in relation to periods of temporary release of unescorted high risk prisoners.
  There are two schemes under which high risk prisoners are regularly considered for short periods of temporary release. These are:

  the compassionate temporary release scheme which allows prisoners to visit immediate relatives who are very seriously ill or to attend their funerals;

  the home visit scheme which allows prisoners who have served at least 6 years to visit immediate relatives who are non-ambulant and have been unable to visit the prisoner for a period of at least 18 months in the first instance.

  High risk prisoners may also be considered for leaves which are available to prisoners nearing the end of sentence. These are the pre-release home leave scheme, the seven day allowance scheme for prisoners who served in excess of 11 years and the Christmas home leave scheme which is available to prisoners who have served in excess of 11 years or are in their final year of sentence.
  Prison Service Headquarters is responsible for approving all applications under the compassionate leave scheme and home visit scheme. In addition Prison Service Headquarters is responsible for approving the first instance of leave under the other schemes. These applications are considered very carefully and will be refused if it is felt there is a significant risk of absconding or danger to the prisoner or the public.
  The last major change in procedures was in 1983 when the compassionate release scheme was suspended for 6 months after two paramilitary prisoners failed to return from a period of leave. Since then, until the recent abscond, no high risk prisoner has failed to return to prison from leave or has been charged with criminal offences arising out of behaviour while on leave.
  It is standard practice to inform the Royal Ulster Constabulary of the temporary release of all prisoners.

HEALTH

  Climate Change
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the studies(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated by his Department into the impact of climate changes on the health of the United Kingdom population. [40071]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department has not commissioned any research which is directly related to the impact of climate change on health. However, we are considering the findings of the climate change impacts review group which identified some possible health effects. In the light of the outcome of this consideration and on-going research we will review our programmes and research requirements.

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average expenditure per head in(a) each health authority and (b) nationally in the last financial year. [39921]

  Mr. Horam
  The average per capita expenditure figures for 1996–97 will not be available centrally until the annual accounts process has been completed in early December 1996.

  The figures will be placed in the Library as soon as they are available.

  Beta Interferon
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the prescription of beta interferon; [39926]

  (2) what representation his Department has received of guidelines EL(95)97 being disregarded. [39925]

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

  The Department has received some representations about the implementation of EL(95)97. Where appropriate, such representations are followed up with the authorities concerned.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding he has made available for a national trial of beta interferon. [39927]

  Mr. Malone
  A final decision on funding will be taken once a satisfactory protocol addressing the concerns on outcome measures has been developed.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women from ethnic minorities are employed by his Department and its agencies; at what grade; and what measures he has taken to encourage the(a) recruitment, (b) employment and (c) promotion of women from ethnic minorities within his Department and its agencies. [39902]

  Mr. Horam
  Information showing the number of women from ethnic minorities, by grade, employed by the Department and its agencies is as follows:

  Number of ethnic minority female staff in Department of Health and agencies (excluding regional offices)

  Grade

  Ethnic minority staff

  Senior Civil Servant

  4

  UG6

  3

  UG7

  12

  SEO

  9

  HEO

  24

  EO

  76

  AO

  187

  AA

  65

  Total

  380

  The Department has taken the following measures to encourage women from the ethnic minorities:
  Recruitment and employment: The Department and its agencies follow the Cabinet Office guidance and civil service recruitment policies and procedures which incorporate best recruitment practices.

  751
  Promotion: Women from the ethnic minorities, like other staff, are encouraged to attend appropriate development training, giving them the opportunity to develop skills that will better prepare them for promotion opportunities.

  All personnel policies, practices and procedures are monitored by gender, disability and ethnicity to ensure that they are free of bias and prejudice. The Department and its agencies are committed to following the policies in the Cabinet Office programme for action on race and have actively supported research commissioned by the Cabinet Office into the potential double disadvantage faced by ethnic minority women in the civil service.

  In order to improve recruitment, employment and promotion of female staff, the Department has introduced a range of initiatives including flexible working, career breaks and subsidised child care facilities. Also available is positive action training for women from ethnic minorities and staff with disabilities.

  The Department participates in the Windsor Fellowship scheme for undergraduates from ethnic minorities and encourages its ethnic minority working group, a staff reference group, which discusses issues affecting staff from the minority ethnic groups.

  Psychiatric Patients
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the average length of stay of psychiatric in-patients in each of the last five years broken down to show cases involving(a) voluntary and (b) compulsory admissions. [39993]

  Mr. Burns
  The information is not available centrally.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients, by county of birth were admitted to psychiatric beds in the last year. [40132]

  Mr. Burns
  Information concerning the place of birth of hospital in-patients is not collected centrally.

  Arbitration
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 22 July,Official Report, column 112, if each NHS region uses the same principles in its arbitration process on contract settlements between NHS purchasers and providers; and what measures have been taken by the NHS Executive since March 1991 to ensure that these principles are consistent between regions. [40270]

  Mr. Malone
  National health service regions are required to resolve disputes as speedily as possible in the best interests of patients and the NHS. The great variety in the circumstances in which disputes arise precludes the imposition of a narrow set of principles for their resolution.

  Heartlands and Solihull Hospitals
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he made of the proposals by Birmingham and Solihull hospital trust for ambulance transport to Heartlands hospital from local villages with special reference to Meriden, Hockley Heath, Knowle Dorridge, Hamden in Arden, Cheswick green and Balsam common in the event of a medical emergency when 752
  making his recent statement on the provision of 24-hour accident and emergency services at Solihull hospital; and if he will make a statement; 140264]

  (2) what assessment he has made of Solihull health authority's proposals for 24-hour accident and emergency services; [40226]

  (3) what assessment he made of the provision of bus services from remote villages to Birmingham Heartlands trust when he made his decision to merge Birmingham Heartlands hospital with Solihull hospital; and if he will make a statement. [40233]

  Mr. Horam
  Provision of accident and emergency services were included in the consultation document, "Difficult Choices", which was considered when making the decision to approve the merger of Birmingham Heartlands hospital and Solihull hospital. Issues surrounding patient access were raised during consultation on the formal merger proposal.

  Since the merger took place consultant cover has improved in the Solihull accident and emergency department—from 0.5 whole-time posts to two—and the number of patients treated locally at the Solihull site is increasing with plans to treat an additional 16,000 patients at the hospital in the coming year.

  Diabetes
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the mortality rate from diabetes by county of birth in the last year. [40129]

  Mr. Horam
  The following table shows mortality rates for diabetes per county of residence in 1994, the latest figures available. Data by county of birth is not available centrally.

  Area

  Number of deaths

  Rate (per 100,000 of population)

  Greater London

  717

  10

  Greater Manchester

  313

  12

  Mersey

  144

  10

  South Yorkshire

  137

  10

  Tyne and Wear

  118

  10

  West Midlands

  379

  0.14

  West Yorkshire

  246

  12

  Avon

  126

  13

  Bedfordshire

  53

  10

  Berkshire

  75

  10

  Buckinghamshire

  55

  8

  Cambridgeshire

  77

  11

  Cheshire

  97

  10

  Cleveland

  55

  10

  Cornwall and Scilly Isles

  91

  19

  Cumbria

  53

  11

  Derbyshire

  140

  15

  Devon

  126

  12

  Dorset

  82

  12

  Durham

  70

  12

  East Sussex

  87

  12

  Essex

  200

  13

  Gloucestershire

  60

  11

  Hampshire

  146

  9

  Hereford and Worcester

  65

  9

  Hertfordshire

  71

  7

  Humberside

  100

  11

  Isle of Wight

  16

  13

  753

  Area

  Number of deaths

  Rate (per 100,000 of population)

  Kent

  197

  13

  Lancashire

  181

  13

  Leicestershire

  93

  10

  Lincolnshire

  99

  16

  Norfolk

  109

  14

  Northamptonshire

  42

  7

  Northumberland

  33

  11

  North Yorkshire

  78

  11

  Nottinghamshire

  159

  15

  Oxfordshire

  53

  9

  Shropshire

  39

  9

  Somerset

  74

  15

  Staffordshire

  103

  10

  Suffolk

  89

  14

  Surrey

  110

  11

  Warwickshire

  60

  12

  West Sussex

  89

  12

  Wiltshire

  66

  11

  Clwyd

  44

  11

  Dyfed

  43

  12

  Gwent

  65

  14

  Gwynedd

  35

  15

  Mid-Glamorgan

  69

  13

  Powys

  18

  15

  South Glamorgan

  33

  8

  West Glamorgan

  34

  9

  Source:

  Office of National Statics.

  Health Lines
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health authorities(a) have a staffed service on their freephone health line and (b) pre-recorded taped advice. [40244]

  Mr. Malone
  All health authorities have responsibility for securing provision of a staffed freephone health information service for their resident populations.

  Some choose to provide the service themselves whilst others place contracts with outside providers. In total, there are currently 23 health information service providers covering all health authorities. Of these, five have a pre-recorded taped advice service, in addition to their staffed service.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 30 November,Official Report, column 868, if he will list the nature, value and location of all private finance initiative projects in the NHS with a project value of £1 million or more which have been approved since November 1995. [40281]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 15 January at column 343. Since then a further 19 schemes with a project value of £1 million or over have been approved.

  PRIVATE FINANCE SCHEMES WITH A CAPITAL VALUE OF £1 MILLION OR OVER
  APPROVED SINCE 15 JANUARY 1996
  Northern and Yorkshire Region

  1. St. James's and Seacroft University Hospital National Health Service Trust—£50 million—paediatric wing, car park, medipark and private patients unit.

  2. United Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust and Bradford Hospitals Trust—£3 million—reconfiguration of pathology laboratories.

  754

  3. Leeds Community and Mental Health Services Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust—£2.5 million—North West community Unit for the Elderly.

  4. Leeds Community and Mental Health Services Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust— £2.5 million—West Central Community Unit for the Elderly.

  Trent Region

  5. Rotherham General Hospitals NHS Trust— £3.4 million—clinical waste incinerator.

  6. Rotherham General Hospitals NHS Trust— £1.1 million—concourse development.

  7. Nottingham Ambulance NHS Trust— £ 1.3 million—radio replacement scheme.

  Anglia and Oxford Region

  8. Royal Berkshire and Battle NHS Trust— £20 million—2 multi-storey car parks, office accommodation, private patient wing, leisure centre and retail outlets.

  9. Norfolk and Norwich NHS Trust— £ 170 million—new District General Hospital.

  North Thames Region

  10. Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Trust— £5 million—Hospital Information Support System.

  11. Central Middlesex NHS Trust— £18 million—Ambulatory Care and Diagnostic Centre

  South Thames Region

  12. Mayday Healthcare NHS Trust— £5 million—clinical information system.

  13. Mayday Healthcare NHS Trust— £6.1 million energy centre.

  South and West Region

  14. Swindon and Marlborough NHS Trust—£90 million rebuilding scheme at Princess Margaret Hospital.

  West Midlands Region

  15. City Hospital NHS Trust—£2.9 million—replacement patient administration scheme.

  North West Region

  16. Warrington Hospitals NHS Trust— £1 million—magnetic resonance imager (MRI).

  17. Bolton Community NHS Trust— £ 1.6 million—Primary Care Resource Centre.

  18. Liverpool Women's Hospital NHS Trust— £2.7 million—Hospital Information Support System.

  19. Lancashire Ambulance Service NHS Trust—£2.1 million—mobile radio communications system.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total value of private finance initiative projects in the NHS with project values of less than £1 million that have been approved in each financial year up to 1995–96 and so far in the current financial year. [40282]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much capital spending has so far been committed by the private sector for the current financial year in respect of health service projects under the private finance initiative. [40338]

  Mr. Horam
  Information on the amount of capital committed by the private sector is not collected centrally. Capital expenditure incurred in the building and provision of facilities for a health service project occurs before the project becomes operational. The national health service thereafter is committed to the revenue payments for the service provided by the private sector in projects under the private finance initiative.

  Mental Health
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) ethnic minority and (b) white patients were admitted to mental health beds in the last available year. [40138]

  Mr. Burns
  Information concerning the ethnic background of hospital in-patients was collected centrally for the first time in 1995–96. This information is not yet available.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) ethnic minority and (b) white patients were sectioned under the Mental Health Act 1983 in each year since 1983. [40139]

  Mr. Burns
  This information is not available centrally.

  Funding
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research is being carried out with regard to the allocation of funding in NHS health trusts. [40182]

  Mr. Horam
  Any research into the allocation of funding within national health service trusts is a matter for the individual trust concerned. Trusts are not funded directly by the Department but from contracts with purchasers.

  Paediatric Intensive Care Beds
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many paediatric intensive care beds were in use in(a) 1979 and (b) 1996; [40194]

  (2) how many paediatric intensive care beds per head of the population there were in (a) West Yorkshire and (b) the rest of England in the last year for which figures are available. [40183]

  Mr. Horam
  Information on provision of paediatric intensive care is not available for 1979. Children from West Yorkshire needing such care may receive it within Northern and Yorkshire region, or in the adjoining north west region. Information for Northern and Yorkshire and for England is as follows.

  Area

  Beds open1April 1996

  Population2(0–16 years)

  Beds per thousand children

  Northern and Yorkshire Region

  28

  1,467,354

  1:52

  England

  196

  10,639,921

  1:54

  Sources:

  1"Paediatric Intensive Care: Report from Chief Executive of the NHS Executive to the Secretary of State" (May 1996).

  2 Office for National Statistics (1995).

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to ensure the adequate provision of paediatric intensive care beds in the Yorkshire region. [40205]

  Mr. Horam
  Health authorities in West Yorkshire have agreed funding for additional paediatric intensive care beds at both United Leeds Teaching Hospitals, national health service trust and St. James's and Seacroft University Hospitals national health service trust. An 756
  emergency bed service will also be in place by this winter, providing accurate information on the availability of intensive care beds, including paediatric provision.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what access the Association of Community Health Councils of England and Wales has to his Department's CHC policy and liaison group; and if he will make a statement; [40114]

  (2) if he will make it his policy (a) that the relationship existing before 1 July between his Department and individual community health councils and (b) the independence of community health councils will be protected following the setting up of the CHC policy and liaison group. [40119]

  Mr. Horam
  The role of the community health council policy and liaison group is to advise on policy and operational matters concerning CHCs in general. It has no involvement with individual CHCs, which remain statutorily independent bodies.

  The Association of CHCs for England and Wales has been invited to meet with the group twice yearly and the first meeting will take place on 17 October.

  Bishop Auckland Hospital
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the contract for the private finance initiative rebuilding of Bishop Auckland hospital to be signed; if he will publish the terms of the contract; what private finance initiative funding will be provided; and if he will make a statement. [40173]

  Mr. Horam
  The full business case for the private finance initiative scheme at Bishop Auckland hospital is currently with the National Health Service Executive and Her Majesty's Treasury. Ministers are also currently considering the outcome of County Durham health authority's review of acute services in Durham. No decision can be taken on the approval of the PFI scheme at Bishop Auckland hospital until this exercise is complete. It is too early to say what the final capital value of the PFI scheme will be, or when the contract is likely to be signed.

  The terms of the contract will be commercial in confidence.

  Health Information Service
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what obligations rest on health authorities to make NHS users aware of the freephone health information service; and if he will make a statement on how this obligation is being fulfilled. [40243]

  Mr. Malone
  Guidance on the provision of the freephone health information service (HSG(95)44— copies of which are available in the Library—requires health authorities to ensure that details concerning the availability of the service, including opening times, are widely publicised. How this is best done is determined locally.

  Secure Hospitals
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) violent offences and (b) other offences have been committed by individuals released from secure hospitals under the Government's care in the community programme; and if he will make a statement. [39890]

  Mr. Burns
  The figures shown in the table include restricted patients discharged from national health service and independent hospitals. Separate figures are not kept on patients discharged from secure hospitals and data on unrestricted patients is not available.

  Table showing reconviction of restricted patients

  Year

  Total discharged for first time

  Reconvicted for grave offences1 within

  Reconvictions within 5 years—standard list offences2

  2 years

  5 years3

  2 years

  5 years3

  1984

  148

  1

  5

  19

  34

  1985

  134

  3

  5

  14

  20

  1986

  42

  3

  7

  14

  27

  1987

  87

  —

  4

  3

  8

  1988

  94

  1

  2

  4

  6

  1989

  138

  —

  —

  8

  12

  1990

  100

  2

  3

  6

  9

  1991

  90

  —

  —

  4

  —

  1992

  147

  1

  —

  6

  —

  1993

  130

  1

  —

  6

  —

  Total

  1,160

  12

  —

  84

  —

  Notes:

  1 Offences for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment, mainly homicide, serious wounding, rape, buggery, aggravated burglary, arson where life is not endangered.

  2 All indictable offences and certain summary offences.

  3After 1990, data no longer held in this form.

  Source:

  Home Office Statistical Bulletin, Statistics of Mentally Disordered Offenders England and Wales 1995.

  Depression
  Mr. Barry Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies have been(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into (i) how many working days in the UK each year are lost as a result of and (ii) the cost of depression. [40303]

  Mr. Burns
  We are not aware of any such studies.

  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of depression have been diagnosed in the UK in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [40302]

  Mr. Burns
  This information is not available centrally for England. Questions relating to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland respectively.

  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates he has made of the cost of the incidence of depression to the UK economy. [40304]

  Mr. Burns
  We have made no such studies or estimates.

  Blood Products
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals have installed equipment to read the new bar code system for blood products; and what estimate he has made of the number of hospitals which require such equipment. [40291]

  Mr. Horam
  The new bar coding system for blood bags which is currently being introduced by the national blood service is for internal use. It does not require the installation of new equipment by hospitals, as existing bar codes continue in use alongside the new ones.

  Emergency Ambulance Services
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to ensure in the trials he is initiating concerning prioritisation of emergency ambulance calls that(a) those responsible for such judgments have had extensive crew experience and (b) a full report of the initial schemes is (i) made public and (ii) open to comment prior to extensions of the principles elsewhere. [40401]

  Mr. Horam
  We have accepted the recommendation of the steering group on ambulance performance standards that responses to 999 calls be prioritised according to the seriousness of the patient's clinical need. The principle of call prioritisation was endorsed in the consultation document published in July 1995, copies of which are available in the Library, and the proposed changes were widely supported.

  Two call prioritisation systems have been approved. These have been successfully operated in other countries and have already been tested in two United Kingdom ambulance services alongside existing methods of ambulance despatch. A research report on these systems was published in July 1996, copies of which are available in the Library, and found both safe and reliable. Decisions as to the priority of calls can safely be made by control room staff trained to operate these systems.

  Four ambulance services plan to implement call prioritisation from 1 April 1997. The Department of Health is commissioning a study of the new systems in operation in these services and will publish this.

  Abortions
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many abortions took place under the NHS during each of the past five years; and what the estimated cost was in each year. [40459]

  Mr. Horam
  The number of national health service abortions performed to residents and non-residents of England and Wales, for the years 1991–94 inclusive can be found in the relevant year's edition of "Abortion Statistics, England and Wales, Series AB numbers 18–21", published by HMSO, copies of which are available in the Library.

  The provisional total for the number of abortions which took place under the NHS in 1995 is 108,930.

  Information on the cost of an abortion is no longer collected centrally. Therefore no estimate can be made.

  Chernobyl
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State's letter—DOH(6)4362/92—of 12 May to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, what is the result of the investigations of chemicals which might contribute to germ-line variation. [40460]

  Mr. Horam
  Investigations into the germ-line effects pursuant to the findings in children born in Belarus contaminated by the Chernobyl accident are being carried out under the European Union radiation fission safety programme. New studies will attempt to avoid possible confounding factors by using a local control population. These studies are likely to continue for some years before publication of results.

  Prostin E2
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the side effects of the labour-inducing drug Prostin E2; and if he will make a statement. [40326]

  Mr. Malone
  As for all marketed medicines, the side effects of Prostin E2 were assessed at the time of granting of the marketing authorisation and continue to be monitored by the Medicines Control Agency. The recognised side-effects are described in the manufacturer's product information, which is authorised by the licensing authority.

  Bed Closures
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the likely level of bed closures in the South Thames and North Thames regions(a) in the remainder of the current financial year and (b) in 1997–98. [40597]

  Mr. Malone
  It is for health authorities to plan an appropriate level of service for local people, and for national health service trusts to determine the bed capacity required to meet those needs.

  Measles, Mumps and Rubella Vaccine
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the consultation undertaken with(a) general practitioners and (b) potential recipients on the second MMR vaccination programme in schools begun on 1 October; and what is the estimated cost of the programme. [40493]

  Mr. Horam
  The introduction of a second dose of measles, mumps and rubella vaccine into the United Kingdom childhood immunisation programme was recommended by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, an independent expert committee which advises the UK health departments. The JCVI contains a wide range of expert knowledge, including people working in the field of child health, general practice and nursing. The Chief Medical Officer held a consultative meeting with senior representatives of the Royal College of General Practitioners, the general medical services committee of the British Medical Association, the Health Visitors Association, the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Midwives before announcing the introduction of the second dose and received the full 760
  endorsement of these professional organisations for this improvement to the childhood immunisation programme. The chairman of the GMSC, along with representatives of the RCGP, HVA, RCN and RCM, attended the press launch of the second dose and gave it his full backing.

  The recommendation to offer the second dose was a clinical decision. However, during the 1994 measles-rubella schools immunisation campaign the Department was made very aware of considerable support from parents, whose children were too young for the campaign, for their children to have boosters as well. The uptake of 92 per cent. achieved during the measles-rubella campaign was a clear demonstration of children's and parent's desire to be fully protected against these diseases. Consultation with the parents of potential recipients takes place between doctor and parent on an individual basis. Officials also met representatives of the Association of Parents of Vaccine Damaged Children before the introduction of the second dose.

  The annual cost of the routine second dose is about £7 million.

  South Thames Medical Directors
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken in response to a letter to him from the South Thames medical directors dated 26 February; and if he will place a copy of his reply in the Library. [40598]

  Mr. Malone
  The Secretary of State asked William Wells, chairman, South Thames region, to consider the medical directors' letter in carrying forward the programme of work on emergency and intensive care that he announced in Parliament on 6 March 1996. A copy of the correspondence will be placed in the Library.

  Health Services (London)
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the number of cancellations of elective surgery in London hospitals last winter and the consequent impact upon both(a) patients and (b) the health service; and what action he has taken to prevent a recurrence of such cancellations; [40596]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the congestion in accident and emergency departments in London last winter; and what action he has taken to remedy the situation. [40595]

  Mr. Malone
  The Secretary of State assured the House on 6 March 1996,Official Report, column 356, that the national health service would learn from the experiences of last winter. Since then, preparing for emergency demand in winter has been a priority, and every health authority working with its trusts has prepared plans. The plans reflect local circumstances and national guidance and good practice. In drawing them up, health authorities and trusts have considered relevant local factors such as trends in activity and emergency admissions, the capacity for providing treatment and the scheduling of non-urgent treatments, the provision of intensive care facilities, bed management within hospitals and arrangements for the admission and discharge of patients, and developments and initiatives in patient care and treatment. The Secretary of State received a report, on those plans from the chief executive of the NHS Executive at the end of September.
  761
  Health authorities and NHS trusts across the two Thames regions have produced action plans for improving emergency care services which are being refined and will be monitored throughout the winter. Implementation plans for the co-ordination of accident and emergency services across London are being consulted upon.

  Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he expects to conclude negotiations on the 1993 annual financial returns for the PPRS; [40357]

  (2) what excess profits have been repaid by rebate or price reduction, and by how many pharmaceutical companies, for their 1993 PPRS sales. [40358]

  Mr. Malone
  Aggregate information on repayments for the 1993 round of annual financial returns will be published next spring in the Department of Health's second report to Parliament on the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme.

  Children's Services
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals his Department has made for revising the formula used to calculate the standard spending assessments for children's services to be used in the financial year 1997–98; and what assessment he has made of the effect of those revisions on the annual allocations for the London borough of Newham in(a) cash and (b) percentage terms compared to 1996–97. [40408]

  Mr. Burns
  All proposals for changes to the calculation of standard spending assessments for 1997–98 are described in the report of the standard spending assessments sub-group of the settlement working group, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Research Funding
  Sir Julian Critchley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research funding the Government have provided for(a) breast cancer, (b) AIDS and (c) prostate cancer in each of the last five years. [40399]

  Mr. Horam
  The information is shown in the tables:

  (a) Breast cancer

  £000s

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Medical research council

  2,700

  1,600

  3,100

  3,100

  3,114

  Department of Health

  381

  526

  607

  725

  888

  Scottish Office Home and Health Department

  138

  13

  84

  123

  282

  (b) AIDS

  £000's

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Medical research council

  13,300

  15,900

  15,300

  16,200

  14,900

  Department of Health

  593

  786

  789

  834

  693

  Scottish Office Home and Health Department

  163

  139

  97

  78

  169

  762

  (c) Prostate cancer

  £000's

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Medical research council

  300

  300

  300

  78

  0

  Department of Health

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Scottish Office Home and Health Department

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Government funding for research takes account of activity in other sectors. The cancer charities spent some £105.6 million on research into cancer in 1994–95. There is very little charity research expenditure on AIDS.

  Occupational Ill Health
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the average annual costs to the NHS of treating occupational ill health over the last 10 years. [40418]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not collected centrally.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Out-of-hours Service
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the demand on the out-of-hours emergency payments service of the Benefits Agency(a) nationally, (b) in the north-west and (c) in Warrington for the financial year 1995–96. [37556]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administration of Income Support is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Doug Hoyle, dated 19 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if he will make a statement on the demand on the out of hours (emergency payments) service of the Benefits Agency (a) nationally, (b) in the North West and (c) in Warrington for the financial year 1995–96.
  The information is not available in the format requested. This is because statistics are collated at Area Directorate (AD) level and not by region. The "North West" region is taken to be the area covered by Cheshire, Greater Manchester, Merseyside and Lancashire. Prior to April 1996, the ADs covering the north west were Merseyside, Greater Manchester and Lancashire and Cumbria.
  Below I have, listed the number of referrals to the Out of Hours Service (OOHS) for the year 1 April 1995 to 31 March 1996. The number of referrals for Warrington is included in the total referrals for Greater Manchester (AD).
  It should be noted that a referral means a contact by the customer or by a third party on their behalf. Approximately 50 per cent. of the referrals require a visit by the Benefits Agency. There are no figures kept about the success or otherwise of those visits.
  1995–96 referrals to OOHS

  National: 54,868

  Merseyside AD: 4,405

  Greater Manchester AD: 2,977

  Lancashire and Cumbria AD: 2,648

  763
  From April 1996 these ADs have merged into two which are North West Coast and Greater Manchester ADs.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many women from ethnic minorities are employed by his Department and its agencies; at what grade; and what measures he has taken to encourage the(a) recruitment, (b) employment and (c) promotion of women from ethnic minorities within his Department and its agencies. [39904]

  Mr. Burt
  The Department employs 3,179 ethnic minority women. Eight of these are in grades 3 to 7, 552 are in middle management grades and 2,620 are in clerical or other grades.

  The Department and its agencies follow the Cabinet Office guidance and civil service recruitment policies and procedures which incorporate best recruitment practices. This includes placing advertisements in the ethnic minority press and with local racial equality councils. The adverts routinely incorporate a welcoming statement to minority groups including ethnic minorities.

  Where there are significant ethnic minority populations in the catchment areas, outreach work has been undertaken. Recruitment exercises are monitored to ensure equal treatment for all applicants and recruitment panellists have received equal opportunities awareness training.

  Changes in real income by decile group 1979 to 1992–93 including the self-employed

  (a) Unadjusted

  Before housing costs

  Decile group medians

  Total population (mean)

  Decile 1 bottom 10 per cent.

  Decile 2 10–20 per cent.

  Decile 3 20–30 per cent.

  Decile 4 30–40 per cent.

  Decile 5 40–50 per cent.

  1979

  89

  112

  130

  149

  167

  193

  1992–93

  90

  120

  146

  172

  203

  261

  Percentage change

  (1)

  (7)

  12

  16

  22

  35

  After housing costs

  Decile group medians

  Total population (mean)

  Decile 1 bottom 10 per cent.

  Decile 2 10–20 per cent.

  Decile 3 20–30 per cent.

  Decile 4 30–40 per cent.

  Decile 5 40–50 per cent.

  1978

  75

  96

  1ll

  128

  144

  167

  1992–93

  61

  95

  117

  145

  176

  227

  Percentage change

  (-19)

  (0)

  (5)

  13

  23

  36

  1. Income are £ per week equivalised at Match 1995 prices.

  2.Estimate in brackets () are particularly uncertain.
  764
  The Department and its agencies monitor by gender, disability and ethnicity all its personnel policies, practices and procedures to ensure that they are free of bias and prejudice. They are committed to following the policies in the Cabinet Office programme for action on race and have actively supported research commissioned by the Cabinet Office into the potential double disadvantage faced by ethnic minority women in the civil service.

  Staff are encouraged to attend appropriate development training, giving them the opportunity to develop skills that will better prepare them for promotion opportunities. Also available are positive action training courses for women, ethnic minorities and staff with disabilities.

  Each step in the promotion process is subjected to equal opportunities monitoring. All promotion board panellists have received appropriate equal opportunities, to ensure staff are promoted on merit.

  Family Expenditure Survey
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 21 June,Official Report, column 635, if he will list the distribution of income by decile group in each year from 1979 to 1992–93, including the self-employed, as in table A 1 in the households below average income report for 1995 (a) unadjusted and (b) adjusted in accordance with the statistical practice of correcting for variations in FES response which he reports to his Department has applied to this series of low income surveys. [40204]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information is as follows:
  765

  (b) Adjusted

  Before housing costs

  Decile group medians

  Total population (mean)

  Decile 1 bottom 10 per cent.

  Decile 2 10–20 per cent.

  Decile 3 20–30 per cent.

  Decile 4 30–40 per cent.

  Decile 5 40–50 per cent.

  1979

  90

  113

  131

  150

  168

  198

  1992–93

  90

  122

  147

  174

  206

  269

  Percentage change

  (0)

  (8)

  12

  16

  23

  36

  After housing costs

  Decile group medians

  Total population (mean)

  Decile 1 bottom 10 per cent.

  Decile 2 10–20 per cent.

  Decile 3 20–30 per cent.

  Decile 4 30–40 per cent.

  Decile 5 40–50 per cent.

  1979

  75

  96

  112

  129

  146

  171

  1992–93

  62

  96

  119

  148

  180

  235

  Percentage change

  (-18)

  (0)

  (6)

  15

  23

  37

  1. Incomes are £ per week equivalised at March 1995 prices.

  2. Estimates in brackets () are particularly uncertain.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the factors taken into account in postponing publication from July to November of the households below average income report. [40152]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The later publication this year of households below average income—HBAI—is due to several factors. The first is that the family expenditure survey has moved from a calender year to a financial year basis. As a natural consequence, the FES data was available to the Department of Social Security nearly three months later than in the previous year. Last year's HBAI reported on the period ending December 1993; this year's will report on the period ending March 1995. In the current round of HBAI preparation, DSS analysts have undertaken additional tasks: principally, a review of methodology and the preparation of data from the family resources survey on which future editions of HBAI will be based. The processing of the FRS data, which became available in the spring, for HBAI analysis has been a substantial piece of work which is still in progress. The HBAI will be published as soon as the analysis is complete, which we expect to be in mid-November.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what steps his Department is taking to ensure that statutory sick pay is paid to individuals who are made redundant within three days of falling ill; [40200]

  (2) what steps his Department is taking to ensure that statutory sick pay is paid to people who fall sick in the period immediately following their employers' liquidation. [40206]

  Mr. Heald
  Individuals who are made redundant would not normally be eligible for statutory sick pay. Where it can be shown that the employer has brought an individual's contract of service to an end solely or mainly to avoid liability for SSP, the employer will continue to be liable to make a payment in the normal way. For employees whose employer has gone into liquidation but whose contracts have not been terminated, any SSP due in that employment from the date of insolvency becomes the liability of the Secretary of State.
  766
  These rules are highlighted in the Contributions Agency's statutory sick pay manual for employers, which is issued to all employers.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when his Department last reviewed the guidelines for payment of statutory sick pay to individuals whose firms have been liquidated. [40208]

  Mr. Heald
  The practical operation of these rules, as with all rules of the statutory sick pay scheme, is continuously monitored by the Contributions Agency. They were last changed in 1987 in order to make it easier for employees of insolvent employers to receive the SSP due to them.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations his Department has received regarding the payment of statutory sick pay for people made redundant due to liquidation of their employer.[40207]

  Mr. Heald
  None.

  Decision Making and Appeals
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will publish an analysis of the responses to his consultation paper on improving decision making and appeals in social security, Cm 3328, in a similar format to the analysis of responses to the consultation on Government measures to tackle discrimination against disabled people published in January 1995; [40224]

  (2) if he will publish the comments on his consultation paper on improving decision making and appeals in social security, Cm 3328, from (a) the Social Security Advisory Committee, (b) the Council on Tribunals, (c) the Social Fund Commission, (d) the Chief Adjudication Officer and (e) the President of the Independent Tribunal Service; [40225]

  (3) if he will place in the Library a list of those who have responded to his consultation papers on improving decision making and appeals in social security, Cm 3328,

  767
  and if he will place in the Library copies of their responses except where the respondents have requested that their replies be treated in confidence. [40223]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  We plan to publish a summary analysis of the responses to the consultation on the Government's proposals for improving decision making and appeals in a format broadly similar to that adopted last year for the responses to the consultation document "Government measures to tackle discrimination against disabled people". This included details of respondents but not copies of individual replies.

  Housing Benefit (Ashe Hall)
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many residents of Ashe hall, Derbyshire, are currently in receipt of housing benefit. [40333]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The Department of Social Security does not collect or keep information about housing benefit recipients at particular addresses. South Derbyshire district council is responsible for administering housing benefit in the area covering Ashe hall in Etwall, Derbyshire. It advises that housing benefit is currently in payment to 16 residents there.

  Consultation Papers
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the consultation papers issued in the form of command papers by his Department since July 1988, with the date of publication and the date by which responses were invited in each case; and if he will give similar information so far as it is available in respect of other consultation papers issued by his Department. [40222]

  Table 2: Other consultation papers

  Title

  Publication date

  Response date

  Disability Allowance: Assessment and Adjudication

  01.08.90

  12.10.90

  Disability Handbook

  11.07.91

  20.08.91

  Review of Treatment of Earnings for Income Tax and National Insurance Purposes

  29.07.91

  September 1991

  The Proposed Contents of the Child Support Regulations to be made under the Child support Act 1991

  November 1991

  16.12.91

  One Stop— Benefits Agency Service Delivery

  July 1992

  06.11.92

  Changes in Maternity Pay—Proposal for Implementing the EC Pregnant Workers Directive

  10.08.93

  12.10.93

  A Consultation on the Medical Assessment for Incapacity Benefit

  01.12.93

  11.02.94

  Occupational Pensions—Discussing the Issues: set of 7 consultation papers papers 1–5

  02.12.93

  14.01.94

  papers 6 and 7

  17.12.93

  21.01.94

  Age Related Rebates—a Consultation Paper

  December 1993

  15.01.94

  The Future for Pensions—the Selection and Appointment of Member-Nominated Trustees

  June 1994

  05.08.94

  Family Credit and Self—Employment

  24.06.94

  31.08.94

  The Future for Pensions—a Requisite Benefits Test

  15.07.94

  09.09.94

  A Consultation on Government Measures to Tackle Discrimination Against Disabled People

  15.07.94

  07.10.94

  Non State Pension Reform—the Structure of the Levies

  19.07.94

  07.10.94

  Statutory Sick Pay—an Alternative to the Small Employers' Relief Scheme

  31.08.94

  21.10.94

  Consulting on—Statutory Sick Pay—Cutting Red Tape

  28.03.95

  30.06.95

  The Pensions Bill: Secondary Legislation—Contracting Out—Series of 15 Consultation Papers papers 1–5

  26.05.95

  30.06.95

  768
  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the tables. Table 1 lists all the consultation papers that have been issued in the form of Command Papers since July 1988. Available information about other consultation papers that have been issued by the Department is in table 2.

  Table 1: Command papers

  Cm Number

  Title

  Publication date

  Response date

  Notes

  1264

  Children Come First—the Government's proposals on the maintenance of children

  29.10.90

  14.12.90

  White Paper consultation on how proposals should be put into effect

  1723

  Options for Equality in State Pension Age

  18.12.91

  30.6.92

  Green paper

  2594

  Security, Equality, Choice: The Future for Pensions

  23.6.94

  5.8.94

  White Paper consultation on draft compliance cost assessment (Appendix 5)

  2997

  Compensation Recovery

  2.10.95

  13.11.95

  Reply to Select Committee consultation paper included as annex

  3328

  Improving Decision Making and Appeals in Social Security

  23.7.96

  18.10.96

  Green Paper

  3345

  The Treatment of Pension Rights on Divorce

  29.7.96

  29.11.96

  Green Paper

  769

  Table 2: Other consultation papers

  Title

  Publication date

  Response date

  papers 6 and 7

  01.06.95

  30.06.95

  papers 8–10

  29.06.95

  28.07.95

  papers 11 and 12

  28.06.95

  28.07.95

  paper 13

  23.08.95

  29.09.95

  paper 14

  25.10.95

  22.11.95

  paper 15

  05.12.95

  08.01.96

  Piloting Change in Social Security-Helping People Into Work

  05.07.95

  08.10.95

  Pensions Bill—Specifications for Regulations on the Minimum Funding Requirement

  06.07.95

  25.08.95

  The Pensions Bill: Consultation on Secondary Legislation—Internal Dispute Resolution Procedures

  07.07.95

  20.08.95

  Pensions Act 1995—Consultation Paper: Indexation Regulations

  21.07.95

  11.08.95

  Specification for Regulations on Surplus and Excess Assets on Winding Up

  24.07.95

  04.09.95

  The Pensions Act 1995: Secondary Legislation Transfer Values—six papers

  26.07.95

  25.08.95

  The Pensions Act 1995: Secondary Legislation—Uniform Accrual

  26.07.95

  25.08.95

  Specifications for Regulations Arising from Sections 16 to 21 of the Pensions Act 1995—the Provisions for Member-Nominated Trustees and Directors

  27.07.95

  08.09.95

  Pensions Act 1995—Specifications for Regulations—Provision of Information to Scheme Members

  02.08.95

  15.09.95

  Pensions Act 1995—Specification for Regulations on Power to Defer Winding Up and Priorities and Discharge of Liabilities on Winding Up

  09.08.95

  08.09.95

  Pensions Act 1995—Specification for Regulations on Employer-Related Investment and Fund Management

  15.08.95

  18.09.95

  Pensions Act 1995—Specifications for Regulations on Scheme Administration—three papers

  paper 1

  18.08.95

  06.10.95

  paper 2

  25.08.95

  16.10.95

  paper 3

  25.09.95

  15.11.95

  Specification for Pensions Ombudsman Regulations

  22.08.95

  29.09.95

  The Pensions Act 1995: Secondary Legislation—giving effect to protected rights—two papers

  paper 1

  30.08.95

  21.09.95

  paper 2

  18.09.95

  13.10.95

  The Pensions Act 1995: Consultation on Secondary Legislation—the Compensation Arrangements for Occupational Pension Schemes

  20.09.95

  25.10.95

  The Pension Schemes Act 1993: consultation on secondary legislation relating to the jurisdiction of the Pensions ombudsman

  26.09.95

  27.10.95

  Pensions Act 1995—consultation paper—unapproved schemes

  25.10.95

  22.11.95

  Pensions Act 1995—specification for regulations—consultation paper —deficiencies in pension scheme assets

  30.10.95

  01.12.95

  Proposed changes for directors' national insurance contributions

  31.01.96

  29.03.96

  Compliance Cost Assessment, compensation recovery scheme

  14.02.96

  29.04.96

  A consultation by the Government on regulations relating to the initial rights of access to goods, facilities and services and on the timetable for implementing the remaining rights

  06.03.96

  02.05.96

  Pensions Act 1995—Pension schemes levies frozen and paid-up schemes—proposals for levy waiver

  22.03.96

  03.05.96

  Pension Schemes Act 1993: consultation on amending secondary legislation relating to the operation of the Pension Schemes Registry

  03.04.96

  10.05.96

  Table 2 omits:

  (a) consultation papers issued only to the Social Security Advisory Committee, other advisory bodies of Local Authority Associates;

  (b) consultation papers issued by the advisory bodies themselves rather than the Department (the SSAC usually allows four to six weeks for comments);

  (c) consultation on draft regulations under the Pensions Act 1995 (details of consultation papers issued prior to the regulations are in the table);

  (d) most consultation exercises on operational matters (including consultation on claim forms, customer surveys, local initiatives);

  (e) any consultation papers concerning which records are not readily available.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total expenditure of the social fund for each of the past five financial years; and what the administrative costs were and what proportion they were of expenditure. [40284]

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

  As the social fund's business involves both paying money out and recovering the amounts awarded as loans, the most appropriate measure of the cost of operating the
  770
  fund is a comparison between administration costs and gross expenditure plus recoveries. This information is therefore also given in the table.

  Year

  Gross benefit expenditure £ million

  Administration costs £ million

  Administration costs as a percentage of gross benefit expenditure

  Administration costs as a percentage of gross benefit expenditure plus recoveries

  1990–91

  280

  132

  347

  332.5

  1991–92

  361

  163

  345

  332

  1992–93

  402

  1208

  52

  35

  771

  Year

  Gross benefit expenditure £ million

  Administration costs £ million

  Administration costs as a percentage of gross benefit expenditure

  Administration costs as a percentage of gross benefit expenditure plus recoveries

  1993–94

  442

  2270

  61

  41

  1994–95

  451

  209

  46

  30.5

  1. Includes one off IT development and capital costs of £17 million.

  2. Includes one off IT development and capital costs of £45 million.

  3. Figures differ slightly from those previously published which did not include any cold weather payments.

  4. 1994–95 is the most recent year for which estimated actual administration costs are available.

  Family Resources Survey
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the new family resources survey report for 1994–95 is intended to serve different functions from the households below average income report. [40153]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The family resources survey is a relatively new and unfamiliar survey which collects a wide variety of information which is expected to be of interest outside the Department of Social Security. Hence, to raise awareness in the wider community, the report summarises survey results for 1994–95, gives details on the background to the survey, describes methods used to collect and process the information and discusses data quality. Gross household income is used, in some tables, to group survey households when reporting characteristics of these households. The FRS report does not seek to transform survey data into estimates of the distribution of income in Great Britain. It therefore serves a different function from the households below average income report. The HBAI seeks to provide an accurate picture of the disposable income distribution. This is achieved by undertaking further work on the survey results. for example, adjusting income for household size and composition, creating a measure of "disposable" income, assessing the impact of housing costs and grossing results to reflect the population as a whole. The next edition will include results based on the FRS.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the equivalent monetary value in pounds per week at April 1995 prices, for the family resources survey report for 1994–95 following table A2 of the households below average income report for 1992–93, before and after housing costs of the decile means and medians of the two poorest decile groups and the richest decile group and the total population mean of(a) single adults and (b) couples with (i) no children, (ii) one child aged three, (iii) one child aged 16 years, (iv) two children aged three and eight years, three children aged three, eight and 11 years and three children aged 11, 16 and 17 years. [40163]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The information is not available as processing of the family resources survey data for 772
  1994–95 to provide analyses of income on the households below average income definition has not yet been completed. However some information on this basis will be available in the next edition of households below average income.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the disposable income of households in(a) the lowest decile and (b) the highest decile in (1) 1994–95 and (2) 1992, at April 1995 prices, on the basis of the family resources survey, for the households with (i) one adult, one child (ii) one adult, two or more children, (iii) one man, one woman, one child, (iv) one man, one woman, two children, (v) one man, one woman, three children, (vi) two adults, four or more children, (vii) three adults, one or more children and (viii) four adults, one or more children. [40188]

  Mr. Mitchell
  Processing of the family resources survey data for 1994–95 to provide estimates of disposable income by decile has not yet been completed. Some information on this basis will be available in the next edition of households below average income, which is expected to be published in mid-November. It should then be possible to provide estimates as requested, subject to sample size limitations for some of the smaller groups.

  Figures for 1992 based on the FRS are unavailable. The FRS began in October 1992 but did not build to its full fieldwork size until January 1993. The first months were largely intended to test the fieldwork operation of this new complex survey. Results are only partial and have never been validated. The Department does not propose releasing any analyses based on 1992–93 FRS results and the data have not been deposited in the data archive at Essex university.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to the answer of 19 July 1995,Official Report, column 1264, what was the disposable income of households in the family resources survey of 1994–95 and the family expenditure survey for 1993, at April 1995 prices in (a) the week lowest decile and (b) the highest decile in actual terms per week and as a percentage of the median for (i) the United Kingdom and (ii) Greater London. [40156]

  Mr. Mitchell
  Figures from the family expenditure survey in 1993 prices were given by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary in reply to the question of 19 July. It is the normal practice of the Office for National Statistics that FES survey data are available only in the prices of the survey year.

  Processing of the family resources survey data for 1994–95 to provide analyses of income on the households below average income definitions has not yet been completed. However some information from both the FES and the FRS will be available in the next edition of the HBAI, which is expected to be published in mid-November. It should then be possible to provide estimates from the HBAI database as requested, subject to sampling size limitations.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the eligibility criteria for family credit in terms of income in 1988 and in each year since then. [40239]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The income threshold for eligibility to family credit will vary depending on each family's individual circumstances. For each family size, there is a maximum amount of family credit payable. This consists of an adult credit (the same amount is payable for both

  Family Credit Rates

  £

  Adult credit

  Child credit for ages under 11

  Child credit for ages 11–15

  Child credit for ages 16–17

  Child credit for age 18

  30 hour credit

  Applicable amount

  1988

  32.10

  6.05

  11.40

  14.70

  21.35

  —

  51.45

  1989

  33.60

  7.30

  12.90

  16.35

  23.50

  —

  54.80

  1990

  36.35

  8.25

  14.15

  17.80

  25.10

  —

  57.60

  1991

  38.30

  9.70

  16.10

  20.05

  27.95

  —

  62.25

  1992

  41.00

  10.40

  17.25

  21.45

  29.90

  —

  66.60

  1993

  42.50

  10.75

  17.85

  22.20

  31.00

  —

  69.00

  1994

  44.30

  11.20

  18.55

  23.05

  32.20

  —

  71.70

  1995

  45.10

  11.40

  18.90

  23.45

  32.80

  10.00

  73.00

  1996

  46.45

  11.75

  19.45

  24.15

  33.80

  10.30

  75.20

  Reduced Earnings Allowance
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of savings to date from the changes in the reduced earnings allowance; and what estimate he has made of savings over 12 months. [40463]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The estimated savings from the changes to reduced earnings allowance introduced with effect from 24 March 1996 are £25 million in 1996–97.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the outcome of his review of weather monitoring stations for the purposes of cold weather payments, with specific reference to Tiree and Loch Glascarnoch, Ross-shire. [40660]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The review has now been completed. Amending regulations were laid before the House on 11 October.

  During last winter, over 7 million payments totalling £62 million were made. A comprehensive review was undertaken, which included commissioning the Meteorological Office to advise on the optimum number of weather stations required to provide national coverage with a reasonable level of local sensitivity. They were also requested to advise on the respective postcode links for each proposed weather station. Representations made by hon. Members were considered by the Meteorological Office in giving its expert advice. I will be writing to each of the hon. Members shortly.

  In line with the Meteorological Office expert advice, I propose to increase the total number of weather stations from 55—the number used last winter—to 70. This increased number of weather stations should improve the sensitivity of the scheme throughout the country.
  774
  couples and lone parents), a child credit for each child (the amount payable depends upon age) and, from July 1995, an additional credit for people who work 30 hours or more a week.

  If a family's net income—after allowable disregards—is below an "applicable amount", the maximum amount of family credit is payable. If their income is above the applicable amount, 70p of every £1 of the excess is deducted from the maximum payable.

  The level of family credit rates since 1988 are set out in the table.

  New weather stations at Loch Glascarnoch and Aultbea have been introduced to serve parts of the inland and coastal areas of the hon. Member's constituency. The weather station at Tiree will continue to be used for the Isles of Skye, Tiree, Rhum, Eigg and Muck.

  Copies of the Meteorological Office report have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cash and numerical total of cold weather payments made in the last two winters; and if he will make a statement. [40066]

  Mr. Evans
  The totals for the years 1994–95 and 1995–96 are 10,969 payments worth £76,786 and 7,252,023 payments worth £62,000,0001 respectively.

  The difference in expenditure is not just attributable to the relative severity of each winter; it also reflects the increased value of each payments from £7.00 to £8.50. 1Rounded to nearest £1 million.

  Compensation Recovery Scheme
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he plans to announce the Government's response to recent consultation exercises on the compensation recovery scheme. [40057]

  Mr. Lilley
  An announcement of the Government's intention to reform the compensation recovery scheme was made on 9 October. I wrote to the hon. Member at that time.

  The Government intend to reform the compensation recovery scheme so that damages for pain and suffering can be paid in full. We therefore propose that compensators should be made liable for all relevant social security benefits paid to the victims of injury or disease. Damages paid to the victim will be adjusted accordingly to ensure that victims are not doubly compensated.
  775
  Legislation to reform the compensation recovery scheme will be introduced at the earliest opportunity. We propose that the rules of the reformed scheme will apply to all compensation claims outstanding at the point of change. The implementation date will depend on when parliamentary time can be made available for the necessary amending legislation.

  We plan to remove the small payments limit, below which compensation recovery does not take place, at the same time.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many representations he has received from hon. Members concerning complaints and queries of constituents with regard to the Child Support Agency. [40065]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  Information collected on correspondence about the agency's work does not differentiate between complaints and inquiries or requests for information. I am therefore unable to provide specific information relating to the number of complaints received. The table shows the numbers of ministerial correspondence—excluding correspondence principally concerning child support policy issues—received each year since the launch of the Child Support Agency.

  Number

  1993–94

  6,275

  1994–95

  1,349

  1995–96

  1,465

  1996–97 (April-August)

  688

  1 This is an aggregate figure of chief executive correspondence and ministerial correspondence; separate details for ministerial and chief executive correspondence are not available for 1993–94.

  Pensions Ombudsman
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the implications of the High Court judgment in the case of Hillsdown Holdings for the powers and procedures of the pensions ombudsman. [39916]

  Mr. Heald
  I understand that the High Court dismissed the appeal against the pensions ombudsman's determination in the Hillsdown Holdings case. The pensions ombudsman is an independent statutory commissioner. His powers and procedures are set out in the Pension Schemes Act 1993 and in regulations made under that Act. Although these powers are being amended and extended as from April 1997 by the Pensions Act 1995 and consequent regulations, this is not as a result of the Hillsdown Holdings case. We have no plans for any changes following the High Court ruling in that case.

  National Insurance
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be total contribution income for national insurance for 1995–96, 2000–01, 2010–11, 2020–21 and 2030–31, assuming(a) present contribution rates, (b) upper and lower earnings levels linked with earnings and (c) upper and lower earnings levels linked
  776
  with earnings and the upper earnings level raised to 200 per cent. of average earnings, relative to current estimates of expenditure on benefits in those years. [38543].

  Mr. Burt
  [pursuant to the reply, 24 July 1996, c. 562–63]: The information given regarding the estimated contribution income from national insurance in table C was incorrect. The correct information is as follows.

  The available information is in the tables.

  Table (a): National Insurance Fund—Estimated contribution income [£ billion at 1994–prices] at present contribution rates for 1994–95, 2000–01, 2010–11, 2020–21 and 2030–31 as a percentage of estimated benefit expenditure [£ billion at 1994–95 prices] for those years.

  1994–95

  2000–01

  2010–11

  2020–21

  2030–31

  Income

  36.4

  45.1

  55.1

  64.0

  69.6

  Expenditure

  39.9

  42.2

  50.8

  56.4

  63.8

  Income as a percentage of expenditure

  91

  107

  109

  113

  109

  Table (b): National Insurance Fund—estimated contribution income [£ billion at 1994–95 prices], assuming upper and lower earnings limits for Class 1 contributions linked with earnings, for 1994–95, 2000–01, 2010–11, 2020–21 and 2030–31 as a percentage of estimated benefit expenditure [£ billion at 1994–95 prices] for those years

  1994–95

  2000–01

  2010–11

  2020–21

  2030–31

  Income

  36.4

  45.2

  54.9

  64.6

  71.8

  Expenditure

  39.9

  42.2

  50.8

  56.4

  63.8

  Income as a percentage of expenditure

  91

  107

  108

  114

  113

  Table (c): National Insurance Fund—estimated contribution income [£ billion at 1994–95 prices], assuming upper and lower earnings limits for Class 1 contributions linked with earnings and the upper earnings limit raised at 200 per cent, of average earnings, for 1994–95, 2000–01, 2010–11, 2020–21 and 2030–31 as a percentage of estimated benefit expenditure [£ billion at 1994–95 prices] for those years

  1994–95

  2000–01

  2010–11

  2020–21

  2030–31

  Income

  37.5

  46.6

  56.7

  66.7

  74.2

  Expenditure

  39.9

  42.2

  50.8

  56.4

  63.8

  Income as a percentage of expenditure

  94

  110

  112

  118

  116

  1.The information given in the tables has been derived from the Government Actuary's Reports on the Third Quinquennial Review under section 137 of the Social Security Act 1975 (HC 160) and on the Financial Provisions of the Pensions Bill 1994 (Cm 2714) by— adjusting the entries in tables E3 and E4 of HC 160 so that the projected contribution income is based on a continuation of the 1994–95 combined Class 1 contribution rate (18.25 per cent.). Hence, the tables give information for 1994–95 rather than 19959–6; adjusting contribution income for the years 2020–21 and 2030–31 to allow for the increased number of contributors expected as a result adjusting the amounts of contracted-out rebate to allow for the difference between rebate rates assumed in HC 160 and those now expected.

  2.For table (c), a further adjustment has been made to allow for the change in primary Class 1 contributions and rebates following from increasing the UEL to twice average earnings.

  3.The estimated benefit expenditure information given in all three tables is than consistent with increasing the UEL and LEL in line with prices, even where (in tables (b) and (c)) the contribution income figures are based on increasing those limits in line with earnings, and allows for the effects of the Pensions Act 1995.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.

DEFENCE

  Procurement Ethics Code
  Mr. Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence where Crown servants were involved in procurement procedure and subsequently joined a relating project company without permission and various sections of the code of procurement ethics are likely to have been breached, what action he will take under section 3.4 of the code. [13980]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Investigations would be made into the circumstances but no action would be taken under section 3.4 of the code since the breach would be of a condition of service and not fraudulent or criminal activity.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many women from ethnic minorities are employed by his Department and its agencies; at what grade; and what measures he has taken to encourage the(a) recruitment, (b) employment and (c) promotion of women from ethnic minorities within his Department and its agencies. [39892]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My Department and its agencies have in place a wide range of measures to improve the quantity and level of representation of people of ethnic minority origin—both men and women—in the civilian work force. A separate range of measures is also aimed at all women staff and potential recruits, irrespective of their ethnicity. These measures, which are defined in the MOD's action programmes for race and women, include a civilian ethnic minority steering committee, which meets annually with one of my ministerial colleagues and separately with senior officials; recruitment and promotion monitoring; participation in the Windsor fellowship scheme for graduates of ethnic minority origin; equal opportunities awareness training for staff and managers; and personal effectiveness training programmes for women and ethnic minority staff. My Department has also recently reviewed its equal opportunities policy and practice as these impact on ethnic minority staff and related issues; it is also a member of the business in the community initiative "Race for Opportunity"; and it has participated in a Cabinet Office study to research how "double disadvantage" affects women of ethnic minority origin in the civil service. All of these measures and initiatives contribute to the provision of equality of opportunity in my Department for women from the ethnic minorities. The information requested about the number of ethnic minority women employed in the MOD and its agencies are as follows.

  MOD Permanent Staff by Graded Equivalence Ethnic Minority Women

  As at 1 April 1996

  Former grades 1 to 5

  0

  Grade 6

  0

  Grade 7

  5

  SEO

  6

  778

  MOD Permanent Staff by Graded Equivalence Ethnic Minority Women

  As at 1 April 1996

  HEO

  20

  EO

  62

  AO

  235

  AA

  215

  Non-industrial

  543

  Industrial

  81

  Total

  624

  1. Figures derived from responses to ethnic origin survey.

  2. Part-timers counted as whole units.

  3. Excludes all "below the line" staff and casuals.

  Personnel (Germany)
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the annual cost of locally employed civilian personnel who work for the British Army in Germany excluding those working at the headquarters of the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps; [40275]

  (2) what is the total annual cost of the stationing of British Army and related British civilian personnel in Germany, excluding those serving in the headquarters of the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps; [40273]

  (3) what is the annual cost of (a) British Army personnel serving at the headquarters of the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps in Germany, (b) British civilian personnel serving at the headquarters of Allied Rapid Reaction Corps in Germany and (c) locally employed civilians working for British personnel at the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps in Germany. [40274]

  Mr. Soames
  The expected cost of British military, British civilian and locally employed civilian personnel working in the headquarters Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps and British Army (Germany) during the financial year 1996–97 was as follows:

  British Military personnel

  HQ ARRC: £12280 million

  BA(G): £630.420 million

  Total: £642.700 million

  British Civilian personnel

  HQ ARRC: £0.239 million

  BA(G): £60.560 million

  Total: £60.800 million

  Locally employed civilians

  HQ ARRC: £0.240 million

  BA(G): £252.52 million

  Total: £252.76 million.

  These figures reflect personnel salary costs only. It should be noted that a significant proportion of the locally employed civilian work-force is comprised of dependants of British military and civilian personnel.

  The impact of the deployment of HQ ARRC and other personnel to former Yugoslavia is not reflected in these figures, as these costs are being captured as part of the overall cost of operations there.
  779
  The British civilian and locally employed civilian costs of HQ ARRC are a disproportionately low as HQ United Kingdom Support Command (Germany)—part of British Army (Germany)—provides it with a large number of infrastructure and support services.

  Radio Spectrum
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list recent spectrum sharing arrangements between military and civil users. [40318]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My Department has for many years pursued a policy fo sharing its spectrum with civil usage where military interests are not prejudiced. For example, in the 400 to 450 MHz band, channels have been shared or released for civil use including channel tunnel communications co-ordinated with France, private business radio in conurbations, civil data services, police helicopter communications and HM Customs and Excise communications UK-wide.

  Shortage of spectrum for cellular telephones led to a sharing arrangement of MOD training spectrum at 870 to 888 MHz and 915 to 933 MHz. As these band are given up by the cellular operators, they will be shared with other civil users under European co-ordination agreements. These frequency bands are subject to retrieval by the Department when necessary.

  Wideband channels have been agreed in the bands 2340, 2400 and 2420 MHz for use by outside broadcasting operators, subject to military site restrictions. In addition, two wideband channels at 3425 and 3475 MHz have been agreed for wireless local loop installations, although some prior co-ordination of transmitter sites may be required to protect military installations.

  Wideband channels have been agreed for local area network MOD spectrum at 10.15 to 10.3 GHz subject to military site restrictions.

  Permanent sharing arrangements exist in the aeronautical radionavigation bands for military and civil aircraft. Similarly, MOD bands are shared with amateur radio operators, on a non-interference basis to military systems, which allows the amateurs the freedom to develop their activities without detailed case-by-case co-ordination.

  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made by the joint review of the Radiocommunications Agency and the Ministry of Defence into releasing the entire 225 to 400 MHz band. [40314]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The band is a harmonised band for tactical military communications throughout all NATO nations. In concert with NATO nations, we have agreed to release some spectrum in the band for use by terrestrial digital audio broadcasting and the emergency services. There are no plans to release the whole of the 225 to 400 MHz band for civil use.

  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures his Department has of the efficiency of its use of the radio spectrum on the basis of(a) time, (b) geography and (c) other criteria. [40312]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The spectrum allocated to the MOD is managed by the Department to meet requirements of 780
  the military services in the UK for a wide variety of systems and for those of visiting forces. In these circumstances, sharing in time is rarely an option. Geographic separation is the main criterion for the re-use of frequencies and is widely used in the efficient management of the spectrum. The MOD procedures equipment which is efficient in the use of spectrum when it is suitable for defence needs.

  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of his Department's minimum needs in the radio relay sub-bands in the area of 225 to 400 MHz. [40311]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The band 225 to 400 MHz is a harmonised frequency band throughout all NATO nations for tactical military communications. NATO has agreed to the release of the band 225 to 230 MHz for broadcasting use and two 5MHz sub-bands in the range 380 to 400 MHz for use by the emergency services.

  The Army has reviewed its requirements for spectrum to support tactical military communications and has concluded that a further reduction in spectrum available for this purpose in this band would be prejudicial to operational effectiveness.

  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what stage has been reached in the monitoring process for the Ministry of Defence's release of the 380 to 399.9 MHz band to civil broadcasting systems in the UK. [40315]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The band 380 to 399.9 MHz has not been designated by the International Telecommunication Union as a broadcast band. Within the Conference of European Postal and Telecommunication Administration nations, the band is one of the four designated to be shared with civilian users. Two sub-bands, 380 to 385 and 390 to 395 MHz, have been released, with the agreement of NATO, for use by the emergency services in NATO countries in Europe.

  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made by the Radiocommunications Agency and the Ministry of Defence to release the spectrum within the 410 to 420 MHz band for civil use by 1997. [40313]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Discussions between the Ministry and the Radiocommunications Agency of the Department of Trade and Industry have identified two bands of 5 MHz in the 410 to 430 MHz band that can be made available for civilian use by 1997.

  Mutual Defence Agreements
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to enter into a bilateral agreement with France similar to(a) the memorandum of agreement on co-operation concerning nuclear safety and security between the USA and France and (b) the 1958 United States-United Kingdom mutual defence agreement. [40279]

  Mr. Soames
  I have nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Member on 16 October 1995,Official Report, column 37.
  781
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment he has made of the effect on(a) Anglo-French and (b) Anglo-American-French nuclear co-operation of the memorandum of agreement on co-operation concerning nuclear safety and security between France and the United States; [40250]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effect of the memorandum of agreement on co-operation concerning nuclear safety and security which France entered into with the United States on 4 June on the continued implementation of the 1958 mutual defence agreement between America and Britain, with particular reference to the transferral of information. [40278]

  Mr. Soames
  No such assessment has been made. Bilateral nuclear co-operation between France and the US is essentially a matter for the two Governments concerned.

  RAF Lakenheath
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what occasions since 1966 Her Majesty's Government have made statements relating to the accident at Lakenheath Air Force base on 26 July 1956; and if he will make a statement. [40489]

  Mr. Soames
  I assume that the hon. Member is interested in the accident which occurred at RAF Lakenheath on 27 July 1956. On 9 November 1979, the Secretary of State for Defence made a statement about the accident,Official Report, column 321–22. This confirmed that no nuclear materials were involved either within the crashed aircraft or in any of the buildings affected; the US authorities have recently re-confirmed this to have been the case.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the use of the PFI for the financing of future military equipment contracts. [39952]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The opportunities for exploiting the private finance initiative are explored in all areas of defence expenditure, including military equipment projects, on a case by case basis. There are currently around 60 projects being tested for PFI potential.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what costs to his Department were incurred by the visit of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), to the north-east of England on Friday 19 July; and what officials of his Department accompanied the Minister. [39967]

  Mr. Soames
  There were no costs to public funds and no official accompanied me.

  Service Men (Active Service)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 18 July,Official Report, column 645, if he will list the number of British loan service personnel based in the countries listed by him for each of the last 10 years. [40199]

  Mr. Soames
  Details of the number of British loan service personnel based in individual countries are confidential between Governments.

  1st Battalion Grenadier Guards
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current establishment of the 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards; and what is its nominal strength. [40293]

  Mr. Soames
  The establishment of the 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards is 558. The current strength of the battalion—on 1 September—is 475, although some 25 of these are currently detached on other duties or training. In an operational emergency, most of those detached soldiers could return to regimental duty.

  2nd Battalion Grenadier Guards
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the 2nd Battalion Grenadier Guards were made redundant when the battalion was disbanded. [40292]

  Mr. Soames
  The number of the 2nd Battalion Grenadier Guards made redundant are as follows:

  Phase 1 28th February 1993

  Phase 2 28th February 1994

  Phase 3 28th February 1995

  Total

  Officers

  2

  1

  0

  3

  Soldiers

  2

  23

  12

  37

  Total

  4

  24

  12

  40

  Northcote Airfield, Humberside
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what sum Northcote airfield, Humberside was sold. [40294]

  Mr. Soames
  It is not our practice to disclose the sale price of surplus property as this information is commercially confidential.

  RAF Greenham Common
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when Her Majesty's Government were first notified of the matters contained in the report on the B47 accident at RAF Greenham Common, sent to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent by his Department on 28 September; if the United States authorities have made available to Her Majesty's Government the expurgated sections of the report: and if he will place a copy of the report in the Library. [40490]
  783
  Mr. Soames
  The circumstances of the accident which occurred at RAF Greenham Common on 28 February 1958 were known immediately after the event, and a statement was made to the House on 5 March 1958,Official Report, columns 133–34. A copy of the expurgated report of the US inquiry in to the accident was received by the Ministry of Defence on 7 August this year, and this is the only version which has been made available to us. I will arrange for a copy of the report to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence where the contaminated soil and aggregates, removed after the accident at RAF Greenham Common on 28 February 1958, are currently stored: what packaging has been used; what monitoring is conducted to ensure toxic materials, hazardous to the environment, are not released from the burial sites; and what has been the cost to date, in 1996 prices, of the clean-up and subsequent waste management arising from the accident. [40507]

  Mr. Soames
  The accident at RAF Greenham Common on 28 February 1958 did not give rise to any contaminated soil or aggregates which would have required disposal in the manner suggested. I understand that debris from the accident was disposed of by the US authorities in accordance with their routine procedures as no special precautions were needed. All associated costs were borne by the US authorities.

  Gulf War
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the text of the letter sent by his Department to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent on 7 August on depleted uranium use in the Gulf war. [40500]

  Mr. Soames
  A copy of the letter has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Nuclear Submarine Decommissioning
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the disposal of shore and long-lived intermediate-level radioactive waste from the nuclear submarine decommissioning programme in the event that the planned construction of a nuclear waste repository by Nirex in Cumbria is delayed. [40511]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Any intermediate-level waste removed during the de-fuelling, de-equipping and lay-up preparation of the submarine would continue to be stored on-site in suitably licensed facilities until such time as a long-term disposal route became available. The perceived final disposal route remains the deep repository being developed by Nirex early next century. This is kept under review to take account of technical and other developments.

  Bomber Refuelling (Diego Garcia)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at what time and on what date the United States Government requested permission to use the British base on Diego Garcia for the re-fuelling of bombers during the US military action against Iraq in September 1996; and when Her Majesty's Government acceded to the request. [40495]
  784
  Mr. Soames
  A request from the United States Government to use the US-operated facilities on Diego Garcia for tanker refuelling was received by Her Majesty's Government on 2 September and approval for this was given later on the same day.

  Ammunition
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for each year between 1980 and 1990, in which transfers of 155 mm ammunition to NATO allies took place, the amounts involved and the recipient country. [14858]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 12 February 1996]: My Department has no record of any Government transfers of 155 mm ammunition during the period. It remains Government policy not to reveal details of exports of defence equipment.

  Leyland Truck Fleet
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many 4 tonne trucks his Department possesses; when he last purchased Leyland 4 tonne trucks; how many Leyland trucks were purchased at that date; what was the total cost of the order; how many of his Department's tonne trucks are due for a refit; what is the age of the trucks which are to be refitted; and who will carry out the refit of the trucks. [5546]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 13 December 1995]: The 4 tonne fleet size currently stands at about 11,300—Bedford MK, Bedford MJ and Leyland—vehicles. The Department last procured 4 tonne Leyland trucks in April 1995, and to date the Department has purchased some 4,200 vehicles at a cost of some £190 million. Following completion of the current pilot study of 60 vehicles to ascertain the scope and likely cost of refurbishment, it is planned to carry out a refurbishment programme on about 4,100 Bedford MJ vehicles during 1995–96 to 2002–03. There is no set age which determines when a vehicle will be refitted. Selection for refurbishment will be based on age, tempered by corrosion condition and mileage, targeting those vehicles that will offer the best value for money. The Department plans to carry out the work in-house through the Army Base Repair Organisation—ABRO—making use of its available capacity. All assembly repairs, other than minor repairs, required to support the programme will be supplied by commercial industry. The work-load forms part of the planned programme for the ABRO former district workshops, which is to be market tested, providing an opportunity to industry to bid for the work.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Sandown Bay
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice he has issued in respect of the possible effects of the proposed sewer outfall in Sandown bay on the adjoining and nearby fishing grounds and banks. [39780]
  785
  Mr. Baldry
  None. This Department has not yet been consulted about the changes that may be necessary to Sandown bay sewer outfall to comply with the provisions of the EU's urban waste water treatment directive.

  Cattle Exports
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many bovine animals were exported in batches of fewer than 20 animals on the following export health certificates(a) EC57, (b) EC400, (c) EC935 and (d) EC2304 during (i) 1994, (ii) 1995 and (iii) 1996. [39848]

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

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many bovine animals were exported on export health certificate EC56 during(a) 1994, (b) 1995 and (c) 1996. [39847]

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

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many visits (i) he and (ii) his Ministers made to(a) the Newbury constituency and (b) other constituencies in the last 12 months. [39868]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In the last 12 months I have made 19 constituency visits; none of these were to the Newbury constituency. My Ministers have made in 185 constituency visits during the same period; of these 1 was to the Newbury constituency.

  BSE and Scrapie
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on progress towards a live test for BSE; and what estimate he has made as to when such a test will be available. [39836]

  Mrs. Browning
  MAFF has an extensive ongoing research programme into the development of a test to detect BSE in live cattle, valued at £1.825 million this year. Details of this programme were given in the BSE eradication plan, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. It is not possible to estimate when such a test will be developed to a stage when it can be used satisfactorily in the field.

  Mr. Ron Davis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cattle subsequently confirmed with BSE were born in each year from the initial onset of the disease. [40310]

  Mrs. Browning
  As at 4 October the number of confirmed BSE cases, with known dates of birth, listed by year of birth was:

  Year of birth

  Number of cases

  1974

  1

  1976

  2

  786

  Year of birth

  Number of cases

  1977

  10

  1978

  7

  1979

  40

  1980

  101

  1981

  260

  1982

  1,395

  1983

  4,480

  1984

  8,063

  1985

  11,039

  1986

  19,626

  1987

  36,515

  1988

  21,649

  1989

  11,543

  1990

  4,203

  1991

  2009

  1992

  270

  1993

  3

  Mr. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many sheep since 1990 were confirmed as having scrapie(a) in Britain, (b) in France, (c) in Germany, (d) in Italy and (e) in total in the European Community. [39838]

  Mrs. Browning
  Scrapie is a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy of sheep and goats which has been known for at least 250 years. The following list shows the number of cases of scrapie in Great Britain per annum up to 3 October 1996. Figures for 1990 to 1992 show the number of recorded cases confirmed at veterinary investigation centres. Between October 1990 and August 1992, payments were offered for cases when brain pools were being assembled for research purposes. Scrapie became a notifiable disease on 1 January 1993.

  1990: 348

  1991: 989

  1992: 666

  1993: 327

  1994: 199

  1995: 163

  1996: 129

  There are few details on the incidence of scrapie in other member states and the EC has acknowledged that the true incidence is not known. The 1994 edition of the "animal Health Yearbook" states that there are no recorded cases of scrapie in Denmark, Finland, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal or Spain. Sweden last recorded a case in 1986 and Belgium in 1992. France and Eire are reported to have cases but have not published records of the incidence of the disease. Germany has reported four cases since 1990—one case in each of 1990, 1991, 1995 and 1996.

  Mr. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) sheep were confirmed as having scrapie and (b) cattle were confirmed as having BSE in each year since 1990 [39835]

  Mrs. Browning
  Scrapie is a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy of sheep and goats which has been known for at least 250 years. The following list shows the number of cases of scrapie in Great Britain per annum up to 3 October 1996. Figures for 1990 to 1992 show the number of recorded cases confirmed at veterinary investigation centres. Between October 1990 and August 1992, payments were offered for cases when brain pools
  787
  were being assembled for research purposes. Scrapie became a notifiable disease on 1 January 1993. From this time onward, cases were confirmed either by histopathology at VICs or by examination of brain by electron microscopy.

  Cases of scrapie since 1990 (Great Britain):

  1990: 348

  1991: 989

  1992: 666

  1993: 327

  1994: 199

  1995: 163

  1996: 129

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) was first identified in November 1986. The following list shows the number of confirmed cases of BSE in Great Britain up to 30 September 1996.

  Cases of BSE since 1990 (Great Britain):

  1990: 14,181

  1991: 25,032

  1992: 36,681

  1993: 34,370

  1994: 23,944

  1995: 14,297

  1996: 4,781

  Roseclear
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into products with similar ingredients to Roseclear remaining on the market; and if he will make a statement. [36415]

  Mrs. Browning
  We are assessing whether other amateur use products may present similar risks to users as Roseclear. In the light of this, we may require the manufacturers to produce further safety studies.

  Fishing Agreements
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what studies(a) he and (b) other Governments of the European Community have (i) commissioned and (ii) evaluated of the effect of fishing agreements made by third-world countries with the Community on the sustainability of their fish stocks and actual or potential effects on their own fishing and related interests. [39908]

  Mr. Baldry
  United Kingdom registered vessels do not normally fish under fisheries agreements between the European Union and developing countries.

  The Overseas Development Administration has funded a number of studies in tropical fisheries management, including one on the licensing of foreign fishing effort in the waters of developing countries, aimed at maximising revenues from these fisheries whilst maintaining their resources. The German Government have also funded some work. In addition, the European Commission evaluates all fisheries agreements between the EU and developing countries and is committed to their being
  788
  balanced in the interests of both parties as well as responsible in terms of fishing levels and practises.

  Casualty Animals
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what incentives exist to ensure that sick casualty animals are given the same treatment at slaughter as healthy animals. [39955]

  Mrs. Browning
  I assume the hon. Member is referring to the humane treatment of animals at slaughter. There are extensive provisions in the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995 to ensure welfare at slaughter of all farmed animals, whether or not for human consumption, and regardless of whether they are sick or injured. It is an offence under these regulations to cause any animal any avoidable excitement, pain or suffering.

  It is also an offence under the legislation on the welfare of animals during transport to transport any animal if this is likely to cause it unnecessary suffering. Where an animal is unfit to travel it should be slaughtered on farm. Such slaughter is governed by provisions in the 1995 regulations.

  Cattle Slaughter Scheme
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what checks are in place to ensure that the slaughter of all animals in the bovine spongiform encephalopathy cull is in accordance with regulations under the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 and the Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994. [39953]

  Mrs. Browning
  The welfare at slaughter of all animals, including those in the over thirty month slaughter scheme, is subject to the requirements of the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995. These are enforced in all abattoirs by the Meat Hygiene Service.

  Dr. Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he has taken to ensure that animals due for culling are adequately fed. [39956]

  Mrs. Browning
  The responsibility for ensuring that animals are properly cared for, fed and watered rests with farmers. Advice has been made available on planning feed. requirements in the light of current conditions. The State Veterinary Service and ADAS have been instructed to be particularly vigilant for welfare problems and to take action where appropriate. We have also made compliance with welfare requirements, including those that apply during transport, a clear condition of the over thirty month scheme.

  Dr. Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what(a) logistical and (b) economic reasons prevent cattle from being culled on farm; and if he will make a statement. [39954]

  Mrs. Browning
  EC Regulation 716/96 governing the over thirty month scheme requires that the cattle be slaughtered in specially designated slaughterhouses, except where animal welfare considerations necessitate the on-farm slaughter of an animal. This requirement
  789
  enables appropriate veterinary and administrative controls to be applied in order to prevent any part of the animals from entering the food chain and to protect Community and UK Exchequer funding of the scheme.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what estimate he has made of the percentage of cattle slaughtered under the selective cull scheme which could be incubating bovine spongiform encephalopathy; and if he will make a statement; [40260]

  (2) if he will press for extension of the selective slaughter policy in the event that a positive link between new cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy and imported cattle is established; and if he will make a statement; [40125]

  (3) what assessment he has made of whether cattle slaughtered under the selective cull scheme could be incubating BSE; and if he will make a statement; [40258]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the effect of the implication of the accelerated slaughter scheme on the number of cases of active BSE; and if he will make a statement; [40261]

  (5) what is his estimate of the reduction in the number of cases of active bovine spongiform encephalopathy which would be removed from the statistics by the implementation of the accelerated slaughter scheme; and if he will make a statement. [40257]

  Mrs. Browning
  For the present, the Government are not proceeding with the selective cull of cattle in relation to BSE, but will return to cull options in the light of the developing science.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what estimates he has made of the percentage of cattle slaughtered under the over 30 months slaughter scheme which could be incubating BSE; [40256]

  (2) what assessment he has made of whether cattle slaughtered under the over 30-months slaughter scheme could be incubating BSE; and if he will make a statement. [40259]

  Mrs Browning
  No estimates of the percentage of cattle slaughtered under the over 30 month slaughter scheme which could be incubating BSE are available. It is a requirement that all animals slaughtered under the scheme are destroyed and so cannot enter the human or animal feed chains.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many women from ethnic minorities are employed by his Department and its agencies; at what grade; and what measures he has taken to encourage the(a) recruitment, (b) employment and (c) promotion of women from ethnic minorities within his Department and its agencies. [39901]
  790
  Mr. Boswell
  The number and grades of known ethnic minority women in the Ministry including its agencies is as follows:

  Grade equivalent

  Number

  Grade 7

  2

  SEO

  3

  HEO

  12

  EO

  29

  AO

  99

  AA

  91

  Total

  236

  The Ministry has in place comprehensive strategies aimed at ensuring equality and fair representation in recruitment, retention and development of both women staff and of staff of ethnic minority background. These strategies form part of the Ministry's wider equal opportunities policy.

  Cattle Imports
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence he has assessed which suggests that imported replacements for cattle lost in the bovine spongiform encephalopathy cull are putting the health of the national dairy herd at risk from(a) warbles, (b) ticks, (c) brucellosis, (d) foot-and-mouth and (e) bovine pleuropneumonia; and if he will make a statement. [40123]

  Mrs. Browning
  I am not aware of any evidence to suggest that cattle imported to replace cattle to be slaughtered under the BSE control programme would put the health of the national dairy herd at risk. Clearly increasing trade in live animals does increase disease risk but we are satisfied that the rules for imports of livestock into Great Britain strike the right balance between the removal of barriers to trade and the need to prevent the introduction and spread of serious diseases.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many imported cattle are currently estimated to be at risk from bovine spongiform encephalopathy and if he will make a statement. [40126]

  Mrs. Browning
  Apart from the United Kingdom there have been recorded cases of BSE in indigenous cattle in France, Portugal, the Republic of Ireland and Switzerland. The numbers of BSE cases confirmed in these countries indicate that the risk of BSE infected cattle being imported is low. The European Commission has called for studies to determine the precise extent of BSE in the Community. A small number of cases of BSE have been recorded in the UK in imported animals but only one, which came from France, is considered with certainty to have been infected before importation.

  Pet Food
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how much mammalian meat and bone meal from bovine sources is incorporated into pet food; and if he will make a statement; [40228]

  (2) how much mammalian meat and bone meal is incorporated into pet food; and if he will make a statement. [40227]
  791
  Mrs. Browning
  Statistics for the total quantity of mammalian meat and bone meal from bovine sources incorporated into pet food are not available.

  Because of our concerns that pet food containing MBM might present a possible risk of cross-contamination of livestock feed, new measures to prevent this were introduced on 1 August. The Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Order 1996 now prohibits the production of this material on the same premises as livestock feed unless this takes place in a separate building and there is no contact with equipment or vehicles used in the production of livestock feed.

  Where pet food containing MBM is stored or sold it must now be either physically separated form any feed for livestock or securely packaged with no leakage or spillage. Equipment used for handling or moving the material must not be used for livestock feed. Pet food containing MBM must not be transported with feed for livestock unless both types of material are securely packaged with no spillage or leakage.

  The Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Order 1996 also generally makes it an offence for MBM or material containing MBM to be present on farms or at feed mills. The only legitimate destination for MBM is now for pet food, for inclusion in domestic fertiliser or disposal to landfill (for material produced by the slaughter of animals under 30 months of age going for human consumption). The legislation requires that all movements and use of MBM have to be recorded and accompanied by appropriate documentation. This will ensure that all consignments of MBM, whether produced in this country or imported, are fully traceable.

  Food Surpluses
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans exist for EU food surplus distribution schemes in the next 12 months; and if he will give details of them. [40189]

  Mr. Baldry
  An EU surplus food scheme was introduced in 1988. This will continue in place next year, but there are no plans to distribute food in the United Kingdom through the scheme. Last November my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced, as part of the Government's expenditure plans, the UK's permanent withdrawal from participation, in line with the recommendations of the Ministry's fundamental expenditure review.

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to allow the experimental use of the growth hormone BST on dairy cattle in the United Kingdom. [40229]

  Mrs. Browning
  None. The use of BST in dairy cattle is subject to an EC moratorium until 31 December 1999, which allows for limited practical tests to obtain any additional scientific data that might be taken into account in taking a final decision on the authorisation of BST. Applications for such tests would have to be approved by the EC's Standing Veterinary Committee. No application has been received in the United Kingdom.

  Bovine Brain and Spinal Columns
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what health and safety requirements in respect of the removal of the brain and spinal column from cattle have been published and on what date; from what date such material was required to be removed; arid if he will make a statement. [40249]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Bovine Offal (Prohibition) Regulations 1989, which came into force on 13 November 1989, required brain and spinal cord, as well as certain other offals, to be treated as specified bovine offal (now known as specified bovine material—SBM) and prohibited such material from use for human consumption.

  The Department of Health in conjunction with the Health and Safety Executive and the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens have published a number of guidelines on the handling of brain and spinal cord and other BSE issues. These include "Categorisation of pathogens according to hazard and categories of containment", HSE and DoH, 1990, and "Precautions for work with human and transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies", ACDP, HSE and DoH, 1994.

  In addition, the Health and Safety Commission issued on 16 August this year, new general guidance on BSE for occupational groups. This new guidance re-affirms the precautions recommended in the other guidance material on BSE published since 1990 as outlined above. It follows a detailed review of all the earlier publications specific to the various sectors of employment. This new guidance has been published jointly by the HSC, the Department of Health and MAFF.

  Crayfish
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the number of sites in the United Kingdom in which the American Signal crayfish, Pacifartacus Leniusulus, is(a) present and (b) breeds; and what effect its presence has had on the native British white clawed crayfish. [40381]

  Mr. Baldry
  American signal crayfish are widespread in England, predominantly south of a line between the Wash and the Bristol Channel, and also in parts of Wales. There are no known populations of signal crayfish in Scotland or in Northern Ireland. Many populations of native British white clawed crayfish have been displaced by the larger, more aggressive signal crayfish which breed and grow more quickly. They have also been affected by the fungal disease known as crayfish plague, which can be carried by signal crayfish.

  Woodland (North Yorkshire)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what acreage of woodlands in North Yorkshire was owned by the Government in(a) 1979 and (b) 1996; [38930]

  (2) if he will list the (a) name, (b) location, (c) acreage and (d) date of exchange of contracts of each area of woodland (i) sold and (ii) bought by the Government in

  793
  North Yorkshire since 1979; and if he will state in relation to each sale whether the new owner permits public access to that land; [38931]

  (3) if he will list the (a) name, (b) location and (c) acreage of each area of Government-owned woodland in North Yorkshire which is currently up for sale. [38932]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 23 July 1996]: The subjects of the question relate to matters undertaken by Forest Enterprise. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. Gordon Cowie, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Gordon M. Cowie to Mr. Hugh Bayley, dated 14 October 1996:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply to your Questions about Forestry Commission land in North Yorkshire. (38930) (38931) (38932)
  The Forestry Commission disposals programme commenced in July 1981 and therefore information is only available from that date. In 1981, the Forestry Commission owned 26,988 ha of land in North Yorkshire, while the current figure in 1996 is 22,060 ha.
  To answer your question on particular sales and purchases in North Yorkshire I enclose the following information:

  Annex A—a list of land sold since 1981

  Annex B—details of the one area acquired since 1981

  Annex C—a list of land currently for sale, either on the Open Market or by Negotiation

  The arrangements for Continued Public Access were only introduced in October 1991 and only two sales, highlighted in Annex A, have been sold subject to access agreements.

  Annex A: Forestry Commission cases sold in North Yorkshire from July 1981 to date

  Year sold

  Name of property

  Location grid refernece

  Area (ha)

  1981

  Crooked Hill North Bank

  SE542902

  49.0

  1982

  Brafferton Spring

  SE455715

  95.0

  New Park Plantations

  SE551622

  33.0

  Scotton Banks

  SE332579

  22.2

  1983

  Big Ings Wood

  SE555680

  8.5

  Broxa Moor and Harwood Dale

  SE960980

  65.0

  Clark Wood

  SE449749

  30.0

  Flask (land at)

  NZ935006

  1.0

  Grass Wood

  SD986655

  65.4

  Kildale (land at)

  NZ600107

  4.0

  Knots Plantation

  SE121702

  4.4

  Riffa Wood

  SE254470

  19.1

  Westow and Storth Wood

  SE478867

  14.8

  1984

  Birch Hall Cott Grazings

  SE928925

  2.0

  Bishopwood Main Line Diversion

  SE550335

  3.3

  Burnt Yates Wood

  SE235608

  9.2

  Flamborough Rigg (land at)

  SE789922

  8.0

  Hawkshaw Gill and Clark's Carrwood

  SE182633

  65.4

  Jackal Wood

  SE253939

  6.2

  Juniper and Potgate Woods

  SE278748

  13.0

  Leppington Wood

  SE768616

  8.6

  Peep O'Day Woods

  SE521721

  4.9

  Scardale Package (pt)

  SE895734

  52.9

  Sherburn and Butterwick Whins

  SE972727

  17.0

  Southwold

  SE875711

  31.5

  Swinton Estate (pt)

  SE180801

  286.0

  Swinton Estate (pt)

  SE180801

  183.3

  Swinton Estate and Presidents Wood

  SE180801

  459.1

  The Avenue

  SE452725

  6.5

  794

  Annex A: Forestry Commission cases sold in North Yorkshire from July 1981 to date

  Year sold

  Name of property

  Location grid refernece

  Area (ha)

  Warren Slack

  SE990743

  17.0

  West Moor Plantation

  SE449732

  2.9

  West Wood

  SE135680

  8.5

  Wragby Plantation

  NZ930000

  21.0

  1985

  Hornby leasehold

  SE223934

  16.1

  Ingleby Greenhow, Church

  NZ579063

  1.6

  Levisham Block

  SE822904

  68.5

  Moor Covert Plantation

  SE780657

  11.3

  Newton Mulgrave

  NZ775137

  43.3

  Oxdale, Dargo and Laurel

  SE885837

  18.2

  Raindale Head

  SE802934

  2.5

  Scardale Package (pt)

  SE895734

  193.2

  1986

  Broxa: Spring Wood East and West

  SE974930

  17.5

  Crookrise/Gargrave (pt)

  SD978541

  7.1

  Crookrise/Gargrave 1, 2, 3, 5. 6

  SD975553

  243.9

  Crookrise/Gargrave Lot 4

  SD988555

  3.0

  Croomdale Plantation

  SE945671

  33.0

  Everley Banks Plantation

  SE974930

  34.5

  Fewler Gate Wood

  SE974930

  11.6

  Irton Moor, Whin Coverty

  SE996869

  39.0

  Little Beck Wood

  NZ880O46

  16.2

  Quarry Wood

  SE248691

  2.7

  Stapleton Park

  SE499183

  28.0

  Staxton Brow

  TA020785

  38.0

  Sunny Bank

  SE239696

  9.3

  Wilstrop Wood

  SE490540

  24.7

  1987

  E and W Belts and Ramshaw Quarry

  SE 149841

  27.8

  Elslack

  SD940481

  66.5

  Harewood Whin

  SE540522

  8.6

  Longside Plantation

  SE129721

  88.5

  Witton Fell

  SE138848

  107.0

  1988

  Grinkle Park (pt)

  NZ750164

  134.5

  Grinkle Park (pt)

  NZ764179

  35.8

  Skipster Hagg Wood

  SE731866

  10.0

  1989

  Arden, Hawnby and Bilsdale

  SE550893

  225.0

  Back Plantation

  SE030513

  13.4

  Birk Bank Wood

  SE560864

  14.9

  Black Beck Wood

  SE930920

  8.7

  Bullen Wood

  SE457383

  17.1

  Camblesforth Woodlands

  SE624271

  43.8

  Constable Burton

  SE145915

  74.3

  Elleron Lodge, Flamborough

  SE790920

  13.6

  Hollin Head and Piney Moor

  SE274735

  29.9

  Pits Wood

  SE965947

  9.0

  Plumpton Wood

  SE540886

  7.7

  1990

  There were no cases sold.

  1991

  Burnt Gill Plantation

  SE610750

  11.4

  Darncombe Shelter Belt

  SE934905

  0.2

  Grimston Woods Lot 1

  SE661495

  5.0

  Grimston Woods Lot 2

  SE661495

  24.6

  Grove Wood

  SE665723

  5.9

  Hambleton Hough

  SE555298

  1.0

  Hornby Freehold

  SE220930

  56.1

  Naburn Wood

  SE609437

  18.0

  Osmotherley Catchment

  SE467985

  93.4

  Staker Wood

  SE557283

  4.0

  1992

  Burnt Plantation

  SE232659

  3.6

  Fishpond Wood

  SE779387

  8.1.

  Hebden Wood East and Stripe

  SE254661

  7.0

  High Plumps and Triangle

  SE671584

  8.3

  Mirysike Wood

  SE933913

  2.5

  Moreby Wood (pt)

  SE607426

  1.0

  Rabbit Hill Plantation

  SE236655

  1.5

  Wet Car Wood

  SE254661

  12.5

  White Wood and Backlays

  SE937905

  53.0

  795

  Annex A: Forestry Commission cases sold in North Yorkshire from July 1981 to date

  Year sold

  Name of property

  Location grid refernece

  Area (ha)

  1993

  Arncliffe and Rounton

  NZ428030

  37.7

  Boltby Grazing and Low Paradise

  SE505881

  10.2

  Copeland and Deighton

  SE523557

  6.4

  East Bank Plantation

  NZ574003

  26.3

  Green Bank Wood

  SE259672

  4.8

  Hebden and Ellarcar Wood

  SE247656

  5.1

  Kelfield Wood

  SE586395

  14.0

  Kirby Sigston Wood

  SE423936

  25.0

  Longrush

  SE591417

  12.5

  Low Raindale Land

  SE808939

  10.4

  Overton Wood

  SE545572

  47.9

  Red House Wood

  SE52O570

  48.0

  1994

  Averhams

  SE676607

  51.8

  Butcher Bank

  SE455883

  16.0

  Carlow Hill

  SE448933

  2.8

  Fir Tree Wood

  SE569286

  10.8

  Gateforth East

  SE547285

  128.0

  Gateforth West

  SE547285

  46.6

  Grange Wood, Sproxton

  SE616803

  8.0

  Lindley Wood

  SE217494

  40.8

  Mill Wood, Gilling

  SE620764

  9.1

  Moreby Wood

  SE610427

  134.0

  Sawley Wood, Lot 1

  SE225665

  116.5

  Sawley Wood, Lot 2

  SE225665

  205.0

  Spring Wood

  SE444925

  2.7

  Toms Wood

  SE565282

  11.0

  Tunnel Wood

  SE571284

  4.5

  1995

  Lodge Plantation

  SE651719

  8.7

  Raisdale

  NZ531107

  180.5

  Scackleton Moor

  SE655716

  35.9

  Slacks Wood

  NZ586121

  37.8

  19961

  Bransdale Wood

  SE624990

  38.5

  Hell Hole—Kilburn

  SE521811

  48.0

  Lonsdale Plantation

  NZ611112

  46.0

  1. Sold subject to access agreement.

  1 To date.

  Annex B: Forestry Commission land acquired from 1981 to date

  Year

  Name of property

  Location grid reference

  Area (ha)

  1987

  Troutsdale (land at)

  SE930890

  37.0

  Annex C: Forestry Commission land currently for sale either on the open market or by negotiation

  Name of property

  Location grid reference

  Area (ha)

  Bradley Howl Wood, Cold Kirby

  SE541851

  25.0

  Bransdale Woods, Helmsley

  SE613967

  201.0

  Cottage Wood, Dunnington

  SE682518

  4.0

  Dalby Bush Wood, Terrington

  SE635719

  36.0

  Farm Plantation, Terrington

  SE656715

  6.0

  Glaisdale Woods, Whitby

  NZ770030

  151.5

  Goathland Woods, Whitby

  NZ820020

  70.0

  Hagg Wood, Dunnington

  SE683525

  43.0

  Haxby Plantation, Whitby

  NZ899051

  50.0

  Hayton Woods, Tadcaster

  SE446385

  51.0

  Hazel Wood, Tadcaster

  SE440395

  56.0

  Hazelhead Wood, Helmsley

  SE531930

  94.0

  Howsham Wood, York

  SE746640

  81.0

  Kilburn Thicket, Thirsk

  SE526788

  12.0

  Mill Wood, Terrington

  SE644735

  24.0

  Robsons Spring, Helmsley

  SE626813

  43.0

  Scoreby Wood, Dunnington

  SE697517

  33.0

  Sand-eels
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to assess the impact of industrial fishing for sand-eels along the east coast of the United Kingdom on juvenile stocks of commercial fish species; and if he will make a statement. [39165]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 23 July 1996]: In 1992 the Scottish Office marine laboratory in Aberdeen hosted a scientific meeting convened by the European Commission which concluded that even a major reduction in the sand-eel fishery was unlikely to produce significant benefits for other commercial fish species. The UK enforcement authorities carry out routine monitoring of the sand-eel fishery in UK waters. This monitoring confirms that there is little by-catch of other commercial species. However, given the scale of the fishery, I have pressed for further scientific research and the introduction of further controls.

  Agency Printing Costs
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the agencies for which his Department is responsible indicating for each the costs incurred for printing(a) all publications and (b) the annual report in the last available year. [38668]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 23 July 1996]: The agencies for which MAFF is responsible are:

  Meat Hygiene Service

  Pesticide Safety Directorate

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate

  Central Science Laboratory

  Agricultural Development Advisory Service

  All commission the printing of publications and annual report independently. Chief executives have been asked to respond directly giving the information required.

  Letter from Johnston McNiel to Mr. Anthony Steen, dated 14 October 1996:
  As chief executive of the Meat Hygiene Service your question to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food relating to the costs incurred for printing all publications and annual report in the last available year has been passed to me for reply with respect to this executive agency.(38668)
  The Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) was launched on I April 1995 as an Executive Agency of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF). It took over from some 300 local authorities responsibility for enforcement of the hygiene, inspection and welfare at slaughter legislation in licensed meat premises in England, Scotland and Wales.
  In the financial year 1995/96 the MHS spent £21,184 on the publication of its Operation Manual. This manual provides an accessible source of guidance, information and instruction to all inspection staff.
  All other MHS publications, such as the Agency's Business and Corporate Plans are produced "in house" at the MHS headquarters in York. This office is located within an existing MAFF building. The MHS benefits from a number of the facilities in this building, notably the MAFF reprographic service. The cost for using this service is included in the total charge for the accommodation billed by MAFF."
  In 1995/96 the MHS spent £32,148 on the publication of its Annual Report and Accounts.
  797
  Letter from G. K. Bruce to Mr. Anthony Steen, dated 14 October 1996:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply, in respect of the Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD), to your question regarding the costs incurred for printing of publications.[38668]
  In the financial year ended 31 March 1996 the total cost incurred by PSD in printing publications was £6,861. Within that total, the printing costs of the 1994/95 Annual Report and Accounts were £6,516.

  Letter from T. W. A. Little to Mr. Anthony Steen, dated 14 October 1996:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question about printing costs for all VLA publications and the Annual Report in the last available year. [38668]
  The VLA was established on 1 October 1995, from the merger of the existing Central Veterinary Laboratory with the Veterinary Investigation Service, which was part of the State Veterinary Service.
  For the financial year 1994/95 for the old CVL, the total printing costs for all publications produced by the Agency was £20,332. Printing costs for the Annual Report and Accounts were £1,000.

  Letter from John Fitzgerald to Mr. Anthony Steen, dated 14 October 1994:
  In the absence of the Chief Executive on business, I have been asked by the Minister to reply on behalf of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate to your question about the costs incurred for printing as this is an operational matter for which the Chief Executive is responsible. [38668]
  In the financial year 1995/96 the Veterinary Medicines Directorate spent £15,704 on printing of the Annual Report and Accounts, and £32,582 on all other publications.

  Letter from Professor P. I. Stanley to Mr. Anthony Steen, dated 14 October 1996:

  PRINTING COSTS
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply to your question about the costs incurred for printing a) all publications and b) the annual report in the last available year in respect of his Central Science Laboratory (CSL) Agency, as this is an operational matter for which I am responsible. [38668]
  In 1995/96 the cost of printing all publications was approximately £83K. The cost of printing CSL's 1995/96 Annual Report & Accounts was £7K which will fall in the 1996/97 financial year.

  Letter from Phillip Needham to Mr. Anthony Steen, dated 14 October 1996:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply direct to your Parliamentary Question in which you ask for the costs incurred for printing (a) all publications and (b) the annual report in the last available year. [38668]
  The total cost incurred for printing ADAS corporate publications in 1995/96 was £73,935 which includes the annual report and accounts at a cost of £800.

  Forestry Commission Land
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list the plots of Forestry Commission land in Lancashire which are(a) currently for sale and (b) being considered for sale; and in each case (i) how large the plot of land is, (ii) what consultation will be made in advance of each sale and (iii) how many representations he has received for and against each sale; [39803]

  (2) if he will list the plots of land which have been sold by the Forestry Commission in Lancashire in each of the last five years; and in each case (a) how large the plot of
  798
  land was, (b) what consultation was made in advance of the sale and (c) how many representations he received for and against the sale. [39804]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 24 July 1996]: The subjects of the questions relate to matters undertaken by Forest Enterprise. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. Gordon Cowie, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Gordon M. Cowie to Ms Liz Lynn, dated 14 October 1996:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply to your Questions about Forestry Commission land in Lancashire. [39803 and 39804]
  In answer to your questions I enclose the following information:—

  Annex A: a list of land sold since 1991

  Annex B: a list of land currently for sale, either on the Open Market or by Negotiation, or currently being considered for sale.

  All the properties listed were notified in the Estates Gazette and the local authority has been advised of our intention to sell. No representations have been received, either for or against any of these sales.

  Annex B: Forestry commission land currently for sale either on the open market or by negotiation in Lancashire

  Year

  Name of property

  Area (ha)

  1996

  Tythe Barn Plantation, Carnforth

  8.0

  Forestry commission land currently being considered for sale in Lancashire

  Year

  Name of property

  Area (ha)

  1996

  Longmire

  14.0

  Lythe Brow

  17.0

  Annex A: Forestry commission cases sold in Lancashire from 1991 to date

  Year

  Name of property

  Area (ha)

  1991

  Whitewell Estate, Bowland

  130.5

  1992

  No sales

  —

  1993

  No sales

  —

  1994

  No sales

  —

  1995

  Ashpots and Hollinshead

  32.0

  Havelock Woods

  6.0

  Long Ellers Wood

  2.0

  Scroggs Wood

  2.0

  1996

  No sales to date

  —

  Meat and Bone Meal
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all legislation covering the storage of meat and bone meal made from cattle slaughtered under the 30-months scheme. [39120]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding reply sent on 24 July 1996]: The storage of meat and bone meal after it leaves rendering plants is covered by the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991 (SI 1991 No. 2839), the Waste

  799
  Management Licensing Regulations 1994 as amended (SI 1994 No. 1056 and 1996/1279) and the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Order 1996 (SI 1996 No. 2007).

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) for how long he estimates meat and bone meal made from cattle slaughtered under the 30-months scheme will be stored in each of the facilities currently in use for this purpose in the United Kingdom; [39122]

  (2) for how long he estimates meat and bone meal made from cattle slaughtered under the 30-months scheme will be stored at Woodbury Salterton in Devon. [39121]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 24 July 1996]: The Government are exploring all practicable options for the disposal of meat and bone meal derived from cattle slaughtered under the over 30-month scheme, including

  Total agricultural area (hectares)

  Area by ALC grade (hectares)2

  Year1

  1

  2

  3a

  3b

  33

  4

  5

  No MAFF objection

  1988

  16,762

  634

  1,642

  4,052

  6,882

  2,356

  1,135

  61

  1989

  21,256

  782

  2,553

  4,612

  5,647

  497

  7,051

  114

  1990

  30,360

  171

  4,409

  4,464

  7,628

  11,061

  2,207

  420

  1991

  24,886

  348

  3,360

  3,724

  6,391

  9,192

  1,738

  133

  1992

  13,472

  63

  1,030

  2,042

  5,628

  3,338

  1,222

  149

  1993

  9,562

  59

  663

  2,077

  4,072

  1,782

  878

  31

  1994

  9,966

  64

  674

  2,305

  4,832

  1,244

  385

  462

  1995

  10,671

  92

  1,168

  2,609

  5,363

  608

  646

  185

  MAFF objection

  1988

  2,268

  110

  177

  671

  1,203

  0

  34

  73

  1989

  1,266

  82

  326

  459

  265

  0

  132

  2

  1990

  1,231

  96

  388

  474

  272

  0

  1

  0

  1991

  1,398

  155

  451

  560

  158

  48

  26

  0

  1992

  2,141

  16

  694

  844

  550

  24

  12

  1

  1993

  1,962

  74

  502

  841

  413

  105

  27

  0

  1994

  1,694

  85

  435

  772

  334

  16

  48

  4

  1995

  1,835

  78

  399

  675

  445

  177

  60

  1

  1 Records for 1988 to 1992 do not distinguish the stage at which MAFF was consulted: data may therefore be recorded more than once.

  2 A development proposal referred to MAFF may include land of grades other than 1, 2 and 3a.

  3 Not defined between grades 3a and 3b.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on how many occasions ministerial conference and meeting rooms in the parliamentary estate have been booked in his name, or that of other Ministers in his Department, for meetings with Conservative hon. Members immediately preceding questions to his Department in the current parliamentary Session. [39522]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Ministers have meetings with hon. Members as and when necessary to discuss a wide variety of matters. Records are not kept which would enable the distinction on the type of meeting to be drawn.

  Departmental Vehicles
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of traffic violations involving departmental vehicles, the nature of the violations, and the total amount of fines arising from those violations, in each year since 1986. [39312]
  800
  incineration and burning for energy recovery. The period for which meat and bone meal is stored will be dependent upon a number of factors, not least the final disposal route chosen, and this has not yet been decided.

  Land Development
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was in each year from 1988 to 1995, inclusive, and broken down by agricultural land grade, the area of land proposed for developments of over 20 hectares in size in respect of which his Department has(a) not objected and (b) objected. [39195]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 24 July 1996]: Local planning authorities are required to consult the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about any development proposal which does not accord with the development plan and which involves, or is likely to lead to, the loss of more than 20 hectares of agricultural land of grades 1, 2 or 3a. The information requested is shown in the table.

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 24 July 1996]: This information is not available. Central records of traffic violations are not kept and drivers of official vehicles are usually expected to meet the cost of fines resulting from traffic violations themselves.

  ENVIRONMENT Advertisements
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list the(a) organisations and (b) individuals who responded to the consultation paper of 14 February, concerning outdoor advertisement controls; [40251]

  (2) how many of the responses received to the consultation paper concerning outdoor advertisement controls were opposed to the proposals to abolish areas of special advertisement control; [40252]

  (3) when he plans to make a decision on the proposals to abolish areas of special advertisement controls; [40253]
  801
  (4) what plans he has for a further period of consultation on the proposals to abolish areas of special advertisement control; [40254]

  (5) what plans he has to revise the proposals to abolish areas of special advertisement control. [40255]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The matter is still under consideration. When we announce our decision, copies of all the responses to the consultation paper will be made available in the Library.

  Climate Change
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to follow up the recommendation on page 157 of his Department's review of the potential effect of climate change in the United Kingdom in relation to local strategic planning and climate change. [40067]

  Mr. Clappison
  The review of the potential effects of climate change in the United Kingdom in July looked at the potential impacts of climate change and provided an evaluation of possible adaptive responses. We are considering how to build on this, for example by co-ordinating a programme of integrated assessments of the impacts of climate change on sectors and regions in the UK.

  Progress is also being made by more than 300 local authorities, in partnership with all sectors of their communities, to develop local strategies for sustainable development through the local agenda 21 initiative. This includes round table discussions on planning, greening the local economy and transport and sustainability.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking in respect of the conclusions on page 51 of his Department's review of the potential effects of climate change in the United Kingdom in relating to subsidence risks to buildings. [40068]

  Mr. Clappison
  My Department is considering the implications of the conclusions of the review of the potential impacts of climate change in the United Kingdom. The Building Regulations 1991 already require buildings to be constructed so that ground movement caused by swelling, shrinkage or freezing of the subsoil will not impair the stability of any part of the building. The potential for such ground movement depends on the nature of the soil and its response to changes in moisture content due to climatic conditions and/or the water demand of trees in the vicinity of the building. Guidance is available from relevant British standards, Institution of Structural Engineers, Building Research Establishment and National House Building Council standard, which generally recommend simple and inexpensive tests for assessing the soil properties and advise on the means of identifying and dealing with the problem, depending on the type of building construction. If buildings on shrinkable clay are constructed in accordance with this guidance, there should not be any significant increase in risk on account of an increase in the number of droughty summers and wetter winters.

  Insurance costs associated with swelling and shrinkable ground have generated significant costs related to past developments. However, increasing awareness of the problem and the provision of adequate foundations should enable new development to avoid these costs. My
  802
  Department has already funded considerable research on the problem which provides the basis for guidance. In the light of that guidance and the existing building control system, directives are unlikely to be necessary, but the research and its dissemination in order to increase awareness will be continued and will take into account amy impact that climate change may have on it.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how may women from ethnic minorities are employed by his Department and its agencies; at what grade; and what measures he has taken to encourage the(a) recruitment, (b) employment and (c) promotion of women from ethnic minorities within his Department and its agencies. [39899]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The number of women, by grade, from ethnic minorities employed by the Department and its agencies as at 1 July 1996 was a total of 191 at the following levels or their equivalents: two senior executive officers; 11 higher executive officers; 24 executive officers; 101 administrative officers and 53 administrative assistants.

  Measures to encourage recruitment, employment and promotion of women from ethnic minorities have been taken under the Department's action plan for people of ethnic minority origin published in 1991, and a similar action plan for women published in 1993. They include: providing a range of equal opportunities training for managers and staff, including positive action management courses for women only and training on developing potential for ethnic minorities only; publicising staff vacancies in specialist recruitment publications featuring role models, to help encourage minority group representation; participation in the Windsor Fellowship scheme, providing vacation work experience for ethnic minority undergraduates; membership of a mentoring consortium led by the East London university to contribute to the development of ethnic minority students by establishing clear links with role models in employment; ensuring that wherever possible a woman serves on promotion and selection panels and that all such panel members are trained to take account of equal opportunities issues; monitoring and analysing success rates by gender and ethnic origin the processes of recruitment, internal postings scheme, annual performance and promotability markings, performance pay and bonuses; identifying any barriers to progress and enhancing the processes to ensure equality of opportunity; the appointment of equal opportunity liaison officers in each directorate to help promote equality of opportunity in the workplace and reflect local needs; annual reporting by the equal opportunities unit to the department's management board, and to all staff, covering the progress of all equal opportunities initiatives.

  Joint Nature Conservation Committee
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many members of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee are qualified ecologists; and what plans he has to strengthen the ecological expertise of this committee. [39920]

  Mr. Clappison
  Of the 13 members of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, nine have qualifications in earth of life sciences. The other four have backgrounds in
  803
  farming and broadcasting. On 1 September, two new members of the joint committee took up their appointments. Professors Crawley and Heal bring broad ranging expertise on national and international nature conservation issues to the committee.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to extend health and safety protection at work. [39994]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Government have no plans, at present, to extend the application of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and related legislation on health and safety at work.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the number of people, in each region who are exposed at work(a) to noise at levels which can permanently damage their hearing and (b) to ergonomic problems which can permanently damage their health. [40472]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  The Health and Safety Executive estimates that around 500,000 people are exposed to noise at work of above 90 dB(A), the level at which employers are legally required to reduce exposure and provide hearing protection.

  There are no figures on the number exposed to ergonomic problems at work, either nationally or regionally. Most such problems can readily be put right and do not cause permanent damage to health if appropriate action is taken.

  Riparian Surveys
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to promote an extension of river corridor surveys to a full riparian zone survey; and if he will make a statement. [40124]

  Mr. Clappison
  Between 1989 and 1995, the former National Rivers Authority carried out river corridor surveys along 30,000 km of river in England and Wales. The primary purpose of such surveys is to map, in detail, habitat and vegetation of the channel and banks and to identify features of special interest which require protection. The surveys also record riparian features and land use in a 50 m strip either side of the watercourse.

  The Environment Agency is now developing the river habitat survey system for assessing the habitat quality of rivers and streams based on their physical structure. RHS provides a classification system according to river segment type and a comparison with the predicted state of an unmodified channel. The methodology reflects channel features, vegetation in and around the channel, trees, land use, alien plant species and wildlife. An interim report with preliminary results was issued in March. A full report with final results form the period 1994–96 will be published in May 1997.

  Local Government Finance
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, by authority, the surplus achieved on trading accounts for the financial year 804
  1994–95 for (a) refuse collection, (b) street cleaning, (c) building cleaning, (d) school and welfare catering, (e) other catering, (f) vehicle maintenance, (g) ground maintenance and (h) sports and leisure management services delivered by local authorities' direct labour or service organisations in England under the terms of the Local Government Act 1988. [40170]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  A detailed list of the surpluses achieved for these services for the financial year 1994–95 has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library in machine-readable form a table showing for each authority for each year from 1979–80 to 1996–97 the amount that each authority was deemed to need to spend in cash and in real terms for the purposes of distributing rate support grant; to what extent the figures are comparable, taking account of(a) changes in functions of local authorities, (b) abolition of the Greater London council, the Inner London education authority and metropolitan counties, (c) the local government review and (d) changed arrangements for (i) the assessment of needs, (ii) for the payment of the needs element of the rate support grant and (iii) precepting arrangements; if he will indicate for each authority on a comparable basis of ranking the assessed needs in each year on the basis (1) the percentage of total local government spending and (2) the amount assessed needs per head of population; and if he will make a statement about the needs of (A) Liverpool and (B) Westminster over the period. [40157]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Information on the amount which each local authority was deemed to need to spend for the purposes of distributing rate support grant and revenue support grant has been placed in the Library as printed tables and in machine readable form. The data consist of damped needs assessment for 1979–80 and 1980–81, grant-related expenditure assessments for 1981–82 to 1989–90, and standard spending assessments for 1990–91 to 1996–97. Information has been provided in cash terms, in real terms, as an amount per head and as a percentage of the total needs assessment for all English authorities. The figures in real terms are based on the gross domestic product deflator.

  The information includes, for 1992–93 and later years, figures recalculated so as to be comparable to those for the year immediately following. These adjusted figures take account of changes in function and geographical responsibility, but not changes in data, methodology, or the national totals. Adjusted figures are not available for earlier years.

  The damped needs assessments of 1979–80 for Liverpool and Westminster included allowance for the needs of the authorities which precepted on the two cities. In 1996–97, the needs of precepting authorities are calculated separately. For comparability, therefore, the 1996–97 figures are the total standard spending assessments per head of both the cities and the authorities which precept on them. On this basis, the damped needs assessment for Liverpool in 1979–80 was £327 per head, some 33 per cent. below that for Westminster. In 1996–97, standard spending assessments for the Liverpool area were £1,053 per head, some 25 per cent. below those for the Westminster area. Thus the Liverpool area now has

  805
  standard spending assessments £111 per head greater than if it had continued to have an assessment 33 per cent. below Westminster's, as it did in 1979–80.

  Greenhouse Gas Emissions
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the level of greenhouse gas emissions in(a) 1995–96 and (b) 1990. [40245]

  Mr. Clappison
  Estimates of the United Kingdom's emissions of the main greenhouse gases for 1990 and 1994 were published in the 18th "Digest of Environmental Statistics":

  Estimated emissions (million tonnes of gas)

  1990

  1994

  Carbon dioxide (CO2)

  583

  544

  Methane (CH4)

  4.44

  3.88

  Nitrous oxide (N2O)

  0.11

  0.09

  Nitrogen oxides (NO2)

  2.71

  2.22

  Carbon monoxide (CO)

  6.42

  4.86

  Non-methane volatile organic compounds

  2.28

  2.03

  1994 is the most recent year for which we have a published inventory of the United Kingdom's emissions of greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide emissions are provisionally estimated to have been 548 million tonnes in 1995.

  These figures were calculated by the national environmental technology centre using the methodology developed by the intergovernmental panel on climate change.

  Pneumoconiosis and Asbestosis Claims
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 23 July,Official Report, column 312, on cases settled under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payments of Claim) Amendment Regulations, if he will give a breakdown of the 75 per cent. of payments which were not for pneumoconiosis or asbestosis. [40171]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The table provides a breakdown of the 75 per cent. of all cases settled in 1995–96 under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payments of Claims) Amendment Regulations which were not for pneumoconiosis or asbestosis;

  Disease

  Percentage of claims1

  Average age

  Average payment £

  Mesothelioma

  74

  61

  14,506

  Bilateral diffuse pleural thickening

  17

  61

  8,749

  Primary carcinoma of the lung (accompanied by asbestosis or bilateral diffuse pleural thickening)

  8

  59

  7,509

  Byssinosis

  1

  71

  4,506

  1 Represents the percentage of claims in relation to the 75 per cent, of all claims paid for diseases other than pneumoconiosis or asbestosis.

  Waste Recycling
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the percentage of waste which was recycled by each local authority in each of the last three years. [40416]

  Mr. Clappison
  Following a commitment in the White Paper on waste "Making Waste Work", my Department launched in September a major new survey to collect data from local authorities on municipal waste arisings and waste treatment options, from which recycling rates may be derived. The results for 1995–96 are expected early in 1997, and the survey will be repeated annually in the spring thereafter. This initiative should significantly improve both the quantity and quality of data available on municipal waste management.

  Separately, information on local authority recycling rates has been collected both by the Audit Commission, under its local authority performance indicators initiative, and by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance Accountancy. Copies of the Audit Commission publications are available in the Library.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) of 26 January,Official Report, columns 408–12, on infringements, prosecutions, offences and pollution incidents in the water industry, if he will update the information provided. [40409]

  Mr. Clappison
  As a result of the 1995 technical audits of water companies, the drinking water inspectorate considered taking enforcement action against water companies in England and Wales in 146 instances. This was a reduction on previous years.

  Thames Water Utilities Ltd. pleaded guilty at Kingston crown court on 31 July 1996 to four charges under section 70 of the Water Industry Act 1991 for the offence of supplying water unfit for human consumption and was fined £80,000 plus costs of £9,800. The prosecution was brought following an investigation by the drinking water inspectorate of an incident in which 84,300 consumers in parts of Tooting, Wandsworth and Wimbledon were supplied with dirty water.

  The tables show the information on water pollution and water abstraction infringements and prosecutions, for incidents where prosecution took place after 26 January 1996. In all cases convictions were made.

  Water pollution offences

  Company/date of infringement

  Date of prosecution

  North West

  06.05.95

  07.03.96

  Southern

  12.09.95

  20.02.96

  01.11.95

  14.03.96

  20.08.95

  19.03.96

  30.10.05

  19.06.96

  22.11.95

  19.6.96

  06.08.95

  31.07.96

  12.11.95

  01.08.96

  807

  Water pollution offences

  Company/date of infringement

  Date of prosecution

  South West

  07.06.95

  28.02.96

  Thames

  05.02.96

  21.07.96

  20.08.95

  16.04.96

  22.11.95

  01.05.96

  Northumbrian

  28.09.95

  15.03.96

  Anglian

  1—

  05.02.96

  1—

  01.03.96

  01.07.95

  03.04.96

  15.10.95

  15.04.96

  1—

  01.07.96

  Yorkshire

  01.08.93

  02.02.96

  12.07.94

  02.02.96

  Severn Trent

  24.11.95

  18.03.96

  01.06.94

  20.06.96

  25.06.95

  05.08.96

  1 Exact date of infringement not known.

  Water abstraction offences

  Company/date of infringement

  Date of prosecution

  Severn Trent

  19.07.95

  05.02.96

  27.06.95–29.06.95

  14.02.96

  01.01.95–28.06.95

  03.06.96

  30.04.95–16.05.95

  03.06.96

  14.05.96–27.05.95

  03.06.96

  27.06.95

  03.06.96

  27.06.95–01.07.95

  03.06.96

  29.06.95–14.10.95

  03.06.96

  04.08.95

  04.06.96

  31.03.95–30.09.95

  04.08.95

  04.06.96

  31.03.95

  Midland

  07.08.95

  06.08.96

  07.08.95

  06.08.96

  Anglian

  31.07.95

  09 02.96

  07.07.95

  05.03.96

  21.06.95

  14.03.96

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the reasons for which prosecuting authorities have withdrawn prosecutions of alleged polluters of water resources since the Water Resources Act 1991 came into force. [40375]

  Mr. Clappison
  Prosecution in relation to water resources pollution offences is a matter for the Environment Agency.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what meetings he has held with(a) the (i) chairman and (ii) chief executive of the Environment Agency and (b) the director of the drinking water inspectorate since the Environment Act 1995 came into
  808
  force to discuss how effective the prosecution measures available to the responsible authorities in regard to water pollution incidents have proved to date. [40395]

  Mr. Clappison
  There have been no specific discussions with my right hon. Friend of these issuers. Pollution control policies and their effectiveness frequently figure in discussion between the Department and the agency. The Environment Agency is developing policies on enforcement and prosecution following, amongst other things, the changes made by the Environment Act 1995 on the use in legal proceedings of evidence from samples.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the consultation on the water control of pollution regulations. [40406]

  Mr. Clappison
  A total of 27 responses have been made to the Department's consultation paper "Water: Control of Pollution Regulations" issued on 22 August. The regulations will be made shortly.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what monitoring is conducted (i) by his Department and (ii) on behalf of his Department and agencies which report to his Department on the effects of the concentration of copper deposits in drinking water supplies dormant for periods of over six hours. [40474]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989 require water companies to take a specified number of samples for analysis for copper each year from consumers' taps in randomly selected properties in each of their water supply zones. The specified number is between one and 24 samples per year depending on the size of the zone. The samples collected are the first litre of water drawn off by the sampler. This water will have been in contact with any pipework, including copper pipework, for varying periods including up to six hours and possibly more.

  The results are provided annually to, and are audited by, the drinking water inspectorate. In 1995 the 31 water companies in England and Wales analysed 10,616 samples for copper. All samples were within the standard in the regulations of 3,000 micrograms per litre.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list each occasion, specifying dates and locations, on which cryptosporidium has been reported in domestic water supplies in the last five years. [40346]

  Mr. Clappison
  The water companies in England and Wales are required to report all incidents in which water quality might be affected. On cryptosporidium the notification can relate to either the detection of cryptosporidium oocysts in treated water, or to an increase of the illness cryptosporidiosis in the community, or both. The transmission of the illness occurs in a number of ways and often through contact with animals. One recent outbreak of cryptosporidiosis was found to be associated with the failure of a milk pasteurisation plant.

  All incidents are investigated fully by the drinking water inspectorate. As cryptosporidiosis can be transmitted in many ways, the source of any outbreak has to be established through epidemiology. A case of South

  809
  West Water Services Ltd. allegedly supplying water unfit for human consumption because of cryptosporidium is currently before the courts.

  Notifications of events involving cryptosporidium are listed below under four headings. It should be noted that not all notifications become confirmed as incidents.

  Cryptosporidium oocysts detected in treated water but no reported increase of cryptosporidiosis in the community

  Water company area

  Date

  Location

  Yorkshire Water

  19 December1991

  Redmires

  Southern Water

  19 March 1992

  Broadfields Water Treatment Works (WTW)

  Severn Trent Water

  20 August 1992

  Fairholmes WTW

  Southern Water

  8 September 1992

  Steyning WTW

  Southern Water

  22 October 1992

  Testwood WTW

  South West Water

  29 December 1992

  Broomhill WTW

  Yorkshire Water

  5 January 1995

  Huby WTW

  Yorkshire Water

  16 March 1995

  Fixby WTW

  Essex and Suffolk

  30 March 1995

  Ormsby WTW

  Yorkshire Water

  31 August 1995

  Cottingham adit

  Yorkshire Water

  13 September 1995

  Kepwick Springs WTW (in raw water)

  South West Water

  13 September 1995

  Parracombe WTW

  Yorkshire Water

  15 January 1996

  Kepwick Springs WTW

  Cambridge Water

  30 May 1996

  Duxford/Linton

  Mid Kent Water

  3 July 1996

  Burham WTW

  Southern Water

  3 July 1996

  Burham WTW

  An increase in cryptosporidiosis in the community but oocysts not detected in treated water

  Water company area

  Date

  Location

  Southern Water

  28 December1990

  Thanet area

  North West Water

  5 May 1992

  West Cumbria

  North West Water

  27 March 1992

  Barrow-in-Furness

  North West Water

  14 December 1992

  Warrington

  Northumbrian

  15 June 1993

  Sherburn

  North West

  1 April 94

  Chorley

  Both oocysts detected in treated water an increase of cryptosporidiosos in the community

  Water company area

  Date

  Location

  Yorkshire Water

  13 November 1992

  Bingley and Shipley

  South West Water

  12 August 1995

  Torbay/ Littlehempston

  Incidents still under investigation

  Water company area

  Date

  Location

  Wessex Water

  April 1993

  Poole

  Yorkshire Water

  11 June 1993

  Gilstead

  Yorkshire Water

  5 January 1996

  Elvington WTW

  Yorkshire Water

  10 January 1996

  Elvington WTW

  North East

  25 January 1996

  Sunderland

  Yorkshire Water

  21 March 1996

  Tophill

  North West Water

  29 April 1996

  The Wirral

  South West Water

  29 May 1996

  Littlehempston

  South West Water

  27 June 1996

  Crown Hill WTW

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many water pollution incidents in the categories used by the Environment Agency, comprising(a) major, (b) significant, (c) minor and (d) unsubstantiated have taken place each year since
  810
  the Water Resources Act 1991 came into force; and what remedial action has been taken to clean up contaminated water sources. [40376]

  Mr. Clappison
  The number of reported water pollution incidents in each year since the Water Resources Act, broken down into major, significant, minor and unsubstantiated are as follows:

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Major

  388

  331

  229

  199

  Significant

  122,943

  6,768

  6,567

  2,194

  Minor

  18,200

  18,619

  21,070

  Unsubstantiated

  8,342

  8,997

  9,876

  12,427

  1 The figures for this year are not broken down into "significant" and "minor" incidents.

  The classification system used by the National Rivers Authority and now the Environment Agency changed during the period since 1991. In particular "unsubstantiated" incidents were only specifically recorded after 1 January 1995. For previous years the figures are inferred.

  The agency is concerned wherever possible to prevent pollution from occurring, using enforcement powers, advice and targeted campaigns to do so. The oil care campaign launched in 1995 has, for example, been successful in reducing the number of oil pollution incidents for the first time since 1991. Remedial action is determined on a case by case basis. The agency has powers to recover costs from polluters for such actions and will, following the introduction of new powers in the Environment Act 1995, be able to require a polluter or potential polluter to clean up or take action to prevent an incident.

  Technology Foresight Projects
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what developments have taken place in the prioritised projects on the environment contained in the technology foresight initiative reports since their publication; what new resources have been committed to these projects; and if he will make a statement. [40480]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Department's science programmes have already identified many of the issues raised by the foresight panels and the steering group and are acting upon them.

  As an example, the agriculture, natural resources and the environment foresight panel prioritised the reduction of pollution and energy use through attention to building, urban and transport design. This complements the DOE's aim of fostering sustainable development through the planning system and links with the recommendations of other panels and initiatives that are already in place, including the Secretary of State's quality initiative and the engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council programme, "Towards Sustainable Cities".

  Some £40 million of DOE science funding in 1995–96, and 1996–97 are relevant to the environmental priorities identified in the technology foresight reports.
  811
  Technology foresight provides an important backdrop to the development of many areas of DOE policy, feeding through into the Department's policy support science and technology programmes, and facilitating the development of links between research areas.

  Occupational Ill Health
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people in each region have died from occupational ill health in each of the last 10 years. [40419]

  Table 1: Deaths due to occupationally related lung disease, 1985–94

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Pneumoconiosis other than asbestosis

  324

  337

  279

  281

  318

  328

  287

  274

  281

  276

  Byssinosis

  25

  29

  25

  22

  25

  19

  16

  21

  11

  7

  Farmer's lung and other occupational allergic alveolitis

  7

  15

  16

  9

  8

  6

  8

  4

  12

  10

  Mesothelioma

  617

  704

  814

  872

  909

  885

  1,011

  1,082

  1,139

  1,235

  Asbestosis, excluding death certificates which mention mesothelioma

  140

  166

  143

  151

  155

  164

  163

  150

  172

  174

  Total

  1,113

  1,251

  1,277

  1,335

  1,415

  1,402

  1,485

  1,531

  1,615

  1,702

  Source: ONS/GRO(S).

  Table 2: Mesothelioma deaths by region, 1985–94

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  North

  83

  76

  91

  109

  85

  72

  100

  92

  113

  112

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  44

  52

  54

  69

  80

  61

  94

  85

  91

  120

  North West

  75

  69

  94

  97

  93

  91

  122

  122

  111

  126

  West Midlands

  17

  32

  32

  34

  48

  46

  49

  55

  74

  79

  East Midlands

  26

  33

  43

  43

  45

  51

  44

  68

  70

  58

  South West

  54

  67

  73

  80

  78

  90

  106

  100

  103

  93

  East Anglia

  18

  21

  29

  20

  27

  26

  44

  33

  39

  38

  South East (excl. G. London)

  131

  182

  171

  190

  187

  204

  201

  236

  228

  297

  Greater London

  98

  80

  111

  105

  120

  115

  108

  113

  140

  133

  Wales

  18

  29

  23

  14

  26

  23

  34

  43

  51

  51

  Scotland

  53

  63

  93

  107

  119

  106

  109

  133

  119

  128

  Overseas address

  —

  —

  —

  4

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Total

  617

  704

  814

  872

  909

  885

  1,011

  1,082

  1,139

  1,235

  Table 3: Asbestosis deaths, excluding death certificates which also mention mesothelioma, by region, 1985–94

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  North

  22

  26

  33

  19

  29

  33

  31

  28

  35

  40

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  12

  18

  12

  20

  19

  21

  13

  10

  17

  21

  North West

  20

  18

  17

  14

  17

  22

  20

  18

  32

  28

  West Midlands

  11

  5

  4

  13

  9

  10

  11

  10

  5

  6

  East Midlands

  3

  5

  7

  4

  5

  1

  7

  5

  4

  8

  South West

  7

  19

  17

  8

  6

  7

  11

  14

  21

  16

  East Anglia

  3

  3

  3

  9

  6

  1

  —

  1

  1

  2

  South East (excl. G. London)

  19

  20

  10

  13

  12

  16

  8

  20

  15

  14

  Greater London

  18

  27

  22

  31

  24

  29

  38

  24

  23

  21

  Wales

  4

  10

  6

  5

  9

  7

  6

  7

  4

  4

  Scotland

  21

  15

  12

  15

  19

  17

  18

  13

  14

  12

  Unknown

  21

  15

  12

  15

  19

  17

  18

  13

  14

  12

  Total

  140

  166

  143

  151

  155

  164

  163

  150

  172

  174

  812
  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information is not available in the form requested. Some categories of occupational ill health can be identified from death certificate details and figures for the last 10 years. These are recorded in table 1.

  The number of death certificates mentioning asbestosis or the asbestos-related cancer, mesothelioma, in each of the last 10 years are broken down by region in tables 2 and 3. Figures for other occupationally related lung disease are not readily available by region.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people have been employed by the HSE in each of the last 10 years; and how many of those have been inspectors. [40447]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Following table shows the number of staff and the number of inspectors employed by the Health and Safety Executive in each of the last 10 years.

  Year (1 April)

  Total staff

  Inspectors

  1987

  3,573.00

  1,204.50

  1988

  3,470.00

  1,165.00

  1989

  3,524.50

  1,182.50

  1990

  3,698.00

  1,239.00

  1991

  3,877.00

  1,342.00

  1992

  4,321.00

  1,469.50

  1993

  4,537.50

  1,532,00

  1994

  4,544,50

  1,572.50

  1995

  4,390.80

  1,477.60

  1996

  4,151.00

  1,466.00

  Figures given are full-time equivalent counts: part timers were counted as half units until 1 April 1995; since then they are countered on the basis of the proportion of a full week that they work.

  Sleipner Field
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contact he has had with(a) the Norwegian Government and (b) the British Geological Survey about the disposal of carbon dioxide in the Sleipneir field. [40449]

  Mr. Clappison
  The UK has received information on the Sleipner project from Statoil of Norway via an international agreement on greenhouse gases research under the auspices of the International Energy Agency. Officials from my Department have met representatives from the British Geological Survey to discuss their research on the underground disposal of carbon dioxide.

  Limestone Pavement Campaign
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assistance he is giving through his representative, Mr. Neale Oliver, to the Limestone Pavement Campaign, with particular reference to Orton scar. [40450]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government welcome the news of the future protection of Orton scar through revocation of the existing planning permission. We will continue to support the limestone pavement action group through our statutory advisors, English Nature and the Countryside Commission, wherever appropriate.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his letter of 23 May, what action he has taken to follow up his initiative to provide alternative materials to limestone to gardeners who wish to make rockeries; and if he will make a statement. [40371]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government are content with the protection afforded by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 by means of the designation of sites of special scientific interest and/or limestone pavement orders. It 814
  nevertheless fully supports the limestone pavement action group's attempts to raise public awareness, and to highlight alternative materials available to gardeners.

  Water Quality
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will investigate the health effects of contamination of the cut-off water supplies to consumers undertaken by water companies. [40475]

  Mr. Clappison
  Provided that the necessary precautions are taken by the water company, the disconnection of a customer's water supply for non-payment of charges, and subsequent reconnection, has no implications for the quality of water supplied.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what substances other than those covered by schedule 2 to the water supply regulations are tested for in water supplies in each region; and if he will list the date and location of each such test in the last three years. [40360]

  Mr. Clappison
  The results of the regulatory monitoring for substances covered by schedule 2 of the regulations are provided annually to the drinking water inspectorate. In each of the last three years, more than 3 million tests have been carried out and the percentage of tests complying with the standards in the regulations has improved from 98.9 in 1993 to 99.5 in 1995. Water companies may carry out additional testing for other substances in the light of local circumstances, generally in relation to incidents affecting or threatening to affect drinking water quality. The information is relevant only to individual incidents, and although held by the inspectorate it could not be collated except at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he had made of the compliance by drinking water suppliers with the 1985 World Health Organisation guidelines, as amended, on drinking water purity. [40377]

  Mr. Clappison
  The current UK standards as specified in the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989 incorporate the standards of the 1980 EC drinking water directive which in turn were based in many cases on the 1984 World Health Organisation guidelines for drinking water quality. In some cases, the regulations are more stringent than the directive. In 1995, the 31 water companies in England and Wales met the standards in the regulations in 99.5 per cent. of over 3 million tests.

  The 1984 World Health Organisation guidelines were amended in 1993. The new guidelines contain a number of more stringent values, the most significant one is the value for lead of 10 micrograms per litre. This value has been included in the proposed revision of the EC drinking water directive published in May 1995. The World Health Organisation value can be regarded as an average but the interpretation of the value in the proposed directive is not clear. In 1995 approximately 20 per cent. of samples taken from consumers' taps exceeded 10 micrograms per litre but these were spot checks and not a measure of average levels. The current standard of 50 micrograms per litre as a maximum is equivalent to an average level of around 20 micrograms per litre. The drinking water inspectorate has recently commissioned a study to estimate the extent

  815
  of compliance with, and how much further water treatment and lead pipe replacement might be needed to achieve compliance with various possible interpretations of the proposed new standard and the associated monitoring requirements.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on developments made in the implementation of statutory water quality objectives. [40400]

  Mr. Clappison
  Last year, the Secretary of State asked the National Rivers Authority to prepare proposals for statutory water quality objectives in a small number of trial river catchments. I understand that the Environment Agency has recently completed a three-month consultation exercise on its draft proposals and is now

  Samples exceeding the standard for lead reported in each region for the period 1991–1995 Data from the compliance data and annual lead returns submitted to the Drinking Water Inspectorate

  Region

  North West

  North East

  Midlands

  East

  Wales

  South West

  South East

  South

  Total number of samples taken for lead during the period

  85,402

  27,817

  34,754

  14,224

  19,179

  14,883

  18,012

  28,167

  Number of samples with lead>50 ug/1

  3,611

  968

  1,748

  115

  501

  539

  284

  130

  Percentage of samples exceeding the standard for lead

  4.2

  3.5

  5.0

  0.8

  2.6

  3.6

  1.6

  0.5

  The number of water supply zones in England and Wales in which the standard for lead has been exceeded has decreased from 25.6 per cent. in 1991 to 18.7 per cent. in 1995. A further improvement is expected in 1996 as a result of most water companies completing during 1995 the installation of treatment plant to reduce plumbosolvency.

  Information about the length and bore of lead piping is not held centrally. The length of lead pipe will vary according to the type of property and in most cases is

  Properties with lead pipes

  Data from the WRc report to the Department of the Environment on 'Economics of Lead Pipe Replacement'(TMU 9030); May 1992

  Region

  North West

  North East

  Midlands

  East

  Wales

  South West

  South East

  South

  Properties with lead communication pipes (per cent. of total properties)

  1,752.516 (63 per cent.)

  1,433,829 (48 per cent.)

  1,505.826 (43 per cent.)

  455,114 (27 per cent.)

  326,139 (24 per cent.)

  403,609 (27 per cent.)

  426.705 (20 per cent.)

  1,921,101 (40 per cent.)

  Properties with lead supply pipes (per cent, of total properties)

  1,669,063 (60 per cent.)

  1,444,692 (48 per cent.)

  1,601,031 (46 per cent.)

  480,586 (27 per cent.)

  446,788 (34 per cent.)

  372,603 (25 per cent.)

  420,698 (19 per cent.)

  2,488,682 (51 per cent.)

  Properties with lead internal plumbing (per cent. of total properties)

  2,086,329 (75 per cent.)

  1,394,688 (46 per cent.)

  1,601,031 (46 per cent.)

  152,483 (8 per cent.)

  230,402 (26 per cent.)

  346,984 (23 per cent.)

  379,199 (18 per cent.)

  824,425 (17 per cent.)

  NB No account of joint services could be taken. Not all water companies were able to provide data on the numbers of properties with lead internal plumbing. Where data were missing, the number of properties with lead internal plumbing is assumed to be equal to the number of properties with lead supply pipes. Regions in all tables are as specified in the WRc report.

  This table was based on data collected in 1991. Between 1991 and 1994 the water suppliers replaced nearly half a million lead communication pipes. The numbers on a regional basis are given in the following table.

  Number

  North-west

  99,887

  North-east

  57,240

  816
  finalising its recommendations for statutory objectives in eight river catchments. Once the recommendations have been received, they will be the subject of a statutory consultation exercise before a final decision is taken on their implementation.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what level of lead contamination of drinking water has been reported in each region in the last five years; and how much lead piping is still in use in the drinking water distribution systems in each region by(a) length and (b) bore. [40347]

  Mr. Clappison
  The total number of samples analysed for lead, and the number and percentage of samples exceeding the lead standard of 50 micrograms per litre in each region for the last five years, is given in the table.

  likely to be in the range of 5 to 20 m. The bore of the piping is likely to be between 12 and 18 mm. The table gives the estimated number of properties in each region supplied through lead communication pipes which belong to the water suppliers, with lead supply pipes which belong to the property owner and with lead internal plumbing which also belongs to the property owner.

  Number

  Midlands

  99,312

  East

  47,629

  Wales

  44,338

  South-west

  16,233

  South-east

  23,563

  South

  56,967

  Total

  445,169

  British Association for the Advancement of Science
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which representatives of his Department attended the 1996 British Association for the Advancement of Science conference in Birmingham; what use his Department has made of the environmental research made public at the annual British Association for the Advancement of Science meeting; and what role his Department plans to take in the dissemination of environmental research results presented at the meeting. [40482]

  Mr. Clappison
  Professional staff of the Department attend a wide range of scientific conferences which present opportunities to gather timely information or to pursue DOE research programme interests. At this year's British Association for the Advancement of Science conference, a session on water resources was chaired by an inspector from the Department's drinking water inspectorate. Dissemination of results presented is the responsibility of the conference organisers, the principal means being the conference itself.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) which bodies holding a discharge consent, other than sewage works, from the former National Rivers Authority or the Environment Agency, currently discharge pollutants under controlled permission to rivers and other water courses in England and Wales; and it he will make a statement on the current status of compliance; [40473]

  (2) on how many occasions since the beginning of 1990 discharge consent conditions have applied to (a) effluent treatment plants and (b) other industrial or commercial operations have been contravened; and what action has been taken in each case to stop the pollution. [40378]

  Mr. Clappison
  This information is not held centrally. Data on discharge consents, including information on sampling and any enforcement action is available from the pollution control register held at the regional offices of the Environment Agency. The National Rivers Authority, and now the Environment Agency, also publish summary monitoring and compliance reports, the latest being for 1994. In that year, 69 per cent. of trade effluent discharges as defined in the report, were compliant with the terms of their consents. The report for 1995 is in preparation.

  Trees
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe report on the health of trees in Europe, published on 5 September, with particular reference to its evaluation of trees in the United Kingdom. [40287]

  Minis 15 (1994–95)

  Minis 16 (1995–96)

  Distributed1

  Sold

  Distributed1

  Sold

  Principal Establishment and Finance Officer

  70

  3

  95

  5

  Local Government and Planning

  69

  5

  95

  7

  Housing and Construction

  74

  3

  95

  5

  Environment Protection Group

  80

  6

  95

  11

  818
  Mr. Clappison
  The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe report draws on an annual survey of the conditions of forest trees conducted by the Forestry Commission.

  The latest report records that the condition of trees in the United Kingdom in 1995 was better than the average for countries in the North Atlantic region of Europe. There were no major changes in crown condition compared to 1994 for oak, Norway spruce, Sitka spruce or Scots pine but, as in other countries, there was a marked deterioration in the condition of beech which was a natural effect of a heavy seeding year.

  Shortheld Tenancy Rents
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the growth of assured shorthold tenancy rents over the next five years. [40299]

  Mr. Clappison
  None. Landlords are free to charge market rents. Research commissioned by my Department last year suggested that assured shorthold tenancy rents have reached a stage where rental yields are in equilibrium with the first-time buyer market. This would imply that such rents are likely to move broadly in line with house prices over the medium term. Recent projections of house price movements do not suggest substantial increases in assured shorthold tenancy rents.

  Environmental Information
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the application of the Environmental Information Regulations 1992 to private companies. [40345]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Environmental Information Regulations 1992 apply to private bodies and persons with responsibilities for the environments which are either carrying out the functions of a public administration or which are under public control, which might include control conferred by statute, contracts or other means that would create the possibility of exercising decisive influence.

  Management Information System for Ministers
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how may copies of the annual departmental MINIS returns have been(a) purchased from and (b) distributed by his Department since the returns were first made public; when it was decided to discontinue the public release for sale of the MINIS 1996 returns; and what announcement was made on the discontinuation of the report's publication. [40478]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department does not have figures available for all the years since MINIS was first made public, but can provide figures for the last two years; these are in the table.
  819

  Minis 15 (1994–95)

  Minis 16 (1995–96)

  Distributed1

  Sold

  Distributed1

  Sold

  Cities and Countryside Group

  71

  6

  95

  8

  Legal

  73

  3

  95

  5

  Government Offices

  82

  3

  2—

  2—

  1 Distributed is the number of copies that were printed and issues within DOE, House of Lords, House of Commons, Environment Committee and other Government Departments.

  2 In 1995–96 a separate MINIS exercise was undertaken by Government Offices and their MINIS plans were published in GO MINIS 1.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State decided earlier in the year not to publish MINIS 17 documents formally since the costs of the exercise were not justified by the low volume of sales and the fact that the Department's new annual report now sets out the main achievements and forward expenditure plans of the constituent parts of the Department.

  The decision not to publish MINIS documents formally was not announced as unbound copies are still available on request.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by number and category imported asbestos-based products; and if he will make a statement. [40328]

  Mr. Clappison
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans his Department has to require asbestos-based products to be permanently marked as such. [40327]

  Mr. Clappison
  The marking of asbestos products is already covered by the Asbestos Products (Safety) Regulations 1985 as amended. These regulations require that asbestos and all products containing the mineral should be marked as such using a specified label. The label may be printed directly on to the product, attached to it or attached to is packaging.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of the reduction in toxic emissions and other pollutants listed in the pilot environmental accounts published in August is attributable to(a) a reduction in economic activity and (b) implementation of clean technologies. [40340]

  Mr. Clappison
  There are a number of sources of information on the sources of, and on past and predicted trends in, emissions of the pollutants listed in the pilot environmental accounts. These include the "Chemical Release Inventory", published by HMIP—now the Environment Agency—the "National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory"—AEA Technology—the Department of the Environment's "Digest of Environmental Statistics" and the draft "National Air Quality Strategy". It is not, however, possible to disaggregate this information in such a way as to be able to attribute the reduction in pollutants to different causes, such as economic activity, the application of cleaner technologies, changing business practices or other factors.

  Asthma
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the impact of the asthma awareness campaign initiated by the Health and Safety Executive on the incidence of cases of occupational asthma. [40417]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The HSE's "Breathe Freely" campaign ran from April 1994 to April 1995. It is too early to expect to see any change in the incidence of occupational asthma, given the variable latency period associated with this disease. However, HSE will review data in the incidence of occupational asthma to see what insight they might provide into the success of the campaign.

  Global Environmental Research Strategy
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the launch of the UK national strategy for global environmental research; which United Kingdom research institutions will benefit from the strategy; what additional resources have been committed in support of the strategy; and what attempts have been made to publicise the existence of and prospective benefits arising from the strategy. [40398]

  Mr. Clappison
  The report, 'UK National Strategy for Global Environmental Research', by an expert panel of the inter-agency committee on global environmental change, was publicly launched by the committee chairman, Sir Ronald Oxburgh, on 10 September at the 1996 conference of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. In addition to the targeted dissemination to all United Kingdom organisations and institutions involved with global environmental research and extensive international distribution, the document has been made generally available through the Internet.

  The report identifies a close match between its priority research issues and the "Forward Look" plans of the funding agencies. This no doubt reflects the influence of the inter-agency committee's previous strategy reports. The Department's research programme "Forward Look" is in line with the report recommendation to maintain current research efforts over the next few years. All institutions engaged in global environmental research will benefit from the strategy as they plan future research against the background of the report's recommendations on the conceptual approach, research directions arid priorities, enabling technologies and infrastructure, and communication and co-ordination.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what resources have been committed each year since 1979 by his Department to the development of
  821
  environmental information software and computer-based environmental research; and what steps have been taken to disseminate this information. [40481]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Department makes information about the environment and environmental research publicly available via a wide range of databases and more recently the Internet. Details on each system have not been collated centrally and it would entail disproportionate cost to provide the annual resource estimates requested. Guidance on the use of systems is available to the public from the Department's library. They include:

  The RESLINE database containing details of the Department's research.

  Details of all Departmental publications in the British Library BLAISE database.

  Data supplied to the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council for inclusion on the UK FOCUS and AGREP databases.

  The BRIX and FLAIR databases produced by the Building Research Establishment in which environmental matters form a significant part.

  The Department's World Wide Web home page (http://www.open.gov.doe/) on the Internet which includes UK environmental statistics based on those published in the Department's annual 'Digest of Environmental Statistics', 'Air Quality Information', and the 'Air Quality Archive'.

  Systems under development include the European information and observation network—EIONET—which will connect member states to the European Environment Agency in Copenhagen and gather information on the state of the environment at the European level.

  Occupational Ill Health
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many working hours have been lost in each of the last 10 years due to occupational ill health. [40420]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information is not collected on a regular basis. However, a survey of self-reported work-related illness in England and Wales estimated that 700,000 workers believed they had experienced illnesses caused or made worse by their work and which resulted in 13 million days off work in 1989–90.

  Radioactive Waste Management
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish his conclusions on the responses made to the review of the past five years' work of his Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee, announced on 8 July; if a summary of the responses and original submissions will be made public; and if he will place a list of the responses in the Library. [40394]

  Mr. Clappison
  The results of the financial management and policy review of the radioactive waste Management Advisory Committee will be announced in due course.

  Such reviews are conducted in two stages. An announcement will be made on completion of the "prior options" stage, and if it is decided that RWMAC should continue, the review will go on to address the committee's structure and mode of operation.
  822
  Subject to the agreement of those concerned, I will place a list of respondents and copies of their submissions in the Library of the House when the review has been completed.

  River Thames
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) of 16 July,Official Report, column 432, concerning the River Thames advisory group and working party respectively, if he will give for each of the persons involved to be members for both groups (a) their qualifications, occupations and other inquiries relating to the River Thames, (b) any financial or commercial interest they have concerning the Thames and its environment and (c) the number of meetings each have attended in the year 1995 and 1996. [40405]

  Mr. Gummer
  Members of my Thames advisory group were invited to contribute to its work on the basis of their personal contribution and knowledge across a range of fields and disciplines. My Department does not keep details of their qualifications, occupations or personal affairs.

  There have been six meetings of the group so far in 1995 and 1996. The number of meetings attended by each member is as follows:

  Steven Norris: 3

  Alan Baxter: 6

  Michael Cassidy: 1

  Sir Philip Dowson: 3

  Paul Finch: 4

  Nicky Gavron: 4

  Christopher Howes: 5

  Simon Jenkins: 1

  Stuart Lipton: 5

  Richard MacCormac: 4

  Christopher Moran: 3

  Lord Rogers: 5

  Eric Sorensen: 5

  Stewart Steven: 3

  Kim Wilkie: 6

  The River Thames working group is chaired by my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London and its membership is a matter for him.

  Taxonomy
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what opportunities exist under the provisions of the Darwin initiative for British-based taxonomists and entomologists to study the inventory of known species and to explore the development of inventory taxonomy of species thought likely to exist but not yet identified at research institutes and universities in the United Kingdom. [40483]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Darwin initiative is designed to bring British expertise to bear on the biodiversity needs of developing countries, and the Department has just invited applications for the next round of funding. Taxonomic work is one of the main areas funded under the initiative. The only work on British collections is that carried out in the course of training developing country scientists.

  Supermarkets
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the number of large supermarkets within Greater Manchester which do not have sprinkler systems. [40373]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have not made any such estimate. My Department does not collect statistical information on properties which do or do not have particular fire safety measures.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what notification he has received from British Nuclear Fuels in respect of proposals to apply for a variation in its discharge consents under the Environment Act 1995, the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 and Nuclear Installations Act 1965 for the Thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield. [40396]

  Mr. Clappison
  Applications for disposal authorisations, or for variations to existing authorisations, under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993—as amended by the Environment Act 1995—are made to the Environment Agency. I understand that British Nuclear Fuels plc is considering applying for a variation to the current authorisation for disposal of waste gases, mists and dusts from its Sellafield site. The Nuclear Installations Act 1965 does not apply to discharge consents.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the inspector's report into the rock characterisation facility at Sellafield. [40504]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  In accordance with usual procedures, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will publish the report when he has reached his decision on the matter. Until he has received and considered the report, I cannot say when that might be.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the timetable for issuing a full safety certificate for large scale reprocessing at THORP at Sellafield. [40514]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The THORP plant at BNFL Sellafield is currently being commissioned, and will eventually operate, under the requirements of the existing Sellafield site licence issued by the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate. HSE intends to issue a consent for THORP when commissioning has been satisfactorily completed and it has received the appropriate documentation. This has not been received from BNFL.

  Some reprocessing activity has been taking place as part of the active commissioning programme which started in January 1994, but full operation will only be undertaken when the consent to operation is issued.

  Water Resources Directive
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what responses he has made to date to the 824
  EU draft framework directive on water resources issued in February. [40407]

  Mr. Clappison
  In December 1995 the Environment Council adopted a set of conclusions on European Community water policy which, amongst other things, invited the European Commission to present a communication on the subject. The communication was issued on 21 February, and the Commission proposes to bring forward a framework directive on water resources in due course. The Government submitted an explanatory memorandum to the European Scrutiny Committee on 16 April.

  Environment Agency
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what reports the Environment Agency has produced to date on the state of the British environment; and what role his Department has in distributing the Environment Agency's reports. [40479]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Environment Agency published in April 1996 a report entitled "The Environment of England and Wales; a Snapshot". An online version of the report has been placed recently on the agency's Internet web site, and this updates the printed version. Copies of the report were placed in the Library of the House. My Department has no role in distributing Environment Agency reports.

  AEA Technology
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what environmental protection guarantees are in place in respect of the sale of AEA Technology. [40341]

  Mr. Clappison
  I expect AEA Technology to continue to bid for environmental research and services tendered by the Department and to maintain the quality and integrity of work which made AEAT a substantial and long standing contractor in the past. AEA Technology activities will be subject to the same regulatory standards of environmental safety as any other private company. This will principally involve controls pursuant to the Radioactive Substances Act, the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Environment Act 1995.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what submissions his Department has made to the intergovernmental conference on transparency in regard to environmental policy and information disclosure; and what plans he has for future submissions. [40589]

  Mr. Clappison
  The United Kingdom has made no submissions on transparency to the intergovernmental conference.

  The IGC discussions have not altered the Department's policy of openness which accords with the Government's code of practice on access to Government information, published in 1994.
  825
  The Department will not be making submissions to the intergovernmental conference.

  Sponsored Bodies
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in the procedure of appointments to sponsored bodies since recommendations were put to the Directors Forum on Sponsored Bodies in September last year. [40651]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Revised procedures have been introduced in the Department of the Environment which fulfil the relevant recommendations of the first report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life and comply with the code of practice and guidance issued by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. It will now be the normal practice to advertise vacancies on the boards 826
  of executive non-departmental public bodies, to interview candidates before appointment and to involve an independent person in the selection process.

  Water Directive
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what matters of environmental concern were discussed at the European Commission meeting of 9 October; and what were the reasons for the withdrawal from the agenda of deliberation on the planned water quality framework directive. [40647]

  Mr. Clappison
  The agenda for the weekly Commission meeting is a matter for the Commission rather than for my Department; any decision not to discuss the proposed water quality framework directive is therefore an internal one for the Commission..