Sitting of 16 October 1996

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

  BSE (Northern Ireland)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Anthony Coombs.]
  9.30 am
  Mr. Eddie McGrady: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to debate this issue, which is much appreciated by the farming community in Northern Ireland, and, indeed, by the greater rural communities on which it depends.
  The bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis broke out last March, and led to the ban on the export of United Kingdom beef. It was clear that the impact would be greater on Northern Ireland than on Great Britain, because 80 per cent. of Northern Ireland's beef product is exported, compared with some 20 per cent. of British beef. That means that by far the greatest proportion of the Northern Ireland farming industry's beef product has now lost almost its entire market. The collapse of the beef export market has left the farming community in Northern Ireland in great financial crisis.
  The House should appreciate that the farming industry is the basic industry in Northern Ireland, not only for farmers and their families, but for the many rural communities that survive on the economics of the surrounding farming fraternity. It would not be an exaggeration to describe the impact of the crisis on the dependent rural communities as the single greatest tragedy since the great famine in Ireland 150 years ago. Although this crisis will never, thank God, reach the horrific proportions of that period, it is, none the less, a most devastating blow. The farming community sees it as the greatest single setback of the past 150 years.
  As I said, agriculture is central to the economy of Northern Ireland—in fact, the beef industry is worth £1 million a day to the local economy. The unfairness of the impact on Northern Ireland was the first major reaction among farmers and their representatives. It should be noted that the incidence of BSE in Northern Ireland was only one tenth of the incidence in Great Britain, and the outbreak was largely confined to the dairy herds in Northern Ireland. Moreover, Northern Ireland had a much more efficient system for containing the outbreak and assuring the quality of Northern Ireland beef, through the farm quality assurance scheme.
  Northern Ireland has a sophisticated computerised system that ensures the traceability of every animal in the cattle herd—I repeat, the traceability of every animal in the cattle herd. That reduces the possibility of infected animals entering the food chain to practically zero—the possibility is almost eliminated. On Monday, the Minister
  738
  of Agriculture acknowledged that Northern Ireland had a significantly lower incidence of BSE than other parts of the United Kingdom, and that it had that almost 100 per cent. effective traceability scheme. Both those factors should facilitate easier access to a certified herd scheme, should one come about.
  The first response of the farming community and its organisations, which received unanimous cross-party support from Northern Ireland's Members of Parliament and Members of the European Parliament, was to ask for separate status for Northern Ireland, so that it could escape the total ban on the export of UK beef. Commissioner Fischler has indicated then and now that the European Commission would look sympathetically on such a proposition, not only for Northern Ireland but for other parts of the United Kingdom, such as Scotland and other regions, that have that lower incidence of BSE and greater traceability of animals.
  The stumbling block, however, is that a request for such status must be made by the sovereign Government of the United Kingdom, and the Government have adamantly turned their face against such a proposition. I hope that the arguments that we may hear this morning will enable a change in attitude and policy, or that the arguments will cause some other change that will enable the general idea of separate status to be implemented.
  It was also interesting to note that when, last Monday, the President of the European Council of Agriculture Ministers—Mr. Yates, TD—met representatives of the farming industry and politicians in Northern Ireland, he offered strong support for the removal of the EU ban on the export of Northern Ireland beef. Therefore, the presiding Agriculture Minister of the EU and Commissioner Fischler have both indicated their support—if only the Government would make a request.
  The Government's initial response to the crisis, with the agreement of the EU, was a cull of animals older than 30 months, on the basis that cattle younger than 30 months were less at risk because of the disease's development time. The cull began at the beginning of May. Initially, the prices paid were reasonable, and cattle began to move off the farms.
  In Northern Ireland, the scheme was administered by the Northern Ireland Meat Exporters Association, which represents all the major beef plants, in a co-ordinated effort to ensure that all farmers received equal treatment. Farmers were invited to inform the association of the likely number of animals they would submit for the cull.
  The theory was that a percentage of each farmer's animals would be taken away on a rotational basis, depending on the capacity of slaughterhouses and rendering plants, until the cull was complete. There have, however, been quite a number of problems in ensuring the smooth operation of the scheme. The scheme lost much credibility, and elements of unfairness and privilege have crept into it.
  There is a huge backlog of animals waiting to go through the system. Since last May, 160,000 animals were booked to go through the cull, and about 80,000 have gone through it—30,000 culled cows and 50,000 "clean" cattle. There is an estimated backlog of 45,000 cows, and another 30,000 "clean" cattle require culling.
  I think that it would be accepted in most quarters in Northern Ireland that there has been substantial overbooking, so that the backlog is possibly less than

  739
  100,000. The Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland estimates that the backlog is approximately 50,000 cows, but we think that that is probably a conservative estimate. Each week, about 2,000 new animals—mainly older cows—are becoming eligible under the terms of the scheme. Clearly, therefore, with the current maximum rendering capacity of 4,000 animals per week and a net clearance from the backlog of only 2,000 animals per week, it will take a considerable time to clear the backlog.
  I understand that new measures have been implemented recently to speed up the disposal of cattle over the age of 30 months, with changes in rendering and the storage of carcases. I hope that the situation will be improved, as it is still not acceptable.
  There must be greater co-ordination between the Northern Ireland Meat Exporters Association and the meat plants. Farmers allege that animals have been booked for a long time and that none have been taken. Farmers are entering the most difficult period of their financial year, as the summer feed has finished this month, and cattle will now go into indoor feeding. The backlog of cattle is still on the farms, and some farmers are receiving no income whatsoever. If they cannot buy new feed, many of them will suffer financial disaster.
  It is expected that two things will happen. First, some farmers, and quite a few small farmers—of which Northern Ireland has a great proportion—will go to the wall financially. That will affect not only farmers and their families but the communities in which they have lived perhaps for the past 200 years. It is a significant financial and deep psychological problem for Northern Ireland's farming communities.
  Secondly, if the cull throughput is not accelerated, there is the prospect that animals will have to be killed and burned in the fields of Northern Ireland. I am sure that no hon. Member wants to see that happen to the rural communities of Northern Ireland.
  Rendering plants have been working at full capacity from May to September. We have very few rendering plants, and the Lisburn plant will be closed down for refurbishing for a couple of weeks. Furthermore, the plant at Duncrue, in Belfast, was totally out of action last week, which has increased the backlog.
  We need additional cold storage capacity, which might ease the problem. There are, however, some technical difficulties with storage. I am sure that the House would not be particularly interested in the details of the difficulties of freezing whole animals, and I am not able to give it those details. The shortage of cold storage, however, is one of the great difficulties that we are facing.
  Over the next few weeks, additional rendering capacity could be made available elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The animals would have to be transported live—on the hoof—which would impose a burden of additional costs on an already impoverished farming community. The Government should commission additional freezer units, either static or mobile, as quickly as possible to store intervention stocks, thereby enabling the cull to proceed much quicker.
  Beef producers in the United Kingdom are to receive additional support worth £29 million, as part of a £45 million package of extra aid that was announced by
  740
  the UK Agriculture Minister, and £16.6 million will be spent on extra cold storage capacity to speed up the cull of animals over 30 months. The farming unions and communities of Northern Ireland and I welcome that support.
  However, farmers have been quick to point out—as they always are in financial matters—that those additional funds are probably less than the amount that they will lose, because of the forthcoming 10 per cent. cut in compensation payments for animals over 30 months. It appears—I should like to hear the Minister's comments on this—that nothing will be gained from this so-called "extra money".
  Farmers are suffering a severe loss in cull prices, and the problem will become even more acute this week. Farmers have been receiving £1.50 per kilo for steers and heifers at deadweight and £1.66 per kilo for cows, whereas market prices before the crisis were about £2.20 to £2.30 per kilo.
  There had been a supplement of 25p per kilo live weight on steers and heifers, but Treasury pressure ensured that that was reduced by 80 per cent. to 5p, which is again a substantial clawback. Now that compensation rates have been reduced further, it is expected that the value of animals will go down yet again by another £50 or £60. As I understand it, that is due to take effect from 21 October. I urge that, at the very least, the supplement that has been cut be restored, and, in addition, that compensation rates be increased all around.
  It will be noted that the European Commission made available 112 million ecu, which has been used to provide a top-up for the beef special premium at £17.40 per head and a top-up of £23.13 per head for the suckler cow premium and for a payment of £60 per head for all animals sold for slaughter between 20 March and 30 June. However, the Government were given the authority by the Commission—I hesitate to express it that way, as I know that the UK does not need that authority—to produce matching funding. That was the intention, but they have failed to do so. Should the Government match the Commission's funding, it would enable the top-ups for the beef special premium and the special cow premium at least to be doubled, thereby alleviating much of the financial hardship now being endured by farmers in Northern Ireland.
  I note that Baroness Denton announced last Friday that beef producers in Northern Ireland would receive an advance of 80 rather than 60 per cent. of the full rate of payment under the 1996 beef special premium and suckler cow premium schemes. I understand that that will come into effect on 1 November. It is to be welcomed, because it will alleviate part of the current cash flow crisis being experienced by farmers in Northern Ireland. However, never being satisfied, may I suggest that the 80 per cent. could be increased to 100 per cent., to allow farmers to survive the great difficulties of the next few months?
  Suckler cow farmers are facing a very difficult period. Most of them depend almost exclusively on the income received from sales of their calves at the autumn sales. Because of the uncertainty in the beef industry, there is a great fear that prices will plunge disastrously. The most effective short-term help for suckler cow farmers is through the hill livestock compensatory allowance.
  A few years ago, the HLCA, as it is known, was reduced for two successive years, and subsequently frozen for two successive years. In effect, it thus fell for four

  741
  successive years. I note that the Government agreed on 18 September last to make £60 million available to cattle producers in the less-favoured areas under the 1997 HLCA. Of that amount, we think that £14 million will be available to Northern Ireland, which is to be welcomed.
  As I understand it, the difficulty is that the precise rates for the 1997 scheme will not be set until after the autumn review of economic conditions in the hills and uplands. In view of the unprecedented crisis in the beef industry, there is now a compelling argument for a substantial increase in HLCA payments to help tide suckler cow farmers over their present difficulties. I hope that the autumn review produces sensible, practical and, of course, increased rates of aid for the 1997 scheme. There should also be a compensatory payment on calves sold this autumn to compensate for the anticipated heavy market losses, if they are incurred.
  In the medium and long term, the best way to steady prices at the autumn sales and to stabilise the beef industry generally is through the intervention system. I urge that a guarantee be given that all future Northern Ireland tenders for intervention will be awarded in full, that a fixed price be established for all grades, and that preconditions attached to weight limits be removed, at least until the crisis is over. That would enable farmers who buy calves in the autumn sales for fattening to plan with some confidence, and would help to shore up prices at the calf sales.
  The argument for the removal of the ban on the ex port of Northern Ireland beef must not be abandoned. It has been suggested in some quarters that it could be lifted in the new year, but, given the Government's current attitude and interpretation, that seems unlikely. If the hassle between the UK and the European Union over throughput under the accelerated slaughter scheme is unresolved, pessimism will reign in Northern Ireland, and it could be 2000 or beyond before UK cow beef could appear in the marketplace. That would be totally unacceptable.
  It must be emphasised that the beef industry in Northern Ireland already meets a number of the requirements of the Florence agreement, which were accepted as necessary to secure a step-by-step lifting of the ban. Northern Ireland is well placed in terms of animal identification and the recording of movement and total traceability, and it already meets the prerequisite for lifting the export ban.
  Some 2,000 animals come under the BSE cohort slaughter programme. That number could be dealt with in weeks, if not five or six days. The accelerated slaughter programme was agreed in Florence last July as one of the conditions for lifting the export ban. The problem is that the scheme, which is 70 per cent. EU-funded, has not been finalised. Indeed, I understand that the Government have drawn back from it.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be helpful if the Minister responded to that point? As the hon. Gentleman said, the Minister of Agriculture has said that we are holding back for the time being, but implied that the Government are invoking scientific justification for doing so. It was agreed at Florence that detailed proposals would be made by the British Government, so, if no proposals are put forward, the Government are in breach of the agreement.
  Mr. McGrady: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I agree with him. As I recall the
  742
  sequence of events, the Florence convention was suspended—if that is the right word—because of what was alleged to be new veterinary scientific information. That information was apparently the decision by some—I emphasise, some—veterinary scientists that BSE was not necessarily caused by maternal transmission, but that the source was a possible predilection in the progeny of an infected cow. Consequently, the Government decided that BSE would somehow magically run itself out by the year 2003.
  I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Government have pulled back from the commitment given at Florence. That has had a further effect. It has undermined the good will that existed in the Commission, in Fischler, Yates and the other Agriculture Ministers. It was a regrettable step, and a devastating one for Northern Ireland. The Government seem reluctant to implement the Florence agreement to secure the immediate lifting, wholly or partly, of the ban on Northern Ireland beef.
  In the meantime, there is a possibility of movement through consultation with the European Commission on proposals for relaxing the export restriction for animals from certified herds which have had no contact with BSE. I point out to the House that 97 per cent. of herds in Northern Ireland could qualify for the UK certified herd scheme. It is hoped that such a scheme could equate to the well-established farm quality assurance scheme.
  I note that the chief veterinary officer for Northern Ireland is to meet tomorrow in Brussels his counterparts in the European Union Standing Veterinary Committee. I note that he will seek assurances that "going it alone" with the slaughter could open the way for the certified herd scheme. I sincerely hope that he will be successful, and that he will receive unanimous and strong support from the Government in his endeavours in that respect.
  In Northern Ireland, as in the United Kingdom generally, any herd that has had a BSE-infected animal has been flagged by the Department of Agriculture. There is a major problem here, in that, in the United Kingdom, and only in the United Kingdom, it is the farm and not the herd or the animals that is flagged; in the rest of Europe, it is the herd that is flagged. Therefore, even if all the cattle on the flagged farm are removed and slaughtered, and new stock is brought in, flagging remains a total impediment. Surely we must all agree that that absurdity must be ended.
  I understand that our flagging system happened by accident, and that the relevant wording in the legislation was not caught on to at the time. As I understand it, the European Commission is willing to address the erratum at an early date if effort is put into the matter.
  In reality, while flagging applies to the farms, there is no realistic market for animals from flagged herds, which is disastrous for farmers in that category. Those most affected are the small suckler herd farmers, some dairy farmers, and farmers with a high-quality output. There must be a buy-out scheme for the suckler herds—about 300 in number—leading to the removal of flagging of holdings rather than herds, so that farmers can begin to rebuild their herds and their livelihoods. At present, their livestock will not be dealt with.
  The 3 per cent. affected are made up of a number of elements. The suckler herds are only 0.75 per cent. of the 3 per cent. total. They are a small fraction, and could be dealt with if the Government could devise a scheme to

  743
  allow herds to be depopulated, farm buildings to be cleaned out and farms to be restocked with non-BSE-infected cattle. Farmers could thus, we hope, gain certified herd status. Such schemes exist in the Republic of Ireland and other EC countries, so why can they not exist in the United Kingdom?
  Is there not now an opportunity in this very small sector to introduce a beef herd set-aside scheme, similar to other agriculture set-aside schemes, starting with the BSE-flagged beef herds in Northern Ireland? I should like the Minister to take that point on board as a means of getting round an impossible situation for the 3 per cent. that are not covered by the certified herds scheme.
  Another element creeps into the equation. There is an enormous backlog of cattle on farms waiting to go through the cull system. Many of them are dairy cows which are still being milked, and milk production is running way ahead of what it would normally be. It is clear that dairy farmers in the UK will be severely punished for producing over quota this year, which could trigger yet another penalty in the super-levy.
  I suggest to the Government that the best way in which to deal with that problem is to plead exceptional circumstances, and either to negotiate extra milk quotas for this year in recognition of the dimension of the crisis or, if that is unsuccessful, at least to negotiate a substantial reduction in the super-levy.
  I have covered a number of points on the issue, which, as I said at the start, is an absolute disaster for farmers in Northern Ireland. I will sum up the main points for the Minister's quick reference, in the hope that he will respond to them positively and helpfully. First, I would like him to address the point about the provision of additional cold storage and freezer capacity. Secondly, there is a need to provide extra rendering capacity either in Northern Ireland or elsewhere.
  Thirdly, the compensation price must be improved; I have already mentioned the details. Fourthly, the Government should address the issue of matching EU funding to enable a substantial increase in the beef special premium and the suckler cow premium. Fifthly, HLCA payments should be increased substantially as a result of the autumn review to help the suckler cow farmers through the present crisis. In addition, there should be a compensatory payment for calves sold this autumn.
  Sixthly, there must be a guarantee of continuing beef intervention, with all future Northern Ireland tenders being awarded, full and fixed prices being established for all grades, and no weight conditions. I hope that the provisions of an accelerated slaughter scheme will go ahead as soon as agreement is reached on compensation levels.
  I ask that the flagging of holdings should stop, and that flagging should be applied to herds only. A buy-out scheme for flagged suckler herds should be introduced. I mention again the problem of extra milk, the quota and the super-levy, and how that problem could be addressed. Finally, the earliest possible removal of the ban on Northern Ireland beef exports is vital.
  Last March, the British Government pledged themselves to do everything possible to safeguard the beef industry. It is now important that the Government display that commitment by an immediate action programme in some—I hope all—of the areas that I have indicated.
  744
  There has been throughout Europe a total acceptance of Northern Ireland's low level of BSE and of our much better traceability system. Such acceptance must be backed and strongly supported with an action plan that is capable of immediate implementation. Farmers demand and deserve that immediate action, and they look to the Government to provide it. Perhaps there will be some indication that the Government will take such action when the Minister winds up this debate.
  In my opening remarks, I referred to the great famine in Ireland 150 years ago, and said that the BSE crisis is the greatest disaster to hit the farming community in Northern Ireland since then. At the time of the famine, Britain was accused of standing by and doing nothing. I hope that history will not repeat itself.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. It is clear that four Back-Bench Members wish to contribute to the debate. We have 50 minutes left, which includes the time for the winding-up speeches. I make an appeal for short, succinct speeches.
  10.8 am
  Mr. Michael J. Martin: I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) for initiating the debate. He reminded us several times of the famine in Ireland 150 years ago. Had it not been for that famine, I might have been a resident of County Cavan instead of living in the west of Scotland, where there is a large Irish community. Names such as Murphy and O'Neil suggest that the famine, which caused terrible hardship in Ireland, brought people to Scotland to seek a livelihood.
  The Glasgow meat market is in my constituency, and I should stress that, with all due respect to the farmers, they are not the only people affected by the BSE crisis. I am not trying to underestimate their problems, but people living in the cities also face difficulties.
  I understand that 5,000 head of cattle per week are being slaughtered in Scottish abattoirs. Those cattle do not have BSE; they are perfectly healthy animals that happen to be more than 30 months old. I should put it on record that, like Northern Ireland, Scotland has not been affected by BSE.
  Recently, I had the pleasure of visiting Mr. Alec Henderson, who has a farm on the outskirts of Glasgow. He told me that butchers throughout the west of Scotland can put notes in their windows stating that their meat has been supplied by Mr. Alec Henderson, and that is sufficient assurance that it is BSE-free. I hope that the Minister recognises that many farms in Scotland are BSE-free because the farmers feed their cattle with produce that is grown on the farms. They do not use artificial feeds.
  It has been estimated that, of the 5,000 head of cattle that are being slaughtered each week, 1,000 are destroyed in the Glasgow meat market. The Scottish Office has taken the same approach whenever there is a crisis—it has passed on the problem to someone else. In this case, a so-called liaison committee has been created in Scotland, and Ministers have allowed it to rule the roost.
  It is clear that some people will make a fantastic amount of money out of the crisis. One does not need to be a mathematician to work out that, if 1,000 head of

  745
  cattle pass through one meat market every week, and, having been destroyed, their skins are sold to the leather tanneries, some people will make large sums of money. Yet, at the other end of the scale, farmers and wholesale butchers will lose.
  If 30-month-old cattle have to be destroyed in the meat market, the wholesale butchers who have operated in the Glasgow meat market for more than 100 years will not be allowed to slaughter the meat they sell there. Thai will have the ludicrous result that wholesale butchers who operate in the Glasgow meat market will have to go elsewhere to slaughter the cattle that are normally killed in the market.
  In today's short debate, it is hard to describe the Glasgow meat market, but I should mention that it occupies considerable acreage in my constituency. People tell me that, if 1,000 cattle pass through the meat market every week, there must be employment there, but there will be a price. As I have said, the wholesale butchers will have to consider leaving the premises that some of them have occupied for more than 100 years.
  We must also consider what will happen after all the cattle have been killed. In my constituency, there will be a great empty building that no one will want. I know that that is the responsibility of the Scottish Office, not the Minister who is present.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House for many years. He really must relate his remarks to the Northern Irish cattle coming through the Glasgow meat market; otherwise, he will be out of order.
  Mr. Martin: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I should have explained that the Glasgow meat market was built not only to deal with home stock, but to cope with the Irish market. Irish cattle also come through that market, and that is why I am participating in the debate.
  I refer to the point raised by the hon. Member for South Down about the crisis in the rest of the United Kingdom. I am often reminded by some of his colleagues in the Ulster Unionist party that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. Irish farmers and the Glasgow meat market have been affected by the BSE crisis.
  I stress again that some people are making an awful lot of money out of the crisis. I shall not say too much about that, but some of those on the so-called liaison committee are set to make a financial killing. I am not suggesting that they are dishonourable, but I am concerned that they may have a conflict of interest.
  The Scottish Office has put such pressure on the cattle markets, that, as we have discussed in the House, there is concern about the welfare of animals which have to wait in trucks for hours on end. I hope that the Minister will take my concern to the Scottish Office, that, unless some of the smaller abattoirs are reopened, cattle will continue to suffer while they are waiting for slaughter. No one in the House or the country wants to see that.
  Finally, we have to consider the head boners in the meat industry. They do not have a very pleasant job, but they have worked hard, honestly and in good faith. 'The Scottish Office told them to cease business, yet they have received not a ha'penny in compensation. Some of those men and women worked for 20 or 30 years in that industry and received no complaints about hygiene or any
  746
  other aspect of their work. They were told to cease trading, and some of their mortgages and businesses have been threatened. Business in that industry is now non-existent.
  If Ministers can tell the Tory party conference that the farmers will receive compensation, they should consider other people who are involved in the meat industry. Let me say, with no disrespect to the farmers, that others in the industry are also losing financially.
  10.18 am
  Mr. William Ross: We have listened to two very interesting speeches. I assure the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) that those of us who take an interest in the cattle industry understand that its effects extend far beyond the farm gate. I am sure that, like me, he is grateful to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) for raising this matter. It gives us a chance to express yet again concerns that we all have about the industry, the many ramifications of which were totally unforeseen until the disaster struck.
  The hon. Member for South Down has rehearsed the concerns fairly comprehensively, and therefore made it easier for those who follow him to cover the matters on which he has given details. There are also, however, one or two matters that he missed.
  As he pointed out, Northern Ireland exported 80 per cent. of its beef. A considerable amount of that entered Great Britain and, to some extent, Northern Ireland was caught by the ban on British beef. It seems that the Irish Republic has escaped because it is a separate country, yet it has an incidence of BSE that must be extremely worrying to Mr. Yates and members of the Irish Government.
  The British beef market was immediately depressed as soon as Northern Ireland beef entered it—such beef had no place else to go. If we resolved the problem of Northern Ireland beef, it would therefore relieve the downward pressure on the entire British beef market and tremendously benefit all of us—not least the constituents of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn.
  Northern Ireland can, of course, meet the accredited herd requirements much quicker than the rest of the United Kingdom, but even if the European Community accepted the Government's accreditation scheme, it would still demand that the UK abide by the Florence agreement. The Government are trying to shut their eyes to this real and major problem, but I do not think that it will go away.
  In order to comply with the scheme, Northern Ireland needs to slaughter about 2,000 cattle in 790 herds—not very many cattle per herd. On top of that, there is a backlog, to which the hon. Member for South Down referred, of 90,000 cattle, comprising 40,000 30-month-plus cattle and perhaps 50,000 cull cows, which is a fast-developing problem for farmers in terms of feed, shelter and wet land. Land is very rapidly becoming wet through.
  If Northern Ireland could resume its exports beyond the shores of the nation, it would immediately benefit its farmers and the general economy there, and, as I have said, reduce the depressant effect of Northern Ireland beef on the Great Britain market, which would relieve problems and give a tremendous lift to the income of Great Britain beef producers.

  747
  The Government seem to be taking the view not only that is the Florence scheme atrociously expensive—which it is—but that it is unnecessary on any scientific grounds. I happen to agree with them. Perception is the determining factor. I fear that perception will be the determining factor in another matter that will come before the House this afternoon.
  The Government believe that, by removing the 20 to 25 per cent. of beef in the market by the methods that have been and are presently deployed, a balance will be created between production and consumption, and therefore nothing more will be needed to be done. That may be true, but even if it is, there is a great chasm between where we are and that happy outcome. We need a bridge to get from where we are to where we have to be.
  What needs to be done to resolve the problem in Northern Ireland? I speak about Northern Ireland not only because it is the subject of this debate but because of the ramifications it has for the rest of the kingdom. If Northern Ireland can clear the backlog, it can reach compliance with the accredited herd scheme standards. That means slaughtering the 2,000 cattle in Northern Ireland, which is proving to be the road block.
  We should not be mistaken about the fact that the EC will use the fact that those 2,000 cattle are not slaughtered as a road block to reopening the export market for Northern Ireland cattle. That tiny number of the total national herd must be taken out of the equation as quickly as possible. If that is done, we will be able to export beef not only to Great Britain but—I hope—much further afield.
  The hon. Member for South Down also referred to the problem of flagged holdings, which I agree must be addressed and resolved urgently. If it is not resolved, supermarkets will try to outdo each other in the purity of the products on sale. That will simply mean that they will not be willing to sell beef from a flagged holding. That would be a serious marketing problem. It is not very often mentioned, but it must be borne in mind. The Government must sort out this crazy system of flagging holdings rather than cattle.
  The Government must understand that their efforts to reduce compensation for 30-month-plus cattle is totally wrong. Why should those who have had to keep their cattle the longest wind up with the least money? Farmers are well aware that, when a small technical change appears in the press or is announced from a Government source, it might not seem very significant, but it often represents a difference as great as that, which we in this House know from legislation, between "may" and "shall".
  Farmers want to reduce the weights for cattle for which they will be able to claim compensation, but once they do that, they run across the age-weight problem. In order to get the second punching, cattle have to be kept until they reach a certain age. If they are kept until that age, they are over the weight. The farmer has a nice little choice. He can forgo the second punching, which involves a considerable sum at the moment, or go over it and run foul of the weight restriction. The Government must be a little more honest in dealing with that.
  There has to be a serious and sustained effort to ensure that all farmers get away a proportion—which they expected from the very outset but has not materialized—
  748
  of their cull cows and 30-month-old cattle so that there is no favouritism. Let us be clear. If the Government had taken on the job of running the scheme themselves, there would not have been any favouritism. We might have had a moan, but there would not have been favouritism.
  We know of farmers whose cattle have been listed for slaughter from the first day, but who still have them, yet dealers seem to be able to buy them and get them off their premises in a day or two. That is causing great resentment among the farming community. Farmers also think that, whenever they try the help line, the telephone must have been left off the hook.
  What information has the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry in Northern Ireland made available to the meat plants regarding the number, types and age of cohorts of cattle on farms in Northern Ireland? It has been put to me that it is possible for meat plants to tap into the central computer. If that is so, information that should be commercially confidential to farmers is available to meat plants, which is very much to the commercial advantage of the meat plants and the disadvantage of the farming community. The system was never designed for such use, and I should be glad to have an assurance that what I have been told is incorrect.
  If the Government cannot get rid of the backlog, would they be prepared to buy up the cull cattle and arrange for the feeding of them so that use can be made of the feed that is lying around? People are frightened to buy that feed. People who are losing between £200 and £300 a head on last year's cattle are in no position to go to market this year. But they may have some feed left, and that could be used. People will not take action off their own bats, but if the scheme that I believe has been suggested by the Ulster Farmers Union were put into operation, it would go a considerable way towards helping to resolve the problems we face now.
  10.29 am
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak, and I intend to be brief. I shall press the Minister to answer a particular question. Is there any liaison between the Northern Ireland Office and the Scottish Office, aimed at ensuring that, in terms of the Florence agreement, there is an agreed path towards beginning the accelerated cull, at least in Northern Ireland and Scotland, and that that can be put forward as part of the United Kingdom proposals under the agreement?
  I am sure that hon. Members from Northern Ireland will agree when I tell the Minister that, if the Government simply stand by what the Minister of Agriculture said in the House on Monday, there will be not only anxiety but anger in Scotland and in Northern Ireland, because the interests of people there are being sacrificed for the sake of the division of opinion within the United Kingdom. What I propose seems to be within the Government's power, even considering the understood difficulties that they face.
  The Minister must accept that Northern Ireland has an especially good record on the incidence of BSE, and also has a traceability scheme. Scotland comes close behind in terms of its incidence, which is falling, and also has an accreditation scheme. The scheme would be better if it were fully computerised, and we would like help from the Scottish Office so that that can be done.
  It is not acceptable for Scottish and Irish specialist beef producers to be told that, despite assurances by the Prime Minister, no less, that, under the Florence agreement,

  749
  there would be progress towards the lifting of the ban, and despite the recognition that Scotland and Northern Ireland could be in the vanguard of the process, their interests will not be taken forward.
  Everybody recognises that the problem cannot simply be regionalised. That would be an over-simplistic solution. But we cannot allow the present state of confusion, disarray and shambles to continue, with specialist beef producers given no idea of what they can expect. They are now buying cattle at 25 to 30 per cent. below last year's market prices, in the hope that the home market will hold together and that there will be no further crisis to depress prices. They have to gamble on whether the export ban will be lifted within the maturation period of the cattle now coming on to the market. That is a pretty difficult situation for farmers to operate in.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) talked about his local special interest, but I believe that in my constituency I may have a greater concentration of beef production in all its aspects, across the board and from start to finish, than any other Member who represents anywhere else in the United Kingdom.
  Of course it is not only farmers who are affected. Cattle marts, abattoirs, refrigeration and transport companies and a variety of other service companies are affected, too. Thousands of jobs are at stake and thousands of incomes severely depressed. People face potential ruin. Yet, six months into the crisis, the Government have not even carried out their basic undertakings to the European Commission, which were to put forward detailed proposals on how to implement an agreed cull.
  Worse than that, the Government are now backing off, saying that they are not sure whether there is a case for going ahead with the cull that they previously agreed. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) is right to say that the good will that has existed so far within the European Commission will evaporate if we do not make detailed proposals, as we have undertaken to do.
  It is not good enough for Ministers to say that there is new scientific information. There is always new scientific information. That is the nature of science—and it is no excuse for not having made proposals on the basis of the scientific information available. If that includes a Government belief that, since the Florence agreement, new data have appeared that affect the outcome, let us by all means incorporate them into the detailed proposals.
  Farmers in Northern Ireland and Scotland, and all those whose work is ancillary to the beef production industry, demand that the Government take action under the terms of the Florence agreement. Will the Minister tell me whether there is active discussion between his Department and the Scottish Office so that they will be able to lead the way for the United Kingdom out of the bind, and implement the Florence agreement?
  10.34 am
  Rev. William McCrea: I congratulate the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) on his timely action in bringing this matter before the House. I assure him, and the leader of his party, that the leader of my party and all its Members will join the other Members of the House, especially those from Northern Ireland, in making a united case. That has been happening already. Only the other day, the three Members of the European Parliament for Northern Ireland stood united, shoulder to shoulder, on the important issue before us.
  750
  I am delighted that the Minister of State is at the Dispatch Box to answer the debate, because I believe that he is genuinely interested in all matters relevant to the Province.
  Sad to say, while we were facing a great crisis, other European countries tried to take advantage of the problems facing our beef industry, and of the British horror scenario. But for some of them it backfired. They intended to enter the markets to take advantage of our tragedy, but found that raising the issue backfired on them at home.
  The crisis affects not only agriculture but Northern Ireland as a whole, because the beef industry is our chief industry, and is worth £500 million to the Northern Ireland economy. It employs not only 25,000 people directly, on the farms and in processing, but many thousands of others in packaging, transport, distribution and sales. That is why the spin-off from the tragedy is hitting so many of our people. If decisive action is not taken soon, there will be no beef industry left. Radical steps are needed to restore confidence.
  The ban on beef exports hits Northern Ireland especially hard because, as has already been said, 70 to 80 per cent. of all our beef production is sold outside the Province. Therefore, the fight must continue to establish that Ulster beef should have a BSE status separate from that of the rest of the United Kingdom.
  Many of the reasons have been outlined already. Compared with the mainland, there is a minimal incidence of BSE in Northern Ireland; 34 per cent. of herds on the mainland have been struck by BSE, but only 3 per cent. of the herds in Northern Ireland. In Great Britain, 160,000 BSE cases have been recorded; the figure for Northern Ireland is 1,600. Yet Northern Ireland has more than 10 per cent. of the United Kingdom beef herd.
  The main difference between the situation in Northern Ireland and that in the rest of the United Kingdom is that a full record is kept, which means that the background, health and contacts of all cattle are fully traceable. It has been acknowledged that we have one of the best schemes anywhere in Europe. Not only that, but other countries in the European Community have acknowledged that we have the best beef production anywhere in the world.
  I know of countries that would be proud to accept Ulster beef, and delighted to sell it on their markets—but unfortunately, because of the decision in Europe, that cannot be done. I believe that the quality of our beef can meet the challenge of that produced anywhere else in the world, and that we could market it. But market outlets in Europe and beyond have made it clear that, although they would be prepared to sell our beef, they are prevented from doing so. The case for a separate BSE status for Northern Ireland beef is unassailable.
  The farmers are the innocent people in the story. They did nothing wrong. They listened to the guidance given them by the Department. Yet despite that, they are paying the price. We must recognise that the farmers did not do something wrong to make a quick buck or a quick pound, and the Government owe it to a vital industry to compensate them during this great crisis.
  It is sad to see big men in markets with tears in their eyes as they give away their cattle, but they realise that they cannot keep the animals, as they do not have feedingstuffs for the winter. The farming industry must

  751
  not allow any dealer to make himself fat from the horror and tragedy that many ordinary decent farmers are facing because of these burdens.
  As summer comes to an end, feeding cattle outside will be drawn to a conclusion. We are now entering the winter months, and many farmers will not have the finance necessary to provide food for their animals. I know of farmers who have gone to the bank and have been told not to write another cheque—not even for food for their own families. We must remember that many banks encouraged farmers to borrow, but—at the first sign of crisis—they will not even allow a farmer to write a cheque to put food on the table for his family. This is a human crisis, as well as an appalling crisis facing the industry.
  In a recent debate in another forum, it was unanimously demanded that Northern Ireland be recognised as having special status for BSE purposes, so that the worldwide export ban can be lifted as quickly as possible; that the backlog of cattle in the over-30-month cattle slaughter scheme be eliminated; that BSE flagging should apply to herds, and not holdings, and that a voluntary buy-up scheme be introduced for BSE flagged suckler herds; that specific beef intervention for Northern Ireland be introduced; that the Government provide fair and adequate compensation for beef producers in keeping with their previous commitments; and that the HLCAs be increased in the autumn review.
  These points have been unanimously expressed by hon. Members today. I hope that, as a result of the political unanimity in Northern Ireland, the Minister will concede our request, and that the Government will take urgent action on this very important issue.
  10.42 am
  Mr. Eric Illsley: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) on raising this important issue, and congratulate the other hon. Members who have taken part in a well-informed debate. The debate is especially timely, as it follows the Government's decision not to proceed with the selective cull of cattle, along with Monday's meeting in Northern Ireland with members of the European Parliament and the President of the Council of Agriculture Ministers.
  The crisis has been with us since March this year, and we appear to be no further forward in our efforts to lift the European ban. The importance of the beef industry to Northern Ireland has been mentioned this morning and previously in the House. The export trade is valued at about £500 million, and 80 per cent. of beef from Northern Ireland is exported—mainly to Europe. More than 16,000 farms rely on cattle to some extent.
  Yet, at the same time, the incidence of BSE in Northern Ireland is about l per cent. of the United Kingdom rate. That is mainly due to the traceability systems in operation in Northern Ireland, which must be replicated throughout the rest of the United Kingdom if we are to reduce the incidence of BSE and create the conditions to allow the ban to be lifted. The Minister of Agriculture has circulated a letter to all hon. Members this morning that refers to the proposed passport system, which will go some way to addressing the concerns.
  The fiasco since March has continued because of the possible link between Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and BSE, and the implementation of the ban by the European
  752
  Parliament. We do not appear to be any closer to the lifting of that ban, despite the Government's decision to cull all cattle over the age of 30 months. Problems have arisen with that cull as a result of the lack of rendering capacity and cold storage, both of which have been mentioned this morning. There have also been allegations that some abattoirs have been selected in preference to others, and will be allowed to profiteer at the expense of the other abattoirs.
  On the question of cold storage, I understand that another £16.6 million has been made available for extra cold storage facilities. An article in The Guardian last Friday referred to the possibility of the Government hiring cold storage ships to meet the demand for facilities as our existing cold storage facilities are—or will shortly be—exhausted. It is also argued that the £16.6 million has been made available by reducing the compensation payments that have been made to farmers affected by the crisis.
  The lack of rendering capacity and cold storage are examples of the incompetence of the Government in dealing with this issue. The cold storage is necessary, and the backlog must be addressed. We have heard several times—and heard again this morning—that farmers are now facing the costs of food and shelter for their animals as we approach the winter months.
  The backlog in Northern Ireland of animals in the over-30-month scheme is about 90,000, and this must be addressed. We are also conscious that farmers with animals that are waiting the longest to be part of the cull will be given the least compensation, as the Minister's letter tends to confirm. He said that market conditions have now led to a reduction in the compensation that is to be made available.
  In June, the Florence summit set a framework that, we were led to believe, could have led to the lifting of the export ban. The summit proposed five stages and a number of preconditions that had to be met by the Government before the Commission would consider lifting the ban. The Prime Minister told the House that the stages would be considered only and exclusively on the basis of public health, objective scientific criteria and the judgment of the Commission. It is important to recognise that the objective criteria will be judged by the same scientists who recommended the imposition of the export ban.
  The preconditions include the accelerated selective slaughter programme, which will try to accelerate the decline in the incidence of BSE. That programme was approved by the Commission, and the number of cattle suggested for that cull varied between 20,000 and 150,000. Other preconditions were: the recording of movement, identification and registration; the removal of meat and bonemeal from feed and farms; the confirmation of the over-30-month culling scheme; and improved procedures for the removal of specified bovine materials from carcases.
  The Prime Minister said that, if those conditions were met, the export ban could be lifted over five stages. But he also said that the ban could be lifted by October, and it is quite clear that he was way off the mark. Those stages related to certified herds, animals born after a specified date and the export of embryos—which would come later—and meat from animals under 30 months of age.
  The ban on meat from animals over 30 months would remain, but the basic preconditions were that the cull of animals aged over 30 months should continue and that the

  753
  accelerated selective cull should take place. There have been delays in the over-30-month cull—as I have state—hut the selective cull was suspended by the Government in the week of 20 September 1996.
  As luck would have it, I was in the European Parliament the following morning when Commissioner Franz Fischler addressed the Parliament on agricultural issues, and I can tell the House that he was completely surprised by the Government's decision to suspend the scheme. Most of the MEPs in the Chamber—I spoke to a few—were also surprised by the Government's decision. That raises the question whether the European Commission was consulted before the Government decided to suspend the cull. Obviously, that was done on the basis of the Oxford study, which mentioned the phasing out of BSE, by 2001.
  As the Minister repeated in the Chamber on Monday, however, there are signs that European member states would not agree to lift the ban even if the selective cull took place. What evidence is there for that? If the Minister cannot answer today, perhaps he can write to me once he has consulted the Minister of Agriculture.
  The reaction of the Commissioner in the European Parliament that morning was that he had not been consulted. He gave no sign that there would be any reluctance on the part of the Commission to the lifting of the ban if the selective cull took place. One thing was clear when he addressed the European Parliament that morning—he said that the conditions of the Florence framework still stood. Regardless of the Oxford study and the Minister's view of what the Commission might or might not do, the Government would have to meet the conditions of that agreement before the ban could be lifted.
  At the moment, we are unable to meet two of the conditions of the framework. We cannot achieve the over-30-month cull until later this year—probably into next—and we cannot achieve a selective cull, because of the Government's attitude to the Commission and their belief that the Oxford study suggests that whatever we do would make no difference.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce)—what are the Government going to do? Are we going to wait until 2001 to discover whether BSE dies out? Or are the Government going to take action to renegotiate the Florence framework to put in place a proper timetable? It is all right the Government saying that the Oxford study says that the selective cull is no good. The National Farmers Union said as long ago as July that such a cull had no scientific basis. The Commission is sticking to the Florence timetable, and the Government have to take some action to get the framework in place so that the ban is lifted.
  The idea of certified herds is welcome for Northern Ireland, which has had fewer than 2000 cases of BSE—46 this year. A selective cull would enable Northern Ireland to meet the Florence framework; I endorse the words of the Minister of Agriculture, who said that the certified herd system lent itself well to Northern Ireland.
  Better news for Northern Ireland came from the meeting on Monday between Members of the European Parliament and the president of the Council of Agriculture Ministers, which suggested that initiatives could take place to enable Northern Ireland to meet the Florence framework. I agree with Mr. Yates, who said that they
  754
  had set out a route for a regional initiative, and that the British Government should treat Northern Ireland as a first pilot scheme for implementing the Florence agreement on selective culling. The Government should allow Northern Ireland to meet the conditions, and thus enable the ban to be lifted in the Province.
  10.52 am
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) and I shall try to pick up as many of his points as I can. He invited me to write to him if I could not answer one question in detail, and I undertake to do so during the next few days.
  This has been a particularly important debate for Northern Ireland, as has been evidenced by the number of Members representing Northern Ireland who have attended. They have included the right hon. Members for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) and for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux) and the hon. Members for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and for South Antrim (Mr. Forsythe), as well as those who managed to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  In the few minutes left to me, I shall certainly try to pick up as many points as I can. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) on the way in which he opened the debate. He spoke for the farming community and all the political parties in Northern Ireland by expressing in some detail his concern about this important issue, which he correctly described as one of the greatest setbacks in the past 150 years. That was a theme of many of the other speeches.
  I shall try to answer as many of his questions as I can to help him. He spoke about speeding up the over-30-month cull. By the end of October, I hope to be able to double the rate of the cull to 8,000 animals a week. As I understand it, the Lisburn facility will be fully operational again on 28 October, more cold storage space is being made available, and there is no shortage.
  Since the beginning of the crisis—that is a greatly overused word in this place, but it is correctly employed when dealing with this subject—all but one of the Northern Ireland tenders have been met in full. The Government are consulting the farming unions in Northern Ireland on how the additional £60 million is to be spent.
  With regard to the Florence agreement—the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) also intervened on this subject—the selective cull is only suspended, and the Government are proceeding in accordance with that agreement, looking at all the scientific evidence, and in consultation with European Commission authorities.
  The hon. Member for South Down asked whether the Government could guarantee that intervention tenders would be met in full in future. That is for the European Union beef management committee to decide. The Government will press for all tenders to be awarded in full. He also asked about calf sales. So far, calf prices in the autumn sales in Northern Ireland are holding up well.
  As one might suppose, the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) spoke with his customary authority as a farmer. He properly reminded the House that the problems affect the community as a whole, and

  755
  extend well beyond the farm gate. He is right. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) also pointed that out, and raised a number of questions relating to Scotland, which my colleagues in the Scottish Office will be interested to consider.
  The hon. Member for East Londonderry also spoke about the help line telephone being off the hook. I take that seriously. The responsible officials will look into that matter to ensure that, when the telephone is used, help is available to those who seek it.
  If the Government get approval for the certified herd scheme, they will consider the selective culling of the 2,000 or so animals in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the over-30-month scheme. I can tell him that meat plants cannot tap into the Government's computer, as that would be illegal under the Data Protection Acts—a real constraint. The Government could have run the booking system more fairly, but the problem with that suggestion is that commencement would have been significantly delayed.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) also spoke powerfully, pointing out that all Northern Ireland is united in trying to deal with the problem. The European ban on exports of British beef and beef products is damaging the livelihoods of all those dependent on the beef industry, and arguably nowhere more so than in Northern Ireland, with its heavy dependence on exports to Europe and beyond.
  It should be noted that, before the EU ban was imposed, between 1991 and 1995 farm incomes in Northern Ireland had risen by about 91 per cent. in real terms. Now, the effects of the ban are being felt much more widely in Northern Ireland than simply in the agriculture industry.
  Reference has been made to the special arrangement for Northern Ireland, and I shall say briefly in the minute that I have left that the answer, the Government contend, does not lie in that direction. The solution is—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must now move on to Her Majesty's Government's policy on Latin America.

  Latin America
  11 am
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: I am most grateful to Madam Speaker for granting this Adjournment debate, the latest in the current Session, on Britain's relations with Latin America. This is the ninth successive yearly debate that we have had on Latin America, a tradition started in the House in 1988. It is interesting to contrast the debate those nine years ago with the debate today, based on the situation in Latin America in those years.
  Nine years ago, we were viewing the early stages of a return to democracy and the demise of the dictatorships that so stained the reputation of Latin America. The House itself was involved in heated ideological warfare with Chile on the one hand and Nicaragua and Cuba on the other, and Latin America was then a byword for high inflation. Today, we debate Latin America against a background of stable economies and stable Governments. It is interesting that the recent great political pressures in Venezuela and in Paraguay did not lead to the traditional overthrow of the Government and imposition of a dictator.
  In recent years, we have also witnessed the impeachment processes of the Presidents of Brazil and of Colombia and how that painful process resulted in democracy holding sway, albeit with very different outcomes in the two countries. Today in Latin America there are stable economies, stable Governments, historically low inflation, growth, open markets and privatisation, all of which provide great opportunities for Britain.
  We should not forget the power of the Latin American region. It ranks alongside the Pacific rim and southern Asia in opportunities for our country. Latin America's economy is equal to or greater than those of Africa, the Indian sub-continent and south-east Asia put together. We should reflect on the fact that Brazil alone has an economy as powerful as that of Spain and that its state of Sao Paulo alone has an economy equal to that of Belgium.
  The economy of Mexico is greater than those of Sweden, Hong Kong and Nigeria put together. The economies of Venezuela and Colombia, taken together, are more powerful than that of South Africa, an area in which this country takes a considerable interest. Last, but not least, Chile's economy is greater than that of either Malaysia or Singapore.
  British interests in Latin America are nothing new. George Canning, then Foreign Secretary, said in a Commons debate in 1826 that Britain had
  "called the New World into existence. to redress the balance of the Old."—[Official Report, 12 December 1826: Vol. 16, (2nd Series) c. 397.]
  From independence onwards, Britain has taken a major partnership role in the region's development, involving railways, public utilities, banking and shipping, to mention but a few aspects.
  The historic links with this country are perhaps best exemplified by an event that is taking place just a few hundred yards from the House, as President Eduardo Frei of Chile lays a wreath at the tomb of Admiral Lord Cochrane in Westminster abbey. The House will perhaps recall the colourful career of that naval officer, who took a leading role in the independence struggles not only of Chile but also of Brazil and of Greece. Lord Cochrane's

  757
  contribution to Latin American independence ranks alongside the midwife roles of Canning, of Ponsonby in Uruguay and of the British soldiers and sailors of the Legion Britanica who served under Simon Bolivar in the independence struggle in northern and western south America.
  So much for history; what of today? Our Foreign Affairs Select Committee has just returned from its journeyings in Latin America duly impressed, and we look forward to its report. The Inter-Parliamentary Union has dispatched delegations to Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil in the past three months, all of which have been successful. Members of the House have played a key role in the six successive Argentine-British conferences, which have done so much to reconstruct relations between our two countries following the tragedy of the south Atlantic only 14 years ago.
  In all those ventures, our embassies and consulates in the region have played a valuable facilitating role. I pay tribute to the valued work of our diplomats in all the countries of Latin America—we can proudly use the word "all", with the recent opening of our new embassy in Santo Domingo in the Dominican Republic.
  There was a time, particularly under previous Governments, when we closed and reopened missions with the regularity of yo-yos. I hope that the tight spending round in progress will not lead to a recurrence of that dismal process and that my hon. Friend the Minister will be a doughty fighter on our behalf in that respect. That is particularly important, as Latin America represents a massive opportunity for Britain, which we would do well indeed to get up and grasp.
  I commend the proposed conference of key British business men due to be held in January next year, co-ordinated by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of Trade and Industry, with key Latin American speakers from the highest level in the continent. It will be a magnificent opportunity for British business to learn more, building on the "Links into Latin America" programme of the DTI. I also commend the initiatives of Canning house, the Latin American centre in London, and its series of conferences and seminars, not least in the educational sphere.
  Perhaps the biggest challenge in Latin America is the development of trading blocs. Mercosur, which is in effect the southern common market, was established as recently as 1991 by Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay, and has flourished. Although much work needs to be done to free up sectors and to apply a common external tariff, the volume of intra-group trade between the countries has grown impressively. In 1990, the year before Mercosur's inception, trade among the four countries amounted to $4 billion; by 1995 it had more than tripled to $14.5 billion. The impact of Mercosur is clear.
  Above all, the venture of Mercosur is seen as a union of nation states with a minimum of supranational institutions, and with decisions taken by consensus. It is significant that it is avoiding the pitfalls of excessive bureaucracy, over-regulation and money-churning that have become the hallmark of the European Union. To date, Mercosur has maintained only a small secretariat in Montevideo and work is conducted through joint working parties, particularly to deal with the non-tariff issues.
  758
  Both President Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil and President Carlos Menem of Argentina have given an impressive lead in those developments, and the four countries are pushing a five-year programme to develop the free trade area and the customs union.
  Close ties are being developed with Chile. Tariffs are falling and Chile, the region's fastest growing economy, is coming closer to Mercosur. Bolivia is next into the frame to be associated with it. Mercosur has concluded an inter-regional co-operation agreement with the European Union that was signed in Madrid a year ago.
  Sir Kenneth Carlisle: I was interested to hear what my hon. Friend had to say about Mercosur. Does he agree that one of the most interesting developments to arise from that freer, larger market is the substantial investment by European and other countries in the Mercosur countries, especially in the automobile industry? There has been great investment by, for example, Volkswagen and Fiat simply because the market in that area is so much bigger now.
  Mr. Arnold: Stability and free trade have already had the remarkable effects for Mercosur that I have outlined. The opportunities for British investment are certainly there. I hope that the Rover Group will read the debate and bring its proposals for that area to a more rapid conclusion.
  Mr. Robert Banks: Does my hon. Friend recall that the Trade and Industry Select Committee visited Argentina and Brazil last year and submitted a report to the House pointing out the advantages for British companies in trading with both those countries and in looking more widely to the Mercosur region? There are considerable opportunities. Mercosur is a very good and expanding organisation.
  Mr. Arnold: I thank my hon. Friend for raising the important Select Committee on Trade and Industry report and the hard work done by the Committee, which I hope will further highlight the opportunities for Britain.
  Elsewhere in the continent, progress is being made by Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela in the rejuvenation of the Grupo Andino, which is working on a free trade agreement with Mercosur, perhaps including Peru, and with which Panama is associated.
  The process undertaken by Mercosur and the Grupo Andino contrasts with the north American free trade agreement, which was severely jolted by the Mexican financial crisis last year—a crisis that brought about a paralysis of any extension of NAFTA which has been exacerbated by United States internal politics.
  All this points to opportunities for Britain and Europe. There is a growing tide of opinion in favour of a coherent relationship between a Latin American trading bloc bringing together its component parts, and a partnership with Europe and other regions around the world. The NAFTA experience and the Uncle Sam tendency, best exemplified by the haughty treatment of Colombia when it was struggling with the drugs menace can only emphasise Latin America's will to have close ties with the wider world.
  All these matters underline the key role and opportunity for Britain. We are the natural point for Latin American countries' relationship with Europe—the logical first port

  759
  of call in Europe. President Frei is here today. President Zedillo of Mexico was here earlier this year, when he addressed a meeting of both Houses of Parliament in an exceptional way. President Cardoso of Brazil is expected next year. Dozens of other high-powered Ministers, business men and so on have come to London in recent months.
  Not only is London the world's leading financial and business centre, but our patterns of international trade are unique in Europe. That best ties in with the interest and preference of the Latin American republics. We are the obvious champions for Latin America within the counsels of Europe. Whereas France, Spain and Portugal have interests, particularly agricultural ones, which are competitive with those of Latin America, our interests are almost entirely complementary to those of Latin America. I look forward to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office highlighting our work in that context.
  To highlight the economic progress of the past year, I point to the stable currencies and low inflation in Brazil and Argentina, although I wonder what pressures are building up behind their highly valued currencies. We should note the continued excellent performance of Chile and the renaissance of Peru and Bolivia. Mexico is making a steady recovery after its financial crisis last year. We are also witnessing a coherent fight in Venezuela. Many of us were fascinated to hear the presentation at the House yesterday by the Venezuelan Finance Minister and the president of its central bank.
  It is interesting to note in passing that the economy of the Falkland islands is also doing well, particularly in the fishing sector and the oil industry, in which more harmony is developing with its neighbour, Argentina.
  Over the years, Britain has been a leading partner in infrastructure projects. One thinks of the Rio-Niterói bridge in Brazil, and we are looking at the Bolivia-Brazil pipeline. A massive series of projects is linked with the Hidrovia project—a project to develop the navigational capacity of the Parana and Paraguay rivers and their tributaries, from their upper waters in Bolivia and Brazil through Paraguay, Uruguay and Argentina to the River Plate and the Atlantic ocean. The scale of the engineering projects—to the tune of US$2 billion—presents massive opportunities for British companies. From the upstream terminus at Puerto Suarez in Bolivia, through the navigation channel up the Itaipu dam, opening up the Brazilian waterways as far as Sao Paulo, down to Nueva Palmira in Uruguay—the major open sea port at the mouth—there is much work to be done. Furthermore, there is the massive proposal for a River Plate bridge between Buenos Aires and Colonia del Sacramento in Uruguay. I hope that our embassies in all five countries are on the ball, and that our excellent trade promoters will alert potential British participants to the opportunities.
  Privatisation is one of the greatest recent British success stories, and it is being emulated throughout the region. There are massive opportunities for British expertise and experience, not only in the process itself and the development of local stock markets but in popular shareholding. There is also a massive opportunity for British investment in the privatised companies. Our record, notwithstanding local successes such as British
  760
  Gas in Buenos Aires, is not as good as it might be. There is much to be done. We must be in there, playing a leading part as the privatisation programme continues to roll out.
  Education and training is another area of opportunity for us. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment recently visited Chile and Colombia and my noble Friend Lord Henley has visited Brazil, Argentina and Mexico. It is fascinating to note the enthusiasm of many Latin American countries for our national vocational qualification system. A major project is under way in Mexico in conjunction with our National Council for Vocational Qualifications. That project is funded by the World bank. There are also interesting developments in Colombia, Argentina and Brazil in that respect.
  Throughout the region, there is dynamic activity in English language teaching, British cultural events and projects involving British higher education. This is being fostered and led by the British Council and its sister Cultura Inglesa institutes. Local British schools, notably in São Paulo and Buenos Aires, are flourishing. I am sure that the work of all of them will be encouraged by the Government.
  Drugs are a scourge that afflicts Latin America, taking up too much Government time, corrupting the body politic and ruining lives. Let us always remember that the drug trade would not exist if the developed world did not pay very high prices for the deadly stuff. The solution is co-operation, not head banging. The disgraceful treatment of Colombia by the United States, with its certification process, is not the answer. The discreet professional assistance that we provide to Colombia and other Latin American Governments is the commendable route to take.
  Latin America is a vibrant and developing area of the world and we ignore it at our peril. We must redouble our efforts, work with our friends and play a part in the continent, because it will rank alongside the Pacific rim as a focus of growth in the 21st century.
  11.18 am
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I shall speak briefly and I hope that the House will forgive me if I leave briefly when I have finished speaking. I will return for the rest of the debate.
  It is good that we are yet again debating the situation in Latin America and relations with it. As the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) said, this is the ninth year that we have had such a debate. It is usually at 3 o'clock in the morning, so this is a great improvement. We should put it on record that President Frei of Chile is visiting Britain this week. In the sense that he represents democracy in Chile and the removal of the dictatorship, his visit is extremely welcome.
  Far less welcome are the strong rumours that General Pinochet is also in Britain. He is associated with the reign of terror in Chile and the destruction of human rights as well as of many Chilean trade unions and other organisations. He is here, presumably, on yet another arms buying spree. His very existence serves as a memory of the danger of the power of the military to any democratic movement in Latin America. Of course, the British Governments of the past happily sold arms to that dictator.
  The hon. Member for Gravesham is true to himself, as he preaches privatisation in this country and everywhere else. He is an advocate of the trickle-down theory,

  761
  whereby, if one makes a lot of people very rich, some of the poor might get a bob or two as a result. Unfortunately, the trickle-down theory does not work here any more than it works anywhere else, as he may well know.
  The hon. Gentleman offered a rosy view of Latin America and suggested that the economic expansion that he described in a number of countries is working fine. That is merely a surface impression gleaned from the economic journals that the hon. Gentleman reads. There are serious human rights abuses in a number of those countries, as well as enormous problems of poverty and, indeed, the impoverishment of the poorest people in those countries.
  The way in which the World bank and the International Monetary Fund have promoted privatisation projects and structural adjustment programmes is deeply regrettable. In many ways, such programmes pose a threat to the democracy that those organisations purport to support. British companies are making a great deal of money out of those privatisations.
  Many of us look askance at the behaviour of British Gas. At the time of its privatisation it was sold cheap to shareholders, and it is now using the resulting enormous profits that it has made from share dealings in this country to invest in privatisation programmes in other countries. I find that deplorable, because Latin America needs long-term investment in infrastructure development and, above all, support to develop and improve public services, particularly education and health.
  There has not been a vast increase in expenditure on education and health in some of the countries mentioned by the hon. Member for Gravesham. Indeed, the structural adjustment programmes adopted in many of them have led to cuts in public expenditure as a result of the combination of privatisation and the closure of a number of public service projects. That is a serious matter.
  During the summer, I had the pleasure of meeting Hector Villamil, a member of the Ecuadorean Parliament, who was elected in May as a representative of an environmental party and represents part of the Ecuadorean Amazon region. He was on a lecture tour in this country, and when he visited my home we had a long discussion about what is happening in Ecuador. He described how oil companies, mostly owned by the United States, have been given enormous franchises for the Ecuadorean Amazon region and the problems that that has caused.
  Hector's party has circulated a paper describing the problems that have arisen since those companies commenced oil drilling in the Amazon region. It states:
  "Since then, oil drilling has left an indelible mark on the Ecuadorean Amazon: untreated toxic wastes have been dumped in the rainforest, rivers and soils have been contaminated, trees have been cut down and wildlife destroyed. Oil drilling has also seriously disrupted the lives of indigenous communities in this remote region by damaging natural resources they use for nutritional, medicinal, domestic … religious and recreational purposes. The oil companies' invasion of traditional territories has dislocated and dispossessed entire ethnic groups (such as the Cofan and Tagaeri). Oil pollution has also affected the health of local inhabitants, with increased incidences of skin rashes, fevers, headaches, malnutrition, and miscarriages."
  Crucially, that paper goes on to report:
  "Little, if any, of the wealth generated by oil has found its way back to these communities."
  Hector was here in part to promote a book describing what is known as the "green guerrilla process" and recounts how the poorest people in the poorest regions of
  762
  many Latin American countries are incensed by the activities of multinational corporations, some of which are based in this country. Those corporations are in the process of rapidly extracting oil and other minerals from the ground, but they pay scant or no regard to the needs of the people in those communities and the long-term damage caused to them.
  One can understand the outrage and anger felt by those people when they see enormous wealth being made from their communities and none of it being fed back to them. Despite the vast profits made from those regions, those people still suffer high levels of infant mortality, a low life expectancy, poor education and almost non-existent health services. Moreover, the environmental destruction in Ecuador is not an isolated incident: one can see the same effects in Colombia and Venezuela and particularly in Peru and Bolivia.
  On Sunday, Nicaraguans go to the polls for the first round of their elections—obviously, we do not know the final outcome. The programmes that the Chamorro Government have agreed with the IMF and the World bank have caused high levels of unemployment and massive privatisation. That has led to an increase in poverty and violence. Arms that were provided either to the Sandinista army or to the Contras during the Contra war are now in the hands of people who are either struggling to survive or who intend to use them for criminal purposes. The poison of the war waged by the United States against the Nicaraguan people in the late 1970s and the early 1980s is still with us. Those of us who saw "Newsnight" will be aware of the report about CIA sales of crack within the United States. That, too, emanates from the poison of that conflict.
  It is interesting to note that, whatever the result of the election, the structural adjustment programme strategy of the IMF and the World bank will pertain. The national Government will have little power to alter it because those organisations have made it clear that they reached an agreement with the Chamorro Government, and that that agreement must stick.
  Those who support the structural adjustment programmes which have led to the privatisation of utilities and state-owned enterprises and are opposed to land reform and all that goes with it should recognise that they are storing up enormous problems for the future. The rising in the Chiapas region of Mexico mirrored the activities of the Frente Farabundo Marti para la Liberacion Nacional in El Salvador and the Sandinista in Nicaragua, who responded to the impoverishment experienced in the 1960s and 1970s and the denial of democracy. We are storing up exactly the same problems for the future and this time British multinationals are as much involved as anyone else. We cannot just ignore those facts—we must bear some responsibility for them.
  For many years many of us have been deeply concerned, if not appalled, at the human rights record of Haiti. It is important to put on record that the successive Duvalier Governments were cited in common parlance around the world as an example of a Government who destroyed human rights and lived entirely by the power of the secret police and the threat that they posed. It is difficult to say exactly which is the poorest country in the world, but Haiti, unfortunately, is certainly one of the poorest.
  At least a mass popular movement and protest succeeded in getting rid of the Duvaliers. Since then, the Haitian Governments have looked to countries that espouse

  763
  democracy for support and aid to develop an education system, a health service and all the other connected essential public services, but they have looked in vain. Instead, that country has been visited by representatives from Washington and the World bank. A structural adjustment programme has been introduced that has privatised the publicly owned services and industries, such as they were. Above all, however, that programme means that Haiti is used as a source of cheap labour for United States-owned multinationals. That is the US strategy.
  Sir Kenneth Carlisle rose—
  Mr. Corbyn: I will not give way, as I want to conclude soon.
  Multinational corporations, acting through a trading arrangement promoted by the US, intend to use the Caribbean basin and central America as a source of cheap labour. That policy will cause a huge conflict in the future. There could be competition between workers in the United States and workers in that region. However, a conference of trade unions in the United States this summer—which I attended—was told that people employed by the same multinationals on either side of the border are getting together because they believe that unity and not competition in low wages is the way forward.
  Sir Kenneth Carlisle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Corbyn: No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman has plenty of time to make a speech, so he need not worry.
  When the Minister replies, I hope that he will deal with the concerns of many human rights organisations about the position in Guatemala, the training of the Guatemalan military and the supply of equipment by Britain to Guatemala. Although on the surface things have changed somewhat, as they have in many countries—Governments have changed and there are now some democratic opportunities—beneath the surface the same secret police, the same oppressive armies and the same people who abused human rights for so long still have substantial power. There is much concern about the fact that we are involved in training the Guatemalan military, which has an appalling human rights record—it is almost second to none in the continent. I do not believe that we should have such involvement.
  We have an important role to play in supporting human rights and the democratic agenda in Latin America. If we promote an economic strategy which increases the gap between rich and poor, creates vast shanty towns, destroys people's environments and livelihoods, we are storing up enormous troubles for the future. The poorest people in that region will not sit idly by and watch their oil and other minerals being exploited by foreign multinationals while none of the benefits ever trickle down to those impoverished rural communities.
  11.31 am
  Mr. Ray Whitney: We are participating in what has become a happy tradition in the House of Commons. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Islington,
  764
  North (Mr. Corbyn) has to leave us, but I understand why. He has become part of that tradition, which is to remind all of us present, and anyone who cares to read the record of the debate, where the soul of the Labour party still lies and how unreconstructed and resolutely backward-looking most of it is.
  I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has participated in all nine debates, but for many years he has given the same performance as he gave this morning, which is to look resolutely backwards to the problems and ills of the 1970s, and even of the 1960s, and to talk about the dreadful threat of the multinationals. That shows his failure to understand the benefits of free-market economics, which almost everyone in the world save this last redoubt in the British Labour party has come to understand. The hon. Gentleman's contribution was comforting, because we can now feel at home again. I hope that the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) will try to take his party a little further forward—if he cannot make 1996, perhaps he can at least get to the 1980s and take us out of the 1960s, where his hon. Friend left us.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) not only on initiating this ninth debate, but on his indefatigable contribution to the causes of British parliamentary links with Latin America at all levels. Those of us who know what he does will warmly support my remarks.
  As my hon. Friend said, this debate has become an annual fixture, so the perspective inevitably changes. Last year, we were still in the shadow of the Mexican currency and political crisis and its impact on Mexico and the rest of Latin America. Happily, the 12 months since then have been good economically for Latin America—we always have the problem of not being able to itemise each country but having to speak about them as a generality. Solid progress has been made in the economic sphere, especially in the southern cone countries. We are all extremely thankful for that.
  The free-market philosophy, which Opposition Members find so difficult to swallow, has continually proved its effectiveness. Although there are problems, to which I shall refer later, there has undoubtedly been a trickle-down effect. The Financial Times of 25 March 1996 contained an interesting statistic that caught my eye. The article referred to the better diet of the poor in Brazil, and stated that 17 per cent. more chickens were consumed in 1995 than in 1994. That statistic may be of interest to the hon. Member for Islington, North, who is worried about the trickle-down effect. More must be done, but the trend is in the right direction.
  The privatisation process has been tremendous. The most recent figures that I have seen show that, in the five years from 1990 to 1995, no fewer than 645 state corporations throughout the countries of Latin America were brought into the private sector. Much of that transition was based on experience in this country. Many experts from Britain went to Latin America to assist, and made an important contribution to that process.
  Most Latin American countries have conducted economic stabilisation policies that have achieved significant success. Legendary inflation rates—we all talked about the banana republics of Latin America with their 500 per cent. or 1,000 per cent. Inflation—are on their way out. In Brazil, the inflation rate in 1994 was 92 per cent., but in 1995 it was reduced to 22 per cent.

  765
  It is still high, but the figures are going in the right direction, as they are in virtually every country in Latin America. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham said, every country is still exposed to certain pressures and dangers. The export earnings of Latin America increased last year by 20 per cent., and investment flows were estimated at $18 billion, which held up on the figure for the previous year. All that is very good news.
  Growth in 1995 was only 0.3 per cent.—it was seriously affected by what had happened in Mexico—but this year it is 10 times that—about 3 per cent.—4 per cent. is forecast for 1997, and still greater growth is predicted for the year after. Economic progress is greatly to be welcomed and applauded.
  Economic co-operation between the countries of Latin America has made significant progress. Those of us who have been connected with Latin America over the years will recall the many efforts made to establish regional co-operation that were not successful, and which gently trickled into the sand or into the pending trays of one or two diplomats. Now, there are two well-established organisations—the North American Free Trade Agreement and Mercosur—and we have every reason to believe that they will be successful.
  What happened in Mexico has put a slight check on NAFTA's development, and the devaluation of the Mexican peso has changed the balance and the issues involved for the United States and Canada, but NAFTA is here to stay, whatever the trend. However, Mercosur is a story of considerable success. A recent forecast suggests that the links that Chile has developed will create
  "a market of 220m people with a combined GDP of nearly $1 trillion and total trade of $175 billion. That makes it a … powerful … counterpoint to NAFTA"
  and is very significant for the European Union. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham mentioned the development of links between our country and the European Union and the Mercosur countries. I welcome that process.
  With the forthcoming addition of Bolivia, and perhaps of other countries, Mercosur will become increasingly important. Those of us who believe in free trade hope that it will develop throughout Latin America, that links between the European Union and the whole of Latin America will be enhanced, and that we will increase collaboration and not develop into two antagonistic trading blocs. Britain has a very significant role to play in developing that collaboration.
  We all applaud the fact that, despite problems here and there, there is political stability. In three or four countries, there is a new tendency for presidents to become eligible for second terms. Some people regard that as a dangerous step, but it is to be welcomed within proper democratic limits because it gives stability and coherence. We should not forget that Latin America has had a turbulent political, military interventionist history since the second world war, and we should not take for granted the democratic stability that it has achieved. It needs to be further developed and entrenched by allowing presidents second terms.
  That constitutional stability has been achieved at a time when many—probably all—Latin American countries have been obliged to institute tough economic stability regimes. As we know in this country and across the channel, tough measures of economic restoration carry
  766
  with them political pressures and dangers; many Latin America leaders have successfully faced up to those pressures.
  The threat of military intervention, to which we had grown accustomed in Latin American countries, did not materialise. The only example—the threat of General Oviedo in Paraguay to President Wasmosy—failed. Pressures from other Latin American countries and strength in Paraguay ensured that General Oviedo and all the other military leaders in the continent are back in barracks and, pray God, will stay there to do the job that they are meant to do instead of intervening in the political process.
  The political stability that Latin American countries have achieved has enabled them, in their growing self-confidence, to play a much more justified role on the world stage. Brazil has strong ambitions for a permanent seat on the Security Council of the United Nations. Argentina makes important contributions to the United Nations' activities. That emphasises the fact that the United Kingdom Government must take Latin American countries extremely seriously—strategically, diplomatically, politically, economically and commercially—as I expect they do.
  That is not to say that the countries of Latin America are without problems. It would be strange if they were. The strong personal presidential focus that occurs in so many countries poses dangers. The problems of the caudillo, which are traditional in Latin American countries, must be avoided. It is important that they create the democratic concept of a loyal and established opposition, with a democratic transfer of power from one group of politicians to another without upheaval. In each country, the concept of what we would describe in Britain as traditional political parties must be strengthened. There should not be a clique in the capital, wheeling and dealing for its own benefit. Progress is chequered, not uniform, but it is being made.
  Progress is also being made in developing governmental and bureaucratic structures—education, health and all those things that people in many countries may take for granted—although there are problems. The infrastructure in many Latin American countries needs to be enhanced.
  Many Latin American leaders admit that the gap between rich and poor is a growing problem, and I agree with the hon. Member for Islington, North that Latin American politicians must tackle it. Although I believe that the statistics prove that, in general, the trickle-down effect is working, there are some worrying data about the very rich in Latin America. The latest figures I have show that
  "There are 35 dollar-billionaires in Latin America, according to Forbes"
  magazine, of whom 15 come from Mexico. Although I have no objection to the accumulation of wealth in principle, that problem deserves serious attention in countries where there are the social problems of which we are aware and the linked problems of corruption and drugs. I shall not repeat the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham.
  The existence of such problems must not be allowed to obscure the great progress that has been made and the potential that continues to be developed in Latin America. That brings us back to the United Kingdom and to what Her Majesty's Government should do.

  767
  For more than a quarter of a century, I have been involved. on and off, with efforts to make the British public—especially the British business community—aware of the potential of Latin America. Many are the initiatives that British Governments have taken and continue to take. It is time for a further renewed effort, especially—as I have said several times—in the regions of the United Kingdom. There is much knowledge in London, especially the City, about what happens in Latin America. Many of our old-established enterprises—trading houses and so on—in Latin America do very well, but in my opinion they tend to get on with it quietly and do it themselves.
  We must make further efforts to ensure that medium-sized companies throughout the United Kingdom do not become fixated on, for example, the Asian tigers and think that Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Caracas, Buenos Aires and Santiago are strange places with funny generals in funny hats and unstable regimes. All hon. Members know that that is far from the truth. The reality is much more encouraging, but we must make further efforts to get that information across. I hope that all of us do what we can as Members of Parliament to further that campaign, but we look to the Government for a lead. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to reassure all of us that the ambition to spread an awareness of the opportunities in Latin America is shared by Her Majesty's Government.
  11.50 am
  Sir Kenneth Carlisle: I am delighted to take part in this annual debate. I add my thanks and congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), not only for organising this yearly debate, but for everything else he does during the year to promote our good relations with Latin America. I have great respect for his activities in that regard.
  I am delighted that our relations with Latin America have improved so much. All of us who love that part of the world can only take pleasure from the fact that our trade with that area is growing, that our links with the people are ever more active and that we appear to be moving on a strong upward curve toward re-establishing our historic links with those countries. That is undoubtedly occurring because free trade and firmly based democracy are now dominant in Latin America.
  I am especially interested in watching the development of Mercosur. In my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham, I mentioned the stimulating effect on investment, free trade and the growth of jobs that that development has had over the past five or six years. Investment into the whole region is impressive and I am delighted that the United Kingdom is at the forefront of that effort.
  As we all know, substantial UK companies such as British Gas, our water companies, British Petroleum and other oil companies, are now operating in Argentina and other countries. We are also investing in manufacturing in telecommunications. That is mirrored by the huge interest and activity of the financial services sector. Only a week or two ago, I visited a merchant bank in the City that had realised that it had to get back into South America because all its rivals were setting up offices there. Such activity
  768
  promotes not only businesses that are already established and growing, but the skills that we can offer—for example, our experience in privatisation ensures that our aid and advice on that subject are second to none.
  The scene is one of growing activity and encouragement. We all have an interest, therefore, in the continuing stability and growth of Latin American economies. It is not easy for countries to achieve those aims. For example, the value of the Argentine currency is high and unemployment is great. We must try to ensure that growth continues at the level that is needed to cut unemployment. Stability, democracy and inward investment are essential in that effort.
  I strongly echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) about opportunities for this country. Although many of our major companies are active in Latin America, we need to spread the word to get middle-ranking companies involved to a much greater extent. I am always impressed by figures showing that our investment is, I believe, the second largest in Latin America—it certainly is in Argentina—but our exports are not as high in the league. We need the involvement of smaller companies if we are to do better.
  We can help Argentina to face its current unemployment problems by investing in growth, but we should also support President Menem's courageous efforts to address the structural inflexibilities in Argentina's labour market. That is a difficult long-term problem and President Menem is trying to get the unions to address practically the requirements of modern economies. We wish him well in that brave effort.
  In general, our relations with South America are encouraging. One of the most interesting aspects of free trade and economic stability is their effect on democracy. I tried to intervene on the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) to make that point, but he was determined not to listen. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe said, the example of Paraguay, where the threat to democracy was overcome by pressure from neighbours, is a tremendous tribute to what can be achieved by free trade and large areas of economic co-operation. Everyone in Paraguay knew that, if a dictatorship were re-established, the country would have to leave Mercosur and all the advantages that that brought. In that part of South America, free trade and democracy go hand in hand.
  My hon. Friends and I are adamant that we should seek to ensure that the European Union is generous and open with Mercosur. We do not want trading blocs to raise tariffs against each other. This country's reputation for supporting free trade should lead us to ensure that barriers between trading blocs continue to fall. It is of the greatest importance that our Government should pursue that aim over the next two years.
  Before ending, I should mention the continuing difficulties associated with finding a long-term solution to the questions surrounding the Falkland Islands. I know that both the British and Argentine Governments are working hard to develop co-operation in matters such as oil exploration and fishing. We must work hard to find practical solutions. We must be tolerant. We must work hard to get the support of the peoples of both countries and make them see that the long-term solution to the problem is real co-operation and ever closer links. In the end, that is the only solution.

  769
  I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. Next week, I shall have the great privilege of going with a party to Argentina to take part in the British-Argentine conference. The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) was to have accompanied us, but I am sorry to say that he will no longer be coming. Such conferences are an example of how the exchange of ideas and people can lead to better understanding and they help to ensure that our links with that important and delightful part of the world will continue to strengthen.
  11.58 am
  Mr. Robert Banks: I join in the congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) on initiating the debate. I have a warm regard for his close involvement in Latin America and his great knowledge of that region.
  I have had the privilege of visiting Argentina and Brazil with the Trade and Industry Committee. In previous years, I visited Venezuela and, this year, I visited Colombia, Ecuador and Peru privately. On all those occasions, I found that there was a strong sense of this country's historic links, which go back centuries, with countries in that part of the world. I was enormously impressed by the landscape and the stunning beauty of the countries that I visited, and I think that they offer a huge opportunity for people to see something quite different from our civilisation.
  I should like to concentrate my remarks on Peru. I do not think that anyone doubts that the economic progress made in that country in the past six years is anything short of stunning. In 1990, it had an inflation rate of 36,000 per cent.—which is extreme hyper-inflation. The inflation rate is now below 15 per cent., and it may even be below 10 per cent., which is a huge tribute to the economic management of that country. President Fujimori has clone a remarkably good job in Peru, and has laid down the foundation for steady growth. We are now exporting ever more goods to that country, and we have very considerable opportunities for foreign investment and for building a sure economic connection with it.
  The foundation of that growth has been the privatisation of some manufacturing and of the telecommunications, mining, banking, transportation and energy sectors. There is no doubt that the work that has been done in privatisation in the United Kingdom has had an enormous effect worldwide and that it is being copied. There is also no doubt that the success of the economy in Peru is nothing short of miraculous and that it is due, in part if not in the main, to their privatisation policies. Domestic investment there has grown, and our exports to that country are rising considerably.
  There have been ministerial visits to Peru—which I know have been warmly appreciated—including that by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who was there only a few weeks ago, following an earlier visit. I recall vividly his description of his visit to Machu Picchu, which was recounted at a lunch he hosted for a Peruvian delegation to the United Kingdom. That description played a part in convincing me of the importance of visiting that quite remarkable place, which is one of the world's greatest wonders. I shall never forget the visit I made there earlier this year with my wife and daughter.
  Peru is not without its problems—it is in considerable debt to international banks and the international finance community. In the light of Peru's terrific economic
  770
  progress, and in recognition of its poverty—such as exists in a great many Latin American countries—I hope that we will give careful consideration to recycling and alleviating some of its debt. We have an obligation to do what we can to help in the provision of education and health services.
  I know that our Minister for Overseas Development is acutely aware of the work that is being done by the British Council, and particularly by the Overseas Development Administration, to deal with the problems that I have outlined in Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and elsewhere. I think that we do very well in providing aid, considering the restrictions that have had to be placed on our budget.
  I believe that there are substantial opportunities for British companies to go out to Latin America, particularly to countries such as Brazil, Argentina and Peru that have shown that they have dealt with their economic problems and have laid the foundations for stability, which will give us opportunities for greater trade and closer links with them. I know that all hon. Members would welcome that.
  12.3 pm
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: I join other hon. Members in welcoming this annual debate. I know that the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) arranged the debate to coincide with the visit of President Frei to Great Britain, which is a very important event in cementing relations between Chile and Great Britain. More generally, however, this debate is a symbol of the importance of Latin America to us because of trade and the role in world affairs that we seek to play with our partners in Latin America.
  The growth of interest in Latin American affairs in the House is very welcome. We have had a visit not only by President Frei but, earlier this year, by President Zedillo. President Cardosa will, we hope, visit Great Britain early next year. I regret that I shall not be able to take part in the visit to Argentina next week, but that visit is significant. The Trade and Industry Select Committee's report on Brazil and Argentina last year, and this year's examination by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee of Latin American affairs demonstrate the increasing importance of relations with Latin America to the House and to the political system in Great Britain.
  I must, however, introduce a note of controversy. We must examine some aspects of our relations with Latin America and of our failure to maximise those relations. I do not want to arbitrate between my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), but it is desperately important that we do not have a one-sided emphasise on relations with Latin America. Important though they are, we do not have only trade relations with Latin America; it is also important to recognise the need for economic progress and eradication of poverty there. Those matters are fundamental if we are to achieve political stability in Latin America, which all hon. Members desire.
  We have a vested interest in political stability in Latin America because poverty and the corruption that sometimes feeds on poverty allow the widescale development of the drugs industry, as has been mentioned by hon. Members in this debate. The hon. Member for Gravesham is right: demand for drugs in countries such as Great Britain, and even more so in the United States, fuels the drug trade in parts of Latin America, where it is an endemic and deep-rooted problem. We cannot separate those issues.

  771
  The issue of economic progress is important, but it must be linked to building democracy and developing an active policy on human rights in Latin America. If we are to co-operate effectively in the spheres of drug control and eradication, we must consider all the issues.
  The hon. Member for Gravesham has already mentioned the importance of Latin America and the growth of Mercosur. This month, Chile acceded to associate status in Mercosur and, early next year, Bolivia will achieve the same status. Mercosur is developing rapidly. I was recently in Venezuela, and the Venezuelans told me that they also are keen to enter negotiations to accede to Mercosur.
  The hon. Member for Wycombe made the important point that trading blocs—of which Mercosur is now the third largest—must not develop as competitive and rival blocs. It is desperately important for Great Britain and for the European Union that we use our role to ensure that the European Union opens up a wide relationship with Mercosur and with Latin America, because the alternative—which needs to be spelled out—is economic hegemony by north America, and particularly by the United States.
  I do not say that with any sense of aggression towards the United States, as it is and will continue to be among our most important political and economic contacts in the world. We must recognise, however, that we have to ensure that Latin America, and particularly Mercosur, can count on Great Britain, within Europe, to keep open world trade. We must also ensure that we keep open our access to Latin America, and that we give Latin America an alternative to the free trade areas of America as the only outlet for trade in that region. That will be good for Britain, good for Latin America and, in the long run, good for the world.
  Despite the importance of Latin America and the warm words that we have heard, Britain performs relatively badly in Latin America, if we compare our trade performance with that of other comparable European countries. In virtually every country in Latin America, Britain performs worse than Italy, much worse than Germany and in most cases worse than France. That is a long-term phenomenon, but the situation is not improving. In 1994 and 1995, Britain's share of world exports to Latin America dropped. In fairness, that should be seen in the context of the rising tide of trade; nevertheless, we are slipping behind the countries that I mentioned.
  Is it still the Government's view that we can double our share of trade? We ought to aim for that target. Is the benchmark of the year 2000 realistic? Many people have pointed out to me that, until we examine why we do so badly, we will not be able to rectify the problems. Other hon. Members have identified various relevant factors, but I should like to suggest one or two further respects in which the Government are not playing their role as we would wish.
  For example, some 30,000 young people in Britain are studying French at GCSE level, whereas the number taking Spanish is little more than 4,000, and fewer than 200 are taking Portuguese. We should have begun to examine such statistics 30 years ago when we started to develop an interest in Latin America. The time is long overdue for us to rectify that problem.
  772
  The BBC World Service is widely respected throughout Latin America. Why is the BBC world television service not beamed into all parts of Latin America as it should be? I am told that there are plans to close down the Brazilian service of the World Service. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether the matter has been resolved. as it would be outrageous if that happened. I hope that other hon. Members would support that statement.
  On the staffing of British diplomatic missions in the region, the Minister took part in a debate with the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, to which he said:
  "I think that the Foreign Office is under-funded".
  I hope that we will hear more such candour on the Floor of the House today as he rightly berates his Treasury colleagues. The memorandum that he sent to the Select Committee demonstrates that staffing levels in our embassies throughout the region are well below those of the embassies of France, Italy and possibly Germany. There have been recent increases, but the staffing of our embassies has been cut significantly over the past few years. Government rhetoric points us in one direction, but reality points us in another. I hope that we shall receive assurance this morning that the weaknesses will be examined and rectified.
  Economic development is a necessary partner to the development of human rights and democracy building. Democracy and human rights are not a bolt-on extra to the debate. It is disappointing that the Minister's submission to the Select Committee contained only three short paragraphs on human rights. On the human rights clauses in European Union treaties with Latin America, he said:
  "There was a concern but we have helped to allay it that this was somehow picking off the Latin American countries as being in need of human rights clauses. However, it is a universal clause in all EU trade treaties of this kind and therefore we managed to placate the Latin American sensitivities on that subject."
  There is no question of sensitivities. We should be actively supporting the many people in Latin America who want strong democracy and who want to build societies in which human rights are taken for granted, not seen as extraordinary.
  Latin America will not introduce democracy and better human rights as a result of bullying by Britain or other countries. It has not done so in the past and will not do so now. We should state, and a Labour Government will state, that we will work with Latin American Governments and people to build the institutions, particularly the legal and judicial systems, that will give proper recourse against those who perpetrate abuses against the civilian population. That still exists on a wide scale, but this is not the time to discuss individual countries and cases.
  There are many countries in which the existence of a notionally democratically elected president does not guarantee individual liberty, and certainly does not guarantee that other institutions, especially the military, have been conclusively taken out of the political system. We should say—as a Labour Government will say—that we want to work with democratic forces in Latin America and that we will pursue a policy actively supporting democrats and discouraging perpetrators of abuses against the civilian population.
  The new Guatemalan ambassador is being introduced today at Buckingham palace and the Court of St. James. Having long taken an interest in that country, I welcome

  773
  the recent ceasefire and movements towards a conclusion of the problems in that sad country. Those movements are a beacon and an example of satisfactory developments on the continent.
  We do no justice to our democratic traditions if our relationships are determined solely by narrow economic interests. We have a broader interest to exercise on that continent. We are greatly respected there. We should not overplay our hand or think that our role is greater than it is, but people and Governments in Latin America want Britain to play a constructive role in trade and equally in the development of strong democracy and strong human rights.
  12.16 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Sir Nicholas Bonsor): I add my voice to those of other hon. Members who have congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) on his now annual routine of introducing this debate. It is a useful opportunity for us to review the relationship between our country and Latin American countries.
  Latin America is one of the most exciting parts of the world and one with which we can develop a close and worthwhile relationship, not only—as the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) said—in respect of human rights and human rights abuses and so that we can together act on the international stage through the United Nations and other forums to our mutual advantage, but to build British-Latin American trade. As I said, this debate is a welcome opportunity to deal with such matters. I am sorry that I have so little time in which to respond, but I shall do my best to deal at least with the main issues that have been raised today.
  When we last debated Latin America a year ago, the United Kingdom had just become a permanent observer of the Organisation of American States and the European Union was about to sign the agreement with Mercosur, which my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Sir K. Carlisle) so rightly welcomed. That is a good step towards developing European trade generally in Latin America, and I think that, over the years, it will prove to be a constructive base on which to build.
  Links with Latin America have been strengthened considerably since then. There has been much promotion of our interests in the region and special emphasis has been put on trade and investment in pursuit of the joint Department of Trade and Industry-Foreign and Commonwealth Office Link into Latin America trade campaign. The House will be aware of the conference that we are planning for January. I think that it will take that notion forward and provide a foundation on which we can build.
  We have built a political dialogue with Latin America on global issues, involving the United Nations and the World Trade Organisation in particular. We also play a leading part in assisting Latin American countries to fight the evil drugs trade. In addition, we assist in fighting crime and terrorism and we take action in support of human rights and the environment. In all these regards, the British Government are taking a lead, which I am sure will be welcomed by all hon. Members.
  There has been a good deal of progress on democracy in the region and I am glad that we have been able to watch closely the elections in Argentina and in Peru.
  774
  There have also been presidential and congressional elections in Guatemala, which were observed by the Organisation of American States and the European Union, and which were widely acclaimed as being free and fair. There were presidential elections in Ecuador and the Dominican Republic and municipal elections in Argentina and Brazil.
  Nicaragua's second presidential, general and municipal elections take place next Sunday. The absence of violence in the campaign is encouraging and, all in all, the strides that have been taken in Latin America towards democracy, in fighting the human rights abuses which we all abhor and in trying to combat the drugs trade and the increasing trend of criminal violence, as opposed to political violence, are to be widely welcomed.
  There have been many ministerial visits to that part of the world this year. I will not go through them except to say that there have been, in all, 36 UK ministerial visits to Latin America and that 30 Latin American Ministers have visited the United Kingdom. Our particular pleasure in welcoming President Frei this week demonstrates the mutual warmth and closeness of our relationship with Chile. That country is developing extremely fast; it is one of the fastest growing economies in the western hemisphere, and the opportunities for British business and the EU-Chile framework co-operation agreement signed at the European Council meeting in June in Florence show the advances being made and the closeness of our relationship with that country.
  We signed three agreements with Chile during President Frei's visit: a memorandum of understanding between the Ministries of Defence, an agreement between the British Council and the Chilean Ministry of Education and an agreement between our Securities and Investments Board and its Chilean counterpart. All those agreements are extremely welcome.
  We are trying to deal with the long-standing and vexed problem of the tax on Scotch whisky. I believe that some progress, although not the progress that we would like, has been made on that front. The taxation regime on an extremely important export to the region should be relaxed. As I have said, it has not yet been relaxed quite as far as we would like.
  Great progress is being made in our relationship with Argentina, building on the 1989 agreement whereby we have put the Falklands sovereignty issue aside and have gone forward as far and as fast as we can in building good bilateral relations in all other spheres. We have made some progress in attempting to reach a long-term fisheries agreement with Argentina; that is high on our agenda for the coming year. I hope that, next time we have a debate on this subject, we shall be able to report that we have made a breakthrough on that front.
  We have, of course, had great success in the joint declaration on hydrocarbons which took place in September last year. The first round of licences is due to be announced shortly by the Falkland Islands Government. There is every sign of co-operation with Argentina on that front and I am pleased by that.
  The success of Brazil's Real plan this year has been marked. The inflation forecast is 12 per cent. for this year which is a remarkable achievement as, two years ago, the monthly inflation rate was 50 per cent. The economy is stabilising, and the well-being of the Brazilian people has been largely improved. Brazil is a huge market; it has a

  775
  population of more than 159 million people. It is extremely important that we take every advantage we can find to encourage British business to operate there.
  The main threat to Brazilian progress is the delay or dilution that may occur in their key structural reforms. We will keep a close eye on that. President Cardoso has much to achieve. The economy will have to move forward quite fast if he is not to lose the momentum which has begun.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) mentioned Peru; I need do no more than endorse warmly everything he said. Peru has also benefited from doing a Brady deal on the outstanding debt with many banks and has received a lot of help from the Paris Club. We have been able to assist Peru in both areas, and it is making substantial and welcome progress.
  I visited Peru briefly last year and then went on to Colombia. The continuing political crisis in Colombia remains a dominant problem and President Samper faces an enormous range of political and economic problems. His difficult relationship with the United States is not a help. The recent upsurge in guerrilla violence rather upstages his successes against the cartels. I am afraid that narco-trafficking and the link between the guerrillas and the drug barons remain serious concerns to all of us.
  Our Government's position is that we wish to continue to help. We give a great deal of help to Colombia in terms of its fight against drugs and we will continue to do so. We encourage British business men to do business with Colombia and we will continue to do so, as long as that Government maintain the fight against drugs to our satisfaction. At the moment, I am confident that they are taking great steps to try to deal with that problem.
  In May this year, I went to Venezuela. There has been substantial economic improvement there. Since my visit, the International Monetary Fund approved a $1.4 billion loan in July which will support the economic reform programme announced in April. That includes the complete lifting of foreign exchange controls, the freeing of interest rates, large rises in petrol prices—that was a brave move politically because, in the past, it has always been a source of great social friction—and increases in VAT and other taxes. The position in Venezuela is stabilising, and we can look forward to further progress in that country.
  I would like to cover many other countries but, I am afraid, time is running out so I will limit myself to mentioning only Mexico. As has been mentioned, we welcomed President Zedillo to London at the beginning of this year. He and the Prime Minister signed a joint action plan to deepen our relations on a range of bilateral and global issues. I believe that our relationship with Mexico is extremely close. Liaison between the two countries is also effective in global terms, and the vexing question of Helms-Burton has led to substantial collaboration and co-operation between Mexico and
  776
  ourselves in expressing our substantial dislike of the extra-territorial legislation that the United States has seen fit to put in place.
  Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I do not have time. The hon. Gentleman did not give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln. I have only four minutes left.
  As the Mexican economy pulls out of the worst recession for many years, helped by the North American Free Trade Association and by Mexico's other free trade agreements, we want in every way we can to encourage the British business community to re-investigate the opportunities in Mexico particularly, as well as in other parts of Latin America.
  I now turn to the general point of our economy and our business links with that part of the world. There are two elements: the first is trade and the second is investment. It is true that our trading links with Latin America are very much weaker than those with our main European competitors and much weaker than our Government would like them to be. We are doing everything we can to encourage those links. I talked about the Link into Latin America campaign. The Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign Office are joining forces to try to spread the word throughout the country, through the business links system, that there are huge opportunities for British companies to trade in Latin America.
  I take the point made by the hon. Member for Stretford about learning of the Spanish language, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is concerned about that and is looking at ways in which we can encourage more people to learn Spanish. I did not know that only 200 people were learning Portuguese. That presents a mammoth challenge if we are to improve the situation substantially enough to affect our trade with Brazil.
  The investment picture is much happier, as hon. Members will know. We are the largest European investor in Latin America and we are the third largest global investor in Latin America. That tells us that our very large companies are fully involved in Latin American business. We now need to concentrate on encouraging medium and perhaps even small companies to take advantage of the huge range of opportunities throughout Latin America.
  The hon. Member for Stretford also mentioned what I told the Select Committee. Perhaps he should read all that I said and not just part of it. I pointed out that the Treasury has difficulty in matching its expenditure to its income and the Foreign Office, together with all Government Departments, expects to take its share of the hardship that goes with that. As our economy improves, I am sure that greater resources will be put our way, and when that happens, I shall make certain that a fair proportion is put towards our Latin American efforts.
  Finally, I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe that the Government and I share his enthusiasm for Latin America and his determination that our businesses take advantage of that market, and that Latin America and Britain are better off as a result.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. We must now move on to the next debate.

  Children (Parental Contact)
  12.30 pm
  Mr. Mike Gapes: My purpose in requesting this debate is to highlight a serious problem that I believe has arisen in the operation of one aspect of the far-reaching, wide-ranging and generally positive comprehensive reforms that were introduced in the Children Act 1989 and that came into law in 1991. I intend to focus my remarks on section 8 orders, and the role of the courts in enforcing contact between the absent parent and the child living with the parent with care.
  In our modern society, notions of the family have changed, and it is my belief that the law, and above all its interpretation by the predominantly elderly male judiciary, have not adjusted to take account of those changes. To quote Simon Jolly in the Child and Family Law Quarterly in 1995:
  "The general principle is now well established that when a child is living with only one of its parents it is almost always in the interest of the child to have contact with his or her other parent."
  No one disputes that it is almost always the case, but my contention is that, increasingly, the courts are taking matters further, and enforcing contact when it may not be in the interests of the child, the parent with care or the new family and siblings in that new family.
  The Master of the Rolls, Sir Thomas Bingham, is quoted in the same publication as saying:
  "The courts should not at all readily accept that the child's welfare will be injured by direct contact. Judging that question, the court should take a medium-term and long-term view of the child's development and not accord excessive weight to what appear to be likely to be short-term or transient problems. Neither parent should be encouraged or permitted to think that the more intransigent, the more unreasonable, the more obdurate and the more unco-operative they are, the more likely they are to get their own way."
  That may be a theoretical position, but how do we measure short-term costs and long-term benefits when we are talking about young children and their parents? Does that approach deal with the real world and all its complexities?
  The real world is a very complex place. In Britain, one in three of all marriages end in divorce. Each year, about 250,000 children see their parents divorce. One in three marriages is a remarriage, and one in three births is to parents who are not married. There are 1.5 million one-parent families, and 2.5 million dependent children. Half the dependent children in one-parent families have part-time step-families because one of their birth parents has a new relationship. One in 12 dependent children live in step-families, and more than half full-time step-families have a new baby brother or sister.
  I was concerned by reports in the press about separated parents killing themselves and their children. There were also reports of difficulties over contact arrangements, so I decided to ask some parliamentary questions and to seek some information from Ministers about the monitoring of an issue that potentially affects a large number of parents, children, step-parents and siblings. Earlier this year, I tabled a variety of questions to different Ministers, and I should like to refer to some of the answers that I received.
  778
  I asked the then Health Minister, now the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), the following question:
  "(1) how many children have been (a) placed in the care of local authorities, (b) placed in the care of the other parent and (c) cared for by a step parent or partner following the imprisonment of a parent with care in each year since 1991 as a result of contempt of court for non-compliance with a court order under section 8 of the Children Act 1989;
  (2) how many incidents resulting in injuries to children had occurred during … contact".—[Official Report, 14 February 1996; Vol. 271, c. 602–3.]
  I received the answer that the information was not available centrally.
  I asked the Lord Chancellor's Department
  "how many contact orders have been made under section 8 of the Children Act 1989 where the presiding judge had been aware that one parent had been charged with, or convicted of assaulting the other parent."—[Official Report, 16 February 1996; Vol. 271, c. 718.]
  I was told that my question would be answered by the chief executive of the Court Service, who told me:
  "the task of extracting what information might be available would be disproportionately costly in view of the volume of cases",
  so he was unable to identify the cases but could give me only the overall figure. He told me that there were 106,911 contact orders made between October 1991 and September 1995. That did not answer my question.
  I asked the Home Office
  "how many convictions for assault had occurred as a result of incidents (a) prior to, (b) during and (c) after contact between parents whose children were subject to contact orders made under section 8 of the Children Act 1989 in each year since 1991."
  The reply was:
  "Information relating to the number of convictions for assault relating to incidents where contact orders were made … is not collected centrally."—[Official Report, 15 February 1996; Vol. 271, c. 702.]
  And so it continued. I received answers from the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Home Office and the Department of Health, but none of them said that they had the information.
  I then asked whether the Government intended to monitor and collect information on those matters. I asked the Secretary of State for Health
  "what information he collects centrally on the effects of the operation of section 8 orders".—[Official Report, 21 February 1996; Vol. 272, c. 163.]
  The answer was none. Once again, I was told that the information could be collected only at disproportionate cost.
  When I asked about the most frequent pattern of contact between children and their absent parents, and what plans there were to carry out research on the impact of contact orders under section 8 on religious attendance by children at places of religious worship to illustrate that alternate weekends could be disruptive, I was told that there were no such plans. I therefore concluded that the Government were not monitoring the effects of an important Act, affecting so many young people and their parents.
  Recently, there have been more reports about domestic violence and its consequences. A case reported in the press involved a woman, Dawn Austin, who has been gaoled for six weeks because she refused to comply with a court order under section 8 of the Children Act. She has

  779
  been gaoled for contempt and her nine-year-old son and her four-year-old daughter have been placed in the care of strangers—they are with foster parents.
  Is that sensible? It is not the first such occurrence, but it is alarming because the ex-partner of Miss Austin is a man who has a conviction for domestic violence in a previous relationship and has been imprisoned for it. Despite that history, the court decided to imprison the mother and take the children away and put them with foster parents—so much for priority being given to the welfare of the child.
  A very important study that compared domestic violence and child contact arrangements in England with those in Denmark was published in June. At my request, it is being considered by the Lord Chancellor's Department. The study was conducted by Marianne Hester and Lorraine Radford, and makes compelling reading. They studied the cases of 53 women, whom they interviewed, and 120 children across a very wide age range were involved.
  The women had had difficulties involving domestic violence, and the study was concerned with what had happened to them before and after the breakdown of the relationships and the involvement of the courts with regard to contact arrangements under section 8 of the Children Act. The conclusions should ring alarm bells for so many professionals, people in the legal profession and politicians.
  The report concluded:
  "Contact takes precedence over child welfare. The value of contact to the child was rarely questioned in the light of the father's abuse. Professionals involved in contact cases rarely challenged a man's use of violence. Many reinforced the perpetrator's distorted perception of responsibility by focusing solely on the mother's hostility to contact."
  Under the heading "The abuse of women and children during contact visits", the report concluded:
  "child contact gives fathers the ability to continue to abuse, harass and exert control over women and children."
  It also said that there was an emphasis in the process on getting an agreement rather than an outcome that was necessarily practical or would help the children or the parent with care.
  The report's authors highlighted the failure to protect the parent with care when the handover arrangements were made. It said:
  "inadequate provisions were made to ensure the safety of women during mediation and on court or court welfare premises. Resources to protect women from further violence when taking or collecting children from contact visits were also extremely limited."
  The report is very long, and although I do not have time to quote too much of it, its conclusions are worth considering. It says:
  "At the time of the last interviews, almost one third of the women whose children had maintained contact said the children had recently been abused on contact visits with fathers (eight out of twenty-six)."
  It says that the professionals in the court welfare service place an emphasis on contact with the father that overrides anything else:
  "They had a strong commitment to the idea of maintaining contact for children with non-resident fathers, even where there had been child abuse and the children were afraid … emphasis has thus
  780
  shifted away from the individual circumstances and needs of a particular child and the actual quality of the relationship with the father, to addressing the needs of a `hypothetical child'."
  There lies my point. We must consider the real situation of real children in the real world. Not every child fits into an idealised model, and not every family can easily accommodate children maintaining contact with the absent parent that is not to the detriment of the family and the parent with whom they live, or does not give rise to the potential for domestic violence.
  Other serious concerns, which I do not have time to go into, were highlighted by the Children Act advisory committee's annual report for 1994–95. One of the many conclusions of that important report quotes the assessment of Judge Fricker that
  "penal enforcement of contact orders is unlikely to be in the interests of the child and should not be encouraged as a punitive approach to non-compliance."
  Mothers in this country who are in fear daily of contact arrangements also fear that the professionals will say, "If you don't comply, we will take the children away from you, the residence order will be given to the absent parent, and there will be other problems for you. We might even put you in gaol." We have seen that women can be gaoled under such circumstances.
  I do not believe that, when Parliament adopted the Children Act, such outcomes were ever intended. There is a danger that the courts are reinterpreting the Act to the detriment of many children and their parents, and the Government need to reassert and make clear as quickly as possible that it is not their intention that the child's welfare is damaged by the imprisonment of the mother.
  The situation could be eased if a commitment were given that, in cases of a record of domestic violence, there should be a presumption of no contact rather than contact before consideration of the matter. If we do not go down that road, serious problems will continue to cause great hardship and suffering to many women and children.
  The Government must collect data, monitor the situation, respond positively to the recent studies and reports, and act to ensure that mothers are not separated from their children and children are not forced into foster homes for weeks at a time. What happens when the mother comes out of prison? Presumably the absent parent can apply for another court order, and the whole process can continue indefinitely. We must put a stop to this social problem that is being experienced by a minority of mothers.
  12.47 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Simon Burns): It is two and a quarter years since I contributed to a debate. I am delighted that, having been in the enviable position over that time of delivering probably the most popular speech heard in the House—"That this House do now adjourn"—I have been able to forswear my Trappist vow of silence to take part in this debate.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) on choosing this important subject, and on drawing attention to the problems faced by families, women and children in this sensitive and often heart-rending issue. I also suspect that it is appropriate to discuss the Children Act 1989, since this week is the fifth anniversary of its implementation.

  781
  The Children Act is recognised as a most comprehensive piece of legislation, incorporating public and private law relating to children. It enshrines five main principles. First, the child's welfare is paramount—that is crucial. Secondly, children are best cared for by both parents wherever possible. Thirdly, the state and courts should intervene only where improvements will be made for the child. The fourth principle is that delay is generally not in the best interests of the child, and the fifth IS that laws and procedures regarding children should be unified.
  Section 1 of the Children Act sets out the principles that guide a court making decisions under the Act. The child's welfare is the paramount consideration when a court determines any question involving his or her upbringing. I cannot emphasise that enough. Thus other considerations, such as the feelings of the parents, or any questions of "fault", must assume secondary importance, except as they affect the child's welfare.
  Section 8 orders comprise a flexible package of orders which should cater for any question that may arise about the welfare of the child, and provide practical solutions. The intention is to encourage parents to maintain their involvement in the child's life, and to avoid driving unnecessary wedges between them.
  Four types of order were created under section 8—contact orders, prohibited steps orders, residence orders and specific issue orders. In addition, under section 1(5), the court must consider whether making an order would be better for the child than making no order at all. I think that it will be helpful to the hon. Gentleman if I briefly define section 8 orders.
  A contact order means an order requiring the person with whom a child lives, or is to live, to allow the child to visit or stay with the person named in the contact order, or for that person and child to have contact with each other. Previous legislation on access orders was about having access to the child, whereas section 8 contact orders are designed to provide for the child to visit or stay with the person named in the order. In 1995, the number of contact orders made rose by 12 per cent. to just over 35,000.
  A prohibited steps order means an order that no step that could be taken by a parent in meeting his parental responsibility for a child, and which is of a kind specified in the order, shall be taken by any person without the consent of the court. Its purpose is to impose a specific restriction on the exercise of responsibility by the parents—covering, for example, taking a child abroad for an extended holiday. In 1995, the number of such orders was just under 6,000.
  A residence order means an order settling the arrangements to be made as to the person with whom a child is to live. The residence order was a new concept introduced by the Children Act to replace the custody order. It is more flexible, and it may accommodate various shared care arrangements. A person in whose favour a residence order is made will automatically obtain parental responsibility for the child, if he does not already have it.
  However, a residence order confers parental responsibility on a non-parent only for as long as the order is in force. The intention is that both parents should feel that they have a continuing role to play in relation to their children. In 1995, the number of such orders was about 26,000.
  782
  A specific issue order means an order giving directions for the purpose of determining a specific question that has arisen, or that may arise, in connection with any aspect of parental responsibility for a child. An example might be the need for permission in respect of a particular medical condition, or of the choice of a school for the child. Both prohibited steps orders and specific issue orders are concerned with "single issues", and are modelled on wardship jurisdiction.
  In each case, the question of what is in the child's best interests must be decided on the particular facts of that case. There is no question of a fixed policy of discrimination against one parent in favour of the other, or against certain classes of people as parents.
  The reforms contained in the Children Act emphasise that principle, but also the fact that both parents have a continuing responsibility for their child and, generally, should have continuing involvement in the child's upbringing, even after a separation or divorce. The legislation provides a flexible system of orders intended to settle particular matters in a way that neither parent may upset, rather than to remove parental power and authority from one parent to confer sole power and authority on the other.
  In most cases where the court is required to decide what is in the best interests of the child, it will order residence in favour of one parent and contact for the other. I do not find it surprising that in many cases it will be in the best interests of the child to have a settled home with the mother.
  As the hon. Member said, an emerging problem of the 1990s is the role of the father in a changing society. Structural and economic changes in society have brought especial stresses and strains to family life. The hon. Gentleman has already mentioned the fact that there is a great deal of concern about fathers with a history of violence seeking contact with their children after the marriage or relationship has broken down.
  The Government are committed to helping families to stay together, where that is possible and realistic, but they cannot make marriages or relationships work. If breakdown or divorce occur, it is of prime importance that children are protected, and that both parents can also receive support. However, I repeat that the interests of the child must be paramount.
  In such situations, parents need to be fully aware that they have both rights and responsibilities in relation to their children. It is a sad fact of life today that almost half the fathers whose marriages or relationships break down lose contact with their children within three years of the event.
  I know that the hon. Gentleman will be aware of recent articles in the press drawing attention to the problem. They have mentioned, for example, the support that Bob Geldof has recently given to the organisation Families Need Fathers.
  The hon. Gentleman has drawn the attention of the House to the recent case in which a mother has been imprisoned for contempt of court. I repeat the fact that the imprisonment was for precisely that—contempt of court. The woman concerned would have had the opportunity to oppose the making of the contact order and to put all the relevant information before the court. The court, having weighed all the facts, decided to make the order despite the mother's objections. By refusing to comply with it,

  783
  the woman put herself in contempt of court. It was the eighth time that that had happened, and the decision of the judge was upheld by the Court of Appeal.
  We need to emphasise again and again that, as any parent should know, being a parent entails a long-term commitment. It is that continuity of parental responsibility that we emphasised in the Children Act. Relationship breakdown and divorce are traumatic events, for parents and children alike. The Exeter family study suggested that the health outcomes of children in reordered or single-parent families may be worse than for those in intact families. Continuing contact between a father and his children may have a positive effect on reducing some negative outcomes for children.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the findings of a study by Marianne Hester and Lorraine Radford entitled "Domestic Violence and Child Contact in England and Denmark", published earlier this year by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. In the short time available, I shall draw attention to the conclusions of that important in-depth study.
  The researchers concluded that contact should not be presumed to be in the best interests of the child if there had been domestic violence to the mother. More attention should be given to ensuring the safety of the mothers and to assessing the needs and wishes of the individual child. That is in line with the ideas being promoted by various women's organisations working with domestic violence, most notably the Women's Aid Federation.
  Although the study is small in scale, it has produced some worrying evidence about the effect on women and children of contact arrangements in cases where there has
  784
  been domestic violence. It shows that professionals, especially legal professionals, need to become more aware of domestic violence and its impact on children.
  With the Family Law Act 1996, which is due to come into effect in October 1997, we have taken several steps that will improve protection for women and children. I believe that that Act will reduce much of the hostility and antagonism that exists under the present system, because the changes will place less emphasis on the financial aspects and on fault in relation to marriage breakdown. Introducing a period for reflection and mediation will encourage greater thought to be given to the relationships between adults, and will help both parents to settle reasonably their future relationships with their children.
  On the question of the monitoring of contact orders, it is important to refer to the Children Act advisory committee that was established in 1991 to monitor the operation of the Act, and to comment on issues arising from its implementation. I advise the hon. Member for Ilford, South to look at the document—if he has not already done so—because it is invaluable.
  Mr. Gapes indicated assent.
  Mr. Burns: I see that he is nodding, which suggests that he has seen the document.
  I assure the House and the hon. Member that the Government understand the fears and concerns of a parent who has obtained a contact order from the courts but who has been frustrated when the other parent has not complied with the order. We also understand the fear of a mother who is threatened with violence to her or her children. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this important—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order.

  Mr. Michael Paynter
  1 pm
  Mr. David Atkinson: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the case of my constituent Michael Paynter and his experiences as a volunteer national service man at the former chemical defence establishment at Porton Down in the 1950s, which he believes, have resulted in permanent ill health. Having pursued the matter in some detail on his behalf for nearly two years, I am now convinced of the credibility of my constituent's claims, upon which I have drawn some serious conclusions that 1 wish to share with the House.
  On 11 November 1994, Mr. Paynter came to see me at my surgery to seek advice on how he should pursue justice in response to the outcome of his experiences 40 years ago. In May 1954 and again in March 1955, Mr. Paynter—as a conscripted national service man in the RAF—volunteered to be the subject of research into the common cold at Porton Down. On both occasions, he stresses, that involved going into a gas chamber without any special protective clothing apart from a gas mask.
  Mr. Paynter further stresses that, had he known that he was to be the subject of studies into anything else—and certainly studies into what I have been informed was the supposed real subject of the experiments—he would not have volunteered. Only research into the common cold was mentioned and, as a naive 18-year-old, he had no reason to question or disbelieve that. It was, after all, a welcome break during his two years as a conscripted national service man, and it also provided him and nine other volunteers with extra pocket money.
  The fact is that Mr. Paynter has not enjoyed his previously robust good health ever since. Within six months of his second visit to Porton Down, he developed two skin infections that lasted for two and a half years. One was psoriasis that covered most of his body, while the other was running eczema. The latter infection hospitalised him for 10 weeks and did not clear up for 10 months. In 1956, he started to suffer severe migraines, for which he still receives medical care. He developed some small growths on his body that have never been diagnosed. In 1959, a twisted spinal column developed, causing permanent and severe restrictions on his neck movements, as well as other problems for which he has found no effective treatment.
  In other words, since his experiences at Porton Down, Mr. Paynter's quality of life has been devastated—"Altogether, a life of hell," as he described it to me. All Mr. Paynter's claims are supported fully by his GP, Dr. Nandra. Indeed, it was his GP's unsuccessful attempt to obtain medical records of his time at Porton Down that caused Mr. Paynter to speculate that Porton Down could have been responsible for his bad health. The ITV "Network First" programme on 11 October 1994, which detailed similar cases to his, prompted him to seek my advice and help.
  I referred my constituent's case to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind)—the then Secretary of State for Defence—and I received a reply from the then chief executive of the chemical and biological defence establishment at Porton Down, Dr. Graham Pearson. That confirmed that Mr. Paynter attended the CBDE as a volunteer on two occasions—3 to 7 May 1954 and 28 March to 1 April 1955.
  786
  I was told that, on the first occasion, Mr. Paynter took part in treadmill testing to assess the physiological load induced by wearing individual protective equipment. On the second occasion, Mr. Paynter again took part in treadmill testing, and trials involving sensitivity to rubber mixes. On both occasions, I was told, there were no grounds for believing that those experiments would result in any harm or long-term health effects for Mr. Paynter.
  All that was news to my constituent, who assures me that at no time did he undertake treadmill tests. He also points out that there was no follow-up whatever from Porton Down to discover whether there had been any effect on his health following his visit. In his letter to me, Dr. Pearson said rather pointedly that any volunteer who believes that his health has suffered as a result of participating in studies at Porton Down may apply for compensation or the award of a war pension.
  That statement, in the light of what we know now, implies an acceptance of guilt on the part of the authorities at Porton Down. Moreover, Dr. Pearson pointed out that the medical records of such service volunteers are provided on request to their GPs, as is information from Porton Down on the studies in which they participated. That statement flies in the face of the experience of Mr. Paynter's GP, who has to this day been unable to obtain any record at all of any experiment carried out on Mr. Paynter at Porton Down.
  I pursued those matters with Dr. Pearson and, in response, I received a reply from Mr. John Chisholm, the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, which now includes CBDE Porton Down as one of its divisions. In that letter, Mr. Chisholm re-emphasised that the past 40 years had shown no evidence of any harmful effect on the health of volunteers participating in studies at Porton Down. Moreover, the long-term purpose of those studies had been explained to the volunteers. Neither of those statements is true in Mr. Paynter's case.
  Mr. Chisholm's letter confirmed that my constituent had taken part in a study to assess the effect on performance and personnel of wearing clothing designed to protect against chemical and biological agents, and to assess human sensitivity to rubber mixes used in making protective equipment. On neither occasion was Mr. Paynter exposed to biological or chemical warfare agents. Moreover, Mr. Chisholm pointed out that research into the common cold had never been undertaken at Porton Down.
  Only when I pursued matters further with Mr. Chisholm did he reveal that my constituent had, in addition, participated in a study to investigate the effect of substances found in London smog. That involved exposure through a mask in a chamber for between 10 and 60 minutes, on one or two occasions, to an artificial fog containing sulphuric acid mist and various aldehydes produced by diesel engines. Those are the suspected toxic constituents of London smog—either alone or mixed with magnesium oxide or ammonia—and the experiment aimed to neutralise the irritant effects of the smog.
  It is clear to me and to my constituent Mr. Paynter that that subsequent piece of information comes much closer to his recollection of his experience at Porton Down and the cause of his subsequent and permanent ill health. He recalls that the chamber remained completely clear throughout and that no visible smog appeared. As he rightly points out, if that was research into the effects of

  787
  London smog, why was he required to wear a gas mask? Needless to say, Mr. Paynter was appalled to learn for the first time that he was apparently the victim of research into London smog, and had been "duped"—his term—into volunteering for tests involving potentially dangerous gases.
  If the experiments to which my constituent was exposed were related to London smog and were not defence related, why were they being undertaken at the defence establishment? If they were not defence related and were otherwise more innocently in the public interest, why were the participants not informed that antidotes to smog were being researched? Why were the participants required to sign the Official Secrets Act 1911, binding them to confidentiality on every visit to Porton Down?
  I sought answers from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to those questions together with related others in my letter of 31 July. I had originally sought to table the questions for written answer, but was told by the Table Office that that was prevented by the 30-year rule. I wanted my right hon. Friend's confirmation that research into London smog was undertaken at Porton Down, and on whether it involved volunteer national service men in the 1950s, if so, whether they were informed of that and whether such research was defence related. I wanted to know whether his Department had monitored the subsequent health of those national service men and how many applications for a war pension or compensation had been made by them. I wanted to know what legislation prevents them and their legal advisers from pursuing action and claims against his Department and why. And I wanted to learn more about the Nuremberg code and how it applied to the use of service men at Porton Down.
  Unfortunately, the reply that I received from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told me that those matters are the responsibility of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency and that its chief executive had been asked to reply to me directly. That reply from my right hon. Friend was dated 7 August, and until yesterday I had not received any such reply from the chief executive. Then, lo and behold, I received this reply from the Under-Secretary of State, Earl Howe. I must ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State why it has taken my successful application for this Adjournment debate to obtain a ministerial reply, which I was not originally going to receive.
  I have not read my noble Friend's reply. Instead, I look forward to some clear answers to my questions from my hon. Friend the Minister of State today. In particular, I seek his response to my clear conclusion, in the light of my constituent's experiences at Porton Down, that national service men such as him were encouraged to be used as guinea pigs for research into the effects of certain gases, that, as my constituent adamantly maintains, they were told and accepted that it was research into the common cold, that that was never the case and that records were designed to show that it was research into the effects of London smog, but that the research in which they voluntarily and innocently participated was much more lethal and dangerous than that. It was indeed defence related, which necessitated and justified the application of the Official Secrets Act. In effect, it was exposure to G-agents—nerve gas known as sarin and mustard gas.
  788
  As a consequence, those people's lives have been irrevocably impaired because their health defences have been damaged and destroyed. That is a grave national scandal.
  All that duplicity is enough evidence to enable me to put it to my hon. Friend that it is incumbent on the Government to establish an independent inquiry into the use and clear abuse at Porton Down of young conscripts such as my constituent. Should such an inquiry support my conclusions, it must be right to come forward with compensation that fairly, justly and adequately reflects the abuse of volunteers who were unwittingly poisoned in the pursuit of studies related to chemical and biological warfare, which are vital to the defence of the realm. I understand that the American service men used in identical tests at Edgewood have been awarded such compensation.
  If the Government do not establish such an investigation willingly, they will have to respond grudgingly to a judgment from the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, to which others are now appealing. That is not the right approach of a Conservative Government.
  1.14 pm
  The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) for this opportunity to discuss the important case of his constituent Mr. Michael Paynter, who attended as a volunteer at the chemical and biological defence research centre at Porton Down in the mid-1950s. I congratulate him on the robust presentation of his constituent's case.
  Before I deal with the specific and detailed concerns that my hon. Friend raised—if there are any that I omit, we shall follow them up by letter immediately—I shall take a moment to explain the purpose of the Porton Down volunteer programme in which Mr. Paynter participated.
  The role of the chemical and biological defence centre, which is now part of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, is to carry out research to provide the United Kingdom's armed forces with safe and effective protection against the real threat posed by chemical and biological weapons. My hon. Friend knows a great deal about that from his experience.
  A vital part of that work involves the use of human volunteers to evaluate the military implications of the protective measures developed through the research. That has its roots in the work carried out during the first world war at the Porton site, in which soldiers acted as observers during trials to follow the release of clouds of poison gas such as chlorine. To date, around 20,000 service personnel have contributed—through their participation in the programme—to providing the UK armed forces with some of the most effective protection in the world.
  Volunteers for those studies are drawn chiefly from the three armed services. It is they, of course, who will ultimately benefit from the products of the research carried out at Porton Down. Volunteers are recruited through notices posted widely in the armed forces and apply to attend through their local military chain of command. When volunteers arrive at Porton Down, they are medically examined to confirm their fitness. The exact nature of the studies in which they will take part is explained to them. Only after they have formally

  789
  consented to take part in a study by signing a consent form can the study begin. Once the studies are completed, a further medical examination is conducted prior to the volunteer's return to his unit.
  I can assure the House that the use of human subjects at Porton Down is carefully controlled. All work requiring the involvement of volunteers is carried out according to a detailed written experimental protocol prepared by the scientists who wish to carry out the work in consultation with medical and military staff at Porton Down. The protocol is considered by an internal review committee to ensure that the use of human subjects is essential, that it is statistically sound and that it will provide valuable information that cannot be obtained by any other experimental methods. It also has to demonstrate that the proposed work complies with all the ethical guidelines for the conduct of work involving human subjects.
  Once agreed, the protocol is referred to an independent ethics committee. That committee is made up of members of the medical and legal professions and lay members of the public and it includes experts in psychology and toxicology. Among other things, it considers whether the proposed work will present a hazard to the health of the volunteer and will not permit the work to commence if it does.
  The members of that committee are not employees of the Ministry of Defence, although they provide reports on their deliberations to my Department's chief scientific adviser. In the past 80 years, the nature of the tests and the ways in which they are conducted have developed in response to changing principles and practices, as my hon. Friend will well understand. There has also been a considerable advance in the understanding of the hazards to health of many of the chemicals to which individuals are exposed.
  It is, therefore, possible that some activities carried out in the past will raise concern when viewed through the eyes of scientists at the end of the 20th century. However, staff at Porton Down have always sought to follow the best practice existing in regard to human participation in trials and have endeavoured to promote a responsible approach to the involvement of volunteers in studies.
  Having briefly outlined the procedures that currently govern the use of service personnel in studies at Porton Down, I come to the case of Mr. Michael Paynter, which was so well raised by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Paynter's case has been the subject of correspondence between my Department and my hon. Friend during the past two years. The facts of the case are that, in response to a request for volunteers that appeared in military station orders, Mr. Paynter attended the then chemical defence experimental establishment twice in the 1950s while completing his national service.
  On the first occasion, in May 1954, Mr. Paynter took part in studies that required him to wear chemical protective clothing including a respirator while working on a treadmill under various different climatic conditions in a climatic chamber. That did not involve exposure to chemical warfare agents.
  On his second visit, in March 1955, Mr. Paynter took part in similar physiological studies. In addition, he was involved in work to evaluate various rubber compounds proposed for use in respirator face pieces. Neither of those studies involved his exposure to any chemical warfare agents. His participation in those physiological studies
  790
  and the evaluation of the rubber compounds was part of the on-going programme of research that has been conducted for the past 80 years to provide UK forces with clothing and respiratory protection to enable them to operate effectively in all military environments where the threat of attack from chemical and biological weapons exists.
  During his second visit to Porton in March 1955, Mr. Paynter also participated in a study to evaluate the effects of some of the chemicals believed to be constituents of the London fogs. Those especially dense fogs, to which a large part of the population was exposed, had severely disrupted the life of the city at the time. My hon. Friend is too young to remember. The programme of work in which Mr. Paynter participated was part of the Government's research programme to investigate the causes and effects of the problem and possible solutions to it.
  The research conducted at Porton Down contributed to the understanding of the hazards presented by the specific components of the fog and it would not have been unusual for research establishments across the Government to participate. That work, in conjunction with other related studies, eventually resulted in the clean air legislation of the 1960s, which considerably improved the atmosphere in our large cities and saw the disappearance of the London fogs of old.
  My hon. Friend referred several times to Mr. Paynter's belief that he was participating in research into the common cold. I want to make it absolutely plain that at no time in its history has Porton Down ever conducted research into the common cold. All research relating to the common cold was conducted by the Medical Research Council on behalf of the Ministry of Health at the common cold unit based at Harnham down, Salisbury. That unit, which closed in 1989, had no connection with the Ministry of Defence.
  My hon. Friend also asked about the Nuremberg code. The horrors exposed on the liberation of the Nazi concentration camps at the end of the second world war led to the development of the Nuremberg code of ethics in medical research. Since its inception, the principles laid out in the code have governed all the work relating to human subjects at Porton Down. The code emphasises the essential voluntary nature of the consent to participate and states that volunteers must be made aware of the nature of the study, its duration, its purpose, the method and means by which it is to be carried out, all inconvenience and hazards that can be reasonably expected and any likely effects on their health that are known to those proposing the study.
  All the work in which Mr. Paynter participated would have required him to have that information provided to him so that he could make an informed decision to consent to participate in the studies. No work would have commenced involving Mr. Paynter unless he had given his informed consent freely and without duress. It is also made very clear to volunteers throughout their attendance at Porton Down that they are free to withdraw from studies at any time without prejudice or having to provide any reasons for their wish to do so.
  My hon. Friend also asked about the legislation that prevents service personnel from pursuing claims and action against the Ministry of Defence. In 1987, the House passed the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act,

  791
  which gave current and former service personnel the right to seek compensation for personal injury or loss arising from the negligence of the Ministry of Defence as their employer.
  The 1987 Act repealed the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, section 10 of which had prevented service personnel from taking action against their employer for negligence. In passing the 1987 Act, the House thought very carefully about whether the legislation should be retrospective, but concluded that it should not, so incidents and injury sustained before 1987 are not covered.
  As I made clear, all work at Porton Down complies with the principles stated in the Nuremberg code, and with revisions to ethical guidelines produced in the intervening 50 years. Nevertheless, we must consider the remote possibility of a volunteer claiming that his health has suffered as a result of the activities that he undertook at Porton Down. In such a case, the individual can apply to the Department of Social Security for the award of a war pension. That is subject to an assessment of each individual's claimed disability and a consideration of the impact of the activities in which he participated. In dealing with such claims, staff at the War Pensions Agency are provided with all the information that remains in the experimental records at Porton Down.
  To date, Porton Down has supplied the War Pensions Agency with details of the attendance of approximately 40 former volunteers. Staff at Porton Down also provide such information to the volunteers or to their medical representatives when they write to request those details. So far, fewer than 100 of approximately 20,000 volunteers have requested such details.
  I and the Ministry of Defence owe my hon. Friend and his constituent an apology for the wholly unacceptable delay in replying to his last letter on this case. I am very sorry—and know that my noble Friend Lord Howe is, too—that it took so long for a reply to reach him. I have today instigated inquiries as to why that should have happened. However, I think that he goes a little far in implying that we may have been less than open in respect of the amount of information that has been made available to Mr. Paynter.
  Mr. David Atkinson: Given the wide discrepancy between my constituent's recollection of his experience at Porton Down and what my hon. Friend has told the House about his experience as recorded there, is there not a case for further investigation?
  Mr. Soames: I shall come to that point later because I have a helpful suggestion for my hon. Friend.
  792
  The nature of the information recorded with regard to the volunteer programme has also developed over the years. Details held on those who participate in studies at present are kept in paper folders that include the volunteer's entry and exit medical reports, a copy of their consent to participate and many other detailed records. That level of information is felt to be comprehensive by modern standards. Sadly, such information is not available for many of our former volunteers, and many of the remaining records are incomplete. Unfortunately, in some cases it is impossible to provide any further elucidation beyond confirming the dates of attendance and the general type of activity.
  In Mr. Paynter's case, we have now found a fair amount of information, although as we have admitted to my hon. Friend, we had some difficulties in identifying that Mr. Paynter participated in the London smog trials, principally because of the nature of the records now held. We have made all the relevant facts available and provided my hon. Friend and Mr. Paynter with considerable detail.
  I understand that in addition to details of the studies in which he participated, staff at Porton Down have provided Mr. Paynter with copies of technical papers believed to relate to the studies in which he took part. They have also offered to meet him to talk through the results discussed in the papers. Such a meeting, which he has yet to arrange, would be very helpful in addressing any other major concerns regarding his experience and would be a fruitful route to pursue in respect of the further inquiries to which my hon. Friend referred. I shall be happy to follow up the result of that meeting.
  I wish to close by thanking my hon. Friend for bringing Mr. Paynter's case to the attention of the House. My Department is grateful to Mr. Paynter and all the others for their participation in the work of Porton Down. Without the involvement of human subjects, it would be impossible to evaluate the effects of wearing the equipment developed at Porton Down on the ability of the armed forces to carry out normal military tasks in hazardous environments. That was well demonstrated by the equipment and kit used by British armed forces in the Gulf, where there was a real threat of the use of chemical or biological weapons. The Ministry of Defence is very grateful to all those who through their participation in studies at Porton Down have contributed to providing the UK with safe and effective protection.
  I profoundly sympathise with Mr. Paynter's concerns about his ill health, and we have tried to deal with his questions openly and honestly and to the full extent of the information that is now available. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept my reassurance and further urge his constituent to meet officials at Porton Down, if necessary with my hon. Friend's attendance, to discuss any further ideas that Mr. Paynter may have about how we can help him.

  A5 Improvements (Ynys Môn)
  1.29 pm
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): I begin by telling the House of the deep sense of anger and betrayal felt by my constituents at the Welsh Office's announcement on 10 July 1996 about the A5-A55 improvements in Anglesey that private funding was being sought for the project and that the starting date was to be put back 18 months at least.
  We are angry that the announcement was made in a reply to a parliamentary question from the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney). This is the first time that any announcement on the A5 has been made in that way without consultation or prior notice. We feel betrayed by the content of the statement. Three "Roads in Wales" publications, a departmental report, a reply to a Select Committee report, a budget statement, ministerial statements and countless letters, up to 24 May this year, had made it clear that the Welsh Office regarded the improvements as a high priority to be paid for from public funds.
  Those feelings are shared across the island of Anglesey—by the local authority, community councils, businesses and all who believe that the road improvements are crucial for the economic future of our communities. The anger and betrayal are felt most deeply by those who live on the route of the current A5. The residents of Caerwen, Gwalchmai, Bryngwran, Caergeiliog, Valley and Holyhead have to put up day after day and night after night with movements of traffic such a scale that their lives are becoming intolerable. According to a local authority report,
  "the nuisance they suffer relates to noise, vibration, poor air quality, severance by traffic, road safety problems and visual intrusion."
  In many cases, they also suffer from structural damage to their properties.
  The road safety aspect is significant. In 1988, Gwynedd county council—the then highway authority—published an analysis of accidents on the A5. It found a concentration of accidents in the five villages on the route, and particularly along London road in Holyhead. Indeed, the A5 through Holyhead—one and a quarter miles of the 18-mile section in Anglesey—accounted for one fifth of all injury accidents. It is estimated that completing the road would reduce accidents by 70 per cent.
  Then there are the economic arguments. The current situation, with long tailbacks at peak periods and heavy traffic during most of the day, is causing havoc for businesses that rely on good transport facilities. Successful businesses cannot tolerate such long delays on the major road artery serving the island. They all speak of the need to start the road programme as quickly as possible. I shall quote later in my speech from some of the letters that I have received. I have already received letters from more than half the community councils on the island, as well as more than 50 letters from businesses and organisations. I know that there are more to come.
  Let me try to put the scale of the traffic into perspective. The second road crossing on to the island and the dual carriageway bypassing Llanfairpwll were
  794
  completed in the early 1980s. In 1981, 22,465 freight units were going by road to Holyhead and a total of 123,764 cars and coaches. In 1995, the totals were 69,697 freight units and 408,474 cars and coaches—increases of 210 per cent. and 230 per cent. respectively. Those staggering figures do not take into account the increase in local traffic, the impact of the HSS vessel introduced by Stena this year or the new Irish Ferries super-ferry, said to be the largest in north-west Europe, which is due to come into service in Holyhead in 1997.
  Let me recap on the story to date. The first significant development occurred on 13 April 1988, when I led a local authority delegation to the Welsh Office and met the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts). After we had pressed our case, he declared that the Welsh Office had decided to dual the section from Llanfairpwll to Turnpike Nant.
  Naturally, the delegation was pleased with the announcement as far as it went. I pressed the Minister not to close his mind to completing the dualling of the road all the way to Holyhead. I asked him to receive further evidence, and he readily agreed. Shortly afterwards, I supplied him with a memorandum setting out the case to deal with the whole section. I have re-read that memorandum in preparation for today's debate. The figures that I quoted on the increase in traffic to Holyhead proved remarkably accurate.
  The Minister's announcement about dualling part of the section was confirmed in "Roads in Wales, Progress and Plans for the 1990s", published in 1989, which stated that the section to Turnpike Nant was included in the road building programme. It also said:
  "The case for upgrading the remainder of the road across Anglesey is being considered".
  The work was scheduled to commence not before 1994–95 and we were told informally that it could well start during that financial year.
  We knew that our campaign to dual the whole road to Holyhead had been successful when the document entitled "The A55: The Road of Opportunity" was published late in 1989. There was a palpable sense of relief on the island that the case for the completion of the whole road to Holyhead had been won.
  Our efforts were then directed to securing a timetable for the work. No indication came until the publication of the "Roads in Wales" 1992 supplement. It specified that stage 1, from Llanfairpwll to Turnpike Nant, was expected to start between April 1995 and March 1988. Stage 2, from Turnpike Nant to west of Bryngwran, was expected to start within the same period. Stage 3, from west of Bryngwran to Ty Mawr Holyhead, was expected to start after March 1998. The Holyhead relief road was expected to start before April 1995. None of those works has yet been started.
  In its response to the report of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs in March 1992, the Welsh Office said:
  "The specific objectives of completing the M4 and dualling the A55 will be completed by the mid 1990s".
  We are now coming towards the end of the 1990s.
  The next step was the publication of "Roads in Wales: 1994 Review", published in July of that year. The document contained no firm timetable, but it made several

  795
  key statements on Government policy. A number of road
  schemes were deferred or taken out of the programme, while others were given priority status. The document said:
  "High priority is attached to extending the A55 across Anglesey to Holyhead. This road will be designated the A55. It is planned to publish draft orders for the Holyhead relief road"—
  which was by then late—
  "and the stage from Llanfairpwllgwyngyll to Nant Turnpike during 1994".
  The report confirmed that the road was to be built in four sections, as outlined in 1992. However, that was to change. The scheme was later reduced from four sections to two.
  The people of Anglesey were still concerned by the lack of a firm timetable for the building of the road. We had seen the dates slip, with promises of starts in 1994–95 and in 1996 failing to materialise. The first sign of a proper programme came in a letter sent by the then Secretary of State dated 15 May 1995. In view of its importance to the debate, I want to quote the relevant paragraph in full. He said:
  "I can assure you that I attach high priority to extending the A55 dual carriageway across Anglesey. This is reflected in the plans I announced on 9 March in the 'Departmental Report 1995—The Government's Expenditure Plans 1995–96 to 1997–98' (Cm 2815). A copy of the Major Scheme Forward Trunk Road Programme is enclosed for your information. You will see from this that two schemes—A55 Llanfair PG-west of Bryngwran and A55 west of Bryngwran-Holyhead—costing over £120 million are included in the highest programmed category, i.e. planned to start before April 1998. I am afraid that it is not possible to give a more precise start of work date at this stage."
  The letter also confirmed the road's strategic importance in European terms.
  Given those assurances, the people of Anglesey felt that further pressure should be applied to bring the starting date forward. At least we knew that the Treasury had earmarked funds for the project, which was clearly shown as part of the Government's expenditure plans.
  A meeting was held on 31 October 1995 with the current Minister with responsibility for transport in Wales, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), at which he received a deputation, which I again led. We pressed him hard on the dates and we came away with the view that the first section could be started in the financial year 1996–97, and the second section would follow 12 months later. The 1995 public expenditure statement confirmed our view. On 13 December 1995, the Secretary of State said:
  "the A55 improvements across Anglesey are important, and I plan to start the first stage of those improvements next year."—[Official Report. 13 December 1995: Vol. 268, c. 1004.]
  Subsequently, he explained that next year meant the next financial year, ending 31 March 1997. I know that the Welsh Office has said to the local authority that there is reference in the statement to the use of private finance. Let me make it perfectly clear that that is a misleading statement, because that refers to other projects and not to the A55. The reference to the A55 in that document cites that public funds would be used.
  The Under-Secretary wrote to a number of people to confirm the timetable. He wrote to Ynys Môn county council on 24 May and said:
  "work on the new road is scheduled to begin in the spring of 1997, demonstrating the commitment to the extension of the A55 across Anglesey."
  796
  The local community had worked hard to secure those commitments. We were now being assured by the Welsh Office that the building of the road was a priority; that work on the first section would start in spring 1997; that work on the second section would start in the following year; and that public funds would be used. Little wonder then that the announcement made on 10 July caused such anger and outrage. It came only eight weeks after the Minister's final letter confirming the previous plans. It was made near the end of the summer session. It was made without consultation with the highway authority and on the day when the LG announcement was made. The Government were no doubt hoping to bury the bad news with the good—perhaps the link between the two is closer than we might imagine.
  That announcement marked the first time that I was not given any warning about an announcement concerning the A5 in Anglesey. On previous occasions, I was always given at least a couple of days' prior warning, and rightly so, because it is a major issue in my constituency. Why choose to make the announcement in an answer to a question from the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan? What possible interest could he have in the A5 in Anglesey?
  The sense of anger and betrayal to which I referred now has to be channelled into a campaign to demand that the Welsh Office keeps its promise to the people of Anglesey. I have received an overwhelming response to my request for support, and I should like to quote from some of the letters I have received. Beaumaris town council's letter is typical of many. It states:

  "Dear Mr. Jones

  A5-A55 improvement

  Thank you for your letter of the 13 September which I have read to my council. As a consequence I am asked to reply, and say my council is 100 per cent. behind your cause and wishes you well in your efforts to improve the situation on Anglesey."
  A representative of Tref Alaw community council wrote:
  "The new road is already years behind schedule, without mentioning the further delay."
  Businesses have been equally forthright. A representative of Anglesey Aluminium has written:
  "The poor capacity of the existing A5 has been a deterrent to several aluminium use intensive businesses from locating near the smelter."
  Many businesses have written to say that the condition of the A5 is a disincentive to inward investors, and some report that it is difficult to find suppliers who will deliver to the island. Even more alarming is the news that some might relocate unless the road programme moves ahead quickly. One business man wrote
  "To bring the road to our doorstep then stop is an insult."
  The two companies that operate ferry services from Holyhead have been strong in their condemnation of the Welsh Office decision. Stena's ship and port manager said:
  "Stena Line has invested £46 million in redeveloping the Port of Holyhead … Both companies have committed large new ferries … There is no doubt that we are fast approaching the stage where the growth in business needed to justify the massive investments by the ferry companies and port authority is being stifled by the inadequate access routes."

  797
  The managing director of Irish Ferries, Gerry Hickey, wrote:
  "The arrival of the new superferry in May 1995 has dramatically increased the traffic through the port, and this has been summarised on the accompanying table, with projections for 1997.
  Since announcing plans regarding investment in this route in 1993, Irish Ferries has kept all its promises, and to date we have had little support from the Welsh Office".
  He also sounds a warning that unless we get our act together, the port of Liverpool with its excellent motorway connections threatens to take business away from Holyhead.
  The Under-Secretary has had a flavour of the anger, betrayal and outrage felt by the people of Anglesey as a result of the Welsh Office announcement. He is aware that the current campaign is designed to secure a change of mind. The least I expect from him today is to tell me that the Welsh Office will review its decision and will meet a delegation consisting of the people of Anglesey to present our case; otherwise its decision is just another one of those broken promises that have littered the Government's path since 1992.
  1.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jonathan Evans): As the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) has pointed out, the Government announced their commitment to dual the A5 trunk road across Anglesey in the document published in December 1989, "The A55: The Road of Opportunity". The importance that the Government place on improving the route across the island has been reiterated on many occasions since then, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out. We announced our intention to redesignate the proposed road as the A55 in "Roads in Wales: 1994 Review" to give continuity with the A55 dual carriageway on the mainland. Since then, as we have heard, work has progressed on the design and the statutory procedures, not all of which have yet been concluded, which are necessary to bring a scheme to the point where tenders for main works contracts can be invited. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are statutory inquiry proceedings still outstanding in relation to part of the scheme.
  On 13 December 1995, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave details to the House of the Department's spending plans for Wales for 1996–97. He reiterated the importance of the A55 improvements across Anglesey, on which preparation work was continuing, and, as we have heard, continues, and referred to his wish to develop a number of major road schemes in partnership with the private sector.
  On 10 July, the Under-Secretary with responsibility for roads in Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), confirmed that funding was to be sought for three major road schemes in Wales: the M4 relief road south of Newport, the A465 improvement between Abergavenny and Hirwaun and the A55 dual carriageway across Anglesey between Llanfairpwllgwyngyll and Holyhead. My hon. Friend is unable to respond to the hon. Gentleman today because he is on a trade mission to south-east Asia. On 10 July. he also announced the intention to take each of those projects
  798
  forward under the private finance initiative as design, build, finance and operate—DBFO—schemes.
  My hon. Friend again emphasised the importance of the planned A55 dual carriageway proposals, and I want to reiterate his comments. I accept many of the points that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn has made about the importance of the work. My hon. Friend said that, subject to satisfactory completion of legal procedures, work on the scheme was expected to begin in autumn 1998, with the road being completed some three years later. It deserves to be emphasised that that is about the same time span as would have been involved if construction were undertaken by conventional means.
  The Government place great importance on design, build, finance and operate contracts for major trunk road improvements, which form a significant part of our PFI. Just a few days ago, colleagues in England were able to announce plans for major improvements to the M40 between London and Oxford. I am pleased to note that a Welsh company, Hyder, was part of the successful consortium that was awarded that contract. I know of the widespread interest in those projects.
  There are a number of misconceptions about the contracts. Let me make it clear at the outset that there is no question of tolling booths being placed at strategic intervals across Anglesey, as has been claimed. I accept that the hon. Gentleman has never claimed that, but it has been claimed in some quarters. The system is that the contractor designs the new road, funds its construction, and manages and maintains the road—together with any existing roads that form part of the contract—for a certain period, usually 30 years. In return, the Government pay shadow tolls using a formula based on the number of vehicles using the road and on lane availability. The DBFO contractor, by the nature of the contract, has a long-term interest in the road, which gives a greater guarantee that the initial construction standard will be maintained.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the misunderstandings that have given a number of community councils on Anglesey, and Anglesey county council, cause for concern. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary have received a number of requests for meetings to discuss the July announcement on funding the scheme and to express concern about the Department's alleged lack of commitment to the scheme proceeding within the announced time scale.
  The July announcement was apparently received with some surprise locally. The hon. Gentleman said that there was a mood of anger and betrayal. Why that should be so is not clear. Since my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's statement to the House last December, all public statements have reiterated the point that the Secretary of State is considering delivering a number of major road programmes in Wales through the private finance initiative.
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Does the Minister accept that the original plan was to build a road using the public

  799
  finance that had been allocated? Does he also accept that on previous occasions I was given advance warning of each step?
  Mr. Evans: I am unable to comment on the hon. Gentleman's last point: I am sure that he will accept that. In the interests of road building and capital projects in Wales, we must surely explore the opportunities for involving the private finance initiative. If major capital works can be progressed on that basis, we are likely to have greater capital expenditure across the Principality than would otherwise be the case. The core of the hon. Gentleman's observations today was that the delivery of the scheme would be delayed. The time scale referred to would allow the scheme to be delivered within the initial time scale proposed. I accept his point that the preliminary start date will not be the same, but the point of delivery will be. It is the core date that is important.
  The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met members of the North Wales Economic Forum on 4 September at Wrexham. It was stressed at that meeting that members of the forum placed great emphasis on the Welsh Office adhering to the timetable for extending the A55 across Anglesey, as the overriding need was to ensure that north Wales had a robust transport infrastructure, with adequate links to the country's motorway network. My right hon. Friend recognised the importance of the A55 route to north Wales, and the need to ensure that the scheme was not delayed. He acknowledged that there might be some initial delay in the start of construction, especially while the Bryngwran-Holyhead section was subject to statutory procedures. The completion of the whole length of the dual carriageway was expected to be within the planned timetable, as I outlined.
  I also emphasise that there will be no short cuts, literal or metaphorical, as a result of taking this scheme forward under PFI. All the necessary statutory procedures have to be undertaken, and orders made. Any commitments given in correspondence and at the public local inquiry will be included as part of the PFI contract. The adoption of the PFI approach involves the form and method of procurement, rather than the date when the scheme is likely to be delivered. The statutory procedures are not affected. The highways orders for the section between Llanfairpwllgwyngyll and Bryngwran were made earlier this year following a public inquiry into the proposals—the second public inquiry for the Bryngwran to Holyhead section is expected to be held in early 1997—and every opportunity will be given, in the normal way, for authorities or individuals to register their support for the scheme, or objections to any aspect of it.
  The hon. Gentleman referred in great detail to the increase in traffic growth on the island. That increase, together with the pressures that it brings, is one of the main reasons why the Government have attached high priority to extending the dualling of the A55 across Anglesey. The traffic need for the new improvement is well documented in the Welsh Office's evidence to the public inquiry into the section between
  800
  Llanfairpwllgwyngyll and Bryngwran, and recorded by the inspector in his report. A similar case will be put to the public inquiry, to be held early in the new year, into the remaining section between Bryngwran and Holyhead, at which the hon. Gentleman, the Ynys Môn county council and any other interested parties will have the opportunity of expressing their strong support for the scheme, as the hon. Gentleman has consistently done—support that he has outlined to the House again today.
  The proposed dual carriageway, when it is built, will have adequate capacity to cater for the projected traffic growth on the island, including any that may result from increases in ferry capacity. The programme of the scheme is aimed at completing the whole length of the improvement across the island in the shortest possible time. The projection that has been made of the time from the start of the scheme to the date on which it is expected to be delivered will be shown to be correct.
  On matters of detail concerning the construction of the project, I confirm that it is intended that the road will be built and will be completed as one length between Llanfairpwllgwyngyll and Holyhead. The Department is willing, in principle, to include an additional interchange—which was requested by the Anglesey county council—within the DBFO contract, subject to certain conditions of which the county council was previously advised. Having studied the correspondence, I know that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the county council's concern in that regard and of the conditions that were previously outlined by the Welsh Office.
  The Welsh Office also pointed out to the county council that it is prepared to adopt the same approach in respect of possible road links at the Caerwen and Ty Mawr junctions, and that those and other issues would have to be further discussed with officials of the Department's highways directorate. Highways directorate officials in the Welsh Office will continue to liaise with local authority officials to keep them abreast of developments in the scheme.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the request for a meeting with a delegation. I must make it clear to him that the Welsh Office is of the view that the scheme has been properly introduced under the PFI. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State hosted a reception for a number of contractors and others who may be involved in bidding for PFI schemes in Wales and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I am aware of the substantial interest, especially in relation to major road schemes of this sort. If, therefore, the hon. Gentleman's request is based on the premise that the Secretary of State will be deflected from proceeding with the matter under a PFI scheme, no useful purpose will be served by such a meeting.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will gather from my observations that the highways directorate staff, and even Ministers, are willing to engage in a dialogue about how the scheme should be taken forward. That is the dialogue that we seek, and there would be no point in leaving this debate in the belief that there is anything to be gained by returning to a conventional publicly funded route and not proceeding on the basis of the announcement made in July.
  Mr. Jones: It is important for the Minister to understand the context of the request for a meeting. I understand his point, but it is important for the Welsh Office to meet a delegation to discuss the matters that he has said are vital. We need to know what will happen.
  Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman and I have known each other long enough for him to know that I am never reluctant to meet hon. Members or to receive delegations. However, there is no purpose in holding such a meeting on the premise that the Government will be deflected from their intentions, given in the announcement, about how the scheme should be taken
  802
  forward. That announcement was made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is now taking the matter forward with the Welsh Office. If the meeting is to be held within that context, it is that and not a lack of courtesy on the part of the Welsh Office that leads my right hon. and hon. Friends to say that no purpose would be served by it at this point. If there are other matters that the hon. Gentleman wants to pursue—
  It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    Cumbernauld Development Corporation
    Mr. Norman Hogg: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a progress report on the wind-up of Cumbernauld development corporation. [38704]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): Cumbernauld development corporation is on course for complete wind-up by 31 December 1996.
    Mr. Hogg: I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he join me in thanking Cumbernauld development corporation, its officers and members of the board, past and present, for the considerable achievements in developing the new town, not least in inward investment? Will he consider the issue of inward investment into retail trading as shopping in Cumbernauld is not nearly as good as it should be for a town of its size? Would the Minister be kind enough to meet me to discuss that matter of importance to local people?
    Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman is a firm advocate for his constituents. Whenever he has asked for a meeting with me I have been only too pleased to give it, and I am more than willing to meet him to discuss the issue that he has raised today. I am happy to praise David Mitchell, his board and all the staff of the development corporation for the significant work that they have done for Cumbernauld. When I was last there, they showed me the retail development work that they had done. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, they are now at about phase 5 of the retail development, which is being carried out by the new local authority in conjunction with the private sector. I hope that it will develop smoothly and successfully for the people of Cumbernauld.

    Inward Investment
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the latest figures for inward investment into Scotland. [38705]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): Inward investment in Scotland continues to perform at record levels, the latest good news story being the decision by Hyundai to invest in Dunfermline, creating 4,000 jobs in the long term and providing more than £2 billion of inward investment.
    Mr. Coombs: First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his birthday and wish him a happy day as well as a busy one. Does he agree that the Hyundai investment project would have been impossible if Scotland and the rest of the kingdom had been burdened with the social chapter and the national minimum wage, let alone the tartan tax north of the border? Is it not much more likely that the success of the Scottish Office in attracting that
    804
    investment has been brought about by the successful economic, education and training policies carried out in Scotland in the past 17 years?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his birthday wishes. On my birthday last year, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State arranged for me to open the Skye bridge, and it is a delight to be at Scottish Question Time today.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) points to an important factor in inward investment. Such companies are coming to Scotland not for the climate but because we offer a quality work force and a competitive environment. That means low taxes and low inflation. Undoubtedly, if we had the social chapter, the minimum wage and the tartan tax we would be disadvantaged in that international competition. and jobs and investment would be put at risk.
    Mr. David Marshall: How many, if any, foreign companies have recently located in the city of Glasgow? What is the right hon. Gentleman doing to help Glasgow's efforts to attract inward investment to the city?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am happy to do all that I can to attract investment to Glasgow. One of the first things that we need to do is to get rid of the high-spending Labour council that has made Glasgow uncompetitive.
    Sir Hector Monro: In view of today's excellent news of a drop in the unemployment figures for Scotland, will my right hon. Friend give an approximate estimate of the number of new jobs in the pipeline for Fife brought by Locate in Scotland and, no doubt, by local enterprise and the local council? Has he ever heard a word of commendation and thanks from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen for the tremendous achievement in Fife, bearing in mind the doom and gloom they put out when times were difficult?
    Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch), the industry Minister, tells me that the total is 9,000 jobs. That is a significant achievement for Scotland. The Government have played their part, but it would be wrong not to draw attention to the part played by Fife council and the local enterprise companies in achieving that success. It means that we have delivered what we promised. Following the closure of both Rosyth and Ravenscraig, we promised that we would bring new jobs and new opportunities to those areas. That has happened because we have embraced the enterprise culture and been prepared to go out and win business for Scotland. The people of Scotland have reciprocated and I believe that as we approach the millennium we shall see more and more examples of people locating in Scotland because of the environment that we offer and will continue to offer under a Conservative Government.
    Mr. Galloway: Is it not likely that the owners of Hyundai, although South Korean, can read English and that they know from opinion polls and from the opinions of every serious commentator that there will be a Labour Government before Hyundai lays a brick or makes a single thing in its new plant in Dunfermline—a Government who will have signed up to the social chapter

    805
    and introduced a national minimum wage? Does that not give the lie to the smear that our policies are somehow a disincentive to inward investors? Can the Secretary of State say, with his hand on his heart, that the Hyundai spokesmen ever raised with him any concern about an incoming Labour Government's commitment on the social chapter and a minimum wage?
    Mr. Forsyth: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the size of his cigar—I do not know whether it is a birthday present for me or a sign of new Labour. The answer to his question is that I visited Korea earlier this year and the social chapter was one of the issues that were regularly raised with me by companies such as Hyundai in relation to their concern about costs. Indeed, I have unashamedly sold Scotland on the basis that we do not have the burdens carried by other European countries being considered as a location.
    As for the hon. Gentleman's point about opinion polls and press reports, the people with whom we deal in inward investment are very sophisticated, very intelligent and very clever and they will no doubt take account of the fact that the opinion polls before the last election predicted the result that the hon. Gentleman would have wanted. He will find himself disappointed once again.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential not only for inward investment but for indigenous companies to have a competitive economic environment in which they can continue to succeed? Has he, like me, been approached by a number of individuals in senior appointments in Scottish companies who are deeply concerned about the impact of a possible tartan tax and other policies which might erode that competitive environment? They have told me clearly that they will move.
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree that the tartan tax would be a disaster for Scotland and it would certainly put us at a disadvantage compared with the rest of the United Kingdom in attracting inward investment. My hon. Friend is right to point out the importance of costs. For example, in my discussions with Hyundai, one of the issues on which we focused was the cost of electricity in Scotland which, thanks to our privatisation programme, has been falling and has therefore made us more competitive. We had a long discussion about the relative cost of electricity in Scotland versus the cost in the United States. It is extremely naive to assume that those companies will not examine employment costs. The point about the social chapter and the tartan tax is that they add to those costs in an industry in which labour costs are very important.
    Mr. Gallie: I welcome the announcements made during the recess of 200 jobs for Rhor and a further 100 jobs for Western Welsh in my constituency. I also welcome the intended £250 million private finance initiative investment for the new air traffic control centre in Prestwick. May I ask my right hon. Friend to press that issue hard with the Treasury and with the Department of Transport?
    Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend seems to fill every post with letters to me on that issue, and I know of his enthusiasm to ensure that Ayr benefits from that private finance initiative. I also very much welcome the support
    806
    that he has had from Opposition Members for it. My hon. Friend's arguments will of course be made robustly. As he knows, this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, with whom I have had occasion to discuss the matter following my hon. Friend's representations, and he has assured me that he has been inundated with information on this matter from my hon. Friend. I know that my right hon. Friend will carefully consider all the arguments so robustly made by my hon. Friend on behalf of his constituents.
    I am grateful for my hon. Friend's welcome for the good news in Ayr. There are more jobs in Ayr, and the prospects for employment for people in Ayr are very strong. I know that my hon. Friend will continue to represent the people of Ayr for many years to come.
    Mr. Donohoe: The Secretary of State will be aware of the recent announcement of the closure of Robert Wilson and Sons—established in 1849 in my constituency—with the loss of 280 jobs. In those circumstances, does the Secretary of State agree that it is surely wrong to take a decision, which he has already taken, for the early wind-up of the development corporation in Irvine? The redundancies at Robert Wilson and Sons are only the latest of many redundancies in my constituency, and they clearly demonstrate the folly of the early wind-up of the development corporation in Irvine.
    Mr. Forsyth: I share the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for ensuring that we minimise job losses in his constituency and maximise new opportunities. If he has specific proposals that he would like to discuss, having written to me on the subject, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland with responsibility for industry and local government would be delighted to see him.
    Mr. George Robertson: I warmly welcome the announcements of inward investment coming to Scotland, especially the Hyundai investment in Dunfermline and the Chunghwa and Lite-on decisions in Lanarkshire. I congratulate all who were involved in local and national Government on bringing those valuable jobs to Scotland. I should, however, remind the Secretary of State of the reality that must have faced those intelligent and highly astute inward investors. They were faced with a situation in which we are six months away from a general election and in which the governing party in Scotland has a miserable 13 per cent. approval in public opinion—just 1 per cent. higher than when the Secretary of State took office a year ago. They could have come to only one serious conclusion—that there will be a Labour Government and that that Government will achieve constitutional reform and a Scottish Parliament for Scotland based, through a referendum, on the specific consent of the Scottish people. Those investors, like the majority of the Scottish people, concluded that a Labour Government will be good for Scotland and good for their industrial future.
    Mr. Forsyth: Oddly enough, I did not feel that it was part of our marketing of Scotland to draw attention to the possibility suggested by the hon. Gentleman. Telling inward investors that there was a prospect of a Labour Government, who would impose a specific higher income tax rate in Scotland, does not seem to me to be a very

    807
    attractive prospect to outline when one is competing not only in terms of the United Kingdom versus Belgium or Ireland, but in terms of Scotland as the preferred location in the United Kingdom. I did not feel that it was incumbent upon me to draw attention to the hon. Gentleman's aspirations.
    On inward investment, it is striking that those companies plan on a long-term basis and try to minimise uncertainty. If they have observed the antics of the Labour party in Scotland, they will have seen four changes of policy on devolution and the tartan tax. They may believe that reality will break in and the Labour party will have to abandon its plans for a tartan tax and a tax-raising Parliament if it eventually decides to put the interests of country before those of party.

    Local Government Finance (Clackmannanshire)
    Mr. O'Neill: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to meet Clackmannanshire council to discuss local government finance. [38707]
    Mr. Kynoch: Neither the hon. Gentleman nor Clackmannanshire council has requested such a meeting.
    Mr. O'Neill: Since the question was tabled, there has been some movement by the Government, which the local authority welcomes, in respect of the funding of the A907 improvements. However, two other aspects of local government financial problems require attention. One is the partnership priority area bid and the competition for additional funds, for which Clackmannan is in contention. Will the Minister tell us when the bidding process will be completed and when an announcement is likely to be made?
    The second aspect relating to the road system in Clackmannanshire is the likely construction of a westward element to the Kincardine bridge. When will an announcement be made about that? It is important for the industrial development of an area in which, even allowing for the slight improvement in unemployment figures today, 18 per cent. of males capable of working and ready to work cannot get jobs. Will the Minister act as a matter of urgency to resolve these matters so that the anxieties of people in Clackmannanshire can be allayed?
    Mr. Kynoch: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman recognises that the Government have moved to help Clackmannanshire council. I thought that he might ask for a meeting with me, in which case I would have suggested that he bring the newly elected Conservative councillor, Alastair Campbell, who on 10 October increased the Conservative majority in a by-election in Clackmannan. I congratulate Mr. Campbell and wish him well in bringing common sense to Clackmannan council.
    With regard to the specific issues that the hon. Gentleman raised, I am assured by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who is responsible for transport matters in Scotland, that announcements will be made shortly.
    Dr. Spink: Can my hon. Friend confirm that grant support in Scotland is 44 per cent. higher than in England, and how can I justify that to my constituents?
    Madam Speaker: Order. We are dealing with a particular council. The hon. Gentleman is aware—
    808
    [Interruption.] Order. I will deal with this. The hon. Gentleman will relate his question to Clackmannanshire, or he will not be called. Which is it to be?
    Dr. Spink: I have visited Clackmannanshire four times in the past two years, but I doubt whether the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) has ever visited my constituency.
    Will my hon. Friend the Minister comment on the profligacy of Liberal and Labour-controlled councils such as that of Clackmannanshire?
    Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend is right that Labour-controlled local authorities and some Liberal Democrat and Scottish National party local authorities have complained that they must make cuts in expenditure this year—at a time when, as my hon. Friend rightly stated, they are being funded by central Government with taxpayers' money at 44 per cent. more per head than those south of the border. Clackmannanshire has a budget this year which enables it to increase last year's budget by almost 6 per cent.; yet like many other Labour councils, it is talking of cuts. That is because of their inheritance from outgoing councils which did not adhere to budgets. That is typical of the financial management of the Opposition parties. We believe in setting budgets and keeping to them.
    Mr. Chisholm: When will the Minister face up to the crisis in local government finance in Clackmannanshire and elsewhere, which arises from the Government's squeeze on spending and from their serious underestimate of the costs of local government reorganisation? Why is his response a planned 1.4 per cent. cut in grant levels for next year, which would mean massive council tax increases in Clackmannanshire and elsewhere simply to keep cash budgets at their present unsatisfactory level? If tomorrow's joint report by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on the costs of local government reorganisation confirms what Labour has been saying, will the Minister undertake to increase grant levels so that local council tax payers do not have to pay the price for this Government's miscalculations and incompetence?
    Mr. Kynoch: If the hon. Gentleman knew how government worked, he would know that it is far too early to talk of next year's settlement. Equally, I suspect that it is too early realistically to look at the cost of reorganisation to local authorities. Indeed, as I travelled around the country during the summer and visited many local authorities, I was appalled to find that most of them were unable even at that stage of the year to present management accounts to enable councillors to determine how they were performing against budget. That indicates to me that it is difficult for councils to make the sort of statements that the hon. Gentleman is making, which are simply scaremongering.
    The amounts involved are in any case nothing in relation to the cost to the taxpayer that would result if the hon. Gentleman's party got the £395 million extra expenditure that it asked for last year. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) at least had the decency to try to find a source for that money in that he indicated that it could come from the health service.

    809
    The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) should talk to councils and find out some facts rather than just feelings before he makes such reckless statements.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that compulsory competitive tendering has been of great benefit to local authorities in Clackmannanshire and elsewhere? Does he agree that in opposing CCT the Opposition have shown that they are much more interested in jobs for the boys than in value for money for the taxpayer or quality of service for council service users?
    Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I find it unbelievable that elected councillors, who are elected to look after taxpayers' money and to try to provide services in the most cost-effective way, are so reluctant to put tenders out to competition not only to themselves but to the private sector. I should have thought that if by doing so they could gain savings for taxpayers in their area, they would have welcomed that. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that they do not recognise that competition brings improvement and better value for the taxpayer, although that is what they were elected to achieve.

    Hampden Park Stadium
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will arrange to meet representatives of the Scottish Football Association to discuss funding of the final phase of the Hampden Park development. [38708]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): My right hon. Friend announced at Hampden Park on Wednesday 18 September that the Scottish Office would contribute up to £2 million towards the redevelopment and rebuilding of the national stadium.
    Mr. Canavan: On behalf of the all-party Scottish sports group, may I thank the Minister for the Government's contribution which we hope will help to ensure that the Scottish football team and their supporters get the high-standard national stadium that they need and deserve? Will the Minister take this opportunity to congratulate the Scottish football team on their progress in the World cup, even though Scottish Tories may feel some empathy with Estonia since the Scottish Tory party with only 10 Members of Parliament cannot field a team in the House?
    Mr. Robertson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, to the all-party Scottish sports group for their kind words about our decision. I am sure that he will join me in congratulating Austin Reilly and the National Stadium Committee on their tireless efforts to ensure the funding necessary to match the lottery donation of £23 million from the Millennium Commission. That will ensure that Scotland has a world-class stadium for the new millennium.
    Like the hon. Gentleman, I hope that we shall see world-class displays from the national team to match. I congratulate the national team on their brilliant performance in Latvia, where they put two past the
    810
    Latvians, and against Estonia, when they showed that keeping possession and playing one-touch football really can win games. I am afraid that that match was a bit like Scottish questions—no opposition.

    Forestry
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people are currently employed by his Department on forestry matters; and what was the figure in 1990. [38709]
    Mr. Kynoch: The Forestry Commission currently employs 3,600 staff throughout Britain, compared with 4,800 in 1990.
    Mr. Pawsey: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful and reassuring reply. May I also add my congratulations to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) to Scottish Office Ministers on their efforts in securing inward investment to Scotland? Can my hon. Friend explain, however, why forestry is the specific responsibility of his office?
    Mr. Kynoch: It is because there is a large amount of forestry in Scotland—[Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland seems to be lapsing into my habit on previous questions from my hon. Friend by saying that perhaps at the Scottish Office we can see the wood for the trees.
    Mr. Foulkes: That is a hard one to follow. Is the Minister aware that I warmly welcome the additional jobs in forestry to be created by the Egger chipboard factory proposed for my constituency and that I have personally thanked the officials from Locate in Scotland who helped to obtain that? Will the Minister be equally honest and frank about the unemployment figures? Is he aware that over the past three months the Labour party has carried out a door-to-door survey of every house in New Cumnock? The full detailed results, to be published tomorrow, show that the real level of unemployment in New Cumnock is well over twice the official statistics, and I am sure that the same is true throughout Scotland and the United Kingdom. Why do the Government not tell the truth about unemployment, just as I have been honest about Egger?
    Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman gets very heated about these matters. Having visited that part of the world during the summer, I understand the difficulties when there is unemployment in an area, but that is all the more reason why we should concentrate effort on trying to bring new industry to the area. I welcome his comments regarding Egger. We are not quite there yet but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the company has indicated that it wishes to build a new chipboard manufacturing plant at Barony, which is very good news for east Ayrshire. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), the hon. Gentleman should recognise that there have been other successes in his part of the world: we have brought the inward investment company AI(R) to Prestwick and we shall continue to make every effort to encourage further investment and to address the unemployment problems that I recognise exist in his area.

    European Union Policies
    Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to visit the office of the representative of the European Commission in Edinburgh in the near future to discuss EU policies affecting Scotland. [38710]
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: None.
    Mr. Dykes: Despite that answer, does my right hon. Friend agree that what strikes visitors from England about Scotland is the strong enthusiasm for United Kingdom membership of the European Union and the strong feeling that European Union membership has been good for Scotland in respect of specific policies? Will he finally overcome the hesitations that he has just demonstrated by persuading some of his English colleagues in the Government of the necessity of showing more enthusiasm for Europe and perhaps even considering the daring possibility of accepting the invitation to become a patron of the European Movement?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I have declined the invitation to be a patron of the European Movement because I would find it difficult to sign up to a series of proposals within its programme of objectives. As for his point about visiting the office concerned, my understanding is that the European Commission office in Edinburgh exists to promote the European Commission and is not concerned with matters of investment and manufacturing. I believe that Europe offers Scotland a tremendous opportunity as a Europe of nation states offering a market for our people, but I totally reject the view of a Europe of the regions that would reduce Scotland to regional status in Europe, which is the policy of the Scottish National party, the Liberal party and the Labour party.
    Dr. Godman: When the Secretary of State next meets Mr. Kenneth Monro, the European Commission representative in Edinburgh, will he take the opportunity to discuss the repayment of the illegal payment of some £600,000 that was made to Tate and Lyle? Under European Union law, that money should not have been paid to that multinational which is quitting Greenock next year. May I remind the Secretary of State that on 26 June I wrote a letter on the issue to his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch), but that as yet I have not had the courtesy of a reply?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman says that he has not had a reply, and I apologise for that unreservedly. He shall have a reply this week. No, I will not be discussing the matters with the representative, because it is not really what he is there for and would not he relevant. Although I hesitate to fill up the diary of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), I am sure that he will be very happy to see the hon. Gentleman. I know how hard my hon. Friend worked to try to ensure that Tate and Lyle stayed in Greenock, where it had been for many years, and I know of the impact that that decision had on the community. I know that the hon. Gentleman worked very closely with my hon. Friend and the trade unions to do
    812
    everything possible to try to maintain employment in the area. In that spirit, I am sure that, if the hon. Gentleman has not received a reply, it is certainly not through any deliberate intention.
    Mr. Wallace: As one of the patrons of the European Movement in Scotland, I am disappointed that the Secretary of State has not joined us, but pleased that his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade continues to subscribe to many of the European Movement's objectives.
    If the Secretary of State is not prepared to go to the office of the European Commission's representative in Edinburgh, will he at least take the opportunity to engage with some of the European institutions with regard to two important Scottish industries—the fishing and fish farming industries—and specifically state what steps he is proposing to take forward the case against quota hopping? Will he ensure that we have substantial indigenous fish farming in future? That will require considering the imposition of duty on imports of fish farm products from countries such as Norway, which is dumping them, and not having to wait for a considerable period of time for a report of the European Commission's case on anti-dumping.
    Mr. Forsyth: I would be very happy to be in any organisation with the hon. Gentleman, but I shall resist the invitation. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has always had a reputation for being somewhat more broad-minded than me on a variety of matters.
    On the hon. Gentleman's serious points, he is of course absolutely right to draw attention to the importance of quota hoppers. We shall raise the issue at the intergovernmental conference. I am not sure whether people realise just how important the farmed salmon industry is to Scotland—certainly to the hon. Gentleman's constituency and the west of Scotland. My hon. Friend the Minister responsible for fisheries has been to Norway, entertained the Fisheries Minister in Scotland and worked hard with colleagues. The industry is fighting hard. It has our support and I share the hon. Gentleman's determination to tackle the problems. It is experiencing unfair dumping as a result of overproduction in Norway, which is putting it at risk. We must do everything that we can to support the industry.
    Mrs. Ewing: Is not the Secretary of State having great difficulty referring to antecedents in the context of the European Movement because his heroine, Baroness Thatcher, was also a patron of it? Perhaps he would like to dwell on that.
    On the points raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), will we have to wait on the Irish Government to fight for the fish farming industry in Scotland? What exactly will the Scottish Office say at the IGC about the common fisheries policy and the implications for the thousands of jobs in Scotland that depend on that industry?
    Mr. Forsyth: I know that the hon. Lady has a constituency interest. If she would like to discuss the issues with me, I shall be very happy to do so. I am

    813
    surprised to learn that my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Thatcher is a patron of the European Movement. Despite that, I have no plans to reconsider my decision.
    Mr. Day: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in Scotland's dealings with the European Union, as with those of all parts of the United Kingdom, when Germany east and west is united, it is essential that the components of the United Kingdom remain together in union, speaking with a single voice, rather than being picked off individually as separate units? For Scotland and England, is it not vital to be together within Europe, as with our dealings with the rest of the world?
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree. The proposals for a Scottish Parliament envisage somebody shuffling down from Edinburgh to sit alongside the United Kingdom representative, who would be guided by decisions in this House. The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) has drawn attention to the importance of fishing and fish farming to Scotland's future. The idea that Scotland's representation should be reduced to someone who would not speak for Scotland's interest and would not have the power to carry the vote for Scotland's interests—
    Mrs. Ewing: Douglas Hogg?
    Mr. Forsyth:—would be deeply damaging to Scotland. The hon. Lady's position is better than that of the other Opposition parties in that respect, in that she wants an independent Scotland with its own representative—assuming that Scotland could then continue as a member of the Community. Unfortunately, as a small country dependent on the Community for support, our voice would be greatly diminished, as opposed to our being part of a United Kingdom with the power, the influence and the strong voice in Europe that has been our tradition, and is our future.
    Mr. McFall: When the Secretary of State next decides to visit the office of the Commission in Edinburgh, will he do so in a spirit of contrition and humility in view of the anger and dismay expressed by the National Farmers Union of Scotland, Sandy Mole and others, about what they call the "bumbling shambles" of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy policy? In walking away from the Florence agreement, does the Secretary of State not realise that he is jeopardising 37,000 jobs in Scotland—as witnessed by the 300 jobs lost in Kilwinning last week? Is he not aware that the export of beef is crucial to the Scottish economy, so good relations with Europe are essential? Will he therefore stop relying on a policy designed to allay the fears of the Euro-sceptic wing of the Tory party at the expense of the fragile rural and farming areas of Scotland?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman seeks to politicise an issue that is important for Scotland's economy. We are not abandoning the Florence agreement, and I do not believe that we would be able to stand up for the interests of Scotland's farmers, or of anyone else, by adopting the kind of policy suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, who has said that he would never be isolated in Europe. That means that he would never say no, and would never stand up for Britain's interests, for Scotland's farmers or fishermen, or for anyone else. The
    814
    hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) is right to draw attention to the importance of the export business. That is why we shall continue to argue the case for Scottish beef, which is the best in the world and should have access to those markets. When I voted to join the European Community, I was told that I was voting for access to a single market for our producers. That is what we expect to have under the treaty, and that is what we intend to see delivered.

    Scottish Grand Committee
    Mr. Home Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact of the work of the Scottish Grand Committee on the work of his Department in the current Session of Parliament. [38711]
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): Meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee fall within the parliamentary responsibilities of Ministers and the normal duties of officials.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Is the Minister aware that, when my teenage son asked me whether the Scottish Grand Committee was a quango, I had to explain that it was nothing like as powerful as that? Will he confirm that the substantive decisions taken by the Scottish Grand Committee in all its travels round 11 locations in Scotland this year have been as follows: the Second Reading of the Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, the Second Reading of the non-controversial Licensing (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, and no fewer than 24 resolutions "That the Committee do now adjourn"? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the time has come to adjourn that token Committee once and for all, and to allow the people of Scotland to elect their own Parliament to control their own affairs?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I wholeheartedly disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The Scottish Grand Committee has been an enormous success and has greatly improved accountability. Many positive decisions relating to areas throughout Scotland have issued from it. It has been responsive to representations from local communities. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the fact that his party's proposals for a Scottish Parliament would cost no less than £36 million in capital costs and well over £40 million a year in running costs. The running costs of the Scottish Grand Committee are negligible in comparison, and I believe that it performs a great service to the nation.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite what Opposition Members say, the movement of the Grand Committee around Scotland has been a great success? Cannot the Committee do almost everything that a Scottish Parliament could do—except raise the tartan tax? Does he agree that we should continue the policy this year? Perhaps we could end up with another great event in Dumfries this year—even if we do not have Robert Burns to celebrate in 1997.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the fact that the Scottish Grand Committee met successfully in Dumfries—it was

    815
    the first time that a Prime Minister had ever addressed the Committee. So successful was the experiment that it is now to be extended to Northern Ireland, and Wales is following our example. That is wholly admirable.
    The tartan tax would be an appalling infliction and would probably mean that the average individual in Scotland would pay £6 a week extra in taxes, which would damage jobs and services.
    Mr. Welsh: Apart from the extra cost of making some hon. Members travel more, how much has the travelling circus cost? What has been the impact of the Grand Committee on the Scottish Office, given that the Committee cannot make any decisions about anything?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that he and his colleagues have no influence, he is incorrect—as long as they are doing their jobs properly. Hon. Members who operate effectively and use the parliamentary machinery available to them can have great influence on behalf of their constituents. The costs of running the Grand Committee are negligible in comparison to the cost of a Scottish Parliament, and the people of Scotland will keep that in mind.
    Mr. Davidson: But what has the Scottish Grand Committee actually done?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It has met on a great many occasions. [Laughter.] What is more, it has listened to many representations—some of them from the hon. Gentleman who, if I remember correctly, argued for stronger action to be taken by the Law Officers against drug dealers and vandals in his constituency. We were glad to respond to the problems in his area.

    Government of Scotland
    Mr. Duncan Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on the government of Scotland. [38712]
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: I have had lots of representations on the government of Scotland, and in particular about the adverse effect of a tartan tax that would hit the work force and pensioners in Scotland harder than those in other parts of the UK.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: If a Scottish Parliament with tax-raising powers were created, would not my constituents in Chingford be right to question the funding arrangements whereby the United Kingdom Government would spend more per head in Scotland than in England? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that would lead directly to a schism between England and Scotland, and thereby to exactly what the Scottish National party wants—a separate England and a separate Scotland?
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my hon. Friend to the extent that Labour's unstable proposal would lead to conflict between Westminster and the Edinburgh Parliament and that funding would certainly become an issue. The supporters of this policy include the Liberal Democrats, who have argued for a reduction in the number of Members of Parliament and the loss of the office of
    816
    Secretary of State for Scotland, which would diminish Scotland's voice in this House, where the funding of Scotland's vital services is determined. That in turn would put those services at risk, and is a recipe for corrosive acrimony and discord.
    My hon. Friend is right to say that that move would play straight into the hands of members of the Scottish National party, who seek the break-up of the United Kingdom. I hope, therefore, that Opposition Members who realise that will ask those Labour Members who adhere to the scheme to think again.
    Mr. McAllion: In a recent speech, the Secretary of State denounced nationalism as "patriotism gone to seed", among other things. Will he denounce that form of British nationalism that wraps itself in the Union flag, indulges in blatant anti-European sentiment and displays not so much love of our country as loathing of the countries of other Europeans? If not, can we conclude that he is a secret supporter of that ugly face of British nationalism that is associated with the Euro-sceptics in his party?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is reading my speeches. He will have seen that, in the same speech, I described patriotism as being based on love of one's own country, not hatred of other people's. The hon. Gentleman can take my words for what they are. He has sometimes had difficulty deciding whether he is a nationalist or a socialist.
    Mr. McAllion: Both.
    Mr. Forsyth: I will not link both because that might get me into some trouble. In that speech, I was drawing attention to the failure of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) to condemn a recruiting leaflet produced by young Scottish nationalists which denounced English people in filthy and abusive terms. He has refused, and he has the opportunity to do so this afternoon.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: On the question of Scottish governance, and given the Secretary of State's announcement last week of the inaugural meeting of the highlands and islands convention, could I indicate to the Secretary of State on behalf of my hon. Friends in the area that we look forward to participating in that meeting? I must also place it on record that we will at the outset raise the question of the convention deciding for itself who should act as the chair and of it having ownership of its agenda. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is absurd to have a consultative body to the Executive that in itself will be chaired and driven by the person in charge of the Executive?
    Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman takes that attitude, it will not work. We have tried to set up a body made up half of elected members and half from other bodies. The purpose is to come together with my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for the highlands and me to discuss issues that we can approach on a cross-party basis. It is meant to be not an Executive, but a consultative, body. If the hon. Gentleman wants to be in the chair, he must win the next election.
    The convention is not set up as some sort of Executive body. It is there to try to find common ground and ensure that those people, both elected and unelected, in the

    817
    highlands have an input. The hon. Gentleman's ambitions go beyond that. I hope that he will adopt a co-operative attitude. Many people in the highlands would welcome that. I appreciate that he would rather have something else, but that is not something that I am in a position to deliver and it would not be the right thing to do.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most effective and efficient mechanism for a Government with a majority of Scottish Members of Parliament—if they are determined to have a body legislating in Scotland—is to use the Scottish Grand Committee and their majority in it? In such circumstances there is no need to set up other, expensive establishments.
    Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. In a Scottish Grand Committee under a Labour Government—perish the thought—a majority of members would be of the Government side, otherwise there would not be a Labour Government. That means that the Grand Committee would be able to pass legislation, hold the Executive to account and do everything and more that a Scottish Parliament could do. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State pointed out earlier, the only thing that it could not do is raise the tartan tax. Too many people are keen to pay extra tax in Scotland compared with England.

    Campbeltown to North Antrim Ferry
    Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the tourist potential for Scotland of the proposed ferry from Campbeltown to North Antrim. [38715]
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: It is difficult to make a precise estimate of the benefits, but I am certain that the new ferry service will be of enormous tourism benefit to Campbeltown and the west of Scotland as a whole. I also believe that it will be of benefit to Northern Ireland and that it opens up the possibility of people doing a round trip and seeing parts of Scotland and Ireland that might otherwise be less accessible. I pay tribute to the way in which the hon. Gentleman has worked to make the project a success.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the statement by the Secretary of State. The project has gone beyond the proposal phase and should be in operation next summer. We welcome its linking of the kingdom of Dalriada and I am glad that the Secretary of State agrees that it will release Campbeltown from an experience, at times, of isolation and make it part of a through route for tourism, to our mutual benefit.
    Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), who also played a part. My only regret is that it took so long to bring the matter to fruition. Those who have followed the project realise that it took so long because
    818
    there have been serious difficulties in achieving it, but it has been worth fighting for and I am glad that it is on course to start next summer.
    Mrs. Ray Michie: I, too, welcome the announcement, at long last, of the ferry service, although I am disappointed that Caledonian MacBrayne was not allowed to run it. It will nevertheless make a significant difference to Campbeltown and to the Kintyre peninsula. For how long does Sea Containers have the contract? Is the Secretary of State expecting the service eventually to run all year, so that we can build up not only a good tourist service, but a good import-export service?
    Mr. Forsyth: I shall take the hon. Lady's point about CalMac head on. I spent a considerable time this summer going around islands, and in her constituency. The unique circumstances in those areas and the importance of ferry services are perfectly apparent. We must consider the support that we provide through CalMac for ferry services for the future.
    It was important for the new route to be established. It was possible to achieve that with a private sector operator taking the risk, which means that CalMac's available public capital and running costs can be deployed on maintaining other services and introducing new ones. It must be the right approach to use the state nationalised service and the scarce resources available to it as wisely and as effectively as possible. That was what lay behind our thinking.
    I must confess that I am not immediately au fait with all the details of the contract, but I shall write to the hon. Lady and if she has any concerns, I shall be pleased to consider them.
    Mrs. Liddell: Hon. Members of all parties welcome the new ferry service, which will link two beautiful parts of the British Isles, but is not it absurd that the Secretary of State for Scotland cannot give a convincing reason why public assets have been gifted to a private company, Sea Containers, when CalMac would have been perfectly capable of running the service as it did in the past? Will the Secretary of State admit that he is so in thrall to his narrow right-wing ideology that he is prepared to gift to a private sector company public assets at the taxpayer's expense?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Lady should take a week off to read the speeches of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), as she is talking old Labour. She is arguing that, when a private sector operator is prepared to provide finance, purchase the ferry and take the risk on its working—even the most enthusiastic supporters have questioned its viability—we should ask the taxpayer to do it instead. That is nonsense. We should use taxpayers' resources as wisely as possible. The resources that we have for CalMac should be used to run the services that the private sector cannot run.

    Dermatology Patients
    Mr. Michael J. Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many hospital beds are available in Scotland for dermatology patients [38719]
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: At 31 March 1996, 207 beds were available and, in the year to that date,

    819
    nearly 13,000 treatments for dermatology were carried out. That was 27 per cent. more than in the previous year.
    Mr. Martin: The dermatology unit in Stobhill hospital is excellent and serves communities as far away as Falkirk, but the worry is that the beds are being taken away and it is my understanding that those requiring a bed will have to go to the Western infirmary. May I urge caution, because some of the hospital trusts, although they mean well, are trying to operate their hospitals as slick business operations, when first and foremost they should look after the interests of the patient?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I should explain to the hon. Gentleman that there have been some changes in clinical practice, including the introduction of a great deal more day care, which has been successfully introduced at Stobhill. There has been consultation. The health board is now purchasing in-patient dermatology services from the Western infirmary, where bed capacity has been increased. Glasgow is well provided with dermatology beds, having approximately four times as many in-patient dermatology beds per 100,000 of population as London. Overall, the hospital trusts are sensitive to the point made by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Connarty: Is the Minister aware that the all-party group on skin, which is very active in the House and of which I am an office bearer, has been looking into dermatology services? I am deeply concerned that the type of in-patient provision described by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin), when someone undergoes tar treatment for severe skin disorders, is the only time that they can spend among others suffering the same disease. Relaxation is very important. Day care is no substitute for the relaxation that comes from week-long stays in hospitals such as Stobhill.
    The Minister seems to ignore the fact that the service provided at Stobhill is for nearly all of Scotland, not just for Glasgow. It is for people in my constituency and many others in Scotland. It is not sufficient at the moment and should be expanded, not cut down.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If there are complaints about clinical practice, I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would give me the details, which I shall investigate. There has been an increase in out-patient facilities at Stobhill. Since the date of transfer of services from Stobhill catchment area, only a handful of patients have required in-patient treatment at the Western infirmary. Out-patient treatment has increased. If there are cases of dissatisfaction with clinical decisions, I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would let me know.

    Stone of Destiny
    Mr. Bill Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the future location of the Stone of Destiny; and if he will make a statement. [38720]
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: I have received a number of representations on the location of the Stone of Destiny on its return to Scotland, including from my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Walker: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Can he confirm that no final decision has yet been reached and that the proposals for a kingship centre and for the stone to be located at Scone are still in the running?
    Mr. Forsyth: I can confirm that no announcement has been made; I hope to make one shortly. The announcement will take full account of the representations made by my hon. Friend, in particular his proposal for a kingship centre at Scone.
    Ms Roseanna Cunningham: As the other Member of Parliament representing Perthshire, may I add my voice to those who have called for the stone's ultimate return to Scone, where it of course belongs? When that great symbol of Scottish nationhood is returned, will the Secretary of State also consider the return of some of the realities of our nationhood?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her representations. The important fact is that the stone will return to Scotland on the 700th anniversary of its removal. I am sure that its place in Scotland will be more permanent than the hon. Lady's place in Perthshire.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the Secretary of State admit that there is really only one place for the Stone of Destiny to rest—in the capital city of Edinburgh? Will he assure the House and the people of Scotland that, wherever the Stone of Destiny is lodged, it will be accessible to as many people as possible, and certainly to people with disabilities?
    Mr. Forsyth: The criteria that need to be met for the placing of the stone were set out fully in the consultation paper. We have received a number of representations, although I am not aware that the hon. Gentleman made one. I can see that he is now doing so from a sedentary position. I promise that I will revisit the representations before making an announcement.

    Deregulation
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what new deregulation initiatives he intends to introduce in the next six months. [38721]
    Mr. Kynoch: The Scottish Office will continue to take action on all aspects of the Government's deregulation initiative.
    Mr. Steen: While I pay tribute to the Secretary of State's well-known commitment to promoting the Government's policy of deregulation, does my hon. Friend agree that the test for the Government is how many rules and regulations that impinge on business they have repealed, rather than to argue that, but for the Government's deregulation policy, there would have been even more statutory instruments? Since January 1994, there have been 8,101 statutory instruments.
    Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will appreciate that much business legislation is United Kingdom-wide legislation, and therefore the responsibility of other UK Departments. I can assure my hon. Friend, however, that we in the Scottish Office are adamant that we will reduce the burden on industry and encourage business in Scotland. That is something which the Opposition parties are totally against, because all their proposals for business in Scotland are counterproductive, counter-competitive and would be bad news for Scottish business, and, therefore, Scottish employment.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: How can anyone take the Government seriously when, of the 3,500 regulations that have been introduced and directly affect manufacturing industry, 2,625 have been introduced by this Government?
    Mr. Kynoch: That is absolutely nothing, as the hon. Gentleman may realise in due course, compared with the burdens his party would put on Scottish business and United Kingdom business. I shall name but a few—the social chapter, the minimum wage and the tartan tax. They would all be exceedingly bad news for Scottish business, UK business and the people of Scotland.

Dunblane (Cullen Report)
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the publication of the report of Lord Cullen's inquiry and the Government's response.
On 21 March, following a resolution of both Houses, I appointed the Hon. Lord Cullen to inquire into
"the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the events at Dunblane Primary School, to consider the issues arising therefrom, to make such interim and final recommendations as may seem appropriate and to report as soon as practicable."
Lord Cullen concluded that he should not make an interim report. He completed his report within the demanding timetable he set himself by the end of September. But I received a letter from the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) saying that it would be
"wrong for the Report to be published during any one of the party conferences".
I discussed that request with him, and with the hon Members for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), and with their approval I requested Lord Cullen to delay submitting his report to me until Monday 14 October. It is being published today, together with the Government's response, as a Command Paper. I can also tell the House that the report will be available on the Internet, so that there will be access around the world for those who expressed support for the community of Dunblane.
I am also grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for your agreement that I should allow the families of the victims to receive copies of the report and the Government's response ahead of its presentation to Parliament.
I am enormously grateful to Lord Cullen for the dedicated, prompt and efficient way in which he has carried out the inquiry. I appointed him in the knowledge of the careful way in which he conducted the Piper Alpha inquiry and the rigour and the practicality of his conclusions on that occasion. He approached the present inquiry with sensitivity, courtesy and care. As the inquiry proceeded, he deservedly gained the wide respect of the parties to the inquiry, the media and the public. He has had to consider the most harrowing of circumstances, and to acquaint himself with a number of very complex issues—issues which are of great concern to the people of Dunblane and throughout Scotland.
It was right for there to be a full investigation of all the background to the events of that day and of the policy questions raised by them. And it was essential that the House had before it a full analysis and the facts before attempting to reach conclusions about further action.
I can tell the House that we are going to accept all Lord Cullen's recommendations, and in some respects intend to go further. Many of the recommendations relate to firearms legislation for which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has lead policy responsibility. He will be making a statement about that immediately after mine.
Lord Cullen's report describes in detail the tragic events of Wednesday 13 March. The gunman, Thomas Hamilton, entered Dunblane primary school shortly after 9.30 am and made his way to the gymnasium armed with two 9 mm Browning self-loading pistols and two .357
824
Smith and Wesson revolvers, together with 743 rounds of ammunition—all of which he lawfully held, and which he legally kept at home, together with more than 1,000 further rounds of ammunition. Within three or four minutes, he fired 105 rounds with the 9 mm Browning, resulting in the deaths of Mrs. Gwen Mayor and 16 children, and injuring a further three teaching staff and 14 children. He then used the .357 Smith and Wesson to take his own life.
Of the head teacher and his staff, the report says that they
"did everything that they possibly could to assist, far beyond what might reasonably have been expected of them".
Lord Cullen also commends the general quality of the work of Central Scotland police and, in particular, the individual officers involved. He records the gratitude of the relatives and the school authorities for the help, support and professionalism of the force. From my own experience on that day, and on the days that followed, I reinforce those tributes.
Lord Cullen is, however, critical of the delay in providing information to victims' families. Those criticisms were accepted by the chief constable of Central Scotland police, who made a written submission to Lord Cullen, identifying procedural inadequacies and suggesting improvements, which Lord Cullen has endorsed. The Government will ensure that those issues are discussed with police forces throughout the United Kingdom.
An ambulance and a team of doctors and nurses from the local health centre were quickly on the scene. The health service's major incident plan was implemented, and a number of expert teams from Stirling and Falkirk royal infirmaries went to the school. The report highlights the magnificent way in which all the health teams responded. The victims were taken to Stirling royal infirmary and Falkirk and District royal infirmary. The most seriously injured were later transferred to Yorkhill children's hospital. The professionalism of all concerned undoubtedly saved lives.
The report sets out the facts about Thomas Hamilton and his background, and Lord Cullen has considered, with expert advice from a psychologist and a psychiatrist, what may have prompted Hamilton's atrocious act. He concludes that
"the violence which he used would not have been predictable".
Hon. Members will want to study the report for themselves, but I conclude that this was an act of calculated wickedness.
Lord Cullen's report considers in great detail the granting and renewal of the firearms licences that Thomas Hamilton had held since 1977. He points to the weaknesses in the system used by Central Scotland police for the carrying out of inquiries and the making of decisions about firearms applications.
In particular, the report is critical of the former deputy chief constable of Central Scotland police, Mr. Douglas McMurdo, who was appointed earlier this year to Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland. I thought it right that Mr. McMurdo should have sight of the relevant paragraphs in the report, and he has today offered his resignation, which I have accepted. He has informed the Scottish Office that he also intends to resign from Central Scotland police. The House will respect his decision.

825
The report makes two recommendations, which I have accepted, concerning improvements in school security. I will be introducing a specific grant to assist authorities to improve the security of school pupils and staff, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment will be doing likewise in England. All authorities will benefit, and I intend that councils should have as much discretion as possible on the measures to be taken.
I expect such measures to be in line with the action plans that Lord Cullen encourages individual schools to draw up. They will add to the measures that the Government announced in May in response to the recommendations of the working group on school security.
Two further recommendations, which I have accepted, concern the vetting and supervising of adults working with children and young people. One concerns the development of a Scottish vocational qualification in respect of work with children, including the organisation of clubs and child development and protection. The other involves accreditation, by a national body, of clubs and groups involved with young people. That body would ensure that there are adequate checks on the suitability of leaders and workers with unsupervised access to children and young people.
I also intend to introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity to allow all youth organisations access to criminal records, and to certain other information that does not relate directly to criminal convictions and is held by the police. I appreciate that that may cause concern in some quarters, but I believe that the safety and protection of our children must come first.
The whole country has been struck by the courage and dignity with which the community of Dunblane has worked together in the aftermath of this terrible atrocity. That community now looks to the House for rapid and united action.
Mr. George Robertson: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and join him in thanking Lord Cullen for his report, and for the patient, thorough and painstaking way in which he conducted this important and sensitive exercise. The wide-ranging issues that he has examined and has made recommendations on emphasise the wisdom of holding this sort of inquiry, and I look forward, with my colleagues, with more time available, to examining in detail what he says.
I also express my personal gratitude and thanks to the Secretary of State for Scotland for the genuine kindness and consideration that he has shown to myself and to my wife during and after the tragedy—a tragedy that took place in the small town of Dunblane, which he represents and where I and my family have lived for over 20 years.
On 13 March, we were two rival politicians with politics utterly forgotten in the shadow of unspeakable evil and tragedy; two fathers united in total grief at the horror that we were to witness, and perhaps recall for ever, in a school that we both knew so well; two men, members of the human family, united then and now in an overriding conviction that this massacre, involving 16 tiny children and their brave, dedicated teacher, or anything like it, must never, ever, happen again.
826
That must, of course, remain the starting point for approaching any of the recommendations in Lord Cullen's report today and in the days ahead. Let me make it clear that I fully appreciate the feelings that the Secretary of State for Scotland must have experienced in these past seven months as he tried, as indeed I had to do myself, to reconcile strong personal feelings with an obligation to make the right decisions on changes to the law of the land.
I now turn to the detailed recommendations in the report. As the Secretary of State has said, Lord Cullen deals in some detail with the handling of the incident on the day, and, as he acknowledges, there was here an incident of unprecedented scale, involving such horrifying carnage that no one could have been fully prepared to deal with it, still less one of Britain's smallest police forces.
Mistakes were clearly made, the most serious one of which was the treatment on the day of the parents of the dead and of the injured. Lord Cullen says that this was unacceptable. Central Scotland police and the chief constable have acknowledged the fault, and have apologised to those who were concerned, but it is a lesson in human handling which must never be lost.
Is the Secretary of State aware, though, that what comes through from the harrowing description in this report of the events of 13 March is the remarkable, indeed inspirational, performance of the school staff—especially the head teacher, Ron Taylor—and the whole range of medical services, emergency services, and indeed individual police officers, all of them local, all of them traumatised and all of them emotionally connected to the victims? Their heroism and professionalism in the face of the most terrible events imaginable should never be forgotten by us.
Lord Cullen deals in his report with the circumstances whereby Thomas Hamilton continued, in the face of rising concern about him, to get his gun licences renewed; this is a matter of real importance to those, like myself and the Secretary of State and many others, who long campaigned against Thomas Hamilton. Lord Cullen makes the point:
"On balance … there was a case for revocation"
which
"should have been acted upon",
but he goes on, pointing up the need for serious reform in this area, to say that the eventual outcome would have depended on the outcome of the appeal to the sheriff, which he had no doubt that Thomas Hamilton would have taken. Lord Cullen's conclusion, setting aside the great wisdom of hindsight, is:
"It is not certain that an appeal would have been unsuccessful."
Certification changes are now being proposed, and the means by which Thomas Hamilton got his gun licences and continued to hold them must not be used again. Deputy Chief Constable McMurdo, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary, has today taken responsibility for what he did. His resignation is an example of honour, but the system has to change.
On school security, Lord Cullen makes the valid point:
"It would be unacceptable to carry measures to the point where schools were turned into fortresses."
We agree with that, and with the point that varied school layouts and geography do not easily lend themselves to a simple formula. The recommendation of an action plan for each school on the points that Lord Cullen identifies

827
is right. I commend the right hon. Gentleman's announcement, both on its speed and on the promise of funding for that recommendation.
On the vetting and supervision of young people, I welcome Lord Cullen's recommendations and the Government's acceptance of them. Lord Cullen underlines the sadly deficient present situation when he says:
"There was no system in general use for the vetting of persons who operated such clubs or for monitoring their conduct."
The establishment of a new registration body will be a major step in the direction of placing hurdles in the way of future Thomas Hamiltons, without deterring genuinely motivated people from helping with youth clubs. The Secretary of State has our support for the new qualification in that area and for the procedures on police information.
Decisions about how we deal with the lessons of Dunblane are helped immeasurably by Lord Cullen's wise analysis and recommendations—but the buck stops here, with the lawmakers of this country. It is up to us to make the final judgment, and then to be judged on that. We have to act decisively and urgently, and the Opposition will co-operate fully in what needs to be done.
I know that firearms are to be the subject of a separate statement, but I feel it necessary to make one point. I warmly welcome the shift by the Government to an almost complete ban on handguns. They were right to listen with care to the force of public opinion.
Given that they have already come that far, I urge the Secretary of State and the Government to take that final but fundamental step towards the eradication of handguns in our country. There is no place in any decent civilised society for handguns of any sort. Let us therefore resolve that the lasting legacy of the evil that visited Dunblane on 13 March will be the complete outlawing of handguns, so that that sort of atrocity can never, ever, happen again.
Mr. Forsyth: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) for his kind words. I echo the tribute that he paid to the performance on that day of the emergency services and—although there have been criticisms of the police—of individual police officers, which was inspiring.
I agree that there are issues relating to the appeal to the sheriff for refusal of licence certificates. Those issues are addressed in the Cullen report, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will respond on that.
I also agree that we must do what we can to make schools secure, but we must not turn them into fortresses. They are schools—they are places where our children should be safe, but they should feel as open as possible to the wider community.
The hon. Gentleman referred to a shift in the Government's position. I have been determined that the Government's position should be decided only when we had the Cullen report. The Government's position was decided yesterday at a meeting of colleagues, where a paper was presented jointly by me and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. There has been no shift in our position—which represents our considered view, having considered Lord Cullen's recommendations. It is important that the House should be aware of that.
I agree that it is important that we should be seen to act speedily, and I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support.
828
I believe that the package of measures that will be presented to the House today represents the right answer. The package represents a proper, balanced response, and I very much hope that all hon. Members will be able to deal with it quickly and with as much unity as possible.
Sir Hector Monro: Will my right hon. Friend accept that he has gained tremendous respect and praise across Scotland—as has the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson)—for his handling of this tragedy since that fatal day last March? I warmly accept Lord Cullen's recommendations—although, obviously, we have not had a chance to examine them in detail.
From the evidence and from what my right hon. Friend said, it seems likely that, had the proper procedures been carried out, Hamilton would never have had a firearms certificate. Will my right hon. Friend tell us how he hopes to improve co-ordination between the police, the procurator fiscal, social workers and others, so that doubtful cases can be vetted and this type of incident never happens again?
Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my right hon. Friend. The report details the shortcomings in how the licence application was granted and renewed. It also points out, as the hon. Member for Hamilton said, the difficulties that arose because of the uncertainty surrounding the possibility of a refusal being overturned on appeal to the sheriff.
The report contains specific recommendations dealing with the presentation of information and the tests that should be applied on appeal, which go a long way towards meeting my right hon. Friend's concerns. As I have already said, we have accepted all of the recommendations, including those relating to the matters about which my right hon. Friend is concerned.
Mr. James Wallace: I join the Secretary of State in acknowledging the task fulfilled by Lord Cullen, and the meticulous and sensitive way in which he conducted the inquiry and prepared this important report on a most awful and tragic event. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute again to staff and the emergency services, many of whom acted well beyond the call of duty.
I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that Lord Cullen's report should be studied with great care, not only by hon. Members but by the public.
Liberal Democrat Members welcome the fact that the Government have accepted the recommendations. I am sure that the Secretary of State would acknowledge that, in instances in which the Government want to exceed Lord Cullen's recommendations, they are more in line with the submissions made by Liberal Democrat Members to Lord Cullen. I assure the Secretary of State that he will have our co-operation in the necessary legislation.
While the Secretary of State acknowledges that there may be concern in some quarters about legislation on making available access to information on criminals, and perhaps on those who have not been prosecuted, will he consult on the detail of that legislation? We share his view that schools should not become fortresses, and that fortresses are not suitable places for the upbringing and education of children. We welcome the fact that resources will be made available to help schools to implement action plans.

829
Although Lord Cullen identifies weaknesses in Central Scotland police in how they processed firearms applications, does the Secretary of State accept that the current law, even without further legislation, allows for a much more rigorous approach to the consideration and granting of firearms applications? Will he tell us what action has already been taken to bring that to the attention of police forces across Scotland?
Mr. Forsyth: On the latter point made by the hon. Gentleman, I am sure that there is not a chief constable in Scotland who has not examined this issue very carefully after the event. I agree with the hon. Gentleman in his analysis of the state of the law. Far be it from me as an ordinary mortal to disagree with a lawyer on Scots law.
I agree with the more general observations by the hon. Gentleman. He asked whether I would consult on the specific issue of making available to youth organisations information that the police hold that is other than about criminal records. I realise that this is, of course, a sensitive issue, but in situations in which we are dealing with the protection of children, the balance lies with tilting away from the civil liberties of the individual. I should be happy to discuss with him the criteria that will be applied and how that will operate.
One matter that comes out very clearly from the report and the analysis of Thomas Hamilton's background is that information was not communicated because he had never had a criminal conviction, although there had been several instances in which a prosecution was considered but did not proceed because of a lack of evidence.
That information would be of value to organisations thinking of employing people who would be acting in an unsupervised capacity with young children. I am certainly happy to discuss that with the hon. Gentleman. I greatly welcome his positive approach to the matter and his saying that he will support the Government's proposals for legislation when they are brought before the House.
Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that every hon. Member is with him on this difficult day, as he has to make a statement on the appalling event in his constituency? Will he confirm that, when considering the laws affecting the supervision of young people and children, account will be taken of the fact that bodies such as the Scouts, the Boys Brigade and the cadet forces will probably fall within the scope of organisations dealing with children, as they recruit at quite a young age? Will their position and structures and the way in which they do things be taken into account when the law is being formed?
Mr. Forsyth: We shall, of course, consult on the proposals; indeed, the Government's response gives a commitment to do so. It is important that all youth organisations can have access to a database that provides information about individuals across the United Kingdom. That is what we mean to achieve. Of course, if my hon. Friend has any particular suggestions, I should be very pleased to take account of them.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: On behalf of the Scottish all-party group on children, I should like to
830
welcome what the Secretary of State said about the regulation of voluntary bodies and the vetting of volunteers. Can he say anything about the regulation of summertime play schemes which tend to be of shorter duration than those of usual bodies? If he cannot comment now, is it something that he will be sure to consider when drawing up his plans?
Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Lady follows these matters in detail. She will confirm that we said that we would defer further consideration of that matter until we had studied Lord Cullen's report. I have had an opportunity to raise the issue with officials, and we hope to be able to reach a final conclusion, but, in the light of the Cullen report, it is very unlikely that we shall take the deregulatory road that we originally intended.
Mr. Phil Gallie: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) on the dignified way in which they have proceeded, especially as this must have been so harrowing for both of them. It was entirely right to set up the Cullen inquiry and that it should have the blessing of the whole House. It was also right that we await the outcome of that inquiry before making judgments. I welcome the attention that my right hon. Friend has given to school security and the vetting of youth workers, but may I express regret that, to an extent, in the run-up to the publication of the report, the wider arguments have been lost to the issue of gun control?
Mr. Forsyth: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. I know that one or two people have questioned whether Lord Cullen's report was necessary; once people have had an opportunity to study it, I think that they will know the answer to that question. Lord Cullen sets out in great detail the facts and the background, and I think that that is the best basis on which to take decisions about the variety of policy issues that have arisen.
Of course gun control is an important aspect of that, but there are other, wider issues that matter to thousands of organisations and literally hundreds of thousands of people across the country. It is right that we approach the matter with a clear and critical analysis of the facts carried out by a man of Lord Cullen's quality. At the end of the day, my hon. Friend is right: it is for the Government to take a decision about what is required, but it is best to do so with the type of report that Lord Cullen has presented.
Mr. Peter Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend accept that hon. Members representing constituencies far from Scotland are equally grateful to him for his speedy response to the report placed before us today, and that we are also grateful for the fact that we have had so succinct a report? I have not had a chance to read it in detail.
Does my right hon. Friend accept that the essential now is that energy is given to the establishment of clearly defined security procedures for each school and educational institution in Scotland and in the rest of the United Kingdom to provide for the safety and protection of children and of staff, which is a matter of everyday interest and concern?
Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my hon. Friend, but I think that Lord Cullen is right to emphasise the importance of

831
individual schools looking at their own circumstances and working out what is required. It is difficult centrally to prescribe particular standards that will apply to every school. Every school, like every child, is different, and the remedies that need to be applied need to be looked at on a school level.
The remedies also need to be proportionate if we are to maintain the quality of schools, and it is for local authorities to work with the schools to achieve that task, and for grant-maintained schools and others to address the matter directly. The specific grant that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and I propose will assist local authorities in that task.
I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that Lord Cullen has addressed the issues in a sensible way, and that he has been greatly assisted by the work done by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the earlier part of this year, much of which is already being implemented.
Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I join the Secretary of State in expressing admiration for Lord Cullen, and for all his work over the summer in respect of the inquiry. There are a great many recommendations which will undoubtedly gain widespread support. Notwithstanding the Secretary of State's statement, I must ask whether he personally agrees that the case for a total handgun ban has been made over the summer, and that to fall short of that and to exempt any number of handguns would leave far too many of those weapons in use.
Mr. Forsyth: As the hon. Lady knows, the firearms issues will be dealt with by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. On the hon. Lady's direct question, she will know that my personal position has been that we should have the Cullen report and should consider the recommendations in that report, and that we should then decide what the way forward was.
I draw the hon. Lady's attention to the section of the report that suggests how we should consider the issues in terms of what is proportionate, where the balance of interests lies and how we address the issues of safety. My right hon. and learned Friend will shortly set out the Government's conclusions, which I fully support and which I presented to my colleagues with him.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: With regard to the penultimate paragraph of the Secretary of State's statement, on the vetting and supervising of adults who care for children, will he confirm that that would embrace adults who are representatives of Church bodies and local authorities and who are in loco parentis for children, many of whom are vulnerable and far removed from their parents?
Mr. Forsyth: Yes, I think that I can confirm that point, although I did not quite catch the first part of the hon.
832
Gentleman's question. The general purpose is to provide a means whereby people can obtain information as to the bona fide nature of organisations. Clearly, if people are in loco parentis, others are entitled to information about them. I think that that was the hon. Gentleman's question. I apologise if I have not got it right, and I am happy to have a word with him afterwards about it.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Having myself lost a child aged five—although it was in a motorway crash, which is not quite the same—I know that no one who has not been through such a tragedy can quite understand what it is like. Perhaps that gives me some right to sympathise not only with what the Dunblane parents have suffered, but with their need to campaign for a change in the law, as I felt I had to do over seat belts in cars.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite some people's entirely understandable impatience, nothing whatever has been lost by the fact that it was bound to take some months for Lord Cullen to report? We now need to pause, hesitate and study, and to make quite sure that we get the change in the law absolutely right.
Mr. Forsyth: It is certainly true that the summer recess has enabled Lord Cullen to produce his report. Of course we all sympathise with my hon. Friend. I cannot imagine what it is like to lose a child, and we all sympathise with the parents. There are also wider issues involved, concerning the protection of our community and our attitude towards firearms, which my right hon. and learned Friend will address. I believe that the country will look to the House to take the necessary steps to provide legislation so that our communities are safer as quickly as can be achieved. We can achieve that if we have a united response throughout the House of Commons.
Mr. Robin Corbett: Is not the dreadful truth that such a tragedy was bound to happen, given the total inadequacy of the Government's response to a similar shocking event in Hungerford? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I do not believe that the people of Dunblane will forgive us for being mealy-mouthed about this. Is the Secretary of State aware that, since 1983, the Government have resisted suggestions that all police forces in the United Kingdom should use a standard inquiry form when people apply for shotgun certificates or licences? Will he now give the House an undertaking that he will raise the issue in the course of his consultation with the police throughout the United Kingdom?
Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman has not had an opportunity to read Lord Cullen's report. He will find that Lord Cullen concludes that the actions of Thomas Hamilton were unpredictable. I recommend to the hon. Gentleman that he reads the report and looks at the considered arguments. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will be happy to discuss his concerns with him.

Cullen Report (Firearms)
4.6 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I join my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and other hon. Members in paying tribute to the community of Dunblane for their courage and dignity. I also join them in thanking Lord Cullen for the sensitive way in which he has undertaken his difficult inquiry and for the report that he has produced.
I hope that the House will forgive me for the length of the statement that I am about to make. I am sure that the House will understand that it deals with complex and important matters.
The proposals that I am about to set out will apply to England, Wales and Scotland. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is carrying out a review of firearms law in the Province and will be issuing a statement this afternoon about the possible implications for gun control in Northern Ireland arising from Lord Cullen's report.
Among all the words that have been written since that dreadful event at Dunblane, there is one irrefutable fact. The crimes that were committed on 13 March were committed with a gun that was legally bought and legally possessed. Those facts place an extremely onerous duty on the Government to consider what controls there should be on the ownership and possession of guns.
I agree with Lord Cullen that it is right that we should concentrate on handguns, although some of my proposals will affect all gun owners. Handguns are not used for shooting game and are easily carried and concealed. Many are weapons derived from military or police models or are intended for self-defence—a purpose that is not accepted in Great Britain as a reason for possessing a gun. I agree with Lord Cullen that there are compelling grounds for imposing stringent restrictions on their use and availability.
Lord Cullen has made 23 recommendations for strengthening the regulatory controls on the ownership and licensing of all guns. We accept them all. The Government's detailed response has been placed in the Library. There are seven recommendations for improving the way in which the police handle all applications for firearms certificates, a further eight recommendations deal with the grounds for obtaining a firearms certificate, and eight recommendations are about the suitability of individuals to hold firearms.
I draw particular attention to the following recommendations: in future, anyone applying for a firearms certificate should be assessed against a checklist of criteria for suitability, a clear burden should be placed on the applicant to show that he is fit to have a gun, a new power should be created to enable the police to revoke a certificate where there is no longer a "good reason" for having a firearm, and the grounds on which an appeal against the refusal of a certificate can be made should be significantly limited. Taken together, those 23 recommendations add up to a drastic strengthening of controls on gun ownership.
In addition to Lord Cullen's proposals, we intend to introduce four further measures. First, we shall make it a requirement for all handgun shooters to obtain a
834
certificate in order to fire a handgun at a gun club. Secondly, we shall make it an offence to fail to notify the police whenever a firearm or shotgun is sold, transferred, deactivated or destroyed. Thirdly, we propose to ban the sales of guns through the post. In future, it will be unlawful to transfer a gun from one person to another, except in person.
Fourthly, one of the most shocking and distressing features of the tragic events in Dunblane was the use of expanding ammunition, which is designed to cause the maximum injury. There is no possible justification at all for it to be available for people whose only authority is for target shooting. In future, therefore, it will be illegal to possess expanding ammunition except for the purposes of shooting deer, in accordance with the Deer Act 1991.
I come to the question that I know will be of greatest concern to the House and the nation: the controls on the ownership of handguns. Lord Cullen confines his suggestions to self-loading pistols and revolvers of all calibres. He does not consider that further restrictions are required for single-shot handguns, which he would allow to be kept in the home, as at present. He suggests that owners of multi-shot guns should be required to disable them when keeping them at home, and goes on to say that, if after consideration those arrangements are found not to be practicable, there should instead be a ban on the possession of multi-shot handguns by individual owners. He envisages that it would still be possible for guns to be kept by a club secretary so that target shooting could continue, using guns owned by the club.
The Government have taken advice from the Forensic Science Service on the practicability of Lord Cullen's suggestions for disabling handguns. Lord Cullen himself recognised that there were considerable practical difficulties in removing key components from handguns. The Forensic Science Service has confirmed that view. It is also not convinced that a barrel block—Lord Cullen's other suggestion—could be made that someone with sufficient determination and access to metal-working tools could not remove. As a result, I have come to the conclusion that we cannot recommend that approach to the House.
I therefore come to Lord Cullen's alternative suggestion of banning multi-shot handguns from individual ownership. I propose to go considerably further than Lord Cullen has suggested in two respects. First, we shall ban all handguns from people's homes. I do not agree with Lord Cullen that it would be safe to allow single-shot handguns to remain in the home. I believe that they should be subject to the same controls as those imposed on multi-shot handguns.
Secondly, we shall outlaw high-calibre handguns of the kind used by Thomas Hamilton. Low-calibre handguns—.22 rimfire handguns—will have to be used and kept in licensed clubs. We believe that a distinction needs to be made between high-calibre handguns, which are principally made for police and military use, and .22 rimfire handguns, which are largely intended for target shooting. Although Lord Cullen decided against making such a distinction, he sets out in paragraph 9.49 of his report a table that demonstrates that a .22 handgun is some four to six times less powerful than higher-calibre handguns.
In paragraph 9.44, Lord Cullen points out that the expansion in the use of high-calibre handguns has even made many shooters concerned about the use of such guns

835
as symbols of personal power. In addition, target shooting with .22 handguns has been an Olympic sport since 1896. There will be exceptions for the very few professionals, such as vets, who need handguns outside gun clubs for the humane destruction of animals.
The proposals will mean that at least 160,000 handguns—80 per cent. of those legally held at present—will be destroyed. Appropriate compensation will be paid.
The clubs in which it will still be possible to use .22 handguns will be subject to the most stringent security standards. We shall consult as a matter of urgency chief constables and other interested parties on the details of the standards, and we shall set them out clearly in guidance. In addition, every individual club will need to be approved by the chief constable of the area in which it is situated. Handguns will be able to be removed from a club only for strictly limited purposes, which will be specified in law, and under the most stringent controls.
Few, if any, existing gun clubs will be able to meet those requirements. When the powers become law, we shall therefore require any owner of a .22 rimfire handgun to hand his gun to the police for safekeeping until he is able to find a licensed club that he can join. We shall then provide a period for clubs to improve their security, and to be inspected and licensed. Some handgun clubs may never be able to achieve an adequate level of security. If so, they will have to close.
The Government consider that those are the minimum acceptable conditions for the continuation of handgun shooting in Great Britain.
Breaches of the conditions for the safekeeping of handguns will be criminal offences. In 1994, the penalty for possession of a prohibited weapon was increased from seven to 10 years' imprisonment. Illegal possession of a higher-calibre handgun will therefore carry a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment. We intend to create a new offence of possession of a .22 rimfire handgun outside club premises. The maximum penalty will also be 10 years.
The package of measures that I have announced today will give this country some of the toughest gun control laws in the world. We shall ban all handguns from the home. We shall outlaw completely higher-calibre handguns such as those owned and used by Thomas Hamilton. We shall require .22 rimfire handguns to be kept in gun clubs under conditions of the most stringent security. And we shall drastically strengthen the rules under which firearms certificates are granted. Those proposals will lead to the destruction of 160,000 handguns—80 per cent. of those legally held today.
I believe that the priority for Parliament should be to put the measures on the statute book at the earliest possible moment. So I intend this month to publish a Bill giving effect to them. I urge the Opposition parties to support that Bill. I am confident that if they do, it could have Royal Assent by Christmas. The country expects nothing less.
Mr. Jack Straw: I thank the Home Secretary for his statement, and for the arrangements that he made to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), myself and other Opposition Members to have sight of Lord Cullen's report and the Government's response this morning.
836
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton said in his statement, we are all deeply grateful to Lord Cullen for the thorough way in which he carried out his inquiry. It was right to establish the inquiry and to seek Lord Cullen's advice. But as Lord Cullen states at the outset of his report, he makes only recommendations. The ultimate decisions on such crucial matters of public safety are for Parliament to determine.
All of us have been profoundly moved by the grief and courage of the bereaved parents of Dunblane and their families and friends, and by the power and dignity of the Snowdrop campaign mounted in the wake of the atrocity. But is it not the case that often sympathy and concern are not enough by themselves? Thomas Hamilton was the man directly responsible for this appalling tragedy, but surely we all must accept our responsibility for permitting an environment of such lax gun control. Surely, too, we must acknowledge that we failed after Hungerford to put in place the controls necessary to reduce significantly the risk of such an event happening again.
Is it not the case that Dunblane and Hungerford were only the most extreme illustrations of the failure of the current system; that the number of licensed handguns has risen rapidly; that crimes involving handguns have more than doubled in the past 10 years; and that almost every day there are reports of licensed gun owners abusing the privilege that they have been granted?
As we heard from the Secretary of State for Scotland, Thomas Hamilton—one man—killed 16 children and one teacher, and injured 17 others, by discharging 105 rounds of ammunition from a single semi-automatic handgun in the space of three minutes. Handguns are small, portable, easy to hide and lethal. In the light of Lord Cullen's report—and especially his analysis—it is our considered judgment that handguns should be banned altogether from general civilian use.
May I make it clear to the Secretary of State that we shall of course co-operate fully to ensure that legislation is passed speedily through Parliament, to implement the will of this House and the other place for a root-and-branch reform of gun law? We welcome almost everything in the Secretary of State's statement, and especially the complete ban on all handguns from people's homes. But, with respect, we do not believe that his proposals go far enough. Let me briefly give our reasons.
In the evidence submitted to the Cullen inquiry on behalf of the Labour party by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton and me, we said that there was a strong case for banning all handguns, apart from some very limited occupational exceptions such as vets and casualty slaughterers. We then said that it was for the shooting fraternity to make a case for exceptions to that—for example, in respect of single-shot .22 pistols. But, in our judgment, the shooting fraternity has failed to do so.
Lord Cullen says that an exemption for single-shot .22 handguns would be both impractical and ineffective because they could easily be reconverted to multi-shot guns, and we accept that view. Partial bans, moreover, would create extra work for the police. As the Police Federation said in its evidence to Lord Cullen, .22 weapons may be just as lethal as higher-calibre weapons.
The problem with the compromise on clubs proposed by the Secretary of State is that there will still be 40,000 handguns, including many semi-automatics, remaining in

837
private ownership—albeit for use in clubs. I am aware that the Secretary of State proposes tight new controls on the gun clubs that are allowed to remain. Is he not aware of a most compelling case made against the halfway house by the British Shooting Sports Council in its evidence to the inquiry, in paragraph 9.68 on page 121? Referring to the crucial issue of the booking out of weapons, even with tighter controls, the BSSC said:
"no matter what system of checks and paperwork is maintained in such circumstances, it would be a simple matter indeed for a shooter intent in recovering his guns to enter a competition, provide evidence to his club secretary that he had done so, recover possession of the complete gun together with ammunition for it, and perpetrate an outrage".
In the light of that evidence not least, I ask the Secretary of State to think again about the proposal to allow the licensing of some gun clubs before the Bill is published.
The Government have made welcome proposals for the licensing and appeals systems in their statement. May I press on the Secretary of State the case for a blanket ban on all mail order sales of weapons, for a total ban on replica and deactivated guns, which the police have called for, for air weapons to be controlled within a licensing system and for the age limit for any sort of guns to be increased to 18?
On the radio this morning, the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) proposed that Ministers should produce alternative clauses to the proposed B ill to give effect to such a total ban and allow a free vote on it. Since such a vote would emphasise the non-partisan approach to the issue that we all seek and would not delay the legislation, may I endorse both calls that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made and ask the Secretary of State for his response to both?
Nine years ago, our nation was similarly repulsed by the consequences of the slaughter of innocent people in Hungerford by a lawfully licensed gunman. Our actions then failed to match what was needed. Is it not the case that today we owe it to the victims of both Hungerford and Dunblane not to fail again?
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the remarks with which he began his observations. He identified with some precision the difference that lies between us. We believe that it is possible to give the public the protection that they rightly require and deserve without going so far as to put in place a complete prohibition on the ownership and possession of handguns for which the hon. Gentleman called. We believe that if it is possible to provide that protection without a complete ban, it is the Government's duty to take that course.
I ask the hon. Gentleman and those sitting behind him to reflect on the unhappy history of the complete prohibition of activities hitherto regarded as lawful. It would not be in anyone's interests, least of all the protection of the public, to drive underground an activity that could then be conducted without any safeguards for security, whereas if it remains possible to carry out that activity legitimately, under extremely secure safeguards, the public's protection might be greater. I ask him to reflect on that.
The hon. Gentleman raised a number of other matters. I do not think that there is anything between us on mail order sales. The position on replica guns is that it is
838
extremely difficult to find a satisfactory definition for such weapons. We have said more than once that if such a definition could be provided, we would be more than content to consider that possibility.
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, a free vote is not a matter for me; his observations will have been heard by those whose responsibility that is. I do not think that it would be appropriate for the Government to publish a two-clause Bill—a Bill with alternatives—as he has suggested and as was suggested on the radio this morning by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor). I believe that it is for the Government to come to their considered conclusion as to the right way forward and to put that in the Bill to be placed before Parliament. It will of course be open to any hon. Member to table an amendment to its provisions.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: Every reasonable person in the land will want to congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on seeking, with the support of everyone in the House, to tighten the procedures by which people can lawfully get possession of guns of any kind. Will he also bear it in mind that the Home Affairs Committee identified the fact that one of the worst problems is the flooding into this country of hundreds of thousands of illegal weapons and, particularly, that nearly every crime committed with guns is committed with a gun that no one has ever lawfully possessed? Will he bear it in mind when he considers legislation that further action will need to be taken not only on lawfully held handguns, but on the hundreds of unlawful guns that come into people's possession through our ports, if incidents such as that at Dunblane are to be avoided?
Mr. Howard: My hon. and learned Friend is entirely right to identify the dangers that we all face from illegally held weapons. It would be an utter delusion to suppose that we are affording the community complete protection by putting in place more stringent safeguards on the use of lawfully held weapons. The problems posed by illegally held weapons are considerable and we are, and will continue to be, extremely vigilant and do all that we can, especially to prevent the importation of such weapons.
Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed): Does the Home Secretary accept the following proposition, the importance of which was underlined by the slaughter at Dunblane? In this country, we regard the possession of guns not as a right, but as a privilege that has to be carefully controlled and safeguarded to protect public safety and public confidence. As the Government's proposals have much common ground with our proposals to the Cullen inquiry, will the Home Secretary note that we are prepared to support and facilitate legislation based on those proposals, as long as the House has an opportunity to consider on a free vote whether a ban on 80 per cent. of handguns is adequate and workable or whether it is necessary to go further?
Under the Government's proposals, who would be allowed to transport guns between one gun club and another or from a gun club to a competition? Does the Home Secretary agree that it would be wrong to pretend that either the proposals or a total ban provided any

839
guarantee against the misuse of guns leading to a slaughter such as that at Dunblane, so vigilance and effective and well-resourced policing remain essential?
Mr. Howard: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's first proposition, that there is no right to hold a gun under our laws and that it is a privilege. I agree with that approach and I note what he said about his party's approach to the legislation.
On the transportation of guns from one club to another under the proposed arrangements, we intend to have consultations with chief constables and others about the details but, as I said in my statement, we envisage that it should be permitted only in the most limited circumstances and under the most stringent controls. For example, the transportation should be effected not by the owner of the gun, but by a third party specifically authorised for that purpose.
I entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about illegally held weapons and about the need for continued vigilance to deal with that very considerable problem.
Mr. David Mellor: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his statement, which contains many valuable insights. I should like to put two points to him. First, as he has concluded that there is a case for permitting single-shot .22 pistols only under rigorous conditions, which will take an enormous amount of time, effort, trouble and expense to enforce in order to keep the so-called sport going, is it not time to conclude that literally and metaphorically the game is up for handguns now, and that that is the public will?
Secondly, I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend attaches importance to as far as possible keeping all Members of the House together in the effort to provide an effective solution. Will he consider again the merits of putting forward alternative proposals, as has often been done on contentious and difficult pieces of social legislation in the past, given that he knows that the real issue is whether to go 80 or 90 per cent. of the way, as he proposes, or 100 per cent. of the way? He should lay alternatives before the House and the matter should be dealt with on a free vote. With the greatest of respect to my right hon. and learned Friend, I do not believe that some of his loyal supporters should have their loyalties tested by the imposition of a Whip on the matter.
Mr. Howard: My right hon. and learned Friend has made his views on the subject known in his usual forceful manner from an early stage. He has put two particular points to me, to which I have already given a response. I do not follow him on the first, for the reasons that I gave in answer to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). I do not follow him on his second point, because it is for the Government to come to a conclusion as to the right way forward and to incorporate their decision in a Bill. As for the question of a free vote, that is not a matter for me.
Mr. Chris Mullin: I thank the Home Secretary for endorsing the main plank of the minority report from the Home Affairs Committee on the issue. It is not every day that a minority report is endorsed so swiftly by the Home Office. I have one or two others that he might like to reconsider.
840
Did the Home Secretary hear the comments this morning by Mr. Michael Yardley, a firearms expert, that it was pointless to ban handguns if something was not also done about shotguns? Is it not about time that we made a start on collecting some of the 2 million shotguns in circulation, starting in urban areas? Everyone acknowledges that farmers need shotguns, for reasons that we all know about, but it is hard to understand why licences should be granted to shotgun owners in urban areas.
Does the Home Secretary have any plans to do anything about the misuse of air weapons, which, as many of our colleagues will know, are responsible for a great deal of mayhem in urban areas?
Mr. Howard: I note the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks. I am sure that he does not expect me to give any undertaking on my reaction to minority reports from the Home Affairs Committee in future. I do not follow the hon. Gentleman in his observations about shotguns. Shotguns have many wider applications than do handguns, which are restricted to target shooting. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has made a case for the restriction on shotguns to which he has referred. Similar observations apply to air rifles.
Mr. Edward Leigh: I realise that what I am about to say may be unfashionable, but after we pass all this legislation, surely criminals and madmen will still get hold of guns. Surely we as a Conservative Government are about protecting the rights of law-abiding minorities, even if we do not agree with them, and about protecting the rights of private ownership. What we have heard today is extremely worrying. It is worrying to appoint a judge and then go much further than he suggests, after he has given such exhaustive consideration to the issues. It is worrying to store so many more guns in arsenals. Above all, it is worrying that we are accepting the view that wickedness lies not in the individual's heart but in a group of people who are in the main highly law-abiding and simply want to pursue their sport. It is a worrying situation.
Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that a considerable problem arises out of illegally held guns. I have said on a number of occasions this afternoon that that is something in respect of which we must be extremely vigilant. I hope that my hon. Friend will reflect on the contents of the Cullen report and on my statement today, as well as on the way forward which the Government believe to be right in the circumstances. I look forward to discussing those matters with him and I hope that, on reflection, he will reconsider his position.
Rev. Martin Smyth: As one who can empathise and sympathise with the families who have lost children and who replaced a Member of the House who was shot by a handgun, I understand the emotion surrounding the issue. I welcome the Home Secretary's statement, but I suggest that the emphasis of the previous statement is the most important because it is placed on the human element. If I read the proposals correctly, I understand that the suggested changes might improve the legislation here and bring it more into line with legislation in Northern Ireland, but there is another problem, that of illegal weapons. It does not seem right to curtail

841
law-abiding people's ability to use something properly under licence, when, at the same time, we miss the point that illegal weapons will be used by people for their own purposes.
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman's remarks, which are based on his particularly unhappy experience, command considerable respect, and we shall pay them that respect. I hope that I have already made it abundantly clear today that we do not in any way overlook or belittle the seriousness of the damage that can be done through the use of illegal weapons.
Sir Michael Shersby: Will my right hon. and learned Friend amplify his proposals for compensating the individuals who currently own weapons that are legally held? How will that compensation be calculated? Has he made any estimate of the cost to the taxpayer of the compensation package?
Mr. Howard: It is very difficult to make any accurate estimate of the total cost of the bill. We intend to compensate those who hold guns that will be unlawful as a consequence of the measures announced—higher-calibre handguns—on the basis of the market value of those guns before I made my statement this afternoon.
Mr. Terry Lewis: The Home Secretary will recall that on 3 May last year I introduced an Adjournment debate to control specifically the use of handguns. It sickens me to the pit of my stomach that it has taken the death of 16 children and a brave teacher to bring us to today's decision. Having said that, I welcome some of the moves that the Home Secretary has made, but I implore him to go that extra mile, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw).
Mr. Howard: I understand the strength of the hon. Gentleman's feelings and I know that they are shared by many. I have endeavoured to explain the reasons for the position that I have advanced to the House and I have no doubt that it is something we shall debate in the weeks ahead.
Sir Michael Spicer: My right hon. and learned Friend and his colleagues in Cabinet have had to strike a difficult balance on this matter. I particularly welcome what he said two minutes ago, about compensation for those who have perfectly legally bought expensive items and who find them now taken away from them. I also particularly welcome what he said about giving compensation based on the market value. Would he include items that were not included the last time the matter arose—expensive accessories such as safes, unspent ammunition and various other things?
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening remarks. I shall certainly consider the points that he made. His second point is important, and I hope that he will forgive me if I do not give him any kind of assurance now, but it falls for consideration.
Mr. Peter Shore: The Home Secretary has announced a stringent package of
842
controls, but however rigorously controls are enforced, they always leak. A great deal therefore turns upon the perhaps exceptional occasions when a gun finds itself in the hands of someone whose purposes are malign. That being so, so much turns upon the actual characteristics of the weapon.
One of the horrific features of Dunblane and the other event that occurred years before was that it was not just murder; it was a massacre. That massacre was possible only because of the rapid-firing nature of the guns that were in the possession of those who committed those crimes. If the .22 were a weapon that could be fired only with a single shot and not rapidly fired, the Home Secretary's case would be stronger. If, as we heard earlier, it cannot be turned into a single-firing weapon but is a weapon that fires rapidly, so that in the hands of wicked and evilly disposed people it can be used to commit mass killings, the Home Secretary should think again and go for a total ban.
Mr. Howard: The right hon. Gentleman draws attention to the implications of the distinction that I made, and to other distinctions that may be made. I believe that, in the end, it is a matter of judgment. Earlier, I explained the judgment that caused me to advance the proposals that I placed before the House, and I believe it to be the right judgment. I do not believe that the factors that the right hon. Gentleman has drawn to the House's attention represent the whole picture. It is necessary to look at other aspects and other implications, and to take seriously the dangers that would arise from total prohibition if the activity were driven underground.
It is a matter of judgment. I believe that the judgment that I put before the House this afternoon is the right one, but I have no doubt that we shall continue to debate this matter.
Mr. John Carlisle: It is not the guns that are the problem; it is the people who use those guns illegally. Regrettably, the Home Secretary's statement means that the sins of this awful, deranged individual will be paid for by the many thousands of legitimate, decent and honest people who enjoy not a so-called sport, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) put it, but a leisure activity that has great historic traditions and which they enjoy. The measures that he announced will be received with great dismay. He has got it completely the wrong way round. He is affecting many, many innocent people because of the awful, awful acts of one awful, awful madman. I think that he is wrong, and that his legislation will not be accepted by the majority of decent, honourable people in this country.
Mr. Howard: I agree with my hon. Friend. A great many decent and honest citizens take part in target shooting. I do not, on behalf of the Government, advance these proposals lightly. Much of what my hon. Friend said is right. But the Government have a responsibility to consider all aspects of the matter, and to decide to what extent it is sensible to take measures that restrict the ability of those decent and honest citizens to engage in activities that they regard as perfectly reasonable, so as to increase the protection to which the public, as a whole, are entitled. That is the basis on which I approached this

843
difficult decision. I agree with much of what my hon. Friend said, but for those reasons I reach a different conclusion.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Does the Secretary of State agree that a child's right to life is far more important than any adult's so-called right to carry a handgun, even for so-called sporting purposes? How many more Hungerfords and Dunblanes must there be, and how many more children must die, before the Government implement a complete ban on all handguns along the lines of early-day motion 1238, which is supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House?
Mr. Howard: Of course, I agree with the hon. Gentleman's first question—I imagine that not one single hon. Member would disagree with that—but it does not follow that we agree with his conclusion. I believe that we can provide the public with the protection to which they are entitled without going as far as introducing a complete ban. That is the point at issue between us, and no doubt we shall argue about it in the weeks ahead.
Mr. Eric Pickles: In his report at paragraph 9.55, Lord Cullen speaks about the assessment of risk, and I want to ask my right hon. and learned Friend about two points regarding the "chances of harm".
During the summer, I had the opportunity to visit several clubs and to talk to members, and it became clear to me that procedures, standards and security vary enormously among clubs.
First, will my right hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that, before someone who holds a target pistol can rely on the basis of being a member of one of those clubs, the security that my right hon. and learned Friend outlined in his statement will be in place, so that all clubs reach a high standard? Secondly, an integral part of target shooting is entering into competition. Those competitions are known and well established. Will my right hon. and learned Friend be laying down the particular competitions that count?
Mr. Howard: I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that he sought in the first part of his question. The security standards of clubs where shooting will continue to be permitted will be extremely stringent. We shall consult chief constables about those standards and lay down those standards in guidance. Not only will clubs have to comply with the guidance, but they will have to satisfy the chief constable for the area in which the club is situated that the standards that will apply in the club will be adequate.
As for the second part of my hon. Friend's question, we intend to prescribe in order those competitions that will enable guns to be transferred from one club to another, under the very stringent controls to which I referred earlier. We envisage that that should be restricted to national and international competitions, but we shall consult on the details.
Mr. Alex Salmond: I have read every paragraph of the Cullen report, and I thank the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland for their courtesy in making it available to me and my
844
colleague earlier today. Can the Home Secretary confirm 40,000 as the number of handguns that potentially will still be available for use under the proposals that he announced today—not only single-shot weapons, but rapid-fire weapons and multi-shot weapons? I understand that the Japanese Government licensed 58 handguns for sporting purposes last year. Is it not possible that the Japanese Government have it right and the British Government have it wrong?
Finally, will the Home Secretary reflect again on the call that has been made from all parts of the House to allow a free vote on the issue—a vote that is about public safety, and which must be a matter of individual conscience because it could involve life and death? Perhaps, in his reply, the Home Secretary will say that he will do the right thing on the free vote and allow every Member of Parliament to vote according to his or her conscience.
Mr. Howard: The estimate of the number of guns that the hon. Gentleman gave may be broadly right, but I anticipate that many people who use such guns at present will not do so in future, as a result of the stringent security standards that we shall insist on putting in place for the clubs where that activity will continue to be legal. The other points that the hon. Gentleman raised were not new, and I have no new answers to give him.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Is the Home Secretary aware that the vast majority of the shooting community, including hundreds of people in my constituency, are very conscious of grave public concern about this subject? Is he aware that they obviously expect, as he says, a drastic tightening of controls? Is he further aware that they probably also expect, and will go along with, the toughening of security at gun clubs, even though in my constituency it will probably lead to the closure of one or two of those clubs?
Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many people in the countryside, including farmers, wildfowlers and gamekeepers, who will now rightly fear for their sport, expected the Government to implement Cullen, and will need a lot of persuasion that the Government are right to go beyond Cullen? Can he confirm that he will carry out the widest possible consultation with those interest groups?
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the qualified support that he gave to some of the measures that I proposed. I understand the anxieties that he expressed, many of which I believe to be misplaced having regard to the details of the proposals that I have made, but I would always be ready to meet delegations of the people whom my hon. Friend mentioned, to do my utmost to allay their fears.
Mr. Michael Connarty: I thank the Home Secretary for his positive proposals on the licensing of guns. Does he accept that they have come far too late for the children of Dunblane and for Douglas McMurdo, the deputy chief constable, who was only reacting to the signals that he received from the Government after Hungerford and from the courts—especially the ombudsman who gave Hamilton permission to continue to run his youth clubs? If the right signals had come out after Hungerford, we might not have had the Dunblane incident.

845
I have some sympathy, which I have already expressed, with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's view on Olympic shooting, but it appears to me that the Japanese Government have the numbers right. The Government are talking about having 40,000 guns in the possession of individuals—even if the guns are kept in clubs—just so that we can have a sport. I suggest that for many of those 40,000, shooting is not a sport, but thrill seeking. That is what gun possession is about to them; it is not about trying to reach the highest attainment in an Olympic discipline.
How many guns can each individual hold, even if they are kept at a gun club? I suggest that the proposals put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) were the start of the march away from the gun culture—a march that must end with asking why people hold shotguns for occasional shooting. The Government's proposals are simply a march up a blind alley for the people of Britain.
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman's question about the former deputy chief constable of Central Scotland police is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, not for me. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to comment.
I have answered the hon. Gentleman's other comments during my contributions to this afternoon's proceedings. The important thing is the stringent security under which guns will be kept in the clubs—that is the key.
Mr. Connarty: How many guns?
Mr. Howard: As long as the conditions in which they are kept are of the utmost security, the number of guns owned by any individual is a secondary matter. The important thing is the security of the conditions in which they are kept—that is what I regard as being of supreme importance and that is what will be set out in the guidance that we provide.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: While expressing every sympathy for the agonising decision that my right hon. and learned Friend and other Cabinet colleagues have had to make on these difficult matters and not yet having
846
seen the Cullen report myself, I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to consider—not least because of this afternoon's debate—allowing a free vote. This is not a conventional piece of party political legislation—it is a primordial matter of humanitarian, social and family concern for the whole country. The more they think about it, the more the Government will be obliged to consider the real importance of a free vote on the relevant clauses that we have been discussing this afternoon. Will my right hon. and learned Friend, through the usual channels and with Government colleagues, ensure that we act in the only way that will satisfy public requirements?
Mr. Howard: As I have said several times this afternoon, that is not a matter for me. It is the responsibility of Government to come to a conclusion on matters such as this and to enshrine that conclusion in a Bill that they place before Parliament. It is then for Parliament to express its view.
Ms Jean Corston: I welcome the Home Secretary's statement as far as it goes, although—like many of my right hon. and hon. Friends and my Labour colleagues on the Home Affairs Committee—I do not think that it goes far enough. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that there is a shooting range and a gun club here in the House of Commons, despite there being no creche and no provision for children. That shows that this House has its priorities wrong. Is the effect of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement that members of that gun club will store guns on these premises? If so, does he consider that to be unacceptable? Should not the House set an example by banning all guns from the House of Commons?
Mr. Howard: Whether, as a matter of law, it will be possible for guns to be stored on the premises of the House of Commons gun club will depend on whether the club complies with the security requirements that we have yet to put in place. Whether, as a matter of practice, the House decides that that should continue to be the position is not a matter for me.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. As the statement has taken almost an hour, we shall now move on to the ten-minute Bill.

Scottish Parliament
4.59 pm
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: It is difficult to turn our thoughts to other matters after today's sombre statements, but I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to introduce a Scottish Parliament in accordance with the scheme proposed by the Scottish Constitutional Convention.
The first and greatest reason for creating a Scottish Parliament is that the people of Scotland want democracy. That is reason enough for change. Time after time, however, our democratic will has been denied by the Government, who are so determined to thwart us that they will even attempt to overcome the will of the people by means of the hereditary peerage. What could better illustrate the difference between those who want to advance democracy and those who will do anything to resist the advance of democracy? Those who want to resist the advance will not succeed, and, instead, they are likely to hasten the end of mediaeval baggage that a modern democracy should have left unclaimed long ago.
It will not be long now before a Scottish Parliament is meeting for the first time in almost three centuries. A Scottish Parliament will not be a return to the far-off, undemocratic days, when only a privileged minority could determine its actions. It will also not be a copy of Westminster. A Scottish Parliament will make advances in our democratic system, putting it in the forefront of change, and I hope that it will encourage Westminster to follow where it leads.
This is not the dry stuff of constitutional tinkering, remote from people's lives. We want a Scottish Parliament because it will make a difference to our lives. In election after election, Scotland has consistently demonstrated a desire for its collective and community traditions to be respected and acted on by selected representatives. We feel increasingly frustrated as our wishes are consistently disregarded. A Scottish Parliament, however, will be underpinned by the specific consent of the Scottish people, and it will place power in our people's hands to decide how our public services—such as health, education and housing—will be delivered, how our laws and administration of justice will be determined, how our economy will be boosted and how our cultural and artistic life can be shared and enjoyed by all.
None of that does any harm to our neighbours and friends in the rest of the United Kingdom, and it is rank dishonesty to pretend that it does. People who wrap themselves in the Union flag to defend the current negation of democracy are merely demonstrating that they have no clothes. As for the so-called "tartan tax"—which was mentioned again today at Scottish questions, as if Conservative Members thought that they had latched on to a stout argument—the Scottish people know that they will have that degree of power only if they vote for it. If they had been able to vote on VAT on domestic fuel or on the poll tax, to name but two Tory taxes, those taxes would have been thrown out with all the contempt that they deserve.
I have been involved with the Scottish Constitutional Convention since it was founded in 1989. I am proud of the way in which it has carried forward the debate, not only on what a Scottish Parliament will do but on the way
848
in which it will do it. The convention has devised plans for how a Parliament will carry out its work, which will create openness and accountability. I believe that Westminster will be able to learn a great deal from how that Parliament conducts itself in the future.
The Members of the Scottish Parliament will reflect Scottish society. For the first time in any elected body in Britain, we shall see the equal representation of women and a fair reflection of the ethnic minorities in our society. A Scottish Parliament is worth fighting for to achieve those objectives alone. I remind the House that only 24 women have ever represented a Scottish seat in Westminster. As one of that small number, I look forward to the day when women in Scotland will have an equal share in making the decisions that affect our daily lives. If anyone thinks that we shall be deterred by a hereditary peerage, whose claim to rule is based on ancestral encounters on the battlefield or in the bedroom, they are about to be disabused of that notion.
Time is too short today to be able to describe all that we plan to achieve in a Scottish Parliament. If there is anything that I want for my constituency from a Scottish Parliament—I know that I speak for many others—it is jobs. I want secure and decently paid jobs, and an end to the poverty that blights so many of our people's lives. Thousands of our people live in inadequate housing, while building workers are idle and investment in housing declines. What a way to run a country!
We know a better way, and it will not be long now before we achieve it. I commend the Bill to the House.
5.4 pm
Mr. Phil Gallie: The hon Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) started off by suggesting that the people of Scotland want a democracy—which means, I suggest, an assembly. Labour Members told us that back in 1979. At that time, the people of Scotland failed to register sufficient interest—sufficient interest even by the standards of the Labour party. Labour Members abandoned their ideas then, and apparently they are abandoning them now.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Maryhill on having the courage to present the Bill, because I believe that it cuts across her party's current policy—policy recently adopted and thrust upon the Scottish leadership. I recognise that that policy has not necessarily been signed on to, and that if "Islington Man" changed his mind tomorrow, the Scottish Labour party would follow along.
Obviously the Bill was prepared before the recess, when the hon Lady's Scottish boss, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), was proclaiming:
"We will have up and running a Scottish Parliament within a year of the Labour party taking office."
That could be a long way away. In fact, there is nae chance of that ever happening. There never was a chance of it, and it will be most unlikely under the referendum scenario now on offer.
The Bill was prepared at a time when the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) was repeatedly telling us that never again will Scottish legislation be determined at Westminster. Such farcical comments are not untypical of the hon. Gentleman.
The Bill was prepared at a time when the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) believed that he was the Opposition spokesman on constitutional change. We all

849
respect him for his beliefs, because we know that he holds them conscientiously. Quite honestly, I do not often agree with his beliefs, but at least he adheres to them. It must have been galling for him to discover that there had been a policy change on this key election issue, and for him to be informed of the change by the leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats. That incident does not say much for Labour, and it demonstrates its unfitness to govern. Obviously hon. Members in the shadow Cabinet do not discuss issues of vital importance with so-called "junior shadow Ministers".
Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: Speak up.
Mr. Gallie: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman cannot hear me; I shall try.
The fact is that the Labour party in Scotland is not in control of this issue, because it is being decided in Islington. The shadow Secretary of State for Scotland has, to some extent, been abandoned. He has submitted meekly to instructions from those above him, although some people would say that he has done so bravely, because he attempted to take responsibility for the change of heart on the referendum fiasco. Once again, however, he was undermined by the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who has claimed full responsibility for the referendum decision.
On a day on which the House will be considering matters of honesty, Labour Members should examine a little more carefully the matter of honesty in their party, on their home ground. The Bill presented today by the hon. Member for Maryhill seems to be detailed. In effect, it demands that its passage through the House be set in train.
If the Scottish Constitutional Convention scheme is to be followed, there will be no referendum. With the return—if ever that were to happen—of a Labour Government supported by the Liberal Democrats, a tax-raising assembly would be imposed along the lines that Opposition Members will no doubt press in the general election campaign. If there was any honesty in their approach, surely they would be prepared to debate the issues in the general election campaign and, if they came to power, to follow through what they believed to be the right course for Scotland.
The Opposition's tax-raising assembly would impose a 15 per cent. tax increase on Scots who could least afford it. That would surely be unwise. In my constituency, I sent out 17,000 questionnaires to people of all political affiliations. To date, almost one third have been returned, of which 85 per cent. oppose the tartan tax, 4.3 per cent. support it and the remainder simply back an independent Scotland. That is an honest position, which I respect, although I do not support it.
Another survey carried out by "Newsnight" in my constituency showed that 12 out of 13 people questioned were against a tax-raising Scottish Assembly. Those are the views of the Scottish people, which they believe that the Conservative party in Scotland will have the guts to get out and fight for in the next general election. We shall stick to our principles, not abandon them as Opposition Members seem to have done.
850
As to a tartan tax, the idea of a Scottish Parliament opens up other threats. Already, we have heard Opposition Members querying the rights of local authorities to impose additional taxes on business. Conservative Members fought for the uniform business rate. A Scottish Parliament would put that in jeopardy and Scotland would be the worse for it.
The Bill refers to Scotland alone. The hon. Lady has ignored Wales and England. If a tax-raising Parliament is right for Scotland, why should there not be one for the regions of England and for Wales? She knows that that would not be wanted by the Labour party in those parts of the United Kingdom, where people are much saner than those on the Opposition Benches.
I am amazed that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) supports the Scottish Constitutional Convention's intention to introduce proportional representation. He has fought against proportional representation for many years, and rightly so: it is undemocratic and ensures that the party hierarchy will appoint those who represent the nation in such a Parliament.
If Labour Members support the Bill, they are cutting across the wishes and desires of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield and stabbing their leader in the back. That would be entirely inappropriate. On that basis, I ask the House to reject this stupid Bill.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 46.

Division No. 216]

[5.13 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene

Davidson, Ian

Ainger, Nick

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Denham, John

Ashdown, Paddy

Dewar, Donald

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Dobson, Frank

Barnes, Harry

Donohoe, Brian H

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Dowd, Jim

Benn, Tony

Eagle, Ms Angela

Bermingham, Gerald

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Betts, Clive

Flynn, Paul

Blair, Tony

Foster, Derek

Blunkett, David

Foster, Don (Bath)

Boateng, Paul

Foulkes, George

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Fyfe, Mrs Maria

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Galloway, George

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Gerrard, Neil

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Godman, Dr Norman A

Campbell-Savours, D N

Graham, Thomas

Canavan, Dennis

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Cann, Jamie

Grocott, Bruce

Chisholm, Malcolm

Gunnell, John

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Hall, Mike

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Harman, Ms Harriet

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Harvey, Nick

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Home Robertson, John

Cohen, Harry

Hoon, Geoffrey

Connarty, Michael

Hoyle, Doug

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)

Corston, Ms Jean

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Cunningham, Dr John

Hutton, John

Cunningham, Ms R (Perth Kinross)

Ingram, Adam

Dafis, Cynog

Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

Darling, Alistair

Jamieson, David

851

Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)

Pike, Peter L

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)

Pope, Greg

Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)

Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)

Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)

Prescott, John

Khabra, Piara S

Primarolo, Ms Dawn

Kilfoyle, Peter

Quin, Ms Joyce

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

Reid, Dr John

Lewis, Terry

Rendel, David

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Lynne, Ms Liz

Roche, Mrs Barbara

McAllion, John

Rooker, Jeff

McAvoy, Thomas

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Macdonald, Calum

Salmond, Alex

McFall, John

Sedgemore, Brian

McKelvey, William

Sheldon, Robert

Mackinlay, Andrew

Short, Ms Clare

McNamara, Kevin

Skinner, Dennis

Madden, Max

Steel, Sir David

Maddock, Mrs Diana

Steinberg, Gerry

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Strang, Dr Gavin

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Straw, Jack

Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Meacher, Michael

Thurnham, Peter

Meale, Alan

Timms, Stephen

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

Wallace, James

Miller, Andrew

Wareing, Robert N

Morris, Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

Watson, Mike

Mowlam, Ms Marjorie

Welsh, Andrew

Mudie, George

Winnick, David

Mullin, Chris

Worthington, Tony

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Olner, Bill

Mr. John Maxton and Mr. Norman Hogg.

Pickthall, Colin

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Boyson, Sir Rhodes

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)

Ashby, David

Carlisle, John (Luton N)

Atkins, Robert

Carrington, Matthew

852

Carttiss, Michael

Monro, Sir Hector

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Neubert, Sir Michael

Duncan Smith, Iain

Pawsey, James

Dunn, Bob

Porter, David (Waveney)

Eggar, Tim

Richards, Rod

Gallie, Phil

Riddick, Graham

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Shaw, David (Dover)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Shersby, Sir Michael

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Sims, Sir Roger

Harris, David

Sumberg, David

Hawksley, Warren

Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Tracey, Richard

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Hunter, Andrew

Waller, Gary

Jessel, Toby

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Whittingdale, John

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Tellers for the Noes:

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Mr. Bill Walker and Mr. John Marshall.

Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Mr. Jimmy Hood, Mr. David Marshall, Mr. Brian H. Donohoe, Mr. Eric Clarke, Mr. Ernie Ross, Mr. William McKelvey, Mr. Mike Watson, Mr. George Foulkes, Mrs. Ray Michie, Mrs. Alice Mahon and Mr. Harry Cohen.

SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT
Mrs. Maria Fyfe accordingly presented a Bill to introduce a Scottish Parliament in accordance with the scheme proposed by the Scottish Constitutional Convention: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 190.]

Privilege
5.25 pm
Mr. Andrew Miller: I beg to move,
That the matter of alleged improper pressure brought to hear on the Select Committee on Members' Interests in 1994 be referred to the Committee on Standards and Privileges.
The motion was facilitated by Madam Speaker's statement yesterday. I must stress, first, that the issue reflects no personal animosity towards the Paymaster General, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts). Indeed, he and I have rarely spoken except to talk about my old school, Hayling Island county secondary, which is in his constituency.
Secondly, I should like to make it clear that I shall not draw any conclusions about the particular allegations. That is, in my view, the role of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. It is, however, my intention to bring the allegations to the attention of the House in the hope that the principle of my argument is fully understood and that the House will agree to refer the matter to the Committee on Standards and Privileges.
Page 135 of "Erskine May" argues that when a breach of privilege or contempt occurs, the House should exercise its penal jurisdiction sparingly, and
"only when satisfied that to do so was essential in order to provide reasonable protection for the House, its Members or its officers from improper obstruction or attempt at or threat of obstruction causing, or likely to cause, substantial interference with the performance of their respective functions."
The articles in The Guardian and other newspapers on 5 and 6 October 1996 suggest that there is a prima facie case and evidence requiring investigation. It may help the House if I remind hon. Members of the specific allegations made on 5 October.
The Guardian claims:
"Enclosed in the letters sent to the party leaders—and to the Speaker of the House of Commons, Betty Boothroyd—are copies of a document obtained by the newspaper as it built up its defence to the libel action mounted by the disgraced former minister and the lobbyist. The pair abandoned their action, paying part of the paper's costs earlier this week. The Guardian believes the document shows how the Conservative Party has, through senior party and government members using the mechanisms of Parliament, conspired to prevent a full and public airing of the facts about the behaviour of Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Greer."
The Observer, on 6 October, claims to quote from a memorandum. Again, I will read it exactly. The paper says:
"The memo says: 'Said No. 10 had got in a muddle about Committee on Members' Interests. They claimed it had cleared Neil Hamilton but actually this was only on a complaint about remarks of his, not on the new allegations.
He is now expecting to receive a formal complaint about Hamilton receiving money, etc. He could: (1) argue now sub judice, get committee to set it aside or (2) investigate as quickly as possible, exploiting good Tory majority at present. We were inclined to go for (1) but he wants our advice".
Also on 6 October The Sunday Times developed the story saying:
"Last night Johnson Smith, a member of the committee that will now investigate the charges against Hamilton, said he could well have discussed the case with Willetts but denied exploring any attempt to help the former Minister."
Mr. Alfred Morris: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the quiet dignity with
854
which he is making his submission today. In doing so, as he knows, I speak as a member for quite some time of the Privileges Committee of the House. Will he accept, as I am sure he does, that if a buck has to stop, it may not necessarily stop with the particular hon. Member against whom allegations are made?
Junior Whips, Madam Speaker, as you know, are not soloists. Their work is very carefully choreographed.
Madam Speaker: Order. If this is an intervention, it must be pertinent and to the point or a question. It must not be a speech. Will the right hon. Gentleman please come to the point?
Mr. Morris: Their work is choreographed. I am saying that the Patronage Secretary may be involved. Others higher up may be involved. It may be that this has to be a very wide-ranging inquiry, not just about one hon. Member.
Mr. Miller: I respect my right hon. Friend's contribution to the Privileges Committee and other aspects of the House, but I shall not be drawn on other issues of that nature. If the House approves the motion, it will be a matter for the Committee on Standards and Privileges.
I have related to the House the detailed allegations in the press. Hon. Members may well ask whether, if they are all true, it is a matter for the Whips. The point is very simple. There must be a clear distinction between the functions of the Whips in areas of legitimate party management and, separately, in their role when Parliament acts in a quasi-judicial capacity.
The investigation undertaken by the Committee on Members' Interests under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) was of a quasi-judicial nature. In Britain, it is accepted that when a body is considering matters in a judicial or quasi-judicial manner, it is fundamentally wrong to exert or seek to exert political or any other form of pressure on it. That would apply equally to a local authority planning committee or an Old Bailey jury.
The same principle applies in Parliament. Therefore, if the allegations are true, they are very serious. It seems to me that the Committee should demand to see all the papers referred to in the newspapers. I would also urge that the inquiry be totally open.
Hon. Members must realise that the public hold us in very low esteem. That is due in part to the so-called sleaze issue. If the alleged interference actually occurred, we cannot hope to restore any of that public confidence in the integrity of the House unless we take firm and decisive action. We have a duty and a responsibility to do that. Now let us ensure that there is the fullest unfettered inquiry into the allegations.
5.34 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I rise simply—and briefly—to express the hope that the House will agree to the motion and remit the complaint to the Standards and Privileges Committee for its consideration and advice. The House will understand, however, that as Chairman of the Committee that would examine the matter if the House were to make that decision, it would not be appropriate for me to make further comment this afternoon.
5.35 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: I also shall be brief, not least because I am also a member of the Standards and Privileges Committee and I would not want to prejudge any inquiry. I shall simply say a few words to welcome the opportunity for such a reference.
The Committee has already embarked on an inquiry into allegations that have been made relating to Members' interests. It has done so as a matter of urgency. However, there is still some misunderstanding of the dual role of the Committee. It exists to raise issues concerning Members' interests, but it also deals with any complaints about privilege. Therefore, without reference to a Committee that relates specifically to privilege, and not just to Members' interests, certain aspects of recent allegations would not be subject to investigation. That would be most unsatisfactory. I hope that the House will agree that it would be wrong for the Committee to be restricted in any of its investigations.
On Monday, you, Madam Speaker, said:
"the reputation of the House as a whole has been called into question."—[Official Report, 14 October 1996; Vol. 282, c. 463]
I agree, and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House share your strong concern. It is essential, therefore, that all the matters should be investigated as quickly as possible. However, it is also vital that the investigations are thorough and complete. I know that my colleagues on the Committee are as keenly aware as I am of their responsibilities in the matter.
I hope that those who may be called to give evidence or to provide documentation will also be aware of their overriding responsibilities to the House and that everything that the Committee needs by way of evidence or documentation will be forthcoming. Unless that is the case, the matters will not be resolved. I trust, therefore, that everyone will co-operate fully with the inquiry of the Committee on Standards and Privileges.
5.37 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: The House wishes to reach a rapid conclusion on the matter and I am sure that that is right, but as we are considering the reputation of Parliament, I want to put two separate points to the House. First, was the reputation of Parliament damaged by what some of its Members did? I am not concerned with that. Secondly, has the reputation of the House been damaged by the way in which the House has handled the matter? In my view, that is the real problem that the House has absolutely failed to confront.
The matter arose more than two years ago. At the time, I was on the Privileges Committee—the Committee on which I was proudest to serve. As the House may recall, I was not prepared to sit on a secret Committee and I was duly removed on a motion of the Leader of the House. I am very glad that I was not on a Committee that was bound to secrecy because many of the problems have arisen because of that secrecy.
Why does the House not rapidly legislate to deal with the standards required of Members of Parliament? If I offered somebody £1,000 to vote for me in an election, I would be guilty of a corrupt practice. I would be taken before an election court. That court would report to the Speaker and the House would endorse the decision of the court because we have the final say. When we are elected
856
Members of Parliament, why are we not governed by legislation? If somebody offered me £1,000 to table a question—nobody ever has—should that not be subject to legislation on the representation of the people by an extension of the law?
We should be discussing the rights of the electors, not the reputation of Parliament as if somehow we were preserving an old monument. When people elect a Member of Parliament, they should know that Members of Parliament can be relied upon to defend their constituents and present their own opinions honestly to the House. If people think that, when an hon. Member is elected, he has a marketable product at his disposal—his influence—we will enter an area that has been dealt with in the past in respect of corrupt elections.
When elections were contested in the old days—I am talking about the 19th century—the House used to deal with the matter in Committees like the Privileges Committee. The result was that the Government majority on the Committee always upheld their own candidates, so the House decided to transfer the responsibility to an election court.
I had a funny experience when I was once taken to an election court and disqualified by it—not for a criminal offence, but for the fact that there had been a biological change in my blood supply, which two judges contended disqualified me from sitting in the House of Commons, where I had been a Member for 10 years. There was not a jury, just two judges. The election court heard the evidence for two weeks and reached the marvellous conclusion that removed me from this House. That is how the matters before us should be dealt with. Parliament has abandoned the responsibility to make clear in law which rules govern it.
A code of practice and so on in the House is perfectly proper, but gets us into another difficulty. Whatever hon. Members may or may not have done—I am not a muck-raker and never have been—it is not at all certain that it was illegal. Perhaps some of the practices, which we would all regard as very undesirable, are perfectly legal. Why are they legal? That is the problem that the House has dodged.
There should of course also be full disclosure. When people vote for a parliamentary candidate, the candidate's interests should be on the polling card issued by electoral registration officers so that people know exactly what they are. Disclosure is a safeguard.
My final point also arises from my own unhappy experiences. I do not believe that the House has the right to remove elected Members of Parliament because it does not like what they have done, even if it is not illegal. The House has no right to remove its own Members. They can be removed only by law. The law has to be clear. If a Government contractor is disqualified, which he can be under the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, why should other people who are engaged in the business of promoting some private interest for money not also be disqualified?
It is not in doubt that the matter will go before the Standards and Privileges Committee, but how long it will take to deal with it I do not know. It is always possible that the Government might not survive the Queen's Speech, in which case it is possible that the business of this Committee, like that of many other Committees, will drift into another Parliament when it is long forgotten.

857
I am not absolutely sure that the election will be after the Committee has reported. If the report is likely to be published before the election, I can imagine other Whips asking whether they really want it all to come out on the eve of polling day, and a similar type of influence may be brought to bear.
One objection is that the time scale is wrong. It is two and a half years since the matters came into the public domain and the House has absolutely failed to deal with them in the way it should: a quick and open examination of the evidence and an immediate move to legislation so that electors know the law relating to their Members of Parliament just as they know that which relates to their candidates.
I ask the House to consider that suggestion, not because I am trying in any way to stir argument about the merits of the motion, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) moved with proper parliamentary dignity, but to draw attention to the fact that the issue should not be one that sells newspapers due to access to leaks. The matter should not be used for that or party political advantage because who knows what would come up if there were a proper examination. It should be used to ensure that the people who send us here know that we are governed by law and that they can be as near as certain that if breaches occur they will be dealt with by the courts and not Committees that inevitably, by necessity, have a Government majority.
5.43 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes>: My right hon. and hon. Friends and I warmly welcome both your statements, Madam Speaker, of Monday and Tuesday and the motion tabled by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), which we support without reservation. We also clearly welcome the fact that the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House want expeditiously to refer the matter to the Committee. That is a welcome start. I subscribe entirely to the views expressed by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) about declaration of interests for those standing for elections and about legislation. I share the hope of that outcome.
I should like to make four points about procedure. First, I agree with the point made by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris)—it is clear that it would be entirely inappropriate to investigate the activity of an individual or two without looking at those who may be connected to them. Out of fairness to all hon. Members, the Committee must consider all those who, by implication, as well as other ways, are associated with the allegations.
Secondly, it would be extremely unsatisfactory if this matter remained in Committee and was not reported to the Floor of the House before the end of this Parliament. Although it is obviously not entirely within the Government's control, the election could be as late as May next year. I hope that the Leader of the House, as the Committee Chairman, and Committee members will try to ensure that the Committee does its job as quickly as is compatible with its important task. Speed is important because justice and truth delayed is justice and truth denied to the public at the next election.
858
Thirdly, Sir Gordon Downey will produce his own report. We understand that he has been working hard already. That report must enter the public domain. It is important that advice from the Officer of the House charged with investigative and other responsibilities is a public document. If we are to restore public confidence in our procedures, as your statement, Madam Speaker, sought to establish that we would, that document must be published.
Fourthly, and perhaps most important, I hope that the Leader of the House will make it clear—obviously not now at the Dispatch Box, but by another method later tonight—that the vote in Committee will be free of party line. I also hope that, when the matter comes back before the House, there will be a free vote with no party line. It would be entirely unacceptable if any report and any subsequent motions that came before the House were accompanied by any party political attempt to determine the result of a vote. Indeed, it would be incompatible with the request that the Committee investigate.
The sooner the Leader of the House can make it clear to the public that that is what will happen, the sooner the Committee will command the necessary public confidence to assist the restoration of the House's reputation. It is vital that the matter is not dealt with in a party political way and that all hon. Members are free to speak and vote independently of the party to which they belong.
5.47 pm
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I wish that I could get excited about the idea that the House of Commons, with all its mumbo jumbo, by sending the matter to a Committee of the House of Commons, will resolve it and satisfy the public. The truth is that the public know that self-regulation is wrong.
I have stood up in the House with many of my hon. Friends countless times to say that it is wrong for the police to investigate their own complaints and that investigation should be done by some outside body. We say it about the Stock Exchange, Lloyd's, and even about hospital trusts, which now investigate the complaints that we send in. Previously, another health service body used to investigate them. Somehow or other, for this place, it is right for a Committee to deal with such matters.
I read the other week that our Labour Front-Bench team—new Labour or whatever it is—were on the point of calling for a judicial inquiry. I thought that that was a smart move. Somehow or other they backed off. They should have stuck to their original proposition. There has been a litany of Select Committees. Although on some Committees hon. Members beaver away out of the glare of publicity about some matter before them—I recognise that much work goes into them—I do not approve of Select Committees. I am not on any; I do not believe in them. I do not believe in the system of sloppy consensus and the all-party embrace.
On this issue, the public are watching. They do not know about what takes place on many other Select Committees, but they know about this one. They think that the House of Commons should do better, and that the matter should be dealt with by somebody outside. There should be a judicial inquiry.
Just imagine what the story is about. It is about a Tory Whip being told, presumably by one of the higher-ups in the Government, to finger a Committee—to ensure that it

859
uses its Tory majority to get the right result. I was not surprised when I read about that in The Guardian. What surprised me was the fact that the Whip—
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Put it on paper.
Mr. Skinner: Yes, the fact that he put it on paper. Then, because the Whip put it all on paper and handled the matter sensitively, he was promoted. That was what surprised me.
Cynic though I may be, I must point out that when the Committee is set up again, it will be another Tory-dominated Committee. The Tory Government have a majority of one, so they tell me, and the two people principally involved in the allegations are the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) and the Paymaster General, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts). Can the House imagine in its wildest dreams—I cannot—that the Tory Government who are hanging on for a May general election will throw away their majority by coming to any conclusion other than to save the skins of two of their Members of Parliament? I do not believe that they will do anything else.
Almost every Select Committee that has operated in the glare of publicity has backed the Government. I have watched them all. There was the Committee that investigated the coal industry, and many more. At the end of the day, when the chips are down, we always find that the Tory Government's majority holds sway.
That is why I am not convinced that the road that we are now travelling will resolve the matter. One of my colleagues told me earlier, "Dennis, ask them to make sure that all the papers—not just some, not just those that went to court—are submitted to the inquiry. What is more, would it not be a good idea if all the papers were put in the Library, so that those of us who are not on the Committee can read them?" What about that? Let us have some transparency. That is the new word that everybody keeps trotting out in this place.
The whole story has been a litany of failure. In 1976 we managed to set up a Register of Members' Interests. Some people said, "Stuff it. I'm not putting my name in there." Then the Nolan committee was set up, with some Members of Parliament and a few members of the chattering classes. It was the first time for many years that people had been brought in from the outside. That committee made a marginal proposition to improve the so-called register.
What happened? The Government ran away from some of the proposals, and when the new rules were introduced and it was declared that everybody must declare their income from moonlighting, about 30 Tory Members of Parliament said, "We're not putting our income in."
So the public outside say, "Oh yes? They are going to send the investigation to another Committee of the great and good in the House of Commons. What will happen to it there?" Most of them will draw the same conclusion as I do about where we will be when it is all done. That will probably be after the general election, because the Government will find ways of dragging it out. They will use Whips and every other means to ensure that the process goes on until after the election.
The net result will be that the Government will think that they have swept the whole thing under the carpet, but then something else will happen and people in the press
860
and the other media will say that Parliament has been brought into disrepute. Then the Government will try again to cobble some other form of mumbo jumbo to look after the business in the House.
It ain't good enough. It is time to say that if we want to deal with the matter, it should be done by a judicial inquiry. Then, every Member of Parliament and every member of the public will have the chance to know what is taking place, and to see that the people who run Parliament—and, indeed, every Member of Parliament—are held to account, not by a small Committee in this little greenhouse, this palace of varieties, but by the people outside.
5.53 pm
Mr. David Winnick: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) on what he has done today. However, I would hesitate to approve a motion that did not make it perfectly clear that the Committee would sit in public.
We have been through the argument before, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) made the same point when he was excluded from the Privileges Committee. There is nothing in the motion, and no commitment from the Leader of the House, who will chair the Committee, to say that the proceedings will be held in public.
If the Committee does not sit in public, there will not be public confidence. There can be no public confidence if such matters are dealt with as they were by the former Privileges Committee. I hope that that point will be well taken by the Leader of the House and by those who will sit on the Committee.
Until recently, the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), that self-regulation was not appropriate, would not have been accepted by most people. Most, including me, would have said that we should regulate our own affairs—indeed, that we had a duty and responsibility to do so. That is a long tradition, and I would have said to my hon. Friend that I disagreed with him about it. I continue to disagree with him, but to a far lesser extent.
The situation is grave. I do not want to exaggerate it or give the impression that people have lost confidence in Members of Parliament altogether and no longer come to our surgeries or write to us. That would be nonsense. We know that when people have problems they often come to us and hope that we will do our best to resolve them, and I do not want to give a different impression, but people's view of Parliament as a whole should alarm us.
This is a narrow motion, and I do not want to broaden the debate—indeed, you would not allow me to do so, Madam Speaker—but the fact that 67 per cent. of the people consulted in a recent opinion poll published in The Guardian believe that we are generally on the make is certainly alarming and disturbing. The effects of the misdeeds, or alleged misdeeds, of one or two hon. Members have spread to the House of Commons as a whole, so we cannot simply dismiss the point of view that the time may come, if it has not come already, when self-regulation is no longer appropriate.
The Nolan committee has already been appointed. Years ago, it would have been unthinkable that such a committee would be set up to consider standards in the

861
House. The conventional view would have been obvious—that that was our job—but few people disagreed with the decision that was taken, rightly in all the circumstances at that time, to set up the committee.
The important aspect of the matter before us—and of related matters—is that they constitute a test. If the Committee works as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover assumes it will, the time will have come when no confidence in self-regulation will be left. People will argue strongly outside that if other organisations have avoided self-regulation, there is no reason why the House of Commons should cling to the past.
That is the test. How will the Committee go about its business? Will it sit in public, as I have asked? Shall we ensure that the Government majority on the Committee does not act in such a way as to make it clear that the inquiry will not be the impartial inquiry that is essential not only in the context of the matter before us, but for the sake of the reputation of the House?
I have nothing against the Paymaster General, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts)—certainly nothing personal. Some might say that, if we must have Tory Members, we might as well have Tories such as him. I have no desire to see the hon. Gentleman scapegoated. A serious allegation has been made, and he has a perfect right to defend himself. We all agree on that, but his defence should be heard in public before the Committee, and if others are involved, we should know.
I shall certainly not vote against the motion, but I believe that it sets the House a test. If our reputation is to survive and people are to have confidence in Parliament as a whole, it is essential that when this subject, and other far more serious allegations, are investigated—after all, the matter before us is fairly minor compared with the other matter that will be before the Committee—it is seen that the Committee can act impartially, so as to make it clear that we are capable of running and regulating our affairs.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the matter of alleged improper pressure brought to bear on the Select Committee on Members' Interests in 1994 be referred to the Committee on Standards and Privileges.

Public Accounts Committee
5.58 pm
Mr. Robert Sheldon: I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the 41st to 47th reports of the Committee of Public Accounts of Session 1994–95, of the 1st to 41st Reports of Session 1995–96; and of the Treasury Minutes and Northern Ireland Department of Finance and Personnel Memoranda on these Reports (Cm. 3166, 3167, 3172, 3189, 3222, 3243, 3279, 3298, 3327, 3373, 3379 and 3384) with particular reference to the following Reports of Session 1995–96:

First, Child Support Agency (House of Commons Paper No. 31);

Sixth, A Review of the Financial Controls over Indirectly Funded Operations of the Metropolitan Police Service (House of Commons Paper No. 109);

Tenth, The Annual Report of the European Court of Auditors and the Statement of Assurance (House of Commons Paper No. 250);

Thirtieth, Ministry of Defence: Management of Works of Art (House of Commons Paper No. 337);

Thirty-eighth, Lord Chancellor's Department and the Court Service: Handling Small Claims in the County Courts (House of Commons Paper No. 410); and

Forty-first, Evaluating the Applications to run the National Lottery and the Director General's Travel and Hospitality Arrangements (House of Commons Paper No. 96).

We are looking today at the hard work of the Committee during the past year, in which 48 reports have been produced—seven in the 1994–95 Session and 41 in the 1995–96 Session. I welcome the presence in the Chamber of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, whose predecessor was very helpful in wholeheartedly accepting our eighth report of 1994. That was a most important report, and his acceptance of it was of great value to us in our subsequent work.
I pay tribute to the outstanding Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir John Bourn, and his highly qualified and dedicated staff, who have been most valuable to the Committee and to the House. Sir John is, of course, now an Officer of the House, as is John Dowdall, the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland.
The current staff are different from what they were. It used to be that people came in at the age of 18 to learn bookkeeping, and they learned not much more than that. Now, we have auditors and professionally qualified accountants, who are in great demand in the City of London and accounting firms. They now have a level of professionalism that we never saw before—certainly not up until the early 1980s.
I welcome the help given by the Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Ken Brown, who has been most valuable in producing all our papers. These seem to grow in complexity all the time, but his explanations are welcome. I also thank the members of the Committee, who are outstanding. I am grateful to my colleagues, who do enormous amounts of work—far more than when I was first appointed to the Committee in 1965.
At that time, there was a very small amount of work in comparison with what we have now, with just one report a year covering all the various elements. Now we have a multitude of reports, and the work imposed on my colleagues is very great. They bring a great deal of

863
enthusiasm, perseverance and dedication to it. I am also grateful to the Treasury's officer of accounts and to the accounting officers for their work.
During the past 13 years, the Committee has introduced a custom of inviting some accounting officers who are reaching retirement age to give their thoughts on the work of the Committee and the direction that it might take. Those comments have been welcomed. As this will be the last Public Accounts Committee debate of this Parliament, the present Committee should set out some matters that a future Committee may wish to consider.
First, success must hinge on the belief that nothing—certainly not party considerations—should come before the interests of the taxpayer. In the past 13 years, the Committee has produced more than 500 reports—all of which have been unanimous. That unanimity is not a result of fudged conclusions or recommendations, but because the people we are defending are at the forefront of our minds.
We know that we have the obvious advantage of not examining policy, as the Committee is as divided on such matters as any other in the House. But we take policy as given—even when we as individuals may thoroughly disagree with it. The report in which we examined the consequences of privatisation was an example of extreme disagreement on policy, but we examined whether the Government's goals were being realised, whether the assets had been sold for the best price, whether the timing was suitable for the sale, and whether, if there was a case for a clawback provision, it should be inserted. We studied whether the advisers and consultants were wisely and competitively chosen, and whether their rewards were commensurate with the work that they undertook.
We need a unanimous report, so that the Government are faced with conclusions that they cannot ignore by selecting those recommendations supported by one part of the Committee or another. As a result of our unanimity, the Government typically accept the overwhelming majority of our recommendations. When they do accept a recommendation, we do not leave it at that, but monitor the situation closely to ensure that it is implemented. If it is not implemented, we can return to it, as we have done several times. The advantage of meeting twice weekly is that we can come back again and again to matters.
We draw the attention of the House to the failure to implement the Government's own decisions. Such examples include the failure to institute adequate fire precautions covering Government property. Had the Government heeded our warnings, we would not have had the second fire at Donnington, where the Ministry of Defence lost £170 million of Government supplies, nor would we have had the fire at Windsor castle. The Committee has returned to each of these matters to underline the failure to implement previous recommendations.
In those cases where some of our conclusions are not acceptable to the Government, we still keep a close watch on the progress of the issue, and we frequently return to the matter and take further evidence. The evasion of vehicle excise duty in our 36th report this year is one example of this. Following our criticisms, I note that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency is undertaking a programme of increasingly demanding targets. I shall be surprised if a future Public Accounts Committee does not return to that matter before very long.
864
There is a concentration on big issues such as defence procurement, which costs us £8 billion a year, and these must be a prominent part of our activities. In addition, we must examine a number of relatively small amounts of expenditure where the principles of good housekeeping, efficiency and—above all—probity need to be examined. I shall be dealing with these matters later. Taking account of those considerations, I must express my gratitude for the work undertaken by Committee members. The original work done by members is most important these days. Members have discovered matters that I, the Government and even the National Audit Office did not know about.
We need a close relationship between the Committee and the Comptroller and Auditor General. I know that we take that for granted, but we should not, because we have seen a number of examples in other countries where such a relationship does not exist. It must be based on mutual respect, trust and confidence. We are not in each other's pockets, but we understand the work that the National Audit Office does and the way in which these matters are dealt with. We should acknowledge the advantages we have, and make use of them accordingly.
I now come to the priorities for our work. First, I wish to mention our famous eighth report of 1994 on the proper standard of public conduct. This was a seminal report, which ranks alongside the most important reports ever published by the Committee. The evidence set out the kind of standards we need and how to uphold them, and it was brought to the attention of the House and the Nolan committee. It is crucial that we retain the standards of public conduct that we have had the good fortune to inherit.
Gladstone set up the Public Accounts Committee with the immense authority of an outstanding Chancellor of the Exchequer; that, along with his later premiership, set the standard for the way in which the public services have developed. It was he who decided that the Committee Chairman should come from the Opposition, and it would be hard to find any subsequent period when such a decision might have been made. Yet that decision ensured that Gladstonian standards became those of our public life.
In our own time, we have—through the National Audit Office Act 1983—the greater powers of the NAO and the Public Accounts Committee, as well as the selection of the Comptroller and Auditor General by the Chairman with the agreement of the Prime Minister. It is a great tribute to the work of the NAO and the Committee that, when the Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir John Bourn, was invited to become principal of the London School of Economics, he was able to say that the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General was even more important. That was an enormous tribute to our work.
Of the 185 or so countries in the United Nations, even with the decline that we note in our report, few come up to the standards of public life that we take for granted. We have received a valuable inheritance, and the Public Accounts Committee must pass it on. The eighth report left its mark on all the subsequent work of the Committee, and its impact has been far-reaching.
In the month following the publication of the report, the Treasury wrote to all Departments to draw their attention to it. They and other bodies for which they were responsible were required to review their procedures in

865
the light of the report. A new memorandum for accounting officers reflected the issues of propriety and accountability. Detailed guidance for non-departmental bodies was issued, dealing with accountability and the declaration of financial interest. I am grateful to the Treasury for doing so, and for ensuring that the lessons we pointed out in our eighth report were spread as widely as possible.
The Civil Service College provided a course for newly appointed chief executives of agencies and non-departmental bodies as well as their boards. That course deals with aspects of public business and the maintenance of high ethical standards. I have here a summary of 10 Departments that have taken action based on the eighth report and the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General, who was invited to become the head of the London School of Economics, with one of the highest salaries in academic life. The fact that he is still there and undertaking that work on behalf of standards in public life is enormously important to us.
The sixth report illustrated the need to establish proper controls to prevent fraud. The report is entitled, "A Review of the Financial Controls over Indirectly Funded Operations of the Metropolitan Police Service". As the House will know, we have selected six reports to show some of the elements that we regard as important in the work of the Committee. Two others also deal with fraud.
The sixth report deals with a Mr. Williams, who lived the life of a lord in Scotland. He bought houses and hotels saying that he had acquired large sums of money from relatives in Norway. His fraud came to light only through an assessment of his work.
The Metropolitan police service is responsible for policing Greater London, and employs 28,000 police officers and 15,000 civilians, with a gross budget of £1.9 billion. The service has developed a number of confidential and indirectly funded operations to deal with serious crime—organised crime, drug importation, trafficking, terrorism and armed offences. Obviously, those are sensitive areas, which require a considerable element of secrecy.
In July 1994, a theft of more than £5 million allocated to one indirectly funded operation was investigated. Anthony Williams, a senior civilian member of the service, was arrested and charged with 19 counts of theft, found guilty and sentenced to seven and a half years' imprisonment. A further 535 offences were taken into consideration.
We felt it astonishing that a senior civil servant could have been living such a life in Scotland-buying hotels and becoming an important figure in his local town—"but coming to London to ensure that the sums of money were available. After his arrest, it was discovered that he had had unsupervised control over a bank account, and was the sole channel of communication between the operational and finance branches.
The operation was financed without detailed supporting evidence from Williams as to the funds needed. There was no independent reconciliation of the records with the claims made. Williams submitted no accounts, and there was no separate account code for his operation. He was responsible for accepting money, deciding how much he
866
wanted, paying a certain amount for the purposes for which it was drawn, and making use of a large part of the balance for his own purposes.
I understand that one needs to be careful in some matters. If secrecy is necessary, one does not want a large number of people to know what is going on. Obviously, the operation involved was of that kind. Nevertheless, if secrecy is necessary, one must be even more careful to ensure that the proper safeguards are introduced. There was a greater responsibility on Mr. Williams' superiors to undertake the proper supervision. If someone has those powers—there may be occasions when they are astonishingly wide—the person's superiors have a greater responsibility for ensuring that other systems are in place.
Mr. Williams got away with that astonishing life. There was no investigation, and I find it strange that no one was aware of his life style. As in all these frauds, the trouble is that the person concerned usually gets too greedy. One starts with a small fraud, but it grows, and one gets over-enthusiastic. Before one knows where one is, one is taking such large sums of money that the fraud comes to light. As to recovery of the money involved, only about £1 million of the £5 million has been recovered.
Our 46th report of 1994–95, "Ministry of Defence: Fraud in Defence Procurement" found that there were 191 cases of procurement fraud, amounting to about £22 million. The Gordon Foxley case was by far the most serious. He dealt in the procurement of ammunition, and was able to secure at least £1.3 million—probably much more—in corrupt payments from overseas contractors. He got money from them rather than awarding contracts to the Royal Ordnance factory, which resulted in the loss of a large number of jobs in this country.
The corrupt payments were aimed at influencing the allocation of contracts for fuses and ammunition. That case was one of the worst that the Committee examined. Again, there was a failure to oversee the work of that procurement officer that I would not have expected, and I hope to see the loophole fully closed.
The third case of fraud I must mention is described in the 23rd report of the present Session, "National Heritage Memorial Fund Account 1994–95: Replacement of the Accounting Officer". A case involving such an officer is rare. The fund gives assistance towards costs incurred with certain items of national heritage.
In June 1995, the Department of National Heritage concluded that the accounting officer of the fund, Miss Nayler, had breached her basic responsibilities. The report states that she had
"allowed a clear conflict of interest to arise by permitting her partner's firm … to tender for a contract to be let by the Fund and was allowed to do so despite the knowledge of the Chairman of the Trustees of the conflict.
We note that, despite the issue of a letter from the Department indicating that such conflicts of interest should be avoided, she subsequently permitted the Fund to award her partner's firm further contracts, without competitive tender, which resulted in payments of some £35,000."
Clearly, that was fraud at the highest level. Although Miss Nayler was an accounting officer, an accounting officer of the Department was her superior, which is how the fraud came to light.
The interesting aspect of those three cases of fraud is that they arose before our eighth report of 1994 was produced. The Committee hopes, of course, that such

867
fraud resulted from the sort of situations that could arise before that report and the action taken by the Treasury and Departments to deal with the serious decline detailed in it.
The Committee's first report of 1995–96 deals with the Child Support Agency, an executive agency which introduced a new system of child maintenance. The year 1993–94 was its first year of operations, and 40 per cent. of assessments on absent parents contained errors—a high rate. One can understand trivial errors, but these were mostly serious ones. I understand the difficulty of getting information from up to four partners—two from the current marriage and two from the previous one. That is a complication.
The Committee seriously criticised the agency and the Department, and said:
"We are gravely disturbed that at least 40 per cent of the child maintenance assessments made on absent parents in 1993–94 contained errors. We severely criticise the Department and the Agency for allowing this state of affairs to arise. While we recognise the difficulty the Agency face in getting accurate information from up to four parties, not all of whom may wish to be cooperative, achieving accuracy in maintenance assessment is essential if the Agency are to provide a fair and efficient service in the interests of children. We therefore urge the Agency to continue their efforts to explain to parents why the law requires the information concerned and to pursue non-compliance tactfully but firmly."
The agency has been set a new target of 75 per cent., rather than 60 per cent., accuracy. We were told by the Department that the planning assumed that the average assessment would take about two and a half hours. In fact, it took twice as long, so it fell hopelessly into arrears. As Sir Michael Partridge, the permanent secretary to the Department, said:
"it is quite unprecedented in anything I have come across in public service."
That is a serious indictment from a distinguished public servant, who understood the Department's work so well.
Finally, the Committee states:
"We consider that the Department should have established at a much earlier stage the financial and management information required by the Agency. We note that the Department are to produce a report of things that went wrong and lessons to be learned. We look to the Department to do so without delay and to ensure that the lessons are applied".
We have had the Treasury minute, but the situation is still not satisfactory. The Department was over-ambitious. In Australia and elsewhere, the past was ignored, and it was decided that the arrangements would apply only to future cases. Not following that example made things more difficult. It was the attempt to achieve fairness—and, I suspect, to get some money into the Treasury—that produced some of the problems.
The 10th report concerns the annual report of the European Court of Auditors and the statement of assurance. We have insisted that the Court of Auditors should be able to assure us that the money is spent properly. Partly as a result of our Committee's efforts—we have been very strong on this—in November 1995 we got the first statement of assurance from the Court of Auditors. It produces an assurance on the legality and regularity of transactions. It gives us information of which we can make some use. We immediately latched on to that. We were the first country in the European Union to say that the matter was important.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby) and I went to Brussels, and later we took the whole Committee to Luxembourg. Interestingly, we had by far the biggest
868
representation at Brussels, and we had an impressive delegation to Luxembourg. I remember a Dutch Member of the European Parliament saying that he would speak in English, because English was the language of anti-fraud measures. That was a great boost to us, and an acknowledgment of our reputation for looking after the interests of the taxpayer.
There is now an internal audit every eight years; every three years is being talked about. The situation is not adequate or sufficiently stringent; we want it to be done better. Fraud should be a criminal offence, and the sanctions must be greater than repayment. At present, if fraud is found out, only repayment has to be made. The role of the court is too passive.
We notice that Mr. Tomlinson, a Member of the European Parliament, is doing useful work on the committee considering transit arrangements. The important thing is that fraud is going to be tackled. It hurts people to see their money going to the Community but not receiving the close scrutiny that we give.
We visited the Court of Auditors in Luxembourg in April. It had taken a sample of 563 payments among the then 12 member states and found that in 59 there were substantial errors. It had no opinion on 14 per cent. of cases, but of the rest, 4 per cent. had serious errors. It was unable even to assess 14 per cent. of cases. It is unable to provide an overall assessment. We regard that as serious. The financial systems of the Commission and of the member states are too often unreliable and inadequate.
From examining the money that we pay to Europe, we feel that fraud is indivisible. Some people say that it is only European money, so we can be more relaxed about ensuring that it is correct to the last penny. However, once such treatment begins, it can move across to the treatment of our funds in Britain. All public money must be treated in the same way. We tried to show the European Court of Auditors that lesson. There is a lack of effective sanctions. The court is an institution of the Communities rather than of the Union. The audits could be farmed out and national bodies made subject to supervision. Those suggestions should be followed.
On the auditors' powers, I should mention something about their rights of access. Astonishingly, the National Audit Office has fewer rights of access in Britain than have the European Union auditors. They do not much use their powers, but they have more of them. The National Audit Office has powers to deal with, and rights of access to, Departments, and does the audits of Departments and executive non-departmental bodies because they are laid before Parliament. However, it does not audit other non-departmental public bodies.
The present position here is unsatisfactory. The Executive, rather than Parliament, appoint their own auditors. Where public money is involved, it must be Parliament, not the Executive, that appoints the auditors. Something is fundamentally wrong there.
We need a practical way to provide inspection rights for all public bodies. The Treasury could issue guidance to Departments and other public funding bodies requiring access for the Comptroller and Auditor General as a condition of the grants that they make. The CAG should be offered the right to exercise rights of access reasonably and after consultation with the sponsoring Department, as he does now in respect of education.

869
In the past few years, Departments, agencies and executive non-departmental bodies have set up more than 200 publicly owned companies to help them deliver public services. Examples include the Student Loans Company and regional development organisations. Some executive non-departmental public bodies have been set up as companies.
Some of the statutes of those companies require Companies Act auditors, even though the non-departmental public bodies are not companies. Given the Comptroller and Auditor General's role as the auditor of public funds, it should be possible for him to be the auditor of companies wholly or mainly owned by the Government.
The Government have increasingly contracted out departmental functions to private sector firms under the "Competing for Quality" initiative. The private finance initiative has extended private sector involvement to the provision of services. The value of contracts awarded to them or pending amounts to more than £5 billion. The Comptroller and Auditor General has guaranteed rights of access only to papers under the control of auditor departments, not to relevant records in the hands of private firms which carry out contracted-out functions.
The Government's guide to market testing made it clear that the Comptroller and Auditor General should have access to contractors. There is a need to give the CAG access in every case, subject to the constraints that it would apply only to those activities carried out on behalf of the Government and funded by Parliament. It is clearly unsatisfactory that, in its direct responsibility to Parliament, the National Audit Office has fewer rights of access than other bodies or the European Union auditors. I hope that we may be able to see some movement on that, and I should welcome the comments of the Financial Secretary.
The 30th report is entitled "Ministry of Defence: Management of Works of Art". This dealt with a surprising situation. When the Ministry of Defence started to computerise the record of the Government art collection, it discovered that there were 900 works of art, but when it came to examine them, it found that 205 were missing. It did not know where they had got to. Such works of art were often donated by distinguished members of a regiment and displayed in mess halls and elsewhere. It was found that 205, or almost one fifth, were lost, and that many had been lost for more than five years. There has been little progress in recovering them.
The Treasury minute on the report said:
"The Department continues its effort to recover missing works of art but, so far, with limited success."
The problem is that there was no adequate inventory system. The Ministry should know where the works of art are, what they are, and rough valuations. We said:
"We consider the Department clearly negligent to have lost so many works … and we are concerned that so many items have been missing for more than five years. We are disappointed that the Department have made so little progress in tracking down the missing items, given that the problem has been recognised for some time. We look to the Department to continue the search for missing items, and to pursue with greater vigour incidents of theft. We find it deplorable that so many thefts have apparently been committed by the Department's own staff.
870
We recognise that the management of works of art may seem unimportant compared to the billions of pounds that the Ministry of Defence spend each year. But we are concerned about the loss of valuable and historic components of our national artistic heritage. and about the failure of stewardship: the failure to apply principles that people would regard as common sense in their private lives to their responsibilities as public servants. We believe that nobody would be as careless with their own pictures as the Ministry of Defence have been with these publicly owned works of art."
The 38th report is entitled "Lord Chancellor's Department and the Court Service: Handling Small Claims in the County Courts". The small claims procedure in the county courts is one of the great successes of our time, yet it is not trumpeted. I fail to understand why that is so. We found that the small claims procedure was introduced in 1973 to reduce the cost, delay and complexity of pursuing low-value civil cases through the county courts. The limit now stands at £3,000-it has been increased. Individuals use the procedure mainly to recover debts or seek compensation. Businesses use the procedure mainly to recover debts.
The report says:
"We are pleased to see from the National Audit Office survey that most people who had pursued a small claim found the procedure cheap and easy to use. However, we note the evidence that public awareness of the procedure is low."
That is most surprising. Here we have a way for people to obtain their rights readily, easily, and at small cost, yet so few people know about it. We say in the report:
"We consider that more needs to be done to ensure that people considering action know about the small claims procedure. We urge the Department to address these issues as part of their review".
The total cost of the county court system was more than £200 million in 1995–96. The Committee was astonished-we do not use such words often—that the Department did not know the cost of the small claims service. Here we have a success, but we do not know how much it is costing us.
The report goes on to say that the Department must undertake to determine the costs of the small claims courts so that it can set them in context and that it should determine the level at which fees need to be set in order to recover those costs. We said:
"We welcome the Court Service's recent moves to treat small claims as a separate area of county court business and to collect more detailed management information on the cost of the procedure. …
We are concerned about the limited information available to claimants on the effectiveness of the various enforcement services. We note that many claimants assume they should use the bailiff service when other enforcement methods might be more helpful."
We urged the Department to provide information, as well as comparative information, on the effectiveness of other methods
The 41st report was entitled "Evaluating the Applications to run the National Lottery and the Director General's Travel and Hospitality Arrangements". There were eight applications. The director general announced that the successful applicant was Camelot plc. The contract is effective for seven years. The Committee examined two issues: first, the evaluation of applications, and secondly, travel in aircraft and hospitality from GTECH, which is a shareholder in Camelot.
When we examined Mr. Peter Davis, we found that an important part of the evaluation was to establish that applicant companies and all individuals who would be

871
involved in running the lottery were fit and proper for that role. We were concerned at information which raised doubts about the fitness of GTECH, a shareholder in the Camelot group. This included suggestions of undesirable business practices by GTECH in obtaining lottery contracts in the United States, and alleged corrupt payments in California, Kentucky and New Jersey to various persons, including the state senator.
We heard the director general's evidence that he had had access to all the information, that he had carried out intensive investigations into it, and that his decision to allow GTECH's participation in Camelot took account of a variety of factors, including the fact that neither GTECH as a company nor any of its officers had been charged with an offence, that adverse reports about GTECH were confined to its activities in the United States, and that a former employee of GTECH involved in corruption allegations had no connection with the United Kingdom lottery, the high reputation of the members of the Camelot consortium and GTECH's proposed role in the consortium.
We noted the director general's concern that, if he had required the withdrawal of GTECH, he would have ruled out the applicant offering the best return to the distribution funds. We said:
"We nevertheless stress that it is of overriding importance that the United Kingdom National Lottery should be subject to the highest standards of propriety and integrity and that the regulator should take a strong and active role throughout the period of the Section 5 licence to ensure that propriety is observed."
In relation to scratchcards, we noted that section 6 licences to promote individual games could be issued only in pursuance of an agreement with the section 5 licence holder—Camelot. We further noted that all
"Section 6 licences … have been issued to Camelot but that another Section 5 applicant, Rainbow UK Ltd, have alleged that Camelot were not prepared to consider their Section 6 proposals."
We also noted:
"We were reminded by the Director General that he has no duty to promote competition or a level playing field."
We nevertheless believe that Parliament would expect the regulator to ensure that all potential licensees are treated fairly. We therefore stressed the importance of the director general using the powers available to him to take a more active approach to those matters. We look to him to do so in the future.
We went on to note:
"at the time of publication of the Invitation to Apply for a Section 5 licence, the Director General gave a formal undertaking that he would not divulge information from applications without the applicant's consent because he believed this assurance was necessary to encourage high quality applications. We believe, however, that those applying for public sector contracts and licences must recognise that Parliament has a right to information to provide assurance that contracts and licences are properly let without impropriety and that they represent best value for money."
We cannot do our job without that kind of assurance.
As for the travel and hospitality arrangements, we noted that the
"Director General went to the United States in October 1994 to visit selected US Lotteries and that a similar visit was made by two members of his staff early in 1995. Throughout both visits all internal flights were made in G Tech corporate aircraft at G Tech's expense.
We note the Director General's view that his decision to make use of G Tech facilities in this way was based on the fact that to have undertaken the journeys by scheduled airlines would have taken much longer and would have cost the taxpayer more money."
872
The Committee did not feel that that was sufficient reason to take that kind of hospitality. We agreed with the Secretary of State, who said that she did not think that the director general's acceptance of the flights was wise in the context of his role as regulator of the lottery.
We recognized that the friendship between the wife of the director general and the wife of Mr. Menges has been a long-standing one, but we considered the director general's decision to make use of Mr. Menges's hospitality unwise, as was his decision to use GTECH aircraft for his private visit to the Menges's home. The Committee regards it as of vital importance that the director general should be seen to be impartial at all levels.
When the director general accepts any free flights from GTECH or any other person who has a role as an operator or a shareholder, or has any involvement, he has the
"continuing responsibility to regulate the Lottery and issue further Section 6 licences".
That had not been undertaken at that stage. In our view, the director general's decision to use GTECH corporate aircraft represented serious errors of judgment on his part.
Mr. Alan Williams: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what is particularly preposterous is that the regulator had previously been told by the Secretary of State and by the Department that he had to be careful about accepting hospitality? He ignored that advice, and went further, by encouraging members of his staff to ignore it. Secondly, it is strange to note that it emerged from the closed session of our Committee that he ignored that advice in the full knowledge of the reputation of GTECH. No one is suggesting that the company had been charged with anything criminal, but the director general was aware that there was dubiety about the reputation of the firm whose hospitality he took.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the director general's decision first to ignore the advice of the Secretary of State, and, secondly, to neglect to recognise the dangers of accepting such hospitality from someone whose reputation was somewhat clouded showed an enormous lack of judgment?
Mr. Sheldon: I was extremely surprised that anyone in public service might even consider for a moment acting in that way. What happened may not have been greatly influenced by that action, but certain procedures must be maintained if we are to be able to show taxpayers that we are looking after their finances as we have always done. It is our job to ensure that those standards are maintained. I hope that our report will help to ensure that.
I look forward to hearing the Financial Secretary's response to some of the matters that I have raised. He has been helpful in the past, and I am sure he will try his best to be helpful on this occasion.
6.44 pm
Sir Michael Shersby: I should like to join the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), in paying tribute to the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the staff of the National Audit Office and the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland and his staff.

873
It is an extremely pleasant experience to be able to stand up in the House and point to a substantial record of success achieved by the National Audit Office. I commend to hon. Members' attention the report of the NAO and some of the highlights from its work during the past year. Because of its work in the past three years, £775 million has been saved, which is £7 for every £1 spent on running the NAO. Some £500 billion of Government expenditure and revenue was audited by the NAO in 1995–6, and 50 value-for-money studies were completed. It presented the first report made to Parliament on European Community accounts, to which the Chairman has already referred. It also won a contract from the European Commission to audit its £2.5 billion of expenditure per annum on agriculture in the United Kingdom. The NAO also holds the chair of the central Government auditing standards advisory panel, and it published the panel's practice note on central Government audit.
That list is a fine tribute to the work of our NAO. Members of the PAC present in the Chamber know how its high standards make it possible for us to do our job and play our part in saving taxpayers money and ensuring that they get value for money.
I was interested in the Chairman's remarks about the small claims court. I commend to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary what he said about the lack of knowledge of the work of that court and the limits that apply. It would be useful if a note were sent to all hon. Members to remind them of its existence. I hope that steps are also taken to ensure that every citizens advice bureau and other similar organisations are informed about the advantages to citizens that flow from that court, which is able to solve so many comparatively minor but nevertheless important problems that beset our citizens.
As the Chairman told the House, over the past year, we have dealt with a number of major items of public expenditure, such as the substantial problems because of the cost overruns on the Trident programme and our recent work on a report about the huge cost of building the British library. No doubt that work will come before the House in a year or so, when we have produced our final report on that most interesting but rather extraordinary building.
One of the most important reports by the PAC this year is the 10th report on the annual report of the European Court of Auditors. The Chairman has already referred to it. It is extremely important, because for the first time it came with a statement of assurance and a related special report concerning the reliability of the accounts of the Community budget for 1994 and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. We have never received such an assurance or report before, and it is extremely useful to our country. As a contributor to the budget and a recipient of funds from it, the United Kingdom has a vital interest in ensuring that the budget is spent with due regard for regularity and value for money and that the majority of the UK's transactions are properly accounted for.
On the court's overall findings, we as a Committee expressed our concern about the fact that there remains considerable potential for improving the way in which the Community's finances are managed in the areas of
874
revenue and expenditure examined by the Court of Auditors in both member states and European institutions. The Committee is pleased that the Commissioners have started a management improvement programme, and I hope that the Government will support the continuing implementation of reforms under that initiative.
The Committee has also welcomed the emphasis placed on combating fraud by the European Council at Essen in 1994. We have acknowledged the steps taken subsequently by the Commission in its anti-fraud programme. We welcome the Government's strong line on fraud, and the fact that they are seeking even closer co-operation between member states, the Commission and the Court of Auditors.
The Chairman of the Committee mentioned a conference that I was fortunate enough to attend with him. It was organised by the European Parliament in Brussels on 23 and 24 April, and its purpose was to discuss action to combat fraud in the Community budget. We discussed the formation of the Commission's anti-fraud unit, known by the acronym UCLAF, which stands for Unité de Coordination de la Lutte Anti-Fraude. UCLAF describes itself as the flying squad of the Commission. It has 125 staff, of whom—we are told—a substantial proportion are experienced investigators; but, strangely enough, it has no legal personality or status. It is simply a co-ordination service.
Some member states would like UCLAF to do more, but it cannot now, because it is restricted by the institutional status of the Commission as a whole, and it has no power to conduct investigations in the territory of the member states. That is because of the understandable national susceptibilities relating to sovereignty. The question whether the United Kingdom and other countries would be willing to allow such a flying squad to cross their national frontiers and follow up investigations there is the crux of the issue of our membership of the European Union.
Other member states have reservations, as we have, about a Community-level body operating in an investigative role within their jurisdiction. They do, however, have a strong interest in the effective fight against fraud. My own view is that Britain would be most unlikely to grant cross-border investigative powers to UCLAF. I share the Committee Chairman's view that our own National Audit Office is the right body to investigate fraud, together with the PAC, and I hope that there will be no change in the present arrangements; but I strongly endorse the right hon. Gentleman's observation that the National Audit Office should have at least the same access as the European Court of Auditors in investigating all matters concerning Community finance.
As one of those who visited the European Court of Auditors in Luxembourg in June, I found it helpful to understand the work that the court is doing for the Community. It does not investigate fraud, because that is a matter for UCLAF. What it does is audit the Community accounts, and ensure that financial and management controls are adequate. I pay tribute to the work of the British member of the court, Mr. John Wiggins, and his staff for all that they do on our behalf.
Mr. Tim Smith: Will my hon. Friend tell us a bit more about what the European Parliament is doing to tackle all this? Does he think that it, and its

875
budgetary control committee, takes these important issues of financial regularity and value for money as seriously as the PAC? Could not the European Parliament get hold of the Court of Auditors' reports, and summon the Commissioners responsible for different areas of spending? Could it not increase the accountability of the Commission? It seems to me that there is so much work to be done that it is for the European Parliament, rather than the House of Commons, to tackle that work.
Sir Michael Shersby: I am grateful for that intervention. The European Parliament has a very important role. It is vital for it to ensure that a European Community institution such as the Court of Auditors is doing its job properly—that it is providing the European Parliament with information, and that that Parliament in turn is providing member states with information about the success or otherwise of its work. I hope that that will happen.
As I said, that was the first occasion on which I had the opportunity to visit the European Court of Auditors. Like other members of the PAC, I had been somewhat in the dark about what the court actually did, and I felt that the two days there were very well spent. I believe that it was the first visit that the PAC had made to the court for some 13 years. We have a problem; as time rolls on and Parliaments come and go, it will be unfortunate if we do not understand what the court is doing. I hope that contact with it will be more frequent in future.
Mr. Richard Tracey: I, too, was privileged to participate in the Committee's visit to the Court of Auditors. I share my hon. Friend's feeling about the importance of its work. May I jog his memory in regard to the point raised by our hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith)? As I recollect, the court told us that only a small handful of Members of the European Parliament took an interest in the court's work. I was struck by that: it is a shocking fact, and the House should send a message to Members of the European Parliament that that is one of the most important pieces of work that they should be turning their hands to.
Sir Michael Shersby: I agree. In passing, let me make my annual observation that it would have been very nice if the House had been a little fuller this evening to hear a debate about the work of the Public Accounts Committee, which also has a vital role in ensuring that we are given value for money and economy, effectiveness and efficiency in the services provided by Departments of our own Government. But perhaps Members of all Parliaments find it easier to devote their energies to other things when matters such as this arise. At least some of us, who are present, care very much about such issues, and they may make up for that.
Let me now refer to a matter that interests me greatly, although it is not included in one of the reports to which we have drawn particular attention in the motion. I refer to the 25th report of the Session 1995–96, which deals with civil legal aid means testing. I want to discuss it because of the substantial increase in expenditure on legal aid, and the way in which that expenditure is being monitored and approved. We should remind ourselves that the civil legal aid scheme is there to enable people of small or moderate means to pursue or defend a civil case, and that to qualify for legal aid, an applicant must pass a
876
means test that examines his or her financial circumstances and the merits of the case, to ascertain whether there are reasonable grounds for taking or defending court action.
Unlike many funds that Members of Parliament must examine from time to time, the legal aid fund is not cash-limited; it is demand led. I raise the matter because the cost of the civil legal aid scheme increased from £255 million in 1990–91 to £601 million in 1994–95. The Lord Chancellor's Department told the Committee that it considered the increase to be due to the demand-led nature of the scheme, and to the fact that the legal cases for which assistance was given were now more complex, with more disputes relating to personal injuries.
As a Committee, we were worried about the verification of means, which is vital in determining whether a person is entitled to legal aid. We took the view that
"The Assessment Office should continue with its programme of seeking full verification of applicants' means in representative samples of cases, and that a stronger line will need to be taken with those applicants who do not co-operate".
We noted during our discussion of the matter that the Department is receiving
"an increasing number of allegations from third parties to the effect that applicants for legal aid have mis-stated their circumstances."
We therefore take the view that
"The Assessment Office will need to ensure that its investigation teams have sufficient resources to ensure that such allegations from third parties are thoroughly examined".
I am sure that most hon. Members whose constituents visit them at their constituency advice bureau will have heard the observation that someone who has been in receipt of legal aid should not be receiving it. Verifying means is therefore very important.
We found:
"Under the current system, the Assessment Office do not verify every item of income, outgoings or capital declared on the … application form … Outgoings, such as mortgage payments, council tax or loan repayments are not routinely verified. Verification of capital is usually sought only if the applicant declares more than £2,500, the relevant threshold being £3,000."
Our conclusions, as a Committee, are:
"We endorse the measures … being"
taken
"by the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Assessment Office to improve the arrangements for verifying the means of applicants for civil legal aid and to confirm, where appropriate, the income support status of applicants."
We also take the view that
"The Assessment Office should continue with its programme of seeking full verification of applicants' means in representative samples of cases".
It is important that that should happen, because the number of high-risk cases is increasing. We were told by the Department that
"a small but growing number of applicants … pose a high risk to the"
whole
"legal aid fund. Typically, their legal and financial affairs are complex, they may possess"
what was described to us as
"'an aura of wealth' not normally associated with"

877
applicants
"for legal aid, and the litigation has tended to have a business flavour of some sort or another, such as disputes about business assets and contracts, sometimes with an overseas element, sometimes not."
The Lord Chancellor's Department became aware of that problem in 1994, when, as the House will recall, some well-publicised cases emerged, in which
"people received legal aid who, as it appeared. were not the sort of people for whom the legal aid scheme was intended."
Shortly afterwards, the Lord Chancellor announced that he would take every step necessary to ensure that legal aid was provided only to those for whom it was intended.
I am sure that hon. Members will agree that £601 million is a lot of money. If that money is being spent on legal aid for people who do not qualify for it or who have taken steps to disguise their assets, every possible support should be given to the Lord Chancellor's Department and to the special investigations unit in ensuring that no one receives legal aid who is not entitled to it.
Sometimes, when I hear my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer talking about the need to reduce public expenditure, my mind turns instinctively to reports that we have considered in the Public Accounts Committee, and one of the things to which it turns most often is expenditure on legal aid. I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will say something about that when he replies.
Our 45th report is on the sale of County hall, a subject that arouses passions among political parties. I shall not get involved in the merits or otherwise of selling County hall, and I hope that other hon. Members will not do so. I simply want to draw attention to our report, with which we took considerable care.
The total proceeds of the sale of County Hall were about £92.3 million, compared with a valuation for the London Residuary Body, assuming planning permission and vacant possession, of between £90 million and £120 million in June 1987. The residuary body told the Committee that
"the advice from its property consultant and marketing agents was that the Shirayama bid of £60 million was a very high offer, and that the £30 million valuation obtained in 1987 would"
possibly have
"been high in 1990."
The eventual sale of the Riverside building, with which we are all familiar,
"to Shirayama for a cash payment of £50 million, plus a deferred payment of £10 million payable over a period up to 2012, was estimated to be worth between £52.5 million and £57.5 million in net"
present-day terms.
One of the interesting things that happened during the saga of the sale of County hall was that the London School of Economics expressed an interest in purchasing it in March 1991. It was even given access to the buildings. The residuary body said that it did not pursue that bid because it was comparatively low, but the LSE's efforts to negotiate for the building continued through the national press.
878
More than a year later, on 29 June 1992, following an Adjournment debate in the House, the residuary body invited the LSE to submit a bid within 10 days. The residuary body acknowledged that
"in retrospect, asking the LSE to produce a bid in 10 days was possibly too early; but the LSE had been expressing an interest in the building for a very long time. In the Residuary Body's view, the LSE were negotiating through the press, and it needed to get them to put a financial offer on the table …
The Residuary Body considered that the publicity surrounding the LSE interest in County Hall was damaging the prospects of the sale to Shirayama."
It is important for the House to recognise that no offer was forthcoming from the LSE at the end of the 10 days, and it was very unlikely that it would ever have been able to make an offer to enable it to buy County hall.
The eventual proceeds of £92.3 million come partly from the sale to Shirayama and partly from the initial sale to County Hall Development Group, which fell through in October 1990. That group forfeited its £20 million deposit and £4.8 million in accrued interest, which formed part of the proceeds of sale of the building.
The subject is difficult and contentious. Whatever one's views, it is fair and reasonable to pay tribute to the work of Sir Godfrey Taylor and that of the London Residuary Body in obtaining a very good price in all the circumstances.
I pay a warm tribute to the Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Ken Brown, and his staff in the Committee Office. They provide us with a magnificent service. Their courtesy, helpfulness and enthusiasm make our job all the more interesting and worth while, and we are very fortunate to receive such excellent service.
7.8 pm
Mr. Mike Hall: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby) on their excellent contributions to this annual debate on the Public Accounts Committee. It is the fourth or fifth time that I have participated in the debate, and this is probably the worst-attended debate that we have had in the four and a half years that I have been in Parliament. I echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for Uxbridge; this very important debate deserves a wider audience.
The PAC has a very important history. It was set up under Standing Order No. 122 in 1862, following the Northcote-Trevelyan report, which condemned nepotism, incompetence and other defects in the civil service. Today, the PAC has three primary functions that stem from that report—to combat fraud and corruption, to ensure that public money is spent on the purposes voted by Parliament and to ensure that we get value for taxpayers' money. Those are all very important aims and the PAC is charged with upholding them on behalf of both the Government and the taxpayer. I have been delighted to be involved in the PAC over the past four and a half years and in the work that its Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne described.
The benchmark for the work currently done by the PAC stems from the important eighth report of the 1993 Session. We did not take evidence for that report—it was an accumulation of the reports considered by the PAC

879
during recent years—"The Proper Conduct of Public Business". It is an important report that underlines all the work of the PAC.
I want to concentrate on four reports which deal with combating fraud and corruption. However, it is worth recalling what we said in that eighth report:
"In recent years we have seen and reported on a number of serious failures in administrative and financial systems and controls within departments and other public bodies, which have led to money being wasted or otherwise improperly spent. These failings represent a departure from the standards of public conduct which have mainly been established during the past 140 years."
Over the past 140 years, we have built up a civil service that, by and large, is impartial, trustworthy and competent. It is the primary concern of the PAC to ensure that those standards are maintained.
There are 48 outstanding reports before the House—seven from the 1994–95 Session and 41 from the current Session. That demonstrates the work load of the PAC. I actually enjoy the work. I am not suggesting that we take on any more; the balance is about right. We get a proper response from the Government to the reports that we publish. The work of the Committee receives good coverage in the press. All that contributes to the ability of the Committee to ensure that our civil service is impartial, trustworthy and competent.
The first report on which I shall concentrate is the 13th report on the operation of the Student Loans Company. It is the PAC's second report on the role and work of the SLC. The company is wholly owned by Government, with the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and the Secretary of State for Scotland each owning 50 per cent. of the shares. That second report shows that the chief executive of the SLC had been summarily dismissed. When preparing the first report, the Committee took evidence on the setting up of the SLC. At that time, we were concerned because members of the Committee had received an anonymous letter making certain allegations about Mr. Harrison, the chief executive of the SLC. A separate letter was sent to the then Department for Education making further allegations about that individual's conduct. I will not list all the allegations as a number of them were proved to be unfounded, but it is safe to say that there was a question about that individual's relationship with the company that supplied the SLC with information technology—Electronic Data Systems. There was concern about the appointment to the SLC of Mr. Harrison's son, about expense claims, foreign travel and company cars and about membership of the Royal Scottish Automobile Club, to name just a few.
The SLC investigated the allegations, as did the internal auditors of the Department for Education and senior civil servants. The PAC was told by Sir Geoffrey Holland, the then permanent secretary at the DFE:
"No evidence whatsoever has been uncovered to suggest a corrupt relationship between the Chief Executive or any other company staff and ED-SCION."
The chairman of the SLC reached the conclusion that we were
"dealing with a grudge letter which has no foundation in the truth."
He said that
"Mr. Harrison … continues to cam the full confidence and support of the board."
It is a bit like the football manager who had the same support at Main road from Manchester City.
880
In December 1993, a decision was taken to extend the termination date of Mr. Harrison's contract from 1995 to 1998. The value of that three-year extension was £250,000. However, when we took evidence on the operation of the SLC on 13 December 1995, we discovered that Mr. Harrison had been dismissed in March that year. It was a summary dismissal without compensation. The report discloses that a forensic investigation by Coopers and Lybrand confirmed some of the earlier allegations against Mr. Harrison and discovered some new wrongdoings as well. It is that aspect of the report that is very worrying and begs the question why it took an independent investigation by Coopers and Lybrand to provide the necessary evidence on which to sack Mr. Harrison.
In the meantime, students were not getting a good deal from the SLC. Our report records that 1.1 million students telephoned the SLC seeking advice, but only 41,000 calls were answered. The Committee concluded that that represented almost a complete breakdown of the management of the telephone system. That failure to deal with student telephone calls was deplorable. In addition, some 35,000 students suffered delays in the receipt of loan payments averaging six weeks—in consequence, some of them could have been in very great financial difficulties. The PAC was right to draw attention to that aspect of the SLC. However, more importantly, we need to ask why the initial allegations into impropriety at the SLC did not result in a more judicious outcome to the inquiry into why the chief executive had his contract extended.
The next report that I want to deal with is the 46th report of the 1995–96 Session—"Ministry of Defence: Fraud in Defence Procurement". That report identifies 191 cases of alleged fraud between 1985 and 1994. The most significant recent case is that of Gordon Foxley. He was able to secure at least £1.3 million, and probably more, in corrupt payments from overseas contractors aiming to influence the allocation of contracts for fuses and ammunition. He also received substantial bribes. The exact amount is not clear, but the National Audit Office report shows that his English bank account received credits to the tune of £3.5 million between 1982 and 1990. The report rightly concludes that it is one of the worst cases of corruption that has come before the PAC. Some 12 contracts worth £33 million were cited in the criminal charges against Foxley, involving companies in Germany, Italy and Norway. It is interesting to note that there have been no charges, trials or convictions relating to that corruption in any of those countries.
At the time of the hearing in April 1995, I was trying to ascertain how much money had been recovered from the bribes or secret commissions that had been paid to Foxley. I wanted to know how much money had been recovered from the properties that he had purchased with the money that he gained from his illegal activities. At that time, the Government were still trying to gain access to Foxley's Swiss bank account. I hope that that has now been achieved and that some of that taxpayers' money is being returned to the Treasury so that it can be put to better use.
Another worrying aspect of the case is that Foxley's son, Major Andrew Foxley—a serving Army officer—was found in possession of documents that he was passing on to his father. They contained information on commercial matters that would have been beneficial to Gordon Foxley's corrupt activities. Major Andrew Foxley

881
was not dismissed from the service. Again, important questions need to be asked about the investigation into that case.
The third report is entitled "A Review of the Financial Controls over Indirectly Funded Operations of the Metropolitan Police Service", which was the sixth report in the 1995–96 Session, and it is an extraordinary but sad tale. Anthony Williams—a civilian worker in the Metropolitan police—managed to steal £5 million. On 19 May 1995, he was found guilty of 19 charges of theft and sent down for seven and a half years.
When we took evidence during the hearing, I asked Sir Paul Condon, Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, how many other offences had been taken into consideration when this case was prosecuted. The record shows that I was told that the number was between 40 and 100, which is not a very precise figure. In a written note to the Committee, we had the correct figure of 535 cases taken into consideration. We also learnt that, in a previous instance, £10,000 had been stolen from the police benefit fund.
The thefts were made possible and kept secret because there had been a fundamental breach of Government accounting procedures. Had Government accounting procedures been kept in place at the Metropolitan police, that £5 million fraud would not have happened. Williams was allowed to design the financial regime for funding the on-going indirectly funded operations. He became responsible for accounting for the fund, and he had unsupervised control of the use of that fund. Quite clearly, the temptation was too great.
We know full well that, in accounting procedures, we must separate the people who spend from the people who audit and account for money if we are to ensure that frauds such as that in the Williams case do not occur again. In that case, there was a single bank account, in Williams's name, and he was the only person who received a statement of the account. It was far too easy for him to defraud the Metropolitan police. Because of that massive fraud, committed over a substantial period, Williams was able to develop a double life.
The Williams case provides the Government with a lesson for the nursery voucher scheme. The company that has been charged with determining who is entitled to receive nursery vouchers is the same company that will distribute the vouchers. The operation of the nursery voucher scheme is a clear case in which there must be clear separation of responsibilities to ensure that a similar fraud does not occur. We do not want anyone to be able to do again what Williams did.
Williams bought a hotel, a public house and a restaurant in Scotland. He bought a villa in Spain, and he rented luxury apartments in London. He even bought baronial titles so that he had a suitable status to go with his illegally acquired wealth.
The surprising aspect of the Williams case is that he had a salary of £42,790. It was obvious from his life style that he was living well beyond his means. I should have thought that alarm bells would have rung at the Metropolitan police a little earlier. If they did not ring then—when he arrived at work driving his XJS or his Land Rover Discovery—they should have sounded when someone rang police headquarters in London and asked
882
for Lord Williams. They told the caller that there was no Lord Williams on the payroll, but someone should have started to ask questions.
Another intriguing aspect of the case is that, in 1993–94—I can be no more precise about the date than that—Williams applied to Moray enterprise board for a business loan of £180,000. Moray enterprise board had the nous to ask for references and, when Williams did not provide them, his application was not proceeded with.
To mitigate the loss, the Metropolitan police have tried to sell Williams's assets. Sadly, they have been sold off at less than Williams paid for them, and the net loss to the taxpayer and to the Metropolitan police is approximately £1.2 million.
The next issue about which I am concerned is that contained in the report entitled "Ministry of Defence: Management of Works of Art", which has already been referred to by the Chairman. The use of the words "management of art" in that title is interesting, as we were told that 205 works of art have been stolen, and that 161 are still missing.
Among the works of art that are still missing is a painting entitled "Coastal Scene with Fishing Boat". It was stolen from the MOD's main building in London. When I cross-examined the permanent secretary to the Ministry of Defence about that theft, he told me that the building was one of the most secure in the country—as one would expect—that it is occupied seven days a week, 365 days a year and that he had nothing else to say. I asked whether he thought that it had been an inside job, and he said that he did not think that it had been an outside job.
Another painting that disappeared, entitled "Admiralty House", was painted in 1970 by Alan Dyson. It disappeared from the flat allocated to the Secretary of State for Defence. I shall not point my finger at any of the Defence Secretaries because the permanent secretary to the Ministry of Defence said that, between 1982 and 1991, there had been four Defence Secretaries, and that one of them had not occupied the flat in Admiralty arch. It is, however, a sorry tale.
A further problem in the report on the Ministry's management of works of art is that members of the Public Accounts Select Committee were told that the works of art were of "low value". We asked how the paintings could be valued after they had been stolen. We were told that they had been valued on the basis of the painter and the title of the work. I do not know whether we were being given a low valuation to demonstrate that the losses or thefts were not a serious matter. It is a serious matter, and I hope that there will be an attempt to ensure that the missing 161 paintings and other Government works of art are recovered.
The next report is on the Prison Service and the excess vote expenditure, which is the 17th report of the Committee. This is an extraordinary report. I am sure that the Minister's response to it, in his reply, will be one of severe condemnation of the Prison Service.
In February 1995, the Committee was told that there was a projected underspend in the Prison Service of £36 million. Even by 27 March 1995, the projected underspend was £20 million. When the book was closed, at the end of March 1995, the Prison Service had overspent by £1.6 million. I do not think that anyone would disagree that such a feat takes a great deal of effort and some ingenuity.

883
We have outlined in the 17th report the fact that there have been very sloppy accounting procedures in the Prison Service and a breach of Treasury guidance. The Treasury was kept in the dark over the situation; revenue was spent on capital; and there were dubious advance payments and unapproved virement. It was a shambolic state of affairs.
I am not sure what happened in the weeks when the Prison Service managed to spend that money, and I am not sure whether there was any central direction of it. Perhaps it is a coincidence that that was the same period immediately before the Prison Service attained agency status. I am convinced that it is not coincidental, and that a message was sent from somewhere to spend, spend and spend. The 17th report—it is very thin, but it contains a huge amount of detail—sets out a shambolic state of affairs that can only be condemned.
The Chairman has mentioned the Committee's report evaluating the application to run the national lottery. When the Public Accounts Committee takes evidence, I often think that senior accounting officers of Departments or next steps agencies are not there to collect the award for the best civil service department or the award for the best well-managed project.
In this case, the report from the National Audit Office on the setting up of the national lottery was very complimentary. The project had been brought in on time and on budget, sales had exceeded expectations, and the money that had been generated for good causes was better than had been anticipated. It was a model report, and the Director General of Oflot could have expected a reasonably comfortable ride from the Committee.
Things went wrong for the director general when he was asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) about his trip to America. My right hon. Friend asked Mr. Davis:
"Did you go to Florida to talk to one of their rivals?"
Mr. Davis said that he had. He was asked whether he had found it rewarding, and Mr. Davis said that he had found it interesting.
My right hon. Friend asked:
"How did you travel there?"
Mr. Davis replied:
"By aeroplane."
My right hon. Friend said:
"Yes, of course by aeroplane. I did not think you swam. Did you travel at your expense, at anyone else's expense?"
Mr. Davis replied:
"I travelled across the Atlantic."
My right hon. Friend said:
"That is the usual way to go."
Mr. Davis went on to say that he had
"travelled across the Atlantic on scheduled airline and that came out of the budget of my department. Some of the internal journeys that I made within the United States were made in the private aircraft of G Tech."
GTECH owns 22.5 per cent. of Camelot and is therefore the organisation that the Director General of Oflot is charged with regulating. It is a matter of great concern that the director general chose to accept that kind of hospitality from one of the owners of Camelot, the company that runs the national lottery.
884
Mr. Davis then refused to answer any more questions along similar lines unless we went into private session. We did so—the proceedings of the private session are published in the minutes for all to see in the Public Accounts Committee's report—and were concerned about the relationship between GTECH and organised gambling in the United States. There were a number of prominent court cases involving members associated with GTECH.
Mr. Davis said:
"You may be interested to know that the day after I announced the award to Camelot I asked the chairman of Camelot to come to see me. I said to Sir Ron Dearing, who was then the chairman. that I wanted him to be aware that I knew of some serious concerns which had been expressed to me from the United States and that I required him to be aware that I knew and to make absolutely sure that he ran a regime within Camelot which monitored the situation and ensured that nothing untoward happened."
I am astonished that, having awarded the contract to run the national lottery to Camelot, the Director General of Oflot had to take the chairman of Camelot to one side to make that point to him. It was no surprise, however, that the PAC stated:
"In our view the Director General's decisions to use GTech's corporate aircraft represented serious errors of judgment on his part".
Had a member of a local authority done that, I suspect that he would have been surcharged and disqualified from office. I am also sure that had the Director General of Oflot been a time-served civil servant, he would have known that that type of such hospitality should not have been accepted and he would not have made that mistake. My view is that the position of the Director General of Oflot is untenable in light of the PAC's report.
The first of my two final points relates to my constituency and RAF Burtonwood. RAF Burtonwood is a Ministry of Defence property which is now surplus to requirements and being used as a private storage and distribution depot. It is the largest above-ground single-storey depot in Europe, providing 1.6 million sq ft of warehousing. When the PAC took evidence about fire risk, I was interested to note that the things that characterised the problems that we have had at Donington and elsewhere raised questions about automatic fire detection, fire suppression systems, weak buildings and the high value of stores. RAF Burtonwood has all those problems.
RAF Burtonwood is now surrounded by high-quality residential developments. Every time I mention this. I make the point that I live in one of the houses around it. I am not sure whether that counts as a pecuniary interest, but I want it put on record.
I was concerned about the fire precautions at RAF Burtonwood and remain concerned to this day. I fear that a fire there would be a huge environmental disaster and could have serious consequences for my constituents in that area. I still look to the Government to bring to an end the storage and distribution activities at RAF Burtonwood, which have made the lives of some of my constituents a nightmare, and to change the use of the facility to something more acceptable in an area that now has a residential development.
Secondly, I must mention a PAC report from some time ago on the sale of National Bus. Before the sale of National Bus, a £168 million surplus in its pension fund was paid into the Treasury. Mr. Wheeler, a constituent of mine, has pursued this aspect of the privatisation of

885
National Bus with some enthusiasm. He finally got the pensions ombudsman, Dr Julian Farrand, to investigate the problem, and the ombudsman found in favour of Mr. Wheeler.
The ombudsman said that he has directed the new trustee to take without delay all practical steps to obtain the return of the money, with interest at an equitable rate, paid from the scheme's fund in breach of trust and received by the Department of Transport on behalf of the company. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will be able to give me up-to-date information on the Government's position on this case and their response to the report. It is clear that £168 million was wrongly removed the National Bus pension scheme, and the scheme's pensioners are entitled to get their money back from the Government.
7.34 pm
Mr. Peter Thurnham: A tribute has already been paid to the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir John Bourn, for his excellent reports and for the excellent value for money provided by the National Audit Office. If I understand it correctly, the number of reports has increased, the number of staff has decreased and the NAO has kept within its operational budget. I should like to thank Ken Brown and other members of the Public Accounts Committee's staff for their excellent work in servicing hon. Members. I also thank members of the Committee, especially the Chairman, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). We are all aware of the amount of work faced by Committee members, but it can be only a fraction of that of the Chairman himself—he cannot have very much spare time during the week, in view of the number of reports produced and the fact that he works closely with the Comptroller and Auditor General.
Last year there were 48 reports, and we are considering 27 tonight. I shall not detain the House by going through them all, but I shall comment briefly on four: the 34th report on sickness, the 36th on vehicle excise duty—they appear in Cm 3384—the first report on the Child Support Agency this Session and the 19th report on fraud in Cm 3379.
I was sorry not to be able to visit the European Court of Auditors with the PAC. I know that the Committee made a worthwhile visit. I had hoped to be able to go, but other Committee work detained me in the House. The Committee was perfectly right to draw attention to the need to work closely with the European Court of Auditors in supervising the huge amounts of money spent from European funds.
I shall deal first with the report on sickness and draw attention to two points that arise from it. I was concerned to find that the Confederation of British Industry's evidence showed that the average number of working days lost in Britain is eight per worker, but in the private sector the CBI estimated it to be seven days a year and 10 days in the public sector. If the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is looking for ways to save money, he might consider why there are three more days' sickness per worker per year in the public sector than in the private sector. I do not know whether he can calculate the cost to the taxpayer, but it must run into hundreds of millions of pounds annually, and it must be worth investigating.
886
As the Financial Secretary represents a constituency in the north-west, he might be interested in evidence given to the Committee which showed that sickness rates for civil service staff are highest in the north-west. Sickness rates in the north-west are consistently the highest in the country, which I find unacceptable. I have drawn this matter to the attention of the Secretary of State for Health. I received a reply from the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), in which he confirmed that the north-west does indeed have the highest sickness rates and links it to the area's
"high morbidity rates and mortality rates in general."
He offered no hope that we might solve the problem. I find it wholly unsatisfactory that, year after year, the north-west should have such high sickness rates. It would be more acceptable if it happened only in some years and not others. In attempting to explain why this might be, he makes what I regard as a typical comment from the south-east—that it is
"a reflection of the more general lifestyle and health characteristics of the population"
in the north-west. In other words, because we eat tripe and onions we are not going to be so healthy. I hope that more effort can be put into ascertaining properly why sickness rates in the north-west should be higher. Clearly, the health of people in the area is just as important as that of people elsewhere in the country.
I am concerned about the number of drivers evading excise duty—some 1.3 million vehicles annually. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency estimates that there are some 60,000 unlicensed vehicles in the Greater Manchester area, which accounts for about £8 million of lost revenue. I estimate that there must be about 5,000 unlicensed vehicles on the road in Bolton itself, which emphasises the need to tackle the issue. There is also the question of false addresses being given to the DVLA. It is important that there should be a crackdown on the way in which licences are administered so that not only does everyone have a licence, but everyone gives correct addresses. People who are not interested in giving correct addresses should be made to do so.
I was concerned about other issues in the report. There is the question of whether wheel clamping should be used to impose sanctions against licence evasion. I am in favour of far greater sanctions in this area, but I hope that the Government will consider wheel clamping, because there is no doubt that it has been a racket for taking money off people who are entirely innocent and who have not intended to become the victims of wheel-clamping sanctions after parking accidentally on private land.
I will now move on to the report on the Child Support Agency. The Chairman of our Committee has already drawn attention to the difficulties of getting information from all the different parties; four partners could be involved. The problem of getting information is at the root of the CSA's subsequent difficulties in administering much of its work.
I am not happy with a lot of the work of the Child Support Agency. Just a fortnight ago, I visited the Data Protection Registrar, Elizabeth France, in her office in Wilmslow to discuss with her ways in which the CSA could operate more efficiently. That visit was in connection particularly with a constituent, Mr. Collier, who had been wrongly accused of fathering a child. The father was another Mr. Collier. My constituent was upset

887
because his employers had been approached by the CSA to divulge his private address so that it could approach him at home. That disturbed his employers and it seems wrong that the relationship between an employee and an employer should be disturbed by the CSA coming in with its great big boots on and making requests for information which stemmed from its desire to find a father who was not owning up to a child. That can prejudice the relationship between the employee and the employer, and it is wrong.
I spoke to the registrar and she said how dissatisfied she was by the way in which the CSA requested information from all sorts of people in areas where it had no right to do so. In the case I was raising, the agency had the right to request information; I was concerned about the way in which it went about doing so. The registrar said that in some cases the agency had been requesting information when it had no right to do so, particularly from partners of absent parents from whom it does not have the right to ask for such information.
There is an important need to look at the way in which the whole operation works. The relationship with the Inland Revenue is the important one. To find out the earnings of self-employed people and others, it is essential that the Government use the information that is available to them so that the CSA and other operations can work efficiently. That brings us on to fraud.
There is no doubt that tax records are one of the most valuable ways in which to seek methods by which fraud can be reduced. If the Government's left hand has information that their right hand needs, subject to the proper safeguards, the two hands should work together to reduce the inefficiencies. I hope that, in that way, it will be possible for the CSA to obtain information about the private addresses of individuals without prejudicing the employer-employee relationship. The Inland Revenue might be able to give a private address from its records, with national insurance numbers and so on, straight away. All that the CSA has to go on is that there is somebody called Mr. Collier living in a certain area who may or not be the father of a child. I feel that the Inland Revenue could help just as easily with that matter as could the employer, without the consequent upsetting of an employee who may be perfectly innocent.
I shall not discuss further matters to do with the CSA, which I find an extremely inefficient operation. The inefficiency raises questions about the need to continue with such an organisation. I shall now move on to fraud and refer to the 19th report and Cm 3379, in which many issues have been raised.
I asked for regional performance figures, and I see that the appendix to the 19th report consists of information supplied by the permanent secretary at the Department of Social Security. It quotes a lot of offices under headings that I do not understand. Under the heading "Scotland and Northern Territory", performance figures are given for offices AD 1 to AD6. I do not have the faintest idea where the north-west fits into that. The three areas of the country are "Scotland and Northern Territory", "Wales and Central Territory" and "Southern Territory". I assume that the north-west is somewhere in "Scotland and Northern Territory". If the Financial Secretary is able to establish where the north-west and, for that matter, Bolton and Greater Manchester fit into the six offices AD1 to AD6, I shall be interested to hear that information because it would give some idea of the efficiency of fraud detection
888
in those areas. We know from information that has been released that in Bolton, £4.3 million was saved last year by the anti-fraud team. I hope that work will continue on that front to reduce the amount of fraud in total.
On the operations of the Benefits Agency in Bolton, I draw attention to the concern about the out-of-hours service being reduced. I hope that funding will be sufficient to maintain the service, at least until proper consideration has been given to any options that could be provided if it is to be reduced.
A number of issues are touched on in the Government's response to the 19th report. In paragraph 15, the Department of Social Security says:
"we have commissioned a major survey of disability".
I do not know whether the Financial Secretary can comment on when that major survey might become available and exactly what its terms of reference are. I am not aware of any more information about that other than what is given in the report.
The report comments on the high levels of error and on the appalling performance when the severe disability premium was introduced in 1988. I can confirm from my constituency cases how badly the introduction was handled. One constituent—a disabled person with no other means—was owed £10,000 in arrears of benefit. He became almost suicidal while waiting for the money. By the time I got on to the case, the arrears were substantial. It should not have been possible for them to have reached that level. Paragraph 23 of the Government's response shows that the average level of arrears per head was close on £4,000. I find it incredible that disabled people above all should be left with enormous arrears. Coupled with the general errors, that is totally unacceptable.
The report draws attention to visits to houses as the best way in which to establish the veracity of new claims. I would be pleased if the Financial Secretary could confirm that the number of home visits will be maintained at the levels envisaged and, if anything, increased to improve the efficiency of the detection of fraud. The Financial Secretary may care to tell us whether he thinks that the detection of fraud is better done with centrally administered benefits rather then with those administered at local authority level, such as housing benefit which is mentioned in the report.
I draw the Financial Secretary's attention to a recent report—I do not know whether he has been made aware of it—from Liverpool business school, which was carried out by the unit for the study of white collar crime. The author, a lady called Eve Coles, is a research associate. She has given a lot of information in the report, and I will touch on just one item.
I was pleased to see that Eve Coles had estimated the percentage of total housing benefit saved in councils, categorised under different political control. She established that Conservative councils were better than Labour councils at detecting fraud. The former had a detection rate of 2.2 per cent. of total housing benefit paid whereas Labour-controlled authorities had a detection rate of only 1.44 per cent. However, she was able to point out that Liberal Democrat councils performed the best, with a saving rate of 2.3 per cent.
7.49 pm
Mr. Alan Williams: You will agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, that in general it is an error for an hon. Member to attend a debate in which he has no intention of taking part. You will also confirm that my name was not on your list when you entered the Chamber this evening. However, a few thoughts have come to mind as a result of what I have heard this evening, particularly the points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) about the erosion of accountability through Government restructuring.
The ultimate democratic responsibility is illustrated by the apocryphal story of President Truman, who had a plaque on his desk saying, "The buck stops here". In the past two months we have seen a variation on that. We are now assured that the Home Secretary has a doormat which says, "The buck stops here", but the mat is outside his door.
There has been a redefining of ministerial accountability. As my colleagues on the Committee will recall from our hearings, the accounting officer should be outside the Minister's door. If the Minister is not accountable, the accounting officer is. When we heard evidence from Mr. Alan Langland, who is an excellent witness and is always very honest and straight, he made a point that was distinctly disturbing. As the accounting officer for the national health service executive, he is responsible for an enormous empire. He made a legitimate but salutary point when he said that he had started to create within his empire the concept of accountable officers. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne remembers that phrase. Under the new system, Ministers shrug off any responsibility other than policy, accounting officers say, "The buck does not stop at my door either," and there are accountable officers further down the line.
I see in the Box to which we are not allowed to refer our friends from the Treasury who always attend our hearings. I asked the Treasury representative whether he could give us some idea of the number of accountable units. If I remember correctly—I do not have the minutes with me—he told me that it was something in excess of 600. I found that astonishing, as did most of the Committee. We all thought that we had a nice, simple system with Ministers responsible to Parliament and accounting officers directly responsible to Ministers.
The Treasury representatives have now told us that there are approximately—they did not know the precise number—600 such accountable units. It is no wonder that we have the shambles that my right hon. Friend rather gracefully and flatteringly described. He was very kind to the system but would not reveal its worrying aspects.
There was another evolution when Sir Peter Gregson gave evidence to the Committee. During his final appearance before us, which was a matter of considerable relief to him—it was not a matter of sadness that we would no longer be in his work programme—he said that everyone appreciates and values the work of the Public Accounts Committee, but it should not be confrontational.
I remember my first meeting with Sir Peter when the Committee was dealing with the privatisation of the electricity distributors. I almost had to use thumbscrews to extract from him the value of the assets that had been sold off for £6 million. Eventually he told us that they were worth £16 million.
890
It is nonsensical to pretend that we can have a Public Accounts Committee without any risk of confrontation. Most of the reports that we consider involve questions that are thought to need answers. If we had not been confrontational, we would never have found out about Operation Wizard—the attempt at a covert privatisation bid within the Welsh Development Agency. The National Audit Office was unable to discover it because the costs had been farmed out in different accounts. I promise the Minister that all that is duly recorded as it was before his time.
If we had not been confrontational, we would not have discovered some of the misdemeanours of the Development Board for Rural Wales or wrapped around the neck of Wessex its monumental failure.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne was kind enough to read the relevant section of the report, but there was nothing confrontational in what I said to the regulator of the lottery. Had we not challenged him, we would never have found out about his trips with GTECH. That was not in the National Audit Office report.
Sir Peter also said that we should not be concerned about blame, but there cannot be true monitoring and accountability if, when someone has committed an offence, or one has occurred accidentally, no attempt is made to find out who is responsible or to blame.
In 12 months, we have had a massive rewrite of the concept of parliamentary accountability. Ministers have said, "It's not me, mate, it's him." Accounting officers have said, "It's not me either, it's them," and "they" are spread out so widely in 600 units that most of them know that we could never get around to seeing them all.
Nearly everyone has referred to the lottery. I shall not dwell on the GTECH issue because I made my point in an intervention, but it is salutary to think that during the period when the regulator was swanning around the United States in presidential style in GTECH aircraft, his staff were not doing the work. They had employed outside consultants to advise them on the establishment of criteria against which they could judge whether the terms of the section 5 licence were being complied with.
According to another report from the National Audit Office, 21 such tests were devised, but a year after the lottery had started, of the 21 tests to ensure that the criteria were being observed, only one was operational and it was sloppy, 10 were partially devised but not in operation and another 10 were notional ideas and no work had started on them. That was in October 1995, just over a year after the lottery had started operating.
Each day, Camelot is allowed to draw down the money that it has paid out in prizes. It is astonishing that, for the first 12 months, in which he paid out £700 million, the regulator was simply checking that the amount that was paid out to Camelot was the one that had been requested. He paid out £700 million on the basis that the figures balanced. As the National Audit Office report shows, there was no verification to show that Camelot was entitled to the sum being requested. No one was suggesting that Camelot would deliberately claim money to which it was not entitled, but surely the regulator's job is to ensure that the wrong sums could not be paid out accidentally. Yet a year—14 months to be precise—after the lottery began, he was still operating on the primitive

891
system of assessing whether there was rectitude in the finances. I am sure that we shall have a chance to look at that during a future sitting of the Committee.
7.59 pm
Mr. George Mudie: I am delighted to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), although I know that I show up badly in comparison. I served on the Public Accounts Committee with him and others before I finally escaped to the Whips Office. Although it may seem wrong for me to speak in this debate a year after leaving the Committee, I could not do so at a better time.
I should like to place on record my appreciation of the chairmanship, courtesy, integrity and kindness of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). It was wonderful to see him get angry when faced with some of the individuals who attempted to avoid the very pointed questions that open up meetings. It was also an education and a pleasure to work with my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) and the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby), and see the different approaches taken in the Public Accounts Committee.
The PAC dates back to Gladstone; it has a wonderful history. Coming from local government, I find it incredible that the Committee seems to represent the one area of parliamentary scrutiny of expenditure. When one tables written questions asking for the £24 million-worth of spending in a given area to be broken down and receives the reply that it would take too much time and expense to do so, one wonders what scrutiny there is. The PAC has an impossible task of covering all the Departments' public expenditure, and they well know that, if they escape scrutiny one year, another year or perhaps several years will pass before the roulette wheel comes back round to their turn.
One of the themes of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West was how badly the PAC is treated by the Treasury and, above, all, by Departments. Public scrutiny of public money is essential, and should be applauded. Gladstone should be applauded, as should my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, who does a very important job. Almost every report that lands on the table from the National Audit Office demonstrates the need for such work and for more scrutiny.
I should like to refer to the Committee's 19th report, which relates to income support fraud and security in the Department of Social Security. It is not one of the reports highlighted in the bundle, but it deserves examination not only for the amount of money it relates to, but because it shows the Department's history. I am delighted to see the Secretary of State for Social Security about to take his place on the Front Bench. He is very hard when scrutinising benefit. I wish that he would scrutinise it more carefully and exert more pressure on the Benefits Agency, which seems to get away with murder in sheer incompetence. I shall back that up with figures.
The 19th report on the 1994–95 financial year demonstrated errors amounting to £848 million, including £546 million cash overpayments and, even more sadly, £183 million underpayments. As the report says, the errors are in an area of work where they can
"cause real hardship to benefit claimants".
892
They do not concern people the Secretary of State would chase or say were scroungers or did not require benefit. Of the total errors, £183 million should have gone to such claimants and did not. A written answer from the Benefits Agency demonstrated that, despite the fact that the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office draw such figures to the attention of the Department, it does nothing to follow up the underpayments in an attempt to ensure that the money goes to the individuals concerned.
The Secretary of State is on a crusade at the moment against benefit fraud. Benefit fraud in the income support vote amounts to £1.4 billion—£600 million more than the amount caused by self-inflicted errors by the DSS and the Benefits Agency. Such figures should be enough to cause the matter to be raised on the Floor of the House. Not only the level but the doubtful consistency of the Department in respect of those errors is of concern.
Income support began in 1988. Each and every year, the NAO has qualified accounts in that area because of errors. In 1993, the 33rd report on the Department of Social Security for the financial year 1991–92 stated:
"We regard the reported levels of error in income support as unacceptable. The overpayments are a waste of resources and the underpayments are causing hardship to the most vulnerable members of society."
In that report, the NAO found that just under 17 per cent. of income support cases concerned monetary errors, and suggested that overpayments—this will gladden the Secretary of State's heart, but should raise questions about what has gone one since—amounted to £86.8 million and underpayments to £87 million. That totals almost £170 million.
In the Committee's 10th report two years later, for the financial year 1993–94, the PAC put total errors in income support since 1988 at more than £2 billion. Together with figures in the latest report, the DSS and the Benefits Agency between them have cost the British taxpayer almost £3 billion in that one area of benefit since 1988.
The Committee estimated two years ago that total arrears were £617 million, including £540 million overpayments and £77 million underpayments. There is a steadily worsening trail of error from 1991, through 1993 and up to 1996. The accounts were qualified each time by the NAO, hauled before the PAC and questioned thoroughly, and reports were prepared and sent to the Treasury: yet what was done about it?
I turn to the report in 1993 of the 1991–92 financial year. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West hauls staff over the coals over such matters, he does not do it out of blood lust. We are talking about public money. Anyone can make a mistake, but to continue to do so increasingly over the years at such a level makes one wonder whether it would be a waste of time to bring the Department of Social Security and the Benefits Agency before the PAC again. Clearly the Department does not listen or learn, and pays no attention to the PAC.
In 1993, the Department said, "Aha, yes. It is a very complicated job." Apparently it had
"already spent several hundred million pounds on computerisation and this could rise to £2 billion by the end of the decade."
Now we have the 1994–95 accounts in front of us, and in that year £858 million of taxpayers' money was lost. In 1993, the response to the Public Accounts Committee was to boast that £2 billion was being spent on getting

893
the computer systems right, which would deal with the problem. Presumably the £2 billion was spent, but the mistakes are increasing. Two years ago the loss was about £600 million; now it is £858 million.
I think that the fellow who drafted the report must have a sense of humour, because he wrote:
"The computerised system had also reduced the number of errors in the calculation of awards but other types of errors had gone up and more than outweighed that improvement."
Several hundred million pounds were spent on a computer that dealt with some mistakes, but which then produced more mistakes, costing more than the mistakes that it had stopped.
Of course, Hacker was at it. The response was, "We shall have a review." The review originally started in 1991—I would like the Minister to note that date. It was intended to deal with the "false statistics" that local DSS offices were apparently sending out. The Department did not really know the level of error, and intended to do something about that. The hon. Member for Uxbridge must remember it well.
Income support accuracy was to be made the Department's "number one priority" in 1993. It was going to have training, new advice and a handbook. So my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, ever kind, courteous, patient, tolerant and understanding, said, "Go on your way. You will have learnt by your mistakes, you are taking all those steps and we shall not see you again." Ha, ha.
In 1995, the agency was back. By then, it had lost the computer somewhere. When asked about the appalling figures, it had apparently lost the computer, the handbook, the false statistics and—and I have lost my notes, but the point being made was that the work had become more complicated, so there was a need for training.
The ever obliging Treasury had stumped up £9 million for training, with the offer of another £15 million. Has anyone ever heard of such a case of throwing good money after bad? The ever gullible Treasury was offering £24 million to the Benefits Agency, because training was the answer. And in 1995 the agency again pledged that accuracy was its number one priority. Again, the ever understanding Chairman sent its representatives on their way. They may have had a tongue-lashing from the direction of Swansea, Warrington and Uxbridge, but they had escaped for another two years.
The latest report is now before us—or at least, it is not before me now, but I have it somewhere. Whatever we think of him, Hacker has been resurrected. The agency has now forgotten about training, and about the computer, the advice and the handbook. Now the line is, "We shall have a fundamental review." The fellow who wrote "Yes, Minister" could not have written that fiction—but this time it is fact. The review is the excuse that the Benefits Agency and the DSS gave to the serious hard-working members of the Public Accounts Committee—adding that, of course, accuracy would continue to be a high priority.
This time, the response was all about
"tailored training … improving the detail and reliability of management information",
but it was followed by the rider
894
"However, substantial and sustained improvements in IS accuracy will be achieved only with improvements in the processes and systems".
I thought that we had already spent £2 billion to do all that.
In 1996, we have an even higher level of loss—£858 million. What could the Secretary of State do with £858 million? If those errors had not been made, much of that money would have been available, without any cuts being necessary, to do things that the whole House would want to do.
When I served on the PAC, there were rumours that a training session was being held for those who were to appear before that Committee. People were told, "You realise that you will be there for only three hours. There are about 15 members, and they will all take 10 minutes each. Some are worse than others, and some are more courteous and polite—but just get through that three hours."
That, at least, is training that the DSS and the Benefits Agency seem to have taken to heart. It is certainly working, because they get away with things. Some may think I am joking, but I hope that the Secretary of State will simply pull all the reports together and get a decent member of staff to find out what on earth is happening to his money.
The Department and the agency are thumbing their noses at the Public Accounts Committee and at the public. The loss is £858 million, yet the Treasury offers only four paragraphs in response to the PAC. The first paragraph says—surprise, surprise—
"the level of errors is unacceptable".
It takes the Treasury a paragraph to agree with that.
Then the civil servant who wrote the response obviously realised that he was going dangerously far, because he added:
"As the Committee is aware, Income Support … is a complex safety-net benefit … inherently complex and thus creates a risk of errors at various points in the process".
There we are. They are off again, asking, "How do you expect us to get it right? Although the errors are unacceptable, the benefit is too complex to get right."
I ask the Financial Secretary to read the next paragraph. I could read it out now, but if I did it would confirm in the public mind the idea that people in the Treasury and the rest of the civil service do not write in English understandable to ordinary people.
The Treasury says:
"Improving accuracy … will continue to be a high priority."
For how many years will it be a high priority? What about tailored training, and all those other improvements? There are four paragraphs, and now the Treasury has offered the agency more money.
On Sunday night, I saw a nice programme featuring the Secretary of State and one of the permanent secretaries, who has now moved on to another Department, but who was then rehearsing to appear before the Public Accounts Committee. Representatives of his 166 accountants—obviously the cream, the best he can get—were briefing him for his appearance in front of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne.
With such a record, does the Department deserve to continue to employ those 166 accountants? When do we say enough is enough? The permanent secretary appears

895
before the Committee and says that the loss is less than 1 per cent. of expenditure. Yet it amounts to £858 million. We cannot afford to throw away money in that way.
Where is that man now? In local government, we were supposed to be the hicks, the backwoods people-low—level, not parliamentary. But if we had a chief officer who delivered that standard of service year in and year out, he would be an ex-chief officer. That fellow is now a permanent secretary in another Department.
As a former member of the PAC, I must speak on behalf of its members, who work hard. They are dedicated Members from all parties. They deserve better treatment by the Government. To achieve improvements in the agency's finances, heads should roll. We should not be content with flowery phrases and allowing people to escape after a brief three hours before the Committee. Heads should roll, because the situation revealed in the report is not good enough.
That may be only one report, but, as the members of the PAC could tell us, it is the tip of the iceberg.
8.18 pm
Ms Dawn Primarolo: This evening's debate has been informative and interesting. The work of the Public Accounts Committee is extremely detailed, and I recommend that all hon. Members read the reports carefully. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) on his speech, and on the detailed way in which he studied the reports on the Benefits Agency. He gave an eloquent explanation, and picked up on a theme that the House constantly echoes but does not honour—that the role of the PAC is extremely important. However, there is apparently a lack of respect for that work in government, including the Treasury.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East described the Treasury as "gullible", but that is not quite the word that I would use, as I am sure that getting money out of the Treasury is very difficult. I presume that the Benefits Agency is used to operating good stings, and the reports have demonstrated that clearly.
I must comment on the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), and thank him for clearly describing many of the important points in the key reports. I pay tribute to him and to the members of the Committee. It is clearly a hard-working Committee that does a great deal and pays great attention to its work. I also commend the National Audit Office and the Comptroller and Auditor General, who deal with the problems of trying to pursue public money to ensure that it is accounted for.
The many reports from the PAC—the figure given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne was 500—consider the principles of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. However, perhaps a report on how efficient and effective Departments are in paying attention to the work of the PAC needs to be added. The reports compare input with output, and consider the work of the Government.
The reports are passed unanimously by the Committee. The reason is that the Committee wants to examine the implementation of policy, not to question it. Today's debate has referred to the special relationship between the work of the NAO and the Committee. In his opening remarks, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-
896
under-Lyne talked about the importance of mutual trust, respect and confidence, and stated that they need to be present in the work of the Committee and the NAO.
My right hon. Friend and other members of the Committee referred to the eighth report, on the proper conduct of public business in 1994. While we reflect on the Committee's work in this Session and throughout this Parliament, it is timely to remind ourselves of what that report stated:
"In recent years we have seen and reported on a number of serious failures in administrative and financial systems and controls within Departments and other public bodies which have led to money being wasted or otherwise improperly spent. Those failings represent a departure from the standards of public conduct which have mainly been established during the last 140 years."
I am not seeking to make a party political point, as it is accepted by the House that that report made an enormous contribution, and that particular paragraph is important in considering the work of the Government. We should all be constantly vigilant in studying that work.
Today's debate focused on how the fragmentation of so much of the Government's structure has led to a lack of accountability in the expenditure of public money. We must reconsider how we ensure that money is not wasted and is accounted for. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne laid out at the beginning of his speech the paramount importance of the interests of the taxpayer. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) raised the matter of the erosion of accountability, a theme to which I shall return in my brief remarks.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby) complimented the NAO on its cost-effectiveness and stated that for every pound spent in running the NAO, there was a return of £7. That underlines the importance of having proper scrutiny of the Treasury, other Departments and all levels of government, local and national, to ensure that we receive value for money. Clearly, that is the case with the NAO.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge returned to a subject that he raised in last year's debate—the legal aid scheme, and the increase in moneys being drawn from the legal aid fund. He questioned whether those amounts were appropriate, and referred to the importance of verifying the means of applicants, which the whole House will endorse. In addition, we must remember that the purpose of the legal aid scheme is to ensure that people are not prevented from gaining access to justice simply because they do not have resources. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was in no way implying that he wanted to see a reduction in the legal aid scheme, or that it should be cash-limited. He made some interesting comments on the sale of County hall. and I agree with him that we should note the income generated and make no comment on the merits or otherwise of the sale.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) drew attention to the Student Loans Company, and asked pertinently why it took an independent inquiry to reveal impropriety and, in particular, to recommend that the chief executive be removed. He also pointed out that students were not being provided with the services that they needed from the Student Loans Company, and referred to a number of other reports.
The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) made some interesting observations on a number of reports, particularly the 34th report on

897
working days lost. He asked why more days were lost in the public sector through sickness than the Confederation of British Industry said were lost in the private sector. We should look at the terms and conditions of employment and at pay and stress levels, and they may account for that fact.
The hon. Gentleman also commented on vehicle excise duty, the Child Support Agency and access to information. When Government Departments, such as the Inland Revenue, hold privileged information for specific reasons, we need to be careful about the basis on which it is made available, to whom it is made available and whether there should be wider availability. The freedom of information Act and the Data Protection Acts are relevant.
The understated tone of the Public Accounts Committee reports always interests me. The 30th report, "Ministry of Defence; Management of Works of Art", for instance, states that when the Committee
"asked the Department how thefts could have occurred in their Main building and other secure buildings … Their assumption was someone who had legitimate access to the Ministry of Defence buildings had been responsible."
The Department was then pressed as to
"why the Ministry of Defence police had recovered none of the 23 items stolen from the central collection and had made only five recoveries following … 30 instances of theft from local collections."
The reply was that
"they were satisfied that the police were doing all they could"
In the second report on "Health Care International (Scotland) Ltd." and the loss of millions of pounds of public money, commenting on the rather ambitious proposals for the hospital, the Committee said:
"We suggested that it would have been better to have started HCI on a small scale and not gone for a 168 bed hospital, a four star hotel, a 175-seat auditorium and an international faculty",
all at the same time.
The Committee went on to ask the Department why Health Care International, which had no experience in the private health care market, had been able to undertake such a high-risk venture. The reply was that
"its Chief Executive had been running a very prestigious hospital in Boston, USA",
but acknowledged that there were some "novel features" in the hospital,
"such as the 'paperless' drug-prescribing system unique in the United Kingdom which the Greater Glasgow Health Board required to be validated."
The Department
"recognised that this was a new concept, the success of which would depend on the quality of the doctors and the links which HCI managed to develop with key people overseas."
When asked why the money had been given, when only three out of 12 advisory board members voted in favour of the project, the Department told the Committee that
"the Board, which meets once a month, is composed largely of businessmen. When they cannot attend meetings, they let the Department know if there is anything they are unhappy about."
None of the six who did not attend said that there was anything wrong with the proposals. The two members who had objected had not done so on areas that were considered relevant. So, absence counted as support for the project.
898
Finally, the report states that the Committee
"asked the Department whether the location of the hospital was a problem for marketing. They told us that the problem was marketing a hospital in an area where people expect to find one".
The mind boggles about where the hospital was located.
The reports on Ministry of Defence procurement and the Metropolitan police service highlight an absolute failure properly to vet and scrutinise work.
Two reports have not been mentioned. The 33rd report on "HM Customs and Excise Checking Claims for Repayment of VAT" and the 35th report deal with serious questions, which are at the heart of government—whether the taxpayer is being represented effectively and whether services are run on the basis of value for money. That returns us to fragmentation, the changing nature of government and the difficulty in pursuing public money. In a previous debate on the Welsh Development Agency—a report that we considered last year—Mr. Scholar, the permanent secretary at the Welsh Office, said that the Department was too small to carry out effective management of the quangos and that fragmentation and agencies, coinciding with other structural changes, had made it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the staff properly to keep account of public money.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West pointed out that with the proliferation of accounting units—there are now 600 or more—the job is becoming more and more difficult. The House needs to consider the gains, losses and economic benefits. The service has been fragmented, which has damaged career prospects for civil servants. Some people may consider that that was necessary because of the difficulties caused by lack of contact with people outside government. None the less, it has undermined civil servants' confidence.
In addition to that restructuring, the Government decided to parachute business men and women into Government Departments. Many did not have a background in the public sector and perhaps did not clearly understand the public sector ethos, conflicts of interest and the need to be transparent. The report on the lottery is an example. Such people were parachuted in over civil servants, further adding to their insecurities about their career prospects.
I am not advocating that we should not draw people from the business world to act in partnership. I question whether that process has gone too far, however, so that we are undermining the heart of government—the planning and the longer-term views that we need to keep public moneys accountable. Another issue was the growth of one-year contracts. That combination has brought short-termism to the heart of government and made it more and more difficult to have a longer-term objective. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East made that clear.
As we finalise the reports for this Session, it is important for us to consider carefully the gains, losses and economic benefits, and the changes that have worked and those that have not, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said at the beginning of the debate. We should restore the paramount importance of taxpayers' money being used accountably and efficiently and, far more important, ensure that it is transparent who is using it and why.
8.39 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Jack): This wide-ranging and interesting debate has touched on many subjects that relate to the 48 reports that the Committee has so assiduously produced over the past year. It was beneficial that the remarks of the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) coincided with the arrival of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. Instead of my having to say that I would draw his attention to the detailed points raised by right hon. and hon. Members, I can say, at least for one Department, that that task has been done without my having to do anything other than turn to the Secretary of State; he heard what the hon. Gentleman said.
The hon. Member for Leeds, East brought a lighter tone to the debate when he drew an analogy between the various reports and "Yes, Minister". I want to paint another picture showing how Government Departments and accounting officers regard the Public Accounts Committee. I have attended it as a Minister, listening to what has been said. Officers take seriously the grilling that they are likely to get, even if it requires them to have some rehearsal. To go before the Committee is a difficult experience. When I was first appointed to this job, I sat in to get a flavour of it. The detailed, forensic way in which information is extracted gives an idea of why people are concerned about their performance and of the seriousness with which they take what happens.
Value for money, efficiency and propriety are serious issues. There was a little adverse comment on how the Treasury operates. However, I noticed some difference of opinion. The hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) said that he was grateful for our comments and that Government Departments had responded properly to the Committee's requests for information. I was grateful for his remarks. So important to us is the remit of trying to improve the service that we give the Public Accounts Committee that we asked its Chairman, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), whether he would grace us with his presence in the Treasury. He kindly spoke to civil servants involved in the work to give us the benefit of his views so that our response could be more tailored to the Committee's needs.
The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne put on record some sage advice. He said that the Committee's first concern was to stamp out fraud and corruption, of which he noted that there were mercifully few cases. He also said that the Committee's remit was not to hand out awards but to identify what had gone wrong and to make recommendations. He confessed that he occasionally pronounced himself satisfied—and, on very rare occasions, very satisfied—with the outcome of inquiries. Everyone who attended found his words useful. I hope that he will grace us with his presence again. That gives me the opportunity to put on record my appreciation, and that of the Treasury and many others, for the dedication and hard work that he puts in as Chairman of the Committee.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby) and the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) who, respectively, as vice-chairman of the Committee and one of its longest-serving members, represent all that is best about the Public Accounts Committee and the diligent way in which it undertakes its work.
900
I shall draw the detailed points that hon. Members have made to the attention of the relevant Secretaries of State. I would be doing them a disservice if I simply read out an annotated piece of paper in answer to some difficult, detailed and very correct probing that perhaps goes beyond some of the responses that have been given in the Treasury minutes and in respect of which more up-to-date information may be available.
One theme comes out of the debate. In any system run by human beings, we must ask how we can improve what we are doing and learn from our mistakes. Wherever human beings are involved, there will be human frailty and error. It is only by continual scrutiny that we can try to improve our systems. It is always easy to point, as we have in each of the commentaries on the reports, to what went wrong and consider how we could have stopped it. It is at that point that the value of debates such as this and of the reports comes through. They show us that—even where people thought at the beginning of a process that a system was in place and capable of dealing with matters such as value for money, accuracy, propriety, correctness or any other description of performance—when the system fails, something has gone wrong.
We are then drawn to the conclusion that it was either the system that was wrong or that the people who were operating it made mistakes or even that there was wrongdoing. However, it is only with hindsight that the problem can be identified and, more important, that we can try to put in place yet better systems and checking mechanisms to ensure that such problems do not recur. But that is a circular argument: because the system is operated by human beings, it is inevitable that human frailty will again play its part.
I acknowledge the excellence of the work of the Public Accounts Committee. Every year we have this debate and review about 50 reports, all of which point to areas where Departments, non-departmental public bodies, agencies and other bodies could do better. It is proper that we have that analysis, but we should recognise the human dimension. I was delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge drew the attention of the House, as others did, to the value-for-money aspects of the National Audit Office's work. Without it and its reports, the Public Accounts Committee would not be able to exercise its detailed role of scrutiny.
Since I have been Financial Secretary, I have come to have great respect for the National Audit Office and have twice visited it to discuss its work in detail. I look forward to further discussions with it on the private finance initiative. The interchange of views, expressions and information between the Committee and Ministers is an important part of developing the role of scrutiny which it undertakes. I am also delighted that it is involved in spreading good practice. One of the best ways to stop problems occurring is for those who have responsibility for the things that I mentioned to know what works elsewhere. I look forward to the introduction of the magazine Focus, which will address that issue.
If there is one word that runs like a seamless web through much of what we have been considering, it is "awareness"—awareness of risks, frauds and irregularities and of the need to follow best practice and put effective systems in place. That was touched on in the report on the Ministry of Defence art collection, which the hon. Member for Warrington, South mentioned. Anyone examining that report might well wonder how, if the

901
MOD cannot look after the paintings, it will look after the tanks, missiles and other things for which it has responsibility. The report highlighted a slipshod attitude towards the good stewardship of public property.
The report highlighted the situation and a response was given. Again, that shows the sloppiness of a human system being drawn up short by the Committee in its report. There is awareness that the taxpayer has a right to good-quality public services and of the responsibility to improve value for money. That point was brought out by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge in his commentary on the small claims court. He will be pleased to know that work is in hand to pick up, publicise and exemplify many of the good points about the small claims court and address his central point. An important general point came out about making people aware of what is going on. The small claims report is interesting because it drew the House's attention to an area where light had not shone. People were not aware of what was happening. The Lord Chancellor's Department is working hard to deal with that.
A serious theme that runs through much of what we have heard this evening is fraud. That draws us up short each and every time we hear about it. The Treasury was anxious to make its contribution to deal with that. I opened a conference across the Government that dealt with managing the risk of fraud. We tried to draw together from right across government those who are responsible for audit and accounting to learn what is best practice.
It is interesting to note that people are rather surprised to learn that few frauds are discovered by auditors, either external or internal. More are discovered as a result of information from third parties. The role of the auditor—to return to my opening comment—is to put in systems of deterrence and prevention to minimise risk.
The hon. Member for Leeds, East mentioned social security. In fairness to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, who was here earlier, savings made through action to counter benefit fraud in 1994–95 were more than £700 million and in 1995–96 were £1.2 billion. The hon. Gentleman was right to draw the attention of the House to failings in the income support system, but in fairness and in defence of my right hon. Friend, I should point out that he has had successes in combating fraud. That also typifies the approach of the Inland Revenue.
Propriety in public conduct was touched on in the debate and reference was correctly made to the eighth report. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that, in its response to the 23rd report, the Treasury undertook to prepare new guidance on regularity and propriety. By drawing on reports from the Public Accounts Committee, it aims to make the reader alive to Parliament's exact expectations with regard to financial propriety. The handbook will also feature the checklist which the Committee included in the eighth report, together with the Nolan committee's seven principles of public life. That shows, albeit in a thumbnail sketch, how seriously we take the Committee's recommendations.
The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) touched on the Child Support Agency. That highlights a further theme of much of the work of the Public Accounts Committee, which has been to draw
902
attention to improving public services. If it had not been for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's citizens charter initiative, we would not have given as much attention as we should to that aspect of public life.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge touched on an important external but also internal theme—the European dimension of the Public Accounts Committee's work. Britain should take credit for the work that we have done to support the European Court of Auditors. The court is independent in the Community, but it reports to the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers. It is right and proper to take seriously what the Court of Auditors has to say, as our scrutiny Committees do. I was delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge drew attention to the Prime Minister's work in the Essen European Council to examine ways in which the work of the Court of Auditors could be further extended, such as through the system of fines and spot checks on fraud.
It is important that best practice is exemplified and picked up on the basis of what the PAC's reports say, as the reports on Ministry of Defence works of art and fire risk make clear. That point, which was made by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, illustrates again the perceptiveness of the Committee and the need for each and every Department to take careful note of it.
Above all, good judgment is required. The comments made in connection with the national lottery illustrate that very point. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage said in response to the Committee's report that an error of judgment had been made. Judgment is much required in all the matters on which we have touched in our debates this evening.
The hon. Member for Warrington, South mentioned a detailed point in connection with the pension of one of his constituents. I shall draw that specific point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. The Government take careful note of matters to which the pensions ombudsman draws our attention. The hon. Gentleman was right to make that important point.
The right hon. Member for Swansea, West, a long-serving member of the Public Accounts Committee, drew our attention to the number of accounting officers. To make a serious point, in spite of the number of points at which responsibility may be exercised within government and its agencies, the ultimate point of accountability in the hierarchy remains with Ministers and accounting officers. It may be that more people can now be held accountable, but the buck stops with the Government, in the person of Ministers or accounting officers.
This has been an important debate. I always learn by listening to what right hon. and hon. Members say. The 48 reports are clearly noticed. I undertake to the House tonight to draw the attention of the relevant Secretaries of State to the important and detailed observations of those who have contributed to our proceedings.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the 41st to 47th reports of the Committee of Public Accounts of Session 1994–95, of the 1st to 41st Reports of Session 1995–96; and of the Treasury Minutes and Northern Ireland Department of Finance and Personnel Memoranda on these Reports (Cm. 3166, 3167, 3172, 3189, 3222, 3243, 3279. 3298, 3327, 3373, 3379 and 3384) with particular reference to the following Reports of Session 1995–96:

903
First, Child Support Agency (House of Commons Paper No. 31);
Sixth, A Review of the Financial Controls over Indirectly Funded Operations of the Metropolitan Police Service (House of Commons Paper No. 109);
Tenth, The Annual Report of the European Court of Auditors and the Statement of Assurance (House of Commons Paper No. 250);
Thirtieth, Ministry of Defence: Management of Works of Art (House of Commons Paper No. 337);
Thirty-eighth, Lord Chancellor's Department and the Court Service: Handling Small Claims in the County Courts (House of Commons Paper No. 410); and
Forty-first, Evaluating the Applications to run the National Lottery and the Director General's Travel and Hospitality Arrangements (House of Commons Paper No. 96).

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

MERGER REGULATION
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9961/96, relating to the merger regulation; and supports the Government's intention to look closely at the rationale of any proposal for significant further transfer of merger control to the European Commission, but not to rule out the possibility of a limited transfer.—[Mrs. Lait.]
Question agreed to.

Health Authorities (Deficits)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. Lait.]
8.55 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I regret to have to introduce to the House in this Adjournment debate the subject of health authority deficits. I regret it for a number of reasons, but particularly because deficits should not exist and the debate should not be necessary. However, happily, we have some time in which we can examine the matter thoroughly. It is unusual for a Member who expects to get in perhaps a 15-minute speech to have the opportunity to speak for longer. We never know what may happen in this uncertain parliamentary life. This is the last debate of this Session. What next Session holds, who may know? Constitutionally, any Government could collapse on the Queen's Speech, which we shall have in a week's time, or on any subsequent Division. So this may be. as people sometimes think, the last opportunity. It certainly may be mine, for reasons that everyone knows. So if I go into a little detail and am pretty harsh in what I have to say, when I have said it, people will understand why. There should not be deficits.
I find it a little difficult to welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Health, who will answer the debate tonight. I am glad that he is here because he has answered some of my questions. The best comment that I can make is one that is often used, and I go along with it. One hates the sin and, in this case, respects the sinner, although for reasons which the Minister will know, but we need not go into now, my respect for him is a little less than it might have been 20 years ago.
The health service is still our prime public service. I think that it is the only one which still has the word "service" in its title, whereas agencies for this, that and the other constantly change their names. The health service is something we all cherish. Even the former right hon. Member for Grantham, now Baroness Thatcher, cherished it and assured us that it was in safe hands. It is now in the hands of the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell). I am afraid, however, that there is plenty of evidence to show that it is not safe. Indeed, I believe that there is enough evidence to show that, in practice, the health service is held in contempt—I use that word in its technical sense—as are those who wish to use it.
We should remember that the health service is one of care. It is a public service, and I hope it is not seen as too much of a party matter. Some of us on the Opposition Benches, and perhaps hon. Members on the Conservative Benches as well, believe that care is not a commodity. Care can only be genuinely given. That makes the health service a very particular service as against any other service. The way in which Ministers handle the health service and the deficit proves that, alas, it is held in contempt by the Government.
The destruction of the public services is instanced by the deficits of the health authorities. I wish to draw a distinction between that failing and those in politics who quite legitimately wish to narrow the ambit of the state—one can think of previous well-known Members of the House who wished to minimise the degree to which the state was involved in our community affairs. There is a temptation, however, to use that policy to justify anything

905
that undermines even a public service which exists as a skeleton one. The Public Accounts Committee will be aware of examples of such behaviour.
Mr. Gladstone approved of the state and of certain services being run by it, but they must be run properly, openly, effectively and efficiently. That is not happening with our health service. What is worse, when hon. Members wish to find out what is going on in order to warn people about it and try to get to the root of the problem, alas, as I will prove tonight, they are faced with obstruction and obfuscation. Worse than that, Members are held in contempt by the Government, as are those whom we represent. That is happening because of the Government's efforts to camouflage what is going on.
We in east London have a particular need of the health service. The East London and the City health authority extends through three of the most needy boroughs of the country. It also contains St. Bartholomew's hospital—just about—but I do not know for how much longer. Four or five hospitals in east London are closing. We have had three Adjournment debates in the House on the difficulties encountered in east London, which arise because of the needs of the people who live there, their occupations. their housing and their history. The majority of the electorate of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) has an overseas background. There are also many with similar backgrounds in the other two electorates in the borough.
Today on the radio we heard the great news of a £300 million investment in the London hospital, which is in part of our East London and the City health authority. Of course, Bart's will disappear, but such is the reliance on the private finance initiative that the £300 million of capital, perhaps a bit more, will mean a new medical complex on the site of the London hospital.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) had been given details of the great bid submitted by the contractor who won, but he only heard about the winner on the radio today. Such is the extent of the separation that a representative of the public now experiences. In this case, my right hon. Friend has been a distinguished Member of the House since 1964 and he has served in three or four Governments. Such was the treatment given to him concerning what is just about, although hardly recognisable as such, a public service.
In the press release that the managers of the new Royal London trust issued, they made it plain that the income to pay for the £300 million and the running of the hospital would come mainly from the revenue funders, the East London and the City health authority. That authority gets money from the Government and it then contracts with all sorts of providers, including the Royal London trust, for the provision of health services.
Let us start with the money that the Government do, or do not, give. There is a difficulty concerning the capitation formula that is used by the three boroughs of Hackney, Tower Hamlets and Newham in east London. I learnt to my surprise only this weekend that although a capitation formula and weighting are applied according to the nature of the population in terms of their need for acute hospital services, and although we have the Jarman index for general practitioners, there is no overall index, as yet—although it may be coming along—for GP
906
services. They are the front line of the health service, however, and we were reminded of that just yesterday by the Secretary of State for Health. I leave to your imagination, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the deprivation that goes on at the front line. There is rationing all down the line because of the "provider and purchaser" arrangement: it cascades. The new guise of the London hospital, following the closure of other hospitals, will not do a great deal to improve the position. We have, in effect, rationing from the top down.
Even with the same resources, it would be possible to say to each unit, "That's your lot; work out your own priorities internally." But difficulties are involved in a system of contraction and competition. The actual amount of money involved is determined by the health service, right at the top; if there is more need, and the providers are having to push out more services, and the money is not there, that is it. That is what happened in the case of the East London and the City health authority: the division of the cake has been unjust on a national basis, and the authority is now in deficit.
Pressure has been placed on borough local services in particular—the social services that, as we know from recent unhappy examples, are "end on" to those of the health service. I hope that I can use the term "social services". We in Newham have a particular problem. Our standard spending assessment formula, which is a very controversial matter, is defective. I cannot go into the arithmetic deeply, but it means that we cannot always spend on education and social services what the Government allege that they give us. It does not work. I believe that the same is happening all over the country. Local government has its own financial problems.
Now I come to the actual figures, which are contained in a rather obscure set of documents—they were made public, yes—relating to the East London and the City health authority. I refer to the board agenda for 22 July, which has been set out and has, I think, been noticed by the community health councils.
The document to which I refer tells us that details of
"the Financial framework for 1996/97–2001/02 … are summarised below."
Those details show a recurrent deficit of £13 million for the current year, rising to £43 million in 1999–2000. In other words, even if the authority continued to provide what is currently an insufficient delivery, that would be the amount of debt that it would be accumulating. I know that that is a book total, but it may help if I quote from the footnote, which states:
"This forecast does not take account of as yet unquantified costs associated with existing service strategies e.g. Primary Care Development, Mental Health strategy. In addition, if any element of a deficit for a year is addressed using brokerage, the repayment of that brokerage will increase the deficit to be met in the following year."
In other words, there will be a cascade of debt.
It is possible that that debt could be met only by borrowing. That is generally the probability. It will see a business through a bad patch, but we are not talking about a business; we are talking about a service. I understand that at the moment—perhaps it is only temporary—district health authorities that have a little bit at the end of the year can make arrangements with each other allowing those that are in surplus, if there are any now, to balance the position with those that are in deficit. I will not say

907
that the system has worked reasonably well, but I understand that authorities have struggled along—up to now.
I do not believe, however, that deficits such as those shown in the health authority's report can sustain such a solution in the future, and that is the subject of the first question that I shall put to the Minister. I cannot see such deficits being allowed as they are now. That is problem No. 1.
I do not think that those figures were very well known, and I was shocked when I read them in July. I thought, "Crikey; if that is happening in east London, what is the national picture?" I therefore did what most Members of Parliament would do—I tabled a question. It was answered on 22 July—happily for the debate today, by the Minister present tonight.
Part of the question was:
"To ask the Secretary of State for Health"—
because he is responsible—
"if he will list for each district health authority for each of the financial years 1996–97 and 1997–98 and subsequent years for which figures can be given or estimated (a) the recurrent deficit".
I asked for some other figures, but I shall leave those out.
The Minister present tonight replied:
"The information requested is based on estimates subject to revision."
Of course they are subject to revision. That is what an estimate is. I believe the Minister has had experience of business. We all know that, do we not? It is a substitute for an answer. And here comes the plucker:
"It is not suitable for publication."—[Official Report, 22 July 1996: Vol. 282, c. 122]
When I read that sentence, I nearly broke the window. There we have a Minister of the Crown, sitting in this House now, replying to an hon. Member asking about a matter of public finance of importance to everyone, and he says that it is not suitable for publication.
What did I do? When we get into trouble or believe that there has been sharp practice—as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, some of us may be prone to it—we raise a point of order. The morning after I received the answer printed in Hansard, I raised a point of order and put everything on the record. I asked Madam Speaker:
"What are the appropriate means by which I can draw that matter to the attention of others? If the practice is more widespread, perhaps my raising this point of order will encourage other hon. Members who have received similar answers to take similar action."
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and if we do not obtain facts that allow us to find out what the Government are doing on our behalf, it is covered up, is it not?
The reply from Madam Speaker was:
"It is my understanding that the Select Committee on Public Service is currently inquiring into ministerial accountability. The hon. Member might help that Committee in its inquiries if he were to put the matter to it."—[0fficial Report, 24 July 1996; Vol. 282, c. 263.]
In fact, that Committee reported the next day, and in its recommendations, it made a specific point about Ministers not answering questions, not because they did not know the answers, but because the answers would embarrass the Government.
908
The Public Service Committee had therefore already reported but, by enormous coincidence, the same day, 24 July, as the very last business before the House dispersed for the summer recess—understandably, not many people were about—we debated the report of the new Standards and Privileges Committee. It is called "The Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament", HC 604 of the present Session. I quote from page 10 of that report—a paragraph labelled "Openness". It says:
"Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands."
I challenge the Minister to tell us what public interest clearly demands reticence in that answer. What possibly can there be? It is not about defence, foreign affairs or Ulster or Northern Ireland—in which case, even if it had been unnecessary, a phrase would probably have got away with it. I cannot imagine the reason.
The Minister had given an unforgivable answer, a point of order had been raised and there had been a flouting of a code of conduct that the Government have espoused—at least the Leader of the House had said that they did. He is a very respected Member, perhaps more respected than some other Cabinet members I could name. That was the assurance that he gave.
If the Government are contemptuous of the House and its Members, the public are not only justified in being contemptuous of Ministers but might be contemptuous of the House because they do not believe that the House has power. I believe that that factor was touched upon in an earlier debate today.
Because of my good fortune, I can raise another factor relating to that answer—one that affects the quality of public service. The answer of 22 July must have been written indirectly on the instructions, or with the connivance, of Ministers. We all know what happens—it happens in all our offices. Certain routine matters arise and we give instructions on the way that they should be tackled. It is a code of conduct for those who assist us in our work. That happens in private offices. It cascades all the way down through Departments. A Minister may say that he wants something tackled this way or that way; he says to take a certain line on one issue and a different line on another. If there is a difficulty, he will have a look at the matter and say what he thinks. How is it that such an answer as I received got through a private office in a Department of state? The only reason can be that, over the years—perhaps it is an inheritance—there has been a decline in the standard of public accountability and service.
Mr. Stephen Timms: I am following with great interest the important points that my hon. Friend is making. He mentioned unsatisfactory answers from the Department of Health. Did he notice an answer that the Minister gave me this week? I asked about the amount of private capital that had been committed so far to health service schemes and to the private finance initiative. I was told that the information was not being collected. Does my hon. Friend agree that vital information that is necessary to evaluate the Government's performance in managing the health

909
service, and that we need to safeguard the interests of our constituents in terms of the viability of services, is not being provided by the Government?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I do not think that the PFI has much to do with health authority deficits, which is the subject of this Adjournment debate.
Mr. Spearing: With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I explained about the PFI as it relates to the Royal London hospital. If there is a repayment of capital to those who are supplying the capital, whether the City or whatever, that money must be paid via the district health authority. The Government must pay sufficient money—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not need a lecture from the hon. Gentleman on the workings of either the PFI or the health service. The context in which the matter was raised by the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) was not relevant.
Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, I always bow to your ruling. However, may I remind you that this is a debate on the Adjournment of the House and therefore any grievance or matter related to the subject is in order, as I understand it? Please correct me if I am wrong.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is indeed a debate, for the hon. Gentleman, on the Adjournment, so he has a degree of width. The intervention was not appropriate.
Mr. Spearing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When I raised the matter with Madam Speaker, I pointed out that answers often state that information is not kept centrally. All sorts of excuses are given, the latest being "not suitable", which I believe to be a contempt of Parliament. We have had a succession of unsatisfactory and wrong answers which should never have been given. The answer about which I have been speaking went over the edge and, as I shall claim later, is a contempt of the House.
Following that answer, the House was in recess for three months. How were the people in east London to cope with the already difficult conditions in their health services, in the borough council and in the hospitals, some of which were closing? All those problems are found throughout the country, even in leafy Hillingdon. I thought that the best thing to do would be to write a short letter to the Minister. However, upon reflection I decided to write to the Secretary of State because he is head of the Department and he is responsible. I have previous knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman. We spent a great deal of time in the House yesterday talking about the health service and I thought that he might be able to help.
I should read out some of the letter, which is dated 31 July. It states:
"You will probably be aware that there is widespread concern about deficits now being incurred by Health Authorities nationwide. There is particular concern in East London in general and Newham in particular. since there is evidence suggesting that not only do national capitation formulae not reflect the real needs of East London. but that the resources thereby made available to the East
910
London and The City Health Authority (ELCHA) are not being equitably reflected in the contracts with the two provider Trusts serving Newham.
As the future cumulative deficit of ELCHA has been published, I assumed that comparable figures would be available nationwide, and thus put down a Written Question to you, for Answer on 22nd July. It was replied to by John Horam, and stated that the figures I requested were 'not suitable for publication'.
The letter then goes on to mention how I had raised a point of order with Madam Speaker, and then referred to the publication by the Public Service Committee of "Ministerial Accountability and Responsibility". I concluded the letter by stating:
"In the light of all these circumstances would you please:

1. Provide Answers by letter to the Questions as tabled;

2. Explain why the information was then considered 'not suitable for publication';

3. Explain why deficits, both at District and national level, are being incurred by DHAs, even when needs are not being met, and how this can be done within their accounting system when local authorities and other public bodies are unable to incur such deficits."

That letter seemed to me to be very reasonable—reasonably couched and, I hope, businesslike. I thought that I would receive a reply from the Secretary of State, but I received no reply in August and no reply in early September. My office received a holding letter from the Secretary of State's office on 21 August, and my office sent a reply to it on 17 September. There had been telephone calls between the offices—the "official layer"—but, still, I received no reply.
Therefore, I did what I think most hon. Members would have done, and I tabled another parliamentary question, which was due to be answered today. The question is No. 81 on today's Order Paper, and it states:
"To ask the Secretary of State for Health, when he received the letter dated 31st July from the honourable Member for Newham, South concerning his failure to answer his Written Question requesting information on Health Service deficits, of 22nd July, Official Report; when a substantive reply was sent; and for what reason the figures requested were regarded as being unsuitable for publication."
The reply from the Minister was:
"I will reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible."
I read that response about two and a half hours ago. I hope that, in the course of his reply, the Minister will give a full account, because the Minister has been given more time to think out the answer.
Today, there has been much talk in the press and across the country about the House, about what hon. Members can and cannot do and about what Back Benchers allow Whips to tell them to do or not to do. All hon. Members are not being dealt with contemptuously by the Government, although I could not care less about what people think about me or about the contempt that they may hold for me personally. I do care, however, about the 70,000 people whom I represent, and all those whom hon. Members—including the Secretary of State for Health and the Under-Secretary of State for Health—represent.
No Minister who is using public money out of public taxation, however, has the right not to provide reasonable answers to reasonable questions about the use of money for which they are but trustees and stewards. That principle is the basis of public service and the basis of democracy in the House. The failure to provide such answers is one of the reasons why, over past years, there has been increasing contempt not only for government but

911
for the way in which the Government—by various methods, including limited answers to questions and refusals to answer questions—have been in contempt of the House.
Unless the Minister has a very good reply—which he will find very difficult to make—I am minded to consider whether I should refer the entire matter to the new Committee as a contempt of Parliament.
9.24 pm
Mr. Stephen Timms rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I assume that the hon. Gentleman has the Minister's permission to speak.
Mr. Timms: I was unable to seek the Minister's permission because of the early start of the debate. I hope that I shall nevertheless be allowed to speak briefly.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is his duty and that of all hon. Members to take due note of the House's proceedings and not assume that a debate will take place at a set time.
Mr. Timms: I accept your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and am grateful for this opportunity to participate in the debate.
I reiterate the grave concern felt in east London about the scale of the deficit facing the East London and the City health authority. An exercise is being conducted within the authority to identify savings to bridge the gap in funding. We expect to be told the outcome of the review in the next month or so, but it is clear from what we know already that some draconian measures are being contemplated to bridge the gap that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) described.
My hon. Friend, and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), have said in previous debates that east London already suffers great deprivation and inadequate funding. That is true in the health service, as elsewhere. We now face making very large cuts to meet the gap in the health authority's budget. As has been said, it is not only in east London that such problems have arisen. I think that the biggest problem is in east London, but problems have arisen in other parts of London and elsewhere.
The report published by the Select Committee on Health just before the summer recess examined the way in which resources are allocated within the national health service, and especially the way in which the element of the funding for community health services is distributed. The Committee recognised, quite rightly, that there should be needs weighting in the way in which that part of health service funding is allocated. There is not, although it was certainly envisaged in the original research done by York university. It was removed from the formula for reasons about which we can only speculate. The Committee pointed out that there should be needs weighting for community health services as there is for all other aspects of the health service. The Committee stated specifically that areas such as east London have suffered most from the lack of needs weighting in the formula.
I know that the Minister intends to deal speedily with the problem of needs weighting for community health service resources, but I hope that he will do so speedily,
912
to offer the residents of east London, and some of the other areas similarly affected by the forthcoming deficit, the prospect of some relief, and so that the draconian measures now being contemplated will not be required.
9.27 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam): I genuinely congratulate the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on raising this subject on the Adjournment. As he said, he was fortunate in having more time than usual to make his case. In fact, he has raised two subjects: the official subject of the debate, as it were, is health authority funding, which is an extremely important topic, but he has also raised, in parentheses as it were, the provision of information by Governments to the House of Commons. That is in many ways an even more important subject; it is certainly equally important.
However, the hon. Gentleman began by referring to yet another subject—the commitment to care in the health service. I shall say a few words about that before dealing with the main subject of the debate.
The NHS continues to deliver more and better health care more speedily and more efficiently than ever before. As the House knows, Government spending in real terms will be a massive 74 per cent. more in this current year than it was in 1978–79. As the House also knows, the Prime Minister, as recently as last Friday, reaffirmed the Government's commitment to ensuring that real terms additional funding is made available to the NHS year on year.
Undoubtedly, the NHS is one of the most efficient health services in the world; efficiency has increased by more than a quarter over the past 17 years. The Government have succeeded in slashing the times patients need to wait to be seen in hospitals. In 1990, 200,000 people were waiting more than 12 months for treatment. That figure is down to 10,000 today, which is a truly massive achievement. When the hon. Gentleman rightly talks about care in the health service, he should realise that this Government and our predecessor Conservative Governments have a great deal to be proud of.
All that has been achieved against a backdrop of steadily increasing demand, as a result of improvements in life expectancy and new and costly drugs and treatments becoming available. That has naturally resulted in a public expectation of more and better-quality services. Those they continue to get, but the pressure on the NHS continually to seek to be ever more efficient is bound to prevail.
As well as putting in additional funding year on year overall, we naturally expect that all health authorities and trusts will seek further to improve their efficiency. That ensures that more moneys released from bureaucratic procedures and ineffective treatments can then be channelled into direct health care provision.
Everyone is already aware that this Government have been very successful in driving down management costs in the NHS now that the reforms are fully in place. The efficiency scrutiny, examining current and future information, will also assist the NHS to achieve this redirection of funds into the provision of health care.
The internal market we have put in place is designed to encourage all such improvements, but it will also inevitably cause some pressure points to emerge in the

913
interim. I have confidence that NHS managers will continue to deal effectively with those as a normal part of their planning and management functions. Nobody ever expected this to be an easy process, but the goal of providing better patient services makes it all well worth while. We therefore do not plan to ease up on the process which has proved successful so far.
I now turn to the release of financial information. For some time now, health authorities' audited accounts information has been made readily available, both locally by publication of accounts and nationally in response to questions in the House. In-year forecast results, which is what the hon. Gentleman was talking about, have also been available from time to time at individual health authority meetings, which inform the local population of the health care delivery plans and the associated financial implications envisaged by the relevant health authorities. In the hon. Gentleman's case, that is the East London and the City health authority.
Health authority plans, including all their financial implications, are regularly discussed with the regional offices of the NHS executive to inform their performance management role. The health strategies appropriate to local circumstances are, however, clearly matters for the health authority. Naturally, health authorities have to take into account changes in the health care needs of the local population, advances in medicine and clinical practice, and contract negotiations with the health care providers. Plans and forecast financial positions are therefore likely to change substantially throughout the year. They have not previously been considered appropriate for central publication, precisely because they can be revised and changed during the year.
We have recently been considering whether it would be possible to release such information without prejudicing local discussions over service delivery and funding, and without giving out information which we were aware would be likely to alter substantially over the coming months, and which might therefore sometimes be misleading. To do so would be potentially harmful to the successful delivery of patient care, by causing undue concern to all those providing and receiving health care in a particular locality.
In the majority of cases, it is possible to make revisions to plans without recourse to drastic changes to service configurations, to which the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) referred. In any case, such changes, as he and the hon. Member for Newham, South know, are subject to full consultation.
There remains some risk to the process, particularly if commentators do not allow health authorities to get on with the day-to-day planning and arrangements necessary to purchase appropriate services for their local population. However, having considered all the various aspects, including those raised by the hon. Gentleman, and—as I hope he appreciates: I owe him that courtesy—having listened to his arguments, which were put with great force and clarity, I have now concluded that it will be appropriate to make available centrally the forecast financial position of all health authorities in the country, not merely the one in London that the hon. Gentleman requested.
914
The appropriate figures provided by health authorities will shortly be made available to the hon. Gentleman. They will also be placed in the Library.
I shall say a word about those figures, as I know the hon. Gentleman is interested in them. Let us be clear what they represent. They are monitoring information for management. That is their purpose. They do not represent how things will turn out at the end of the financial year, but are a starting point for management action.
Mr. Spearing indicated assent.
Mr. Horam: I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman nodding. I am sure that he understands.
No one would expect a perfectly even spread of spending across the year. The figures may be volatile, and they may be revised. However, one would expect management to monitor trends in spending and take action where necessary. That is what good management is about. Good management needs good management information.
The figures that I will provide to the hon. Gentleman will be published along with the audited accounts for the end of the year. That will enable the full financial picture to be available to the public in the spirit of the open government initiative that the present Government have put in place.
I should say a few words about how health authorities monitor and control their expenditure, as I know that it concerns the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Simon HughesWill the Minister give way?
Mr. Horam: No. The hon. Gentleman has not spoken in the debate, and, having already given the hon. Member for Newham, North-East an opportunity to speak, I owe it to the hon. Member for Newham, South to answer his questions fully.
As the hon. Member for Newham, South is already aware, there are a number of health authorities whose monitoring suggests a need for management action during the remainder of the financial year. That does not suggest insurmountable problems. The health authorities concerned work closely with the NHS executive to balance priorities and make the necessary plans. Any corrective action should be designed to ensure the continued delivery of a high standard of health care. The financial options include reductions in working balances and brokerage arrangements with other health authorities.
Mr. Spearing: I thank the Minister for some explanation, which may or may not stand up. Had he written earlier, the reasons why he considered it unsuitable might have become clear.
However, from what the Minister has said, bearing it in mind that all Government expenditure is to some extent estimated, is he not now admitting that there is greater volatility in financial forward planning in the national health service which cannot be to the advantage of the service or to its users, and that that arises from the structure of purchaser and provider that the Government, in my view wrongly and foolishly, put in place?
Mr. Horam: No. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is not how it arises. Any volatility in the financial

915
position of a health authority during a year essentially arises as it does in any large organisation—through an imbalance between spending and income, which may occur over a short period and be evened out over the year.
At certain times of the year, any private sector business may earn high revenue and have low costs, while at other times the reverse will apply. For example, a Christmas card company would earn a huge amount of revenue at one time of the year, yet over an entire year a Christmas card company would calculate its profit taking into account expenditure and revenue.
Similarly, health authorities experience volatility in their spending, purchases and revenue, so the figures will vary from quarter to quarter. That does not mean that this essential unaudited management information will not be reconciled at the end of the year. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that.
I should like to make the simple point to the hon. Member for Newham, North-East that East London and the City health authority is the second highest beneficiary in the country under the existing needs element of the formula, and the third highest overall. As he knows, since he is a connoisseur of these matters, I accept that we are
916
evaluating a proposed interim CHS-needs weighting based on the work of independent consultants, which may of course change the weighting in a way that may be helpful to inner-city areas such as those he represents.
Despite attempts to portray otherwise, the NHS is, as I said at the outset, better funded overall and in a better state than it has ever been. The finances of the NHS are under closer control than ever before, and a far better service is provided for the public, as witnessed by the greatly reduced waiting times and improvements in treatments available.
We have paid great attention to the subject of public accountability for the NHS, and in addition to the accounts information that has already been made available for some time, we will publish forecast information, as I described to the hon. Member for Newham, South. I trust that he agrees with me that we should all encourage responsible use of it to help rather than hinder the process of successful health care delivery to all our constituents.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Ten o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Members' Staff Costs
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what discussions he has had with the Senior Salaries Review Body to encourage the SSRB to complete its work in respect of separating the staffing costs of hon. Members out of the office cost allowance; and if he will make a statement on when proposals will be received and put to the House. [40266]

  Mr. Newton
  Work on the SSRB's development recommendations has already begun at official level. Sir Michael Perry and I are to meet shortly to consider how best to carry this work forward, bearing in mind the SSRB' s other responsibilities.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee on what occasions asbestos has been encountered during building and refurbishment on the parliamentary estate during the last year. [40298]

  Sir Raymond Powell
  As with most older buildings, asbestos is regularly encountered during building and refurbishment work on the parliamentary estate. Generally, the Parliamentary Works Directorate is aware of the locations where asbestos will be found, which are recorded in its asbestos register. Where asbestos materials can safely remain in place, they are encapsulated and inspected at regular intervals. Ultimately, the aim is to remove any materials containing asbestos but that cannot all be done at once, nor is it necessary to do so. Maintenance and new works projects include specific allowance for the removal of hazardous materials. In all such projects the opportunity is taken to remove asbestos and materials containing asbestos in the course of the work. The removal of asbestos is undertaken in strict accordance with the guidelines and procedures laid down by the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee (1) if all asbestos has now been removed from the Palace of Westminster; [41092]

  (2) what types of asbestos were present in the Palace of Westminster; what were the levels of asbestos found in the air; and when the asbestos was removed; [41094]

  (3) what are the current levels of asbestos remaining in the Palace of Westminster. [41093]

  Sir Raymond Powell
  As in most older buildings, there is some asbestos remaining in the Palace of Westminster. A register is kept of the locations on the Parliamentary Estate where asbestos is known to remain—usually because it is inaccessible—and of those places from 902
  which it has been removed. It is the practice to remove asbestos found when undertaking maintenance and other works services. Ultimately, the aim is to remove any materials containing asbestos but that cannot all be done at once, nor is it necessary to do so. Remaining asbestos is sealed in and inspected at regular intervals.

  Removal of asbestos is undertaken in line with the recommendations of the Health and Safety Executive for managing the asbestos hazard and preventing any risks to occupants or workmen. Areas are tested for fibres in the air both during and after the removal of asbestos. All areas have to be issued with an asbestos clear certificate by an independent accredited company before they are reoccupied.

  Parliament Square
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what discussions he has had with Westminster council regarding the proposed closure of the south side of Parliament square to traffic. [40944]

  Sir Raymond Powell
  The Director of Parliamentary Works is a member of a consultation group on the scheme for Parliament square and he reports to my Committee. I will ask him to write to the hon. Member.

  Fact-finding Missions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what facilities exist for hon. Members who are Front Benchers to visit countries on fact-finding missions and for such visits to be paid for by(a) Her Majesty's Government and (b) the House; and if he will examine the desirability of making additional funds available for this purpose. [40242]

  Mr. Newton
  Her Majesty's Government facilities are a matter for individual Departments concerned. With regard to facilities provided by the House, the sum of £108,657 is allocated within the 1996–97 Short money—financial assistance to Opposition parties—in connection with Front-Bench travel in the United Kingdom and Europe on the parliamentary business of the parties. This travel fund, which I announced on 4 November 1993,Official Report, column 495, is uprated on the same basis as the main Short money allocation, that is by reference to the retail prices index in April of each year.

PRIME MINISTER

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his statement of 10 October in Bournemouth concerning improvements to rail passenger services from privatisation, if he will(a) give specific examples and (b) show that criteria he used for coming to this general conclusion. [40796]

  The Prime Minister
  Rail franchising is leading to extra investment, additional train services, better passengers charters and improved passenger care. The new franchisee on South Eastern, for instance, is committed to replacing its existing trains with modern
  903
  rolling stock, at a cost of up to £400 million. The franchisee for Midland MainLine plans to introduce an extra 22 weekday services each day between Leicester and London, and InterCity East Coast intends to invest some £17 million in improvements to rolling stock performance, passenger security and disabled access. These are just some of the improvements which franchising will bring to the passenger rail network at less cost to the taxpayer.

  Royal Travel Expenditure
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans the Government have for the future funding of royal travel by rail and air. [41216]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government propose, with Her Majesty the Queen's agreement and following consultation with the Leader of the Opposition to invite Parliament to approve next year a single grant in aid on the Department of Transport's vote for official royal travel by rail and air. The royal household will use this to purchase the services of the royal train, of No. 32 (The Royal) Squadron or suitable commercial providers.

  At present, these costs are met by the Department of Transport and the Ministry of Defence or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as part of their general expenditure. The aim of the change is to have one focus—the royal household—responsible for securing the best value for money from this public money and to improve accountability to Parliament through the Department of Transport.

  The grant in aid from the Department of National Heritage, under which the royal household takes on first line of responsibility for property services on the occupied royal palaces, provides a suitable model. It has enabled savings in excess of 25 per cent. in real terms to be achieved since it was introduced in 1991. An annual report on the new grant in aid for royal travel will be presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Transport. Once the new system is established, targets for savings will be agreed and performance against them published in this annual report.

  The new grant in aid will not cover expenditure on the royal yacht, which is due to be decommissioned in 1997.

  I am confident that these measures, which are consistent with modern financial management, will improve the cost-efficiency and public accountability of this expenditure.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Promotional Expenditure
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much his Department has spent on(a) publicity, (b) promotions, and (c) hospitality in each of the last six years. [40618]

  Mr. Streeter
  My Department has spent the following amounts on(a) and (b) publicity and promotions, and (c) hospitality over the last six years:

  1991–92: Publicity and promotions £35,734

  Hospitality £20,895

  904

  1992–93: Publicity and promotions £40,000

  Hospitality £20,697

  1993–94: Publicity and promotions £46,667

  Hospitality £20,477

  1994–95: Publicity and promotions £78,961

  Hospitality £26,159

  1995–96: Publicity and promotions £117,684

  Hospitality £27,694

  1996–97 (to end September):

  Publicity and promotions £40,061

  Hospitality £6,165.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) written and (b) oral parliamentary questions have required correction by his Department in each of the past two years. [40636]

  Mr. Streeter
  The information requested is not collected in relation to either oral or written questions and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Royal Commission Recommendations
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what action has been taken on the royal commission on criminal justice recommendation No. 249 on monitoring of performance during training and No. 251 on performance appraisal of the judiciary. [41220]

  Mr. Streeter
  The royal commission on criminal justice recommended that"The performance of judges should be monitored during training by other members of the judiciary"
  (Recommendation 249)

  The performance of those who sit in a part-time judicial capacity, both in the Crown court and in other jurisdictions, is already appraised, particularly during their initial training. Following consultation with the senior judiciary and the chairman of the Judicial Studies Board, these arrangements will be extended further.

  At the present time, before a trainee assistant recorder, for example, is authorised to sit alone, he or she must undertake an induction programme, which includes the training course run by the Judicial Studies Board, but also involves a period of sitting in with an experienced circuit judge in the Crown court—the pupil-master judge—who is required to report to the Lord Chancellor stating whether in his or her opinion the trainee is duly fitted to sit.

  In accordance with the recommendation of the Judicial Studies Board, the role of the pupil-master judge in respect of assistant recorders—and the equivalent supervising judges in respect of certain other categories of judicial office holder—is to be extended to include an element of in-court observation so as to provide further advice and appraisal to newly-appointed part-time judges, and enable better assessment of their suitability for appointment to full-time judicial office.

  Advice is already provided to those who attend Judicial Studies Board courses by serving members of the judiciary who serve as tutors for this purpose.
  905
  Full-time judges are appointed only from the ranks of those with the experience of service in a part-time capacity for a sufficient period to demonstrate their competence and suitability for full-time appointment; the period of part-time service accordingly provides a basis for on-going assessment for this purpose.

  The royal commission also recommended that
  "The judiciary should also have in place a formal system of performance appraisal. Presiding and Resident Judges should have the lead in this; members of the Bar should also be able to comment on the performance of judges. These aspects should be looked at by the Lord Chancellor in consultation with the judiciary." (Recommendation 251).

  These matters have been reviewed, as recommended by the royal commission.

  There are already appraisal arrangements in place for the judiciary. It is an essential feature of the arrangements for part-time sittings by recorders and assistant recorders and others that their service affords opportunities for assessing their suitability for appointment to full-time judicial office—and this stands to be developed further in accordance with the arrangements outlined above.

  Judicial office holders are also assessed by more senior full-time judges as to their suitability for appointment to higher judicial office.

  Judges accept their obligations under the judicial oath which is taken on appointment. All judges are subject to two further forms of appraisal or review. First, almost all judicial decisions are subject to appeal or review, enabling higher courts to scrutinise and, where appropriate, to comment on or redress judicial decisions or conduct. Secondly, judges undertake their work for the most part in full view of the public and are subject to the more informal scrutiny of the media.

  It is, however, important to ensure that we do not undermine the primary place within our constitution of the principle of judicial independence or our confidence that judges will determine each case fairly and on its own merits, without fear of reprisal or improper intervention. The independence of the judiciary, therefore, must connote independence not only from the executive but that of one judge from another. For these reasons, neither the Lord Chancellor nor any other senior judges have any constitutional power to require one judge to report on another, or to offer appraisal or any other qualitative assessment of the judge's performance as a judge. Neither is there any authority to require a judge to submit to such appraisal. The Lord Chancellor's statutory powers to dismiss a judge, which in any event do not extend to the more senior judges, are also very narrowly drawn. These important considerations make it inappropriate to introduce a formal system of appraisal. The heads of divisions, and presiding and resident judges, however, do have responsibilities for the oversight of judicial business and they are able to assist judges informally where that appears likely to be helpful. It is a well understood role of the leaders of the circuits to draw to the attention of the presiding and resident judges, as appropriate, concerns expressed by members of the Bar about the judiciary.

  In his report "Access to Justice", Lord Woolf recommended that the judiciary conducting civil cases should be monitored int he performance of the case management functions envisaged for them int he report.
  906
  This monitoring would not amount to appraisal, but would be aimed at securing consistency of approach in this new role and promotion of best practice. The Government support that recommendation, and its aim of facilitating the improvement of judges' working methods.

  Judges are fully aware of their duties arid responsibilities to the Crown, and the existing arrangements strike an appropriate balance between the obligations of the judiciary to the public and the overriding of preserving judicial independence.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many(a) written and (b) oral parliamentary questions have required correction by his Department in each of the past two years. [40629]

  Mr. Willetts
  This is a matter of public record.

  HMSO (Uzbekistan)
  Sir Michael Shersby
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what percentage of the value of the consignments of educational stationery sent by Her Majesty's Stationery Office to Uzbekistan has so far been recovered; how long it will take on the basis of current sales to recover the remaining payments due to the office; and what steps he has taken to ensure that there will be no loss resulting from this business; [40452]

  (2) if he will publish details of the current situation and projection for Her Majesty's Stationery Office's stationery trade with Uzbekistan; and what estimate he has made of how much of the money owing to the office he expects to recoup. [40451]

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 14 October 1996]: The original sales value of the 10 consignments for Uzbekistan was £6.5 million. Prior to privatisation on 30 September, HMSO had received £1.6 million from its trading with Uzbekistan, £1.5 million of which was reported to the Committee on Public Accounts by the then chief executive of HMSO on 10 June 1996. This fully covers the sales value of the first three consignments and amounts to nearly 25 per cent. of the sales value of all 10 consignments.

  HMSO signed, in early June, a new contract with Uztoshkitob—the Uzbekistan Republic Wholesale and Retail Association of the State Publishing Committee—aimed at maximising potential receipts from the sale in Uztoshkitob's retail outlets of the remaining goods. Payment is dependent on the rate at which the goods are sold.

  The return due from retail sales during August and September amounted to approximately £200,000, but conversion to hard currency is precluded by general bank order. All bidders for HMSO were made aware of the details of HMSO's trading with Uzbekistan: the payments so far received, stocks in the UK and abroad, the contract terms and potential receipts. The successful bidder took over the stationery office as a going concern including all the stocks and debtors of the business.
  907
  The HMSO privatisation was in the form of a share sale rather than an asset sale and therefore it is not possible to identify the value placed by the new owner on the Uzbekistan stocks, contract and potential receipts. The sale of HMSO represents value for money for the taxpayer taking account of all assets and liabilities involved. Realisation of future payments from Uztoshkitob is now a matter for the Stationery Office Ltd.

  Political Advisers
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many political advisers have been employed in each Government Department in each of the last three years; at what costs; and what are the current salary scales by which they are paid. [40448]

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is contained in the tables.

  Special advisers are paid on a salary spine of 34 points ranging from £20,631 to £71,517.

  Special advisers in post in Government Departments

  1 August 1993

  1 August 1994

  1 August 1995

  No. 10 Downing Street

  4.6

  4.6

  5.6

  Deputy Prime Minister's Office

  0

  0

  2

  No. 12 Downing Street

  1

  1

  1

  Chief Whip's Office (Lord's)

  1

  1

  1

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  1

  1

  2

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's Office

  1.3

  1

  0

  Defence, Ministry of,

  1

  1

  1

  Education and Employment, Department for,

  2

  2

  1

  Environment, Department of the,

  4

  4

  4

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  2

  2

  2

  Her Majesty's Treasury

  3

  3

  3

  Health, Department of.

  1

  1

  2

  Home Office

  2

  2

  2

  National Heritage, Department of,

  1

  0

  1

  Northern Ireland Office

  1

  1

  1

  Privy Council Office

  1

  1

  1

  Scottish Office

  2

  2

  2

  Social Security, Department of,

  1

  1

  1

  Trade and Industry, Department of,

  0

  4

  1

  Transport, Department of,

  0

  1

  1

  Welsh Office

  0

  1

  1

  Total

  29.9

  34.6

  35.6

  Figures include paid political and expert special advisers.

  Total salary costs for Special Advisers

  1 August 1993–31 July 1994

  1 August 1994–31 May 1995

  1 August 1995–31 July 1996

  £1,133,590

  £1,460,733

  £1,512,622

  Total salary costs take account of any changes in postholders and additional appointments during the year.

  New Buildings and Premises
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what was the total expenditure on new buildings and premises by his Department and its agencies; and if he will indicate the square footage of new office space purchased or newly rented in each of the last five years. [41153]
  908
  Mr. Willetts
  The table details for the Cabinet Office and its agencies, including the Central Office of Information, (i) the capital costs, including fees, of new buildings and premises and new extensions to existing buildings and premises and (ii) the square footage of new office space purchased or newly rented for the five financial years 1991–92; 1992–93; 1993–94; 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Financial year

  Capital costs

  Square footage (purchased)

  Square footage (rented)

  1991–92

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  1992–93

  £685,000

  1,613

  Nil

  1993–94

  Nil

  Nil

  15,954

  1994–95

  £2,940,482

  Not offices

  86,638

  1995–96

  Nil

  Nil

  30,083

  The capital costs include extensions to non office accommodation at the Civil Service College and other non-office accommodation occupied by various agencies. Corresponding information for the Stationery Office Ltd. is not available from the company.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Millennium Exhibition
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the arrangement by which the chief executive of the Welsh Development Agency has been appointed chief executive of Greenwich Millennium Exhibition plc with an option to return to the Welsh Development Agency within 90 days; what assessment she has made of the principal advantages of this arrangement to the exhibition company; and if she will make a statement. [41068]

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will state in respect of the millennium exhibition planned for the Greenwich peninsula site(a) the amount to be contributed by the national lottery, (b) private commitments already made by each individual organisation and the total and (c) the number of staff, their location, and names of those responsible as executive officers. [40930]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I shall write to the hon. Members in my capacity as chairman of the commission and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of the House.

  Royal Naval College
  Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what the responsibilities of her Department will be for the maintenance of the royal naval college, Greenwich when the Ministry of Defence has left the site. [41193]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My Department is currently responsible for the maintenance of the external fabric of the royal naval college buildings together with the maintenance, including the interiors, of the painted hall and chapel. When the Ministry of Defence vacates the buildings, my Department will continue to contribute to the funding of these maintenance responsibilities. The level of funding and duration will be a matter for
  909
  agreement between the Department and the trust which is being established to take over the main lease on the buildings. I would expect the taxpayer's contribution to reduce as the trust generates income to meet the costs of maintenance. My Department will remain concerned to ensure that the buildings are maintained to a standard appropriate to their status.

  Promotional Expenditure
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much her Department has spent on(a) publicity, (b) promotions, and (c) hospitality in each year since its formation. [40619]

  Mr. Sproat
  The information requested is given in the following table:

  £

  1992–93 (actual)

  1993–94 (actual)

  1994–95 (actual)

  1995–96 (actual)

  1996–97 (spend to date)

  Publicity and promotions

  nil

  25,000

  57,000

  348,000

  188,470

  Hospitality

  22,037

  18,277

  14,967

  25,563

  10,798

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many answers to(a) written and (b) oral parliamentary questions have required correction by her Department in each of the past two years. [40637]

  Mr. Sproat
  This is a matter of public record.

  Concessionary Television Licences
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations have been received recently over the concessionary television licence for pensioners; and what were the main points in such representations. [40971]

  Mr. Sproat
  Since April 1996, we have received about 170 representations concerning the concessionary television licence available to certain pensioners.

  The main points raised were specific queries on eligibility for the concession, calls for extending the scope of the scheme and proposals to abolish the concession in favour of a reduced fee licence for all pensioners.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what has been the total income received from(a) national lottery tickets and (b) national lottery scratchcard sales in South Yorkshire; what proportion these figures represent of the total income nationally; and what percentage of national lottery awards funding has been received by South Yorkshire lottery. [40840]

  Mr. Sproat
  Figures on the sales of national lottery tickets and scratchcards in South Yorkshire are operational matters for Camelot Group plc. I have therefore asked the Director General of the National Lottery, to write to the hon. Member, placing copies of his response in the Libraries of the House.
  910
  To date, 135 lottery awards—1.5 per cent. of the total—have been made to projects in South Yorkshire for a total of £67,336,877—2.98 per cent. of the total awarded.

  Television Licence Fraud Hotline
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will set up a free phone hotline for the reporting of suspected television licence fraudsters; and if she will make a statement. [40872]

  Mr. Sproat
  No. The BBC is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the television licensing system, including policy on reducing licence evasion.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Aid Budget
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to increase the overseas aid budget; and if he will make a statement. [40773]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  In common with the budgets of other Departments, the ODA's budget for 1997–98 is currently under consideration in the public expenditure survey round, the outcome of which will not be known until the Chancellor's November Budget statement. At £2,154 million in 1996–97, the UK's development assistance programme is substantial and is internationally recognised for its quality, effectiveness and poverty focus.

TREASURY

  Balance of Payments
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the disparity between his forecast for the balance of payments current account deficits in 1997 and the average of the forecasts made by the Panel of Independent Forecasters for 1997. [40728]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The latest Treasury forecast for the current account deficit in 1997 is £1½ billion, shown in the table 1.4 of the "Summer Economic Forecast". This lies within the range of forecasts provided by members of the Panel of Independent Forecasters, detailed in table 1A.1 of the same publication.

  Self-assessment Computer System
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to make sure that the self-assessment computer system will have the comprehensive technical support necessary to put right promptly any faults that may occur in live operation. [41231]

  Mr. Jack
  Electronic Data Systems Ltd.—the Inland Revenue's information technology partner—will ensure that full technical support is provided by all companies contracted to supply components of the self assessment computer system. In particular Oracle, the company
  911
  supplying the software package for the database holding taxpayer records, will provide 24-hour support using its worldwide service network.

  Such diagnostic and remedial work undertaken to support the system may at times necessitate specialist staff—either in the UK or, exceptionally, at Oracle facilities abroad—having access to copies of batches of taxpayer records. The handling of such confidential data will, as now, be governed by the strictest possible security arrangements to safeguard against misuse. The actual processing of individual's tax affairs and the development of the Inland Revenue's computer systems will continue to be undertaken wholly within the UK.

  These comprehensive technical support arrangements will help ensure that the operation of the new self-assessment computer system is as trouble-free as possible.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will announce the results of the review by HM Customs and Excise of its next steps arrangements. [41232]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Customs and Excise has been operating along next steps lines since 1991 when the bulk of the Department's operational staff were organised into executive units.

  The Department currently has 24 executive units; 14 collections, national investigation service, national intelligence division, solicitor's office and seven other central operations or service units which together employ some 95 per cent. of their staff.

  The Department and each executive unit has a framework document which contains statements of responsibilities and accountabilities. The review of its organisation and the impact of next steps clearly demonstrates that Customs and Excise continues to be fully committed to next steps principles. The outcome of the review is the publication today of the revised departmental document "HM Customs and Excise: Next Steps Framework Document 1996", copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Executive unit framework documents will be published before the House rises for the Christmas recess.

  Public Debt
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the use of the general Government financial deficit as the principal measure of public debt. [40336]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The general Government financial deficit is a national accounts measure of the deficit on the Government's current and capital accounts. As a national accounts measure, the GGFD follows internationally recognised guidelines, allowing international comparisons of government deficits. Partly for this reason, it was chosen as the deficits measure in the excessive deficit procedure set out in the Maastricht treaty. But most countries also use their own measure of the deficit when presenting their Budgets. The UK focuses on the public sector borrowing requirement as it is a measure of the net cash demand of the whole of the public sector on the rest 912
  of the economy. In addition, monthly PSBR figures are available about two weeks after the end of the period to which they relate, whereas the GGFD is available only quarterly and about three months after the end of the quarter. Forecasts of both are given in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report".

  Privatisation
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sums were(a) paid to and (b) received from public funds in (i) telephone and electronic communications, (ii) gas, (iii) electricity, (iv) public water services and (v) Royal Mail, for the year of and five years preceding the year of their disposal or 1995 as appropriate; and if he will make a statement. [40412]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 14 October 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the following documents, which set out the information available for each industry. Figures for external financing requirements can be found in "Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 1996–97" and its predecessor publications; including the "Statistical Supplement to the FSBR" and "Government Expenditure Plans". The EFR measures the difference between what an industry spends and the income from its trading and related activities; the most significant components of external finance are normally Government grants, subsidies and loans, and movements in deposits—which are normally liabilities of the public sector.

  Figures for interest payments from the industries to the national loans fund are quoted in the "Consolidated Fund and National Loans Fund Accounts".

  Tax and dividend figures for all nationalised industries are available in "Inland Revenue Statistics" and the Office for National Statistics' Blue Book respectively; however, this information is not broken down on an industry-by-industry basis.

  UK Bonds
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what steps his Department has taken to investigate the volume of United Kingdom bonds issued on the Swiss market which have subsequently been deemed to be defunct or in default; if he will list the United Kingdom banks and other financial institutions which have been approached to participate in such investigations; and what action his Department has taken; [40150]

  (2) if he will list those United Kingdom bonds issued on the Swiss market since 1987 which have subsequently been deemed by (a) his Department and (b) the Swiss authorities to be (i) defunct and (ii) in default, indicating the approximate value of each bond and all such bonds. [40151]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  None that I am aware of.

  Public Sector Borrowing
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the title and authorship of the documents used by Governments of the member states by the European Union in concluding that the percentage of public sector borrowing and debt as a proportion of gross national product should be those specified in the treaty of union, Maastricht. [40363]
  913
  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Council, meeting in the form of Heads of State or Government, in accordance with article 109j of the EC treaty, will assess which countries fulfil the necessary conditions for the adoption of the single currency. In doing so, the Council will take account of reports prepared for this meeting by the Commission and the European Monetary Institute. Sound public finances, as detailed in article 104c of the treaty and in protocol No. 5 on the excessive deficit procedure, will form an important part of the assessment.

  Diesel and Oxygenated Fuel
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the potential economic benefits deriving from environmental improvements of(a) City diesel and (b) oxygenated fuel; and what consideration he has given to the introduction of fiscal incentives to encourage their use. [40716]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  We keep the potential economic and environmental benefits of City diesel and oxygenated fuel under review. The Government do consider, where appropriate, the use of fiscal incentives to promote practices which are environmentally and economically beneficial, but each case is looked at on its merits.

  Road Fund Licence Exemption
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to review the road fund licence exemption to allow variable concessions; and if he will make a statement. [40777]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  We keep under review the vehicle excise duty concessions and exemptions. Any statement on this will be made in the Budget.

  Scotch Whisky
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has had concerning equalising the tax on Scotch whisky with that of other alcoholic drinks; and if he will make a statement. [40769]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has received representations from the Scotch Whisky Association and the Wine and Spirit Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Other interested groups and individuals have written or made representation through Members of Parliament to the Chancellor and other Treasury Ministers.

  Each year, prior to making his Budget decisions, the Chancellor of the Exchequer reviews the levels of taxation on alcoholic beverages including spirits. consideration is given to a wide range of social, economic and health factors as well as the revenue effect. Any statement on this will be made in the Budget.

  Abortion
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many abortions have been performed in total to women usually resident in the Trent region under the provisions of the Abortion Act 1967; and how many and what percentage of these abortions were performed in emergency to save the life of the mother. [40820]
  914
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The total number of abortions performed under the Abortion Act, to women usually resident in the Trent health region1 from 1970 to 19942 was 245,489. During this period, nine abortions, 0.004 per cent. of the total number of abortions performed, were carried out in an emergency, certified by the operating practitioner as immediately necessary, to save the life of the woman3.
  1 Figures are based, where possible, on 1994 health authority boundaries. Other boundary changes have not been reflected in the figures.
  2Figures for 1968–69 are not held on a comparable basis.
  3Abortions performed under statutory grounds 5 (1970–31 March 1991) and F (1 April-present day) that is, where in the case of emergency it was necessary to save the life of the woman.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give a breakdown by gestation of the pregnancy of the abortions performed on women usually resident in the Trent region in the last year for which figures are available; and what were the comparable figures for each of the previous four years. [40821]

  Mrs. Knight
  The latest year for which abortion data by gestation of the pregnancy are available for women usually resident in the Trent health region is 1994. The data are presented in table 21 of the 1994 abortion statistics, series AB No. 21, HMSO publication 1996.

  Comparable figures for each of the last four years, 1990 to 1993 inclusive, are available in table 24b (1990, 1991) and 24c (1992, 1993) in the following publications: 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, abortion statistics, England and Wales, series AB Nos. 17 to 21 respectively; HMSO publications 1991, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 respectively.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give a breakdown by the procedure adopted of the number of abortions performed on women usually resident in the Trent region in the latest year for which he has figures; and what were the comparable figures for each of the last four years. [400874]

  Mrs. Knight
  The latest year for which abortion data by procedure are available for women usually resident in the Trent health region is 1994. The data are presented in table 18 of 1994 abortion statistics, series AB No. 21, HMSO publication 1996.

  Comparable figures for each of the last four years, 1990 to 1993 inclusive, are available in table 22, in the following publications: 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993 abortion statistics, England and Wales, series AB Nos. 17 to 21 respectively; HMSO publications 199d1, 1993, 1995, 1995, 1996 respectively.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give a breakdown by age of the mother of abortions carried out on women usually resident in the Trent region in each of the last five years. [40833]

  Mrs. Knight
  A breakdown of legal terminations by age of mother usually resident in the Trent health region, for the years 1990 to 1994 inclusive are available in the following publications: 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 abortion statistics, England and Wales, series AB Nos. 17 to 21 respectively; HMSO publications 1991, 1993, 1995, 1995, 1996 respectively.
  915

  Taxpayers' Incomes
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many and what percentage of taxpayers, whether employed or self-employed, have a gross income(a) above £100,000 annually, (b) between £60,000 and £100,000, (c) between £30,000 and £60,000 and (d) £10,000 and below. [40988]

  Mr. Jack
  Latest estimates for 1996–97 are given in the table.

  Gross income1 £ per year

  Number of taxpayers (thousands)

  Percentage of taxpayers

  £10,000 and below

  9,200

  36

  £30,000–£60,000

  1,700

  7

  £60,000–£100,000

  260

  1

  Over £100,000

  140

  under 1

  1 Defined as total income for income tax purposes.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Council of Ministers of the European Community will carry out the assessment, required by article 109j of the treaty, of whether the third stage of economic and monetary union can begin in 1997; and if, in relation to that process, the United Kingdom is required to notify its intentions. [41214]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Article 109j of the EC treaty requires that a formal assessment by the Council of Ministers of which member states meet the necessary conditions for the adoption of the single currency in 1997 should take place by the end of 1996. The European Council agreed at its meeting in Florence in June that member states will not be ready to adopt the single currency in 1997 and confirmed its commitment to the third stage of economic and monetary union starting in 1999 in line with the EC treaty. However, in accordance with its obligation under the EC treaty, the Council will carry out the assessment procedure under article 109j before the end of 1996.

  Paragraph 1 of protocol No. 11 to the treaty requires the United Kingdom to notify its intentions in relation to the third stage before this assessment under article 109j is carried out. Accordingly, the Council has been notified by the United Kingdom's permanent representative that the United Kingdom does not intend to move to the third stage in 1997. A copy of the notification has been placed in the Library of both Houses.

  This notification does not prejudge or affect in any way the future decision on the United Kingdom's participation in the third stage. Under the treaty, the United Kingdom is not committed and cannot be obliged to move to the third stage without a separate decision to do so by the Government and Parliament. The Government's policy remains that no decision will be taken either way on participation in the third stage during the lifetime of the current Parliament because sufficient information to make a full assessment of the implications for the United Kingdom will not be available.
  916

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Nuclear Test Ban Committee
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will arrange for a report on the outcome of the negotiations in the Nuclear Test Ban Committee of the Untied Nationals Conference on Disarmament, which resumed on 29 July, to be put in the Library as soon as it becomes available. [39917]

  Mr. David Davis
  The Conference on Disarmament issued a report on 12 September. A copy will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  EU Directives
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the numbers of(a) regulation and (b) directives which have been (i) operative in United Kingdom law since 1 January 1973, (ii) introduced between 1973 and 1986 and (iii) introduced since 1986. [40411]

  Mr. David Davis
  I shall write to the hon. Member shortly. Copies of the letter will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Embassies
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what facilities have been provided to Prince Michael of Kent for business visits by British embassies over the past five years; and what is the estimated cost of those facilities; [40455]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government in the provision of facilities by British embassies to private individuals on business trips. [40456]

  Mr. Rifkind
  The detailed information sought could be provided only after considerable research, which would involve disproportionate costs. The facilities offered by British embassies to Prince Michael of Kent and those accompanying him have been similar to those available for other British business visitors. These generally include advice on programmes and briefing on political background and commercial opportunities in the relevant market sectors. When appropriate, senior officers also accompany and sometimes lobby on behalf of senior British visitors during calls on local authorities. Hospitality is at times provided in order to effect introductions.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what facilities were provided to Prince Michael of Kent on his business visit to Beijing in September; who approved the provision of such facilities; under what arrangements such facilities were provided; to what other citizens of the United Kingdom such facilities are made available; and if he will make a statement. [40457]

  Mr. Rifkind
  Prince Michael of Kent was invited by the People's Institute of Foreign Affairs in Peking to lead a delegation of senior representatives of British companies active in China. PIFA was responsible for the
  917
  arrangements, including travel and accommodation in China. The delegation met its own costs for travel to and from China.

  The embassy provided briefing and assistance consistent with the seniority of the group and the reception accorded by the Chinese Government. The ambassador accompanied His Royal Highness on his call on the Premier, Li Peng, and the group was accompanied during the visit by a commercial officer on his staff.

  Our embassy in Peking seeks to provide appropriate assistance to all British business delegations visiting China. The facilities the embassy provides to business visitors are tailored to their programme and their individual requirements.

  Pakistani Diplomats
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many diplomats have been expelled from the Pakistani high commission in 1996 as a result of their procurement on nuclear technology. [40494]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  No diplomats of the Pakistan high commission have been expelled from the UK in 1996. However, a member of the high commission's local staff was deported in July of that year.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what invitation he had for the International Bar Association to be represented at its conference in London on 9 September on Lockerbie; and why he declined. [40707]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary was not invited. A number of officials were invited, but did not attend. The Government's position on the trial of those accused of the Lockerbie bombing is well known: the two accused must stand trial in Scotland or in the United States.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many answers to(a) written and (b) oral parliamentary questions have required correction by his Department in each of the past two years. [40632]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  This is a matter of public record.

  Sudan
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Government of Sudan about the lack of religious tolerance in their country, with particular reference to the persecution of Christians; and if he will make a statement. [40763]

  Dr. Lian Fox
  Freedom of worship is a fundamental human right. We are very concerned by disturbing reports of forced islaminisation in Sudan. We frequently make clear our concerns, and those of the British Parliament and people, about human rights and abuses in Sudan. The Minister of State Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my 918
  right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), did so most recently to the Sudanese ambassador on 2 July.

  Promotional Expenditure
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much his Department has spent on(a) publicity, (b) promotions, and (c) hospitality in each of the last six years. [40625]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  (a) and (b)Total expenditure on publicity—that is, promotional material and recruitment advertising—in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, diplomatic wing and Overseas Development Administration, in each of the last six years was:

  1990–91: £1,825,882

  1991–92: £1,785,388

  1992–93: £2,033,000

  1993–94: £2,130,264

  1994–95: £2,320,000

  1995–96: £2,442,763.

  (c) I refer the hon. Member to the answer the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) gave to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 1 February, Official Report, column 857–58.

  Acts of Parliament (Updating)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by what means a citizen of the United Kingdom can refer to any Act of Parliament in force to which is added, or incorporated, the texts of amendments to current law occasioned by regulations of the European Economic Community, stating by whom such updating is maintained, where it is done, what is its cost and which vote of the estimates defrays this expenditure. [40797]

  Mr. David Davis
  I shall write to the hon. Member shortly. Copies of the letter will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Li Langing (Visit)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the dates and purpose of the visit planned by the Chinese Vice-Premier Li Langing to the United Kingdom. [41062]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), shall write to the hon. Member shortly. Copies of the letter will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Tibet
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what considerations led him not to raise the issue of Tibet at his recent meeting with the Chinese Foreign Minister; and if he will make a statement. [41064]
  919
  Dr. Liam Fox
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), shall write to the hon. Member shortly. Copies of the letter will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Unidentified Flying Objects
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what consultation has taken place in each of the last five years by his Department with the French Service de Documentation Exterieur et de Contre-Espionnage in respect of unidentified flying objects; and if he will make a statement; [40970]

  (2) if he will list by month for each of the last 10 years, and this year to date, the number of occasions that MI6 has monitored unidentified flying objects investigations; and if he will make a statement; [40981]

  (3) if he will list by month for each of the last 10 years and this year to date the number of occasions on which the Government Communications headquarters has monitored unidentified flying object investigations; and if he will make a statement. [40922]

  Mr. David Davis
  I shall write to the hon. Member shortly. Copies of the letter will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are his latest estimates of the expenditure on all external consultants, including management consultants, for each year since 1992, in 1996 prices, for his Department and its agencies; and what are the quantified annual cost savings which such expenditure has resulted in. [41178]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), shall write to the hon. Member shortly. Copies of the letter will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  New Buildings and Premises
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total expenditure on new buildings and premises by his Department and its agencies; and if he will indicate the square footage of new office space purchased or newly rented in each of the last five years. [41144]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), shall write to the hon. Member shortly. Copies of the letter will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Telephone Interceptions
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list for each of the last 12 months the number of(a) interceptions and (b) monitorings of telephone calls (i) entering or (ii) leaving the United Kingdom, through the joint
  920
  Government Communications headquarters—National Security Agency agreement; and if he will make a statement. [40972]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), shall write to the hon. Member shortly. Copies of the letter will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the implications for United Kingdom policy on the use of nuclear weapons of the decision of the International Court of Justice on nuclear weapons. [41224]

  Mr. David Davis
  I shall write to the hon. Member shortly. Copies of the letter will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what capacity of electricity used in his Department's buildings is generated in a combined heat and power plant; and what plans he has to increase that capacity. [41321]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), will write to the hon. Member shortly. Copies of the letter will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

DEFENCE

  Religious Discrimination (Caterick Camp)
  Mr. Gabraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reports he has received of religious discrimination at Catterick camp during June and July; and if he will make a statement. [40766]

  Mr. Soames
  There have been no reported incidents of religious discrimination at Catterick Camp during June and July. However, we treat any allegations of discrimination extremely seriously and if the hon. Member can provide any information which suggests that religious discrimination has taken place at Catterick Camp it will, of course, be fully investigated.

  Suicides
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 16 May to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr Clark),Official Report, column 559, if he will break down the number of suicides in the armed forces by (a) year and (b) service for each year since 1991. [40767]

  Mr. Soames
  Since January 1991 the total number of service personnel who have been confirmed as committing suicide is 130, which is broken down as follows:
  921

  Year

  Army

  Royal Navy1

  RAF

  1991

  22

  5

  7

  1992

  19

  6

  5

  1993

  18

  1

  4

  1994

  17

  6

  5

  1995

  12

  1

  2

  1 Includes the Royal Marines.

  Figures are not yet available for 1996.

  The total figure given in the answer to the hon. Member for South Shields of 16 May, Official Report, column 559, was 135. This original figure has subsequently been amended to reflect the rulings of coroners courts.

  Beef Purchases
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of beef supplied to service personnel in the British armed forces in the last year and purchased by his Department was purchased(a) from United Kingdom sources, (b) from other European Union sources and (c) from the rest of the world; and if he will make a statement. [40440]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Since 1 October 1994 the supply of food for the armed services has been the responsibility of the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes, NAAFI. My Department does not specify sources from which meat should be obtained, but NAAFI is required to meet the specification and achieve best value for money. The majority of our requirements are, however, for frozen beef which is not readily available from the British market and on cost grounds the majority of meat is sourced from south America and eastern Europe. Nevertheless, some beef including sirloin, foreribs, minced and diced and a range of manufactured products are normally procured from UK sources.

  Prior to 1994, beef was purchased directly by my Department, but no records were kept of the quantities sourced by a particular country, although the majority was imported from south America.

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now make it his policy to investigate media allegations of cases of the Gulf war syndrome if invited to do so in parliamentary questions from hon. Members. [40734]

  Mr. Soames
  Our first duty, and prime concern, is to the health of those veterans who served in the Gulf, and we will of course explore any information made available which may have affected the health of those veterans. The proper means for the medical examination of Gulf veterans who are concerned about their health is the medical assessment programme which we established in 1993. I urge any veteran who has such concerns and has not yet been seen by the MAP to come forward as soon as possible.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what new assessment his Department has made of the possible effects of fluorine on Gulf war military and medical veterans since the reply of 24 October 1994,Official Report, column 500. [40750]
  922
  Mr. Soames
  No assessment has been made of the possible effects of fluorine on Gulf war veterans. No evidence of the effects of fluorine has been found among any of the UK Gulf war veterans examined under my Department's medical assessment programme.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the memorandum on the discovery of mustard gas during the Gulf war by the commander of the 54 Chemical Troop, dated 4 January 1994, has now been discovered and assessed. [40751]

  Mr. Soames
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of the letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information on the environmental effects of organophosphates his Department has received from the United States Government in regard to the joint research being conducted on the implications of organophosphate use in Operation Granby in the Gulf war. [40736]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department is liaising closely with the United States Government on all aspects of research into the health of Gulf war veterans. It has received information on the United States Government's assessment of the health effects on US forces of organophosphate use during the Gulf war, and on associated work being conducted as part of their research programme into Gulf war illnesses. No joint US-UK research is being conducted into organophosphate use during the Gulf war.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what quality control was conducted on the organophosphate pesticides purchased by his Department to combat fly-borne diseases in the Gulf war; and what post-war assessment has been made on the effect on the local environment in Kuwait and southern Iraq of the use of pesticides during Operation Granby. [40738]

  Mr. Soames
  The organophosphate pesticides, malathion and fenitrothion, were approved for use at the time of Operation Granby under the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986. ALFACRON, containing the organophosphate azamathiphos, and purchased locally in the Gulf, was also approved for use under these regulations. SNIP, a similar product purchased locally containing azamathiphos, was licensed for use in the United States, but it is understood that no application has been made for approval in the UK. A further organophosphate pesticide purchased locally, neocidal, is understood to have been supplied in error in response to an order for a non-organophosphate pesticide.

  My Department is not aware of any post-war assessment of the effect of the use of pesticides on the local environment in Kuwait and southern Iraq during Operation Granby.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Gulf war veteran service people and medical support staff have been found to suffer from brainstem encephalitis; and what assessment has been made of the relationship between incidences of brainstem encephalitis in Gulf war veterans and the environment of the Gulf war. [40746]
  923
  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 15 October 1996]: There have been no reported cases of Gulf war veterans suffering from brainstem encephahlitis. No assessment has therefore been made of a possible link between brainstem encephalitis and the environment of the Gulf.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what medical studies have been conducted by his Department on the effects on human health and the environment of the organophosphate pesticides malathion, diazinon, azamathiphos and dimethyl phosphorothionate prior to their use in Operation Granby in the Gulf war. [40745]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 15 October 1996]: No medical studies on the organophosphate pesticides malathion, diazinon, azamathiphos and dimethyl phosphorothionate were conducted by my Department prior to the Gulf war.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) written and (b) oral parliamentary questions have required correction by his Department in each of the past two years. [40628]

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is not collected.

  Exercises (Ebford)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 4 December 1995,Official Report, column 2, what members of the armed forces were deployed in the vicinity of Ebford village during autumn 1988; and if he will make a statement. [40645]

  Mr. Soames
  No personnel of the Royal Marines Command were deployed for any purpose in the vicinity of Ebford village during the autumn of 1988.

  Promotional Expenditure
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department has spent on(a) publicity, (b) promotions, and (c) hospitality in each of the last six years. [40621]

  Mr. Soames
  Details of central MOD expenditure on publicity and service recruitment advertising for 1990–91 to 1993–94 are published in the annual MOD departmental reports, Cm 2201 (page 31), Cm 2501 (page 36) and Cm 2801 (page 39). The outturn for 1994–95 and the latest estimate for 1995–96 have been published in the MOD performance report for 1994–95, Cm 3055 (page 43). Copies of the relevant publications are available in the Library of the House.

  In respect of hospitality, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 30 January 1996, Official Report, columns 604–605. The outturn for 1995–96 was £5.13 million.

  Nuclear Materials (Transport)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what environmental assessments his Department has conducted on the transport of nuclear materials to and from the United States of America from the United 924
  Kingdom undertaken within the provisions of the 1958 mutual defence agreement on atomic energy matters as amended. [40747]

  Mr. Soames
  I am not aware of any requirement for environmental assessments in this context; none has therefore been carried out. Whenever nuclear materials are transported by the UK, they are carried in containers which are designed, manufactured and tested in conformity with the appropriate International Atomic Energy Agency regulations.

  Biological Warfare Agents
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now review his policy regarding the release of details of the countermeasures taken against biological warfare agents by Her Majesty's armed forces during conflict. [40733]

  Mr. Soames
  The protection of British personnel is our prime concern in times of conflict. Details of the medical countermeasures taken by the armed forces against biological warfare agents during conflicts, therefore, remain appropriately classified, in order to avoid informing potential adversaries of the UK's strengths and weaknesses in dealing with the threat of biological weapons. We are, however, considering whether any information can be released after conflicts have ended.

  War Graves (Singapore)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the desecration of war graves in Singapore. [40933]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department is unaware of the desecration of any war graves in Singapore. Where war graves are disturbed or sullied, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, which is responsible for the marking and continuing maintenance of all such graves, should be contacted. It will arrange for the grave to be restored to its previous standard with all due care and respect.

SCOTLAND

  Parole System
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his proposals to reform the parole system in Scotland. [38717]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We are determined that criminals should serve the sentences given by the courts and should be allowed reductions only if they earn it. Our proposals were outlined in our White Paper and we will introduce legislation at an early date.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the future financing of further education. [38723]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Our policies have created a strong further education sector. Levels of student activity rose by 6 per cent. in the year following incorporation and present funding plans allow for continuing growth in student numbers through increasingly efficient colleges.
  925

  Forest Roads
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received about weight restrictions imposed on forest roads in the highlands; and if he will make a statement. [38725]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office Development Department received five representations in 1995 concerning proposed weight restriction orders published by the former Highland regional council.

  Newmilns Bypass
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when work is planned to start on the Newmilns bypass; and what plans he has to involve the private finance initiative in the project. [38726]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The A71, on which Newmilns stands, is a local road. Proposals for improvements at Newmilns are therefore a matter for East Ayrshire council as the local roads authority for the area.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to meet Scottish Enterprise to discuss unemployment in Scotland. [38727]

  Mr. Kynoch
  My right hon. Friend and I regularly meet Scottish Enterprise to discuss a wide variety of issues concerning the Scottish economy.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about inward investment in Scotland. [38728]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Inward investment in Scotland has been running at record levels over the past two years and this success is continuing. Firms like Hyundai, Chunghwa, Lite-On, Simple Technology and Rohr recognise that locating in Scotland means locating in one of Europe's most competitive business locations.

  "Crime and Punishment"
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what responses he has received to his White Paper, "Crime and Punishment", Cm 3302; and if he will make a statement. [38729]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A considerable number of detailed and helpful submissions were received in response to the White Paper. My right hon. Friend is currently giving careful consideration to all the views expressed and plans to bring forward legislation at an early date.

  Nursery Voucher Scheme
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to extend the operation of nursery vouchers in Scotland. [38730]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The pre-school education voucher initiative is currently being piloted in four local authority areas in Scotland. It will be extended to the whole of Scotland from August next year.
  926
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of pilot schemes for nursery vouchers in Scotland. [38739]

  Mr. Robertson
  The pilot schemes of the pre-school education initiative in Scotland have been under way for barely two months, but already there are indications that they are progressing well: over 150 centres have been admitted to the system, and vouchers have been issued for over 95 per cent. of eligible children. My right hon. Friend's final assessment will be informed by the implementation evaluation conducted by Stirling university, and also by the findings of HM inspectors of schools in the course of their inspections during the pilot phase.

  Crofting
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he is pursuing to promote crofting in Scotland. [38731]

  Mr. Robertson
  On 10 October my right hon. Friend announced the publication of draft legislation which would give all crofters on his estates a unique opportunity to control their own land.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to encourage local authorities to find alternatives to landfill as a method of waste disposal. [38733]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The Government have introduced measures to encourage recycling and waste reduction as alternatives to landfill. These include the recycling credits scheme operated by local authorities and the landfill tax, which will encourage waste producers to examine their option for dealing with waste.

  Departmental Employees
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people are currently employed in the Scottish Office; what was the figure in May 1979; in each case at what cost in 1996 prices; and if he will make a statement. [38734]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Eight thousand two hundred and thirty-three people were employed in the Scottish Office, excluding the Scottish Prison Service, at 1 April 1996. In the same period, numbers in the Prison Service rose from 2,582 to 4,439.

  The current staff costs are £109 million for the Scottish Office, excluding the Scottish Prison Service, and 85.3 million for the Scottish Prison Service: it is not possible except at disproportionate cost to produce accurate figures for 1979 on a fully comparable basis.

  Housing (Glasgow)
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to meet Glasgow city council to discuss the housing situation in the city. [38735]
  927
  Mr Raymond S Robertson
  I have met representatives of Glasgow city council on several occasions during the past year and officials from the Department are due to meet the council at the end of the month to discuss housing matters.

  Economic Prospects
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received from businesses in Scotland about prospects for the Scottish economy. [38736]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Business confidence in Scotland remains high and economic prospects are excellent.

  Fishing Industry
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future of the Scottish fishing industry. [38738]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The Scottish fishing industry makes a vital contribution to the social and economic welfare of Scotland's coastal communities. With fish stocks under increasing pressure, we need to safeguard the industry's future through better management and conservation. The Government are determined to secure whatever improvements in the common fisheries policy may be necessary to that end.

  NHS Employees
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many nurses, doctors and dentists were employed by the national health service in Scotland in 1980 and in 1995. [38740]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The whole-time equivalent number of nurses and midwives has increased from 27,398 in 1980 to 35,378 in 1995, a rise of 29 per cent.; hospital and community medical staff have increased from 5,629 in 1980 to 6,849 in 1995, a rise of 22 per cent.; hospital and community dental staff have reduced from 525 in 1980 to 446 in 1995, a drop of 15 per cent.

  Feudal Superiors
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what changes in legislation he proposes to limit the powers of feu superiors in Scotland. [38741]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Law Commission is considering proposals to abolish or amend the remaining aspects of the feudal system and will report in due course. The Government are committed to completing the reform of the feudal system, but would not wish to proceed in advance of the commission's report.

  General Practitioner Fundholding
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how may GP fundholding practices there are in Scotland. [38742]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Three hundred and eighty-one.
  928

  Prison Sentences
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his proposals to make prisoners liable to serve the full terms of their sentences in Scotland. [38743]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We are determined that criminals should serve the sentences given by the courts and should be allowed reductions only if they earn it. Our proposals were outlined in our White Paper and we will introduce legislation at an early date.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss local government finance. [38724]

  Mr. Kynoch
  My right hon. Friend and I will next meet COSLA on 8 November.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what invitation the Crown Office had from the International Bar Association to be represented at its conference on Lockerbie on 9 September; and why he declined. [40706]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, or in his place a representative from the Crown Office, did receive an invitation to attend this conference. It was, however, inappropriate for my noble and learned Friend, as head of the independent prosecution service in Scotland or anyone on his behalf, to attend the conference. The Government's position on the trial of those accused of the Lockerbie bombing is, in any event, well known. Trial of the two Libyan accused should be in Scotland or the United States.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what initiatives between July and October 1996 the Crown Office has taken to resolve the issues raised by the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie. [38901]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Crown Office has maintained its preparedness for the trial of the two accused in the Lockerbie case.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many answers to(a) written and (b) oral parliamentary questions have required correction by his Department in each of the past two years. [40640]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This is a matter of public record.

  Ministerial Visits (Catalonia)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make an official visit to Catalonia in order to study its system of government. [38716]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I will bear the hon. Member's suggestion in mind.
  929

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Publicity
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the cost of staff employed full-time or part-time (i) to provide information and publicity and (ii) to work on the press and media in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1993–94. [39434]

  Mr. Boswell
  The budget allocations for staff employed full-time or part-time (i) to provide information and publicity and (ii) to work on the press and media in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1993–94 was as follows:

  Publicity £

  Press £

  1995–96

  680,592

  262,645

  1994–95

  539,099

  300,933

  1993–94

  592,048

  298,104

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the cost budgeted for staff, employed full-time or part-time, to provide information and publicity in 1996–97. [39438]

  Mr. Boswell
  The budget allocation for staff employed full-time or part-time to provide information and publicity in 1996–97 is £632,600. The figure does not include those working on press and media, nor administration support staff.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his Department's budget in 1996–97 for consultants to assist with information, publicity, press and media. [39354]

  Mr. Boswell
  Nil.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many staff are assumed in his Department's budget to be employed (i) full-time and (ii) part-time,(a) to work on press and media and (b) to provide information and publicity in 1996–97. [39382]

  Mr. Boswell
  The number of MAFF staff being 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 are as follows:

  Press: 7

  Publicity: 22.

  Administration support staff are not included.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. [39414]

  Mr. Boswell
  The number of staff employed by MAFF, both full-time and part-time, to(a) provide information and publicity and (b) on press and media in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1994–95 and (iii) 1993–94, were as follows:
  930

  Press

  Publicity

  1995–96

  7

  25

  1994–95

  9

  22

  1993–94

  9

  23

  Administration support staff are not included.

  Beef Sales
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the level of beef sales in Britain, and in each of the other EU countries on(a) 1 April and (b) the latest available date in each case. [30152]

  Mrs. Browning
  According to a consumer survey conducted on behalf of the Meat and Livestock Commission, overall household purchases for the four-week period ending 10 March were 19,561 tonnes valued at £90,519. This was the last consumer survey produced before the Minister's announcement on the 20 March. For the latest available four-week period ending on 22 September, overall household purchases of beef were 15,893 tonnes valued at £71,862.

  For other member states, information on beef consumption is not held centrally and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that beef consumption in France, Germany, Italy, Belgium and Holland, and across the EU, is well below normal levels.

  Computerised Cattle Database
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to introduce a national computerised cattle database; and if he will make a statement. [32963]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 17 June 1996]: The Government are working with urgency on plans for the accelerated introduction of a national cattle movements database. A feasibility study is underway.

  Animal Feed (Advice)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many of the advisers and consultants who advised his Department on policy and regulatory requirements in relation to the composition of animal feed were(a) full-time Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food officials, (b) part-time Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food officials or (c) outside appointment; [32329]

  (2) if he will list the names of the advisers and consultancies who advised his Department on policy and regulatory requirements in relation to the composition of animal feed in each year since 1986. [32328]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 17 June 1996]: The information requested on all advisors and consultants including Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food officials could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The interdepartmental Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs advises on the composition and labelling of feedingstuffs. Eleven of its members are full-time officials—including technical experts—of MAFF or its agencies and five members are full-time officials of other Government Departments. The interdepartmental group

  931
  on new feed developments reviews new developments concerning animal feed materials, manufacturing processes and animal feeding practices. It also draws its expertise from officials in MAFF and other Government Departments.

  The Veterinary Products Committee and the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee provide independent expert advice on certain aspects of the composition of animal feedingstuffs.

  Independent committees which have completed their work are the working party on bovine spongiform encephalopathy—the Southwood committee—and the Consultative Committee on Research into Spongiform Encephalopathies—the Tyrrell committee. In addition, the expert group on animal feedingstuffs under the Chairmanship of Professor Eric Lamming reviewed the regulatory framework covering the animal feed industry and reported in 1992.

  I will write separately to the hon. Member with membership details of the independent committees and the expert group.

  Rendering Processes (Canterbury)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reasons his Department has not responded to Canterbury city council's statutory consultation procedures concerning rendering processes at Canterbury Mills; and if he will make a statement. [33135]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 18 June 1996]: A letter on this matter was sent to Canterbury city council on 26 July, following detailed and extensive assessment of the processes employed at Canterbury Mills.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the French Government alleging that French cattle have contracted BSE from eating feedstuffs supplied from the United Kingdom; and what evidence he has evaluated on this matter. [35714]

  Mrs. Browning
  We have received no representations from the French Government about the possibility that French cattle have contracted BSE from eating feedstuffs supplied from the UK or containing UK-sourced raw materials.

  Mammalian-derived meat and bonemeal could legitimately be used in feed for pigs and poultry up to 29 March 1996. It was in free circulation and could quite legitimately be exported to other member states for similar use. The UK informed the Commission and other member states of the measures it was taking to introduce a ruminant feed ban in July 1988 and the reasons for this. It was, however, for the Commission to introduce controls across the Community, and for other member states to introduce their own domestic regulations. The feeding of meat and bonemeal to bovines was prohibited in France from July 1990 and extended to include all ruminants in December 1994.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of(a) how long the prions involved in BSE survive
  932
  (i) in water, (ii) in soil and (iii) in stored meat and bonemeal and (b) their general stability or degradation characteristics. [34508]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, which advises Government on all aspects of the spongiform encephalopathies, has reviewed all the environmental aspects and issued a statement following its meeting on 29 May. This was published under cover of a Ministry of Agriculture press notice of 7 June. A copy of that press notice is available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Wakefield of 19 June,Official Report, column 499, what research he has evaluated indicating how gelatin processed from bovine skin and bone is free from risk of contamination; and what account this research took of the resistance of the BSE agent to (a) heat and (b) caustic soda. [34779]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 1 July 1996]: Considerable research effort has gone into determining the extent to which various bovine tissues may harbour the BSE infective agent. No infectivity has ever been detected in bovine hides or bones, and the raw materials from which gelatin is made would not therefore be expected to be contaminated with BSE agent. Published research has examined the ability of various stages in the manufacture of gelatin to remove or inactivate the infective agent, in the unlikely event that any were present in the raw materials. The application of caustic substances and heat are only elements in the overall process, which must be examined as a whole in determining the likely reduction in infectivity which would result. All the available evidence, along with full details of the processes employed in producing gelatin and information provided on a confidential basis by the gelatin manufacturers of Europe, was considered by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee in arriving at its conclusions about the safety of gelatin.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he will take to ensure that smaller beef producers are not made bankrupt by the present BSE eradication arrangements; and what assessment he has made of the extent to which beef producers are making a loss when steers are marketed. [38096]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: I am fully aware that current market prices for all beef cattle are substantially lower than those at the same time last year and am conscious of the enormous strain this has put on beef producers.

  The Government agreed a package of addition support measures for beef producers at the June Agriculture Council worth some £110 million in the UK. Most of the money, some £81 million, is being paid as supplements under the beef premium schemes. A large proportion of the income of beef producers comes from suckler, cow premium, beef special premium and HLCA payments. Increases in these payments are therefore reducing the impact of lower cattle prices on producers incomes. Over 90 per cent. of claimants will have already received their supplements. The remainder will be paid by early October.
  933
  The Government have also arranged for beef producers to receive 80 per cent. rather than the normal 60 per cent. rate of advance payments under the beef premium schemes from 1 November. This should ensure additional funds are in the pockets of beef producers in the crucial autumn period.

  In addition, some £29 million has been made available under the 1996 beef marketing payment scheme. This money is being distributed to beef producers according to the number of adult clean cattle—including steers, heifers and young bulls—sold in the period 20 March to 30 June (inclusive) for slaughter for human consumption. The application period for this scheme closed on 23 August and payment will be at a flat rate of £66.76 per eligible animal. The first payments under this scheme began earlier this month and it is hoped they will be completed by 15 October.

  While the measures that I have outlined should relieve some of the financial pressures currently facing the beef industry, they are not designed as compensation for the fall in market prices. They are market support measures designed to ensure the survival of the industry. In the longer term, we would hope that as public confidence increases and the market adjusts to the situation, the incomes of beef producers will gradually recover.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what powers he has to prevent imports of beef from EU countries where he believes BSE is endemic and where the brain and spinal column are not removed from the carcase. [23998]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 2 April 1996]: Member states of the EU have power to take interim protective measures under article 9 of Council Directive 89/662/EEC pending the adoption of EU legislation where there is an outbreak of disease in the territory of another member state.

  The United Kingdom has asked the Commission to adopt Community-wide controls on the removal of specified bovine offal from cattle carcases.

  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he took to inform abattoirs and renderers(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in the EU of the decision to ban the use of thymus and intestines of calves under six months old. [35750]

  Mrs. Browning
  In the United Kingdom, the trade associations representing abattoir owners and renderers were consulted on the Government's decision to extend the specified bovine offal ban to include thymus and intestines of calves under six months of age. Renderers and abattoirs in other member states were not informed directly by the Ministry of the changes. The Commission was, however, notified of the Government's intention in 934
  accordance with EC directive 83/189 (as amended) laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations.

  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to assist farmers who are caught by the BSE culling backlog with the cost of winter feed; and if he will make a statement. [40813]

  Mrs. Browning
  A number of representations have been received about the introduction of a feed subsidy for cattle awaiting slaughter under the over 30-month scheme, which are being studied.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the level of under-reporting of cases of BSE in those countries which export cattle to the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [40128]

  Mrs. Browning
  BSE is a notifiable disease in all member states.

  Apart from the UK, BSE has been confirmed in homebred cattle in France, Portugal, Switzerland and the Republic of Ireland. Since 1986, the UK has imported cattle from three of these countries: France, Switzerland and the Republic of Ireland. We have no evidence that under-reporting of BSE cases occurs in these countries.

  Specified Bovine Offal
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the extent to which local control adequately ensures that mechanical recovery of meat takes place with the minimum possible contamination from specified bovine offal; and if he will make a statement. [34108]

  Mrs. Browning
  Specified bovine materials have to be removed from all cattle at slaughter and are destroyed. In addition, in December 1995 the use of the bovine vertebral column for the production of mechanically recovered meat was prohibited. This was a precautionary measure to prevent a risk of potential contamination of MRM by small lengths of spinal cord accidentally left attached to the vertebral column. This ensures that no specified bovine material can enter mechanically recovered meat, even accidentally.

  Farming Population
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the farming population of the European Union. [35779]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 10 July 1996]: The Community survey on the structure of agricultural holdings in 1993 showed that there were some 15 million farming jobs—excluding casual workers and contractors—in the 12 member states. Some workers will hold jobs on different holdings. Further information is contained in "Statistics in Focus—Agriculture, forestry and fisheries" published by Eurostat.
  935

  Herds
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the number and percentage of herds in the United Kingdom which are closed. [37389]

  Mrs. Browning
  There are currently no accurate statistics available on the number of closed herds. The Agricultural Development and Advisory Service estimates that the percentage of UK herds that are closed (i) in the beef and dairy sectors are:

  Dairy herds 45–55 per cent closed

  Beef herds (suckler cows): 5–10 per cent. closed

  (i) that is herds which have not brought in any female animals in the last five years.

  Internet
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to ensure that major publications from his Department are accompanied by a simultaneous electronic release of the text on the Internet. [37228]

  Mr. Boswell
  MAAF has published a number of documents electronically to coincide with the release of the printed publication. The Department is looking at expanding the range of information which it places on the Internet.

  Beef Farmers
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he is taking to ensure that beef farmers who have been selling steers, heifers and young bulls since March, receive a share of the £29.4 million agreed for distribution to United Kingdom producers in special difficulties. [36743]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 15 July 1996]: Some £29 million has been allocated to a system of national aid measures. This money will be distributed to beef producers and under the beef marketing payment scheme, according to the number of adult clean cattle sold in the period 20 March to 30 June for slaughter for human consumption. The application period for this scheme closed on 23 August 1991. More than 29,000 claims were submitted in respect of some 450,000 animals throughout the United Kingdom. All of these claims have now been processed and the rate of payment has been fixed at £66.76 per eligible animal. The first payments began earlier this month and it is hoped they will all be completed by 15 October.

  Sheep Dips
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment his Department has made of the safety and effectiveness of lindane-based sheep dips with particular reference to their performance relative to organophosphorus dips; what conclusions he has drawn from the recent pesticides safety directorate review of lindane (gamma HCH); and if he will make a statement. [37802]

  Mrs. Browning
  Licences authorising the use of lindane-based sheep dips were revoked in 1984. There has been no application for a marketing authorisation for lindane-based sheep dips since then and no assessment of 936
  the safety or effectiveness of such veterinary medicines have been undertaken subsequently in the United Kingdom.

  The independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides concluded, in February, a very thorough review of the uses of lindane as an agricultural pesticide regulated under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. The Committee recommended that all approvals of lindane for such agricultural uses should continue subject to certain further steps being taken to protect lindane users, improvements to product labelling and the subsequent submission of further data. Ministers in all the regulatory Departments have accepted these recommendations which are being implemented.

  Ketamin
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the veterinary anaesthetic drug ketamin is available in the United Kingdom; what safeguards he has issued to ensure that the drug does not become available to young people; and if he will make a statement. [38327]

  Mrs. Browning
  Ketamine hydrochloride is the active ingredient in three veterinary medicines with current marketing authorisations. It is authorised, for use as an anaesthetic for cats—two products—and sub-human primates—one product. In each of these cases, the product is authorised in the category of veterinary medicine available only on prescription, and as such would be used only under the direct control of a veterinary surgeon. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has published a code of practice for storage and dispensing of medicines by veterinary surgeons which includes a requirement that premises in which medicines are stored and dispensed should be capable of being secured to exclude the public and to deter unlawful entry.

  European Fisheries Council
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the European Fisheries Council in Luxembourg. [41157]

  Mr. Baldry
  I represented the United Kingdom at the meeting of the Fisheries Council in Luxembourg on 14 October together with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.

  The Council discussed the principles underlying Commission proposals for substantial further capacity reductions in Community fishing fleets in the next series of multi-annual guidance programmes to run from 1997–2002. Most member states expressed concern about the rates of reduction proposed, the way these would impact on particular fleet segments and the consequences for employment and the economy of coastal communities. I also made it clear that the UK could not implement further compulsory fleet reductions while the quota-hopping problem remained unresolved and drew attention to the burning sense of injustice which the present situation caused in the British fishing industry.

  It was concluded that further detailed examination of all elements of the Commission proposal would be needed before decisions could be taken. There was, however, general recognition of the need for fishing mortality to be

  937
  reduced to acceptable levels for critical stocks and for this to be done in ways which are appropriate, equitable and soundly based. This would include consideration of policies other than capacity reduction, such as technical conservation and enforcement. It would also include careful assessment of the effects of reductions in fishing activity on the industry and those dependent on it.

  The Council also took note of the Commission's report on implementation to date of the existing multi-annual guidance programmes, with the proviso that the figures for a number of member states, including the UK, needed correction, in particular in relation to tonnage measurement.

  Ministers had a first exchange of views on the Commission's proposal for new technical conversation measures. There were many reservations about the proposal but general agreement on the need to improve the current measures in order to conserve stocks and reduce discards. It was also accepted that the measures eventually agreed must command the confidence of the industry and therefore be based on sound scientific advice, easily understood and enforceable.

  The Council discussed the Commission proposal on satellite monitoring. I pressed for harmonised implementation by all member states and the need to guard against fishermen being unfairly penalised in respect of genuine equipment failures. I also requested that the Commission should explore ways in which satellite monitoring could reduce the regulatory burden on fishermen. In the light of the many detailed concerns raised by member states, it was concluded that the matter should be referred for further detailed examination.

  The Council agreed unanimously a proposal consolidating regulations laying down common marketing standards for fish and fisheries products. It makes minor modifications to grading standards. It also provides for the ending of Community financial compensation for lower quality 'B' grade fish with effect from 1 January 2000 and subject to a review after one year.

  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland reminded the Council of the difficulties that salmon farmers are facing in the critical marketing period before Christmas as a result of low prices. He emphasised the importance of the Commission's investigation of complaints about dumping and unfair subsidies in Norway resolving these recurring difficulties.

  The Council also agreed by qualified majority, with Italy and Spain voting against, a measure raising the ceiling on beef intervention purchases for 1996 by 60,000 tonnes and providing new intervention arrangements for store cattle until December.

  Gelatine (Parliamentary Questions)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the hon. Member for Wakefield can expect answers to his questions for answer on 4 June, 19 June and 25 June in respect of gelatine. [38092]

  Mrs. Browning
  I have replied to the hon. Member for Wakefield's questions in respect of gelatine on 18 July, columns 638, and 24 July, column 628.
  938

  Equines
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many equines were exported for slaughter for food in the past year; and if he will make a statement. [36684]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 18 July 1996]: I very much regret that my hon. Friend has had to wait so long for a reply.

  No equines were exported for slaughter for food in the past year.

  EU Standing Veterinary Committee
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the minutes of the meeting of the EU Standing Veterinary Committee of 9 and 10 October 1990. [37867]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: I have deposited in the Library of the House the report of this meeting as issued to member states by the EC Commission.

  Beef
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the independence of the members of the EU Committee of Experts nominated to examine United Kingdom proposals on beef. [37487]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Government have no reason to question the independence of the members of the various EU expert scientific committees on BSE.

  Isle of Wight (Coastal Erosion)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food (1) what studies his Department has evaluated in respect of ways of stabilising the cliff erosion alongside the military road on the Isle of Wight; [36029]

  (2) what representations he has received from the Isle of Wight council about funding coastal protection works to preserve the military road between Freshwater and Brightstone. [36027]

  Mr. Boswell
  It is the responsibility of the Isle of Wight council, as the coastal protection authority, rather than the Ministry, to commission and evaluate any such studies which they consider to be necessary. At this stage, the Ministry has received no formal representations from the council about funding works to protect the military road. If any works were designed solely to protect a road, funding would be the responsibility of the relevant highway authority and grant aid would not be available from this Department.

  Live Domestic Animal Imports
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those countries which currently accept imports from the United Kingdom of live domestic animals. [39704]

  Mrs. Browning
  So far as we are aware, the following third countries, territories, states and so on, are willing to accept cats and dogs exported from Great Britain, subject to certain animal health conditions being met.
  939

  Alaska

  Anguilla

  Antigua and Barbuda

  Argentina

  Ascunsion Island

  Australia

  Austria

  Bahamas

  Bahrain

  Bangladesh

  Barbados

  Belgium

  Belize

  Bermuda

  Bhutan

  Bolivia

  Borneo

  Botswana

  Brazil

  British Virgin Islands

  Brunei

  Bulgaria

  Burma

  Cameroon

  Canada

  Cayman Islands

  Chile

  China

  Colombia

  Commonwealth of Dominica

  Costa Rica

  Cote d'Ivoire

  Croatia

  Cuba

  Cyprus

  Czech Republic

  Denmark

  Dominican Republic

  Ecuador

  Egypt

  El Salvador

  Estonia

  Ethiopia

  Falkland Islands

  Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

  Fiji

  Finland

  France

  Germany

  Ghana

  Gibraltar

  Greece

  Grenada

  Guatemala

  Guyana

  Hawaii

  940

  Honduras

  Hong Kong

  Hungary

  Iceland

  India

  Indonesia

  Iran

  Iraq

  Irish Republic

  Israel

  Italy

  Jamaica

  Japan

  Jordan

  Kazakhstan

  Kenya

  Republic of Korea

  Kuwait

  Laos

  Latvia

  Lebanon

  Lesotho

  Liberia

  Libya

  Lithuania

  Luxembourg

  Madagascar

  Malawi

  Malaysia

  Malta

  Mauritius

  Mexico

  Montserrat

  Morocco

  Mozambique

  Namibia

  Netherlands

  New Caledonia

  New Zealand

  Nigeria

  Norway

  Oman

  Pakistan

  Panama

  Papua New Guinea

  Paraguay

  Peru

  Phillipines

  Poland

  Portugal

  Puerto Rico

  Qatar

  Republic of Korea

  Reunion

  Romania

  Russian Federation

  Saudi Arabia

  Seychelles

  Sierra Leone

  941

  Singapore

  Slovakia

  Slovenia

  Solomon Islands

  South Africa

  Spain (including the Canary and Balearic Islands)

  Sri Lanka

  St. Helena

  St. Kitts and Nevis

  St. Lucia

  St. Vincent and The Grenadines

  Swaziland

  Sweden

  Switzerland

  Syria

  Tahiti

  Taiwan

  Tanzania

  Thailand

  Trinidad and Tobago

  Tunisia

  Turkey

  Turks and Caicos Islands

  Uganda

  Ukraine

  United Arab Emirates

  United States

  Uruguay

  Uzbekistan

  Vanuatu

  Venezuela

  Wallace and Futuna Islands

  Yemen

  Zaire

  Zambia

  Zimbabwe.

  Beef Ban
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will hold discussions with the European Agriculture Commissioner and at the Council of Ministers to ensure that the restrictions that apply in Britain to abattoirs and rendering plants to ban the use of specified bovine offal and to ban the use of meat and bone meal in animal feeding are also applied in European countries. [39839]

  Mrs. Browning
  The European Commission has already produced proposals which, if adopted, would introduce a Community-wide ban in animal and human food of:

  (a) any material from mammals which had not received ante-mortem inspection;

  (b) the skill, vertebral column and spinal cord of cattle, sheep and goats aged over 12 months and the spleen of sheep and goats of any age.

  Subject to detailed negotiation on the coverage of the proposal in relation to sheep and goats, the UK is supporting these proposals, which have been referred to the Commission's Scientific Veterinary Committee for further consideration.
  942
  As regards the use of meat and bonemeal, there has been a prohibition on the feeding of mammalian protein to ruminants throughout the EU since Commission decision 94/381 of 27 June 1994. There is an exemption for member states which can demonstrate that non-ruminant protein is processed separately from ruminant protein which we believe applies to Denmark which has plants dedicated to processing only porcine material.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the impact of climate changes in the United Kingdom on trends in the use of agricultural pesticides. [40070]

  Mrs. Browning
  There are many uncertainties in terms of the nature, extent and timing of climate change, the consequent changes in prevalence and behaviour of pests, weeds and diseases and the response of farmers to these changes. However, studies support the view that it is unlikely that climate change will lead to rapid change In the pattern or volume of pesticide use.

  The Government continue to fund related research. The Government will ensure that the regulation of pesticides continues to protect people and the environment as pesticide usage alters in response to climate change and other developments.

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to receive the report from Professor John Krebs on the relationship between tuberculosis in cattle and diseased badgers. [40812]

  Mrs. Browning
  It is expected that Professor Krebs will report in the early summer of 1997.

  Milk Quota Transfers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what level of allowance the Intervention Board sets when(a) a lessee and (b) a transferee acquires a multi-lot milk quota transfer from the same (i) leasor and (ii) transferor; and if he will make a statement. [40893]

  Mr. Baldry
  The Intervention Board has informed milk producers, purchasers and quota agents of its intention to round calculations of permanent butterfat percentages in transfers or leases of milk quota to six places of decimal. This change will take effect from 1 April 1997. In the meantime, transfers and leases presented in multi-lotted form, which the board considers will have the effect of achieving a higher butterfat percentage than would have arisen from a single lot movement of the same quantity, will have the individual transactions rounded to six places of decimal at each stage and the final figure to two places. This measure is necessary to ensure that the butterfat level of the national quota is not distorted in a way which would leave the United Kingdom open to financial correction of its accounts by the European Commission.
  943

  Quarantine Regulations
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement regarding the Government's current policy towards quarantine regulations. [40898]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Government's first priority is public health and our current strict quarantine controls have ensured that the UK is rabies free. The Government are determined that should remain the case. The Government recognise that the current restrictions are onerous for some people and agree that they should be replaced if alternatives offering the same protection become available. The Government would, however, never support any change which increased the likelihood of rabies entering the UK.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) written and (b) oral parliamentary questions have required correction by his Department in each of the past two years. [40627]

  Mr. Boswell
  This is a matter of public record.

  Milk (Dioxins)
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will publish the results of his Department's survey of dioxins in milk in the vicinity of Hampshire incinerators. [40873]

  Mrs. Browning
  A summary of the results currently available, including dioxins in milk from the vicinity of four incinerators in Hampshire, will be published in this month's issue of the MAFF/Department of Health food Safety-Information Bulletin.

  Forestry Commission Land
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list the plots of Forestry Commission land in South Yorkshire which are(a) currently for sale and (b) being considered for sale; and in each case (i) what is the size of the plot, (ii) what consultation is planned in advance of the sale and (iii) how many representations he has received to date for and against the proposed sale; [40904]

  (2) if he will list the plots of land which have been sold by the Forestry Commission in South Yorkshire in each of the last five years; and in each case (a) what was the size of the plot, (b) what consultation was made in advance of the sale and (c) how many representations he received (i) for and (ii) against the sale. [40905]

  Mr. Boswell
  The subjects of the questions relate to matters undertaken by Forest Enterprise. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. Gordon Cowie, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Gordon M. Cowie to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 16 October 1996:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply to your Questions about Forestry Commission land in South Yorkshire.
  In answer to your questions I enclose the following information:—
  Annex A—a list of land sold since 1991
  944
  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, added to which the local authority have been advised of our intention to sell.
  For Annex A, we have no detailed records of any representations.
  For Annex B, there has only been one representation received to-date, and that is against the sale of Owston & Duck Holt Woods and Wadworth Woods. The matter is being dealt with separately via Ministerial Correspondence between yourself and the Rt Hon. John Gummer MP which has since been redirected to the Scottish Office to be replied to in due course.

  Annex A: Forestry Commission cases sold in South Yorkshire from 1991 to date

  Year

  Name of property

  Area (ha)

  1991

  Bagger Wood (pt)

  0.1

  Broom Royd

  8.3

  Crane Moor Wood

  1.0

  Top Pit Wood

  5.6

  1992

  Bagger Wood

  26.8

  Lower Lee Wood

  5.0

  Melton Wood

  100.5

  Upper Lee Wood

  2.7

  1993

  Bawtry Woods

  214.0

  Stockbridge By-Pass

  2.8

  1994

  Black Carr

  20.4

  Cannon Hall Estate

  160.4

  1995

  No sales

  —

  1996

  No sales

  —

  Annex B: Forestry Commission land currently for sale either on the open market or by negotiation in South Yorkshire

  Year

  Name of property

  Area (ha)

  1996

  Owston and Duck Holt Woods

  64.0

  Wadworth Woods

  115.0

  Green Springs Wood

  12.0

  Old Park Wood

  41.0

  Walker Wood

  6.0

  Hugset Wood

  34.0

  Millerhill/Wigfield Wood

  5.0

  Forestry Commission land currently being considered for sale in South Yorkshire
  There are no cases being considered at present.

  Thirty-month Scheme
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to reduce the backlog of cull cattle under the 30-month scheme in Dorset. [41217]

  Mr. Baldry
  A telephone survey of producers carried out by my Department and those in Wales and Northern Ireland revealed a much larger backlog of animals awaiting entry to the 30-month scheme than we had previously estimated. It also showed that some areas, including the south-west of England, were much more seriously affected than others. The Intervention Board is taking urgent steps to increase the weekly slaughter from a level at the end of August of about 23,000 animals a
  945
  week to 55,000 as quickly as possible. A new rendering mix will allow more animals to be slaughtered for a given amount of rendering capacity by consigning more material to cold store. More cold storage space is being contracted and the renderers are making significantly greater capacity available from next week. About 42,000 animals are expected to be slaughtered this week and the number is planned to increase to more than 50,000 next week. In increasing abattoir allocations, the Intervention Board is giving priority to those serving markets and producers in the particularly disadvantaged areas including those in Dorset.

  Buildings and Premises (Expenditure)
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total expenditure on new buildings and premises by his Department and its agencies; and if he will indicate the square footage of new office space purchased or newly rented in each of the last five years. [41152]

  Mr. Boswell
  The information is as follows:

  New buildings and premises (including specialised buildings)

  £

  1991–92

  25,042,934

  1992–93

  20,303,048

  1993–94

  27,631,496

  1994–95

  42,176,564

  1995–96

  49,969,517

  New office space

  sq.ft.

  1991–92

  17,190.10

  1992–93

  1,199.74

  1993–94

  10,579.35

  1994–95

  6,528.73

  1995–96

  18,445.76

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to impose a reciprocal ban on the import of beef from any country that bans the import of British beef until such time as that country's Government can satisfy him that its cattle herds are entirely free of BSE. [23148]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 28 March 1996]: I very much regret that my hon. Friend has had to wait so long for a reply.

  Member states of the EU have power to take interim protective measures under article 9 of Council directive 89/662/EEC pending the adoption of EU legislation where there is an outbreak of disease in the territory of another member state.

  The United Kingdom has asked the Commission to adopt Community-wide controls on the removal of specified bovine offal from cattle carcasses.

  All fresh meat imported into the UK, whether from other member states or third countries, must have been produced in accordance with harmonised Community rules laid down in Council directive 64/433/EEC. In addition, the Fresh Meat (Beef Controls) Regulations 1996 prohibit the sale for human consumption of all
  946
  bovine meat derived from bovines which, at the time of slaughter, were more than 30 months old. This measure applies to all bovines slaughtered on or after 29 March 1996, whether in the UK or overseas, other than those born, reared and slaughtered in those third countries listed in the schedule to those regulations, and those aged between 30 and 42 months from herds registered under the beef assurance scheme. The list of countries is confined to those where the Government are satisfied we can import beef without risk.

  The imposition by the UK of any unreasonable barriers to trade would be contrary to our World Trade Organisation commitments. It would not therefore be appropriate for us to take retaliatory action in respect of those countries which have imposed a ban on exports of beef from the UK in advance of the general prohibition on exports introduced under Commission decision 96/239/EC of 27 March.

  Driftnets
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he intends to review the current maximum lengths of driftnets in respect of the finding of the recent report, cetacean by-catch in the UK tuna driftnets fishery 1995; and what proposals he has to ban the use of driftnets; [24842]

  (2) what response he has made to the proposals for a ban on the use of driftnets from the European Parliament and the European Commission; and if he will make it his policy to support an EU-imposed ban on driftnetting; [24580]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the scientific evidence for a ban on high seas driftnets. [24581]

  Mr. Baldry
  [pursuant to his reply, 16 April 1996, c. 464–6]: The current maximum length of driftnets permitted on UK and other Community fishing vessels is set at 2.5 km in line with the precautionary approach and in response to United Nations resolutions. I am not aware of scientific evidence that justifies a different maximum length or a ban on the use of drift nets. I do not therefore support the European Commission's proposal but I do think that means should be sought to reduce by-catches of cetaceans in high seas driftnet fisheries.

  Live Sheep Traders (Ireland)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the current position in respect of the case brought by MAFF against Live Sheep Traders (Ireland); and what arrangements have been made by Mr. Roger Ernest Mills to pay the damages awarded to MAFF. [28438]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 7 May 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) on 15 February 1996, Official Report, column 675.

  Animal Feed
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what regulatory monitoring there is in place to check on the antibiotic content of farm animal feed and its possible cumulative effect on the human consumer. [30724]
  947
  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 4 June 1996]: The use of additives in animal feedingstuffs is subject to directive 70/524/EEC, as amended. No feed additive may be authorised unless it satisfies criteria set out in the directive, including a requirement that, at the level permitted in feedstuffs, it does not adversely affect human or animal health or the environment.

  Surveillance for the use of residues of veterinary medicines including antibiotics in food producing animals is carried out under the national surveillance scheme for residues in meat, which implements EC Directive 86/469. About 40,000 samples are collected in GB each year from randomly selected slaughterhouses by the Meat Hygiene Service and tested for the presence of these substances.

  The results show that the incidence of residues found in 1995 was very low. Only 99 samples out of some 47,000 tested were above the action level. Because of the considerable margins of safety involved, none of these samples was likely to have posed a health risk to consumers. The results of this surveillance are published in the Veterinary Medicines Directorate's annual report on surveillance for veterinary residues and updated quarterly in its Medicines Act veterinary information newsletter, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  European Movement
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what grants his Department made to the European Movement in each year since 1985 to 1996; and what plans he has to offer financial assistance in future years. [40080]

  Mr. Page
  The Department of Trade and Industry made a grant of £40,000 in 1989 towards an education campaign on the single market. A further £32,000 was granted in 1990 and approximately £20,000 in 1991.

  The Department has no plans to offer financial assistance to the European Movement in future years.

  Radio Spectrum
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress his Department has made in increasing co-operation with Europe over the management and distribution of the radio spectrum. [40316]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  My Department continues to participate actively in all areas of European radio spectrum management in order to provide the maximum opportunities and benefits for UK manufacturers, operators and users through, in particular, the harmonisation of European radio usage. My officials have led in many European developments including the formation of the European Radiocommunications Committee of CEPT, the Conference of European Posts and Telecommunications administrations, and in the current discussions on the future management of the radio spectrum arising from our White Paper, Cm 3252, published last June.
  948
  Additionally, on 27 September, the EU Telecommunications Council reached political agreement on a proposed decision to facilitate the introduction of satellite personal communications services. The appropriate framework is to be developed by CEPT.

  Internet (Ethical Issues)
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the final report of the Government's study into ethical issues and the Internet will be published and placed in the Library. [40344]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The CCTA work on ethical issues and the Internet provides an input to the relevant Departments as they take forward their various responsibilities in this area. The CCTA itself has no policy responsibility in this field.

  The work will not be made more widely available, because it does not reflect a full account of the Government's policies in this area and was a contribution to advice to Ministers. The Government's considered views on the subject were set out in my speech to the Internet Services Providers Association on May 21, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. In support of these policies, we have worked with the Internet industry, the Home Office and the police, towards the agreement of industry proposals—"R3 Safety-Net"—to combat the problems of illegal material on the Internet. Copies of the industry proposals were distributed to the Trade and Industry Select Committee, and I have also deposited copies in the Library of the House.

  British Energy
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many shares in British Energy are held by Her Majesty's Government following privatisation. [40501]

  Mr. Page
  Approximately 85.9 million shares in British Energy plc are presently held by the Government.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the factors underlying the decision not to sell 12.3 per cent. of British Energy shares during the privatisation of the company. [40503]

  Mr. Page
  In line with previous privatisations, and as set out in detail in the British Energy share offer prospectus, up to 90 million shares in British Energy plc were retained by the Secretary of State at the time of the offer to cover the over-allotment option granted to BZW. Following settlement of that option on 13 August, the Secretary of State retained approximately 85.9 million shares, of which approximately 5 million represent shares retained to satisfy potential entitlements to bonus shares under the UK public offer.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage and cash value of the shares in British Energy remain held on behalf of the Government; and if he will make a statement. [40709]

  Mr. Page
  Up to 90 million shares were retained at the time of the share offer to cover the over-allotment option granted to BZW. Following settlement of that option on 13 August, the Secretary of State retained approximately 85.9 million shares, of which approximately 5 million
  949
  shares are retained to cover potential entitlements to bonus shares under the UK public offer. The shares retained by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on behalf of the Government represent approximately 12⅓ per cent. of the total shares.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had, or his officials have had, regarding(a) reviewing the contributions made by British Energy to the segregated fund and (b) assessing British Energy's ability to meet its operational liabilities; and what staff and mechanisms are to be deployed to monitor (a) and (b) above. [40727]

  Mr. Page
  British Energy's contributions to the segregated fund are determined by British Energy and the Nuclear Generation Decommissioning Fund Ltd., owned by the trustees of an independent trust, under the terms of the contractual arrangements between them. It is for British Energy to deal with its operational liabilities.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the total sum raised for the Exchequer by the sale of British Energy to date; and what further moneys are forecasted. [40721]

  Mr. Page
  Proceeds from the British Energy Share Offer to date have been £630 million from the first instalment paid for the shares sold and £60 million of debt repayment. A further £100 million of debt is expected to be repayed later in this financial year. In the financial year 1997–98, it is anticipated that the proceeds from payment of the second instalment on the shares sold will be £590 million. British Energy will continue to have a debt to the Government, in the form of bonds to the value of £440 million, and the Government hold shares in British Energy which have a value of about £183 million at the issue price. In addition, liabilities of £3.7 billion have been transferred to the private sector.

  Fissile Materials (Verification)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to part 2(3) of his Department's management information system for Ministers—MINIS—return, what proposals he has to ensure that the verification regime established for the fissile materials cut-off convention is proportionate to the security gains and that the United Kingdom contribution to the costs is not disproportionate. [40508]

  Mr. Nelson
  We are preparing for prospective negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty. A ban on the future production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices would be a significant contribution to non-proliferation and international security, provided that it enjoyed wide support from countries including those which have not yet signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The nature and scope of the proposed FMCT and its associated verification regime have still to be negotiated.

  National Grid
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of trade what assessment he has made of the effect on safety of the national grids of the implementation of the recommendation by the electricity regulator made 'on 13 August, in respect of reduction in transmission costs charged by the National Grid. [40502]
  950
  Mr. Page
  The Director General of Electricity Supply issued his fourth consultation document of the review of transmission price controls on 13 August. On 3 October he issued his final proposals which included some modifications. The Director General of Electricity Supply, in making his final proposals, was required to have regard to his statutory duties. These include, among other duties, exercising his functions in a way best calculated to protect the public from dangers arising from the transmission of electricity, and to secure that National Grid is able to finance the carrying on of its licensed activities. The National Grid is required to operate its transmission system in accordance with regulations relating to safety which are made under part 1 of the Electricity Act 1989.

  Trade Mission (China)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who accompanied him on his recent trade mission to China; what cities were visited; what was the outcome of the visit; and if he will make a statement. [40453]

  Mr. Nelson
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade visited Dalian and Beijing during his recent visit to China. In Dalian he promoted the opportunities for British business there and in particular, supported the close links between Dalian and the city of Glasgow with which it is twinned. In Dalian, my right hon. Friend was accompanied by: the Lord Provost and representatives of Glasgow city council; Bass International Brewers; China Britain Trade Group (Scotland); Commercial Union Assurance Co. plc; GEC Alsthom; Ian Dickson Travel Service; Koo and Partners; Lawrence Graham; Prudential Corporation Asia Ltd.; Robert Flemming and Co. Ltd.; Robert Gordon University; Royal and Sun Alliance Group plc; Siemens Traffic Controls; Silleck Mouldings (Scotland) Ltd.; Standard Chartered Bank; and Strachan and Henshaw.

  In Beijing, my right hon. Friend's discussions with senior Chinese leaders continued the series of high-level bilateral exchanges which have promoted closer two way business relations. He was accompanied in Beijing by senior representatives from: British Petroleum Co. plc.; Commercial Union Assurance Plc; Eagle Star Asia; General Accident plc; Kvaerner Corporate Development Ltd; Lucas Braking Systems; Prudential Corporation Asia Ltd.; Robert Fleming and Co. Ltd.; Rolls Royce plc; Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance Group Plc; Shell Transport and Trading Co.; Standard Chartered Bank; Varity Perkins; and Zeneca China Ltd.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultations his Departments held about the business visit to China by Prince Michael of Kent in September; what was the nature of this visit; how its related to the trade mission which he led to China; and if he will make a statement. [40454]

  Mr. Nelson
  The Department of Trade and Industry was not involved in the arrangements for Prince Michael of Kent's visit to China in September. This was a business trip by private companies, unrelated to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade's official visit to China in the same month.

  Nuclear Reprocessing
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which countries with which British Nuclear Fuels
  951
  has reprocessing contracts have agreed to accept the return of reprocessing waste using the substitution formula developed since 2 May 1986. [40778]

  Mr. Page
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 20 February 1995,Official Report, columns 34–35.

  Nuclear Energy
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the reasons for, and the amounts of, increased spending on back-end fuel costs in years 1994–95 and 1995–96 by Nuclear Electric and British Nuclear Fuels. [40724]

  Mr. Page
  Increased spending by Nuclear Electric on back-end fuel costs in 1994–95 and 1995–96 included partial payments of outstanding moneys due to BNFL from the period between 1989 when contract negotiations began until 1995, when fixed price contracts between Nuclear Electric and BNFL were finalised. The exact value of these payments is a commercial matter for the companies concerned.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the difference in the discounted advanced gas-cooled reactor and pressurised water reactor liabilities between the figures announced in(a) February and (b) British Energy's prospectus. [40722]

  Mr. Page
  The difference between the figures for discounted AGR and PWR liabilities discussed in February in, for example, submissions to the Trade and Industry Committee and the figures published in the prospectus is mainly attributable to the change in the discount rate from 2 per cent. to 3 per cent.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on current Government policy on the time scale for decommissioning and dismantling nuclear power stations. [40725]

  Mr. Page
  Government policy on the decommissioning of nuclear power stations is set out in paragraphs 124 to 127 of last year's final conclusions of the "Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy", Cm 2919, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the result of the nuclear installations inspectorate investigations into the cause of spent fuel damage in advanced gas-cooled reactors at(a) Hunterston, (b) Hinkley Point, (c) Torness, (d) Heysham (i) 1 and (ii) 2 and (e) Hartlepool; and if he will make a statement. [41035]

  Mr. Page
  I understand that Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear are currently carrying out an investigation into the causes and implications of a small amount of unexpected wear to the external ribbing of some fuel pins recently discharged from some AGR nuclear power stations. The Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate, which is closely monitoring this investigation, is satisfied that the unexpected wear raises no immediate safety concerns and that the installations can continue to operate.
  952
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the arrangements for payment of the AGR reprocessing costs. [40838]

  Mr. Page
  This is a commercial matter between British Energy and BNFL.

  Magnox
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the increase in the undiscounted Magnox liabilities between the figures given in evidence to the Trade and Industry Select Committee and the figure accepted in Magnox's recent report and accounts. [40723]

  Mr. Page
  The figures for nuclear liabilities published by the Trade and Industry Committee were for the year ending 31 March 1995. The detailed movements in Magnox Electric's undiscounted liabilities in the year ending 31 March 1996 are set out in the table on page 6 of Magnox Electric's report and accounts for that year. The main changes concerned recognition of inflation and the acquisition of Hunterston A.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what have been the 10 inward investment decisions of most financial value since January 1993; which companies were concerned; where the inward investment is to be made; and what is its value. [40762]

  Mr. Greg Knight
  According to figures notified to my Department's Invest in Britain Bureau, since January 1993, the 10 inward investment decisions of most financial value are as follows:

  Year

  Company

  Country

  £'s

  Investment to be made

  1

  1996

  Hyundai

  Korea

  2.4 billion

  Scotland

  2

  1996

  LG

  Korea

  1.7 billion

  Wales

  3

  1995

  Siemens

  Germany

  1.1 billion

  North-east

  4

  1995

  Fujitsu

  Japan

  816 million

  North-east

  5

  1994

  Toyota

  Japan

  800 million

  East Midlands

  6

  1996

  UPS

  USA

  £784 million

  East Midlands

  7

  1994

  NEC

  Japan

  £530 million

  Scotland

  8

  1994

  Samsung

  Korea

  £450 million

  North-east

  9

  1995

  Jaguar

  USA

  £370 million

  West Midlands

  10

  1994

  Newport Wafer FAB

  Hong Kong

  £340 million

  Wales

  Regional Services
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to transfer the responsibility for designing and delivering regional services currently provided by Government Departments or regional offices to business-led partnerships between training and enterprise councils and business links. [40756]

  Mr. Page
  The Government's new approach to support for business, including the delegation of design and delivery of such support to business-led partnerships at local and sectoral level, was set out in the replies given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson).
  953

  Social Chapter
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many copies of "The Social Chapter-British and Continental Approaches" have been printed; and what is the total cost including research, printing and distribution. [40761]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Forty thousand copies of the booklet have been printed. It is planned that a smaller number of copies will be produced in French, German, Italian and Spanish for distribution in other EU member states.

  The text was prepared internally, so no external costs for research were incurred. It is not possible to quantify the staff time involved. The final cost of design, printing and distribution is expected to be in the region of £25,000.

  Porterbook Leasing
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what conclusions he has reached in his discussions with(a)the Rail Regulator and (b) the Department of Trade and Industry in respect of a referral of the proposed takeover of Porterbook Leasing plc by the Stagecoach Group plc and its subsidiaries. [40990]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is considering the advice received from the Director General of Fair Trading on this takeover under the merger provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973. He will announce his decisions in due course on whether or not to refer it to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Promotional Expenditure
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much his Department has spent on(a) publicity, (b) promotion and (c) hospitality in each of the last six years. [40611]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Expenditure on publicity and promotions from centrally managed budgets and hospitality has been as follows:

  £000

  Publicity and promotions

  Hospitality

  1990–91

  15,869

  1392

  1991–92

  10,203

  535

  1992–93

  9,923

  548

  1993–94

  8,468

  690

  1994–95

  8,112

  712

  1995–96

  9,211

  2670

  1 Information not readily available for Companies House prior to October 1991.

  2 Work previously carried out by the Accounts Services Agency and National Physical Laboratory was contracted out on 1 April and 1 October 1995 respectively. The National Engineering Laboratory and Laboratory of the Government Chemist were privatised on 31 October 1995 and 31 March 1996 respectively. Information for the National Engineering Laboratory and the Laboratory of the Government Chemist is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  954

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many answers to(a) written and (b) oral parliamentary questions have required correction by his Department in each of the past two years. [40642]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  This is a matter of public record.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Hardy
  to ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he is taking to ensure that the British steel industry does not face unfair competition within the European Union; and what steps are being taken in regard to subsidies of production by(a) national and (b) regional governments in Belgium. [40074]

  Mr. Greg Knight
  The Government have made their opposition to illegal subsidies to EU steel producers very clear to both the Commission and other member states. The UK Steel Subsidies Monitoring Committee has also played a part in maintaining the pressure to end these subsidies. Following a complaint from the UK and others, the Commission recently opened an investigation into the state aid element of the Forges de Clabecq rescue package. If a British company is able to provide evidence of illegal subsidies to other steel producers, we will pursue the matter vigorously with the Commission.

  Pay Rates
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he is taking to persuade employers to increase rates of pay. [40145]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Pay is a matter to be resolved by the employer and employees concerned in light of local circumstances, without Government intervention. The Government's role is to create the conditions for a growing economy and to remove barriers to employment. Our policy of keeping inflation and interest rates at low levels is aimed at securing an improved standard of living for all. Since 1979, pay at all levels has increased in real terms.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish industrial tribunal statistics for 1994–95, indicating which proportion of applications to industrial tribunals come from companies which employ fewer than 24 people, broken down by jurisdiction in the same format as those made available for 1993–94. [41129]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Industrial tribunal statistics for 1994–95, in the same format as those previously made available for 1993–94, were published in the July 1996 issue of "Labour Market Trends". The industrial tribunals do not collect information on the number of people employed by companies involved in cases before them.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what statistical evidence was supplied by his Department to the deregulation task force on industrial tribunal cases for their 1995–96 report; and if he will publish this evidence. [41130]

  Mr. Taylor
  The information on industrial tribunal performance and work load supplied to the deregulation task force was that published in departmental reports, the
  955
  Green Paper "Resolving Employment Rights Disputes: Options for Reform" and "Labour Market Trends". In addition, in the first three months of this year the tribunals have met their main performance target of bringing 80 per cent. of cases to a first hearing within 26 weeks of the date of registration.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the advantage of the proposal made by the Trades Union Congress in the consultation on the draft Employment Rights (Dispute Resolution) Bill to allow directions hearings on test cases where there are multiple applications to industrial tribunals. [41131]

  Mr. Taylor
  The rules of procedure already allow the tribunal judiciary to hold directions hearings on test cases in multiple applications. However, I shall consult both presidents of the industrial tribunals about the TUC proposals to see whether any changes in the rules are appropriate.

  Lead Imports
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the amount of lead imported into the United Kingdom in each of the last five years. [41124]

  Mr. Page
  The information is published by HM Customs and Excise in "Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom", which is available in the Library of the House.

  Laboratory of the Government Chemist
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has anything further to add to the answer given on 2 April,Official Report, column 149, regarding the sale of the Laboratory of the Government Chemist. [41233]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  In my reply to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) of 2 April about the completion of the sale of the Laboratory of the Government Chemist, I explained that the consideration—a payment to the Department of £360,000—was to be adjusted in the light of the level of net current assets at completion. The closing accounts for LGC in its last year as an executive agency of the Department have been laid before Parliament today. The adjustment to the sale consideration will be £729,000, resulting in a net payment by the Department to the purchaser of £369,000.

  The payment arises principally because LGC's trading performance was not as good as expected and because the Department benefited from advance receipts for work which LGC would have to undertake after the sale. The payment by the Department takes account of LGC's purchase of employee debts. The fact that the sale of LGC represented value for money is not affected by this payment because changes to the level of net current assets and the purchase of employee debts have an equal impact on the benchmark.

  Allied Medicare Ltd.
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his current estimate of the publication date 956
  of the investigation into Allied Medicare Ltd.'s discharge of its functions as a registered employment agency, pursuant to the Huw Evans case. [40752]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information obtained by my Department during its investigation under the Employment Agencies Act 1973 into the supply of Mr. Huw Evans as a nursing auxiliary by Allied Medicare Ltd. cannot be disclosed without the consent of the persons concerned in consequence of section 9(4)(a) of the Act. A copy of my letter of 15 October 1996 to the hon. Gentleman about this matter is being placed in the Library of the House. The licensing of agencies under the Employment Agencies Act 1973 ceased on 3 January 1995. Agencies supplying registered nurses and certain other persons continue to be licensed by local authorities under the Nurses Agency Act 1957.

  Import and Export Control Act 1990
  Ms Quin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his Department's current policy towards the replacement of the Import and Export Control Act 1990. [41072]

  Mr. Nelson
  The consultation document, "Strategic Export Controls", Cm 3349, presented to Parliament in July 1996 sought views on whether there should be new primary export control legislation. When responses to that document have been fully considered, I shall inform Parliament of my conclusions.

  Internet
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his Department's estimate of the number of households in the UK connected to the Internet. [40938]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Six hundred and seventy-six thousand. This is an 87 per cent. increase on the 1995 figure, 362,000.

  British Coal Land
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent discussions he has had with the chairman of British Coal about the transfer of land to English Partnerships; if he will list the sites involved; if he will account for delays in the transfer of this land; and when he estimates the transfer will be concluded. [40764]

  Mr. Page
  The disposal of British Coal property is a matter for the corporation. My Department maintains regular contact with British Coal as discussions on this matter continue.

  British Coal Enterprise
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what sums were received in respect to the(a) loan, (b) training and (c) workshop elements of British Coal Enterprise. [40430]

  Mr. Page
  The sale of British Coal Enterprise is a matter for British Coal. I understand that the corporation has not yet completed the sale of all of the activities of BCE.
  957

  Atolls (Radioactivity)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade pursuant to his answer of 2 May,Official Report, column 601, if he will make a statement on the work of the task groups and the working groups established by the International Atomic Energy Authority to assess the radiological situation of the atolls of Iluvovou and Fangataufa. [40379]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 14 October 1996]: In a report to the recent International Atomic Energy Agency general conference, the secretariat of the agency gave details to member states of the progress made so far in the study of the radiological situation at the atolls of Mururoa and Fangataufa. I have instructed that a copy of this report be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  The report gives details of the participation of United Kingdom experts mentioned in my answer of 3 April to the hon. Member, Official Report, columns 309–10.

  The report of the international advisory committee is expected in early 1998.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from the United States Government in respect of making use of spare production capacity at the mixed oxide plutonium fuel production plant at Sellafield for the recycling of plutonium form dismantled nuclear warheads; and what new authorisations would be required for such recycling. [40445]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 14 October 1996]: None. It is not possible to comment in detail on what authorisations might be necessary were any such contacts to be contemplated. However, British Nuclear Fuels did wish to conclude a contract for the fabrication of MOX fuel from weapons grade plutonium, then an appropriate revision to the Sellafield site safety case would be required, and would need to be agreed with the regulator, the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the implications for the DRAWMOPS—decommissioning and waste management operational programmes—arrangements for nuclear waste management of the proposals for privatisation of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. [40513]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 14 October 1996]: The separation of the science and engineering services business, AEA-Technology, from UKAEA and its subsequent privatisation has no implications for DRAWMOPS nuclear waste management arrangements. DRAWMOPS will remain under the direct control of the UKAEA. There are no plans to privatise the residual UKAEA.

  Cambertown Ltd.
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the nature of the arrangement his 958
  Department has with Cambertown Ltd. concerning the distribution of letters to hon. Members; what is the cost of the contract; and if he will make a statement. [40680]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  My Department makes arrangements from time to time with a number of companies, including Cambertown Ltd. for the storage and distribution of specific Government publications. The detailed costs of these arrangements are commercially confidential.

  Hon. Members are sometimes included in the distribution of such publications, but there is no separate arrangement for this.

  Departmental Staff (Energy Matters)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many staff in his Department spend 50 per cent. or more of their time on energy-related matters; and how many of them work on press and publicity and public relations. [41288]

  Mr. Page
  Within the Department I estimate that there are 412 staff spending 50 per cent. or more of their time on energy-related matters, including those staff employed in the oil and gas projects and supplies office. Six of these staff work on publicity, press and other media relations activity.

  Coal Stockpiles
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what tonnages of stockpiled coal are currently held by power generators in England, Scotland and Wales; and what assessment he has made of the likelihood of their meeting demand over the next six months. [41290]

  Mr. Page
  Latest available data are for the end of July 1996 when electricity generators in the United Kingdom held 7.7 million tonnes of coal in stock. Separate figures for England, Scotland, and Wales are not available.

  I expect stocks to be adequate to maintain generation at coal-fired stations over the next six months.

  Link Programmes
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what priorities to improve competitiveness have been revealed since March 1995 as a result of the link programmes on(a) genetic and environmental interactions in health, (b) waste minimisation through recycling, reuse and recovery in industry, (c) competitive industrial materials from non-food crops, (d) sustainable livestock production and (e) integrated approaches to healthy aging. [41226]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  These programmes are all addressing priorities identified by technology foresight panels. However, collaborative research projects funded through these programmes are only just beginning. These and subsequent projects will provide for research partnerships between companies and the science and engineering base. lasting several years. Based on experience from earlier Link programmes, they can be expected to take forward the development of new technology in high priority areas.

  There are currently 15 Link programmes addressing foresight priorities and there has been extensive dissemination of information about each programme, with

  959
  encouragement given to industry—including to small and medium-sized companies—to develop research partnerships with academic institutions, across a range of sectors.

  Companies which become involved in the programmes the hon. Gentleman mentions can be expected to improve their competitiveness by exploiting the outcomes of their collaborative research projects in a range of markets.

  New Buildings and Premises
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total expenditure on new buildings and premises by his Department and its agencies; and if he will indicate the square footage of new office space purchased or newly rented in each of the last five years. [41149]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Within my Department, management of property is delegated to a series of property centres to maximise synergy with business operation. The DTI headquarters property centre has acquired only one new building over the past five years. To replace premises on which the lease had expired, we acquired in March 1995 about the same amount of new space—20,094 sq.ft.—at a total annual cost of £461,000.

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

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what capacity of electricity used in his Department's buildings is generated in a combined heat and power plant; and what plans he has to increase that capacity. [41313]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Nil. My Department keeps under review the opportunities for using combined heat and power, but currently there are no firm plans to install such a system in our buildings.

  Dowdon and Fox Cover Enterprise Zones
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on progress made in the transfer of Dowdon and Fox Cover enterprise zones to English Partnerships. [41223]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have been asked to reply.

  I hope that an announcement can be made shortly.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, what are his latest estimates of the expenditure on all external consultants, including management consultants, for each year since 1992, in 1996 prices, for his Department and its agencies; and what are the quantified annual cost savings which such expenditure has resulted in. [41188]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.
  960

ATTORNEY GENERAL

  Butte Mining and Plateau Mining
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) on what dates since January 1990 the Serious Fraud Office sent letters to the Department of Trade and Industry concerning the activities of(a) Butte Mining and (b) Plateau Mining; [40757]

  (2) at what date the Serious Fraud Office began its investigation into (a) Butte Mining and (b) Plateau Mining; when the investigations were completed; what action was subsequently taken; and if he will make a statement. [40758]

  The Attorney-General
  The Serious Fraud Office commenced investigation into the affairs of Richmond Oil and Gas plc on 29 June 1992. Matters emerging during that investigation caused the Serious Fraud Office to begin an investigation into Butte Mining plc on 9 September 1993. Between May 1995 and March 1996 four people were charged with conspiracies to defraud and the case is awaiting trial before the central criminal court.

  During the course of its investigations, the Serious Fraud Office liaises as necessary with the Department of Trade and Industry. It is my practice not to give details of steps taken in the course of individual criminal investigations.

  The Serious Fraud Office has not conducted an investigation into the affairs of Plateau Mining.

  Promotional Expenditure
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Attorney-General how much his Department has spent on(a) publicity, (b) promotion and (c) hospitality in each of the last six years. [40617]

  The Attorney-General
  The amounts spent on publicity, promotion and hospitality in the departments and agencies for which I am responsible are set out in the following tables. Information for the Treasury Solicitor's Department, lawyers management unit and the legal secretariat to the Law Officers for financial years before 1993–94 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. It is not possible to distinguish between expenditure on publicity and promotion.

  Publicity and promotion

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  £

  £

  £

  Department

  Crown Prosecution Service

  138,284

  221,502

  238,559

  Serious Fraud Office

  1,072

  3,150

  —

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  £

  £

  £

  Department

  Crown Prosecution Service

  185,164

  199,316

  191,498

  Serious Fraud Office

  4,071

  585

  3,826

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  —

  4,671

  24,485

  Lawyers Management Unit

  23,799

  27,884

  35,483

  Government Property Lawyers Agency

  24,916

  1,543

  1,757

  Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers

  —

  —

  —

  961

  Hospitality

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Department

  £

  £

  £

  Crown Prosecution Service

  14,693

  19,541

  20,707

  Serious Fraud Office

  7,624

  2,923

  3,686

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Department

  £

  £

  £

  Crown Prosecution Service

  11,476

  16,678

  9,086

  Serious Fraud Office

  5,039

  3,187

  5,958

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  185

  782

  244

  Lawyers Management Unit

  —

  126

  65

  Government Property Lawyers Agency

  485

  502

  496

  Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers

  3,943

  3,127

  1,886

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Attorney-General how many(a) written and (b) oral parliamentary questions have required correction by his Department in each of the past two years. [40635]

  The Attorney-General
  This is a matter of public record.

  "Barbecue in Rostock"
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Attorney-General what consideration has been given to prosecuting the band No Remorse, and the producers and distributors of the CD "Barbecue in Rostock"; and if he will make a statement. [41065]

  The Attorney-General
  I understand that Gwent police are conducting an investigation into the production of a compact disk by a band calling themselves No Remorse during which they have sought legal advice from the Crown Prosecution Service. When the investigation has been completed, it is expected that the police will submit a file of evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service for advice as to whether criminal proceedings should be instituted.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Attorney-General what capacity of electricity used in his Department's buildings is generated in a combined heat and power plant; and what plans he has to increase that capacity. [41324]

  The Solicitor-General
  The departments and agencies for which my right hon. and learned Friend is responsible have no electricity generating plant. The question of energy sourcing is kept under review.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Terrorist Organisation (Funding)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many bank accounts have been investigated under anti-terrorist legislation in each of the last five years. [40665]
  962
  Sir John Wheeler
  It is policy not to comment in detail on these matters. I can, however, assure the hon. Gentleman that the legislation is vigorously applied and used to good effect.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to improve legislation in respect of funding of terrorist organisations. [40664]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which came into force on 26 August, incorporates, builds upon and extends the terrorist finance provisions which previously existed in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 and would have been used to good effect against terrorist racketeers. The order strengthens and improves the measures available to confiscate the proceeds of drug trafficking and other serious crime, much of which is believed to be terrorist linked.

  The new powers extend at least as wide as the Emergency Provisions Act terrorist finance investigation and confiscation powers which they replace and are capable of being used to assist in tracing the ill-gotten gains of all racketeers, whether terrorists or not.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the operation of legislation in respect of the funding of terrorist organisations. [40662]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Government and the police recognise the importance of illegal finance and in the fight against terrorism a range of measures has been taken to counter it. The police have established specialist resources which have successfully investigated a wide variety of illegal terrorist funding activities including exploitation of social clubs to raise money through fraud and scams, extortion rackets, counterfeiting and tax exemption fraud.

  The Government have taken measures to counter terrorist finance in Northern Ireland and these provisions are contained in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 and the Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have been charged under funding of terrorist organisations legislation. [40663]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The number of persons against whom proceedings have commenced for offences contrary to sections 9 to 11 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, between 1991 and 1995 was 217; but there have been few convictions for contravention of part III of the Act primarily because of the lack of evidence to prove a terrorist link to finance offences. However, the absence of convictions is not a true indicator of the value of the legislative provisions. The existence of the powers deters the terrorists; it causes them unease and it disrupts their activities.

  Marches
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he had concerning the re-routing of the marches in the Lower Ormeau road on 9 August and in Derry on 10 September with the local residents and marchers.[40267]
  963
  Sir John Wheeler
  None. The routing of parades is primarily a matter for the Chief Constable. The RUC met on many occasions with local residents and marchers to discuss individual parades. On occasions, officials also met with these groups. The RUC however, have no records on the dates given of parades at these locations.

  Plastic Baton Rounds
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were injured by plastic baton rounds in Deny from 11 to 14 July; and what was the nature of the injuries. [40268]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Altnegelion Hospital (Incident)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will establish a public inquiry into the events involving the Royal Ulster Constabulary in Altnegelion hospital on 12 July. [40269]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I have no plans to establish an inquiry, but the House may wish to note that one complaint has arisen out of this incident and is currently under investigation by the RUC.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many answers to(a) written and (b) oral parliamentary questions have required correction by his Department in each of the past two years. [40638]

  Sir John Wheeler
  This is a matter of public record.

  Promotional Expenditure
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much his Department has spent on(a) publicity, (b) promotion, and (c) hospitality in each of the last six years. [40613]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested for the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments is listed.

  £ thousand

  Publicity and promotion1,2

  Hospitality

  1990–91

  8,369

  728

  1991–92

  10,604

  807

  1992–93

  9,564

  872

  1993–94

  8,162

  921

  1994–95

  8,397

  832

  1995–96

  10,953

  564

  1 To identify separately publicity and promotion costs would incur disproportionate cost.

  2 The Department of Agriculture is excluded as it could provide figures only at disproportionate cost.

  964

TRANSPORT

  Rail Franchise
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those rail franchises which have been re-sold since initial privatisation together with their original purchase price and subsequent selling price. [40682]

  Mr. Watts
  None of the franchises so far sold to the private sector has been re-sold.

  Railway Claims Ltd.
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the total amounts paid by Railways Claims Ltd. to claimants since its creation; [40692]

  (2) how many claims have been received by Railways Claims Ltd., for each year since its creation. [40691]

  Mr. Watts
  This is a matter for the board of Railway Claims Ltd.

  Coastguard
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by coastguard station the number of additional staff provided as a result of the introduction of the 2182 Khz system. [39478]

  Mr. Bowis
  As a result of the introduction of monitoring the 2182 Khz system by Coastguard, the agency agreed that an additional auxiliary operations room assistant should be made available to assist in maintaining the distress watch at the 10 designated 2,182 stations. This is in addition to the normal 24-hour watchkeeping complements at each rescue centre and is a temporary arrangement pending the introduction of coastguard watchkeeping assistants. At some of these stations it has proved difficult to find the additional auxiliary ORAs from the pool of trained auxiliaries locally, but this has not affected the ability to respond to 2182 Khz distress calls.

  Driver Training
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what have been the quarterly totals of new car drivers completing pass plus courses since their introduction; and what percentage of the numbers passing the driving test take such courses. [40444]

  Mr. Bowis
  Pass plus was launched on 6 February 1995. Up to the end of September, completion certificates have been issued to 18,823 successful participants. This represents about 2 per cent. of successful test candidates. The quarterly figures are:

  Number of certificates issued

  1995

  January to March

  976

  April to June

  3,659

  July to September

  3,149

  October to December

  2,873

  965

  Number of certificates issued

  1996

  January to March

  2,817

  April to June

  2,831

  July to September

  2,518

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of state for Transport how many answers to(a) written and (b) oral parliamentary questions have required correction by his Department in each of the past two years. [40643]

  Mr. Bowis
  This is a matter of public record.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 6 March to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson),Official Report, column 211, if he will instruct Railtrack to hold details of past speed restrictions centrally. [40908]

  Mr. Watts
  No.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of speed restrictions currently in operation on the west coast main line, together with the reason for the restriction. [40710]

  Mr. Watts
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 6 March,Official Report, column 211. This is an operational matter for Railtrack and any update should be sought from it.

  Rail (Highlands)
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will require Railtrack to carry out a comprehensive review of unmanned level crossings and automatic half-barriers in the highland rail network; and if he will make a statement. [40737]

  Mr. Watts
  No. Level crossing protection is a matter for Railtrack, subject to statutory approval by the Health and Safety Executive on behalf of the Secretary of State.

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the level of(a) security and (b) accuracy of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency's computer database. [40432]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Driver and Licensing Agency has a computer database security policy which meets Government requirements. The controls in place fully recognise the sensitivities of the date held.

  The agency meets its targets of between 96 per cent. and 98 per cent. accuracy of data input to the driver and vehicle registers.

  The principal cause of inaccuracy in the DVLA databases is the failure of those who change their name or address, or buy or sell vehicles, to notify the agency promptly. New and improved vehicle registration procedures to be introduced in 1997 will require the buyer and seller to notify DVLA at the same time on the same form.
  966

  Air Traffic Control
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the likely number of jobs to be created as a result of the establishment of a second air traffic control centre in Scotland. [40695]

  Mr. Bowis
  The proposed construction of the new Scottish centre and the replacement of the Oceanic flight data processing system, as envisaged in the invitation to tender of autumn 1995, would result in staff levels at Prestwick being maintained at approximately their current levels.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make an announcement of the future privatisation of the National Air Traffic Service and on the future of the second air traffic control centre in Scotland. [40694]

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's reply of 29 November 1995,Official Report, columns 783–84, to the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans). The timetable for privatisation has not yet been decided.

  The future of the proposed air traffic control centre in Scotland is the subject of a review by the Civil Aviation Authority and I expect recommendations emerging from the review to be presented to Ministers later this year.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the occasions over the last 12 months when the air traffic control centre covering the United Kingdom has failed, the length of time the system failed and the estimated number of flights affected. [40689]

  Mr. Bowis
  The air traffic control centres at West Drayton and Prestwick cover the UK flight information regions. Over the last 12 months there have been a total of five failures resulting in delays to aircraft as follows:

  Prestwick (Oceanic Data Processing System)

  23 August 1996—at 1005 with delays to aircraft peaking at over 2 hours.

  12 September 1996— at 1110 with 40 aircraft delayed in excess of 1 hour.

  West Drayton (Host Computer System)

  6 October 1995—at 0810—flow restrictions introduced.

  5 November 1995—at 1221 resulting in 50 minute outbound delays from Heathrow.

  25 January 1996—at 1520—flow restrictions imposed.

  New En Route Centre
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each contractor currently employed on the NERC project the number of staff involved and the number of hours of overtime worked for each of the last 12 months. [40686]

  Mr. Bowis
  Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor for the provision of operational software for the new en route centre at Swanwick. It has employed roughly 400 full-time staff on the project throughout the last 12 months. The contract with Lockheed Martin is on a fixed-price basis and no additional overtime costs have therefore been borne by the Civil Aviation Authority.
  967
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of overtime hours worked by Civil Aviation Authority or National Air Traffic Services staff involved on the NERC project for each of the last 12 months. [40687]

  Mr. Bowis
  I have asked the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority to write to the hon. Member.

  Roads Programme
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the contractor building the road is liable for damages, should an accident occur on a design, build, finance and operate system financed road as a result of poor construction or design. [40705]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 16 October 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question asking if the contractor building the road is liable for damages, should an accident occur on a design, build, finance and operate system financed road as a result of poor construction or design.
  Design, build, finance and operate contracts for roads place the responsibility for dealing with claims for damages resulting from poor construction or design on the contractor.

  Roads Programme>
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those road schemes removed from the main roads programme to the long-term programme in the last 12 months. [40698]

  Mr. Watts
  The review of the roads programme of November 1995, published in the document "Managing the Trunk Road Programme", categorised schemes according to their status. The list of longer-term schemes in that publication has not changed.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the annual cost to his Department of contracts currently let for road building under the design, build, finance and operate system. [40704]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 16 October 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question about the cost of contracts currently let for road building under the design, build, finance and operate system.
  The following figures illustrate the estimated range of annual cost (over a 5 year period), based on the Highways Agency's forecast of traffic volume for the 8 DBFO contracts awarded so far. These figures which are cash price estimates will be influenced by the usage of the DBFO road and the performance of the DBFO Company. The figures below do not include additional but relatively minor future lump sum payments covering for the example archaeological works, which because of their uncertain nature are extremely difficult to estimate.

  1996/97: £21n

  1997/98: £68m

  1998/99: £82m

  1999/00: £163m

  2000/01: £189m

  968

  Motorways
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the expected road life of the existing motorways in the north-west of England; and if he will make a statement. [39959]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Jim Callaghan, dated 15 October 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question asking about the expected road life of the existing motorway in the North West of England.
  Regular inspections and surveys are carried out to determine maintenance needs and timing of the trunk motorway network. The latest assessment of the residual life of the carriageways shows that 7.6 per cent. of the trunk motorway network in the North West, including Cumbria, will within the next four years reach the point where future performance becomes unpredictable and maintenance needs to be considered. The equivalent figure nationally is 12.7 per cent. These figures show that the motorway network is in good structural condition. Roads are generally designed to last for 20 years before they require major maintenance and, at any time, about 20 per cent. of the motorway network could be expected to fall within the above category.
  These figures exclude carriageways constructed wholly of concrete for which there is currently no reliable method of measuring residual life.

  Railways (Complaints)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those train operating companies that have been subject to enforcement action by the Rail Regulator as a result of complaints received regarding improper advice in relation to ticket sales. [40697]

  Mr. Watts
  The enforcement of train operators' licence obligations is a matter for the independent Rail Regulator. He has recently completed a public consultation on accurate and impartial retailing and will wish to consider the outcome of that consultation before deciding what enforcement action, if any, is warranted.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many complaints have been received in each of the last 12 months by the Rail Regulator regarding(a) the sale of tickets and (b) the telephone inquiry service. [40696]

  Mr. Watts
  The numbers of complaints received by the Rail Regulator regarding(a) the sale of tickets and (b) the telephone inquiry service are as follows—separate monthly figures are not available prior to 31 March 1996:

  Period

  Tickets and fares

  Telephone enquiry bureau

  Year to 31 March 1996

  121

  10

  April

  1

  1

  May

  3

  0

  June

  0

  0

  July

  0

  0

  August

  12

  6

  September

  9

  2

  October

  3

  1

  969

  Road Traffic Signs
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Transport what progress he is making with the development of proposals for public consultation on options for amending legislation to allow business sponsorship of, and advertising on, road traffic signs. [10828]

  Mr. Bowis
  I am considering the road safety and environmental implications of including sponsorship information on road traffic signs.

  Roads and Rail (Capital Value)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates he has made of the capital value of(a) all motorways, (b) the trunk road network and (c) the property of Railtrack, together with the percentage of such sums payable annually to HM Treasury. [40798]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Highways Agency is currently undertaking a valuation of the motorway and trunk road network in England, including associated land and structures for future inclusion in its commercial accounts. Railtrack's annual report and accounts 1995–96 include a total net book value of tangible fixed assets—investment properties, stations, depots, other land and buildings, track, signalling systems, electrification, other infrastructure and plant and machinery—at 31 March 1996 of £4,554 million. No payment is made to HM Treasury specifically in relation to these assets.

  Shepherds Bush Flyover
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what report he has received on the recent accident that took place on the Shepherds Bush overhead intersection with the Westway that resulted in a lorry shedding its load on to the travellers, site situated beneath the flyover; and what additional safety precautions he is proposing. [40935]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Clive Soley, dated 16 October 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question about an accident on the Shepherds Bush overhead intersection with the Westway.
  The accident involved a lorry carrying industrial rolls of paper. The vehicle struck the parapet on an elevated stretch of road. The parapet, which conforms to the Highways Agency's latest standards, successfully restrained the vehicle but unfortunately parts of the toad were shed and fell onto the ground below.
  It would not be realistic or cost effective to make provisions such that no vehicles or their loads ever left elevated structures after an accident, and so no specific extra precautions are planned in the light of this accident. The Highways Agency is nevertheless committed to delivering a safe trunk road network and if other measures are identified that might improve the safety of this road they will he carefully considered.

  Jubilee Line Extension
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest estimate of the in-service date of the Jubilee line extension. [40937]

  Mr. Bowis
  London Transport is aiming to open the Jubilee line extension on 28 March 1998.
  970

  Rail Network (Incidents)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each of the last 12 months the number of incident reports submitted to the railway inspectorate. [40712]

  Mr. Watts
  This information is not readily available in the form requested. The total number of reports for the period 1 April 1995 to 31 March 1996 is set out in the following table:

  Number

  Train incidents

  989

  Failures of rolling stock and permanent way

  1,960

  Movement accidents

  3,003

  Non movement accidents

  8,673

  These figures will be reproduced in the HM chief inspecting officer of railways' annual report on the safety record of the railways in Great Britain 1995–96, which will be published before the end of the year. A copy will be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Rail Network (Unqualified Contractors)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions in the last 12 months reports have been made to the railway inspectorate regarding unqualified contractors found to be working on the rail network. [40711]

  Mr. Watts
  Instances of unqualified contractors working on the rail network are not reportable under the statutory reporting requirement. From time to time, Health and Safety Executive inspectors receive information or complaints alleging that unqualified contractors are working on the rail network, and these are invariable followed up by HSE's railway inspectorate. However, no central record exists and the information requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Rail Freight (Accidents)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of occasions when rolling stock operated by private freight companies has been involved in accidents since rail privatisation. [40690]

  Mr. Watts
  This information is available in the form requested only at disproportionate cost.

  Bridge Strengthening
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport is he will list for each of the last five years the budget for bridge strengthening. [40684]

  Mr. Watts
  Each year, the Government provide the Highways Agency with an overall budget for the maintenance of trunk road structures and, through transport supplementary grant and credit approvals, support to local highway authorities in England for the assessment and strengthening of their structures. Details for the last five years are set out in the table. In neither case are funds specifically earmarked for bridge strengthening.
  971

  £ million

  Highways agency structures capital maintenance

  Local highway authorities assessment and strengthening approved expenditure

  1992–93

  130

  111

  1993–94

  150

  137

  1994–95

  150

  137

  1995–96

  135

  122

  1996–97

  130

  103

  Road Re-signing (London)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the decision was taken to cancel the re-signing project in London; what were the reasons; and if ministerial approval was sought. [40699]

  Mr. Bowis
  It has not been cancelled.

  Promotional Expenditure
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much his Department has spent on(a) publicity, (b) promotion and (c) hospitality in each of the last six years. [40612]

  Mr. Bowis
  The information is as follows:

  Publicity

  1991–92: £8,270,000

  1992–93: £8,730,000

  1993–94: £8,275,000

  1994–95: £8,039,000

  1995–96: £7,525,000

  Hospitality

  1991–92: £102,000

  1992–93: £127,000

  1993–94: £220,000

  1994–95: £123,000

  1995–96: £106,000

  (a) Figures are not yet available for the current year.

  (b) Publicity includes promotions.

  (c) Hospitality includes teas, working lunches and entertainment by both Ministers and officials in the United Kingdom and abroad.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those vehicle registration offices where interviews are unable to be held as part of investigations into vehicle excise duty evasion. [40702]

  Mr. Bowis
  The information is as follows:

  Bangor

  Carlisle

  Lincoln

  Northampton

  Portsmouth

  Shrewsbury

  972

  Road Fund Tax Fraud
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set up a free phone-in hotline for the reporting of suspected road-fund tax fraudsters; and if he will make a statement. [40831]

  Mr. Bowis
  I have no plans to do so. To obtain a conviction a court must be satisfied that a vehicle has been used or kept on a public road without a licence. The police, traffic wardens and officials who currently report unlicensed vehicles are best equipped to supply this evidence and to appear in court when required. It is, of course, open to any member of the public to alert the police to a suspected offence.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those structures owned by Railtrack plc that fail to meet the standards for 44 tonne heavy goods vehicles. [40685]

  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack is currently undertaking a programme to assess the ability of those of its bridges which carry highways to bear 40 tonne lorries from 1999. There is no separate programme to assess the ability of structures to bear 44 tonne vehicles.

  Consumer Protection (Channel Ferries)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to ensure that consumers are protected from excessive price rises as a result of the proposed merger between P and 0 and Stena Sealink on some cross-channel ferry routes. [40681]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Director General of Fair Trading is considering the matter and will advise my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in due course. All representations on this matter should therefore be submitted directly to the DGFT.

  Bicycle Lights
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he intends to take to prevent adult cyclists riding their bicycles without the necessary lights after dark. [39958]

  Mr. Maclean
  I have been asked to reply.

  Enforcement of the law on pedal cycle lighting is an operational matter for individual chief constables. The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 require that all bicycles which are used on roads at night must be fitted with a front and rear lamp, which must be kept lit and unobscured, and a rear retro reflector which must be kept unobscured. Fixed penalty notices can be issued to cyclists who fail to comply with these requirements.

  The Department of Transport continues to encourage cyclists to comply with the law on pedal cycle lighting through the highway code and the cycle safe publicity campaign.
  973

WALES

  Students
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of(a) 16, (b) 17 and (c) 18-year-olds in (i) Wales and (ii) each EU member state are in full-time education or training. [40488]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Information on the participation of 16, 17 and 18-year-olds in education and training for Wales and 11 of the EU member states is presented in the following table. Information given is for full and part-time education and training, as figures for full-time education and training alone are not directly comparable between the countries; 1991–92 is the latest year for which information is available on a consistent basis for these states.

  Participation in education and training of 16 to 18-year-olds by age in 1991–921

  Percentage

  Age 16

  Age 17

  Age 18

  Wales

  87

  77

  48

  United Kingdom

  91

  77

  52

  Belgium

  99

  97

  78

  Denmark

  92

  80

  69

  Finland

  95

  86

  82

  France

  92

  89

  79

  Germany, Fed.

  96

  94

  84

  Greece

  88

  62

  45

  Ireland

  89

  77

  58

  Netherlands

  98

  94

  81

  Spain

  76

  67

  54

  Sweden

  90

  88

  64

  Source: Welsh Office, OECD (Education at a Glance, 1995).

  1 Includes apprenticeships and similar schemes such as YT. Also includes an estimate of participation in part-time higher education.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent assessment he has made of the impact on employment in Wales of preparations made for the single currency and economic and monetary union. [40492]

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the oral reply I gave the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) on 19th February 1996,Official Report, column 5.

  Promotional Expenditure
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much his Department has spent on(a) publicity, (b) promotion and (c) hospitality in each of the last six years. [40610]

  Mr. Hague
  Welsh Office expenditure on publicity, promotions and hospitality for the last six years is as follows:

  £ thousand

  Publicity and promotion1

  Hospitality

  1990–91

  1,429

  45

  1991–92

  1,957

  36

  1992–93

  1,974

  38

  974

  £ thousand

  Publicity and promotion1

  Hospitality

  1993–94

  1,358

  27

  1994–95

  1,725

  29

  1995–96

  1,929

  22

  1 Spending is shown at outturn prices and cannot be disaggregated between publicity and promotion.

  Buildings (Public Access)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the current level of access to public buildings with particular reference to(a) post offices, (b) banks and (c) building societies in Wales for the physically disabled. [40539]

  Mr. Hague
  I have seen a copy of Disability Wales's recent report "Access to Financial Premises".

  The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 will require all service providers, including post offices, banks and building societies, to make reasonable adjustments to their premises, to the way they go about their business and to provide additional help in order to make it easier for disabled people to use their services. The employment rights and the first of the rights of access to goods, facilities and services come into force on 2 December 1996. The remaining rights of access will be phased in following decisions on the consultation exercise carried out earlier this year.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many answers to(a) written and (b) oral parliamentary questions have required correction by his Department in each of the past two years. [40644]

  Mr. Hague
  This is a matter of public record.

  Health Authority Budgets
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales who in his Department is responsible for monitoring shortfalls in Welsh health authority budgets; and if he will make a statement. [40749]

  Mr. Hague
  My officials in the Welsh Office Health Department are responsible for monitoring the financial position of health authorities in Wales. This is undertaken on a monthly basis through a financial information system, and comprises cash as well as income and expenditure monitoring.

  Landfill Tax
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what arrangements he has made to monitor the implementation of the landfill tax in Wales; and what plans he has to liaise with local authorities over the financial implications for their planning in respect of the liabilities of the landfill waste tax. [40540]

  Mr. Hague
  Implementation of the tax is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  975
  I discussed the Welsh Local Government Association's assessment of spending needs, including its assessment of landfill tax costs, at a meeting of the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance on 23 September. I will give careful consideration to the assessment in making my 1997–98 local government revenue settlement decisions.

  Buildings (Steel Frames)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the value of steel frames for use in the construction of buildings; and what plans he has to promote the marketing of Welsh-manufactured steel frames. [40784]

  Mr. Hague
  I have made no such assessment. I continue to promote the interests of all Welsh industry at home and overseas.

  Skill Shortages
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the major areas of employment where there will be skill shortages over the next five years; and what assessment he has made of the impact of these shortages on manufacturing industry. [41096]

  Mr. Hague
  The Welsh employers surveys, commissioned regularly by the Welsh Office in partnership with others, produces information on vacancies which are hard to fill because there is a shortage of applicants with the requisite skills. The training and enterprise councils in Wales build on this and other sources of information in making their assessments of the local labour market and skills priorities. "People and Prosperity: an Agenda for Action in Wales" underlined the importance of addressing the skill needs of manufacturing industry and sets out an action plan to meet these.

  Agenda 21
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidance he has published to support local authorities in their efforts to meet the requirements of Agenda 21 arising out of the Rio treaty. [41161]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Welsh Office has published advice and guidance on various issues relevant to sustainable development and to the involvement of local authorities in undertaking local Agenda 21 processes. Recent examples include "Planning Guidance (Wales): Planning Policy" and "A Working Countryside for Wales", and the Department is shortly to publish its "Environment in Wales", and the Department is shortly to publish its "Environment in Wales", fifth report. The

  Average fees per school (age 11+)

  School

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Rydal School (Co-ed)

  5,436

  5,843

  5,963

  6,095

  6,197

  Howell's, Denbigh

  5,319

  5,436

  5,556

  5,688

  5,790

  Christ College

  5,248

  5,364

  5,484

  5,616

  5,718

  Penrhos College (Girls)

  5,040

  5,348

  5,467

  5,599

  5,701

  Llandovery College

  4,566

  4,908

  5,028

  5,160

  5,262

  Monmouth Boys

  3,998

  4,299

  4,419

  4,551

  4,653

  Monmouth Girls

  3,373

  3,627

  3,747

  3,879

  3,981

  Howell's, Cardiff

  2,967

  3,189

  3,309

  3,441

  3,543

  Average fee per annum

  4,493

  4,751

  4,872

  5,004

  5,106

  976
  Welsh Office has provided financial support to the Local Government Management Board to assist it in preparing advice to local authorities on local Agenda 21.

  New Buildings and Premises
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total expenditure on new buildings and premises by his Department and its agencies; and if he will indicate the square footage of new office space purchased or newly rented in each of the last five years. [41151]

  Mr. Hague
  The Welsh Office estate has been reduced over the last five years from 50 to 23 properties, a reduction of 104,543 sq ft.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list(a) the budgeted provision, (b) the actual spending, (c) the places available, (d) the actual places provided and (e) the number of schools participating for each year of operation of the assisted places scheme. [41165]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The information requested is set out in the following table:

  Year

  Provision £

  Spend £

  New places available

  New places taken up

  Schools in scheme

  1981–2

  —1

  160,783

  150

  113

  9

  1983–83

  —1

  274,777

  148

  113

  8

  1983–84

  —1

  459,626

  129

  120

  8

  1984–85

  —1

  626,876

  129

  118

  8

  1985–86

  —1

  842,488

  136

  115

  8

  1986–87

  —1

  1,110,805

  136

  123

  8

  1987–88

  —1

  1,394,246

  136

  115

  8

  1988–89

  —1

  1,435,040

  136

  126

  8

  1989–90

  —1

  1,589,392

  136

  128

  8

  1990–91

  —1

  1,756,283

  136

  123

  8

  1991–92

  1,948,000

  2,064,813

  136

  124

  8

  1992–93

  2,392,000

  2,457,230

  136

  131

  8

  1993–94

  2,646,000

  2,621,261

  136

  127

  8

  1994–95

  2,950,000

  2,771,504

  136

  130

  8

  1995–96

  3,097,000

  2,904,845

  136

  124

  8

  1996–97

  3,770,000

  —2

  272

  —2

  14

  1 Figures not readily available

  2 Figures not yet available

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list in descending order, for each year the assisted places scheme has been in operation, the fees charged by schools participating in the scheme and the average fee charged each year. [41163]

  Mr. Evans
  The information requested is not readily available from the start of the scheme. For 1991–92 and subsequent years the fees charged are set out in the following tables:
  977

  School

  1996–97

  Rydal Penrhos (Co-ed)

  6,299

  Ruthin School

  6,081

  Howell's, Denbigh

  5,892

  Christ College

  5,820

  Rydal Penrhos (Girls)

  5,803

  Llandovery College

  5,530

  Monmouth Boys

  4,755

  Rougemont School

  4,536

  Ffynone House School

  4,206

  Kings Monkton

  4,204

  Monmouth Girls

  4,083

  St. John's College

  4,009

  St. Clare's Convent School

  3,702

  Howell's, Cardiff

  3,645

  St. Gerard's School

  2,727

  Average fee per annum

  5,092

  Education Statistics
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list the number and percentage of pupils in primary school classes of 31 or more in each year since 1986(a) by local education authority and (b) for Wales; [41155]

  (2) if he will list the number and percentage of teachers who completed training courses in 1994, broken down by subject and in total, who were in posts by March 1995. [41097]

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

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the staff numbers in full-time equivalent employed by his Department as at(a) 1 April 1995, (b) 1 October 1995, (c) 1 April 1996 and (d) 1 October 1996; and what is his estimate of the numbers who will be in post at 1 April 1997. [41030]

  Mr. Hague
  The number of full-time equivalent staff employed in my Department on the specified dates were:

  (a) April 1995: 2,481

  (b) October 1995: 2,406

  (c) April 1996: 2,295

  (d) October 1996: 2,248.

  Staffing plans for 1997–98 will be published in the departmental report early next year in the usual way.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are his latest estimates of the expenditure on all external consultants, including management consultants, for each year since 1992, in 1996 prices, for his Department and its agencies; and what are the quantified annual cost savings which such expenditure has resulted in. [41191]
  978
  Mr. Hague
  Expenditure, in 1996–97 prices, on external consultants engaged by the Welsh Office is as follows:

  £000

  1991–92

  1,267

  1992–93

  1,553

  1993–94

  1,550

  1994–95

  843

  1995–96

  1,212

  There are no central records of the savings resulting from consultancy work.

  M4
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list each contract for repair and improvement works on the M4 since 1979, indicating the overall cost and cost per mile. [41158]

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

  School Ballots
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many schools have held opt-out ballots since 1988, indicating those which were successful; and what percentage this constitutes of(a) pupils and (b) schools in the maintained sector in Wales. [41162]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Since 1988, 40 schools have held ballots of which 19 were in favour of applying for grant-maintained status. The schools at which ballots have been held represent 5.1 per cent. of the January 1996 pupil population and 1.9 per cent. of the total number of maintained schools in Wales.

  Village Halls and Community Centres
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total grant paid in 1991–92, and each subsequent year, from the voluntary youth service, village halls and community centres programme. [41010]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The information requested is in the following list:Expenditure, by the Welsh Office and plans from 1991–92 to 1996–97, in pounds thousands.

  1991–92: 724

  1992–93: 551

  1993–94: 399

  1994–95: 519

  1995–96: 509

  1996–97: 472.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the amount of funding that will be allocated to Welsh local authorities in 1997–98 when the responsibility for the voluntary youth service, village halls and community centres is transferred to them. [41012]

  Mr. Evans
  This will be the subject of consultation with the Welsh Local Government Association.
  979

  Millennium Exhibition
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received in relation to his fund-raising lunch for leaders of the Welsh business community in relation to the Greenwich millennium exhibition; and if he will make a statement. [41071]

  Mr. Hague
  I have received several letters of thanks for the lunch, with expressions of interest in the exhibition, and one letter expressing scepticism about the value of Welsh participation. I believe that the exhibition will provide an important marketing opportunity to project Welsh achievements to the wider world.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency concerning the arrangement for lending the agency chief executive to the Greenwich Millennium Exhibition plc for 90 days; what representations he has received concerning this arrangement; what assessment he has made of the principal advantages and disadvantages of the agency; and if he will make a statement. [41069]

  Mr. Hague
  I have discussed the arrangement with the chairman of the WDA and I have not received any representations concerning the appointment of Mr. Hartop as chief executive designate of the Millennium Exhibition Company. With the appointment of an acting chief executive with 12 years experience in the agency, I have been assured that the WDA will continue to operate successfully.

  GCSE Scores
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. [41166]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The information requested is available for 1994 and 1995 only, and is contained in the following table. Average GCSE point scores for English language and mathematics are given per 15-year-old pupil—age as at 31 August—in maintained schools.

  Average GCSE point scores per 15-year-old pupil in maintained schools

  Girls

  Boys

  English language

  1994

  4.2

  3.3

  1995

  4.2

  3.4

  Mathematics

  1994

  3.4

  3.3

  1995

  3.4

  3.3

  1. Age as at 31 August.

  2. Includes pupils in LEA maintained, grant maintained, special schools and pupil referral units.

  3. Points have been allocated on the following basis A*=7, A=7, B=6, C=5, D=4, E=3, F=2, G=1.

  980

  Direct Labour and Service Organisations
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by authority, the surplus achieved on trading accounts of each service delivered by local authority direct labour or service organisations within the terms of the Local Government Act 1988. [41156]

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

  Nursery Places
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the estimate for unmet need for nursery places in Wales. [41053]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Some 90 per cent. of four-year-olds and 50 per cent. of three-year-olds attend maintained schools in Wales and some 1 per cent. of each, schools in the independent sector. Details of take-up of places in day care provision and in playgroups are not available. Provision in the maintained sector varies between and within local education authorities—from quarter to full time, and between places in nursery schools and nursery or reception classes in primary schools. There is no readily available information that this provision reflects parental choice.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to improve transport facilities for disabled people. [41095]

  Mr. Hague
  I am keen to improve the accessibility of public transport services for disabled people. Under the Railways Act 1993, the Rail Regulator is responsible for protecting the interests of disabled rail passengers. All train and station operators are required to submit for the regulator's approval, a disabled people's protection policy, as a condition of being granted a licence to operate. In addition, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 provides my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport with powers to make regulations to require that new public transport vehicles are accessible to disabled people. The Act will apply to new rail vehicles, as well as to buses, coaches and taxis.

  I understand that discussions are under way with the rail industry and the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee about the shape of the new regulations.

  Discretionary Education Awards
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each of the last six years the amount spent by each local education authority on discretionary awards and the number of students receiving them by LEA and year. [41164]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The information requested for the academic years 1989–90 to 1994–95, the latest year for which data are available, is given for the LEAs current at the time in the following table.
  981

  Discretionary awards: students domiciled in Wales1

  Academic years

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Number

  Expenditure (£000)

  Number

  Expenditure (£000)

  Number

  Expenditure (£000)

  Number

  Expenditure (£000

  Number

  Expenditure (£000)

  Number

  Expenditure (£000)

  Clwyd

  1,114

  1,771.7

  1,172

  1,948.7

  2,595

  4,348.8

  3,174

  2,092.6

  1,889

  1,018.5

  518

  800.0

  Dyfed

  2,029

  1,915.4

  2,077

  2,445.1

  2,049

  2,159.2

  1,595

  1,893.4

  988

  817.2

  792

  235.0

  Gwent

  309

  853.2

  260

  827.1

  332

  1,089.7

  4,652

  3,924.4

  4,583

  3,392.5

  5,273

  3,066.6

  Gwynedd

  2,242

  798.3

  2,351

  1,059.8

  3,028

  1,384.4

  3,215

  1,176.6

  3,234

  1,189.3

  3,347

  999.2

  Mid Glamorgan

  3,450

  1,591.4

  3,370

  1,480

  4,671

  4,462.6

  5,122

  4,941.7

  3,612

  1,583.8

  3,569

  1,263.2

  Powys

  665

  785.1

  702

  947.3

  829

  1,127.2

  782

  1,002.5

  656

  646.9

  642

  577.7

  South Glamorgan

  602

  1,214.3

  771

  1,508.0

  845

  1,511.3

  2,829

  1,002.2

  3,665

  1,235.7

  3,145

  791.3

  West Glamorgan

  312

  849.7

  396

  1,039.1

  455

  1,318.6

  311

  983.1

  902

  964.5

  798

  577.5

  Total2

  10,723

  9,779.2

  11,099

  11,255.2

  14,804

  17,402

  21,711

  17,049.0

  19,529

  10,848.5

  18,185

  8,410.5

  Source:F503G. Department for Education and Employment.

  1 Awards made by local education authorities to students normally domiciled in Wales irrespective of their place of study: includes placement year sandwich students.

  2 Totals have been grossed to compensate for partial or missing returns.

  Child Care Facilities
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what provision he is currently making to develop child care facilities(a) in the workplace and (b) elsewhere; and what plans he has to extend such provision. [41098]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Welsh Office is supporting the development of child care for children of school age through the out of school child care grant initiative, and, for younger children, through the under-fives child care demonstration projects. The Government are currently consulting publicly on how child care might be developed, through the document "Work and Family: Ideas and Options for Child care", published by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

  School Transport
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to ensure that all vehicles used to transport children to and from school during school hours meet the standards of safety demanded by parents. [41154]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The provision of school transport is a matter for local education authorities. I have advised authorities that I expect the transport they provide to be appropriate to ensure that pupils travel in safety and reasonable comfort, and that they should take such steps as they consider necessary to satisfy themselves of the appropriateness of both vehicle and driver. The Government have now made regulations which require seat belts to be fitted on minibuses and coaches used specifically for transporting children, which should further reassure parents who are concerned for the safety of their children.

  Nursery Voucher Scheme
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to ensure that providers of places under the nursery voucher scheme will be under the same obligations as maintained schools to provide parents with information about Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector inspections. [41160]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  As a condition of grant, all nursery voucher scheme providers will be under the same obligations to make inspection reports available to parents, without charge.
  982
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what is his estimate of the number of nursery vouchers required in each of the local education authorities in Wales; and if he will make a statement; [41266]

  (2) how many nursery vouchers he expects to issue on the start-up of the scheme; and if he will make a statement. [41270]

  Mr. Evans
  All four-year-olds in Wales will be entitled to a nursery voucher, to be issued on a termly basis. The nursery voucher scheme contractor will identify the number of eligible children from the child benefit database and will send the parents or carers an application form for vouchers. A publicity campaign will alert parents or carers to the need to apply if they have not received a form. In exceptional circumstances, schools will hold a supply of forms for eligible children who have not received a voucher.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what amounts of public money are earmarked for the nursery voucher scheme in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [41267]

  Mr. Evans
  The total cost of the scheme in Wales, including the cost of inspection and administration, is expected to be some £43 million. A final decision on the relevant levels of additional provision and present expenditure funding will be taken in the context of the public expenditure settlement for 1997–98.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how he proposes to make available to local education authorities in Wales the findings of the nursery voucher scheme's pilot schemes in England; and if he will make a statement. [41268]

  Mr. Evans
  Welsh Office officials are having on-going discussions with representatives of the local education authorities in Wales on all aspects of the detailed operation of the voucher scheme, which will include discussions on phase 1. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment will be making a statement to the House on the evaluation of phase 1 during the autumn.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if, as a consequence of representations made to him concerning nursery vouchers, he will exempt Wales from the scheme; and if he will make a statement. [41269]
  983
  Mr. Evans
  I have already written to the hon. Member and informed him that I have no such plans. To do so would deny parents throughout Wales the opportunity for choice in the type of education they want for their four-year-old children.

  School Budgets
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of the potential schools budget has been delegated by each local authority for its schools in each of the last five years; and what was the total of the potential schools budget in(a) cash and (b) real terms in each of these years in each local authority. [41195]

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

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  School Inspections
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what estimate she has made of the savings from increasing the length of the inspection cycle from four to six years; and if she will reinvest those savings in local advice services to back up Office for Standards in Education inspection; [39923]

  (2) what estimate she has made of the savings from focusing secondary school inspections after September 1997 on English, mathematics and science and up to four additional subjects only; and if she will reinvest those savings in local inspection and advice services to back up Ofsted inspections. [39924]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has accepted Her Majesty's chief inspector's recommendation that all school inspections should be on the basis of the existing framework for inspection, covering all national curriculum subjects. Some schools will be inspected more frequently and some less frequently than at present, and the total volume of inspections in any given year is therefore likely to be of a similar order as at present. Hence, it is unlikely that significant savings will arise. Provision for Ofsted will continue to be reviewed annually as part of the public expenditure survey.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have been awarded an assisted place since 1990; what is the cost for each year since 1990; and how much is proposed to be spent on the assisted places scheme for the years 1996–97 and 1997–98. [40591]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The number of children awarded assisted places in England in each academic year from 1990–91 to 1995–96, and the total cost of the scheme for each financial year, are given in the following table. Present spending plans for the financial years 1996–97 and 1997–98 are £117 million and £139 million respectively. Questions on the assisted places scheme in Scotland and 984
  Wales are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales. There is no assisted places scheme in Northern Ireland.

  Assisted places scheme

  Year

  Number of first year assisted places taken up

  Total cost (£ million)

  1990–91

  4,948

  63.4

  1991–92

  5,602

  75.8

  1992–93

  5,815

  92.9

  1993–94

  5,775

  92.3

  1994–95

  5,813

  101.5

  1995–96

  5,744

  104.8

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list in descending order the fees charged by schools participating in the assisted places scheme in the last academic year; indicating the average fee charged. [40584]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The average fee charged for assisted pupils in England in the academic year 1995–96 was £4,346. The average fee charged by each school participating in the scheme is given in the following table.

  Assisted places scheme: academic year 1995–96

  Average fee charged for APs1

  School name

  £

  Charterhouse, Nr Godalming

  9,543

  Bradfield College, Reading

  8,696

  Winchester College

  8,635

  Canford School, Wimborne

  8,341

  Bedales School, Petersfield

  8,259

  Hurstpierpoint College, Hassocks

  7,934

  Felsted School, Dunmow

  7,903

  Stowe School Nr Buckingham

  7,867

  Leighton Park School, Reading

  7,787

  Tonbridge School

  7,779

  Repton School, Nr Derby

  7,767

  Aldenham School, Elstree

  7,757

  Wellington College, Berkshire

  7,647

  Gresham's School, Norfolk

  7,644

  Ardingly College, Haywards Heath

  7,595

  Sedbergh School

  7,556

  Malvern College

  7,501

  Carmel College, Wallingford

  7,423

  Wycliffe College, Stonehouse

  7,413

  Leys School, Cambridge

  7,370

  Cranleigh School

  7,192

  Downe House School, Newbury

  7,118

  Monkton Combe School, Bath

  7,091

  Haileybury and Imperial Service College

  7,025

  Westminster School

  6,990

  Cheltenham Ladies' College

  6,964

  Clifton College, Bristol

  6,959

  Bishop's Stortford College

  6,928

  Bloxham School. Banbury

  6,905

  Pangbourne College, Reading

  6,859

  Stonyhurst College, Nr Blackburn

  6,754

  Rendcombe College, Cirencester

  6,693

  King's School, Bruton

  6,666

  Mill Hill School

  6,626

  St. Paul's School, Barnes

  6,593

  Christ's Hospital

  6,564

  Lord Wandsworth College, Basingstoke

  6,552

  St. Mary and St. Anne

  6,552

  Epsom College

  6,551

  985

  Assisted places scheme: academic year 1995–96

  Average fee charged for APs1

  School name

  £

  St. John's School, Leatherhead

  6,535

  Sutton Valence School, Nr Maidstone

  6,422

  Brighton College

  6,401

  St. Bees School, Cumbria

  6,323

  Durham School

  6,221

  Denstone College, Uttoxeter

  6,207

  Sevenoaks School, Kent

  6,196

  St. Lawrence College, Ramsgate

  6,150

  Ellesmere College

  6,147

  Reed's School, Cobham

  6,147

  St. Swithun's School, Winchester

  6,128

  Chigwell School

  6,114

  Merchant Taylors', Northwood

  6,073

  Taunton School

  6,056

  Dulwich College

  6,042

  St. George's College, Weybridge

  6,037

  Highgate School

  6,003

  Bedford School

  5,982

  University College School, London NW3

  5,954

  Dauntsey's School, Devizes

  5,921

  Oakham School, Rutland

  5,919

  Berkhamsted School

  5,917

  Godolphin School, Salisbury

  5,887

  King's College School, Wimbledon

  5,885

  Framlingham College

  5,870

  Friend's School, Saffron Walden

  5,799

  Wrekin College

  5,776

  King's School, Rochester

  5,721

  Mount School, York

  5,712

  Dover College

  5,683

  Culford School, Bury St. Edmunds

  5,623

  St. Felix School, Southwold

  5,619

  St. Paul's Girls School, Hammersmith

  5,598

  Bootham School, York

  5,591

  St. Peter's School, York

  5,563

  Worksop College, Nottingham

  5,547

  Trent College, Derbyshire

  5,527

  Alleyn's School, Dulwich

  5,513

  King Edward's School, Witley

  5,505

  City of London Freeman's School, Ashtead

  5,497

  Harrogate Ladies' College

  5,486

  City of London School

  5,469

  St. Mary's Hall, Brighton

  5,458

  Rossall School, Fleetwood

  5,453

  Royal Grammar School, Guildford

  5,391

  Queen's College Taunton

  5,343

  James Allen's Girls School

  5,304

  Bromsgrove School, Worcestershire

  5,275

  St. Catherine's School, Bramley

  5,260

  Godolphin and Latymer School, London W6

  5,250

  Giggleswick School, Settle

  5,220

  Woodbridge School, Suffolk

  5,218

  St. Edmund's College, Ware

  5,210

  Walthamstow Hall, Sevenoaks

  5,157

  Casterton School, Cumbria

  5,146

  Mount St. Mary's College, Nr Sheffield

  5,105

  Wellingborough School

  5,101

  Silcoates School

  5,097

  Haberdashers' Aske's School

  5,094

  Colston's Collegiate School, Bristol

  5,086

  Douai School, Reading

  5,068

  Kent College, Canterbury

  5,067

  Whitgift School, Croydon

  5,017

  Wells Cathedral School

  5,014

  Burgess Hill School for Girls

  5,008

  Caterham School

  5,007

  Queen's College, London W1

  5,001

  Kingswood School, Bath

  4,995

  Ratcliffe College, Leicestershire

  4,981

  Berkhamsted School for Girls

  4,937

  King's School, Worcester

  4,883

  986

  Assisted places scheme: academic year 1995–96

  Average fee charged for APs1

  School name

  £

  Ashford School, Kent

  4,878

  Trinity School of John Whitgift, Croydon

  4,875

  Eltham College, London SE9

  4,870

  St. Margaret's School, Bushey

  4,861

  City of London School for Girls

  4,838

  John Lyon School, Harrow

  4,808

  Edgehill College, Bideford

  4,789

  Scarborough College

  4,784

  Churcher's College, Petersfield

  4,740

  Brentwood School

  4,725

  Ursuline Convent School, Kent

  4,677

  Kimbolton School, Cambridge

  4,656

  Ashville School

  4,645

  Ipswich School

  4,611

  Laxton School

  4,606

  St. Albans School

  4,605

  Guildford High School for Girls

  4,586

  Kingston Grammar School

  4,580

  Latymer Upper School, London W6

  4,576

  Holy Child School

  4,575

  St. Benedict's School, Ealing

  4,572

  Abingdon School

  4,560

  Woodhouse Grove School, Bradford

  4,542

  Bancroft's School, Woodford

  4,524

  Francis Holland School, London NW1

  4,503

  Bedford High School

  4,485

  St. Helen's School, Northwood

  4,485

  Forest School, London E17

  4,483

  West Buckland School, Barnstaple

  4,476

  Pocklington School, Nr York

  4,469

  Emanuel School, London SW11

  4,438

  Prior Park College, Bath

  4,416

  North London Collegiate School, Edgware

  4,386

  Edgbaston C of E College for Girls

  4,377

  Magdalen College School, Oxford

  4,376

  Surbiton High School

  4,368

  Lady Eleanor Holies School, Hampton

  4,365

  Tormead School, Guildford

  4,365

  Yarm School

  4,362

  Wisbech Grammar School

  4,355

  Hampton School

  4,326

  St. Dunstan's College, Catford

  4,323

  Barnard Castle School

  4,314

  Colfe's School, London SE12

  4,313

  St. Albans High School for Girls

  4,266

  Reigate Grammar School

  4,264

  Hereford Cathedral School

  4,263

  Perse School for Boys, Cambridge

  4,233

  Royal Grammar School, Worcester

  4,230

  King Edward's School, Birmingham

  4,218

  Wolverhampton Grammar School

  4,212

  Headington School, Oxford

  4,210

  Ackworth School, Pontefract

  4,206

  Derby High School

  4,205

  King Edward VI School, Southampton

  4,200

  Talbot Heath School, Bournemouth

  4,194

  St. Maurs Convent, Weybridge

  4,174

  Warwick School

  4,164

  Bolton School (Boys)

  4,155

  Bolton School (Girls)

  4,155

  Alice Ottley School, Worcester

  4,152

  Truro School

  4,142

  Bedford Modern School

  4,140

  Plymouth College

  4,113

  Famborough Hill School

  4,111

  Wellington School, Somerset

  4,103

  Liverpool College

  4,088

  Clifton High School, Bristol

  4,061

  Solihull School

  4,060

  Norwich School

  4,059

  Ryde School

  4,059

  987

  Assisted places scheme: academic year 1995–96

  Average fee charged for APs1

  School name

  £

  Austin Friars School

  4,026

  King's School, Macclesfield

  4,026

  Croham Hurst School, Croydon

  4,019

  Ursuline High School, Ilford

  3,999

  Polam Hall School, Darlington

  3,976

  Nottingham High School

  3,970

  Northampton High School

  3,942

  Stafford Independent Grammar School

  3,936

  Kingsley School

  3,927

  South Hampstead High School GPDST

  3,914

  Croydon High School GPDST

  3,912

  William Hulme Grammar School

  3,912

  Blackheath High School GPDST

  3,909

  Bromley High School GPDST

  3,909

  Heathfield School GPDST

  3,909

  Notting Hill and Ealing High GPDST

  3,909

  Putney High School GPDST

  3,909

  Streatham Hill and Clapham High GPDST

  3,909

  Sutton High School GPDST

  3,909

  Sydenham High School GPDST

  3,909

  Wimbledon High School GPDST

  3,909

  Bristol Cathedral School

  3,897

  Dame Alice Harpur School

  3,891

  Exeter School

  3,887

  St. Joseph's College, Ipswich

  3,885

  Leeds Girls High School

  3,879

  Cheadle Hulme School

  3,870

  Stamford High School

  3,849

  King Edward's School at Bath

  3,846

  Loughborough Grammar

  3,846

  Stamford School

  3,846

  Queen Elizabeth Hospital School, Bristol

  3,843

  King Edward VI High School, Birmingham

  3,840

  Leeds Grammar School

  3,813

  Manchester Grammar School

  3,805

  Portsmouth Grammar School

  3,788

  Bradford Girls Grammar

  3,787

  Stockport Grammar School

  3,771

  King's School, Chester

  3,768

  Old Palace School, Croydon

  3,765

  Maynard School, Exeter

  3,764

  Perse School for Girls

  3,756

  Red Maids' School, Bristol

  3,750

  St. Bede's College, Manchester

  3,738

  Marist Convent Senior School, Ascot

  3,725

  St. Joseph's Convent, Reading

  3,725

  Truro High School

  3,714

  Bradford Grammar School

  3,711

  Abbey School, Reading

  3,699

  Queen Elizabeth Grammar, Wakefield

  3,699

  Wakefield High School

  3,699

  Bristol Grammar School

  3,697

  Redland High School, Bristol

  3,687

  St. Helen and St. Katherine, Abingdon

  3,687

  La Sagesse Convent School, Newcastle

  3,683

  Manchester High School

  3,672

  Queen Elizabeth Grammar, Blackburn

  3,672

  St. Mary's School, Cambridge

  3,618

  King's High School for Girls, Warwick

  3,610

  Sir William Perkins's School, Chertsey

  3,583

  St. Margaret's School, Exeter

  3,575

  Haberdashers' Aske's Schools for Girls

  3,570

  St. Mary's College, Crosby

  3,526

  Hulme Grammar, Boys, Oldham

  3,510

  Hulme Grammar, Girls, Oldham

  3,510

  Merchant Taylors' Girls, Liverpool

  3,504

  Merchant Taylors', Liverpool

  3,503

  Portsmouth High School GPDST

  3,498

  Arnold School, Blackpool

  3,489

  Bath High School GPDST

  3,489

  Belvedere School GPDST Liverpool

  3,489

  988

  Assisted places scheme: academic year 1995–96

  Average fee charged for APs1

  School name

  £

  Birkenhead High School GPDST

  3,489

  Brighton and Hove High School GPDST

  3,489

  Central Newcastle High School GPDST

  3,489

  Ipswich High School GPDST

  3,489

  Norwich High School GPDST

  3,489

  Nottingham Girls High School GPDST

  3,489

  Oxford High School GPDST

  3,489

  Sheffield High School GPDST

  3,489

  Shrewsbury High School GPDST

  3,489

  Loughborough High School

  3,483

  Colston's Girls School

  3,468

  Leicester Grammar School

  3,462

  Withington Girls School, Manchester

  3,441

  St. John's College, Southsea

  3,425

  Royal Grammar School, Newcastle

  3,414

  Bruton School for Girls

  3,399

  Coventry School, Bablake

  3,399

  Coventry School, King Henry VIII

  3,399

  King's School, Tynemouth

  3,396

  Westholme School, Blackburn

  3,393

  Newcastle Upon Tyne Church High School

  3,389

  St. Edward's College, Liverpool

  3,389

  Dame Allan's Boys School, Newcastle

  3,384

  Dame Allan's Girls School

  3,384

  Queen's School, Chester

  3,375

  Hymers College, Hull

  3,373

  Teesside High School

  3,364

  Kirkham Grammar School

  3,337

  Birkenhead School

  3,333

  Bury Grammar School (Boys)

  3,300

  Bury Grammar School (Girls)

  3,300

  Batley Grammar School

  3,273

  Newcastle Under Lyme School, Staffs

  3,266

  King Edward VII School, Lytham

  3,219

  Queen Mary School, Lytham

  3,219

  Mount Carmel School, Cheshire

  3,162

  St. Ambrose College, Altrincham

  3,156

  St. Joseph's College, Stoke on Trent

  3,135

  Hipperholme Grammar School

  3,031

  Loreto Convent Grammar School, Altrincham

  2,787

  Salesian College, Famborough

  2,787

  1 Includes tuition fees, fees for public examinations and other fees allowed for by schools' participation agreements.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many assisted places are available for the academic year 1996–97 in(a) the primary and (b) the secondary sector; and how many have been taken up. [40581]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The number of assisted places available for children below age 11 entering participating schools in England in academic year 1996–97 is 855. For children aged 11 to 13 there are 6,915 entry places and a further 1,899 places for direct entry into sixth forms. The total number of assisted places available in 1996–97, including places allocated in previous years, is 37,816. Final figures for take-up are not yet available, but preliminary indications are that take-up at entry continues to be high.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the average grant received by students in(a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94, (c) 1994–95 and (d) 1995–96; and if she will make a statement. [40578]
  989
  Mr. Forth
  The average net maintenance grants after means testing received by mandatory award holders in England and Wales in the academic years 1992–93 to 1994–95, the latest year for which data are available, are set out in the following table. Since 1990–91, eligible students have also had access to non-means-tested students loans.

  Average net maintenance grants to holders of mandatory awards (£) England and Wales: 1992–93 to 1994–95

  Academic year

  Average net maintenance grant paid by local education authorities to the nearest £10

  1992–93

  1,610

  1993–94

  1,670

  1994–95

  1,520

  School Funding
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for education and Employment what is the education budget and what proportion has been delegated to schools in the current financial year, in each English and Welsh local education authority; and if she will make a statement. [40590]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following table shows, for each local education authority in England, the amount of the potential schools budget and the percentage delegated to schools. The figures related to the financial year 1996–97. Information regarding the funding os schools in wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Local education authority

  PSB £,000

  Percentage PSB delegated

  Barking/Dagenham

  61,126

  90.5

  Barnet

  75,939

  89.4

  Barnsley

  61,681

  88.7

  Bath and North-east Somerset

  48,609

  89.7

  Bedfordshire

  152,251

  92.4

  Berkshire

  195,984

  93.5

  Bexley

  60,283

  91.9

  Birmingham

  345,728

  91.3

  Bolton

  80,692

  88.5

  Bradford

  150,477

  89.7

  Brent

  47,858

  94.6

  Bristol

  112,495

  90.7

  Bromley

  44,048

  86.9

  Buckinghamshire

  174,158

  89.1

  Bury

  54,406

  92.5

  Calderdale

  427,64

  89.1

  Cambridgeshire

  159,124

  89.5

  Camden

  57,003

  88.2

  Cheshire

  301,969

  91.3

  Cornwall

  136,921

  88.3

  Corporation of London

  761

  89.9

  Coventry

  106,109

  90.9

  Croydon

  75,817

  91.3

  Cumbria

  113,416

  91.3

  Derbyshire

  222,302

  89.2

  Devon

  270,890

  91.2

  Doncaster

  102,611

  87.9

  Dorset

  144,951

  89.7

  Dudley

  78,438

  96.1

  990

  Local education authority

  PSB £000

  Percentage PSB delegated

  Durham

  180,197

  88.6

  Ealing

  71,556

  90.5

  East Riding

  96,389

  89.6

  East Sussex

  189,069

  90.1

  Enfield

  81,133

  90.2

  Essex

  278,140

  90.1

  Gateshead

  63,294

  86.8

  Gloucestershire

  92,634

  91.2

  Greenwich

  89,798

  93.1

  Hackney

  66,319

  89.4

  Hammersmith/Fulham

  39,290

  91.2

  Hampshire

  424,463

  91.1

  Haringey

  77,147

  86.4

  Harrow

  64,591

  90.1

  Hartlepoool

  30,587

  89.1

  Havering

  65,236

  92.1

  Hereford/Worcester

  182,361

  90.3

  Hertfordshire

  271,592

  93.6

  Hillingdon

  43,534

  90.2

  Hounslow

  74,553

  90.0

  Hull

  82,212

  89.8

  Isle of Wight

  37,173

  89.8

  Isles of Scilly

  902

  93.3

  Islington

  58,608

  93.9

  Kensington/Chelsea

  26,852

  90.7

  Kent

  344,908

  89.0

  Kingston

  32,964

  90.8

  Kirklees

  116,341

  89.0

  Knowsley

  56,775

  93.1

  Lambeth

  53,359

  87.4

  Lancashire

  414,077

  88.9

  Leeds

  220,601

  93.7

  Leicestershire

  281,645

  88.0

  Lewisham

  82,202

  89.9

  Lincolnshire

  131,670

  89.3

  Liverpool

  152,041

  92.7

  Manchester

  143,067

  91.8

  Merton

  48,209

  89.7

  Middlesbrough

  50,342

  88.0

  North-east Lincolnshire

  56,063

  89.8

  Newcastle

  83,740

  89.0

  Newham

  91,614

  85.1

  Norfolk

  186,841

  91.2

  North Lincolnshire

  51,172

  88.8

  North Somerset

  56,162

  89.6

  North Tyneside

  58,734

  92.0

  North Yorkshire

  168,846

  90.5

  Northamptonshire

  163,777

  92.9

  Northumberland

  95,647

  91.1

  Nottinghamshire

  296,611

  88.9

  Oldham

  83,982

  90.7

  Oxfordshire

  154,956

  92.0

  Redbridge

  78,182

  91.9

  Redcar and Cleveland

  50,199

  88.9

  Richmond

  42,377

  91.3

  Rochdale

  57,693

  93.3

  Rotherham

  86,343

  89.6

  Salford

  71,365

  90.6

  Sandwell

  98,885

  89.2

  Sefton

  95,490

  89.4

  Sheffield

  134,029

  87.4

  Shropshire

  110,326

  91.8

  Solihull

  67,562

  94.4

  Somerset

  129,049

  91.2

  South Gloucestershire

  77,194

  89.8

  South Tyneside

  48,326

  88.9

  Southwark

  70,401

  89.3

  St Helens

  59,467

  89.9

  Staffordshire

  293,568

  93.0

  Stockport

  81,968

  91.2

  Stockton on Tees

  63,165

  90.4

  Suffolk

  193,131

  92.6

  991

  Local education authority

  PSB £,000

  Percentage PSB delegated

  Sunderland

  95,675

  93.8

  Surrey

  215,844

  90.5

  Sutton

  37,808

  91.4

  Tameside

  60,908

  89.9

  Tower Hamlets

  86,792

  89.5

  Trafford

  53,731

  88.5

  Wakefield

  96,044

  87.2

  Walsall

  78,003

  89.9

  Waltham Forest

  69,543

  93.9

  Wandsworth

  53,758

  89.5

  Warwickshire

  129,650

  89.8

  West Sussex

  205,497

  89.2

  Westminster

  46,245

  89.4

  Wigan

  102,072

  92.9

  Wiltshire

  127,525

  90.0

  Wirral

  101,837

  90.7

  Wolverhampton

  76,544

  92.2

  York

  46,598

  89.0

  1. The Potential Schools Budget (PSB) is the yardstick usually employed to measure the level of delegation achieved by LEAs. The PSB represents the total planned expenditure on schools maintained by an LEA less certain items which have been considered impracticable or undesirable to delegate.

  2. The figures are derived from those provided by each LEA in its statement of planned financial expenditure produced under section 42 of the Education Reform Act 1988 and incorporate revisions notified to the Department up to 30 September 1996.

  Nursery Vouchers
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has received from pre-school providers whose rolls have decreased as a result of competition from other providers in phase one of the voucher scheme; and if she will list those providers. [40538]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Of more than 640 private and voluntary providers registered for the voucher scheme at April 1996, I am aware of six that have asked to withdraw, citing competition from other providers. These are:

  Long Stratton Playgroup, Norwich

  Bradwell Plagroup, Great Yarmouth

  Marsham Playgroup, Norwich

  Lingwood Pre-School, Norwich

  Busy Bees, North Walsham

  Sandringham and West Newton Pre-School.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many four-year-olds were in(a) private, (b) voluntary and (c) local education authority pre-school provision, in each of the phase 1 areas of the nursery voucher scheme, at the latest date for which figures are available before 1 April 1996; and how many are provided for in each sector, in each phase one area, at the latest date for which figures are available. [40527]

  Mr. Squire
  The available information is shown in the following table. Information on pupils in voluntary and private provision is not collected centrally.
  992

  Pupils aged four1 in maintained schools in phase 1 local education authority areas—January 1996

  Primary schools

  LEA

  Nursery schools

  Nursery classes

  Infant classes2

  Special schools

  Total

  Wandsworth

  70

  729

  1,666

  9

  2,474

  Westminster

  66

  449

  538

  0

  1,053

  Kensington and Chelsea

  96

  269

  368

  0

  733

  Norfolk

  134

  537

  5,490

  26

  6,187

  1 Pupils born between 1 January and 31 December 1991.

  2 Includes pupils in reception classes.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many eligible children in each of the four pilot authorities have not taken up their entitlement to apply for a nursery voucher; and what research she proposes to identify which parents and children are not currently receiving vouchers. [40529]

  Mr. Squire
  The estimated number of children eligible for vouchers in each of the phase 1 authorities and the number of children for whom vouchers have been issued is shown in the following table. Estimates of population are less reliable when broken down both by local authority area and by year group. Non-take-up of vouchers will be analysed in the evaluation statement to be provided in the autumn.

  Estimated number of eligible children

  Number of children for whom vouchers have been issued

  Norfolk

  9,300

  8,976

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,650

  1,151

  Wandsworth

  3,300

  3,170

  Westminster

  1,900

  1,414

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what advice she has issued to the pilot authorities in respect of the admission of four-year-olds who do not have a voucher. [40531]

  Mr. Squire
  Guidance has been issued to the phase 1 authorities on the procedure by which headteachers can, in exceptional cases, apply for vouchers on behalf of their pupils. Guidance on the interaction of nursery education vouchers and admissions arrangements is currently being sent to all local education authorities and maintained primary schools.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer of 26 June Official Report, column 158, how much has been spent on publicity, in each of the four pilot authorities and overall, at the latest date for which figures are available; and what was the projected publicity budget in phase one of the voucher scheme. [40574]

  Mr. Squire
  The original budget for providing information to parents and providers in the financial year 1995–96 in the phase 1 areas was £750,000. This was revised to £1.1 million to meet the unexpectedly high demand for information nationwide. The estimated budget for the financial year 1996–97 is £300,000, of which £175,000 has been spent to date.
  993
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer of 16 July,Official Report, column 466, how many four-year-olds in each local authority participating in the pilot phase of the voucher scheme to date have been enrolled who did not have a voucher at the time of their enrolment; and how many applications have been made by providers on behalf of such children. [40576]

  Mr. Squire
  Of the 14,711 vouchers issued for the summer term, 1,166 were issued after the start of that term. Of these, 300 were issued in response to applications by maintained schools on behalf of eligible children.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the average unit cost per pupil for provision in(a) nursery schools, (b) nursery classes in primary schools, (c) reception classes in primary schools (d) and playgroups, at the latest date for which figures are available. [40537]

  Mr. Squire
  The average unit cost per full-time equivalent pupil in 1994–95 for those categories of under fives' provision for which estimates are available nationally are as follows:

  1994–95 estimates for England

  £

  Nursery schools

  3,500

  Nursery classes in primary schools

  2,880

  Primary classes (including under 5s)

  1,640

  Average

  2,150

  Comparable data for playgroups are not collected centrally.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate she has made or received of the cost of administration arising from the voucher scheme, in respect of(a) each of the pilot local education authorities, (b) providers in each area and (c) her Department. [40530]

  Mr. Squire
  Grant aid was made available to the four local education authorities taking part in the first phase of the voucher scheme in respect of the extra costs incurred in participating in phase 1 compared to joining phase 2. Details were set out on 29 April 1996,Official Report, column 348. No detailed estimate of administration costs has been made in respect of providers in each area. The estimated cost of administering the nursery voucher scheme from April 1997 is not expected to exceed 2.7 per cent. of the total cost of the nursery voucher scheme. Some two-thirds of the administration costs are expected to cover the new system of inspection.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what notification she has received in respect of pre-school providers who have gone out of business as a result of competition from other providers in the phase 1 areas of the nursery voucher scheme; and if she will list those organisations notified to her. [40532]

  Mr. Squire
  Of more than 640 private and voluntary providers registered for the voucher scheme at April 1996, four have notified the nursery voucher centre that they have since closed, but none gave a reason.
  994
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many providers have received initial validation to accept voucher-bearing children, in the(a) maintained, (b) voluntary and (c) private sectors; and how many, in each sector, consequent to initial validation (i) have already been inspected, (ii) will be inspected during the autumn term and (iii) will be inspected during the spring term. [40533]

  Mr. Squire
  A total of 494 providers in the maintained sector and 647 providers in the private and voluntary sectors are participating in phase 1 of the scheme. I understand from the chief inspector of schools that approximately 300 providers will be inspected in the autumn term and approximately 350 in the spring term.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment her Department has made during the first term of the pilot phase of the impact of the voucher scheme on children with special educational needs. [40535]

  Mr. Squire
  The nursery education voucher scheme brings the prospect of earlier identification and intervention for children with special education needs. To achieve this end, providers who are not maintained schools will have a duty to have regard to the code of practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs and associated guidance. Following discussions with the National Portage Association, and a trial in phase 1, portage services registered with the National Portage Association will be allowed to redeem nursery vouchers in phase 2.

  National Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the latest estimate of the development costs for establishing national vocational qualifications; and if she will make a statement. [40755]

  Mr. Paice
  Expenditure through the Department's programmes on development costs of national vocational qualifications between 1988 and March 1996 is £106 million. This figure includes £83 million from the standards programme and £23 million grant in aid to the National Council for Vocational Qualifications.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is her Department's estimate of the number of people who have obtained a national vocational qualification. [40754]

  Mr. Paice
  According to the National Council for Vocational Qualifications and the Scottish Vocational Education Council, there have been 1,203,159 national vocational qualifications and 33,707 Scottish vocational qualifications awarded respectively up till 30 June 1996.

  Provisional estimates from the spring 1996 Labour Force Survey show that 1.2 million people reported that they held an NVQ or SVQ.

  Anti-drugs Programmes
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the impact of the(a) DARE—drug abuse resistance education—and (b) other anti-drugs programmes in reducing the use of illegal drugs. [40605]
  995
  Mrs. Gillan
  The 16 innovative drug education and prevention projects supported under the Department's grants for education support and training programme in 1995–96 have been independently evaluated. The Department intends to publish a booklet later this year summarising the findings. One project, in Kirklees local education authority, dealt with, among other things, an evaluation of a pilot of the DARE—drug abuse resistance education—programme.

  In addition, the Office for Standards in Education is undertaking a specific study of provision for drug education in schools during this academic year. A report will be published shortly.

  Promotional Expenditure
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much her Department has spent on(a) publicity, (b) promotions, and (c) hospitality in each of the last six years. [40623]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following figures are given in financial years.

  Before the merger in July 1995, the Department operated separately funded programmes of publicity. This continued until the end of the financial year 1995–96. Figures for promotional work are not separately available.

  Department for Education

  Publicity £ million

  1990–91

  5.3

  1991–92

  9.0

  1992–93

  8.0

  1993–94

  10.1

  1994–95

  9.4

  1995–96

  5.4

  Department for Employment

  Publicity £ million

  1990–91

  2.6

  1991–92

  18.3

  1992–93

  7.2

  1993–94

  11.1

  1994–95

  11.1

  1995–96

  11.0

  The first year for which figures for expenditure on hospitality are available is 1993–94. Figures for the earlier years could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The combined figures for the two Departments are:

  1993–94: £121,000

  1994–95: £88,000

  1995–96: £98,000.

  Nursery Education Inspectors
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many people have embarked on a course to become a nursery education inspector; how many have successfully completed that course; what is the total number of qualified nursery education inspectors; and what were the recruitment targets; [40528]
  996
  (2) if she will require that inspections of voucher-bearing institutions be carried out during term time, when voucher-bearing children are present. [40534]

  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.

  Student Loans Company
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the Student Loans Company's 1996 annual report and accounts will be available. [41202]

  Mr. Forth
  I have today placed copies of the report and accounts in the Library.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what revisions she proposes in respect of the framework document, setting out the aim and objectives of the Employment Service, with particular reference to the roles and responsibilities of the Secretary of state and the chief executive, following the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance. [41203]

  Mr. Forth
  The framework document for the Employment Service has been revised to take account of the recommendations of the prior options review and the changed responsibilities and objectives of ES following the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance. Copies of the new framework document have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what revisions she proposes in respect of the agreement between herself and the Secretary of state for Social Security on the administration of benefits for unemployed people, in respect of the introduction of jobseeker's allowance. [41201]

  Mr. Forth
  The agreement on the administration of unemployment benefit and income support for unemployed people became obsolete when jobseeker's allowance replaced those benefits on 7 October. A new agreement on jobseeker's allowance and related issues came into force. Copies of this agreement have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Social Affairs Council
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the outcome of the EU Social Affairs Council on 24 September. [41204]

  Mr. Paice
  My noble Friend the Minister of State attended the Social Affairs Council in Brussels on 24 September.

  There was a discussion of a draft decision setting up an Employment and Labour Market Committee. General support for the principle of establishing a committee was expressed.

  The posted workers directive was adopted as an "A" point. The UK and Portugal voted against the directive. Common position was reached unanimously on an amendment to the carcinogens directive.
  997
  There was a series of presentations, including a Commission presentation on a Commission communication on information and consultation of workers, a presidency progress report on the single report on employment for the second Dublin European Council in December, information on the burden of proof directive, which is being taken forward by the other member states under the social protocol and a Commission Green Paper on the social and societal aspects of the information society.

  School Transport
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list those schools in Staffordshire which have been inspected by the Health and Safety Executive, indicating their findings in respect of health and safety in respect of school transport arrangements. [40742]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have been asked to reply.

  HSE inspectors have limited enforcement responsibilities for school transport. The safety of school transport vehicles, on the road are covered by various Road Traffic Acts which are enforced by the police or Department of Transport.

  However, HSE inspectors will normally discuss during school inspections the management arrangements for health and safety during school activities, and this might include discussion on the arrangements in place for managing health and safety during school trips in the school's own transport or in that from a contractor, and for the movement of vehicles on school premises.

  In Staffordshire, policies on school transport and trips have been discussed by HSE inspectors with individual schools and centrally with Staffordshire education authority. The education authority produced a comprehensive policy on school transport in 1995 and this appears to have been implemented at schools recently visited. These include:

  Thomas Alleyne's High School, Uttoxeter

  Paulet High School, Burton on Trent

  Mary Hill Comprehensive, Kidsgrove

  Leek High School, Leek

  Merryfields Special School, Newcastle under Lyme

  Flash Ley County First School, Stafford

  Haywood High School, Burslem

  Leasowes County Infants, Stafford

  Clayton High School, Newcastle

  St. Nicholas CE First School, Codsall

  Marshlands Special School, Stafford

  St. Dominics Independent Girls School, Stafford

  St. Chads Cathedral School, Lichfield.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans for the location of the pay and pensions branches of the Metropolitan police. [40221]
  998
  Mr. Maclean
  Between May and August 1996, the Metropolitan police conducted a review of the provision of police and civil staff pay and pension services. The Metropolitan police policy board will shortly be deciding whether to accept the review report's recommendations that pay and pension services should be contracted out, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State as police authority. If contracting out were to take place, the successful contractor or contractors, and the location or locations at which the work would be carried out, would not be identified until the middle of 1997 at the earliest.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will extend the remit of the Metropolitan police committee to include reporting on any matters which they consider requires his attention. [40402]

  Mr. Maclean
  Mr right hon. and learned Friend announced to this House on 9 February 1995 the appointment of the Metropolitan police committee. He gave details of the terms of reference of the MPC. There are no plans to change these terms of reference.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reduce the number of civilian staff employed by the Metropolitan police. [40818]

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that as well as on-going efficiency savings, he has recently initiated a specific review of central support services within the Metropolitan police. The review focused on posts primarily held by civilian staff. Following a consultation period, the Commissioner will discuss the recommendations with his senior colleagues. Final proposals are expected shortly.

  Metropolitan Police
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the recent report by Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary on the No. 3 area (north-east) of the Metropolitan police. [41280]

  Mr. Maclean
  Yes. I have today placed in the Library a note of the recommendations from the report, together with the Commissioner's responses and the police authority responses, which take into account the advice my right hon. and learned Friend and I have received from the Metropolitan police committee.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions over the past 12 months there were two or fewer traffic division cars, other than those dedicated to work on the M25, operating in the Metropolitan police area. [40332]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 14 October 1996]: Records prior to January 1996 do not show this precise information. The Commissioner tells me that from January 1996 to August 1996—inclusive—records show that on no occasion were there two or fewer traffic division cars, other than those dedicated to work on the M25, operating in the Metropolitan police district.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of police officers dedicated to traffic division operations in the past 10 years in the Metropolitan police area. [40339]
  999
  Mr. Maclean
  No records were kept of the number of police officers dedicated to traffic division operations prior to 1994. Figures since then are as follows:

  Rank

  1994 (as at 31 December)

  1995 (as at 31 December)

  19961 (as at 31 August)

  Superintendent

  8

  0

  0

  Chief Inspector

  8

  5

  5

  Inspector

  30

  30

  27

  Police Sergeant

  101

  108

  109

  Police Constable

  670

  689

  685

  Total

  817

  832

  826

  1 The 1996 figures are provisional.

  Police (M25)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent the number of police officers dedicated to policing the M25 has varied over the past 10 years, to take account of the changing traffic flows on the motorway; and if he will make a statement. [40331]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 14 October 1996]: Allocation of police resources to the M25 is an operational matter for the chief officers concerned. They are represented on a dedicated M25 group within the national motorway conference of the Association of Chief Police Officers Traffic Committee. I understand that resources are used in a flexible way to match them to anticipated demands and that a number of factors are taken into account including the time of day, the season and the sector of the motorway.

  Operation Bumble Bee
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the change in the number of burglaries in Greater London since the introduction of Operation Bumble Bee. [40458]

  Mr. Maclean
  Operation Bumble Bee was launched, on 1 June 1993, as a Metropolitan police initiative against burglary. Comparison of the 12-month rolling recorded burglary figures, incorporating both residential and non-residential burglary offences, for the Metropolitan police district for the years to May 1993 and to August 1996 are as in the following table:

  Offences

  June 1992 to May 1993

  189,514

  July 1995 to June 1996

  165,566

  Variation

  -23,948

  Percentage change

  -13

  Amyl-Nitrate
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to restrict over-the-counter sales of amyl-nitrate to juniors; and if he will make a statement. [40768]

  Mr. Sackville
  I understand from the Medicines Control Agency that products containing amyl-nitrate are not legally available over the counter. They are medicinal 1000
  products and are controlled by the Medicines Act 1968. Only doctors and chemists can supply this type of medicine to the public and their sale from other outlets is illegal.

  The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has considered on a number of occasions whether alkyl-nitrates, of which amyl-nitrate is one, should be controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. On the last occasion, in 1995, the council concluded that they did not give rise to a social problem justifying their control under the provisions of the 1971 Act. That remains the present position, but the situation will continue to be monitored.

  Civil Defence Grant
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement concerning the planned levels for local authority civil defence grant for 1997–98 and subsequent financial years. [40819]

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

  Mortgage Fraud
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to amend the criminal law in relation to mortgage frauds following the decision of the House of Lords in R v. Preddy, R v. Slade and R v. Dhillon (1996) 3 All ER 481; and if he will make a statement. [40434]

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) on 15 October 1996.

  Military Corrective Centre, Colchester
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what procedures have been adopted to designate the military corrective centre at Colchester a young offender institution; when the procedures were implemented; and if he will make a statement [40431]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The building at the military corrective training centre which we intend to use as a young offender institution will be declared to be such in the normal way by the Director General of the Prison Service acting on behalf of the Secretary of State under section 33(2) of the Prison Act 1952.

  Promotional Expenditure
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much his Department has spent on(a) publicity, (b) promotion and (c) hospitality in each of the last six years. [40616]

  Mr. Howard
  The information requested is provided in the table.

  Financial years

  Publicity £

  Promotion £

  Hospitality £

  1990–91

  9,982,136

  69,340

  30,080

  1991–92

  10,570,379

  305,849

  28,094

  1992–93

  12,745,124

  228,493

  55,651

  1993–94

  14,028,929

  123,620

  49,017

  1994–95

  14,034,417

  67,941

  27,468

  1995–96

  10,731,655

  57,454

  38,604

  1001

  Metropolitan Police Brass Band
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has(a) to reduce the funding of or (b) to disband the Metropolitan police brass band. [40817]

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that a recent review of the Metropolitan police central support services has recommended replacing the current full-time civilian Metropolitan police band with a less expensive alternative. Following a consultation period, the Commissioner will discuss this and other recommendations with his senior colleagues. Final proposals are expected shortly.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many answers to(a) written and (b) oral parliamentary questions have required correction by his Department in each of the past two years. [40634]

  Mr. Howard
  This is a matter of public record.

  Wheel Clamping
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on proposals to regulate the activities of firms engaging in wheel clamping vehicles on private land. [40442]

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received representations from the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock), the Automobile Association, the British Parking Association, and legislation on car clamping.

  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce proposals arising from his consultation on wheel clamping. [4296]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government are still considering what action should be taken to regulate wheel clamping on private land. We shall make an announcement as soon as possible.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will issue further guidance on the position of female asylum seekers from China who base their claim for asylum on Chinese laws specifying forced abortion, contraception and sterilisation; [41086]

  (2) if asylum caseworkers have been instructed to take into account the threat of forcible abortion or sterilisation; [41085]

  (3) if asylum caseworkers have now been instructed to take into account forced contraception, with particular reference to the forced insertion of intra-uterine devices. [41084]

  Miss Widdecombe
  A copy of the guidance which has been issued to asylum caseworkers on applications involving allegations of forcible abortion, sterilisation or genital mutilation has been placed in the Library. Where other forms of physical abuse are alleged, these are considered in the light of the circumstances of each case.
  1002
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people who had applied for asylum were deported from(a) Doncaster prison and (b) The Wolds prison during each month from May to September; and what were the nationalities of those deported; [40869]

  (2) how many people who had applied for asylum were detained in (a) Doncaster prison and (b) The Wolds prison during each month from May to September; and what were the nationalities of those detained. [40868]

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

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are his latest estimates of the expenditure on all external consultants, including management consultants, for each year since 1992, in 1996 prices, for his Department and its agencies; and what are the quantified annual cost savings which such expenditure has resulted in. [41180]

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

  Buckley Hall Prison
  Mr. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the current full complement by grade of(a) part-time and (b) full-time staff, employed by Group 4 at HMP Buckley Hall; and what changes to staffing levels have occurred in the last three months; [40980]

  (2) what percentage of temporary release decisions have resulted in temporary release failures at (a) HMP Buckley Hall and (b) other male category C training prisons since (i) 9 July 1996 and (ii) 14 December 1994; [40976]

  (3) if he will specify (a) what injuries were sustained by the prisoner Keith Tierney following his assault by another prisoner at HMP Buckley Hall in August, (b) what level of medical treatment was received by Keith Tierney following the assault, (c) how soon after the assault Keith Tierney's family were informed of his injuries, (d) what knowledge HMP Buckley Hall had at the time of this assault of assaults already received by Keith Tierney at other prisons, (e) what measures had been adopted at HMP Buckley Hall at the time of the assault and to minimise the risk of assault for Keith Tierney; [40982]

  (4) if he will list the number and types of incidents reported to the Prison Service in relation to Buckley Hall since (a) 12 June 1996 and (b) 14 December 1994; [40974]

  (5) what is the current staffing ratio for non-health staff to prisoners at (a) HMP Buckley Hall and (b) other male category C training prisons; [40978]

  (6) if he will list the representatives of (a) overseas Governments and (b) ministries of justice that have visited HMP Buckley Hall since 14 December 1994; and on what dates the visits occurred. [40977]
  1003
  (7) how many serious assaults have occurred on prisoners in HMP Buckley Hall since 14 December 1994; [40975]

  (8) how many serious assaults have occurred on staff in HMP Buckley Hall since 16 July 1995; and what is the total number of assaults on staff that have occurred at the prison since 14 December 1994. [40979]

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

  Letter from Hugh Taylor to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 16 October 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Questions about Buckley Hall prison.
  The information requested is not immediately available and the Director General will write to you in full as soon as possible.

  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason Recruitment and Assessment Services was asked to delay the processing of applicants for appointments to the board of the Criminal Cases Review Commission; on what date it was given clearance to proceed; and if he will make a statement. [41060]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Recruitment and Assessment Services was not asked to delay the processing of applicants for the posts of members of the Criminal Cases Review Commission. It was unable to inform applicants about the outcome of their applications until all the applications had been considered and sifted. This process took longer than anticipated due to the large number of applications received. Preliminary interviews for the posts began on 3 September; the final interviews will be held during the next few weeks.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current budget for the Criminal Cases Review Commission; and how much has so far been spent. [41059]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The provisional budget for setting up and operating the Criminal Cases Review Commission in 1996–97 is £5 million. Up to 30 September, £104,000 had been spent, although much more has been committed in terms of accommodation and equipment for the commission.

  Ms. Sandra Gregory
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provision exists to enable Ms Sandra Gregory, currently serving a 22—year sentence in Klong Prem womens' prison, Bangkok, to serve the rest of her sentence in a British prison. [40936]

  Miss Widdecombe
  I will write to the hon Member.

  Doncaster Prison
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to place a safety net in the open space between the first floor landing and 1004
  the ground floor at Doncaster prison to prevent (a) self-harm by prisoners and (b) harm to prison staff by prisoners; and if he will make a statement; [40864]

  (2) how many prisoners and from which of Her Majesty's prison establishments worked at Goodwood racecourse during its July meetings; how they were selected; if they were recompensed for the work; what was the total cost of the service; what proportion of this was borne by (a) the racecourse executive and (b) from public funds; and if he will make a statement; [40866]

  (3) what is the (a) current number and (b) percentage of the current prison population at HMP Doncaster who have been imprisoned for (i) rape, (ii) murder, (iii) armed robbery, (iv) manslaughter and (v) arson; and what were the equivalent figures for 12 months ago; [40853]

  (4) how may prisoners and from which of Her Majesty's prison establishments have worked at Doncaster racecourse during the last 12 months; how they were selected; if they were recompensed for the work; what was the total cost of the service; what proportion of this was borne by (a) the racecourse executive and (b) from public funds; and if he will make a statement; [40867]

  (5) which trade unions are recognised by Premier Prison Services at Her Majesty's prison, Doncaster; and in respect of which issues the company is prepared to consult and negotiate with each trade union. [40854]

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

  Letter from Hugh Taylor to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 16 October 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Questions about Doncaster prison and prisoners working at Goodwood.
  The information requested is not immediately available and the Director General will write to you in full as soon as possible.

  Prisoners (Closed Visits)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are subject to closed visits; how long this policy has been in force; and how often it is reviewed. [40847]

  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 Hugh Taylor to Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, dated 16 October 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent question about closed visits.
  The information requested is not immediately available and the Director General will write to you in full as soon as possible.

  Detainees
  Mr. Richmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people detained in(a) Doncaster prison and (b) The Wolds prison under

  1005
  Immigration Act powers were deported in each month from May to September; and what were the nationalities of those deported; [40871]

  (2) how many people were detained in (a) Doncaster prison and (b) the Wolds prison, under Immigration Act powers, in each month from May to September; and what were the nationalities of those detained. [70870]

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

  Letter from Hugh Taylor to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 16 October 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Questions about people deported under Immigration Act powers.
  The information requested is not immediately available and the Director General will write to you as soon as possible with a full reply.

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many schools in South Yorkshire to date have applied for funding for closed circuit television; and what percentage of them were successful; [40865]

  (2) how much money his Department contributed towards each project in South Yorkshire which was successful for closed circuit television this year and what percentage this was of the total cost of each project. [40993]

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

  New Buildings and Premises
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total expenditure on new buildings and premises by his Department and its agencies; and if he will indicate the square footage of new office space purchased or newly rented in each of the last five years. [41142]

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

  Dassault Aviation
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the visit by police to the chalet of Dassault Aviation during the Farnborough air show. [40943]

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

  Traffic Division Operations
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers have been dedicated to traffic division operations in(a) Thames Valley, (b) Hertfordshire, (c) Essex, (d) Surrey and (e) Sussex in each of the last 10 years. [41194]

  Mr. Maclean
  I will write to the hon. Member.
  1006

  James Hanratty Case
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he plans to take following receipt of the Scotland Yard report into the A6 James Hanratty murder case; and if he will make a statement. [41200]

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

  Stalking
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 13 February,Official Report, column 523, if he will now give details of the number of people prosecuted for stalking under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 as it related to crimes of intentional harassment. [41240]

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

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to announce his conclusions in the light of responses to the consultation document "Stalking: The Solutions." [41275]

  Mr. Maclean
  I shall be making an announcement on Friday.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what capacity of electricity used in his Department's buildings is generated in a combined heat and power plant; and what plans he has to increase that capacity. [41323]

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

  London Fire and Civil Defence Authority
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has reached a decision on the application from the London fire and civil defence authority under section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947. [41279]

  Mr. Howard
  I have approved proposals put to me by the London fire and civil defence authority for the removal of one of two pumping appliances at each of 14 fire stations in London, the removal of a fire rescue unit and a reduction in establishment of 316 posts. The pumping appliances are in the fire stations at Barnet, Chiswick, Deptford, East Greenwich, Fulham, Hendon, Millwall, Sidcup, Silvertown, Southwark, Twickenham, Wimbledon, Woodford and Woodside. I have rejected the proposal by the authority to remove one of the appliances from the fire station at Battersea on the grounds that I am not satisfied that adequate consideration has been given to the representations that have been made to the authority about the arrangements for dealing with special fire risks.

  The primary responsibility for deciding what resources are needed to provide an efficient and effective fire service in London and how those resources should be deployed rests with the fire authority. In reaching a decision on its application, very careful consideration has been given to the representations that have been received. I have also sought the views of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Fire Services. I have accepted his firm professional advice that if those proposals which I have

  1007
  now agreed are implemented by the fire authority, nationally recommended fire cover standards will still be maintained throughout London.

  Ministry of Transport Certificates
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there have been in each of the last five years against private individuals or companies for forging their MOT certificates. [40351]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 14 October 1996]: The following table gives the readily available information:

  Total number of proceedings for the offence of fraud, forgery etc. of test certificates, England and Wales, 1990–94

  Number

  1990

  638

  1991

  732

  1992

  676

  1993

  978

  1994

  1,803

  Statistics for 1995 are due to be published at the end of October 1996.

  Juries (Fraud Trials)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the use of juries in fraud trial cases; and if he will make a statement. [40553]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 15 October 1996]: The Government are keeping the handling of long and complex fraud trials under close review in the light of changing circumstances and recent developments.

  An examination of the role of the jury is one of the important issues which arises in this context and the Government are considering carefully the merits of any potential change.

  Prison Releases
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to ensure that prison release dates are calculated correctly; how many prisoners were recently wrongly released; how many reoffended or in other ways breached the conditions of their release; and if he will make a statement. [40560]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 15 October 1996]: The Government had proposed in March that there should be new arrangements in England and Wales for determining the effect on release dates of time spent on remand. These proposals, set out in the White Paper "Protecting the Public" provide that in all cases the judge will determine, when passing sentence, how much remand time will count against the sentence.

  Following the recent clarification of existing law by the High Court in the case of R v. Naughton, governors have been issued with fresh guidance stating that remand time in relation to consecutive sentences cannot be counted more than once.
  1008
  Of the 541 prisoners serving consecutive sentences who were released early, figures for the period ending 11 October show that nine prisoners have been returned to prison either for breach of their licence or following commission of further offences, or both. Information about any prisoner who may have been arrested for alleged further offences and has not been remanded in custody is not available.

  Witnesses (Cross-examination)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to amend the law as it applies to the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses in cases of alleged sexual assault and related areas; and if he will make a statement. [40550]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 15 October 1996]: The Criminal Justice Act 1988 already prohibits a defendant from questioning a child witness in cases of sexual offences and cruelty. My right hon. and learned Friend announced on 8 October that he would like to see similar protection extended to protect victims of alleged sexual assault. A review is being undertaken to look at ways in which this might best be achieved.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Reduced Earnings Allowance
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people to date have lost their reduced earnings allowances in each of the benefit districts in Wales. [40465]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administration of reduced earnings allowance 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. Ted Rowlands, dated 15 October 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary question asking how many people to date have lost their Reduced Earnings Allowances (REA) in each of the benefit districts in Wales.
  I have assumed this question refers solely to Adjudication Officer's decisions to transfer over pensionable age (as at 24 March 1996) REA recipients to retirement Allowance following the coming into force of the Social Security (Industrial Injuries and Diseases) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1996 on 24 March 1996.
  As at 31 August 1996, the number of people whose entitlement to REA has been transferred to Retirement Allowance by each District in Wales is detailed in the table below:—

  Benefits agency district

  Number of cases transferred

  West Wales

  242

  Gwent Borders

  57

  Swansea Bay

  266

  Mid Glamorgan

  690

  Wrexham and North Wales

  176

  Cardiff and Vales

  82

  Gwyneddigion Maldwy

  102

  Eastern Valleys

  335

  Figures are provisional and subject to amendment.
  I hope this reply will be helpful.
  1009
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the additional costs of holding the appeals against the withdrawal of the reduced earnings allowance. [40462]

  Mr. Evans
  Assuming that approximately 25 per cent. of the reduced earnings allowance recipients transferred to retirement allowance following the introduction of amending legislation will appeal against the adjudication officer's decision, the total cost of the processing and holding the appeals is estimated to be in the region of £1 million.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of people who have suffered a reduction in the related earnings allowance with the introduction of the retirement allowance in the benefit offices covering(a) Doncaster and (b) Mexborough. [40836]

  Mr. Burt
  This is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 16 October 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what estimate he has made of the number of people who have suffered a reduction in the reduced earnings allowance with the introduction of the retirement allowance in the benefit offices covering (a) Doncaster and (b) Mexborough.
  The information is not available in the format requested. This is because statistics are collected by Benefits Agnecy Districts and not by individual benefit offices. I have provided below the figures for Doncaster District which includes Doncaster Castle House and Doncaster St Peters House and Rother and Dearne District which includes Goldthorpe, Mexborough, Rotherham North, Rotherham South and Wathon Dearne. These figures are provisional and may be subject to amendment.
  In order to assess these people who might be transferred to Retirement Allowance under amending legislation (Social Security (Industrial Injuries and Diseases) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1996) which came into force on 24 March 1996, the Benefits Agency identified all Reduced Earnings Allowance recipients over pensionable age as at 24 March 1996. As a result of assessing all those cases identified in the Doncaster and Rother and Dearne Districts the numbers whose benefit has been reduced are as follows:—

  (a) Doncaster District: 291

  (b) Rother and Dearne District: 349

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people covered by the Seaham and Peterlee Benefits Agency offices have had retirement allowance substituted for reduced earnings allowance. [41221]

  Mr. Evans
  I will write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Appeals
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will place in the Library a copy of the correspondence between his Department and the Council on Tribunals regarding the draft of the Social Security (Adjudication) and Child Support Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1996; [40594]
  1010
  (2) if members of social security appeal tribunals, disability appeal tribunals and child support appeal tribunals will receive the documents relating to appeals in advance of the hearing in cases where an oral hearing is not requested; [40781]

  (3) if he will ensure that, before the chairman of a tribunal gives notice for the determination forthwith of an appeal which he believes has no reasonable prospect of success, the appellant has been given an opportunity to request an oral hearing and any such request has been complied with; [40783]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the percentage of successful appeals to a social security appeal tribunal if the appellant (a) requests and (b) does not request an oral hearing; [40786]

  (5) if he will defer the coming into force of the Social Security (Adjudication) and Child Support Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1996 to allow time for a debate on the proposed changes in the rights of appellants; [40816]

  (6) what assistance will be provided to ensure that appellants from tribunal decisions are able to comply with the requirement to include in their appeal a summary of the arguments relied on by them. [40782]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) on 23 July,Official Report, column 299.

  We do not intend to postpone the introduction of these regulations. They are essential to allow for improvements to the service offered appellants and any delay in their coming into force will only delay the point at which improvements can be made. Copies of subsequent correspondence between departmental officials and the Council on Tribunals concerning these amendments have been placed in the Library.

  The appeal leaflet is being re-written to tell appellants the type of information required to support their appeal. Staff of the relevant agencies and other advice agencies will continue to provide advice as they do now. The independent tribunal service will tell the appellant if the information given is insufficient.

  The right to an oral hearing is not modified by the power of the chairman to determine the appeal forthwith. The appellant will be asked in all cases if he wants an oral hearing. Currently, success rates for those people who choose to attend their hearing are around 53 per cent. compared to 15 per cent. for those people who choose not to attend. I have made no assumption about whether these figures will change following the introduction of the requirement to opt for an oral hearing. An evaluation will be undertaken once the new procedures have been in place for a reasonable time. The requirement to opt for an oral hearing will enable the independent tribunal service arrange non-attended hearings more efficiently.

  The issuing of documents to tribunal members about appeals is a question for the president of the independent tribunal service, His Honour Judge Bassingthwaighte, who will write to the hon. Member shortly.
  1011

  Family Credit
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people were in receipt of family credit in(a) York, (b) North Yorkshire and (c) Yorkshire and Humberside in 1988 and in each year since then. [40238]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administration of family credit 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. Hugh Bayley, dated 15 October 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many people were in receipt of Family Credit (FC) in York, North Yorkshire and Yorkshire and Humberside in 1988 and each year since then.
  The information is not available in the format requested. This is because the FC computer system holds records of the total number of claims received, awarded and disallowed on a national basis. Details are not broken down into individual towns or areas.
  However, statistics are available which indicate the number of families in receipt of FC within a Benefits Agency (BA) office area at a particular date. The information is only available from 1993 onwards as details relating to FC claims are normally destroyed after 18 months. The details available for each BA office in the Yorkshire and Humberside area, and the date of each scan, are shown in the attached Annex.
  I hope that you find this reply useful. If you would like any further information regarding the Family Credit scheme please write to Miss J Geering, Customer Service Manager, Family Credit unit, Government Buildings, Cop Lane, Penwortham, Preston, PR1 OSA.

  BA office

  28 May 1993

  15 April 1994

  13 April 1995

  12 April 1996

  York

  1,869

  2,174

  2,459

  2,793

  (North Yorkshire)

  Harrogate

  965

  1,049

  1,197

  1,391

  Northallerton

  858

  1,005

  1,085

  1,289

  Scarborough

  1,252

  1,417

  1,618

  1,794

  Skipton

  302

  371

  413

  565

  Total

  3,377

  3,842

  4,313

  5,039

  (Yorkshire and Humherside)

  Bamsley (East)

  1,178

  1,362

  1,464

  1,289

  Barnsley (West)

  678

  890

  1,147

  1,710

  Bradford (East)

  1,818

  2,143

  2,472

  2,736

  Bradford (South)

  1,755

  2,169

  2,357

  2,643

  Bradford (West)

  1,853

  2,093

  2,289

  2,494

  Castleford

  658

  830

  969

  891

  Dewsbury

  2,484

  2,889

  3,220

  3,468

  Doncaster (East)

  1,229

  1,366

  1,483

  1,709

  Doncaster (West)

  1,378

  1,727

  2,078

  2,597

  Goole

  517

  598

  624

  739

  Grimsby

  2,528

  3,007

  3,400

  3,829

  Halifax

  2,408

  2,690

  2,931

  3,160

  Hemsworth

  297

  488

  606

  779

  Huddersfield

  2,015

  2,331

  2,620

  2,969

  Keighley

  1,542

  1,712

  1,906

  1,971

  Leeds (East)

  1,902

  2,239

  2,352

  2,617

  Leeds (North-west)

  1,445

  1,661

  1,812

  1,951

  Leeds (North)

  1,628

  1,752

  1,962

  2,101

  Leeds (South)

  1,160

  1,289

  1,451

  1,558

  Leeds (West)

  1,611

  1,822

  1,865

  2,070

  Rotherham (North)

  647

  703

  742

  619

  Rotherham (South)

  1,603

  2,046

  2,408

  2,759

  Scunthorpe

  1,258

  1,441

  1,714

  1,865

  Sheffield (North-east)

  1,354

  1,593

  1,731

  2,135

  Sheffield (North-west)

  1,431

  1,509

  1,756

  1,978

  Sheffield (South-east)

  993

  1,117

  1,266

  1,505

  Sheffield (South-west)

  900

  1,043

  1,178

  1,401

  Wakefield

  1,465

  1,681

  1,844

  1,983

  Wath On Dearne

  515

  684

  921

  1,119

  Total

  40,250

  46,875

  52,586

  58,645

  Figures are provisional and subject to change.
  1012
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of lone-parent families received family credit in each of the last 10 years. [41025]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is set out in the table.

  Number of Family Credit Lone Parents

  Year

  Number of cases

  Percentage of lone parent population

  1986

  83,000

  9

  1987

  92,000

  9

  1988

  74,000

  7

  1989

  114,000

  10

  1990

  122,000

  10

  1991

  132,000

  10

  1992

  160,000

  11

  1993

  208,000

  14

  1994

  236,000

  15

  1995

  268,000

  16

  Notes:

  1. Family Income Supplement data for 1986 and 1987 are as at April, Family Credit data from 1988 onwards are based on May.

  2. Numbers have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Sources:

  Family Credit Statistics Quarterly Enquiry May 1996.

  Social Security Statistics 1986–1987.

  Lone Parent population data are based on DSS Estimates from General Household Survey.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cost of family credit in 1994–95; and how many people were in receipt of this benefit. [40143]

  Mr. Evans
  Expenditure on family credit in 1994–95 was £1,441 million. In March 1995, there were 602,000 families in receipt of the benefit.

  Sources:

  1. 1996 Departmental Report.

  2. Family Credit 5 per cent. sample of awards at 31 March 1995.

  Note:

  Caseload figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the effect of the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance in regard to the cost of family credit. [40144]

  Mr. Evans
  In the long term, the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance is estimated to increase the cost of the family credit by up to £10 million. This figure does not include behavioural effects.

  Source:

  Family Credit Expenditure Survey data.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes have taken place in the number of recipients of family credit in each area of Yorkshire; and how those figures compare with the position one year earlier. [40147]

  Mr. Evans
  The administration of family credit is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Peter Hardy, dated 16 October 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what changes have taken place in the number of recipients of Family Credit (FC) in each area of Yorkshire; and how those figures compare with the position one year earlier.

  1013
  The information is not available in the format requested. This is because the FC computer system holds records of the total number of claims received, awarded and disallowed on a national basis. Details are not broken down into individual towns or areas.
  However, statistics are available which indicate the number of families in receipt of FC within a Benefits Agency (BA) office are at a particular date. The details available for each BA office in the Yorkshire area, and the date of each scan, are shown in the attached Annex.
  I hope that you find the information useful. If you would like any further information regarding the Family Credit scheme please write to Miss J Geering, Customer Service Manager, Family Credit Unit, Government Buildings, Cop Lane, Penwortham, Preston, PR1 0SA.

  Scan Date:

  Benefit office

  13 April 1995

  12 April 1996

  +/-

  Barnsley (East)

  1,464

  1,289

  -175

  Barnsley (West

  1,147

  1,710

  +563

  Bradford (East)

  2,472

  2,736

  +264

  Bradford (South)

  2,375

  2,643

  +268

  Bradford (West)

  2,289

  2,494

  +205

  Castleford

  969

  891

  -78

  Dewsbury

  3,220

  3,468

  +248

  Doncaster (East)

  1,483

  1,709

  +226

  Doncaster (West)

  2,078

  2,597

  +519

  Goole

  624

  739

  +115

  Grimsby

  3,400

  3,829

  +429

  Halifax

  2,931

  3,160

  +229

  Harrogate

  1,197

  1,391

  +194

  Hemsworth

  606

  779

  +173

  Hudders field

  2,620

  2,969

  +349

  Keighley

  1,906

  1,971

  +65

  Leeds (East)

  2,352

  2,617

  +265

  Leeds (North-west)

  1,812

  1,951

  +139

  Leeds (North)

  1,962

  2,101

  +139

  Leeds (South)

  1,451

  1,558

  +107

  Leeds (West)

  1,865

  2,070

  +205

  Northallerton

  1,085

  1,289

  +204

  Rotherham (North)

  742

  619

  -123

  Rotherham (South)

  2,408

  2,759

  +351

  Scarborough

  1,618

  1,794

  +176

  Scunthorpe

  1,714

  1,865

  +151

  Sheffield (North-east)

  1,731

  2,135

  +404

  Sheffield (North-west)

  1,756

  1,978

  +222

  Sheffield (South-east)

  1,266

  1,505

  +239

  Sheffield (South-west)

  1,178

  1,401

  +223

  Skipton

  413

  565

  +152

  Wakefield

  1,844

  1,983

  +139

  Wath on Dearne

  921

  1,119

  198

  York

  2,459

  2,793

  +334

  Total

  59,358

  66,477

  +7,119

  Figures are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of the population is in receipt of family credit in each region of the United Kingdom. [40146]

  Mr. Evans
  The available information is set out in the table.

  This Department is responsible for social security in Great Britain and can therefore provide information only for England, Scotland and Wales.

  I would therefore refer the hon. Member to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for figures for Northern Ireland.
  1014

  Family credit cases and beneficiaries by social security administrative region

  Region

  Number of cases

  Number of beneficiaries

  Beneficiaries as a percentage of population

  North Eastern

  122,000

  433,000

  —

  London North

  81,000

  298,000

  —

  London South

  71,000

  260,000

  —

  South Western

  54,000

  196,000

  —

  Midlands

  121,000

  440,000

  —

  North Western

  106,000

  374,000

  —

  England

  553,000

  2,000,000

  4.1

  Scotland

  73,000

  237,000

  4.6

  Wales

  40,000

  142,000

  4.9

  Great Britain/total

  666,000

  2,379,000

  4.2

  Sources:

  1. Family Credit 5 per cent. sample of awards at 29 February 1996.

  2. Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys.

  Notes:

  1. All figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. "Beneficiaries" include the Family Credit claimant, a partner if present, and any children or dependents included in the Family Credit assessment.

  3. The population figures used for comparison are the mid-year estimates for 1994 which are the latest available. Resident populations for Social Security.

  4. Administrative Regions are not available.

  Benefits Freeline Advisory Service
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many calls were received by the benefits freeline advisory service in Wales in the last year; and how many came from the Rhymney Merthyr benefit districts. [40325]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  This is an operational matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Ted Rowlands, dated 16 October 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many calls were received by the Benefits Freeline Advisory Service in Wales in the last year; and how many came from the Rhymney Merthyr benefit districts.
  The information is not available in the format requested. The number of calls received has been taken to mean the number of calls answered by an advisor. The Benefits Freeline Advisory Service in Wales received 12,000 calls in the year April 1995 to March 1996. This figure has been rounded to the nearest 1,000. However no records have been kept indicating where calls originated from.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Chronic Bronchitis and Emphysema.
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to respond to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Committee's report on chronic bronchitis and emphysema. [40714]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  No decision has yet been made with regard to the recommendations set out in the report, which is being given full and careful consideration. We will
  1015
  announce the decision as soon as we have completed our necessarily detailed examination of the issues it raises.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list by region the number of claims that have been made for industrial injuries benefit in respect of chronic bronchitis and emphysema; how many have been successful; how many have been refused; and for what reasons. [40715]

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of industrial injuries disablement benefit is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Chronic bronchitis and/or emphysema activity from 1 April 1996 to 31 August 1996 analysed by benefits agency area directorate

  Claims received

  Successful claims

  Claims disallowed

  Disallowed under:

  20 year rule1

  1–13 per cent.2

  Fev(1) test3

  x-ray4

  AD1 East London and Anglia

  4

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  AD2 Chilterns

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  AD3 London south

  3

  1

  7

  5

  0

  2

  0

  AD4 West Country

  5

  2

  4

  1

  0

  0

  3

  AD5 Mercia

  230

  44

  131

  18

  0

  55

  58

  AD6 West Midlands

  11

  2

  10

  2

  0

  3

  5

  AD7 Wales

  220

  28

  150

  14

  2

  75

  59

  AD8 North west Coast

  24

  5

  18

  6

  0

  3

  9

  AD9 Greater Manchester

  23

  4

  18

  4

  0

  2

  12

  AD10 Yorkshire

  232

  53

  291

  17

  0

  128

  146

  AD11 Tyne Tees

  83

  6

  57

  6

  0

  31

  20

  AD12 West of Scotland

  4

  0

  3

  1

  0

  1

  1

  AD13 East of Scotland

  28

  3

  40

  7

  0

  14

  19

  The number of claims received includes claims that will not have been determined by 31 August 1996 and the number of successful and disallowed claims includes claims received before 1 April 1996.

  1 20 year rule: these cases were disallowed because the customer had not worked underground for at least 20 years.

  2 Disablement 1–13 per cent, cases disallowed because Industrial Injuries benefit only becomes payable at 14 per cent, disablement and the customer had no other entitlements which, when added to the CB and E assessment, would result in an aggregated minimum 14 per cent, disablement.

  3 Customers failed the FEV (1) test: cases disallowed because the lung capacity test did not show that the customer's lung capacity was sufficiently restricted.

  4 Customers failed the x-ray test: cases disallowed because findings from the customer's x-rays(s) were not sufficiently conclusive in respect of dust retention.

  Source:

  Benefits Agency Central Data Unit. Based on 100 per cent. count and subject to amendment. NB: not all claims will have been decided by 31 August 1996.

  Promotional Expenditure
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much his Department has spent on(a) publicity, (b) promotion and (c) hospitality in each of the last six years. [40615]

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 25 April,Official Report, column 249.

  Unfortunately, there was a typographical error in the answer I gave relating to the total amount of expenditure on publicity for the year 1994–95.

  The information is not available in the format requested as it is not possible to separate promotional activities from publicity undertaken. Such information as is available is in the lists.

  TOTAL EXPENDITURE ON PUBLICITY

  1990–91: £12,316,239

  1016
  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Paddy Tipping, dated 16 October 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if he will list by region the number of claims that have been made for Industrial Injuries Benefit in respect of chronic bronchitis and emphysema; how many have been successful; how many have been refused; and for what reasons.
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is shown in the attached table. Statistics are not kept which are specific to regions, but are kept by Benefit Agency Area Directorate.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  1991–92: £17546,566

  1992–93: £19,510,968

  1993–94: £18,333,603

  1994–95: £20,054,914

  1995–96: £20,085,672

  TOTAL EXPENDITURE. ON HOSPITALITY

  1990–91: £75,778

  1991–92: £91,934

  1992–93: £175,901

  1993–94: £165,565

  1994–95: £127,139

  1995–96: £99,929

  Figures are for expenditure by Departmental Headquarters, all Executive Agencies and Non-Departmental Public Bodies.
  1017

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has for the privatisation of the Benefits Agency; and if he will make a statement. [41169]

  Mr. Lilley
  There are no proposals to privatise the Benefits Agency.

  Involvement of the private sector in the Benefits Agency is part of a wider programme of change to reduce running costs and improve efficiency.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the estimated total annual saving to the Benefits Agency of the proposed closure of the advice offices in Morley, Rothwell and Otley on 31 December; [41167]

  (2) what is his estimate of the numbers of people calling for information or advice at the Benefits Agency Office in Morley in each week of its operation; and how many of these he estimates will journey to Leeds for advice; [41159]

  (3) what was the cost to his Department of setting up the benefits advice office in Morley; and what was the cost to the Benefits Agency of running the office in 1995–96. [41168]

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what representations he has received concerning the change programme in the Benefits Agency; and if he will make a statement; [41271]

  (2) what plans he has to meet the Civil and Public Services Association to discuss the change programme of the Benefits Agency; and if he will make a statement. [41272]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I will write to the lion. Members shortly.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the offices within his Department that have been closed in the(a) Doncaster and (b) Mexborough area for each of the last five years. [40856]

  Mr. Burt
  In the five years prior to August 1996, no offices were closed in the Doncaster and Mexborough area.

  In August 1996 the Benefits Agency took occupation of a new building at Crossgate house, Wood street, Doncaster. While meeting the current future operational needs and the requirements of its customers, it enabled rationalisation of the overall DSS occupied estate in Doncaster. As a result four buildings occupied by, DSS in Doncaster were closed: St. Peters house, Castle house, Silver house medical examination centre and Arndale house medical adjudication centre.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he is yet in a position to report on the tenders submitted to him for the Benefit Agency's1018
  telephone interpreting service; and if he will make a statement. [40987]

  Mr. Evans
  A framework agreement has been negotiated with Language Line Ltd. for the provision of a telephone interpretation service to the Benefits Agency and other interested Government Departments. Unsuccessful tenderers were informed by letter dated 14 October 1996. Debriefs for the unsuccessful tenderers are currently being arranged with the first debrief organised for 7 November 1996.

  BA Purchasing and Supply, which let the contract on behalf of the Department of Social Security, is confident that the successful tender will provide an improved service in terms of quality of interpretation.

  Lone Parents
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total benefit expenditure on lone parents whose youngest child is over five years old. [41017]

  Mr. Burt
  Benefit expenditure on lone parents whose youngest child is over five years, for the main benefits paid to lone parents, has been estimated using departmental data and is set out in the table.

  £ million

  Year

  1995–96

  One parent benefit

  209

  Family credit

  491

  Child benefit

  810

  Housing and council tax benefits

  1,950

  Income support

  1,881

  Total benefit

  5,341

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey and various Analytical Services Division sample data.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the benefit bill for(a) income support, (b) family credit, (c) housing benefit, (d) council tax benefit, (e) one parent benefit and (f) lone-parent premium for lone parents by English region. [41027]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available in the tables.

  Information for 1995–96 for (a), (c) and (d) is shown in table 1 and for (b) is shown in table 2.

  Expenditure by region for one-parent benefit and lone parent premium is not available.

  Components of a benefit award cannot be separately identified. The lone-parent premium is payable with income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit. The income support lone-parent premium was worth £5.20 in April 1995. This would give implied expenditure in England for 1995–96 of £243 million for income support.
  1019
  The equivalent amounts for housing benefit and council tax benefit, excluding income support recipients, are £61 million and £57 million.

  However, some recipients will receive an overall amount of benefit which is less than the value of the premium.

  Table 1

  Region

  Income support

  Housing benefit

  Council tax benefit

  East Anglia

  116

  65

  10

  East Midlands

  260

  130

  25

  North

  247

  126

  25

  North West

  569

  295

  58

  South East

  1,416

  983

  132

  South West

  274

  169

  26

  West Midlands

  381

  186

  33

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  352

  166

  32

  All regions

  3,614

  2,119

  342

  Table 2

  Region

  Family credit

  North Eastern

  143

  London North

  78

  Wales and South Western

  100

  Midlands

  130

  North Western

  132

  London South

  74

  All regions

  657

  Notes:

  1. Information on income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit is provided by standard statistical region. Information on family credit is only available by social security administrative region.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest £ million.

  Sources:

  1. Total expenditure figures are consistent with the 1996 Departmental Report.

  2. Housing benefit and council tax benefit figures are estimates derived from the annual 1 per cent. housing benefit sample enquiry.

  3. Income support figures are estimates derived from the income support statistical enquiry May 1995 (5 per cent. sample). Family credit figures are derived from the family credit statistical sample (5 per cent. sample). Expenditure has been calculated from average weekly payments and Number of claimants.

  4. A recent costing suggests that relatively few lone parents receive benefit less than the value of the premium.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the definition of availability for work for lone parents. [41015]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  Lone parents with children aged under 16 may receive income support without being required to be available for work. However, they have full access to Employment Service advice and assistance if they wish to seek work. Lone parents if they choose may claim jobseeker's allowance at any time, rather than income support, but once their youngest child is aged 16 or over they may claim only jobseeker's allowance and must be available for work.

  Lone parents who claim JSA must be willing and able to accept a job offer given 48 hours' notice. They may
  1020
  restrict their availability for employment provided that they are available for the maximum hours that their responsibility for the care of their children allows; that they retain reasonable prospects of securing employment despite their restrictions; and that they are available for a minimum of 16 hours a week.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of lone-parent families received income support in each of the last 10 years. [41021]

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  Number of Income Support Lone Parents

  Year

  Number of cases

  Percentage of lone parent population

  1986

  575,000

  62

  1987

  629,000

  64

  1988

  694,000

  66

  1989

  756,000

  67

  1990

  793,000

  65

  1991

  871,000

  66

  1992

  957,000

  68

  1993

  1,013,000

  68

  1994

  1,039,000

  66

  1995

  1,056,000

  64

  Notes:

  1. Lone parents are defined as those receiving the lone parent premium.

  2. Figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Sources:

  1. Supplementary Benefit/Income Support Statistics Annual Enquiries 1986–93.

  2. Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiries May 1994 and May 1995.

  3. Lone Parent population data are based on DSS estimates from General Household Survey.

  Miss Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total benefit expenditure on lone parents in each of the last 10 years; and what it is estimated to be in the current year. [41022]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is set out in the table.

  £ million

  Year

  Lone parents

  1986–87

  2,659

  1987–88

  2,972

  1988–89

  3,542

  1989–90

  3,961

  1990–91

  4,680

  1991–92

  5,728

  1992–93

  7,107

  1993–94

  8,124

  1994–95

  8,884

  1994–95

  9,510

  1995–96

  9,871

  Source:

  March 1996 Departmental Report and earlier equivalents.

  Notes:

  1. Outturn figures from 1986–87 to 1994–95, estimated outturn for 1995–96 and planned figure for 1996–97.

  2. Expenditure is classified by beneficiary group according to the main reason a benefit is paid.

  3. The benefits included in lone parent expenditure are:

  Child Benefit; One Parent Benefit; Family Credit/Family Income Supplement, Housing Benefit and Council Tax/Community Charge Benefit.
  1021

  Habitual Residence Test
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been(a) the cost to date to the Benefits Agency of administering the habitual residence test to claimants for income support and (b) the cost to the Benefits Agency of preparing and presenting evidence for social security appeals tribunal hearings on the habitual residence test. [41032]

  Mr. Burt
  This is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Robin Corbett, dated 16 October 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what has been the cost to the Benefits Agency to date of administering the habitual residence test to claimants for Income Support (IS), and of preparing and presenting evidence at appeals tribunals on the test.
  The information is not available in the format requested. The cost of administering the habitual residence test in District Offices, including the preparation and presentation of appeals, for the period 1 August 1994 when it was introduced to 31 March 1996, the latest date for which figures are available, is as follows:

  1.8.94–31.3.95: £2,558,256

  1.4.95–31.3.96: £2,612,051

  It is not possible to separate the cost of the work associated with the preparing and presenting of evidence at appeals tribunals. This information could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
  I hope you find this information helpful.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the number of appeals heard after claimants have failed to meet the habitual residence test when applying for income support by tribunal centres by name, giving the numbers decided in the claimants' favour. [41033]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the number of claimants tested and the number refused income support under the habitual residence test in each office site serving the Birmingham, Erdington constituency grouped according to United Kingdom nationals, European Economic Area nationals, or other nationals, for 1995–96 and for that period of 1996–97 for which figures are available. [41031]

  Mr. Burt
  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. Robin Corbett, dated 16 October 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if he will list the number of claimants tested and the number refused Income Support (IS) under the habitual residence test in each office site serving the Birmingham, Erdington constituency grouped according to United Kingdom nationals, EEA nationals, or other nationals for 1995–96 and for that period of 1996–97 for which figures are available.
  The information is not available in the format requested. This is because statistics are collected by Benefits Agency Districts and not by individual benefit offices. I have provided below the figures for Birmingham Tame Valley District, which covers the area of
  1022
  Birmingham Erdington, Birmingham Handsworth, Birmingham Perry Barr and Birmingham Washwood Heath. These figures are provisional and may be subject to amendment.

  Tested

  Failed

  UK nationals

  1995–96

  876

  98

  April 1996 to August 1996

  430

  70

  EEA nationals

  1995–96

  17

  8

  April 1996 to August 1996

  7

  5

  Other nationals

  1995–96

  250

  43

  April 1996to August 1996

  100

  29

  This statistical data is lodged monthly in the House of Commons Library.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the total revenue collected for each year of operation of(a) Doncaster Child Support Agency field office and (b) Rotherham Child Support Agency field office for postal code area S64; and if he will indicate for (a) and (b) the (i) total running cost budget, (ii) total number of claims received and (iii) total number of (1) casual and (2) temporary staff employed. [40890]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Mr Martin Redmond, dated 16 October 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Doncaster and Rotherham Child Support Agency Offices.
  As Field offices do not collect revenue, I am not able to provide you with any information. The assessment and subsequent collection of a maintenance is undertaken by the Child Support Agency Centres (CSACs). Once in a CSAC, it is not possible to attribute an individual case's yield to the field office at which it originated.
  Since the inception of the Agency there have been several boundary changes within the Doncaster and Rotherham areas with both offices at some time being linked to others. In view of this, it is not possible to report on the running costs for these individual sites for either 1993/94 or 1994/95. This is also the case for details relating to both casual and temporary staff numbers.
  In 1995/96, Doncaster and Rotherham because a combined area. For this year the running costs were £490,508 for staff and £14,415 for non staff. During the year the number of casual and fixed term contract employees fluctuated; on average one casual and one fixed term contract employee were employed. The number of claims received in the area was 5147.
  In 1996/97, the staff costs are £474,279. There is no specific devolved budget for non staff costs in the current financial year as funds are allocated on a Divisional basis. The expenditure to date for the area is £10,181. There is currently one member of staff employed in the Doncaster/Rotherham area on a casual basis and there are three officers employed on fixed term contracts. The number of claims received in the current year (from April to September) is 2231.
  I hope this is helpful.
  1023
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the service availability of the Child Support Agency computer system in each week since 7 January. [40959]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The information is in the table:

  Week ending

  Service availability (percentage)

  7 January 1996

  99.9

  14 January 1996

  98.5

  21 January 1996

  98.8

  28 January 1996

  92.9

  4 February 1996

  99.7

  11 February 1996

  99.7

  18 February 1996

  95.5

  25 February 1996

  98.4

  3 March 1996

  100.0

  10 March 1996

  90.3

  17 March 1996

  100.0

  24 March 1996

  98.4

  31 March 1996

  98.6

  7 April 1996

  95.9

  14 April 1996

  97.6

  21 April 1996

  100.0

  28 April 1996

  99.9

  5 May 1996

  94.5

  12 May 1996

  99.2

  19 May 1996

  100.0

  26 May 1996

  99.9

  2 June 1996

  99.7

  9 June 1996

  99.8

  16 June 1996

  99.6

  23 June 1996

  89.6

  30 June 1996

  99.9

  7 July 1996

  98.8

  14 July 1996

  100.0

  21 July 1996

  100.0

  28 July 1996

  100.0

  4 August 1996

  74.4

  11 August 1996

  100.0

  18 August 1996

  98.6

  25 August 1996

  99.8

  1 September 1996

  88.8

  8 September 1996

  98.6

  15 September 1996

  98.6

  22 September 1996

  99.9

  29 September 1996

  100.0

  6 October 1996

  99.3

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes have been introduced or are in the process of being implemented as to grade and level of training for civil servants carrying out good cause interviews. [40973]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 16 October 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency Good Cause process.
  1024
  Following the Government's acceptance of the Social Security Select Committee's recommendation that there should be a review of the Good Cause process, the Child Support Agency produced the Good Cause Report on 2 April 1996 which included 24 recommendations.
  The Government has accepted all 24 recommendations which included the training and grading requirements as appropriate, for staff involved in the revised Good Cause process.
  Action to implement these recommendations is well under way.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what procedures will exist to ensure that the opening and sorting of Child Support Agency post by Royal Mail staff will not lead to breaches of confidentiality; and what assessment he has made of the extent to which individual letters have to be read by Royal Mail staff to be effectively sorted. [40985]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 16 October 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency post opening arrangements.
  Following a feasibility study carried out last year, the Agency decided to contract out its post opening requirements to the Royal Mail.
  Client confidentiality is of the utmost importance to the Agency, and was an important consideration in taking this decision. The Agency ran a pilot exercise to test procedures, and issues such as security and client confidentiality.
  In providing a sorting service to the Agency, Royal Mail are required merely to scan items of mail to ascertain their correct destination point. This is identical to the procedure previously undertaken by Agency staff. The volumes involved and the large scale use of machinery in the process makes the reading of individual letters and forms an impractical proposition. In addition. all Royal Mail staff are required to sign the Official Secrets Act: just as staff employed by the Child Support Agency.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what ways his Department takes account of the needs of pensioner households mainly dependent on benefits when uprating the old age pension. [41009]

  Mr. Burt
  Current legislation provides for the annual uprating of the state pension in line with the rise in prices. In this way, we have maintained the value of the state pension to provide a solid foundation for retirement at a time of strong pressure on public spending.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners were solely dependent on their old age pension and means-tested benefits in each of the last five years. [41000]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table.

  The table shows estimates of the number and proportion of pensioner couples, single pensioners and all pensioner units who are solely dependent upon income from state retirement pension and income-related benefits.
  1025

  Pensioner units

  1989

  1990

  1990–91

  1992

  1993

  Single pensioners

  790,000 (18 per cent.)

  740,000 (17 per cent.)

  700,000 (16 per cent.)

  670,000 (15 per cent.)

  500,000 (11 per cent.)

  Pensioner couples

  80,000 (3 per cent.)

  180,000 (7 per cent.)

  150,000 (6 per cent.)

  140,000 (5 per cent.

  120,000 (4 per cent.)

  All pensioner units

  880,000 (13 per cent.)

  920,000 (13 per cent.)

  860,000 (12 per cent.)

  800,000 (11 per cent.)

  610,000 (9 per cent.)

  Source:

  The Pensioners' Incomes Series (based upon data from the Family Expenditure Surveys).

  Notes:

  1. Income-related benefits include housing benefit, income support and benefits to pay for local taxes (i.e. rate rebate, community charge benefit and council tax benefit). The Christmas bonus has also been included.

  2. All estimates of numbers are shown to the nearest 10,000 pensioner units. A pensioner unit is defined as being either a single person aged over state pension age, or a couple where the head, or husband, is aged over SPA. Percentage estimates are shown to the nearest whole percentile.

  3. The Pensioners Income Series gives single calendar estimates. However in 1991 one quarter of the family expenditure survey sample was omitted because of problems following the delayed issue of community charge bills in April 1991. As a result the sample size in that year it too small to provide sufficiently reliable estimates of pensioners' incomes. For this reason the remaining data for 1991 have combined with that for 1990 to produce estimates for the combined calendar years 1990 and 1991.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are currently in receipt of incapacity benefit; and at what total annual cost. [40848]

  Mr. Lilley
  At 31 May 1996, the latest date for which figures are available, 1.8 million people were in receipt of incapacity benefit.1 The estimated cost for the year 1995–96 is £8,120 million2.

  Sources:

  1. 5 per cent. sample from the incapacity benefit computer system. Excludes a small number of cases not on the system.

  2. Social Security Departmental Report (March 1996).

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many appeals have been lodged against a disallowance of incapacity benefit in the benefits districts covering(a) Doncaster and (b) Mexborough in each quarter since April 1995; how many of these have been from (i) new incapacity benefit claimants and (ii) former claimants of invalidity benefit; in each case, how many appeals have been (x) disallowed, (y) superseded and (z) found in the claimants' favour; and how many are outstanding. [40837]

  Mr. Burt
  I will write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people disallowed incapacity benefit have successfully made claims to unemployment benefits or credits of national insurance in the Employment Service in(a) Doncaster and (b) Mexborough districts in each quarter since April 1995. [40841]

  Mr. Lilley
  The available information is in the tables.

  Doncaster offices of the Employment Service

  Quarter ending

  Number of claims for unemployment benefits/National Insurance credits at Employment Service office by people found capable of work under the all work test

  June 1995

  3

  September 1995

  19

  December 1995

  30

  1026

  Doncaster offices of the Employment Service

  Quarter ending

  Number of claims for unemployment benefits/National Insurance credits at Employment Service office by people found capable of work under the all work test

  March 1996

  67

  June 1996

  108

  September 1996

  75

  Mexborough offices of the Employment Service.

  Quarter ending

  Number of claims for unemployment benefits/National Insurance credits at Employment Service office by people found capable of work under the all work test

  June 1995

  2

  September 1995

  92

  December 1995

  73

  March 1996

  68

  June 1996

  139

  September 1996

  140

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are his latest estimates of the expenditure on all external consultants, including management consultants, for each year since 1992, in 1996 prices, for his Department and its agencies; and what are the quantified annual cost savings which such expenditure has resulted in. [41187]

  Mr. Burt
  I will write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have undergone the all-work test for incapacity benefit; what were the results of the tests; and how many are now employed.[40843]

  Mr. Lilley
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.
  1027

  April 1995 to August 1996

  Number of assessments under the all work test

  1,059,000

  Allowed benefit following reference to BA Medical Services on the all work test

  892,000

  Disallowed benefit following reference to BA Medical Services on the all work test

  167,000

  Source:

  Monthly scan of the incapacity benefit computer system.

  Note:

  All information is provisional and could be subject to change.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list(a) total number of recipients and (b) average benefit paid in respect of (i) invalidity benefit for 1994–95 and (ii) incapacity benefit for 1995–96. [40844]

  Mr. Lilley
  The available information is in the table.

  Number of recipients

  Average weekly amount in payment (£)

  Invalidity Benefit at 12 April 1995

  1,767,000

  84.77

  Incapacity Benefit 1 at 31 May 1996

  1,677,000

  285.54

  Source:

  Invalidity Benefit figures taken from a 1 per cent. sample of cases. Incapacity Benefit figures taken from a 5 per cent. sample of cases from the Incapacity Benefit computer system. These figures exclude a small number of cases not on the system.

  Notes:

  1 Excludes recipients of the short term (lower) rate, the equivalent of Sickness Benefit prior to 13 April 1995.

  2 Includes those cases where benefit is in payment at the pre-April 1995 Invalidity Benefit rate (uprated) under the transitional protection rules.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average administration cost of the incapacity benefit per applicant since its inception [40846]

  Mr. Lilley
  The information requested is not yet available.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the success rate for appeals relating to the all-work test in the December 1995 and March 1996 quarters(a) where the appellant was present or represented at the tribunal hearing and (b) where the appellant was neither present nor represented. [40785]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Percentage of appeals revised in favour of appellant following tribunal hearing

  Appellant present or represented

  57

  Appellant neither present nor represented

  7

  Note:

  Figures are for December 1995.

  Source:

  100 per cent. count of all appeals and referrals which have been registered with the Independent Tribunal Service.
  1028

  Income Support
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the percentage level of income support payments that met the target for accuracy in 1991–92 and 1995–96; what are the reasons for variations; and by what date he expects the target for the accuracy of income support payments to be met. [40986]

  Mr. Burt
  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 Ms Liz Lynne, dated 16 October 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what was the percentage level of Income Support (IS) payments that met the target for accuracy in 1991–92 and 1995–96; what are the reasons for variations; and by what date he expects the target for the accuracy of income support payments to be met.
  I have provided below the figures for accuracy, including the target set by the Secretary of State and the Benefits Agency achievement for IS for 1991/92 and 1995/96. I should explain that in 1991/92 district staff were responsible for checking and reporting the accuracy for IS. The figures quoted were based on a limited case check carried out on the most recent action on the case. In 1995/96 the target and accuracy figures were based on a full case check involving all aspects of the award. This, in part, accounts for the variation in figures.
  The Benefits Agency is committed to improve its accuracy rate and meet the Secretary of State's target. However IS is a complex benefit. For example, on average each IS case needs to be reviewed 4 times per year. Sustained effort over a period of years will be required before a significant and lasting improvement can be achieved. The Agency has a programme of measures designed to bring about improvements in accuracy in the short term and is also undertaking a fundamental review of IS processes and its computer systems. The aim of the review is to improve accuracy, security and efficiency, thereby working towards paying benefit accurately at the outset.

  IS—accuracy target and achievement

  Percentage

  1991–92

  1995–96

  Secretary of State's target

  94.00

  87.00

  Agency figure

  95.7

  78.01

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the performance targets for each social security office in the county of South Yorkshire for(a) 1995–1996 and (b) 1996–97; and how many of these targets were achieved in 1995–96 in each case indicating how these targets and achievements relate to those set nationally. [40829]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I will write to the hon Member shortly.

  Child Care Disregard
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families now claim the child care disregard. [41018]
  1029
  Mr Andrew Mitchell
  The information is not available in the format requested as information on claims is not available. The latest information on the number of awards where the childcare disregard has resulted in extra benefit payment is in the table:

  Benefit

  1Numbers benefitting from childcare disregard

  Family Credit2

  25,000

  Disability Working Allowance3

  99

  Housing Benefit4

  4000

  Council Tax Benefit4

  5000

  Notes:

  1 All figures are rounded to the nearest thousand except Disability Working Allowance which is an exact figure. Numbers exclude cases where maximum benefit is already payable before the childcare disregard.

  2 Family Credit figures as at 31 May 1996.

  3 Disability Working Allowance figures as at 30 April 1996.

  4 Housing Benefit/Council Tax Benefit as at 31 May 1995.

  Sources:

  1. Family Credit Statistics Quarterly Enquiry (5 per cent. sample).

  2. Disability Working Allowance 100 per cent. count of all claims.

  3. Housing Benefit Management Information System, annual 1 per cent. sample enquiry for those not in receipt of Income Support taken at the end of May 1995.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the Government's original estimate of the number of families who would be eligible for the child care disregard. [40892]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The original estimate was that, in the long term, 150,000 families would benefit from the child care disregard.

  Executive Agency Staff
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the number of staff employed by his Department's(a) Benefits Agency, (b) Contributions Agency, (c) Information Technology Service Agency, (d) Child Support Agency, (e) War Pensions Agency and (f) other agencies in (i) Doncaster and (ii) Mexborough areas for each of the last five years. [40S91]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table:

  Doncaster

  Mexborough

  Benefits agency

  349

  29

  Contributions agency

  29

  0

  Information technology services agency

  0

  0

  Child support agency

  20

  0

  War pensions agency

  0

  0

  Total

  398

  29

  Notes:

  1. The figures are represented as staff in post figures and include permanent and fixed term appointment staff as at 31 March 1996. Casual staff are excluded.

  2. Figures for previous years are not available.

  3. The sites covered by the reply are Doncaster Crossgates House and Mexborough Crown Buildings.
  1030

  National Insurance Records
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on how many occasions in the last 10 years national insurance records have been mislaid; what back-up system was available in each case; and how secure is the current computer system. [40842]

  Mr. Burt
  There have been no instances of loss of registered national insurance records within the last 10 years. The back-up system consists of holding two copies of records within the computer installation and one copy remotely for added security. The computer system is regarded as very secure in protecting records and has a sophisticated series of computer program checks to detect corruption and loss of personal data.

  New Buildings and Premises
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total expenditure on new buildings and premises by his Department and its agencies; and if he will indicate the square footage of new office space purchased or newly rented in each of the last five years. [41138]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  £ million

  Year

  Maintenance

  Accommodation capital

  Total

  1995–96

  36.6

  89.3

  125.9

  1994–95

  32.1

  89.1

  121.1

  1993–94

  28.3

  97.1

  125.3

  1992–93

  39.4

  113.3

  152.8

  1991–92

  32.9

  127.6

  160.5

  Information required regarding the square footage of new office space purchased or newly rented in each of the last five years could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Benefits
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of state for Social Security what has been the total value of in-work benefits paid for each year since 1990–91; and if he will break down these figures for each year by family credit, housing benefit, income support, council tax benefit and disability working allowance. [40901]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I will write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the benefit bill for(a) income support, (b) family credit, (c) housing benefit, (d) council tax benefit, (e) one-parent benefit and (f) lone-parent premium for lone parents (i) in the last year for which figures are available and (ii) in each of the last five years. [41026]
  1031
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  Information for(a) to (e) is shown in the table 1. Expenditure on the lone-parent premium (f) is not available in the format requested. Components of a benefit award cannot be separately identified. Lone-parent premium is payable with income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit. The lone-parent premium has varied since in April 1990. The rate of premium would give implied expenditure in Great Britain as shown in the table 2. However, some recipients will receive an overall amount of benefit which is less than the value of the premium.

  Table 1: Benefit expenditure on lone parents

  £ million

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Income support (a)

  2,286

  2,860

  3,448

  3,735

  4,051

  4,201

  Family credit (b)

  183

  220

  379

  558

  657

  776

  Housing benefit (c)

  906

  1,253

  1,656

  2,002

  2,208

  2,418

  Council tax benefit (d)

  275

  178

  223

  306

  349

  381

  One parent benefit (e)

  229

  249

  275

  282

  289

  312

  Source:

  Total expenditure figures are consistent with the 1996 Departmental Report. Figures are rounded to the nearest £ million.

  Table 2: Lone parent premium

  £ million

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Income support (a)

  169

  202

  236

  258

  276

  285

  Housing benefit (c)

  30

  37

  44

  54

  63

  75

  CCB/council tax benefit (d)

  46

  45

  45

  47

  57

  68

  Notes:

  1. The above estimates are based on sample data and are not entirely consistent with Departmental Report figures.

  2. Council tax benefit replaced community charge benefit in April 1993.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applicants were refused a social fund loan on the grounds of inability to pay in 1995 96. [41291]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I will write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what capacity of electricity used in his Department's buildings is generated in a combined heat and power plant; and what plans he has to increase that capacity. [41314]

  Mr. Burt
  I will write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Sick Pay
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to go ahead with that proposal 1032
  to free employers from operating statutory sick pay rules where they pay more generous wages or occupational sick pay. [41276]

  Mr. Lilley
  I will be laying regulations later in the year which will free employers from the obligation to make SSP calculations where they pay contractual remuneration as good as or better than SSP for a period of incapacity for work. Around 900 copies of the consultation paper "Exempting Employers from Statutory Sick Pay (SSP)" were sent to employers, their organisations, employees' organisations and other interested parties and I am grateful to all those who responded. I am placing a copy of the responses in the Library. The majority view was that the new arrangements would be a useful easement. The change, which will take effect from April 1997, will allow greater flexibility to employers and cut back on administration. Employees' underlying entitlement to SSP will not be affected.

  Disabled People (Water)
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what financial assistance is available to the severely disabled and their carers who use water meters, and because of their disability or medical condition, have to use large quantities of water. [41281]

  Mr. Burt
  I will write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Fraud Hotline
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cost, by(a) county and (b) parliamentary constituency of publicising the fraud hotline; and what was the number of responses (a) by county and (b) by parliamentary constituency. [41327]

  Mr. Heald
  I will write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many answers to(a) written and (b) oral parliamentary questions have required correction by his Department in each of the past two years. [40641]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table.

  Session

  Total number of questions

  Corrections to written questions

  Corrections to oral questions

  1994–95

  2,750

  20

  0

  1995–96

  2,808

  12

  2

  Note:

  Figures as at 15 October 1996.

  Source:

  Departmental Archive.
  1033

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in respect of how many(a) 16-year-olds and (b) 17-year-olds child benefit was paid in the first week of January for each year since 1985. [40760]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is set out in the table.

  Children

  Year

  16-year-olds

  17-year-olds

  1984

  531

  292

  1985

  517

  291

  1986

  513

  287

  1987

  521

  289

  1988

  520

  317

  1989

  493

  324

  1990

  490

  329

  1991

  505

  358

  1992

  517

  373

  1993

  514

  387

  1994

  535

  386

  1995

  576

  400

  1. Figures represent the number of children for whom child benefit was paid as at 31 December in each year.

  2. The figures for 1984 to 1993 are based on a 4 per cent. sample. 1994 and 1995 are based on a 1 per cent. sample. Figures include late notifications received up to and including 31 March of the following year.

  3. Figures including children in Great Britain and overseas.

HEALTH

  Yorkshire Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who was the relevant regional general manager prior to Mr. McClean's appointment to the Yorkshire regional health authority; and who authorised the provision of a free private use car to Mr. McClean's predecessor. [40118]

  Mr. Malone
  The predecessor of Mr. McClean was Mr. A. W. Foster. Authorisation for the arrangements concerning the use of Mr. Foster's car was given by the director of personnel of the regional health authority.

  Blood Transfusion Services
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase co-operation between the national blood transfusion service and the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service; and if he will make a statement. [40774]

  Mr. Horam
  The National Blood Authority and the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service are responsible respectively for blood services in England and in Scotland. They co-operate with each other as necessary in providing those services.

  Lead
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the Government's current recommended safety levels for lead(a) in air and (b) in blood for (i) children, (ii) young people aged 16 to 18 years, (iii) women of child-bearing age, (iv) pregnant women and (v) men. [41120]
  1034
  Mr. Horam
  The current ambient air quality standard for lead is 2 microgrammes per cubic metre as an annual average.

  There is no blood lead level that is considered completely safe although there is no clear evidence of harm at level below 10 microgrammes per decilitre of blood. It is for this reason that the policy of successive Governments has been to reduce exposure to lead, from all sources, whenever reasonably practical. Measures taken to date have produced a very substantial fall in blood lead levels in the past two decades as shown by various surveys including the health survey for England.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average level of lead in the blood of(a) children, (b) young people aged 16 to 18 years (c) women of child bearing age, (d) pregnant-women and (e) men in the United Kingdom. [41121]

  Mr. Horam
  A major blood lead monitoring programme was carried out as part of the health survey for England. The initial findings show a significant fall in blood lead concentrations. The median blood lead concentrations for men, women, and boys and girls aged 11 to 15 years, were 3.6, 2.6, 2.2 and 1.7 microgrammes per decilitre respectively. Results from this survey were published in a letter in the 5 October edition of the British Medical Journal.

  Fostering Allowance
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the fostering allowance payable in each local authority area. [40827]

  Mr. Burns
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the health service projects in South Yorkshire in respect of which(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful efforts have been made to pursue funding under the private finance initiative since 1 January 1995. [40996]

  Mr. Horam
  Two projects valued at more than £1 million have received approval under the private finance initiative in South Yorkshire since 1 January 1995. They are: Rotherham General Hospitals national health service trust—concourse development value £1.1 million; Rotherham General Hospitals national health service trust; clinical waste incinerator, value £3.4 million.

  Information on unsuccessful schemes and lower value schemes is not held centrally.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has collated regarding expenditure incurred by each health authority and NHS hospital trust in South Yorkshire in unsuccessfully pursuing funding for projects through the private finance initiative since 1 January 1995; and if he will make a statement. [40997]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) on 17 July,Official Report, column 562.

  Further information is not available centrally.
  1035

  Health Service Staff Dismissals
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) the number of (i) medical, (ii) dental and (iii) nursing staff suspended or dismissed in the Trent region for each year since 1 January 1993 and (b) the number of staff in each category heard by disciplinary hearing who were not so suspended or dismissed in this period. [40928]

  Mr. Horam
  National health service bodies are separate, autonomous employers and the decision on whether an employee's conduct warrants disciplinary action, and its severity, is a matter for the health authority or trust concerned. Information collected centrally from national health service employers is the number of suspensions of hospital and community medical and hospital dental staff lasting more than six months since 31 March 1995. The number of reported cases in the Trent region from 31 March 1995 to 30 June 1996 is two.

  New Buildings and Premises
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total expenditure on new buildings and premises by his Department and its agencies; and if he will indicate the square footage of new office space purchased or newly rented in each of the last five years. [41143]

  Mr. Horam
  From 1 April 1996, the Department of Health took over responsibility for its buildings from Property Holdings. The area of buildings leased by Property Holdings in the last five years which are now the responsibility of the Department of Health and its agencies is 21,400 sq m—1992–93—and 850 sq m—1995–96.

  Expenditure on new buildings and premises is not separately recorded from other building-related costs.

  Abortion
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce legislation to ban the use of partial birth abortion in late pregnancy; and if he will make a statement. [40954]

  Mr. Horam
  We are not aware of this procedure being used in the United Kingdom. Methods of abortion are a matter of clinical judgment.

  Adoption
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many children were placed for adoption with their existing foster carers in every year since 1987 giving(a) the age of the children and (b) the length of time in foster care prior to adoption; [40960]

  (2) if he will list the number of adoption breakdowns in each year since 1974, indicating the (a) ages of children and (b) length of time in adoptive family. [40942]

  Mr. Burns
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of children in care and looked after by local authorities who were placed for adoption in every year since 1987, broken down by age. [40953]
  1036
  Mr. Burns
  The information requested, as at 31 March in each of the years to 31 March 1991, was published annually in "Children in Care of Local Authorities in England". Figures for the period from 1992 to 1994 were published annually in "Children Looked After by Local Authorities, England". Figures for the year ending 31 March 1995 were published in the statistical bulletin "Children looked after by local authorities: year ending 31 March 1995, England". Copies of all of these publications are available in the Library.

  Joint Ventures
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many joint ventures are currently established between the NHS and the private sector in hospitals covering the Trent region; and if he will list each project indicating the hospital involved. [40994]

  Mr. Horam
  Four private finance initiative schemes over the value of £1 million have been approved in the Trent region. The trusts and schemes approved by the national health service executive are as follows:

  NHS body

  Scheme

  Rotherham general hospital

  Concourse development

  Rotherham general hospital

  Clinical waste incinerator

  Nottingham ambulance service

  Radio replacement scheme

  Leicester mental health services

  Office accommodation

  NHS trust (trust HQ)

  Dedicated Case Managers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to collate centrally information on the locations of dedicated case managers for(a) head injury, (b) cancer and (c) fertility patients; and if he will make a statement. [40834]

  Mr. Horam
  No.

  Beta Blocking Drugs
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 15 July,Official Report, column 386, about the cost per patient per month of beta blocking drugs, in what form the information is available. [40989]

  Mr. Malone
  The net ingredient cost per prescription item dispensed for beta blockers in England for 1995 was £5.81. Most repeat prescriptions will be for one to three months.

  GP Fundholding
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current percentage of patients in the Doncaster health authority who are covered by general practitioner fundholders. [40855]

  Mr. Malone
  Some 64 per cent. of the population of Doncaster health authority is currently served by a general practitioner fundholding practice.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent by the Doncaster health authority in(a) 1995–96 and (b) 1994–95 on (i) tendering for services

  1037
  and (ii) administering the general practitioner fundholding scheme; and what were the comparable figures for the previous financial year. [40925]

  Mr. Malone
  Information is not collected centrally in the form requested.

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the median waiting periods(a) currently and (b) in each of the last two years for patients needing (i) hip replacements and (ii) cataract treatment at each hospital in the Trent region where the operation is provided. [40924]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), on 23 July,Official Report, column 225.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on hospital waiting times in Leeds. [41287]

  Mr. Horam
  Waiting times for in-patient and day case treatment in Leeds have improved considerably over the last year. Latest published figures show that only 51 patients out of 16,268 were waiting more than a year for treatment at the two main hospitals in Leeds this March compared with 675 out of 13,492 last March. Along with the rest of the country, Leeds hospitals are working towards achieving the patients charter standards for the first out-patient appointments so that everyone is seen within 26 weeks of referral by their general practitioner, with nine out of 10 patients seen within 13 weeks.

  Children's Services
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what re-assessment has been made of the calculations of the standard spending assessment for children's services for the financial year 1997–98; what was the assessed figure for the London borough of Newham for the year 1996–97 and that for 1997–98 under this assessment. [40839]

  Mr. Burns
  For 1996–97, the standard spending assessment—SSA—for children's social services for the London borough of Newham is £27,191 million. The Government's proposals for 1997–98 SSAs are expected to be issued for consultation shortly after the Budget.

  Anti-psychotic Drugs
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, (1) pursuant to his answer of 23 July,Official Report, column 216, if he will list the research his Department has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the likelihood of developing tardive dyskinesia as a result of taking anti-psychotic drugs and ascertaining whether tardive dyskinesia is an irreversible condition; and if he will make a statement; [40860]

  (2) if he will estimate how many people have developed tardive dyskinesia as a result of taking anti-psychotic drugs; and if he will make a statement. [40863]

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

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are currently prescribed anti-psychotic drugs; and if he will make a statement. [40862]
  1038
  Mr. Malone
  Information in the form requested is not available.

  Private Medical Insurance
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people he estimates were covered by private medical insurance in(a) 1979, (b) 1989 and (c) 1995. [40998]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department does not collect this information.

  Management and Administrative Staff Costs
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for the(a) Doncaster Royal Infirmary and Mexborough Montagu NHS trust and (b) Doncaster Healthcare NHS trust the (i) total income, (ii) amount spent on the overall cost of management, staff, administrative staff and hoard members and (iii) (ii) as a percentage of (i) in each year since 1991–92. [40909]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the annual reports of the Doncaster Royal Infirmary and Mexborough Montagu and the Doncaster Healthcare national health service trusts respectively, published since September 1993.

  Managers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of(a) managers and (b) senior managers employed by (i) each South Yorkshire health authority, (ii) each South Yorkshire health trust and (iii) in total, in each year since 1979. [40991]

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

  GP Lists
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the recommendations issued by his Department in respect of homeless people being placed on a general practitioner's list; up to how many refusals a homeless person may receive before he is placed on a general practitioner's list; and if he will make a statement. [40969]

  Mr. Malone
  A permanent address is not necessary for the registration of a patient with a general practitioner and all health authorities and general practitioners are aware of this. The Department encourages the permanent registration of homeless people wherever possible. Should, however, any patient have difficulty in registering with a doctor, health authorities have the power to assign the patient to a GP.

  Voluntary Gender Reassignment
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current maximum age for voluntary gender reassignment on the national health service for(a) males and (b) females. [40859]

  Mr. Horam
  There are no clinically effective treatments provided under the national health service that should be withheld from any patient on age grounds alone. The NHS provides services for everybody on the basis of clinical need.
  1039

  Dental Health
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what number of teeth affected by decay in five-year-old children, and what number of decayed, missing and filled teeth in 14-year-old children are currently found in the Doncaster health authority area; and what is the national average for each category. [40999]

  Mr. Malone
  The most recent figures available show that the number of decayed, missing and filled teeth—DMFT—for five-year-olds in Doncaster in 1993–94 was 2.15, while the national average was 1.74; and the DMFT figure for 14-year-olds in Doncaster in 1994–95 was 2.32 while the national average was 1.67.

  Mentally Handicapped Children
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many mentally handicapped children are currently in NHS hospital care in(a) the Trent region and (b) nationally; and what were the equivalent figures in each of the past four years. [40923]

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

  Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Auraus
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the hospitals in South Yorkshire that have recorded incidents of MRSA since 1990; and how many patients suffered in each incident. [40992]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on 28 February,Offical Report columns 569–70.

  Nurses
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of nurses employed by each of the health authorities in South Yorkshire for each of the last five years; and what was the national average for each health authority in this period. [40995]

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

  Nursery Places
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimate for unmet need for nursery places in England. [41044]

  Mr. Burns
  This information is not held centrally. Information on the percentage of children attending each type of pre-school day care facility was published in the Office of Population Censuses and Survey survey of "Day care services for children", 1990, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Resource Allocation
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to publish the official Government response to the Health Committee report into resource allocation. [41238]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The response to the report has been published today and copies placed in the Library.
  1040

  Intensive Care Beds
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds there are in intensive care units in Leeds infirmary, St. James' hospital, Leeds and Pinderfields hospital, Wakefield. [41285]

  Mr. Horam
  Information on the daily number of available beds by ward classification is collected annually from each trust. The latest published information shows that in 1994–95, the average daily number of available beds in wards classified as adult intensive care were as follows:

  United Leeds Teaching Hospitals National Health Service Trust: 28

  St. James' University Hospital National Health Service Trust: 9

  Pinderfields Hospital National Health Service Trust: 27

  Notes:

  1. Figures on numbers of beds by trust are published annually in 'Bed Availability for England' copies of which are available in the Library. Data for 1995–96 is available from 17 October 1996.

  2. The figures above exclude intensive care cots and paediatric intensive care beds.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors and nurses have been employed in NHS hospitals in(a) West Yorkshire and (b) Leeds since 1990; and how many vacancies for doctors and nurses in West Yorkshire and Leeds remain unfilled at the present. [41289]

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

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what capacity of electricity used in his Department's buildings is generated in a combined heat and power plant; and what plans he has to increase that capacity. [41322]

  Mr. Horam
  At present, no electricity used by the Department in its buildings is generated by a local combined heat and power plant.

  One building, Richmond house in Whitehall, is connected to the Whitehall district heating system. It is proposed to convert the WDHS to a combined heat and power plant during the summer of 1997.

  The energy requirements of the Department are kept under review and any opportunities to connect departmental buildings to a combined heat and power plant will be actively considered.

  Coproxamol
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health under what names drugs containing coproxamol are marketed; and what is its concentration in each. [40608]

  Mr. Malone
  Coproxamol is authorised to be marketed under five names: distalgesic, cosalgesic tablets, co-proxamol tablets, co-proxamol tablets BP and co-proxamol tablets (paracetamol 325 mg dextro-propoxyphene 32.5 mg). All of these contain 32.5 mg dextropropoxyphene and 325 mg paracetamol.
  1041

  Promotional Expenditure
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much his Department has spent on(a) publicity, (b) promotions, and (c) hospitality in each of the last six years. [40626]

  Mr. Horan
  Annual publicity spend information and hospitality spend for the financial years 1990–91 to 1995–96 is shown in the table. Promotions cannot easily be separated from publicity but the majority of health promotion work is in any case carried out by the Health Education Authority and other bodies.

  £ million

  Financial year

  Total publicity expenditure

  Hospitality expenditure

  1990–91

  21.01

  0.16

  1991–92

  24.5

  0.17

  1992–93

  20.71

  0.25

  1993–94

  19.2

  0.22

  1994–95

  18.2

  0.23

  1995–96

  15.55

  0.32

  Paracetamol
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health under what names drugs containing paracetamol are marketed; and what is its concentration in each. [40609]

  Mr. Malone
  A list of the names of the 490 products containing paracetamol currently authorised for marketing, together with the content of paracetamol in each, will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his most recent calculation of the total number of deaths that have been(a) associated with. and (b) attributed to, paracetamol use in each of the past seven years for which records are available. [40606]

  Mr. Malone
  The number of deaths associated with paracetamol in 1993,1994 and 1995 reported to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys—the Office for National Statistics from 1 April 1996 following a merger with the Central Statistical Office—is shown in the table. The data for 1989 to 1992 are published, for each year separately, in table 10 of "Mortality statistics:injury and poisoning, England and Wales", series DH4, Nos. 16–18, copies of which are available in the Library.

  For the number of deaths attributed to paracetamol use in the past six years, reported to the Committee on Safety of Medicines, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 12 February 1996, Official Report, column 462. For the year 1989, no fatal reports associated with the use of paracetamol were received by the Committee on Safety of Medicines.

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Deaths by poisoning—accident

  86(27)

  94(26)

  111(27)

  Paracetamol only

  44(9)

  40(10)

  41(6)

  Paracetamol with other drugs1

  42(18)

  54(16)

  70(21)

  Deaths by poisoning-suicide

  236(42)

  212(25)

  239(19)

  Paracetamol only

  67(7))

  68(5)

  77(2)

  Paracetamol with other drugs1

  169(35)

  144(20)

  162(17)

  1042

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Deaths by poisoning— undetermined

  130(25)

  147(27)

  218(30)

  Paracetamol only

  62(6)

  52(5)

  72(1)

  Paracetamol with other drugs1

  68(19)

  95(22)

  146(29)

  1 These include deaths from paracetamol-containing compounds. The figures in brackets include indicate the number of deaths with a mention of alcohol. These bracketed figures are already include in the unbracketed data and should not, therefore, be added to them.

  Health Service Deficits
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list for each district health authority serving the Greater London area for each of the financial years 1996–97 and 1997–98 and subsequent years for which figures can be given(a) the recurrent deficit, (b) the non-recurrent surplus or deficit, (c) movement in balances, (d) the cash deficit and (e) those cash deficits expressed as a percentage of revenue or expenditure; [40794]

  (2) when he received the letter dated 31 July from the hon. Member for Newham, South concerning his failure to answer his written question requesting information on health service deficits, of 22 July; when a substantive reply was sent; and for what reason the figures requested were regarded as being unsuitable for publication. [40795]

  Mr. Horam
  I will reply to the hon. Member as soon as is possible.

  Morphine
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effects on the public of potentially addictive drugs containing morphine available without prescription in the past four years. [40607]

  Mr. Malone
  Medicines containing morphine available without prescription are effective remedies for common complaints such as diarrhoea and cough. The low dose and limited strength allowable without prescription, and the requirement for supply under the supervision of a pharmacist are considered to minimise the potential for addiction. The Medicines Control Agency monitors the safety of all authorised medicines and since October 1992 there has been only one report of a side effect with these products. We are not aware of any significant problem of people misusing these medicines.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many answers to(a) written and (b) oral parliamentary questions have required correction by his Department in each of the past two years. [40633]

  Mr. Horam
  This is a matter of public record.

  Salaried General Practices
  Mr.Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to set up schemes for salaried general practice; and if he will make a statement. [40669]
  1043
  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 14 October 1996]: Proposals for the development of primary care health services, including a salaried option for general practitioners, are set out in the White Paper "Choice and Opportunity", Cm 3390, published on 15 October.

  Copies have been placed in the Library.

ENVIRONMENT

  Environmental Information
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many applications his Department, and non-departmental public bodies and executive agencies which report to his Department, have received for the release of information under the Environmental Information Regulations 1992 since they came into force; how much it has cost the Department to provide the information requested; how many applications for information were refused; what reasons were given for the non-provision of the information; what was the(a) average charge and (b) highest charge made in each year for the provision of information; and what plans he has to review the operation of the regulations. [40342]

  Mr. Clappison
  No records are kept of the number of applications for information under the Environmental Information Regulations 1992. The Department does not keep central records of the aggregate cost in supplying information nor of any charges levied—the vast majority of requests are met without a charge being levied.

  As of April this year, when records were last collated, the Department had refused 33 requests for environmental information. The reasons cited for refusal were non-jurisdictional (1), manifestly unreasonable (3), international relations (3), national defence (3), legal or other proceedings (7), confidential deliberations (4), incomplete document (3), commercial confidentiality (7), contravene existing statutory provision (1), and delay (4).

  The operation of the regulations will be reviewed at the end of this year and a report will be submitted to the European Commission.

  Prosecutions
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list the prosecutions carried out in England and Wales by the Environment Agency, in each month from 1 April 1996 to the latest available date, giving in each case the person or company prosecuted, the date and outcome of the prosecution, the nature of the offence, and where relevant, the penalty imposed; [40330]

  (2) if he will list the prosecutions carried out by (a) Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, (b) the National Rivers Authority, (c) the London waste regulation authority and (d) local waste authorities, in each month from 1 January 1995 to 31 March 1996 in England and Wales, giving in each case the person or company prosecuted, the date and outcome of the prosecution, the nature of the offence and, where relevant, the penalty imposed. [40329]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 14 October 1996]: I have placed the following information in the Library of the House: prosecutions carried out by (a) Her Majesty's
  1044
  inspectorate of pollution, (b) the National Rivers Authority, and (c) the London waste regulation authority, between 1 January 1995 and 31 March 1996. Data relating to the prosecution activity of the 83 former local waste authorities are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  I have also placed in the Library of the House information on the prosecutions carried out by the Environment Agency for water quality and integrated pollution control offences from 1 April 1996 to the latest available date. Data relating to prosecutions by the Environment Agency for waste offences are not yet held centrally, although detailed records are held at local level. When the data on waste offences from 1 April 1996 are centrally available, I will write to the hon. Member with them.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many sites of special scientific interest have been destroyed in each of the last 20 years; and how many sites are currently designated. [40359]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 14 October 1996]: Statistical information on damage to SSSIs in Great Britain is set out in the annual reports of the former Nature Conservancy Council. Since 1 April 1991, similar details for England, Scotland and Wales are contained in the annual reports of the country agencies and, for Great Britain, in that of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Copies of annual reports are in the Library. As at 31 March 1996, 6,185 sites had been designated.

  World Bank and IMF Meetings
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contribution his Department made to the United Kingdom submissions to the annual meetings of the World bank and International Monetary Fund held in Washington at the start of October; what environmental matters were discussed and decided upon during the meetings; and if he will place in the Library copies of all papers submitted to the meetings with an environmental component. [40652]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 14 October 1996]: Specific environmental issues were not on the formal agenda at the annual meetings of the World bank and International Monetary Fund earlier this month. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has placed in the Library copies of his speeches to these meetings and copies of the communiqués.

  Orton Scar
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will send a representative of his Department on 14 October to Orton scar; and what assessment he has made of the damage to the limestone pavements there. [40720]

  Mr. Clappison
  None of my officials was available to attend the event at Orton village hall on the 14 October, but I welcome the news that Cumbria county council has secured the future protection of this site. English Nature, the Government's scientific adviser, has examined the
  1045
  site. Although there has been some damage, almost five hectares of pavement will be protected by the new agreement.

  Environmental Programmes (Employment)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the total employment opportunities available from programmes to(a) clean up contaminated land, (b) restore derelict land, (c) protect and promote sites of ecological fragility and special scientific interest and (d) enhance the habitat of protected species in the United Kingdom. [40779]

  Mr. Clappison
  The information is not held in the form requested.

  Environmental Programmes
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what(a) discussions and (b) other contact he has had with the World bank over the implementation of the bank's environmental management and sustainable development programmes; how many officials from his Department are on secondment to the World bank to work on environmental issues; and if he will make a statement on the impact on his departmental policy of the World bank's environmental policy programme. [40604]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 15 October 1996]: Responsibility within government for the World bank rests with the Overseas Development Administration, with which the Department of the Environment co-operates very closely. The Government welcome the steps which the bank has taken to ensure that environmental concerns are properly reflected in its operations and continues to press for further improvements. There are no officials of the Department of the Environment on secondment to the World bank.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many environmental projects his Department co-sponsors with the World bank involving non-governmental organisations; and if he will make a statement on the role of non-governmental environmental and business groups in enhancing the global environment.[40599]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 14 October 1996]: The Department of the Environment does not co-sponsor any environmental projects with the World bank. As I said in answer to question 40604. responsibility for the World bank rests with the Overseas Development Administration. The Government believe that non-governmental and business groups have an important role to play in supporting sustainable development and in enhancing the global environment and wishes them to develop their role further.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to article 4(4) of Council decision number 46/96 of 27 June,Official Journal of the European Communities No. C 264/28–33, of 11 September, what plans he has to make available new resources for the co-funding of projects studies, non-governmental groups and audits to further the integration of the environmental dimension into sustainable development in industrial developing countries. [40811]
  1046
  Mr. Clappison
  Council regulation 46/96 of 27 June addresses action by the European Community, not member states. However, the Overseas Development Administration funds, and in some cases co-funds, a wide range of projects and studies to help developing countries draw up and implement sustainable development strategies, and to help them tackle specific environmental problems. This includes support to a large number of non-governmental groups. Over £200 million was spent in this way in 1995–96. The ODA also supports work on sustainable development in developing countries through its substantial contributions to European Union development funds and to other multilateral bodies such as the World bank and the global environment facility. All the ODA's work is subject to environmental screening.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consumer research his Department has commissioned since 1990 on the uptake of, and attitude to clean technology by British industry and British exporters, and what are the liaison arrangements between his Department and the appropriate export promotion division of the Department of Trade and Industry and the research council's clean technology unit in respect of the promotion of the expansion of clean technology research, demonstration, development and utilisation. [40765]

  Mr. Clappison
  My Department, with the Department of Trade and Industry, jointly manages the environmental technology best practice programme and the joint environmental markets unit. These programmes promote better environmental performance, including cleaner technology, and sponsor the environmental industry. Through these programmes, the Departments have undertaken attitude surveys of British industry and maintain close liaison arrangements with the export services of the DTI and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council's clean technology unit.

  Planning System Indicators
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment for what reasons the project to provide advice to the departmental planning directorate on the development of strategic indicators for the planning system has fallen behind the schedule established in the departmental "Minis Returns 16 (1995)". [40809]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The research project on developing performance indicators for evaluating the effectiveness of planning policy was included, in Minis 16, in the Department's work programme for both 1994–95 and 1995–96. The project was subsequently extended into 1996–97 to provide both the Department and the researchers additional time to address the complex issues involved. It is now due to be completed in November 1996.

  Water Quality
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations(a) he and (b) officials of his Department have had in the past year with (i) the World Health Organisation regional office for Europe, (ii) the United Kingdom water research centre at Medmenham and (iii) interested non-governmental environmental organisations, in regard to the effectiveness

  1047
  of the WHO guidelines for drinking water purity as incorporated in the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Environment Act 1995. [40791]

  Mr. Clappison
  The WHO guidelines for drinking water quality were reviewed and updated in 1993 in the light of new scientific information. The revised guidelines form the basis of many of the standards contained in EC proposal COM (94) 612 final, concerning the quality of water intended for human consumption. My officials have consulted widely on the Commission's proposal for a revised drinking water directive. The consultations have involved among others, WRC Medmenham plc and numerous non-governmental organisations, including Friends of Earth and Greenpeace.

  Business Pressures
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the negative effects of short-term business pressures on strategic thinking and cross-departmental work co-operation. [40808]

  Mr. Gummer
  A review conducted in 1995 concluded that my Department should improve its strategic approach to policy development and advice, which can all too easily suffer because of short-term pressures of work. Various steps have been taken to bring about such an improvement.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has received from British Nuclear Fuels concerning variation in the discharge authorisation for nuclear waste from the THORP facility. [40799]

  Mr. Clappison
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on this subject on 14 October column 825.

  Uranium Waste
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps have been taken to isolate and package pyrophoril uranium wastes at British Nuclear Fuels, Sellafield and Chapelcross plants since 1966. [40806]

  Mr. Clappison
  Any steps taken are a matter for BNFL subject to satisfying the regulatory requirements of the nuclear installations inspectorate.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the implications for Her Majesty's Government's policy on substitution for the return of radioactive waste to countries of origin after reprocessing of the European Council written reply H629/96 of 18 September on this issue. [40810]

  Mr. Clappison
  None. The assertion that"BNFL is now considering the permanent on-site storage at Sellafield of high-level waste from the THORP plant, rather than returning it to foreign customers in Japan and Germany"
  as contained in the question answered on 18 September H629/96 is incorrect.
  1048
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the extent to which the sight ion exchange extraction plant—SIXEP—and the enhanced actinide removal plant—EARP—waste filtration plants servicing the thermal oxide reprocessing plant facility at Sellafield have met their planned operational functions. [40800]

  Mr. Clappison
  The operation of the SIXEP and EARP plants has been closely monitored by the Environment Agency, and previously Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, since the plants came into operation. This monitoring has revealed that the two plants have met and some cases exceeded planned operational functions. The agency is continuing to monitor plant performance.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what resources are available to the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee to commission independent scientific, technical or other relevant support studies from institutes or academic establishments. [40804]

  Mr. Clappison
  Members of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee are appointed for their ability to advise the Secretaries of State for the Environment, for Scotland and for Wales directly. Any additional advice required would normally be commissioned by the Government themselves. However, RWMAC is able to request resources to commission studies on an ad hoc basis.

  The committee is currently undergoing a financial management and policy review. The prior options stage of this review will consider whether there is a continued need for the operation of RWMAC. If it is decided that the committee should continue, the second stage of the review will consider its structure and operation. This will include examination of the resources available to the committee.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to extend the remit of RWMAC to oversee the expenditure of public money by public companies and organisations charged with the management of nuclear waste. [40803]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee is currently undergoing a financial management and policy review. The prior options stage of this review will consider whether there is a continued need for the operation of RWMAC. If it is decided that the committee should continue, the second stage of the review will consider its structure and operation. This will include examination of the scope of the committee's remit.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what environmental policies are in place to cover the management of separated plutonium and plutonium contaminated wastes at nuclear facilities in the United Kingdom. [40805]

  Mr. Clappison
  Plutonium contaminated wastes are managed in accordance with the same policies that apply to all radioactive wastes. These are set out in the White Paper "Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy—Final Conclusions", 1995, Cm 2919.
  1049
  Separated plutonium is not designated as waste at United Kingdom facilities. It is managed through safeguards applied to nuclear materials under chapter VII of the Euratom treaty, and through voluntary agreements which the United Kingdom has under the International Atomic Energy Agency's safeguards regime.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to request the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee to prepare guidance on the optimum environmental strategy on the handling, packaging, storage and disposal of plutonium designated as waste at United Kingdom facilities. [40802]

  Mr. Clappison
  There is no plutonium designated as waste at United Kingdom facilities.

  Policy Documents (Implementation)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment what factors led to his Department's delayed implementation of the principles published in the Government documents "Appraisal and the Environment" and "Making Markets Work for the Environment''; and what has been done to rectify the delay. [40790]

  Mr. Clappison
  The principles set out in "Policy Appraisal and the Environment" relate to the integration of environmental considerations into the formulation of policies, programmes and projects, through the use of appraisal methodology. An evaluation of the extent to which the "Policy Appraisal and the Environment" guidelines have been adhered to across Whitehall was to be undertaken last year, but had to be postponed due to resource constraints. However, consultants have now been commissioned to undertaken the study and a report is due around the end of the year. The findings should provide a good overview of the extent to which the approach in "Policy Appraisal and the Environment" is being followed, and to comment on this before seeing the report would be to pre-judge the issue. "Making Markets Work for the Environment" is concerned with developing better instruments to deliver environmental and sustainable development policies. The Government are committed to seeking an appropriate balance between direct regulation, economic instruments and voluntary actions, in a way fully consistent with the approach set out in "Making Markets Work for the Environment".

  Water Resources and Supply
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about public water resources and supply arrangements in the longer term. [41119]

  Mr. Gummer
  I commissioned in September 1995 a review of water resources and supply arrangements in England and Wales in the longer term. It has been undertaken with the full involvement of representatives of the water companies and their regulators—the Environment Agency, the Office of Water Services and the drinking water inspectorate. Other organisations have contributed views.

  As a result of that work, my Department and the Welsh Office are publishing today a paper entitled "Water Resources and Supply: Agenda for Action". Copies are available in the Library of the House. The paper confirms
  1050
  that the framework within which public water supplies are provided and developed is sound. It discusses the various factors which need to be considered in refining longer-term arrangements and identifies actions which the Government will take, together with actions for the water companies and their regulators.

  Prominent among these are steps which should be taken to build upon work on climate change, such as that which informed the report of my Department's climate change impacts review group which was published in July. Reliable yields of existing water resource systems need to be reassessed from recent data and against climate change scenarios. Water companies need to study in more detail how water is used by households and how that may change with changing climate.

  Demand on existing water resources needs to be managed in order to reduce the need for new resources. This can be done by encouraging efficient use of water, through the development of effective and equitable charging arrangements for water supply, and by companies reducing leakage to economic levels. Against the background of maximum economic use of demand management and a clear understanding of the capabilities of each discrete water resource and supply system, there needs to be a dialogue between water companies and their customers on the balance to be struck between higher security of supply and higher costs, taking full account of the need for sustainable development.

  A case for new water resource development will be compelling only if there is insufficient scope for deployment of existing resources to meet properly-managed demand. Where there are local resource pressures, water companies need to consider the scope for bulk transfers of water or redistribution of water abstraction licences. The Government believe that it is important that market mechanisms, including price signals, provide incentive for this and will publish a consultation paper on economic instruments in relation to water abstraction in early 1997.

  The Environment Agency has the central role in the planning of water resources at the national and regional levels. However, water companies have the duty to develop and maintain water supply systems and it is their responsibility, with full involvement of their regulators, to draw up plans for the timely development of new resources if the projected demand for water in particular areas cannot be reasonably or reliably managed to remain within the capacity of all the available existing resources. Where the existing resources are most finely balanced against projected demand increases, new resource planning should proceed in parallel with the continued implementation of measures to meet demand from the existing resources and against the background of continuous review of that balance. Each of these organisations will no doubt publicise its response to those actions in due course.

  The paper also draws attention to the various contributions which water companies, manufacturers of water-using equipment and water consumers can all make to the sustainable management of water resources through water conservation. This agenda for action is for us all and outlines a strategy for the environmentally sustainable provision of water supplies in the longer term.
  1051

  Estuarial Boundaries
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has now revised the report of the National Rivers Authority reviewing estuarial boundaries with special reference to the Humber; and if he will make a statement of its effect on the urban waste water directive. [39910]

  Mr. Clappison
  My Department is considering the recommendations that the Environment Agency has made and I intend to make an announcement soon.

  Environment Agency Guidance
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many sets of guidance have been published by(a) the Environment Agency and (b) its predecessor agencies during 1996; and if he will make a statement on the application of the guidance. [40438]

  Mr. Clappison
  This information requires compiling from a number of sources. I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Organophosphates
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies have been conducted by(a) his Department and (b) the scientific panel of the Veterinary Products Committee of the environmental implications of the discharge of organophosphate sheep dip effluent into rivers and water courses; and if these studies were published. [40730]

  Mr. Clappison
  My Department has not carried out any studies, but the Environment Agency, which has statutory powers to protect the aquatic environment, has an on-going research and development programme. As part of this programme, the agency has published two reports "The Disposal of Sheep Dip Waste—Effects on Water Quality" (1994) and "Pesticides in the Aquatic Environment" (1995).

  The activities of the Veterinary Products Committee are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to issue guidance to Health and Safety Executive inspectors to apply strict guidelines for the early investigation of incidents involving the alleged misuse of pesticides, including organophosphates. [40731]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  None. Guidance was issued in November 1993.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many prosecutions have taken place for the misuse of organophosphate pesticides under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1 how many prosecutions for organophosphate misuse have been made, pursuant to the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988 since they came into force; and what steps have been taken to ensure stricter control over the use of organophosphates. [40735]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  There have been no prosecutions under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 concerning the misuse of organophosphate pesticides.1052
  Three prosecutions have been taken under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations and three convictions were secured.

  The Health and Safety Executive has always strictly enforced health and safety legislation regarding the use of organophosphate pesticides at work. Free guidance has been sent to the agricultural sector and HSE inspectors give advice during workplace visits and, where necessary enforce measures to protect health and comply with FEPA and COSHH. Where significant shortcomings are found, they can issue enforcement notices and, ultimately prosecute.

  HSE pursues an effective policy of guidance for prevention. This is considered more effective than regulation enforced by prosecution.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what joint research his Department has conducted with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food over the environmental implications of the failure of all sheep farmers to enrol in the certificate of competence for the safe use of organophosphate sheep dips under the National Proficiency Test Council [40732]

  Mr. Clappison
  No joint research has been conducted, but without a certificate of competence, sheep farmers may not purchase organophosphate sheep dips. The certificate, held by over 12,000 sheep farmers, ensures that the holders are aware of the requirements for the safe disposal of sheep dip.

  Correspondence (Response Times)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the change in the time taken to reply to letters from hon. Members in each of the last three years; and what are the reasons for this change. [40659]

  Mr. Gummer
  The percentage of letters from honourable and right hon. Members replied to within the 15 days deadline in the last three years is as follows:

  1995: 52 per cent.

  1994: 57 per cent.

  1993: 56 per cent.

  The slower performance in 1995 resulted from the high pressures on the Department's resources. I am concerned about delays in replying to any letters and a recent departmental review has identified various ways in which performance can be improved.

  Ministerial Speeches
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library copies of all speeches he made in the week beginning 7 October. [40815]

  Mr. Gummer
  The main text of my speech during the environment forum of the Conservative party conference and a note on the Government's environmental record that was produced for that are available in the Library. This emphasised the comprehensiveness of the Government's vision for an improved environment for us all, whether in city, town or country.

  I also spoke at a number of fringe events about different aspects of current and future Government policies.
  1053
  Speaking to the agriculture and countryside forum, I set out how Government policies help secure economic development in rural areas in a sustainable manner, and how we are extending our support for key rural services including the isolated village shop.

  Speaking at the invitation of the Worldwide Fund for Nature, I demonstrated that the UK is a world leader both in meeting our existing climate change obligations, and in calling for more robust future targets for international action.

  Speaking at the invitation of Conservative Students, I showed how active engagement in the European Union enables the Government to achieve a number of important environmental aims which we could not expect to achieve by acting alone.

  Finally, I spoke to a meeting of the Conservative political centre on the theme "Town and Townscape—a thousand years of English urban culture". I drew attention to the importance of the town in our history and to the interdependence of urban and rural areas, restated the Government's commitment to strengthening the economy and environmental quality of our existing towns and cities, described how this helped us to realise our sustainable development objectives, and regretted that the official Opposition had signalled their desire to weaken existing support for town centres.

  Text or transcripts of these other speeches are not available.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many answers to(a) written and (b) oral parliamentary questions have required correction by his Department in each of the past two years. [40631]

  Mr. Gummer
  This is a matter of public record.

  International Reports
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's policy regarding the assessment of relevant reports jointly produced by the World Health Organisation, World Meteorological Organisation and United Nationals Environment Programme. [40780]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Department of the Environment always takes into account relevant reports prepared by these organisations.

  Green Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many green departmental meetings have been held since 26 July; what matters were(a) discussed and (b) decided; and when the next green ministerial meetings are planned. [40788]

  Mr. Clappison
  Government Departments' green contacts met on 18 September. They discussed and reached agreement on the draft agenda and the papers to be prepared for the next green Ministers meeting, which will be held on 28 October. Some green contacts met on 23 September to discuss the progress of a consultant's study to evaluate "Policy Appraisal and the Environment".
  1054

  Asbestos
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to prohibit the use of asbestos in roof tiles. [41083]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Health and Safety Commission, in conjunction with my Department, will include the scope of asbestos prohibitions when reviewing the legislation. No doubt, asbestos-containing roof tiles will form part of this review. I will respond when this advice is received.

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will undertake an evaluation of the effectiveness and independence of asbestos sampling companies. [41106]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  As part of the Health and Safety Executive's monitoring of the effectiveness of asbestos regulations, the HSE investigates the performances of asbestos sampling companies where appropriate. The Health and Safety Commission's approved codes of practice on asbestos strongly encourage employers to use laboratories that are accredited by the national measurement accreditation service.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he will take to ensure that companies introduce an asbestos control programme in their workplace buildings, along the lines of the Health and Safety Executive booklet, "Managing Asbestos in Workplace Buildings". [41104]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  This is being promoted though the "Good Health is Good Business" campaign and by the HSE field inspectors during visits to businesses.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will undertake an evaluation of the safety of asbestos respirators. [41108]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I refer the hon. Member to the HSE study "Workplace Effectiveness of Respiratory Protective Equipment for Asbestos Removal Work", published in July 1996.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will assess the advantages of introducing a ban on the use of white asbestos in British industry. [41103]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Many uses of white asbestos are already prohibited. Whether or not the regulations should be extended will be a matter the Health and Safety Commission will consider in its current review of the legislation on asbestos. I will consider its recommendations carefully.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will undertake a study of the best methods of asbestos removal and sealing techniques. [41107]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I do not intend to carry out such a study. The Health and Safety Executive already keeps under review the available techniques for asbestos removal and sealing, and issues guidance as appropriate. For example, HSE inspectors require all those undertaking asbestos removal operations to use controlled wet removal techniques unless it is not reasonably practicable to do so.
  1055
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will undertake an evaluation of the effectiveness of the asbestos licensing scheme. [41105]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1983 have been subject to two reviews by the Health and Safety Commission. These reviews found that the regulations have been effective and were working well.

  The Health and Safety Commission has also recently completed public consultation on a discussion document which outlined some possible adjustments to the licensing regime. The commission will be considering the results of the consultation, and I will examine any proposals the commission might subsequently make for amendments to legislation.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will undertake an evaluation of the value and purpose of medical examinations for workers who are currently or were previously exposed to asbestos. [41109]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I do not intend to carry out such an evaluation. The Health and Safety Commission keeps under review the need for specific provisions of health and safety legislation. [41109]

  Drought Orders
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many applications for drought orders have been(a) accepted and (b) refused in each of the past 10 years; [40880]

  (2) if he will list the drought (a) orders and (b) permits refused in each of the last 10 years. [40881]

  Mr. Clappison
  The information is as follows:

  Applications received

  Orders made1

  Applications withdrawn

  Orders refused

  1987

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1988

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1989

  118

  89

  27

  2

  1990

  69

  65

  4

  —

  1991

  33

  28

  4

  1

  1992

  19

  16

  3

  —

  1993

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1994

  2

  —

  2

  —

  1995

  61

  53

  8

  —

  1996

  46

  40

  5

  1

  1 A considerable number of the orders were made subject to conditions or amendments either at the recommendation of an Inspector (where a hearing was held) or the Environment Agency (formerly the National Rivers Authority).

  The applications for drought orders which have been refused are as follows:

  South West Water Authority (Burrator Reservoir)(Drought) Order—refused 15 August 1989

  South West Water Authority (River Erme)(Drought) Order—refused 1 September 1989

  South West Water Services Ltd. (River Axe)(Drought) Order—refused 1 July 1991

  North West Water Ltd. (River Lune)(Drought) Order—refused 12 February 1996

  1056
  Powers for the Environment Agency to authorise drought permits came into effect on 1 April 1996. As at 15 October 1996, 12 permits have been authorised and none has been refused.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will request the Environment Agency to investigate the leakage of chlorinated solvents into water sources close to the Atomic Energy Authority's Harwell science and engineering centre in Oxfordshire. [40441]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Environment Agency is carrying out an investigation and remedial works are in hand.

  Confederation for British Industry
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the CBI's environment and health safety group; and what plans he has for further meetings. [40435]

  Mr. Gummer
  I keep in close contact with Roderick Paul, the chairman of the CBI's environment committee, through his membership of the UK Round Table on Sustainable Development. Senior officials from my Department also have regular meetings with the CBI's environment, health and safety group. The most recent meeting took place in August.

  Geosphere-Biosphere Programme
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contribution departmental officials make to the global change newsletter of the international geosphere-biosphere programme; and if he will make a statement on the role of the geosphere-biosphere programme in respect of this policy on global climate changes. [40436]

  Mr. Clappison
  The global change newsletter reports research carried out by the international geosphere biosphere programme core programmes to other researchers and the national and international policy community. In general, departmental officials do not contribute to this newsletter. The UK contributes to the international geosphere biosphere programme through its nationally funded research programmes. Policy on climate change draws on a number of international scientific research programmes including those of the IGBP, largely through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's scientific assessments.

  World Trade Organisation
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the work done to date in the World Trade Organisation's committee on trade and the environment; and what matters are currently on the committee's agenda for forthcoming meetings. [40437]

  Mr. Clappison
  The World Trade Organisation's Committee on Trade and the Environment has carried out analytical work in accordance with the decision on trade and environment adopted by Ministers at Marrakesh on
  1057
  15 April 1994. It is currently preparing its report to Ministers at the conference to be held in Singapore on 9 to 13 December 1996.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contribution his Department made to the United Kingdom submission on transparency to the intergovernmental conference in July; and if he will make a statement on the impact of the IGC discussions of transparency on his Department's policy. [40439]

  Mr. Clappison
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 14 October 1996, column 827.

  Expenditure on publicity and promotions

  £000's

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  DOE (central)

  7,500

  2,700

  14,697

  12,108

  8,878

  7,383

  Planning Inspectorate

  n/a

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Building research establishment

  230

  385

  286

  324

  244

  287

  QEII conference centre1

  113

  146

  238

  209

  167

  130

  PSA services

  1,760

  1,800

  1,300

  820

  nil

  130

  Total

  9,603

  5,031

  16,521

  13,461

  9,289

  7,800

  1 Figures for publicity for the QEII Conference Centre for 1990–91 to 1993–94 include hospitality.

  Expenditure on hospitality

  £000s

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  DOE(Central)

  62

  56

  92

  68

  76

  73

  Planning Inspectorate

  n/a

  0

  1

  1

  2

  1

  Building Research Establishment

  8

  17

  26

  12

  10

  11

  QEII Conference Centre1

  15

  12

  PSA Services

  44

  98

  133

  50

  2

  0

  Total

  114

  171

  252

  131

  105

  97

  1 Figures for publicity for the QEII Conference Centre for 1990–91 to 1993–94 include hospitality.

  The figures for central publicity and promotional expenditure include value added tax, advertising agency fees where relevant and all other levies as paid.

  Landfill Policy
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance has been published by the Environment Agency on landfill restoration and post-closure site management. [40658]

  Mr. Clappison
  In August the Environment Agency issued, for public consultation, a draft waste management paper 26E "Landfill Restoration and Post-Closure Management". The deadline for comments on this consultation paper is 18 November. Following this consultation, the Environment Agency will proceed to
  1058

  Campaign for Water Justice
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what meetings he has held in 1996 with representatives of the Campaign for Water Justice.[40646]

  Mr. Clappison
  My right hon. Friend has held no meetings with representatives of the Campaign for Water Justice to date in 1996.

  Promotional Expenditure
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much his Department has spent on(a) publicity, (b) promotions, and (c) hospitality in each of the last six years. [40624]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The total figures for publicity, promotional expenditure and hospitality by my Department in each of the financial years requested are detailed.

  publish waste management paper 26E, which will provide guidance on landfill restoration and post-closure site management.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had recently with(a) his ministerial counterparts and (b) the European Commission concerning the United Kingdom landfill policy; and if he will make a statement. [40789]

  Mr. Clappison
  Recently, the United Kingdom's landfill policy has been discussed in the context of the European Commission's communication on the review of the Community strategy for waste management. The Commission's communication suggests that all waste going to landfill should be pre-treated. There is no sound
  1059
  scientific basis to this approach. Landfill when properly engineered and controlled is a viable waste management option for a range of wastes.

  The United Kingdom favours the disposal of untreated biodegradable waste to landfill, and the use of the biochemical process engineering—bio-reactor—approach to manage landfill sites. This approach is designed to prevent pollution caused by the degradation process, and to provide conditions in the landfill in which stabilisation of the waste in situ is as rapid as possible. The approach is based on research into landfill practices that the Department of the Environment has sponsored for more than 20 years.

  Basel Convention Amendment
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy on the 1995 amendment to the Basel convention; and if he will make a statement. [40787]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government support the decision, taken at the third conference of the parties to the Basel convention in September 1995, to amend the convention.

  European Parliament
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements he has made to monitor the committee meeting discussions and reports examined at the European Parliament's Committee on Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection. [40792]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Department studies the reports of the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection and receives the agendas for committee meetings on a regular basis. Officials from the Department, or the UK permanent representation in Brussels, generally attend these meetings when matters of relevance to the Department are discussed.

  Carbon Dioxide Disposal
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has made an assessment of the Joule II project report No. CT92–0031 on the underground disposal of carbon dioxide. [40814]

  Mr. Clappison
  Officials in my Department have considered the Joule II report and have been in touch directly with the British Geological Survey which participated in the study. Our assessment is that underground disposal of CO, from large sources such as power stations is technically feasible, but costly. The process would add an estimated 40 per cent. or more to the cost of electricity, mainly because of the additional capital expenditure needed at power stations, and the cost of the energy required to extract and dispose of the CO2.

  Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the reasons for delay in the adoption and implementation of the convention on prior informed consent for hazardous chemical and pesticide trade. [40793]
  1060
  Mr. Clappison
  The intergovernmental negotiating committee for a legally binding instrument on the prior informed consent procedure has held two meetings and at least two more are likely to be required to reach final agreement on the complicated issues involved. In the meantime, the present voluntary procedure will continue to be operated by the United Nations Environment Programme and Food and Agriculture Organisation.

  Construction Products (Fire Testing)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on test procedures for the evaluation of the reaction to fire of construction products. [40748]

  Mr. Clappison
  The test procedures at present in British standards and which are used to determine the reaction to fire properties of construction products for regulatory purposes are likely to be replaced by a set of new harmonised European test methods as part of the process of enabling the single market in such products. Several dozen different test methods are in use throughout the EU and it is proposed that these should be replaced by five new procedures now under development under the auspices of the European Commission and in CEN. the European standards organisation. Fire experts from the UK are taking an active part in this process.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his latest estimates of the expenditure on all external consultants, including management consultants, for each year since 1992, in 1996 prices, for his Department and its agencies; and what are the quantified annual cost savings which such expenditure has resulted in. [41179]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Expenditure on external consultants since 1992, in 1996 prices, is as follows:

  Year

  Expenditure £

  1992–93

  11.4

  1993–94

  11.1

  1994–95

  11.8

  1995–96

  9.2

  It is not feasible precisely to quantify savings achieved by consultants since their work is usually only one of several factors leading to total savings achieved by a particular project.

  Health and Safety Executive (Free Books)
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many free books were distributed by the books division of the health and safety division each year; to which organisations; what proposals he has to introduce charges for these supplies; and what is the projected potential income per year if payment is required. [41128]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Between April 1990 and March 1996 the Health and Safety Executive has issued an average seven million free publications each year. The
  1061
  HSE does not list by category the customers to whom these publications are distributed. The HSE has no plans to charge for such supplies.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the costs to the books division of the Health and Safety Executive for each year since 1991 for supplying bulk supplies of free books and leaflets to organisations with charitable status. [41126]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information is not available.

  Cricket Stadium, Wakefield
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the issuing of an article 14 directive by his Department's Leeds office to the City of Wakefield metropolitan district council for the outline planning application for a new stadium for Yorkshire county cricket club at Wakefield; and if he will make a statement on the application by Leeds city council for a proposed new county cricket ground at Aberford. [40984]

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

  Leeds city council is considering a planning application for a cricket ground at Parlington near Aberford. Should the council be minded to grant planning consent, I understand that the application will be referred to the Secretary of State as a departure from the development plan.

  Lead
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people are estimated to work with lead and its compounds in the United Kingdom. [41123]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Health and Safety Executive is aware of approximately 18,000 workers working with lead and its compounds. However, this is probably an underestimate.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further steps have been taken by the Health and Safety Executive to draw attention to the dangers of working with lead, following the ombudsman report into lead poisoning at Stallite Batteries, Yorkshire in 1990. [41122]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  As a direct result of the ombudsman report, the operation of the appointed doctor system has been improved. Guidance for appointed doctors has been updated.
  1062
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many(a) improvement notices, (b) prohibition notices and (c) fines have been issued in each year since the lead regulations became law in 1981; and if he will indicate the average amount for fines. [41125]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Table A gives the number of improvement and prohibition notices issued under the Control of Lead at Work Regulations 1980 by the Health and Safety Executive since 1986. Figures for earlier years are not readily available. Table B gives the number of convictions and average fines for the same years.

  Table A: Control of Lead at Work Regulations 1980 Enforcement notices issued by HSE's field operations division inspectorates 1986–87 to 1995–961

  Year

  Improvement Notice

  Prohibition Notice

  Total

  1986–87

  64

  50

  114

  1987–88

  39

  23

  62

  1988–89

  41

  17

  58

  1989–90

  65

  8

  73

  1990–91

  75

  7

  82

  1991–92

  60

  33

  93

  1992–93

  42

  1

  43

  1993–94

  53

  11

  64

  1994–95

  56

  9

  65

  1995–961

  32

  3

  35

  Total

  527

  162

  689

  1 Provisional figures.

  Table B: Proceedings instituted by HSE's field operations division under the Control of Lead at Work Regulations 1980

  Year

  Convictions

  Average fine (£)

  1986–87

  12

  135

  1987–88

  7

  457

  1988–89

  7

  507

  1989–90

  8

  275

  1990–91

  10

  1

  1991–92

  9

  1,022

  1992–93

  2

  1,000

  1993–94

  1

  450

  1994–95

  0

  0

  1995–96

  0

  0

  Planning Policy
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what priority he attaches to the achievement of sustainable patterns of development and the maintenance of long-term green belt boundaries as set out in PPG13 and PPG2 when he considers local plans as they relate to the green belt; and if he will make a statement. [41056]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The fundamental aim of green belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl. Green belts can assist in moving towards more sustainable patterns of development. Their boundaries should be altered only in exceptional circumstances. PPG2 advises on the possible need to safeguard land for longer-term development needs, taking account of sustainable development, and on relating such land to public transport infrastructure.
  1063
  The Secretary of State examines development plans carefully to identify whether their scope reflects national and regional planning guidance and whether there are conflicts which do not appear to be justified by local circumstances. If necessary, he will make a formal intervention.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure that adopted local plans comply with Government policy as expressed in the most recent planning policy guidance notes; and if he will make a statement. [41057]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires that where, in making a determination under the planning Acts, regard is to be had to the development plan, a planning decision shall be made in accordance with the adopted or approved plan for the area, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Secretary of State expects local planning authorities to keep their local plans under review to ensure they remain up to date and appropriate documents for taking decisions on land use in their area. Where new or revised government policy is issued after a local plan has been adopted, local planning authorities are expected to consider such policies when the plan is reviewed. However, expressions of Government planning policy, for example in planning policy guidance notes or circulars, are capable of being a material consideration which must also be taken into account, where relevant, by the local authority in taking decisions on planning applications.

  Occupational Injuries
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many serious injuries at work, involving three or more days absence from work, occurred in each of the last five years. [41133]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985 required responsible persons—principally, employers and self-employed people—in most industries to report to the health and safety enforcing authorities work-related accidents to employees or self-employed people resulting in: death, major injury as defined in the regulations; or incapacity to do normal work for more than three days. Similar, but separate reporting requirements applied to the railway and offshore industries.

  The total number of accidents reported for all industries in each of the last five years are as follows:

  Injuries to workers1 reported to enforcing authorities 1991–92 to 1995–963

  Year

  Fatal

  Major4

  Over three days5

  Total

  1991–92

  368

  18,698

  154,338

  173,404

  1992–93

  339

  18,053

  143,283

  161,675

  1993–94

  296

  17,979

  137,459

  155,734

  1994–95

  272

  18,354

  142,218

  160,844

  1995–96:

  256

  17,571

  132,359

  150,186

  1 Includes employees, trainees and self-employed persons.

  2 Provisional.

  3 Years commencing 1 April.

  4 Injuries that result in hospitalisation for more than 24 hours.

  5 Any injury resulting in incapacity to perform normal work for more than three days.

  1064

  Animal Remains, Penistone
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the result of the examination by Doncaster museum of the remains of a body of an animal found on land at Flouch, near Penistone, South Yorkshire in August; and if he will make a statement. [40966]

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

  New Buildings and Premises
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total expenditure on new buildings and premises by his Department and its agencies; and if he will indicate the square footage of new office space purchased or newly rented in each of the last five years. [41145]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Planning Inquiries
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what procedures should be adopted when new Government guidance is issued following the close of a local planning inquiry but before the adoption of that plan; how the public and participants in the inquiry are to be kept informed and involved; and if he will make a statement. [41058]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  If new Government guidance is issued following the close of a local plan inquiry, but before the planning inspector issues his report, that new guidance will be taken into account by the inspector in making his recommendations. In considering the inspector's recommendations, the local planning authority will decide what formal modifications need to be made to the plan. If new guidance is issued after the inspector's report has been received by the local authority, then the authority will need to decide how it intends to take on board the new guidance through formal modifications to the plan. The processes involved in making modifications to the plan, and in keeping the public and participants in the inquiry informed, are detailed in the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Regulations 1991, and in the code of practice on development plans, issued by my Department as a booklet, "Development Plans: What you need to know". However, planning policy guidance note 12, paragraph 4.19 makes it clear that where new information becomes available at a late stage in the plan adoption process, and modification would only delay implementation of proposals not affected by the new information, it may be preferable to adopt the plan and start an early review.

  Deaths at Work
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many deaths at work occurred in each of the last five years; how many cases the Health
  1065
  and Safety Executive has referred to the Crown Prosecution Service for consideration of manslaughter charges; how many prosecutions took place; and how many were successful. [41132]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The number of deaths at work reported to all enforcing authorities, including local authorities, in each of the last five years is as follows:

  Deaths at work

  1991–92

  473

  1992–93

  452

  1993–94

  403

  1994–95

  376

  1995–961

  338

  1 Provisional.

  The number of cases investigated by the Health and Safety Executive which have been referred to the Crown Prosecution Service since April 1992 for consideration of possible manslaughter charges, and the outcome, is as follows:

  Year1

  Number of cases referred to CPS

  Prosecutions for manslaughter started by CPS

  Guilty verdicts

  1992–93

  12

  2

  —

  1993–94

  5

  1

  1

  1994–95

  12

  4

  1

  1995–96

  9

  2

  1

  1996–97

  2

  —

  —

  Totals

  40

  9

  3

  1 Information for previous years is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the results of his Department's liaison with the Department of Trade and Industry in respect of compensation to English Partnerships relating to the clean-up of contaminated land used for coal extraction. [40962]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I hope that an announcement can he made shortly.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many sentences in cases where companies were found guilty under health and safety law following the death at work of an employee, involved imprisonment; and how many resulted in fines of(a) less than £5,000, (b) £5.000 to £10,000, (c) £10,000 to £50,000 and (d) more than £50,000. [41134]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Of the three cases in which people have been sent to prison following convictions under health and safety at work law, none followed a work-related death.

  The other information requested is available only at disproportionate cost.
  1066

  Housing Association Statistics
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many housing association houses were built in each South Yorkshire local authority in each of the last four years. [40965]

  Mr. Clappison
  Estimates of dwellings completed by housing associations in each local authority area in England are shown in the publication "Local Housing Statistics". Figures for the years 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995 are in issue numbers 109, 110, 117 and 118 respectively.

  While these figures cover newly built accommodation, housing associations have also provided additional social lettings by the rehabilitation of existing properties and the various home incentive schemes, whose relative importance has been growing with the greater emphasis being placed on making more effective use of existing stock.

  Display Screen Equipment Regulations
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he estimates he will publish the results of the review of the display screen equipment regulations; and if he will make a statement. [40849]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The results of the review of the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 are still being considered. As soon as this is completed, I hope the Health and Safety Commission will be able to publish the report.

  Sewerage Systems
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the terms of reference of the committee reviewing the current revision of water byelaws and regulations with particular reference to setting standards for the construction and maintenance of sewerage systems. [40882]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The Water Regulations Advisory Committee's terms of reference are to advise the Secretary of State for the Environment on the requirements for plumbing installations and fittings to be included in water regulations made under powers in section 74 of the Water Industry Act 1991 and on other technical matters connected with the regulations.

  As provided for under section 74, the regulations will deal with contamination, waste, undue consumption and misuse of water in premises; they will not set standards for the construction and maintenance of sewerage systems.

  The extension of the current water byelaws, membership of the committee and a timetable of meetings was announced by departmental press release on 14 October. Copies of the press release are available in the House Library.
  1067

  Development (Outer London)
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the conditions for permitted development in respect of a bungalow in an outer-London borough. [40941]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Householders may make certain types of minor changes to their dwellings without needing to apply for planning permission. These "permitted developments" are prescribed in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. For a bungalow in outer London the following developments, among others, would be permitted:

  (i) the extension of the dwelling, providing the enlargement does not exceed 70 cubic metres at 15 per cent. (whichever is the greater) and providing in any case that the volume of the original house is not increased by more than 115 cubic metres;

  (ii) the addition or alteration of a roof, providing the altered roof slope does not face a highway, and providing the addition does not increase the overall height of the dwelling nor add more than 50 cu m to the volume of the house. (Any additional volume created by a roof extension counts against the total volume limits of (i) above).

  I am sending an extract of the general permitted development order and a booklet describing its contents to my hon. Friend.

  1991 Census
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Enviornment when the findings of the analysis of the 1991 census commissioned from Newcastle university will be available. [40956]

  Mr. Curry
  This. is being published today. Copies of the report "Urban Trends in England: Latest Evidence from the 1991 Census" have been lodged in the Library of the House.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what finances he has made available to authorities that have been or are to be reorganised on 1 April 1995–96, and 1997 for reoganisation costs incurred by them in 1995–96; and if he will make a statement. [40955]

  Mr. Curry
  On 26 April I invited authorities that have been or are to be reorganised on or before 1 April 1997 to submit outturn figures of the amount of expenditure they incurred on transitional costs of reorganisation in 1995–96. On the basis, inter alia, of the information provided by the authorities, I have decided the amounts of supplementary credit approvals to allocate towards such costs in 1995–96. I have given priority to authorities that were reorganised on or before 1 April 1996.

  The amounts are as follows:

  SCAs: £000 rounded

  Authority

  1995–96

  Isle of Wight

  Isle of Wight Council

  1,536

  1068

  SCAs: £000 rounded

  Authority

  1995–96

  Cleveland

  Cleveland County Council

  3,169

  Hartlepool Borough Council

  3,200

  Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council

  2,891

  Middlesborough Borough Council

  2,160

  Stockton on Tees Borough Council

  2,947

  Avon

  Avon County Council

  2,910

  Bristol City Council

  2,719

  North Somerset District Council

  3,197

  Bath and North East Somerset Council

  1,769

  Bath City Council

  299

  Wansdyke District Council

  715

  South Gloucestershire Council

  1,790

  Kingswood Borough Council

  438

  Northavon District Council

  484

  Humberside

  Humberside County Council

  2,900

  Hull City Council

  3,080

  East Riding of Yorkshire Council

  1,200

  Beverley Borough Council

  800

  Boothferry Borough Council

  90

  East Yorkshire Borough Council

  864

  Holdemess Borough Council

  500

  North Lincolnshire Council

  1,898

  Glanford Borough Council

  468

  Scunthorpe Borough Council

  626

  North East Lincolnshire DC

  1,634

  Cleethorpes Borough Council

  394

  Great Grimsby

  922

  North Yorkshire

  North Yorkshire County Council

  1,400

  Ryedale District Council

  —

  Selby District Council

  685

  York District Council

  2,996

  York City Council

  550

  Total

  51,231

  In addition, £200,000 has been issued, and distributed by the Home Office, for the reorganisation costs of combined fire authorities. 2

  On 29 November 1995 I announced that I had considered carefully the bids submitted by authorities that are to be reorganised in 1997, but that, in my view, none of the bids established a sufficiently strong case to justify an allocation of SCA for 1995–96, Official Report, column 734. I have taken the same view following consideration of outturn bids submitted by these authorities. I have, however, issued capitalisation directions for the net eligible revenue expenditure incurred.

  Sheffield and Tinsley Canal
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his proposals in respect of the Sheffield and Tinsley canal. [40957]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Under the provisions of the Transport Act 1968, I have today made an order to upgrade the Sheffield and Tinsley canal from a remainder to cruising waterway.
  1069
  British Waterways, which manages the canal, has in partnership with Sheffield city council and Sheffield development corporation, restored it to cruising standard. Reclassification is widely supported by local authorities, the boating industry and waterway user groups and will play an important part in regenerating the surrounding area. Significant public and private investment has already been committed to the area, and I am sure that upgrading the canal will boost investor confidence and help secure future investment.

  European Week for Health and Safety
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what sums from public funds were allocated for promoting European week for Health and Safety., and if he will make a statement. [40850]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The European Week for Safety and Health was aimed to encourage organisations themselves to raise awareness about hazards in the workplace and to be more effective in managing health and safety. In the UK we especially encouraged participation in the "Good Health is Good Business" campaign. I am extremely pleased that over 10,000 UK organisations registered an interest in participating in the European week. The Health and Safety Executive supported the week at a cost of £50,000.

  Storm Damage (Torbay)
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide financial assistance to Torbay borough council under the Bellwin scheme for the costs incurred in dealing with exceptional storms in January 1996. [41218]

  Mr. Curry
  I am satisfied that financial assistance under the Bellwin scheme is justified given the exceptional nature of the storms between 20 and 24 January 1996. A scheme will, therefore, be established under section 155 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Grant will be paid to cover 85 per cent. of eligible costs which are above a threshold, and which have been incurred by Torbay borough council in dealing with the aftermath of those storms.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will examine how local needs are defined by housing associations seeking planning permission; and what advice his Department currently issues as to how these should be defined. [41199]

  Mr. Clappison
  Housing associations do not themselves define local housing needs. The responsibility to define and prioritise local housing needs rests with the local authority, in consultation with housing associations, the Housing Corporation, Government regional offices, local developers and other with an interest.

  The Department provides guidance each year to local authorities on how to prepare their housing strategy and housing investment programme bid. The Housing Corporation also issues a national policy statement each
  1070
  year, containing details of the investment strategy for the next bidding round. Each August, the Housing Corporation publishes regional policy statements, containing details of the agreed local housing needs and priorities. Housing associations are invited to prepare schemes to meet these needs, and to submit them to the corporation for funding from the approved development programme.

  Once a scheme is approved, it is for the association to seek planning permission in the normal way.

  Commission for the New Towns
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Commission for the New Towns will be wound up; and what are its remaining powers. [41235]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration on 15 May 1996,Official Report, columns 489–90. A decision on the future of the Commission for the New Towns will be made in due course. In the meantime, it continues with all its normal activities.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what programme has been set for the Commission for the New Towns at Basildon. [41229]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Commission for the New Towns continues to dispose of the remaining new town land holdings and other assets at a rate consistent with maximising receipts and securing value for money, while also disengaging from its remaining liabilities. This applies to all towns where it is involved, including Basildon.

  Castle Cement
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what test results are on the public register for kiln 6 at Castle Cement's Ribblesdale plant at Clitheroe when burning coal only or coal and cemfuel. [41236]

  Mr. Clappison
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution—now the Environment Agency—carried out tests in respect of kiln 5 at Ribblesdale plant. Since kiln 6 is a similar kiln, the inspectorate did not consider it necessary to carry out tests for that kiln also. There are therefore no test results in the public register in relation to kiln 6, but all test results for kiln 5 are in the register.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much pet coke has been burnt in kilns at Ribblesdale—Castle Cement, Clitheroe—in each year since 1990; and in which kilns. [41237]

  Mr. Clappison
  No pet coke has been burnt at the Ribblesdale plant since 1990.

  Community Alarm Schemes
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to resolve uncertainties about the statutory powers available to local authorities to provide community alarm schemes for their residents; and if he will make a statement. [41241]
  1071
  Mr. Curry
  Community alarm schemes have become an increasingly common way to help vulnerable people to feel more secure in their own homes. Such schemes enable people in distress to summon assistance quickly and can be used to help the elderly to remain in their own homes, or support disabled people living in sheltered housing. They can also be useful in tackling crimes such as repeat burglary, domestic violence or racial harassment.

  In the light of concerns that have been expressed, in particular by the Audit Commission and the Association of District Councils, about the statutory basis on which local authorities may operate such schemes, we have today published a consultation paper - entitled "Local Authorities and Community Alarm Schemes"—and this paper examines the present statutory framework and outlines the Government's preliminary view that local authorities' role in the provision of community alarms should be extended to allow them to provide, and charge for, this service to anyone resident in their area. If the Government were to conclude in the light of comments that this wider role should be given to local authorities, their intention would be to legislate to this effect at the next convenient opportunity.

  I have arranged for copies of the consultation paper to be placed in the Library of the House. Copies are being sent to the local authority associations, individual local authorities and other interested parties, all of which are being invited to respond by 16 January 1997.

  Enterprise Zones (Easington)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the timetable for the transfer of the non-operational land designated enterprise zones at Dowdon and Fox Cover situated in the Easington district to English Partnerships: and if he will make a statement. [41222]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I hope that an announcement can be made shortly.

  Special Areas of Conservation
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will be sending further candidate special areas of conservation to the European Commission under the EC habitats directive. [41277]

  Mr. Gummer
  I indicated in my written reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) on 9 January 1996,Official Report, column 7, that further candidate special areas of conservation would be sent to the European Commission once points raised in public consultation had been considered and satisfactorily resolved. A further list of 44 sites was sent to the Commission on 14 October.

  Consideration continues to be given to the remaining sites considered.
  1072
  The list of sites sent to the Commission is as follows:

  Country

  Achmore Bog

  Scotland

  Beinn Dearg

  Scotland

  Beinn a'Ghlo

  Scotland

  Beinn Iadain and Beinn na h' Uamha

  Scotland

  Ben Alder and Aonach Beag

  Scotland

  Ben Heasgamich

  Scotland

  Ben Lawers

  Scotland

  Ben Lui

  Scotland

  Berwickshire and North Northumberland Coast

  England/Scotland

  Border Mires, Kielder-Butterburn

  England

  Chesil and the Fleet

  England

  Claish Moss and Kentra Moss

  Scotland

  Coalburn Moss

  Scotland

  Creag Meagaidh

  Scotland

  Dumess

  Scotland

  Essex Estuaries

  England

  Fal and Helford

  England

  Flanders Mosses

  Scotland

  Loch Eport Lagoons

  Scotland

  Loch Maddy

  Scotland

  Loch of Stenness

  Scotland

  Loch Roag Lagoons

  Scotland

  Loch Sunart Woodlands

  Scotland

  Meall na Samnha

  Scotland

  Moidach More

  Scotland

  Monach Islands

  Scotland

  Moray Firth (marine)

  Scotland

  Morecambe Bay

  England

  Mousa

  Scotland

  North Harris

  Scotland

  North Rona

  Scotland

  North Uist Machair

  Scotland

  Papa Stour

  Scotland

  Plymouth Sound and Estuaries

  England

  Solent and Isle of Wight Lagoons

  England

  Solway Firth

  England/Scotland

  Solway Mosses (part)

  England

  Sound of Arisaig

  Scotland

  South Uist Machair

  Scotland

  St. Kilda

  Scotland

  Thanet Coast

  England

  The Vadills

  Scotland

  The Wash and North Norfolk Coast

  England

  Usk Bat Sites/Safleoedd Ystlumod Wysg

  Wales

  Central Heating
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the percentage of dwellings with central heating for each constituency in the United Kingdom. [41283]

  Mr. Clappison
  Information is not available in this precise form. The 1991 census parliamentary constituency monitors provide figures for the number of households with and without central heating and copies are held in the Library.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what capacity of electricity used in his Department's buildings is generated in a combined heat and power plant; and what plans he has to increase that capacity. [41320]
  1073
  Mr. Clappison
  This Government are committed to CHP and has recently published a national strategy which has been well received.

  My Department's new headquarters buildings will both have CHP systems each with a capacity of 480 kW. In addition, the Whitehall district heating scheme, which covers a wide range of government buildings, will have a new CHP system from next autumn with a capacity of 4,500kW.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish draft regulations for the protection of important hedgerows; and if he will make a statement. [41278]

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government will issue for consultation on 21 October draft regulations for the protection of important hedgerows in England and Wales, under section 97 of the Environment Act 1995. The regulations are to be introduced jointly by the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Wales.

  The Government are keen, during this consultation, to hear from a wide range of people and organisation, that may be affected by, or have an interest in, these proposals—before the detailed arrangements are finalised.

  The criteria for determining whether a hedgerow is important are based on a study undertaken by ADAS to develop a hedgerow evaluation system. The report will be published at the same time as the draft regulations.

  Copies of the draft regulations and ADAS report will be placed in the House Library.

  Health and Safety Prosecutions
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many cases, where companies were found guilty under health and safety law following the serious injury at work of an employee, resulted in fines of(a) less than £5,000.(b) £5,000 to £10,000, (c) £ 10,000 to £50,000 and (d) more than £50,000. [41135]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information requested is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many(a) households, (b) pensioners and (c) families with children (i) presented and (ii) were accepted as homeless in (1) Doncaster, (2) Mexborough and (3) South Yorkshire in each year since 1979. [40963]

  Mr. Clappison
  The available data on households dealt with under the homelessness provisions of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 and the Housing Act 1985 are set out in the tables. The figures for acceptances of households with children or a vulnerable household member could be provided only at disproportionate cost for South Yorkshire for the years before 1991, other than those given for Doncaster. Separate figures for Mexborough are not available.
  1074

  Households accepted for re-housing

  Doncaster

  Of which households with:

  Year

  Applications/ enquiries1

  Total

  vulnerable member due to old age

  Children

  1979

  n/a

  366

  n/a

  n/a

  1980

  n/a

  294

  n/a

  n/a

  1981

  n/a

  326

  n/a

  n/a

  1982

  2747

  438

  219

  204

  1983

  1,008

  321

  28

  202

  1984

  1,245

  312

  22

  169

  1985

  1,023

  320

  24

  183

  1986

  939

  295

  21

  163

  1987

  711

  285

  15

  133

  1988

  1,472

  368

  46

  155

  1989

  1,581

  554

  32

  369

  1990

  2,012

  1,386

  58

  676

  1991

  2,111

  425

  24

  219

  1992

  1,707

  534

  211

  2164

  1993

  2,142

  692

  28

  489

  1994

  1,743

  449

  35

  235

  1995

  1,803

  336

  21

  159

  1 The data collected from authorities has, since April 1991, included a request for the number of applications or enquiries First recorded during the quarter. The data provided is not reported on a consistent basis across authorities as it reflects differing local administrative practices and cannot, therefore, be used to produce national or regional totals of applications/enquiries. The available figures prior to April 1991 are not comparable with later data as they have a narrower coverage—they cover only the number of cases in which enquiries carried out by the authority were completed during the year.

  2 Data for 2 quarters only.

  Households accepted for re-housing

  South Yorkshire1

  Of which households with:

  Year

  Total

  vulnerable member due to old age

  Children

  1979

  810

  —

  —

  1980

  840

  —

  —

  1981

  940

  —

  —

  1982

  1,720

  —

  —

  1983

  1,130

  —

  —

  1984

  830

  —

  —

  1985

  n/a

  —

  —

  1986

  n/a

  —

  —

  1987

  n/a

  —

  —

  1988

  2,800

  —

  —

  1989

  3,400

  —

  —

  1990

  4,010

  —

  —

  1991

  3,040

  80

  1,720

  1992

  2,900

  70

  1,660

  1993

  3,090

  8O

  2,040

  1994

  2,340

  70

  1,460

  1995

  2,070

  60

  1,270

  1 The data collected from authorities has, since April 1991, included a request for the number of applications or enquiries first recorded during the quarter. The data provided is not reported on a consistent basis across authorities as it reflects differing local administrative practices and cannot, therefore, be used to produce national or regional totals of applications/enquiries. The available figures prior to April 1991 are not comparable with later data as they have a narrower coverage—they cover only the number of cases in which enquiries carried out by the authority were completed during the year.

  2 Data for 2 quarters only.

  1075

  Flooding (Folkestone)
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide financial assistance to Shepway district council under the Bellwin scheme for the costs incurred in dealing with the extensive flooding in Folkestone on 12 August. [41282]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I am satisfied that financial assistance under the Bellwin scheme is justified given the exceptional nature of the floods in Folkestone on 12 August. A scheme will, therefore, be established under section 155 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1076
  1989. Grant will be paid to cover 85 per cent. of eligible costs which are above a threshold and which have been incurred by Shepway district council in dealing with those floods.

  Uranium Particles
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies have been commissioned or undertaken by his Department into the nephrotoxicity of inhalation of uranium particles. [40807]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I will write to the hon. Member.

Preamble
The House met at half—past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Birmingham.

Lord Clyde
James John Clyde, Esquire (commonly called Lord Clyde), one of the Senators of the College of Justice in Scotland, having been appointed a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and thereby created a Baron for life, by the style and title of Baron Clyde, of Briglands in Perthshire and Kinross—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Woolf and the Lord Hoffmann.

NHS Hospital Trusts: Economic Viability
2.47 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they will take if any National Health Service hospital trust ceases to be economically viable.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, if any NHS trust is unable to meet its obligations, the Secretary of State concerned will first act through the NHS executive to help resolve the problem and then, if necessary, take whatever action is considered appropriate in the circumstances.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that considerate reply, but she must be aware that senior members of the BMA, including the chairman, issued a statement earlier this month stating that this winter could be the most perilous one facing the National Health Service because of the present financial structure. The BMA said that substantial sums of extra money may well need to be found in certain areas if the service is not to collapse. Will the Minister give an undertaking that if that occurs patients will not be allowed to suffer and funding will be made available?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, this is nothing new. Nearly every winter we hear cries such as these from the BMA and indeed from other bodies. I remember that when the reforms were introduced the BMA said that the NHS would collapse. That is not the case. The NHS has become stronger and stronger and indeed we are putting more money than ever into it. The Prime Minister of course gave a guarantee only a few days ago that in our manifesto pledge the NHS will receive more money over and above inflation, year on year, throughout the next Conservative government.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble friend's answers on this matter are helpful, but does she realize
1680
that the providers of capital for the PFI in the health service are concerned that the Secretary of State cannot be forced to dissolve a trust and therefore transfer the liabilities to another body? Will my noble friend reassure the House that the NHS executive will ensure through its monitoring programme that the NHS trusts will always be able to fulfil their responsibilities and not allow liabilities to remain undischarged for ever? I do not think the National Health Service (Residual Liabilities) Act provides that comfort.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, because we were aware of these concerns we passed the residual liabilities Act earlier this year, as my noble friend has mentioned. However, I am aware that some people in the private sector would like us to go even further. The assurance I can give my noble friend is that the proposition that the Secretary of State would stand by and do nothing in circumstances where an NHS trust was unable to meet its liabilities is untenable given all his statutory responsibilities.
Lord Howell: My Lords, if the Government are putting more money into the National Health Service every year, why do we hear of more closures, especially of accident and emergency departments? Those two factors do not square up. Can the Minister assure the House that before people close accident and emergency services—I refer to Hillingdon—and refuse people over the age of 75, they are required to consult with neighbouring hospitals and to make known to the public the alternative arrangements made before they take such drastic action as we have seen at Hillingdon?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I would not deny that there is pressure in the National Health Service, partly because we are doing so much more. We are treating more patients. We have increased the number of hospital treatments by 25 per cent. in the past four years. The number of people treated as day cases has doubled. We are of course making changes as populations move, as demands change, and as high technology comes on stream. Clearly we are having to look at the hospital services that are provided.
Hillingdon is a very interesting case because there is a hospital closer to the population served. GPs are being asked to refer their patients to the Mount Vernon Hospital which is just up the road. Of course we shall see changes as circumstances change.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that pressures will always continue to mount within and upon the National Health Service? There is nothing surprising about that. It will always be a difficulty for every government. Will the Minister also agree that to treat the National Health Service as an arena for party politics, as so many questioners do, is profoundly unhelpful?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. The pressures on the health service will continue as indeed they will all over the world in every health service. The more that we can keep party politics

1681
out of the National Health Service the better. We know that the staff in the National Health Service do not like it. Indeed when the National Health Service is diminished by party political argument it does nothing for recruitment or the confidence of patients.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, as one of the surviving members who was responsible in a minor part for the introduction of the health service, I do not intend in any way to raise party politics in my question. It does not lie in the mouth of the Government even to mention party politics in connection with this matter. What assurance will the Government give that people who are over 75 years will receive treatment? Will the Minister guarantee that there will be no kind of capitation by the Government as regards the age at which people are entitled to full service under the National Health Service?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on his vision and foresight in establishing the National Health Service. As he refers to those over 75 years, I presume that he is declaring an interest in this matter. However, I can give him an assurance that the Secretary of State is very concerned about this issue. Indeed we shall be making some proposals later this year.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, while one may wish to take party politics out of the health service, is it not correct that one cannot take party policy out of it? The Minister stated today, as she has stated before, that this winter is no different from any other winter. Is she aware that many people within the service consider that this winter will be as bad as in 1987–88 simply because of the paucity of the settlement that the NHS received last year? Will the Minister tell the House exactly how many trusts and health authorities are forecasting financial deficits this year?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I was a chairman in 1987–88. In fact I was the chairman of the National Association of Health Authorities. I can tell the noble Baroness that it was far worse then. What is more, we were not providing nearly the services that we provide today. The National Health Service is a great deal stronger today than it was then. I understand that the majority of trusts will balance their books this year. Only one health authority is in severe economic problems. The remainder believe that they can manage their deficits before the end of the year.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords perhaps I may ask a question about organisation rather than politics. As my noble friends have illustrated this afternoon, is not the real problem that the organisation of the so called internal market means that healthcare is not delivered where people need it and at the time they need it? Does the Minister agree that at the local level
1682
services are now being driven by the rather spurious constraints of that market and not by a sensible strategy for the NHS?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, no. I believe that we are providing services which are much more sensitive to people, not least through primary care where we have seen GPs in their local surgeries, in their health centres, providing services that were undreamt of ever before. Therefore I cannot agree with the noble Baroness.
Lord Annan: My Lords, will the noble Baroness explain this? In 1989 there was one senior administrative officer whereas today there are 10. Does she consider that the health service is hampered by too many administrative posts in relation to those connected with patients?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to be concerned about bureaucracy and administration. However, we believe that this £42 billion business needs good management. But we have reduced bureaucracy. We have reduced the staff in the department by 20 per cent. We have abolished regional health authorities. We have merged district health authorities and family health service authorities. We have reduced management costs by 5 per cent. this year alone. That is a saving of £300 million over two years.

Common Fisheries Policy
12.59 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking as a result of the report, published in July, of the Common Fisheries Policy Review Group.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the Government have welcomed the report as making a constructive contribution to debate on how best to improve the common fisheries policy. The period of public consultation on the report has recently ended and the Government will respond formally to the report in the light of the results of that consultation.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his encouraging reply. As the group recommended reform rather than unilateral withdrawal, do the Government recognise the strong support also from the fishermen's organisations representing the large majority of fishermen in this country? Do they also recognise that the EU requirement to reduce our fleet by 40 per cent. cannot be considered seriously unless it applies equally and fairly to the other members of the EU, and unless the quota hopping boats are not counted as being in the British fleet?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I cannot but agree with everything my noble friend says.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the central problem for the UK in the review of the

1683
common fisheries policy is quota hopping? Is he further aware that quota hopping can happen only if UK licence holders sell their licences to foreign owners? How many licence holders have been forced to sell because the UK Government refuse to use the European grants to assist in decommissioning? If boats had been decommissioned the owners would not have been forced to sell their licences. The Government have much to answer for on the problem of quota hopping.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is stretching the possibilities in his allegations. I do not follow his logic; nor do I understand how it is possible to suggest that our not taking up a grant for which we were not eligible diverted people from taking a free decision to sell their boats or their quota or that they might have taken other decisions. The noble Lord is far too speculative. I do not recognise that the consequences flow as alleged by the noble Lord.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister saying that the Government's support of the free market in licences is not a key factor in quota hopping?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the free market licence is part of the single market. There is no way in which we could overcome that without amending the Treaty of Rome.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, will the Minister comment on the report in the Sunday Telegraph of 6th October? It stated that not only is there a plan far advanced in Brussels to finish the CFP in the year 2002 in favour of a permit system which would probably work even more against Britain, but also that his department has so far denied the existence of such a plan.
Lord Lucas: No, my Lords. It has always been known that in 2002 the current arrangements come to an end. It will then be necessary to negotiate their continuance. I have been made aware of the allegation that there is some great plot to create a single European fisheries policy, policed by a single European system and run entirely from Brussels as of 2002. We have seen the reports of the recent goings on where every single country in the European Union reacted fiercely against the Commission's proposals on fisheries. Anyone who has read those reports will realise that such allegations are complete nonsense.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, will my noble friend say what will happen in the year 2002 if the United Kingdom resolutely resists the ideas which will come
1684
forward from the others—no doubt to cheat us still further? There will be no common fisheries policy or regime. What happens then?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I hope to be alive then, but not to see that.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that without some form of common fisheries policy there will be no fish?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, it is also possible that even with the common fisheries policy there will be no fish.

Teaching of English
3.3 p.m.
Lord Quirk Lord Quirk asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take concerning the teaching and examining of English in view of the data comparing 1980 with 1994, published by the University of Cambridge Local Examination Syndicate (Occasional Research Paper 1996).
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, maintaining high standards is at the heart of the Government's approach to education. Since this small scale study was conducted, we have further strengthened English standards in our schools. Separate marks are required for spelling, punctuation and grammar in all GCSEs. A revised national curriculum that focuses on the basics and new GCSE syllabuses aligned with that have been introduced from this September. This summer's GCSE certificates show separate grades for spoken English, focusing attention on its importance.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response. Is he aware that many of us have felt for years that the quality of teacher training lies at the heart of our educational problems? We are therefore relieved to know this summer that the Government propose to take action on the matter. As for the University of Cambridge report which I have with me, it is small scale, yes, but any of the mitigating factors that one might think of in countering the report were taken seriously into account by researchers involved. They came to the conclusion that all the mitigating factors had to be rejected. Is not the plain fact that the writing of 16 year olds in 1993 and 1994 was found to be starkly inferior to that of their counterparts in 1980?
Lord Henley: My Lords, on the noble Lord's first point, he is right to emphasise the importance of teacher training. That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced this summer that the Teacher Training Agency is developing a new curriculum for initial teacher training, beginning with primary English. We must get that right before we do anything else.

1685
On the noble Lord's second point, I wish to stress that it was a small scale report. As I understand it, the survey was an analysis of just 20 scripts from the three years involved. It examined merely the fourth sentence of each of those scripts, as I understand it. As the report itself made clear, it lacked:
"sufficient empirical evidence to conclude safely that overall writing in 1980 was better, grade for grade; or that grading standards which involved further judgments about reading and speaking etc. have changed".
Nevertheless, having said that, it is important to take note of the report. We have done so and will continue to take note of it.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, is it not a fact that this Cambridge report—which is not exactly small-scale, if you have to sit down and read it—plus the Southampton report which came out at about the same time and the Coram report the same year, proved irrefutably that standards of literacy had declined markedly since 1980? Why is it that the Government have stubbornly refused to implement the recommendations of the Kingman report of 1988 which stressed the importance of the teacher training element in reforms in the teaching of the English language? The Kingman report seems entirely to have vanished until this summer when we received the recommendations on teacher training, which appear to have come out of the air, from the Secretary of State. It is all there in the Kingman report. Why has it been ignored?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sorry if the noble Lord rejects my claim that it was a small-scale report. One can only say that it was small-scale since it considered merely one sentence—the fourth sentence in each script—in 20 papers over three different years. I quoted from the report, making it clear that one could not read much into it. Nevertheless, we have done a great deal since the Kingman report and over the past few years. I could run through a whole host of different initiatives, starting with the national curriculum, virtually all of which have been opposed by the party opposite. I went on to emphasise that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State recognised the importance of those matters and of getting right the teaching of English, standards of grammar and so on in schools. That is why she announced that the Teacher Training Agency was developing a new curriculum on such matters which would come forward in due course.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, is it not the case that the research report showed repeatedly or at least alleged that grade C in the current GCSE for 1993–94 corresponds to grades D or E in the GCE of the 1980s? Is the Minister concerned about the apparent grade inflation that has occurred?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the report makes allegations of that kind. In both GCSEs and A-levels it is important for us to be sure that we have maintained standards over time. That is why, a little under a year ago, my right honourable friend announced that there would be an
1686
inquiry under both SCAA and Ofsted into standards over time. However, it would be wrong to make judgments on the basis of a small scale report of this kind before SCAA and Ofsted have reported, which they are to do later this year. When they report, we shall respond.

Church Repairs and VAT
3.10 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will review the VAT charge on church repairs.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the repair and maintenance of churches will continue to be charged at the standard rate of VAT, as has been the case since the start of the tax in 1973.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, which I am afraid is not worth a great deal. Is he aware that the congregations of very many churches that are part of our architectural history find it very difficult to carry out repairs, whereas a reduction in VAT of 5 per cent. would make matters much easier? We are not talking about one church in particular, though Lavington church is an excellent example, but of many churches and chapels throughout the country. A reduction of 5 per cent. in VAT would give all those congregations great heart to continue to keep in good order these buildings which are part of our national heritage.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I and my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, who frequently speaks on Treasury matters at this Dispatch Box, are well aware of the concerns expressed in this House on a number of occasions from the Benches behind me, by right reverend Prelates and from the Benches opposite. Nevertheless, VAT is a broad based tax. To offer special treatment for churches would open the question as to whether it should be offered to others. To concede to demands from here, there or wherever for special treatment, would seriously erode the tax base. That revenue would have to be found from elsewhere. However, we are well aware of the concerns. That is why my noble friend made clear on a previous occasion that the Government provide considerable support, particularly through English Heritage, for churches in terms of restoration and repairs.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that country churches are kept in repair largely as a result of contributions by the congregation? Is it not oppressive that people who subscribe, sometimes at considerable personal sacrifice, to keep a country church in repair should be compelled also to pay tax on those contributions when, if they did not make any contribution, they would have no tax liability?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the point I was trying to make to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, is that to concede to a demand from the Churches would open the door to

1687
other demands. The case is the same for all. It would seriously erode the tax base; we should have to consider where money could be raised elsewhere.
Her Majesty's Government recognise the importance of providing support for churches. I do not have the figures for 1995–96, but that is why, for example, in 1994–95 some £14 million was offered towards repairs for churches and chapels. That would include the sort of churches to which my noble friend referred. Similarly, since 1991 some £19.2 million has been allocated to England's 61 cathedrals. We will provide help but it is right to provide that help by means of grant rather than the less efficient method of tax concessions.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, will the Minister agree to look at relief on covenants? Surely that would provide a way out of the difficulty if he wishes to be as generous as he advocates.
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is not for me to be generous in these matters; I suspect it is a matter for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I shall, however, pass that comment to my right honourable friend for consideration. To return to my original point, it is not an efficient use of resources to try to provide help by means of a tax concession. The better way is by means of grant, particularly through English Heritage and other agencies.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, I am amazed by the generosity and devotion of ordinary people in maintaining their churches. Does the Minister believe it is just or fair to such people that the Government should take more than twice as much away from them in VAT than has been contributed through English Heritage? Is he aware that individual organisations such as the National Trust which have responsibility for ancient buildings believe that the Government should make special provision for church buildings? Alternatively, if the Minister holds to his present line, the grants need to be very much larger.
Lord Henley: My Lords, on the first point, with all due respect I am not sure I accept the right reverend Prelate's statement that the Government take twice as much as they give by means of grant. As I said, it would not be an efficient use of tax revenues to provide support through tax relief rather than by means of grants. I do not believe that the right reverend Prelate would suggest that we make the individual churches exempt from tax. We will continue to provide as much as possible through English Heritage and other agencies for maintaining the heritage of this country and the fabric of our churches. The amounts made available which I quoted are very large indeed.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, is the Minister aware that those people who recently contributed to the tune of some £25 million to the charitable funds for the rebuilding of Guy's Hospital and then received a VAT bill for £2 million would be very upset to find that other charities did not pay VAT?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord, whether by intent or not, makes my original point; namely, that to
1688
concede the argument for churches would open the door for all the others. I believe the noble Lord will agree that the revenue shortfall would have to be found elsewhere.
Lord Peston: My Lords, we have listened very carefully to the Minister. He seems to be saying that so far as the Government and the Treasury are concerned VAT is levied on repairs and there is absolutely no reason to regard the Church or any other body as having priority in the matter. Is that what he is in fact saying? Is he aware that some people might take the view that there is a case for not having this uniform rule? Is he simply saying that the Church has to take its chances when it comes to repairs?
Lord Henley: My Lords, that is the point I was trying to make. There are more efficient ways of providing support for what is termed heritage, or churches, than by means of tax concession. I could go through the sixth VAT directive, but I suspect it would bore most Members of the House to do so as this stage. Under that directive reliefs are available for housing. However, housing, sadly, on this occasion does not include the Church.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will Welsh churches benefit from the grants made by English Heritage?
Lord Henley: My Lords, English Heritage covers England. The appropriate agency in Wales would cover Wales.
Lord Elton: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister is clearly concerned that if he were to yield to the Church, he would be assailed by appeals from others. Will he, however, consider that the others from whom he would receive appeals would be freeholders, tenants or corporate bodies, whereas we are talking about groups of private individuals who are none of those but are trustees of a national heritage, and that payments at present given by grant are reduced by the amount of tax that is now paid on them?
Lord Henley: My Lords, if, to put it simply, my noble friend suggests that on this occasion the Church should be treated separately from others, I have to tell him that I do not agree.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in view of the support I have received from all sides of the House, will the Minister give an assurance that something will now be done along the lines suggested in my original Question?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not sure that the support received was quite the 100 per cent. that the noble Lord sought. I believe the noble Lord will accept that I cannot give him the kind of assurances that he

1689
seeks. However, I am sure that my right honourable friend and others will take note of comments made this afternoon.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, will my noble friend say whether it is in the power of this sovereign Parliament to take—
Noble Lords: Next business!

Business
3.19 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, 30 minutes having elapsed, perhaps I may make an announcement. At a convenient moment after four o'clock my noble friend Lord Lindsay will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Cullen Report. My noble friend Lady Blatch will then repeat a Statement on the Cullen Report (Firearms).

Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill
The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That if a Bill in the same terms as those in which the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill stood when it was brought to this House from the House of Commons in this Session of Parliament is brought to this House from that House in the next Session—

(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time and to have been reported from the Select Committee with amendments; and

(b) the Standing Orders of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or dispensed with in this Session or in the Session 1994–95, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in the next Session.—(Viscount Goschen.)

On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Public Order (Amendment) Bill
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Dormand of Easington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
1690
Then, Standing Order 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 15th October), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Asylum Applications: Designated Countries
3.23 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury rose to move to resolve, That this House deplores Her Majesty's Government's proposal to designate certain countries as subject to fast track appeals against refusal of asylum applications.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the new asylum order contains a list of countries in which, according to the Government,
"there is in general no serious risk of persecution",
and which are therefore being designated as subject to the fast track appeals procedure. That means that we are dividing states into two groups according to whether or not they are designated. In the larger group of countries which are not being designated it is to be inferred that there is in general a serious risk of persecution. But the idea of distinguishing between countries of that kind and countries of the kind that we are dealing with this afternoon is objectionable in principle and may also be unlawful, as I shall attempt to show.
The Government claim that up to the point at which a decision is made on an asylum application, the treatment of the applicant will be the same whether or not he is from one of the countries on the list. But nobody has the slightest doubt that by designating those countries as generally safe the idea is put into the minds of the officials who have to deal with the applications that the persons from those countries must be essentially bogus applicants. They will be influenced subconsciously by the very existence of the list.
Once a decision has been made and the applicant has lodged an appeal, a mere 10 days are allowed for the whole process of appeal: serving the papers; listing the appeal for hearing; and the decision by the appellate authorities. I submit that such a lightning process is manifestly unfair when complex issues relating to events in distant lands may arise and the refusal may need to be challenged on grounds which require communication with persons or organisations in the country of origin.
That is not to say that we argue for the prolongation of appeals. They should only take the time that they need. The Peat Marwick study showed that the real split was between "without foundation" cases and substantive appeals. The range was from 10 to 78 days in "without foundation" cases compared with 18 to 175 days in cases of substantive appeals. There may be some cases from the seven countries about which we are now talking that could be disposed of in 10 days without unfairness to the applicant. But it is wrong in principle to say that all applicants from certain countries will be afforded lesser rights of appeal.
In the UNHCR Executive Committee decision No. 8(XXVIII), Determination of Refugee Status, it was laid down in paragraph (vi) that:
"if the applicant is not recognised, he should be given a reasonable time to appeal for a formal reconsideration of the decision".
The UK has complied with that decision and the appeal system is a necessary consequence of our adherence to the convention. Therefore, any discrimination with regard to the rights of appeal is a breach of Article 3, which says that:
"The Contracting States shall apply the provisions of this Convention to refugees without discrimination as to race, religion or country of origin".
I noted the remarks made by the Minister in another place yesterday evening about my honourable friend's analysis of this provision. The Minister made the point in reply to my honourable friend that he had made an amazing blunder, because the article (which I quoted) refers to refugees and not to asylum seekers. If I may say so, it was the Minister who made an amazing blunder because she did not apparently understand that an asylum seeker can be a refugee, as the Court of Appeal found in the case of Alimas Khaboka v. Home Secretary (1993, IMM AR484).
Let me refer to that case briefly. It was found that the approach adopted by the Secretary of State must be substantially the same in all cases of applications for asylum. The applicant in that case submitted that he was a refugee both before and after his claim for asylum as such had been considered and accepted. In his judgment the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, referred to the UNHCR Handbook, which he quoted as follows:
"A person is a refugee within the meaning of the … Convention as soon as he fulfils the criteria contained in the definition. This would necessarily occur prior to the time at which his refugee status is formally determined. Recognition of his refugee status does not therefore make him a refugee but declares him to be one. He does not become a refugee because of recognition, but is recognised because he is a refugee".
So the term "refugee" includes someone who is only subsequently established as being a refugee. It follows that until an appeal is determined he has to be treated as though he were in fact a refugee.
The selection of the seven countries in the list was obviously intended to deter frivolous applications from countries which generate large numbers of applications. That was the reason, I remind your Lordships, why Nigeria was on the original list floated by the Home Office, with 5,800 applicants in 1995—far more than any other country. It was only when there was a public outcry that Nigeria was removed from the provisional list. The countries that remain, however, though not perhaps in the same league of human rights violators, are by no means without fault, as I hope we shall see this afternoon.
I shall refer solely to the case of Bulgaria, hoping that other noble Lords may deal with some of the other countries on the list. It is painful to me to have to record that Bulgaria, itself a victim of the Zaptiehs and Mudirs of the Ottoman oppression, chronicled unforgettably by Mr. Gladstone in The Bulgarian Horrors and the Question of the East, should now have become the oppressor in terms of its own minorities, set against a background of human rights abuses in general.
The International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights lists a number of areas of concern in Bulgaria: lack of independence of the judiciary and the inadequate judicial system; denial of fair trial and the violation of the rights of persons detained; ill treatment by the police; absence of freedom of expression, of assembly and of association; attacks on freedom of religion; lack of protection for minorities; the death penalty; and bad prison conditions. The IHF discusses in some detail the restrictions on the media and the ways in which the government enforce them. Strict control is exercised over state radio and television. When, last November, 34 journalists from the most popular radio station protested against interference with programme content, the deputy director, who was accused of instigating the protest, was fired. Later, seven other signatories were also dismissed. There is a law of criminal libel in Bulgaria which has been invoked against journalists for criticising public officials; and the state exercises indirect control over newspapers through its monopoly of newsprint.
The Home Office country assessment on Bulgaria is an interesting document. It reproduces large chunks of the US State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 1995, and in the case of freedom of speech and the press lifts six paragraphs verbatim, with no acknowledgement to the US State Department. The State Department reports are an excellent starting point, but if the Home Office is to publish material of that kind, it might consider looking at other sources as well. Amnesty International, for instance, has expressed deep concern about the use of Article 148(1) of the Penal Code, which provides special protection for public officials against alleged defamation, to prosecute journalists. The Writers in Prison Committee of International PEN also raised the case of the most recent victims of that law in its case list for the first half of 1996.
On freedom of religion, the Home Office again plagiarises the State Department report, making one minor syntactical alteration to the first sentence and leaving out three paragraphs dealing with specific examples of religious discrimination. Among those are the exclusion of all but Orthodox students from the Department of Theology at Sofia University, the confirmation by the Council of Ministers of the refusal to register certain religious groups and the charge that the police break up the meetings of the groups which have been denied registration.
The Home Office note once more lifts the text of the State Department report verbatim in its sections dealing with religious and national minorities. Here, though mention is made of each of the main minorities, the problems that they face are not fully covered. The refusal of identity papers to ethnic Turks who left Bulgaria at the height of their persecution under the communists and have now returned is not mentioned; neither is the authorities appointment of Nedim Gendjev, formerly the chosen leader of the Moslems under the communist dictator Todor Zhivkov, to be chairman of the Moslem Supreme Religious Council and their discrimination against the anti Gendjev faction.
The Home Office mentions the authorities' refusal to recognise the Macedonian minority, in spite of the 1992 census having recorded 7,000 people identifying themselves as Macedonians. A much better treatment of this subject, if I may say so, and of minorities in Bulgaria generally is to be found in the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board's paper, Bulgaria: Ethnic Minorities, published in 1995. If the Home Office policy is, as it appears to be, to plagiarise other people's work, it should certainly take a look at the Canadian research. It is readable, thorough and well referenced, whereas the Home Office briefs do not contain a single reference—that applies not only to Bulgaria but to other countries as well.
Perhaps I may suggest—I should like an answer from the Minister when she replies—that we ask the Canadians, the Americans and any other allies who have been making their own countries' assessments whether we could have some more formal arrangements between us to produce common assessments, even on a more frequent basis, by pooling our research and information capacities and producing one document which will be used uniformly throughout all the countries so as to improve the uniformity of treatment of asylum applications.
Bulgaria has not signed the Council of Europe's Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and, as the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee says in its report, Human Rights in Bulgaria 1995, the generally low level of standards for the protection of ethnic minorities fell even further in 1995. Paradoxically, the end of communism and the partial restoration of freedom of expression led to the open expression of hatred and violence against minorities, and particularly the Roma. Neo Nazis targeted gypsies as well as foreigners and law enforcement officers either took no action over racist assaults or in some cases actually sided with the attackers. Quite a few examples are given in the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee's report; and in the Human Rights Watch/Helsinki report, Police Violence and Arbitrary Confinement, descriptions are given of gratuitous attacks on Roma children by racist policemen.
The latter report also describes the so called "Labour Education Schools" in Bulgaria, which are essentially penal institutions where children as young as eight are compulsorily detained by administrative procedures for minor offences or because someone has assessed them as being uncontrollable. Half the children in those establishments are Roma, though only 4 per cent. of the population were identified as belonging to that group in the 1992 census. The State Department, and hence the Home Office which copied it word for word, ignore all problems relating to children's rights and those of Roma children in particular.
It is estimated that there are between 12,000 and 14,000 street children between the ages of eight and 17 in Bulgaria, most of them Roma. There are reports of severe police brutality against those children, both physical and sexual. The police make no secret of their racist hostility towards Roma children.
The Bulgarian Government's violations of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and their treatment of Roma children in particular should have been known to the Home Office, even though the Bulgarian authorities have done their best to prevent human rights observers investigating those matters. Human Rights Watch expresses,
"deep concern over the lack of openness and co—operation demonstrated by governmental authorities towards external attempts to monitor conditions",
while Amnesty International, in its latest report, Bulgaria: Shootings, deaths in custody, torture and ill treatment by law enforcement officers, complains of the authorities' refusal to provide copies of the prosecutors' decisions or autopsy reports. Yet there is plenty of evidence from unofficial sources and Amnesty, like every other investigating agency, finds that many of the victims are Roma.
The list of ethnic, religious, political and human rights groups, some of whose members may suffer well founded fears of persecution in Bulgaria, is long. Few of them may reach our shores, but that does not mean that when they do we should treat them less favourably than asylum seekers from most other countries. They are entitled to exactly the same rights as the citizens of other countries, both on first consideration and at the stage of appeals against refusal.
There are other ways of speeding up the process of asylum without breaking our obligations under the convention, many of which are detailed in the Peat Marwick report, which would apply to all asylum seekers, and some of those are being implemented already. The reduction in the number of applications this year should also allow the appellate authorities to catch up with the backlog. We may not be able to prevent the implementation of two tier appeals this afternoon, but we can demonstrate the absence of both principle and necessity in the proposal before your Lordships. Not a single bogus asylum seeker would be allowed in as a result of retaining the single tier appeal system; but some genuine applicants are likely to fail because of the additional hurdle they will now have to jump. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House deplores Her Majesty's Government's proposal to designate certain countries as subject to fast track appeals against refusal of asylum applications.—(Lord Avebury.)
3.36 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, many of your Lordships who sat patiently throughout the long and extensive stages of this Bill will be amazed, as I am, that it has come back yet again after the endless files and papers had been neatly put away before the Recess. I find the Motion extraordinary as, in Committee stage during what I was told was one of the longest debates held recently in this Chamber, Parliament gave its view and voted. The part of the Bill concerning the fast track system, Clause 1, was agreed by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. It agreed also that it could be dealt with by the affirmative procedure.

1695
Once again we have a Motion that may look appealing to some at first reading, yet, like so many other parts of the Bill, has been misunderstood. Like the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I should like to say a few words about Bulgaria, one of the designated countries of destination. It is covered by the Motion:
"That this House deplores Her Majesty's Government's proposal to designate certain countries as subject to fast track appeals against refusal of asylum applications".
The Motion does not relate to any other part of the Bill. I single out Bulgaria as it is one of the countries of which I have a small knowledge. But I am afraid I take a totally different line to that of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
Since the fall of the Berlin Wall—a time when eastern and central Europe were full of dreams and hopes of a free and democratic future—life alas has been very difficult. The challenge of the transition from a command economy to a market economy was not as simple as was envisaged. It was, despite the difficulties, a relatively peaceful transition. But the people of Bulgaria have suffered and are still suffering tremendous hardships. Having been a prosperous, fertile country before the communists, it is today a country, after two years of socialist government, suffering tremendous poverty. It is not fulfilling the IMF agreements and will probably need humanitarian aid this winter. Even though recently a past Prime Minister, the socialist MP Andrei Lukanov, was murdered, political murders are not unknown. Nor are they any reason to take Bulgaria off the list. We all remember President Kennedy's assassination, yet naturally America would not warrant similar treatment. Here I have to disagree yet again with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. Bulgaria has held free and democratic elections and is preparing at this moment for the next presidential elections on 27th October. It has a new democratic constitution, democratic institutions and an independent judiciary. This is not a country where there is a serious risk of persecution. Economic hardship yes, but not persecution.
We should not forget that Bulgaria is an applicant country to the European Union. It also has the European agreement on trade. Bulgaria is party to the 1951 United Nations convention, a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights and a member of the Council of Europe. That this Motion should propose taking Bulgaria off the designated list is ludicrous.
Designation does not amount to a blanket ban on applications from designated countries. We should not forget that all claims will continue to be considered on their individual merits. Applicants will continue to have an in—country right of appeal before removal to their country of origin. Designation is simply about speeding up the processing of the appeals of large numbers of applicants from countries that are considered to be generally safe.
Since the Bill has passed, the fall in the number of applications has been substantial. We are no longer seen as the soft touch in Europe. It is surely right that Britain should remain a sanctuary for people fleeing persecution—a safe haven but not a soft touch. That is
1696
heartening as we want to see genuine asylum seekers helped as quickly as possible. I oppose the Motion and urge your Lordships to do likewise.
3.42 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I wish to take issue very gently with the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings. My understanding of this afternoon's debate is not that we are rehearsing arguments which we rehearsed during the debates on the Asylum and Immigration Bill but that we are taking issue with the Government over the designation of certain countries on the so called white list, the list of countries which are believed secure. I wish to speak about Pakistan, a country with which I have some personal links. My earliest memories are of what was then northern India. One of the markets in the great city of Lahore bears the name of my grandfather. Every time I meet anyone from that city I ask whether the market still goes by that name and I am assured that it does—Tollinton market.
I want to use as the basis of what I am going to say about Pakistan the assessment which has been produced by the Asylum Directorate. This information is intended as a background for those concerned with the asylum determination process. The assessment states that in 1995 there were 1,675 determinations, of which only 25 received exceptional leave to remain and only 10 were granted refugee status. Presumably it is on the basis of those very small numbers that the Government have decided that it is a secure country—since the vast majority of determinations did not give either refugee status or exceptional leave. But it is worth looking for a moment at the groups from whom asylum seekers come.
According to the Asylum Directorate document, since the return to power of Benazir Bhutto's government the majority of asylum applications have been from people claiming to be Ahmadis—I shall have a little to say about them in a moment—and there have also been a number of applications from members of the Mohajir Quami Movement (the MQM), which may be roughly translated as the national movement for refugees. There is a constant trickle of applications from members of Sindhi nationalist groups, Christians and Pakistanis who claim to have been persecuted because of their sex or sexual orientation.
Interestingly enough, the final sentence in the paragraph points out that applications from the Pakistan People's Party, the party now in power in Pakistan, have virtually disappeared. That does not seem to me to make out the case that the vast majority of applicants from Pakistan are economic migrants. If that were the case, why do they all come from groups which claim to be under threat? Why, since the PPP came to power, have applications from that group virtually vanished? This surely indicates that people come to this country to claim asylum not because they are looking for a better standard of living but because they believe themselves, rightly or wrongly, to be under threat in their own countries. I cannot answer the question why they are not granted either refugee status or exceptional leave to remain. It may well be that the threat is to the group rather than to a particular individual and they have not made out their case for being treated as refugees with a

1697
threat of individual persecution. But I believe that there is need for research into the background of those who apply for asylum in this country.
We have for a long time been debating whether those who apply are coming through genuine fear and a feeling of genuine threat or because they are seeking a better way of life. We do not know the answer to that question and as far as I am aware there has been no research which would enable us to determine it. Research has been undertaken by the Home Office on those whose applications have been accepted. The research shows that those who were granted refugee status came broadly from professional classes. They were articulate and they were normally in opposition to governments, as indeed one would expect from people of that background. These people bring considerable benefit to this country, but I am not aware of any research into the background of those who apply generally. I would invite the Government to initiate research into the background of all applicants so that once and for all we can have some basis of fact on which to determine whether the language of bogus and economic migrants is true or whether, as some of us claim, people come to seek asylum because they are in genuine fear.
The MQM is a group whose core membership is made up of those who came from the present country of India during the 1947 conflict and found themselves in Sindh among an indigenous population. There has developed over the decades a conflict between these two groups. The Home Office assessment of what is happening in the area reads as follows:
"over the last eighteen months there has been extreme violence in Karachi and elsewhere in Sindh. The main reason for the violence is the confrontation between the MQM and the government, but ethnic and sectarian violence is also a feature. Elsewhere in Pakistan, there have been incidents of sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni Muslims (and on occasions between Muslims, Ahmadis and Christians). There have been several bomb explosions in Pakistan over the last year".
I draw attention to the words "extreme violence in Karachi and elsewhere in Sindh". That is borne out by a report of the US Department of State dated March 1996 which gives details of the violence. It states:
"The number of extrajudicial killings, often in the form of deaths in police custody or staged encounters in which the police or paramilitary forces shoot and kill the suspects, increased in 1995. Most such killings occurred in Sindh province in clashes between the Government and factions of the MQM. In trying to restore order in Karachi, the Government regularly used excessive force, including torture and alleged encounter killings, against MQM activists. The rate of politically motivated murders in Karachi reached an average of 10 per day in July; by the year's end, over 1,800 people had been killed".
That bears out what the Home Office says about the extreme violence in Karachi.
The point is also borne out by what Amnesty International has said although its emphasis is slightly different. Its document of February 1996 stated:
"While law enforcement personnel appear to be responsible for some of these human rights violations, there is strong evidence that armed opposition groups have also perpetrated torture, hostage taking and killings in Karachi".
1698
Amnesty International is concerned that the Government do not seem sufficiently strong in terms of stamping out those human rights abuses. So the situation in that part of Pakistan hardly seems to bear out the contention that it is a safe and secure country.
I turn to two other groups among which asylum seekers are found. The first is the Christian group. The Home Office document claims that certain minority groups are under threat, among which are Christians. There is no strong or government led opposition to Christians, but as individuals they nevertheless suffer some persecution, particularly because of the blasphemy laws. Those laws mean that those who apparently blaspheme against the name of Mohammed are subject to the death penalty. Christians do not believe that the prophet Mohammed was the final prophet and their faith would require them to say so. Two Christians, Salamat and Rehmat Masih, were found guilty in the Lahore sessions court of blasphemy and were sentenced to death. That case received a high profile in the international press and the Lahore high court acquitted them of blasphemy when it found that insufficient evidence for conviction was presented. However, another Christian, Anwar Yaqub Masih, arrested in 1993 on the same charge, has already served two years in the Faisalabad district prison awaiting the conclusion of his trial. As far as I know, he remains in prison to this moment.
Therefore, although not government directed, there are persecutions against Christians, but more particularly such persecution is directed against Ahmadis. They are a group who claim to be Moslem but because they do not believe that Mohammed was the final prophet, that claim is not accepted by other Moslems or by the government of Pakistan. The Home Office document says that that group is recognised as a minority religious group. That is entirely right, but that is precisely the point. The Ahmadis do not believe themselves to be a minority religious group. They believe themselves to be part of the majority Moslem movement.
The Home Office document goes on to say that applications for asylum from Ahmadis are given "very careful scrutiny". It was that phrase that gave me pause for thought. If, indeed, it is the case that the advice from the Asylum Directorate is that applications for asylum from Ahmadis are given "very careful scrutiny" and if it is also the case that a large proportion of asylum applications come from people claiming to be Ahmadis, how is it that the country can be designated as "secure and safe"? How is it that a fast track approach can be designated for those people when, by the admission of the Home Office, their cases have to be given special scrutiny?
It seems to me that the Home Office document itself makes out the case that Pakistan is not a secure country. That is apparently reinforced by the view of the Foreign Office. There is a report of correspondence between the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary on this matter expressing the view of the Foreign Office that the situation of the Ahmadis does not warrant the country of Pakistan being placed on the secure white list. Whatever view may be taken of the existence of the

1699
white list, I hope that I have said enough to show that the placing of Pakistan on that list is based on insecure evidence. If the Government were to say that the rest of that country were secure and settled, the answer surely is that the applications are not coming from the rest of the country. They are coming precisely from those communities and parts of the country where there has been shown to be unrest and violence. I believe that to be a very insecure determination. I hope that the Government will reconsider their decision to include Pakistan on that list.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, this is a very sensitive issue and it is a pity that your Lordships seem so divided on it. I would assume that on the general issue before us we are very much in agreement. We all accept, I presume, that this country has a tradition of offering a haven to the politically persecuted and we would want that to continue.
We are proud of our role as the people who gave sanctuary to refugees from France, to the Huguenots and others who came here at the end of the 18th century. We are proud of our history and of the sanctuary that we gave to the Jewish refugees from Hitlerism in the 1930s. A quarter of a million refugees were allowed into this country then, the same number as were allowed into the United States of America, which is much larger. We are proud of the help that we gave to the Polish nation at the beginning of the 1940s and in 1945 when Prime Minister Churchill decided that no Pole should be forced to return to Poland, which had fallen under Communist rule. We are less proud, I suggest, of our role in 1945 when very large numbers of Russians in this country were forced to return to the Soviet Union and were subjected to horrific treatment by Stalin's government.
However, while bound by our international obligations, we are also cognisant of the fact that we have only limited resources. I am touched by the observation of the Home Office that its staff who are bound to deal with applications for political asylum have increased eightfold since 1988. Of course, that does not mean that we have any excuse for going back on our international obligations, but I believe that we should look carefully at how we consider such cases.
My noble friend Lady Rawlings spoke about Bulgaria. I should like to concentrate on Poland, a country that I have visited many times and about which I have a certain amount of knowledge. However, before turning to Poland, I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister can clarify a question about Cyprus. It seems strange to find Cyprus on the list and being designated as a member. I wonder whether Cyprus as a whole has been included, whether the Turkish occupied part of Cyprus is to be included on the proposed white list or whether such inclusion relates only to the territory held by the forces of the Republic of Cyprus. May we have a little more information about the inclusion of Cyprus on that list?
As far as concerns Poland, I believe it is right that that country should be on the list. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, would agree with that, were
1700
it not for the fact that he objects to the whole principle of the white list. I am glad to see that the noble Lord nods his head.
Since the disappearance of the communist government in 1989, there have been many great achievements in human rights in Poland. Poland had a bad human rights record under the communist government, although it was not as bad as that in some other communist countries. However, I suggest that since 1989 Poland, while not perfect—no country is in this regard—has had a record far better than most in Europe. Yet in 1995, 1,210 people applied for political asylum. None has been accepted. I conclude that this is because a number of Polish people have tried to use this route to enter the United Kingdom and circumvent the immigration rules.
The history of the Home Office and Polish entrants into this country has had its ups and downs in recent years. It will be remembered that until 1992 Poland alone among the new central European democracies required its citizens to have visas before they could come to the United Kingdom. For some strange reason, Poland is still excluded from the au pair system, whereas citizens of Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia and other countries have access to that system.
It is thought that the Poles are more than usually likely to try to circumvent the immigration restrictions and enter this country through the back door. The fact that 1,210 Poles applied for political asylum in 1995 lends credence to that belief. It indicates that large numbers of Poles want to come to this country, perhaps because there is already a large Polish community here and there are strong links between Poland and this country.
I wish that more Poles could come and live in this country. A large number of British people of Polish origin return to Poland and take advantage of the improved conditions in the land of their ancestors because of economic and political changes. It would be good to have an exchange of citizens between this country and Poland on a temporary or permanent basis. However, since that is not so, I suppose that the normal immigration rules must be imposed on Poland, just as they are imposed on the others on the list.
I hope that I have made my point clearly enough, even to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, whose concerns in this matter I treat with the greatest respect. The noble Lord would probably not put Poland down as a serious human rights violator, even though no country is perfect and Poland is not perfect. The noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe that there is now an Amnesty International prisoner of conscience in any Polish gaol. While there have been some manifestations of Right wing nationalism, chauvinism and even anti—semitism (although there is hardly any Jewish population left in Poland), I do not believe that the government of Mr. Kwasniewski or the government of his predecessor, Mr. Lech Walesa, can be placed at the bar of the accused in respect of any of these concerns.
Our resources are limited but I hope that we will continue to be generous in giving the right of political asylum to those who are persecuted for political or

1701
religious reasons. The Home Office is entitled technically speaking to try to find the most effective ways of implementing its guidelines in the acceptance or refusal of applications for political asylum. I believe that it makes good sense to have countries like Poland on a fast track system on a white list.
4.5 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I too should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on introducing this important debate. I do not believe that, with the modesty of his introduction, he deserved the persecution that was then poured upon him by the noble Baroness. To balance that, I should like to thank the noble Lord who has just spoken for his remarks about the consensus in this House on human rights, regardless of the detail. I have been among those who have had serious misgivings about various aspects of the new legislation, such as the fast track procedure.
I believe that the new background briefs, while intended to give guidance, work against the interests of genuine asylum seekers and send out the wrong signals about our understanding of current events overseas. Most of the 60 organisations which reported in April to Sir lain Glidewell's panel—whose work I enormously respect—would put it a lot more strongly than that. They are saying that in the process of tightening our asylum rules we are glossing over flagrant abuses of international law and human rights.
A letter from the Minister dated 6th September reassures me that these briefs "do not preclude" the assessment of a well founded claim where the evidence is convincing. I should hope not. I am not surprised to see that once again genuine asylum seekers (if any of them get as far as this under the new rules) are being handicapped. For various reasons, they are being treated as a category apart, condemned by the new procedure before they have time even to establish a claim. Ten days is simply not enough time. This could have very serious consequences for them in their own country if they are returned because it will add to the profile that they already have. In the case of children, this could be in breach of more than one UN convention.
Let us consider India. Most of us here have a great affection and admiration for that country and its democracy and institutions. Most of us have been pleased to see the development of a strong human rights lobby in India. But this does not mean that we must go along with the Home Office myth that India is generally a safe country to which asylum seekers can be swiftly returned if their applications are late or their documents are out of order. I submit that noble Lords would want to look at each case on its merits. We all know that there are many dangerous situations along India's frontiers and even inside the country, where remote local police stations can be a law unto themselves. It may be a vast country geographically, but that does not mean that asylum seekers can easily hide or escape, especially if they have already crossed an international border.
1702
I do not want to quarrel with the country assessment itself because I believe that it is the principle that is wrong. I am sure that some will find it useful. But there are a number of passages which I find worrying. For example, it contains such phrases as,
"Most of India is generally peaceful";
and,
"There are areas of great poverty … poor farmers have an economic motive in claiming asylum";
and again,
"There are occasional tensions between Hindus and Muslims".
I do not envy those who are charged with writing these briefs, but they must know that they are very brief indeed, perhaps even insulting to the intelligence of an adjudicator. Is this really, as the Minister says, the context in which consideration will be given to individual claims?
I will remind the House of the areas of conflict. In Jammu and Kashmir there are still hundreds of deaths every year from all aspects of terrorism and counter—terrorism. A recent report by the US State Department mentions a high level of extra—judicial killings of suspected militants by the security forces, as well as numerous cases of torture and incommunicado detention. Incidentally, India now has a National Human Rights Commission, but it has only limited powers to investigate these abuses.
In Punjab, where the activities of Sikh militants have been a major threat to law and order, any Sikh who expresses sympathy for a separate state, or even attends a rally for such a purpose, risks instant detention and may be risking his life. The Sikhs are a significant group among the UK asylum seekers. A new report by the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, which has surveyed the group in detail, shows conclusively how even torture victims may suffer from the fast track procedure. That is important and I hope that the Minister can give the foundation a specific reassurance on the matter, remembering the critical vote on torture which was carried in this House.
Other sources of persecution in India include Assam, Nagaland and Tripura; the Naxalite rebellions in north-east India; and the communal violence which still simmers in Maharashtra, Gujarat and UP.
The number of asylum seekers from India has fallen, but it is hard to say whether that reflects the level of violence or the new legislation. Her Majesty's Government may feel some satisfaction that the numbers of new claims from Africa and Asia have fallen and that the backlog has been reduced. But that surely indicates the deterrent factor of the new procedure rather than the invalidity of the claims which are being processed. The fast-track procedure is bound to give asylum seekers a reduced service and thus less chance of receiving a fair hearing. That presumably is the red flag which the Government want to hoist to deter future asylum seekers, sending the message that they would rather not receive any at all.
We are speaking now of only small numbers of people getting into this country, contrary to the innumerable press reports which have exaggerated the

1703
situation. I am told that out of the 2,675 Indian decisions made so far this year, only five cases have been accepted and only 15 have been given exceptional leave to remain. The equivalent numbers for the former Yugoslavia were 745 and 225; that is 670 out of a total of only 1,485 decisions.
I am not making a direct comparison; it would be invidious. However, do not those numbers give some indication of a possible imbalance—even, I would argue, a degree of discrimination—in the procedure? That imbalance is itself a form of discrimination because it adds to the climate of disbelief which already works against the genuine asylum seekers. That imbalance was neatly described by Mr. Alex Carlile in another place last night as, "the rotten apples in the scales". We cannot get away from the fact that speeding up the procedure creates that imbalance.
Finally, I am concerned, as are many organisations, about our reputation as a place of refuge. How can we maintain our tradition of hospitality if we start sweeping clean whole territories on the map? I wonder what the old India hands in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office privately think about the briefs from the Home Office. I wonder how much time the case workers and adjudicators spend on them when they obviously need much more detailed information to determine a particular case. I know what the genuine asylum seekers think of them—that they are just another form of misrepresentation and prejudice which stands in their way.

The Cullen Report
4.14 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Lindsay): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on the Cullen Report which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the publication of the report of Lord Cullen's inquiry and the government response. On 21st March, following a resolution of both Houses of Parliament, I appointed the Honourable Lord Cullen to inquire into 'the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the events at Dunblane Primary School, to consider the issues arising therefrom, to make such interim and final recommendations as may seem appropriate and to report as soon as practicable.'
"Lord Cullen concluded that he should not make an interim report. He completed his report within the demanding timetable he set himself by the end of September. But I received a letter from the honourable Member for Hamilton saying that it would be 'wrong for the report to be published during any one of the party conferences'. I discussed that request with him, and with the honourable Members for Orkney and Shetland and Banff and Buchan, and with their approval I requested Lord Cullen to delay
1704
submitting his report to me until Monday 14th October. It is being published today, together with the Government's response, as a Command Paper. I can also tell the House that the report will be available on the Internet so that there will be access around the world for those who expressed support for the community of Dunblane.
"Madam Speaker, I am also grateful to you for your agreement that I should allow the families of the victims to receive copies of the report and the Government's response ahead of its presentation to Parliament.
"I am enormously grateful to Lord Cullen for the dedicated, prompt and efficient way in which he has carried out the inquiry. I appointed him in the knowledge of the careful way in which he conducted the Piper Alpha inquiry and the rigour and the practicality of his conclusions on that occasion. He approached the present inquiry with sensitivity, courtesy and care. As the inquiry proceeded, he deservedly gained the wide respect of the parties to the inquiry, the media and the general public. He has had to consider the most harrowing of circumstances and to acquaint himself with a number of very complex issues—issues which are of great concern to the people of Dunblane.
"It was right for there to be a full investigation of all the background to the events of that day and of the policy questions raised by them. And it was essential that the House had before it a full analysis and the facts before attempting to reach conclusions about further action.
"I can tell the House that we are going to accept all Lord Cullen's recommendations and in some respects intend to go further. Many of the recommendations relate to firearms legislation for which my right honourable and learned friend the Home Secretary has lead policy responsibility. He will be making a Statement about that immediately after me.
"Lord Cullen's report describes in detail the tragic events of Wednesday, 13th March. The gunman, Thomas Hamilton, entered Dunblane Primary School shortly after 9.30 a.m. and made his way to the gymnasium armed with two 9mm Browning self loading pistols and two 357 Smith and Wesson revolvers, together with 743 rounds of ammunition—all of which he lawfully held and which he legally kept at home together with more than 1,000 further rounds of ammunition. Within three or four minutes he fired 105 rounds with the 9mm Browning, resulting in the deaths of Mrs. Gwen Mayor and 16 children, injuring a further three teaching staff and 14 children. He then used the 357 Smith and Wesson to take his own life.
"Of the headteacher and his staff, the report says that they 'did everything that they possibly could to assist, far beyond what might reasonably have been expected of them.' Lord Cullen also commends the general quality of the work of Central Scotland Police and in particular the individual officers involved. He records the gratitude of the relatives and the school

1705
authorities for the help, support and professionalism of the force. From my own experience that day, and on the days that followed, I reinforce those tributes.
"He is, however, critical of the delay in providing information to victims' families. These criticisms were accepted by the Chief Constable of Central Scotland Police, who himself made a written submission to Lord Cullen identifying procedural inadequacies and suggesting improvements which Lord Cullen has endorsed. The Government will ensure that these issues are discussed with all police forces throughout the United Kingdom.
"An ambulance and a team of doctors and nurses from the local health centre were quickly on the scene. The health service's major incident plan was implemented and a number of expert teams from Stirling and Falkirk Royal Infirmaries went to the school. The report highlights the magnificent way in which all the health teams responded. The victims were taken to Stirling Royal Infirmary and the Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary. The most seriously injured were later transferred to Yorkhill Children's Hospital. The professionalism of all concerned undoubtedly saved lives.
"The report sets out the facts about Thomas Hamilton and his background, and Lord Cullen has considered, with expert advice from a psychologist and psychiatrist, what may have prompted Hamilton's atrocious act. He concludes that 'the violence which he used would not have been predictable.' Members of the House will want to study the report for themselves, but I conclude that this was an act of calculated wickedness.
"Lord Cullen's report considers in great detail the granting and renewal of the firearms licenses which Thomas Hamilton had held since 1977. He points to weaknesses in the system used by Central Scotland Police for the carrying out of enquiries and the making of decisions about firearms applications.
"In particular, the report is critical of the former Deputy Chief Constable of Central Scotland Police, Mr. Douglas McMurdo, who was appointed earlier this year to H.M. Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland. I thought it right, Madam Speaker, that Mr. McMurdo should have sight of the relevant paragraphs in the report and he has today offered his resignation, which I have accepted. He has informed the Scottish Office that he also intends to resign from Central Scotland Police. The House will respect his decision.
"The report makes two recommendations, which I have accepted, concerning improvements in school security. I will be introducing a specific grant to assist authorities to improve the security of school pupils and staff. All authorities will benefit, and I intend that councils should have as much discretion as possible on the measures to be taken. I would expect such measures to be in line with the action plans which Lord Cullen encourages individual schools to draw up. They will add to the measures which the
1706
Government announced in May in response to the recommendations of the working group on school security.
"Two further recommendations which I have accepted concern the vetting and supervising of adults working with children and young people. One concerns the development of a Scottish vocational qualification in respect of work with children, including the organisation of clubs and child development and protection. The other involves accreditation by a national body of clubs and groups involved with young people. This body would ensure that there are adequate checks on the suitability of leaders and workers with unsupervised access to children and young people. I also intend to introduce legislation to allow all youth organisations access to criminal records and to certain other information which does not relate directly to criminal convictions and is held by the police. I appreciate that this may cause concern in some quarters but I believe that the safety and protection of our children must come first.
"The whole country has been struck by the courage and dignity with which the community of Dunblane has worked together in the aftermath of this terrible atrocity. They now look to this House for rapid and united action."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.23 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made by the Secretary of State for Scotland in another place. I also thank the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland for giving some of us the opportunity this morning to read the report of the Honourable Lord Cullen. I found it to be most helpful, although I should stress to the House that we read it in a state of purdah. We were pretty well locked in, so that there should be no premature exposure of the report until it was officially published.
The Minister has again told the House of the dreadful circumstances which occasioned the need for such a report and I too wish again to emphasise, and I make no apology for this, the enormity of the act which shocked all Scotland. In fact, the shock went much further afield. Put shortly—and I am repeating what was said by the Minister and Secretary of State—one man with four handguns and about 750 rounds of ammunition in a maximum time of four minutes killed 16 children and a teacher. A further 14 children and three teachers were injured.
I associate myself and this side of the House very strongly with the tributes paid by the Minister and the Secretary of State to the emergency services, the doctors, the nurses, the police and others, who worked as we have come to expect them to do in such circumstances. When we deal with the Bill which the Government have promised we must not forget this terrible background to our debates.
The Honourable Lord Cullen has produced a report which is commendably penetrating and informed. Some of us may think his conclusions lack bite but, on

1707
reflection, I think he carefully left the tough decisions to Parliament. That is, of course, as it should be because they are difficult decisions. He has given us the facts and pointed us in certain directions; it is for us to find out how we can change the law to make another Dunblane unthinkable.
The Statement made by the Secretary of State deals largely with what may be termed the Scottish responsibilities, but of course the whole of the United Kingdom is ultimately involved. The Home Office Minister and my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey will deal with the problem of gun control. That must be a United Kingdom law: there is no other way of dealing with the matter.
I wish to say a very brief word about the deputy chief constable. It is always regrettable when a senior member of the police finds it necessary to resign from the force. It may well be that further scrutiny of the report will give some indication as to why Mr. McMurdo felt it necessary to take the action he has taken. As the Minister and the Secretary of State have said, he thought it was perhaps the most honourable thing for him to do. However, it is always regrettable when someone has given a lifetime to a career and then decides that he must go.
One of the difficulties shown by the report, to which there are no easy answers—in fact the Minister dealt with this—is the question of school security. It is not easy, without having pupils incarcerated in a Fort Knox look alike, to get real security in a school. Of course we do not want anything like that. Today one thinks of the success in town centres of street videos, which have reduced the incidence of crime. That is one way in which I hope we could use modern techniques. We should be conscious of the fact that, even in town centres, they have not completely eliminated crime. But they have undoubtedly helped.
When we get the Bill we shall have amendments moved in a spirit of co-operation and helpfulness, which we believe is what such a Bill demands. I believe that there should be a free vote in both Houses, although I am fairly sure that the Government will not be willing to go quite that far. I feel there are some matters on which we should take the view of the House and not by any means a party view.
We on this side of the House want a tough and uncompromising Bill dealing with the proliferation of guns, school safety and the rigid vetting of those involved with children at all ages and at all levels. The Secretary of State has promised support in terms of money to implement security in schools and also to increase the staff who will be able to vet and examine the background of people who deal with children. We thank him for that and assure him again that we shall co-operate in every way we can to achieve as much security as possible. All of us in both Houses of Parliament have a heavy responsibility. We will be closely watched by the people of Scotland, who are still haunted by the dreadful spectre of Dunblane.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I too welcome the Secretary of State's Statement. I welcome the report
1708
which I had an opportunity to read this morning in somewhat restricted circumstances. Nevertheless, it is an extremely important report. It was a terrific responsibility on Lord Cullen who had to plumb the depths of human depravity in order to find out why this man acted in such a way and then of course—extremely important—assess how it was that he was able to do so. He had to look at the mechanics of our laws in Scotland and elsewhere to see where we went wrong.
There is no criticism of the police in their handling of the direct situation which was excellent. However, there is criticism of them in relation to the licensing process and it is absolutely essential to put that right. It is obvious that this man had a large collection of guns. He was able to fire off rapidly 107 rounds of ammunition killing 17 people and wounding others. He could do that only because there was enormous slackness in the application of our laws.
The report reveals that the deputy chief constable, who has now resigned, received a strongly—worded report about this man. Such was the complexity of dealing with the man, whom he knew, and the fact that an appeal might well not be successful, he took an easy course. We shall back the recommendations of the report: we are delighted that the Secretary of State is backing them all. The report contains the important recommendation that an appeal against a decision to grant a licence should be only on grounds of new circumstances or questions of fact; it should not question the judgment of the chief constable. That new provision will be absolutely vital in improving the system for the licensing of guns of all sorts.
I join with the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, in approving strongly of the decision to fund the improvement of security in schools. That funding should not only take account of improvements in security—fences, doors and that sort of thing—but also the provision of staff. In small schools in the countryside, a good janitor is of enormous importance. Permanent funding of staff for security purposes, as well as funding for structural matters, will have to be examined by the Secretary of State.
The main recommendation of Lord Cullen is that the licensing process and the holding of guns should be conducted through a system of gun clubs controlling everything to do with the firing of revolvers; locks on guns; the removal of parts; and holding guns in the gun club. The Government have rightly accepted the second recommendation which is a complete ban.
However, the ban is not complete. It is a complete ban on all guns over calibre 22. As we all know, a calibre 22 gun can do damage. Therefore, the 20 per cent. of guns which remain will have to be under the same strict control through gun clubs as was proposed by Lord Cullen for all handguns. Surely the same standards apply to 22 calibre guns as apply to the larger calibres which were used by Hamilton in his appalling act. That is the main snag I find with the admirable attitude and proposals of the Secretary of State with regard to the report.
It is extremely important that we get this matter right in order to restore public confidence. The report goes a long way towards that, as does the Government's

1709
attitude. We shall do all we can to help. I believe, however, that the remaining 20 per cent. of guns pose the same problems as the whole of the gun bulk.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for the sentiments they expressed. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, says that this is an extremely important report. That is an opinion which I commend to all noble Lords.
I am grateful also that both noble Lords have promised their support and co-operation in seeking to bring legislation to the statute book in what we hope will be a very small number of months, possibly this side of Christmas.
Both noble Lords drew attention to the firearms issue which lies at the heart of the incident and the report. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that the enormity of the statistics which attach to both Mr. Hamilton's personal ownership of guns and those which he took to the school are partly the reason that we now have 24 recommendations, from the 28 of Lord Cullen, on firearms alone.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, went on to discuss the remainder of the guns which are not to be banned outright. I remind the House that overall responsibility for firearms legislation rests with the Home Secretary. My noble friend Lady Blatch will shortly be repeating a Statement made by the Home Secretary and will be able to explore further that area with the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, focused rightly on school security and mentioned the progress being made by CCTV in other areas. Lord Cullen points out that it is very important to strike a balance in this area. On the one hand, schools are a vital part of the community. They welcome both parents and children throughout the day and very often welcome other community activities in the evenings, at weekends and holiday times. Therefore, there is a balance to be struck between the fortress and prison, which is one extreme, and completely open-plan style, which is the other. Lord Cullen makes that point in the report. I would commend anyone with an interest in that aspect to read that part of the report.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, mentioned the grounds on which appeals will be possible against a decision by a chief constable in refusing to grant a firearms licence. That is an issue which will go out to consultation. It is also an issue with which my noble friend Lady Blatch will deal in greater detail.
4.38 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I see from a very rapid look at the report that the Scottish Standing Conference of Voluntary Youth Organisations gave evidence to Lord Cullen on the matter of vetting adults involved in work with young people. As a member of the Council of the Guide Association in Scotland, I ask my noble friend whether the views of organisations like the Scouts and Guides, the Boys Brigade, the Girls
1710
Brigade and the cadet forces will be taken into account before any detailed decisions are taken which may involve their way of working.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I can reassure my noble friend Lady Carnegy. There will be full consultation on the proposals for accreditation and vetting.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I did not have the privilege of seeing the report until about half an hour ago and therefore, I cannot comment on the detail. However, I welcome what has been said with regard to achieving a consensus on all sides of the House. In the past few weeks I have been disturbed that newspapers in Scotland, particularly the popular press, and some politicians have started to develop a political campaign arising out of this tragedy. We would be failing the people of Dunblane, and we would be failing our own sense of responsibility, if we were to try in any way to exploit this situation to achieve any advantage of any kind. I hope very much that the assurance given by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that the Opposition will play their full part in being helpful in devising good legislation will be accepted by the Government and that we shall have a real consensus in the development of sensible policies.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, makes a good point. From the start of this chain of events we have placed a high priority on moving forward in consensus and with as much co-operation as possible. Therefore, we similarly regret the excesses of some in recent weeks which have led them to introduce party politics into the Cullen Report and into the consideration of the Dunblane incident. That fails many more people than just those involved. I believe that the people of Dunblane and all those affected in any way by that incident expect the parliamentary response to the report and to the whole incident to show greater co-operation than some have displayed in recent weeks.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I wish to return to the accreditation of voluntary youth and community workers. I may have misheard the noble Earl but I think he said that voluntary youth organisations would have to be accredited rather than individuals. I hope that that is not right because I think it important that anyone taking part in youth and community work should be accredited, irrespective of how they work. Normally adults require great encouragement to become involved in youth work. Therefore I regret, but certainly accept, that accreditation may possibly be regarded as a hurdle. The good side is that not being accredited presumably means that one will not run youth clubs or similar organisations.
I have two further points. First, I believe it will be important to lay stress on the role of people who give references leading to accreditation. Secondly—I regret

1711
this—I believe there will need to be an appeals procedure because some people will no doubt be unhappy at not being accredited.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, the noble Earl raises some important issues on the proposals for accreditation and for vetting. As I said earlier, this is an area where we shall consult all those involved in order to find the best way forward. I should point out to the House that Lord Cullen himself decided against compulsory registration. However, he believes that voluntary accreditation by a national body would be a sensible way forward. What is also recommended, and accepted by the Government, is the need for wider access to information about individuals who may well be employed or involved in those groups and organisations. We very much hope that the consultation process surrounding these two proposals will address the concerns that many will have in this area. For instance, in Scotland alone there are an estimated 80,000 volunteers and 500,000 young people involved in youth activities. That gives one an indication of just how carefully the new proposals for this area must be constructed.

The Cullen Report (Firearms)
4.44 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"Madam Speaker, I join my right honourable friend in paying tribute to the community of Dunblane for their courage and dignity. I also join him in thanking Lord Cullen for the sensitive way in which he has undertaken his difficult inquiry and for the report which he has produced.
"I hope the House will forgive me for the length of the Statement which I am about to make. I am sure the House will understand that it deals with complex and important matters.
"The proposals which I am about to set out will apply to England, Wales and Scotland. My right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is carrying out a review of firearms law in the Province and will be issuing a Statement this afternoon about the possible implications for gun control in Northern Ireland arising from Lord Cullen's report.
"Among all the words which have been written since Dunblane, there is one irrefutable fact. The dreadful crimes committed on 13th March were committed with a gun which was legally bought and legally possessed. Those facts place an onerous duty on the Government to consider what controls there should be on the ownership and possession of guns.
"I agree with Lord Cullen that it is right that we should concentrate on handguns—mentioned at paragraph 9.50—although some of my proposals will
1712
affect all gun owners. Handguns are not used for shooting game and are easily carried and concealed. Many are weapons derived from military or police models or are intended for self-defence—a purpose which is not accepted in Great Britain as a reason for possessing a gun. I agree with Lord Cullen that there are compelling grounds for imposing stringent restrictions on their use and availability.
"Lord Cullen has made 23 recommendations for strengthening the regulatory controls on the ownership and licensing of all guns. We accept them all. The Government's detailed response has been placed in the Library.
"There are seven recommendations for improving the way in which the police handle all applications for firearms certificates. A further eight recommendations deal with the grounds for obtaining a firearms certificate. And there are seven recommendations about the suitability of individuals to hold firearms.
"I would draw particular attention to the following recommendations: in future anyone applying for a firearms certificate should be assessed against a checklist of criteria for suitability; a clear burden should be placed on the applicant to show that he is fit to have a gun; a new power should be created which would enable the police to revoke a certificate where there is no longer a good reason for having a firearm; and the grounds on which an appeal against the refusal of a certificate can be made should be significantly limited. Taken together these 23 recommendations add up to a drastic strengthening of controls on gun ownership.
"In addition to Lord Cullen's proposals there are four further measures which we intend to introduce. First, we will make it a requirement for all handgun shooters to obtain a certificate in order to fire a handgun at a gun club. Secondly, we shall make it an offence to fail to notify the police whenever a firearm or shotgun is sold, transferred, deactivated or destroyed.
"Thirdly, we propose to ban the sales of guns through the post. In future it will be unlawful to transfer a gun from one person to another except in person.
"Fourthly, one of the most shocking and distressing features of the tragic events in Dunblane was the use of expanding ammunition, which is designed to cause the maximum injury. There is no possible justification at all for it to be available for people whose only authority is for target shooting. In future, therefore, it will be illegal to possess expanding ammunition except for the purposes of shooting deer, in accordance with the Deer Act 1991.
"I now turn to the question which I know will be of greatest concern to the House and to the nation—the controls on the ownership of handguns. Lord Cullen confines his suggestions to self loading pistols and revolvers of all calibres. He does not consider that further restrictions are required for single shot handguns, which he would allow to be kept in the home as at present.

1713
"He suggests in paragraph 9.112 that owners of multi-shot guns should be required to disable them when keeping them at home. And he goes on to say in paragraph 9.113 that if, after consideration, these arrangements are found not to be practicable, there should instead be a ban on the possession of multi-shot handguns by individual owners. He envisages that it would still be possible for guns to be kept by a club secretary so that target shooting could continue to be carried on, using guns owned by the club.
"The Government have taken advice from the Forensic Science Service on the practicability of Lord Cullen's suggestions for disabling handguns. Lord Cullen himself recognised that there were considerably practical difficulties in removing key components from handguns. I refer to paragraph 9.86. The Forensic Science Service has confirmed that view. They are also not convinced that a barrel block could be made which someone with sufficient determination and access to metal working tools could not remove. That was Lord Cullen's other suggestion.
"As a result I have come to the conclusion that we cannot recommend this approach to the House.
"I therefore turn to Lord Cullen's alternative suggestion of banning multi-shot handguns from individual ownership. I propose to go considerably further than Lord Cullen has suggested in two respects. First, we will ban all handguns from people's homes. I do not agree with Lord Cullen that it would be safe to allow single shot handguns to remain in the home. I believe that they should be subject to the same controls which we impose on multi-shot handguns.
"Secondly, we will outlaw high calibre handguns of the kind used by Thomas Hamilton. Low calibre handguns—.22 rimfire—will have to be used and kept in licensed clubs. We believe that a distinction does need to be made between high calibre handguns, which are principally made for police and military use, and 22 rimfire handguns which are largely intended for target shooting. Although Lord Cullen decided against making such a distinction, he sets out in his report at paragraph 9.49 a table which demonstrates that a 22 handgun is some four to six times less powerful than higher calibre handguns.
"And at paragraph 9.44 of his report Lord Cullen points out that the expansion of the use of high calibre handguns has even led to many shooters being concerned about the use of those guns as symbols of personal power. In addition, target shooting with 22 handguns is an Olympic sport.
"There will be exceptions for the very few professionals, like vets, who need handguns outside gun clubs for the humane destruction of animals.
"These proposals will mean that at least 160,000 handguns—80 per cent. of those legally held at present—will be destroyed. Appropriate compensation will be paid.
1714
"The clubs in which it will still be possible to use 22 handguns will be subject to the most stringent security standards. We will consult as a matter of urgency with chief constables and other interested parties on the details of these standards, and we shall set them out clearly in guidance. In addition every individual club will need to be approved by the chief constable of the area in which it is situated.
"Handguns would be able to be removed from a club only for strictly limited purposes, which would be specified in law, and under the most stringent controls.
"Few, if any, existing gun clubs will be able to meet these requirements. When the powers become law we will therefore require any owner of a 22 rimfire handgun to hand his gun to the police for safekeeping until he is able to find a licensed club which he can join. We will then provide a period for clubs to improve their security, and to be inspected and licensed. Some handgun clubs may never be able to achieve an adequate level of security. If so they will have to close.
"The Government consider that these are the minimum acceptable conditions for the continuation of handgun shooting in Great Britain.
"Breaches of the conditions for the safekeeping of handguns will be criminal offences. The penalty for possession of a prohibited weapon was increased from seven to 10 years in 1994. Illegal possession of a higher calibre handgun will therefore carry a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. We intend to create a new offence of possession of a 22 rimfire handgun outside club premises. The maximum penalty will also be 10 years.
"The package of measures I have announced today will give this country some of the toughest gun control laws in the world. We will ban all handguns from the home. We will outlaw completely higher calibre handguns such as those owned by Thomas Hamilton. We will require 22 rimfire handguns to be kept in gun clubs under conditions of the most stringent security. And we will drastically strengthen the rules under which firearms certificates are granted. These proposals will lead to the destruction of 160,000 handguns: 80 per cent. of those legally held today.
"I believe that the priority for Parliament should be to put these measures on the statute book at the earliest possible moment. So I intend this month to publish a Bill giving effect to them. I urge the parties opposite to support that Bill. If they do I am confident that it could have Royal Assent by Christmas. The country expects nothing less".
My Lords, that concludes the text of the Statement.
4.58 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating that necessarily lengthy Statement. I start by echoing the tributes which the Home Secretary and the Minister paid, first, to the people of Dunblane for their courage and dignity in adversity, and, secondly, to Lord Cullen for a well thought out and well argued report. We agree

1715
with a great deal of the analysis of the report as far as concerns the control of handguns. Like the Government, we disagree with the conclusions that Lord Cullen draws from his own analysis. We believe that the analysis leads to tougher controls, as the Government recognised in the Statement to which we have just listened.
It is an irony that the proposals which the Home Secretary announced today are very close to the evidence which Jack Straw and George Robertson put to the Cullen inquiry this summer on behalf of the Labour Party. They said that there should be a total ban on handguns, with the possible exception of 22 rimfire handguns. Is it not the case that events, and the analysis of the Cullen Report, have overtaken both the position of the Labour Party last summer and of the Government now? Does not the Cullen Report state that an exception for single shot 22 handguns—there are over 40,000 in this country—would be impracticable because of the possibility of their being reconverted to more deadly use? Therefore if we follow the argument of the analysis of Lord Cullen rather than his conclusions, are we not drawn to a conclusion that there should be a total ban on handguns?
I do not wish to overemphasise the difference between us on this matter. I agree with what Mr. Jack Straw said in response to the Statement this afternoon: we can welcome almost everything in this Statement. When we examine in detail the Government's recommendations, we can see that they go very close—it is far closer than the House of Commons Select Committee on Home Affairs would have wished—to a total ban on handguns. The restrictions which will be required, first, in banning lower calibre handguns from homes, and, secondly, as regards the security arrangements which will be necessary in gun clubs, mean that a large number of those 40,000 guns which will not be immediately destroyed will be unable to be used. The conditions which the Government propose in their printed response are so severe that they include, for example, a specific permit from the police every time a gun is removed from a licensed club. The problems of enforcement of such a partial ban will be great.
I can confirm that my party will give every support to the kind of legislation which the Government propose. However, as I have indicated, we disagree about 1 to 5 per cent. of the subject matter of the proposed legislation. We shall seek to make amendments to it, but it will not be at the expense of the passage of the essential legislation through this House.
In order to ensure that we have speedy legislation which achieves the bipartisan consensus which we all want, first, I ask the Minister to convey to the usual channels my party's view that there should be alternative clauses. That would allow for the possibility of a complete ban on hand guns produced by the Government rather than it being brought up by anyone else in Opposition. Secondly, we on this side expect there to be a free vote on the matter. We ask the Government to make the same facility available to their supporters. If that is the case and the result is that there can be cross-party, universal agreement in the House on
1716
almost all the recommendations which the Government put forward, I believe that we can move speedily to a satisfactory solution.
As Lord Cullen said, it is for Parliament to decide. We failed to take the necessary action after Hungerford; we cannot afford to do the same after Dunblane.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I welcome the Statement almost without reservation. The country was in a deeply despairing mood after the events at Dunblane. Lord Cullen's report and the Government's response are in line with public opinion. I believe that there is now a clear and established public view that the public interest rather than the interests of the shooting community must now be our central responsibility.
I wish to raise a number of detailed points with the noble Baroness. I welcome what she said on compensation and would be grateful to be told what sum the Government estimate will be the cost of implementing their proposals.
There are two important issues which deserve a response. The first is the right of appeal by owners of firearms to the Crown Court. I am sure that the Government are aware of the increasing concern about the issue in the police service over many years. The problem is that in the appeal the onus is on the chief constable to prove why the person asking for the firearms certificate should not have it. I note what the Government's Statement said about that and I heard the noble Baroness's colleague at the Scottish Office say a few moments ago that the matter was going out to consultation. I am not clear what the timescale is. The noble Baroness indicated that the Home Secretary expected the Bill to be on the statute book by Christmas. If that is so, the period of consultation will be pretty abbreviated. Perhaps the Minister could tell us something about that.
Secondly, there is the question of hand guns of 22 calibre. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that here we are going close to total prohibition. That is the reality because the Government have made it clear that there must be stringent security in gun clubs if the 22 weapons are to be held there. As is recognised, very few clubs will probably meet those conditions. It is a matter of considerable importance which I suspect will be raised during the course of debates in this House, if not in the other place.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is with us because my only other point is this. We will support the general principles contained in what the Government said today. Their policy statement meets with our approval. However, we will certainly want to discuss the legislation in detail which means that we must have adequate time to consider it. We could all think of other examples of legislation which we have been encouraged to pass in an abbreviated timescale; and yet, within a relatively few months major issues have arisen which indicate that if Parliament had done its job more satisfactorily some of the problems flowing from the legislation would not have arisen. Therefore, I repeat in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord

1717
Strathclyde, that we expect adequate time to discuss the legislation in this House. Subject to that, we will support the general principles behind the Government's Statement.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for the spirit in which they made their comments and the degree to which they have agreed with the Government on the issue. I accept the tributes which are now on record which both speakers paid to all concerned in this tragic affair.
The first point is about our analysis being overtaken by events. That is right, and it was right to have the benefit of the report to set out the scene in such detail, as well as all the points for consideration. There are a large number of clear-cut, unequivocal recommendations and clear guidance pointing us to the few suggestions made by Lord Cullen for consideration. We shall devote our energies to them.
Perhaps I may paraphrase the main question posed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh: why not go for a complete ban? It is difficult. We believe that it is possible to give the public the protection they deserve and require without the complete prohibition of hand guns. That is possible and I believe we have a duty to do it. Perhaps we may consider the record of absolute prohibition. It usually drives the activity underground where there are no safeguards. We believe that the public are better protected if the activity can be seen to be, and is, protected under our proposals by regulatory conditions. No doubt that will be discussed at greater length.
I shall, of course, convey the messages that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, asked me to convey to the usual channels. He knows that we have had a meeting today and those points were put at the meeting and are now on the record.
On alternative clauses, perhaps I may give a personal, off-the-cuff reaction. The way in which this Chamber and the other place deal with alternative views to any legislation is by amendment. If we go down the road of alternative clauses, many people may have ideas about what the alternative clauses should be. With a Bill which we have promised will be brought before the House very soon, perhaps the way to deal with the legislation is by considering amendments. The most desirable outcome for the Bill would be to have no vote at all. On the matter of a free vote, I undertake to press that point. My right honourable friend in another place has undertaken to discuss the matter with the usual channels.
In reply to the first point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, relating to right of appeal to the Crown Court, there will be consultation. The detail of how the legislation will work will flow from the Bill and there has to be consultation. The noble Lord made a pertinent point regarding making legislation in haste and perhaps getting it wrong. It may therefore be right that the detail that flows from the Bill and how it will work in practice is better discussed with those who will have to implement it; namely, chief constables and police forces on both sides of the Border.
1718
I re-emphasise a point I made to which the noble Lord referred; namely, that we are shifting the burden onto the applicant. It is very important that an applicant should prove that he or she is a suitable person and that that onerous judgment is not left to chief constables.
The noble Lord raised the point about 22 calibre hand guns. Again, there will be a great deal more discussion of the details. I do not want to use this opportunity to go into them. We believe that at this stage there is a very good argument for considering protecting legitimate sporting activity using the hand guns which we have said will be permitted under the control of gun clubs.
Another point related to the security of gun clubs. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, suggested that in effect that means a total ban. We do not know that. We know that it will mean some 40,000 legitimately held guns. We know that some gun clubs will not be able to meet the criteria, and others will make a great deal of effort to meet the criteria. New gun clubs may well be established consistent with the criteria. We simply do not know that at the moment. This is a long-established sport; it has been going for well over 100 years at Olympics level. That is a consideration in our proposals.
Finally, regarding the amount to be paid in compensation, we will announce our proposals for a compensation scheme as soon as possible.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I warmly welcome the Government's proposals. I suggest that the Government announce an amnesty for the handing in as soon as possible of all firearms at present illegally held and an offer to those who hold hand guns or automatic weapons for which they are at present licensed. I suggest that they should be encouraged to hand them in to the police as soon as possible.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his comments. I will take his suggestion away and it will form part of the discussions that will take place between now and the passing of the Bill.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I ask the noble Baroness to reflect on the problem of mobility. It is likely that one of the weaknesses in the Government's proposals relates to the issue of booking guns out for competition purposes. If there is a weakness whereby someone can book out a gun under some degree of supervision for a competition, surely there is a danger that that opens a door for someone to book the weapon out spuriously for some ulterior motive. I ask the Minister to reflect deeply on that as a possible weakness in the proposals.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not sure I accept it as a weakness. However, that is an extremely good point and will have to be thought through very carefully. We do not want a system whereby there will be a great deal of movement of individual guns in and out of gun clubs. We have to create a framework whereby the number of movements of guns will be relatively limited. Guns will of course need to be moved out for repair.

1719
Even someone legitimately purchasing a gun will have to make secure arrangements for receiving the gun from an authorised dealer and for that gun then to be transported to a gun club. These are important points. I suspect that the forthcoming legislation will allow the sport to continue but without the to-ing and fro-ing that would invalidate the effectiveness of the policy that we want to put in place for sensible reasons.
I return to a question put by my noble friend Lord Renton which I did not answer. My noble friend suggested an amnesty. He will know that there was a recent amnesty. In June, nearly 23,000 weapons were handed in. The Government will consider the need for a further amnesty and will make an announcement in due course.
The Earl of Bathurst: My Lords, I, too, warmly welcome all the measures described by the Minister. However, will she consult with her right honourable friend about the difficulties that are certain to arise in regard to humane killers? A humane killer, which is effective and necessary for certain people, will almost certainly qualify as a hand gun. I refer to hunt servants, gamekeepers who need to shoot deer, and vets. The legislation could present a very severe problem. I hope the noble Baroness and her right honourable friend will look to that point in the Bill that will come before us.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I give my noble friend an assurance that the point will be given very serious consideration. He will have noticed that I made reference to a category of person who would be included; namely, somebody licensed to carry out humane killing.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, most of the points in the Statement will end in legislation. We must await that and discussion will then take place. I wish to raise one issue which does not require legislation. It is mentioned in section 25 of the Government's response on recommendations relating to school security. It states that:
"Those who have the legal responsibility for the health and safety of the teaching staff and pupils … should prepare a safety strategy…the Government will continue to take every opportunity to reinforce the importance of reviewing security and safety in this manner".
Who will do that? Most local education authorities have no expertise at all in this field. Is it a matter of consulting the local police force? Will local police be geared to giving advice to individual schools? This does not require legislation but it requires swift action. What have the Government in mind?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend referred to school security in his Statement for Scotland and I shall not tread on his territory. At this moment there is a great deal of activity on the issue of security in schools. In the recent round of bidding for CCTV, money was specifically set aside and ring—fenced to help certain schools install CCTV as part of their security measures. As the noble Lord will know, every school is different. The requirements for security arrangements are also different. A great deal of guidance comes from
1720
the Department for Education and Employment. There is a great deal of discussion with school governors and with schools themselves. The local authorities are involved in those discussions. I do not believe that there has been more positive action and concern in relation to making our schools as secure as possible. The Dunblane incident is not the only recent incident. There have been some tragic incidents in our English schools. I am the sponsor Minister for Teesside. It is not so long ago that a man ran amok with a knife in a school in Middlesbrough. The matter is very close to the heart of the Government. We will continue to pursue security in our schools.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, my noble friend may remember that between December 1995 and February 1996, through a series of Written Questions, I exposed, and in correspondence with her I discussed, what I saw as the uneven, inadequate and indeed shambolic administration of the present firearm and shotgun certificate arrangements.
In particular, I proposed that one of the things needed was a national computer-held register of all those who hold either firearms or shotguns through certificates. I note that Lord Cullen in his Recommendation No. 7 goes very much in that direction. I note also that in response to that recommendation the Government use the word "support" rather than "accept". Recognising, as I am afraid I do, that in the past the Home Office has tended to be a somewhat constipated department so far as actually getting things changed is concerned, I hope that my noble friend will be able to assure me that there will be a proper, central computer-held register of individuals who hold all these weapons so that police forces can exchange information and we can be sure that unsuitable people do not hold them.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend reminds me of the correspondence that went between himself and my department and I am acutely aware of that particular point. He will also know that Lord Cullen addressed himself to many criticisms consistent with the ones made by my noble friend. Therefore, we give a positive commitment to addressing all those concerns. We more than support it; we shall be implementing it. Where we believe it is important to consult first, we shall do so.
On the point of using the computer, I genuinely believe that the technology is now in place to arrive at a registration scheme such as the one mentioned by my noble friend. I can assure him that that will be part of our discussions about this issue.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement and declare an interest as a responsible gun owner. The Government suggest that they propose only a minor toughening up of Lord Cullen's recommendations on the private possession of pistols. Unfortunately, that is not so at all. The toughening up of Lord Cullen's proposals that they propose is extremely draconian and stands to deprive perhaps 150,000 law abiding and respectable citizens of their cherished pistols, many of which are of historical interest.

1721
The Government argue on page 6 of their response that these requirements are necessary to protect the public, without advancing any solid evidence for that claim. Let us remember that effective semi-automatic pistols of various calibres have been available for at least 125 years and until 1920 pistols could be bought by anybody without any licence at all. Yet, this is the first time—thank God!—that such a terrible event of such magnitude has occurred.
If the extensive yet less draconian changes recommended by Lord Cullen were adopted, there is no reason to suppose that a similar atrocity would occur for at least a further 225 years, if not longer. What would happen, after all, if 16 elderly and disabled people were murdered by a maniac armed with a pair of legally held shotguns, as is theoretically quite possible? Would the Government not then feel obliged by the logic of their present argument to ban all shotguns?
One paradox is that over the past five years almost certainly more people have been killed by decorative bull bars on the front of vehicles than have been killed by legally held pistols. Yet the Government have resolutely set their face against banning bull bars.
Yes, there is a great deal to welcome in the proposals, not least the banning of expanding ammunition and obtaining guns and ammunition by mail order. But I suggest the Government are going too far and it would have been better if they had stuck to the carefully thought out recommendations made by Lord Cullen.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord puts his personal point of view very strongly. One of the difficult aspects of being in government is doing what one believes is right. When all things have been considered, a judgment has to be made. I believe that the right judgment has been made. But, at the end of the day, it will be for Parliament to decide. I have no doubt that the points made by the noble Lord and others will be discussed during the passage of the Bill through Parliament.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I may put a final question to the noble Baroness on consultation about the appeals procedure. She said that it is manifestly right to have consultation, and I agree with her. I should be grateful if she would write to me—I do not press for a response now—and tell me when the consultation period ends so far as that very important provision in the Government's proposals is concerned.
Baroness Blatch: Yes, my Lords.

Asylum Applications: Designated Countries
5.25 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Rea: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I oppose the order that we are debating. But,
1722
like him, I believe that the designation of any country as "in general" presenting "no serious risk of persecution" is an unsafe basis for policy on granting asylum. I suggest that it is likely to lead to unjust decisions.
At the Committee Stage of the Asylum Bill we spent some time taking to pieces the meaning of the words "in general". To summarise, the danger is that in so doing—I shall use the words—"the particular" will be missed. The fast-track appeal procedure will tend to bypass cases of any legal complexity where, for instance, it takes time to assemble evidence. Moreover, in just those countries where the observation of human rights is improving "in general"—I use the Government's words—the nature of harassment or persecution is likely to be most insidious and need the most careful consideration. As Alex Carlile said yesterday in another place, the fact that an asylum seeker has to argue against a "rebuttable presumption" that his claim is false constitutes a loading of the scales of justice against him.
Of the countries listed in paragraph 2 of the order, Ghana is the only one of which I have first-hand knowledge. I have great respect and affection for Ghanaians as a national group. They have provided some distinguished international civil servants and—generalising, of course—I feel that they have greater integrity than the citizens of some West African countries that I could name. Ghana was the first African country to gain independence in 1957 but democracy has been hard to achieve or maintain, as in other newly independent nations. President Rawlings seized power in a military coup in 1981 and become president after elections in 1992 which were given a qualified bill of health by some international organisations but strongly criticised by opposition parties in Ghana as fraudulent and rigged. The opposition subsequently boycotted parliamentary elections, leading to a virtual one-party state. The Ghanaian constitution calls for normal human rights to be respected. There is an independent judiciary and political parties are legal. There is also a Commission for Human Rights and Justice, but it is a government sponsored body which has not been known to criticise government policy, only individual cases of alleged corruption.
The president's rule seems externally to be basically benign, except when serious opposition is expected and then he can become very unpleasant. At the Committee Stage of the Asylum Bill on 23rd April this year the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, described two incidents in which Rawlings acted in a violent and foul-mouthed manner in front of others. In particular, at a Cabinet meeting last December he physically attacked and threw to the ground his vice-president, Mr. H. E. Kow Arkaah, a man 20 years his senior and a distinguished senior politician in Ghana. That gives a flavour of the strong-arm tactics used by the regime.
There have been several incidents in the past two years when demonstrations have been broken up violently with loss of life. Much publicity has been given to granting amnesties to former opponents of the regime over the past few years and it is probably true that there are now few convicted political prisoners in Ghana. On the other hand, there are prisoners in

1723
detention "while evidence is being collected". That is true, for instance, in the case of Alex Ofei—who, incidentally, is a British citizen—and five others, arrested on return from Britain where they had been students. They are accused of plotting to overthrow the government and have been held virtually incommunicado for more than two years. That is illegal under Ghana's constitution, which requires that if a detainee is not charged within a reasonable time he should be released unconditionally or at least subject to appropriate restrictions.
A letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, smuggled out of prison from John Kwado Owusu Boakye, one of those still held in detention says:
"for 25 months in detention without trial is really the most damnable situation any human being can bear".
He also points out that his wife and child (now in Britain) have not been granted asylum and fears for their safety if they have to return to Ghana.
Time does not allow me to describe the many other examples of which I am aware that testify to the far from perfect human rights situation in Ghana. For instance, there is interference with press freedom; three journalists were arrested earlier this year for publishing material which was;
"prejudicial to the interests of the state".
In the inter-tribal fighting in northern Ghana two to three years ago very large numbers of people—possibly up to 20,000—mere killed and there are 113,000 refugees from Ghana in neighbouring countries, according to the UN High Commission for Refugees. If there is
"no serious risk of persecution"
why do they not return home? I can provide accounts of those and other episodes testifying to the doubtful nature of the regime and its adherence to the International Convention of Human Rights.
The country report from the Home Office justifying the inclusion of Ghana in the order is complacent and over-optimistic about the real state of political freedom and protection of human rights in Ghana. For example, it is premature to state that the government:
"abides by the constitution or that ordinary Ghanaians enjoy freedom of speech and political assembly".
The evidence that I have described—as I have said, there is much more—suggests that the Government would do well to look again at the inclusion of Ghana in the order. But the best solution would be to drop the order altogether.
As a postscript I should say that I do not deny that many asylum seekers are driven to seek residence in countries of the north by poverty as well as political persecution. In the case of Ghana and some other African counties, poverty has increased as a result of the structural adjustment programmes of the IMF and the World Bank. If poverty increases, so does civil unrest. In response to that an authoritarian government—as we have seen, though Ghana is ostensibly a democracy, President Rawlings is a very authoritarian character—especially one that is insecure, responds by cracking down heavily on dissidents. That is one reason why, in
1724
the past decade, we have seen a large rise in the numbers of asylum seekers not only from Ghana but also from other countries in Africa.
The long-term answer to the increased pressure of asylum seekers is not to clamp down on those seeking asylum but to improve the terms of trade and lift the debt burden of the poorest nations from which the greatest pressure comes. But I agree that that is another story.
5.33 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I do not have the advantage of having been to Ghana and therefore cannot answer the points made by the noble Lord in relation to its inclusion in the order. However, he made one point which rather played into the hands of the Government when he said that there is much poverty in Ghana. Bearing in mind the vast amount of poverty that exists throughout the world, the Government have had to be careful that we do not find people coming to Britain simply as economic migrants. Perhaps on reflection the noble Lord may feel that he did not strengthen his argument by making that point.
In opening the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, suggested that the principle of designation and therefore of the order was unlawful. But there is nothing new in it. Section 1 of the 1996 Act, which we dealt with in the summer, replaces Schedule 2, paragraph 5 of the 1993 Act and there has never been any suggestion that the idea of designation is contrary to our international obligations.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. The suggestion was made in our debates in Committee at some length. Whether it is accepted is a matter for debate.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I shall not argue that point further with the noble Earl. I am prepared that the record should be allowed to stand. But there is nothing new about designation and it was practised before it became law. I say that from experience of long ago when I was responsible for immigration under the Home Secretary.
Designation is surely a compliment to the countries which we designate. It means that the United Kingdom Government and Parliament consider that there is no serious general risk of persecution in the countries chosen. In any event, in each case an asylum seeker from any of those countries will have his case considered on its merits, quite apart from the background of conditions pertaining in the country from which he came. Where a claim is well established by proving a genuine fear of persecution, asylum will be granted.
Of the seven countries mentioned in the order, I have been only to Cyprus and India. I was in the Greek southern part of Cyprus in February, though I visited the border between the north and the south in the Troodos Mountains. I found that the Greek Cypriots were kind and tolerant people, except towards the Turks. The Greeks and the Turks in Cyprus have been in a state of antipathy for centuries. But that antipathy has been dealt

1725
with satisfactorily by partition. Partition is not something which we welcome, but it provided a solution in Cyprus. It enables the people of Cyprus to live in greater peace than they have enjoyed for a long time. The Government of this country were responsible for achieving that.
I have travelled widely in India. In spite of the ancient tribal and religious conflicts that exist, which our long occupation of the country reduced—and it also gave them a common language which they had never had before—there is now freedom of movement and freedom of religious practice, except in Kashmir and to some extent in the Punjab. I have met Sikhs in various parts of India who seem to have got on all right, and indeed some regiments of the Indian Army contain Hindus, Sikhs and Moslems all serving together.
It is fully justified that we should include India in the order. The word "general" to which I referred earlier is necessary in the case of India because in Kashmir, for example, there is a great deal of conflict, some suppression and no doubt some persecution. But in our heavily populated country we cannot absorb every dissident group from throughout the world; it simply cannot be done. There are many countries where part of the population is under threat and there are hundreds of thousands of people in those groups throughout the world.
We have our own social problems—housing, unemployment, education and hospital waiting lists. Goodness me, Members on both sides of your Lordships' House ask Questions about those matters every week. We have juvenile crime. We even have some terrorism. For us just to have an open door and a very tolerant attitude towards the absorption of all people who are unhappy in their own countries would merely increase our own social problems and add, incidentally, to the burden on the taxpayer. The taxpayer has a heavy burden in administering our asylum law because we try to be so tolerant. Those noble Lords who oppose the order have perhaps overlooked the factors I have mentioned.
I do not want to say very much more, but I would just like to refer to the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, for whom I have such an immense regard. He was a vicar in my former constituency, and a much loved and respected one. I have never doubted the sincerity of his opinions. However, referring to Pakistan, he said that there are groups there who believe themselves to be under threat. That cannot be a reason for us to admit a large number of such people. The groups are fairly big and in any event Pakistan is in a different state from India. We know that the Moslem fundamentalists are determined not only to oppose people who are not Moslems but to oppose some Moslems as well. There may be victims of such determination, but is that really a reason for us to increase our own social problems by having large numbers of them here?
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I thank him for his expression of appreciation. I remember well my
1726
time as archdeacon in Huntingdon. I wish to take issue with him. It seems to me that the question is not whether we admit large numbers of people who feel themselves to be under threat but rather whether we have proper determination procedures which are not made weaker by the designation of certain countries. I was trying to argue that there is a strong case for not weakening the determination procedures—not that all would be admitted but that all would have their case given proper consideration.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for what he has just said because to some extent it modifies what he said in his speech. I accept what he says. We should be grateful to him for that clarification and modification of what he was proposing.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the Government over this matter. I hope that if by some mischance it should come to a Division the Government will carry the day.
5.43 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, nobody can doubt the sincerity and commitment of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to the cause of collective and individual human rights. It is true to say that I have broad concerns with procedural delays. I have expressed these on more than one occasion. The Minister has responded in writing explaining that my solutions would require primary legislation. I accept that and thank her. I am satisfied that there is no clash with the instrument before us today.
Certain it is that I, like any other fair-minded person, abhor human rights abuses. We have been given examples by previous speakers. For example, India, about which the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, spoke, is listed. Everybody is aware of the difficulties in Kashmir. It has to be said that the border dispute, exacerbated by predominantly religious differences, bears a resemblance to our own situation in Northern Ireland. IRA members seek asylum elsewhere in much the same way as Kashmiris from the Valley. I recognise the sensitivity of the comparison, but it serves to illustrate the complexities.
It will also satisfy the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that both President Clinton and our Foreign Secretary on a recent trip to Islamabad have both said that they will turn their attention to Kashmir. I think that this House could usefully encourage the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Edinburgh to place this on the agenda.
I wish to leave a thought with the right reverend Prelate about MQM, about which he laboured. He might be concerned that MQM is spearheading its campaign from within the United Kingdom, using this country as a safe haven. Leading on from that, I have a question for the Minister. When might we find in place an extradition treaty with Pakistan?
It is not as though we are saying to asylum seekers from the countries on the designated list, "Sorry, full house". The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, was clear

1727
on this point. We are saying, "Come with a genuine case and your application will be approved". We have, and will continue to have, the mechanism in place to process genuine applications. The Government could have gone further—by compiling a list in reverse of purely undesirable countries and so by extension placing all others on this designated list.
I believe that there comes a point when decisions have to be made on balance and in the national interest. This is one of those occasions. I believe that the noble Lord and his supporters have misjudged the mood of the country at large, and certainly of the majority of both Houses of Parliament. The measures introduced in the Act are right and I suggest that the affirmative order before us today is an essential component of that Act. I am additionally satisfied with the pronouncement of the Minister of State in last night's debate on the order in another place when she told the House:
"We have taken into account not only detailed information and deliberation by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but a range of information from other bodies such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and Amnesty International".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/10/96; cols. 692–3.]
Frankly, if people want to do something useful, they could do a lot worse than attempting to halt the hordes of applicants who come for purely economic gain. A number of our European partners have wrestled with the asylum question. They have gone down much the same road as this Government. The United States is the next country that will be doing so.
Finally, I have no quarrel with the additional list of safe third countries and see this as a natural progression.
I support the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on many occasions. This is not one of them. I recommend that his Motion be rejected.
5.48 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I hope I may begin by saying something which is not contentious. I should like, not for the first time, to congratulate the noble Baroness the Minister on her stamina. By the time we get to the end of today she may feel that she has completed the marathon over hurdles. I admire the patience and the determination with which she does it.
I was a little surprised though by the surprise of the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, that the debate is taking place. I agree that the House approved the conferring of certain powers in the course of discussing Clause 1 of the Bill, but it is normal that when the House approves the conferring of powers it does not automatically approve the particular exercise of those powers. Those of us who remember the Football Spectators Act 1989 remember that it is perfectly possible to confer powers on a government who nevertheless choose not to use them. Therefore, when the Government choose to use a power, it is perfectly proper for this House to scrutinise how those powers are being exercised.
There is a temptation in a debate like this (which I hope may be resisted on both sides) to make out that the countries concerned are either all black or all white. No country is like that. When it comes to human rights, all countries are lighter or darker shades of grey. A country
1728
with a perfect human rights record, if I may borrow James Bond's image, like a white crow or a pure geisha is unknown. A country with an entirely evil human rights record would be a country with no surviving population.
The question then is on which side this fact should tell. I think that it should tell on our side. It is a question of the burden of proof. Persecution is just as hard to bear if one is the only person subject to it as it is if one is in the company of many thousands. I do not agree with the adjudication which refused an applicant from Croatia on the ground that many other people were in the same position.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for giving way. Perhaps I should say that I am not merely engaging in tit for tat. The noble Earl mentioned the burden of proof in relation to persecution, but he must surely realise that the burden of proof has to lie upon the person who would have the knowledge. We cannot expect our immigration officers to have knowledge of all the kinds of persecution that take place around the world. That must always be for the asylum seeker to prove in relation to his own country.
Earl Russell: My Lords, we happen to be discussing this in the presence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich, who is the author of the leading judgment on the burden of proof in this matter. I refer to the judgment in the case of Sivakumaran in the Appellate Committee of this House in 1993. That ruled that the burden of proof had to be to a reasonable degree of likelihood. Subject to the correction of the noble and learned Lord, I understand that to be the present basis of the law. It raises a misgiving which has been expressed about the words "serious risk of persecution" which appear in the Bill. The fear has been expressed that that introduces a more stringent standard of proof. I do not have the learning to judge whether that is so, but I would welcome the reflections of both the Minister and the noble and learned Lord on that point, which seems to me to be worth considerable thought.
Lord Bridge of Harwich: My Lords, I am afraid that I must apologise to the House because I do not remember what I said. I do not remember what the case was about and I have no thoughts at the moment as to what the appropriate burden would be.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I beg the noble and learned Lord's pardon, but since he has given the leading judgment I thought it only proper to quote it. I was not expecting an instant judgment from the noble and learned Lord without having heard counsel. I realise that I could do no such thing with any propriety. I apologise if I appear to be doing otherwise.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, also suggested that this was not a matter of more stringent burden of

1729
proof or of greater likelihood of refusal, but simply of speed. I am not quite certain whether that stands up. The Home Office's explanatory notes on Section 1 of the Act state:
"Asylum caseworkers and adjudicators will be able to take account of the fact that the country has been designated … when considering claims regarding the general level of persecution in the designated country".
That appears to me to say that claims of persecution from such countries risk being found less credible than claims from other countries, in which case that will affect the chances of individual applicants and the scrutiny will not be of exactly the same standard as for other countries. I shall, of course, defer to the Minister on the exact meaning of those words and I await her reply with a great deal of interest.
My noble friend Lord Avebury and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, raised the question of legality. The potential conflict is with Article 3 of the UN convention which states that claims should be considered without respect to national origin. The Minister attempts to reject that on the ground that the word "refugee" in the convention applies only from the time the claim is recognised. The custodian of that convention is not the British Government; it is the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. The handbook is quite explicit that the word "refugee" applies under the convention from the moment the claim is made. My noble friend quoted the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, in the Khaboka case to the same effect. I must remind the Government that they are not the final and ultimate authority on the meaning of Acts of Parliament. That authority rests with the courts, which have, on the whole, tended to find against the Government.
I should like to refer briefly to Regulation 3 which extends the designation procedure to safe third countries under Sections 2 and 3 of the Act. I have some misgivings about Switzerland in this context. The Minister will know—at least, she should know because we have often told her so—that the question is not whether the country concerned is absolutely safe, but whether it is safe for the particular applicant and whether the applicant may gain access to the processes. Switzerland has a rule of law that you cannot gain access to the process if you spent 20 days in another country. I have here a Home Office adjudication—I shall give the Minister the reference if she would like it—which ruled that Switzerland was not a safe country to which to return people.
As with the United States, curious things sometimes happen with regard to immigration procedures. My mother once attempted to gain entry to the United States and was asked to sign a document saying that she did not believe that resistance to authorised government was justified under any circumstances whatsoever. She read it carefully and wrote, "I agree with this. I think that the United States should still be subject to the British Crown". It took all my father's diplomatic skill to get her into the country. The United States is a chancy country on occasion.
1730
I should like to concentrate today on Romania. I do not claim any first-hand knowledge, but I hope that I am as capable as any other person of reading evidence from a multiplicity of sources. I wonder whether the Home Office is the appropriate authority to form assessments of the state of human rights in foreign countries. I should have thought that the Foreign Office would be a great deal more qualified to do that—and there can be a difference.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, the Minister of State in another place made it quite clear that she had taken the view of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office into account when preparing the Home Office assessments.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Viscount brings me directly to my next quotation which happens to be from the Independent of the day before yesterday. It deals with the case of the Ahmadis to whom the right reverend Prelate referred. The Foreign Secretary, writing to the Minister without portfolio on behalf of a constituent, said:
"Radical sectarian groups and individuals have carried out attacks against Ahmadis. In some cases there are credible reports that the local authorities have given tacit support to those actions.
We, and our EU partners, have expressed concern to the government of Pakistan about the treatment of minorities and blasphemy laws".
Compare that with the assessment of that country by the Home Office which states:
"Ahmadis are recognised as a minority religious group and rights are safeguarded under the constitution".
Again, there is a remarkable Home Office willingness to believe that what is said in a constitution is necessarily what is done. If the Home Office has taken account of representations from the Foreign Office I am not convinced that it has done so accurately.
In the case of Romania, the Home Office states that that country has been profoundly transformed and has turned into a democracy in which basic human rights are respected. I do not wish to attack Romania as a country. That country is making great efforts. I remind the House of what I said about shades of grey. I believe that it is never that simple. First, it takes a long time to remove from power all of the people who served the previous regime. That is true in all cases. Secondly, it takes a long time to learn the constitutional habits of thought of a free country. Thirdly, it takes a long time to learn the basic habits of thought necessary to have a police force who practise the rule of law.
I take one sentence from the assessment by the Home Office:
"the independent media continue to criticise governmental and political leaders freely and openly, although several journalists have been tried and sentenced to fines or prison terms for slander".
I do not believe that is quite what the British press means by a free press. Article 239.1 of the Romanian Penal Code provides:
"Insult, libel, slander or threats made directly or by direct means of communication against a functionary whose duties involve the exercise of state authority, and who is performing his duties, or such insults made with regard to acts accomplished during the performance of his duties are punishable by three months' to two years' imprisonment".

1731
If anything like that were in force here, would there be any noble Lord in this House, in one Parliament or another or in one government or another, who might not risk breaking it? There might be some but I believe that they would be very few in number. That is not a law that is easily reconciled with a free country.
Let us consider further freedom of the press and the case of Nicolae Andrei, who was told by the prosecutor that he had been found to be a confirmed oaf who lacked journalist training and experience and therefore was not familiar with the types of expression that could be used in criticising certain aspects of the lives and activities of state leaders. I am sure that Ministers of all parties in this country have often wanted to say that to journalists but, thank God, they cannot do it from a prosecutor's chair.
Under Article 200 of the penal code homosexuals are liable to imprisonment. Although I am aware that there may be those among your Lordships who are less distressed by that than I am, that is precisely why such people need protection. It is not those who are universally popular whose human rights need to be protected.
Finally, I touch on the treatment of the Roma. Amnesty International views the abuse of the Roma as a nationwide pattern. I see no reason to disagree with it; nor do I see any reason to disbelieve its evidence that Roma houses have been burned and Roma have been assaulted so savagely that one preferred to stay and burn to death in a burning house than go out and face the crowd, while the police looked on and did nothing. The Minister may say that these are occasional cases. There are a number of occasions. Abuses happen in the best regulated countries. Where they occur there may be genuine refugees. Where there are genuine refugees, we are bound by law, British and international, to give their claims proper examination. I am not certain that that is compatible with these regulations.
6.4 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in proposing this order the Government have always said that three criteria apply to the designation of a country, in what we shall not call the white list, for the purposes of asylum legislation. The first criterion is that in general there should be no serious risk of persecution in that country. The second criterion is that there should be a significant number of claims from that country. The third criterion is that there should be a high proportion of those claims which are refused.
It is no good attempting to deal with the problems raised by the phrase "in general no serious risk of persecution". We recognise that the phrase has been designed in Europe and simply adopted by the Government for the purposes of UK legislation. There is no greater chance of changing it than there is chance (or threat) of our leaving the European Union. But it is still a profoundly unsatisfactory phrase because the words "in general" can never apply to any particular application. No one applies to be a refugee in this country because there is in general a threat of
1732
persecution in his country. He applies to be a refugee here because he is being persecuted; in other words, there is a particular threat of persecution.
Noble Lords who have spoken with great authority about particular countries on the list have revealed the extent to which, although there may be no general serious risk of persecution, many individuals and groups of individuals in those countries may face a very serious risk which demands just as serious treatment of their applications as those from any other country. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, spoke about Bulgaria; the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon spoke about Pakistan; the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, spoke about India; the noble Lord, Lord Rea, spoke about Ghana; and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, spoke about Romania. All have provided details of the regimes in those countries which go far beyond the Home Office and, I accept, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office assessments of the conditions in those countries. But even if they did not go far beyond that point valid applications would still be likely to be made for particular purposes from countries put on to the white list and the criterion of no serious risk of persecution in general would not be adequate for the purpose. I suspect that the Government rely on the second and third criteria rather than the criterion recognised in European legislation.
What is the effect of the designation procedure? The Government deny that there is a presumption that an application is unfounded, or that because an application is unfounded it will be refused. They denied that consistently in the debate in another place yesterday and preferred to use the words "a rebuttable presumption". Clearly, that means that the principle of British law that a person is innocent until proved guilty is to be turned on its head for the purposes of this legislation. It means either that there will not be the same degree of consideration given to applications from these countries as is given to applications from other countries which are not designated under the order or it means nothing.
The Government do not claim that the consideration is the same. They do not deny that, for example, there is no possibility of appeal to a tribunal from the decision of an adjudicator in an accelerated case. They do not deny that the speed of consideration required of one of these accelerated applications will be so great that for many people it will be very difficult to assemble a case in the time that is provided for.
I do not believe that the Government are even addressing the issue raised by Sir lain Glidewell in his inquiry when, on the basis of substantial evidence, he showed that having a fast-track procedure for part of the backlog of applications will mean simply that there will be a slower track procedure for the rest. He showed convincingly what is well recognised: that is, the number of long outstanding applications; the fact that the applications and pending appeals are growing by the week rather than reducing; and that the introduction of fast-track procedures for applicants from certain countries will serve only to increase the delays for the rest. The effect of that can be only that in the end the Government will have to increase the number of exceptional leave to remain cases which are given not

1733
on the ground that the applicants are genuine refugees but that the delays in considering their cases have been in excess of those which are acceptable in natural justice.
Therefore, as a result of this procedure we might well end up with more rather than fewer people staying in this country, and in many cases we would end up with the wrong ones. Everyone acknowledges—and Sir Julian Critchley made it clear in a letter to The Times this summer—that there will be genuine applications from the most unlikely countries and you can distinguish between a genuine application and an unfounded application only after a proper examination of the case.
The order follows on logically from the legislation. The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, appeared to believe that it was an abuse of the procedure of this House to be considering such an order. However, she will acknowledge that the Government made it possible for the matter to be considered on the Floor of the House in response to the affirmative resolution procedure. It is accepted that we are considering the order in addition to the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I do not see what is improper about that. A few stalwart defences of the Government's position have repeated the arguments put forward during consideration of the Bill earlier this year. But there have also been five extremely well-informed speeches about individual countries which have shown the inadequacy of the consideration that is being given by government to the countries which are to be designated in the order.
There is no accusation of dereliction of duty on the part of government departments concerned. We are not saying that they have not done their best. We are saying that the attempt to make general assessments of the human rights positions of other countries is an unenviable and in many ways undesirable procedure. In the 1980s the United States considered having a white list. It decided that not only would it be impracticable but that it would put in question some of the foreign policy initiatives which it might wish to undertake in other areas. Of course, the existence of a white list which clears some countries means, by implication and deduction, that some other countries are not being cleared.
The United States realised that by having a white list it would by default be casting a general judgment on the human rights position of a large number of other countries. It decided that as a matter of commonsense and decent foreign policy it was not a good idea. I do not believe that it is a good idea now and I do not believe that the different consideration which is being proposed under the legislation and through the means of the order can possibly be in accordance with the 1951 United Nations Convention on Refugees.
In the debate in the other place last night, the Minister responsible, Miss Widdecombe, made a most extraordinary statement. She said that there was a difference between asylum seekers and refugees. She said that the article in the United Nations Convention:
1734
"is about refugees, not seekers of asylum … The order applies to those seeking to be recognised as refugees; the convention applies to those recognised as refugees".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/10/96; co1.714.]
The Minister could not have been more wrong. Of course the consideration of refugee status is in two parts. It is about the application to be a refugee and refugee status once it has been granted. The Government have recognised that by saying that nothing in the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, which governs these matters, shall be legal if it is in conflict with the 1951 United Nations Convention on Refugees. This order is in conflict with the Government's own legislation. It should be opposed, although not to a Division today, and we, in government, will not implement it.
6.16 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this has been a good and open debate, unlike, I am afraid, the debate through which I sat in another place last night, where I believe there was wilful misunderstanding of the asylum procedures.
The right reverend Prelate was wrong in saying that today's debate is not about going over old ground. I am afraid that it is about going over old ground because the Motion before the House takes us over old ground. It questions the principle and the policy of establishing a designated list at all, a decision which has already been taken by both Houses of Parliament.
I confess that, like my noble friend Lady Rawlings, I am surprised that your Lordships should be asked to debate the principle of designation of safe countries of destination in advance of the order which the Government will bring before your Lordships today.
The power to designate countries of destination was fully debated when Parliament approved Section 1 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. I do not intend to go into that debate once more. The fact is that Parliament decided to include that power in the legislation. Paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, as substituted by the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, empowers the Secretary of State to specify in an order countries in which it appears to the Secretary of State that there is in general no risk of persecution.
The order which has been laid before your Lordships in draft lists seven counties in which we believe there is in general no serious risk of persecution. The Government have made no secret of the counties they have been considering for such designation. These are Bulgaria, Cyprus, Ghana, India, Pakistan, Poland and Romania. They are the same seven countries which the Government indicated were being considered as candidates for designation when this House was considering the Asylum and Immigration Bill. Therefore, when Parliament decided to enact the power of designation it did so in the full knowledge that the Government considered these to be countries to which the new procedure might properly be applied. In view of this, I find it extraordinary that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, should now put forward a Motion deploring designation as a matter of principle.

1735
Each of the countries of destination specified in the order has functioning institutions, together with stability and pluralism, sufficient to support an assessment that the general level of risk to those living in the country is low enough to justify designation.
We have made available an explanatory note on the designation of these countries, together with background country assessments setting out the Government's view of the general conditions in each of the seven countries. We have from the outset made clear the three main criteria which need to be met for designation to be appropriate. These are, first, that there is in general no serious risk of persecution in the country or territory concerned; secondly, that the number of asylum applications in the United Kingdom from its nationals is significant; and, thirdly, that a very high percentage on examination are refused.
The Government have emphasised many times previously the safeguards built into the designation principle. But it is important for me to remind your Lordships again of two key points. First, there will be no blanket ban on claims from designated countries. Each claim will be considered on its merits. In this respect a claim will be treated no differently from any other asylum claim to be determined. Secondly, an applicant will still have an appeal to an independent adjudicator if the application is refused.
Last year, among nationals of the seven countries we propose to designate at least 97 per cent. of asylum claims were refused. That represents over 6,750 applications. Designation will enable an accelerated appeal procedure to be applied to claims which are refused. The accelerated procedure will apply only if the case has been certified individually and if there is no evidence establishing a reasonable likelihood that the applicant has been tortured in the country of destination. If the adjudicator agrees that the application is unfounded, that will bring the process to an end. There will be no further avenue of appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.
Designation will help the asylum system to deal quickly with the large number of unfounded applications we currently receive from countries which are, in general, safe. At the same time it will not detract in any way from the ability to consider the small number of applicants from such countries who may have a genuine claim. The United Kingdom is not the only country to have enacted a procedure of this kind. Denmark, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland already have similar arrangements.
In order to decide which countries should be designated we have had to assess whether the general level of risk to people living in a particular country is sufficiently low to warrant designation. That is made quite clear in paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to the Asylum and Immigration Act 1993 in the use of the words,
"in general no serious risk of persecution".
Designation does not mean that a country should be universally "safe" nor does it mean that a country's institutions should function to Western standards. The wording of the Act plainly excludes the designation of any country where there is a significant level of
1736
persecution, even if that persecution is targeted only at minorities. There are some countries which give rise to large numbers of unfounded asylum claims but in which there are nevertheless sufficient concerns about human rights that the requirement of the Act is not met. Nigeria is an obvious example. The list of countries we have proposed cannot, and clearly does not, include such countries.
The Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, appears to concern itself only with that part of the order which designates countries of destination. With your Lordships' permission, I should like briefly to draw attention to the second part of the order which designates certain countries as safe third countries. The Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 provides that where an asylum seeker is to be removed to a member state of the European Union with the intention that any asylum claim should be pursued there, the applicant may exercise his right of appeal only after he has left the United Kingdom. This is on the basis that his claim will be properly considered in the country to which he is being removed.
The Act enables similarly safe third countries to be designated by order, and the present order designates the United States of America, Canada, Switzerland and Norway. I notice that it was only the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, who made a specific reference to this and gave it his full support. I am assuming that the fact that it has not been referred to too much means that it has the support of the House. If the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, believes that the United States, Canada and Norway should not be included he did not say so. I should like to hear his reasons for that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. She carefully did not mention Switzerland. It has been found by her officials on occasion that Switzerland is not a safe third country.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that was an omission on my part. I will include Switzerland and I will also refer quite specifically to that reference later in my speech.
Together with the European Union states, these states account at present for the majority of cases in which an asylum claim is made by someone arriving here from a third country where his claim could properly have been made and which is safe.
I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will not press his Motion. If he does so, I must urge your Lordships to reject it. The order before your Lordships is made pursuant to a power which Parliament enacted in July of this year. It will be for your Lordships to say later today whether the order should receive approval.
But the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in effect invites the House to invalidate the very power in law which your Lordships so recently passed. I do not believe that that is what your Lordships would wish to do. I am sure that, instead, your Lordships would wish to reaffirm your support for the power of designation. It is a sensible power which recognises the need to make progress in dealing with the large number of unfounded

1737
asylum claims. These unfounded claims impose an unnecessary burden—a point made by my noble friend Lord Renton—and do no good at all to the cause of genuine asylum seekers whom the United Kingdom continues to welcome as refugees.
I hope that the House will forgive me if I turn now to the order and do not treat it as a second debate. The order is constituted in two parts. First, it lists the countries of destination to be designated further to paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, as substituted by the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. Secondly, it specifies the countries to be designated as safe third countries further to Section 2 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996.
I have already explained today why we have proposed for designation Bulgaria, Cyprus, Ghana, India, Pakistan, Poland and Romania as countries of destination. I shall therefore confine myself now to introducing the second part of this order in respect of the designation of safe third countries.
The 1996 Act provided that in cases where the safe third country concerned is a member state of the European Union, applicants may exercise their right of appeal only after they have left the United Kingdom. It was necessary to make this change because delays caused by the appeal process were substantially impairing our ability to make removals in cases where we were satisfied of the safety of the third country.
Section 2(3) of the 1996 Act provides for the Secretary of State to extend this provision to non-European Union states. We indicated during the passage of the Act through Parliament that we were considering using this power to designate the United States of America, Canada and Switzerland. The order includes these countries and adds Norway. Together, these states provide at present the majority of cases in which an applicant for asylum here may more appropriately pursue that claim in a third country.
I should like now to turn to some of the individual points because they were very important. First, the point was made initially by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, by others and finally by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that somehow or other this was in breach of our international conventions. It is true that most refugees who are recognised will have been refugees from their applications. But the vast majority are not recognised and their appeals fail. So we do not accept that all applicants have to be treated as refugees from the outset. Nor do we accept that the order breaches Article 3 of the convention. I am afraid on that point we will have to agree to differ.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to the position of children in Bulgaria. As the country brief on Bulgaria makes clear, the Bulgarian government appear to be committed to protecting children's welfare and the vast majority of children are free from abuse in society. We have no evidence that children in Bulgaria are at general risk of persecution. In this respect I thought that my noble friend Lady Rawlings made a powerful speech from her knowledge and experience of that country.
1738
Our country briefs are based on information from a wide range of sources, again referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, including the UNHCR and Amnesty International, in addition to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which also give us information. The country brief on Bulgaria draws particularly on the United States departmental research, because it is clear from our consideration of the range of sources that this research is soundly based and provides an accurate picture of the conditions in Bulgaria.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon asked how we can designate countries and referred in particular to the Ahmadis. That simply goes to demonstrate that the principle of designation, which is the fundamental point of the debate, is that there should be no general risk of persecution, not that the country is universally safe or that no individual is ever persecuted.
Reference was made also to Karachi. I was asked about the communal violence and extra-judicial killings in the Karachi area. The security situation there continues to be kept under constant review but the violence appears to be confined to Karachi. It does not signify a general risk of persecution. Although most of Pakistan is relatively peaceful, over the past 18 months there has been serious violence in Karachi and elsewhere, as the right reverend Prelate said. The main reason for the violence is the confrontation between the MQM and the government but ethnic and sectarian violence is also a feature. On 20th September, Murtaza Bhutto, the estranged brother of Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, died outside his Karachi home, caught in the cross-fire of police bullets. A period of unrest followed in which the supporters of the splinter faction of the PPP, which he formed, protested to government. Therefore, again, an individual coming from that country with a well-founded fear of persecution would be given full consideration for refugee status.
As regards the Ahmadis, at the initial stage of consideration of a case, all applications, including those from Ahmadis, are treated equally. If a well-founded fear of persecution under the United Nations convention terms is established, refugee status can be awarded. Should the case not be made out but it is felt that a certificate should not be issued, the adjudicator has the power to set aside the certificate and allow the case to go on for a tribunal hearing. If it is unfounded at the first stage and at the end of that stage the adjudicator has no difficulty in issuing a certificate, then the appeal judge, the adjudicator, can uphold that and that would be the end of the process.
Applications from Pakistan prove to be unfounded in a very high proportion of cases. In 1994, some 99 per cent of applications were judged to be unfounded and 98 per cent. in 1995. That high refusal rate continues. In general, there is no serious risk of persecution in Pakistan but while it is accepted that there is some discrimination and, indeed, harassment of Ahmadis and Christians, the two main religious minorities, it is not systematic or government-led or government-condoned.
The right reverend Prelate asked whether I had researched the backgrounds of Pakistani asylum seekers. In addition to the range of sources which we have

1739
consulted on preparing the country brief, we have taken into account our experience of the circumstances of people who have applied for asylum in recent years. A would-be asylum seeker is likely to be someone who has some factor in his background or circumstances which he hopes will persuade the authorities to grant him asylum. That does not mean that he necessarily has a well-founded fear of persecution.
My noble friend Lord Bethell asked a question about Cyprus. The designation of Cyprus means that applications from anywhere on the island, including that part controlled by the Turkish authorities, is included. We are aware of recent events in Cyprus. Again, that does not detract from it being generally safe. But an applicant coming from Cyprus who proves that he has a well-founded fear of persecution will be given very serious consideration for refugee status.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to appeals. We are entirely satisfied that the 10-day period for the determination of an appeal in a certified case is sufficient. Not all cases will be certified. As I have just said, it is open to an adjudicator not to agree with the certificate if he considers that it was wrong to have issued the certificate in the first place. He may also grant further time if he believes that it is needed and the applicant makes a good case for it. Again, each case will be looked at on its merits.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, referred to a lack of information in the Indian country brief. The brief runs to 14 pages and deals in great detail with the institutions of India and with conditions in that country. We shall keep fluctuating situations under review.
The noble Earl referred also to the medical foundation's report on torture. It is recognised that there were severe disturbances in the Punjab in the late 1980s and early 1990s. But since then the situation has largely returned to normal. Therefore, it is unlikely that applicants now being considered for asylum would be able to demonstrate that they were still of interest to the authorities. However, in any event, under the 1996 Act certification would not be appropriate under the safeguards for applicants who have been tortured. That would be an overriding factor. The fact that an applicant had been tortured would override all those provisions whether or not he came from a designated country. Designation will not alter the way in which those cases are considered.
Reference was made to President Rawlings. President Rawlings received 58 per cent. of the vote in the November 1992 presidential election which was assessed as being largely free and fair by international observers. Parliamentary elections were boycotted by the main opposition parties with the result that the present government were elected almost without opposition.
Extra-parliamentary opposition from the parties which excluded themselves from the electoral process has been successful in challenging perceived unconstitutional actions and policies of the government through the courts. However, as regards the elections which are to be held in December of this year, the National Electoral Commission is eager to avoid the
1740
criticisms which emerged after the 1992 elections. Allegations of ballot rigging were probably a result of imperfect registration of voters and inefficiency rather than of any deliberate attempt to influence the outcome.
The NEC has invited independent observers who will include representatives of the United Nations electoral assistance division, the Commonwealth Secretariat, the European Union, the ODA, which will send 10 observers, and the United States. Therefore, I believe that there is a real intention to ensure that democracy rules in that country.
The Amnesty International report of 1995 identifies possible prisoners of conscience but six of those mentioned—the Accra five and Karim Salifu Adam—have been charged with treason and committed for trial. All six have access to legal representation and their cases have attracted considerable attention in the free Ghanaian press. There is no evidence that the defendants in either case will be treated unfairly, illegally or extra-judicially or that, if found guilty, any punishment would be disproportionately severe.
I know that the altercation was friendly between my noble friend Lord Renton, because I know him too well, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, for whom I personally have the highest regard. Determination procedures are not weakened by these measures. Any person who has a well-founded fear of persecution from any country, including the designated countries, will be given full and substantive consideration. It is only following that substantive consideration that a certificate would be awarded and, as I have already said, there is power for the adjudicator to set aside the certificate if there is any doubt about the issuing of it.
The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, referred to a possible extradition treaty with Pakistan. I assure the noble Viscount that any evidence of terrorist or violent activity by any person claiming asylum here is taken fully into account before any decision is taken. The noble Viscount will understand that I cannot comment on the details of a particular case which may still be under consideration.
On the particular matter of extradition, I hope that the noble Viscount will forgive my caution. I should like to talk to my colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I shall of course write to him with a full answer to his question.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in a slightly taunting way mentioned Switzerland as did the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I believe that Switzerland is a safe country. It is possible for a country to be in general safe but for a particular individual to be a dangerous place. The point of these procedures is that if an individual has a well founded fear of persecution, even from a country that is regarded as being generally safe, that person must be given full consideration. I do not know of the particular case that has been mentioned, but it is possible that for that person Switzerland was considered not to be a safe place.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to the explanatory note which states that case workers will be able to take into account the fact that a country has been

1741
designated when considering claims. I believe the premise behind what he said was that somehow or other that would influence their judgment. It is important that the assessors know the backgrounds of all countries, whether or not they are deemed safe. All this wording means is that case workers will have regard to the assessment of conditions in the country concerned which have led to designation with, we hope, the approval of Parliament. It does not alter the standard of proof. The standard of proof remains the same in considering individual claims. The Sivakumaran judgment, which requires the applicant to establish reasonable likelihood of persecution, will continue to apply.
In referring to Pakistan, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, alleged conflict with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as regards Ahmadis. I believe I touched on that point but the noble Earl referred particularly to an article in the Independent newspaper of 14th October. There is no conflict between the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on this issue. We have always accepted that Ahmadis are subject to discriminatory legislation. But that legislation is not widely or systematically enforced. That was acknowledged in the Home Office assessment of Pakistan, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. The numbers involved are relatively small. The human rights commission of Pakistan has confirmed that 144 cases are outstanding against Ahmadis under the blasphemy laws and 516 under other sections of the Pakistani penal code. All applications for asylum from Ahmadis are given careful scrutiny. Applications from nationals of designated countries will continue to be considered substantively and on their merits. If an Ahmadi met the convention definition of a refugee, asylum would be granted.
Noble Lords may be relieved to hear that I shall not go into any further detail about the countries concerned. We have made available to Parliament appraisals for each country. These explain why we are satisfied that the states meet the key criteria for designation; namely, that returned asylum seekers would be treated in accordance with the United Nations convention. The appraisals include a description of the countries' asylum laws and procedures. These are all states with long established and respected human rights records. I commend the order to your Lordships.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I begin by echoing the thanks expressed by my noble friend Lord Russell to the Minister for the patience with which she has listened to all the speeches made in this debate. She also had to deal with two Statements which came in the middle of the debate. I pay tribute to her stamina and patience and I thank her for the careful attention she has paid to all the remarks made. I thank also all those who have taken part in the debate. Their contributions have, I believe, vindicated the decision to place this Motion on the Order Paper, notwithstanding the rather synthetic amazement expressed by the Minister and by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings. After all, if there is an
1742
affirmative resolution procedure in the House which allows a debate of this kind to take place, surely it is legitimate that noble Lords should exercise the right to initiate such debates. If, as a result of that, further elucidation of government policy is achieved, both the Government and the Opposition benefit.
The Minister clarified certain points although she skated over others. She agreed that refugees will have been refugees from the outset if they are successful but she said that that did not mean that we should treat as refugees those who are still in the queue and whose cases have not yet been determined. I disagree with that because one does not know at the outset whether a particular individual will be successful in his appeal. Even if one says that 95 per cent. of those who come from a certain country have been refused in the past and those refusals have been upheld on appeal, I defy the Minister to say in advance which of the 5 per cent. will be successful. Therefore in order to comply with Article 3 of the convention, which has been discussed in detail today, one has to treat an applicant as if he were a refugee ab initio. If one does not do that, one risks violating the convention. If the noble Baroness has not taken that point on board as a result of this debate, she will be in difficulty and the matter will have to be referred to other authorities and in particular to those in the UNHCR who have the task of enforcing the convention.
The noble Baroness may have missed some of the points that were made. I hope that she will deal with them in correspondence. A point of great importance is the nature of the Home Office briefs. It emerged from the remarks that the noble Baroness has just made that the immigration and nationality department will take into account the fact that a country has been designated and will treat Home Office assessments as gospel as regards the conditions in the countries of origin when it evaluates individual claims. We have heard in this debate of serious defects in Home Office assessments. In one particular case—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Whether or not an assessor considers the country assessment to be gospel makes no odds. What is being considered by the assessor is the particular plight of the individual. If the individual has a proven case of a well founded fear of persecution, irrespective of the background of the country concerned that will qualify him for refugee status.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, that may be so. But if, for instance, the Home Office assessment of Romania says nothing about the persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses, and the person presenting himself is a Jehovah's Witness from Romania, is not the officer making the determination likely to say that because that information is not in the Home Office brief he does not believe—
Baroness Blatch: No!
Lord Avebury: In that case we should be told what other sources the immigration and nationality department will refer to. They should be listed so that

1743
we can evaluate them just as today we have been able to evaluate the Home Office briefs which the noble Baroness kindly made available. That is an important point to emerge from today's debate.
I do not propose to discuss everything which has been said relating to individual countries. However, there is one matter which has run like a thread through the debate, and that is the question of the Ahmadis in Pakistan. I do not believe that the Government have quite taken on board what was said by the right reverend Prelate and a number of other noble Lords; namely, that we are not simply looking at the prosecutions of Ahmadis for offences under Article 295 of the criminal code, which was the legacy from General Zia's Ordnance 20 during military rule. What we are looking at is the whole climate in which Ahmadis suffer persecution and discrimination. That goes far wider than simply considering criminal prosecutions against them. We are talking about the climate of violence against Ahmadis, the number of Ahmadis who are murdered, the number of their religious buildings which are attacked, and the number of Ahmadis who are dismissed from their posts. This whole climate in which persecution of Ahmadis takes place goes far wider than simply the question of their position under the law. I do not believe that that was reflected either in the remarks of the noble Baroness or in the Home Office brief.
One could criticise so much of the perception by the Home Office of the situation in these countries of origin. Some issues have had light thrown upon them by the speeches of my noble friend Lord Russell and of other noble Lords and the right reverend Prelate who have taken part in today's debate. I believe that the debate has done good. It has drawn attention to the defects in the procedure which has been promulgated by the Government and the dangers which the fast-track asylum application system poses for asylum seekers from these countries. Having got that on the record, I am content to withdraw the Motion.
On Question, Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Asylum (Designated Countries of Destination and Designated Safe Third Countries) Order 1996
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th October be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Blatch).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BSE
6.50 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is the current situation regarding BSE.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I should begin by explaining why we are discussing BSE on an Unstarred Question. Your Lordships will remember that
1744
there was for some considerable time a government Motion on BSE on the Order Paper. It was intended to provide the slot for debate on the parliamentary orders which are required for the accelerated slaughter scheme. Those orders have not been laid and therefore the Government decided that there should be no debate. I believe that an Unstarred Question by an Opposition spokesman is not the proper way to deal with the crisis in British farming. We should be debating a government Motion.
However, the question that obviously arises is this. What is the position regarding the parliamentary orders that we were expecting? Will they be laid or postponed? Perhaps the Minister will tell the House and the industry the situation as regards those orders.
Arising from that, what are the government proposals regarding the accelerated slaughter scheme? It was an integral part of the Florence agreement. We have had the evidence from Oxford University which was reported in Nature. The Minister may well say that the Oxford evidence puts a rather different perspective on the numbers required to be slaughtered under the accelerated slaughter scheme. I remind your Lordships that the figure of 40,000 now suggested by Oxford University as the possible cull under the accelerated slaughter scheme is the same figure that was suggested when the scheme was first proposed by the Government. It was the Government who allowed themselves to be forced up in negotiation in Brussels and Europe from a figure of 40,000 to 120,000. Presumably they now have to justify a reduction back to the figure of 40,000 with which they started. It seems to me that the Government have allowed themselves to be put in a weak negotiating position.
It would be helpful if the Government would tell us their latest estimate of the numbers required to be slaughtered under the accelerated slaughter scheme to secure a lifting of the export ban. If lifting of the ban is unlikely, what is the Government's estimate of the numbers required under the scheme to reduce the incidence of BSE? I do not refer to eradication of BSE.
Clearly the timetable announced, in my view extremely unwisely, by the Prime Minister after the Florence Summit—he expected the backlog on the scheme for animals over 30 months to be cleared by October-November—is out of the window. We are now told that it is likely to be December. Some in the trade are saying that it will be March. What is the latest government estimate of the date by which the backlog will be cleared? Is it correct that there is today a backlog of 400,000 cattle?
What is the Government's latest view on the evidence regarding maternal transmission? Is there concern over the actual transmission of BSE from dam to calf? Alternatively, is there, as has been suggested, perhaps an inheritance of a predisposition to BSE if the animal is exposed to infected feed? If it is the latter, that is much more hopeful than the possibility of direct transmission from cow to calf.
We know that in the summer the Government renegotiated with slaughterhouses and renderers the arrangements and the price for slaughter. Can the

1745
Minister confirm that £22 million of excess profit earned by the slaughterers between March and June was not clawed back? That was the trade's price for continuing the scheme. I understand that in March there were quotes of £30 to £40 a head for slaughtering. So why did the Government fix on £87.50 and, it seems, waste some £22 million of public money?
What is the situation now regarding tallow, gelatine and semen? Has the ban on these products been lifted? We know that there were problems over gelatine. To be fair to the Government, they were problems within the trade rather than the government department. However, will the Minister now tell us the latest position regarding the lifting of the export ban on these products?
How much of the very welcome financial assistance that is being offered to farmers and others is genuine new money and how much is money that is being brought forward—it is welcome if it is paid early—but was in the department's estimates anyway? How much of what the Government have now announced is new money?
In passing, although the recently announced £16.6 million extra for cold storage is extremely welcome, I understand that extra cold storage was asked for by the NFU and the trade some months ago. Why has it taken so long for the Government to recognise the strength of the argument and to provide the resources for provision of cold storage?
Perhaps I may return to the accelerated slaughter scheme. When it was first proposed, in the document responding to it from Brussels and indeed in the Government's own proposals, the alternative restriction orders on affected farms rather than slaughter were proposed. That was later dropped but no explanation ever given. Anyone in farming might ask that if the animals are unable to leave the farm—they are restricted on the farm and continue in milk production, or whatever, but do not enter the food chain—why was it decided to drop the possibility of restriction orders and to concentrate entirely on slaughter as the way to deal with the issue?
We now have the news in today's Independent. The headline is:
"BSE fear for millions of British pets".
This is extraordinary. It arose from a Question from my colleague in another place, Mr. Martyn Jones, a microbiologist. He was told by Angela Browning, the Minister of Agriculture, that as confirmed in a written reply, mammalian meat and bone meal (MBM)—the powdered residue from culled and rendered cattle—is used in pet food. She states:
"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".
It is clear that the Government have insisted now that this material has to be used in a separate building, with no contact with equipment or vehicles used in the production of livestock feed. Do the Government ever learn? We are told that cross-contamination was the reason for animals born after the ban being infected. The Commons Select Committee investigation into BSE was
1746
told in April that cats had tested positive for a form of spongiform encephalopathy. The committee was also told that while the high risk specified bovine material such as spinal chord would be incinerated, sides of meat would be rendered into meat and bonemeal which would then be disposed of either by landfill or incineration. There was no mention of MBM being used in pet food. That is an important point, not perhaps because of the dangers to pets but in particular because of the danger of cross-contamination. That posed an enormous problem through the failure of the Government to enforce the necessary regulations which led to the cross-contamination in the early 1990s. It seems that the Government were prepared to run the risk again with the MBM; we are now told that it has been used in pet food.
Finally, can we now assume that the Government's policy of nonco-operation with our European partners that was followed earlier this year has proved to be a complete failure? On Monday in the other place, in response to a Private Notice Question by my honourable friend Dr. Gavin Strang, the Minister, Mr. Hogg, said:
"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".
I like the word "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".—[Official Report, Commons, 14/10/96; col. 165.]
What the Minister is saying, in other words, is that we have completely failed to convince our European partners and we cannot get the orders through Parliament anyway. What an epitaph for a thoroughly mishandled policy.
7.1 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, first I apologise to the House because I shall be unable to stay in the Chamber for the full duration of this debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for setting down this Question because, despite his apologies about it, it provides an opportunity to look at the situation in relation to BSE.
It will surprise no one that BSE generates more questions than answers, and one of the reasons is that the disease is not like any other infectious disease. Hitherto, decisions have had to be made on assumptions, possibilities and plausible interpretations of findings and the much criticised control measures on BSE instituted in 1988 and in 1989: the slaughter of affected cattle and the ban on specified bovine offals. Despite those criticisms and despite the inadequacy of the policing of the ban on specified bovine offals, the prevalence and the incidence of BSE has shown a spectacular decrease in the United Kingdom since the peak of 1992–93. One might ask how much greater would that decrease have been had the ban on specified bovine offal feeding been applied as rigorously as now is the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred to the Oxford report of Professor Anderson which was published in Nature recently. That clearly indicates that BSE will

1747
disappear in five years. New infections from contaminated feed will be, in the report's words, close to zero shortly, and any new cases will be due to maternal transmission. The estimate is that maternal transmission cannot sustain the epidemic. The epidemic is likely to fade close to extinction by the year 2001 in the absence of culling. That is a very important conclusion that the Oxford study has come to.
Therefore, there is little justification for the accelerated culling programme agreed in Florence. Of course, the Oxford data were not available at that time, so the decision to slaughter 120,000 animals was taken before that information became known. There is, of course, an urgent need to review that decision based on the new evidence. The Oxford conclusion that the most effective option is to remove cohorts of animals associated with cases of BSE, complemented by a policy targeted on maternal transmission, would involve fewer than 40,000 cattle—in fact, slightly fewer than the original 40,000 proposed.
However, even the maternal transmission of this affliction is under doubt and reconsideration at this time and it may be that the selective slaughter based on maternal transmission also needs to be challenged and reassessed.
There are many problems associated with the slaughter of animals, even those in the over 30 months scheme. They have many important impacts on welfare and the disposal of carcasses, let alone the financial problems and implications of the backlogs that are occurring, as well as the ethical issues.
One of the major effects of the BSE crisis is a fall in demand for beef, not only in this country but in the European Union in general. There is a need to create a demand mechanism to avoid a further reduction in markets and the massive expense associated with the many tonnes of intervention beef that will be in storage. There is an opportunity here for British leadership in Europe with respect to the recovery of the beef industry. Hitherto, it would appear that we have always been playing off the back foot, if I may use a cricketing term with respect to BSE. Now is the opportunity to be more aggressive in our approach, and there is no doubt that the Minister will be aware of the demand-improvement scheme initiated for beef sponsored by the Meat and Livestock Commission. This initiative requires modest financial funding but will save massive expenditure on intervention payments and will certainly greatly enhance beef consumption in the United Kingdom and the European Union.
This should be coupled with a new approach and a new strategy towards BSE based on the new scientific evidence. I would propose that we abandon the culling agreements made in Florence. They were reached at a time when scientific evidence was not available to support them, and they cannot be supported by the new evidence. They are vastly unpopular with many bodies, including the Country Landowners' Association, the British Veterinary Association and many others, and they are unacceptable to many.
Noble Lords may know that in Switzerland, where they have had about 200 cases of BSE, there was a plan to slaughter out a large number of herds associated with
1748
this, involving a cull of nearly 250,000 cattle. This is unlikely to go forward because of the very strong opposition of livestock farmers and veterinary authorities in Switzerland. The same applies in this country to some extent.
I would like to see that cull replaced by a rigorous application of feed controls, culling of a limited nature to take in maternal transmission—which, if it is so, is the only scientific basis for culling—and the increased designation of herds as "safe herds" based on freedom from BSE and certification of feeding. The assured beef scheme, the certified herds scheme and the BSE-free herd scheme of certification are examples where this might pertain.
As BSE is likely to disappear well before 2001, certain areas such as Northern Ireland and Scotland could well be designated geographical areas in this country. I feel that this would be a much more incisive approach than the massive and, I and many other people believe, unnecessary culling previously proposed in Italy. There is no good evidence that the ban on beef exports would be lifted even if that cull took place, as has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. Some European Union countries will lift the ban on British beef only when BSE has been eradicated. So why progress with this culling scheme, which offers no advantage over a scheme involving little or no culling or very limited culling at the most?
7.9 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for once again raising this important issue, which, it is important not to forget, is the most serious crisis facing farmers this century. Although a farmer, I have no interest to declare other than the wellbeing of my friends and neighbours whose cattle income this year will be down—even by the least pessimistic forecasts—by as much as 60 per cent.
Like other noble Lords, I agree that the export ban must be lifted, if only to restore consumer confidence here in the United Kingdom. If the ban is not lifted, the Scottish economy will be decimated. Last year, the export market was worth in excess of £120 million.
In Scotland, the cull has gone so much more smoothly than in other parts of the United Kingdom. For this, the noble Earl and his Secretary of State must be most warmly congratulated. His right honourable friend the Prime Minister gave his word in Aberdeen earlier this summer that the Florence agreement would be enacted in full. As the noble Earl is only too aware, the accelerated cull of cohorts has still to be implemented. As it only involves 5,400 cattle, I implore him tonight to put Scottish beef producers once and for all out of their misery.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I have to declare an interest, in that I lost all compensation for an over 30 month-old bullock for committing the heinous crime of giving it a plastic tag instead of a metal one. Despite this Alice-in-Wonderland story, I am not, I have to admit, in overall loss on my beef production.

1749
I do not know whether, before asking my questions, I should pray for myself or my noble friend Lord Lindsay. I know that I do not have to pray for the noble Lord, Lord Carter. My first and most important question is similar to that of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. It is to ask my noble friend whether any future action to deal with BSE will be based on scientific evidence or political expediency. If the answer is that the Government will continue to follow the path agreed at Florence—which is what I think the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, suggested—and institute a further cull, can my noble friend give an assurance that no such cull will be put into operation until there is a firm promise that when such a cull is completed, British beef will be allowed to be exported?
Obviously, it is vitally important for the export market to be opened. I hope that my noble friend will confirm that it is the Government's intention to achieve that. I repeat the question, because it is market talk—indeed, my noble friend Lord Soulsby endorsed this—that my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture has given up the battle to achieve such an objective, as it is thought that he believes that his Continental counterparts will not give such a guarantee, whatever action he or we take. Perhaps I should remind your Lordships that it only requires a majority vote to lift the ban, so we could perhaps do without the Germans.
If, however, the Government still hope to persuade the EU to allow our beef to be exported if we abide by certain rules and culls, then I have with great regret to say that the Government will find it difficult, maybe impossible, to persuade the EU or to regain the confidence of the industry. I am sorry to say that both have lost confidence in the Minister of Agriculture but more particularly in those who have proved themselves totally incapable of giving him sound advice.
I have sympathy for some of the political problems that my right honourable friend has had to sort out. However, I have none whatsoever for the totally chaotic way the policy has been carried out in England and Wales, although I accept that north of the border there seems to have been a vast improvement. That must reflect on the advice given to my right honourable friend by his senior officials in his department.
Perhaps I may drive the knife in even further by saying that I am full of admiration for the unfortunate MAFF officials at grass roots who have the unpleasant task of explaining the chaos to me and my neighbouring farmers. My admiration for them is unstinted. I wonder too whether it was wise for a MAFF official, when representing my right honourable friend in the EU, to offer as an excuse that BSE was an act of God. It is the farmers' task every day to deal with acts of God. I can see the noble Lord, Lord Carter, nodding. It appears that MAFF is unable to seize the problem.
I could ask a multitude of questions illustrating the sad incompetence of MAFF and its veterinary department. I started with four questions; the noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked one, so there remain three of which I gave my noble friend notice. First, can he tell
1750
me whether I can put a bullock into the food chain which is over 30 months old according to its CID, but has only two broad teeth? Can my noble friend tell me what happens if the bullock is pushing but not really showing its third tooth? What next? Does the farmer have to put 6p under the bullock's pillow to get him in?
Secondly, does my noble friend agree with my right honourable friend Mr. Freeman that some form of open air incineration might be accepted? Alternatively, does my noble friend agree with my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture that such a course would be unacceptable? Thirdly, what price will the Government pay for over 30 month-old beef after 31st October?
Finally, there is a vital lesson to learn from this tragedy. It is a tragedy, even though I have laughed at it at times, as one has to. The lesson is to ensure that in future there are some senior officials in responsible positions who have practical experience of farmers, farming and slaughtering. Some of the advice given to Ministers shows a total inability to understand those problems and, indeed, a certain arrogance.
I am truly sorry—and I mean it—that my remarks this evening are less restrained than when we debated the matter on 17th April. However, I am a Tory, I shall remain a Tory and I shall remain a farmer. I cannot mince my words.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Grantchester: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Carter on bringing forward this subject so early on the House's return. I should declare an interest in that I own a dairy herd in Cheshire. I am disappointed to have to report to your Lordships that the Government's handling of the crisis means that there is still anger, turmoil and distress in the industry.
Following the ministerial announcements in March, farmers looked to the Government to provide an orderly scheme to remove by October the backlog of cattle waiting to be slaughtered. But instead of seeing progressive clearing, farmers have had to resort to all kinds of means to move cattle, and now, as winter approaches, most farmers still have as many cattle to be slaughtered as when the scheme started. So after seven months we are still no further forward.
Over the summer, farmers have been agonising over just who will take their cattle. Fields have been set aside from productive use to roam cattle. Is it any wonder, therefore, that farmers feel completely betrayed when the Minister announces, on his own initiative, a cut in the rate of compensation for the over 30-month cattle? He claims that:
"the level of compensation is too high, pro-rata to the beef trade".
Little wonder that farmers gave him such a rough reception in Bournemouth last week.
Having presided over the collapse of the beef trade, the Minister seems intent on bringing the rest of the industry down to the same level. He then insults it by claiming that farmers are using the scheme to improve their herds. We had a backlog in May and we still have one now. Only last week an announcement was made that a registration scheme for clearing the backlog would be established. This must be given priority.

1751
The slaughtering scheme has created a very murky trade. It is distorted by vendettas, favours and personal relationships among the people involved in it. Abattoirs and renderers are being paid well over any sensible rate. There are allegations of cash inducementsbackhanders—to enable cattle to be taken for slaughter.
Farmers are naturally unwilling to speak out because they fear retaliation. Many of the current arrangements may not technically be illegal but they distort trade and leave the farmer as a bystander. One example is that many abattoirs are buying in live cattle through dealers and dispersal sales to put them through the dead-weight schemes themselves.
Last month, my National Farmers Union branch in Nantwich conducted a survey on the size of the backlog. Nantwich is only one branch in Cheshire, but nevertheless the survey can be seen as representative of the problems facing us. The average holding had 13 head registered with the local market in April/May. How effectively have those been cleared? From that average of 13, two have gone through the local market on the official live-weight scheme; just less than an average of five have gone on a dead-weight basis; and just over four have gone as—I use the official term—"casualties".
Thus an average of two are still waiting. But once you add the normal summer throughput of cattle, a total of 12 head per holding are now waiting to go. So despite those cattle going for slaughter, the backlog is virtually the same now as it was then, back in May.
Many so-called casualties will be genuine, but farmers desperate to move cattle have deemed many to be casualties, as they have to be slaughtered immediately on welfare grounds. Having successfully had a casualty certified, farmers have then been incensed to be kept waiting for their money and to see transport charges of £ 1 per mile deducted from payments for transporting the casualty often 200 miles to what in normal times is no more than a pet crematorium.
Nationally, we are now slaughtering 35,000 head a week. That is an improvement on the 25,000 figure which applied earlier this year, and I applaud the Minister for achieving that increase. But, as the Country Landowners' Association has made clear, that needs to increase to 55,000 if there is to be any hope of clearing the backlog.
The registration scheme announced last week must create an orderly and even-handed system of access to slaughtering facilities. We still need answers to five questions. What do the Government intend to do with the figures they obtain? How will the scheme be administered? And by whom? What will be the priorities? And, most importantly, when can farmers see an end to this turmoil?
The intervention board has come in for universal criticism as it seems unwilling to take the lead in according any priority to the backlog. Yet farmers now hear—perhaps the Minister can confirm this—that the pay rates for intervention board staff have been increased much more than for staff elsewhere in the ministry.
1752
Slaughterhouses have been brought to book again and instructed to clear the backlog according to the lists they made in the spring. That gives a green light for the unsavoury practices to continue on an even greater scale.
The new registration scheme is needed immediately. Regulation of access must be put outside the control of slaughterhouses. A different policy is needed and control must rest with a truly independent body. The Meat and Livestock Commission has been suggested, but I should prefer the ministry's own regional service centres to be used.
That is the priority in the countryside, and only when it is dealt with can the industry regain credibility with the consumer in Britain and with the rest of Europe. We have waited far too long; the time to act is now.
7.24 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for initiating the debate. I have no direct involvement in the cattle business myself, but my brother is prominent in the British Holstein Cattle Society and owns one of the most successful dairy herds in the country. I have many other contacts with others directly involved in the industry.
I have to keep reminding myself that it is the application of the precautionary principle to the cattle business as a result of the still unproven possibility of a link between BSE and CJD that lies behind the difficulties in the industry today. This is not an issue of animal health and welfare, important thought those subjects are. It is the possible risk of cross-species disease transmission that is the justification for the present state of turmoil in this great industry and the enormous expenditures being undertaken.
Research into BSE, if reports are correct, is costing some £9.7 million per year at the present time, a not unreasonable sum. The precautionary principle, however, is costing a great deal more: 600,000 cattle have already been slaughtered. Even if compensation averages £300 per cow—a remarkably, indeed unrealistically, low figure—that suggests expenditure already of £1.8 billion. That is an enormous sum of money, and we know that there is more to come. I would be interested to hear from my noble friend the Minister what the actual expenditure has been to date and what is the estimate for future expenditure.
Justification can come only when the results of the present research are known. But BSE and CJD research programmes are extremely time-consuming. We have to face the possibility that when the results finally come through they may show that all this expenditure was unnecessary. Are we really saying that the precautionary principle should apply regardless of cost? That seems to be the situation.
We all know that dairy and beef farmers are upset at the way this matter has developed. The problems have their roots in a regional disparity between cattle numbers and slaughtering and rendering capacity. Some regions are implementing successful schemes, but problems arise in those regions where there is an excess in cattle numbers. It is probably useful at this stage to put on

1753
record the experience of one particular herd (not my brother's) since it explains the ill-feeling that has developed.
That herd normally consists of 160 cows in milk with followers. When the possible CJD linkage was announced and the cull programme initiated, normal management of herd numbers had to be suspended—cull cows could only go for disposal. The herd manager estimated that he would lose 70 animals in the cull (that figure includes normal wastage). He therefore decided to keep 30 extra heifers in order to maintain herd numbers. Animals for slaughter were booked through the herd's normal agent to go in June. That agent has an allocation of 280 cows per week into the slaughter scheme but has been able to achieve that figure only twice. In the first week of this month he sent 260 animals for slaughter, but 400 more were added to his waiting list. He is at present clearing animals entered for slaughter in May. So no cattle have left the dairy herd to which I refer.
As a result, herd numbers are at present 210 and milk production is inevitably in excess of quota. The farm receives 25p. per litre for quota milk but has to pay a levy of between 32p. and 33p. for every litre by which it exceeds its quota. By good management it has contained excess production to 3½ per cent, but to bring it back within the quota it must increase the number of cows culled. In the meantime it has seen the value of the cull cows drop by more than £100 due to the cut in compensation introduced a short time ago. As winter approaches there is an increasing animal welfare problem due to a shortage of adequate housing and fodder.
That is a well-run herd owned by an agricultural college which has tried to abide by the rules. Needless to say, the college is not very pleased. I should add that the present situation which has affected so many people has had its effect in the market-place, where unscrupulous people are now operating unethical, if not illegal, practices. Also, it has become almost impossible to deal with the question of casualty animals sensibly.
What is to be done? This country has lost its export market. But the export ban is only a part of the problem, since continental markets have collapsed for other reasons in an even more dramatic way. So simply lifting the export ban is not the obvious solution it appears to be since there is not an export market to supply.
However, it seems that there would be export demand for Scottish beef where it is proved to be BSE free. I was pleased to note that the Irish are supporting the case for the export ban to be lifted from beef from Northern Ireland. I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister would agree to a bit of fancy footwork by attempting what I would call an incremental approach to removing the export ban. Surely some progress is better than none at all. It would help if we could get the ban lifted from particular sectors.
I ask my noble friend the Minister to consider another point which might help in the present situation. I believe that the beef industry has a scheme of advance payments because the financial implications for the beef industry
1754
on cash flow is clearly so much greater than is the case in the dairy industry where milk cheques come in fairly regularly. However, with the advent of winter, the dairy herds are also now heading into crisis. I wonder whether the scheme of advance payments could be extended to the dairy sector, particularly to apply where there are herds in which it is well known that the cattle have been entered for slaughter for many months and it has not been possible to get them away from the farm.
I await with great interest the reply of my noble friend the Minister.
7.31 p.m.
Lord Rathcreedan: My Lords, in making comments following the most pertinent question of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, I must declare an interest. I am not so regular an attender in your Lordships' House as I would like. My time is filled and my livelihood primarily derived as an auctioneer and valuer of livestock, principally dairy cattle. Among the animals that I have sold by auction have been many owned by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, from his fine herd in Cheshire and by the brother of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, from his equally fine herd which, as he said, recently won the prestigious competition for the best dairy herd of any breed. I found the noble Lords' comments most apposite to the situation and I hope that the Minister will answer the many queries that they raised.
In the course of my business I have been closely concerned with the problems caused by BSE since its discovery several years ago. But the situation at present is nothing short of a desperate and unprecedented crisis. When the Minister for Health made his fateful announcement on 20th March, I knew immediately that it spelled difficulties ahead for my profession. But how the events of the past seven months have unfolded almost beggars belief.
The principal problem that has affected those involved in the dairy farming industry concerns the over 30-month slaughter scheme and the way in which it has been carried out. In whatever form the Government envisaged it working, it seems to have been a complete shambles. The results can be felt on virtually every cattle farm, both beef and dairy, throughout the United Kingdom. There appears to have been little or no visible consultation with the industry at the outset as to whether the propositions for the over 30-month scheme were feasible or not. It has been akin almost to setting out across a desert with a limited amount of petrol in the tank of one's vehicle, not having the faintest idea of how many miles it is to the other side.
As other noble Lords pointed out, as we currently stand there is a huge backlog of cattle. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, quoted a figure of 400,000. That is the figure most generally quoted as the currently ongoing backlog. That has served to more than halve the price of dairy cattle at the present time and, as winter fast approaches, the situation is worsening. Those who have been unable to get cattle slaughtered have been forced to keep them, many of them still producing milk and adding to production quotas, both their own quotas and obviously the national quota. The current price of

1755
purchasing or leasing additional quota is now prohibitive to most dairy farmers. As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, pointed out, in numerous cases milk producers have additional heifers calving this autumn for which they have no room, feed or quota and which are virtually worthless on the open market. Many of the cattle that have to be sold at the current market price owing to farmers retiring, relinquishing tenancies or being forced to sell due to financial restraints are making £100 to £200 less than could be obtained on the over 30-month slaughter scheme, if only farmers could get access to it.
Many of those cattle are perfectly serviceable dairy cows which in the normal course of events would be purchased by other farmers for milk production. The only people who are able to buy them at the moment, as the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, pointed out, are those who have special connections with access to abattoirs. Those people are making substantial profits out of the scheme at the expense of the majority of the nation's farmers. Obviously, it is an ill wind that blows everybody off course. One can expect that there will always be people about to profiteer from a given situation. One has heard about abattoir owners slaughtering cows from several sources under the scheme and doing a worthwhile job who realised how much more they could make by purchasing the cows for themselves and slaughtering them. I do not say that every abattoir owner does it, but I have heard of such cases. The other day I was also told of an abattoir owner who bought a new top of the range car with a specially ordered number plate, P6 BSE, by which he celebrated making a million pounds in profit over the first six months of the BSE scenario.
There does not seem to have been any proper governmental organisation of the scheme. Abuse of its principles is rife. The secretary of the National Cattle Breeders' Association told me that, in company with other agricultural organisations, it warned the Government in April, shortly after the scheme was announced, of many of the problems associated with carrying out such a scheme and in particular told them of the need for a system of regulation to be instituted to ensure that the scheme worked smoothly and fairly for all. Now, in order possibly to fund tax cuts in the coming Budget in an attempt to have themselves re-elected, the Government have seen fit to cut the price paid in compensation. For those who have kept cattle since the spring, unable to get them killed, to be told that they are now worth even less is a rather bitter pill to swallow. It is no wonder that at present farmers feel betrayed by the Government.
What is of prime importance is that the Government take steps to resolve the situation as soon as possible. In nearly 25 years in the business, I have not faced any situation so grave as the present one. Neither have many of those with a lifetime's experience in farming. If the backlog of cattle awaiting slaughter can be cleared as swiftly as possible, it may help to put the industry on a forward track. The Minister of Agriculture last week announced a package described as £45 million of aid to farmers. A substantial proportion of that sum is not going anywhere near the pockets of farmers. It simply
1756
provides storage for carcasses pending rendering by an organisation whose monopoly has the industry in a stranglehold. We cannot blame the Government for that particular unfortunate circumstance, but we hope that steps might be taken in the future so that the situation cannot arise again.
What will happen when the storage capacity is filled? We shall be back to fewer numbers being killed and pictures taken by a voracious media of cattle starving to death in the fields as farmers are unable to feed them or have them humanely killed. Cannot the Government give serious consideration to open air incineration of cattle—at specially approved sites, of course—to clear the backlog as quickly as possible? That would have the benefit of releasing the industry from the stranglehold at present held on it by the renderers.
Over the past seven months there has been considerable debate on the merits or otherwise of an accelerated slaughter policy to rid the country of BSE and allow the beef export ban to be lifted. Such a policy was agreed by the Prime Minister at the Florence Summit in June, though subsequently, about two months after, it was dismissed as being without scientific justification. The more cynical among us might think that for those last words we should read: "We've done our sums now and can't afford it if we're going to cut taxes before the next election". Such a decision is in any case hypothetical until we have cleared the backlog in the over 30-month scheme and it will warrant further debate in the future.
For the present, I trust that the Government will face up to their responsibilities to the nation's farmers; that they will immediately implement a fair system of registration so that genuine farmers can get their barren cows disposed of; that the full payment as originally announced will be restored; and that the 30-month cull will proceed with due haste by whatever means are necessary in order to give those who provide the country's beef and dairy products a sense of purpose and hope for the future—commodities which are sadly lacking at present in the majority of the nation's farmers.
The cattle business, in all its forms, is probably this island's oldest industry. It dates from the time when our ancestors wore loincloths and hunted with spears. I have been proud to serve it for my entire working life and fervently hope that this great industry will not be destroyed on the altar of political expediency.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I am beginning to feel sorry for the Minister, though he is looking remarkably cheerful. I hope that he heard the noble Lord, Lord Rathcreedan—I understand that he did—who is an excellent auctioneer. He drove his points home and they were very good points.
It is a sorry tale of woe. It will not do any harm to remind the Minister of the sequence of events. First, the Government do not believe in regulation. When the renderers decided that a system of continuous rendering was much cheaper, the authorities simply let them go ahead. From that flowed without doubt the enormous incidence of BSE; the 160,000 cases of which we have

1757
heard and the follow-up slaughter cases. It does not do for governments to think that industrial peopleprofit-makers—think always of the good of the nation. They need regulation.
Then we went on to the Government's introduction of compensation. But they only paid half. That led to a reluctance on the part of farmers to part with cattle at half price when, perhaps by cheating, they could obtain the full price. Then we came to the handling of the crisis by two Ministers when they feared that there might be an epidemic of the new type of CJD caused by BSE. I am not surprised that the Germans were terrified—they are susceptible anyway—because the Minister frightened me. I really thought, when I heard him say that he would slaughter every beast in the country if necessary, that some terrible indication was on the way. The Government then made matters worse by saying, "But give us to the weekend and we will be able to tell you better what is going on". The mishandling of the whole affair was quite appalling.
We now come to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, who is a man I respect greatly. But I quarrel with one thing that he said. There is no new scientific evidence to alter the situation; there is a new scientific evaluation. However, a lot of us knew the figures anyway and realised that the whole thing was declining so fast that it would be finished by the time we came into the new century. But to make a promise that we would slaughter so many cattle—we knew it was a political promise—and then baldly to announce that there was new evidence and we would cancel it is not the way to obtain the co-operation of the people of Europe. We must have consistent policies, and that is what there has not been in the Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, spoke well of the handling of the situation in Scotland. That is true, and the noble Earl may take some credit that it has been better handled there than in England. But that is not to say that there are not a great number of people in Scotland with a backlog of cattle that they cannot get rid of looking at the coming winter and at a lot of extra expense. To say to the people who are holding on to the cattle that they will receive £50 less than those who were fortunate enough to get rid of them before October is not encouraging. The Minister should think again in that regard.
I shall try not to go on too long; there are many comments that one could make—so many that it must be wearisome for the Minister listening to them. But the fact is that the situation is a mess. The sooner responsible people in the Government realise that and do something about it at the top—the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, mentioned the incompetence not only politically but apparently among the experts—the better everything will be. We need in political and other quarters a good deal of human culling, though I would not go so far as to advocate slaughter.
7.46 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, in reference to the
1758
last point, I am not sure what the difference is between a human cull and human slaughter. The noble Lord may tell me afterwards.
Like other noble Lords, I am genuinely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for raising this issue. It is of continuing importance to so many across the United Kingdom, and it is therefore appropriate that in this overspill period we should discuss it. I did not realise that there was quite so much cross-party trade in cattle in this House. The noble Lord, Lord Rathcreedan, identified and owned up to the cattle links that he has with all sides of the Chamber. I have heard of the cross-sectional nature of the beef industry and BSE generally, but the cross-party nature of the trade is unusual.
I must put down one or two pointers to remind noble Lords what has been going on, before turning to some of the individual questions. We have been making and will continue to make a substantial effort to address the impact of the BSE crisis. As my noble friend Lord Soulsby of Swaffham indicated, it is unprecedented. It involves a science which is still only partly understood. The extent of the challenge is of a proportion of which few of us have had experience in the agricultural world. It has generally presented an immense challenge to everyone, both within the Government and within the industry itself. That is why we have committed £2,500 million in order to tackle some of the issues raised by BSE. If the noble Lord, Lord Rathcreedan, thinks that that commitment to the farming industry can in some way be linked to tax cuts at the next election, he is perhaps a better auctioneer than he is an analyst.
Throughout the past months, especially during the summer months, both myself in Scotland and my agricultural colleagues in other departments spent a huge amount of time with the beef industry, both at the producer end and at the slaughter, auctioneer and processor end in order to listen to them and to see that the measures we are bringing in are leading to good effect. We consulted and liaised extensively with the industry throughout the United Kingdom and with all the different parts of the industry. I therefore take grave objection to the accusation by the noble Lord, Lord Rathcreedan, that there has been a failure to consult. In fact, the most extraordinary assertion was that the 30-month scheme itself was something of a shambles as an idea in that it was the National Farmers Union which requested the scheme. It approached Ministers and said that that is what it wanted. We listened to the NFU and to the retailers. This is not a government inspired scheme; it is a National Farmers Union inspired scheme.
We are aware that, despite the £2.5 billion committed to date, we cannot address exactly the circumstances of every individual throughout the beef industry and the ancillary trades. But we can ensure that we put sufficient compensation, rescue aid and support into the essential links to the industry in order to ensure its long-term survival. By making sure that the essential links to the industry survive, we are also enabling the benefits of our aid to filter down into some of those ancillary trades. At the end of the day we need those links to survive the crisis in order that we come out the other side.

1759
The other truth, on top of the government support, is that consumer confidence will be the critical factor. We can carry on committing help to the industry, but if the consumer, both in this and other countries, is not back buying that beef, the industry will not survive in the form that we know it.
I could spend my entire time allocation detailing the measures we have brought forward regarding consumer confidence—the measures for producers, for abattoirs and cutting plants, for renderers and so on. However, a number of important questions have been raised by noble Lords and I wish to deal with them.
Many noble Lords spoke about the accelerated slaughter scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, introduced it early in his contribution. The Florence framework remains intact. I should point out that we have not reneged on it and we have not broken promises. We fought hard in Florence to ensure objective criteria—measurable elements regarding human and animal health—and that as far as possible science could be one of the bedrocks on which the Florence framework rested. We sought and won the concession that the Florence framework should be guided mostly by the veterinary committees and not by the Council of Ministers in order to minimise the politics of the timetable. Given the importance placed on objective criteria in the Florence framework—when the science attaching to BSE moves forward a stage when the Oxford group reports and when the interim report from the maternal transmission experiment comes in—it would be remiss of us all if we did not feed that new science into a framework which seeks to rest as much as possible on objective criteria.
It is not only the United Kingdom Government who have sought to assimilate this new science. It is also the Commission itself. In addition, no one should forget that scientists and politicians can declare a product safe; but, at the end of the day, if the consumer does not want to buy the product, the product will not sell, despite the best assurances of the other experts and anyone else involved. Therefore, the Florence framework rests on measures which are designed to bring consumer confidence back into play. That is why I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, about the importance of moving ahead with a selective cull as soon as we have identified the most appropriate selective cull to adopt. That decision will be taken by ourselves in consultation with the Commission and its experts who are studying the matter simultaneously.
My noble friend Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior felt that there was little justification for such a scheme but at the same time said it is important that we boost the demand for beef. The selective cull, if it triggers the lifting of the export ban, will do exactly that. I should point out that the numbers originally envisaged will drop significantly given the fact that the over 30-month scheme will absorb many of those which were envisaged as part of the original large number.
I would defend to my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley my right honourable friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and his officials. All the agriculture departments across the United Kingdom
1760
have had an immense amount of work to cope with in responding to the BSE crisis. Not only, as I have said before, is it unprecedented in its nature but all agriculture departments are anyway committed to a wide number of other schemes which are unrelated to BSE. Therefore, the additional work put on both Ministers and officials has been considerable. I believe that broadly we have been getting the right aid out in the right direction. That has been largely based on the extent to which we have maintained dialogue with the industry in all its parts. The efforts of my right honourable friend should not be underestimated or dismissed.
The backlog should be cleared by the end of the year. One can put various interpretations on the figures that have been produced, especially as surveys of farmers very often tempt them to identify more animals than they immediately want to put into the scheme. Being cautious souls, they are looking at some of the other animals that they know they will want to bring forward in the next few weeks and months.
The slaughterers themselves who have been playing a major part in the scheme have been receiving a fee since earlier this summer which is reduced from the first fee of £87.50 established at the start of the scheme. It was vital at the beginning to ensure that the slaughterers, renderers and everyone else involved in this crucial 30-month scheme came on board and responded with both their capacity and their determination to get numbers up immediately. There was a need to ensure that they forewent other business which they might otherwise have been able to pursue. For instance, a good number of scheme abattoirs have had literally to give up their links with other parts of the market in order to remain members of the scheme. I can give the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and others an assurance that we continue to scrutinise the compensation and payments that go to everyone involved in the 30-month scheme in order to identify any discrepancies or excesses. We continue to negotiate the best possible rate for the scheme.
I can inform my noble friend Lord Stanley that cattle coming into the scheme with documentation and teeth which suggest a slightly different story will be judged by the documentation. The documentation takes priority over the teeth.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but that is not happening at the moment. I can tell him of two abattoirs that are doing it on teeth.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I took advice on this matter just before speaking in order to give my noble friend a clear answer. If I have anything to add to that simple answer, I shall contact my noble friend.
My noble friend also asked about open air incineration. The noble Lord, Lord Rathcreedan, also mentioned it. There is no plan at present to use that option. The intervention board is already letting contracts to closed incinerators to become involved in the scheme. We have other options to pursue to increase capacity, but at the moment no consideration is given to open air incineration.

1761
My noble friend Lord Stanley also asked about the price he will be getting for his cattle after 31st October. While on 1st November he will continue to get a top-up for his clean beef and his bullocks and heifers, on 2nd November the top-up ends, as was always intended. That is based on the advice given to us by agricultural advisers north and south of the Border that farmers with six months' notice could with most herds achieve changes in their feeding patterns to ensure that they achieved a market weight under 30 months.
The drop in the basic rate from 1 ecu to 0.9 of an ecu reflects a number of issues. I would encourage all noble Lords who felt that was disappointing to think about two or three simple factors. First, the rate that is paid is meant to reflect the market that exists beyond the scheme. Otherwise, the scheme begins to distort the market. It can encourage farmers to grow cattle for the scheme itself. It can also begin to induce a movement of cattle into the United Kingdom—perhaps from the Republic of Ireland or from other places—because we are offering a compensation which is more than the market is offering. It was important that we avoided a distortion that had crept in. Secondly, it is important that the money that is available to help the beef industry is targeted as much as possible at the survival of the beef industry.
The cattle coming to the 30-month scheme serve a useful purpose in terms of consumer confidence and supply and demand, but it is important that the compensation that they attract is not above that which is fair within the market at the time. It is more important that the money that is available is used for specifically targeted schemes for the beef industry, which is suffering the most, than that we should over-compensate all those cattle across UK agriculture, be they dairy or beef, which happen to be coming in through the over 30-month scheme.
With the leave of the House, although I realise that I am now over my time limit, I should like to answer one or two more of the questions that have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked about progress with regard to tallow, gelatin and semen. Since the Commission decision lifting the ban on exports of gelatin and tallow made from UK raw materials was published, new scientific evidence has cast doubt on the conditions set out for the production of gelatin. However, manufacturers may continue to produce and export gelatin for those uses if it is made from imported raw materials. On tallow, legislation will be introduced soon which will implement the requirements of the decision. On semen, where the ban on exports was totally unjustified from the beginning, although the export markets are now open to us again, it is taking time to regain our lost markets.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked about new money versus old money. It would take too long to mention all the schemes, but they all involve new money. A recent announcement stated that this autumn the first instalment of suckler cow premia and beef special premia will be paid at a rate of 80 per cent. instead of
1762
60 per cent. We recognise that that helps the cash flow of many farmers and that a good cash flow can mean the difference between survival and otherwise.
I was surprised when the noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked why there had been such a delay with regard to cold storage. Cold storage has been available from an early date. Some cold storage facilities can be identified and accessed quickly because the construction and location are right and because they are empty. Other cold storage facilities have to be emptied of their existing contents and there needs to be negotiation. We are converting the government grain stores, but that involves a few months of building work. Within the next two weeks additional cold storage facilities coming on stream will provide extra capacity for about 118,000 carcasses. That gives some idea of the effort that has been made over many months to set up a continuous stream of new storage facilities.
I turn now to the restriction orders. The Florence criteria envisaged an accelerated slaughter programme which would simultaneously increase the already dramatic decline in the incidence of BSE, improve public confidence and answer some of the questions relating to animal health and public food safety. During the Florence negotiations, restricting animals on farms was not regarded as a factor of sufficient significance. Therefore, that matter is in the pending tray at the moment but, as all noble Lords know, not all the details of the BSE saga have remained unchanged. Issues such as restriction orders may well be back on the agenda at a later stage.
I turn now to the subject of BSE in pets. I regret the fact that the Independent ran such an alarmist article without getting its facts right. Indeed, I encourage members of the press to ponder their own actions throughout the BSE crisis and to work out to what extent they might have contributed to the sharp decline in consumer confidence in the initial phases through seeking headlines rather than prudent facts. Only material derived from non-specified bovine materials from animals under 30 months of age is permitted to be used in pet foods. Therefore, there is no chance of the sort of threat arising on which the Independent commented this morning. I understand that the Chief Veterinary Officer telephoned Mr. Jones this morning to try to explain the position. He left a message, but Mr. Jones failed to ring him back.
My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith asked about casualties. We take casualties seriously and it is increasingly our practice to make sure that the slaughter houses involved in the 30-month scheme are obliged to accept casualties as part of their continuing involvement in that scheme.
A number of noble Lords referred to the export market and asked how it might re-emerge. The 30-month scheme anticipates that we shall regain our export markets as a result of hard evidence and criteria and that that will happen on a phased basis. That confirms some of the sentiments expressed tonight by noble Lords. The Government maintain that the regional basis, about which the press have speculated, is not a sustainable or justifiable way of dealing with the matter.

1763
Indeed, the Florence framework recognised that certified herds would be the way in which the ban would begin to be lifted. Therefore, I can reassure my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith and others that we are seeking to re-establish our export markets as quickly as possible, that that will happen on a phased basis and by lifting the ban according to herds rather than by means of a less defensible regionally-based scheme. However, many of your Lordships will recognise that the criteria that will be agreed are likely initially to suit some parts of our beef industry better than others.
My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith also mentioned advance payments for the dairy herd. We have had a scheme for advance payments which was really aimed at the beef industry, which has been the hardest hit. We recognise that beef is an important by-product of the dairy industry, but it must be admitted that the dairy industry has a continuing cash flow from dairy produce. If and when a further advance payment scheme is introduced, we shall take that factor into account.
I hope that I have covered a good proportion of the points raised. I am grateful that all noble Lords have spoken from their own experience and knowledge. I am thinking particularly of the noble Lord, Lord Granchester, who is a substantial and famous dairy farmer. I welcome him to his new seat in the House. I did not see him there when he last spoke on this subject.
I apologise for taking some time to cover these points, but I hope that my response will have answered some of the questions which noble Lords have raised.
Perhaps I may conclude by advising the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that he must have a very short memory indeed if he thinks that non-co-operation was a failure. The noble Lord and others have given us some history tonight, so I shall do likewise. On 20th March, the announcement was made that the experts at SEAC had established a likely but unproven link between the two diseases. As experts in the subject, they felt that there was a possibility of a link and, as we have always said that we shall protect the public from theoretical risk as well as proven risk, we took that information seriously. Two months later our colleagues in Europe were continuing to ignore the science which we were able to present, the common sense and the other reassurances that we were able to demonstrate. Europe was also ignoring the World Health Organisation and the International Veterinary Organisation. Indeed, the Commission itself was inclined to agree with the science that we presented in our own defence. After eight weeks of receiving very little co-operation, we introduced a policy which was designed to make Europe concentrate on the strength of our case. We wanted to achieve the terms of the Florence agreement. It took just four weeks to do so. Those terms were agreed on 20th June. It was an extremely successful policy.
I return onshore, to the domestic dimension to this crisis. Government initiatives are important and vital. We have provided funds to the tune of £2.5 billion to help the industry survive. I repeat that at the end of the day consumer confidence in beef is the more important factor. Therefore, a considerable amount of that money
1764
is aimed at the consumer and to ensure we have a beef industry in future which sustains the jobs we know it can.
We have throughout worked extremely closely with the industry. We have sought to consult and achieve a consensus whenever and wherever possible. That is the theme of our approach in continuing to tackle this crisis. I assure the House that we will not rest for a minute in responding to the problem. The beef industry in the United Kingdom is a great one. We are determined to maintain our commitment to the industry and the jobs that rely upon it. I say to all noble Lords who have spoken that perhaps the grievances some of them feel they have are based on misconceptions about the extent to which we are working to put things right and working in partnership with the industry who deserve to have everything put right.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I apologise to the Minister and the House for forgetting to declare at the beginning of the debate my interest as a farmer. I should like to put a question to the Minister. He said that the Government intended to move ahead with proposals for a selective cull in consultation with the Commission. Can he give me any idea of the timetable involved?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, how long is a negotiation? We must make sure that the implications of the new scientific evidence and data are properly understood both by our own scientific community and the Commission's scientific community. I cannot speculate on exactly when any conclusions will be reached.

Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill
A message was brought from the Commons earlier this day that they have made the following order—
That further proceedings on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill shall be suspended until the next Session of Parliament;
That if a Bill is presented to this House in the next Session in the same terms as those in which the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill stood at the last stage of its proceeding in this House in this Session—

(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first, second and third time; and

(b) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or (in the case of the Standing Orders relating to Private Business) dispensed with in this Session or in the Session 1994–95, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in the next Session;

That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past eight o'clock.

  Council of Ministers: Statistical Data
  Council of Ministers: Statistical Data
  European Commission Documents 1995
  European Commission Documents 1995
  NATO Enlargement: Costs
  NATO Enlargement: Costs
  London Transport Buses
  London Transport Buses
  School Libraries: Survey
  School Libraries: Survey
  Social Affairs Council, 24th September
  Social Affairs Council, 24th September
  Student Loans Company: Annual Report and Accounts
  Student Loans Company: Annual Report and Accounts
  Royal Travel: Funding
  Royal Travel: Funding
  Foetal Sentience: All-Party Pro-Life Group Report
  Foetal Sentience: All-Party Pro-Life Group Report
  Council of Europe Human Rights and Biomedicine Convention
  Council of Europe Human Rights and Biomedicine Convention
  Judges: Performance Monitoring and Appraisal
  Judges: Performance Monitoring and Appraisal
  Released Prisoners: Housing Prospects
  Released Prisoners: Housing Prospects
  Intervention Board: Performance and Targets
  Intervention Board: Performance and Targets
  Fisheries Council, 14th October
  Fisheries Council, 14th October
  New Coins
  New Coins
  Population Statistics
  Population Statistics
  London Fire Service
  London Fire Service
  Stalking
  Stalking
  Firearms: Homicides and Injuries
  Firearms: Homicides and Injuries
  Mr. David Fields
  Mr. David Fields
  Foam Filled Furniture Associated Deaths
  Foam Filled Furniture Associated Deaths
  Burglar Alarms
  Burglar Alarms
  Firearms-related Deaths
  Firearms-related Deaths