Sitting of 31 October 1996

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

    Tobacco and Alcohol Smuggling
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he is taking to curb smuggling in tobacco and alcoholic drink. [308]
    The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Phillip Oppenheim): Customs and Excise has almost 300 staff employed directly to prevent the cross-border smuggling of excise goods. They include a further 25 posts recently allocated to Dover. This front-line effort is backed up by specialist intelligence investigation teams whose efforts are being intensified. In addition, new computerised systems are being set up to enhance the co-ordination and analysis of intelligence about excise smuggling. Smugglers run the risk of losing the imported goods and the vehicles used to transport them. They also risk a prison sentence of up to seven years.
    Mr. Prentice: I thank the Minister for that reply. However, that news is inadequate, given that £770 million is lost to the Exchequer every year through smuggled drink and tobacco and a further £300 million is lost through cross-channel booze expeditions. Those expeditions are having a huge effect on my constituency, where five pubs have closed in the past 12 months. Yesterday, the Chancellor said that he was
    "in favour of some approximation of taxes that bear on sales, such as excise duty".—[Official Report, 30 October 1996; Vol. 284, c. 674.]
    When will there be some approximation of levels of duty across the European Union to damp down on smuggling?
    Mr. Oppenheim: On the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, he will have to ask Chancellors in other EU countries. We have no control over their excise levels.
    Having said that, I do not seek to minimise the problem. The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on an important difficulty, although, to put it in context, the loss represents some 5 per cent. of the £19 billion collected in excise duty. The fundamental problem is that collecting all the missing revenue would involve huge numbers of uniformed officers stopping every vehicle and person. That would result in massive queues at ports and airports, matched only by the queues of people complaining at every hon. Member's constituency surgery. Therefore, we
    768
    are concentrating our intelligence resources on the large, organised smuggling gangs where the real criminal activity is taking place.
    Mr. Carrington: Has my hon. Friend seen the report by Customs and Excise confirming that the figures relating to smuggling published by the tobacco and brewing industry were approximately accurate? Will he confirm that any hope of curbing smuggling can be effective only if the costs of beer and tobacco are approximately equal on either side of the channel? Does he agree that the solution lies with the French putting a sensible level of tax on tobacco to encourage their population to give up smoking?
    Mr. Oppenheim: I have little influence on my opposite number in France. However, I understand that the French recently decided to increase tax on tobacco by 9 per cent. later this year.

    Private Finance Initiative
    Mr. Waller: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to promote private finance projects in the regions. [309]
    Mr. Thomason: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are his current priorities for the PFI. [323]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Jack): I have already taken the private finance initiative roadshows to Birmingham. Wigan, Leeds, Southampton and Belfast and plan to visit the north-east, the south-west and East Anglia in the near future.
    My priorities are to build on the £7 billion of PFI projects already agreed, so that public and private sectors continue delivering high-quality services at improved value for money.
    Mr. Waller: My hon. Friend will be aware of the enthusiasm for the introduction of private sector funding to provide for infrastructure projects. Is he also aware that there is considerable anxiety about the apparently slow speed with which many projects are getting under way? Can he reassure the House that design, build, finance and operate will actually deliver the goods?
    Mr. Jack: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for articulating the concerns that have been expressed on deal flow in the private finance initiative. The best way to sum up how we have responded positively to that criticism is to tell him that the CBI said recently that our new guidance would improve risk allocation and, most important, cut bidding costs and help to speed up the flow of deals. At a recent conference in London on the private finance initiative, my right hon. and learned Friend announced a number of new documents, including those on standard contract clauses, better costs, project appraisal and other guidance, which we are giving those involved in the projects to help to speed up the deal flow and reduce bidding costs.
    Mr. Thomason: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the private finance initiative will be fully extended to local government, while at the same time ensuring that the proprieties of public finance are properly observed?
    Mr. Jack: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's question, since my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local

    769
    Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration has been speaking today at the city and financial conference in London, where he has been outlining some of the important steps that will open up private finance for local authorities—indeed, £250 billion-worth of support in private finance—such as introducing the ability to run DBFO-type projects.
    My hon. Friend asked an intriguing question on propriety. It is very interesting to consider that Lord Clinton-Davis recently said:
    "Labour would look at updating the public sector borrowing requirement regulations"
    for the PFI. If Labour is going to fiddle the PFI figures, perhaps it will fiddle them for everything else.
    Sir James Molyneaux: Is the Minister aware that his recent visit to Belfast was very much appreciated? Will he and his colleagues consider what further steps can be taken to make the enterprise initiative scheme more effective for, and attractive to, small investors?
    Mr. Jack: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his very kind comments about my visit to Belfast. The conference that I attended was extremely good: many people came from all sectors of industry in Northern Ireland, and there was great support for what the PFI can do. I have been lobbied on the enterprise initiative scheme and a number of other matters connected with venture capital as part of the Budget representations that I have personally received.
    Mr. Sheerman: Will the Minister take a special roadshow to some of this country's universities? As he will know, the last Budget was a disaster for university finances, and universities are struggling. They are very willing to try the PH, but cannot make it work for them. Will the Minister pay special attention to the universities' problems and to how they can use the PH with some success?
    Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman touches on an important point. I attended a major seminar in London towards the back end of last year. It dealt with how we explain the PFI to all those participating in further and higher education. It is interesting to note that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment recently opened one of the pathfinder projects for universities and the PFI at Greenwich concerning new student accommodation. There is very considerable interest in that area, and we are certainly working with the Department for Education and Employment to make further progress.
    Mr. Tracey: Is not encouragement of the extremely useful PFI made so much more difficult by the Labour party's discouragement of the initiative, especially in the national health service? That is surely rather odd, since at least five hospital projects have been brought about through the PFI.
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend is right. Such an attitude is typical of Labour Members. The Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen for health recently tried to mix it on the PFI by suggesting that, in some way, the initiative represented privatisation of the health service—it never has been that, and it never will be. It is about providing better facilities for patients who receive NHS care.
    770
    My hon. Friend is right to point to what we have achieved. Already, 40 projects of between £1 million and £10 million have signed up with the PR and we are working hard on the five major pathfinder projects for significant hospital development.
    Mr. Betts: The Chancellor said that £2 billion had been cut out of public expenditure estimates to allow room for PFI projects. Aside from the nonsense of trying to reclassify the channel tunnel link as a PFI scheme, which it never was, will the Minister explain exactly how much has been committed to the PFI this year and how much it is estimated will be committed by the end of the year? Does the Minister accept that there could be a reduction in that £2 billion and that, therefore, the PR has caused a reduction in public services, because the scheme is substitutional, not additional?
    Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman attempts to take our eye off the ball. Table 6.5 in the Red Book suggests that—in addition to our target of £2 billion-worth of private finance deals—the Government have £20 billion-worth of publicly sponsored capital. Some £7 billion-worth of deals have been agreed, and we are working hard to take those on to their next stages.
    Mr. Nicholls: When does my hon. Friend expect to come to the south-west to talk about the PFI? Before he does so, will he undertake to look at the details of the Dawlish hospital scheme to find out why it has taken so long to finalise the details?
    Mr. Jack: I cannot give my hon. Friend a precise date for my visit, but I hope very much that it will be before the end of the year. I am aware that the hospital project to which my hon. Friend refers is high on the agenda of other hon. Friends. We are working hard to unblock some of the problems—in Kent, as well as in the west country—to make certain that these important hospital deals can take place. A great deal of work has been done, particularly with the Department of Health and the private finance panel executive, to turn those projects into reality.

    National Debt
    Mr. Spellar: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the net national debt. [310]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Waldegrave): The provisional estimate of net public sector debt at end-March 1996 is £323 billion—some 45 per cent. of gross domestic product.
    Mr. Spellar: Can the Minister explain how, in spite of having receipts from North sea oil and privatisation, in the five years since the Prime Minister came to office—when the national debt was £155 billion—the Government have managed to double it?
    Mr. Waldegrave: There is something rather preposterous about the Labour party complaining about the national debt. The average public sector borrowing requirement under the Conservative Government has been 2.; per cent. of GDP. Under the previous Labour Government, it was 6; per cent—even with the help of the International Monetary Fund. It is reasonable to say

    771
    that, had Labour stayed in power, the Government would have continued to borrow at the same level. That would have produced a national debt of about £650 billion, or 90 per cent. of GDP. That is not an unlikely figure, as a number of countries in Europe that have had the disbenefit of social democratic governments have such debts.
    Mr. Redwood: Will the Chief Secretary confirm that Britain is one of only three countries beneath the reference level for the stock of debt necessary to enter the single currency? Will he further confirm that the 12 countries that have already borrowed too much and are outside the terms of the treaty will not be eligible to join, and that Britain will try to prevent them?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. Friend is perfectly right, and Britain is in a strong position on the stock of debt. In addition, all the other major European countries have had large increases in total debt, and most of them have been run for at least part of the time by socialist governments. We have not, and that is a major achievement. The final decision on who is eligible for EMU among those countries that want to join will be for the Heads of Government in due course, but some countries will have some explaining to do.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Minister acknowledge that, in some areas, it is the Government who have some explaining to do—in particular, on the current PSBR forecast and our inflation targets, both of which put us outside the qualification criteria? Will the Government ensure that they maintain their commitment to bringing down the PSBR forecast to meet the criteria? Will both he and his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor resist the rumours that the Government will announce at the start of the general election campaign that they will not proceed to enter monetary union, and consequently will not be disciplined by the need to meet the Maastricht criteria?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. and learned Friend and I—and all our colleagues—are reducing the public debt for the good of the British economy, and we will continue to do that.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: When those member states of the EU that wish to join a single currency come to submit their statistics to show whether they have satisfied the economic criteria of the Maastricht treaty, will those countries with unfunded public sector pension obligations have to attribute that unfunded commitment as part of their national debt? If not, how will it be treated?
    Mr. Waldegrave: That is not one of the criteria set out in the Maastricht treaty. Britain has a strong position in the short, medium and long term compared to some other countries that do not have properly funded pensions. Those countries will find that they must either cut pension entitlements—as some are currently trying to do, causing trouble in the streets—or increase taxes. I am happy to say that there is no question of our paying any part of that cost.
    Mr. Darling: On the question of putting up taxes, the Chief Secretary will be aware that the Chancellor's former adviser has suggested that value added tax ought to be
    772
    increased to reduce national debt and borrowing. Is it still the Chancellor's view that in principle the scope of VAT ought to be extended?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I know that this is the Labour soundbite for this week. The hon. Gentleman read it out in a rather dreary way. We had it yesterday and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor answered it. I advise the hon. Gentleman to read Hansard.

    Industrial Output
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what economic factors he expects to improve industrial output over the next 12 months. [311]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Industry will benefit from the most favourable combination of economic circumstances for decades—living standards are rising, business and consumer confidence are high, United Kingdom firms are highly profitable and are competitive in overseas markets, investment is rising, inflation is low and the public finances are under firm control.
    Mr. Amess: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Britain's strike record last year was the best since records began and that statutory recognition of trade unions, as proposed by the Labour party—a power that unions have never been given in the past—would pose a new danger to Britain's industrial output, particularly in Basildon and Southend, West?
    Mr. Clarke: I never fail to point out to our European partners that not only do we not have the social chapter but, because we have adopted more flexible labour market practices at a local level, we have the best industrial relations record we have had this century and a very much better record than anywhere on the continent. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is extraordinary that new Labour has put forward proposals on trade union recognition and the dismissal of strikers which go far beyond anything that old Labour tried to do in the 1970s, and that that poses a great threat in Basildon and elsewhere.
    Mr. Sheldon: Is the Chancellor aware that there is widespread disappointment in industry at his decision to increase interest rates? The result has been the greatest degree of uncompetitiveness in the pound sterling with, as a consequence, declining exports and problems for the balance of payments. That is a pure consequence of what happened yesterday.
    Mr. Clarke: The decision taken yesterday received a much better reception from most people than it has done from the right hon. Gentleman. Most people in British industry know that the key thing now is to keep in place for the next few years the combination of circumstances that I have just described and not to throw it away by allowing inflationary pressures to build up and threaten our progress.
    The right hon. Gentleman should be in a better position than most of us to point out the lessons of the past. When he was a Treasury Minister, we were used to double-figure interest rates and double-figure inflation. We lost control and threw away any advantages that

    773
    British industry might have had. That was the result of mismanagement under a former Labour Government, which the Conservative Government do not intend to repeat.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Although I share to an extent the view of the right hon. Member for Ashton-underLyne (Mr. Sheldon) that a rise in interest rates is not helpful, I appreciate why my right hon. and learned Friend has done that and I hope that he is proved right. Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that one way in which he could ensure that industrial output improved would be to avoid any further cut in infrastructure expenditure, which is so important to industrial efficiency, and that he and his Department should encourage investment in industry further by considering an improvement in capital allowances?
    Mr. Clarke: Of course I accept that an increase in interest rates is in itself never welcome news for those in manufacturing industry, with whom my hon. Friend is so concerned. However, people in manufacturing industry all realise that monetary policy has to be adjusted to protect against inflation. They have seen from what happened the last time I increased interest rates that, if one acts in good time on a modest scale, inflationary pressures are snuffed out and interest rates move within a narrow band while inflation generally stays low. That is the best assurance for the future.
    I take on board my hon. Friend's representations about the importance of infrastructure investment. That is right. We should sustain the necessary level of investment in infrastructure for our long-term good, and my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary's replies on the private finance initiative show that there are new and better ways of delivering better-quality infrastructure products at better value for money for the country.
    Mr. Milburn: Given all the claims that the Chancellor has just made about industrial output and the rosy picture that he painted of the British economy, will he explain why national income per head is higher in Germany and France in a downturn than in Britain today? Will he also explain why, far from being the enterprise centre of Europe, Britain is ninth out of 15 in the European prosperity league? After 17 years of failure, will not the British people rightly conclude that enough is enough?
    Mr. Clarke: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his position on the Opposition Front Bench. He, too, is making his debut—like my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary. My hon. Friend, unlike the hon. Gentleman, has chosen the right moment in our economic performance to join the Front Bench. I commiserate with the hon. Gentleman—it was bad luck to become a Treasury spokesman for an Opposition party when the economy is doing so well. I hope that a fresh face will produce fresh league tables—that may come later.
    Of course, Germany and France are currently showing higher incomes per head than we are—they have done so for years and years. But we are now outperforming them; we have faster growth than they have and our unemployment is falling from a level that was already below theirs. We are catching up and we shall overtake them. We shall double living standards in
    774
    this country in25 years, unless the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends have the chance of getting into office and ruining the economy in the next few months.
    Sir David Madel: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, with continuing low inflation, three-year wage deals should become the norm in industry and should also be extended where the Government are the employer?
    Mr. Clarke: I find that proposition attractive, but each individual case must be addressed on its merits and all cases must be subject to the usual discussions that take place over wage settlements. My hon. Friend highlights one aspect of becoming used to being a low inflation country. People are still getting used to the apparently low levels of their pay settlements. People receive a 3 per cent. pay settlement, which makes them better off, but some still hanker after a 10 per cent. settlement, which actually made them poorer when we were a high-inflation country. The annual wage round, annual bidding and the expectation of an annual pay change go back to the days when we first encountered hyper-inflation and Governments had pay policies—that was when the ritual got under way.

    VAT (NHS Hospitals)
    Mr. Cousins: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what additional revenue he forecasts will be raised in the next two financial years as a result of the recent customs ruling on input VAT reclaims by NHS hospitals. [312]
    Mr. Oppenheim: None.
    Mr. Cousins: Is the Minister aware that 200 NHS hospitals expect to be cheated of £140 million out of those VAT changes? Have the Government got themselves to the point where they need to sent VAT inspectors into nursing homes to levy VAT on incontinence pads? Are not those Tory tax rises too far?
    Mr. Oppenheim: I understand that the hon. Gentleman's concern about the NHS is genuine, but he has got it wrong. There is no change in hospitals' or hospital trusts' ability to reclaim VAT for contracted-out services, which is what the question was about. NHS trusts are treated in exactly the same way as NHS hospitals and other Government Departments. They pay their VAT in the year in which the expenses are incurred. Customs and Excise has given them a little leeway at the end of each year to ensure that they can get their payments in on time. There is no change, and the hon. Gentleman is running a rather unpleasant scare story.
    Mr. Richards: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the only time during the past 20 years that the national health service has not received a real increase in resources was under the last Labour Government?
    Mr. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend is absolutely right—not only that, but nurses' pay was cut under the last Labour Government. Under this Government, spending on

    775
    the NHS has increased by 70 per cent. in real terms—a record that no Labour Government have ever matched or could match.
    Ms Primarolo: May I again ask the Minister to look at the representations that he will have received from NHS organisations confirming that, as a result of this Government's change of policy, £140 million of patient care money will be removed from the NHS? Is that not another example of the Government's addiction to 'VAT which makes them blind to consequences, the existence of which they continually deny?
    Mr. Oppenheim: I had thought that Labour Front Benchers had cleansed themselves of any connection with any lobbying organisations. The fact is that the so-called NHS VAT forum, which has been running this scare story, is run by one organization—an organisation of VAT and tax avoidance lawyers called VAT Liaison Consultancy Ltd. [Interruption] I suggest that, instead of shouting at me across the Chamber, the hon. Lady should go back and do her homework. If the Labour party is going to allow every VAT loophole to be charged through when—if ever—it is in government, it will find that it has no money at all to put into the health service.
    Mr. Wilkinson: What additional revenue does my hon. Friend forecast will have to be raised in the next two financial years to make good the deficiency in VAT caused by the European Court of Justice ruling against Customs and Excise on the sale of discounted goods in this country?
    Mr. Oppenheim: The revenue lost in that case was £70 million.

    Landfill Tax
    Mr. Bennett: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue he estimates will accrue from the landfill tax in (a) the current year and (b) the first full year. [313]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Angela Knight): The revenue that will accrue from the landfill tax has been estimated at £110 million in the current year and £450 million in the first full year.
    Mr. Bennett: Given that the aim of the tax is to change people's behaviour rather than to raise money for the Government, what steps are the Government taking to encourage people to recycle items such as tin cans, newspapers and bottles so that the burden does not fall on local authorities and local council tax payers?
    Mrs. Knight: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Department of the Environment is very active in that area, but I urge him to put his effort behind recycling. No doubt he, like me, collects newspapers, tin cans and bottles at home. I urge him to take them down to local bottle and paper banks and so do his bit for conservation and recycling and to let local authorities do theirs.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Although it would stick in my craw to admit that any tax is a good tax, does my hon. Friend agree that the landfill tax is a good environmental
    776
    measure? Will she confirm that it will not pose an overall net cost to businesses, because it is balanced by a reduction in the national insurance contributions of employers? In addition, I wish my hon. Friend many happy returns of the day.
    Mrs. Knight: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind wishes. I have, unfortunately, reached the age at which I would rather go backwards than forwards.
    The substance of my hon. Friend's question related to landfill tax and I can assure him that the tax is a key part of the Government's strategy of reducing reliance on landfill and promoting more sustainable alternatives. My hon. Friend is also right to say that the tax will result in a national insurance contribution reduction for businesses, thereby helping industry to create jobs in this country, an endeavour in which we have been successful and will continue to be successful in future.

    VAT (Revenue)
    Ms Eagle: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue has been raised by changes to the range of goods on which VAT is charged since 1992. [316]
    Mr. Oppenheim: The net revenue effect of various changes to VAT coverage since 1992 is estimated to be £870 million in the current year.
    Ms Eagle: Is it not true that, before the last election, the Prime Minister announced that he had no intention of increasing, and no need to increase, the scope of VAT? Yet we have just heard that more than £800 million is to be collected this year from such extensions. Do the Government intend to make a similar pledge ahead of the next election, or are they going to extend VAT to children's clothes, food, books and newspapers?
    Mr. Oppenheim: The hon. Lady knows that the money raised from VAT on fuel, which was the largest component of that rise, funded the increase in NHS spending last year. Perhaps the shadow Chancellor will now tell the country where he will find the £450 million from his proposed cut in fuel duty. Which spending programmes will he slash? Will he cut spending on the NHS, will he raise other taxes, or will he do what every other Labour Government in history have done—massively increase borrowing?
    Mr. John Greenway: Can my hon. Friend tell the House the original Treasury estimate for VAT on domestic fuel and how that compared with what has been raised? Surely electricity and gas prices have fallen sharply in the past three years, so that, even with VAT, people are paying less for electricity and gas at home.
    Mr. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend is right, and I should gently remind Opposition Members that for years they have had only one energy policy—to burn more and more expensive and relatively dirty coal. They fought tooth and nail our policy of allowing power stations to burn cheaper and cleaner gas, which has resulted in a fall in energy prices even when one takes into account the rise in VAT, and they are shameless enough to pretend that they care about the pollution of the environment and the cost to poorer people.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: Can the Minister confirm that the Chancellor said:
    "If we could start again, we would have VAT on everything and I do not think the case for exempting newspapers is all that strong. The real reason we zero-rate newspapers is that politicians are frightened about putting VAT on newspapers."
    Is the Chancellor frightened, or will he have the courage of his convictions? Will we see the 23rd Tory tax rise? Enough is enough. Britain needs a new start and a new Labour Government.
    Mr. Oppenheim: That was the parliamentary equivalent of a cheap shot. I will confirm that, as long as the hon. Gentleman or the Shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), will confirm that no Labour Government will under any circumstances increase VAT. I will also confirm it, if the hon. Gentleman will confirm that the Labour Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) described last year's Scottish nationalist proposal to reduce VAT on fuel to 5 per cent. as
    "another cynical ploy from an increasingly opportunist and desperate party.—[Official Report, 23 January 1995; Vol. 253, c. 49.]
    That sums it up pretty adequately.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Members for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) and for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) simply got their statistics in a twist when talking about VAT rises? We are talking not about rises, but about the elimination of fraud and, for the second time this afternoon, we have heard the Labour party being the friend of the tax avoider. Is it not right that the Labour party is simply trying to play politics and does not care about economics at all?
    Mr. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend is right. When it comes to fraud, of all Labour's phoney figures, those on borrowing, debt and tax are the most fraudulent. Our worst year for public borrowing was better than Labour's best year. If we had continued to borrow at the level that we inherited from the last Labour Government, national debt would have doubled—[HON. MEMBERS: "It has."] No, it has not. Hon. Members should get their facts right. National debt is significantly lower than it was in 1979, and if they have other figures, they should produce them. That is why people are saying, "There are lies, damned lies, and Labour sound bites."

    Exchange Rates
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the percentage change in the value of the pound (a) against the deutschmark, (b) against the dollar and (c) against the basket of international currencies since September 1992. [318]
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Between 1 September 1992 and 24 October 1996, sterling has fallen by 13 per cent. against the deutschmark, 20 per cent. against the dollar and 12 per cent. on an ERI—that is a basket of currencies—basis.
    Mr. Williams: Does the Chancellor recognise that, as has been shown again by Labour's 28-point lead in the latest opinion poll, the people of this country realise that
    778
    the recovery has nothing to do with the Government's policies, but is due to the devaluation that followed black Wednesday?
    Mr. Clarke: That peculiar theory is obviously held in more quarters than I had appreciated. The idea that all one has to do to achieve economic success is to devalue one's currency has been disproved over and over again by successive Labour Governments. Of course, in the short term that devaluation gave us a competitive advantage, but it might well have given rise to higher inflation and led to the sort of disasters that we had when Labour was in power.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) acted quickly. He put in place a firm inflation target and a framework for monetary policy, which I have since strengthened to concentrate on delivering that target. We went in for tight fiscal policies to keep the public finances under control and we kept the competitive advantage that came from the devaluation by taking the right economic measures here. We were opposed all the way by the Opposition, who would have turned the devaluation into the sort of fiasco that we saw over and over again when Labour was last in power.
    Mr. John Townend: Is not the Government's performance in dealing with the devaluation unique? This is the first time that devaluation has been followed by sustained low inflation. Is not the success of the Government's monetary policy borne out by the fact that, in recent months, the pound has been rising?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. This is the first time that we have kept the competitive advantages of a devaluation. We took the tough measures that were necessary to do so, despite Labour's opposition. Now the pound is strengthening strongly. It is still not back—but at an acceptable level—because it is just getting back to where it was 18 months to two years ago. That is because of confidence in the international markets about the long-term stability and prosperity of the United Kingdom economy.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: Although the Prime Minister told us in 1992 that the pound would replace the deutschmark as the strongest European currency, will the Chancellor confirm that, in an astonishing revelation this afternoon, he had to admit that we are now behind France and Germany in national income, that we have been behind France and Germany for years under his Government, and that our best hope is to catch up with France and Germany not now or next year, but many years from now? What is left of the Government's claim that Britain is the enterprise centre of Europe? Will the Chancellor confirm that we are in the bottom half of the European league, and that that is the result of 17 years of Conservative government?
    Mr. Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman aspires to be a Chancellor of the Exchequer who attends meetings of the G7 Finance Ministers. He has been shadowing the job for three years, yet he has just discovered that the Germans and the French have bigger economies than ours. That has been the case for many years under successive Governments. The failure of the United Kingdom compared with other countries, under Labour

    779
    Governments in particular, led to our being overtaken in the post-war world. In the 1980s and 1990s we have had faster growth than France or Germany. We are fast catching up with them. The right hon. Gentleman is so out of touch with the real world that he does not realise that his policies would take us back to the comparative decline from which, under a Conservative Government, we have at last escaped.

    Economy
    Mr. Sweeney: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the International Monetary Fund's recent report on the United Kingdom economy. [322]
    Mr. Waldegrave: The IMF recently described the UK's economic performance as "enviable" and said that "the strong overall performance is a product of sound economic policies."
    Mr. Sweeney: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that extremely complimentary report contrasts starkly with the performance of the last Labour Government, which was so bad that the International Monetary Fund had to come in and run our economy? Does he further agree that Labour's plans to introduce the provisions of the social chapter on a minimum income are likely to destroy jobs and damage our economy?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The contrast between the situation in, I believe, 1976 when Lord Healey, the then Chancellor, could not attend the IMF meeting because of the financial crisis in Britain, followed by the arrival of the IMF to run the British economy, and the fact that the IMF this year congratulated my right hon. and learned Friend, could hardly be more marked. That contrast provides a summary of the difference between Labour and Conservative economic government.
    Mr. Winnick: If it is all so rosy in the garden, will the Chief Secretary explain why there is such an overwhelming wish in the country to get rid of the Government, and why The Times today publishes an opinion poll showing a 28 per cent. Labour lead? Does that not demonstrate that what the British people want, first and foremost, is a general election now?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I remember hearing remarks like that from the hon. Gentleman many times over the past 17 years. I shall hear them from the Opposition benches over the coming years too.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: In fairness to the Opposition, when my right hon. Friend and the Chancellor study the IMF report, will they ask themselves whether, over the entire period when the IMF has reported on this country, the shadow Chancellor has ever agreed with us, or got it right, on any single major decision affecting taxation, interest rates or anything else?
    Mr. Waldegrave: One certainly wants to be fair in these matters, and the answer is that my hon. Friend is perfectly right. In the past, the Opposition have always got interest rate judgments wrong. They now have a policy which precision-bombs all the strengths of our
    780
    economy—the social chapter, the minimum wage and so on. They want to destroy all the labour market liberalisation which is giving us more and better jobs than our European competitors.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 31 October. [338]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall he having further meetings later today.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is the Government's intention first to cut and then to abolish both inheritance tax and capital gains tax—moves that would be extremely popular with all who work hard to provide for themselves and their children`? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is strange that the electorate hears a great deal about taxes that the Opposition would cut and precisely nothing about taxes that they would raise?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right. We hear very little about the windfall tax. Instead, we hear about promised reductions in value added tax—reductions that were called "cynical" by a shadow Treasury spokesman last year. But we hear little about what the rate of the windfall tax would be, on whom it would be levied, or what it would mean for the people who use gas, electricity and the other utilities.
    As for our tax plans, I can confirm that our first priority, when it is affordable, is to move towards a 20p basic rate of tax; and then to deal with the other taxes that my hon. Friend mentions.
    Mr. Blair: I think that what most people remember about cynicism and tax is that the Government promised not to raise VAT before the election and raised it straight afterwards.
    On Tuesday, the Prime Minister said that he could not be precise about lifting the beef ban now because there were continuing discussions in Luxembourg. That meeting ended last night. Is it correct that, although a compensation package for all European farmers was agreed, there was no agreed progress on lifting the ban? If so, given that the Prime Minister's timetable for lifting that ban expires tomorrow, what is his new timetable?
    The Prime Minister: No, the right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood something—but I shall happily explain it in greater detail to him. The discussions yesterday in the Agriculture Committee were not the discussions to which I specifically referred. The discussions are going on with officials and with the Commission in order to deal with the science—that was not a matter for general discussion in the agriculture debate yesterday.

    781
    What was agreed was more resources for farmers. The determination of precisely where the extra £50 million will go is to be discussed in this country and decided later.
    Mr. Blair: Actually, the right hon. Gentleman said on Tuesday that the discussions on lifting the ban were continuing now. My understanding is that lifting the beef ban was not even put on the agenda by the British Government at Luxembourg—an extraordinary state of affairs.
    The Prime Minister gave us the November timetable; it has now expired. Is it his position that the Florence agreement is still valid, or is his position that that agreement should be changed? In the latter case, what change is he seeking; and in either case, given that he gave us a timetable before, precisely what is his new timetable now? I think we should be told.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman needs to do a little more research before he asks ill-advised questions on this subject. The discussions on the scientific evidence are continuing with the Commission. Those discussions were not especially appropriate for the Agriculture Committee. Many of them are technical discussions and they are continuing. As I said to the House very clearly earlier this week, scientific issues that arose after the Florence agreement remain to be determined
    As I told the House on Tuesday, of course the Florence agreement is still in being. Much of that agreement has already been met, and, as I set out to the House on Tuesday, a determination on the rest of it depends substantially on the points still under discussion. I shall explain again gently to the right hon. Gentleman that those points arose after the Florence agreement in the light of changed science that is still being discussed. I hope that that is now clear enough for the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Blair: I do not think that it will be clear to the farming industry, to Europe or to anyone else. What is clear is that the Prime Minister said that the beef ban would be lifted by November. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. We all remember when he stood at the Dispatch Box and said that the ban would be lifted by November. Is it the position now that it will not be lifted by November, and that he cannot tell when it will be lifted? I think that is true. He simply cannot tell us what the position will be.
    Is not that weak and ineffectual leadership—precisely what means that his Government can no longer advance Britain's interests abroad, nor look after them properly at home? That is why people in this country say, "Enough is enough". [Interruption.] Yes, they say that. If we are to get leadership, direction and purpose back in Britain, let the British people decide, and let this weak and vacillating Government go.
    The Prime Minister: That really was one of the most trivial series of comments—utterly trivial. This is a matter of great interest to British agriculture. Scientific changes are important to that industry, but the right hon. Gentleman does not understand them, does not enter into any research on them, deliberately distorts what little he does know, ignores the reality of what is happening to the British beef industry, and
    782
    moves—as he does on his third question every Tuesday and Thursday—into a carefully pre-packaged, pre-prepared piece of irrelevant, juvenile sloganising. [Interruption.] I hear applause for the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who is undoubtedly the author of much of this sloganising. The right hon. Gentleman should give up this matinee performance, and start dealing with the realities of the beef crisis and other matters that we deal with daily.
    Mrs. Peacock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the county of Yorkshire has an economy that is bigger and better than those of many small nations? Is he also aware that 140 companies from Yorkshire are quoted on the London stock exchange, which is more than many other regions in this country? Will he send congratulations to all those in the county who have worked extremely hard to achieve the present state?
    The Prime Minister: I am certainly happy to congratulate the successful innovators who have produced a successful economy in Yorkshire, and undoubtedly many of them have been successful. That is also true in other parts of the country. At the moment, we have the most innovative and the most competitive economy in western Europe.
    Mr. Ashdown: The national debt has been going for 300 years. Will the Prime Minister confirm that he has doubled it in the past six?
    The Prime Minister: Can the right hon. Gentleman name a single expenditure cut that he has supported?
    Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Union that he wishes to protect is the Union of the United Kingdom, and that his Government will have no truck with proposals that put the Union at risk, and would not give people living in England the same opportunities as the people living in Scotland?
    The Prime Minister: I confirm the importance of the Union not only to Scotland but to England and the rest of the United Kingdom. I have never advanced the argument that devolution, or the separation that the Scottish National party wants, would be bad for Scotland alone, although I believe that it would be bad for Scotland—because I believe that it would be bad for the rest of the United Kingdom too.
    Mr. Austin-Walker: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 31 October. [339]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Austin-Walker: Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) reminded the Chancellor of the Exchequer of a BBC radio interview in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman, recalling the introduction of VAT, said that if we could start again we could have VAT on everything. Does the Prime Minister share the Chancellor's desire to extend VAT to children's clothes,

    783
    water, public transport and food, or does he share the view of Opposition Members and of the mass of the British people—that enough is enough?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly think that enough is enough of absurd sloganising of that sort. I am delighted that the Opposition have decided to spend so much of the money that they have apparently accumulated on the sort of trashy advertising campaign that they are trying to conduct this afternoon. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know about VAT, I shall tell him what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) said about a Scottish nationalist proposal to reduce VAT to 5 per cent. He described it as
    "another cynical ploy from an increasingly opportunistic and desperate party".—[Official Report, 23 January 1995; Vol. 253, c. 49.]
    Now the Labour party is doing the same.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, following yesterday's rise in interest rates, mortgage rates in this country remain at their lowest level for a generation? Can he recall any Government-announced interest rate move, whether upwards or downwards, that was not opposed by the Labour party?
    The Prime Minister: No. One part of the shadow Chancellor's litany is absolutely consistent: if interest rates go down he claims that that shows weakness in the economy, but if they go up he claims the same thing. It is a consistent litany. My right hon. Friend is right about the present level of interest rates. He is also right to say that the British economy is exceedingly strong, and that we shall keep it strong and keep inflation low.
    Mr. Hutton: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 31 October. [340]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hutton: Does the Prime Minister accept that, after 22 Tory tax rises since 1992, which have left the typical British family with an extra tax bill of £2,000, the British people are entitled to say that they have had enough both of him and of his party's broken promises on tax?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the level of tax, I look forward to finding out which tax reductions he has supported in recent years. Will he say now that he will not support the windfall tax, the tartan tax, the health tax proposed by his Front-Bench spokesmen, or the teenage tax that will result from child benefit being taken away? Which of those, all of which have been proposed by the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench, will the hon. Gentleman oppose?
    Mr. Riddick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the European Commission has disgracefully suppressed new evidence showing a clear link between rigid labour laws and high unemployment? Is not that a huge
    784
    embarrassment for the Commission and for Opposition Members who support the job-destroying social chapter and a minimum wage? Does it not show that the Labour party's approach would lead to massively increased unemployment?
    The Prime Minister: I have not seen the report, but like my hon. Friend I have heard that the report exists and that there has been some difficulty in getting it into the public gaze. I shall certainly ask whether the report will be published, so people can have a sensible debate on the policies that underlie it and see whether they are, as we believe, costing jobs; if they are, we shall consider whether we can take action to prevent that from occurring in the future and to reverse those expensive, job-costing policies, which are so much the flavour of the month with Opposition Front-Benchers.
    Mr. O'Hara: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 31 October. [341]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. O'Hara: Two days ago in the House, I repeated to the Prime Minister our invitation to co-operate in the introduction of legislation to regulate the advertising and sale of certain dangerous knives and weapons that are obvious to Opposition Members and to the British public and that ought to be obvious to the Government. The Prime Minister once again retreated.
    —[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] Madam Speaker: Order. Those who are calling out for a question are often the first to be guilty. I am asking the hon. Gentleman to carry out the regulations and put his question, but he does not need any guidance from Conservative Members.
    Mr. O'Hara: Certainly, Madam Speaker. The Prime Minister once again retreated behind the need for a definition. We have now produced a definition and—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must now put a question; otherwise, he must resume his seat.
    Mr. O'Hara: Has the Prime Minister seen the definition, does he agree with it, and will he now sit down with us and discuss it?
    The Prime Minister: Of course we will examine very carefully any constructive proposal. I understand that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has written to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and that there will be a meeting with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) in the near future. I must say, however, that it seems that the Labour Front-Bench team has been forced to accept what my right hon. and learned Friend has said all along: that it is not easy to define knives to be banned, despite the fact that the hon. Member for Blackburn said that it was. I believe that he has had to change his position. Of course we will consider any constructive suggestion from the hon. Member for Blackburn or from the hon. Gentleman.

Business of the House
3.32 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor (Dewsbury): May I ask the Leader of the House for details of future business?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 4 NovEMBER—Second Reading of the Crime (Sentences) Bill.
TUESDAY 5 NovEMBER—Second Reading of the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 6 NOVEMBER—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Second Reading of the Local Government and Rating Bill.
THURSDAY 7 NovEMBER—Motion on the Copyright and Related Rights Regulations.
Motions on the Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order and the Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order.
FRIDAY 8 NOVEMBER—The House will not be Sitting.
MONDAY 11 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Education Bill.
Madam Speaker, I cannot yet be definite about Tuesday 12 and Wednesday 13 November, but I hope to provide Opposition time on one of those days and to take Government business on the other. It will be proposed that on Wednesday 13 November there will be a debate on the identification of cattle and labelling of beef and beef products in European Standing Committee A.
On Thursday 14 November there will be a debate on Hong Kong on a motion for the Adjournment of the House and on Friday 15 November a debate on a motion for the Adjournment of the House on a subject that will be announced.
[Wednesday 13 November: European Standing Committee A—European Community Document: 10495/96; Identification of Cattle and Labelling of Beef and Beef Products. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report HC 36-i (1996–97)]
Mrs. Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that information.
In view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's misleading remark yesterday that the Opposition always refuse the offer of a spring economy debate, will the Leader of the House guarantee that there will be such a debate early next spring so that the House will have an opportunity before the general election is called to examine the real facts and the Government's appalling record on the economy? If the Chancellor is offering such a debate, we will be happy to accept that offer.
After yesterday's debate winding up the Queen's Speech, can the Leader of the House shed any light on the rumours still circulating that a leasehold reform Bill may yet be introduced? Such a measure was originally pinpointed as due to be in the Queen's Speech but seems subsequently to have been dropped.
The Leader of the House heard the exchanges at Question Time on combat knives and will therefore know that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn
786
(Mr. Straw) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) have made constructive suggestions to the Home Secretary. We have detailed proposals for legal controls to ban the sale of combat knives and to prevent the aggressive marketing of such knives.
Will he ensure that the Home Secretary considers those proposals in a less churlish manner than that which the Prime Minister displayed a few minutes ago when he was almost looking for problems rather than solutions to deal with the issue? Will he ensure that, when decisions are made following those discussions, a statement is made to the House so that the Home Secretary can be questioned further on the details of his proposals.
Finally, the Leader of the House is aware of the long-standing and widespread despair at the Government's handling of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis, which has been made evident on many occasions by both Government and Opposition Members. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) pointed out at Question Time, the Prime Minister told us in June that the beef ban would be lifted by November—and November starts tomorrow. There was some confusion in what the Prime Minister said about whether the lifting of the ban was discussed at the Council meeting that finished last night.
It is an important matter and I should think that all hon. Members would like to know when the House will be given the opportunity to discuss the Government's failure to deliver on the lifting of the beef ban. If the Prime Minister cannot give us a date for its lifting, can the Leader of the House give us a date for a full-scale debate?
Mr. Newton: On the first question, I shall consider, as I always do, requests for debates, whether on economic matters or anything else. I hope that the hon. Lady will bear it in mind the opportunities provided by Opposition days. In view of what she said, she may want to explain the fact that, as far as I can recall, the last time that the Opposition chose anything that could be called an economic debate in their time is as far back as July 1995. Given the terms in which she described the economy, I find that odd.
Secondly, on leasehold reform, I think that the hon. Lady may be referring to the proposals that were published in draft some time ago in respect of commonhold rather than leasehold. She may be confusing those two distinct issues. I am not yet in a position to say more on that.
On combat knives, I did not think that the Prime Minister's remarks were in any way churlish. He made it clear that he was aware that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) had written to the Home Secretary, and said that he expected that a meeting would take place. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary's approach to that meeting will certainly be constructive because it has always been clear that there is no dispute about the desirability of banning offensive weapons but that the matter depends on being able effectively to define them. To anyone who doubts our willingness to do so, I should say that we have banned 14 such weapons over the past few years and given the police powers to stop and search for them—powers which the Labour party argued against.

787
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made the position on BSE entirely clear at Prime Minister's questions, and I shall not add to what he said.
Sir John Cope: When will the Government publish the report by Lord Lloyd of Berwick on anti-terrorist legislation? When it is published, will we have a chance to debate it?
Mr. Newton: I can be clear about publication. My right hon. and learned Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have published the report today and have placed a copy in the Library. 'The Government will obviously want to study the recommendations and respond formally in due course. That would be the appropriate time to consider whether a debate is necessary.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: As the Leader of the House has left some time spare in the second week of business that he announced today, will he give hon. Members on both sides an early idea of when the Second Reading of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, which is about to be published, will be? Will he say a word about the representations that have been made to him through the usual channels about the possibility of a day in Committee of the whole House on the Bill shortly after the Second Reading?
Mr. Newton: I hope that I am always as helpful to the House as I can be. I certainly take note of the hon. Gentleman's request. As he knows, the Bill has not yet been published. He will also know that it is not usual practice to go into detail about discussions held through the usual channels, but I am sure that the representations that he mentioned will be taken into account.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: May we have a debate on offensive weapons and knives? Sadly, a young man in my constituency was killed with a knife recently, but it was a kitchen knife, which would not be covered by the term "combat knife". Does that not show that easy definitions are not easy to come by and that the Opposition's opportunism is to be despised?
Mr. Newton: That shows not only the difficulty of definition, but that all sorts of knives would not be banned under any definition. Nobody would argue in favour of banning kitchen knives, but they can, nevertheless, be used to inflict considerable damage.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that, since April this year, the Secretary of State for Social Security has failed to report to the House on the recommendations of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council to change the rules relating to chronic bronchitis, which currently result in only 11 per cent. of applicants obtaining benefit? I have told the House before that, as a result of all the representations that have been made, we fully expected the Secretary of State for Social Security to come to the House before now and, we hope, accept the new proposals from that important advisory council. What is going on? Does the Secretary of State
788
for Social Security not care about the miners who are coughing their lungs up? Is he waiting for them to die? Let us have a statement.
Mr. Newton: As I well know from my ministerial experience, such matters are complicated and they require detailed examination. My right hon. Friend will announce his decision as soon as he can.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Is there any chance of an early, urgent debate on the link between home ownership and mortgage interest relief? Conservative Members want to demonstrate their support for that relief and to argue in favour of adjusting it upwards, whereas the Labour party, in particular the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), wants mortgage interest relief abolished.
Mr. Newton: The debates that will follow my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget in just under a month may well provide an opportunity for such points to be aired.
Mr. Greville Janner: Will the right hon. Gentleman find time for an urgent debate on the work of the tripartite gold commission? After it has handed out money and gold to the Albanians, the commission will be left with a residue, much of which should go to individuals—Jewish and non-Jewish—who suffered from Nazism. Will he ensure, as far as he can, that Her Majesty's Government will not agree to any distribution of the residue without a debate in the House and without consulting the United States?
Mr. Newton: I shall certainly bring those representations to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: If there is to be a debate or discussions between the parties about dangerous knives, would my right hon. Friend bear it in mind that since it would be a criminal offence to be in a public place with any of those combat knives without reasonable excuse, subject to imprisonment of two years, one temporary solution to the problem might be to require all shops to display prominently a notice to that effect?
Mr. Newton: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will consider carefully the suggestion that my hon. and learned Friend has made in the same constructive way as he will consider all other points raised by any hon. Member.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: While the BSE crisis bites ever deeper, all we have had from the Government is confusion, contradiction and vagueness. The industry deserves better than that. I would like a full statement to clarify the issues, because, while the right hon. Gentleman may be satisfied with the situation, very few other folk are.
Mr. Newton: There is a fairly widespread misunderstanding of one aspect of the problem. Everybody knows that, over the past few months, there

789
have been changes in the nature of the scientific advice. That advice plainly needs to be properly and carefully considered when deciding on courses of action.
Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on industrial relations in the Post Office? Did he hear the interview on the radio this lunchtime with a Post Office leader who said that the phrase "Post early for Christmas" would have a new meaning this year and that Christmas cards should be posted in November to arrive in time, while Christmas cards posted in December would arrive in January or February? Is that not quite intolerable? Does it not demonstrate that the monopoly must be lifted, and for ever?
Mr. Newton: It is certainly true that people not only in the House but outside will not look kindly at disruptions to the mail service in the run-up to Christmas. Now that further talks have been agreed, I hope that the union will reflect on the damage that would be done to its members, quite apart from anything else, if the strike goes ahead. We have, of course, made it clear that, if the postal service is disrupted by further strikes, we would be prepared to suspend the monopoly for a further three months.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Last night, evidence was submitted to the Home Affairs Select Committee by representatives of the Prison Governors Association and Prison Officers Association that the current rate of overcrowding is rising at a rate of 800 per month and at roughly an annual cost of £224 million, and that we need to build one prison a month just to cope with increasing numbers. They said that the current situation is almost one of warehousing prisoners rather than rehabilitating them. In the light of that evidence, and given those appalling and dangerous circumstances, does the right hon. Gentleman think that the time has come for a debate in the House on the prison system and its purpose?
Mr. Newton: We have just had a debate on home affairs and Home Office matters during the debate on the Queen's Speech, and I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman participated. I have not had a chance to study the evidence to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will look at it carefully.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May I support the calls to my right hon. Friend for a debate on combat knives so that the House can get down to the problem of definition, bearing in mind the fact that a small penknife is a combat knife if used in combat? It is a very difficult question, on which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary needs proper support rather than all the absurd criticism that we have heard from the Opposition.
Mr. Newton: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will be grateful for my hon. Friend's comments and, as he says, there is no doubt that it is a genuinely difficult problem.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that during the
790
passage of the Broadcasting Bill the Minister of State at the Department of National Heritage promised to bring forward regulations to change the television concessionary licence scheme for old age pensioners. When can we expect those regulations? Will they he published before Christmas, because many pensioners are waiting for them?
Mr. Newton: I shall bring that question to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Has my right hon. Friend seen today's report from the Select Committee on Social Security on unfunded pension liabilities? Will he allocate time for a debate on it, for two reasons? First, we could debate the success of early Government policies to reduce our own liabilities, but, most important, we could give a lead to the rest of Europe in exposing that incredibly important subject, which will not only destroy the whole process of monetary union, but could rend the fabric of Europe in the next 20 or 30 years. Let us have that debate now and give a lead to Europe.
Mr. Newton: I very much agree with my hon. Friend that the report is a valuable contribution to the debate on these matters, and it certainly highlights how much better placed than our European partners we are in that respect. I cannot promise an early debate, but it is highly likely that there would be an opportunity for such matters to be considered in the Budget debate following my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor's Budget statement and the associated social security announcements.
Mr. Harry Barnes: May we have a debate on opencast mining, which is spreading like a virulent cancer throughout north Derbyshire, where the Government closed the final pits? Early-day motion 24 mentions a case in my constituency.
[That this House calls upon the Secretaries of State for Health and the Environment to jointly establish a full-scale and impartial investigation into the nature, extent and impact of hazardous and toxic materials on contaminated land on the site of the former Avenue Cokeworks at Wingerworth, Derbyshire, which would undertake detailed research into the impact of past operations on the site upon the health and well being of the former workforce and of the local communities; further calls for such an investigation to assess the likely impact for cases of asthma, cancer, heart disease and ill-health generally of present plans to commence opencast mining operations on the site, which will involve the movement and burial on-site of the contaminated land in question, and insists that a block be placed upon the commencement of the opencast operations to allow this investigation to take place, which should be given the duty of reporting on the best available methods of cleaning and decontaminating the site in the safest possible fashion.]
In another place, between Barrow Hill and Eckington, it is proposed to dig a great hole in the ground, which for 19 years will be filled by waste, brought in over that vast period by train in 50 sealed containers, which will be dismantled and then brought in by road. That is just one of the problems that exist in that area, which we need to debate in the House.
Mr. Newton: I have some constituency experience of a somewhat comparable matter, involving, not extraction of coal and insertion of rubbish, but extraction of gravel and insertion of rubbish. It is for the mineral planning authority in the first instance to decide whether permission should be given for such proposals.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: As my right hon. Friend is also my constituency neighbour, might he be aware of the concern in north Essex about the erection of telecommunications masts, and is there a possibility of his drawing that matter to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency? Will there be a space in the forthcoming business to raise that matter of concern, as, if a telecommunications mast is constructed adjacent to or in an area of outstanding natural beauty, there will be considerable anger in my constituency?
Mr. Newton: I am aware that, in what I will call our part of the country, there is quite a lot of concern about the number of such masts that have sprung up and are springing up. I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency, who is sitting on the Front Bench, has both met my hon. Friend and replied to a debate on the matter, but that would not exclude other possibilities being considered if I can find an opportunity.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: The Leader of the House will be aware that there is growing concern that medical evidence is excluded in appeals arising from the all work test. Is it not time that we had a debate to discuss how that all work test operates? There are many unfairnesses, and I do not believe that even the present Government intended the test to work as unfairly as it does.
Mr. Newton: I have already said that I would anticipate that, because of the association between the Budget and social security matters—I take it that that is what the hon. Gentleman is raising—there will be opportunities for debate on such matters in the immediate aftermath of the Budget.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): So that the debate on the Local Government and Rating Bill can be better informed, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Secretary of State for the Environment comes to the House before next Wednesday to give a statement explaining why his Department rightly had to lodge an objection with Labour-controlled Hillingdon borough council against its proposed changes to the unitary development plan in the borough—in particular to promote social housing on public open space, green belt and green chain, to the grave damage of the local environment? Those are entirely germane issues, for which a statement is opportune at the earliest possible date.
Mr. Newton: I will, of course, bring the request for a statement on those matters to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, although I had not regarded Hillingdon as an entirely rural area of the type to which the Local Government and Rating Bill is intended to apply.
Miss Kate Hoey: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent debate on the crisis facing many local authorities, especially in London and in the London borough of Lambeth, following the ruling in the courts about asylum seekers? Does he realise that many local authorities are faced with huge financial burdens, for which they receive absolutely no extra money from Government? That is a national responsibility, not the responsibility of London authorities and not the responsibility of those local authorities which in the past have done their best to help asylum seekers.
Mr. Newton: My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Social Security Secretary will have had those concerns drawn to their attention and will consider them carefully.
Mr. Nigel Evans: May I add my support to calls for an early debate on the threat by the Communication Workers Union to disrupt the postal service during the Christmas period? The postmen and postwomen of this country have much public good will, but they will lose that if they carry out their threat. We need to consider the monopoly position of the postal service, because simply lengthening the period during which the monopoly is suspended to three months will not attract enough people into delivering mail. A debate on that subject will also tempt the Labour party to say something about the dispute, so that we can demonstrate once and for all that new Labour is still on the side of the unions and that the Conservative Government is on the side of the consumers.
Mr. Newton: It should not require a debate to extract a view on those matters from the Opposition; they should be prepared to condemn the industrial action anyway.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Does the Leader of the House keep a checklist of resolutions passed by the House? If so, why have we had no action on resolution No. 3, which the House passed unanimously on 1 July 1994 after four hours' debate? Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister to make a statement next week on his intentions in respect of that resolution?
Mr. Newton: I would be in a slightly better position to reply if the hon. Gentleman had told me what the resolution was about.
Mr. Mackinlay: I will show the right hon. Gentleman what it is.
Mr. Newton: I think that I know, as I was here when the hon. Gentleman made his speech. I believe that it concerns the administration of arrangements for war veterans—my memory is quite good. Comments have been made on those matters from time to time and I shall bring the matter to the attention of my appropriate hon. Friends. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman's intended gesture of marching across the Floor of the House did not work, because I remembered what he was talking about.
Mr. Alan Simpson: May I endorse the call for a debate on the Social Security Select Committee report published today on unfunded European pension liabilities, which are set to run into trillions of

793
pounds? As a single European currency would preclude national Governments from using any combination of variations in interest rates, exchange rates, inflation rates and Government borrowing to cover the bill, it would be extremely helpful if the House knew the position that the Government intend to take in the intergovernmental conference negotiations on how the bill should be paid and by whom.
Mr. Newton: I commented on that in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith). I cannot add much except to assure the hon. Gentleman that we have no intention of allowing our assets to be combined with other people's liabilities.
Mr. John Austin-Walker: On that same point, it is such a serious issue within the Social Security Select Committee report that it may get lost in the general debate on the Budget. There is extreme speculation that, if a single currency is introduced, liability may fall on British taxpayers. We should therefore have an early debate on the issue.
Mr. Newton: There are important issues here and the Government will respond to the report in the usual way. Thereafter, apart from anything that I might wish to do, there are opportunities for Select Committee reports to be debated in a way that is well understood in the House.
Mr. Hugh Bayley: Does the Leader of the House agree that it is as important to retain overseas investment in this country as it is to seek inward investment in the first place? He is aware that the Swiss-Swedish company Asea Brown Boveri closed down the carriage works in my constituency with the loss of some 1,650 jobs, but is he aware that the American printing giant, Donnelley's, has announced its intention to close its commercial printing operation in York with the loss of more than 300 jobs? Why does not the DTI respond by giving the same help to those companies as it does to companies considering inward investment? May we have a debate on the importance of retaining overseas investment in this country?
Mr. Newton: I cannot comment on specific cases but obviously I accept the importance of not only attracting inward investment but retaining it. I would find the hon. Gentleman's comments more credible if he were using his influence against his party's policies, which would manifestly make overseas and inward investment more difficult to obtain and to keep.
Mr. Paddy Tipping: Will the Leader of the House confirm that next week has been designated regeneration week? Will he therefore ensure that an appropriate Minister makes a statement to the House about the transfer of 80 sites from British Coal to English Partnerships? The right hon. Gentleman will recall that those discussions have been going on for 18 months. Does he share our concern to bring new investment, new jobs and a new future to coalfield communities by putting an end to those interminable discussions?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend the Member for West Hertfordshire (Mr. Jones), who has responsibilities in the relevant Department, is by my side and I am certain that he will ensure that the hon. Gentleman's remarks are communicated directly to the Secretary of State. No one need doubt the Government's determination to maximise the speed and degree of regeneration both in the areas to which the hon. Gentleman refers and in many others.

MEMBERS' CONSTITUENCIES
3.59 pm
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is with regret that I ask you to use the authority of your office to draw the attention of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) to the courtesies of the House. He turned up in my constituency to campaign on a very sensitive local issue without informing me of his visit. This is obviously a tiresome and repetitious point of order, which you must take many times, Madam Speaker. Would it be possible to formalise the rebukes made to hon. Members who abuse that courtesy? We must continue to raise such points of order otherwise hon. Members will transgress with impunity.
Madam Speaker: I deprecate such behaviour. I have let it be known on many occasions that it is simply common courtesy for an hon. Member to inform another hon. Member of his intention to enter his or her constituency—as, indeed, I shall do myself tomorrow. I know that the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) has made representations to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vax), and I shall do what I can through the usual channels on both sides of the House—as I did only a few weeks ago—to keep up the pressure and ensure that courtesies are respected.

BILLS PRESENTED
  BIRDS (REGISTRATION CHARGES)
  Mr. Secretary Gummer, supported by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Forsyth, Mr. Secretary Hague and Mr. Clappison, presented a Bill to make provision (including provision having retrospective effect) authorising the Secretary of State to impose charges in respect of registrations effected in accordance with regulations under section 6(2) or 7(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 9.]
  BIRDS (REGISTRATION CHARGES)
    FIREARMS (AMENDMENT)
    Mr. Secretary Howard, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Portillo, Mr. Secretary Forsyth and Miss Widdecombe, presented a Bill to amend the Firearms Acts 1968 to 1992; to make provision in relation to the licensing and regulation of pistol clubs; to make further provision for regulating the possession of, and transactions relating to, firearms and ammunition; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 10.]
  Orders of the Day

    Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office Bill
    Order for Second Reading read.
    4.1 pm
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    The purpose of the Bill is to provide the future Hong Kong Special Administrative Region's London economic and trade office with a limited range of privileges and immunities.
    At present, the Hong Kong Government operate a number of ETOs around the world. They have offices in Brussels, Geneva, Washington, New York, San Francisco, Tokyo, Toronto, Sydney and Singapore. The prime function of the ETOs is to promote trade with Hong Kong and to provide assistance to companies that are considering investing or starting operations in Hong Kong. The ETO in Brussels also maintains close links with the European Commission, and the ETO in Geneva is responsible for handling Hong Kong's relations with the World Trade Organisation.
    The Sino-British joint declaration of 1984 provides that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will, after 30 June 1997, enjoy a high degree of autonomy, including in the conduct of its trade and commercial affairs. For example, the future Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government will be responsible for Hong Kong's trade policy. Hong Kong will continue to be a member in its own right of the World Trade Organisation and of the Customs Co-operation Council, as well as other international trade organisations.
    The joint declaration provides for Hong Kong on its own to maintain and develop economic and trade relations with all states and regions and for it to establish official and semi-official economic and trade missions in foreign countries. Thus, Hong Kong will be able to maintain and further expand its network of ETOs after 30 June 1997.
    The Hong Kong Government office in London is in a slightly different position from Hong Kong's other ETOs, reflecting the fact that Hong Kong is a British dependent territory until 1 July 1997. While the present London office performs a valuable trade and investment function, it also promotes Hong Kong in other ways—for example, by maintaining close contact with hon. Members who have an interest in Hong Kong affairs.
    I expect that most hon. Members in the Chamber today will know the Hong Kong Government's Commissioner in London, Sir David Ford, who has done an excellent job, and I am pleased to see that he is continuing to do so. Over the years, many hon. Members have made sponsored visits to Hong Kong organised by the London office.
    After 30 June 1997, the London office will become an ETO. It will continue to have contact with hon. Members, and I hope that educational visits will continue, but it will play a less active role in this respect, as the Chinese Government will be responsible for Hong Kong's foreign affairs. The main function of the office will therefore be to promote economic, trade and business links between
    796
    Hong Kong and the United Kingdom, which is the work normally undertaken by the commercial section of an embassy.
    Mr. Hugh Dykes: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the large number of visits that have taken place1—I am thinking in particular of the one in which I was involved recently, which was, I think, the last visit to be made to Hong Kong by Commonwealth Members of Parliament before the handover.
    Is he aware that members of the delegation came away with an overwhelming and extremely encouraging impression of tremendous optimism among the business community—Chinese and other nationalities working there—for the future; that, in respect of contact with the People's Republic of China authorities represented in Hong Kong, there was a strong determination to let Hong Kong continue to be run economically and in other ways by the local Hong Kong Chinese; and that that double impression created a tremendous overall impression of great optimism for the future?
    Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I am pleased that his experience has confirmed what we have all been working for. I mentioned yesterday during Foreign and Commonwealth Office Question Time that, some five years ago, the Hang Seng index was at about 4,000. Today, with only seven months or so to go before the transition, it is up at 12,000. That is hardly a sign of lack of confidence, either in the present Hong Kong or its future. I am very grateful for what my hon. Friend says.
    The Hong Kong Government are, however, concerned that their ETOs should be given suitable status by host Governments, including a limited range of privileges and immunities. The privileges and immunities are of practical benefit to the ETOs, and they also help to reinforce the fact that Hong Kong has, and will continue to have, autonomy in the conduct of its trade relations.
    The ETOs in Brussels and Geneva have enjoyed such privileges and immunities for a number of years. The Canadian Government have enacted legislation to grant privileges and immunities to sub-state entities, and provided a range of these to the ETO in Toronto. The Australians have enacted similar legislation for Hong Kong's new ETO in Sydney. The Japanese provide a range of non-statutory privileges and immunities to the ETO in Tokyo, and are considering enacting legislation to provide these on a statutory basis. The Singaporeans are still discussing with the Hong Kong Government what privileges and immunities they will grant to the ETO in Singapore, and the American Government have undertaken to enact legislation so that the three ETOs there can receive privileges and immunities.
    The Hong Kong Government look to the British Government, both as the sovereign power until 30 June 1997 and as a co-signatory to the joint declaration, to help support Hong Kong's future autonomy. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear when he visited Hong Kong in March this year that Britain's obligations to the people of Hong Kong will not come to an end at midnight on 30 June 1997. It is against that background and the steps that other Governments have taken to give Hong Kong's ETOs a suitable status that my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, who I am pleased to see present, and fellow signatories have decided, through the Government, to introduce the Bill.

    797
    The limited privileges and immunities that we propose are set out in the schedule to the Bill. They are taken mainly from the Vienna convention on consular relations. They are, however, not nearly as extensive as those found in the convention, as the ETO will not be a consular mission.
    The Chinese Government have been consulted and have agreed to our proposal to grant limited privileges and immunities, with effect from 1 July 1997, to the London office of the future Special Administrative Region Government.
    The proposed package of privileges and immunities has been discussed with the Hong Kong Government to ensure that it will meet the functional needs of the ETO. In considering the Bill, I would urge hon. Members to bear in mind the important message that we shall be giving about the future autonomy of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. It is only right that, as the former sovereign power, we do all we can to provide assistance.
    I am pleased to move the Second Reading of the Bill. I am conscious that the House will have a full debate on Hong Kong on 14 November, and I look forward very much to that. It is a technical Bill, and I am grateful that the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) and the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) support it.
    4.10 pm
    Mr. Derek Fatchett: The official Opposition support the Bill. The Minister was right to say that, although it is a technical measure, it sends a number of constructive signals to the people of Hong Kong, and is important to United Kingdom-Chinese relations. The Minister was also correct in saying that, given the specific and technical nature of the Bill, we cannot broaden the scope of our debate. In any case, we have no need to do so, as a full day's debate on Hong Kong is scheduled for two weeks' time.
    We are delighted that the Government have acted quickly on the matter. We understand the reasons for the Bill. We wholly accept that obligations arise from the joint declaration and the responsibilities defined within it, and we wholeheartedly agree with the Government that Britain's responsibilities to Hong Kong and its people do not end on 1 July 1997.
    Although I might sound old-fashioned, I believe that it is crucial to Britain's future standing in the world that we honour our obligations to Hong Kong after July 1997. In many respects, our role may be more important now than it was previously. We owe that responsibility, and whether a Conservative or Labour Government are in office in 12 months' time, we shall endeavour to carry out all the commitments that we consider morally important.
    Let me add the praise and thanks of the Opposition to the Hong Kong office that is currently based on London. This may be almost our last chance to thank Sir David Ford and his colleagues for their work on behalf of Hong Kong and for the service that they have provided, not only to hon. Members, but to others in the United Kingdom who are interested in either trading with Hong Kong or looking to that country as a potential source of inward
    798
    investment into the United Kingdom. The role of the Hong Kong Office will change substantially after 1 July next year. That is one reason why we need the Bill, and it should become law.
    The Minister rightly pointed out that Australia and Canada have already taken measures to ensure that the privileges and immunities set out in the Bill will be in place in those countries. It would look wrong indeed if Britain had not carried out those responsibilities when other countries had already done so.
    There is no disagreement on this technical measure—far from it. We support the Government, we wish the Bill full speed, and look forward to it becoming law.
    Let me end with two slightly broader points that are relevant to the role and functions of the new economic and trade office. As the Minister said, It is worth reminding ourselves that, a few years ago, there was a great sense of pessimism about the future of Hong Kong. That pessimism was totally unjustified, and today, optimism in the island continues to grow at some pace. All hon. Members would like the United Kingdom to repeat the economic performance of Hong Kong. That is probably a matter of consensus across the British political divide.
    It is worth while reminding ourselves of some of Hong Kong's success. A great deal of potential has already been realised, and there is a great deal more. Hong Kong is the eighth largest trading community in the world, the eighth largest stock market, and the fifth largest centre for foreign exchange dealing. Probably the most remarkable figure, and the legacy that China will inherit, is that, at the end of the current financial year, Hong Kong's fiscal reserves will be equivalent to 150 billion Hong Kong dollars. That is a very healthy nest egg for Britain to leave for Hong Kong and the future.
    It is also worth while reminding ourselves that, in Hong Kong, China will have a new economic force representing 20 per cent. of China's new gross domestic product. Hong Kong is already a substantial economic success; it is already a substantial world trading partner. The facilities in the Bill are important for maintaining that economic and trade function. The lesson from such figures and the broader issues that we shall debate in two weeks' time are clear enough. It is in China's interest to allow, maintain and encourage the development of Hong Kong's economic success. We have an interest in that; China has an even greater interest.
    Much of Hong Kong's economic and trading success has been based on the values that are central to its political system and way of life. It is important for the future that all recognise that there is an intimate link between political activity and economic success, especially in the context of Hong Kong. We shall be raising those broader issues in two weeks' time, but they are important in the context of this Bill, because, in agreement with the Chinese on these narrow issues, we are ensuring that Hong Kong will have the right to trade and encourage its trade, and be seen as a separate entity in a whole range of activities.
    The Bill is specific, but still part of the changeover of control in Hong Kong. It is certain that, although the changeover will take place, all hon. Members have great faith in the people of Hong Kong continuing to make their island a great success. We have seen what they have done in the past, and I believe that they will continue to achieve such success in future. Britain's task in future, as it is in

    799
    this Bill, is to ensure that we do all that we can to maintain such success and the Hong Kong way of life. I support the Minister in introducing this legislation.
    4.17 pm
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: I, too, can be brief. The Minister may be relieved to hear that I have not brought a megaphone with me, in the light of our exchange yesterday during Foreign Office questions and his characteristically generous telephone call to my office this morning.
    As has already been pointed out, the Bill is entirely sensible. It will enable the United Kingdom to do as much for Hong Kong as Canada and Australia have already done, and should clearly pass through the House with neither let nor hindrance. I am particularly encouraged by the fact that the Bill is being introduced with the agreement of the Government of the People's Republic of China. Such agreement may well be the basis on which we can effectively argue for a closer coming together of opinion on some more fundamental issues, several of which I have no doubt will be touched on in the debate on 14 November.
    I add my good wishes and congratulations to those already expressed to Sir David Ford, who has been a most assiduous representative of Hong Kong in this country. He has taken every opportunity in the least officious way to promote the case of Hong Kong and ensure that right hon. and hon. Members have been well aware of the issues at any particular time. He has been especially effective in ensuring that a ready stream of individuals from Hong Kong, especially members of LegCo, have visited the United Kingdom to talk face to face with hon. Members. The debate on 14 November should not be foreshadowed by this debate, because we are concerned today with essentially a technical measure.
    The Minister will have readily anticipated that there will be concern in the House during the debate on 14 November about civil rights, particularly freedom of expression in the print and broadcast media. Recent observations from a fairly high level in the Chinese Government have raised a number of questions in the minds of the people of Hong Kong. These are important issues. To put it bluntly, it would be a poor legacy if we left free trade, but not free speech. The House should be concerned with those matters when we consider the broader issues. The Bill should pass through the House as soon as is convenient, and I am happy to give it my support and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
    4.20 pm
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Anthony Nelson): I take the surprising liberty of coming to the Dispatch Box—having not expected to do so—because my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, has kindly given me the opportunity to wrap up this short debate. I do so with great pleasure, because I have taken a close interest in trade relations between Hong Kong and the UK.
    I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) and the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) for their remarks, and I particularly note what the hon. and learned Gentleman said about free speech as well as free trade. I am sure that their courteous and responsible remarks today will have
    800
    been greeted by a much wider audience, as they have added to the aura of political stability and bipartisan national unity that we express in this House on behalf of our country towards Hong Kong.
    This non-political Bill is a practical measure with limited expenditure implications. The people of Hong Kong will be heartened by the reservoir of good will in this House towards Hong Kong, and I hope that they will see the Bill as evidence of the Government's determination to do what we can to ensure that Hong Kong continues to enjoy full autonomy in the conduct of its economic and commercial affairs. I am sure that many hon. Members will continue to have dealings with Hong Kong in the London office long after 1997 in trade and commercial matters, and that the office will continue to perform its functions as effectively as it does now.
    I very much appreciate the personal commendations that have been rendered on this occasion, and I am sure that the office will continue to play its role fully and effectively. The office will promote trade and investment between the UK and Hong Kong, which will help to secure the future of Hong Kong as a special administrative region, not just politically but commercially. For reasons of prosperity and good commerce at a time of transition—as well as for constitutional reasons—I very much welcome all the expressions of support that have been made today.
    I have great pleasure in supporting my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, whose personal work in this area has been outstanding. He has taken his visits to Hong Kong seriously, and I take great pleasure in adding my commendation to the Bill.
    Dr. Marek: I wish to question the Minister of State on one aspect of the Bill. Will any of the rights to be granted to the Hong Kong office on 1 July 1997 be in any way weaker than those granted to the offices of the provinces of Canada or the constituent parts of the Commonwealth of Australia? I hope that that is not the case, but if it is, I should like to know where and why the privileges will be different from those currently offered to all the other offices that will be in a similar situation after 1 July. This is a pure point of information, and I wonder whether the Minister has the answer to hand.
    4.24 pm
    Mr. Hanley: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall reply to the question of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), who takes an assiduous interest in Hong Kong.
    The Hong Kong Government office in London already receives partial exemption from rates and exemption from income tax for its staff. These are provided on an extra-statutory basis. The additional privileges and immunities in the Bill are for the running of the office, and include exemption from duties and taxes for the staff on the importation of certain effects and a motor vehicle, and on official vehicles for the office. The number of staff at the Hong Kong Government office will fall slightly.
    The revenue forgone—this is not quite what the hon. Gentleman asked, but it may help the House if I say it—as a result of granting a limited range of privileges and immunities to the office and its staff should be well below £1 million. That is quoted in the explanatory memorandum.

    801
    As for the differences between the Hong Kong office and any other office, I should explain that Hong Kong's position is unique. It is incumbent on Her Majesty's Government, as a co-signatory to the Sino-British joint declaration, to help Hong Kong to maintain its autonomy and international standing in trade matters. It would seem bizarre, as the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) said, if the United Kingdom did not help Hong Kong on this issue when other countries such as Australia, Canada and Singapore have planned or have granted a similar range of privileges and immunities to Hong Kong.
    As for the differences with other countries, I think that it is true that the privileges that we are granting here are extra to the privileges and immunities granted to other offices. I shall certainly list them for the hon. Member for Wrexham. I shall send him a letter and publish the list of privileges and immunities granted to others, although it is true to say that most other similar offices have fewer privileges and immunities than are listed in the Bill. I do not have the detailed list with me, but I shall willingly answer the hon. Gentleman's question. It would be helpful to the House if I put the list in the Libraries of both Houses.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill read a Second time.
    Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mrs. Lait.]
    Further proceedings stood postponed, pursuant to the Resolution of the House [25 October].

    HONG KONG ECONOMIC AND TRADE OFFICE BILL [Money]
    Queen's recommendation having been signified—
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50(1)(a),
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of refunds paid by virtue of the Act.—[Mrs. Lait.]
    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Roy Thomason be discharged from the Select Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords as the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and Mr. Walter Sweeney he added to the Committee.--[Mrs. Lait. ]

    Manchester Airport Eastern Link Road
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. Lait.]
    4.29 pm
    Mr. Stephen Day: I wish to raise a matter of considerable importance and interest in my constituency and I am grateful for the opportunity for this Adjournment debate to do so. My hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads visited my constituency and saw some of the problems that I wish to mention, so he is aware of the difficulties facing my constituents because the Manchester airport eastern link road—the MAELR—has not been completed.
    The central section of the road, from the new A34 bypass—running north-south through my constituency—runs from the A34(M) in the west to Woodford road in Bramhall. My hon. Friend visited Woodford road in Bramhall to see the junction that has been located where none was originally envisaged. That junction has created terrific traffic problems in the villages of Woodford and Bramhall.
    While the central section is welcome in itself, it can be properly welcomed only when the whole road has been completed: the central section alone has perhaps created more problems than it has solved. The central section was built with the aid of some private finance, which meant that it was finished well ahead of the other two sections in the west and east.
    At the time of the public inquiry into the central section of MAELR, it was estimated that there would be an extra 15,000 to 20,000 daily car movements owing to the two out-of-town shopping developments. Those two developments contributed financially to the building of the central section. There is no doubt that those stores are a great success, but their commercial success has produced massive traffic problems. I shall give evidence to show that the increase in traffic has gone way beyond that anticipated at the time of the public inquiry.
    My constituents and I are also annoyed that the constituency has had to wait 30 years for the road. The line has been laid down in some form or other for that long, but there is still not a complete bypass around the area that I am privileged to represent. There is merely a third of a bypass, which benefits the shopping cities, but does little to alleviate the constituency's traffic congestion. Indeed, the congestion will be worse until the Government build the rest of the MAELR.
    The eastern section of the MAELR runs from Woodford road in Bramhall, through to the A523 Poynton road and will hopefully eventually link up to the proposed A6(M) Hazel Grove bypass. Congestion in Bramhall village, Woodford road and Chester road in Woodford and in Poynton—in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)—has become intolerable. I shall give evidence of the scale of public concern within those areas and I am sure that my hon. Friend will too.
    There is a lot of annoyance in the villages of Woodford and Bramhall at the increased traffic congestion, with heavy goods vehicles and cars coming on to the end of the MAELR, not only to reach the new shopping cities, but to reach the M63 by way of the MAELR and the A34(M). Of course, no junction was ever intended at the

    803
    point of entry to the MAELR in Woodford road at Bramhall, so the annoyance to residents who have to suffer the traffic has to he witnessed to be believed—their feelings are entirely justified.
    When my hon. Friend the Minister visited Woodford road and saw the junction to which I referred, he met representatives of Bramhall and Woodford community councils. They expressed residents' views, but—being community council representatives—they were perhaps more polite than residents would have been if my hon. Friend and I had walked along Woodford road and knocked on their doors.
    The western section of the MAELR will require building from the A34(M) through to the M56—what could be called the airport link. Traffic that would have bypassed Heald Green had the original scheme gone through in its entirety now comes off the central section of the MAELR and, if travelling west, comes on to the old A34 and goes straight on to Finney lane, which is the east-west route to the airport, through the village of Heald Green.
    Again, the central section has brought no relief to my constituents, but merely more traffic—traffic that is of no benefit to the area I represent. The central section has increased traffic congestion significantly. Stockport metropolitan borough council monitored traffic and found that there had been a 30 per cent. increase in daily traffic along Finney lane, which is the only available western route at the western end of the central section for traffic going to the airport. Knowing how important Manchester airport is, my hon. Friend the Minister will realise the scale of that traffic.
    Many developments have been proposed for the area: some are in the pipeline—approved but not yet built—and others are at some stage of the planning process. Their impact should not be underestimated and lend significant weight to the case for an early completion of both the western and the eastern sections of the Manchester airport eastern link road.
    At Cheadle Royal hospital, which is adjacent to the old A34 and the shopping city at Cheadle Royal in what was Bruntford park, extra housing and commercial properties are at various stages of planning or build. They can only increase the traffic pressure on the old A34 and, indeed. the central section and surrounding roads.
    At Hanforth Dean, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), there is a large shopping development—one of the those that contributed toward meeting the cost of the central section of the MAELR. Construction on that development will continue—some with planning permission, some without—to enlarge the leisure and retail complex that is already there and generating the extra 15,000 to 20,000 car movements a day.
    A little further north up the A34 we have a proposal for a multiplex cinema which, if built, will be the biggest in the country. I hasten to add that, although they are not my hon. Friend the Minister's concern, I opposed all those developments—for reasons that are obvious, given the traffic congestion that we already suffer—and some of them will be subject to public inquiries.
    There is also a proposal for a plastics factory to be built next to the multiplex cinema-all that on the Sharston-Gatley boundary, which is also the boundary between the city of Manchester and the borough of
    804
    Stockport, and not far from the M63 and the new A34 bypass. That would increase local traffic flowing on to local roads in my area, turning one of the most pleasant parts of the country—as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield would agree—and a lovely residential constituency into sheer hell for many of my constituents. That is not good enough.
    I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to take into account the possibility that Manchester will get a second runway. The matter is before the Secretaries of State for Transport and for the Environment, who will make the final decision. The increased traffic would be intolerable if the proposal went ahead, in addition to all the developments that I have mentioned and the extra traffic that has been generated, over and above that expected by the public inquiry. It would be inexcusable if approval were given for a second runway without the MAELR being completed all the way through from the M56 to the A6(M).
    There has just been a public inquiry into a proposal for opencast mining at Poynton, which would affect my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield. God forbid that that development should go ahead, but if it does, extra traffic pressures—very heavy traffic—will result.
    The completed MAELR scheme from the M56 to the A6(M) was designed to cope with traffic levels anticipated in conjunction with a single runway al Manchester. A second runway would demand not only the completion of MAELR, but substantial upgrading to cope with yet more traffic.
    The Commonwealth games are to be held in Manchester in 2002. Part of the grand south Manchester bypass system is, however, nothing more than a joke and a grand driveway to Sainsbury's car park at Cheadle Royal. That is the best way to describe it and the only function that it fulfils—apart from creating massive problems for my constituents.
    The need to complete the road is recognised by other hon. Members. I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield wishes to contribute to the debate. Other hon. Members have given their permission for me to cite their support for my argument. The hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) writes:
    "This long-standing scheme which will bring benefits to airport users and all the residents of Stockport has my total backing."
    My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) states:
    "I believe that this scheme will bring major benefits to our area and allow the full benefits for the A34 by-pass to be realised. I think it will also ease a lot of congestion on the roads which will be of benefit to local residents. I realise that there is enormous support for this scheme in your constituency"—
    that is, Cheadle
    "and I would also like to give you my full support."
    The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) wanted very much to contribute brietly to the debate and, as his constituency neighbour, I should have been glad to allow him to do so, but because of a family bereavement, he cannot be present. He has asked me to read on to the record his support for my case. He states:
    "This long-standing scheme will bring major benefits to South Manchester/North Cheshire and allow the full benefits of the A34 by-pass to be realised. In particular, it will improve access to the

    805
    Airport from the south and east and remove traffic from congested roads through residential areas. This will benefit passengers and staff as well as local residents.
    While the full benefits of the MAELR will require the completion of the A6 Stockport by-pass"—
    amen to that
    "even without this there will be significant local benefits.
    I understand the Airport Company fully support the completion of the remaining sections and that its planning has been designed so as to be compatible with MAELR. It"—
    that is, the airport
    "would be prepared to fully co-operate in any initiatives to progress MAELR."
    The right hon. Gentleman asked me to mention also that residents of his constituency have expressed concern about the impact of the second runway construction traffic coming from the Peak district in the absence of MAELR.
    I shall show my hon. Friend the Minister my file of constituents' letters on MAELR. I have been inundated with letters, and rightly so—that is my job. I want to pass on not only my constituents' concerns, but their anger at being left with one third of a road that is of no use to anyone and is causing more problems than we had before. We desperately need the road to be completed. If, at the end of the debate I have impressed on my hon. Friend the Minister the importance of the road to the area, I shall be well satisfied.
    I shall read the most recent letter that I received. A few letters arrived today, as people in my constituency heard about the debate. A resident of Woodford road writes:
    "The traffic situation is quite unbearable on Woodford Road from early in the morning to late at night. In the rush hours the traffic is solid and frequently at a standstill.
    The volume and speed of the traffic at other times is such that access onto Woodford Road involves a long wait and a frantic dash on most occasions.
    Lots of heavy vehicles use the new bypass as a better access to the M63 than other routes, and will drive from Hazel Grove, Disley etc. at all hours of the day or night to gain access to it."
    That is the living reality for people on Woodford road, where no junction was ever intended.
    I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will repeat what he told me when he visited Bramhall and that he will give an assurance that when the eastern section of the MAELR is completed—sooner rather than later, I hope—the junction at Woodford road will be closed and returned to its original planned status as a proper bypass for Bramhall and Woodford.
    I have a letter from councillor Kenneth Holt, who represents the Bramhall East ward on Stockport metropolitan borough council. He states:
    "The partial completion of MAELR has increased traffic flows in and around Bramhall throughout the day to levels only previously experienced in the rush hour with journeys to and from local industry. The huge volumes of through traffic are making local traffic manoeuvres particularly difficult. and of course significantly increasing the hazards to local schoolchildren and all other pedestrians."
    I can vouch for that. Crossing the road in Bramhall village is a nightmare, and it is a brave person who dares to cross Woodford road.
    Councillor Peter Burns, an independent councillor representing the Heald Green ratepayers association, also sent me a letter of support. He says:
    806
    "I write on behalf of the Heald Green community of some 15,000 residents…For many years the community of Heald Green has been seriously damaged by the amount of East-West traffic along Finney Lane. the main road through the village. This road provides the only decent bridge for East-West traffic over the North-South railway and, therefore, is the route for traffic to and from the East and South-East, bound for the motorway network and Manchester Airport…
    Recent traffic counts by my Council"—
    that is, Stockport metropolitan council—
    "have shown 30 per cent. increase in the daily traffic flow along Finney Lane. This has been achieved not by increasing the already saturated number of vehicles per hour but by extending the number of hours of this saturation.
    The only way to relieve the ever-worsening ill health, danger and environmental damage being caused, is by the construction of the western section of the MAELR Route.-
    I do not disagree with Councillor Burns.
    Woodford community council has sent a brief letter of support for the completion of the road scheme. Its chairman, Bryan Leck, says:
    "As Chairman of the Woodford Community Council my members would strongly support your campaign to ensure that the extension from the Woodford Road roundabout in an easterly direction be expedited.
    The completion of the central section has caused horrendous problems in the Bramhall and Woodford area which can only be alleviated by the construction of
    the eastern section of the road.
    The chairman of Bramhall community council wrote:
    "The leisure centres on the A34 sharing the Cheadle Royal Hospital site"—
    to which I referred earlier—
    "opposite the J. Sainsburys-John Lewis shopping complex have been opened recently. They will attract more traffic."
    He wrote that he was grateful that the Secretary of State for the Environment had called in some of those applications, and continued:
    "Now the enquiry into the application for opencast coalmining on Towers Farm, Poynton, near to the Hazel Grove 5 ways road junction, has just been completed."
    He says that the short distances between those local developments emphasise the potential for increased traffic congestion in Bramhall. He then wrote:
    "Therefore you can well understand why an Action Committee has been set up to urge the completion of the east and west sections of MAELR as soon as possible.
    The residents of Hazel Grove, Poynton, Woodford and Bramhall held a public meeting in Poynton on October 7 1996 to appoint a committee which met a week later."
    I have a letter from one of the founders of the MAELR and Poynton bypass campaign—a constituent of mine who lives on Chester road in Woodford—which said:
    "I write to express my growing concern about the increasing levels of traffic using unsuitable roads through Woodford, Bramhall and Poynton which have resulted from the partial completion of MAELR… I am particularly concerned that the daily traffic levels are already well in excess of the projected level of 18,000 for the year 2009, a figure which was submitted to the Public Inquiry in 1992. Almost 20,000 vehicles per day were measured by Cheshire County Council along Woodford Road south of the MAELR's 'temporary' termination point in May this year, barely six months after the central section of MAELR was opened.
    The resultant increase in traffic is causing considerable congestion and delay for road users as well as excessive noise and pollution for residents, pedestrians and cyclists along the existing roads. More worrying is the large increase in traffic resulting from heavy lorries,

    807
    over 10 per cent. of the traffic or 2000 vehicles per day is now in this category, and this extends from early morning and late into the evening. The result is considerable additional noise, vibration and pollution. a particular concern when there is a weight of evidence confirming the effect on health of particulates arising from diesel vehicles. Large vehicles on the narrow roads also pose considerable dangers for cyclists and for those using the pavement or attempting to cross the road.
    There is considerable support for the completion of this scheme, from residents and businesses throughout Bramhall, Woodford and Poynton, but growing anger that the scheme could have been allowed to proceed in part only with a totally unsatisfactory 'temporary' termination on Woodford Road—in spite of the weight of objections presented at the public inquiry."
    Stepping aside from my constituent's letter for a moment, I can tell the Minister that at the time of the public inquiry I was one of those who warned of the dangers that would result if construction of the central section went ahead. I hate to say, "I told you so," because I wish that I had been proved wrong. I am afraid that the residents' warnings about the dangers of building only the central section have proved to be correct.
    My constituent continued:
    "The decision to proceed with MAELR on a partial basis has, in the short period since its completion in November 1995, proved to be totally unsatisfactory, causing severe congestion and all the attendant noise …I would therefore wish the scheme to he progressed to completion without further delay to enable the people of Woodford, Bramhall and Poynton to he relieved of the distress caused by the wholly unacceptable and growing levels of traffic on our roads which have resulted."
    The last letter of support is from Manchester Airport, and I am pleased to have received it. It says that the MAELR
    "Will bring major benefits to South Manchester and North Cheshire and allow the full benefits of the recently completed A34 by-pass to be realised. It will also improve access to the Airport…remove through traffic from congested roads through residential areas. Obviously, the full benefits of the completed MAELR scheme will also require the completion of the A6…by-pass".
    That bypass is not the subject of the debate, but it is on the minds of my constituents and many others in the area. The letter continues:
    "The Airport Company fully support the completion of the remaining sections and we have joined forces with the Local Authorities to try and progress the road. Thus we would be more than happy to fully co-operate in any initiatives which come forward to progress MAELR particularly once the uncertainty about our own future growth prospects have been resolved."
    Will the Minister please talk to the people who have commercial or potential commercial interests in the area, and let us get the road completed at the earliest possible opportunity?
    I want to show the Minister a petition signed by more than 6,000 people, all of whom are my constituents. The names were collected over the summer months, during the recess. More forms are still to be collected from other petition points. I hope that when we reach the target figure of 10,000—which I expect to happen shortly—he will accede to my request and ask the Secretary of State to receive this petition, because it is addressed to him. It expresses the concern of 6,000 of my constituents in Cheadle. As I said, my hon. Friend can expect more names before we are done.
    The road is vital to the well-being of my constituency. Support for the scheme is overwhelming. I look round the country and see demonstrations against bypasses here, there and everywhere. The Department has had great
    808
    difficulty getting those roads built, whereas in Cheadle we have wanted this road for 30 years. No one is against it, yet we cannot have it. I wish that hon. Members who have problems with bypasses in their constituencies would write to the Minister and say, "Let Mr. Day in Cheadle have the money for the bypass up there." We would take the money with both hands and say, "Get on and build the MAELR."
    We need an early starting date. We lost the original starting date. We were told at the public inquiry that there would be a four-year gap between the building of the central section and the building of the western and eastern sections. I am now told by the Highways Agency that we could be looking at 2006. That is not acceptable, and am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield agrees. My constituents are furious, and I do not blame them—I share their anger. Something must be done to fulfil the promises made at the public inquiry.
    Surely the Minister is now in no doubt about the overwhelming importance of the scheme to my constituency and the area beyond. We have waited 30 years, so please let us have our road. My constituents have waited far too long. They now have problems because only the central section is being built, whereas the whole scheme should have been built.
    The people of Heald Green, Bramhall and Woodford—I leave it to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield to mention places in his constituency—are looking to the Minister to provide the relief that they have waited 30 years for. We desperately need that relief, because the traffic congestion is appalling. My constituents have a right to expect the Government to act; I expect nothing else, and neither do they.
    4.59 pm
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) for allowing me to speak in his Adjournment debate. As he implied, the road projects about which he spoke so well and so accurately impact upon my constituency as much as on his. I endorse to the letter, to the word and to the dot, everything that he said to the Minister, through the Minister to the Secretary of State for Transport and through the Secretary of State to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Earlier today, I asked the Chancellor a supplementary question highlighting the importance of infrastructure expenditure and investment to the prosperous and progressive economy, and he agreed that such investment was vital to the on-going progress of the United Kingdom economy.
    I am here to represent the interests of the people of Poynton, of the village of Newton and of the large village of Prestbury. All those areas are suffering immensely because of the A34(M) Handforth-Wilmslow bypass and the Department of Transport's failure to proceed with the construction of the MAELR east and west.
    I have bombarded the Secretary of State and the Minister with letters. I recently had a letter from the county engineer of Cheshire county council, Mr. Peter Cocker. He says:
    "I refer to your letters of 1 I, 14, 15, 16 and 18 October 1996".
    With those letters to Mr. Cocker, I enclosed numerous letters from constituents, mainly—not exclusively—from people who live on or near the Chester road in Poynton.

    809
    Their environment has been dramatically disadvantaged, undermined and damaged since the opening of the centre section of what I would call the MAELR contract project road-that is, the Handforth-Wilmslow bypass, the A34(M).
    Mr. Cocker's letter continues:
    "Most of your constituents have highlighted the need for the Poynton By-Pass" —
    my hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that that is part of the MAELR contract—
    "and I can only reiterate the County Council's support for this scheme. The by-pass, and the western MAELR Link, represents the only real means of resolving"
    the local problems to which I had referred. Mr. Cocker then makes an important point; he says:
    "These schemes are part of the Department of Transport's Trunk Road programme."
    We are not pushing something that is not part of the Department's programme.
    The letter continues:
    "The Department of Transport supported the Wilmslow/Handforth/MAELR schemes through their Public Inquiry process, indicating"—
    this is a critical point—
    "a programme for an early completion of the MAELR/Poynton By-Pass scheme in evidence at the inquiry."
    Was that fraudulent? Was that dishonest? Did the Department mean what it said? If so, it must proceed with the scheme. Perhaps the inspector found as he did because the road would be part of a wider trunk road building programme.
    The county engineer goes on to say:
    "The element of the MAELR scheme which was considered at the Inquiry (and now completed) forms a part of the protected Trunk Road link between the A6(M) scheme and the M56 spur at Manchester Airport. The failure to carry forward these schemes on a timetable which was specifically put before the Inspector at the public inquiry by the DOT is giving rise to the current problems in this area."
    My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle referred several times to that matter, and I fully support what he said. Perhaps Mr. Cocker put it even more succinctly.
    The Department of Transport owes this road to my hon. Friend and me, as well as to my hon. Friends the Members for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold) and for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) and to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), to minimise the unacceptable congestion in our areas which is damaging the environment and adversely affecting the quality of life of those people whom we represent.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle mentioned the public inquiry, which I believe has almost finished, into the application by coal contractors for opencast coal mining at Towers farm in Poynton in my constituency. Uniquely, for the first time in 25 years, I appeared personally to object and to oppose the application. I was delighted that my hon. Friend also found time right at the end of the recess to appear and give evidence.
    My evidence related to a range of reasons why the appeal should not succeed and my hon. Friend, representing the best interests of all his constituents, highlighted the existing road problems, which could only
    810
    be exacerbated. I hope that I am not out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I express the fervent hope, based on facts and on democratic representation, that when the report comes before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, he will see that there is overwhelming opposition to the opencast application. I hope that the inspector's conclusions will be the same, that the Secretary of State will support them, and that the appeal will be dismissed.
    My hon. Friend the Minister knows the beautiful village of Prestbury. Peter Hayes, a well-known local business man, was elected to the council in May this year. His time has been dominated since then by the representations of hundreds of local people on the matter of the road chaos caused in Prestbury by the opening of the Handforth-Wilmslow bypass and by the huge increase in the volume of traffic flowing through the village, with all the environmental and road safety implications that go with it.
    Prestbury parish council feels so strongly that it has set up a special highways road sub-committee, to which it has co-opted people who do not even sit on the parish council—I refer in particular to a Mrs. Lillian Burns, who is becoming an expert on roads and who is doing a great deal of work in close co-operation with Councillor Peter Hayes. Sadly, a past mayor who was the second councillor for Prestbury and Adlington, died recently. The new councillor is Mr. John Braithwaite, another local business man; a great deal of his time is spent dealing with fair and reasonable representations from people who are appalled by what is going on. Because the road schemes have been postponed, people's life style, quality of life and environment have been badly disadvantaged.
    I know that my hon. Friend does his best as Minister for Railways and Roads, and I ask him to listen to the concerns of both Conservative and Opposition Members. I do not think that I am being selfish: the areas of my constituency to which I have referred—Prestbury, Mottram St. Andrew, Newton, Adlington and Poynton—contribute massively to the income of the county council, by way of domestic rates, and to that of the Government by way of the business rate and taxation.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle referred to some very desirable residential areas of his constituency. Do we want to destroy the environment of those areas? Do we want to deny those who live there—who make a great contribution to the economy through their work and through the taxes, the domestic rates and the business rates that they pay—some return on all that money? The Department of Transport recognises the importance of the roads.
    I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister. He has been to my constituency and has gone round with me to see the sites of some of the road projects that are required. We hear of the huge sums of public money wasted on security for the construction of the Newbury bypass and of the strong opposition to the Salisbury bypass. The people of the area of Cheshire that I represent would love to have roads built. They want to put civil engineers back to work and they want to help the environment. The roads are well designed and some are fairly advanced in the contract procedures. The designs are finalised. The public inquiries may be still to be held in some cases, but a great

    811
    deal of work and money has been invested. How much money have the Government had to fork out on security for the Newbury bypass? I suspect that a large part—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Gentleman could table a question about that if he was so minded. This has nothing to do with the Manchester link bypass, which is the subject on which he has been given permission to make a contribution.
    Mr. Winterton: I am grateful to you, Mr, Deputy Speaker. However, the money spent on security at Newbury could have been spent on the Poynton bypass, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle and I are making a plea to our hon. Friend the Minister. We want an assurance that the A523 Macclesfield-Poynton road improvement scheme, which ties up with the Poynton bypass and is part of the MAELR east and west, will remain a priority in the Government's trunk road construction programme. We are not asking him to say that the project will go ahead within two years, although I would love him to say that. If he did, he could come to my constituency and drink champagne from dawn until dusk at my expense.
    The roads are vital. All the elected councils want them: Cheshire county council; Macclesfield borough council; Poynton parish council; Adlington parish council; Mottram parish council; and Prestbury parish council. The Members of Parliament representing the areas concerned also want the roads. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle spoke with great eloquence for his constituency and its councils. I hope that I have added to his argument.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle and I have slightly different views on the airport. I am in favour of the second runway because of its economic importance to the north-west. However, that aside, the airport company believes that if the runway plan is to go ahead, the MAELR projects are essential, although the company hopes that a great deal of the stone that will come to the airport for the second runway will be transported by rail, subject to a freight support grant from the Department of Transport.
    If a buoyant area of the country is to continue to play its role in the economy of the north-west and of the United Kingdom, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will appreciate the sincerity with which our arguments have been advanced and will at least go some way towards giving us the reassurances that we have asked for. Surely the views of the public are important in a democracy. The majority of people in the area are in favour. I hope that that carries weight in the House and with the Government.
    5.13 pm
    The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) on his success in obtaining parliamentary time to debate an issue on which he has been campaigning tirelessly on behalf of his constituents. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on his efforts. Both my hon. Friends have spoken not just on their own behalf, but for many other right hon. and hon. Members. My hon. Friends' constituents are fortunate, or perhaps wise, to have chosen such powerful advocates of their interests.
    I know very well that the delay in the provision of MAELR is a matter of considerable concern to local residents, particularly those who live on Woodford road
    812
    and Chester road, where traffic flows have increased substantially following the construction of the central section of MAELR by Cheshire county council. I am glad to have the opportunity to respond to those concerns. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle showed the House an impressive bundle of letters. I suspect that it included a substantial number of replies from me, because I find probably two or three such letters in my box every night, which I read and sign on my way home.
    On the petition to which my hon. Friend referred, I cannot guarantee now that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be able to meet his constituents to receive it. I am sure, however, that, if there is time available in his diary, he would be prepared to meet them. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that, if he cannot do so, I shall certainly be willing to meet his constituents again and receive their petition.
    It is relevant to consider the background to the scheme, although my hon. Friends the Members for Cheadle and Macclesfield have filled in a great deal of its history. It is a fact that, as long ago as the 1950s, a route for an east-west link between Hazel Grove and Manchester airport has been protected against development by local authorities.
    In 1989, the national importance of the scheme was recognised, when it was added to the trunk road programme. The scheme was then entitled the "A6(M) to M56 (Manchester Airport) Link", and was expected to follow broadly the route protected by the three local authorities whose boundaries were crossed—Cheshire county council, Stockport metropolitan borough council and Manchester city council.
    The purpose of the scheme was, and is, to provide improved access to a thriving and expanding airport from the south and east, and to provide relief to congested roads across the southern fringes of the Manchester conurbation. It is an important part of the infrastructure that is needed to serve Manchester airport, which is becoming one of the nation's most important airports, and certainly the most important of the regional airports.
    I must not allow myself to be drawn into commenting on the merits or demerits of the plans to expand the airport because they are subject to public inquiry and, ultimately, a quasi-judicial decision by my right hon. Friends. It is clear, however, that even given its current development, the airport would benefit significantly from improved infrastructure. That, in turn, would offer an additional economic benefit to an important region of the United Kingdom.
    Following the addition of the scheme to the trunk road programme, the route protection was taken over by my Department. The scheme was then split into three sections. The eastern section from Hazel Grove to Woodford is included in the proposals for the A555-A523 Poynton bypass, for which there is a preferred route following a public consultation held six years ago. The western section, which links with the M56 at the airport and extends to the A34 at Handforth, also has a preferred route following public consultation held in the summer of 1993.
    As my hon. Friends have already said, the central section has already been built and the immediate effects of its provision are the cause of concern, or at least the increased concern of my hon. Friends and their constituents.

    813
    I apologise for going over ground with which I know my hon. Friends are extremely familiar, but it is important to make clear the sequence of events that have led to the current situation. That is particularly important in relation to the central section, which was built by the county council as part of its scheme to provide a north-south bypass of the A34 through Handforth and Wilmslow.
    The Handforth section, and the central section of MAELR has now been open for just over 12 months, and I understand that the Wilmslow section is due for completion in December.
    As my hon. Friends are aware, the availability of private finance from major store developments enabled Cheshire county council to proceed with its scheme. It may be now viewed as a mixed blessing. On the one hand, one is aware of the advantages of seizing the opportunities of the availability of private finance to provide a road that would otherwise have had to be provided at some time wholly at public expense, but the advancement of the phasing of the construction that it permitted, and my Department's inability to put the other two pieces in place at the same time, have created the problems that my hon. Friends eloquently described.
    Mr. Day: Yes, it is a mixed blessing, but it becomes a blessing if we get the rest of the road. The ultimate disaster would be for us to be left with only the central section. That would be worse than no road being built at all. The fact that the central section is there makes the rest essential.
    Mr. Watts: I take my hon. Friend's point absolutely.
    Regarding the central section, my Department's involvement was to meet the cost of upgrading the carriageway provision of the central section of MAELR only from single lane to dual two lane and to provide grade separation at the junction, in order to meet the future requirements of traffic forecast to use the completed MAELR between the airport and Hazel Grove. We made no direct contribution to the main component of the scheme other than an element of transport supplementary grant, which is a feature of all major local authority roads.
    Both my hon. Friends have ensured that I have been made aware of the effects of traffic using the completed section, almost from the day that the road opened. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle extended to me a very warm welcome to visit his constituency just before or just after the Conservative party conference last year, and I had the opportunity then to see the problems. My hon. Friend drove me around the area—fairly slowly, because of the amount of traffic—and I had the opportunity to meet many of his constituents and their local representatives.
    I saw the validity of the concerns of residents of Woodford and Poynton, and especially of those living on the Chester road and the Woodford road. They are worried about increases in traffic, type of traffic, pedestrian safety and effects of traffic in the form of noise and other nuisance.
    There appear to be three main causes of that concern. First, the opening of the central section has led to a redistribution of traffic movements on the local road
    814
    network. Secondly, the opening of the prestigious and large scale shopping developments at Cheadle and Handforth Dean has led to increases in traffic on many local roads, including key routes in Poynton. Thirdly, there are at present major works by statutory undertakers on the A6 in Stockport and Hazel grove, which are causing severe congestion and resulting in drivers seeking alternative routes. Some of that traffic will add to pressure on local roads in the area, but, fortunately, that third element should be only a temporary problem.
    I am well aware that a local campaign has been formed to press for the completion of the airport link road. On a positive note, both the western section of MAELR and the Poynton bypass remain firmly in the main programme following the extremely stringent review that I had to undertake last year, which concluded in the publication of the revised road programme last November. It is obvious why those schemes have remained in the main programme. They have done so for the reasons that my hon. Friends have so eloquently explained. Those roads are of great value in helping to resolve local problems, are significant for the region and would form part of the linkage to the airport, which is important for the north-western region.
    However, my hon. Friends appreciate that the Government are determined to maintain public spending at levels that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor believes can be afforded, and the transport budget, with others, has had to be set at a level commensurate with the total sum. In the past two spending rounds, my trunk road budget lost more than £1 billion, making the programme more difficult to manage.
    I assure my hon. Friends that I understand their eagerness for progress. The schemes will be implemented as soon as resources can be made available.
    I understand the feeling that the possibility of private money should be considered. The Government have very successfully promoted the private finance initiative in the roads programme. In line with that policy, if there is a possibility of private funding contributing toward the earlier completion of these schemes, we shall always be happy to speak—
    Mr. Winterton: My hon. Friend the Minister heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle said. I also took up, in a modest way, the issue of the airport's role, and I know that the airport management would be happy to co-operate with any initiative that could speed up the road's construction. I suggest that the Department of Transport talks to the airport management, because I suspect that that might involve financial assistance on a modest scale, which could be part of the private finance initiative that my hon. Friend mentioned.
    Mr. Watts: I would be happy to pursue any such possibility, but, although I would not necessarily expect offers of private funding to cover the whole scheme—that would be very ambitious—any private sector contribution would need to be fairly significant to have a significant effect on the rate of delivery.
    Following my visit to Cheadle, I asked the Highways Agency to investigate the possibility, suggested by the Woodford Community Council, that part of the eastern section of MAELR between Woodford road and Chester

    815
    road should be constructed before the remainder of the road, to provide relief to those local roads. That suggestion was considered very carefully, but unfortunately we had to conclude that we could not go ahead with temporary measures of that type because there would have been abortive costs. We would have ended up building sections of roadway that would not form part of the ultimate trunk road scheme, and we could not justify using trunk road money for what would have been only a local traffic alleviation in the longer term.
    I understand that Cheshire county council is to undertake traffic survey work in that area, with special emphasis on the A5149 Chester road. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle will be aware that my direct responsibilities are limited to the trunk road network. The Chester road forms part of the local road network, for which the local Highway Authority is responsible, and as such it would be for the county council to determine, in the light of its survey work, what measures it may believe that it is appropriate to pursue. I am not in a position to give it any instructions as to what it should do.
    Priorities have had to be set within a realistic and fairly tight framework. I hope that we have done so responsibly, concentrating our efforts on key national routes. It would not have been realistic to try to progress each and every scheme in the main programme at the same time, and we would have consumed resources in preparation work at the expense of having money to start construction.
    I assure both my hon. Friends and those other right hon. and hon. Members on whose behalf they spoke today that the needs of their constituents have not been forgotten, and that we shall continue to invest sensibly and carefully to meet the transport needs of this area, as elsewhere. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield spoke of the timetable that was outlined at public inquiry. I do not believe that my officials were behaving fraudulently or dishonestly in what they said in their evidence to the inquiry, but the significance of timing is that that inquiry took place before we had had more than £1 billion removed from our trunk road budget. I was therefore
    816
    pleased to hear that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield was able to ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor about the importance of infrastructure maintaining a buoyant economy arid received a satisfactory reply from my right hon. arid learned Friend, which is no less than we would ever expect of him.
    Mr. Day: I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not forget a major point that I asked him to respond to. He may have been coming to it, but I wish to be certain. It concerns Woodford road junction returning to its original design: the junction being closed and done away with, and the road going under Woodford road as originally proposed. That is very important to my constituents.
    Mr. Watts: It would ultimately be a matter for the local highway authority to decide whether it wished to maintain the junction as part of its local network. Once we are in a position to complete our trunk road scheme, it would be odd if an unnecessary part of the network were maintained.
    Mr. Day: At the public inquiry into the MAELR, my constituents on Woodford road were assured that the junction created there would be temporary. Temporary means that it will be removed. My constituents are not being unreasonable to think that the promise made at a public inquiry should be honoured. They were promised at the public inquiry that, once the road was completed, the junction would disappear; anything else would be to let them down and to have misled them in a way which I am sure my hon. Friend would not wish to be guilty of.
    Mr. Watts: Any undertaking given at a public inquiry by my officials on my behalf will be honoured, and I expect that any undertaking given by Cheshire county council will be similarly honoured.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at half-past Five o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Incitement to Racial Hatred
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Attorney-General how many people have been prosecuted in each of the last five years for incitement to racial hatred. [61]

  The Attorney-General
  For the years 1992 to 1996, I have granted consent to the institution of proceedings for incitement to racial hatred against the following number of defendants:

  1992: 3

  1993: 2

  1994: 2

  1995: 7

  1996: 4 (to date)

  During the last five years, I have declined to give my consent in a total of two cases.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Dual Support Transfer
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what conclusion has been reached on the review of the dual support transfer. [2111]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Following extensive consultations, the Government have decided that, to address the evident concerns of the effect of the dual support transfer on research infrastructure, the contribution to indirect costs in research council grants should be increased from 40 to 45 per cent. of approved staff costs for all grant payments on new and existing grants from 1 April 1997.

  Additionally, the research councils and funding councils have been asked to identify and implement further measures by next April to ensure that the transfer achieves its original intentions. In particular, it is important that those making research grant applications include all eligible direct costs, and that the research councils meet these wherever possible.

  In announcing these measures, I should like to acknowledge the considerable assistance provided by all concerned. As those consulted plainly recognise, the difficult issues raised by the review require a finely balanced judgment to be made. From the consultation, it was clear that the major concern was with departmental infrastructure associated with grant-funded research projects, and hence the Government hope that universities will deploy the increase in the indirect costs contribution to support such infrastructure.
  182
  I have asked the Government's chief scientific adviser, Sir Robert May, to keep under review these new arrangements and the health of the higher education research base through the Science and Engineering Base Co-ordinating Committee, which he chairs.

  Manufacturing Jobs
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many manufacturing jobs with foreign-owned companies operating in the United Kingdom have been lost in the past 12 months. [315]

  Mr. Greg Knight
  My Department does not collect such information on a systematic basis.

  Outward Trade Missions
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what account he has taken of the size of the chambers of commerce and industry when setting criteria of eligibility in respect of outward trade missions; [41]

  (2) if he will give for each of the last four years and for 1997–98 details of the awards given to outward trade missions; [40]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the implications of the first stage announcement in respect of DTI-supported outward trade missions for north Staffordshire; and if he will make a statement. [42]

  Mr. Nelson
  The size of the organisation seeking support is but one factor in determining its suitability to run a mission supported by the Department. Other criteria which a chamber of commerce, trade association, business link or similar organisation must fulfil is that it is based in the United Kingdom; represents a substantial proportion of the companies in its industry and/or area, and is of good standing; it must have adequate staff and financial resources to recruit and organise an effective group promotion overseas; and show an active and continuing role in export promotion activities.

  All proposals for support are considered on their merits, with account taken of various factors including, for example, the case made for support; how well the proposal meets priorities identified in the country market plan; sponsor's past record. I need also to balance demand against the budget available.

  I am confident that the implications of the recent announcement of the 1997–98 stage 1 mission programme for north Staffordshire and indeed the whole of the west midlands are good. In addition to the three offers to the north Staffordshire chamber, 24 offers have been made to other chambers in the region. As participation is not restricted by membership or geographical location, north Staffordshire-based companies can apply to join any of these missions. They may also apply to join all the others which comprise the existing programme.

  Trade missions are an important promotional tool. Some 151 missions were supported in 1993–94; 149 in 1994–95 and 210 in 1995–96. Support has been offered for 281 to take place in 1996–97, and a further 230 under stage 1 of the 1997–98 programme. Subject to the availability of additional funding, further offers will be announced in the new year.
  183

  Resale Price Maintenance (Medicines)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received in respect of the proposal of the Office of Fair Trading to abolish resale price maintenance on certain medicines; what response he has made; and if he will make a statement. [482]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 28 October 1996]: The Director General of Fair Trading announced on 18 October that he was seeking leave of the restrictive practices court to apply for a discharge of its 1970 order in respect of resale price maintenance on certain medicines. If leave is given, it will be for the court to decide whether the 1970 order remains in the public interest. The director general is content to receive further information relevant to the preparation of the application for leave. The Secretary of State has no statutory role or discretion in relation to the director general's application nor in relation to the court's consideration of the case. In the period between the announcement and the 29 October 1996, he has received one representation on this matter, which has been passed to the director general.

  Offshore Oil and Gas
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) when was the last occasion that a field inspection of an offshore oil or gas installation was undertaken by a Government official in order to confirm the composition of produced water; and if he will list the number of occasions that such inspections have been undertaken in each of the last eight years; [511]

  (2) when was the last occasion that a field inspection of an offshore oil or gas installation was undertaken by a Government official in order to confirm the composition of contamination on drill cuttings; and if he will list the number of occasions that such inspections have been undertaken in each of the last eight years. [512]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answers 30 October 1996]: The last occasion that a field inspection of an offshore oil and gas installation was undertaken by a Government official in order to confirm the composition of produced water was on the 25 of October 1996.

  As the hon. Member was advised earlier this year on 3 July, Official Report, column 457, inspections of offshore installations have been undertaken by the Department of Trade and Industry in each of the last eight years, although figures are not available, apart from at disproportionate cost due to the relocation of the office responsible to Aberdeen and the subsequent archiving of files.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the total volumes of unrecovered oil-based drilling muds and of water-based drilling muds that were discharged from offshore oil and gas installations on the UK continental shelf in each of the last eight years. [513]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 30 October 1996]: The total volumes of unrecovered oil-based drilling muds discharged offshore oil and gas installations on the United Kingdom continental shelf for the last eight years are routinely recorded in the "Energy Report", which is published annually and is available in the Library of the House.
  184
  There is no statutory record of total water-based drilling mud discharged.

  North Sea Oil Rigs
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many environmental inspections have been carried out in respect of North sea oil rigs in each year since 1980; and how many inspectors carried out this work in each of those years. [1016]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 29 October 1996]: Numerous inspections of offshore installations have been undertaken by my inspector in each of the last 16 years, although figures are not available apart from at disproportionate cost due to the relocation of the office responsible to Aberdeen and the subsequent archiving of files. I refer the hon. Member to my reply given earlier this year to the hon. Member for Lewisham and Deptford (Ms Ruddock) on 3 July, Official Report, column 457.

  There were two inspectors until the end of 1989, but, until 1992, 10 safety inspectors also carried out environmental checks. From 1992 to 1994, there was only one inspector but other staff visiting offshore installations carried out environmental checks. The Department now has six inspectors.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much oil was discharged in(a) the United Kingdom sector and (b) the Norwegian sector of the North sea in each year since 1980; and what the figures were for each United Kingdom offshore installation in each of these years. [1017]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 29 October 1996]: The total amount of oil discharged from United Kingdom offshore installations is published annually in the "Energy Report". Copies of this are available in the Library of the House.

  Available figures for discharges of oil (in tonnes) in the Norwegian sector are given below:

  1981: 591

  1982: 1,534

  1983: 1,770

  1984: 3,900

  1985: 3,490

  1986: 2,378

  1987: 1,768

  1988: 2,339

  1989: 1,604

  1990: 1,585.

  The provision of discharge information on an installation basis for the last 16 years could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Hong Kong (Power Station Explosion)
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress his Department has made in its inquiry into(a) the cause of the explosion at Castle Peak B power station in Hong Kong in 1992 and (b) the safety of similar power stations in the United Kingdom. [983]
  185
  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 29 October 1996]: The safety of power stations in Hong Kong is a matter for the Hong Kong Government. However, I understand that a police inquiry being conducted in Hong Kong has not yet reached any conclusions and in view of this we cannot tell whether it may have any relevance to the question of safety at power stations.

  The Health and Safety Executive consulted the electricity industry through the Electricity Association's generation safety managers group and asked what action had been taken to avoid a possible read across of the Castle Peak incident to UK power stations. A reply was received from the Electricity Association which detailed the action taken by the five companies that had or operated hydrogen generating plant. I understand that either the design and/or the operation of the plants are different from that at Castle Peak, or that any necessary modifications have been made.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many power stations in the United Kingdom are equipped with hydrogen plants similar to the Hong Kong Castle Peak B plant which exploded; and what steps have been taken to warn them of the possibility of a similar occurrence here. [985]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 29 October 1996]: Five electricity companies operate hydrogen plants in the United Kingdom. The detailed design of the plants is different to that at Castle Peak. While some plant similar to that used at Castle Peak is installed in one United Kingdom power station, detailed consideration of that plant's design by the utility and the manufacturer following the accident confirmed that the plant's design was such not to make it susceptible to the type of incident which occurred at Castle Peak.

  LA Rent arrears1 at end March 1995

  LA vacants2 at 1 April 1995

  Amount (£000)

  Percentage of rent roll

  Number

  Percentage of dwellings

  Council Tax arrears3 (£000)

  Community charge arrears (£000)

  Barking and Dagenham

  942

  2.0

  427

  1.6

  1,440

  1,558

  Barnet

  1,401

  3.8

  124

  0.9

  6,678

  10,281

  Bexley

  505

  2.5

  139

  1.6

  1,679

  2,644

  Brent

  13,750

  29.3

  301

  1.8

  8,892

  26,035

  Bromley

  0

  0.0

  5

  6.3

  1,963

  1,944

  Camden

  8,986

  10.7

  543

  1.8

  12,379

  22,095

  City of London

  256

  4.2

  24

  1.1

  n/a

  n/a

  Croydon

  2,208

  4.7

  265

  1.6

  5,392

  4,246

  Ealing

  10,809

  19.1

  210

  1.3

  n/a

  n/a

  Enfield

  4,037

  9.9

  342

  2.2

  8,815

  8,396

  Greenwich

  14,984

  19.6

  795

  2.5

  6,494

  9,737

  Hackney

  32,675

  31.6

  3,894

  9.8

  4,588

  10,470

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  6,553

  15.1

  343

  2.1

  6,752

  7,186

  Haringey

  20,318

  33.4

  303

  1.5

  n/a

  n/a

  Harrow

  793

  3.6

  108

  1.6

  3,595

  4,787

  Havering

  561

  2.2

  219

  1.6

  1,506

  3,628

  Hillingdon

  933

  2.2

  159

  1.2

  4,857

  6,586

  Hounslow

  2,483

  7.1

  333

  2.0

  4,087

  15,618

  Islington

  16,072

  16

  1,483

  4.0

  n/a

  n/a

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2,351

  9.4

  108

  1.4

  4,672

  5,083

  Kingston upon Thames

  507

  3.0

  97

  1.7

  n/a

  n/a

  Lambeth

  19,491

  19.8

  2,176

  5.1

  40,172

  75,423

  Lewisham

  7,482

  9.3

  1,051

  3.0

  n/a

  n/a

  Merton

  1,168

  4.5

  89

  0.9

  3,211

  4,238

  Newham

  7,886

  13.6

  735

  2.8

  12,052

  24,397

  Redbridge

  1,142

  5

  515

  7.6

  n/a

  n/a

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,062

  5.5

  246

  3.2

  1,887

  4,056

  Southwark

  26,160

  20.8

  1,129

  2.1

  10,811

  25,290

  186
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what account his Department's inquiry into the cause of the explosion at Castle Peak B power station in Hong Kong in 1992 has taken of(a) reports by the Hong Kong Governor's board of inquiry and (b) the investigation by the Hong Kong police into a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. [984]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 29 October 1996]: Investigations by the Hong Kong police are matters for the Hong Kong Government.

  Following a request by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Health and Safety Executive consulted the electricity industry through the Electricity Association's generation safety managers group on what action had been taken to avoid a possible read across of the Castle Peak incident to United Kingdom power stations. This included forwarding to the association a copy of the technical report by the China Light and Power Company which had been prepared on the recommendation of the coroner who investigated the cause of the explosion at Castle Peak B power station.

ENVIRONMENT

  Housing (London)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list(a) the level of rent arrears, (b) the number of empty council houses and (c) the level of council tax and similar arrears for each London local authority. [238]

  Mr. Clappison
  The latest available information is as follows:
  187

  LA Rent arrears1 at end March 1995

  LA vacants2 at 1 April 1995

  Amount (£000)

  Percentage of rent roll

  Number

  Percentage of dwellings

  Council Tax arrears3 (£000)

  Community charge arrears (£000)

  Sutton

  1,265

  5.2

  76

  0.8

  1,215

  1,555

  Tower Hamlets

  3,987

  5.5

  1,562

  4.2

  4,156

  5,437

  Waltham Forest

  2,404

  6.6

  465

  2.9

  8,134

  16,656

  Wandsworth

  4,362

  6.7

  508

  2.4

  2,091

  181

  Westminster

  3,100

  6.0

  263

  1.7

  4,110

  67

  1Source:

  Housing Subsidy Claim Form (SCF) returns.

  1Source:

  Housing Investment Programme (HIP1) returns.

  1Source:

  Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA). n/a = not available.

  Rough Sleepers Initiative
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many hostel places have been provided under the rough sleepers initiative; and what has been their occupancy rate during the past two years. [463]

  Mr. Clappison
  Since the rough sleepers initiative in central London began in 1990, my Department has provided funding for 986 places in nightshelters and hostels. Most of these places were in temporary hostels which have now closed either because the lease on the building has expired or the site has been redeveloped, in some cases to provide hostel accommodation of an improved standard. During 1996–97, my Department is funding 126 places in two nightshelters and two hostels. Occupancy rates exceed 95 per cent. in two of them and are between 85 and 90 per cent. in the other two.

  Under the rough sleepers initiative, my Department also provides funding for an annual programme of winter shelters, open from December to March. In 1994–95, 331 places were provided in seven shelters, with occupancy rates of about 89 per cent. In 1995–96, 315 places were provided in seven shelters with occupancy rates in excess of 89 per cent. My Department hopes to fund an enhanced winter shelter programme in 1996–97, providing up to 450 places in central London and 36 places in Bristol, where the rough sleepers initiative also now operates.

  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he plans to respond to the findings of evaluations of the extent of rough sleeping in 23 areas identified in the Government's strategy paper "Rough Sleepers Initiative—The Next Challenge". [2112]

  Mr. Curry
  The success of the rough sleepers initiative has been clearly demonstrated in central London, where it has been operating since 1990. In that time, the number of people sleeping rough on any night has fallen from estimates of over 1,000 to less than 300.

  On 4 March this year, I announced that the Government would be making £73 million available for a third phase of the initiative from 1996–97 to 1998–99. The interdepartmental strategy paper "Rough Sleepers Initiative—The Next Challenge" set out our plans for continuing the initiative in central London, where the problem is greatest; expanding the initiative to Bristol, where a major rough sleeping problem had been demonstrated; and assisting evaluations of the extent of
  188
  rough sleeping in 23 other areas where some evidence of a rough sleeping problem existed, with a view to providing further assistance.

  Evaluations of the extent of rough sleeping in 23 areas around the country, undertaken by Shelter on contract to my Department, have now been completed. In total, 375 people were found sleeping rough during single night head counts in all 23 areas. I have considered the findings, along with the range of other information collected as part of each evaluation, including the amount and availability of direct-access hostel provision, the range of existing local services providing help for people sleeping rough, and local authority policies on providing housing for people sleeping rough. From this evidence, I have decided that further assistance should fall into three main categories.

  First, I have decided to create new rough sleepers initiative zones in Brighton, Kensington and Chelsea and Hammersmith and Fulham, where significant rough sleeping problems have been identified. The local authorities for these areas will be invited to form consortiums of statutory and voluntary sector agencies to develop a local strategy for tackling rough sleeping and to bid for rough sleepers initiative funding, which may be made available for capital projects—such as hostels and permanent accommodation—or revenue projects—such as outreach and resettlement work. I expect the strategies to be based closely on the findings of the evaluations in these areas. The local authorities for Kensington and Chelsea and for Hammersmith and Fulham are being invited to form a single consortium to focus resources on the areas within both boroughs where people sleep rough.

  Additionally, I have decided to expand the area covered by the existing central London rough sleepers initiative zones to include parts of the W1 and W2 postal districts in Westminster. My Department will be discussing the arrangements for this expansion with Westminster city council and the chairmen of the existing central London rough sleepers initiative consortiums.

  Secondly, I have decided to create a new rough sleepers revenue fund to which local voluntary sector agencies can submit applications for funding of projects, such as outreach and resettlement work. Local authorities, working in close consultation with voluntary sector agencies, will be invited to prepare joint statutory and voluntary sector local strategies for tackling rough sleeping and to identify suitable revenue projects for which applications for funding could be sought. Funding

  189
  decisions will be based on the strength of the local strategies and on the value for money offered by applications. Initially, I will be inviting the local authorities for Bath, Bournemouth, Cambridge, Ealing, Exeter, Leicester, Manchester, Nottingham, Oxford and Richmond upon Thames, where rough sleeping problems have been identified, to prepare and submit such strategies. I expect the strategies to be based closely on the findings of the evaluations in these areas.

  Subsequently, my Department will be publishing guidance for local authorities on evaluating the extent of rough sleeping in their areas and developing strategies for tackling any problems which exist. In the light of responses to this guidance, I will consider inviting other local authorities to prepare strategies and suggest projects which might be considered for grants from the rough sleepers revenue fund.

  Up to £25 million will be available from 1 April 1997 to 31 March 1999 to fund the new rough sleepers initiative zones and the rough sleepers revenue fund.

  The Department of Health will also be making available nearly £2 million over the next three years in areas which have been targeted for help under the rough sleepers initiative and the new rough sleepers revenue fund. This help is being made available through the extension of the homeless mentally ill initiative. It will be available to assist local authorities with outreach services and care costs for those people sleeping rough who have mental health problems. One of the primary aims of this additional funding will be to ensure that this vulnerable group is reintroduced to the services which comprise the spectrum of care for mentally ill people.

  Thirdly, my Department will be contacting the local authorities for Barnet, Basingstoke, Birmingham, Gloucester, Norwich, Reading, Tower Hamlets, Tunbridge Wells, Waltham Forest and York to offer advice on the findings of the evaluations and action which they might consider to tackle the relatively minor problems of rough sleeping identified in those areas.

  I am determined that the hard core of people who sleep rough are given every opportunity to get off the streets and into a better life. These further measures demonstrate the Government's commitment to ensuring that there is no necessity for people to sleep rough. Shelter, Homeless Network, Centrepoint, CHAR and Crisis have indicated their willingness to work nationally with Government, local authorities and other voluntary sector agencies to help make it unnecessary for people to sleep rough.

  In addition to these measures to tackle rough sleeping, grants are available from my Department to voluntary sector agencies for the prevention and relief of single homelessness. Some £25 million is being made available through these grants between 1996–97 and 1998–99, under section 73 of the Housing Act 1985.

  Copies of the final report on the evaluation exercise have been placed in the Libraries of the House and are available on request from my Department.

  Industrial Waste
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the Government's current policy on the import or export of poisonous industrial waste 190
  substances out of, or into, the United Kingdom; what are the latest trends in respect to such trade; and if he will make a statement. [130]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government's policies on the import and export of hazardous wastes are set out in the United Kingdom management plan for exports and imports of waste. Under the plan, which is legally binding throughout the United Kingdom, all exports of waste for disposal are banned, as are most imports for disposal other than in exceptional cases where wider environmental considerations apply. Exports of waste for recovery to countries within the OECD may continue but, subject to limited exceptions, exports of hazardous waste for recovery to non-OECD countries are banned. Imports of waste for genuine recovery operations may continue.

  The plan, which was published on 16 May 1996 and came into effect on 1 June, provides the means to implement the Government's long-standing policy of self-sufficiency in waste disposal, while preserving legitimate trade in wastes moving for recovery.

  Imports of hazardous waste into the UK for disposal in the period 1988–89 to 1993–94 are as follows:

  Imports (tonnes)

  1988–89

  40,027

  1989–90

  31,918

  1990–91

  44,517

  1991–92

  46,920

  1992–93

  47,018

  1993–94

  67,993

  Some 525 tonnes were exported from Northern Ireland to Finland between 1990–91 and 1991–92. No waste has been exported from the UK for disposal since 1992. More detailed information is available in my Department's digest of environmental statistics No 18 for 1996. The Department did not collect data on shipments for recovery before May 1994. Information on imports and exports of waste for recovery or disposal in more recent years is currently in preparation.

  Castle Cement
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what reasons were given by Castle Cement for its decision to withdraw its appeal against the conditions imposed by the Environment Agency on the operation of the plant; [901]

  (2) whether Castle Cement has undertaken to comply with the conditions set by the Environment Agency relating to the operation of the plant at Clitheroe. [902]

  Mr Clappison
  Castle Cement withdrew its appeal in a letter dated 11 October. I have today placed a copy of that letter in the House Library.

  Also, in answer to the question of whether the company has now undertaken to comply with the conditions of authorisation, the company was, and continues to be, legally obliged to comply with any condition of authorisation pending the outcome of its appeal. Any breach of a condition is a criminal offence.
  191

  Planning Permission
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the occasions on which he has used discretionary powers to(a) revoke and (b) challenge planning permission for out-of-town or edge-of-town retail developments since 1990, giving the date in each case. [864]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  None. The revocation of any planning permission is rare. Slightly more usual is for my right hon. Friend to call in for his own determination certain planning applications which are required to be referred to him. An application cannot be called in once permission has been granted. An application for retail development in Alnwick, Northumberland, was not referred to my right hon. Friend and was granted permission in 1993, These circumstances will be examined at a local public inquiry and my right hon. Friend will then decide whether to invoke his powers.

  Water Authority Debit
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the amount of regional water authorities' debt written off before privatisation. [1521]

  Mr. Clappison
  Debts to the Exchequer of £5,028 million were written off as part of the capital restructuring of the water industry in England and Wales for privatisation.

  Coastal Zone Management
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to issue the proposed best practice guide for coastal zone management. [2185]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Department of the Environment has today published "Coastal Zone Management—Towards Best Practice". The guide takes a practical look at the main issues which arise in coastal management and it highlights numerous examples of good practice which are at present being used. We have arranged for copies to be placed in the Libraries of the House, and the guide will be extensively distributed to interested organisations and individuals.

  World Trade Report
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the Government to respond to the Environment Committee's report on world trade and the environment. [2293]

  Mr. Gummer
  My right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the President of the Board of Trade, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Minister for Overseas Development and I have today published the Government response to the Environment Committee report on world trade and the environment and have placed copies in the libraries of both Houses.

  The Government wish to take the opportunity presented by the preparation of this document to set out an overview of their evolving approach to trade and the environment.
  192
  This comprises part I of the response; part II contains the detailed response to the Committee's conclusions and recommendations.

  The Government have always held the view that economic development makes a vital contribution to improving environmental standards. An open and non-discriminatory world trading system is crucial to future economic development throughout the world. However, to deliver high environmental standards, economic development must take place within a framework which ensures sustainable development.

  There has been much debate about the impact of trade on the environment; and the impact of environmental controls on trade.

  The challenge for the world community, both at the forthcoming ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organisation this December in Singapore and more widely, is to move away from the misleading rhetoric of trade versus environment to focus more closely on the principles of sustainable development. The Government are determined to ensure that the European Union takes the lead in promoting these principles.

  Further work on trade and environment will be required both in the WTO and in other forums such as the United Nations Environment Programme. We have identified six topics as the focus of major international effort in the near future:
  multilateral environmental agreements—the most effective response to transboundary and global environmental problems. We support the efforts of the European Union in the WTO to clarify the relationship between trade measures in multilateral environmental agreements and GATT;
  environmental policies based on processes—a wide variety of process controls are employed as part of environmental policy. The WTO needs to consider their relationship with the product-related regime of trade agreements;
  examination of environmental effects—we should like to see more analysis by the WTO of the potential environmental effects of trade proposals as they are developed;
  spreading understanding of environmental principles—there needs to be better understanding among those concerned with trade policy of the principles and concepts underlying environmental laws and policies;
  market access for least developed countries—reinforcing and spreading the benefits of the multilateral trading system is an important way of providing the world's poorest countries with the wealth to tackle environmental issues;
  combating illegal trade in endangered species, chlorofluorocarbons and hazardous wastes.

  Housing Corporation
  Mr. Liddington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans there are for the sale of the Housing Corporation's loan portfolios to the private sector to proceed. [2294]

  Mr. Gummer
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration announced on 28 November 1995 the Government's decision in principle to sell the loans provided to housing associations by the Housing Corporation, Scottish Homes and Housing for Wales. We subsequently appointed N M Rothschild and Sons Ltd. as the Government's financial advisers for the project and asked them to evaluate the options for selling these loans to the private sector.
  193
  On the basis of Rothchild's advice, my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales and I have decided to proceed with the sale of the loans, subject to receiving satisfactory final bids at the conclusion of negotiations. We have asked Rothchilds to make the necessary arrangements for the next stage.

  Due to the different nature of the loans provided by Scottish Homes, separate arrangements will be adopted for the Scottish portfolio. These will take longer than those for the English and Welsh portfolios.

  Housing associations have been most successful in securing private resources to finance social housing projects. The sale of the loans portfolios will be the logical conclusion of our policy of withdrawing from a lending activity which can clearly be funded directly by the private sector. There has already been considerable interest from the private sector in acquiring the portfolios, and I expect a successful conclusion to the sale process.

DEFENCE

  Land Mines
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what programme of research he has commissioned into mine clearance and detection. [396]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My Department has commissioned work by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, including research into detection using hand-held equipment; location and destruction of mines for route clearance; and the remote detection of minefields. DERA's centre for post-conflict battle area clearance technologies and techniques is primarily concerned with work for military purposes, but also undertakes studies of mine clearance funded by other bodies such as the ODA and the EU.

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now review all parliamentary answers given in both Houses on the subject of exposure to chemicals of British service personnel serving in the Gulf during Operation Granby since March 1991, and publish correct answers where required. [196]

  Mr. Soames
  When new information came to light that there had been wider use of organophosphate pesticides by British troops during the Gulf war, I wrote immediately to those Members of Parliament who had tabled questions or had inquired of my Department about pesticides to correct the pubic record. My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence wrote similarly to the Countess of Mar. Copies of the letters have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he was first informed that British troops and military medical staff were exposed to organophosphate pesticides during their service in Operation Granby in the Gulf war; what action he then took; and if he will place in the Library copies of all documentation on organophosphates held by his Department. [232]
  194
  Mr. Soames
  I was first made aware last month that British troops had made wider use of organophosphate pesticides during the Gulf war than we had previously been led to believe. As soon as this information came to light, we commissioned a detailed comprehensive investigation into the use of organophosphate pesticides by British troops. When this investigation is complete, I will make a full report to the House.

  St. Helena
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to utilize St. Helena for military exercises. [837]

  Mr. Soames
  There are currently no plans to utilise St. Helena for military exercises.

  US Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many United States nuclear weapons are currently situated on the United Kingdom mainland; and if he will make a statement. [1539]

  Mr. Soames
  It has been the practice of successive Governments neither to confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons in specific locations at specific times. All allies remain committed to the maintenance of nuclear forces in Europe as an essential political and military link between the European and North American members of the alliance. The United Kingdom continues to make available facilities for United States' nuclear forces within the UK.

  Overseas Forces
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the countries in which there is a United Kingdom military presence. [1478]

  Mr. Soames
  British service personnel are currently providing a UK military presence either on operations or at permanent bases in the following countries:

  Ascension Island

  Belize

  Bosnia-Herzegovina

  Brunei

  Canada

  Croatia

  Cyprus

  Diego Garcia

  Falkland Islands

  Georgia

  Germany

  Gibraltar

  Hong Kong

  Italy

  Kuwait

  Saudi Arabia

  South Georgia

  Turkey

  United Kingdom

  195
  This list does not include countries where loan service personnel and training teams are based, where short-term training exercises are being conducted and where there are minor commitments involving individual service men and women.

  Polaris and Trident
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total defence expenditure on(a) the Polaris and (b) the Trident programmes in 1993–94 and 1994–95. [1477]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  For the years in question, expenditure, in £ million and at outturn prices was:

  1993–94

  1994–95

  (a) Polaris

  103

  65

  (b) Trident

  979

  723

  Armed Forces (Beef)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much British beef(a) in weight and (b) in value, was supplied to the British armed forces in each of the last three years. [1381]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The procurement of food for the Armed Forces is contracted to the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes. My Department does not specify the source of origin from which NAAFI should obtain beef (or any other meat), but expects it to seek the best market price for the product. The majority of our requirements are for frozen beef which is not readily available from the British market. Records for the last three years are not available, however in the financial year 1995–96 and in the first six months of the current financial year, NAAFI purchased some 690,000 kg of UK beef, including sirloin, forerib, diced mince and a range of manufactured products; these were valued at £1.3 million.

  Army Technical Services Agency
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Army Technical Services Agency at Malvern. [1380]

  Mr. Soames
  On 25 October,Official Report, columns 14–15, I announced that the Army Technical Support Agency collocation would be taken forward as a private finance initiative project. The future of the ATSA at Malvern will depend on the outcome of the PFI solution for ATSA collocation.

PRIME MINISTER

  Queen's Speech
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Vote Office copies of the consolidated press lobby briefing on the Queen's Speech. [833]

  The Prime Minister
  Copies of the background notes have been placed in the Library of the House.
  196

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) whether (i) the security services and (ii) GCHQ have registered under the Data Protection Act 1984; and if he will make a statement; [151]

  (2) if the intelligence services have registered under the Data Protection Act 1984; and if he will make a statement. [207]

  The Prime Minister
  No. Agencies holding personal data for the purpose of safeguarding national security are exempt from registration under section 27 of the Data Protection Act 1984. The exemption is kept under review.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 31 October. [996]

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 31 October. [997]

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

HEALTH

  NHS Trusts (Severance Payments)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what severance payments were paid to(a) Ms Sue De Gilio of Plymouth Community Services NHS trust and (b) Ms Jenny Parsonage of Thameslink Healthcare Services NHS trust upon their resignations. [453]

  Mr. Malone
  Severance payments for trust staff are a matter for the trusts concerned, taking into account the guidance issued to trusts by the national health service executive in May 1994. The hon. Member may wish to contact Miss Louise Churchill, chairman of Plymouth Community Services NHS trust and Mr. Ron March, chairman of Thameslink Healthcare Services NHS trust for details.

  Schools (Dysentery)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many schools which have experienced outbreaks of dysentery in the last year have pupils from families whose water has been cut off. [426]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Cosmetic Surgery
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish the results of the study commissioned by his Department from the British Association of Plastic Surgeons on private cosmetic surgery started in July 1995. [421]
  197
  Mr. Horam
  It is for the researchers to publish the report. The information from the study indicated that there was only very small usage of NHS resources in the treatment of the problems of aesthetic surgery carried out in the private sector.

  Mental Health
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which schemes for the provision of services for psychiatric patients have been approved under the private finance initiative. [1032]

  Mr. Horam
  Seven schemes providing services for psychiatric patients have been approved under the private finance initiative. Four of these schemes have been completed, one is under way and two are negotiating contract signature. They are:Tees health authority: residential accommodation for elderly and mental ill patients. Capital value: £2.0 million. (Completed).
  North Bedfordshire health authority: residential accommodation for elderly severely mentally ill patients. Capital value: £1.4 million. (Completed).
  Brent and Harrow health authority: residential accommodation for elderly mentally ill patients. Capital value: £2.1 million. (Completed).
  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority: residential accommodation for elderly mentally ill patients. Capital value: £1.0 million. (Completed).
  Barnet Health NHS trust: residential accommodation for elderly mentally ill patients. Capital value: £1.5 million. (Under way).
  Leeds Community and Mental Health Services Teaching NHS trust: north west community unit for elderly mentally ill patients. Capital value: £2.5 million. (Approved but not yet under way).
  Leeds Community and Mental Health Services Teaching NHS trust: west central community unit for elderly mentally ill patients. Capital value: £2.5 million. (Approved but not yet under way).

  Mr. David Atkinson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish his Green Paper on the future management of mental health services; and if he will make a statement. [1063]

  Mr. Burns
  Much progress has been made in developing and implementing policies for the delivery of comprehensive health and social care services to people with mental illness, but concerns are now being expressed that particular structural and organisational barriers may be impeding further progress. We are therefore examining the legal and other structural obstacles which might be inhibiting effective working between agencies and will shortly be issuing a consultation document seeking views on which options for change would be most supported by those working in the mental health field and by service users.

  General Chiropractic Council
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects an announcement on the composition of the General Chiropractic Council. [1064]

  Mr. Horam
  Work on establishing the General Chiropractic Council is proceeding well and we expect to be able to announce its membership shortly.
  198

  Secure Accommodation
  Sir Michael Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many places are available in secure accommodation for juvenile offenders in England arid Wales; how many extra places will be provided during 1996; and if he will make a statement. [856]

  Mr. Burns
  There are presently 309 places available for use in local authority secure units in England arid Wales. A further 40 places are available at Glenthorne youth treatment centre. We are on course to bring into use another 33 places by the end of 1996, making a total of 94 additional places provided during the year. All these places are available not only for young offenders but for children who need help with severe emotional and behavioural problems.

  NHS Cost Inflation
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the basis for the current national health service cost inflation; and into which categories of patient care it is applied by district health service by his(a) Department and (b) district health services. [879]

  Mr. Malone
  Estimates of national health service cost inflation are not calculated. A retrospective measure of current inflation in the hospital and community health services—HCHS—sector of the national health service is calculated annually. The inflation measure is calculated as a weighted average of HCHS staff pay inflation and inflation in the purchase of goods and services within HCHS current expenditure.

  The inflation estimate is calculated only at the national level, and is not disaggregated by category of patient care.

  Community Care (Staffordshire)
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the extent of the failure of compliance of Staffordshire county council with the requirement in each of the last three years that 85 per cent. of special transitional grant for community care should go to private sector homes; what action Her Majesty's Government are proposing to take as a result; and if he will make a statement. [1050]

  Mr. Burns
  The independent sector condition attached to the special transitional grant required local authorities to spend at least 85 per cent. of the Department of Social Security transfer element of the grant on community care services purchased in the independent sector. The audited figures for 1993–94 show Staffordshire county council expenditure in the independent sector of £6.439 million compared with the minimum requirement of £7.958 million, thus failing the requirement by £1.5 million. The Secretary of State exercised his discretion not to require the repayment of the grant after taking account of the representations made by Staffordshire. In 1994–95, its expenditure in the independent sector amounted to £17.618 million, falling short of the minimum requirement of £18.166 by £0.5 million. No decisions have yet been made on the consequences of this failure. Audited figures for 1995–96 will not be available until 31 December.
  199

  School Health Service
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses were employed by the school health service in each of the past five years. [1101]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) on 21 May 1996, Official Report columns 87–88. Information for later years is not available centrally.

  Waiting Lists
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients had been waiting for operations in excess of the patients charter waiting time standards at 1 September 1996. [1113]

  Mr. Horam
  The latest information available centrally is for 30 June 1996. This shows that, on that date, seven patients waiting for operations had been waiting more than 18 months from the date they were placed on a waiting list. Also, 109 patients did not receive coronary artery bypass grafts and associated procedures within the 12 months standard set by the patients charter.

  AIDS
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have died of AIDS in England and Wales in each year since 1990. [1116]

  Mr. Horam
  The number of deaths in reported AIDS cases by the end of September 1996 are shown in the table. These data are affected by reporting delays and under-reporting. The figures given exclude deaths reported in HIV-infected individuals who either died without reaching the AIDS case definition of whose AIDS status at the time of death has yet to be confirmed.

  Year of death

  England and Wales

  1990

  736

  1991

  892

  1992

  1,013

  1993

  1,192

  1994

  1,236

  1995

  1,130

  Total

  6,199

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have died of CJD in England and Wales in each year since 1990. [1117]

  Mr. Horam
  As at 29 October 1996, the number of deaths in confirmed cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in England and Wales, including sporadic, iatrogenic, familial, new-variant CJD and Gertsmann-Straussler-Scheinker syndrome in each year since 1990 are as follows:200

  Year

  Confirmed deaths

  1990

  27

  1991

  31

  1992

  45

  1993

  38

  1994

  55

  1995

  42

  19961

  29

  1 Up to end of September 1996. Comparable figures for the United Kingdom were published in the chief medical officer's "Update" issue 12, published on 28 October, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Lung Cancer
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients with lung cancer were over 75 in the following years(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1995–96; and what proportion of the total these figures represent. [1118]

  Mr. Horam
  Information is held centrally in the hospital episode system—HES—for diagnosis using specific codes under ICD9 classification, copies of which are available in the Library. The latest year available is 1994–95. Data for the number of finished consultant episodes with primary diagnosis "Malignant neoplasm of trachea, bronchus and lung"—ICD code 162—in NHS hospitals in England are shown in the table:

  Data year

  Total cases

  75 years and over

  Percentage of 75 years and over of total

  1993–94

  57,822

  13,620

  24

  1994–95

  57,823

  13,138

  23

  Episodes where the age of the person was unknown have been allocated pro rata.

  Breast Cancer
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of breast cancer were identified in women of 65 years and over for each year since 1992; and what proportion they represent of all women diagnosed as having breast cancer. [1114]

  Mr. Horam
  Provisional numbers of registrations of breast cancer diagnosed in 1991 in England and Wales were published in the Office for National Statistics "Monitor" MBI 96/1, copies of which are available in the Library. Figures for 1992 and 1993 will be published shortly by the Office for National Statistics and copies will be placed in the Library.

  NHS Health Advisory Service
  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what decision has been made on the findings of the review of the NHS health advisory service. [2037]

  Mr. Burns
  We have decided to merge the NHS health advisory service, from April 1997, with a consortium led by the Royal College of Psychiatrists research unit and comprising members from the Royal College of Nursing Institute, Office for Public Management and British Geriatrics Society.
  201
  I believe this decision develops and builds on the work of the review team. It is the basis for an up-to-date and proactive advisory service, equipped with a multidisciplinary team able to help organisations improve and develop services.

  Under a separate contract, the work of the drug advisory service will also change. It will take a more active role in alcohol misuse services and it will develop as a resource for health and local authority purchasers of substance misuse services.

  Health Authorities (Manchester)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the funding of health authorities in Manchester in the remaining months of the financial year; which authorities expect a shortfall; and if he will make a statement. [1378]

  Mr. Horam
  All health authorities are expected to remain within their allocated cash limit. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on 17 October 1996 Official Report, columns 1104–05, which provided the estimated outturn position for all English health authorities.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Open Prisons
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria are applied to assess the suitability of prisoners in an open prison for work carried out in the community as part of their rehabilitation. [1083]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Prisoners who are held in open prisoners are thoroughly assessed to ensure that they do not pose a risk to the public. Open prisons will allocate prisoners to work in the local community only when this is considered to be of benefit to both the community and to the prisoner. Particular attention is always paid to the offences committed by the prisoner and to his or her background as part of this process. The overriding concern in such allocation is always the safety of the public; if such concern exists, the prisoner does not undertake work in the community, and may be transferred to a closed and more secure prison.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what procedures exist to assess a prisoner's suitability for transfer to an open prison; who is responsible for their implementation; and what assessment he has made of their effectiveness. [1084]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Determinate sentence prisoners must be reallocated to the lowest security category before their transfer from a closed to an open prison. This involves an assessment of any risk posed to the public by the prisoner, together with the risk of escape or abscond. Such reallocation and transfer will take place only if the staff of the closed prison are satisfied that the prisoner is not a risk to the public and is not likely to escape or abscond. The prisoner will undergo a further risk assessment at the open prison to ensure that he or she is suitable for open conditions.
  202
  The governors of the closed prisons transferring prisoners to open prisons and the governors of the open prisons themselves are responsible for the implementation of these procedures.

  Life sentence prisoners who are considered suitable for open conditions require both a favourable recommendation from the Parole Board and the authority of a Minister, who considers detailed reports on each individual case before making a decision.

  The allocation of all prisoners to open conditions is kept under continual review.

  Prisons
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all(a) planned new prisons and (b) detention centres to be financed through (i) public capital expenditure and (ii) the private finance initiative. [55]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Chris Davies, dated 31 October 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the planned number of new prisons and detention centres to be financed through public capital expenditure and the private finance initiative.
  The Prison Service has plans to build prisons but not detention centres. Currently, it has funding to provide three new prisons and one re-built prison, all of which will be provided under the private finance initiative. These include Fazakerley, Bridgend and the re-built prison at Lowdham Grange. A third new prison is currently the subject of a planning inquiry, which if successful, will be built at Agecroft near Manchester.

  Asylum Seekers
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people who had applied at some stage for asylum were detained in Birmingham prison during(a) July, (b) August and (c) September; and what were the nationalities of those detained; [1037]

  (2) how many people who had applied at some stage for asylum were deported from Birmingham prison during (a) July, (b) August and (c) September; and what were the nationalities of those deported. [1038]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The available information on asylum seekers detained in Her Majesty's prison Birmingham is given in the table.

  There were no failed asylum seekers recorded as being deported from Her Majesty's prison Birmingham during each of the months July to September 1996.

  This does not include asylum seekers removed as illegal entrants.
  203

  Asylum seekers detained1 at Her Majesty's prison Birmingham as at 31 July, 4 September and 1 October by nationality

  Nationality

  31 July

  4 September

  1 October

  India

  18

  15

  14

  Nigeria

  —

  —

  6

  Algeria

  5

  5

  4

  Pakistan

  —

  3

  —

  Others2

  4

  3

  2

  Total

  27

  26

  26

  1 Persons detained solely under the powers contained in schedules 2 or 3 of the Immigration Act 1971. In some cases the asylum application will have been lodged subsequent to the applicant being detained. The figures include asylum applicants detained in after-entry enforcement work and those awaiting removal following refusal of asylum, as well as those whose applications were under consideration or subject to appeal.

  2 The "Others" category may include nationalities already listed.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to declare a country as one in which there has been a fundamental change of circumstances under the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. [972]

  Miss Widdecombe
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans at present to declare that any country has undergone a major upheaval such that we would not seek to return people there for the time being.

  Dr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the total number of asylum seekers held in detention at the end of(a) June, (b) July, (c) August and (d) September; in which establishments they were held; what were the nationalities of those detained; what were the gender of those detained; and how many were deported and from which establishments. [1044]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The available information on asylum seekers detained, and on those deported from detention, is given in the tables. The number deported does not include those who are removed as illegal entrants or under port refusal procedures.

  Number1 of asylum detainees deported2 during June, July, August and September

  Number of deported asylum detainees

  June

  11

  July

  6

  August

  7

  September

  3

  1Provisional figures.

  2 Removed under the deport process, including those removed voluntarily prior to the initiation of deportation action.

  Table 1: Number of people recorded as detailed on 17 June, 31 July, 4 September, and I October 19961 who sought asylum at some stage, by gender

  Gender

  As at 27 June

  As at 31 July

  As at 4 September

  As at 1 October

  Male

  720

  716

  727

  783

  Female

  52

  60

  82

  81

  Total

  772

  776

  809

  864

  1 These figures include people who have been in detention for less than a month. Because of the delay in recording receptions into, and releases from, detention and the large number of persons detained for a short period, the figures should be used with caution.

  204

  Table 2: Number of people recorded as detained on 27 June, 31 July, 4 September, and 1 October 19961 who had sought asylum at some stage, by location of detention

  As at 27 June

  As at 31 July

  As at 4 September

  As at 1 October

  Prisons

  HMP Rochester

  154

  146

  148

  154

  HMP Haslar

  99

  112

  107

  97

  HMP Birmingham

  37

  27

  26

  26

  HMP Wormwood Scrubs

  12

  6

  11

  14

  HMP Magilligan

  8

  7

  7

  7

  HMP Manchester

  2

  —

  6

  5

  HMP Bristol

  6

  3

  4

  4

  HMP Wandsworth

  4

  6

  2

  3

  HMP Greenock

  5

  5

  6

  3

  HMP Holloway

  —

  —

  —

  2

  HMP Doncaster

  2

  2

  2

  2

  HMP Brixton

  2

  —

  2

  2

  HMP Belmarsh

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Other prison2

  20

  26

  18

  22

  Other Places of Detention

  Campsfield House

  151

  151

  170

  173

  Tinsley House

  45

  68

  96

  119

  Harmondsworth

  102

  89

  82

  91

  Meadvale Buildings

  36

  35

  33

  38

  Police Cells

  27

  33

  35

  33

  Port

  —

  8

  8

  19

  Queens Building

  13

  10

  15

  15

  Dover Harbour

  10

  14

  7

  14

  Manchester Airport

  Detention Suite

  6

  11

  7

  7

  Other Place of Detention2

  31

  17

  17

  12

  Total

  772

  776

  809

  864

  1 These figures include people who have been in detention for less than a month. Because of the delay in recording receptions into, and releases from, detention and the large number of persons detained for a short period, the figures should be used with caution.

  2 The 'Others' categories may include places of detention already listed.

  Table 3: Number of people recorded as detained on 27 June, 31 July, 4 September, and 1 October 19961, who had sought asylum at some stage, by nationality

  Nationality

  As at 27 June

  As at 31 July

  As at 4 September

  As at 1 October

  Nigeria

  106

  106

  110

  112

  India

  101

  96

  91

  95

  Algeria

  75

  70

  65

  63

  Ghana

  52

  56

  60

  58

  Sri Lanka

  43

  45

  47

  48

  China Peoples Republic of

  32

  35

  39

  44

  Zaire

  38

  43

  48

  44

  Turkey

  35

  39

  47

  42

  Columbia

  15

  11

  10

  35

  Pakistan

  25

  35

  35

  34

  Angola

  16

  16

  18

  23

  Bangladesh

  18

  17

  16

  18

  Romania

  23

  33

  20

  18

  Cyprus

  7

  6

  12

  17

  Gambia

  27

  16

  16

  16

  Israel

  —

  —

  —

  15

  Iran

  11

  9

  11

  13

  Jamaica

  5

  8

  8

  10

  Ethiopia

  6

  8

  9

  9

  Yugoslavia

  9

  6

  12

  9

  Russia

  6

  5

  6

  8

  Sierra Leone

  6

  4

  7

  8

  Uganda

  4

  3

  4

  8

  Kenya

  6

  4

  9

  7

  Liberia

  4

  5

  9

  7

  Lithuania

  5

  4

  4

  7

  Ivory Coast

  6

  7

  7

  6

  Poland

  6

  8

  6

  5

  Somalia

  9

  6

  6

  5

  Equador

  8

  6

  3

  4

  Lebanon

  3

  2

  3

  4

  205

  Table 3: Number of people recorded as detained on 27 June, 31 July, 4 September, and 1 October 19961, who had sought asylum at some stage, by nationality

  Nationality

  As at 27 June

  As at 31 July

  As at 4 September

  As at 1 October

  Sudan

  3

  —

  4

  4

  Tanzania

  4

  4

  3

  4

  Bulgaria

  —

  —

  2

  3

  Egypt

  2

  2

  2

  3

  El Salvador

  —

  —

  3

  3

  Morocco

  2

  —

  —

  3

  Albania

  3

  2

  3

  2

  Nationality Doubtful1

  6

  10

  8

  11

  Others2

  45

  49

  46

  39

  Total

  772

  776

  809

  864

  1 These figures include people who have been in detention for less than a month. Because of the delay in recording receptions into, and releases from, detention and the large number of persons detained for a short period, the figures should be used with caution.

  2 The 'Others' category may include nationalities already listed.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a breakdown of the number of asylum seekers currently detained under Immigration Act powers by (i) nationality, (ii) gender, (iii) place of detention, (iv) length of detention and (v) immigration status at the time of application. [882]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The information requested on detained asylum seekers is given in the tables.

  Table 1: Number of people recorded as detained on 1 October 19961 who had sought asylum at some stage, by gender and immigration status

  Gender

  Port

  Illegal entrants

  Subject to deportation order

  Total

  Male

  481

  258

  44

  783

  Female

  62

  14

  5

  81

  Total

  543

  272

  49

  864

  1 These figures include people who have been in detention for less than a month. Because of the delay in recording receptions into, and releases from, detention and the large number of persons detained for a short period, the figures should be used with caution.

  Table 2: Number of people recorded as detained on 1 October 19961 who had sought asylum at some stage, by stage of application and immigration status

  Stage of application

  Port

  Illegal Entrants

  Subject to deportation order

  Total

  Awaiting initial decision

  157

  53

  8

  218

  Awaiting result of appeal

  256

  139

  32

  427

  Awaiting removal after refusal

  130

  80

  9

  219

  Total

  543

  272

  49

  864

  1 These figures include people who have been in detention for less than a month. Because of the delay in recording receptions into, and releases from, detention and the large number of persons detained for a short period, the figures should be used with caution.

  206

  Table 3: Number of people recorded as detained on 1 October 19961 who had sought asylum at some stage, by length of detention and immigration status

  Length

  Port

  Illegal entrants

  Subject to deportation order

  Total

  0–1 Month1

  154

  86

  4

  244

  1–2 Months

  84

  56

  14

  154

  2–6 Months

  196

  95

  20

  311

  6–12 Months

  90

  25

  6

  121

  12 Months +

  19

  10

  5

  34

  Total

  543

  272

  49

  864

  1 These figures include people who have been in detention for less than a month. Because of the delay in recording receptions into, and releases from, detention and the large number of persons detained for a short period, the figures should be used with caution.

  Table 4: Number of people recorded as detained on 1 October 19961 who had sought asylum at some stage, by nationality and immigration status

  Nationality

  Port

  Illegal entrants

  Subject to deportation order

  Total

  Nigeria

  73

  26

  13

  112

  India

  20

  69

  6

  95

  Algeria

  21

  37

  5

  63

  Ghana

  40

  16

  2

  58

  Sri Lanka

  30

  17

  1

  48

  China Peoples Rep of

  35

  9

  0

  44

  Zaire

  37

  4

  3

  44

  Turkey

  34

  7

  1

  42

  Columbia

  32

  3

  0

  35

  Pakistan

  14

  17

  3

  34

  Angola

  17

  4

  2

  23

  Bangladesh

  9

  8

  1

  18

  Romania

  4

  14

  0

  18

  Cyprus

  17

  0

  0

  17

  Gambia

  13

  1

  2

  16

  Israel

  15

  0

  0

  15

  Iran

  9

  3

  1

  13

  Jamaica

  4

  3

  3

  10

  Ethiopia

  5

  3

  1

  9

  Russia

  3

  5

  0

  8

  Yugoslavia

  5

  4

  0

  9

  Sierra Leone

  5

  2

  1

  8

  Uganda

  6

  1

  1

  8

  Kenya

  5

  2

  0

  7

  Liberia

  7

  0

  0

  7

  Lithuania

  6

  1

  0

  7

  Ivory Coast

  5

  1

  0

  6

  Poland

  3

  2

  0

  5

  Somalia

  5

  0

  0

  5

  Ecuador

  4

  0

  0

  4

  Lebanon

  2

  2

  0

  4

  Sudan

  4

  0

  0

  4

  Tanzania

  4

  0

  0

  4

  Bulgaria

  2

  1

  0

  3

  Egypt

  0

  2

  1

  3

  Morocco

  1

  1

  1

  3

  El Salvador

  3

  0

  0

  3

  Albania

  2

  0

  0

  2

  Other

  31

  7

  1

  39

  Nationality Doubtful

  11

  0

  0

  11

  Total

  543

  272

  49

  864

  1 These figures include people who have been in detention for less than a month. Because of the delay in recording receptions into, and releases from, detention and the large number of persons detained for a short period, the figures should be used with caution.

  207

  Table 5: Number of people recorded as detained on 1 October 19961 who had sought asylum at some stage, by location of detention and immigration status

  Port

  Illegal entrants

  Subject to deportation order

  Total

  Prisons

  HMP Rochester

  97

  43

  14

  154

  HMP Haslar

  54

  38

  5

  97

  HMP Birmingham

  8

  17

  1

  26

  HMP Wormwood Scrubs

  3

  11

  0

  14

  HMP Magilligan

  0

  7

  0

  7

  HMP Manchester

  0

  5

  0

  5

  HMP Bristol

  0

  4

  0

  4

  HMP Wandsworth

  0

  1

  2

  3

  HMP Greenock

  0

  3

  0

  3

  HMP Holloway

  1

  0

  1

  2

  HMP Doncaster

  0

  2

  0

  2

  HMP Brixton

  0

  2

  0

  2

  HMP Belmarsh

  1

  1

  0

  2

  Other

  13

  5

  4

  22

  Other Places of Detention

  Campsfield House

  116

  48

  9

  173

  Tinsley House

  80

  31

  8

  119

  Harmondsworth

  64

  23

  4

  91

  Meadvale Buildings

  33

  5

  0

  38

  Police Cells

  9

  23

  1

  33

  Port

  19

  0

  0

  19

  Queens Building

  15

  0

  0

  15

  Dover Harbour

  14

  0

  0

  14

  Manchester Airport

  Detention Suite

  4

  3

  0

  7

  Other

  12

  0

  0

  12

  Total

  543

  272

  49

  864

  1 These figures include people who have been in detention for less than a month. Because of the delay in recording receptions into, and releases from, detention and the large number of persons detained for a short period, the figures should be used with caution.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many substantive asylum appeals to immigration appellate authority special adjudicators have been (i) allowed, (ii) dismissed and (iii) withdrawn in 1996 to date. [884]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Provisional information shows that, of the estimated 9,070 substantive asylum appeals determined by special adjudicators between January and September 1996, 3 per cent. were allowed, 81 per cent. were dismissed and 16 per cent. were withdrawn.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum applications are currently awaiting an initial decision by his Department's asylum directorate; and how many of these applications were made prior to July 1993. [885]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  As at 30 September 1996, there were 60,275 asylum applications awaiting an initial decision, of which an estimated 27,900 were made prior to the implementation of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. Work is currently in hand to revise this estimate.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements his Department has made to expedite initial decisions on asylum applications in those cases where the applicant is detained under Immigration Act powers; and what is the current average time taken by his Department to reach an initial decision in such cases. [887]
  208
  Mr. Kirkhope
  Statistics on the average time taken to decide cases where the applicant is detained are not available. However, all such cases are given priority consideration within the asylum directorate, with many applications being determined within days.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the average time currently taken by his Department to reach an initial decision on (i) asylum applications submitted prior to implementation of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, (ii) asylum applications submitted since implementation of the 1993 Act and (iii) all asylum applications; [889]

  (2) what is the average time currently taken by the Home Office and the immigration appellate authority to prepare, hear and determine an appeal against a refusal to asylum. [890]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Information on the times taken at the various stages of the asylum process are given in the table.

  Average times involved in deciding applications for asylum (March-August 1996)

  Months

  Time taken for an initial decision to be made (Pre-act applications)

  44.8

  Time taken for an initial decision to be made (Post-act applications)

  11.6

  Time taken by the Home Office to process an appeal

  1.4

  Time taken by the Immigration Appellate Authority to determine an appeal

  8.1

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to declaring Sri Lanka a country in which there has been a fundamental change of circumstances under the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 following the upsurge of fighting in September. [974]

  Miss Widdecombe
  We do not believe that the continuing hostilities in Sri Lanka constitute such a fundamental change in the circumstances there as to justify my right hon. and learned Friend declaring that the country has undergone a major upheaval.

  The hostilities since May 1995 have been sporadic and confined largely to the north and east of the country. Most reports suggest that conditions elsewhere in the country remain reasonably safe and normal.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to declaring Afghanistan a country in which there has been a fundamental change of circumstances under the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 since the capture of Kabul by Taliban. [973]

  Miss Widdecombe
  We do not believe that the recent developments in Afghanistan constitute such a fundamental change in the circumstances as to justify my right hon. and learned Friend declaring that the country has undergone a major upheaval.

  Afghanistan has been in a state of civil unrest for a number of years. The fall of Kabul to Taliban is part of this long-term continuing conflict.
  209
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons, having been refused asylum, have (i) been removed and (ii) made a voluntary departure from the United Kingdom in 1996 to date. [886]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Provisional information shows that, during the period January to September 1996, there have been 2,810 removals—including voluntary departures—of persons refused asylum.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for asylum, by persons applying(a) at a port of entry to the United Kingdom and (b) after entry have been decided in 1996 to date; and how many in each category have been granted (i) asylum and (ii) exceptional leave to remain. [888]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Decisions1 on applications1 received for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, January to September 1996

  Number of principal applicants

  Applied at port

  Applied in-country

  Total

  Asylum applications2

  8,280

  13,240

  21,520

  Decisions3

  10,385

  18,170

  28,550

  Recognised as a refugee and granted asylum

  380

  1,185

  1,565

  Not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leave to remain4

  1,430

  2,160

  3,595

  Total refusals

  8,575

  14,820

  23,395

  Refused asylum and ELR after full consideration

  7,610

  13,245

  20,855

  Refused on safe third country grounds5

  965

  50

  1,015

  Refused on non-compliance grounds6

  —

  1,530

  1,530

  1Provisional figures rounded to the nearest five.

  2Figures exclude information on applications made overseas.

  3Decisions do not necessarily relate to applications made in the period.

  4Usually granted for a year in the first instance, subject then to further review.

  5Refused on the grounds that the applicant had arrived from a safe third country.

  6Paragraph 340 of Immigration Rules. For failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period, including failure to respond to invitation to interview to establish identity.

  Deportations
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number of people deported under Immigration Act powers from the United Kingdom for(a) June, (b) July, (c) August and (d) September; and what were the nationalities of those deported. [1042]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The information requested for June to August is given in the table. Complete data for September are not yet available. The figures do not include people removed as illegal entrants or under port refusal procedures.
  210

  Persons removed1 from the United Kingdom under the deportation process2

  Nationality

  19961

  June

  July

  August

  European Economic Area

  Belgium

  1

  —

  1

  France

  —

  1

  1

  Germany

  —

  1

  1

  Ireland

  2

  —

  —

  Italy

  —

  2

  1

  Netherlands

  2

  1

  1

  Spain

  2

  —

  —

  Other Europe

  Cyprus

  —

  —

  1

  Croatia

  1

  —

  —

  Former Czechoslovakia

  1

  1

  4

  Hungary

  2

  —

  —

  Poland

  12

  19

  13

  Romania

  —

  1

  —

  Russia

  1

  —

  1

  Other former USSR

  —

  5

  —

  Turkey

  1

  6

  2

  Former Yugoslavia

  —

  —

  2

  Americas

  Brazil

  —

  1

  1

  Colombia

  3

  1

  1

  Guyana

  2

  —

  1

  Jamaica

  10

  8

  10

  Trinidad and Tobago

  —

  1

  1

  USA

  2

  1

  2

  Other Americas

  3

  —

  1

  Africa

  Algeria

  2

  —

  1

  Egypt

  2

  —

  —

  Ghana

  10

  19

  25

  Kenya

  1

  2

  3

  Mauritius

  3

  1

  —

  Morocco

  4

  2

  1

  Nigeria

  13

  14

  9

  Sierra Leone

  5

  1

  1

  South Africa

  1

  3

  2

  Sudan

  —

  1

  —

  Tanzania

  —

  —

  1

  Uganda

  1

  1

  —

  Zaire

  —

  1

  —

  Zambia

  2

  3

  3

  Zimbabwe

  2

  3

  2

  Other Africa

  2

  5

  2

  Indian sub-continent

  Bangladesh

  6

  —

  2

  India

  10

  8

  18

  Pakistan

  14

  12

  10

  Middle East

  Iraq

  —

  —

  1

  Israel

  1

  —

  —

  Jordan

  —

  4

  1

  Kuwait

  —

  —

  1

  Saudi Arabia

  1

  —

  —

  Yemen

  1

  —

  —

  Remainder of Asia

  China

  2

  1

  1

  Hong Kong

  3

  2

  1

  Indonesia

  1

  —

  1

  Japan

  —

  1

  —

  Malaysia

  6

  2

  6

  211

  Persons removed1 from the United Kingdom under the deportation process2

  Nationality

  19961

  June

  July

  August

  Philippines

  2

  3

  1

  Sri Lanka

  —

  —

  1

  Thailand

  —

  4

  2

  Other Asia

  —

  —

  1

  Oceania

  Australia

  1

  3

  —

  All nationalities

  141

  145

  142

  1Including voluntary departures after deportation action had been initiated.

  2Excluding illegal entrants removed.

  3Provisional data.

  Dr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people who were convicted of a criminal offence, punishable by a prison sentence, as part of their sentence, were also ordered to be deported; how many deportations were effected; what were the nationalities of those deported; and what were the gender of those deported in each of the years 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995 and from the first of January this year to date. [1045]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Information on persons recommended for deportation by a court on those removed from the United Kingdom is given in the tables. The data include persons who did not receive a custodial sentence: five such persons were recommended for deportation in 1995 but further information on these persons and for other years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Table A: Persons recommended for deportation by a court

  Number

  1992

  345

  1993

  310

  1994

  350

  1995

  384

  19961

  207

  1 January to August.

  Table B: Persons removed1 from the United Kingdom under the deportation process following a court recommendation, 1993 onwards2

  Nationality

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996 (January to August3)

  European Economic Area

  Austria

  1

  1

  1

  —

  Belgium

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Denmark

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Finland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  France

  2

  —

  2

  1

  Germany

  —

  —

  2

  3

  Greece

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Iceland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ireland

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Italy

  5

  2

  2

  2

  Luxembourg

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Netherlands

  1

  1

  3

  —

  Norway

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Portugal

  1

  —

  2

  —

  Spain

  1

  1

  6

  —

  Sweden

  —

  —

  —

  —

  212

  Table B: Persons removed1 from the United Kingdom under the deportation process following a court recommendation, 1993 onwards2

  Nationality

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996 (January to August3)

  Other Europe

  Bulgaria

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Cyprus

  2

  —

  1

  —

  Former

  Czechoslovakia

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Hungary

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Malta

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Poland

  —

  7

  1

  3

  Romania

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Russia

  —

  1

  2

  1

  Other former

  USSR

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Switzerland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Turkey

  4

  2

  4

  3

  Former

  Yugoslavia

  —

  2

  1

  —

  Other Europe

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Americas

  Argentina

  1

  3

  —

  —

  Barbados

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Brazil

  5

  —

  4

  —

  Canada

  2

  2

  —

  —

  Chile

  3

  2

  1

  2

  Colombia

  43

  19

  7

  6

  Guyana

  2

  1

  4

  9

  Jamaica

  49

  25

  33

  29

  Mexico

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Peru

  4

  2

  4

  3

  Trinidad and Tobago

  2

  1

  —

  —

  USA

  12

  14

  12

  9

  Venezuela

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Other

  Americas

  7

  1

  6

  1

  Africa

  Algeria

  5

  2

  3

  2

  Angola

  1

  1

  2

  1

  Egypt

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Ethiopia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ghana

  19

  18

  19

  14

  Kenya

  2

  3

  6

  4

  Libya

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mauritius

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Morocco

  3

  1

  1

  1

  Nigeria

  148

  61

  61

  39

  Sierra Leone

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Somalia

  —

  —

  1

  —

  South Africa

  8

  8

  7

  5

  Sudan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tanzania

  3

  —

  2

  2

  Tunisia

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Uganda

  3

  —

  3

  1

  Zaire

  2

  —

  —

  1

  Zambia

  1

  5

  5

  4

  Zimbabwe

  2

  —

  5

  3

  Other Africa

  10

  3

  4

  8

  Indian sub-continent

  Bangladesh

  2

  1

  —

  —

  India

  11

  4

  3

  3

  Pakistan

  23

  8

  13

  5

  Middle East

  Iran

  1

  2

  3

  —

  Iraq

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Israel

  5

  2

  1

  —

  Jordan

  3

  2

  —

  —

  Kuwait

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Lebanon

  3

  —

  1

  —

  Saudi Arabia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  213

  Table B: Persons removed1 from the United Kingdom under the deportation process following a court recommendation, 1993 onwards2

  Nationality

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996 (January to August3)

  Syria

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Yemen

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Other Middle

  East

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Remainder of Asia

  China

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Hong Kong1

  3

  4

  3

  1

  Indonesia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Japan

  —

  —

  3

  —

  Malaysia

  3

  —

  5

  2

  Philippines

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Singapore

  1

  1

  —

  —

  South Korea

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Sri Lanka

  4

  2

  —

  —

  Taiwan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Thailand

  2

  1

  —

  —

  Other Asia

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Oceania

  Australia

  —

  1

  3

  1

  New Zealand

  2

  2

  —

  —

  Other Oceania

  —

  —

  —

  —

  All nationalities of

  whom

  425

  226

  259

  179

  males

  334

  166

  206

  131

  females

  91

  60

  53

  48

  1 Including voluntary departures after deportation action had been initiated.

  2 The only information available for 1992 is that a total of about 510 were removed or departed voluntarily.

  3 Provisional data.

  Custody (Deaths)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ensure that the same categories of information in respect of deaths in custody are provided in private and state prisons. [960]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 31 October 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the categories of information provided in respect of deaths in custody in private prisons and state prisons.
  There is no distinction in the categories of information provided in respect of deaths in custody which occur in privately managed prisons or public sector prisons. It is a contractual requirement that all privately managed prisons report deaths in custody to Prison Service Headquarters in the same way as all other establishments.

WALES

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the inward investment projects into Clwyd from outside Wales since 1980; and if he will make a statement. [212]
  214
  Mr. Hague
  The Welsh Development Agency has collected data on inward investment since April 1983. Since then, over 300 projects have been recorded for the country; they promise over 18,000 new jobs, over 5,000 safeguarded jobs, and capital investment of almost £2 billion. Clwyd has been a major beneficiary of Wales's inward investment success.

  I have asked the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency to write with a list of projects, and will arrange for a copy of the reply to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Strategic Development Scheme
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all bids from the former Colwyn borough council, Rhuddlan borough council, Ogwr borough council, and Clwyd county council which received strategic development scheme funding from his Department. [216]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The end of year strategic development scheme approvals for each of the four former local authorities in 1994–95 and 1995–96 are as follows:

  Clwyd County Council

  Project

  Amount

  Capital

  Revenue

  1994–95

  Education and training for special needs, Wrexham

  5,000

  Business units at Wrexham technology park

  106,425

  Build a multi-purpose community centre and landscaping at Caia Park

  114,094

  Construction of alternative access into Denbigh by widening Barkers Well lane

  193,000

  Traffic calming measures, hard and soft landscaping, improved lighting, Caia Park

  150,000

  Conversion of a building at Queensway to workshop and provide training, Caia Park

  30,000

  Barkers Well lane

  51,775

  Corwen business centre

  9,196

  Pensarn community resource team to continue to address problems arising from floods

  173,775

  Appointment of village liaison and development worker, Brymbo

  21,002

  Conversion of a building at Queensway to workshop and provide training in Caia Park

  30,500

  Employment of 2 counsellors to provide enterprise training and business advice for small business start ups

  55,000

  Full time coordinator at WRENEWAL

  9,360

  Rhyl and district benefit advice shop

  65,634

  Caia Park employment project

  47,409

  West Rhyl young peoples project

  42,193

  Employment of county crime prevention coordinator

  41,866

  Rhyl adventure playground community recreation scheme

  17,347

  Business information Network— appointment of development and liaison officer

  5,541

  Education and training for special needs in Wrexham

  83,518

  Rhyl adventure playground

  23,492

  659,490

  616,637

  215

  Clwyd County Council

  Project

  Amount

  Capital

  Revenue

  1995–96

  Construction of suitable alternative access Barkers Well Lane, Denbigh

  223,000

  Construction of new commercial units at Pinfold Industrial Estate, Rhyl—Phase 2

  300,000

  Build a multipurpose community centre and landscaping at Caia Park, Wrexham

  385,906

  Business Unit at Wrexham Technology Park

  5,141

  Traffic calming measures, Caia Park

  54,951

  Caia Park Employment Project

  48,330

  Education and training for special needs in Wrexham

  85,518

  Pensarn community resource team—floods in Towyn

  86,888

  Appointment of a village liaison and development worker

  10,501

  Conversion of a building at Queensway to workshop and provide training, Caia Park

  66,500

  Employment of 2 counsellors to provide enterprise training and business advice for small business start ups

  56,000

  West Rhyl young peoples project

  42,193

  Employment of worker at Rhyl adventure playground

  16,840

  Rhyl and district benefit advice shop

  58,734

  Full time coordinator at WRENEWAL

  22,217

  Employment of county crime prevention coordinator

  39,740

  West Rhyl community strategy

  4,152

  Community strategy for Castle Ward, Flint

  3,000

  968,998

  540,613

  Colwyn Borough Council

  Amount

  Project

  Capital

  Revenue

  1994–95

  Grants for businesses

  40,000

  Llanfairtalhaiarn landscaping

  1,990

  Pensarn coast protection scheme

  25,000

  Coast Protection—Rhos on Sea

  80,000

  146,990

  1995–96

  Colwyn Bay CRA

  151,770

  Environmental Improvements Llanfairtalhaiarn

  1,424

  Town Centre Beach link enhancement

  180,000

  333,194

  Glyndwr District Council

  Project

  Amount

  Capital

  Revenue

  1994–95

  Llangollen to Corwen steam railway

  100,000

  Women's aid support worker

  27,841

  100,000

  27,841

  1995–96

  Link road and parking Corwen Town Centre

  280,000

  Women's aid support worker

  26,956

  280,000

  26,956

  216

  Rhuddlan Borough Council

  Project

  Amount

  Capital

  Revenue

  1994–95

  Refurbishment of Railway Station, Rhyl

  634,470

  Commercial renewal area grants, Rhyl

  24,250

  Cefndy employment park

  15,400

  Fforddlas workshops

  125,880

  Rhuallt community bus

  4,920

  Employment of community development and liaison worker

  20,867

  804,920

  20,867

  1995–96

  Ffordlas Industrial site Rhyl and associated infrastructure

  100,000

  Rhyl Town centre and central promenade security initiative

  232,000

  Refurbish railway station to construct commercial units, Rhyl

  200,000

  Internal commercial renewal grants to 15 business in Rhyl

  100,000

  Provide 150m of ind estate roads and 3ha serviced plots Cefndy road employment park

  200,000

  Employment of community development and liaison worker

  21,416

  Rhyl Town centre and central promenade security initiative

  58,000

  Improvements to East Promenade Rhyl

  1,000,000

  1,832,000

  79,416

  Council Personnel (Declarations of Interest)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidelines his Department has given to local authorities in Wales on the declaration by elected councillors and senior officers of any interest they may have in(a) the freemasons and (b) other such body; and Amount if he will make a statement. [129]

  Mr. Hague
  Guidance on the conduct of local authority members is set out in Welsh Office circular 23/90. Paragraph 9 of this code refers to membership of the freemasons and other bodies. We may review this guidance in the light of any recommendations made by the Nolan committee.

  The conduct of local government officers is a matter for local authorities to determine.

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation
  Mr. Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairmen of the Cardiff Bay development corporation and of the Welsh development agency concerning the need for a written statement on their roles in the corporation's designated area. [1538]

  Mr. Hague
  None. The Welsh Development Agency does not become involved in development within the corporation's designated area, except with the agreement of the corporation.

  Bulgarian Debt
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority concerning the
  217
  collectability of the outstanding debt owed to Welsh Health Development International by the Bulgarian authorities. [1536]

  Mr. Hague
  None. This matter is being pursued by the authority.

  Public Bodies (Pensions)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those non-departmental public bodies whose staff are employed under civil service terms and conditions, in each case indicating if they have(a) contributory and (b) non-contributory pension schemes. [1537]

  Mr. Hague
  Employees of non-departmental public bodies are not civil servants. The following non-departmental public bodies have terms and conditions of service based upon the old civil service terms and conditions of service.

  Arts Council for Wales: (b)

  Countryside Council for Wales: (b)

  Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales: (b)

  Development Board for Rural Wales: (a)

  Further and Higher Education Funding Council: (b)

  Land Authority for Wales: (a)

  Local Government Boundary Commission: (b)

  National Library of Wales: (a)

  Royal Commission for Ancient and Historical Monuments Wales (b)

  Sports Council for Wales: (a)

  Wales Tourist Board: (a)

  Welsh Language Board: (b)

  (a)-Indicates that they have a contributory pension scheme; and,

  (b)-Indicates a non-contributory pension scheme, including a 1.5 per cent. contribution for widows/widower's pension.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Aid Funding
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest estimate of the proportion of GNP of the United Kingdom which will be directed to overseas aid during the current financial year; and what is the Government's medium-term target for this figure. [133]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  International comparisons of overseas aid figures are normally presented in relation to gross national product on a calendar year basis. In 1995, the latest year for which figures are available, UK net official development assistance was 0.28 per cent. of GNP. The figure for 1996 will be published in June 1997.

  No ODA/GNP targets have been set for the future since, as with other areas of Government expenditure. the level of spending on development assistance is dependent on our economic circumstances and other public expenditure priorities. At £2,154 million in 1996297, the UK development assistance programme is substantial and makes a significant contribution to tackling the problems facing the developing world.
  218

  Montserrat
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the total aid given to Montserrat in the current year; and if he will make a statement. [86]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  As at 30 September, total aid expenditure in Montserrat since 1 January 1996 has amounted to £7.75 million, comprising £2.8 million in emergency aid, £2.75 million in budgetary assistance, and £2.2 million in development aid.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what relief aid the United Kingdom Government have provided following the volcanic eruptions in Montserrat. [664]

  Dr. Fox
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on 17 October, columns 1118–9.

  Police Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if she will list the countries in which British police or other bodies provided training for police or security forces in those countries; how long they have been in each country providing such training and what form that training takes for each; what criteria are used to determine whether training is provided, and in what terms of reference are given for the training; what influence countries' human rights records have on determining police or security force training provided by the United Kingdom; if monitoring is carried out after the training to evaluate its impact; and what form that monitoring takes. [442]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  Countries whose police and security forces have received training from the FCO diplomatic wing include:

  Police/security force training (DW)

  Belize

  Chile

  Czech Republic

  Costa Rica

  Cyprus

  El Salvador

  Fiji

  Honduras

  Hungary

  India

  Kazakstan

  Kenya

  Lebanon

  Malaysia

  Nicaragua

  Palestinian Authority

  Papua New Guinea

  Paraguay

  Philippines

  Romania

  Singapore

  Slovakia

  Sri Lanka

  219

  Tonga

  Trinidad and Tobago

  Uganda

  Vanuatu

  Malta

  Nepal

  Countries who received aid for in—country police training from ODA in 1994 and 1995 were listed in the answer given to the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) on 14 May, Official Report, column 385.

  Details of training programmes are not kept centrally and it would involve a disproportionate cost to collate this information for each of the countries referred to above. Training for the police is considered alongside other priorities for assistance in consultation with recipient Governments. Programmes of training are tailored in content and duration to the requirements of the police forces to be assisted. Human rights records are taken into account in the provision of assistance along with other good government and developmental considerations, including poverty, as well as the UK's national interest. The FCO police advisers and other diplomatic, ODA and training staff monitor police projects during implementation. For all aid projects costing above £250,000, a project completion report is prepared providing a preliminary assessment of impact. A selection of projects are also subject to detailed evaluation. An evaluation of a selection of police projects is planned in 1997.

  Zaire and Rwanda
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the need for humanitarian aid in eastern Zaire; and on what occasions embassy staff have visited this area recently. [1161]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  The key humanitarian problem in eastern Zaire is lack of access to those remaining in refugee camps and those displaced. Agencies believe that there are sufficient stocks available in region to meet immediate needs. The security situation has prevented visits to the area of conflict but our representative in Bujumbura visited Gatumba camp on the Burundi—Zaire border on 28 October where returnees are arriving. Our embassies in Zaire and Rwanda are also monitoring the situation closely.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the humanitarian situation in the great lakes region. [1218]

  Dr. Fox
  There have been 1.7 million refugees in the region since 1994. The current insecurity in eastern Zaire has served to exacerbate an already critical situation. About 500,000 people have been displaced. Agencies report that they have sufficient stocks in the region to meet immediate needs. Political and security difficulties are restricting their delivery. The Government have supported UN and EU efforts to resolve this. Bilateral approaches have been made to Zaire and Rwanda to help defuse the situation.
  220

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Ferris Wheel
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what exchanges have taken place between the Accommodation and Works Committee and Lambeth borough council concerning the application for planning permission to build a giant ferris wheel by the Thames. [1353]

  Sir Raymond Powell
  The Committee was invited to express its views on the planning application for a ferris wheel on the south bank of the Thames. The Committee considered the matter on 22 July, and was of the opinion that the proposal was inappropriate on the grounds that the size, scale and location would be unsuitable given the fine surrounding buildings, would detract from the views of the Palace of Westminster from some angles, and during the lifetime of the temporary structure would be the dominant feature nearly opposite the, by then, newly completed New Parliamentary Building.

  The Committee's views were communicated to Lambeth borough council on 24 July 1996.

  Palace of Westminster (Works)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what are the expected final costs of all works carried out since July in the House of Commons for each room and area improved. [1460]

  Sir Raymond Powell
  In the 12 weeks of the summer recess, the Works Directorate completed another large programme of work. The value of the projets was £17 million and 1,800 contractors' employees were involved with up to 500 on site on some days. For the parliamentary data and video network—PDVN—installation, the magnitude of the task necessitated shift working, 24 hours a day and seven days a week.

  Overall, the works were finished on time, but the reconstruction of the Members' and Strangers' Cafeteria is planned to be completed in November 1996 and the contract to repair the roof over the Lords Chamber and the Royal Gallery is planned to continue until October 1998.

  Some of the more significant projects completed since July are as follows:
  Full PDVN cabling at Star Chamber Court Block, Norman Shaw North floors 1 and 2, House of Lords West Front ground and first floors and 1 The Abbey Garden.
  All Members' offices now have connections for colour televisions with the clean feed from the Chamber.
  The Refreshment Department modernisation phase C entailed the new Members' and Strangers' Cafeteria, completion due November 1996, and a new servery and furniture restoration for the Members' Tea Room.
  The Speaker's outer office was renovated.
  The Churchill Room was redecorated and a new fire escape was built.
  Automatic fire detection and new telephone wiring were installed at Star Chamber Court Block and House of Lords West Front.
  Fire precautions were installed, with rewiring and redecoration at the Burma road press offices.
  Security double glazing was fitted in the Members' and Strangers' dining rooms and the Shadow Cabinet Room.

  221
  Enabling works were begun for air conditioning of the Committee Rooms.
  As part of the heating modernisation, steam and calorifier plant was replaced.
  Electrical distribution boards were renewed.
  The following lifts were modernised with disabled facilities: lift at the south-east corner of the Commons Chamber, lift at the south-west corner of the Commons Chamber, lift at the back of Speaker's Chair, lift at Sovereign's entrance and lift at Law Lords' corridor.
  The following works of art were restored: two fresco paintings off Central Lobby, a fresco painting in House of Lords Chamber and 35 oil paintings.
  The following lavatories were refurbished: Upper Committee Corridor South, opposite Committee Room 7, Commons Court Block—second floor. Lavatory facilities for the disabled were provided at the ground floor of 7 Millbank and the Lower Waiting Hall.
  The cash machines corridor was refurbished.
  The second phase of overhaul of the carriage gates was carried out.
  At Nonnan Shaw South external painting and roof repairs were completed.
  Work began on the roof repairs above the Lords Chamber and the Royal Gallery. Completion is due October 1998.
  Repairs were carried out to the supporting structure of the Princes Chamber ceiling.
  In the Library cellars, improved storage was provided.
  Asbestos was removed from plant rooms.
  In addition. two projects were planned for completion during the prorogation period. They are an improved sales counter at the Speaker's bookstall and the new pulpit on the main Committee Corridor.

  There were also many more small projects, and with the very tight timetable, this demanding programme has fully stretched the House's technical staff and their contractors. The PDVN project and the building maintenance carried out under the same contracts in Lords and Commons areas were particularly challenging. The following statistics indicate the work involved in the PDVN contract:
  PDVN was taken to 454 desk positions, and there were 1,780 new telephone outlets, 912 data outlets and 1,910 new power outlets.
  This entailed: 359 of cable, 3.1 of metal trunking, 2.7 of water pipe and 24 tonnes of new Welsh slate for floors supported by 7.3 tonnes of new steel joists; 67,000 man hours were worked on the project.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Teachers (Vetting)
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures her Department takes to ensure that grant-maintained and independent schools meet their statutory obligation to check list 99 before confirming appointments of teaching staff. [1367]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The Department's circulars 9/93 and 11/95, which were sent to all schools, remind schools that they have a legal obligation not to employ people on list 99 who are barred from working with children. The Department provides a service to grant-maintained and independent schools of checks against list 99 and criminal 222
  background checks. Checks are also run by the Department when appointments are notified for the purpose of the teachers' superannuation scheme and on the annual survey of independent school staff.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Privy Council
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what criteria are used to select individuals for membership of the Privy Council. [903]

  Mr. Newton
  Appointment to the Privy Council is an exercise of the prerogative. Appointments are made by Her Majesty the Queen on the advice of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. A range of factors are taken into account. Those appointed mostly comprise Ministers, other parliamentarians and members of the judiciary.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Access to Justice
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has made for the implementation of Lord Woolf's final report on access to justice. [2184]

  Mr. Streeter
  I have today placed in the Library a copy of the Lord Chancellor's strategy for implementing Lord Woolf s recommendations. The strategy proposes that the major elements of the reforms, the fast track, the multi-track and the new costs regime, will be in place by October 1998. The new civil procedure rules to underpin these changes will also be in place in time for implementation.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Angola
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the implementation of the Lusaka protocol in Angola; and if he will make a statement. [1220]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  The implementation of the Lusaka protocol was reviewed by the United Nations Security Council on 11 October. We and other council members expressed deep concern at the lack of significant progress in implementing the peace process. Both parties, but especially UNITA, were urged to fulfil their commitments to the Lusaka protocol. The United Nations Secretary-General will report further to the Security Council on 20 November.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the United Nations' plans for the future role of UNAVEM III, the United Nations Angola verification mission; and if he will make a statement. [1219]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The UN Secretary-General currently plans to begin reducing UNAVEM III military forces by the end of December 1996 in the expectation that the mission will be completed as planned by February
  223
  1997. Such an outcome will, however, depend on the willingness of the Angolan parties to honour their commitment to the peace process. The Secretary-General will submit detailed recommendations on the future role of the UN in Angola by 20 November 1996.

  Rwanda and Zaire
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the role of the Rwandan authorities with regard to the security situation in the great lakes region. [1215]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  The Rwandan Government earlier denied any involvement of their forces in the conflict in eastern Zaire. There has been sporadic shelling across the Zaire-Rwanda border, in response to which the Rwandan Government on 30 October announced that they had sent troops into Bukavu. We have urged the Rwandans to withdraw immediately.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the security situation in the great lakes region of Africa. [1213]

  Dr. Fox
  The security situation in the great lakes is complex. There are long-standing ethnic tensions in eastern Zaire between Zairean peoples and those of Rwandan origin, aggravated by the influx of Rwandan and Burundi refugees. Recent violent clashes result from a backlash by Zairean Tutsis against attacks by the Zairean armed forces and extremist Hutus. The Rwandan Foreign Minister assured my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development on 31 October that Rwandan forces who entered Zaire on 29 October have now withdrawn. Meanwhile, an insurgency by extremist Hutus continues in Burundi.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures the UN is taking to prevent the conflict in eastern Zaire spreading throughout the great lakes region. [1216]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The UN Secretary-General sent Assistant Secretary-General Ibrahima Fall on a good offices mission to Zaire to assess the situation. He has now appointed a special envoy to visit the region with a humanitarian-political-military team. A special representative will be appointed after the special envoy's mission.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has recently received regarding the security and humanitarian situation in Zaire; and if he will make a statement. [1212]

  Dr. Fox
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the security and humanitarian situation with the Zairean Prime Minister on 22 October. My right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Chalker met the Rwandan Foreign Minister on 31 October. We are urging restraint and dialogue to resolve the situation. We remain in close touch with other regional Governments, with UN and EU partners, as well as with the humanitarian agencies and non-governmental organisations involved. Aid agencies believe there are sufficient stocks available in the region to meet immediate needs.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign 224
  and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has participated in recently (a) in the UN and (b) within the EU concerning the situation in Zaire. [1214]

  Dr. Fox
  The General Affairs Council discussed Zaire on 28 October and issued a statement calling for an immediate ceasefire and urgent dialogue to resolve the crisis in eastern Zaire. The Un Security Council conducts regular discussions on the situation there.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response the Government have made to the UN Secretary-General's call for an emergency mission to go to Zaire. [1217]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The UK has expressed its support in the Security Council for an emergency mission to go to Zaire.

  Albania
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress in negotiations with the Albanian Government regarding an outstanding claim for compensation arising from the Corfu incident and the return of the Albanian gold. [849]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The Secretary-General of the tripartite gold commission met in London on 29 October with representatives of the Government of Albania to conclude the transfer of gold from the tripartite gold commission to Albania. At the same time, the Government of Albania settled the British Government's claim for compensation for the Corfu channel incident.

  Human Rights
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures his Department is taking to prevent human rights abuses against Christians in Egypt. [1098]

  Mr. Hanley
  The violence some Egyptian Christians have suffered at the hands of Islamic extremists is a cause for concern. The Egyptian authorities are trying to suppress such violence. Our embassy in Cairo is following developments closely.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures his Department is taking to prevent human rights abuses in China. [1096]

  Mr. Hanley
  We remain deeply concerned about the human rights situation in China. We regularly express our concerns to the Chinese authorities, both bilaterally and in conjunction with our European Union partners. We shall continue to use our bilateral exchanges, for example on legal reform, to promote a more enlightened approach by the Chinese authorities.

  Copex Fair (Indonesian Representatives)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if representatives of the Indonesian Government will be present at the contingency and operational procurement exhibition—COPEX—fair in Esher, on 5, 6 and 7 November. [420]
  225
  Mr. Hanley
  The Copex trade fair is a private event. We do not know whether any representatives of the Indonesian Government will attend it.

  EU Foreign Affairs Council
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the agenda and outcome of the EU Foreign Affairs Council on 28 October in Luxembourg. [1533]

  Mr. David Davis
  The A points in document 10968/96, the texts of which will be placed in the House as soon as they are available, were approved. They include draft conclusions on the EU regional approach to developing relations with the countries of the former Yugoslavia and a common position introducing a ban on visas for senior members of the Burmese regime and on high-level bilateral visits to Burma.

  The Council noted the resolutions adopted by the European Parliament in document 9600/96. A copy of the document will be placed in the House as soon as it is available.

  The Council reached political agreement on a regulation and joint action to counter unacceptable extraterritorial effects of US trade legislation affecting European companies trading with Cuba, Iran and Libya.

  After discussion, the Council agreed conclusions on preparations for the world trade ministerial meeting in Singapore in December. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade emphasised that the Singapore meeting should give a boost to trade liberalisation.

  Commissioner Mann, Vice-President of the European Commission, gave a short report to the GAC on the state of play in the association agreement negotiations with Egypt and how the Commission hoped to take negotiations forward. This was subsequently discussed at a meeting of the EC-Egypt co-operation council.

  After discussion, the Council agreed conclusions announcing the mandate and appointment of Ambassador Miguel Angel Moratinos as the European Union's special envoy to the middle east peace process.

  The presidency gave a progress report to the GAC on the European Union observatory to discuss racism and xenophobia. The presidency will produce a draft statute to clarify discussion of the legal base.

  The Council agreed that a joint action should be prepared for adoption at or before the 25 November General Affairs Council on support for the democratic process in Zaire, covering establishment of an EU electoral unit and a contribution to the UN trust fund. The Council also issued a statement reiterating the Union's grave concern at the escalation of fighting in eastern Zaire and its potential to worsen further the already serious humanitarian situation existing in the region, calling for an immediate ceasefire, and restating its view that a regional conference on peace, security and stability in the great lakes region under the auspices of the UN and the Organisation and African Unity, has a central role to play in the establishment of a settlement.
  226
  The Council had an exchange of views on the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe summit to be held in Lisbon on 2–3 December, in the perspective of which it adopted "EU Guidelines".

  On the morning of 28 October, I signed the EC-Korea trade and co-operation agreement on behalf of the UK.

  In the margins, there were discussions on the location of the plant variety office and Turkey, both of which will be discussed at the November General Affairs Council, and under any other business there was a brief discussion on the results of the recent EU-southern Africa development community ministerial in Windhoek, and a request from Greece for the Commission to consider humanitarian aid to Bulgaria.

  In addition, the presidency, on behalf of the Union, published a declaration on the situation in Afghanistan.

  At a ministerial session of the Intergovernmental Conference Ministers discussed the external action of the EU, focusing on common foreign and security policy—CFSP—issues, security and defence, and external economic relations. On CFSP, Ministers exchanged views on a number of practical and institutional questions. On security and defence, Ministers discussed a range of institutional issues. On external economic relations, Ministers considered options designed to ensure that the EU is able to act decisively to promote its interests in external economic forums.

  The Ministerial was preceded by an exchange of views with the presidency and representatives of the European Parliament.

  BP (Colombia)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the allegations made in the European Parliament on 24 October relating to BP's activities in Colombia; and if he will make a statement. [1211]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We are aware of the allegations. We are not aware of any evidence which gives substance to them.

  EU Council
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will detail forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union for November; and if he will list major European Union events for the next six months. [2113]

  Mr. David Davis
  This calender is primarily concerned with European Union matters, but certain other relevant events are also included. Events and dates quoted are based on the information available on the date of issue.

  European calendar: November 1996 to April 1997

  Venue

  Event

  November 1996

  4 to 5

  Brussels

  K4 Committee

  7 to 9

  Cork

  Rural Development Conference

  11

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  11 to 15

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  12

  Brussels

  Health Council

  14

  Brussels

  Industry Council

  14 to 15

  Dublin

  Political Committee

  227

  European calendar: November 1996 to April 1997

  Venue

  Event

  18 to 19

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  19

  Brussels

  Budget Council

  21

  Brussels

  Education Council

  22

  Brussels

  Development Council

  22

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  25

  Brussels

  Consumer Council

  25 to 26

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  26

  Brussels

  Internal Market Council

  27 to 28

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  28

  Brussels

  Telecommunications Council

  28 to 29

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  December 1996

  2

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  2

  Brussels

  Social Affairs Council

  3

  Brussels

  Energy Council

  5

  Brussels

  Research Council

  6

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  9 to 10

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  9 to 13

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  12 to 13

  Brussels

  Transport Council

  13 to 14

  Dublin

  European Council

  16

  Brussels

  Culture Council

  16 to 17

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  17

  Brussels

  K4 Committee

  19 to 20

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  January 1997

  1

  Dutch Presidency begins

  7

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  13 to 17

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  20 to 21

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  20 to 21

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  27

  Brussels

  Ecofin Council (t.b.c.)

  29 to 30

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  31

  Amsterdam

  Transport Council (Informal)

  February 1997

  1

  Amsterdam

  Transport Council (Informal)

  1 to 2

  Brussels

  Economic Affairs Council (Informal)

  5 to 6

  Noordwijk

  Justice and Home Affairs Council (Informal)

  14 to 15

  Rotterdam

  Social Affairs Council (Informal)

  17

  Brussels

  Ecofin Council

  17 to 18

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  17 to 21

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  24 to 25

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  28

  Amsterdam

  Development Aid Council (Informal)

  March 1997

  1 to 2

  Amsterdam

  Development Aid Council (Informal)

  3

  Rotterdam

  Education Council (Informal)

  3 to 4

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  6

  Brussels

  Telecommunications Council

  10

  Brussels

  Internal Market Council

  10 to 14

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  11 to 12

  Brussels

  Transport Council

  15 to 16

  Apeldoorn

  Gymnich (Informal)

  17

  Brussels

  Ecofin Council

  17 to 19

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  18 to 19

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  24 to 25

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  April 1997

  *4 to 6

  Noordwijk

  Ecofin Council (Informal)

  *7 to 10

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  *10

  Luxembourg

  Consumer Council

  *14 to 15

  Luxembourg

  Fisheries Council

  *17

  Luxembourg

  Social Affairs Council

  *18 to 20

  Amsterdam

  Environment Council (Informal)

  *21 to 22

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

  *23

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  228

  European calendar: November 1996 to April 1997

  Venue

  Event

  *24

  Luxembourg

  Industry Council

  *24 to 25

  Luxembourg

  ACP/EU

  *25

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  *29

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  Subject: monthly forecast of business for November 1996

  1. The following Councils are scheduled:

  11 November: Ecofin Council

  12 November: Health Council

  14 November: Industry Council

  18 November: Agriculture Council

  19 November: Agriculture Council

  19 November: Budget Council

  21 November: Education Council

  22 November: Development Council

  22 November: Fisheries Council

  25 November: Consumer Council

  25 November: General Affairs Council

  26 November: General Affairs Council

  26 November: Internal Market Council

  28 November: Telecommunications Council

  28 November: Justice and Home Affairs Council

  29 November: Justice and Home Affairs Council

  2. The following subjects are likely to be discussed:

  11 November: Ecofin Council

  Approval of the provisional agenda.

  Approval of the list of "A" points.

  Preparation of the European Council:

  Recommendations of the Council based on Article 109 J.

  Preparation of Stage 3 of EMU:

  Report by the Council to the European Council on relations between the Euro area and non-participating member states.

  Commission report on the development of tax systems in the European Union.

  SEM 2000 Commission presentation of report of personal representatives group.

  Other business.

  12 November: Health Concil

  Adoption of the agenda.

  Adoption of the list of "A" points.

  Proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council creating a network for the epidemiological surveillance and control of communicable diseases in the European Community.

  EU—US task force on communicable diseases.

  Strategy towards blood safety and self-sufficiency in the European Community: draft resolution.

  Reduction of smoking in the European Community: draft resolution.

  Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (TSE): draft conclusions.

  Integration of health protection requirements in Community policies: draft resolution.

  European health card.

  Other business:

  Rapid introduction of important new medicinal products (requested by Netherlands delegation).

  14 November: Industry Council

  229

  At this stage, all of the below would seem likely to be discussed.

  EC merger regulation.

  Presidency paper on state aids.

  Bench marking.

  Communication on competitiveness of chemicals industry.

  Communication on competitiveness of automotive industry.

  Communication on competitiveness of textiles industry.

  Third SME multi-annual programme (1997–2000)—particularly its budget.

  Resolution on realising the full potential of SMEs, including very small and micro enterprises.

  18–19 November: Agriculture Council

  Beef and cereals package.

  Reform of the tobacco sector.

  Reform of the olive oil sector.

  Durum wheat (possible item).

  Plant health—solidarity and responsibility (possible item).

  BSE (possible item).

  Veterinary and Phytosanitary Agency (possible item).

  19 November: Budget Council

  1997 Budget

  Legal base (possible item).

  21 November: Educational Council (provisional agenda)

  School effectiveness: discussion document and Council conclusions. This will be the topic for the open debate.

  Lifelong learning: discussion document and Council conclusions.

  Local community development through education: council conclusions.

  Quality of higher education: Presentation of recommendation.

  Paedophilia conclusions-declaration.

  Green Paper on obstacles to mobility: presentation by the Commission.

  Quality Assessment of first and second level education systems: oral report from the Commission.

  SOCRATES: information from the Commission.

  European Commission white paper: Commission report on five thematic conferences.

  Transferability of grants: Information on commission proposal for a Council recommendation.

  TEMPUS II (Information—Decision depending on timeframe): Proposal for a Council Decision amending Decision 93/246/EEC of 29 April 1993 adopting the second phase of the trans-European co-operation scheme for higher education (TEMPUS II) (1994–1998).

  Learning in the information society: information from the Commission.

  Meeting with the Education Ministers of the countries of central and eastern Europe (the Council will adjourn its formal business at 1200 to have the formal part of the structured dialogue until 1300. This will continue over lunch and the Council will reconvene formally at approximately 1500 to conclude its business).

  22 November: Fisheries Council

  Multi-annual guidance programme IV.

  Fish prices.

  Autonomous tariff quotas.

  22 November: Development Council (provisional agenda)

  First ministerial exchange of views on ACP/EU relations post Lome IV (Commission green paper).

  Further exchange of views on relief, rehabilitation and development.

  Resolution on human and social development.

  230

  Adoption of a common position on the regulation on north-south co-operation in the fight against drugs.

  Adoption of a common position on the regulation on aid for population policies and programmes.

  Approval after EP second reading of the regulations on rehabilitation and construction in developing countries, Refugees in Asia and Latin America, environmental measures in developing countries and HIV/AIDS-related operations in developing countries.

  Horizon 2000—coherence, complementarity and co-ordination.

  25 November: Consumer Council

  Draft directive on injunctions (access to justice).

  Action plan on access to justice.

  Directive on consumer credit (on formula used for APR).

  Discussion of green paper on "Financial services: meeting consumers' expectations".

  Discussion of green paper on "Commercial Communications".

  Presidency paper on vulnerable groups.

  Commission presentation on consumer guarantees.

  There will also be an open debate on consumers and the information society.

  25–26 November: General Affairs Council

  Agenda not yet known.

  26 November: Internal Market Council

  Agenda not yet known.

  28 November: Telecommunications Council

  Directive on the application of open network provision to voice telephony and on universal service for telecommunications in a competitive environment: Common position.

  Directive on common rules for the development of Community postal services and the improvement of the quality of service: Common position (possible item).

  Decision regarding the definition and implementation of Community Policy in the field of communications and postal services: adoption.

  Illegal material on the Internet: conclusions/recommendations (possible item).

  Communication on numbering: presentation (possible item).

  Directive on the approximation of the laws of member states concerning the connected telecommunications equipment, including the mutual recognition of their conformity and applicability: presentation (possible item).

  28–29 November: Justice and Home Affairs Council

  Agenda not yet known.

SCOTLAND

  Children's Clubs (Police Advice)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what record is kept of police officers offering advice or assistance in their personal capacity to the organisers of children's clubs; and if he will make a statement. [195]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There is no central requirement for clubs or police officers to keep such records.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to make alterations to the system under which decisions relating to both the aggregate level and distribution between councils of grant-aided expenditure, Government-supported
  231
  expenditure and aggregate external finance are taken with particular reference to the delegation of such decisions to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities; and if he will make a statement. [206]

  Mr. Kynoch
  My right hon. Friend is statutorily obliged to consult the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities about both the aggregate level of the local government finance settlement and its distribution among councils, but there is absolutely no question of decisions on those matters having been delegated to the convention as the hon. Member appears to suggest.

  Cullen Inquiry
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many officers of Central Scotland police intimated a willingness to give evidence to the Cullen inquiry and subsequently declined to do so; and if he will make a statement. [90]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland appointed Lord Cullen on 21 March 1996 to be a tribunal for the purposes of this inquiry in virtue of section 1 of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921.

  Under the provisions of the Act, Lord Cullen had the power to call witnesses and require them to appear at the inquiry. There was, therefore, no question of anyone intimating a willingness to give evidence to the inquiry and subsequently declining to do so.

  Police (Freemasons)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what records are kept which show to which masonic lodges police officers belong; and if he will make a statement. [237]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No such records are kept by the Scottish Office.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the policy of the Central Scotland police in respect of officers being members of the masonic order. [89]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have no information about any such policy, which would be a matter for the chief constable.

  Casualty Animals
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received relating to the reluctance of contractors to pick up bulls as casualty animals; and if he will make a statement. [464]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  None.

  Thomas Hamilton
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions Thomas Hamilton was found in possession of firearms, other than those included on his firearms certificate; and if he will make a statement. [95]
  232
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Lord Cullen's report of the public inquiry into the shootings at Dunblane primary school mentions no such occasions. In particular, I refer the hon. Member to chapter 6 of the report, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Ex-prisoners (Employment)
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what percentage of ex-prisoners in Scotland have entered(a) paid employment, (b) full-time training and (c) full-time education within six months of being released from prison in each year since 1990; [1472]

  (2) what percentage of ex-offenders in Scotland who received non-custodial sentences have entered (a) paid employment, (b) full-time training and (c) full-time education within six months of completing their sentence in each year since 1990; [1473]

  (3) what is the total number and percentage of ex-offenders in Scotland who have entered employment within six months of completion of their sentence in each year since 1990. [1474]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what criteria are used by his Department in assessing requests for additional section 94 consents made by local authorities. [1379]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Additional section 94 consent is dependent on the availability of uncommitted resources for local authority capital spending. If resources are available, decisions are taken by Ministers in light of the submissions from local authorities and the relative needs and priorities of the councils seeking assistance.

  Re-offenders
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total number and percentage of re-offenders in Scotland in each year since 1990; and if he will provide a breakdown of these figures by category of crime. [1475]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information is not available in the form requested. The Scottish Office publication "Criminal Proceedings in Scottish Courts, 1994" contains some information on those persons convicted on more than one occasion in the period 1989–1994.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Public Relations
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will contract out to the private sector media and public relations work currently undertaken by the Government Information Service. [850]

  Mr. Freeman
  Decisions on how media and PR campaigns are carried out are for Departments to make.
  233

TRANSPORT

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates he has made of(a) the restructuring costs and (b) other costs relating to the letting of the west coast main line rail franchise. [1371]

  Mr. Watts
  The costs incurred by the franchising director to date on letting the InterCity West Coast franchise are £2.2 million. Any restructuring of the business will be the responsibility of the franchisee.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates have been made of(a) the total costs of consultants, (b) the costs of lawyers' fees, (c) the costs of accountants' fees, (d) the costs of management consultants' fees and (e) the costs of publicity, in the letting of the west coast main line rail franchise. [1370]

  Mr. Watts
  The costs of consultants' fees incurred by the franchising director on letting the InterCity West Coast franchise are:

  Lawyers: £0.33 million

  Accountants: £1.23 million

  Management consultants: £0.28 million

  Total consultants costs: £2.20 million

  Apart from costs incurred at the time a franchise is awarded, costs on publicity are incurred for franchising generally and cannot be attributed to individual franchise sales.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what costs have been incurred to date on the bidding process in preparation for letting the west coast main line rail franchise, broken down by category. [1369]

  Mr. Watts
  The costs incurred to date by the franchising director on letting the InterCity West Coast franchise are:

  £ million

  Legal

  0.33

  Financial adviser

  0.23

  Accountant

  1.23

  Management consultants

  0.28

  Engineering

  0.13

  Total

  2.20

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the value of liabilities to be written off as part of the letting of the west coast mainline rail franchise. [1372]

  Mr. Watts
  The franchising director has written off no liabilities as part of franchising InterCity West Coast

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the expenditure on operation of the west coast mainline(a) in each year since 1993–94, (b) in the year up to the issuing of the first pre-qualification document by the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising and (c) in the time since preparation for letting the franchise began. [1373]
  234
  Mr. Watts
  In 1993–94, the InterCity West Coast business was part of the InterCity division of BR and it is not possible to identify the operating costs of InterCity West Coast separately.

  On 1 April 1994 the InterCity division was split in preparation for franchising and InterCity West Coast established as a separate business. From that dale, responsibility for funding BR passenger operations has been the responsibility of the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising. Since then, BR has received support for passenger rail services to cover those costs of running the business that are not met from passenger revenue or other income. Opraf has paid the following sums to BR to cover the budgeted deficits of InterCity West Coast.

  £ million

  1994–95

  99.05

  1995–96

  84.69

  1996–971

  92.53

  Total

  276.27

  1 Annual total.

  In 1994–95, BR received £67 million of the support for InterCity West Coast by 14 December 1994 when the first pre-qualification document was issued.

  From 1 April 1994 to date, Opraf has paid BR £233 million in respect of InterCity West Coast.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of services projected in the passenger service requirement for InterCity West Coast between Watford junction and Milton Keynes. [1468]

  Mr. Watts
  There is no requirement for services to call at Watford or Milton Keynes in the InterCity West Coast draft passenger service requirement. The draft passenger service requirement for North London Railways includes a specification safeguarding regular services between London, Watford, Milton Keynes and stations on the route to Birmingham. In drawing up the draft passenger service requirement for InterCity West Coast, the franchising director has taken the view that the operator should have the commercial flexibility to determine the number of InterCity services calling at these stations. The consultation period on the draft passenger service requirement for InterCity West Coast ends on 20 November.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the cost of consultants' fees relating to the preparation for letting the west coast main line franchise(a) for each year since 1993 and (b) to date. [1368]

  Mr. Watts
  The costs of consultants' fees incurred by the franchising director on letting the InterCity West Coast franchise are:

  1993–94 £0.00 million

  1994–95 £0.26 million

  1995–96 £0.30 million

  1996–97 £1.64 million

  Total £2.20 million

  235
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the projected number of services listed in the passenger service requirement for the InterCity west coast main line for services between London Euston and Crewe. [1519]

  Mr. Watts
  The draft passenger service requirement for InterCity West Coast specifies that the operator must provide an hourly service in each direction Mondays to Saturdays. On Sundays there must be an hourly service between Crewe and London Euston, and 14 trains between London Euston and Crewe. The consultation period on the draft passenger service requirement ends on 20 November.

  Departmental Parking
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many car parking spaces(a) were available at the Department of Transport's former premises at 2 Marsham street and (b) are available at the Department's current premises at Great Minster house. [1375]

  Mr. Bowis
  Approximately 64 car parking spaces within 2 Marsham street were allocated to the Department of Transport on a permanent basis in 1995. The number of car parking spaces available in Great Minster house is 23.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the annual cost per annum of car parking spaces at the Department of Transport's current premises of Great Minster house. [1377]

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer to the reply I gave to the hon. Gentleman on 28 October Official Report, column 44.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the cost of car parking spaces at the Department of Transport's former premises at 2 Marsham street, on the basis of central London charges, for each year since 1979, in(a) cash terms and (b) real terms. [1376]

  Mr. Bowis
  Prior to leaving 2 Marsham street in June 1996, the cost of car parking was £192,000 per annum based on central London commercial rates. Information for earlier years is not available.

  National Bus Company Pension Scheme
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the findings of the Pensions Ombudsman in respect of the National Bus Company employees: superannuation scheme; and what measures he proposes to return the £168 million plus interest received by his Department from the scheme prior to the sale of the Company. [1086]

  Mr. Watts
  The pensions ombudsman has issued his final determination on a complaint against the trustees of one of the pension funds—the bus employer superannuation trust—of the former National Bus Company. The trustees, to whom the determination is directed, are in touch with my Department about it. My Department is considering the determination and taking legal advice before replying to the trustees. It may be necessary and appropriate to ask the courts to make a ruling on the complex issues involved.
  236

  Rail Deregulation
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals his Department has to issue deregulation orders in respect of initiatives involving(a) level crossings, (b) the introduction of new railway stock, (c) tramways and (d) railway heritage. [1432]

  Mr. Watts
  There are no plans to use order-making powers to further initiatives in these areas.

  Rail Franchising Director
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many official cars are operated by the office of the Rail Franchising Director; and if he will indicate the total expenditure for those vehicles since Opraf was established. [1467]

  Mr. Watts
  Opraf leases one car from the Government car service. The net costs are as follows:

  £

  1993–94

  16,510

  1994–95

  46,254

  1995–96

  45,527

  1996–971

  23,793

  Total

  132,084

  1 To date.

  Watford Junction Rail Incident
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what action has been taken by the British Railways Board to investigate the reason for a London to Manchester train on 10 July overshooting Watford Junction station; [123]

  (2) what failures in approved safety procedures have been identified by the British Railways Board to explain the reason for a London-Manchester train overshooting Watford Junction station on 10 July; [119]

  (3) if all train staff specifically involved in the incident on 10 July when a London-Manchester train overshot Watford Junction station have been asked to offer evidence to an internal inquiry under the auspices of the British Railways Board; [117]

  (4) if he will instruct the British Railways Board to publish the fully details of the incident on 10 July when a Euston-Manchester train overshot Watford Junction station; [113]

  (5) if he has requested information from the British Railways Board about the incident on 10 July when a Euston-Manchester express train overshot Watford Junction station; [121]

  (6) what defect reports on (a) the trainset and (b) the locomotive which overran Watford Junction station on 10 July were made on the previous day; and what action was taken; [116]

  (7) what action has been taken by the British Railways Board following the incident on 10 July when a London-Manchester train overshot Watford Junction Station; [120]
  237
  (8) if the results of the British Railways Board internal inquiry into the incident on 10 July when a London-Manchester train overshot Watford Junction station have been made available to the train staff involved; [118]

  (9) what explanation has been provided to him by the British Railways Board for the failure of a London-Manchester train on 10 July to stop at Watford Junction station; [91]

  (10) what instructions he has given to the British Railways Board about making known full details of the incident on 10 July when a Euston-Manchester train overshot Watford Junction station; [114]

  (11) on what date the Health and Safety Executive was notified by his Department about the incident on 10 July when an express train overshot Watford Junction station by five miles; [662]

  (12) what action has been taken by the Health and Safety Executive to investigate the reasons for a London to Manchester train on 10 July overshooting Watford Junction station; [101]

  (13) what recommendations have been made by the Health and Safety Executive following the incident on 10 July when a London to Manchester train overshot Watford Junction station. [103]

  Mr. Watts
  The incident on 10 July was reported to the Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate by Railtrack within two hours of it occurring. HSE inspecting officers immediately started an independent investigation as to the cause. The train in question was operated by a British Railways Board subsidiary company, InterCity West Coast Ltd., which held an inquiry into technical aspects following an agreement with Railtrack.

  As part of its investigation, the HSE has confirmed that the cause of the incident was the brake failure due to a hose blanking cap known as a "top hat" becoming trapped in a brake hose coupling. The "top hat" was able to spin on its axis causing an intermittent failure. The train's braking system was tested at the InterCity depot in Wembley, Middlesex before its journey to Euston, and was tested again immediately before the train's departure from Euston to Manchester. No defects were found. The blockage of the brake coupling hose which caused the brake failure must therefore have developed during the journey.

  How the railways' internal inquiry is held, whom it chooses to interview, and to whom the results are made available, are matters for the railway companies involved. The Secretary of State for Transport has no statutory powers to request details of, or to instruct any railway company to make public, the findings of its internal inquiries into any incident. The HSE as the independent safety regulator does have power to require such details, and the Health and Safety Commission advises the Secretary of State for Transport. The HSE is continuing its discussions with the train operating company.

  I understand from the HSE that:

  (a) a check has been made of other rolling stock to see if any similar potential obstructions exist;

  (b) suppliers of brake coupling hoses have now dispensed with the use of top hat" blanking pieces and are using alternative means of preventing ingress of dirt during storage; and

  238

  (c) procedures in depots have been improved to ensure that brake hose couplings are properly checked for any potential obstruction on fitment.

  The HSE will not conclude its investigation until it has reviewed the railway's internal report and satisfied itself that issues have been properly resolved.

  Mr. Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the implications of the Financial Services Act 1986 for the making of a full public statement by the British Railways Board to explain why on 10 July a London to Manchester train overshot Watford Junction station by five miles. [102]

  Mr. Watts
  The Financial Services Act 1986 requires that any public statement to be issued in the United Kingdom which might constitute an investment advertisement, as defined in the Act, should first be approved by a person authorised under the Act. Until the rail franchising process is completed, British Rail will require its staff to follow guidelines aimed at ensuring that any public statements they make comply with the terms of the Act.

  Rail Privatisation
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the cost of legal fees incurred by Her Majesty's Government in relation to the privatisation of Railtrack for legal advice and work provided by solicitors in private practice; and what was the average(a) daily and (b) hourly rate contracted for the advice. [852]

  Mr. Watts
  Government expenditure to date on legal fees in relation to the privatisation of Railtrack is £3.9 million, excluding VAT. Information about contracted daily and hourly rates is commercially confidential.

  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if all trains currently operated by privatised train operating companies have complied in full with the safety case required by the Health and Safety Executive. [661]

  Mr. Watts
  I am advised by the Health and Safety Executive that it has no evidence that trains operated by privatised train operating companies are not in compliance with safety case obligations.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those companies on the pre-qualified bidders' list for railway franchises. [1471]

  Mr. Watts
  No. This information is commercially confidential.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the hourly rates paid to(a) Samuel Montague, (b) Kleinwort Benson, (c) KPMG, (d) Coopers and Lybrand and (e) Linklaters and Paines by the office of the rail franchising director for work undertaken in relation to rail privatisation. [1511]

  Mr. Watts
  No. It is not the Government's policy to divulge the hourly fee rates for their advisers.
  239

  Railway Rolling Stock
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many railway rolling stock leases involving mark I passenger carriages are currently in existence; and in respect of each lease, what is the name of the rolling stock company owning the vehicles, what is the name of the train operating company leasing them, how many mark I vehicles are covered by that lease and what is the date to which the train operating company is committed to leasing these mark I vehicles. [760]

  Mr. Watts
  The latest figures held centrally show the position as at 31 March 1995 and these are attached. The rolling stock companies were privatised last year and the current position is a matter for them.

  Summary of Mark 1 Rolling Stock on lease as at 31 March 1995. All leases commenced 1 April 1994

  Vehicle class

  Units on lease as at 31 March 1995

  Lease length

  ROSCO—Angel Train Contracts

  101 (Heritage)

  54 vehicles to RRNW

  3 years

  1 two car unit to RR SW and W

  4 years

  22 vehicles to ScotRail

  4 years

  117 (Heritage)

  3 two car units and spare vehicle to RRSW and W

  4 years

  21 vehicles to ScotRail

  4 years

  6 vehicles to RRCentral

  14 months

  11 two car units to North London Railways

  4 years

  121 (Heritage)

  3 vehicles to North London Railways

  4 years

  1 vehicle to North London Railways

  14 months

  303

  43 three car units to ScotRail

  4 years

  2 three car units to ScotRail

  18 months

  305

  6 three car units to RRNW

  3 years

  9 three car units to RRNW

  16 months

  5 four car units to ScotRail

  4 years

  308

  21 three car units to RRNE

  3 years

  309

  8 four car units to RRNW

  6 years

  421

  73 four car units to Network South Cen.

  8 years

  5 four car units to Network South Cen.

  4 years

  2 four car units to Network South Cen.

  19 months

  4 four car units to Network South Cen.

  14 months

  423

  66 four car units to South Eastern

  10 years

  ROSCO—Porterbrook Leasing

  205

  1 two car unit to South Eastern

  5 years

  10 three car units to Network South Central

  4 years

  207

  4 two car units to South Eastern

  5 years

  411

  35 four car units to South Eastern

  i

  71 four car units to South Eastern

  5 years

  412

  7 four car units to South West Trains

  5 years

  422

  15 four car units to Network South Central

  4 years

  423

  35 four car units leased to Network South Central

  8 years

  4 four car units leased to Network South Central

  4 years

  240

  Summary of Mark 1 Rolling Stock on lease as at 31 March 1995. All leases commenced 1 April 1994

  Vehicle class

  Units on lease as at 31 March 1995

  Lease length

  8 four car units leased to Network South Central

  14 months

  ROSCO—Eversholt Train Leasing Company

  302

  28 four car units to London Tilbury and Southend

  2 years

  304

  6 three car units to Regional Railways Central

  2 years

  4 four car units to Regional Railways North West

  19 months

  421

  34 four car units to South West Trains

  8 years

  21 four car units to South Eastern

  6 years

  423

  44 four car units to South West Trains

  8 years

  33 four car units to South West Trains

  4 years

  Mk1 coaches

  12 to Regional Railways North West

  6 years

  Mk1 catering

  4 to Anglia

  2 years

  3 to Anglia

  3 years

  Motorail

  4 side loaders to Inter City West Coast

  1 year

  41 GUVs to Inter City West Coast

  1 year

  6 GUVs to Cross Country Trains

  14 months

  Brake Guards Vans

  3 to Great Western

  4 years

  19 to Inter City West Coast

  1 year

  5 to Cross Country Trains

  14 months

  1 Extendable to 5 years at 2 months notice.

  2Expired 31 October 1995.

  Vehicles (Illegal Operators)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what date his Department issued draft legislative proposals to allow the vehicles of illegal operators to be impounded. [1518]

  Mr. Bowis
  We have not yet done so.

  Traffic Congestion
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will now update the maps of current congestion and projections of future congestion referred to in his answer of 26 February,Official Report, column 320, and include detailed forecasts of congestion for trunk roads in the south west of England and in particular for key links on the motorway network in the region. [1081]

  Mr. Watts
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply on 17 October to the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner),Official Report, columns 1100–01. [1101]

  Airport Security Staff
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals there are to extend the vetting of(a) in-house and (b) contract security staff at airports in the United Kingdom by permitting access to the police national computer; and if he will make a statement.[1028]

  Mr. Bowis
  Ministers agreed in August of this year that all security staff working at UK airports, whether in-house or contractors, should be subject to formal counter-terrorist checks against Government records,
  241
  including criminal records held by the police. This is additional to the existing requirement for references to be obtained.

  Rail Franchises
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each rail franchise(a) the

  £ Million

  Cost of advisors

  1995–96 Budgeted passenger revenue

  Support paid to BR prior to franchising1

  Support paid at franchising (Year 1)

  Year 2

  Year 3

  Year 4

  Year 5

  Year 6

  Gatwick Express

  2.14

  31.00

  nil

  -4.53

  -6.17

  -7.85

  -9.66

  -10.48

  -11.24

  South Eastern Trains

  2.19

  241.90

  138.92

  125.40

  97.67

  64.99

  52.78

  42.12

  35.99

  LTS

  1.94

  54.30

  34.50

  29.61

  26.61

  24.00

  22.53

  21.15

  19.85

  Midland Main Line

  1.90

  83.20

  16.76

  17.48

  7.31

  1.92

  -0.78

  0.66

  -2.61

  Great Western

  2.44

  197.00

  60.83

  61.93

  56.63

  51.97

  46.10

  40.54

  37.15

  Thames3

  1.05

  59.90

  43.80

  40.32

  33.25

  24.11

  16.54

  13.28

  7.43

  Cardiff Railway

  1.46

  6.70

  22.20

  21.50

  19.85

  17.63

  16.64

  15.37

  14.61

  South Wales and West

  1.64

  48.80

  84.80

  80.78

  70.94

  60.52

  55.86

  50.04

  46.27

  InterCity East Coast

  2.33

  268.60

  74.74

  66.39

  52.75

  33.73

  14.49

  5.30

  1.80

  Chiltern

  2.04

  28.30

  18.56

  16.64

  13.00

  11.86

  8.60

  5.57

  4.12

  Network South Central

  2.15

  178.50

  101.99

  86.67

  70.58

  49.97

  44.89

  41.67

  36.08

  South West Trains

  2.26

  273.60

  85.43

  62.72

  60.66

  58.38

  53.41

  48.75

  43.60

  Island Line

  0.31

  1.00

  2.56

  2.01

  1.92

  1.84

  1.79

  1.75

  2—

  Total

  23.85

  1,472.80

  685.09

  606.92

  505.00

  393.07

  324.76

  274.30

  233.66

  Savings on BR Support

  —

  —

  —

  78.17

  180.09

  292.02

  360.33

  410.79

  448.87

  Cumulative

  —

  —

  —

  78.17

  258.27

  550.29

  910.62

  1,321.41

  1,770.28

  £ million

  Year 7

  Year 8

  Year 9

  Year 10

  Year 11

  Year 12

  Year 13

  Year 14

  Year 15

  Gatwick Express

  -11.72

  -13.05

  -14.40

  -15.87

  -16.37

  -17.88

  -19.41

  -21.03

  -22.65

  South Eastern Trains

  26.83

  26.83

  18.69

  18.66

  12.52

  9.48

  5.69

  0.00

  -2.78

  LTS

  18.64

  17.49

  16.42

  15.42

  14.47

  13.58

  12.75

  11.37

  11.24

  Midland Main Line

  -4.41

  -6.22

  -8.13

  -10.05

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Great Western

  35.23

  33.60

  32.60

  31.60

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Thames3

  3.74

  0.00

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Cardiff Railway

  13.93

  13.26

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  South Wales and West

  42.88

  38.14

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  InterCity East Coast

  0.00

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Chiltern

  2.87

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Network SouthCentral

  34.64

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  South West Trains

  40.27

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Island Line

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Total

  202.90

  110.05

  45.17

  39.76

  10.62

  5.18

  -0.97

  -9.06

  -14.19

  Savings on BR Support

  479.65

  291.78

  205.84

  211.25

  182.80

  168.24

  174.38

  182.48

  187.81

  Cumulative savings

  2,249.91

  2,541.67

  2,747.51

  2,958.76

  3,121.57

  3,289.80

  3,464.20

  3,646.67

  3,834.29

  1 Figures are for 1996–97 except for SWT and GW where the figures are for 1995–96.

  2 Not covered by the franchise.

  3The Year 1 franchise payment is the full year equivalent of the contractual amount to allow for accurate comparisons.

  Franchise years are not the same as financial years.

  Therefore there is an overlap between the amount paid to BR and the franchise payment year 1.

  Payments to the Franchising Director appear as negative amounts.

  All payments are real amounts.

  242
  cost of advisers, (b) the training operating companies' passenger revenue in 1995–96, (c) the subsidy paid by the franchising director prior to privatisation, (d) the subsidy paid at the date the franchise was let and (e) the projected subsidy for each of the last two years of the franchise. [1513]

  Mr. Watts
  The information is provided in the tables.
  243

  Air Traffic Control
  Sir Peter Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reasons the Civil Aviation Authority has not appointed a preferred bidder for the new Scottish centre air traffic control project. [1169]

  Mr. Bowis
  Decisions on the tenders for the new Scottish centre project are contingent on the review of the two-centre strategy for provision of air traffic control services currently being carried out by the CAA's subsidiary company, National Air Traffic Services Ltd. That review is not yet complete.

  Northolt Station
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the safety of Northolt station for its users; and if he will make a statement. [961]

  Mr. Bowis
  London Underground Ltd. is responsible for the safe operation of its stations. Following its normal procedures, I understand that it has assessed the safety of Northolt station and instigated the appropriate level of inspections to monitor the condition of the structures.

  Air Accident Reports
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each air accident investigation report published in the last five years those recommendations that have yet to be implemented. [1436]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Civil Aviation Authority's progress report 1996 (CAP 666) lists the action taken in response to recommendations addressed to the CAA and the Department in 1995 and to earlier recommendations which have action outstanding.
  244

  HGVs and PSVs
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many presentations to magistrates on the enforcement of heavy goods vehicles and public service vehicles have been made by(a) the traffic area network unit and (b) traffic commissioner's offices in each of the last 12 months. [1517]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department of Transport's programme of road traffic presentations to magistrates is co-ordinated by the traffic area network unit in consultation with the local traffic commissioner and the vehicle inspectorate. A total of 22 presentations has been arranged so far in response to requests from local magistrates associations. The number held in each of the last twelve months is as follows:

  November 1995: 1

  December 1995: 0

  January 1996: 1

  February 1996: 0

  March 1996: 2

  April 1996: 1

  May 1996: 0

  June 1996: 0

  July 1996: 2

  August 1996: 0

  September 1996: 1

  October 1996: 2

  Fatal Road Accidents
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the number and proportion of fatal road accidents involving heavy lorries in the most recent year for which figures are available. [1498]

  Mr. Bowis
  In 1995, there were 530 reported fatal road accidents involving heavy goods vehicles, accounting for 16 per cent. of all fatal road accidents.
  245

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) under what statutory powers he has placed the Benefits Agency out to tender; [408]

  (2) if he will list the functions of the Benefits Agency which are to be contracted out. [409]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The Benefits Agency has not been put out to tender.

  On 19 July, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced proposals for three initiatives involving greater collaboration with the private sector as the next stage of the Department's drive to review and improve the delivery of social security.

  Those concerning the Benefits Agency include, first, an invitation to the private sector to submit proposals for taking over the operation of the child benefit centre in Washington, Tyne and Wear.

  The second initiative will involve three private companies—or consortiums—appointed following open competition to work in conjunction with the Benefits Agency in running benefit delivery in three of its 13 areas—Yorkshire, West Country and East London and Anglia directorates—for 12 months. All three companies will assist the Benefits Agency with the development of new business processes and information technology. They will be invited during the 12-month period to submit proposals for any elements of the agency's business which could be run differently, including the possibility of further parts of the operation being run by the private sector.

  In addition, the functions of the Benefits Agency medical services will be contracted out. A contract is expected to be awarded in April 1997.

  The award of contracts under these proposals will be in compliance with the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 and the Public Services Contracts Regulations 1993.

  Invalidity and Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants received all forms of(a) invalidity benefit for each year since 1990 and (b) incapacity benefit for (i) 1995 and (ii) 1996. [733]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table.

  Benefit

  Number of beneficiaries

  Invalidity benefit at 31 March 1990

  1,209,000

  Invalidity benefit at 30 March 1991

  1,306,000

  Invalidity benefit at 4 April 1992

  1,439,000

  Invalidity benefit at 3 April 1993

  1,508,000

  Invalidity benefit at 2 April 1994

  1,681,000

  Invalidity benefit at 12 April 1995

  1,767,000

  Incapacity benefit short-term higher rate and long-term rate at 31 May 1995

  1,721,000

  246

  Benefit

  Number of beneficiaries

  Incapacity benefit short-term higher rate and long-term rate at 31 May 1996

  1.677,000

  11.Figures for invalidity benefit are taken from a 1 per cent. sample of all claimants at the specified date.

  22. Figures for incapacity benefit are taken from a 5 per cent. sample of the computer system at the specified date and exclude a small number of cases not held on the system.

  33. When incapacity benefit was introduced on 13 April 1995 it replaced sickness benefit and invalidity benefit.

  44. The information for incapacity benefit provides the numbers of recipients of short-term higher rate and long-term rate which are the direct equivalent of invalidity benefit in order to provide comparable figures.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the level of benefit fraud in the Bolton area; and what targets have been set for the anti-fraud team in Bolton. [125]

  Mr. Heald
  Reliable estimates of benefit fraud and incorrectness are derived from the benefit review programme, which is looking at all the major benefits over a five-year period. For example, it was announced in July 1995 that the benefit review of income support and unemployment benefit estimated 9.7 per cent. of claims to be fraudulent, representing an annual value of £1.4 billion. However, review results are statistically valid only on a national basis, and levels of fraud can not be derived for individual geographical areas.

  In 1995–96 benefit savings from fraud investigation and initiatives under the security and control programme for the Bolton area amounted to £6,165,825.82.

  Following the merger of the benefit fraud investigation teams serving Bolton and Wigan, a savings target has not been set separately for the Bolton area for 1996–97. The savings target for the area covering both the Bolton and Wigan areas for fraud investigation and initiatives under the security and control programme for 1996–97 is £9,423,363.

  Benefit Appeals
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many appeals against a decision that the claimant is capable of work have been(a) lodged and (b) decided during the year April 1995 to April 1996; and of those decided, how many were found in the claimant's favour. [418]

  Mr. Burt
  As at 31 March 1996, 40,665 appeals against a decision that a claimant was capable of work following an examination under the all-work test had been lodged. Of these, 7,671 had been heard and 3,549 were revised in favour of the appellant.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate his Department has made of the numbers of claimants receiving income support as a result of the rejection of their claim for incapacity benefit. [728]
  247
  Mr. Burt
  As at 31 August 1996, 113,0001 incapacity benefit recipients had been found capable of work following an examination under the all work-test. Of these, it is estimated that around 37,0002 will become newly entitled to income support.

  Notes:
  1. Source: 100 per cent. count of cases on the incapacity benefit computer system. Excludes a small number of cases not held on the system.
  2. Estimate based on family expenditure survey data, rounded to nearest 1,000 cases.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) IB50 questionnaires were (i) issued and (ii) returned and (b) how many examinations for the all-work test were (1) scheduled and (2) took place during the year April 1995 to April 1996. [411]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the format requested as information on the return of questionnaires is not routinely collected. However, a recent sampling exercise indicated that 93 per cent. of questionnaires are returned within six weeks. The available information is in the table.

  Number

  Questionnaires issued (13 April 1995 to 31 March 1996)

  1,317,715

  IB examinations scheduled (13 April 1995 to 31 March 1996)

  683,760

  IB examinations conducted (13 April to 31 March 1996)

  434,817

  Notes:

  Figures for examinations scheduled and conducted include a small number of examinations for the own occupation test and all-work test examinations for severe disablement allowance claimants.

  Source:

  Benefits Agency medical services.

  Out-of-hours Service
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what funds have been(a) made available and (b) expended on maintaining the out-of-hours service since the completion of the consultation exercise; and when he plans to announce a decision on the service. [124]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  This is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Peter Thurnham, dated 30 October 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what funds have been (a) made available and (b) expended on maintaining the Out of Hours Service (OOHS) since the completion of the consultation exercise; and when he plans to announce a decision on the service.
  The consultation stage of the review of the OOHS took place during August 1996. The total budget allocated to budget holders for the administration of the OOHS for the financial year 1996/97 is £1.834m, of which £1m was issued on 10 October to enable managers to continue the service pending the results of the review.
  The amount expended on maintaining the Out of Hours Service during this financial year is not separately identified by all budget holders and could only by obtained at a disproportionate cost.
  248
  The review of the OOHS is currently under way and as part of this review, the Benefits Agency has sought the views of all interested parties including social services. Those views will be taken into account in reaching the final decision. No decisions have yet been made about the OOHS. I am unable to confirm when an announcement will be made though it is hoped this will be before the end of the year.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Child Support Agency
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what measures he has put in place to ensure that confidentiality is not breached by Post Office staff opening letters to the Child Support Agency; [66]

  (2) what safeguards he has put in place to ensure that Post Office staff opening letters to the Child Support Agency are not allowed to read them; [56]

  (3) what safeguards he has put in place to ensure that Post Office staff involved with the Child Support Agency in a private capacity are precluded from opening letters to the Child Support Agency at work. [57]

  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 Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 30 October 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about confidentiality safeguards regarding the opening of Child Support Agency post.
  Client confidentiality is of the utmost importance to the Agency, and safeguarding information was an important consideration for the Agency before taking the decision to contract out its post opening requirements to the Royal Mail.
  All Royal Mail staff are required to sign the Official Secrets Act, just as are staff employed by the Child Support Agency. The sorting service provided by Royal Mail is identical to the procedure previously undertaken by Agency staff.
  Mail for the Agency is opened in a separate, secure room at each Royal Mail delivery office. The office is kept locked and staff are required to sign on entry to the room. The postal workers who open Agency post sign a confidentiality agreement relating to this work. The mail opening is continually supervised by a manager and monitored by close-circuit TV. After being opened, the mail is sorted into individual office addresses nominated by the Agency and then put in sealed pouches ready for delivery to Agency offices. The volumes involved and the large scale use of machinery in the process makes the reading of individual letters and forms an impractical proposition.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many complaints he has received from people using the Child Support Agency relating to breaches of confidentiality in each of the last five years. [65]

  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 Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 30 October 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about breaches of confidentiality relating to the Child Support Agency.

  249
  It is not possible to answer your Question in precisely the form that you have requested, as statistics on the number of complaints are not recorded by category.
  However, any apparent breach of confidentiality by Agency staff (whether it emerges via a complaint or our internal checks) is treated very seriously and thoroughly investigated. All staff are made aware of the importance of this aspect of the Agency's work. Since its launch in 1993, the Agency has handled over 1.7 million cases: the total number of confidentiality breaches resulting in disciplinary action is 47. The table below shows a yearly breakdown of this figure. The vast majority of cases were the result of human error, e.g. wrongly directing mail. In one case confidentiality was breached knowingly: this led to the dismissal of the person involved.

  Year

  Number of confidentiality breaches

  1993–94

  0

  1994–95

  4

  1995–96

  28

  1996 to date

  15

  I hope this is helpful.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consultations he undertook before giving permission for Post Office staff to open letters from people writing to the Child Support Agency. [67]

  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 Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 30 October 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security regarding consultations about the opening of Child Support Agency post.
  Following a feasibility study, the Agency decided to contract out its post opening requirements to the Royal Mail. The Agency ran a six month pilot exercise to test procedures and issues such as security and client confidentiality.
  Full consultations were undertaken with local and national Agency Trade Union representatives before this decision was taken; Agency staff and managers involved in post opening duties were also fully consulted.
  I hope this is helpful.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of Stare for Social Security what is his estimate of the annual cost to the Exchequer of raising the starting point for paying employee national insurance contributions to the weekly earnings equivalent of the annual sum of £3,765; and what is his estimate of the number of individuals who would cease to be liable to pay employee national insurance contributions if such a change were made. [815]

  Mr. Heald
  The estimated loss in revenue from employee national insurance contributions would be some £775 million in a full year. On average, about 0.8 million employees in any week would no longer be liable to pay contributions.

  Source:
  Government Actuary's Department.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the additional revenue yield in a full year which would result from extending 250
  employers national insurance contributions to all fringe benefits currently liable to income tax only; and if he will make a statement. [648]

  Mr. Heald
  An estimated £250 million would be raised by extending employer national insurance contributions to taxable benefits in kind.

  Source:
  Inland Revenue.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the revenue lost to the Exchequer in(a) 1990–91, (b) 1992–93, (c) 1995–96, (d) 1996–97 and (e) 1997–98 from the avoidance of employers national insurance contributions by companies who have paid annual bonuses in benefits in kind as opposed to cash; and if he will make a statement. [649]

  Mr. Heald
  Information is not available. Not all payment practices using benefits in kind are aimed solely or largely at unfair avoidance of national insurance contributions, and employers are not required to identify bonus payments, annual or otherwise, separately from other payments.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the revenue yield from employers national insurance contributions on fringe benefits in(a) 1990–91, (b) 1992–93, (c)1995–96, (d) 1996–97 and (e) 1997–98; and if he will make a statement. [650]

  Mr. Heald
  The main benefits in kind provided by employers are cars and fuel and class IA contributions are charged on them.

  Information regarding receipts from employer's class IA national insurance contributions—NICs—is in the table.

  £ millions

  Year

  Employers1 class 1A NICs (including NHS contribution)

  1990–91

  1—

  1992–93

  470

  1995–96

  2469

  1996–97

  2476

  1997–98

  2491

  Notes:

  1Class 1A came into operation from April 1991.

  2 Figures are estimated.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.

  A number of other payments in kind have been brought into class I NICs—paid by employers and employees—including certain share payments, options, assets, gilts and certain life assurance policies. No separate figures are available for the yield from these sources.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to change the law on the liability of employers to pay national insurance. [319]

  Mr. Heald
  We plan to legislate to minor pay-as-you-earn settlement agreements in national insurance contributions at the earliest suitable opportunity. We remain committed to aligning further the rules for tax and NICs in the future except where there are clear reasons why they should differ.
  251

TREASURY

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what efforts are being made by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise to stamp out the illegal trade in endangered species of flora and fauna. [325]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise plays a key enforcement role in the United Kingdoms long-standing obligations under CITES, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. This entails not only monitoring and regulating legitimate trade with third countries but seizing unlawful goods and, where appropriate, prosecuting those engaged in illegal trading.

  Tax Rebates
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to ensure that formerly unemployed people who have paid too much tax receive their full tax rebate. [326]

  Mr. Jack
  Existing procedures ensure that any tax overpaid would be repaid in the normal way.

  Single Currency
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations have been made to him on the criteria for joining the European single currency. [327]

  Mr. Clarke
  The Government's economic policy objectives of permanently low inflation and sound public finances are fully consistent with the Maastricht convergence criteria. These criteria make economic sense in their own right, and are essential for economic success with or without EMU.

  The precise interpretation of the criteria will be for the Council of Ministers to decide in early 1998, when the decision is taken on which countries have qualified to join the single currency.

  Inflation
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the prospects for inflation into the next decade. [329]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The prospects are excellent. In recent years we have enjoyed the lowest inflation rate for almost half a century, and the Government are determined that it should remain low.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average rate of inflation(a) between March 1974 and May 1979 and (b) since May 1979; and if he will make a statement. [995]

  Mrs. Knight
  The average rate of year-on-year inflation measured by the retail prices index all items excluding mortgage interest payments was 16 per cent. between March 1974 and May 1979. The average rate since May 1979 has been 6.3 per cent. Since the Government's inflation target rate was set in October 1992, the average rate has been 2.8 per cent.
  252

  Personal Taxation
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest available figures for total personal taxation as a percentage of the total tax take; what was the equivalent figure in 1978–79; and if he will make a statement. [330]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Total personal taxation was 69½ per cent. of total non-North sea taxes and national insurance contributions in both 1978–79 and 1995–96.

  The Government are committed to low taxation and a tax system that raises revenue in ways that do least damage to the economy and encourage enterprise. Government tax reforms since 1979, particularly the switch from direct to indirect taxation, have allowed people to keep more of the money they earn to spend or save as they choose. By sharpening work incentives and encouraging wealth creation, the Government have laid the foundation for sustained long-term improvement in general living standards.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his forecast for investment through private finance projects over the next three years. [332]

  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total value of agreements announced under the private finance initiative to date. [333]

  Mr. Jack
  The latest available forecasts can be found in table 6.4 of the "1996–97 Financial Statement and Budget Report", and showed that the Government forecast private sector capital investment of £1.9 million in 1996–97, £2.6 million in 1997–98, and £2.8 million in 1998–99 at the time of the last Budget. The latest projections for the three years from 1997–98 will be published in the next "Financial Statement and Budget Report", on 26 November. Just over £7 billion worth of deals have been agreed to date.

  Taxation (Cigarettes)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will increase the tax levied on cigarettes. [334]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement.

  Poor Families
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what method he consults the views of poor families prior to reaching decisions on tax and other measures to be included in the Finance Bill. [335]

  Mr. Jack
  We receive many letters from all sections of the community, including those who are less well off, setting out their ideas for the forthcoming Budget. All representations are looked at carefully and inform the final Budget decisions.

  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what, at the latest possible date, is the figure for the PSBR. [336]
  253
  Mr. Waldegrave
  The PSBR in September was £3.4 billion. The PSBR in the first half of 1996–97 was £16.1 billion, compared with £20.1 billion in the first half of 1995–96. The summer economic forecast projected a PSBR of £26.9 billion in 1996–97 as a whole.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current stage of the public sector borrowing requirement. [337]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The PSBR in the first half of 1996–97 was £16.1 billion, compared with £20.1 billion in the first half of 1995–96. The summer economic forecast projected a PSBR of £26.9 billion in 1996–97 as a whole, a decline of nearly £5 billion compared with the PSBR in 1995–96.

  Incomes
  Mr. Evenett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the income of a family on average earnings(a) in April 1992 and (b) in April 1997. [324]

  Mr. Jack
  Real take-home pay for a one-earner family on average earnings was £292 per week in 1991–92 and is expected to rise to £305 per week in 1996–97. That is a total rise of around £700 a year. The 1996–97 income of a family on average earnings is up £700 a year after the effects of tax and inflation when compared to that of 1991–92.

  Scottish Economy
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met representatives of the business community in Scotland to discuss recent trends in the Scottish economy. [328]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  My right hon. and learned Friend keeps in regular touch with representatives of the business community from all parts of the UK, including Scotland. His last meeting with Scottish business men and women was on Tuesday 29 October.

  Mortgage Tax Relief
  Mrs. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the cost to the Exchequer of mortgage interest tax relief in(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98. [805]

  Mr. Jack
  The estimated total cost of mortgage interest relief in 1996–97 is £2.3 billion. This estimate is provisional. It is based on the assumption, by convention, of no change from the current estimated average building society interest rate of 6.5 per cent. The cost of the relief in 1997–98 would depend on future interest rates and the future distribution of the number and value of outstanding mortgages.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the full-year cost of reducing the income tax rate on the existing 20 per cent. band to(a) 15 per cent., and (b) 10 per cent. [806]

  Mr. Jack
  The estimated full-year cost at 1997–98 income levels of reducing the income tax rate on the existing 20 per cent. band to 15 per cent. is about 254
  £4.5 billion and to 10 per cent. is about £9 billion. The estimates assume that the income tax rate on savings and dividend income is reduced to 15 and 10 per cent. and that the estimates take account of the effects of the change on receipts of advanced corporation tax and on consequential liability to mainstream corporation tax.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the full year cost per person of raising the standard rate of income tax by 1p in the pound for(a) each adult in the United Kingdom and (b) each income tax payer in the United Kingdom. [813]

  Mr. Jack
  The average tax increase at 1996–97 income levels of increasing the basic rate of income tax by 1p is about £35 for each adult—aged 18 and over—and about £63 for every income tax payer in the United Kingdom.

  Profit-related Pay Tax Relief
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is his estimate of the cost to the Exchequer of the tax relief on profit-related pay in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98 and (d) 1998–99; and if he will make a statement; [807]

  (2) how many individuals are participating in profit-related pay schemes qualifying for tax relief; and what is his estimate of the number of such individuals who pay income tax at the top marginal income tax rate of 40 per cent. [808]

  Mr. Jack
  Available estimates of the cost of income tax relief for profit-related pay schemes in 1995–96 and 1996–97, and the number of participants up to the end of March 1996, are published in table 1.6 and table 6.3 respectively of "Inland Revenue Statistics 1996", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Reliable information on the number of participants at each marginal rate is not available.

  Ecus (Minting)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to further regulate the minting of ecus by local authorities. [320]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  No changes are needed. The Coinage Act 1971 sets out clearly that only the Royal Mint may issue coins in the United Kingdom.

  Government Procurement
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in improving value for money in Government procurement. [1986]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  A report by the Treasury's procurement group on progress made in Government procurement is published today.
  255
  The main developments in the procurement field in 1995–96 were the publications of the Government's procurement strategy: "Setting New Standards" (Cm 2840) and the efficiency scrutiny: "Construction Procurement in Government". These set a framework for Departments to develop forward-looking and challenging objectives.

  The report provides an overview of the progress made by departments in implementing both the strategy and scrutiny—in particular:
  progress in developing (and implementing) procurement change programmes—designed to integrate procurement into all non-pay, non-transfer expenditure;
  the development of best practice guidance for handling all aspects of large service and private finance initiative contracts;
  the establishment of interdepartmental networks where Departments collaborate to share ideas on achieving value for money;
  in the construction area: the establishment of eight interdepartmental working groups to implement the scrutiny's recommendations;
  the introduction of a benchmarking programme: and
  the establishment of an external advisory panel to the central unit on procurement to provide continuity of advice, being ideas to public procurement and ensure rapid assimilation of best private sector practice.

  The report also records that, in 1994–95, Departments achieved value-for-money improvements of some £112 million on a total spend of £3.2 billion—3.4 per cent.

  The main message of the report is that, although significant progress has been made, much remains to be done.

  Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Paymaster Agency
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for that part of the Paymaster agency which is to remain in the public sector. [2110]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The then Paymaster General announced on 15 July 1996,Official Report, columns 372–73, that the Government were accepting the recommendations of a prior options review concerning the privatisation of the Paymaster agency. He acknowledged that a small part of the agency's banking business must stay in the public sector.

  This element, which will maintain the formal title of the Office of HM Paymaster General—OPG—will be separated from the agency on 1 November, when the present head of the National Investment and Loans Office—NILO—will be appointed assistant paymaster general and become responsible for the management of the Paymaster General's accounts at the Bank of England. The OPG will remain a separate statutory body within NILO, will manage the future contract for the provision of banking services once the agency is privatised next spring, and will ensure the protection of market-sensitive data.
  256

  Drug-related Deaths
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his most recent calculation of the numbers of people who have died in each of the past five years as a result of using(a) cocaine, (b) ketamine, (c) khat, (d) amphetamines, (e) magic mushrooms, (i) solvents and (g) glue. [989]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 30 October 1996]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from John Fox to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 31 October 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked the Director of the ONS to reply to your recent question asking for the numbers of people who have died in each of the past five years as a result of using (a) cocaine, (b) ketamine, (c) khat, (d) amphetamines, (e) magic mushrooms, (f) solvents and (g) glue.
  The Director has asked me to respond in his absence.
  The numbers of deaths in 1991 and 1992 as a result of using cocaine, ketamine, khat, amphetamines, magic mushrooms*, solvents and glue are published in Table 10 of "Mortality statistics: injury and poisoning, England and Wales", Series DH4, nos 17 and 18, copies of which are available in the House of Commons Library.
  The information for 1993, 1994 and 1995 could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  VAT Refunds
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Custom and Excise implementation of a three-year limit for VAT refunds for local authorities. [789]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 29 October 1996]: The three-year cap on VAT refunds will apply to local authorities in the same way as to other VAT-registered bodies. Refunds of tax made to local authorities that are not VAT registered, on their non-business activities, will be unaffected.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Hospital Trusts
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the population served by each of the hospital trusts within the Eastern area health and social services board; and what is the capital expenditure proposed for this year and each of the next three years in each hospital trust. [64]

  Mr. Moss
  Under the Government's reforms it is the responsibility of purchasers, boards and GP fundholders, to secure services for the population. Trust can provide only services in line with contracts agreed with purchasers. The catchments of hospital trusts are dictated by the combination of contracts agreed with purchasers.

  Capital expenditure approved for each trust in the Eastern Board area for 1996–97 is as follows:

  257

  General capital £

  Major projects £

  Belfast city hospital trust

  1,376,000

  —

  Down lisburn trust

  1,005,000

  —

  Green park trust

  171,000

  —

  Mater hospital trust

  95,000

  —

  Royal group of hospitals trust

  2,064,000

  8,236,000

  Ulster north down and ards hospital trust

  912,000

  —

  My Department aims to maintain a broadly similar level of general capital expenditure in each trust over the next three years. Funding for other major projects will be dependent on the overall level of funding and the outcome of the tests for private finance now required by Government.

  Parades
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has the total cost of policing the parades which took place in Northern Ireland from 1 April to 30 September 1996. [137]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The policing of marches and demonstrations is part of normal police duties and as such separate costings for these activities are not held centrally. Where the public order situation demands, it may be necessary to incur additional costs, and it is a matter of public record that the additional costs arising from the marches and demonstrations in July and August amounted to some 13 million.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many walks to services and special occasions held by lodges under the auspices of the Loyal Orange Institution of Ireland were held on dates other than 12 July during the last three years for which figures are available. [105]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The RUC does not record statistics on walks to services or parades held by specific organisations. It does, however, keep statistics under the broad generic headings of loyalist, nationalist and other groups. The figures for loyalist parades which include marches held under the auspices of the Loyal Orange Institution of Ireland are as follows:

  1994–2057: (excluding 12 July)

  1995–2034: (excluding 12 July)

  1996–1895: (up to 30 September, excluding 12 July).

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many parades took place in Northern Ireland from 1 April to 30 September 1996. [135]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The total number of parades which took place between those dates is 2,603.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many walks or processions, under the auspices of lodges in the Loyal Orange Institution of Ireland, were held in Northern Ireland on 12 July for the last three years for which figures are available. [104]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The RUC does not record statistics on walks or processions held by specific organisation. It 258
  does, however, keep statistics under the broad generic headings of loyalist, nationalist and other groups. The figures for loyalist parades on 12 July, the overwhelming majority of which are likely to have been held under the auspices of the Loyal Orange Institution of Ireland, are as follows:

  12.07.94: 463

  12.07.95: 547

  12.07.96: 304.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list (i) the location and (ii) the organisers of each parade which took place in Northern Ireland from 1 April to 30 September 1996. [136]

  Sir John Wheeler
  It is not practical to identify the individual or group which organised each of the 2,603 parades which took place during this period. The location of each parade is recorded by RUC sub-division. The table sets out a breakdown of the number of parades in each sub-division identified by the general term loyalist, nationalist and others.

  Summary of parades 1 April 1996 to 30 September 1996

  Sub-division

  Loyalist

  Nationalist

  Other

  Total

  Musgrave Street

  44

  2

  15

  61

  Mountpottinger

  24

  2

  l

  27

  Donegall Pass

  34

  1

  3

  38

  Dunmurry

  11

  0

  4

  15

  Grosvenor Road

  0

  3

  0

  3

  Lisburn

  61

  0

  11

  72

  Woodbourne

  4

  1

  0

  5

  North Queen Street

  27

  6

  2

  35

  Antrim Road

  3

  4

  0

  7

  Antrim

  68

  6

  7

  81

  Newtownabbey

  35

  0

  3

  38

  Carrickfergus

  40

  0

  7

  47

  Tennent Street

  31

  0

  4

  35

  Bangor

  30

  0

  9

  39

  Strandtown

  21

  0

  6

  27

  Castlereagh

  9

  0

  2

  11

  Newtownards

  69

  0

  8

  77

  Downpatrick

  56

  3

  15

  74

  Newcastle

  49

  7

  8

  64

  Armagh

  166

  8

  19

  193

  Newry

  60

  17

  7

  84

  Portadown

  42

  5

  7

  54

  Lurgan

  74

  6

  7

  87

  Banbridge

  115

  1

  12

  128

  Cookstown

  64

  15

  5

  84

  Dungannon

  133

  2

  11

  146

  Enniskillen

  88

  1

  11

  100

  Lisnaskea

  102

  1

  6

  109

  Omagh

  117

  7

  6

  130

  Strand Road

  12

  5

  6

  23

  Strabane

  56

  3

  7

  66

  Waterside

  17

  0

  5

  22

  Coleraine

  109

  1

  20

  130

  Limavady

  59

  6

  5

  70

  Magherafelt

  99

  17

  7

  123

  Ballymena

  77

  3

  19

  99

  Ballymoney

  152

  2

  8

  162

  Larne

  34

  2

  1

  37

  Total

  2,192

  137

  247

  2,603

  Motor Cyclists (Licensing)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to change the system of licensing motor cyclists; if he will make
  259
  a statement on the Al licence; what are the EU requirements in this area; and if he will make a statement. [244]

  Mr. Moss
  The second EC directive on the driving licence requires member states to have two motor cycle driving licence categories and associated tests. Category A will give entitlement to drive any motor cycle with a power output up to 25kW or a power to weight ratio not exceeding 0.16kW/kg. Passing the category A test will also confer entitlement to drive larger motor cycles after two years. A sub-category (Al) will give entitlement to drive a light motor cycle up to 125cc, with a power output of 11 kW. The minimum age for driving motor cycles will remain 17.

  In implementing the directive in Northern Ireland, it is proposed that the existing category A test—which allows a person to take a motor cycle test in a vehicle up to 250cc—will continue until 1 July 1997 on which date learner motor cyclists will be restricted to vehicles of up to 125cc in line with current arrangements in GB. It is also proposed to introduce the sub-category Al test along with other provisions of the directive on 1 January 1997.

  Primary Health Care
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to develop research and development for primary health care in Northern Ireland. [107]

  Mr. Moss
  The imminent appointment of the first director of research and development for the health and personnel social services as head of a new office of R and D, and plans radically to revise funding mechanisms in line with Great Britain developments emanating from the Culyer report are designed to ensure that R and D in primary care receives equitable access to available funds for R and D.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what sums were spent on research and development for primary health care in Northern Ireland in the last year for which figures are available. [106]

  Mr. Moss
  The Department of Health and Social Services currently provides support for research and development in the health and social services in Northern Ireland via a variety of mechanisms. Departmental funds are not reserved for specific areas of research, but are available for application across all priority areas.

  During 1995–96, the Department provided £75,000 in direct support of R and D in the area of primary health care.

  In addition to this, indirect support for primary health care was further provided through the provision of research funds to the four core-funded research units at the Queen's university of Belfast. The units undertake a broad portfolio of research, comprising issues directly and indirectly associated with primary health care: for example, a primary concern for the drug utilisation research unit is the prescribing of drugs by general medical practitioners. Figures for expenditure by the units on specific research projects are not available centrally.
  260

  Casualty Animals
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representation he has received relating to problems associated with the payment by farmers for the collection and removal of casualty animals; and if he will make a statement. [462]

  Mrs. Browning
  I have received a number of representations from producers expressing concern about charges made for the collection and disposal of animals slaughtered on farm. Charges are generally higher for animals entering the over-30-month scheme than those applied to casualty animals before its introduction. The reasons for the increases are that there is now no residual value for the collectors in the hides or in the trimmings while their costs have actually increased as a result of the generally longer distances travelled to incineration sites. Against this, producers receive the full compensation rate under the OMTS rather than, as previously, a salvage value taking account of unusable parts of the carcass.

  Beef Imports
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the countries which export beef and beef products to the United Kingdom; and what measures are in place to ensure all imported products conform with current public health criteria. [211]

  Mrs. Browning
  In 1996, beef—including beef carcass meat, bovine offal and preparations of beef meat and bovine offal—originating from the following countries has been exported to the United Kingdom.

  Argentina

  Australia

  Botswana

  Brazil

  Canada

  Mauritius

  Namibia

  New Zealand

  Paraguay

  Romania

  Swaziland

  USA

  Uruguay

  Zimbabwe.

  Separate information is not available for exports of beef products into the United Kingdom. However, meat products—which may or may not have contained beef—originating from the following countries have been exported to the United Kingdom.

  Argentina

  Botswana

  Brazil

  Canada

  Croatia

  Hong Kong

  Hungary

  New Zealand

  Norway

  261

  Poland

  Singapore

  Thailand

  USA.

  Note:
  This information, as recorded in overseas trade statistics, is provisional.

  Separate information covering imports from other member states is not readily available.

  All consignments of 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 (as amended). In the case of meat products the harmonised rules are laid down in Council directive 77/99 (as amended).

  Community rules require that all imports of third country animal products enter the Community through approved border inspection posts where they are subject to official checks to verify compliance with public and animal health import conditions.
  262
  For imports from other member states, the member state of origin is responsible for ensuring that exported goods comply with Community rules. Those receiving such goods are also required to check and report any discrepancies to the competent authority in the member state of destination.

  Aquatic Environment Monitoring
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what biological and physiological parameters are monitored by his Department, in order for the Department of the Environment to assess the cumulative impacts of discharges from offshore oil and gas installations on marine wildlife and habitats. [506]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 30 October 1996]: Through the Directorate of Fisheries Research, the Department contributes to the extensive national monitoring programme which seeks, among other things, to identify any harmful effects of human activities on the marine environment. The monitoring includes chemical analysis, incorporating measurements of hydrocarbons in water and sediments, and biological effects testing. Aquatic environment monitoring reports which detail the monitoring programme and its findings are issued annually and are available in the Library of the House.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Carlisle.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Clerk of the Parliaments: Retirement of Sir Michael Wheeler-Booth, KCB; Appointment of Mr. Michael Davies
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, it is my duty to notify your Lordships that I have received the following letter from the Clerk of the Parliaments, Sir Michael Wheeler-Booth:
"Dear Leader of the House,
I write to ask you to convey to the House, after consultation with the Lord Chancellor and yourself, that I have asked the Prime Minister to submit to Her Majesty the Queen my resignation as Clerk of the Parliaments with effect from 4th January 1997, and that Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to accept it. I will have served six years in that office.
I take leave on the view that it is in the interests of the House that there should be continuity in the office during the coming months, with the certainty of a General Election and uncertainty about the House of Lords as now constituted thereafter. I am now sixty-two and will leave in the confidence that the Parliament Office is in a condition to give good service to the House and provide a satisfactory succession at the Table. By going now, it will give my successor an opportunity to establish himself fully before the Election.
I would be grateful if you would convey to the House my gratitude for the kindnesses received from all quarters. I have enjoyed my thirty-six years of service to the House, of which the last nearly six years as Clerk of the Parliaments have been especially memorable and enjoyable.
I cannot imagine a happier institution in which to work, which it has been my privilege to serve.
Yours ever,
Michael Wheeler-Booth."
It is my further duty to notify your Lordships that the Queen has been pleased to appoint Mr. Michael Davies to succeed Sir Michael Wheeler-Booth from 4th January next year.
Following that announcement it will, I am sure, be your Lordships' wish in due course to pay tribute to the services of Sir Michael in this House. I am advised that the proper manner of doing that is for the Leader of the House to table a Motion recording the House's appreciation of Sir Michael's services.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will in a few moments announce his appointments to the vacancies at the Table consequential upon Sir Michael's retirement. I should like to say for myself and on my noble and learned friend's behalf that extensive consultations have been held with representatives of all sides of the House over these important appointments. This is in accordance with undertakings given by my predecessors as Leader of the House and previous Lord Chancellors that appointments to the Table should be the subject of wide consultations. Those undertakings
432
have on this occasion been honoured to the full. I should also report to the House that the result of the consultations was unanimous.

Clerk Assistant: Mr. Paul Hayter, Reading Clerk: Mr. Michael Pownall
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I am pleased to confirm what the Leader of the House has said about the consultation process. This has resulted in the recommendations that Mr. Paul Hayter should succeed Mr. Davies as Clerk Assistant and that Mr. Michael Pownall should succeed Mr. Hayter as Reading Clerk. It is proposed that these appointments should take effect in the New Year following Sir Michael Wheeler-Booth's retirement, and I shall be inviting the House to approve the necessary Motions nearer the time.

Northern Ireland: Education Spending
3.5 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they believe this is the right time to be reducing education funding in Northern Ireland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, education spending in Northern Ireland has increased in real terms by 9 per cent. since 1991–92 to its highest ever level in 1996–97.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that information about past levels of spending on education in Northern Ireland. Can she confirm that it is stated in Northern Ireland: Expenditure Plans and Priorities, published this year, that in the coming two years expenditure will be held static in nominal terms? That means of course a cut in real terms. Is she aware that the feeling which the Chairman of the Convocation at the University of Ulster describes as deep dismay is shared at every level of education in Northern Ireland: primary, secondary and university? Does she not agree that investment in education, particularly in Northern Ireland, is good for social stability and economic progress, and that spending cuts will send the wrong signal at the wrong time? Will the Government think again?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord that investment in education is a crucial factor in social stability, and in particular, from my own point of view, in the economic growth of the Province. I think that the noble Lord looks at the question of money as opposed to the question of value for money. I believe that what we are doing for education in Northern Ireland is proved absolutely right by the fact that 41 per cent. of our young people go on to further education compared to 31 per cent. in Great Britain, and that the number of school leavers with two

433
or more A-levels rose in 10 years from 18 per cent. to 30 per cent. People in Northern Ireland are very proud of their education, and that pride shows in the results. As everyone knows, we are in a tough public expenditure round and it would not be for me to give speculative guarantees.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the Minister has correctly pointed out that more people from Northern Ireland go on to university education than in the rest of the United Kingdom. But is it not the fact that 40 per cent. of that higher proportion are obliged to leave Northern Ireland for a university education, and of that 40 per cent., 80 per cent. do not return? Have the Government any present plans for increasing the number of university places in Northern Ireland?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, that leaving Northern Ireland for a university education is necessarily a bad thing. The resultant gain in experience can only be to the benefit of Northern Ireland. The noble Lord asks whether the Government have any plans to encourage more of those who leave to return. One of the main planks of the inward investment programme is to provide more jobs for them to return to. The one thing that will ensure that they return with their families to Northern Ireland is success in the peace process.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the very high performance of school children in Northern Ireland in difficult circumstances deserves the congratulations of the House? Does she further agree that that high performance is largely due to the fact that Northern Ireland retained its grammar schools and was not subject to the so-called progressive education which caused such ravages in this country in the 1960s and 1970s?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, one of the great joys of being in your Lordships' House is that one can bow to expertise in a field way above one's own. I do so.

Great Lakes Region, Africa
3.10 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their latest assessment of the humanitarian situation in the Great Lakes region of Africa, and what action they are taking in response, bilaterally and multilaterally and including action in the UN Security Council.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, there have been 1.7 million refugees in the region since 1994. Britain has provided over £130 million to help. The current insecurity in eastern Zaire has exacerbated an already critical
434
situation. Humanitarian agencies have sufficient stocks in the region to meet immediate needs but political and security difficulties are restricting delivery. The Government are supporting United Nations and European Union efforts to resolve this crisis and we are in contact with both Zaire and Rwanda to help defuse the situation.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that unless the underlying tensions of the Great Lakes area are tackled there will never be any chance of lasting peace? Will that not involve accountability for genocide, strengthening the administration of justice, definition of citizenship, the screened return of refugees, economic regeneration and building democratic institutions? What external support is envisaged for any ceasefire that can be arranged? In the meantime, what is being done together with NGOs to ensure an integrated and disciplined international humanitarian relief operation with all necessary protections?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, let me try as briefly as I can to give a flavour of the right answers to those many questions that the noble Lord asked. He is right to say that solving the underlying tensions in the area is absolutely critical. It is only when the warring factions within Zaire, let alone within Rwanda and Burundi, have decided that they wish to cease that we can be effective. Our experience over the past two years in Rwanda has been that once the fighting stopped we could help them—indeed we have helped them—to build up their administration of justice, to put their running of government in better order, to bring accountability for the genocide and to do the many things that he suggested.
But the real problem for all who want to help is that until the Banyamulenge—that is, the Zairean Tutsisand the Hutu Zairean troops come to some accommodation, it is almost impossible, however willing we may be, to give the humanitarian help that the people so desperately need. That is why, when I saw Prime Minister Kengo of Zaire last week and Foreign Minister Gasana of Rwanda this morning, I implored them—as Joan Burton, the president of the development council did just yesterday in Dublin—to bring about a ceasefire. With that ceasefire, not only will the humanitarian aid get through but we shall also be able to try to do some of the things that the noble Lord mentioned in his question.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the crux of the problem is that the Zairean armed forces have repeatedly and systematically attacked the Banyamulenge, in league with elements within the refugee camps which the international community has failed to disarm? Would it be a good idea now to address the problem of the prevalence of weapons among the Hutus in the camps and the flow of weapons into the eastern Zaire region, which the United Nations was supposed to be having a look at some months ago?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the UN and the UNHCR in

435
particular have been seeking to take action against the flow of weapons into the region. But weapons do not simply go over the border from one of the countries in East Africa into Zaire. There are many ways in which those weapons reach the Interahamwe, who indeed have been aided and abetted on many occasions by Zairean forces who are not under the full control of Kinshasa. Zaire is a huge country. It is quite clear from my own experience and discussions that it is exceedingly difficult for Zaire at its centre, Kinshasa, to have any control over what is going on in eastern Zaire. All these matters are being worked on by the UN envoy, the EU envoy and the presidents in the region. There is at least one good piece of news: the regional ministers are meeting today in Kampala to discuss the crisis and regional heads of state will meet in Nairobi next Tuesday to see what other progress can be made together with the help from the UN and the EU.
Lord Rea: My Lords, can the noble Baroness give us a progress report on the difficult task of detaining and bringing before Judge Goldstone's tribunal those who were guilty of instigating the genocidal activities in Rwanda in 1994? Is she aware of the information that some of the leaders of the Interahamwe are being given shelter in a Commonwealth country, namely, the Cameroon Republic? That is a fact that I believe she will be able to check quite soon.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I shall certainly check on the last piece of information that the noble Lord gave. So far as concerns the progress report on bringing to book the perpetrators of the genocide, I know that progress is being made. It is not so fast as one would like because it is exceedingly difficult to gather the information. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord with some greater detail than I can give him from memory at this moment.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the lesson of the whole Great Lakes story so far has been that, by failing to take effective action in time, the expense has proved exorbitant? Is it not therefore now essential to gear up the international community to timely intervention before this conflict spreads into the worst chapter of an appalling story as conflict overtakes the region as a whole?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord knows that I have every sympathy with taking preventive action where one can do so. But it is not enough for the neighbouring countries or the donor countries to take that action. It is only when the perpetrators of genocide and the mass killings that have taken place are prepared to work for peace and stop the killing that long-term success can be achieved. My officials are in daily contact with people on the ground. While there are large groups of people who want the ceasefire and an end to the killing, so long as the leaders of the groups are not stopped from the killing, however much help we give from outside—and my goodness, we have given it—the killing will not cease.
436
Two years ago at the height of the genocide in Rwanda I coined the phrase that people seemed to be "mad with killing fever". It is a kind of killing fever that sadly goes on in Zaire probably to a far greater extent than any of us have hitherto realised. We shall go on trying but we cannot do it without the governments and the people of those countries as well deciding to stop the killings.

Nuclear Weapons
3.18 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they agree with the Opinion of the International Court of Justice that "in view of the unique characteristics of nuclear weapons, their destructive capacity and capacity to cause untold human suffering and damage for generations to come, their use in fact seems scarcely reconcilable with respect for the law applicable in armed conflict … the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law", and if so whether they will move a Motion to that effect in the United Nations.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we consider that the Opinion, taken as a whole, does not give rise to any new factors affecting the fundamentals of UK and NATO defence policies. Nuclear deterrence continues to be important in maintaining peace and stability in Europe.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the Government are failing to move with a general feeling around the world that the time has come to be active in putting an end to the nuclear weapon? I am sure she is fully aware not only of the Opinion referred to in the Question but also of the Canberra Report on which we had some discussion. Is she aware that this country seems to be in the lead of immobility in this matter? Is it not time that we gave expression to the general feeling in the House that this is an opportunity that we ought to take to get rid of the nuclear weapon?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is a nonsense to say that this country is in the lead of immobility. Let us examine what the issue is about. We have consistently argued that it is not suitable for judicial determination. As some noble Lords will know, it cannot be considered in isolation from the circumstances of any individual case. It was the court which emphasised that the Opinion should be read as a whole. There is no way that one can debate the details of that Opinion in a Starred Question. It is a long and complex document which needs to be looked at as a whole. We retain our deterrence at a minimum level consistent with our assessment of security requirements. We continue to believe that that is the way we should go and that the process of building new relationships with Russia and other central and eastern European

437
countries will be helped by maintaining the stability in Europe which comes from maintaining NATO's strategy of war prevention.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that rendering the use of nuclear weapons illegal would have no effect whatever on a power which wished to use them? Dictators do not look at the law to see how they should exploit a situation; they look at their interests. Hitler was not concerned with the legality of mustard gas. He was concerned with the fact that the allies had mustard gas as well, and it was not used.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Elton is absolutely right. When people try to say that there is an ICJ prescription outlawing the use of nuclear weapons, they are certainly wrong. A large majority-11 to three—found that in international law there is no comprehensive and universal prohibition of the threat or of the use of nuclear weapons as such. That is the basis of my response to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, in responding to what seems to be the latest phase in the campaign for nuclear disarmament, will the Government bear in mind that the United Nations Special Commission charged with destroying the nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of Iraq recently reported to the Security Council that it is being systematically and consistently deceived by the Iraqis? The International Atomic Agency, also charged with the destruction of Iraq's nuclear potential, reports that Iraq is still receiving nuclear and missile equipment from abroad and that,
"the know how and expertise acquired could provide an adequate basis for reconstituting a nuclear weapons programme".
Would not this be a strange time for the rest of the world to be dismantling its deterrent capacity?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, puts the position far better than I. As I mentioned on Monday in my contribution to the debate on the gracious Speech, there is deep concern about what is going on in Iraq. We now know that we must be aware that other countries are still not prepared to lay down weapons. The UK deterrent is not growing. Our deterrent has always been set at the minimum level necessary to secure our safety against current risks. As the noble Lord knows, we have already eliminated our maritime surface tactical nuclear capability and withdrawn our nuclear artillery advance missiles. We are moving in the right direction but it would be wrong to give up the deterrence we must have and which all members of NATO agree upon 100 per cent.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, can the Minister advise the House who or what threatens this country and is deterred by our possession of nuclear weapons?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, Iraq.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can my noble friend explain whether the Opinion referred to in the Question truly reflects a majority opinion? If it was not unanimous, to what degree was there dissent? Also, what was the substance of the dissent? In other words, is that view of the court a majority decision? If so, is it fairly reflected in the excerpt given?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the judgment is extremely complicated. On different aspects of the judgment different groups joined together. I mentioned the large majority which found that in international law there is no comprehensive and universal prohibition of the use or threat of nuclear weapons as such. I do not have the exact break-down of who divided which way on that. What is clear is what I said in my original Answer; that is, that the Opinion must be read as a whole. There is no way in which picking out the bits that appeal to one or other noble Lord or one country or another represents a proper use either of the ICJ or of proper judicial determination. Therefore, the Opinion as a whole must be judged. It is extremely varied, and it is right that this country should proceed in the manner I described in response to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I was glad to hear the noble Baroness tell the House that the Government are not immobile on the matters raised by my noble friend. In that case, can she tell the House what initiatives they now intend to take to ban the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as the noble Baroness is aware, in order to ban the production of fissile materials one must have more of the sort of activity described as UNSCOM' s activity in Iraq or that of the International Atomic Energy Authority. Unfortunately, while we and many other nations support that activity, many nations do not. We shall continue working on that. Alas, it is clear that while we make every effort to achieve the goals established by the NPT, many other countries are not working in the same direction.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I was aware of the fact that many countries are not doing so. However, there is a specific commitment in the Queen's Speech to work on the banning of the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. I was asking the Minister to elaborate on the Government's plans to move that forward. I do not believe she has done so.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I have not done so because the detail has yet to come before Ministers. When the time is right I shall be only too willing to write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, are not those two questions very curious coming from the official spokesman of a party which apparently now backs Trident?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, yes. I should perhaps have tried to embarrass the noble Baroness a little more. As far as I am concerned—this side of the House and most people agree—we have a minimum strategic nuclear deterrent in Trident. I have already said that we sought to bring down and succeeded in eliminating our maritime surface tactical nuclear capability. We are clear about what needs to be done and shall not lightly consider dismantling the stable and secure deterrence framework which we have. This Conservative Government will never do that.

Prisons Ombudsman
3.29 p.m.
Lord Taverne Lord Taverne asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider enhancing the role of the prisons ombudsman.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the role of the prisons ombudsman is to consider grievances from prisoners who have failed to obtain satisfaction from the Prison Service's internal complaints system. The prisons ombudsman is performing this role effectively and the Government do not currently consider that the role needs to be enhanced.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, given the importance which is attached in the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, on Strangeways to the appointment of the prisons ombudsman, will the noble Baroness strongly urge the Home Secretary to access in full the recent recommendations of the House of Commons Select Committee? In particular, can she assure us that the prisons ombudsman, Sir Peter Woodhead, will have full access to the papers that he needs, which he says he has not always had, and that his brief will also allow him to question the administrative decisions of Ministers? Is it not particularly important that the ombudsman should be given full scope to perform his job properly at a time when the Home Secretary is determined to fill our prisons to bursting?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first, as the noble Lord knows, the report came out on 29th October, which was yesterday, and we shall be responding to it in due course. The noble Lord will then see the Government's response to it. As for access, the prisons ombudsman has unfettered access to papers relating to eligible complaints. The ombudsman has been asked on a number of occasions to produce the evidence for his allegations. To date, no evidence has been produced to support any allegation that the Prison Service removes documents from files other than those concerning advice to Ministers or deliberately obstructs the ombudsman by delaying the production of files.
The noble Lord's second point concerns ministerial scrutiny. It was never intended that the ombudsman should review decisions by Ministers. It would be quite
440
wrong for the ombudsman, a civil servant appointed by the Home Secretary, to review decisions by Ministers for which Ministers are accountable to Parliament. The decisions of Ministers may be challenged in the courts by way of judicial review or on grounds of maladministration by recourse to the parliamentary ombudsman. Ministers are constantly appearing before Select Committees, again as a form of accountability for their work.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the prisons ombudsman and his staff perform a valuable role. Prison staff and inmates sing his praises and many Ministers have taken full advantage of his recommendations. All I ask is that the prisons ombudsman's points of view receive the full attention they deserve.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we very much value the work of the prisons ombudsman. We responded fully to the suggestion in the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, in 1990 that there should be an independent element to enhance and develop on the existing internal complaints system which he thought worked very well. We shall continue to do that. We shall also continue to consider seriously any criticism made by the ombudsman and reply to it. We have written a number of times asking for evidence of the criticisms that have been made. To date, no evidence has been produced to support the allegations. More than 90 per cent. of all recommendations made by the ombudsman in his findings have been accepted by the Prison Service. Only in a very few cases has there been any debate about his conclusions.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that in the report of the Select Committee for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration the committee came down on the side of the prisons ombudsman and not on the side of the Home Secretary? Is she further aware that in the course of the report it was said that Vice-Admiral Sir Peter Woodhead, appointed, of course, by the present Government as the ombudsman, warned of the effect of the changes that had been made on his independence and his reputation as an impartial investigator of grievances? Is that not a truly appalling situation?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as I said, the report has only just been published. We have had only a very quick read of it so far. We shall respond fully to it. We are aware that the Select Committee has taken the side of the ombudsman in some views. It is a free world. It came to its own conclusions as a Select Committee. But the concept of the ombudsman reviewing the administrative decisions of Ministers is not one which we readily recognise. Any decisions by Ministers are matters on which they are accountable—fully accountable—to Parliament. I have already said that they are accountable through judicial review in the courts, through the Parliamentary Commissioner, through the Select Committee process and, at the end of the day, as politicians, to the electorate.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are well aware that the Government are anxious to restrict the accountability of Ministers and to restrict the extent to which they take responsibility for their actions. But even on that restricted basis, is not the Minister's answer a travesty of what the ombudsmen were set up for and have been established for over the past 30 years? If they cannot question ministerial decisions, how are they keeping to their remit and to their obligations to society as a whole?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I find breathtaking what the noble Lord has just said. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has been highly accountable in a very public way. He has been subject to judicial review—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, noble Lords may scoff. All I can say is that Ministers of the Crown are accountable publicly in Parliament, as I am at this moment; they are publicly accountable in the courts of this land; they are publicly accountable to the Select Committee process; and, at the end of the day, as a personal responsibility, they are publicly accountable to the electorate. I do not find that a matter for fun. We have a highly democratic process in this country and therefore I do believe that we are accountable.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and I both come from the same stable in local government. He will know that the local government ombudsman can only look at the processes leading to the grievance of an individual. We have given power to the prisons ombudsman not only to look at the process which may find maladministration leading to a grievance but also to look at the merits of decisions taken by Prison Service staff. That is a power over and above all the other ombudsmen.

Police Bill [H.L.]
3.36 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad; to make provision about entry on and interference with property and with wireless telegraphy in the course of the prevention or detection of serious crime; to make provision for the Police Information Technology Organisation; to provide for the issue of certificates about criminal records; to make provision about the administration and organisation of the police; to repeal certain enactments about rehabilitation of offenders; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.— (Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Human Rights Bill [H.L.]
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to incorporate Section 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms agreed by the Council of Europe at Rome on 4th November 1950 and the First Protocol to that convention into the law of the United Kingdom; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Lester of Herne Hill.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

House of Lords Offices: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices be appointed and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the Committee:

V. Allenby of Megiddo,

L. Brabazon of Tara,

L. Brougham and Vaux,

L. Bruce of Donington,

V. Cranborne (L. Privy Seal),

L. Dean of Beswick,

V. Falkland,

E. Ferrers,

E. Gowrie,

L. Graham of Edmonton,

B. Hamwee,

L. Harris of Greenwich,

L. Jenkins of Hillhead,

L. Lane of Horsell,

L. McIntosh of Haringey,

L. Mackay of Clashfem (Lord Chancellor),

B. Nicol,

E. Northesk,

V. Oxfuird,

L. Peston,

L. Renfrew of Kaimsthorn,

L. Richard,

V. Slim,

Bp. Southwark,

L. Strathclyde,

L. Tordoff,

B. Turner of Camden,

V. Ullswater,

L. Weatherill.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Liaison: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to advise the House on the resources required for Select Committee work and to allocate resources between Select Committees; to review the Select Committee work of the House; to consider requests for ad hoc committees and report to the House with recommendations; to ensure effective co-ordination between the two Houses; and to consider the availability of Lords to serve on committees;
That as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the Committee:

L. Allen of Abbeydale,

L. Belstead,

V. Cranborne (L. Privy Seal),

L. Dormand of Easington,

L. Jenkins of Hillhead,

L. Kimball,

L. Richard,

L. Weatherill;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill
3.37 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment) on this Bill. With the leave of the House, I should like to take this opportunity to thank the Select Committee which considered the Bill, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, for its very evident hard work, its thorough consideration of all the issues and indeed its great wisdom in scrutinising the Bill. Some 293 petitions were lodged against the Bill and the Select Committee sat for 31 days. The special report issued by the committee on 15th October is a model of thoroughness and clarity and is of enormous assistance to the House, promoters and petitioners. I am very grateful indeed for the hard work put in by the Select Committee and in particular for the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, which has enabled the Bill to reach this stage.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment).—(Viscount Goschen.)
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I would like to echo in every respect what the noble Viscount has just said. I suspect that we are going to agree quite a lot today—we often do! Certainly, the arduous and even zealous
444
efforts that were undertaken by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, and his committee were exemplary and have had wide international as well as national implications. I too would like to join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, and his colleagues for the exemplary work that they also have done.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I would like to add my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, for the expeditious and courteous way he chaired our deliberations in the long hot days of June and July. When my noble friend the Chief Whip asked me to serve on the committee my reaction was to say yes. I asked, "Will the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, be chairing the committee?". I had been under his guidance before. The reply from my noble friend was that they had asked him, but he was playing hard to get and that I had better do some arm twisting. The noble Lord said that he had been approached, but he thought that he was a bit past it; that the grey cells were not what they were and his memory was not as sharp as it was 10 years ago when he chaired the committee which dealt with the Channel Tunnel Bill. My reply was that, 10 years on, we all suffer the same problem to a degree. However, with a little pressure, but without any sedation, he agreed. Ten years ago, when my noble friend finished his travels from Calais to Folkestone, little did he realise that he would travel across the Garden of England, across the Thames and up to St. Pancras, the new London terminus for the Channel Tunnel trains.
With the noble Lord's great experience, we were able to complete our deliberations in 31 days, plus two days out. Some times we sat quite late into the early evening. We were ably guided by the Clerk, David Batt, who was able to advise us where any problems might arise or that certain petitions had been withdrawn or agreement had been reached. That was good news to our ears. David was also a very great help to us in our deliberations on Thursdays when we reviewed and considered the evidence that we had heard that week. Together with Brendan Keith, he was of valuable assistance and I offer our thanks to them both.
If it had not been for the very high-tech gizmos which Mr. Gambrill had, we would have been sitting much longer. At the push of a button he could display on the monitors in front of us any map or plan that the petitioners referred to. That saved us rummaging on the floor in the piles of paperwork to find the relevant document. From the outset we endeavoured to get the two parties to come to a consensus. Through our chairman, we tried to guide them to reach agreement. In a vast number of cases we succeeded.
The last thing we wanted to do was to dictate to either party. On a few occasions we had to but, overall, compromises were reached, sometimes at the last minute, in the corridors of your Lordships' House. As a result we were able to produce the unanimous report which is before your Lordships.
Until the Bill receives Royal Assent the promoters cannot get on to the ground to determine the best possible line within the limits of deviation. A lot of questions remain unanswered, but we have some secure

445
agreements from the promoters and they have gone a long way to satisfy the concerns of a lot of people. Once again, I would like to thank my noble friend, the chairman.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee (on Recommitment) accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Construction and maintenance of scheduled works]:
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 17, leave out ("subsection (3)") and insert ("subsections (3) and (3A)").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4, which are grouped together. I apologise to the Committee for the state of my voice. I am very doubtful whether it will last the course. However, I join with the tributes that have been paid to the Select Committee and to the chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, for the marathon task that they undertook with this Bill. I know, from being an occasional spectator, the wise and humane way in which they dealt with what was sometimes an intimidating experience for those who came before the committee from the many areas affected by the proposals in the Bill.
These amendments raise in one way a very simple issue which the Select Committee dealt with very thoroughly and reported on. It deals with that section of the line which runs through a particularly beautiful part of East Kent in the parish of Charing, where I live. The parish council is very concerned that the embankment on which the line is going to operate may be higher than it need be. It may be quite unsightly in terms of the overall environmental impact.
There would have been no need for these amendments if it had not been that, at the very end of the day and the final hearing of the committee on 3rd October, the promoters, in their reaction to the proposals of the Select Committee, simply repeated the point of view that they had put before Kent County Council at an earlier stage. They left a very real degree of ambiguity as to whether in fact, when it came to working out the designs, they really were making a commitment to lower the elevation of the line if it were practicable.
My amendments deal with that issue. One of them, in a sense, simply repeats what I found to be the very comforting words of the chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, at the hearing. He said, on behalf of the committee and in support of the wording in the report itself, that he believed that if the lowering of the elevation proved practicable then it must be lowered; it was not an option. The purpose of these amendments is to try to ensure, as far as one can, that that is the final outcome, by writing that commitment on the face of the Bill.
There are two alternative propositions in the amendments that I have drafted. As I have said, one simply seeks to put into the Bill the position of the Select Committee itself. The second amendment tries to be more precise and to spell out an actual commitment as to what should be the maximum elevation of the embankment on which the line will run in that part of Kent. That is the purpose of the amendments. I thank the Committee for its patience in listening to such a croaking voice. I beg to move.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: The noble Lord, Lord Thompson of Monifieth, is quite correct as regards what the chairman of the Select Committee had to say on 3rd October. He also said to Lady Bain-Smith that the promoters must do that, if it is practicable. If it is not practicable, it is unreasonable of the Committee to demand that they do it, and that has to be conceded. We will have to wait for detailed drawings before the promoters can see whether it is practicable. With great respect to the noble Lord, I do not believe that we can write something into the Bill which is impractical.
Viscount Goschen: I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Thompson of Monifieth, for his affliction and for the brave way in which he moved his amendment. I believe that I can give the noble Lord comfort in terms of what will actually happen. However, it will be explained in the course of my remarks why I do not believe that it would be appropriate to accept his amendments. I thank my noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux for his clarification of the issue.
Essentially, the issue of lowering the railway in the parish of Charing is not a new one. There is no dispute about the principle that the railway should be lowered at Charing if that proves to be a practicable proposition at the detailed design stage, as my noble friend said. An undertaking to that effect was given by the department to Kent County Council in May this year. The Select Committee then confirmed that it was its wish that the railway should be lowered at Charing if practicable. In response, the promoters reaffirmed their undertaking. On the last day of the Select Committee hearing the representative of Charing Parish Council sought clarification that the undertaking would result in the railway being lowered at Charing if practicable. She received confirmation that that was what the committee wished and that that is what the promoters had undertaken to do. I would say that the position could not be more clear.
The undertaking takes the form of a binding undertaking given by Kent County Council. Essentially, nearly 600 undertakings and assurances have been given in connection with this Bill. Rather than having large numbers of potentially complex amendments adding more thick schedules to the Bill, the route of binding

447
undertakings has been followed. I suggest that it is not sensible or practicable to single out for inclusion in the Bill this one undertaking on lowering the railway at Charing. In addition, the drafting is not straightforward because there cannot be certainty about how much lowering, if any, is feasible until detailed designs have been undertaken. I hope that that gives the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, some reassurance and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I am grateful for the Minister's explanation but I think he will understand the degree of distrust—I do not think that that is too strong a word—that still exists about whether the promoters and the nominated contractors will find that lowering the line is practicable when the decision on that matter is left to this late stage and the design arrangements are still in the future. That is why it would have been a very great reassurance to have had this commitment spelled out in the text of what will finally be an Act of Parliament. However, I shall consider carefully what the noble Viscount said and I am grateful to him for spelling out his views. I shall, of course, want to consult Charing Parish Council and I may want to return—
Lord Brougham and Vaux: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, I think that I am right in saying—I believe that the chairman of the Select Committee will back me up—that if the promoters have given an assurance to the committee and do not honour it, they will be in great trouble.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I hope that that is so, but the truth of the matter is that the promoters' response to the Select Committee's interim or draft report (produced in July) did not go further than their earlier statement to Kent County Council. If I remember rightly, it referred to looking at the various options, and so on. I put it no higher than saying that there is a very real difference of emphasis between the enthusiasm of the promoters for dealing seriously with this matter, ensuring as far as is humanly possible that the lowering is practicable, and the desire of the people of that part of Kent to believe that if that lowering is practicable, "it must be done" to echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill. However, I shall consider carefully what the Minster has said—
Lord Ampthill: Perhaps—
Lord Clinton-Davis: Perhaps I may raise a point which I believe will be relevant to the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill. The noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, said a moment ago that if the promoters were to fail to honour their "undertakings" they would be in great trouble. That theme runs right through the Bill. Is the so-called "undertaking" legally enforceable? At whose instance would such proceedings be brought? Would it be at the instance of the Government or at the instance of any third party alleging that some damage has been caused as a result of the breach of the undertaking?
448
The matter is not clear. With respect, I do not think that it is elaborated upon in any great detail in the report. When the Minister rises to say a word or two about what has been said perhaps he will comment on that point which I think is most important.
Lord Ampthill: If I may, I shall leave the Minister to answer the specific point which has just been made. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, knows full well that the whole committee was on-side on this matter and that we went just as far as it was humanly possible to go in the light of the fact that we are not designing this particular railway line. It has to be left, reluctantly, to the experts. I think that it would have been ill-advised of the Select Committee to have gone any further on such a technical matter and, if I may be so bold, I think that it would be ill-advised of the House and this Committee to go any further.
Those responsible will lower this part of the line as far as they humanly can. It is an intrusion and could be as high as 10 metres above the surrounding land. It would be a very great pity if the promoters do not do what we have asked them to do. Indeed, I am quite certain that they will because I think that there is a degree of good will on the part of the promoters and the undertakers to do the job as well as it humanly can be done. I hope that the noble Lord will not feel that we let him down—I am sure that he does not. We went as far as we possibly could and I hope that the Committee will recognise that.
Lord Howie of Troon: I beg the Committee's pardon for intervening so late in the business, but I have been listening to the debate carefully. Speaking now as a civil engineer, perhaps I may say in response to the last comment that I do not believe that the Committee should leave this matter "reluctantly" to the experts. I think that we should leave it happily to the experts because they will do what needs to be done.
Lord Ampthill: I am very much in favour of what the noble Lord has just said, but I felt that for the sake of the pride of the House it might be better to put it that way round.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I wonder whether the noble Viscount can help us on one matter which follows the point made by his noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. What exactly happens if a binding undertaking is not honoured by the promoters? The question has been asked by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I am bound to say that I do not know the answer—no doubt I should—but it would be helpful if the Minister could assist us.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: Before the Minister utters his final words on this matter I should like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, that I accept, of course, that the Select Committee went as far as it possibly could. We appreciate and recognise that fact. However, given the background, I am not sure that the Bill goes as far as it possibly could. That is the point I have been pressing.
Viscount Goschen: We have probably covered the ground in and out, in and out and even back again during our brief discussion on this amendment. The principles of binding, legal, contractual undertakings are fully understood in law—and these are contractual undertakings. If there are breaches of those contractual undertakings, the remedy will depend on what the breach is and who was responsible. Legal remedies are always available and the Secretary of State would no doubt avail himself of such remedies if he saw fit. The whole principle on which a Bill such as this is taken forward is on the basis of binding, legal, contractual arrangements such as these. I do not think that there is much more to be said. Nearly 600 such undertakings have been properly registered and they are legal, binding, contractual undertakings. They bind the parties to what they have undertaken to do.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: On the basis of what the Minister has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
4 p.m.
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause I, insert the following new clause—
RAIL FREIGHT TERMINAL
(". The nominated undertaker shall make available a site of not less than 12 hectares for use as a rail freight terminal on land held or to he acquired by it for the purposes of this Act at Temple Mills in Stratford.").
The noble Lord said: Before I introduce the amendment, I should like to declare an interest. I was concerned with Eurotunnel (my last day) and the piggyback consortium. I shall deal with the need for a rail freight terminal in east London"today. I have no desire to delay the Bill. I add my congratulations to those of other noble Lords as to the way that the Select Committee has undertaken its business.
I believe that it is the policy of the Government to encourage freight on rail. They have recently announced a most welcome increase in the environmental benefit calculation for freight facilities grants from 5p to 20p per mile. One is very pleased about that. The Channel Tunnel was seen as having great potential for long distance rail freight by BR. Old BR carried out many regional consultations and set up terminals around the country. Some were built and some were not. One was built in Stratford. It has never been used but has been mothballed. One or two have been committed but not built. Since then rail freight traffic has built up. Forty per cent. of unitised freight going to Italy now travels by rail.
UK rail freight was in decline but that was probably because it was not given investment, rates were hiked and reliability was poor. What has changed? Rail freight distribution is being privatised. English Welsh and Scottish Railway has brought in US and New Zealand experience and committed itself to a good deal of investment in growth potential. We also welcome the
450
introduction by the Government of a more flexible cross-Channel rail freight security regime. We are sure that it will help a great deal. There is general political encouragement given to rail freight. Because the motorways are clogged that is hardly surprising. In particular, English Welsh and Scottish Railway has restarted wagonload business by rail, even from the north of Scotland up to Wick. Fridges are made in the north of Scotland, which may seem strange, but it is a very successful business and much of it comes down by rail. There is also a widening of inter-modal services: containers, swap-bodies and, perhaps eventually, piggyback within the UK. There is an expectation that other operators will come in, Freightliner, RFD and perhaps others. Rail freight needs terminals. They do not have to be elaborate or expensive, but they have to compete with road. Those terminals need road access, obviously rail access and an acceptable planning environment. They can be private or open to all. However, if there are no terminals there will be no rail freight.
If one looks at the facilities available for public use in the Stratford and east London area, there was an RED terminal, as I have just mentioned. There is still a London international freight terminal for small operators. But they have all been given notice to quit and no real alternative location has been offered. They have been given notice to quit by Union Rail quite rightly because of the Channel Tunnel rail link development. They cannot develop their business anywhere unless they have security somewhere. EWS Railway believes that there is a business to be had in east London for rail freight. It is primarily a business within the UK. That is inter-modal and wagonload business. There may also be some small local cross-Channel business. It is very close to a fruit and vegetable wholesale warehouse in east London. They and others have looked round—as I have—for other suitable terminals that will fulfil those criteria. Willesden has been suggested, but that is not really in east London. Cricklewood certainly is not. Thurrock is a long way away but a good place, and Barking and Ripple Lane have been rejected by the Select Committee, quite rightly, as unsuitable.
One must accept that the square box in Stratford is required for development and is not suitable for rail freight, because one must encourage as much development there as possible. Where else does one go apart from Temple Mills which is a long, flat, wide strip of land just north of Stratford? I believe that the Select Committee located a rail freight refuelling depot there. There is a requirement to maintain Eurostars there and probably to provide stabling of domestic Channel Tunnel rail link trains. I have had discussions with London and Continental on the question whether there is a possibility of locating a small rail freight terminal in that area. I have received several different answers, but the latest one is that there is no space for it.
About 15 years ago I worked on the Channel Tunnel. If I had then been asked the question I would have given the same answer. Let us look at the Channel Tunnel

451
terminals. The French one is three times as big as the English terminal, but the English one was built. I believe that at this stage engineers can find solutions to any problem at minimal cost if they really want to. I accept that the design needs to be developed. I have suggested various different ways in which it can be done. I also asked whether it would be possible to allocate the whole of the Temple Mills area only for rail-related purposes. The answer that I received was no. That leads me to suspect that if it is not used for rail it will be used for property development. I believe that to be strategically unsound. I am sure that Stratford is to be allocated property development, and quite rightly too. Temple Mills is not the centre of a protected universe. It fulfils a useful need, but I believe that rail fright in east London is a strategic issue. I do not want to do anything that will hamper construction of the rail link or the construction site, but there are good strategic reasons for having a small rail freight terminal in east London.
Therefore, I seek some comfort from the Minister that he will ask London and Continental to develop the overall design for the site as quickly as possible and enter into negotiations with EWS and any other operator who wishes to go there—I would be happy to participate in it—say within the next three months, with the objective of seeking a solution acceptable to everyone to allow a little bit of rail freight in east London. I beg to move.
Viscount Goschen: If the Committee will permit it, I shall go straight to the direct consequences of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, although no doubt noble Lords have been very interested to hear his more general remarks about rail freight distribution in this country. It may assist if I explain the current position regarding Temple Mills Yard.
The site is part of the Stratford railway lands, ownership of which was transferred from BR to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State earlier this year because the land will be required for the CTRL project and related development. Most of the site is currently occupied by English Welsh & Scottish Railway (EWS) and the former BR southern track renewal unit now owned by Balfour Beatty. These occupations are under an agreement for lease with the Secretary of State in the case of EWS and a lease in the case of the STRU. Both of these provide for the current occupants to be relocated elsewhere in the London area at LCR's cost if Temple Mills is required by LCR for an alternative use. The intention is that EWS would be relocated to a site that it has identified at Cricklewood.
Under the development agreement between LCR and the Secretary of State, LCR has a number of options for the site. During the CTRL construction period it may well wish to use it as a major construction site for the London tunnels which will be bored from Stratford. In the longer term, part has to be reserved for stabling sidings for domestic passenger trains on the CTRL. LCR may wish to use the rest for an international passenger train maintenance depot as an additional facility to the existing North Pole depot at Old Oak Common in west London. It could retain the existing uses, either alone or together with EWS's Stratford traction maintenance
452
depot, which might need to be relocated from its present site, or it could use it for commercial or other development. The noble Lord's proposed amendment would mean that at least 12 hectares of the site would have to be made available for use as a rail freight terminal.
I do not believe that the amendment should be adopted for the following reasons. First, it could leave LCR in an impossible position. It may well be that there will simply not be enough space at Temple Mills for 12 hectares of land for freight if an international depot has to be provided there as well as the domestic sidings and the Leyton relief road. Secondly, it would not be right to constrain LCR's options in this way. LCR needs the maximum flexibility over the use of the Stratford railway lands in order to maximise the benefits from the project. It is only by safeguarding that flexibility that the regeneration opportunities which this project offers and of which the new international station will be a significant part can be maximised. As recognised by the noble Lord, the area has exciting regeneration opportunities and those now available enjoy wide support, both locally and nationally.
Thirdly, while there could be a loss of freight facilities on the Stratford Railway Lands, under the proposed arrangements there will be no overall loss of freight facilities in the London area because of the relocation provisions in the proposed and existing leases to EWS and the STRU respectively.
Fourthly, rejecting the proposed amendment would not necessarily rule out the development of a rail freight terminal at Temple Mills even if LCR does not wish to retain the current freight use. It would be for the promoters of such a terminal to approach LCR.
I hope that with that detailed explanation of the situation regarding this area of land the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Berkeley: I thank the Minister for those remarks which I shall study carefully. Before I withdraw the amendment I should like to point out that I was aware, of course, of the offer to relocate in Cricklewood, but Cricklewood is not in east London. It is quite a long way away. I hope that the Minister's words indicate that encouragement to LCR should be given to negotiate quite quickly on a rail freight terminal located somewhere there with continuity of operation. That is the critical thing. On that basis, I shall see how we get on, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Acquisition within limits shown on deposited plans]:
Lord Cornwallis Lord Cornwallis moved Amendment No.6:
Page 2, line 16, at beginning insert ("Subject to paragraph 12A of Schedule 4 to this Act,").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 7, 22 and 25. Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 22 are of course paving amendments. The guts of the amendment are in Amendment No. 25.
At the risk of stating the obvious, I should first point out that we are dealing with the construction of a railway. As such, it differs from the construction of a road or other works because the width of the permanent way is narrow and the contractor must use adjoining land for access, materials, equipment and other associated purposes. Partly for that reason, but also because of the precise route, the associated engineering works and other elements of the project have not been designed in detail. The land authorised to be acquired under the Bill is substantial.
The Bill as drafted, particularly Clause 4, will enable the promoters to enter upon and compulsorily acquire any or all of the land shown on the deposited plans as being within the limits of deviation of the proposed works.
The promoters have acknowledged on a number of occasions that they do not need to acquire permanently all, or anywhere near all, of that land, because a great deal of it will be required only temporarily during the construction period.
The amendments recognise that the current owners have the better long-term claim to the ownership of that land which is used only temporarily. The promoters have accepted in principle that they should not take permanently land which they need only temporarily, but the Bill fails, except to a very limited extent, to give effect to that principle.
The boundaries of the land which is required permanently for the engineering and associated works for the operation of the railway along much of its length are not known now and may not be known at the time that possession of the land is taken. Counsel for the promoters said that that would be the case when addressing the Select Committee on day 15 (page 43).
Since permanent acquisition would deprive the owner of his legitimate long-term interest, it would be better to provide that the land required by the promoters is available to them for all purposes at the outset, but to settle the boundaries of that land which is required permanently at the time that the permanent boundary becomes evident.
The purpose of the amendments is to enable the owner of the land, if he or she so desires, to counter the notice to treat for the permanent acquisition and to convert it to an irrevocable licence to occupy the land for the construction of the railway. If the landowner does serve notice in accordance with the amendment, that in no way affects the right of the promoters to occupy all of the land which they say they require for the purposes of constructing the line. The service of notice and counter-notice will create an irrevocable right to take possession of and use the land without any delay or further administrative problems. In fact those carrying out the work on the ground would have no need to be aware of the status under which they have the use of the land.
At the time the boundary of the land needed permanently for the railway and its associated engineering works becomes apparent, the promoters have the power to transfer the ownership of that land
454
to them, and, on production of the necessary documentation, the land will be conveyed to them—a procedure through which they would have to go in any case.
There are obvious advantages in the promoters being able to deal with the acquisition of the land on the basis of certain knowledge of what is required rather than guesstimates.
The occupation of the remaining land is temporary only, but it is available to the promoters until the work on the railway is finished and for a period of 12 months thereafter. The conditions for the occupation, restoration and return of the land are already included in Schedule 5 to the Bill as they may apply to certain specified areas. The same regime will apply to any other areas that may, on the service of a notice in accordance with the amendments by the owner, be used on a temporary basis.
There is a right within the amendment for both parties, if in dispute, to go to arbitration using the provisions which are already in the Bill. The effect of the whole amendment, as I stated earlier, is to establish an irrevocable right for the promoters to occupy any land that they require during the period of construction. There seems little reason therefore for the need to go to arbitration. Likewise, it seems extremely unlikely when the boundary lines of the completed project have been clearly drawn and fenced that there will be any difficulties with the owner of any land.
I know that the amendments appear complicated. When I first saw them I was somewhat aghast at having to propose them, but by introducing one piece of paper they bring certainty to the acquisition of the land. The Bill already requires a notice to be served specifying the land to be acquired and the normal processes then require that land to be conveyed.
I seek to interpose one piece of paper between those two stages to say, "Hang on". The promoters do not know what they need to own. So these amendments will give them the use of the land for the construction period. They will then be able to take permanently that land which they need permanently when the boundaries have been established. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: The noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, has explained clearly why the amendment is so necessary. I therefore find it extremely difficult to understand why it is being resisted, bearing in mind that the Select Committee of this place supported such a position in its interim report of 25th July. That report was acknowledged by the promoters in their commentary published on 30th September which stated:
"The necessary machinery will be put in place so that those farmers whose land will definitely only be required on a temporary basis for the construction of the CTRL, and who would like to farm the land in question once the CTRL construction works have been completed will be given an opportunity to retain the freehold interest in the land with the necessary temporary occupation construction activities being carried out either under a tenancy, or under licence coupled where necessary with an option to purchase to protect the right to occupy against successors in title".
That sounds fine but, sadly, the promoters have not honoured that promise. Indeed, following that assurance in the first 10 lines there follows 11 lines of

455
gobbledegook, which allows the promoters to opt out of their assurances made in the first 10 lines. If my noble friend can persuade the Committee that I am wrong in my interpretation, so be it. But if he can, that gives all the more reason for accepting the amendment.
Therefore, I hope that the Committee will listen very carefully to how my noble friend answers my queries on the last 11 lines of the promoters' commentary, which backtrack on the first 10 lines. First, is it not a fact that the promoters have committed themselves only to discuss the use of the land taken temporarily? Secondly, is it right that in that discussion, if one can call it that, they can use the threat of compulsory purchase to aid their case? Thirdly, is it right that the use of the Crichel Down rules, if one can call them rules, carry little weight in this case? They are not binding; they are only a protocol. They carry no certainty, in particular as regards timing and price. And they have no relevance whatever to land required only temporarily, which is what we are talking about.
Fourthly, the promoters have stated that farmers whose land is definitely required only temporarily will be given the opportunity to retain the freehold. But the promoters have frequently stated that it is impossible for them to know definitely what land they want. Will my noble friend please tell me definitely what "definitely" means in this definite case? Fifthly, does my noble friend accept that the promoters have promised only to negotiate with the farmers to return the land, but that they, the promoters, will retain the power to retain the freehold if they decide they do not like the terms? Sixthly, will my noble friend tell the Committee what the promoters mean by "other interest or adverse rights in the land" and why that allows them to opt out of the principle of returning the land to the original owner? Seventhly, and finally, is not the Secretary of State acting as judge and jury in that he can determine whether a suitable tenancy, licence or option to purchase has been offered?
I have mentioned a few of the problems which could arise if the amendment is not included in the Bill. My noble friend might say that I should have a little more trust and faith in the promoters honouring the first 10 lines of their comment and forgetting the last 11. In any event, if they blatantly ignore the opinion of your Lordships' Select Committee—a point raised by the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Harris—I suppose that we could ask for a judicial review. I shudder at the thought of it!
While I am on the subject, perhaps your Lordships listened to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, yesterday, when he made a somewhat similar remark. He said:
"I hope that … the landowners will be dealt with fairly".— [Official Report, 30/10/96; col. 336.]
At the moment, neither I nor the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, believe that that is the case. Furthermore, I must remind my noble friend that the promoters have known about this amendment since 18th July and have raised no particular objection. Therefore, I cannot see that they can raise any particular substantial objection now.
456
Your Lordships have a duty to ensure that legislation is as clear and litigation-free as possible, and certainly as just and as fair as possible. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will be able to accept the amendment so as to save your Lordships having to return to it on Report and at Third Reading.
Lord Ampthill: The noble Lords, Lord Cornwallis and Lord Stanley of Alderley, have been good enough to recognise that the Select Committee was once again on side as regards their wishes. We as a Select Committee went as far as we believed it was possible to go to meet their well founded wishes. I do not believe that it is possible to go further. While I accept that "gobbledegook" may be the appropriate word to apply to the last 11 lines of the commentary, I fear that it applies also to the amendment which is now proposed.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Perhaps I may speak at this stage in order to express my view in the context of two powerful speeches which certainly raise a case to be answered. Clearly, whether or not the amendment is in a suitable form is by the way. Neither noble Lord has the same facilities as the Government in preparing amendments. However, we are dealing with a principle rather than the detail. If the principle is accepted, the detail can be clarified later.
We are talking about the land to be taken or used in rural areas. We are talking about equity. We are talking about whether any doubt might be raised as to the bona fides—perhaps that is putting it too high and I shall substitute the word acceptability—in practical terms of the promoters' undertaking that they do not wish to acquire compulsorily more land than is needed.
The noble Lord, Lord Ampthill said that in his view it is not possible to find a solution beyond that which his committee concluded. That gives rise in vivid terms to the point that I made earlier because here we have an acceptance in principle. It does not amount to an undertaking. The great difficulty about that is that the undertaking which noble Lords require is one which is capable of being binding and enforceable. That acceptance in principle is vague. The purpose of an undertaking being precise is to enable it to be enforced. I am by no means certain that it is right to hold out the possibility of judicial review or any other legal redress where one has an imprecision of this character.
Perhaps the noble Viscount can persuade the Committee that the noble Lords, Lord Cornwallis and Lord Stanley of Alderley, and myself are wrong and that adequate redress is available to anyone who has been aggrieved. The documents before us and the amendment are complicated. The noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, said that it was not quite so complicated but, despite his assurances, I find it extremely complicated. However, I am concerned about the question of enforceability.
Leaving that issue aside—and no doubt the Minister will return to it—we have the problem of equity, as I began by saying. The integration of the CTRL into the landscape will be a matter of very important consequence. Indeed, it was dealt with at considerable length in the environmental statement. That statement assesses the reference design and states that,

457
"the railway, with its permanent way, associated engineering works and permanent landscaping, will occupy about 350 hectares of agricultural land. A further 163 hectares are expected to be used during construction works and a further 345 hectares lie within the limits of land to be acquired or used but are not expected to be needed".
All that has been set out and I merely highlight what is set out in the documentation.
The environmental statement also makes it abundantly clear that the unused land will remain in agriculture. Much of the land which is disturbed or used will be returned to agriculture. If that is the case, why is it not right that the existing businesses, with their buildings and labour, should do that because it makes best sense? Surely it does. Of course, it can only be right for the existing owners and occupiers to have the right to resume their interest in the land when the promoters no longer have any need to use that land. The amendment is clear on that point. The promoters can take what they need and use it and the freehold of the land required for the permanent works can be taken at the outset or when the boundary is clear and they can occupy the remainder for as long as is needed. It must be right for the interests to be balanced in that way.
It is an important principle. As I said, I do not know whether legally the draftsman of the amendment has got it right. I am guilty of tabling many amendments which have been inadequately drafted. The Minister is quick to support that point of view. But during the course of the Railways Bill I did not introduce nearly as many amendments as the Government, because they got the drafting of the Bill wrong in the first place. There were 500 amendments. Therefore the Minister cannot be too cocksure about what the Government are doing.
Now we should concentrate not so much on the detail but on the principle, the principle to which my noble friend Lord Peston referred to briefly yesterday in the debate on the gracious Speech. As I said, I believe that there is a very strong case to answer.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: In principle I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Cornwallis and Lord Clinton-Davis, and my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley. But we really must get it clear in the Bill that if land must be taken for construction works but is not needed when the works have been concluded, it should return to the owner and occupier.
The nearest that we get in the Bill to actually achieve that is in Clause 6, which is the shortest clause in the Bill. That refers merely to the fifth schedule. I invite attention to that schedule which deals in its heading with:
"Temporary repossession and use of land … Occupation and use for construction of works".
Having studied that schedule, which goes a long way in the direction which noble Lords so rightly require, I feel that that is the one at which we should be looking and the one which needs to be slightly amplified in order to cover the situation which has been described.
458
However, an amendment has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, to the fourth schedule. It seems to me that the fourth schedule deals with the acquisition of land permanently required. I twice read carefully Amendment No. 25 which purports to amend the fourth schedule in an elaborate way, as has been said, but I fail to find in it the kind of protection needed by owners and occupiers when having the land restored to them after the work has taken place; that is, land which is needed only temporarily.
Therefore, I hope that my noble friend Lord Goschen will have this very important matter considered between now and Report and that he will table an amendment to achieve that purpose. I say with all humility that I was not on the Select Committee which considered the Bill, but coming to it afresh that is the position as I see it. We need to extend and make clear the effect of Clause 6 and the fifth schedule.
Lord Ampthill: Has the noble Lord read the Select Committee's report?
Lord Renton: No, I have to confess that I have not. But when we come to the Committee (on Recommitment), we should look at the Bill and, as best I can, that is what I have done. I have listened carefully to the speeches which have been made so far on this matter.
Lord Northbourne: Perhaps I may ask the Minister for clarification at this stage as to what is actually meant by Clause 4(1)(b). Clause 4(1)(a) says that the Secretary of State may acquire compulsorily,
"so much of the land shown on the deposited plans within the limits of deviation for the scheduled works as may be required for or in connection with the works authorised by this Part of the Act".
Paragraph (b) refers to,
"so much of the land so shown within the limits of the land to be acquired or used as may be so required".
Like many Members of the Committee, I have been invited to the annual launch of the Plain English Campaign which is to take place shortly. I wonder whether the noble Viscount will allow me to use that as an entry.
Viscount Caldecote: I have no particular expertise in this matter but it seems to me that there is an important point of principle. It is a long established principle that compulsory purchase orders should be made only when they are absolutely essential in the national interest. As I understand it, the promoters have indicated that this amendment or something like it, if it is not in exactly the right form, would not interfere with the construction work on the project. Therefore, a CPO to take over all the land which is only temporarily required is clearly not needed.
Secondly, experience shows that when CPOs have been made and subsequently the land acquired is no longer required for the purpose for which the CPO was made, difficulties arise when the arrangements are made for transferring the land back to the original owner. Those difficulties include long and expensive legal

459
proceedings. Therefore, I hope that the Minister is prepared to reconsider what has been said in favour of this amendment which I support.
Viscount Goschen: It may be helpful if I comment at this stage. A number of Members of the Committee have asked me to reconsider matters but they have not yet heard what is my consideration in the first place. To a very great degree indeed I can reassure the Committee about the anxieties which have been expressed legitimately about compulsory purchase orders and the whole principle behind land acquisition contained within the Bill.
I do not believe that there is anything for Members of the Committee to be concerned about. This has been gone through in minute detail. I agree with the noble Lord on the Cross Benches who remarked on the complexity of legal drafting language. That probably applies to almost every Bill that I have ever read. They are written in precise terms using the most precise legal language available.
The fundamental point which I wish to stress in the course of my remarks is the absolute requirement for certainty. This group of amendments would alter fundamentally the basis of land entry arrangements in the Bill. It would deny the developer—London and Continental Railways—outright ownership of the land that it needs to build the railway and instead substitute a patchwork of licences which may at some later date be crystallised into freeholdings. It is that very question of not knowing at any one time exactly which land will be required temporarily and which land will be required permanently which causes the difficulty.
I fully share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, that the land which the developer will require only temporarily should not be purchased outright. The Bill already provides for temporary possession. However, no matter how well intentioned it may be, the amendment strikes at the very heart of the project. It would not be possible to raise the finance necessary to construct the railway without the Bill delivering to the developer the certainty of ownership of land.
The Bill already provides extensive safeguards for landowners. Land can only be acquired for authorised purposes—essentially the construction of the rail link. Under compulsory purchase arrangements vested in the Secretary of State, compensation will be paid to reflect the full, unblighted market value of the land.
I turn now to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. The Secretary of State would not set out to acquire more land than was absolutely needed. That would only cause disposal problems and unwarranted upheaval, with no essential advantage.
The promoter of the rail link must have some flexibility about precisely how much land will be required and over what period. Design details are bound to change on a project of this scale. I suggest that it will be wholly inappropriate for the promoter to be constrained from providing the most efficient and, indeed, environmentally acceptable design. Where land is found not to be permanently required post hoc it must
460
generally be offered back to the original owner in the first instance under the standard Crichel Down Rules. I believe that those rules are well understood. They have been around for some considerable time and they are the general principles which are used in such circumstances.
We are discussing a project of some considerable scale. Of course, it is a specific hybrid Bill with regard to its enactment. Nonetheless, it is similar to many other projects in that it is not possible at any one stage to ascertain what land will be permanently required and what land will be required temporarily. However, the provisions laid down in the Bill and the undertaking that has been given—that is, the legal binding undertaking—take the promoters as far as is practicable. I do not believe that a practicable alternative to what has been put forward by the promoters in terms of their undertaking is available or has been suggested.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I trust that my noble friend the Minister will allow me to intervene. I feel that I must do so because his remarks have confused me. Under our amendment the promoter can take whatever land he likes and do whatever he likes with it. Moreover, if, ultimately, he wants to acquire the land permanently and can show that he wants it permanently then, yes, he can purchase it. That is why I do not understand what my noble friend is saying. He said that we would be constraining the promoter, but we would not be constraining him one little bit.
Viscount Goschen: No, that is not true. The effect of my noble friend's amendment would be to do exactly the opposite of what he suggests. Indeed, it would provide a very bureaucratic, long-winded and uncertain process. As I said before, there must be certainty. There is an overwhelming desire in this country for the project to be built and there has been overwhelming support for the Bill. Taking away that certainty would strike at the very heart of the Bill in terms of allowing the promoters to raise money to build this link.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I must apologise, once again, for interrupting my noble friend. As I understand it, I am right; but, as he understands it, he is right. If the amendment is incorrectly drafted as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, we will of course redraft it. However, I must point out that it does not say what my noble friend outlined. I suggest that he re-reads the amendment.
Viscount Goschen: My noble friend may be interested to know that I have read the amendment and that I believe that the officials who advise me and who have been living and working with the Bill from the outset have read and understood it. Considerable pains were taken to ensure that the undertaking which was given to the Select Committee went as far as possible. That was examined in some detail by members of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House and they did not suggest in the report that they were not content with that undertaking.

461
I return now to my fundamental overriding concern; namely, that the development cannot rely on a process of agreement with landowners. I stress the word "rely" in absolute terms. This national flagship project cannot and must not be hamstrung by requiring proof, plot by plot and yard by yard, that the Secretary of State is using his powers of acquisition properly. That is essentially what my noble friend Lord Stanley is suggesting.
My noble friend has some concerns that the undertaking that was given by the promoters was contradictory in the first half as against the second half. While I much enjoyed my noble friend's remarks, I really do not believe that that is true. I draw the attention of Members of the Committee to paragraph 9 on page 25 of the special report. That paragraph sets out the general principle that the "nominated undertaker" will try to negotiate a lease or licence of land which turns out to be required temporarily rather than asking the Secretary of State to use his compulsory purchase powers.
However, the second part of paragraph 9 sets out the qualification to that general principle. There may be "other interests" in the land—for example, someone may have a sub-lease of the land or a lease of just part of it and the person holding that interest may refuse to co-operate with the nominated undertaker and the farmer. In such cases, the compulsory purchase order powers have to be available as a last resort. I must stress the fact that compulsory purchase powers are not taken lightly. They are the last resort here. The undertaking very clearly stresses the need to come forward and to negotiate with the landowner. However, in the ultimate eventuality, it is necessary to have the CPO powers in reserve.
I understand the strong feelings that have been expressed on the issue but I must stress, again, the need for the promoters to have certainty when taking forward the project. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked why exactly what would happen on every occasion could not be written into the Bill. It could not be for the very reason that I gave; namely, that it is simply not possible to rely absolutely on those agreements. That is why the undertaking in paragraph 9 of the special report takes that form.
I hark back to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, who chaired the Select Committee which considered the matter in such detail. I paraphrase the noble Lord's words and, should he disagree with me, I am sure that he will say so. Essentially the committee felt that the promoters had gone as far as they could have gone. I hope that Members of the Committee understand that sentiment.
Lord Renton: I share the doubts expressed by my noble friend the Minister regarding Amendment No. 25. However, bearing in mind that Schedule 5 deals with possession and use of land and occupation and use for construction of works, can my noble friend say to what extent he and those advising him consider that that fifth schedule goes towards fulfilling the principle which the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, stated? If it does not do so, will my noble friend consider between now and the
462
Report stage the application of that schedule because it seems to be a possible solution to what is obviously still a problem which causes much anxiety?
Viscount Goschen: I certainly accept that the matter causes anxiety to Members of the Committee. It also causes anxiety to various organisations which represent farmers and landowners. They have participated in long and detailed discussions and correspondence with my honourable friends in another place who are responsible for the policy behind this Bill. I believe that they fully understand the situation and the need for certainty. This matter has, of course, been fully discussed in another place. However, more importantly, it was discussed here in the fullest detail by the Select Committee of this Chamber. The Select Committee felt unable to recommend that this matter should be taken any further. I do not believe that there is the inconsistency to which my noble friend referred. Of course I shall study what he said extremely carefully and reconsider the matter as regards the specific point he made. However, my understanding is that the problem to which he refers does not arise.
Of course I understand that farmers would like more and more power and certainty as regards their side of the case. Of course I understand the natural desire for that. However, what we are talking about is the possibility of this major national flagship project being severely hindered and delayed. Ultimately this sort of amendment would remove certainty and would strike at the heart of the Bill.
Lord Clinton-Davis: With respect, what the Minister is saying is that we are right. In my view what is sought by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is the right approach to take in this matter. I accept that the amendment could be wrong; there is that possibility. I am sure that we shall not divide the Committee on this matter today. It is not a matter on which we should divide on Report. However, we should be looking for reconciliation. The principle enunciated by Members of the Committee proposing the amendment is a clear one. In my view it is wholly in accord with paragraph 43 of the report. In that paragraph the committee stated in effect that it understood the case, that it was a good case, and that the promoters accepted the principle. However, that does nothing to enable people who have suffered some wrong—or some potential wrong, because it is not easy to identify what will happen—to seek redress. They should have redress. That is all that people are saying.
No one wishes to hold up the Bill. No one has suggested that. The Minister keeps asserting that that will be the effect of the measure, but he does not explain why that should be so. We should not prolong this discussion tonight to any extent. However, with respect, I believe the Minister should say, "Yes, I have listened to the discussion. I shall try to meet the points as best I can. At Report stage I shall indicate whether we can reconcile these ideas, having genuinely tried to do so." I do not believe the ideas are irreconcilable. That is all I am asking the Minister to do. I am not asking him to give an undertaking that he will return with amendments. What we are asking is that he should do

463
what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, indicated to the Committee; namely, to ponder the matter and to try to avoid a problem which could arise—wholly unnecessarily, in my view—at Report stage.
Viscount Goschen: I wish to emphasise again that this is not a new issue. It has been considered over and over again by the relevant parties in correspondence, in meetings, on the Floor of the House in another place and in the Select Committee in another place, on the Floor of this Chamber and in the Select Committee here, and in ongoing correspondence and meetings. I do not believe that between now and Report stage the fundamental points will change. What we are talking about is the balance of certainty here. It is not possible to please all of the people all of the time in terms of the certainty that every individual would like to have with regard to his or her land. We do not take these powers lightly. We think that the correct balance has been achieved. I read carefully the Select Committee's report. It examined this issue in the minutest possible detail and heard evidence from a number of petitioners. At this late stage in the Bill I do not think that we can move any closer on the issue.
Lord Renton: If my noble friend will allow me to say so, the Select Committee's report will not be part of the law; we have to look to the Bill.
Viscount Goschen: What comes out of the Select Committee's report are the undertakings which were given to satisfy the Select Committee. The Select Committee has indicated that it is satisfied with the undertakings that have been given. Those undertakings will be legally contractually binding.
Lord Clinton-Davis: With respect, what the Select Committee said is that the promoters have accepted a principle. The Select Committee has not said that the promoters have entered into any binding undertakings. That is the point.
Lord Ampthill: There are undertakings.
Lord Clinton-Davis: It is a complicated issue. The noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, says from a perfectly respectable sedentary position that there are undertakings. I believe that these undertakings are not sufficiently precise to be enforceable. However, I may be wrong. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, or the Minister can clarify the position. I believe the Minister may well try to do that in a moment or two, hence my standing continuously at this Dispatch Box to enable him to do so.
Lord Ampthill: Perhaps I may be allowed to fill the gap while the pigeon travels in the direction it is intended to go. I believe it has been established that the Select Committee was anxious to help in this situation. As has been said by the Minister, we went as far as we were able to go. I fully accept what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said. Of course the most desirable solution is to have the measure written into the Bill. There are 600 or
464
so undertakings. The Bill runs to some 262 pages already. At the earliest possible stage of our hearings we were beseeched by counsel for the promoters not to enlarge that list more than we absolutely had to. However, there were certain matters which we felt we must address, and this was one of them. As the noble Lord has not had the benefit of reading this excellent report—which I commend to him—I shall quote from it. I wish to read six lines which the noble Lord is unaware of. The report states,
"With particular reference to the petition of D G Holt and Partners, we require that those farmers whose land is temporarily required for construction of the CTRL and who would like to farm land acquired for such purposes after the completion of works he allowed to retain the freehold of that land during construction and to transfer permanently only that land either necessary for the operation of the completed CTRL or use of which cannot be reasonably ascertained until the completion of the CTRL".
In other words, ownership remains with the farmer. Only the bit of land that is really absolutely necessarily required for the running of the railway line is what has to be handed over at the end and not the beginning of the period concerned.
Lord Renton: That is a splendid undertaking. We would all be grateful to the noble Lord if he would tell us where that is written into the Bill.
Lord Ampthill: I have already said that it is not written into the Bill but it is one of the 600 or so undertakings. If the noble Lord is interested, it is undertaking No. 0224 on the register of undertakings.
Lord Renton: But we are concerned with only one undertaking here, not with 600.
Lord Swinfen: What effect in law will those undertakings have because it is the Bill that would become law and not the undertaking to the Select Committee?
Viscount Goschen: This is an area where we can clarify the situation. With the greatest respect it would seem that a couple of Members of the Committee who have spoken are not familiar with the procedures that have been used on this sort of occasion. It has been understood that it is not possible, nor practicable, to put every single minor or major detailed technical undertaking into legislation. Therefore the procedure is that the undertakers give assurances which are registered in a registry of undertakings. Those are contractually binding. If the promoters do not comply with them, they can be enforced by the Secretary of State through the development agreement in the usual way. However, there is an additional safeguard. Compulsory purchase powers are vested in the Secretary of State. In exercising those powers, he will wish to be satisfied that the LCR has done everything reasonable to negotiate licences where they are feasible.
Essentially, the argument comes down to this. A number of Members of the Committee want to put the emphasis on the ability of the landowner to go through this matter plot by plot to determine whether the Secretary of State's compulsory purchase powers are

465
viable. To require the Secretary of State to prove on such a basis that land within the limits set out in the Bill is needed in the context of a Bill which has been the subject of extensive parliamentary scrutiny and which sets out in detail the extent of the land likely to be required, would be a serious procedure.
The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, did not agree with my assertion of the consequence: that until this issue was determined the Secretary of State would have powers only as a licensee to enter such land and carry out preliminary works. This would seem to be a recipe for uncertainty, confusion and potential conflict. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, wanted absolute certainty. The whole point of the discussion over the past 50 minutes or so is that it is not possible to achieve that certainty. That is why we have taken a very strong undertaking, an assurance, that,
"where land is required only temporarily during the construction of the CTRL, the nominated undertaker will be willing to discuss the use of that land by agreement".
5 p.m.
Lord Renton: The word "willing" has practically no effect in law. The measure does not say that he will be required to do so.
Viscount Goschen: I do not believe that there is any other way for me to put it. I have explained over and again that it is simply not possible to "require". If you require, you are doing what has been put forward in the amendment. You remove totally the certainty that is available for the promoters of the project to take the CTRL forward. You remove their ability to raise finance to build this link because of the huge uncertainty that would therefore be introduced. It is for that reason, and not from any great desire for the Secretary of State for Transport to acquire land, that it has been realised after great consideration that this is the best way forward.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The Minister seems to be arguing at cross purposes with himself. On the one hand he says that you cannot have precision but you can have undertakings which are enforceable. However, to be enforceable an undertaking must be precise. There is no other way around it. Therefore there is a complete contradiction in what the Minister says.
Viscount Goschen: The noble Lord, I hope not deliberately, spreads confusion and misunderstands my words. I am not disputing the difference between an undertaking and legislation. We have been through that over and again. What I am saying is that it is not possible to state within the undertaking that that agreement must be reached. If that precision is put in, it will produce tremendous uncertainty in terms of delays and the ability for the project to be built.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I do not seek to create any more confusion than is absolutely necessary. The Minister referred to the undertaker as willing to do certain things. The noble Lord, Lord Renton—a distinguished leading counsel, he is a former Minister of
466
the Crown who dealt with legal matters persistently—shares my apprehension. The essence of an undertaking has to be specific; otherwise there is no value in the undertaking. That is the point that I made when I first rose this afternoon.
I urge the Minister to do this. We could go on battling over the issue to no real conclusion; no one wishes to continue indefinitely. With the greatest respect in the world, the Minister said that he is unlikely to be able to find a solution. So be it. Let him try. Let him spend the next seven days, or perhaps on Third Reading, seeking to find some way of reconciliation. We trust the Minister because he is an able and genuine guy. I am sure that the Minister will recognise the strength of feeling in the Chamber on all sides. I should have thought that he would do no harm to his position if he were to say at this stage, "I am not optimistic about the situation but I will do my best and we shall see how far we can go". I repeat that I do not believe that these are irreconcilable positions.
Viscount Mountgarret: I have listened with the greatest interest to what has been said on all sides of the Chamber. Something must be wrong somewhere when every speaker seems to have agreed with everyone else, including Members of the Committee on the opposite Benches, and only the Minister is out on his own. It is a customary habit, unfortunately, that once the Government have the bit between their teeth over the way that they wish to see the legislation drafted they will not be budged by amendments put down (if I may say so with the greatest respect to the movers) by mere Back-Benchers.
Speaking for myself and my noble friends, I am sure that we wish to help the Government in every way possible on many matters. To that extent it would surely be desirable for the Government to realise the strength of feeling not only on Benches opposite but also on these Benches about the desirability of establishing the basic principle that the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, seeks in the amendment.
If the Minister is unable to accept a point of principle that requires to be studied and considered openly and dispassionately, the movers of the amendment might find it necessary to force the Government to do so by dividing on the issue, writing the amendment—whether correctly or incorrectly drafted I know not—into the Bill and letting the Minister put his own amendments down. I believe that it is time for the Minister to take on board what is said and not to be quite so dogmatic.
Viscount Goschen: I take those strictures seriously. When one is criticised from one's own side of the House one must take it extremely seriously. I have no desire whatsoever to attempt to ride roughshod over the Chamber. However, I wish to make one point. This hybrid Bill—it is now into its second parliamentary Session of consideration—is a very complex piece of legislation. It has been the subject of detailed

467
parliamentary consideration through the hybrid Bill procedure, using the Select Committee route. For that reason, it is rather different from a public Bill, or from a private Peer's Bill. The work that has gone on through the Select Committee in the intervening months must be taken into account. I do not think that an hour's discussion on the Floor of the House is sufficient to consider in detail the representations and petitions that were made to the Select Committee. A study of the committee's proceedings and report and the undertakings that were given to it is essential to a full understanding of what is suggested in this Bill.
Having said that, I shall of course give careful consideration to what has been said. Between now and Report stage I shall read in detail the words that have been put forward by a number of noble Lords from all sides of the House. I recognise the expertise in land and planning matters that is represented within your Lordships' House. Having said that, I reiterate that this matter has been considered at great length over a long period between the protagonists, but we are some way apart. It is the contention of the Government and the promoters that accepting an amendment of this nature, which would allow the Secretary of State's powers to be examined plot by plot, piece by piece, would create such enormous uncertainty about the construction of what is a flagship project for this country that it would have very serious consequences indeed for the project. I am sure that that is not what the Chamber wants. I hope that between now and Report stage we can have further discussions. I should certainly be more than willing to meet any noble Lord to discuss the specific issues to see whether my ability to explain them could be enhanced.
Lord Renton: Perhaps I may venture to correct one misapprehension in the mind of my noble friend Lord Goschen by reminding him that public Bills, private Bills and hybrid Bills all have the same effect in law, however much detailed consideration has been given to them.
Lord Cornwallis: I am feeling exhausted and I should think the Minister probably is, too. I listened carefully to what he said. I believe there is a fatal misunderstanding about what the amendment sets out to achieve. We hear that its effect will be to delay the Bill and create bureaucracy. I believe it would do exactly the opposite. The Minister looks forward to the future, while those who move this amendment do so in the light of experience. Experience of the past in these matters does not necessarily lead one to feel trustful.
We have had an exhaustive discussion. I am most grateful to Members of the Committee who have supported the amendment and spoken at such length on it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Acquisition outside limits shown on deposited plans]:
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
5.15 p.m.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Fees for planning applications]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 6, line 32, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
(".—(1) The appropriate Ministers may by regulations make provision about fees for relevant planning applications.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) above may, in particular—

(a) make provision for the payment to the authority to which a relevant planning application is made of a fee of a prescribed amount,

(b) make provision for the remission or refunding of a prescribed fee (in whole or part) in prescribed circumstances,

(c) make provision for a prescribed fee to be treated as paid in prescribed circumstances,

(d) make provision about the time 16r payment of a prescribed fee,

(e) make provision about the consequences of non-payment of a prescribed fee, including provision for the termination of the application concerned or any appeal against its refusal, and

(f) make provision for the resolution of disputes.

(2A) Regulations under subsection (1) above may—

(a) make such supplementary, incidental or consequential provision as the appropriate Ministers think fit, and

(b) make different provision for different cases.").

The noble Viscount said: I trust that this amendment will cause a little less heat than the preceding ones. With the leave of the Committee, I should like to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 9 and 32. This group of amendments is designed to increase the flexibility of the fee regulations contemplated by Clause 11 and to allow the Secretaries of State to make regulations to extend the time that the local planning authority has to determine a request for approval if necessary in the unlikely event that the cheque settling the fee has been dishonoured. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 6, line 42, leave out ("conferred by") and insert ("to make regulations under").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 [Heritage]:
On Question, Whether Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: Those Members who have taken an interest in the heritage aspects of this Bill may recall that I spoke at Second Reading to express my concerns about the inadequate provisions which had been made to safeguard the future of St. Pancras Chambers, the remarkable listed gasholders and the unique steam locomotive waterpoint on the railway lands behind the station. At that time I declared an interest, being a Commissioner of English Heritage. I do so again this afternoon.

469
I was subsequently delighted to hear that the promoters, London and Continental Railways Ltd. (LCR), had addressed the concerns that I spoke of. A competition is to be held to select a developer for the Chambers and agreement has been reached between LCR and English Heritage on a plan to dismantle the listed gasholders and waterpoint for re-use elsewhere in the area. I am sure that noble Lords will share my pleasure at this news and wish to congratulate LCR on its helpful and responsible attitude to these important heritage issues.
My purpose in speaking today is to draw attention to a final but significant issue which has emerged in recent months and which would have very serious implications for the magnificent train shed at St. Pancras, a Grade I listed building, which is rightly regarded as a Victorian masterpiece of world significance.
Under the provisions of the Bill, conventional conservation legislation will be disapplied and, along with it, the normal safeguards for listed buildings. In its place are two key documents. One is the Planning and Heritage Minimum Requirements; the other is the Heritage Agreement for Camden, otherwise known as the draft Heritage Deed.
The minimum requirements is a useful but very general statement of broad intent which, like a planning brief, provides a loose framework of general constraints on change in the absence of any detailed scheme. It is helpful, as far as it goes, as a statement of broad aspirations.
The procedure for the consideration of the detailed proposals for St. Pancras is set out in the Heritage Agreement for Camden. It is this which I contend is seriously flawed and which raises a fundamental question of principle, not entirely unlike the last raft of agreement which attracted so much discussion.
In other recent railway Bills where normal listed building consent procedures have been disapplied, either full details of the impact of the scheme have been available for Parliament to consider or an adequate alternative mechanism has been in place, allowing for full agreement to be reached later with interested parties, such as English Heritage. That is not the case here. What is being proposed is wholly unprecedented, which is why it is a matter of such grave concern.
I read the sections of the Select Committee proceedings which applied. Here I should like to echo earlier remarks. Having been on such a committee myself, I am full of admiration for the work it has done and for its thoroughness. Perhaps I may quote two sentences from the Select Committee's report. The first is:
"throughout our consideration of the Bill we have been impressed with the promoters' handling of environmental matters and we have no reason to believe that they will act as Philistines when they come to St Pancras".
I take no issue with that; all the evidence is that the promoters are not Philistines. However, it has to be said that that is an opinion. It is based on things that the promoters have said and it does not guarantee anything for St. Pancras.
470
The second sentence that I quote is:
"The Committee has no doubt that the draft Heritage Deed meets the Interests of the petitioners".
English Heritage was a petitioner and I do not believe that statement to be valid.
Finally, I might be forgiven for feeling that in the Select Committee report there is a hint that heritage issues did not take a very prominent part in the thinking. I discovered only three or four paragraphs. But maybe that is unfair and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, who could easily correct me, is in the Chamber.
Lord Ampthill: If I may immediately do so, I do so.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I reiterate that I do not agree that the interests of the petitioners have been met. So we agree to disagree.
Under paragraph 4(1) of the Heritage Agreement, before commencing any works for the alteration or extension of any listed building, or for the demolition or partial demolition of any listed building, the nominated undertaker (LCR) shall seek to reach agreement with the local authority and English Heritage on the nature of the proposed works, the construction methods and the materials to be used. The paragraph also provides for LCR to seek to reach agreement in the same way over any mitigation measures to be taken and, except in the case of the demolition of the building, the preservation of particular features of the building and any restoration or reconstruction works where reasonably practicable. That is wholly uncontentious.
However, having put in place a reasonable system of checks and balances, the paragraph is qualified by paragraph 4(5), which states that the nominated undertaker shall not be required to seek to reach agreement with the local authority nor with English Heritage under paragraph 4(1), but shall only consult them on the alignment, position and overall dimensions of any works, other than essentially shops, and on the nature of the proposed works and construction methods and materials used where the works comprise a trackbed, tunnel, earthworks or anything in the nature of plant, machinery or equipment.
That creates a very large loophole, exempting virtually all the work from any form of effective control. LCR interprets the exemption in the broadest possible sense and has indicated that it covers not just permanent way or railway engineering works, which would be understandable, but ticketing and booking office facilities, platform screens, signs, seats, gantries, plant, signals etc.—indeed, everything other than shops. In short, it would give LCR carte blanche to do largely whatever it chooses within the splendid train shed.
Any noble Lord who is familiar with St. Pancras will understand from that list of things over which there are no controls, that that Grade I listed building could be radically altered in character. While I remain confident that LCR will do all that it can to adopt a responsible and sensitive approach in reconciling operational needs with heritage concerns, it simply cannot be right for the future of the train shed to be left simply to the good will

471
of LCR as the developer. As I said, it is quite without precedent and, if this issue is not addressed, it will leave St. Pancras, a Grade I building of outstanding importance—and here is the madness—far less protected than any other listed railway building in the country, including many which are far less distinguished. This is a matter of legitimate public concern. St. Pancras, once described as the "undisputed Queen Empress of railway stations", is simply too important to be allowed to be treated in that way.
LCR has already demonstrated its sensitivity to heritage concerns. In the Second Reading debate my noble friend Lord Goschen gave an assurance that the Government had no intention of riding roughshod over legitimate heritage interests. I ask him to assure the House that he will look again at this matter and try to find a solution to protect this most legitimate of heritage interests.
Lord Howie of Troon: The noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, said everything which needs to be said on this matter. I shall not repeat it. I merely wish to support him in general terms and nit-pick just a little. Like the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who spoke earlier, I am concerned with the Bill as it is written rather than with the excellent report which our fellow Members of the House produced.
Let me say right away that I desire this Bill to go through and this railway to be built. I believe that it should have been built long ago. As the House will know, I happen to think that it is on the wrong route. But now I no longer care—any route will do so far as I am concerned; let us get it built. That, however, is not the point.
The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, spoke about precise legal language. In terms of a Bill, precise legal language is probably what we want rather than imprecise legal language, which lawyers may like. The clause under discussion refers to Schedule 7, which turns up on page 165 of the Bill. I notice that on page 168 the schedule is extremely precise. It tells us that in the Borough of Gravesham the parish boundary stone at Brewers Road is to be demolished. One can hardly be more precise than that. But I start to worry about the precision of the Bill. At the very beginning of the schedule, on page 165, column (2) lists "Buildings authorised to be demolished". In the London Borough of Camden the first one is "St Pancras Station and Chambers". It does not quite mean that, I know, because in column (3) it notes the limits of the authorised demolition. At this point I worry. The noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, said that there had been discussions, undertakings and no doubt agreements about what should or should not be done. But in column (3) on page 165 of Schedule 7 the Bill states that:
"Demolition of structures at ground and upper levels"—
and so on; and it goes on to say:
"and alterations and partial demolition elsewhere".
I want to ask: where is "elsewhere"? "Elsewhere" must be somewhere, presumably within the London Borough of Camden. But I should like to know just where "elsewhere" is so far as this Bill refers to it.
472
I know perfectly well that "elsewhere" in this respect could be identified on a drawing somewhere, in a schedule or in some written agreement which is signed and sealed, and so on. Is "elsewhere" so defined? Do we know where "elsewhere" is? Do we know where the demolitionists are forbidden to go? That is my point. I think that I am right in saying that the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, suggested that it was all rather vague. It certainly is rather vague to me. I should like to hear from the Minister. I do not want him to define "elsewhere". That would be going rather far and not even his department could rise to that. But can he tell me, if not right away then before the Bill reaches its Third Reading, just what are the limits of demolition in St. Pancras station? At the same time, perhaps he can tell me the limits of demolition of the Great Northern Hotel—I should rather like it to be demolished totally, but I shall leave that point aside—and the gymnasium and various other places to which the word "elsewhere" applies.
I just want to know, so that the hand of the demolitionist might be stayed a little and he will demolish only that which is necessary to be demolished, especially in St. Pancras station.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Crathorne: My noble friend drew attention to the risks being taken at St. Pancras itself. I should like to focus on the dangerous precedent that is involved. As my noble friend said, the Bill differs from previous railway Bills in disapplying established controls in the absence of any actual plans for the works at St. Pancras. Without plans we cannot judge the precise impact on historic buildings. Such a situation was not envisaged when safeguards for historic buildings affected by proposals in works private Bills were last discussed in your Lordships' House.
In March 1991, during the Third Reading of the London Underground Bill, the then Minister—my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara—assured the House that the Government were,
"concerned to safeguard English Heritage's position as expert advisers on conservation issues. That means in practice establishing a mechanism for English Heritage to contribute to the consideration of works private Bills by parliamentary committees so that they are in a position to make informed decisions about the listed building aspects of the proposed development".—[Official Report, 21/3/96; col. 785.]
In a letter to the chairman of London Underground the Secretary of State for Transport wrote that,
"even for schemes which are exceptional, the Parliamentary Committee considering the Bill will need to be as informed about the issues on which they have to make judgements as Ministers are when they decide on listed building consent applications relating to general planning proposals".
All that was before the private finance initiative and I accept that it is not now possible for schemes requiring parliamentary approval to be accompanied by the level of detail expected in 1991. But surely we now need to update the 1991 understanding, to allow Parliament to approve major projects, before detailed plans are produced while, at the same time, providing adequate

473
safeguards against avoidable and unnecessary damage to historic buildings which can only be judged when the designs are produced.
An entirely acceptable way forward was set out in the 1992 Transport and Works Act provisions for "schemes of national significance" which are subject to parliamentary approval. Those provisions allow for parliamentary approval of the principle of the scheme at an early stage and then for English Heritage to comment on detailed plans when they are covered in the public inquiry. Those provisions also give to the Government the power to make decisions on matters. So, for example, where proposals by English Heritage could be accepted without affecting the viability of the project, the Government can insist on the implementation of those proposals.
The model given by the Transport and Works Act has not been followed. Instead, as my noble friend said, we have two agreements; that is, the heritage agreement and the planning and heritage minimum requirements agreement. The latter, as part of a contract between the department and LCR, can only be enforced by civil action for breach of contract in the High Court. The department, by excluding so many vital areas of work from the need to seek to reach agreement and thus from appeal and determination by the Government, denies English Heritage its right to consider the impact of the works in a meaningful way and also denies the Government their power to protect buildings from unacceptable damage.
Never before have the Government given up their firm powers to make binding determinations on proposals for works affecting the character of historic buildings, relying instead on the uncertainties of High Court litigation. That sets a dangerous precedent for future parliamentary Bills. In 1988 the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure was concerned that works Bills should not be seen as,
"a soft option for those anxious to avoid the rigour—and the delays—of the planning system".
The Transport and Works Act closed that loophole with the introduction of sound procedures. The current proposal reopens that loophole, providing just such a soft option again. That will open up an easy path for promoters of schemes and for departments to gain approval for, and to carry out, projects which affect listed buildings without adequate controls. It is a precedent that should not be set. I therefore urge the Government to think again and look forward to what my noble friend on the Front Bench has to say on the matter.
Lord Kennet: I have little to add to what has been said by previous speakers, but that little I want to put with as much clarity as I can. The proposal in the Bill to exempt a large number of listed buildings from the protection accorded by statute law is, it has been asserted, unprecedented and I believe that is right. The proposal to compensate for that loss of protection by means of the "deed"—a document annexed by the committee in its report—is clearly not only insufficient, but also strangely inappropriate.
474
If it is correct in this case to suspend statute law and envisage the conclusion of contracts between the Government and those parties who may otherwise have been in breach of statute law in relation to the same matter, can one think of any reason for denying the same privilege for parties hitherto bound by statute law in any other case the government of the day may choose to think appropriate? We are not talking simply of the suspension of part of planning law; we are talking about suspensions of statute law in general for named parties for a certain purpose for a certain period of time. It seems to me that the justification for that must be an overpoweringly strong one. The mind turns to national interest, national emergency, and that sort of thing.
It is certainly desirable that the development should go ahead as rapidly as possible with as little bureaucracy as possible. At this point it may be right to make a distinction between the subject of the last amendment and the subject of this amendment. The last amendment was about the bureaucracy surrounding a compulsory purchase. Compulsory purchase is allowed by law if the law says so specifically; if not, it is not, in each case. This debate concerns the procedure to be followed in the suspension of statute law altogether, as it exists regularly for all citizens whenever they turn their minds to listed buildings.
The proposal to suspend listed building law is probably more deserving of parliamentary scrutiny and doubt even than the compulsory purchase proposal. Let us imagine that the developer—the railway company—goes through all the motions required by the deed. First, he consults not one, but two government departments. He has to consult the Department of the Environment, which is something one would expect in the case of a listed building; he will also have to consult the Department of Transport.
That is very nice, isn't it? They are guaranteed deadlock at governmental level to begin with, and that will take time to sort out between the departments. We can all imagine the course the discussions would take and what delay may be imposed. Let us suppose, at the end of the day, the Department of the Environment wins and is in a position to say to the developer, "No, you cannot do that"—whatever it is. The developer then signs a contract with the Department of the Environment or perhaps two contracts, another with the Department of Transport, in which he undertakes not to do something. Let us suppose that there is then a change of heart. I do not question the bona fides of the railway company at present, but let us suppose it falls into financial difficulty, comes under different management, takes a different direction, or is bought out; and then breaks the contract. The Government then have to examine a whole unprecedented area of law.
What does one do with a developer who breaks a contract into which he has entered about an aspect of planning law? Let us assume that the Government conclude that it is not only possible but advisable to bring suit against the developer in the High Court. I do not know what would happen next. Will any of the Law Lords be able to help us on this point? Would the Government have to prove that the breach of contract had cost them money? What form would the suit take?

475
What sanctions could the court impose upon the contract-breaking developer? Would it be able to say, "You have broken the contract: that is very wrong and now you must pay a £1 million fine to the Government and then you can go ahead with the demolition"? Or would it say, "No, because you have broken the contract, you are bound to unbreak it and refrain from demolishing"? Is that conceivable? I imagine that the Government would have to take new proceedings in the civil courts to obtain an injunction against the developer to prevent him doing what he intends to do—that is quite separate from the intrinsic damage of which they are complaining in the breach of contract. That would take just as long as complying with the law in the first place.
What I urge the noble Viscount the Minister to do at this stage is to consider this aspect of the matter. The precedent is grave indeed. Any developer at any time would be able to say, "Look at the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill. They evaded listed building law". The Minister is shaking his head. But one cannot prohibit anyone from using a precedent in pleading with the Government. That is within the law. Having considered that, they should then face up to the question, "Is it really certain that this procedure will save time?" Whether or not it will save time, I strongly urge the Government to think again about the procedure as such.
If they are uncertain that it will save time, perhaps the government departments concerned could turn their minds quickly—it would not take long—to some abbreviated form of obtaining listed building consent. It is reasonable to suppose that in doing this they would have the eager collaboration of the authorities involved; the local planning authorities, the listed building branch of the Department of the Environment and the Secretaries of State concerned. An accelerated procedure is not an evil of the same magnitude as the suspension of statute law. I do not expect the Government to say now that they will do that but I ask them to think about this and at the next stage to cast a friendly eye over any substantial amendment which may be put down by noble Lords.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Broadbridge: I wish to support this amendment with all the power and passion that my limited oratorical powers will allow. It is close to my heart and mind, first, as a national heritage issue, and, secondly, as a local issue in that I live about 1,000 yards from the site we are discussing, part of which lies in Islington. I am President of the Islington Society, one of whose objectives is the preservation of buildings and environments of historic and/or architectural merit. Thirdly, we all might be additionally interested in that the site is part of Somers Town, named after an antecedent of a Member of our House, Lord Somers.
As we have heard, an area is proposed in Clause 12 for de-listing followed by destruction. It is difficult to know where to begin in cataloguing the merits of what is there at present. I shall begin by repeating by way of encapsulation that the site is the last 19th century working class district left in London, with cobbled streets and untouched by development. It is the most
476
used film location in London and I need hardly remind your Lordships that British period films are shown worldwide and bring in a great deal of foreign exchange. The site was also used last year in about 80 television programmes, and the site appears in at least two or three fashion magazines each week, with similar benefits.
More specifically, the site, with St. Pancras and King's Cross, contains probably the finest collection of 19th century railway buildings in the world, including the Milk Dock, from which fresh milk was distributed all over London daily, and the old railway police station. There is Stanley Buildings, built in around 1848 to a design inspired by Prince Albert for ideal workers' homes. There is Culross Buildings, a completely innovative 1880s design for flats to give residential working class accommodation. There is the last German Gymnasium, as has already been mentioned, one of a large and international Victorian chain of great social importance, and incidentally said, in the environmental statement that accompanied the development lands agreement memorandum that went with London and Continental Railways contract, to be an empty building, whereas I understand that it had 13,000 visitors last year!
Finally, in this list I call your Lordships' attention to the gasholders, a group of five, plus two more. We are most of us familiar with the gasholders of our towns and cities, most of which have now gone. In the main they were aesthetically crude constructions, corroded in their slime green or battleship grey paint. But the St. Pancras gasholders are miracles of intricate Victorian ironwork, first built in the mid-1830s and enlarged in the 1860s. Freshly painted, they are marvellous combinations of the magnificent and the sublime, a rare combination. They uplift the spirit and are a marvellous foil to the spires and pinnacles of the neighbouring Midland Hotel which fronts St. Pancras station. And they have been, and are now still, in full use. Technically, decommissioning a gasholder is a highly risky business, and the ground for a considerable depth around and beneath them is highly toxic.
So, we have here a unique and much used micro environment proposed, maybe, for wholesale delisting and destruction, although, as an earlier speaker mentioned, it is referred to in the schedule simply as an area. The National Heritage Committee, in its third report ordered by the Commons to be printed on 3rd March 1994 and called Our Heritage: Preserving it and Prospering from it said, in paragraph 18, that our transport and military heritage were neglected areas of our national heritage, and recommended that the administrative structure of the Department of National Heritage should reflect this. In the question and answer section the Government's reply, in as much as I have read it several times, seems to have been a woolly fudge. In 1993, 69 per cent. of overseas visitors gave our heritage as their main reason for visiting London. The percentage for American visitors was higher. Closely connected with this is the statistic that 80 per cent. of British films are made in London, our period films are widely admired and distributed and some 20,000 technicians are employed in the field. As I have already mentioned, there are television and magazines to be

477
taken into account. It is therefore arguable—in fact it is indeed argued—that in the, as it were, profit and loss account, the value of this site is greatly understated.
I fear I have a suspicious mind and, upon looking into page 8 of the London and Continental Railways contract development lands agreement, note that after paying off certain costs, the anticipated greatly enhanced value of the site after the listing restrictions are lifted are to be shared by the Treasury and the developers, LCR. As Gilbert and Sullivan put it, "Here's a pretty kettle of fish". A rather nasty one, I think.
In conclusion, we have here an undervalued and unique microcosm of our social and transport heritage faced with possible destruction. It was there first. The Channel Tunnel rail link is a newcomer and an upstart. I believe upstarts should be made to fit in rather than be allowed to destroy unique and valuable things. I urge the Committee to support the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, in opposing the Question that Clause 12 stand part of the Bill.
Lord Ampthill: Perhaps I may intervene at this stage. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, that I am deeply upset that he should think that the Select Committee was not very concerned about environmental matters and St. Pancras station in particular. If I recollect his Second Reading speech correctly, he was then most concerned about gasholders, the water point and the chambers. All three of those matters have been satisfactorily resolved. The gasholders are to be pulled down and put together again; that is the three which are of the greatest concern because of the nature of the ironwork. They are to be reassembled and put to some use. I am doubtful as to what that use will turn out to be. The main thing is that he has got his way on that.
I hope the noble Lord feels satisfied—he did not mention it—about the arrangements which have been made for a competition as regards the chambers. There is a dearth of certain ideas as to what one can do with them. The Select Committee came to the conclusion that it could think of nothing better than an hotel, but we are hopeful that someone might come up with an even better use than that. However, they have to be put to active use. That is certainly the view of the Select Committee; otherwise the interiors will deteriorate beyond their present condition. The outside of the building has been very well restored by British Rail, but the inside, as I believe we say in our report, is a mess.
We now turn to the other matters concerning St. Pancras. It is the noble Lord's belief that we were not so interested as to give it all the time that it deserves. We gave it the whole day on 15th July. If the Committee will forgive me, perhaps I may read out a few excerpts from the evidence that was given, starting with Mr. Philip Davies, responsible for planning for London with English Heritage. He was a most excellent witness, as one would expect.
Very soon after he started his evidence, he said:
"I think if I can make one point very clear, Chairman, that is English Heritage is an enthusiastic supporter of CTRL and we welcome the contribution it will make to London as a world city. We have made strenuous efforts to resolve our understandable
478
concern by negotiation. Our sole concern relates to the future of the Chambers and the need for an adequate safety net for the buildings should LCR's current proposals not run according to plan. I hope in giving evidence I will be as brief as possible concentrating on that issue".
For the remainder of his evidence he spoke only about the chambers. We were therefore left with the belief that he felt that the negotiations which had been under way for many, many months with London Continental were bearing fruit. We were aware—although we were not shown it—that the Heritage Deed was in preparation.
I now turn to another paragraph, again taken from Mr. Davies' evidence. Counsel for English Heritage said:
"That we appreciate but Union Rail has been around for a long time and so have you"—
meaning the promoters—
"and you have been talking to each other and you have been talking in an agreeable way and have managed to resolve all the other problems".
That was counsel for English Heritage speaking to its witness, Mr. Davies, who agreed by saying, "Indeed". English Heritage did not seem that day to be concerned about anything except the chambers.
That evidence was followed by another witness, Dr. Filmer-Sankey, from the Victorian Society. Points were taken up which we would have expected English Heritage to make because it was deeply concerned about the station and the train shed in particular. Dr. Filmer-Sankey gave evidence for the whole of the afternoon. He was an admirable witness, as one would expect, and he is deeply concerned about what may transpire.
Perhaps I may once again read two or three paragraphs from his evidence. I refer to Question 247 on page 923 of the transcript. The witness was asked:
"There is no issue between us, as I understand it, that the regime described by the Planning Acts for listed building applications generally should be disapplied in this particular case provided an adequate replacement that is workable and effective can be devised?"
Dr. Filmer-Sankey replied, "Yes". He was further asked:
"It is further right that English Heritage did not petition against the inadequacy of the heritage agreement which was being offered, you have seen the petition and you know that, do you not?"
The witness replied,
"Yes, I have seen the petition".
Counsel then asked:
"So the plain fact of the matter is that you will have taken up the cudgels for the parties who are going to be parties to the agreement and who are apparently satisfied with it?".
Mr. Davies replied,
"As I have said earlier, we have discussed this particularly following the submission of the latest draft of the Heritage Agreement at 7.30 on Friday night, and we discussed this with English Heritage briefly at lunch, and with Camden, and we understand they would support the concerns we have expressed and the remedies we have suggested,".
I would now like to turn to the Heritage Agreement. This is a document which has been negotiated not only through our sittings but for many months before. I believe it is a document which, according to the understanding of the Select Committee, is all right as

479
far as English Heritage is concerned, with the exception of Section 4(5), where there is a bit of doubt as to the "consultation" that is being offered, which is a weaker word than "to seek agreement", which appears in the rest of the document. I believe that is all that English Heritage is presently worried about.
We felt that the promoters had gone as far as it was reasonable to go after those many months. The disappointment that the noble Lord expressed relates, I believe, to only those three or four words. About that he may wish to speak further to the Committee.
6 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I have listened with great interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, has just said. This has been a very interesting and important debate. Leaving aside the definition of "elsewhere", living in Camden as I do, I hope that there is no intention to encroach on my home. I doubt that very much.
We are dealing here with two connected and very important issues. First, there is the protection of the historic parts of St. Pancras station, which is a Grade I listed building and a very beautiful one. The second point is that of conservation policy more generally as regards historic buildings which might be affected by projects which are organised under the PFI or, in the future I hope, under the public-private partnership schemes of the Labour Party.
The Government's attitude towards St. Pancras will, I am sure, establish a strong precedent—that is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish—for relaxing statutory controls in a pretty drastic way. So these are issues of profound importance. The first question that arises is how far are the Government trying to relax conservation and other planning controls in order to assist the PFI.
The noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, said that English Heritage seemed to be satisfied with everything except Section 4(5) of the agreement. Representations have been made at least to me by English Heritage that that would raise a serious allegation. The Minister can put it in whatever perspective he thinks appropriate. The allegation is that the promoters can undertake any operational railway works at their discretion within the train shed without having to seek agreement with English Heritage or the London Borough of Camden.
That would involve all aspects of the scheme. I understand that that is what English Heritage is saying. In other words, a blanket exemption for any works affecting the train shed other than shops is being contemplated. Is that a fair and reasonable interpretation of the position? If it is, how is such a blanket exemption justified? Is there any precedent for such extensive powers for major works to Grade I listed buildings without any actual plans for the works having been disclosed? As and when London and Continental produce those plans, how is it possible to supervise, control and regulate their implementation? After all, the Bill disapplies statutory controls on demolition or alteration to any part of the station.
480
Apparently, the Government say—we shall hear from the Minister in a moment—"Don't worry about it. We can use a number of simplified streamlined actions, including design guidelines in the planning and heritage minimum requirement". Additionally, I believe that they will say that an agreement with English Heritage and the London Borough of Camden requires the promoters to reach agreement with them on certain aspects of the plans and that, failing agreement, there would be a right of appeal to the Government for a quick and binding decision. I stand to be corrected on that, but I understand from English Heritage that that is the substance of the Government's case. There is, however, an exemption clause in paragraph 4(5). The promoter would be under no duty to reach agreement and English Heritage and the London Borough of Camden would have no right of appeal.
I should like to ask the following questions. Do the Government and/or the promoters insist that any appeal procedure would constitute an unreasonable obstruction or an unreasonable delay? Would they not be in a position to do what my noble friend Lord Kennet argued and to have a streamlined right of appeal in any event of perhaps two or three months? Do not the Government have a sanction against the council if they deem that the council has been unreasonably obstructive?
There is an interesting parallel to this in principle in the case of CrossRail where the Government took a rather different decision. When the CrossRail Bill was before another place in 1993, it was then agreed that English Heritage should be allowed a right of appeal on any aspects of the actual plans and that the Government should be in a position to make a binding determination. What difference is there in principle between the CrossRail Bill and this Bill?
I turn now to the role of the Department of National Heritage. What consultation has taken place with that department? Is the Minister able to reveal the position of that department, if any? Why was not the position of that department made clear to the Select Committee? Is it not self-evident that proper advice from the Department of National Heritage should have been available, and, if not, why not?
I think that that will suffice for now because we have had an interesting debate. I have raised a number of questions and I hope that the Minister will be in a position to answer not only my questions but those raised by other noble Lords also.
Lord Annan: Perhaps I may make just a few general remarks in support of the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, as, perfectly understandably, most of the speeches this evening have been rather hostile to the report from his committee—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Annan: Well, the first thing that I was going to say was that I well remember protesting in this House 10 years ago against a proposed route which was to run through some unique working-class houses in Islington. When we were given the list of all those items of extreme importance in the environment of Islington,

481
I was not clear which were being positively threatened. It is not a question simply of arguing vaguely that it is an area of great historical interest and importance. One needs to point out whether some building is really being threatened and I have yet to have a reply on that point.
My second point is that, as usual, I greatly admired the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. He is always extremely well informed when he speaks on an issue and he has a highly intelligent mind which can breed objections with great skill. However, I felt that he tended to use the old argument that is used whenever someone opposes something: "This is the thin end of the wedge and once this happens, the floodgates are open". I wonder whether that is in fact the case.
I say that because this issue is rather different from the planning problems that we have faced in relation to Newbury and now Salisbury. Indeed, one could list a number of such planning disputes. They involve years of discussion, although the bypass or road is eventually built. We are prodigal in the way in which we use our planning laws to seek to satisfy objections from every quarter. Of course, one can never satisfy objections from every quarter, but we are unique in Europe in this respect. The point that I am trying to make is that this issue is slightly different from the question that confronted us at, say, Newbury or Salisbury. This is a question of an international rail link. That is why the Government are so keen that it should not be held up yet again.
My recollection is that our debates on those working-class houses took place at least 10 years ago. We have been at this for a long time and enormous changes have been made in the way in which we have handled this very difficult problem. I hope that we shall not delay on this. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, said that, although the route was different from the one that he had wanted, "Let's get on with it".
Lord Clinton-Davis: Before the Minister rises, perhaps I may correct an impression which the noble Lord, Lord Annan, seems to have conveyed. The gravamen of his charge is that this House is wasting time and that we should get on with things and not raise any questions—
Lord Annan: No! I must correct the noble Lord. I said no such thing. We must, of course, debate the matter, as this House always does.
Lord Clinton-Davis: That was not the impression that I gained from the noble Lord's remarks. There is a purpose in this because, although we admire the work of the Select Committee, it has not necessarily got everything right and nor have the Government. This is a complicated piece of legislation and this House has a duty to raise the questions that it thinks appropriate. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, fully accepts that.
It is not our intention to delay the Bill. It is our intention to discuss the Bill properly. It is not our intention to delay the proposal, but if people outside this
482
House and outside another place consider that points within it are causing them concern on a substantial scale and if this debate gives rise to such concern, it is wholly appropriate for us to express our point of view on behalf of those people and to listen carefully to what the Minister has to say. There is a purpose to such debates.
Viscount Goschen: This is—
Lord Kennet: If I may speak before the Minister, I promise not to say more than a sentence, but I should like to pick up something that my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has said. He accused me of fertility. That is a desperate charge. I am never fertile with ideas; I wish that I was. I seek only to put one idea before your Lordships' Committee—before one House of the British legislature. Do we want to suspend the operation of statute law in favour of one legal person?
Viscount Goschen: This has certainly been a fascinating debate on the interesting and important issue of heritage. All of us in the Chamber and outside are concerned about heritage matters and it is appropriate that we discuss them in some detail. They were, of course, discussed in some considerable detail by and before the Select Committee. I do not suppose that anyone suggests anything other than that.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and the comments from his allegedly fertile mind (although he disagreed with that) that it would not be appropriate if all of the heritage procedures were disallowed and not replaced with a proper regime specific to CTRL. But that is not the case. A number of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, were either not relevant to the CTRL at all or were the subject of agreements a considerable time ago. I can reassure him on the subject of gasholders and St. Pancras Chambers.
The rail link is a scheme of national significance. The Bill has to provide all of the key powers necessary to undertake the project. CTRL has some unavoidable heritage impacts. In considering the Bill, Parliament has to decide whether in principle those impacts are acceptable. The means by which any Bill grants permission for or approves heritage impacts is by disapplying the need to apply for listed building consent. I can say specifically to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that there is nothing unusual about Clause 12. This has been standard practice for both private and hybrid Bills which have heritage impacts. There is no question of setting a new precedent. The Bill follows the procedures of other Bills and disallows the need for listed building consent in the circumstances set out in the Bill, but it has been adequately replaced by specific arrangements for this project.
As my noble friend Lord Cavendish recognised, we have no desire whatever to ride roughshod over heritage impacts. First, there is Parliament's own consideration of the heritage impacts. Secondly, there is a set of planning and heritage minimum requirements that applies to the St. Pancras terminus and LCR is obliged to follow. Thirdly, for a period of more than two years we have been negotiating with English Heritage and local authorities the terms of a deed concerning listed

483
buildings and buildings in conservation areas. The arguments put forward by my noble friend Lord Cavendish focused specifically on the requests of English Heritage for involvement in the specific articles to do with the operation of the railway. We talked about signalling and so forth. It is interesting to contrast that with the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that this was outrageous and we were disallowing all of the proper listed building requirements without replacing them with a proper regime. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Cavendish will intervene if what I say is incorrect. It is not the position of English Heritage that a proper replacement regime has not been put in place. There are outstanding concerns over the details, but by and large English Heritage has participated in negotiations for a long time and is not opposed in principle to what the Bill proposes.
I return to the deed. The deed requires agreement to be sought from English Heritage and the appropriate local authorities on the nature of the proposed work to listed buildings, including the detailed design and the extent of the work. It also provides for consultation on railway works, such as track bed and tunnels. As I understand it, negotiations were progressing very well. We had expected that agreement would be reached quickly. However, I understand that at a fairly late stage English Heritage sought additional controls. These were the controls to which I referred a moment ago and to which my noble friend Lord Cavendish specifically referred in his opening remarks. I understand the current position to be that English Heritage accepts that it should not control the track and platforms, presumably because it recognises that those are essential for the success of the project. I see my noble friend nodding his head.
But there remains a point of difference. English Heritage wants to control matters such as signalling and ticketing facilities, as I understand it. Those items are just as important for the success of the project as the track and platforms. To try to deal with the key concern we have conceded control over catering and retailing but we cannot go as far as to concede control over signalling, power supply equipment, and passenger facilities such as ticketing. There should be consultation but not control over matters such as signalling. Although such controls would be subject to an appeals process, there would still be a very severe risk of delay and therefore substantial extra cost for the project.
It is also instructive to look at the track record of London and Continental Railways on heritage in the relatively short time since its appointment. I was pleased to hear the congratulations of my noble friend Lord Cavendish for LCR's helpful and responsible attitude on two key heritage issues at St. Pancras. To recap, a deal was struck on the possible relocation of the listed gasholders and water point which many had feared was an intractable position. Indeed, at Second Reading my noble friend Lord Cavendish placed considerable emphasis on those matters. We can all be very pleased that agreement has been reached on that difficult issue. LCR then announced its imaginative competition as a means of finding a use for St. Pancras Chambers, which
484
would be subject to the normal listed building controls. LCR is approaching the St. Pancras train shed issue with equal imagination, viewing heritage as a business asset.
The Select Committee took a considerable interest in heritage issues. It visited the train shed and the chambers and heard evidence from petitioners. It also considered whether the heritage deed ought to offer more control as opposed to consultation on railway works. We note the conclusion of the Select Committee that the Committee has already heard this evening:
"The Committee has no doubt that the draft Heritage Deed meets the interests of the petitioners".
We have heard arguments, notably from the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and to a lesser degree from the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that the whole regime is wrong because of the disallowance of the normal procedures. If those procedures had been disallowed without a proper regime being put in place to replace them for the specific circumstances, that would be the case. The fact is that proper arrangements have been made. All that remains at issue are some important details. The majority of the points at issue have been resolved. I do not believe that English Heritage feels that the whole approach of the Bill is wrong, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. I say to the noble Lord that he is not correct about the issue of precedence. This is the standard approach in circumstances where specific legislation is required for a purpose such as this.
With that explanation of the work that has gone into seeking agreement as far as possible on heritage matters and with the conclusion of the Select Committee, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Can the noble Viscount indicate why there appear to be differences of approach between Crossrail and this matter? I add in parenthesis that I never sought to display hostility to the report, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said. This is a matter of probing. We support what the Government seek to achieve on this occasion, but it is conceivable that mistakes can occur.
Viscount Goschen: I am sure the Committee recognises that the noble Lord does not attack the Select Committee. Indeed, he joined in the commendation of the work of that committee and its chairman. We all agree that it was a very thorough report, and that is not at issue. But it is important that the whole House discusses these issues, and that is exactly what we are doing.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked me about the CrossRail heritage agreement and the reasons for the difference there. The CrossRail agreement signed by English Heritage, London Underground and the British Railways Board provided for the agreement of English Heritage to be sought on each of the proposed works and construction methods to be used. It did not, however, specify what was meant by the nature of the proposed works. That was left for further debate.
Furthermore, unlike the draft CTRL Heritage Deed it did not cover agreement on mitigation measures, the preservation of particular features of the building or any

485
restoration and reconstruction work where reasonably practicable. It should also be remembered that the CTRL environmental statement is both qualitatively and quantitatively significantly improved compared with that for CrossRail. Nor did CrossRail have the safeguard of the St. Pancras planning and heritage minimum requirements. The nominated undertaker is required to meet those requirements irrespective of the final design that is chosen. They were negotiated with English Heritage and Camden over a two-year period and constrained the nominated undertaker on such matters as how works can be carried out to the train shed, booking hall and ticket office.
The heritage interests affected by the CTRL have considerably greater protection than those which were affected by CrossRail. I hope that the noble Lord will accept my explanation of the differences.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I am grateful to all who have taken part in this debate. I should like, first, to make an apology to the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, and to deny to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, that there was any hostility. If it appeared hostile, then I sincerely apologise. I admire the work enormously. When I was on a Select Committee we were shot at when we were examining a site, so perhaps it is an improvement on that.
However the fact remains, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, has said not once but twice, that the committee felt that the promoters had gone as far as they could in a certain direction. We are talking about a flagship project here of huge excitement and national importance, which has had support from all over this place. As noble Lords have said, there is no intention of delaying it. It seems to be rather sad when one cannot combine having a flagship project, something new and marvellous, with protecting one's past and one's heritage.
I thank my noble friend Lord Goschen for the thoughtful reply he gave to the various points raised. I think that he knows, and I know, that if there is a tricky situation it sometimes requires more imagination than Whitehall is likely usually to emerge with. We possibly need to encourage interested bodies such as English Heritage to feed in their ideas as to how one could achieve a speedy and simple agreement. What it came down to was that the delay would stumble the promoters, and might result in stalling this important flagship project.
What I, and anyone who admires and feels deeply for the heritage, which is a seamless state—it should come from the past and inform today's and future generations—cannot accept is that because a project is new and wonderful and of national importance one has therefore in any respect to disregard the past. I may come back to this at a later stage of the Bill, but for the time being I withdraw my opposition to Clause 12 stand part.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 10:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause—
HERITAGE: RIGHTS OF ENTRY
(". Schedule (Heritage: rights of entry) to this Act (which makes provision about rights of entry for the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England and the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England) shall have effect.").
The noble Viscount said: It may be for the convenience of this Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 35.
The amendments bring into the Bill rights of entry to scheduled monuments and listed buildings which have been subjects of negotiation on the terms of the Heritage Deed.
Paragraph 5 of Schedule 7 of the National Heritage Act 1983 already provides a right of entry for English Heritage to CTRL lands for recording purposes in relation to ancient monuments and historic buildings. The amendments widen the powers of entry.
English Heritage would have the right to enter land on which a scheduled monument or listed building is situated for the purposes specified in the schedule—variously observing, inspecting or advising—in relation to authorised works or preparatory investigations by the nominated undertaker. Also the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England would have a period of eight weeks, other than in cases of emergency, in which to record listed buildings before they can be demolished under the powers in the Bill. The timing of entry by either organisation would be subject to health and safety considerations. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clauses 13 to 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Access agreements]:
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 8, line 30, at end insert—
("(4A) Any access contract for use of a rail link facility may, with the consent of the Rail Regulator and the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising, provide for the carriage of passengers to or from any station in the United Kingdom.").
The noble Lord said: The drafting of this clause may seem at first sight to be slightly odd. It is designed to allow national passengers to travel on international trains. It could be that one could get on a Eurostar at Ashford and get out at Waterloo or, when the Eurostars start beyond London—probably next year—you could get on a train at Manchester and get off at Milton Keynes or Ashford or anywhere else.
I believe that this is an extremely important element, not only to ensure that the Eurostar trains start beyond London and continue to operate there, but it puts these railway services in line with what has been happening on the Continent for the past 50 years, ever since the last war. What is stopping that happening now? There are two main elements. The first is frontier control regimes, and the second is the existing commercial agreements arranged with the Franchising Director, the regulator and other operators.
I shall cover both of those reasons. I start with frontier controls and, under that, security. Let me first emphasise that I am not suggesting any relaxation of security, which must be paramount.
Let us look at what is happening on the Continent now. With the present Eurostars you can get on in Paris and get off at Calais; you can get on in Brussels and get off at Lille. You can do it in the other direction also. In the UK you cannot. Let us think what will happen when these services start beyond London. Let us take the Edinburgh to Paris service or the Manchester to Paris service. If you get on a train at Edinburgh, as I did a month or so ago, it is difficult to get a seat because the service is very popular. What will the passengers think if they see the train for London leave with standing room only, and then 10 minutes later the Eurostar comes in? You can only get on if you have a passport or a ticket to Paris, and you are spending rather a lot of money. That is illogical.
The connecting services that have been running for a couple of years from Manchester and Edinburgh to London Waterloo are 125s like any other InterCity trains. You cannot get on them without a passport, but you can still get off at Waterloo and go shopping, go to the Old Vic, or anything else you want to do. I am told that when that train goes through Crewe in the morning there is a member of staff at every door of the train to stop people getting on. That does not seem very sensible to me.
What is happening now is that London and Continental wants to start this service, but it has been—what shall we say?—encouraged, required, or whatever by the frontier control authorities to develop, design, and effectively construct large waiting-room pens at all the stations at which these trains will stop. I shall try to list them, but I shall probably forget a few. They are Milton Keynes, Rugby, Coventry, Birmingham (International), Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Stafford, Crewe, Manchester, Edinburgh, Newcastle, Durham, Darlington, York, Doncaster and Peterborough. I am sure that is enough for the Committee. There are about 15 of them. They will have to have all this equipment for international passengers only. When they have been through all this business, they are shepherded, by Heaven knows how many staff, through one door while the staff prevent other people from getting on by shooing them away or whatever. The consequences will be empty trains. There will be less revenue and, most seriously, less likelihood of the services surviving beyond London. On the east coast mainline there are times when three people occupy the same seat for different sections of the journey. However, the situation with the Eurostar makes it unlikely that that will survive for long without a change.
I also mentioned the need to reach agreement with the franchising director, the regulator, the existing operators on the east coast mainline and those who win the franchise on the west coast mainline. I have talked in principle to the franchising director's people and the regulator and both have said that it is perfectly possible to reach agreement. They can enforce it if they have to, but it is perfectly possible.
I believe that the key is to answer the question of whether there is a solution to the frontier control regime. I suggest that there is without affecting security. When going from north to south it is possible for security checks to be carried out on the train between the
488
enultimate stop, Milton Keynes or Peterborough, and Ashford. Officers would have two hours on the train and they could go through and clear all the passengers and get off at Ashford. If any passenger wished to get off at Ashford that would be fine because he or she would have been checked for security.
The frontier controls—that is, passport and immigration—could be carried out on the train after Ashford on the journey to Lille; there would be one hour in which to do that. I believe that that would be possible. If that were to happen between London and Ashford, passengers would have already gone through security at London before getting on the train.
Coming inwards, the process has already been done in France and Belgium. It means that passengers can get off where they like but once the train has been through the tunnel—we understand that that is the main threat—they can get on at Ashford and get off at Milton Keynes, Manchester or wherever. But this is turning a special Eurostar service into a train service which anyone can use. One can get on and get off anywhere; there will he better revenue for the operators; and there will be more flexibility. Trains are meant for people to use and if it is any consolation, the system of national passengers on international trains has been used throughout Europe since the war, even across the Iron Curtain during the worst years of the cold war. There is nothing new about it.
It is my belief that the frontier control authorities can come forward with a solution perhaps along the lines that I have suggested. They must recognise the commercial reality of what they are forcing London and Continental to do and the added operating costs which that will bring. I strongly urge the Government to look at the matter again for the benefit of the travelling public. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his explanation of the purpose behind his amendment. I can be helpful to him, although not so helpful as to accept this amendment. I believe that what he wants is achievable and I hope that I shall be able to put him straight on some of the issues.
The drafting of the amendment is, as the noble Lord admitted, misconceived, as described in my brief. However, I believe that we can settle for "odd". As the Bill already stands, the nominated undertaker will be able to enter into an access contract with a person to enable that person to use the rail link for the carriage of passengers to or from London, Ebbsfleet or Ashford. Since the rail link will extend only from the Channel Tunnel to London, it is self-evident that an access contract in relation to the rail link cannot provide access to stations in the United Kingdom which are not on the rail link. Nor will the amendment affect purely domestic services which use the link as part of a longer journey.
However, this amendment seems to be intended to give the right, subject to the consent of the rail regulator and OPRAF, for any operator of international services using the new line for part of a journey in the UK to carry domestic passengers.

489
As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, agreed, there are security implications in carrying both domestic and international passengers on the same train; for example, carrying passengers from Edinburgh to Paris via the rail link on a train from which passengers are allowed to disembark in London. Once the train operator came forward with firm proposals to operate such a service and with security proposals, the security implications would need to be fully examined by my department's transport security division. Appropriate measures would need to be devised to ensure the security of the train and its passengers through the Channel Tunnel and directions would have to be given by the Secretary of State under the Channel Tunnel (Security) Order 1994.
In this country, if Eurostar or any other operator wanted to carry domestic passengers on international trains they would have to approach the Secretary of State with their security proposals before they could be considered.
What is under dispute is the precise effect of the amendment, which might be to remove any restrictions which the Secretary of State might impose on the operation of a combined international and domestic service. Restrictions have been put in place for sound security reasons.
I believe that the noble Lord and I are at one as regards a great deal of what is under discussion on the amendment. However, I believe that its drafting is misconceived. The intent behind it can be met so long as the necessary security arrangements can be devised and complied with. That is the point of agreement with us and the Bill does not preclude the carrying of domestic passengers on international services.
I hope that with that explanation, and the great accord between us on the thinking behind the amendment, the noble Lord will withdraw it.
Lord Berkeley: I am grateful to the Minister for those remarks. He is right about the quality of the drafting of my amendment. I and colleagues struggled with it, but it enabled us to raise the issue. I am the first to admit that it is defective in many ways.
I was pleased to hear what the Minister said about frontier controls, which he rightly said is the key to the issue. I shall study Hansard with great interest and look forward to seeing an application for an appropriate procedure from London and Continental, or whomever, to the Department of Transport. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 16 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Clinton-Davis: I wish to raise a short point in relation to Clause 16 about which I have given notice to the Minister. It relates to the adequacy of the provisions in the Bill to ensure access for disabled people in all trains running on the CTRL. Access requirements for fixed infrastructure and rolling stock for the new international and domestic services will comply with the present rail regulator's code of practice. That document
490
is essentially directed at piecemeal improvement of access on the existing rail network. Such a pragmatic approach to the costs of improvements may be understandable, although it is less than ideal.
Newham Council has raised the issues with me. It believes that the limited aims of the guidance are inappropriate in respect of the new CTRL investment. Each Eurostar train has only two places for people in wheelchairs. That is quite remarkable. In order to obtain such places one must book in advance and then wait at a pre-arranged point on the platform for a special ramp to be brought.
I do not suggest that the existing rolling stock should be modified. That would be wholly impractical. However, I seek the Minister's assurance that, as regards subsequent orders of new international and domestic rolling stock to be used on the route, the designs will ensure much greater accessibility to all passengers, in particular to disabled people.
A number of specific improvements to rolling stock design have been suggested; for example, six designated wheelchair spaces in new train sets from which bar and buffet facilities and wheelchair accessible toilets could be easily reached. Those seating places would incorporate space for the parking of wheelchairs and adjacent transfer seats. That is particularly important for those people who wish to transfer from their chairs to more comfortable seats. Those could be of standard design with removable sides and arm rests.
The interior design of carriages should also incorporate good quality colour contrast for partially sighted people. There should be audio and visual information and sufficient space at external doors to accommodate the turning circle of a powered wheelchair.
Therefore, I seek from the Minister this evening an indication of his general approach and some assurance that these matters will be looked at. I ask for wider consultation to be invited prior to the next round of rolling stock orders being placed. That would be viewed as a significant step forward. I await the Minister's reply with interest.
Viscount Goschen: The Motion that Clause 16 shall stand part of the Bill gives us a good opportunity to discuss disabled access issues which are clearly of key importance. I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for giving me notice that he intended to raise this issue.
As noble Lords may be aware, under Section 70 of the Railways Act 1993 the rail regulator has a duty to prepare, revise, publish and encourage the adoption and implementation of the code of practice for protecting the interests of disabled railway passengers and station users. That duty operates in place of the usual Part M of the Building Regulations 1984 which do not apply to railway operational land.
The code of practice Meeting the Needs of Disabled Passengers was prepared in consultation with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee—DPTAC—and was published in 1994. It is a provision of the Government's minimum requirements for the CTRL project that the nominated undertaker for the CTRL

491
adopt and implement the disabled people's protection policy, having regard to the rail regulator's code of practice as though the nominated undertaker's activities were subject to regulation by the rail regulator.
Thus, in preparing its disabled people's protection policy, the nominated undertaker will be required to consult DPTAC. I am sure that that will greatly reassure the noble Lord in relation to LCR's consultation with interested parties, expert bodies and DPTAC, the body that was established as a statutory committee to advise the Secretary of State.
Lord Clinton-Davis: What does the acronym stand for?
Viscount Goschen: It is the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. I happen to have that at my fingertips. Indeed, I believe that I referred to it in my earlier remarks and I am sure that the Official Report will confirm that.
I assure the Committee that the CTRL will incorporate facilities for disabled people following the guidelines and the rail regulator's code of practice. Therefore, the disabled people's protection policy will apply to all of the nominated undertakers' passenger facilities provided under the Bill, including facilities at stations. Of course, the normal building regulations will apply to any development not authorised by the Bill. Therefore—to use an expression heard earlier this evening—there is seamless provision to ensure that the needs of disabled passengers are properly addressed.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I thought that that was a very good reply. It may be in sharp contrast to others, but that is unfair. The Minister has taken the point seriously and I am grateful to him.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Railway administration orders]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 10, line 14, leave out ("made by statutory instrument").
The noble Viscount said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 13 and 14, 16 and 17 and 19.
These amendments have been tabled in response to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee's report on the CTRL Bill. In its May 1996 report the committee highlighted three sets of provisions in the Bill that it had difficulty with, Clause 18, Clauses 22 to 24 and Clauses 32(4) and 32(5). The Bill currently provides for the various orders under these clauses to be made without being laid and thus subject to no further parliamentary scrutiny.
The committee felt that some parliamentary scrutiny was required and in each case suggested that the orders should be made subject to the negative resolution procedure. We have considered the committee's report very carefully indeed, and I am pleased to say←as Members of the Committee will see from the amendments before us—that we have been able to accept all of the committee's suggestions but one.
The suggestion that causes us difficulty is the one in relation to Clause 32(4), and I should like to explain to the Committee why we cannot make the amendment the committee sought. Clause 32(4) provides that the nomination order under Clause 32(1) may include "such supplementary, incidental, consequential or transitional provision as the Secretary of State considers necessary or expedient". Clause 32(1) is the provision in the Bill that will enable us to name London & Continental Railways as the "nominated undertaker" under the Bill, so that they can use the powers granted by the Act to build the CTRL.
Clause 32(4) is a common, catch-all provision that was intended to ensure that the need for any supplementary provision could be catered for at the time. In its report, the committee comment on, but do not explicitly criticise, the fact that the nomination order under Clause 32(1) does not require further parliamentary scrutiny but say that the "supplementary" power in Clause 32(4) ought to be made subject to the negative resolution procedure. However, Clause 32(4) is not a separate order-making power, but one linked to the power in Clause 32(1) setting out what an order under Clause 32(1) can contain.
With that somewhat detailed explanation, I hope that the Committee will accept that we did not feel it appropriate to bring forward an amendment with regard to that recommendation of the committee. We felt it entirely appropriate to bring forward other amendments implementing all the other recommendations of the committee. That is why we have brought forward Amendment No. 12 and the other amendments in this group. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: From this side of the Committee, we are very pleased that the Government have taken notice of the committee's recommendations and have brought forward these amendments. That is every encouraging.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 10, line 15, at end insert—
("() The power conferred by subsection (8) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 19 to 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Restrictive trade practices]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 12, line 18, leave out from ("and,") to end of line 21 and insert ("on the coming into force of an order made by virtue of this subsection, that Act shall be deemed not to have applied to the agreement concerned.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 12, line 39, leave out subsection (8).
The noble Viscount said: This is a technical amendment which removes Clause 22(8) from the Bill. We have concluded that the subsection is no longer necessary and that the public interest would now be better served if those agreements which would have been caught by this clause were to be handled using the normal procedures of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 23 and 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Sections 22 to 24: supplementary provisions]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 16 and 17:
Page 14, line 5, after ("above") insert (", and orders made by virtue of section 22(4) above,").
Page 14, line 6, at end insert ("which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 26 to 31 agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 18:
After Clause 31, insert the following new clause—
UNDERTAKINGS WITH RESPECT TO FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE ETC
(".—(1) Any undertaking of the Secretary of State which—

(a) is given with respect to applications for assistance of a kind to which subsection (2) below applies, and

(b) is contained in a development agreement,

shall be effective notwithstanding that it fetters his discretion.
(2) This subsection applies to—

(a) any kind of financial or other assistance in relation to an existing railway line which might allow it to be used to provide a line speed in excess of 200 kilometres per hour before 31st December 2030, and

(b) any kind of financial or other assistance which before that date would enable or assist a person to provide services or facilities for international rail passenger services.").

The noble Viscount said: This new clause is aimed at giving legislative underpinning to the provisions of the development agreement which we signed with London and Continental Railways that set out the Secretary of State's contractual obligations to LCR in relation to the non-provision of financial assistance to a CTRL competitor. The clause seeks to achieve full consonance between the contractual position and the statutory position, and no more than that. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 32 [Holder of functions of nominated undertaker]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 17, line 43, at end insert—
("() A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (5) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Viscount said: The above amendment was spoken to when I moved Amendment No. 12. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 33 [Transfer of functions relating to works]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 20 and 21:
Page 17, line 47, leave out ("to him").
Page 17, line 48, at end insert—

("(a) to him, or

(b) to a person specified under section 32 above.

(1A) The Secretary of State may by order provide for the further transfer—

(a) to him, or

(b) to a person specified under section 32 above,

of a power or duty transferred under subsection (1) above or this subsection.").
The noble Viscount said: These are purely drafting amendments designed to increase the flexibility of the clause as introduced in Select Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 34 to 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 [Acquisition of land]:
[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]
Clause 42 agreed to.
Clause 43 [Blight: compensation for pre-enactment acquisition]:
On Question, Whether Clause 43 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Clinton-Davis: Again, I have given the Minister notice of my intention to raise the issue of generalised blight. I do not wish to pursue the matter in any detail, but I should like to know what is happening so far as concerns the inter-departmental working party which has been convened. That arose as a result of a number of exchanges which took place in both Chambers, as no doubt the Minister will recall. It relates to the Government's initial decision to oppose the parliamentary ombudsman's findings which had been upheld by the Select Committee in the other place. If I may say so, a most sensible decision was then taken on 18th March to establish the inter-departmental working party to consider the problem of perceived blight. That was a recommendation of the Select Committee in another place.

495
Perhaps the Minister could give us a little further information on the matter. For example, is he able to indicate a date for the presentation of interim findings, if indeed it is the Government's intention to present such findings? Can the Minister give some idea as to when a final report is likely to be published? Finally—and this is most important in the context of the Bill—is the Minister in a position to confirm that any recommendations which the Government are able to adopt in relation to the matter will be applied to the legislation now before us?
Viscount Goschen: The issue of blight is clearly of major importance when dealing with any infrastructure projects. As the noble Lord raised the issue and the review is under way, I shall have to answer him in a small amount of detail in order to make the position absolutely clear.
As we know, the background is that the rail link route has been carefully selected, including extensive use of tunnelling so that very few homes have to be taken. In fact, there is an average of only one home being taken for every mile of route. For homes that are required to be taken for the rail link—that is, those that are the subject of statutory blight—voluntary purchase from Union Railways is available now at the request of the owner in terms of the unblighted market value of the property, as if the CTRL did not exist, plus all fees, disturbance and home loss payments.
Any homes required for the building of the rail link which have not been acquired voluntarily by the time of Royal Assent will be subject to compulsory purchase at that time on the same terms. For residential owner occupiers whose properties are close to the surface sections of the rail link but which are not actually taken, there is a discretionary purchase scheme operated by Union Railways. To qualify, home owners must demonstrate that their property is likely to be seriously affected by the construction or use of the CTRL resulting in loss of value and physical effects. The test is usually whether the property would qualify for noise insulation under the national railway regulations. There must also be proof of hardship arising from a pressing need to move. Illness, growing family and job move are indeed common grounds for hardship.
The Select Committee in another place was satisfied with the treatment of those with properties taken or seriously affected by the link. The committee's concern was that the blight that petitioners claimed spread further from the rail link, which we term "generalised blight". That is the subject of the government review. In response to the special report of the Select Committee of another place, the Government undertook to convene an inter-departmental working group to carry out a review of the scope, causes and effects of blight arising during the various stages of major infrastructure projects in order to ascertain whether any practical changes could be made to the existing national arrangements for property purchase and compensation.
The terms of reference of the working group were announced in a Written Answer in another place on 18th March. Those terms made clear that the review will focus on issues of perceived or generalised blight and
496
will consider in particular the nature of the problem, its causes and effects, including geographical and temporal extent, whether changes to procedures in the provision of infrastructure might reduce negative effects and options for compensation arrangements if appropriate.
I turn now to the noble Lord's specific question. A progress report will be available shortly which will set out the evidence which has been collected so far, including an analysis of the main points made in response to a discussion paper issued in June outlining the work in hand. The group expects to complete its work and submit its final report to Ministers by the end of the year. The timing will depend on whether any further issues are identified. We shall then wish to consider carefully the next steps. Any changes to the legislation that may be proposed would of course be the subject of formal public consultation. I believe that what I have said gives the flavour of what is happening with the review of generalised blight in terms of the inter-departmental working group.
I believe that there is a small amount of confusion in the noble Lord's mind—although perhaps I misheard him—in terms of his reference to the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. That is a separate issue which I could go into now at some length, but I believe that the noble Lord's primary question was about the working group. I hope, therefore, that I satisfied him on that subject.
Lord Ampthill: The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, was quite right to raise the matter. It was indeed a matter which deeply concerned the Select Committee, as he will be aware from reading our report. Members of that committee were much comforted to know that the working group would report; indeed, we did exercise a degree of pressure in that respect. It has been promised that the report will be available by the end of the year, and that was a considerable relief to the Select Committee.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am most grateful both to the Minister and to the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill. It is an important issue. I was simply probing in that respect and I think that the progress that is being made is encouraging.
On Question, Clause 43 agreed to.
Clauses 44 to 46 agreed to.
Clause 47 [Overhead lines]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 24, line 9, at end insert—
("(2) Schedule (Overhead lines: consent) to this Act (which makes alternative provision for consent in relation to lines to which subsection (1) above applies) shall have effect.
(3) On the revocation or expiry of consent under Schedule (Overhead lines: consent) to this Act, the line to which the consent relates shall cease to be a line to which subsection (1) above applies.
(4) On granting consent under Schedule (Overhead lines: consent) to this Act to electricity undertakers, the appropriate Ministers may direct that planning permission shall be deemed to be granted for the carrying out of development to which the consent relates, subject to such conditions (if any) as may be specified in the direction.

497
(5) In subsection (4) above—

(a) "electricity undertakers" means the holder of a licence under section 6 of the Electricity Act 1989, and

(b) the reference to the appropriate Ministers is to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Transport acting jointly.").

The noble Viscount said: In moving the above amendment I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendment No. 37. Despite the length of the amendments, I hope that they are essentially non-contentious as they represent a concession.
Under the Bill as currently drafted no further approval for the various overhead electric line diversions required for the CTRL would be needed once the Bill is passed. These amendments instead require a further consent to be obtained from the Secretaries of State, and the new schedule makes detailed provision in relation to publicity and consultation in certain cases. The provisions are modelled on the Electricity Act 1989 and the relevant regulations issued under it. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 48 to 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 [Interpretation]:
7 p.m.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 27, line 17, after second ("agreement") insert ("(including one entered into before the passing of this Act)").
The noble Viscount said: This is a self-explanatory drafting amendment reflecting the fact that since the Bill was introduced we have signed a development agreement with London & Continental Railways. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 54 agreed to.
Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Acquisition of land within limits shown on deposited plans]:
[Amendment No. 25 not moved].
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Planning conditions]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 161, line 15, at end insert—
("() An invitation under sub-paragraph (1) above shall specify the time limit for making representations.").
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 26 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 27 and 28. These are drafting amendments to paragraphs 27 to 29 of Schedule 6 to the Bill which make it clear that invitations to the various bodies concerned to make representations should specify the time within which representations are to be made. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I confess that I have not looked carefully at this matter but the time limit involved here is not specified. Of course the Minister is looking for
498
flexibility, but is he able to indicate the sort of general lines of thought as regards time limits that he has in mind?
Viscount Goschen: As I said, these amendments to paragraphs 27 to 29 of Schedule 6 to the Bill require various bodies—English Nature, English Heritage, the Countryside Commission, the Environment Agency and the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority—to be invited by planning authorities to make representations on relevant requests for approval submitted by the nominated undertaker. I understand that the various bodies have 21 days to make representations in response to any such invitation. To avoid there being any confusion as to the time limit for the various bodies to make representations—some of the bodies concerned, or the people dealing with the invitations, may not have copies of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act, as we hope it will become, readily to hand—the amendments simply provide for the invitation itself to specify the time within which representations need to be made. Therefore the noble Lord has nothing to fear.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 27 and 28:
Page 161, line 42, at end insert—
("() An invitation under sub-paragraph (1) above shall specify the time limit for making representations.").
Page 162, line 8, at end insert—
("() An invitation under sub-paragraph (1) above shall specify the time limit for making representations.").
The noble Viscount said: I have spoken to these amendments with a previous amendment. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 162, line 35, leave out ("in writing").
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 29 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 30, 31, 33 and 34. Essentially these amendments increase the flexibility of the Secretaries of State for the Environment and Transport to decide how planning appeals under the Bill should be determined, and provide for the appeal procedures to be set out in regulations. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 30 and 31:
Page 162, line 36, after ("appeal") insert ("in the prescribed form").
Page 162, leave out lines 42 to 48.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 163, line 12, at end insert—
("(7) The appropriate Ministers may by regulations make provision for the extension of the appropriate period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (5) above in connection with the payment of fees by means of cheque.
(8) The power to make regulations under sub-paragraph (7) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Viscount said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendments Nos. 8 and 9. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 33 and 34:
Page 163, line 12, at end insert—
("() In this paragraph, "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the appropriate Ministers.").
Page 163, line 16, at end insert—
("33A.—(1) Unless the appropriate Ministers direct otherwise, their functions in relation to the determination of an appeal under paragraph 32 above shall, instead of being carried out by them, be carried out by a person appointed by them for the purpose.
(2) The appropriate Ministers may by a further direction revoke a direction under sub-paragraph (1) above at any time before the determination of the appeal.
(3) A direction under sub-paragraph (1) or (2) above shall be served on the nominated undertaker and the planning authority whose decision is appealed against.
(4) At any time before the determination of an appeal by a person appointed for the purpose under this paragraph, the appropriate Ministers may revoke his appointment and appoint another person to determine the appeal instead.
(5) Where the function of determining an appeal under paragraph 32 above is transferred from one person to another, the person to whom the function is transferred shall consider the matter afresh, but the fact that the function is transferred shall not entitle any person to make fresh representations or to modify or withdraw any representations already made.
(6) If the appropriate Ministers determine an appeal which another person was previously appointed to determine, they may, in determining it, take into account any report made to them by that person.
33B. The decision of the person appointed under paragraph 33A above, or, as the case may be, of the appropriate Ministers, on an appeal under paragraph 32 above shall be final.
33C.—(1) An appeal under paragraph 32 above shall be dealt with on the basis of written representations, unless the person deciding the appeal directs otherwise.
(2) Subject to that, the appropriate Ministers may by regulations make such provision as they think fit about procedure in relation to appeals under paragraph 32 above.
(3) Regulations under sub-paragraph (2) above may, in particular—

(a) make provision for a time limit within which any person entitled to make representations must submit them in writing and any supporting documents,

(b) empower the person deciding an appeal to proceed to a decision taking into account only such written representations and supporting documents as were submitted within the time limit, and

(c) empower the person deciding an appeal, after giving written notice of his intention to do so to the nominated undertaker and the planning authority whose decision is appealed against, to proceed to a decision notwithstanding that no written representations were made within the time
500
limit, if it appears to him that he has sufficient material before him to enable him to reach a decision on the merits of the case.

(4) Regulations under sub-paragraph (2) above may, in relation to such a time limit as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (3)(a) above—

(a) prescribe the time limit in the regulations, or

(b) enable the appropriate Ministers to give directions setting the time limit in a particular case or class of case.

33D.—(1) Regulations under paragraph 32 or 33C above may make different provision for different cases.
(2) The power to make regulations under paragraph 32 or 33C shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Viscount said: These amendments were grouped with Amendment No. 29. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 35:
After Schedule 7, insert the following new schedule—
("SCHEDULE
HERITAGE: RIGHTS OF ENTRY
Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England
1.—(1) Any person duly authorised in writing by the Commission may at any reasonable time enter any land on which (or in or under which) a scheduled monument is situated—

(a) for the purpose of observing or advising upon the exercise in relation to the land of any of the powers conferred by paragraph 10(1) of Schedule 2 to this Act, or

(b) for the purpose of inspecting, observing or advising upon the carrying out of any works on the land in exercise of any of the other powers conferred by this Part of this Act.

(2) Any person duly authorised in writing by the Commission may at any reasonable time enter any land for the purpose of inspecting or observing the carrying out in relation to any building on the land of any decontrolled works.
(3) The right conferred by sub-paragraph (1) or (2) above shall not be exercisable at a time when the nominated undertaker reasonably considers that it is not safe to exercise it.
(4) A person exercising the right conferred by sub-paragraph (1) or (2) above shall comply with any directions given by the nominated undertaker for the purpose of securing compliance with relevant health and safety provisions.
Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England
2.—(1) The nominated undertaker shall not carry out any decontrolled works consisting of the demolition of a building unless—

(a) notice of the proposal to carry out the works has been given to the Royal Commission, and

(b) the appropriate period since the giving of the notice has elapsed.

(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3) below, the appropriate period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b) above is 8 weeks or such longer period as may have been agreed between the nominated undertaker and the Royal Commission.
(3) In case of emergency, the appropriate period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b) above is such period as is reasonable in the circumstances.
(4) In determining whether the appropriate period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b) above has elapsed, there shall be disregarded any day on which entry to the building is refused under paragraph 3(2) below.

501
3.—(1) Following the giving of a notice under paragraph 2(1) above in relation to any building, any person duly authorised in writing by the Royal Commission may, at any reasonable time during the inspection period, enter the building for the purpose of recording it.
(2) The right conferred by sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be exercisable at a time when the nominated undertaker reasonably considers that it is not safe to exercise it.
(3) A person exercising the right conferred by sub-paragraph (1) above shall comply with any directions given by the nominated undertaker for the purpose of securing compliance with relevant health and safety provisions.
(4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above, the inspection period, in relation to a building which is the subject of a notice under paragraph 2(1) above, is the period beginning when the notice under that provision is given and ending when the prohibition under that provision ceases to apply to the building.
Interpretation
4. In this Schedule—
"the Commission" means the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England;
"decontrolled works" means works to which section 7 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 would apply, but for paragraph 1(1)(a) or (3) or 2(1)(a) of Schedule 7 to this Act;
"the Royal Commission" means the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England;
"scheduled monument" has the same meaning as in the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979.").
The noble Viscount said: This amendment was grouped with Amendment No. 10. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Disapplication and modification of miscellaneous controls]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 178, leave out lines 11 to 16 and insert—
(".—(1) This paragraph applies where an application for the issue of a permit under the London Lorry Ban Order is expressed to be made in connection with the carrying out of authorised works.
(2) The application shall be granted if the issue of a permit is reasonably required—

(a) for the purpose of enabling authorised works to be carried out in a timely, efficient and cost-effective manner, or

(b) for the purpose of enabling authorised works to be carried out in accordance with approved arrangements.

(3) If the application is granted, no condition may be imposed which is likely to obstruct the carrying out of authorised works—

(a) in a timely, efficient and cost-effective manner, or

(b) in accordance with approved arrangements.

(4) If the applicant is aggrieved by a decision under sub-paragraph (2) or (3) above, he may appeal to the Secretary of State by giving notice in writing of the appeal to him and the authority whose decision is appealed against within 28 days of notification of the decision.
(5) On an appeal under sub-paragraph (4) above, the Secretary of State may allow or dismiss the appeal or vary the decision of the authority whose decision is appealed against.
(6) If the authority to which the application is made does not notify the applicant of its decision before the end of the working day following the day on which the application is made, the application shall be deemed to have been granted unconditionally.
502
(7) In this paragraph—
"approved arrangements" means arrangements approved for the purposes of any of the following provisions of Schedule 6 to this Act—

(a) paragraph 7, so far as relating to item 1 or 6 in the table in that paragraph,

(b) paragraph 16, so far as relating to item 5 in the table in that paragraph,

(c) paragraph 23, so far as relating to item 5 in the table in that paragraph, and

(d) paragraph 25;

"authorised works" means works authorised by this Part of this Act;
"the London Lorry Ban Order" means the Greater London (Restriction of Goods Vehicles) Traffic Order 1985; and
"working day" means any day which is not a Saturday or Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday or a bank holiday in England and Wales under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971.").
The noble Viscount said: Under the present wording of paragraph 9 of Schedule 9 to the Bill, Article 3 of the Greater London (Restriction of Goods Vehicles) Traffic Order 1985,—better known as the London lorry ban which prohibits lorries from using certain roads in London at certain times, unless a permit has been issued—is disapplied entirely in relation to vehicles being used for the purposes of or in connection with the CTRL works authorised by the Bill. That was because of the provisions of the planning regime established by Schedule 6 to the Bill, and the detailed provisions of the code of construction practice outside the Bill.
However, following a meeting with the London Boroughs Transport Scheme—which is the local authority organisation that administers the ban in a number of the London boroughs but not all of them—in June, the LBTS was offered an assurance that instead of disapplying the ban entirely we would modify its application in a way which reflected the national significance of the CTRL as well as the detailed planning approvals regime that the Bill establishes, which among other things gives qualifying local authorities control over the routing of construction lorries and hours of work.
The LBTS accepted that assurance and I understand that the matter was not raised before the Select Committee. We believe that the amendment before the Committee today honours that assurance. We are aware, however, that the LBTS feels that the amendment does not reflect what it believes was agreed in July and it has been in touch with the department about its concerns, which I understand contain essentially three aspects: the cost-effective provision in subparagraph (3); the time limit in subparagraph (6), and the fact that appeals under subparagraph (3) are to be referred to the Secretary of State in addition to appeals under subparagraph (2).
Perhaps I may deal with those points in turn. On the cost-effective provision in sub-paragraph (3), the LBTS feels that this would allow CTRL lorries to use minor roads or roads of residential areas if that were cost effective. That seems to be based on the assumption that London and Continental Railways would apply to use minor roads or roads of residential areas even where major roads or other suitable alternatives were available. If it did that it would surely expect to lose any appeal.
Secondly, on the time limit in sub-paragraph (6), the way in which the sub-paragraph is drafted gives the issuing authority at least 24 hours, and possibly as long as 48 hours, to deal with most applications. If the application were submitted first thing on a Monday, the issuing authority would have until close of business on Tuesday to notify the applicant of its decision before it were deemed to have been granted a permit unconditionally. That does not mean getting the permit to the applicant either by post or by hand. It means notifying the decision. That can be done over the telephone.
I know that the LBTS feel that such a timetable is not in the spirit of the agreement reached in July. But I must dissent from that view. The letters from officials in my department made it clear that the amendment on offer would mean that the issuing authority would be required immediately to issue a permit. For example, a week is clearly not immediately. Moreover, I am told that in emergencies the LBTS can and does issue permits over the telephone.
Thirdly, on appeals to the Secretary of State, I gather that that is the point on which perhaps the LBTS feels most aggrieved. The concern is that sub-paragraph (4) provides for appeals under sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) to be referred to the Secretary of State. That means that appeals against both an outright refusal of a permit and the adverse conditioning of a permit would come to the Secretary of State. It is the "and" that is important. The LBTS feels that that, too, goes against what was agreed in July. Yet its own letter makes it clear that appeals to the Secretary of State were to be allowed,
"where a permit had been refused for journeys"—
I emphasise the words "for journeys"—
"which the developers regard as necessary for the execution of CTRL work".
In other words, the amendment offered in July was that the Secretary of State would determine appeals in instances where a permit for a journey which was regarded as necessary had been refused. That clearly includes outright refusal of an application as well as the conditioning of the grant of a permit so as either to thwart the journey contemplated in the application or to load it with adverse conditions.
It would clearly be odd for there to be one appeal mechanism for an outright refusal and another for the adverse conditioning of a permit. The issuing authority would never refuse an application outright yet seek to do just that in effect by loading the permit with adverse conditions. It seems clear that the burden in the relevant paragraphs in our letters in July was not the refusal of a permit but the journey to which the application related.
With that explanation of the provisions that we have brought forward, I commend the amendment to the Committee. It is the result of negotiations with the London Boroughs Transport Scheme, the body that administers this ban. I hope that the Committee will welcome the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My noble friend has spelt out the somewhat tortuous details of the source of disagreement that currently exists between the
504
promoters and the department on the one hand and the London Boroughs Transport Scheme, the people who run the lorry ban, on the other.
An important issue of principle is raised. I have read every word of the correspondence between my noble friend's department in July and the director of the London Boroughs Transport Scheme. The petition which was being presented by the London Borough of Newham on behalf of the scheme was withdrawn because clear undertakings were given in the correspondence in return for a concession by the London Boroughs Transport Scheme. The Committee should perhaps be aware that the normal appeal against a refusal of a permit is an appeal to the committee of the scheme. The department and the promoter felt very strongly that with a project as important as the CTRL it should not rest with the committee as to whether a lorry used the roads at night for the purposes of constructing the railway but that the final word should rest with the Secretary of State.
The scheme gave that concession. I shall not quote all the letters. However, it was made perfectly clear. The words is "refuse" a permit. What the draftsman and the department have done in clear breach of that understanding is to add that the Secretary of State must also have the right to hear appeals against the imposition of conditions. My noble friend has given two reasons for that, both of which, I have to say with the greatest respect to him, are entirely spurious. First, he says that it will be perfectly possible for the scheme to give a permit but to so hedge it about with conditions that it would be tantamount to a refusal. That is contrary to the regulations under which that scheme operates. That would be against the law. In any event, why would they want to do that?
Secondly, the Minister latched on to the word "journeys" because the letter used the words "a permit for journeys" as though somehow that made the position different from just issuing a permit. What on earth is the purpose of issuing a permit if it is not to allow a lorry to make a journey? It seems an entirely bogus reason for suggesting that somehow it is now perfectly all right to break the agreement, an agreement on the basis of which a petition against the Bill was withdrawn so that the committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Ampthill never heard the argument. We now have new conditions put into the schedule.
I must ask my noble friend to look at this issue again. It is a breach of faith on a matter—it may seem of minor importance against the billions of pounds that will have to be spent on the railway—which is of crucial importance. I speak as one who represented people in London. It is of crucial importance to the people who live in quiet streets and expect as a result of this scheme to be spared through the night the rumble of heavy traffic for construction.
There was no attempt to disapply the scheme for the Jubilee Line. There was no attempt to disapply the scheme for building the terminal at Waterloo, which was a huge project. The first attempt was simply to disapply the scheme altogether. My noble friend has properly said that in respect of the eight boroughs through which

505
the line will go there will be a separate scheme. But by disapplying the measure, what about the 25 other boroughs? Quite properly, therefore, the promoters and the department have agreed that it must stand. But it must stand on the conditions that were agreed in the correspondence in July, and on nothing more. My noble friend has allowed himself to be misled into imposing additional conditions in breach of faith. I am sure that my noble friend who is an honourable man would not wish to be charged with that. He has the opportunity between now and Report to put the matter right.
On the other two more minor matters, regarding the time limit it is no good telephoning someone to say, "You have a permit" You can telephone them to say that a permit is on its way to them but if a vehicle is not displaying a permit it is in breach of the law. The vehicle has to be displaying the permit; the permit has to reach the vehicle operator.
With regard to the time limit, the Minister said that it could be as long as 48 hours. That implies that it is done over the weekend or a public holiday. The time limit is in fact 24 hours, but that cannot be guaranteed, knowing the general level of efficiency of the Post Office. I have said to the London Boroughs Transport Scheme that couriers could be used. In fact, a very small modification would allow that to be done.
The question of unreasonable conditions and things being done in an efficient and timely manner, allowing lorry owners to argue that they should therefore be able to use residential streets rather than take a longer route, needs to be looked at again. The purpose of this scheme is to protect London's residents from being disturbed in the middle of the night. One understands that there will necessarily be some disturbance while this railway is built, but a balance must be held. There was an agreement in July and that is now being ratted on. I believe that my noble friend would not wish to carry that accusation on his shoulders.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I believe that the points that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has made are worthy of further consideration. I will not elaborate on them because he made the points eloquently and comprehensively. He did not allude to the fact—perhaps he did not know—that discussions took place between the London Boroughs Transport Scheme and an official or officials at the Department of Transport on, I believe, 29th October. These arguments were rehearsed and the department's official took a similar line to that which the Minister has adopted today.
I do not propose to say anything more about the merits of the issue save to say that I have a good deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said. However, I am advised that, far from reaching a conclusive determination in those discussions on 29th October, the official concerned agreed to consider the points which had been made. It seems to me that that is not a satisfactory way of trying to conclude the negotiation. These are points of great importance and substance.
506
Perhaps we can short-circuit the debate today, the points having been made. If the Minister were to agree to further consultations, perhaps directly with himself, on the three or four points raised by the noble Lord, the matter could proceed on that basis without further debate today. There is no point in rehearsing again what has already been said. I think that in that way the London Boroughs Transport Scheme would at least feel that it had had a fair crack of the whip. If no movement is achieved, it may come back and say that the negotiation has not been satisfactory and seek to encourage amendments to be made at a later stage, on Report or perhaps even later.
The whole matter has been discussed with a degree of haste, perhaps because of the timetable that we have had. I know that discussions about these matters were originally held in July. The point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, about the scheme's feeling aggrieved that there has been a departure from what was agreed to be a matter of very important principle. The easiest way to deal with the matter would be for the negotiations to be reconvened.
Viscount Goschen: I have listened very carefully to what has been said this evening, particularly by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. I would not want the Government to be accused of any breach of faith. That is not what the Government intend. I believe that there is a misunderstanding. I understand what the noble Lord said about my emphasis on the word "journey", but the word "journey" would seem to imply more detail.
I do not want to go into detail on the question of legality of a permit with regard to possession of a permit rather than its having been issued but not being in the driver's hands. I shall take further advice on that matter. These days it is possible, with fax machines, for a facsimile to be transmitted very quickly. I shall take advice about the legality of that. Perhaps if we come back to these issues that will be one of the points on the table.
With this amendment we make progress over the situation that pertained previously. There are some details that remain outstanding but the bulk of this amendment is agreed and I think that it will provide considerable extra protection. There is no dispute that in this Chamber we are all very interested in the protection of Londoners from noise from heavy lorries. I believe that the best course of action is for the Committee to accept this amendment this evening and, without any commitment to bringing forward changes at Report stage, I will consider yet again the issues that have been highlighted by my noble friend Lord Jenkin.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Perhaps the Minister can go a little further. He has agreed to reconsider the matter. Would he agree to meet representatives of the London Boroughs Transport Scheme in order that further discussions can take place? Because of the seriousness of the matter, it would be preferable for the discussions to take place with him as well as with officials. I think

507
his involvement would be helpful so that the scheme could make representations at the level which it now feels is necessary.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: As we are in Committee, I should perhaps have made the point that I am a joint president with the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, of the Association of London Government, in which capacity I have been asked to intervene in this debate tonight. I should be very happy to accompany the officials of the London Boroughs Transport Scheme to a meeting with my noble friend. I believe they will be most grateful if he will agree to meet us before the Report stage so that we can resolve these difficulties.
I was delighted to hear the Minister say that he had no wish to be charged with a breach of faith. That is what it looks like at the moment, and we need to put that right.
Viscount Goschen: I believe we have been over that point. I should like to reiterate that, of course, the department has acted in entirely good faith throughout. I should certainly be very happy to meet my noble friend and anyone whom he would care to bring with him before the next stage of this Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules 10 to 12 agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 37:
After Schedule 12, insert the following new schedule—
("SCHEDULE
OVERHEAD LINES: CONSENT
Scope of Schedule
1. This Schedule applies to any electric line to which section 37(1) of the Electricity Act 1989 would apply, but for section 47(1) above.
Consent requirement
2.—(1) An electric line to which this Schedule applies shall not be installed or kept installed above ground except in accordance with a consent granted by the appropriate Ministers.
(2) Any person who without reasonable excuse contravenes the provisions of sub-paragraph (1) above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
(3) No proceedings shall be instituted in respect of an offence under this paragraph except by or on behalf of the Secretary of State.
Applications for consent
3.—(1) An application for consent under this Schedule shall be in writing and shall state—

(a) the length of the electric line to which it relates,

(b) the nominal voltage of that line, and

(c) whether the application to any extent relates to exercise of the power conferred by paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 2 to this Act.

(2) An application for consent under this Schedule shall be accompanied by a map showing—

(a) the land across which the electric line to which it relates is to be installed or kept installed, including details of the route of that line,

(b) the limits of deviation for the scheduled works and the limits of land to be acquired or used, so far as relevant to the application, and

508

(c) if the application to any extent relates to exercise of the power conferred by paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 2 to this Act, the extent to which it so relates.

4. An application for consent under this Schedule shall be supplemented, if the appropriate Ministers so direct in writing, by such additional information as may be specified in the direction.
Publicity
5.—(1) A person applying for consent under this Schedule shall publish notice of the application in two successive weeks in one or more local newspapers circulating in the area in which the land to which the application relates is situated (or in areas which together include that area).
(2) A notice under sub-paragraph (1) above shall—

(a) describe the route of the electric line to which the application relates,

(b) specify a place in the locality where a copy of the application may be inspected,

(c) state a time (not being less than 14 days from the date of publication) within which, and the manner in which, objections to the application may be made to the appropriate Ministers, and

(d) if it relates to an application by the nominated undertaker, explain the effect of paragraph 8(2)(b) below.

(3) Sub-paragraph (1) above shall not apply to an application for consent under this Schedule which relates only to exercise of the power conferred by paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 2 to this Act.
(4) If an application for consent under this Schedule relates partly to exercise of the power conferred by paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 2 to this Act, so much of the application as relates to exercise of that power shall be disregarded for the purposes of sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) above.
(5) If an application for consent under this Schedule is one in relation to which the applicant is subject to a duty under sub-paragraph (1) above, the appropriate Ministers shall not make any decision about the application until they are satisfied—

(a) that the applicant has performed his duty under that provision, and

(b) that the time allowed by the notice under that provision for making objections to the application has expired.

Consultation
6.—(1) Within 14 days of receiving an application for consent under this Schedule, the appropriate Ministers shall invite the relevant planning authority to make representations and shall not make any decision about the application until—

(a) they have received representations from the authority about it,

(b) they have been informed by the authority that it does not wish to make any representations about it, or

(c) 28 days have elapsed since the date of the invitation.

(2) An invitation under sub-paragraph (1) above shall specify the time limit for making representations.
(3) For the purposes of this paragraph, the relevant planning authority is—

(a) in the case of a line in Greater London, the local planning authority, and

(b) in the case of a line in Essex or Kent, the district planning authority.

7.—(1) If the appropriate Ministers consider that an application for consent under this Schedule relates to matters which may affect—

(a) nature conservation,

(b) the conservation of the natural beauty or amenity of the countryside, or

(c) a site of archaeological or historic interest,

they shall, within 14 days of receiving the application, also invite the appropriate body or bodies to make representations.

509
(2) Where under sub-paragraph (1) above the appropriate Ministers have invited a body to make representations about an application for consent under this Schedule, they shall not make any decision about the application until—

(a) they have received representations from the body about the request,

(b) they have been informed by the body that it does not wish to make any representations about the request, or

(c) 14 days have elapsed since the date of the invitation.

(3) An invitation under sub-paragraph (1) above shall specify the time limit for making representations.
(4) For the purposes of this paragraph, the following are appropriate bodies in relation to the following matters—

Matter

Body

Nature conservation.

The Nature Conservancy Council for England.

Conservation of the natural beauty or amenity of the countryside.

The Countryside Commission.

Sites of archaeological or historic interest.

The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England.

Grant of consent
8.—(1) This paragraph applies to an application for consent under this Schedule by the nominated undertaker.
(2) An application to which this paragraph applies may only be refused—

(a) to the extent that it relates to exercise of the power conferred by paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 2 to this Act. on the ground that the electric line ought to, and could reasonably, be installed elsewhere within the limits specified, in relation to the diversion concerned, in the third column of the table in paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 2 to this Act, and

(b) to the extent that it does not relate to exercise of that power, on the ground that the electric line ought to, and could reasonably, be installed elsewhere within the limits of deviation for the scheduled works or within the limits of land to be acquired or used.

9. A consent under this Schedule may include such conditions (including conditions as to the ownership and operation of the electric line to which it relates) as appear to the appropriate Ministers to be appropriate.
Variation and revocation of consent
10.—(1) A consent under this Schedule may be varied or revoked by the Secretary of State at any time after the end of such period as may be specified in the consent.
(2) The period which may be specified under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be less than 10 years from the date of installation of the electric line to which the consent relates.
Duration of consent
11. Subject to paragraph 10 above, a consent under this Schedule shall continue in force for such period as may be specified in or determined by or under the consent.
Anticipatory applications
12.—(1) This paragraph applies where—

(a) an application to the appropriate Ministers has been made in anticipation of the coming into force of this Schedule,

(b) the application was made on or after 31st October 1996, and

(c) the person by, or on whose behalf, the application was made—

(i) is specified under section 32(1) above for purposes consisting of or including the construction of any works,

510

(ii) is a member of the same group as a person who is so specified, or

(iii) is the holder of a licence under section 6 of the Electricity Act 1989.

(2) In that case—

(a) the application,

(b) any notice of the application published by the applicant.

(c) any objections to the application made in response to any such notice,

(d) any invitation by the appropriate Ministers to make representations about the application, and

(e) any representations about the application, or statement about the wish to make representations about it, made in response to any such invitation,

shall have effect as if this Schedule had been in force at all material times.
(3) In sub-paragraph (1)(c)(ii) above, "group" means a body corporate and all other bodies corporate which are its subsidiaries within the meaning of the Companies Act 1985.
Interpretation
13. In this Schedule, references to the appropriate Ministers are to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Transport acting jointly.").
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move Amendment No. 37. This was spoken to in the group with Amendment No. 23.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 13 [Protective provisions]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 206, line 49, after ("shall") insert ("(except in the case of works of repair or renewal required in an emergency)").
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 38, I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 39. These are detailed amendments to the provisions of the Bill that provide for the protection of the various utilities affected by the CTRL. The first is a concession agreed with the utilities last week; the second is an amendment consequential on the first. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 206, line 52, leave out ("such work") and insert ("work in respect of which the undertakers are subject to an obligation under sub-paragraph (1) above").
On Question amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Schedule 13 shall be agreed to?
Lord Ampthill: With the leave of the Committee, as this is the last matter to be debated, if it is to be debated, perhaps I may be allowed to say thank you on behalf of the Select Committee for the extremely kind remarks made at the beginning of this afternoon's proceedings. I wished to rise to my feet to say that at that time, but the Chairman of Committees moved the proceedings with such speed that it was impossible to do so.
I am very grateful not only for the generous remarks that were made about the committee and its work—and the gross exaggerations which were personal to myself.

511
Perhaps I may also say how much I enjoyed this afternoon's proceedings in which matters have been looked at which needed to be looked at. I look forward to the next stages of the Bill when no doubt we shall hear further from farmers and probably from English Heritage. Thank you so much.
Schedule 13, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Open-Ended Investment Companies (Investment Companies with Variable Capital) Regulations 1996
7.31 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish)The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 17th July be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee—Session 1995–96].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these regulations are being introduced under the European Communities Act 1972 to provide for the establishment in Great Britain of a new type of body corporate falling within the scope of an EU directive. Separate regulations will be introduced to enable the formation of open-ended investment companies in Northern Ireland.
The EU directive in this case is the 1985 directive co-ordinating the provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities, usually known as the UCITS directive. It may assist noble Lords if I explain briefly its purpose and effect. It is a single market directive for schemes (known as collective investment schemes) in which investors' money is pooled and invested in a way which spreads risk. Although the directive provides that schemes may take the form of open-ended investment companies, the only UK-based schemes able to take advantage of the marketing passport so far have been authorised unit trust schemes. This is because there is currently no provision in UK law for open-ended investment companies.
Much business has been lost to Luxembourg and Dublin because of difficulties of marketing unit trusts offshore. One of the main reasons for the regulations before us this evening is to enable British investment companies to catch up with their offshore competitors by enabling them to compete on a level playing field with the rest of Europe.
There has been a long and thorough period of consultation about these regulations for open-ended investment companies. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I refer to them from now on by the rather inelegant title of OEICs—not in the usual meaning of "oiks" but with a different meaning. It may not be particularly elegant but it is a good deal easier to say than repeating the long handled version every time I—and all of us—have to mention them this evening.
The Treasury first consulted with policy proposals in 1994 and followed this with further consultations about draft regulations in 1995. The investment fund industry has responded most constructively with comments and
512
the Government are most grateful for its thorough and careful consideration of the issues. A number of adjustments to the original proposals have been made to reflect messages from those consultations. I will mention some of those in the course of my speech today.
The regulations for OEICs establish the main elements of a separate corporate code for the new type of investment company. These regulations are the first part of a package of measures to allow the formation of OEICs in Great Britain. OEICs will not be formed under the Companies Acts because the Government do not consider this traditional route to be appropriate for what will be regulated collective investment schemes. However, a number of familiar concepts of company law are contained in the OEICs code, blended together with other features from unit trusts.
Like the authorised unit trust, the OEIC will be authorised and regulated by the Securities and Investments Board (or SIB for short) under powers granted to it in the European Communities Act regulations. These powers are similar to those in the Financial Services Act 1986 under which SIB regulates unit trusts. SIB regulations for OEICs will be the second part of the package of measures I have mentioned and will supplement the ECA regulations to complete the code of OEICs. A near final draft of SIB's regulations was published for consultation on 22nd October.
The third part of the package will be tax regulations to be introduced shortly by the Inland Revenue. The tax regime for OEICs will be broadly similar to that for authorised unit trusts. The tax regulations will also provide some relief from stamp duty and stamp duty reserve tax for authorised unit trusts which convert to OEICs. In addition, the Government have already announced that the next Finance Bill will introduce relief from stamp duty for other mergers of authorised unit trusts for a period of some two years.
So what is an open-ended investment company? It is in fact exactly what its full title suggests. It is a type of company whose business is investment in securities such as shares of other companies. It will issue shares to its investors and its capital may go up or down as shares are issued or cancelled. Hence the "open-ended" in the title.
The assets of an OEIC—the shares which its owns—will be held by a depositary which must be authorised under the FSA. The depositary plays a key role, similar to that of the unit trust trustee, and must be legally independent of the directors of the OEIC. That independence requirement is an important feature of investor protection and reflects a clear message from virtually the whole of the investment fund industry during the consultations.
I turn briefly to the corporate structure of the OEIC which has been the subject of some debate. Each OEIC will have a board which may consist of a sole authorised corporate director or a number of directors. Promoters of OEICs will therefore have a choice. This important element of flexibility was introduced following consultation. The Government believe that an OEIC with a sole corporate director can be effective, just like the unit trust with its fund manager. At the same time,

513
many OEICs and indeed many investors may see advantages in a board with a number of directors, some of whom might be non-executives. Where a board has more than one director, SIB regulations will require one to be an authorised corporate director.
I have mentioned the element of flexibility in the regulations. This is balanced by the robust framework of protection for investors within which OEICs must operate. All the activities of the OEIC will be supervised by the regulators and the OEIC itself and its key players must be authorised under the FSA. It is unfortunately the case that no system of regulation can entirely rule out the possibility of fraud or mismanagement, but it is important to set high standards of protection for investors. That is what the Government propose for OEICs, as is already the case for authorised unit trusts.
I hope that my remarks have given your Lordships an indication of the main features of the OEIC. It will be a modern, flexible and transparent investment product, and it will be regulated.
Investors in this country will find a new product which is simple to understand, with key features disclosed more clearly than ever before. And they will have an opportunity to widen their ownership of shares without the burden of managing a diverse portfolio. Its corporate form will make it attractive to overseas investors too.
Promoters will benefit from the additional flexibility which is possible when backed by full and clear disclosure. Costs generally are likely to be more or less neutral when compared with unit trusts and there may be some economies of scale from using an umbrella structure.
The Government have been careful throughout to maintain a balance between flexibility and a high standard of protection for investors. These regulations for OEICs introduce a new and forward-looking stimulus to collective investment schemes in this country, and I believe that they will enhance the City of London's reputation as a centre for excellence in financial services. I commend them to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 17th July be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee—Session 1995–96].—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
7.40 p.m.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, for introducing this complex piece of legislation so clearly. As I am going to make some critical remarks, I should make clear at the beginning that the Labour Party is supportive of the introduction of open-ended investment companies as a flexible investment vehicle which will not only increase investment choice but also enable the British investment industry to compete more effectively with other investment centres in the European economic area, notably Dublin and Luxembourg.
514
While I welcome the intention to introduce open-ended investment companies, I am not content with the manner in which the legislation is presented to Parliament, nor indeed with some of the content of the regulations in the order. I am also disturbed to hear this evening that we have only part of the legislation with respect to open-ended companies before us. A package of SIB measures has just been published and we are asked this evening to approve a regulation which has fiscal implications when the Inland Revenue regulations have not yet been published. That is not the right way to proceed.
Before moving on to detail, let me reflect for a moment on the environment in which the legislation is being introduced; namely, at a time when we are all acutely aware of the problems that are being encountered in the unit trust business of Morgan Grenfell. Those problems raised serious questions about the conduct and regulation of collective investment institutions. Noble Lords will be aware that if it were not the case that the financial strength of Deutschebank stood behind Morgan Grenfell and that Deutschebank has been prepared to cover potential losses in the Morgan Grenfell business, then the individual purchasers of trust units would have suffered substantial losses.
In those circumstances, before we have all the facts of the Morgan Grenfell case before us, it seems unwise—to say the least—to introduce an entirely new form of retail product by means of an order. While it is true that there has been extensive consultation on this matter, that consultation took place prior to the Morgan Grenfell case and could not have taken that case into account.
The Association of Unit Trusts & Investment Funds, in a briefing prepared for this debate, argued that the problems at Morgan Grenfell,
"seem to have related more to controls and the application of regulations rather than to the product regulations themselves".
That may be so; we do not know as yet. But, if it is so, it raises serious questions in relation to some of the regulations in this order as they apply to open-ended investment companies. For example, can the Minister explain why, oddly, in these regulations—Regulation 10(4)—the company must have at least one director? The Minister referred to this point. Why only one?
I accept that in the case of there being only one director Regulation 10(6) states that the director must be a body corporate. Can the Minister explain why the usual Companies Act condition that there should be at least two directors does not apply in this case? The Minister referred in his remarks to the blending of unit trust and company legislation. Surely in this regard the blend has turned distinctly sour. It is an illegitimate extrapolation of trust law.
As I said, under the Companies Act there must be at least two directors of a company. The reason for that requirement is to protect the shareholders against impropriety. Surely in the circumstances of an open-ended investment company the same requirement should apply. It is worth noting that under the Financial Services Act—Clause 77—a unit trust scheme must have a manager and a trustee, who shall be different

515
persons. Why are the conditions in this regulation so different? Why is a similar statement to that in unit trust law not made here?
Furthermore, given that the Morgan Grenfell case raised serious questions of controls within financial companies, why is there no requirement that there should be non-executive directors? The legislation seems to be going in exactly the opposite direction from that which has become customary in Britain in recent years, when there has been an emphasis on the need for more non-executive directors to play a vital monitoring role. Is it not even more the case that there should be non-executive directors in a retail financial business where the care of public savings is involved?
In continuing the theme of responsible control, I should like to ask the Minister some questions in relation to the role of the depositary. Regulation 10(8)(d) states that the depositary must be an authorised person; but it nowhere defines who is an authorised person. Can the Minister tell us? More importantly, Regulation 5(2)(b) states that nothing shall prevent the depositary from,
"entrusting to a third party all or some of the assets in its safekeeping; or … authorising the third party to entrust all or some of those assets to other specified persons".
Are those third parties or even fourth parties authorised persons in terms of the regulation? If so, why does it not say so? Is the Minister content that by permitting these depositary chains, the consumer is being adequately protected by the regulations? Will the widows and orphans investing in these schemes know who is the depositary who is holding their assets? Will SIB know as the third and fourth elements in the chain are passed on?
Finally, I turn to that part of the regulation which is at one and the same time innovative and, I believe, most disturbing. The Minister did not mention it in his introduction. It was the dog that did not bark. I have given the Minister notice of my worries on this point. I refer to Regulation 42, which permits the introduction of bearer shares; that is, shares, the ownership of which is defined purely by their being in the possession of the bearer and of whose ownership, as Schedule 4, Clause 1(2) makes clear, no record is kept in the share register.
I am aware that bearer shares are common in many European countries and are not unknown in this country, particularly in some pre-war legislation. But their use was discontinued in this country, not least because they were a potent means of tax evasion. Introducing them into the heart of the financial services industry is contrary to the entire thrust of British companies and financial legislation for the past 50 years. It introduces a clear and present danger to the integrity both of financial institutions involved and of the fiscal system. The Minster should reflect on some of the dangers.
The ability to issue bearer shares means that the situation can arise in which no one will know who owns the company in which they are investing and will have no means of finding out. A major proportion of the shares might be owned by Mr. Nick Leeson or by an investor of the integrity of Mr. Robert Maxwell so far as anybody would know. Is the Minister content with
516
that? Equally, it is not clear from the regulations how the company law with respect to mergers and takeovers will apply in a situation where the actual holders of shares are not on the register. If no one knows who owns the shares, how can the usual conditions of proportions and holdings in takeover regulation possibly operate? Will the Minister explain how that is to be done?
On a technical matter, in Regulation 42 it is stated that a company may issue bearer shares,
"evidenced by a share certificate, or by any other documentary evidence of title for which provision is made in the instrument of incorporation".
Will the Minister explain what is meant by that? What do the Government have in mind? Will the Minister also tell the House what steps have been taken by the Inland Revenue to ensure that bearer shares do not become a means of tax evasion? As I said earlier, it was for that reason that their use in Britain was discontinued. Why are the Government willing to introduce that well-known evasion device now?
The introduction of bearer shares into British financial institutions, particularly retail financial institutions, is a grave step. It is entirely inappropriate that this remarkable change to British financial custom and practice should be introduced in an order. This House has had no opportunity to discuss the full implications of the innovation in Committee or to introduce amendments. I ask the Minister seriously to consider whether he should proceed this evening with an order containing Regulation 42.
This is an extraordinary statutory instrument. It contains 75 clauses or regulations and eight associated schedules. The Minister told us this evening that there are two more batches of legislation to come. This is not merely amending or developing financial legislation which has been considered in detail on previous occasions—the Minister and I have dealt with such orders on many occasions; orders which amend trivial or limited parts of financial legislation—this is something completely different.
This order introduces into British financial law an entirely new sort of investment vehicle making substantial innovations in the form in which collective investment companies are organised in this country. More seriously, it introduces bearer shares into British financial practice, from which they had been banished. In other words, this is a Bill masquerading as an order and it is entirely improper that it should be introduced in this manner. I am particularly disturbed, given our support for the overall form of open-ended investment institutions, that the Government have decided to proceed in this way. I would once again ask the Minister to consider whether this important legislation should proceed this evening in this form.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, I rise to give a welcome to these regulations and I hope very much that my noble friend the Minister will say this evening that the regulations will go ahead. I speak in two capacities and therefore probably disclose two interests: first, in my capacity as chairman of NatWest, which has

517
an interest as a financial institution and will potentially be able to market OEICs, and, secondly, as deputy chairman of the Securities and Investments Board. I should like to say just a few words in both capacities.
Speaking as a banker, I greatly welcome the new opportunity which the introduction of OEICs and these regulations will provide to our financial services industry. Investment management is at the moment an area of competitive advantage for the United Kingdom. We need to capitalise on City expertise. Perhaps I may give our own position purely by way of example. In the NatWest group we have a unit trust management company operating trust funds under management. In the shape of Coutts, we also have one of the small number of authorised unit trust trustees acting as a custodian for trusts. With these companies at the moment we can manage, market and protect only unit trusts and it may well be we will wish to develop new vehicles of the kind envisaged in the regulations. If we do decide to go ahead, that will be because of the additional flexibility, simplicity and competitiveness which these new vehicles will offer if the regulations are approved. I say that by way of example because I know that other investment houses will be considering exactly the same opportunity. I very much welcome the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, has indicated that the Labour Party is supportive of the principle of open-ended investment companies.
Perhaps I may be permitted to add a few words in my other capacity as a regulator. The Securities and Investments Board has been working closely with the Treasury on open-ended investment companies for some three years now; indeed, during the whole period of my association with the SIB. We are fully satisfied that the project should go ahead as presently designed. We have taken a great deal of care to ensure an equivalent level of investor protection to that available to investors in unit trusts. We have sought to provide a flexible vehicle for the benefit of the industry and investors alike, simplifying the new product wherever possible.
One example of this simplicity may suffice. These new vehicles will be priced on a single pricing basis with the preliminary charge shown separately. This should make for much greater transparency for those buying and selling the shares and should enable some worthwhile economies in the administration of the investment vehicle.
I shall obviously leave my noble friend the Minister to respond on the issue of bearer shares but my understanding is that bearer shares are very popular in continental Europe. It was felt that without them United Kingdom competitors for that marketplace would be at a disadvantage. Their use in many European states is well-established, but we do not in practice expect them to be used much in the domestic market. I also understand that concerns about potential money laundering were carefully addressed during consultation, but there was a consciousness of the protection provided by the money laundering regulations which are in place.
So, wearing my two hats, I think it is important that the United Kingdom should take advantage of the opportunity to expand our own stable of collective
518
investment vehicles to include the corporate vehicle that has been so successful in Luxembourg, Dublin and the Channel Islands. And although there was an invitation from the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, to say, "OEICs, OEICs, go away, come again another day", I hope very much that that will not be acceded to. I agree with him that every Member of your Lordships' House will be well aware of the problems that have recently come to light in the Morgan Grenfell case.
Obviously it will come as no surprise that industry and regulators are both giving intensive thoughts to the lessons to be learnt from the case. The SIB, for instance, is urgently reviewing the limits on investment in unlisted securities, on the valuation of unlisted securities and the relevant responsibilities of the manager and trustee, including obligations to report to the regulator. Our preliminary conclusion—I underline the word "preliminary"—is that no major changes are required to the product regulations for unit trusts. But if some changes are to be made in the areas I have mentioned, I understand that those amendments would be carried over to SIB's regulations for OEICs at more or less the same time. Any additional protection needed for unit trusts generally can be extended to OEICs. So I hope we will not postpone the envisaged arrival of the new vehicle which has an important future in the United Kingdom. I believe that these regulations provide us with a solid start. If improvements can be made later, we should all welcome that. But there is no need to wait for that to happen.
As has been indicated from both sides of the House, the City thrives on innovation. I believe it will suffer if we withhold or postpone tonight our approval to this welcome new vehicle, however difficult we find it to come to terms with the name.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to my friend Lord Alexander and to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, for their welcome of the regulations and of the advent of the OEIC, despite its name. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Alexander, who, with his wide background of knowledge in the City and as a regulator, was able, I hope, to allay some of the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell.
Perhaps I may take one at a time the four main points which the noble Lord raised with me. He asked me about Morgan Grenfell and suggested that we should hold our hand until we had discovered a little more about what had led up to that and whether there were any lessons to be learnt. I am sure the noble Lord will understand, as will the House, that, while IMRO's investigations continue, it is impossible for me to say anything of the details of those problems. But what I can say is that, as a result of IMRO's monitoring of unit trusts run by other fund management firms, this was an isolated incident. The recent problems are unusual and perhaps even unique and they have undoubtedly caused other firms offering unit trusts to the public to consider carefully whether their own internal controls and management procedures are adequate. As we have just heard, SIB is considering whether there might be value in adjusting its regulation in certain technical areas. But,

519
conscious of the costs and dangers of over-regulation, SIB is planning to consult about a number of possible minor changes to its unit trust regulations. Against that background we feel that we can be comfortable with using unit trusts as the model for investor protection standards for the OEIC.
Yesterday there was a thoughtful speech by the chairman of SIB outlining a programme of work on the responsibilities of senior managers of investment firms in order to underline their role in delivering proper compliance with the regulations. I am sure your Lordships would be interested in reading what the chairman of SIB said. SIB will report early next year.
Your Lordships will also notice, and the Government welcome, the AUTIF's recent proposals for voluntary self-restraint on the holding of pre-listed securities, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Alexander. That is a good sign. It shows us that the fund management industry is moving to reassure investors who may find it worrying that all of a collective investment scheme can be invested in securities which are expected to list within a year. I hope that AUTIF members will respond positively.
The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, was concerned about the timetable. I assure him that the regulations do not come into force until 6th January, by which time SIB regulations which are now out will have been fully examined through consultation, and also the tax regulations, which I have mentioned will be available. The tax regulations are subject to negative resolution. So without being too hopeful that the noble Lord will respond, he will always have the opportunity to discuss them if he wishes when they come before us.
The noble Lord asked me why only one director and not two. I am sure that the noble Lord appreciates that OEICs may have non-executive directors if they wish. They may have more than one director, but it is not mandatory. If there is to be a sole director then that director has to be a corporate director. He must be an authorised person and he will be responsible for all aspects of the management of the company. If there is more than one director then SIB' s regulations will require all OEICs to have one corporate director and that must be an authorised person. The SIB regulations set out the responsibilities of that authorised corporate director. Some of these are the responsibilities of the authorised corporate director alone. In such cases the other directors are required to exercise reasonable care to satisfy themselves that the ACD undertakes those functions in a competent manner. In other areas SIB regulations require the ACD to act with the agreement of the board. The activities for which the ACD alone is responsible include investment decisions, pricing and ensuring compliance with ECA regulations, which impose obligations on the company. I hope that explains the position.
The noble Lord asked me what were the responsibilities and duties of an OEIC depositary. The SIB regulations set out the details. The assets of the OEIC must be entrusted to the depository, which is in fact a UCITS term for safekeeping. The depositary will be responsible for ensuring that the OEIC complies with
520
SIB regulations on pricing, investment and borrowing powers and income allocation. The depositary also has a duty of oversight over the authorised corporate director to ensure compliance with the regulations which relate to the protection of the investors. The depositary of an OEIC will count as an investment business and a depositary will have to be authorised under the Financial Services Act. When the ECA regulations are made, and before they come into force on 6th January, the Treasury will lay an order extending the scope of the Financial Services Act to add the activity of the depositary of an OEIC to those activities which require authorisation.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, for giving me notice that he would ask about bearer shares. Bearer shares are very popular in continental Europe. It was felt that, without them, UK competitors would be at a disadvantage. Their use in many European states is well established and is in fact the norm more often than not.
Unit trusts may issue bearer units in the United Kingdom now and the Government wish to allow parity between OEICs and unit trusts where possible. In practice, bearer units are very rarely used and we do not expect bearer shares in OEICs to be much used in the domestic market either.
During the consultation there were indeed concerns about potential tax evasion, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. Payment of interest distributions without deduction of tax is already permitted for authorised unit trusts provided investors can be clearly identified as satisfying the relevant residence requirements. The same rules will apply to investors in OEICs.
I do not believe that it is actually a question of who owns the OEICs because the bearer shareholders will be people who will be other shareholders, the same as any other person who decides to take out shares in an OEIC. I therefore do not believe that the danger is as considerable as the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, suggested.
He asked how bearer shareholders are to be found in the event of a takeover or merger. I am sure that people who become bearer shareholders know that they have to keep an eye on advertisements and so on addressed to bearer shareholders. That is how they pick up that information currently.
On a more general point, the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, drew our attention quite rightly to the fact that this is a considerable body of regulation. In choosing the secondary legislation route we were especially conscious of the need for full consultation about the proposals. There were two rounds of very detailed public consultation in 1994 and 1995. That gave the investment industry an opportunity to comment on every aspect of the proposed regulations. We listened carefully to the views expressed and we made certain adjustments to the proposed structure in the light of advice from the industry.
I hope that I have answered the main points raised by the noble Lord. I commend the regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at six minutes past eight o'clock.

  UN Centre for Human Rights: Funding
  UN Centre for Human Rights: Funding
  ODA Programmes and Sustainable Development
  ODA Programmes and Sustainable Development
  Overseas Aid Tying Policy Review
  Overseas Aid Tying Policy Review
  Indonesia: NAO Report on Aid Contributions
  Indonesia: NAO Report on Aid Contributions
  World Food Summit
  World Food Summit
  China: World Bank Population Advice
  China: World Bank Population Advice
  Mr. Vanunu: Solitary Confinement
  Mr. Vanunu: Solitary Confinement
  IPPF Annual Report
  IPPF Annual Report
  Indigenous People: UN Declaration
  Indigenous People: UN Declaration
  Crown Copyright Material: Republication
  Crown Copyright Material: Republication
  Admiral Sir Peter Abbott: Speech
  Admiral Sir Peter Abbott: Speech
  Public Record Office
  Public Record Office
  Woolf Report Recommendations: Implementation
  Woolf Report Recommendations: Implementation
  Coastal Zone Management
  Coastal Zone Management
  Landfill of Waste Directive
  Landfill of Waste Directive
  Hazardous Wastes: Basel Convention
  Hazardous Wastes: Basel Convention
  Counter-terrorism Legislation: Lord Lloyd's Report
  Counter-terrorism Legislation: Lord Lloyd's Report
  AIDS Deaths
  AIDS Deaths
  NHS Health Advisory Service
  NHS Health Advisory Service
  MOX Fuel
  MOX Fuel