Sitting of 28 February 1997

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

    Adoptive Mothers (Maternity Leave)
    9.34 am
    Ms Margaret Hodge: I wish to present a petition of the citizens of the United Kingdom asking that the House pass the Adoptive Mothers (Maternity Leave) Bill, which is on the Order Paper today and would end the unfair discrimination experienced by adoptive parents and give them the same maternity rights at work as birth mothers.
    In the short space of just over one week since the Bill had its First Reading, the newly formed Adopters Campaign for Equality has secured 1,500 signatures for this petition. In view of the Prime Minister's statement that he wishes to remove barriers to adoption, the petitioners urge the House to take the practical step by passing the Bill, which would end the unjust discrimination against women who cannot bear children and who choose to adopt.
    To lie upon the table.

    BILL PRESENTED
      BUILDING SOCIETIES
      Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by Mr. Secretary Heseltine, Mr. Secretary Lang, Mr. Secretary Gummer, Mr. Secretary Lilley, Mr. William Waldegrave, Mr. Secretary Dorrell, Mr. Michael Jack, Mrs. Angela Knight and Mr. Phillip Oppenheim presented a Bill to amend the Building Societies Act 1986; to make provision for amalgamating the Building Societies Investor Protection Board and the Deposit Protection Board into a single board and the Building Societies Investor Protection Fund and the Deposit Protection Fund into a single fund; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Monday 3 March, and to be printed [Bill 124].
    PETITION

      Lewisham Hospital (Elective Surgery)
      Madam Speaker: We now come to the Orders of the Day and the Jurisdiction (Conspiracy and Incitement) Bill—
      Ms Joan Ruddock: On a point of Order, Madam Speaker. I have indicated that I would present a petition this morning. It is on the list, I believe.
      Madam Speaker: I was not aware of that, but there is no reason why we should not take it, as the hon. Lady is here.
      Ms Ruddock: I am extremely grateful to you, Madam Speaker. I know that Conservative Members seek a distraction this morning.
      I wish to present a petition brought on behalf of my constituents and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice) and for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd). About 1,000 constituents have signed, because they are shocked and angry that all elective surgery has been cancelled at the local hospital in Lewisham. The petition reads:
      The petition of the residents of Lewisham and South East London and past and present patients of Lewisham Hospital and their families declares that the Lewisham Hospital is a vital service to the people of Lewisham and South East London. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Health to reverse the instruction of Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham Health Authority to Lewisham Hospital to cancel all non-urgent admissions scheduled for surgery up to 31st March 1997, and urgently investigate why admissions to the Accident and Emergency Service are 12 per cent. higher than anticipated in the contract with LSLHA.
      And the petitioners remain etc.
      To lie upon the table.

      Jurisdiction (Conspiracy and Incitement) Bill
      Order for Third Reading read.
      9.36 am
      Mr. Nigel Waterson rose—
      Mr. George Galloway: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I spy strangers.
      Notice having been taken that strangers were present, MADAM SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 143 (Withdrawal of Strangers from House), put forthwith the Question, That strangers do withdraw.
      The House proceeded to a Division:—
      Mr. John Austin-Walker(seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I inquire what is happening to our proceedings given that more than eight minutes has elapsed since the Division Bell rang?
      Madam Speaker: Yes. It has been brought to my attention that the Division bells at Carriage Gates are not working, and the police are not aware that a Division is on. I have therefore allowed another two minutes for the Division, so that Members who wish to vote may do so.
      The House having divided: Ayes Nil, Noes 20.

      Division No. 86]

      [9.37 am

      AYES

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Mr. Dennis Skinner and Mr. George Galloway.

      NOES

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Luff, Peter

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Congdon, David

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)

      Conway, Derek

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

      Waller, Gary

      Fabricant, Michael

      Waterson, Nigel

      Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Mr. Timothy Wood and

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Mr. Richard Ottaway.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It appearing from the report of the Division that 40 Members were not present, MADAM SPEAKER declared that the business under consideration stood over till the next Sitting.
      Mr. Waterson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you confirm that, as a result of that procedural vote,
      528
      the Bill is unlikely to make further progress this Session? Can you also help me to understand the mysterious absence of the Labour party in the No Lobby, despite the protestations of support for my Bill from the Opposition Front Bench?
      Madam Speaker: On the hon. Gentleman's second point, it is not for me to know who goes into the Division Lobbies—that is not my business. As far as I know, the hon. Gentleman has every opportunity to make progress on his Bill on another occasion.
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. It should also be apparent that, on the morning following the remarkable Wirral, South by-election victory, the Government, whose Bill it really is, were unable to muster more than 20 Members in the Lobby. That is indicative of a Government who are not only incapable of winning by-elections, but—
      Madam Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with a point of order.
      Mrs. Audrey Wise: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I checked the annunciator screen yesterday, and this Bill was not mentioned. That misled me greatly, and I had to make inquiries to discover the business. What can be done to ensure that the annunciator screen gives hon. Members the correct information?
      Madam Speaker: The hon. Lady is quite right. The Bill appeared among the Orders of the Day. Every day it has, quite properly, appeared among the remaining Orders of the Day.
      Mrs. Wise: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Appearing among the remaining Orders of the Day is not sufficient to alert hon. Members to the fact that the Bill is to be the first business of the morning. Can steps be taken to ensure that the annunciator screen gives the proper information?
      Madam Speaker: I think that hon. Members must be alert to the business of the House.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Does it not serve the Government right? I took a slightly different view, and did not sign the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), but the proposal should have come, not from the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), but in a statement from the Home Secretary—
      Madam Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for me. We must proceed with our business.

      Prisons (Alcohol Testing) Bill
      Not amended, (in the Standing Committee), considered.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      9.52 am
      Mr. David Congdon: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      I did not expect that we would reach my Bill so early in the morning, but it just goes to show. The Bill was first presented to the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) on 20 November. I am pleased to say that at the time I was—and still am—one of its main supporters. It therefore gives me pleasure to move its Third Reading.
      The Bill's Second Reading was most ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) on 13 December. Hansard shows that a full debate was held that morning on this important issue. The Bill's Committee stage on 29 January was somewhat shorter than that of most Bills—I understand that it took a little less than one minute.
      The Bill's background is straightforward. It is fair to say that most hon. Members believed that the power to test prisoners for alcohol in prisons already existed, but it did not—hence the Bill. It bridges a gap that exists in the prison rules, bringing them into line with the rules on drug testing that were passed not long ago.
      I am sure that we all appreciate how difficult it is to keep control in a prison, and particularly to enforce discipline. The problem must be made greater when drugs or alcohol are present. There is an even bigger problem in open prisons, where prisoners are more frequently placed on temporary release and it is easier for them either to drink off the premises or to get alcohol on to the premises.
      There have been some important steps recently to strengthen prison rules. One such rule was passed in 1995, when it was determined that one of the conditions of any prisoner released on licence would be that he must not enter a public house. I am not sure how easy that provision is to enforce, but the condition exists. The power to test prisoners when they come back to prison, having been out on temporary release, will certainly provide a deterrent. The second important change occurred in September 1996, when it was made a proper disciplinary offence to consume alcohol in prisons.
      In the Second Reading debate my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) rightly mentioned another significant impact of having alcohol in prisons. It encourages a prison mafia to use alcohol as a means of controlling other prisoners, a means of exploiting prisoners and, equally importantly, a means of raising money. Those are all reasons for the Bill to be given a Third Reading this morning.
      It is difficult to estimate the exact scale of alcohol consumption in prisons. Stills have been discovered in a number of prisons, concealed in remarkable places. They have been discovered in the Wolds prison in East Yorkshire, and in Ashwell prison in Leicestershire.
      Equally disturbing is the number of prisoners shown to have an alcohol problem. A survey carried out in 1994 by the National Association of Probation Officers showed that 58 per cent. of prisoners had an alcohol problem.
      530
      That should give us all cause for thought, and make us determined to ensure that the Bill receives a Third Reading.
      The Bill sends a powerful message to prisoners that drinking alcohol will not be tolerated in prison. That is a power that many hon. Members thought already existed. The Bill is straightforward, and I commend it to the House.
      9.58 am
      Mr. Michael Fabricant: I rise in support of the Bill. It is surprising to many hon. Members and to those outside that its provisions are not already law. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) said, there already exists similar legislation to control the abuse of drugs.
      Last Friday, I visited a young offenders institution three miles south of Lichfield called Swinfen Hall young offenders institution, where I spoke to the governor, Mrs. Jacqui Francis, and met members of staff and inmates. I told Mrs. Francis that I wanted to take part in this debate, and she kindly gave me her views on the Bill. It is important that people should know the views of those on the ground who actually run our prisons. Mrs. Francis writes:
      "Historically the major form of substance abuse in prisons has been the brewing and consumption of hooch. The visible consequences are aggression, bullying, assaults, fights, resistance to authority and, occasionally, alcohol poisoning. Whilst the resources invested in combating drug use have paid dividends, resources committed to eliminating alcohol abuse would pay more."
      In many ways, therefore, she feels that the Bill is more important than previous drug-control Bills.
      Mrs. Francis points out:
      "Mandatory drug testing has reduced the incidence of recreational drug use. There is every reason to believe that, with appropriate sanctions, alcohol testing would have a similar impact.
      There is some evidence, most notably in category C and D prisons, that prisoners who have been forced off drugs by MDT (Mandatory Drug Testing) have turned, or returned, to alcohol as a substitute."
      She says, and I agree:
      "This is an unfortunate substitute since it is more likely to lead to aggressive behaviour and control problems."
      Surely that must be particularly true in young offenders institutions, where the inmates are between the ages of 16 and 21.
      Mrs. Francis continues:
      "The facility to test would be particularly useful after temporary release"—
      this point is specifically addressed in the Bill—
      "outside work or social visits where prisoners may have the opportunity to access alcohol. At present"—
      this is extraordinary—
      "whatever suspicion or indication of inebriation there may be, prison staff are impotent to take action, and prisoners know this."
      She told me that sometimes people have returned to the prison obviously drunk, yet prison officers have been unable to do anything about it.
      It is really is extraordinary that it has taken so long for the Bill to be introduced. Mrs. Francis ends her letter thus:
      "Alcohol intake continues to play a very large part in the commission of criminal offences. The Prison Service is not effectively able to fulfil its purpose of confronting offending behaviour if it has no means of identifying and preventing continuing alcohol abuse."

      531
      I pay tribute to Mrs. Jacqui Francis and to her dedicated staff and motivated auxiliaries. Their work will be helped, and the safety of inmates will be ensured, by the passing of the Bill.
      10.3 am
      Lady Olga Maitland: I warmly welcome the Bill. For some time, I have taken a considerable interest in the management of prisons. Indeed, I introduced what became the Prisoners (Return to Custody) Act 1995 and when researching and preparing for that legislation, which dealt with the problem of prisoners failing to return to prison on time, I became aware of other discipline problems.
      The significance of this Bill is that it is a natural development from tackling the problem of drugs, and I am pleased that we already have on the statute book means whereby prisons can institute mandatory drug testing. That will undoubtedly be part of a wider programme to tackle a modern curse, which destroys people's lives. What people do not realise is that alcohol can do the same.
      The problem is not as acute in secure prisons as in open prisons. I have two prisons on the edge of my constituency—Downview for long-term prisoners and Highdown for remand prisoners—and in both there is a rigorous system of searching prisoners and their visitors, so it is difficult to bring in alcohol. In addition, prisoners are not going in and out of the prison.
      There is, however, a real problem in open prisons, which, by their very nature, operate a different and more relaxed regime. The purpose is to enable prisoners who have perhaps already served most of a long sentence to prepare themselves for life outside. Many are given temporary releases, which can be for several different reasons. The prisoners may be going out for training or for a job interview; or they may be returning to their families to begin the rehabilitation process of re-entering the community. Sometimes they are away as long as four days.
      When they go out, some prisoners go on an alcoholic binge. The difficulty is that, although on a four-day release they might have time to sober up on the final day before returning to prison, they very often do not do so. They can come back having cruised around local pubs and drunk an excess of alcohol, with the result not only that are they intoxicated, which is unpleasant in itself, but that they intimidate local communities.
      We have to give special consideration to communities in the hinterland of an open prison, and it is right that we should give careful attention to the problem of prisoners and alcohol. When an intoxicated prisoner returns to gaol, he can become aggressive and difficult to handle; and he can create a breakdown in discipline or incite others to misbehave. The good management of a prison means that all inmates must live an orderly life—that is beneficial not only to the management of the prison as a whole, but to the prisoners' long-term rehabilitation programme.
      Open prisons have been trying to tackle the problem of alcohol, but have been frustrated in their efforts. Ford open prison was experiencing such an acute problem that it introduced its own programme of alcohol testing.
      532
      An off-the-shelf meter for measuring alcohol levels was bought, and staff used it, but then, to their amazement, they discovered that the testing was outside the law, and they had to stop. It was interesting that, during that time, the use of testing deterred inmates from returning drunk, trying to smuggle drink in, or trying to create their own secret stills.
      Mr. Fabricant: Was the experience of the governor and officers of Ford open prison—with which I am familiar, having originally come from a part of Sussex that is not too far from Ford—similar to that of Swinfen, where the introduction of mandatory drug testing has caused prisoners to switch over to alcohol consumption, with the result that the problem of inebriation has become worse?
      Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my hon. Friend for that useful information, of which I had not been aware. It is logical that that could be the result, so it is important that we should block off another avenue of abuse.
      At Ford open prison, they had to stop alcohol testing, but it was a deterrent when in use—the alcohol problem went down. When staff from my office spoke to the governor of Ford open prison, he welcomed the Bill very keenly indeed.
      If prisoners know, not only that they will be tested for alcohol abuse, but that punishment will follow, it acts as a deterrent. The sanctions open to a prison governor may be loss of privileges or even loss of remission. Those are powerful sanctions, which are an important and effective deterrent.
      Not only do we want a deterrent factor—a discipline factor—but if an inmate has an alcohol problem, alcohol testing will reveal the problem and it can be treated. After all, we regard prisons not just as a means of removing unsociable people from the community but as a means of rehabilitating them, to return them to the community in a position in which they can make a contribution rather than create all the social ills that we have been so aware of.
      I welcome the Bill, which I believe is very significant. I was amazed that it had not come into being already, but, as in all things in life, we learn through experience where the loopholes are. I have absolutely no doubt that this small Bill is significant and will play its a key role in discipline in prisons.
      10.10 am
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: As I shall speak in an Adjournment debate on sanctions against Libya and Iraq later, I was interested in the Bill—at first because I wanted to know how long the debate might last—and asked what the issues were. My curiosity was aroused, and I spoke to some prison officers, who said one thing above all others: "There may be abuses, but please don't think that that is the rule." In most prisons, there is a proper regime. There may be mistakes, and the Bill may be a very proper Bill to introduce, but it would be unfortunate if the impression were given that there was great abuse and misuse in all our prisons.
      As one who, 25 years ago, introduced under the ten-minute rule Medical Inspection (Evidence of Drug-taking) (School Pupils) Bill in 1971, I know that there are many hazards in this complex subject, but I

      533
      would not oppose the Bill; I merely caution that the examples that have been cited do not represent the common situation in our prisons.
      10.12 am
      Dr. Robert Spink: My constituents agree with the Home Secretary that prison should be an austere but decent place, and that the emphasis in prison should be on reform, education and the preparation of prisoners for their return into society as decent members of that society. However, prisons need to be a real deterrent, and that means that they must punish, so that career criminals will not want to return to prisons and repeat burglars and repeat rapists will not accept prison as a mid-career break—a price to be paid for the career they have decided to follow, a period for recovery and relaxation, a period for planning further villainy when they get out, while they take an Open university degree in the relative comfort of their prison cells.
      Not to put too fine a point on it, my constituents want more barbed wire in and around prisons. They want glass screens between prison visitors and inmates, so that drugs are not passed. They want fewer television sets in prisons, fewer snooker rooms—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying rather wide. This is the Third Reading debate, and he should confine his remarks to the subject of the Bill.
      Dr. Spink: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the point of the debate is that people want fewer drugs and less access to and use of alcohol in prisons, and that was the point that I was making.
      Prisoners must be kept away from alcohol; that makes sense. It makes sense to close that loophole, which we were all surprised to know existed, by allowing prison staff to test for alcohol. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) on choosing the Bill when he was so fortunate in the ballot for private Member's Bills, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) and for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) for doing the hard work on it.
      A prison governor said that some inmates returned from home leave or temporary release worse the wear from drink, even though prison rules stated that, while they were on release, they must not enter licensed premises or betting shops or consume alcohol. We need to give prison staff like that governor the ability to do the necessary tests, so that they can control the actions of prisoners when they are away; I shall say more about that later.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), the Minister of State, Home Office, is one of the best prisons Ministers ever—indeed, one of the best Members ever. I am not a betting man, but if I were, I would bet that she had visited more prisons each month in her career than any prisons Minister, which shows how very much she cares. She is very keen for this measure to reach the statute book so that prisons can become safer places for their inmates. She cares not only about prison inmates but about the rest of society—the victims and potential victims of the villains who seem too often to languish in the relative comfort of our gaols, and should be prevented from doing so under the influence of alcohol.
      Mr. Congdon: My hon. Friend said an important word just now when he talked about making prisons "safer".
      534
      Does he agree with the point that I made and that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) made on Second Reading—that a key aspect of making prisons safer for prisoners is to avoid drugs and alcohol being available to be used by some prisoners as a means of exercising control over, and extorting money from, other prisoners?
      Dr. Spink: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, which I shall discuss in detail later.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone very much wants the power to test for alcohol in prisons, and I say, let the House give her the tools so she can do the job.
      Mr. Fabricant: Very Churchillian. [Interruption.]
      Dr. Spink: I am attempting to thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks.
      David Roddan, general secretary of the Prison Governors Association, said that most inmates would welcome the breath tests, because drunken prisoners become troublemakers. He said:
      "We support this initiative because prisoners who consume alcohol or get drunk in the local community damage the relationship of trust between the prison and the community. It is also not in the interest of the rehabilitation of prisoners"
      to allow them to consume alcohol.
      The measure will improve the ability of prison staff to control the culture of prisons, which is often negative. It will therefore help prisoners. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East said, it will inhibit the prison mafias from growing, because alcohol is one of the key currencies used in prisons; thus the Bill will make prisons a safer place for inmates. Last year, on a visit to Chelmsford prison, I saw for myself that alcohol is a key factor in the negative prison culture.
      Mandatory drug testing has proved very successful, and has significantly reduced the use of drugs in prison. In 1995, in some prisons, a drugs testing trial was conducted, in which two thirds of prisoners tested positive for drugs. That is a remarkable and disgraceful fact. In 1996, 34,496 prisoners were tested up to July, and only 30 per cent. tested positive, which shows that mandatory testing is working. We must go further, and cut off the supply, not merely of drugs but of alcohol, so the Bill is a most important measure. Importantly, of the 34,496 prisoners tested up to July, not one tried to refuse the test: the House should dwell on that important fact.
      The Bill is an excellent measure and I wish it fair wind—it should have been on the statute book many years ago. I trust that the House will vote in favour of it today.
      10.20 am
      Mr. Tim Smith: I am not clear about the extent to which alcohol is a problem in prisons. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) suggested that practice might vary a lot from one prison to another. I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department could comment on that.
      My impression of the Prison Service is that performance is pretty patchy, certainly when it comes to the quality of management. We have taken great steps forward in the past few years. I was a keen supporter of establishing the service as an executive agency, with its

      535
      own director general, because I thought that that would help it to focus on the need for good quality management. We sometimes underestimate the problems that managers and prison officers face in trying to control a difficult regime, so I can well understand why the hon. Members who have supported the Bill feel that it is right to give the prison authorities this power. Clearly, discipline is vitally important in a prison, and the power will add to the range of powers that prison governors already have to ensure that there is a sensible disciplinary regime.
      As I understand it, the alcohol problem can arise when prisoners are out for a short time and drink too much—or drink at all—in open prisons, where it is easier to introduce alcohol and, in some cases, in closed prisons where there are stills for the illicit production of alcohol. The power should be introduced, but before we give the Bill a Third Reading it would be helpful if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State gave us an indication of the extent of the problem. I suspect that it varies a lot from one prison to another. The quality of management is improving and it is important that we give prison governors more independence than they have perhaps had. That is what the Director General of the Prison Service, Richard Tilt, is attempting to do.
      Secondly, the Bill states that there will be no cost to the public funds. Although I suppose that that must be right, or at any rate that the costs will be minimal, I understand that the meter required for testing can cost £600 or £700, and I do not know how many the service will require. It seems, therefore, that there may be some costs and I wonder whether my hon. Friend can comment on that and on the extent of the problem.
      Having said that, it is important for us to support both management and prison officers. Sometimes, we underestimate the difficult task that they have to do—it is a demanding job. We should give them every support, and the Bill certainly does that.
      10.23 am
      Mr. Nigel Evans: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a short contribution to the debate, as this is an important issue. In the past five years, I have found—on the doorstep and in general—that the public are more concerned about law and order than any other issue. During my time as a Member of Parliament, I have held three public meetings on the issue and each was well attended. Members of the public certainly have left me in no doubt that they want more and stronger Government measures to deal with law and order problems, and that is what they have had in the past five years.
      As for Bill, we are talking about people who have committed crimes and are serving sentences in Her Majesty's prisons. The thought that people who have been convicted of a crime, no matter how serious, are able to take alcohol while in prison or on temporary licence, would greatly alarm a number of my constituents.
      I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward), who promoted the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), who introduced it and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon), who moved the Third Reading. We must get the Bill enacted as quickly as possible, so that we give the authorities that are looking
      536
      after our prisoners the tools they need to ensure that alcohol does not become a problem while people are in prison. Surveys show that alcohol can be a problem for people before they go into prison. Indeed, for a number, it may well be the cause of their going into prison in the first place. One survey in 1994 revealed that 58 per cent. of prisoners have a severe drink problem.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) told us what prisons are supposed to be about and his words would strike a chord with many people. As well as education, the role of prisons is to help those who are in prison. We need to see what we can do to assist those who have a severe drink or drug problem while they are in prison.
      Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree that we must also help the prisoners who suffer not from inebriation but from the aggression of other prisoners who are drunk? Does he not think it a strange irony that some prison governors have said that the prisoners who used to suffer the effects of drug-taking—who were, at the very least, quiet—have been driven to consume alcohol as a result of mandatory drug testing, which has caused aggression towards innocent prisoners, if any prisoner can be innocent? That is causing a real problem in prisons.
      Mr. Evans: Yes, I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who said that every prisoner is a volunteer—the fact that prisoners have committed crimes means that they volunteered to enter prison—but prisons can become pressure cookers. There is pressure between the criminals, some of whom can be violent—I am delighted that they are not walking the streets—and can have drug and other problems. Drink will not help them in prison. We have a duty to ensure that prisoners are not the target of other prisoners who are acting under the influence of alcohol.
      One other thing disturbs me. Prisoners are one side of the story, but the people who work on our behalf to ensure that the prison population, which is approaching 60,000, is not walking the streets, also need our protection. Prison officers are making our daily lives that much safer and the last thing that we want is for them to be the targets of prisoners who are suffering from taking alcohol. We must make certain that we give prison officers the rightful protection that they deserve.
      I find it difficult to believe that one could have hooch and that alcohol could be distilled and circulated in prison—perhaps it happens in prisons with lax regimes. It is difficult to believe that we do not have sufficient security within our prisons to ensure that that does not happen and that, if it does, it is stamped out immediately. I would hope that any prisoners caught distilling their own alcohol would feel the firm hand of the law and be given a further sentence on top of their original sentence.
      Another problem is that of prisoners who come out of prison on temporary licence or for some other reason—perhaps because they are approaching the end of their term and we want to rehabilitate them. The temptation for some of those offenders, who may have been locked away for three or four years, particularly when they meet old colleagues and friends, is to make for the nearest pub. They might be out of prison for only a short period and go on a drinking binge. We must ensure that, when they return to prison, prison officers have the power to test

      537
      them for alcohol, particularly when it is apparent that they have been drinking. Indeed, prison officers should be given the same power as they now have, thanks to the Government, to test for drugs.
      Like many other hon. Members on both sides of the House, I have spent some of my time over the past five years visiting some of our prisons. I went to Strangeways in Manchester after the riots. Another point on which one might care to reflect is that some of the prison riots in the past few years may have been drink-related. We should take into account the fact that that is how they may have started in the first place.
      I have also been to Preston prison just outside my constituency and to a young offenders prison, Lancaster Farms, in Lancaster to look at that regime. Two of the three prisons that I have visited have had large sums spent on them to ensure not that they are the most austere prisons but that they are places where offenders are sent for a period, and where, as well as being punished, they receive the direction, education and discipline that they failed to receive when they were in society.
      I met a number of people who work within those prisons and I want to ensure that, particularly in young offenders institutions, they are given the tools to let offenders know that, if they take alcohol, they will be tested and will face punishment if they are found guilty of taking it.
      Dr. Spink: Does my hon. Friend agree that the positive environment of education, training, development and changing prisoners' attitudes cannot take place successfully within a prison if prisoners have access to alcohol? Removing prisoners' ability to have access to alcohol by introducing a testing power will help the reforming ability of prisons and thereby help society as well as individual prisoners.
      Mr. Evans: I agree with my hon. Friend. Some prisoners might never have gone a day without drinking alcohol when they were out in society, and their severe alcoholic problem might have led to a life of crime. We must ensure that, while such offenders are in prison, they are immersed in a regime whereby they do not have access to one of the elements that led to the problem in the first place. We must help to clean up some of our prisons. We have done so on the drugs front; if we can do it on the alcohol front as well, that will be extremely important.
      Dr. Spink: My hon. Friend tempts me to intervene again by mentioning drugs. He will be aware, as we all are, that a high proportion of the first use of drugs takes place under the influence of alcohol. If we cut off the supply of alcohol through the power to test for it in prisons, we can stop prisoners coming under the influence of alcohol, making misjudgments and becoming involved in drugs. In that way, we can help both prisoners and society at large.
      Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The problem of creating a mafia within prisons was mentioned earlier. Some individuals within prisons are not the sort of people with whom one would wish to mix ordinarily, so for some prisoners to have to mix with such people, particularly if they have the power of alcohol and drugs,
      538
      adds to the problem within prisons. I return to the point that I made earlier: why should our prisoner officers have to put up with that pressure when they already have all sorts of other pressures to put up with?
      I do not want my speech to be regarded simply as negative or Victorian, in the sense that prisoners are to be punished at every turn while they are in prison. I do not accept that view for a second, although others may think that I do. We should ensure that we assist prisoners as much as possible. I understand that Alcoholics Anonymous, for instance, provides support to prisoners to help them overcome their problem.
      Prisoners with an alcohol problem who, even while in prison, are prepared to go that extra mile to get their hands on alcohol, need more help than anybody else. It is not just a case of punishment and ensuring that they do not have access to alcohol from relatives or friends who visit them and somehow pass alcohol to them. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) that, if it is apparent that a prisoner is using his visitors as a means of getting alcohol and drugs and then circulating them to a wider group of people within the prison, we must take harsh action against him. It may mean that, for a period—perhaps even for the remainder of his sentence—he is separated from his visitors by glass or some other means so that objects cannot be passed to him from his relatives or friends. We should look seriously at that idea.
      Lady Olga Maitland: My hon. Friend touches on an important point and I wonder whether he will explain it a little further. It is about alcohol being passed to inmates from visitors. Did my hon. Friend have the chance when he visited prisons to observe the procedure whereby bags are passed through an X-ray machine? On the whole, it is not customary for prison officers personally to search visitors, and that is a difficulty. They have the power to do so but tend not to use it. Should we not consider encouraging prison officers to make greater use of the power to search visitors when they fear that there is a problem of that nature?
      Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend hits the point with the words "when they fear that there is a problem of that nature". I am sure that guilty visitors are known to the prison authorities. May I stress, however, that every visitor who enters the prison to visit an inmate should not be made to feel like a criminal. We must make absolutely certain that everyone is not tarred by the same brush. We must also be careful not to deter people from visiting friends and relatives in prison.
      After all, part of our prison regime is rehabilitation, and the last thing we want to do is to leave prisoners in solitary isolation so that the only people they mix with are other prisoners and prison officers. We want to ensure that they have as many visitors as possible so we must be careful in choosing whose bags to search or who to put through an intimate search.
      I take my hon. Friend's point seriously. When prison officers know that certain individuals may be guilty of passing alcohol or drugs to prisoners, a greater use of closed circuit television cameras within meeting rooms should be encouraged. I understand from my hon. Friend the Minister that some videotapes from those cameras have proved to be extremely interesting. Perhaps we should learn more of what goes on in meeting rooms between prisoners and their visitors.

      539
      When the Bill becomes an Act, I hope that prisoners who have problems will be given help, guidance and the opportunity to serve the rest of their sentence in prison without the temptation to turn to alcohol whenever problems arise, or just when they feel like drinking.
      It is clear that the Bill has resource implications for prisons throughout the country. It has been estimated that the testing equipment would cost around £700. I support the prison building and reform programme that has been going on for the past 18 years, and I do not flinch when people say that we have more people in prison per head of the population than any other country in Europe. So be it. If people do the crime, they deserve to do the time.
      We must ensure that that carries on, but we must also ensure that prisons get the resources that they need to implement the fresh obligations that we have placed on them, as in the case of drugs. Prisons must have the money to buy the best equipment and to arrange training for prison officers, so that they know what they are doing.
      I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point say that when prison officers have told prisoners that they would be tested, the prisoners have not refused. Presumably, they complied because they want to live in an atmosphere that is not repressive or oppressive, as might be the case if the regime was lax and fellow prisoners could get access to alcohol. That is where the trouble would begin. Far better for prisoners to allow themselves to be tested. If they have nothing to hide—if they have taken no alcohol—they will have no problems. To protect themselves, they would surely want their fellow prisoners, who may have had access to alcohol and could cause them problems in the future, to be tested.
      Lady Olga Maitland: On the question how best to help prisoners, does my hon. Friend agree that it would be a good idea to follow the experiences that I have seen at Downview prison, where the Addictive Diseases Trust helps prisoners to overcome their drug addiction? That is largely a self-help programme, although led by professionals.
      Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be useful to encourage prison governors to set up similar programmes to counteract alcohol abuse? So successful has the programme been at Downview prison that prisoners are seeking transfer to Downview from other prisons so that they can take part in the programme. Would it not be of enormous benefit to the prison population if such a programme were available for alcohol addiction?
      Mr. Evans: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We must examine various methods, including the one that she described. We must ensure that prisons have the resources to implement testing. We must also ensure that sufficient research is carried out. Several organisations must have good research to show how people suffering from alcohol dependency could be helped. Such programmes could be introduced into certain prisons—perhaps even test piloted—to see how effective they would be in helping prisoners before their release back into society.
      Ultimately, that must be the goal for the vast majority of people locked away in prison. We all know of certain individuals whom I would wish to remain in prison for the rest of their natural lives, but the vast majority of
      540
      prisoners will eventually be released back into the community. If they have had an alcohol problem in the past, surely we should ensure that we give them as much assistance as possible.
      Although that might cost a little extra, in the long term it will save money. If prisoners come out of prison without having received any help or treatment, they will fall back into their old ways. Before long, they will be back on a career of crime and back in prison. We all know how expensive it is to keep prisoners in prison. It would be more intelligent for us to prioritise resources to help people while they are in prison if they have an alcohol problem, even if that is expensive in the short term. We must give them the support they need so that they do not reoffend or return to a life of alcohol abuse once they leave prison.
      Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree that the precedent has been established? We already have the policy of spend to save. That was announced in the Budget. Would not such programmes be a good example of spending to save?
      Mr. Evans: Of course. We know that Governments around the western world have problems prioritising resources. If we believe what we have been hearing from the Opposition, even they have a new sense of realism about spending pledges in the future, although of course no one believes that.
      We should try to reprioritise money in the current budgets of the Prison Service. My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point spoke of pool tables, colour television and goodness knows what. Resources that are going into leisure activities should in the long term go into more constructive and positive elements, such as a regime that gave treatment to prisoners who had a problem with alcohol.
      I hope that we will use as much research as possible and the expertise that is available, not only in Alcoholics Anonymous but in the universities and abroad, to find out about new research.
      I am an executive member of the all-party beer group—I should have said that at the beginning of my speech. We spoke earlier about temporary releases, the pubs dotted around our prisons, and the temptation for prisoners to go into those pubs, possibly on their way back to the prison. We have a duty to assist the landlords, landladies and people who work in pubs. If prisoners think that if they nip into the Dog and Duck—
      Mr. Doug Henderson: Or the Ball and Chain.
      Mr. Evans: The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) speaks of his local.
      If prisoners nip into the pub, whatever it may be called, for four or five pints before they go back into prison, we have an obligation to the 900,000 people who work in the drinks industry, including the wholesale, distribution and retail aspects. We have a duty towards them, some of whom are young ladies. If they are doing the afternoon shift, they may be the only people in the bar. A prisoner about to go back into prison for another few months, faced with the temptation of going into the pub for a few pints, will not be helpful to people working in pubs.

      541
      If prisoners know that they are going to be tested when they go into prison, they may be deterred from going into the pub. That will offer protection. There is too much violence associated with alcohol. The last thing we want is fights breaking out or crime taking place in pubs in the vicinity of prisons. Pubs are social places where people go to enjoy themselves. They do not want any threat of violence to themselves when they are sitting in a pub.
      I am delighted to have participated in this debate. My constituents in the Ribble Valley, who may be somewhat surprised that the measure is not already law, will cheer when the Bill is passed. We are giving prison officers the protection they deserve and the tools they need to protect prisoners and society at large. We are also offering some assistance to those prisoners who suffer from alcohol dependency, so that they will be better people when they are released back into society.
      10.49 am
      Mr. Doug Henderson: As we made clear on Second Reading, the Opposition support the Bill. It was introduced originally by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Ward), whom I have known for 10 years. Although I do not agree with all his views, he presents them in a measured way.
      That tradition was continued by the hon. Member for Croydon, Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), who moved Second Reading. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) was correct to say that the people of this country put law and order at the top of the political agenda. We all know that crime in this country has doubled in the past 18 years under the Conservatives, and public concern was expressed by 23,000 electors in Wirral yesterday.
      The contribution by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley began well. I realise that he was on an errand this morning, and, unfortunately, his remarks tended to wander a little. While I was convinced by the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Colchester, North, I stumbled over some of those that emerged from the wanderings of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley. As the Opposition have accepted the Bill in principle, I have little to say about it. However, the contributions of Conservative Members have tempted me to make several comments.
      The tradition of measured argument, as embodied in the speeches of the hon. Members for Colchester, North and for Poole, was not repeated in the contributions of the hon. Members for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) and for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), who took a rather censorious view of some of the goings-on in our prisons. I wondered whether the concern of prison authorities and the welfare and punishment of prisoners was their primary concern—I suspect that they have a hidden agenda.
      I was a little amused by a remark from the hon. Member for Castle Point. He repeated the comments of a prison governor who had reported that some prisoners returned from temporary release somewhat the worse for drink. I could not help but think that perhaps the Serjeant at Arms could also complain of a similar phenomenon on occasion. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that drunken prisoners become troublesome. Again, the Serjeant at Arms could draw a parallel with the behaviour of some right hon. and hon. Members in the House.
      542
      There is a danger that we may be a little too condemnatory, and fail to recognise the real problems that exist in our prisons.
      Dr. Spink: I quoted Prison Governor David Bamber, who said that prisoners were returning from temporary release the worse for drink. His remarks were reported widely. I admit to having another agenda besides caring for prisoners: caring for society at large, and for innocent people.
      Mr. Henderson: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged that, at the end of the day, we are concerned about what occurs in society and how to improve it. An authoritarian regime in prison may be necessary for a certain period. However, I have talked to prison authorities—although it is not my primary area of responsibility—who acknowledge that prisons cannot be run in that way.
      Sometimes the prison regime must be tough and authoritarian, but at other times it must be relaxed a little in order to reward improvements in discipline, contributions to rehabilitation programmes and so on. We cannot have a rigid regime in prison all the time. We must recognise that, when people are incarcerated hour after hour, day after day, month after month and year after year—and rightly so—all sorts of pressures build up.
      I fully support the Bill, but it is completely naive to believe that it will halt all mafia operations in prison. That is not the real world that prison authorities recognise. I visited Rochester prison three or four weeks ago. Prison authorities at that prison deal differently with four categories of prisoners within one management structure. That is necessary, as some prisoners may co-operate more fully when there is a relaxed regime. In other circumstances, the prison authorities recognise that prisoners would abuse such a regime, and that it is necessary to be tough. We must take a measured view of these issues.
      I feel strongly that it is far too easy for hon. Members to jump up and make outrageous statements about social issues, based on ideology that is appropriate to 17-year-old Trotskyites or fascists, rather than examining the real problems in prisons and how best to deal with them. A principal reason for the Bill is that currently there are no statistics on the level of alcohol abuse in prisons. As with drug testing, the regime will require some co-operation from prisoners if we are to identify the level of alcohol abuse in prisons—without such co-operation, it will be extremely difficult to test effectively.
      We must also remember that alcohol abuse occurs in many other areas of society—it does not happen only in prisons. The problems that such abuse causes in prisons are similar to those that it causes in other walks of life—whether it be indiscipline, failure to deal with details or to work effectively, or breakdown in social relationships. Those problems are caused by alcohol abuse, and they are made worse when people are incarcerated for long periods.
      This is an important measure, which can provide prison authorities with an extra tool. It is also a way of calculating the extent of alcohol abuse in our prisons, so that prevention measures may be implemented. We must introduce rehabilitation exercises if they are needed to improve the climate within our prisons. Rehabilitations

      543
      programmes to assist prisoners upon their release are also important. The measure has considerable merit, and I hope that hon. Members will support it.
      10.58 am
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): At first glance, this appears to be a fairly straightforward measure. However, some answers are required from me—even on Third Reading.
      Hon. Members on both sides of the House have asked valid questions and identified several caveats. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Poole (Mr. Ward), for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) and for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) on the extremely effective way in which they have piloted the measure through the House. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant), for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) and for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on their useful comments and on the issues that they have raised, which we need to consider before the Bill leaves the House.
      Before taking up the general points that have been made on Third Reading, I shall refer to the matters that have been raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and, to some extent, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), who are interested in and concerned about the information and evidence available to us about the nature and size of the problem of alcohol consumption.
      The hon. Member for Linlithgow specifically began by saying that he thought that, by agreeing to this measure, we might give the impression that this is a much greater problem than in fact it is. I may have misconstrued or misinterpreted the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
      Mr. Dalyell: How widespread is it?
      Mr. Kirkhope: I shall refer to the practical evidence that prison governors have collected. It is important, of course, that we consider the report produced by the health advisory committee for the Prison Service, which appeared in October 1996. The report confirmed a number of matters, which in turn show that there is a problem and that the Bill would be helpful in dealing with it.
      To put things in perspective, it is estimated generally that about 7.6 million people over the age of 16 in England and Wales drink more than the limit advocated by the Department of Health in 1979–21 units a week for men and 14 for women. It appears that 6 per cent. of men and 1 per cent. of women have consumption levels of more than 50 and 35 units respectively. Those are levels considered damaging to health.
      A survey of the physical health of prisoners, which was carried out by Bridgwood and Malbon in 1995, revealed that 93 per cent. of the male prisoners surveyed had consumed alcohol in the 12 months before imprisonment. That figure is similar to that found in the general population. However, prisoners were four times as likely as men aged 16 and over in the general population to describe themselves as either drinking quite a lot or drinking heavily. Two studies of mental disorder in the
      544
      prison population have produced diagnostic data on the harmful or dependent use of alcohol. In 1989, Maden, Taylor Brook and Gunn found that, in a sample of 1,365 sentenced adult males, 118 had a primary diagnosis of alcohol dependence or abuse.
      I shall not detain the House too long, but there is a great amount of information of the sort to which I have referred. I merely wish to take up the points raised by the hon. Members for Linlithgow and for Newcastle upon Tyne, North before—
      Mr. Fabricant: I am wondering whether my hon. Friend or the Home Office generally has any view on those statistics in terms of causality. Do they believe that it is alcohol that causes crime, or that maybe criminals just happen to drink a great deal?
      Mr. Kirkhope: I do not want to stray into territory that is obviously not of concern to us on Third Reading of an important Bill.
      Dr. Spink: If we are to test prisoners to ascertain whether they have consumed alcohol and we find that some prisoners have an alcohol problem, is it not important that we deal with that problem and assist those prisoners to overcome it? Will my hon. Friend confirm that a letter written by Derek Lewis on 16 March 1995 stated:
      "All prisons within England and Wales provide prisoners with access to education, treatment and counselling services for substance misuse via the prison health care centre, the probation service or outside agencies and visiting self-help groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous."?—[Official Report, 16 March 1995; Vol. 256, c. 675.]
      Is that not a good thing, and does it not show how seriously the Government view creating reforming regimes within prisons?
      Mr. Kirkhope: I am sure that that is correct. I can confirm that. My hon. Friend is right.
      We are concerned with the prison population. It is sometimes put around, however, that perhaps there is not as much concern shown as there might be. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North seemed to be trying to suggest that the Government had a certain approach. We feel that it is important to ensure that the prison population is, where possible, reformed, that the circumstances in which the prison population lives while in prison are ordered and that the activities that we are discussing are limited, because of their adverse effect on the chances of reforming prisoners.
      I wished to make it clear to the hon. Members for Linlithgow and for Newcastle upon Tyne, North, as well as to others, that there is much statistical information, apart from the information to which I hope turn in a moment, which is very much anecdotal. There is also hard evidence of a need for action.
      Lady Olga Maitland: What representations has my hon. Friend received from prison governors on the sanctions that they would like to apply in the event of an alcohol test showing positive results? There are, of course, a range of available options. Is such a result to be regarded as deeply serious and one that could lead to loss of remission, or would there be some form of loss of

      545
      privileges? Which privileges does my hon. Friend think are likely to be considered to be withdrawn and at what level would sanctions be applied—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is straying rather wide of the Bill in talking about possible consequences following testing. I have been tolerant this morning, given that some hon. Members have strayed from time to time. I have heard reference to the House of Commons beer group, for example. In fact, we are talking about alcohol testing in prisons. It may be that in future a Bill will come before the House that will enable hon. Members to consider the problems of the beer group. This morning, however, we are talking about alcohol testing in prisons.
      Mr. Kirkhope: I do not want to stray into pastures that perhaps are not related to the Bill, including possible offences and remission for Members of this honourable House. I think, however, that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam has a point when she asks what is likely to happen as a result of testing. It is a valid point—it has been taken up by other hon. Members—and I shall take it up later when dealing with procedural matters. I shall try, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not to stray too far.
      The Bill would enable a prison officer or a prisoner custody officer in a contracted-out prison to take a sample of breath, urine or any non-intimate sample from a prisoner in any prison establishment for the purposes of ascertaining whether he or she has any alcohol in the body. The Bill is a logical extension of the powers already in force for drug testing—hon. Members have referred to drugs and their relationship with other matters, and I shall try to respond briefly to those comments—enacted by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
      The power to test for drugs has been extremely valuable. It has helped the service to identify the size of the problem of drug taking in prisons. It has gone some way to help in reducing the misuse of drugs in prisons, as part of the overall strategy to reduce such. It is to be hoped that the Bill will in its turn go some way towards reducing the misuse of alcohol in our prisons.
      Mr. Fabricant: May I ask my hon. Friend a slightly less philosophical question than my earlier one? Does he agree with the governor of Swinfen Hall young offenders institution, who said that, since the introduction of mandatory drug testing, which he welcomes, there has been a switch to prisoners drinking alcohol?
      Mr. Kirkhope: I accept that that may be the case. Young offenders institutions are relevant to these discussions. The consumption of alcohol by young people is a matter of the greatest concern, in relation not only to these proceedings but to other proceedings before us, and to hon. Members.
      Alcohol testing will support amendments to the prison rules. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire has hinted, young offender institution rules that were made in September last year included two new disciplinary offences for the consumption of alcohol. Previously, prisoners could be punished only if they were found in possession of alcohol, or if they offended against good order and discipline after drinking it. It is probably a matter of some surprise to the public that we have been comparatively limited in what we could do in the past to deal with this problem.
      546
      It is now an offence for a prisoner to be intoxicated wholly or partly as a consequence of knowingly consuming any alcoholic beverage. That is the more serious of the two new disciplinary charges. It applies to the prisoner who, it appears, is seriously intoxicated, in contrast to a prisoner who may have consumed only a small quantity of alcohol. To be satisfied of guilt, an adjudicator will have to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was intoxicated.
      Presently, if the adjudicator is satisfied after hearing evidence that the accused's behaviour was elated beyond the point of self-control—I am sure that many of us could put it in slightly different jargon, but that is the way it is described—the accused will satisfy the test of intoxication. It is not sufficient evidence for a guilty verdict to show that the behaviour was caused by skylarking or an excess of high spirits.
      It is also an offence for a prisoner knowingly to consume alcoholic beverages other than any prescribed to him pursuant to a written order of the medical officer. I am sure that some hon. Members will find that interesting when they visit their medical practitioner. That charge is directed at the prisoner who, although not intoxicated, has knowingly consumed alcohol that has not been prescribed to him or her. The evidence should be such that it would lead a reasonable and right-thinking person to conclude that the accused had consumed alcohol.
      Without a more objective means of analysis, which would be provided by formal testing, the available evidence is often insufficient to take any disciplinary action. That leaves governors of our institutions in considerable difficulty. Hon. Members must agree that the most important consideration is the position of the governor of the institution. He is responsible—
      Mr. Fabricant: Or she.
      Mr. Kirkhope: Or she, indeed. Governors are responsible for discipline within the institution. If they are unable to deal with a problem properly and to maintain discipline, their status may be questioned.
      Mr. Tim Smith: Objective testing will be a great step forward. Will the Prison Service as a whole issue guidance to prison governors on appropriate levels—we know, for instance, what the level is for drink driving—or will that be a matter for prison governors? Will governors decide above what level it will be deemed to be a breach of the rules in their prison, so that everyone knows the position?
      Mr. Kirkhope: That is an important point. There is concern about the procedures in the Bill. The Government support the measure, but we want to ensure that it works in practice. I shall deal with my hon. Friend's point shortly.
      The Bill is logical and straightforward. Its three clauses encompass matters of concern. Clause 1 amends the Prison Act 1952 by inserting new section 16B. That section gives prison officers the power, subject to the governor's authorisation and to prison rules, to require any prisoner
      "to provide a sample of breath for the purpose of ascertaining whether he has alcohol in his body."

      547
      The authorisation may require a prisoner to provide a sample of urine
      "instead of or in addition to a sample of breath"
      and a non-intimate sample of any other description, not being a sample of breath or urine.
      The Bill must provide flexibility, because it may ultimately be more cost-effective to use another system when technology is sufficiently developed in this area. An alternative system may have to be used because of the physical incapacity of a prisoner, or if the prisoner challenges the result of the breath test. To some extent, that mirrors the arrangements for people who drive while under the influence of drink and have to be tested by police officers.
      The power is extended to young offender institutions, remand centres and secure training centres. It is also extended to prisoner custody officers in contracted-out prisons. The circumstances in which the power may be exercised will be set out in the prison rules. Clause 2 merely makes it clear that the requisite authorisation is given by the director in the case of contracted-out prisons.
      Clause 3 makes provision for the short title, commencement and extent of the Bill. The Bill applies to England and Wales only. However, the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill, which is currently before the House, will make similar provision for Scotland. It is important for Scotland to have the same facilities available.
      Mr. Dalyell: Are there any substantial differences? I think not, but will the Minister confirm that?
      Mr. Kirkhope: I understand that there are not, but I shall check that point with officials, and if there is a difference I shall mention it later in my speech or write to the hon. Gentleman.
      The Bill will assist the Prison Service to manage prisoners who drink alcohol in prison or when released on temporary licence. The consumption of alcohol by prisoners is a cause of serious concern, not only in the context of the prison society but in communities near prisons. It can be the cause of violence and disorder within the institution or around it. Many prisoners have a history of alcohol abuse: that is a sad fact. It often causes them to commit criminal offences: my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire was concerned about that. There is considerable evidence that, far too often, crimes are committed while persons are under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
      Mr. Fabricant: The governor of Swinfen Hall young offenders institution says that, as well as prisoners becoming intoxicated when they leave the prison and later return, there are sometimes stills in prisons where hooch is prepared. What provisions are there to search prisoners' visitors who are obviously smuggling in alcohol or the equipment required to manufacture alcohol in prisons?
      Mr. Kirkhope: That is a good point. Powers are available to the governor outside the usual security checks. The prison governor can limit the interview or meeting between a prisoner and his or her visitors and
      548
      make it more restrictive if there is evidence that items are being brought in. Under the governor's authorisation, any person who enters or leaves a prison may be subject to being examined, and bags and other items are checked carefully.
      Mr. Dalyell: This is a very sensitive issue and an extremely difficult one for governors. The hon. Gentleman talks about evidence; some of us might wonder what happens when there is no evidence but strong suspicion. Suspicion may sometimes not be enough, and it can create great offence to outraged relatives who come to the surgeries of Members of Parliament. This is one of the most difficult subjects of which we hear at surgeries.
      Mr. Kirkhope: I fully agree. It is a sensitive area, but such powers must be available to governors to use when necessary. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about causing offence. When perfectly innocent people visit an establishment with a particular need for security, or enter one of our airports from abroad, there is always a problem in terms of checking and searching them.
      I am not certain, but I think that, in practice, the governors of our institutions will try to use the powers available to them in a reasonable manner. They are, of course, liable if they use them in a totally unreasonable manner, but they must have the authority available to them. So-called "closed visits", where a visitor is behind glass and separated from a prisoner so that items cannot be handed over, are important in that regard. An incident must have occurred if such a tight visiting regime is introduced by a governor.
      Mr. Nigel Evans: It is important not to dissuade people from visiting friends and relatives, and we must be careful. The point that disturbs me is the incidence of alcohol being distilled on the premises. I find that somewhat difficult to imagine, as the prisons I have visited have strict regimes. I cannot envisage circumstances—other than with the compliance of the authorities within a prison—in which alcohol can be distilled on the premises. Surely there is a constant security regime to look for devices—not just those used for the distillation of alcohol, but drugs, explosives and goodness knows what else.
      Mr. Kirkhope: I am sure that that is the case, and I agree that it would be wrong to deter visitors from going to prisons. The fact that prisoners can receive visitors can sometimes have a positive effect on their reform, and we would not want to go out of our way to be difficult in that sense.
      The prison environment is very unusual, and some people in prison are extremely clever in their behaviour. They can sometimes secrete substances about themselves, and can get involved in certain undesirable activities. Most prisons would claim that their discipline is balanced and appropriate—no more, no less.
      Mr. Fabricant: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend again, and I am also sorry to quote the governor of Swinfen Hall prison again; but, honestly, I would rather listen to the governor of Swinfen Hall prison than my greatly respected and decent hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on these matters. The governor

      549
      points out that, when prisoners have time on their hands—even with the education and training available in prisons—great ingenuity goes into stealing from other prisoners or, in some instances, creating stills in prison. These do exist, and we need mechanisms to ensure that those devices are not made in prisons or smuggled in by visitors.
      Mr. Kirkhope: I fully agree with my hon. Friend. We have learnt a lot from the experiences of those concerned with this matter. Many prisoners have histories of alcohol abuse which have caused them to commit a range of criminal offences. Many are serving sentences for offences committed while under the influence of alcohol. It is clearly in their interests and those of the public that they have some way of controlling their alcohol consumption. Frankly, it is impossible to assess how many offences are committed because of alcohol consumption, but there is evidence that the figure is worryingly high.
      Clear associations have been established between alcohol and crimes of violence and disorder in particular. In the prison population as a whole—with its far higher proportion of violent and disorderly individuals than the outside community—the consumption of alcohol can cause serious problems of order and control. I am sure that it is not necessary for me to emphasise that to the House.
      Consumption of alcohol by prisoners in breach of their release on temporary licence has caused problems for innocent people in the community, and friends and families of prisoners may also be affected. Other prisoners in open prisons who are trying to come off alcohol may be pushed into temptation if alcohol is available, and prison staff have to deal with prisoners under the influence of alcohol.
      The introduction of formal testing will send a clear message to prisoners that the consumption of alcohol within prisons or while released on a temporary licence with the condition of not consuming alcohol will not be tolerated. The Bill makes it less likely that prisoners will succumb to the excessive consumption of alcohol while on release on temporary licence. This, in turn, should provide the necessary reassurance to the public.
      I should like to outline the background to the introduction of the Bill. Having complimented colleagues on the way in which they have spoken on the matter, it is important to see why we are where we are. During 1995, representations were received from the boards of visitors of some open prisons. The boards asked if governors were able to impose breathalyser tests on prisoners. Advice received at that time made it clear that the imposition of breath tests on prisoners was unlawful.
      That concern provided the incentive for the measure that is now proposed. The governors were made aware of the legal position at that time, and of their significant powers to control the more obvious cases of alcohol misuse. Among them is the facility to include in the terms of a licence under which a prisoner may be temporarily released conditions to restrict or sometimes prohibit the consumption of alcohol. In imposing such restrictions, each case must be considered individually as part of a risk assessment procedure applied to all releases on temporary licence.
      Decisions to prohibit alcohol consumption for all releases on temporary licence for any purpose may not be reasonable where there is no suggestion that alcohol has
      550
      contributed in the past or might in the future to offending behaviour by an individual. When a prisoner has a condition of his licence prohibiting the consumption of alcohol, he can be charged with breaching the licence if he returns to prison exhibiting signs of the use of alcohol. The number of prisoners who have returned to establishments suffering from the worst effects of alcohol is worrying—whether from the Duck and Drake, as has been mentioned, or from anywhere else.
      New conditions governing the release of prisoners on temporary licence were introduced in 1995, and it is now a standard condition of such licences that a prisoner must not enter a public house during the period in which he is subject to the licence. That might give comfort to my hon. Friends and their constituents. The condition was introduced to assist in discouraging improper behaviour by prisoners who were released on temporary licence.
      In addition, governors already had certain powers to take disciplinary action against prisoners if they were seen by a member of staff to exhibit signs of being under the influence of alcohol. Those signs include slurred speech, loss of balance and breath smelling of alcohol drink. Such a rough-and-ready approach to these matters is less than satisfactory. Prisoners who are clearly rowdy or disorderly can be charged under paragraph 21 of the disciplinary code for
      "offending against good order and discipline",
      provided it can be shown exactly how the prisoner offended against the good order, with the consumption of alcohol being introduced as an aggravating factor in such a charge.
      Establishments also have the authority to introduce a local rule prohibiting the consumption of alcohol within the establishment. In those circumstances, prisoners exhibiting symptoms of being under the influence, and who are known to have been subject to prison or young offenders institution rules when the alcohol was consumed, could be charged with failing to comply with any rule or regulation.
      It is, of course, relatively easy to bring alcohol into open prisons. That is because the lower level of security and the use of temporary release facilitate the smuggling of alcohol. It is more difficult in closed prisons, because of their higher level of security, stronger physical barriers and greater emphasis on searching and related procedures. However, there are sometimes finds of illicitly brewed alcohol at establishments with higher security. My hon. Friends have raised particular concerns about the fact that there is still some evidence of illicit brewing.
      I hope that the information that I have given has helped to satisfy some of the points raised and shown clearly the context in which the powers to enable prison officers to require a prisoner to provide a sample will have real value.
      Mr. Dalyell: It is right that I should say that I have been greatly impressed and rather surprised by the figures that the Minister gave. I should like to thank him for his answer.
      Mr. Kirkhope: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. I do not want to go back over old ground, but my officials have confirmed that the Scottish provisions will be, if not identical, then very similar to the provisions that we are considering.

      551
      The introduction of two new prison rules specifically concerning charges relating to alcohol consumption has already assisted prison staff, as I have said, in laying charges appropriate to the offending behaviour that they observe. Formal testing, enabled through the powers to be conferred by the Bill, will provide objective evidence, which will greatly assist in the proving of charges through the adjudication process in any case where there is a suspicion that alcohol has been misused.
      Hon. Members have asked what, in effect, will be the basis of the introduction following the passage of the Bill. The Prison Service intends to embark on pilot studies to find out what will be the best methods of testing. I have already referred to the most well-known forms of testing—by means of a breathalyser or by testing urine—but there are now other ways in which such tests can be carried out. Sometimes that is done on the basis of a sample of saliva, which can be taken in such a way that it is less intrusive and less likely to be objected to by any prisoner who is obliged to be tested.
      Before we introduce the measures more generally, we will also want to check the effect of the pilots' operation on the incidence of alcoholism and alcohol consumption in our establishments. It is, however—it would be wrong of me to suggest otherwise—the Government's intention to ensure that these powers and provisions are introduced widely, because we believe that they make a lot of sense and that the way in which they have been promoted by my hon. Friends has shown the great importance that the public attach to our establishments being able to take care of these matters for themselves.
      Alcohol will always be a problem if it is abused. It is a particular problem in a closed establishment such as a prison. Allowing the governor to have the necessary powers available and to act on the results of those powers seems to the Government to be very important.
      I commend the Bill to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

      Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Bill
      Order for Third Reading read.
      11.34 am
      Dr. Robert Spink: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      The vast majority of our youngsters are good, caring, thoughtful, courageous, courteous and basically law-abiding people. The Bill will help to keep them that way. It will help to make our streets safer; perhaps it should have been called the safer streets Bill. Young people and all the community, especially the elderly, deserve safer streets. The Bill will make our communities and our environment in every village, town and city more pleasant places for everyone.
      The Bill tackles the problem of young people drinking alcohol in public by giving the police the power to confiscate the alcohol—simply to take it off the youngsters and pour it down the nearest drain. For the police, that would be the end of the matter. There would be no criminalisation of the youngsters for having the alcohol in the first place. It would not, however, be the end of the matter for the youngsters, because the police would, I hope, take the opportunity given by the power in the Bill to inform the youngsters' parents.
      The Bill helps to stop mischief before it starts. It stops young people from coming under the influence of alcohol because, under that influence, young people do things that they would not dream of doing if they were sober. They make misjudgments. They become involved in petty crime and vandalism. They mess up telephone boxes and bus shelters. They damage fences and push over garden walls. They distribute their litter liberally. Often the litter is empty discarded cans of extra-strength lager and extra-strength cider and the strange alcopop bottles.
      Young people sometimes go on to act intimidatingly towards others, particularly other young people, who might be returning from a church meeting, a dance, a sports centre, a youth club or an Air Training Corps meeting. They have to pass youngsters who have been drinking, who sometimes are acting yobbishly. Those youngsters often disturb the peace for elderly people and intimidate them.
      Under the influence of alcohol, youngsters become involved in serious crime as well. They can often end up violently attacking each other and other innocent members of the public. Those violent attacks can sometimes end in tragedy, as one such attack did in my constituency last year.
      Youngsters can steal cars, take those cars and go so-called joyriding. I would not call it joyriding because, when youngsters take cars under the influence of alcohol and go racing around the streets—we even saw some of them live on television, tearing around council estates in cars that they had stolen—sometimes that also ends in tragedy. It can sometimes end in the death of the young person who stole the car and is driving, the death of passengers in the car and even the death of innocent members of the public, who need protection from such action.
      Young people under the influence of alcohol fall victim to criminals. They are preyed on by criminals and by those who want to sell them drugs, the evil drug dealers.

      553
      The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) told me that first use of drugs mostly takes place under the influence of drink—I think the figure was 93 per cent. We have a duty to protect our youngsters from drugs and from negative street culture and the Bill will help to do that. I have a simple equation: youngsters plus alcohol on the streets equals disaster for the youngsters and for the community at large. When they abuse alcohol, young people can get a criminal record and spoil their lives at great cost not only to themselves and their families but to society generally.
      Someone asked me. "Will the police have time to implement the Bill's powers?" Of course they will; that is their job, and they will have more time to take preventive measures because of the Bill. When a crime has been committed and the police have to investigate the demolition of a wall or vandalism to a car or, worse, drug trafficking, violent attacks, stealing cars and joyriding, much time is involved. They have to interview witnesses and bring people to the police station and record interviews. Before the matter is brought before the courts, they have to fill out forms and prepare documents and that takes time. If the Bill prevents crime, it will relieve the police of much negative activity and release them to take the preventative measures that the Bill offers.
      Mr. David Congdon: I fully support the Bill. However, the worst problems occur on Friday and Saturday nights in town centres. Regardless of whether youngsters are drinking on the streets or have been drinking earlier in pubs, does my hon. Friend share my concern that too often the police want to avoid confrontation and are not prepared to be present in town centres? I hope that the Bill gives a firm message to the police that they must have a presence in town centres late at night to deal with these real and serious issues.
      Dr. Spink: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We all visit our police stations and accompany officers on Friday nights. We know the modus operandi. Officers come in on overtime and dress up in their protective uniforms and sit in battle buses, waiting to be called to hot spots and at any time from 10.30 at night until 1 o'clock in the morning they go tearing out with blue lights flashing to deal with violence, intimidation and vandalism on the streets. I want to stop such crime happening by making sure that policemen are on the beat taking alcohol away from youngsters, so that hot spots do not develop.
      Mr. Peter Atkinson: My hon. Friend is being a little unfair on the police. My experience of the Northumbrian police is that they do not sit drinking tea in police stations on overtime until they are called out. They are on duty and patrolling the streets. The centre of Newcastle which, to say the least, is lively on Friday and Saturday nights, is well policed in the evening.
      Dr. Spink: I take my hon. Friend's admonition on the chin. I was speaking in particular about special support groups, which support community constables who do such a wonderful job. I accept every word of my hon. Friend's intervention.
      Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to special constables? In Lichfield,
      554
      where there are certainly problems on Friday and Saturday nights, special constables and full-time police officers are on the streets. I hope that I shall be able to speak about that. Those officers are not sitting in battle wagons; they are out deterring crime. I welcome the Bill's powers.
      Dr. Spink: My hon. Friend is right. The Bill's provisions are particularly appropriate for special constables because they will enable them to implement low-level preventative measures and that will release police constables to tackle drug traffickers, fraudsters and other serious crime.
      The Bill has all-party support, which I welcome. The measure is long overdue, and I thank all those who spoke in favour of it during its various stages. No one has seriously spoken against it. I particularly thank the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) for his encouragement to present the Bill in the first instance, and for his invaluable support and advice during its progress. He truly cares about his constituents and about the community that he represents so well. I also thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who was the prime driving force and inspiration for the Bill. I even thank the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), the shadow Home Secretary. [Laughter.] Some of my hon. Friends laugh but I mean that, and shall explain why.
      I was contacted by a surprised Mr. George Spink, one of the good burghers of Keighley, a town in West Yorkshire. He suggested that I might be plagiarising the shadow Home Secretary. As evidence of that scurrilous accusation, he quoted to me a Daily Mirror editorial of 15 February which stated that the shadow Home Secretary wanted
      "a crackdown on petty crime to sweep it off the streets.
      In particular he will target children, who are responsible for most of these offences. And many of whom will go on to more serious crimes.
      Cutting the crime rate will not be easy. But starting like this is the best way to bring law and order to our streets."
      George said that he thought those were my words, and I think that I have used similar words.
      Mr. Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It would be in the interest of the House to know whether Mr. George Spink is related to my hon. Friend.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): As usual, that is not a point of order for the Chair and means nothing at all.
      Dr. Spink: We all agree with the sentiments in that editorial because they are common sense. Even the Daily Mirror will, I trust, give my Bill a warm welcome.
      The most important step in the Home Secretary's crime-cutting odyssey is tackling under-age drinking, and the Bill does that. We had a constructive Second Reading debate and effective debates in Committee, thanks notably to my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) and for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) and the hon. Members for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies), for Barnsley, East (Mr. Ennis) and for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton). I thank hon. Members who are present for this debate, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland),

      555
      and my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who presented the Bill on First Reading on my behalf, for which I also thank him.
      The most important amendment in Committee was to extend the Bill's provisions to Northern Ireland. I have always wanted that. The amendment was largely a result of the efforts of the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney), who acted in the best interests not only of his constituents but of all the people of Northern Ireland. In a press statement he said:
      "under-age drinking is a significant problem throughout North Down—with all the anti-social behaviour that ensues, ranging from petty crime to the intimidation of the elderly.
      I have had very many complaints from constituents about drunken youths hanging round their neighbourhood, and making their lives a misery … The police themselves frequently claim they are powerless to intervene and curb such behaviour … Representing a seaside resort like Bangor also drove it home just how valuable this new law would be,".
      Mr. Tim Smith: I am sorry to puncture the balloon of euphoria that seems to surround the Bill, which was promoted by Mr. George Spink among others. I understand the problem that the Bill is designed to tackle, but why does it apply only to young persons? Will not people of 18, 19, 20 and possibly older also be involved?
      Dr. Spink: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is one of the strongest points that has been made during the Bill's passage. It would be draconian to ban all alcohol in all circumstances from public places. Anybody over 18 can in any event go into a pub to drink alcohol, and people tend to do that because it is more convivial for them. If they are under 18 they cannot, so they are forced on to the streets. The model byelaw to ban all alcohol from certain areas is a draconian measure and would be inappropriate for certain areas—for example, seaside resorts or picnic areas. How would we handle someone who was simply taking a bottle of wine to his or her home? It would cause grave difficulties. The key problem is that of under-age persons with alcohol in public, which is a recipe for disaster, and my Bill tackles that.
      Mr. Fabricant: I accept my hon. Friend's argument that there might be places where it should be legal to drink alcohol, such as pavement cafés, which we have in Lichfield. Unfortunately, however, we also have in Lichfield people over the age of 18, who are drinking quite legally in pubs, pouring out on to the streets when the pubs shut at 11 o'clock on a Friday and Saturday night and continuing to drink. Why will that not be illegal under the Bill?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must now start to deal with what is in the Bill.
      Dr. Spink: In such circumstances, the model byelaw for my hon. Friend's area might be appropriate, but that is not covered by my Bill.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): Unlike the model byelaw, which does not allow confiscation, my hon. Friend has a remedy in his Bill to deal with the matter immediately, and that is very important.
      Dr. Spink: And it does so without criminalising the young people. There are enough ways for them to get into bother without us inventing another way today. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for clarifying that.
      The hon. and learned Member for North Down has been a doughty and assiduous campaigner to defend his constituents from the effects of under-age drinking. I pay tribute to him. I know that he is concerned to strengthen the family, and there are few opportunities for us in the House to reinforce parental responsibility. The Bill is an opportunity to do that.
      The Bill gives the police the power to take the names and addresses of youngsters involved in under-age drinking and then to inform the parents. It would be irresponsible to keep that information from parents, who have not just a duty but a very real responsibility to bring up their children properly. Parents must be told what their children are getting up to, so that they can take whatever action is necessary. I hope that the police will use the power to take names and addresses on every possible occasion, because it works.
      The "Do you know where your children are?" campaign in Weymouth, Dorset, which successfully piloted last year some of the measures in the Bill, showed that a large proportion of parents who were informed that their children were misbehaving with drink in public took the necessary action. About 90 per cent. of the children who had been caught and reported did not come to the notice of the police a second time. Parents will act responsibly given the information, and no one should withhold that information from them. In giving the police the power to take names and address, the Bill is truly innovative in British law. I do not think that that power existed previously in British law.
      Parents are sometimes not helped by the drinks industry. I think in particular of alcopops and the extra-strong lagers and ciders, which are often packaged, named and marketed specifically at young people. Some rogue companies are still acting irresponsibly and promoting those products. The Portman Group is working to resolve that problem. I say to the industry as a whole: "Get your act together, because if you don't, we will introduce measures that have all-party support in the House to bring further regulations on your industry."
      There is much business on the Order Paper today, so I shall resume my seat. If there are any items of specific detail that need to be answered, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister, who has been so helpful and supportive, will deal with them, or perhaps I can deal with them if I am fortunate enough to be allowed to speak again.
      11.55 am
      Mr. David Congdon: As I said in an earlier intervention, I welcome the Bill because it gives the police a power that does not currently exist, so I am happy to support it. However, I share some of the reservations mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), in that the Bill is limited in scope. That is not a criticism in any shape or form, because there is clearly a problem of youngsters intimidating people in public places late at night and sometimes, particularly on Saturday afternoons, in shopping centres. Sometimes that will involve alcohol, sometimes not.

      557
      Although we must address some difficult issues, such as confrontations and violence in town centres late at night, it is often people's perception and fear that is the problem rather than the actuality. It is a sad fact of modern life that many people over the age of—I have to be careful what age I say, so I shall use a low figure—25 will not go near town centres at night, because they are not pleasant places to be. If the Bill goes some way to dealing with that, I am sure that the public will be pleased.
      Most young people who drink are well behaved. Most young people do not go into town centres at night to cause trouble. Most go out to enjoy themselves. Why should they not do so? We live in a society where people have more wealth at a younger age and have the money to go out and enjoy themselves. We should not lose sight of the fact that it is only a minority who go out—whether they are 17 or 18—to get drunk and cause trouble. I hope that we will bear that in mind.
      Young people, who can drive at the age of 17, are far better than older people—I have to be careful of the age again, so I shall say over 40—at not drinking and driving. Regrettably, it is often older men who have not changed their drinking habits and still drive. When young people of 17 and 18 are drinking in pubs, there is always one who will not drink because he or she is driving. We should commend them for that.
      I have certain reservations about the Bill, although they do not detract from my support for it. Late at night in town centres there is a fair amount of trouble—windows get broken, fights occur as well as stabbings. I suspect, however, that most of that occurs as a result not of alcohol which has been consumed on the streets, but of that which has been drunk in pubs. Although the legal drinking age is 18, many under-age youngsters will be served in pubs. No matter how much the House may regret that, that is the reality in pubs in town centres throughout the country. Many of the problems on the streets are therefore caused by alcohol that has been drunk in pubs. I readily concede, however, that it is intimidating to see youngsters not only drunk in public places, but drinking there.
      As I said in my intervention, it is one thing for the House to pass legislation magisterially, it is another to ensure that the forces of law and order enforce the existing law. Much of the activity that occurs in town centres late at night could be dealt with under existing law. I have immense respect for the police, but it is a sad fact that there is a temptation not to provide a police presence in town centres at night. We should have police wandering around late at night rather than the figurative flying squad of men and women in carrier vans or in cars, who are sent in when it is too late. That often exacerbates the trouble. To make the Bill a success, the police should act like the neighbourhood bobby in town centres at night. However, unless we have a sufficient police presence, they may sometimes be the target for abuse and assault.
      It is important that the police in our major town centres address the problem. That means that police forces should deploy their men and women to ensure that more of them are on duty late at night on a Friday or Saturday. They should not worry quite so much about providing police to wander around suburban streets in the middle of the day, when fewer problems are likely to occur.
      558
      I want the Bill to succeed, but that means that we must ensure that the police use its powers. That is my plea. I hope that steps can be taken to reclaim some of our town centres so that people can visit them without fear and intimidation. I am happy to support the Bill.
      12.1 pm
      Mr. Peter Atkinson: I am glad to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon), who made some extremely, sensible comments about young people.
      I served on the Committee which considered the Bill, so I have been closely associated with all its stages. It is a bit of a pity that there has been a temptation to use it as an opportunity to condemn young people's behaviour, as well as to condemn brewers and the manufacturers of alcopops. The Bill is nothing more than a law and order measure. It will be used to control disturbances caused in particular by young men who cause problems in town centres.
      I hope that we are not in the middle of a Band of Hope meeting. The Bill should not be used to attack young people or drink. Drinking has an important part to play in our culture. My hon. Friend the Minister made a lengthy contribution to the previous debate, which was also on alcohol, so I suspect that he deserves a drink now. Drink taken sensibly enriches our lives; it certainly enriches mine from time to time.
      We must get away from the idea that the Bill is to do with the control of the sale of alcopops or drunkenness. Public drunkenness is a problem, but it is not a new one. I do not believe that our town centres are any worse than they were 30, 50 or 100 years ago. Young men have always got drunk from time to time, and sometimes that leads to disturbances.
      I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East that town centres today are better than they were 50 years ago. They are certainly better than they were when I was a young man. I also agree with him that young people are extremely responsible, particularly about drinking and driving.
      In Newcastle, thousands of young people gather at Bigg Market on a Friday, Saturday and Sunday night. Newcastle is an important student centre, so many young people live there and go out on those nights to enjoy themselves. There are problems from time to time, but most students enjoy themselves without causing any trouble. I welcome the fact that they enjoy themselves.
      Mr. Fabricant: I had the privilege to stand for the constituency of South Shields in 1987, so I am familiar with Newcastle. If the Bill had been law a few years ago, would my hon. Friend care to speculate whether Gazza would be causing fewer problems on the streets of Newcastle late at night?
      Mr. Atkinson: I am a great defender of Mr. Gascoigne. He is a substantial character in the north-east; he has been involved in one or two lively incidents, but the north-east is a lively place. Mr. Gascoigne, certainly in his footballing capacity, has made a great contribution to the football culture of Newcastle, which is the UK capital of soccer.
      Mr. Tim Smith: What about Chelsea?
      Mr. Atkinson: I shall not go into the merits of Chelsea, but I know where my support lies.

      559
      In our discussions on the Bill a number of concerns were raised particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern), who is unable to be here today. There was some misunderstanding of the nature of the Bill. It gives the police powers that they need and for which they have asked; we leave it to their discretion as to how to implement it. In Committee, we made too much of a meal of the Bill's small print.
      We can trust our police, who police our cities very sensitively and effectively. The police will not abuse the extra power, they will simply use it to deal with those at whom the Bill is predominantly directed—troublesome 13, 14 and 15-year-olds who are given drink. They are the young hooligans who cause so many problems in our town centres. The problems are caused not so much by older people, but by the young people who get hold of drink. One can see them in bus shelters with tins of lager—not necessarily strong lager, but ordinary lager; they are not allowed into pubs so they congregate on the streets and in town centres and cause problems, particularly for elderly people.
      The Bill is not about the detail of whether the police should have the right to confiscate the drink or whether they should be certain that the bottle contains alcohol—one of the questions raised in Committee. In Committee we discussed whether the police could identify an orange substance as an alcopop or simply orange juice or lemonade. It is up to the police to decide whether they have a reasonable suspicion that what is in the bottle is alcoholic and whether they have the right to confiscate it. I believe that, if police officers take the drink from young people, they should pour it down the drain and send them home.
      The Bill is not about making criminals of young people, but about preventing them from getting into trouble and becoming criminals—that is where its strength lies. When my hon. Friend the Minister outlined the Bill's provisions, he accepted that. We do not want the powers in the Bill to be used by the police to arrest 14, 15 and 16-year-olds; we want the police to take drink off such young people so that they do not move from one place to another with it. If necessary, the police should take their names and addresses. The police can then call at the parents' home—as happened with the Weymouth experiment—and say, "Do you know where your child was on Friday or Saturday? Did you know that he was drinking in the street?" That is the way to tackle drunkenness among young people. They should not be arrested and hauled before the juvenile courts. It is not sensible to make young people criminals unnecessarily.
      Mr. Tim Smith: My hon. Friend has talked about not making young people criminals, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink). But clause 1(3) states that a person

      "who fails without reasonable excuse to comply with a requirement imposed on him under subsection (1)"
      is guilty of a criminal offence.
      Mr. Atkinson: My hon. Friend is right—the Bill contains that final measure. If a person refuses to comply, he can be arrested and charged with a criminal offence. The question whether the policeman acted reasonably or
      560
      unreasonably would have to be decided by a magistrate. But the spirit of the Bill is not aimed at bringing young people to court unless they are particularly obstructive or deliberately dishonest when questioned by the police. The Bill's purpose is to prevent young people from being made criminals and to allow the police to move them on and remove the alcohol before problems arise.
      I shall deal with another small point that we discussed in Committee. It involves the message being sent out to the corner shop and small off-licence owners who often sell drink to under-age people. In Committee, we mentioned the case of a corner shop in Barnsley that was notorious for supplying young people with alcohol. The message emerging from the House today should go to those shopowners who continue deliberately to sell alcohol to young people. We all know the problems affecting corner shops in this country and how difficult it is for them to survive, but nothing irritates the average corner shop owner more than one owner seeking to capture the illegal market in selling drink to under-age people. That upsets all honest corner shop owners and the police. The authorities should use all their powers and employ random purchasing methods to ensure that corner shop owners do not encourage young people to drink.
      Having in a sense lived with the Bill through Second Reading, Committee and now Third Reading, I welcome it. At heart, it is a good Bill, and the extra powers it gives the police will be used well and responsibly. I am sure that it will be much appreciated.
      12.10 pm
      Lady Olga Maitland: I warmly welcome the fact that the Bill has reached this important stage. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) on having so ably and skilfully steered it through to Third Reading. I am astounded that such legislation has not been introduced before now. It strikes me as astonishing that at present, although young people are prevented from entering a pub and drinking, they are able to have alcohol in a public place. The Bill will crack down on a serious problem and block off an important loophole in the law.
      The urgency is best illustrated in a report that appeared recently in, I believe, The Daily Telegraph:
      "Police found children as young as nine drinking on street corners during a campaign to crack down on under-age drinking in Cleveland."
      Over a couple of Friday nights, the police rounded up 200 youngsters who
      "were made to pour gallons of alcopops, cider, lager and sherry down the drain".
      Some were arrested and taken home by the police, who explained to their parents exactly what had happened. That was a large-scale operation, which was set up because of the enormous number of complaints from residents who had been victims of vandalism, intimidation and lager-loutish behaviour, and who felt completely powerless to do anything about it.
      Everyone I have met, whether in the House or in my constituency, has complained about young people congregating in and around parks, bus shelters, high streets, railway stations or back streets. When in such groups, those youngsters drink alcohol, and they probably indulge in solvent abuse or even drug abuse. It is a serious

      561
      problem, and it is important that we should prevent those young people from doing great harm to themselves as well as terrorising local communities.
      It is evident that the large number of young people who commit crimes—the peak age is between 14 and 17—tend to have been drinking at the time of their offence. I have no doubt that, if we can remove the curse of alcohol from them, that will be a large step forward in bringing down levels of juvenile crime.
      What I find interesting is that girls are just as likely as boys to take part in these drinking activities, which is a new phenomenon that I had not previously taken on board. The fact that children as young as nine have been found carrying alcohol is cause for concern and—there is no doubt about it—we must take action fast.
      As has been said, it is important that, in tackling young people's alcohol consumption, we do not merely turn them into a criminal statistic. It is important that we take preventative action—a protective course of action—and try to remove those children from the risk of danger before they cause themselves permanent harm.
      Discovering the reasons why young people go down the route of taking alcohol is an integral part of the initiative that includes trying to confiscate it. Young people take alcohol for several reasons, one of which is to show off to friends. It is bravado—showing that they are one of the chaps. In my opinion, the imagery that is conveyed by society as a whole makes us all responsible. The media and commercials glamorise drinking, and it is very important for young people to be properly educated as to how to handle drink and as to the circumstances in which it is acceptable to have alcohol and those in which it is not.
      Parents deserve our sympathy because when they try to instil discipline in their homes regarding the right way to drink alcohol they find their efforts undermined by the glamorisation of binge-drinking, especially when it is carried out by leading figures such as pop musicians, football stars and cricketers. Those cult figures are role models, and if they are seen to be losing control of themselves, young people are given the message that it is acceptable.
      I have sympathy for parents who ban drink from the home or say to a child, "You may have some wine, but we shall water it down," which I used to find enormously humiliating when I was a small girl. My father used to rather ostentatiously pour the water into a wine glass, but he had a reason for doing so because he was trying to communicate the message that, although it is acceptable to drink, it must be done in moderation. There is a well known phrase, "A little bit of what you fancy doesn't do you any harm." However, we are discussing what happens when it goes beyond the streets of acceptability.
      Sometimes young people get bizarre ideas about the role of alcohol. I have never forgotten the story of the general practitioner who had to receive a patient in his home. The patient arrived at about 10 am when the doctor was upstairs, and his five-year-old daughter received the patient, took the patient into the consulting room and asked, "Would you like a gin?" She felt that alcohol was an acceptable part of life.
      As children grow up and find that alcohol is easy to get hold of, another problem arises. In high streets, young people go into an off-licence or supermarket and fool the sales girls or the shopkeeper into selling them
      562
      alcohol—which, of course, is breaking the law—or send in a teenager who is over the age of 18, who can lawfully buy that alcohol and then hand it over to a younger person. That happens all too often.
      The Bill has one weakness in that it deals with only the possession of alcohol in a public place. I wish that we were able to legislate more widely and insist that byelaws be enacted throughout the country to ban the consumption of alcohol in designated public places. That happens in about 33 local authorities and it should be given virtually 100 per cent. coverage as it would be a big step forward.
      To return to dealing with young people, we must pass on the clear message that drinking alcohol in a public place, or at all under the age of 18, is not acceptable. Alcohol Concern supports the Bill and I welcome that fact. It is particularly concerned that more effort should go into deterring licensees from selling alcohol to those under 18. Alcohol Concern feels that more effort should be put into test purchasing, to find out which licensees are lax and sloppy about assessing whether someone to whom they are selling alcohol is over 18. Perhaps we also ought to ensure that there are more powerful penalties for licensees who break the law. Their licences ought to be suspended far more frequently and a heavy fine would certainly serve as a penalty that would deter others.
      The Portman Group—an organisation set up by the leading United Kingdom drinks companies to promote sensible drinking—has, by and large, done some useful work, but I was disconcerted at its response to the Home Office consultation paper on under-aged drinking in public. The group's view surprised me as it was hostile to the Bill and claimed that it feared we were legislating in haste only to repent at leisure. The group felt that we had not paid sufficient attention to other means of educating young people not to drink in public. It is staggering that the group should take such a soft, liberal view on such an important issue. I totally discount the sort of problems that it raised.
      The group felt that it was unreasonable to demand that police officers should intercept young people carrying alcohol, feeling that that would result in aggression and hostility between young people and the police. I discount that view. The police have always found when they are trying to invoke law and order that the people with whom they have to deal are not terribly pleased about being tackled, whatever the issue—whether a suspected burglar, someone committing a serious driving offence or whether in cases of vandalism, violence or under-aged drinking, which could lead to vandalism and violence. I was surprised that the Portman Group, which is so respected, should suddenly go totally soft on such an important issue.
      Dr. Spink: The Portman Group has since had detailed negotiations and discussions with my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench and myself and is now broadly supportive of the Bill. It would state that the Bill is just one of a number of measures that should be taken to tackle the problem, and I think that we can all agree with that.
      Lady Olga Maitland: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing me up to date. I was surprised that such a well-known and established organisation should take such a view, and I am glad that, as a result of consultation, it is now on board and with us on this important measure.
      I hope that the Portman Group will now turn its attention to another enormously important matter, which relates directly to the Bill. A new form of alcohol is

      563
      coming onto the market, of which young people are likely to take advantage: young people can now make an alcopop drink in their own homes. A company has put on to the market a product called "Splooch"—a bizarre name for a rather serious problem—which can turn a soft drink into alcohol with the equivalent strength of strong beer. It is bought in kit form and costs only £4.99. What is worrying is that the kit is promoted with a cartoon logo showing two eyes looking the worse for drink. When the makers of that home-mode hooch were challenged about it, Mr. Richard Danby of Continental Wine Experts in Norwich said:
      "It is intended for the alcopop market. It is meant to be the home-brew equivalent but we are certainly not targeting under-age drinkers. It takes ten days to brew and that is a considerable disincentive."
      All that I can say is that he has totally underestimated the ingenuity and determination of young people to acquire alcohol by one means or another. If they can afford to brew it from their pocket money and take it out on to the streets, it is an extremely serious matter.
      Mr. Peter Atkinson: I understand my hon. Friend's concern but we must not get too excited about these matters. I remember from my youth a number of drinks that could be mixed up quite nicely—one was called a "Moscow mule", in which one could never taste the alcohol but which certainly had a dramatic effect. Those mixtures and the ability to mix drinks have always been around. Our aim should be not to run around trying to ban bits of the drink industry, which would simply make it more attractive still to young people, but to educate young people about the dangers of alcohol abuse. That is the answer.
      Lady Olga Maitland: I agree with my hon. Friend that we must educate young people about alcohol abuse. None the less, when alcohol is so accessible, whether through brewing it in the home or purchasing it in shops and off licences, we must take it seriously. I am worried that this is yet another means for young people to obtain alcohol easily and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say whether the Government will consider banning drinks brewed at home and targeted at young people.
      I particularly welcome the fact that the Bill confiscates alcohol not only in public places like high streets and city centres but on public transport. I raised that matter on Second Reading and want to emphasise the importance of rigorously invoking that power on buses, late-night buses and trains. It is no joke for fellow passengers and, travelling on the trains as I do, I find it extremely unpleasant to be terrorised by young thugs who are carrying drink and totally out of control. Their intimidatory behaviour is unpleasant and the filth and chaos that they create in railway carriages is deeply unpleasant. I hope that train guards and ticket collectors will be encouraged to call the police when they feel that they need help.
      Finally, the Bill is important from the point of view of parental responsibility. The fact that the parents could receive a letter if a young person has been found carrying alcohol will mean that young Johnny will have to answer for what he has been doing.
      564
      The Bill will be a further deterrent, because more notice will be taken of what young people are doing. I find it amazing that youngsters, sometimes under the age of 12, are roaming round the streets late at night. I suspect that that is part of the wider problem of the breakdown of the traditional family. Young people tend to feel that they are not the No. 1 interest to either parent, because the parents have a multiplicity of partners.
      Those children roaming the streets become prey to the growing problem of alcohol abuse. That is extremely serious. Some parents have opted out of their responsibilities, but that problem can now be dealt with. The letters, and even a visit from the police, will force them to recognise where they have let their children down.
      I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point on initiating the Bill. It is significant, and I hope that it continues to have a smooth passage through Parliament.
      12.30 pm
      Mr. Walter Sweeney: I agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) deserves the thanks of the House for introducing this small but useful measure.
      I listened to what my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) said about the danger of people being criminalised through the Bill, but only irresponsible young people, who refused to co-operate with the police, would find themselves in trouble with the law. Law-abiding young people who handed over their bottle of alcohol without demur would not suffer in any way as a result of the measure, save for being deprived of the small amount of alcohol in their possession.
      In common with many hon. Members, I have received complaints from people who live near a playing field, a youth club or a public alleyway. They complain that young people congregate in public and make a nuisance of themselves, drinking, shouting, dropping litter, abusing drugs and committing criminal damage. If the adults concerned remonstrate with the young people who are acting in such an anti-social way, they often receive a mouthful of bad language for their trouble. Often, the police are then called.
      Under the existing law, remedies are available to the police. They can prosecute the young people for an offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, but to succeed they would need to show that someone had suffered harassment, alarm or distress. That may be a difficult test to satisfy in a trivial case.
      We do not want our courts to be cluttered with minor examples of Public Order Act offences that take up a great deal of time for the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, witnesses and the courts; nor do we want the young people concerned to acquire a criminal record for a trivial act that may arise simply from thoughtlessness, which may be alcohol-related.
      If the police take no action, however, the complainant is upset and may accuse them of failing in their duty, and may complain to the local Member of Parliament that the police are powerless or unwilling to interfere.
      Under the existing law, the young people could be prosecuted for dropping litter. Litter in our streets and public places is certainly a nuisance that needs to be dealt with. There is a difficulty for the police, however. If the young people causing the litter are still present when the

      565
      officer arrives, they have only to pick up their beer cans and other rubbish, and there is no crime; but if the youngsters have left the scene, it is difficult to catch them and prove that they were responsible for the litter.
      Clearly, the present law is inadequate to deal with that type of nuisance. Therefore, the Bill is justified. Some hon. Members have criticised it for not having sufficient scope, but it is far better to have a small Bill of limited scope that achieves limited objectives than a wide-ranging Bill that is deficient.
      12.34 pm
      Mr. Nigel Evans: The theme for today seems to be alcohol and, more importantly, law and order. As I said earlier, I believe that law and order is the most important issue for the general public. I have held public meetings to discuss that subject, and I have also enjoyed accompanying the police on their patrols on a Friday night from 9 pm until 2 am, when I witnessed the pressures they face fulfilling their duty of protecting the public. I have also visited a residential home in my constituency to discuss the problems experienced by the elderly. Intimidation and feeling threatened by young people is a very real problem for elderly people, and I am afraid that alcohol features in that equation.
      The police in Fulwood adopt a very proactive attitude when approaching young people—particularly those as young as 11 or 12—who hang around on street corners consuming alcohol. It defies logic how those young people can get their hands on alcohol in the first place. The police usually confiscate it, but there is a grey area concerning those aged 15, 16 and 17. We know the difficulties that publicans have in trying to determine, in the absence of identity cards, whether young people are aged 18. They must use their judgment and, in some cases, they get it wrong.
      We must ensure that the police are given the appropriate powers to confiscate alcohol from young people who are consuming it in public places. Such activity is obviously intimidatory to others and may lead to criminal acts. Some people have referred to the measure as a killjoy Bill. I was 15 when I first entered a pub in Swansea for the odd alcoholic drink, but I can safely say that I did not roam the streets with a can of lager when I was a youngster.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) emphasised that we are talking about a small minority of youngsters. Alcohol abuse is not a common problem among young people, the vast majority of whom are honest and good. We could all point to the good work that young people do: many are involved with charities, as well as with the guides, scouts and various other groups, and not in wrongdoing. We must make sure that we do not tar all young people with the same brush. However, we must also ensure that the police have the tools with which to target the small minority, so that they may protect the rest of society and remove the stigma from all young people.
      Unlike the position 20 or 30 years ago, young people these days seem to have greater disposable incomes, which they spend as they choose. The village in which the residential home I visited is situated has a problem with young people. That problem is worse during the summer months, when youngsters are on holiday and the better weather allows them to stay out on the streets for
      566
      longer periods. It is a problem for some residents, who become fearful when they see young people congregating, even when those youngsters are without alcohol.
      It has already been said, but I make the point again, that the "specials" do a superb job in assisting the rest of the police in dealing, for example, with the congregation of young people, with or without alcohol. I have seen the specials on the streets during weekends and other days of the week, and it is evident that their presence and that of the police generally do a power of good.
      A lack of a police presence would lead to the congregating of young people, the consumption of alcohol and the problems that ensue. That is when police officers have to be taken away from other important duties to firefight, as it were, a problem that has already started. Instead, the police should be given support initially—at the stage when the specials are involved—to ensure that they can deter young people from congregating and gaining access to alcohol. I wished to give the specials a special mention.
      The use of closed circuit television is useful. Such a system has been set up in Clitheroe, and I should like it extended to other areas. Problems arise when young people gain access to alcohol and then engage in criminal activities such as vandalism. That is a specific problem that can be addressed by the introduction of CCT. I hope that we shall continue with the work that has already been started under the Government in providing further resources to introduce CCT systems throughout the country.
      We must not, however, forget rural areas. It is not only cities and towns that experience the problems to which I have referred. Many rural areas, such as Longbridge, would benefit from the introduction of CCT.
      The Government are noted for their deregulation initiative. I warmly welcome deregulation, and since becoming a Member of this place I have seen the deregulation of licensing hours. It was thought at one time that pubs should close in the afternoon so as to correct certain problems. Pubs are now open from relatively early in the morning through until 11 pm. I should like to see further deregulation.
      I am a hardened Euro-sceptic, but the rest of Europe seems to deal properly with licensing laws. I see no reason why people should not be allowed to drink in certain pubs that perhaps have special licences until 2 am, rather than being forced to go to clubs or elsewhere to drink. Why should they not be allowed to drink a little later at night? There might be a feeling within the Home Office that extended hours will only exacerbate certain problems that stem from the consumption of alcohol.
      I suggest that we should further reflect on licensing hours, and not harm those who want to go about their lawful business by ensuring that pubs are closed at an unusually early hour by comparison with the rest of Europe. At the same time, we must ensure that the police have proper tools to deal with those who drink alcohol on the streets if we choose to extend licensing hours. The sooner there is an extension, the better—that is my view.
      We must ensure that the police receive proper training in dealing with young people. It is important to ensure also that good relationships are maintained. We do not want to instil in the minds of young people the idea that the police are the enemy and that they are present to stop them having a good time. That is not the case. The police

      567
      must receive training to ensure that they are able to deal with possible problems. Certainly they should be hard on the young villains we wish to see cleared off the streets, but at the same time there should be good relations with the vast majority whose behaviour is extremely good.
      It is said time and time again—I represent a rural area—that under-age drinking takes place in rural areas because there is not as much to do in the country as there is in towns and cities, where there are more facilities. We must ensure that resources provided by the national lottery are directed in part to rural areas to provide facilities that otherwise might not be affordable. Swimming pools and other facilities might help to get young people off the streets and into sporting activities. That would be extremely useful.
      Alcopops have rightly been mentioned. I am alarmed that some such drinks are blatantly targeted at young people. It would be better to work with the industry rather than to legislate. Surely the industry can see the benefits of this proposal. We should ensure that young people are not targeted by the marketing of drinks that taste like lemonade, orangeade or cherryade but have a powerful kick due to their high alcoholic content.
      When I was a youngster, I could buy a can of shandy in a shop. There is enough alcohol in a can of shandy to make it go brown. People will not get drunk or suffer harmful side effects from shandy, but that is not the case with these drinks.
      Lady Olga Maitland: The brewing industry makes an enormous amount of money out of alcopop drinks. We are fooling ourselves if we think that a little self-regulation will be the answer. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should take tougher action, which means banning those drinks?
      Mr. Evans: I usually agree with my hon. Friend in everything she says, thinks and does, but on this occasion I disagree with her. In the vast majority of cases, self-regulation, in co-ordination with the police, the Home Office and other bodies, is the right route. The drinks industry has a responsibility to its customers, to parents, as my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) mentioned, and to society at large. It should carefully consider its marketing of these drinks.
      I do not believe that such drinks should be banned, because that would merely lead to people going into pubs and saying, "Please can I have a glass of orange juice and two shots of vodka," and making their own combination. I have no problem with those drinks being available already made up, but it is totally wrong for the industry to target its marketing at young people. Some as young as 16 or 17 go to have a drink without an ID card. Their taste buds are not sufficiently developed for them to like other alcoholic drinks, so they are attracted to the softer drinks, and will ask for hooch or other alcopops.
      The industry must carefully examine the names of some of these drinks. It has a responsibility, and we must give it the opportunity to show that it can regulate itself. If it refuses to do so, we must consider further legislation to ensure that such drinks are not targeted at our young people.
      Parents have the ultimate responsibility for their children. I am delighted that, when the police take these drinks away from youngsters, they are not just given a
      568
      slap on the back of the hand and told to go away. The police get in touch with their parents, some of whom do not know what their youngsters are up to in the evenings. Even if they were given photographic evidence, some of them would deny that their little Johnny or Susie was drinking alcohol in the streets. Parents must take full responsibility for the actions of their youngsters. Perhaps they could be advised to have counselling, and be shown how they could deal with the problem of their youngster's drinking.
      Some youngsters get up to far worse things than having the odd drink of alcohol. I am well aware of the drug problem, because I am secretary of the all-party drugs misuse group. We must make absolutely certain that parents are aware of their responsibilities, and that they have help to carry out their duties towards their young children.
      12.48 pm
      Mr. Michael Fabricant: I welcome the Bill, and I reaffirm that it is not meant to be an attack on young people—most of whom are very responsible and a credit to the community. It should be emphasised also that the Bill is not an attack on publicans or the alcohol industry. I ought to mention that many of the directors of Bass live in Lichfield, which is just down the road from Burton, one of the largest brewing cities in the country. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) on his Bill, and Mr. George Spink of Keighley, who played an obvious part in its drafting.
      In 1994, the Home Office stated that 2,701 people under 18 had been convicted or cautioned in that year for offences related to drunkenness. Clearly, this is a great problem, which needs to be addressed. It is not just a question of drunkenness and intimidation in the street; it is more a question of perceived intimidation.
      Lichfield is a small rural town—it is a city by definition, as it has an 801-year-old cathedral. There is not a great deal to do in Lichfield, although there is a pub on every street corner. There is no nightclub, bowling alley or cinema. There is certainly no youth club—not even a club run by the cathedral, which is a sad thing to report. So where do people in Lichfield get their entertainment? In pubs.
      I heartily agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) that we need more flexible closing times for pubs. I raised this subject in the House about two years ago, and said that we needed staggered closing times. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) got a cheap laugh by making a sedentary comment about staggering.
      It is a phenomenon in this country that people pour out on to the streets at the same time—11 o'clock. Old people, and sometimes young people, in Lichfield feel intimidated when they are out on the streets on Friday and Saturday nights in particular and see people they think are drunk and threatening. However, in my experience, although those people might be slightly drunk, they are not intimidating.
      The only criticism I have of the Bill is that it addresses only young persons' drinking. Part of the problem is people who are legitimately in pubs who buy lagers as 11 o'clock approaches and then drink them in the street. I believe that staggered closing times would get around that problem.

      569
      I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley about the importance of closed circuit television. CCTV has been introduced in Lichfield, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department opened the operations. Not only has CCTV resulted in lower crime rates; it has deterred loutish behaviour—partly due to drinking alcohol—on the streets of Lichfield.
      I have mentioned the important role played by special constables in Lichfield. Inspector Colin Bayley at Lichfield police station has told me that policing in Lichfield would fail—particularly on Friday and Saturday nights—without the worthwhile work of special constables on duty. One of the reasons I support the Bill is that it will make it easier for full-time police officers and special constables to confiscate alcohol, and pour it down the drain if it has been confiscated from young people.
      Alcopops have been mentioned. I have been serving on the Committee dealing with the Finance Bill, and I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury. He has outlined the dangers as vividly as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), but was slightly more practical. In this instance, he had the power to slap some prohibitive tax on alcopops. I hope that that will be a practical way of deterring people from drinking them.
      Lady Olga Maitland: I am delighted at this excellent news, but what sort of tax will be imposed on this pernicious drink, which has brought so much harm to our young people?
      Mr. Fabricant: It is times like these when I wish I had not given way to my hon. Friend. I refer her, however, to the Finance Bill, which has now been reported from Committee. Next week or the week after, it will be further discussed, and, if my hon. Friend goes to the Vote Office, she will be able to find out the precise amount of taxation. I wish that I could give her the information off the top of my head, but sadly I cannot.
      I pay tribute to a friend of mine, Dr. Alan Howard of Cambridge university, whose son, incidentally, is the Conservative candidate in Kingswood. Dr. Howard has shown that there is some nutritional benefit in drinking alcohol. He has developed an extract from red wine called Nutrivine, which will be marketed. As I have said, we should not condemn the drinking of alcohol out of hand. There is clear medical evidence that, as with most things, if it is drunk in moderation, it can be of no harm. That is particularly so with red wine, although perhaps not quite such the case with beer. Alcohol can be beneficial, although we do not want to encourage young people to go over the top in drinking red wine.
      Whether or not there is danger in the streets through young people drinking alcohol, there is a perceived danger. People in Lichfield and other places throughout this land are frightened on a Friday and Saturday night, and perhaps on other nights, of going out on to the streets when they see behaviour that they consider to be drunken, loutish and threatening. Whether it is drunken, loutish or threatening is not the point—it is perceived to be such.
      It is against the law anyway to drink alcohol on the streets, but the Bill makes the life of police officers easier and means that the problem can be dealt with without
      570
      giving the person apprehended by the police officer a criminal record. Surely, in the case of young people, that has to be applauded too. I welcome the Bill.
      12.56 pm
      Mr. Doug Henderson: I am pleased to give the Opposition's support to this private Member's Bill. When we were discussing the previous business, I had intended to make a terse speech, but I listened to some of the contributions from Conservative Members and I was tempted into making one or two comments, which lengthened my contribution. You will be pleased to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, because Labour is a little short-handed, I have had one or two other duties to which to attend this morning and I have not had the good fortune to listen to some of the other contributions from Conservative Members. The consequence—I am sure that the House will welcome this—is that my contribution will be as terse as I had intended my contribution to be in relation to previous business.
      The Bill is important. I got a flavour of some of the claims made by Conservative Members. It is not a particularly party political issue, but great claims have been made about sorting out all the problems of young people, under-age drinking and all the rest of it. It is naive to think that any single measure will do that. People who make that claim forget their own teenage days, their colleagues and friends and all the little pranks that everyone got up to then.
      If society knew how to deal with these problems, it would have dealt with them already. It is a case of continuing to monitor what is happening and of stopping the excesses, although I do not think that we can ban particular types of alcohol easily; it would be simple for people to produce alternatives that had essentially the same effect.
      During my own teenage days, young people used to get hold of all sorts of things such as Eldorado sherry, which is probably quite pleasant, but is not supposed to be drunk in pints at a time, as some of my young friends used to do. There was a drink in Glasgow called Lanliq, which I think was produced by the same company, and it was pure firewater. Young people who could not afford more expensive forms of intoxication often got dragged into the Lannie queues.
      Citizens, be they under or over 18, should not be intimidated by others drinking in public places. That is anti-social and, if the Bill does nothing other than prevent that, thus giving people a little more peace in their streets and in their communities, it will achieve a great deal. I hope that it achieves more and leads to a reduction in under-age drinking and excessive drinking generally. I also hope that it will lead to better behaviour by youngsters.
      The Bill is consistent with our general approach to community safety orders, which are intended to give people peace in their environment. No one would claim that legislation will turn things around overnight: it is a matter of making a start and trying to improve difficult situations.
      I was impressed by the effect of banning alcohol at football grounds; I am not able to make the same argument in the context of cricket grounds, because I have been a football spectator all my life. A football ground is private, but it is comparable to a public place and I can remember when people were allowed to take alcohol into

      571
      grounds. There was much aggravation, intimidation and harassment of decent football supporters by people who, when they were not intoxicated, were reasonable citizens. People who are intoxicated, especially when they are in large groups, can be incited into committing acts that they would not otherwise commit. That means that they are, at best, anti-social at a football ground and, at worst, committing criminal offences.
      My experience at football grounds convinces me that, if access to alcohol can be stopped in some situations, it will lead to better behaviour and peace in that environment. That is an important reason for giving the Bill a Third Reading. Time will tell whether it is effective, but I hope that it has the impact intended.
      1.1 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): In one way or another, we seem to have had a somewhat boozy morning. We have debated alcohol in two Bills, but the subjects that we have debated have had more to do with where alcohol can cause considerable problems and nuisance, such as in public places or in the closed environment of a prison.
      The question of testing for alcohol, which we discussed earlier, applies to some extent to this Bill. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) on the Bill, which he has taken through the various stages with skill, expertise and considerable commitment. I suspect that some parents might also like a power to test for alcohol. Although it cannot be provided in the Bill, it is right to reassure parents that the police will be on their side in helping them to deal with a problem that can occur from time to time with young people. Sometimes, parents do not know whether their teenage children are consuming alcohol in a public place: the parents may know that their children are out, but they cannot be sure what the children are getting up to.
      As we know, most youngsters behave in a community-spirited way and perhaps contribute more to society than previous generations. I would be the last to criticise their contribution, but it is important that the Bill gives the police power to ascertain the name and address of a young person from whom they confiscate alcohol. I am also confident that, if the matter is brought to the attention of parents, as is allowed for by the Bill, the vast majority will confront their children about it. That might lead to greater family understanding of a controlled and sensible approach to alcohol.
      Alcohol can, of course, lead youngsters to get themselves into a lot of trouble and do things that they bitterly regret later. Drunkenness may lead to general bad behaviour, shouting at passers-by and oafishness, but it can also lead to criminal activity, as we heard in an earlier debate today. Research shows that many crimes are alcohol-related.
      Apart from the danger that young people can take that step towards crime, it is also true that many members of the public will find the sight of youngsters the worse for drink somewhat disturbing; they can be offensive. I am sorry that my hon Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) is not here today, for he has taken a considerable interest in the Bill. On Second Reading, he
      572
      revealed that he is 5 ft 5 in tall. That is a very good height to be, but I hope that I am not alone in noticing that young people these days seem to come a lot bigger than that. Lads of just 13 or 14 can seem very threatening when they are fooling about and behaving badly because they have had too much to drink; so, for that matter, can young girls—this is not a problem that relates only to boys.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point made clear, there is currently a loophole in the law. The Licensing Act 1964 prohibits young people under 18 from purchasing alcohol in licensed premises, and adults from buying alcohol to give to young people to drink in licensed premises, but it does not prohibit young people from consuming alcohol in any place other than licensed premises.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point referred to deregulation, and, as the Minister with responsibility in the Home Office for deregulation—particularly licensing—I can say that applying extra restrictions is something that I consider carefully. Deregulation can work only if it is based on a need to continue to protect the public from abuses that can occur. Getting that balance right is difficult for the Government to achieve. The Bill is an important component and does not necessarily attack the continued need to investigate deregulation opportunities.
      Although the police take enforcement of existing legislation very seriously, if they see young people who appear the worse for drink, they are restricted in what they can do because the young people and any adults with them are not committing an offence. The police have, of course, been trying to do their best. I know that all hon. Members are well aware of the initiative started by the police in Weymouth, to which my hon. Friend referred, which was a response to the problem of under-age drinking in public areas.
      The initiative involved videoing children drinking alcohol and then taking them back to their parents, who were then shown the video. It has been a great success and has encouraged parents to take responsibility for their children. I find it particularly encouraging that parents have been very ready to do that, and few of the youngsters who were videoed have come to the attention of the police again.
      However, officers do not always have a video camera to hand. The police need a quick, on-the-spot solution that can be used at any time. That is what the Bill provides. Once enacted, it will be available to an officer throughout England, Wales and Northern Ireland. We extended the Bill to Northern Ireland in Committee. A similar measure for Scotland is contained in the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill. Any officer who is concerned by a group of youngsters who are drinking will be able to act immediately to stop the problem.
      The Bill has been considered with great thoroughness in Committee, and I compliment all hon. Members who were on that Committee on their diligence in carrying out their task. I remind the House that the Bill gives the police the power to confiscate alcoholic drinks, or those that appear to be alcoholic, from any person under the age of 18 if they are in a public place or, indeed, a place to which they have unlawfully gained access. It also gives the power to confiscate alcohol from anyone who has reached the age of 18 if the police have grounds to believe that the person concerned will give it to a young person in their company.

      573
      The House will note that the Bill gives the power of confiscation to any police officer. As the House will recall, before the Bill was drawn up we consulted widely. The consultation paper originally suggested that the police officer should be in uniform. The Association of Chief Police Officers responded by saying that that could cause problems. It considered that there might be times when a plain-clothes officer would wish to make use of the power, so the Bill has been drafted in that way and the power applies to any officer.
      The House will also note that the police are given a power to confiscate anything that is, or that the constable reasonably believes to be, intoxicating liquor. That is so there can be no argument about whether a drink is alcoholic. We had a long debate about that in Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West was concerned that the police might confiscate something that was not alcoholic. I appreciated his concerns. We discussed the difficulties that the police might have in distinguishing between alcopops and what might turn out to be just lemon pop—in other words, a soft drink.
      I do not want to debate alcopops now—I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not allow me to do so—save to say that I share my hon. Friends' concern. I welcome the initiative taken by the Portman Group; indeed, I spoke to its director, Jean Coussins, just a few days ago. The House should continue to monitor the matter closely, because some of the industry's assurances have not been satisfactory.
      There was one flaw in the Bill, which was spotted by my hon. Friend for Bristol, North-West. In the Bill as originally drafted, an officer had the right to dispose of the intoxicating liquor which was surrendered to him. My hon. Friend asked whether the officer had the right to dispose of a drink that he genuinely believed to be intoxicating, but about which he was mistaken. Now, it might be said that that was unlikely, or even that it could not be proven, because the evidence would be literally down the drain, but we did not want there to be any doubt about the police powers.
      It would be unfortunate if someone with a bent for litigation were to rootle around in a waste bin, find the can from which the police officer had poured away the drink and then, assuming that there was a drop or two left in the bottom, send that off for analysis. He might strike lucky—no alcohol would be found. He could then try to bring a suit against the police for wrongful confiscation. Obviously, we do not want to run that risk, even if it is a remote one. An amendment was accepted in Committee giving the police the power to dispose of anything that was surrendered to them.
      The House will also note that the police have the power to confiscate the alcohol in any public place. That is an important matter, because what is a public place? It is, of course, a place to which, at the material time, the public
      574
      any section of the public has access on payment or otherwise, as of right or by virtue of express or implied permission. It is important to ensure the police have that power, whether the youngsters are in a park, sitting on a bench in the street, congregated around the bus station, outside a take-away, in a shopping mall or cinema, or trespassing in someone's garden or in school grounds, when they should not be there.
      It is an offence under the Bill for a person either to refuse to hand over the alcohol or to refuse to given his or her name and address when requested to do so. In Committee, we debated the nature of the fine if a person refused to do so. It was important to set it at a sensible level—currently £500. The Bill also gives the police a power of arrest. That should be used in extremis, but it is essential that that power is available to them.
      I hope that the Bill will lead to fewer young people coming before the courts, because youngsters will not go on to commit the kind of offences that we know they commit when drunk. They should quickly learn that they will not be permitted to drink in public. The fact that we are not adopting a criminal approach in the initial stage of the Bill's implementation is the right way to deal with the problem when it occurs.
      A discretionary power is available to the police. They do not have to confiscate alcohol. There may be an occasion when a group of young people have a picnic to celebrate their A-level results and drink a spot of cider. An officer may suspect that one or two of them are under 18. The Licensing Act 1964 provides that youngsters under the age of 18 but who have reached the age of 16 may consume beer, or cider, or perry on licensed premises provided they do so with a meal. If that group of youngsters are behaving themselves and are not drunk, the officer may properly decide to use his discretion and turn a blind eye to the fact that some of them look a trifle young. Similarly, if he sees a family on the beach and one of the children has a sip of wine, he will not be expected to go and remove it. For such legislation to work, a certain amount of common sense is required. I am proud of the fact that our police forces are extremely sensible in their approach; we can rely on them to apply common sense.
      I feel confident that the legislation will help to improve the quality of life of many of our constituents. I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) said about all the things that are not available in Lichfield, but he missed an important one: Lichfield does not have a Labour Member of Parliament, which is an extremely good thing for his area.
      I am pleased that the Bill has all-party support. The way in which the debate has been conducted has been an excellent example of all-party co-operation. I commend the Bill to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

      Road Traffic Reduction Bill
      As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      1.15 pm
      Mr. Don Foster: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      When I moved Second Reading, I explained that we had to consider many problems and introduce legislation to try to overcome them. I listed some of those problems, not least that of congestion on our roads, which is now estimated to cost British industry about £19 billion a year. Industry suffers further from the cost of days lost at work due to road accidents—one estimate puts the cost to industry at a further £6.5 billion.
      There are also health problems: we know that about 15 million people suffer ill health as a result of pollution from traffic on our roads. Sadly, at least one estimate suggests that as many as 10,000 people a year are dying prematurely because of pollution from road traffic.
      On the wider environmental front, road traffic causes other problems. It contributes significantly to global warming. Road traffic also significantly depletes our scarce resources. About one third of all our energy is consumed by road traffic and about 80 per cent. of that by cars on our roads.
      There are significant problems, which we need to address. As many people and organisations wanted to address those problems, I was not too surprised to find that there was wide support for the Road Traffic Reduction Bill. Some 235 hon. Members from both sides of the House signed an early-day motion. Other supporters include the National Trust, the Countryside Commission, the National Play Council, the townswomen guilds, Friends of the Earth and the Green party—those last two organisations played a significant part in the early drafting of the Bill.
      I should like to pay particular tribute to Mr. Ron Bailey from Friends of the Earth, who has played a significant role at all stages of the Bill's development. About 240 local authorities have supported the measures contained in the Bill. I do not know whether or not Mr. George Spink, whose name has cropped up so frequently during today's deliberations, is a supporter of the Bill but, given the wide support for the measure, it is likely that he is.
      Although many organisations supported the Bill's broad principle and saw the need to overcome many of the problems that I have mentioned, a number of organisations and individuals had some concerns about the Bill as it was formulated and presented on Second Reading. I am therefore delighted to report that, in a productive sitting, the Committee was able to address many of concerns expressed by those organisations, and by the Minister for Railways and Roads on Second Reading. At this point, I should like to put on record my tribute to the Minister for the gracious, constructive and helpful way in which he entered into discussions with me and the other promoters of the Bill to make sure that we were able to find amendments that would satisfy the concerns that he and others had expressed and address those felt by some other organisations.
      576
      As a result, three main changes have been made to the Bill since Second Reading. First, in Committee we agreed that it would be inappropriate at this stage to have on the face of the Bill specific reference to national targets. There are many—I confess to being one—who believe that it is a good idea to have national targets for road traffic reduction, but nevertheless the Minister and others put forward convincing arguments as to why it was inappropriate to include them on the face of the Bill, and the Committee accepted that. Secondly, for reasons that are fairly clear, and because there are different arrangements in Northern Ireland, it was decided to exclude Northern Ireland from the scope of the Bill. Thirdly, we ensured that much of the material that had appeared on the face of the Bill would, in future, appear in guidance.
      As a result of those changes, I am pleased to be able to say that many of the organisations that had expressed concerns about the Bill now say that they are far more satisfied and I shall quote two of them. The note prepared for hon. Members today by the Automobile Association says of the Bill:
      "we hope its seemingly genuine intent can lead to sensible and popular local schemes being funded and implemented. We do not wish to stand in its way and hope the efforts of those that have carefully steered it through a difficult path are rewarded."
      The Confederation of British Industry has also accepted the broad thrust of the Bill as it now stands. Understandably, the CBI begins its notes by saying that it is
      "deeply concerned about traffic problems such as congestion … However, the Bill as it now stands has been significantly improved, and many of the problems associated with the original draft have now been overcome. In particular the greater flexibility given to councils should allow them to take better account of local conditions."
      In passing, I point out that one of the other changes that we made in Committee was to restrict the requirements contained within the Bill to those principal councils that are themselves local authorities. However, we rightly made it clear—as did the Minister in his contributions in Committee—that those principal councils will be expected to consult widely with other local authorities in their area, and I hope that that will include, for example, parish councils. We also said that there must be consultation with other organisations; specific reference was made to the importance of consultation with businesses—something about which the CBI is understandably concerned and keen to ensure—and with organisations such as environmental groups in the highway authority's locality. The CBI concludes its note by saying:
      "If the Bill now acts to focus attention on the need for action and investment to tackle transport problems then this would be welcomed."
      Indeed, many people will welcome the contents of the Bill.
      It has been suggested by some that, because we were prepared to make several amendments in Committee, the contents and powers of the Bill have been significantly watered down. I want to disabuse the House of that idea. In my view, and that of very many members of the Committee, the main thrust of the Bill is retained in the revised version.

      577
      It is interesting to read some of the comments that were made in Committee; specifically, I shall quote those of the Minister. Referring to new clause 1, now clause 2—the kernel of the Bill—he said:
      "I do not believe that the clause represents a significant weakening of the obligations that we place on highway authorities. After all, a highway authority must, at such time as the Secretary of State directs, prepare
      'a report containing an assessment of … traffic … and a forecast of growth …. '
      It must also specify targets for reducing traffic, or the rate of growth, except under subsection (5), where an authority might determine that it is not appropriate, in which case it must give its reasons. As I said earlier, it will not be sufficient for an authority to say that that is a load of rubbish and refuse to do it. In preparing its report, a highway authority is also required to have regard to the guidance that the Secretary of State will issue which will give a clear steer as to what is required."
      That quote and subsections (3) and (6) of clause 2 are very important indeed, because in both it is clear that all local authorities, in drawing up their reports and developing their targets, must have regard to the guidance that will be issued by the Minister.
      The Minister kindly and generously prepared in advance of Committee, and circulated to all members of the Committee, a draft of the main headings, so we had a very clear idea what the guidance that he is proposing will cover. The Minister made it clear, in his contribution in Committee and in the headings in that guidance, that much of the content of the suggestions that appeared in the Bill on Second Reading will now appear in the guidance, so that local authorities may consider the measures that were suggested. Local authorities that have developed successful schemes, perhaps in consultation with local businesses and other organisations, will thereby be able to share what they have learned with a wider audience.
      As the Minister said in Committee, and as has made clear in the guidance notes, there will be a clear link between the funding that local authorities receive and their proposals for road traffic reduction. It is important to remind the House of what he said in Committee.
      "I shall attempt to make it clear in the guidance that I expect there to be a clear direct link between the bids for resources made through the TPP process and the authority's reasons for believing that that investment would help to achieve the targets. That is a fairly persuasive power. If I felt that an authority were dismissing the requirements in a cavalier way, it would not receive funding for its projects. Those who made a case for investment that was well reasoned, well thought out and closely related to their targets would be rewarded."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 19 February 1997; c. 29–30.]
      It is clear from the contributions of all hon. Members, but especially that of the Minister in Committee, that the main thrust of the Bill as originally proposed has been retained in the Bill as it stands on Third Reading, backed up by the guidance. If that is correct, I hope that the Bill receives a Third Reading and quickly passes through its remaining stages. It will be a major step forward in the fight, which we must all join, to reduce the traffic on our roads.
      Only yesterday, I was out with a camera crew making a film about the Bill. For part of the film, I got into the cab of a lorry to interview the driver and to discuss some of the problems of road traffic. It was perhaps ironic that we were unable to do all the filming that we had planned because the lorry, its driver and I were stuck in a traffic
      578
      jam for more than three quarters of an hour. While we were stuck, I talked to some of the drivers of the other business vehicles. One man was sitting with all his papers spread out, wisely using the time to get on with his paperwork.
      I asked another man, who worked for a courier firm, how long he had been there and what impact the jam would have on him. He said he had been there more than three quarters of an hour and pointed out that courier firms like his have to work to tight deadlines—they have to deliver on time or they do not get paid. He said that he would lose business and income because of the congestion.
      Other motorists talked about their problems because of the shortage of public transport in their area. One thing that I hope will happen because of the Bill and the measures contained in it is a further development of public transport in many parts of the country.
      The Bill is a major step forward. It will begin to tackle the problem from the grass roots up, and will be developed by those who know their local areas best—the local authorities. It will develop measures that will make the quality of life much better for all our constituents. Therefore, I hope that the Bill will receive a Third Reading.
      1.30 pm
      Mr. Peter Luff: I find myself in something of a dilemma, as I was on Second Reading. Every hon. Member accepts that there is a problem with road traffic congestion but, just because there is a problem, it does not mean that the first solution that someone brings along is necessarily the right one. To raise a voice of doubt is not to say that the problem does not exist, but to ask whether the solution has been correctly identified.
      Having said that, I should pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) for the way in which he has handled himself during the progress of the Bill. He has adopted a realistic approach and, as a result, looks likely to achieve Third Reading.
      I should have liked the Bill to receive more scrutiny—that is not merely a plea because I was not a member of the Standing Committee, as I would have liked to be. We had a short Second Reading debate for such important legislation, and now we are now doomed to have a short Third Reading debate.
      As I said on Second Reading, the Bill falls victim to the great delusion that legislation can of itself change the world. I do not believe that. Legislation has a role—to control or regulate where possible and sensible and to punish a misdemeanour. I am not convinced that the Bill does either. Nor am I convinced by the need for this legislation.
      Mr. David Congdon: My hon. Friend has picked up the essence of the dilemma about the Bill, which I am happy to support—the danger of it being a wish list. We wish road traffic to be reduced but the biggest driver—if my hon. Friend will pardon the pun—of the increase in road traffic is the increase in gross domestic product and economic growth. Regardless of what plans councils put in place, that increase will have the greatest significant impact on traffic growth. The best way to reduce traffic—I hope that no one does it—would

      579
      be to vote in a Labour Government, who would destroy the economy, so we would not get the growth or the traffic.
      Mr. Luff: My hon. Friend has made a party political point, but he is right. It is inevitable that traffic levels will continue to grow, and those who pretend otherwise are flying in the face of economic forces that are beyond the power of this House to control—even, I suspect, in the unfortunate event of a Labour Government. People's demand for increased personal mobility would still lead to increased traffic growth.
      I fully share the ambition of the hon. Member for Bath to reduce traffic congestion, particularly in towns. He and I come from historic cities, where traffic congestion is a problem—a greater problem in Bath than in Worcester, in my view. Any reduction in congestion is a good thing, as is any reduction in pollution and any improvement in air quality. Reduced congestion is likely, however, to lead to an increase rather than a decrease in accidents, as traffic starts moving faster and does more damage to pedestrians.
      The Bill has a noble objective. I am a railway enthusiast; I am vice-president of the Severn Valley railway, a modest shareholder in Railtrack and an enthusiast for the rail privatisation process. I believe that improving public transport is a helpful way of reducing demand for road traffic. Brian Scott, managing director of Great Western Trains, said that his ambition was to empty the M4. I suspect that that ambition will do more than the Bill.
      Roger Macdonald of Thames Trains, another private railway franchise that now serves my constituency, publishes bus connections in his timetable. The old British Rail never did that, but it is a powerful way to help people gain better access to public transport and thus reduce the use of cars. Incidentally, he has also introduced Sunday morning services, which British Rail said could not be done. Improved public transport through good privately run railways has much more impact on road traffic than the Bill.
      I said on Second Reading that I feared that the Bill was anti-car. On balance, I am satisfied that it is not, although the House should send out the message that we are not anti-car. The car is profoundly important for the freedom of movement of our society—a fundamental right in a modern, sophisticated, industrial democracy. I come from the west midlands, so I must recognise the large dependence of my constituents and those around me on the manufacturing processes in many midlands motor vehicle factories that build cars and supply components.
      I was delighted to see an article by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport in The Times in January, in which he said:

      "I see the car as a vehicle for increasing choice, freedom and opportunity."
      He then made a particularly important point:
      "Wider car ownership has meant a huge expansion in the availability of employment, particularly for disabled people, who would find it a real struggle to use public transport."
      The car brings huge benefits to our society, and the House should leave the world outside in no doubt that it shares that view.
      The trouble is that we all want to reduce other people's car use while being allowed to use our own car freely. That is the hypocrisy of so many positions taken in this
      580
      great debate. It is certainly the hypocrisy practised locally by Hereford and Worcester county council. The chairman of the transport committee lives in the north of the county and favours regional government. He has no great interest in the problems of the south of the county and certainly no interest in the city of Worcester, which was one reason for beginning the ill-thought-through experiment to reduce traffic. I discussed that plan previously in the House and at a meeting with my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads, when he took a most intelligent view of it. The plan was driven through with no effective consultation with local people. It took no account of major changes that are about to be implemented: the Worcester western bypass opens shortly, and there is a large quantity of Government money to build a much-needed relief road for the western side of Worcester.
      I was proud to bring a delegation to the Minister and to face down the arrogance of the Lib-Lab pact in Worcestershire, which has been shocked by the outcome of the meeting, and has lost its package bid for this year. That is good. Not only has it stopped ill-thought-through schemes on which inadequate consultation has been conducted, not only has it delayed the destruction of a playing field for a park-and-ride scheme in a totally inappropriate part of the city, but, miracle of miracles, it has forced the county council to start to listen to local people. It now says that the views of Councillor Derek Prodger, leader of the Conservative group on Worcester city council and a county councilor—that the problems could be addressed in other ways and the schemes modified—could be the right approach after all.
      Bizarrely, Worcester city council wants to frustrate the development of Worcester's new hospital because the hospital could generate increased traffic volumes. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will deal with that important point when he replies. Inevitably, developing areas will experience increases in traffic. A new factory or housing estate will inevitably cause increased traffic levels, as will Worcester's new hospital. All that is happening in Worcester without the incentive provided by the Bill.
      The hon. Member for Bath read out the Minister's comments in Committee about how funding was likely to work in the future. It will increase the pressure on councils which, like Hereford and Worcester, I believe are anti-car, to behave irresponsibly and in a way that may damage the local economy.
      We are in a desperate battle for survival in Worcester. We face the competition from Merry Hill, an out-of-town shopping centre built for the car. Parking there is easy. Cheltenham, down the road, represented by a colleague of the hon. Member for Bath, is a user-friendly city for the car, where parking is relatively easy. People will be driven out of Worcester if our county council, under the incentives of the Bill, undertakes ill-thought-through schemes which drive people into the arms of Merry Hill and Cheltenham.
      I mentioned hypocrisy, and the fact that we want to reduce other people's use of the car, but not our own. Go to county hall car park any working day of the week and see the hundreds and hundreds cars there, belonging to county council employees and councillors. A council that was serious about reducing traffic would not rely on Bills such as the one under discussion, but would impose car parking charges on its employees, so that they were inhibited from using cars. It would introduce incentives

      581
      to encourage its employees to cycle or walk to work, or to use the good bus service to county hall. The council car park is stuffed full of cars, while the council tries to stop my constituents getting about in their own city.
      I have deep reservations about the Bill. I accept that it has been improved, but I worry about the impact on local bypasses, for example. My hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads suggested in Committee that bypasses for villages—I think particularly of the Wyre Piddle bypass, which I discussed with him—would not be adversely affected by provisions in the Bill. Traffic reduction in a village like Wyre Piddle might lead to increased traffic levels elsewhere, but reducing traffic in that village is crucial to the well-being of people there.
      Let me labour the consultation point. The people of Wyre Piddle have been listened to. Their parish council has been effective and, to be fair to the county council, their voice has been heard. I have other parish councils in the Worcester city area, in Wornden and St. Peter's, which are not looked upon particularly favourably by the Labour city council.
      I am concerned that the guidance issued by the Department of Transport under the Bill should take full account of the views of parish councils, which are overlooked in too many local planning issues that affect those communities. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reassure me that, in the consultation required under the Bill, there will be a special place for parish councils, as I hope there will be for businesses and schools.
      Schools rely increasingly on the school run. My son goes to school by car, burdened down by an incredible volume of books, bags and so on. It is not possible for him to walk or take a bus to school. He relies on the car. Ill-thought-through traffic schemes in one part of Worcester could make my son's and daughter's schools inaccessible to people with cars.
      I hope that there will be consultation with businesses, schools and parish councils. The consultation process could be the most important aspect. By forcing communities to examine the issues, it may produce intelligent debate about ways of reducing road traffic, which might be the healthiest outcome of the Bill. Building a consensus locally about what is needed, through good, effective—not grudging—consultation might be a positive outcome of the Bill.
      I accept that the Confederation of British Industry has changed its position on the Bill to some extent since Second Reading. It states that the Bill has been significantly improved in Committee, but comments—fairly, I think—that the real need is to increase investment in the infrastructure and public transport of our country, not to use quick-fix legislative devices such as the Bill. That is happening in the railways through privatisation, and in the road building programme through the private finance initiative.
      The British Road Federation, too, has modified its objections to the Bill. It states:
      "The latest version is brief"—
      that in itself is a commendation for a Bill—
      "and an improvement on its predecessor."
      It expresses concern, however, about whether the Bill sets the appropriate tests to establish whether our environment is improving. Should we be targeting congestion, or air
      582
      quality, for which the Department already has targets? Are road traffic levels really the crucial test? I share that doubt.
      I shall not weary the House any longer, as I know that other hon. Members want to speak on this important Bill. I still have reservations about it. It betrays a touching faith in the power of legislation to change the world. However, it is not as bad as it was on Second Reading, so I have no objection to its further progress.
      1.44 pm
      Mr. John Austin-Walker: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) for persevering with this matter, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on bringing the Bill to this stage. I join him in thanking Friends of the Earth and Transport 2000.
      The hon. Gentleman raised some important issues, including congestion, pollution, and the cost of both to the economy and to personal health. While I share the view of the hon. Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) that benefits—such as increased personal mobility and social advantages—have accrued from wide accessibility to the motor car, we cannot continue to respond to road building in a totally unplanned and demand-led manner. We know that building more and more roads would lead to greater demand and increased car use, until eventually the M25 would cover the entire south of England.
      We must tackle the problem by making it easier to use other means of transport. The Government and local authorities can achieve that aim through co-operative investment in public transport schemes and certain areas of planning. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) referred to bad planning policy, but we should look at examples of good planning. For example, I commend the recent decision by the Secretary of State for the Environment to refuse the car parking extension that was planned for the Queen Elizabeth hospital in my constituency, which would have encouraged people to travel to that hospital by private transport.
      However, if the Secretary of State is correct in curtailing the availability of parking at the hospital, it must also be correct for Government to ensure that there are adequate public transport facilities for people to travel to the hospital. Unfortunately, the privatisation of public transport has prevented adequate provision, and the health care trust must subsidise the cost of public transport to the hospital, which is crazy. [Interruption.]
      Despite some muttering from Conservative Members, there is a great deal of constructive all-party consensus about the issue—particularly in Committee. We could not have had this debate four or five years ago. I pay tribute to organisations such as Friends of the Earth and Transport 2000 and to those people who have adopted less conventional methods of drawing our attention to the dangers of ever-increasing car usage. They have played a constructive role—although I do not expect all Conservative Members to agree with me.
      A few years ago, the Government proposed to build a motorway in my constituency through a site of special scientific interest at Oxleas Wood. They have now withdrawn that proposal, but I do not share Conservative Members' confidence in the private finance initiative. Although the Government have dropped their plans to

      583
      build a motorway across the Thames in east London—which would have doubled car traffic in my constituency and in Eltham—they support a private sector design, finance, build and operate initiative for a toll bridge in that area.
      I agree with the comments the hon. Member for Worcester about the availability of car parking. It is a hidden subsidy on the car user and, if it were taken into account when assessing the relative costs of public and private transport, it would tilt the scales in favour of public transport. Local authorities should examine that matter in terms of the guidance that they must issue under the Bill. I do not agree that the Bill is anti-bypass. The Minister and I made that point in response to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller). In some cases, a bypass may reduce congestion and pollution and increase quality of life.
      The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology has referred to transport sustainability and the growth in carbon dioxide emissions. It has said that, if road traffic is to do its pro rata share of reducing national emissions of carbon dioxide, vehicle mileage must be reduced by between 20 per cent. and 33 per cent. Local authorities can play an important part in producing plans that could lead to a reduction in car usage. We are not opposed to car ownership but we are trying to reduce reliance upon the private vehicle while improving public transport.
      As the hon. Member for Worcester said, accessibility to schools should not be accompanied by bad planning. Local authorities can do a great deal to encourage shared car use and safe routes to school. There are many examples of good practice in many areas.
      I welcome the decisions that the Secretary of State has taken more recently against out-of-town shopping centres. These centres have increased car usage and have reduced the quality of life of many people in city areas who do not have access to a private motor vehicle. In many instances they have lost shops, the local post office, the local chemist and the rest. Those people should have their interests taken into account.
      I share the view expressed by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson). I, too, am sorry that targets have not been set out in the Bill, as we would have liked. That, however, is not an argument for opposing the Bill. The measure is a good first step in the right direction. I hope that in the next Parliament we shall build upon it.
      There are benefits to be obtained from sound planning policies, including encouragement to use public transport. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South mentioned his twin town of Karlsruhe, where passengers can use a tram and arrange for the driver to telephone for a taxi, which will pick them up on leaving the tram. There are many imaginative proposals to enable local authorities to work with and develop public transport undertakings and cab operators.
      I commend the Bill. It is the first step on the right road. I hope that it will receive support from hon. Members on both sides of the House.
      1.51 pm
      Mr. Hartley Booth: I am grateful to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I have a personal interest because I am chairman of the all-party
      584
      urban affairs group. I have no financial interest. At the same time, I have been concerned for many years about the vital issue of reducing traffic in our cities as an agent of economic growth, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon).
      I very much support the spirit that lies behind the Bill and I am glad that the measure has been introduced. It is clear that the Bill will stimulate debate. With great respect, I do not agree with the proposed solution as a whole. At the same time, however, I agree with part of it. If we only debate these great issues, having been stimulated by my friend, if I may so call him, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), he has done us a service. I have much respect for the hon. Gentleman, bearing in mind his interventions in Committee when we considered the Education Bill. I found the hon. Gentleman's contributions to be helpful and constructive. I was muzzled as a mere parliamentary private secretary, but I listened carefully to him.
      Road traffic reduction is subject to about eight principles, which I shall go through quickly. There is a series of rights and wrongs that represent the way to go forward. I have many points to make because I have thought about the issues over many years. First is the guiding principle that we should have freedom to choose. The individual should be free to choose the best way of reducing road traffic and emissions, for example. We do not want to get into the French and/or socialist technique of dirigisme, of control from the centre—"You may not use your car or bus, whatever, on the streets."
      We should reduce traffic not only for the eminent reasons that are stated in the excellent document from the Library, but because of my second principle, which has to do with the character of our neighbourhoods and cities. That is being destroyed by the practice of in-filling between houses, which has been the guiding rule of planners. As a consequence, more and more cars are on the street. The spaces by the side of our homes where cars could be parked have been used for more houses. Lateral thinking is required from the Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport, so that planning and transport decisions can be linked.
      My third principle concerns the interchange of transport—intermodality is the modern phrase—which is desperately important. To my horror and shame, because it occurred under a Conservative Government, Liverpool Street station, the great cathedral to modern railways, was refurbished without provision for a car park. No thought was given to providing adequate interchange between different modes of transport. How many hon. Members know of a bus stop, apart from the out-of-city, park-and-ride facilities, that has a dedicated car park? People have not thought through the problem of intermodality: changing from a car to public transport. That applies right through the system.
      No group of people in Imperial college in London or in the Department of Transport is dedicated to intermodality. There are dedicated groups to study transport, water, rail, road and air, but there is no dedicated group to consider ways of getting people from one means of transport to another. There should be, and we should have a debate about it.
      My fourth principle is the provision of more comfortable transport. We should think about comfort in transport to magnetise people away from their cars—their metal capsules—and into public transport. I have thought

      585
      for many years that the Thames could be an amazing facility for public transport. Boats could come up from Woolwich, on which breakfast could be served. They could be comfortable boats of the future, and could have car parks at the access points. There is scope for greater comfort in public transport to encourage people to use it.
      My fifth principle is that councillors throughout the country should be given guidance on best practice. The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) referred to the practice in Germany.
      My sixth principle is the better use of science: reference to that has already been made. The experiment with hopper buses is a fascinating example of the better use of public transport, and has led to much reduced emissions. They could be used by elderly folk or people who would otherwise be tempted to use their cars for lack of comfortable transport. We should be imaginative and use science better.
      My seventh principle relates to what the hon. Member for Bath said, with which I partly agree. We should put this matter on the agenda of every council. Years ago, I was impressed by the fact that a number of key companies around the country improved their environmental standards merely by putting concern for the environment on the agenda of every meeting of directors. Traffic reduction must be put on the agenda of local authorities.
      My eighth and last principle is that we must not go down the route suggested by the hon. Member for Bath, which would make more work for bureaucrats. They may report to local councils every year, but that is not the stimulus we need. It is not the science that we need, and this is not the right Bill—although the hon. Gentleman has stimulated me and others to debate the matter. I happen to believe that this is the wrong Bill, and I am afraid that I am one of those who oppose it, but for the thought-out reasons that I have explained.
      1.59 pm
      Mr. David Congdon: It was very interesting listening to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). I had the pleasure of serving on the Committee dealing with the Bill, and I listened to his thoughts on this important subject at that time. The most ironic part of his speech today was when he talked about going out with a television crew. I thought to myself, "I bet they didn't go on a bus or a train." Sure enough, they ended up in a traffic jam.
      That sums up everything one needs to say about the Bill. No one can disagree with it, because who does not want to see traffic reduced? But I have to say that, despite all the support it has received—and I am one of those who support it—it has the whiff of gesture politics. It contains a wish list of things we would like to see but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) made clear, we want other people to get out of their cars and go by train or bus so we can make our journeys more quickly. That is the heart of the difficulty with a Bill of this nature.
      A fundamental point which came out following some of the representations we received was that although it is laudable to try to reduce traffic levels, it is the wrong target. A far more important target is the level of congestion. It does not matter if an extra car is on a road where traffic is flowing freely. Some people disagree with that, but many journeys made by car are economic and
      586
      efficient—and some are far more efficient than journeys by public transport. I can give an illustration of this. Most journeys made outside peak transport times—particularly journeys made during the evening—across country or across towns are made by car.
      Mr. Booth: Does my hon. Friend want us to go down the route towards the system used in Paris and other continental cities, which requires delivery lorries to deliver during the hours of nightfall?
      Mr. Congdon: My hon. Friend makes an important point. What causes the real problems in our cities and on our roads? Traffic volume causes problems, but the crucial thing is people parking in bad positions. Many of the problems are caused by delivery lorries and vans parking near junctions or traffic lights to deliver during the day. There are difficulties in taking that too far, because some people would not like heavy lorries in residential areas at night, but a balance must be struck.
      That leads me to another important point. The emphasis should be more on improving the flow of traffic, hence reducing congestion, rather than on volume. I have lived in London all my life, and it is fair to say that London—particularly south London—has had little improvement to its road network. I am not arguing for massive new road building. I was opposed to the south London assessment studies, as the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) and other Members would have been. We have had little in terms of simple junction improvements to significantly reduce congestion.
      How often does one find when one drives that the traffic grinds to a halt either because a delivery lorry is parked on a junction, or because someone is wanting to turn right, thus preventing traffic from flowing? A lot more could be done to improve the capacity of the road system in a city such as London, without major new road building.
      Some of the approaches of traffic plans and traffic managers in town halls slow up traffic and cause congestion. This is a delicate issue. In residential roads, it is right to want to slow up cars. On roads that are used by more traffic, the balance is too far the other way. Certainly, in my area of Croydon, there seems to be a fascination and obsession with putting "Keep Left" signs at every point down a road, which effectively create a barrier. It is dangerous, because buses have to weave in and out. Although it slows down the traffic, which one could say is a good objective, and aids safety, it affects the flow and increases congestion.
      Let me turn again to the objective of the Bill: reducing the volume of road traffic. What I am not clear about, and it did not come out clearly in Committee, is how many of the people who support the Bill are thinking in terms of simply reducing the rate of growth in traffic, which is a laudable objective, and how many are unrealistically thinking that, somehow, we can reduce the absolute level of traffic.
      That crucial point needs to be addressed because, as I said in my intervention, the big driver behind the growth in traffic is increased wealth. In that sense, it does not matter what local authorities put in these plans. If our economy achieves good levels of economic growth—2.5 per cent., 3 per cent., or let us say 3.5 per cent. even; I would love to see that, although some people might

      587
      not—as sure as night follows day, there would be big increases in traffic volumes. Conversely, we may want an absolute reduction in the level of traffic.
      Let us return to the economic climate of the 1960s and 1970s, when we did not achieve good economic performance. If we went back to the standard of living then, we would have much lower levels of traffic, as fewer people would have cars. I am sure that that cannot be the objective. People aspire to own cars and want to use them. The challenge is to ensure that we can somehow contain the negative sides of their impact.
      Pollution is an important issue and is linked to that of volume. I support the Government's determination to reduce the level of pollution from transport, but again I find it ironic that, when I drive to the House, most of the time at such odd hours—it is not quite so bad on a Friday—the worst pollution seems to come from lorries and buses. I am repeatedly told that public transport is marvellous and clean. It would be a brave person who would say that buses are clean. They seem to spew out filth from their diesel engines. I have a real concern about that.
      Pollution is a problem and it is a legitimising factor behind the Bill. I readily concede that, because, as I have said, anything that can be done to help to restrain the rate of growth in traffic is useful, but I suspect that far more significant changes in reducing pollution will come when we get an alternative to the internal combustion engine, which surely as a society we are going to have to have. I do not want to turn the clock back, with all of us going around on horses and carts and never being able to visit people. We travel around because we want to do things.
      Mr. Booth: I am grateful to be allowed to intervene a second time on my hon. Friend. Does he agree that, in Victorian times, people bemoaned the fact that the congestion of the horse and cart and of carriage transport was terrible? Apparently, the stench from the manure from the horses was so noxious that a number of legal actions took place over that at the time
      Mr. Congdon: My hon. Friend makes a timely intervention to remind us that, back in those times, there was severe congestion from the horse-drawn transport, but, perhaps even more significantly, there was a somewhat different and perhaps more devastating pollution problem. At that time, forecasts were made, presumably by the predecessors of the Department of Transport—I do not know what it called itself in those days; perhaps the Department of the horse or something like that—that manure would be piled high to first-floor level. That never happened.
      It is interesting to note that although congestion is bad, it will find its own level, in that it has to end when people cannot travel anywhere. The transport challenge is to have alternatives to the car so that people can move about their cities when they need to. I am happy to support the Bill, but with the reservation that it may not achieve its objective.
      2.9 pm
      The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has given my views on the Bill's principles and outlined the
      588
      important changes that were made in Committee. That relieves me of the task of repeating them. I shall deal briefly with some of the issues that hon. Members have raised.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) spoke about the fallacy into which the House often falls of believing that legislation can change the world, and always for the better. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) spoke about the danger of creating a wish list or of indulging in gesture politics. I had such fears about the notion of starting with the imposition of national targets. That would be gesture politics, because we do not have the policy levers to deliver such targets nationally.
      Focusing on local targets and on practical local measures to achieve them makes the legislation practical. The Bill does not engage in gesture politics, but suggests practical ways to resolve problems at local level. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester cited some practical measures that have already been taken by public transport operators to increase the use of public transport by making it more convenient and accessible. Local authorities that follow the Bill and the guidance that will be issued under it will support such measures in co-operation with public transport operators, whether they are train or bus companies or both working together.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester emphasised the importance of wide consultation. That is vital. If practical results are to be delivered, there must be local consensus on what is needed, what the targets should be and what is needed to achieve them. I have no difficulty whatever in joining the hon. Member for Bath in agreeing with my hon. Friend that parish councils should be included in such consultations. They should also include the business community, schools, hospitals, substantial organisations and groups of residents. They all need to be on board if the right solution to local problems is to be identified.
      The Bill, as amended, recognises that some developments will generate traffic and that the effects will not automatically be deleterious. That is why the Bill requires authorities to identify the need to set targets and, in reply to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East, introduce practical measures that can deliver them. Hon. Members have spoken about the British Road Federation and the Confederation of British Industry. Coincidentally, I am shortly to meet representatives of both bodies.
      I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester that the Bill is not a quick fix but a well-thought-out, longer-term strategy for striking a balance between our desire to protect the environment in which we live and which we enjoy, while ensuring that our mobility needs, personally or in the course of our economic activities, are met. We must not fall victim to stifling congestion. The Bill is not anti-car. As I said on Second Reading, if we fail to tackle the problems of congestion, that will not benefit those who need to use cars or business vehicles. Nor is this an anti-bypass measure. If traffic can be taken away from a town or village where it is inflicting a poor-quality environment and routed elsewhere without generating more traffic, that would not be contrary to the objectives of reducing traffic or traffic growth, and would be an environmental.

      589
      The hon Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) referred to the importance of sustainability and to the safer routes to school initiative which many local authorities are promoting. We need to consider safer cycle routes. When I was in Plymouth recently, I saw new cycle routes alongside major roads, and a new type of crossing called a toucan, which is not just for pedestrians but for cyclists.
      Yesterday, I was in Taunton and travelled on a gas-powered bus to Bristol. The use of alternative fuels with lower emissions, particularly for public transport vehicles, is one way in which we can achieve some of our environmental objectives. At Bristol Temple Meads station, I presented a special ticket to the 10,000th Great Western passenger who had made use of its new facility to buy a bus ticket while on the train. Virgin Rail is another company introducing advance taxi bookings from the train. It is trying to make a public transport journey as seamless as a car journey where somebody walks out of the front door and stays in the car until he or she reaches the office or another destination.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth), in a thoughtful but brief speech, set out certain principles that he thought important. I did not note all eight of them, but I certainly agree that freedom of choice is very important. By improving the quality of public transport provision, we will extend the real choice that people have. I do not believe that many people make a conscious choice to get into a car and sit in a traffic jam. Many of them choose the car because they see no alternative.
      My hon. Friend also stressed the importance of improving interchanges between different transport modes. We are seeing many good examples from private rail and bus operators, often in co-operation with enlightened local authorities that provide such facilities. My hon. Friend also made the point about the need to spread knowledge of best practice. Where there are good initiatives in some areas, that knowledge needs to be spread widely so that the same solutions can be applied elsewhere.
      590
      I endorse entirely my hon. Friend's suggestion that we need to make better use of science, and apply technology more imaginatively. He said that he believed that it was sensible to put environmental issues on the agenda. That is what the Bill will do. It will require every traffic authority to consider the level of traffic in its area, its future trends and what needs to be done about it. He also made the point that we should not just generate more work for bureaucrats. Amending the Bill so that in England we can set targets in guidance that would be part of the annual transport policies and programme round is one way in which we can ensure that we achieve those beneficial objectives without imposing new and unnecessary burdens on local authorities.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North-East referred to the impact of ill-thought-out and inconsiderate parking, and the need for smaller measures to improve traffic flow on our urban roads. I agree that, in implementing traffic management and calming measures, the devil is often in the detail. One cannot simply take a particular engineering feature out of a design patent book and stick it down anywhere and expect it to work. It is often in the detail that the problems arise. That is why local consultation is vital if such measures are to be effective.
      The Bill suggests targets to reduce not just the absolute level of traffic—that may be possible in some circumstances—but to reduce traffic growth. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East also said that there is, apparently, an inexorable link between growth of traffic and gross domestic product. We do not know which way round that relationship works, but he will be interested to know that our expert advisory committee, the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessments, has been given the remit to study that relationship. We await its findings with great interest.
      I have given a brief response, but necessarily so. I commend the Bill to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Companies (Millennium Computer Compliance) Bill
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Companies (Millennium Computer Compliance) Bill
  Clause 1

    AMENDMENT OF PRINCIPAL ACT
    2.21 pm
    Mr. Tim Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 11, after 'company', insert
    'other than small and medium-sized companies as defined in section 247'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 8, after 'company', insert
    'other than a small or medium-sized company as defined in section 247'.
    Mr. Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) on his foresight in introducing the Bill. There is no doubt that British industry and the public sector face a major problem, a problem that may seem to some people to be some way off, since the millennium is nearly three years away. However, anyone who takes the trouble to study that problem will find that the solution may take longer than three years.
    My hon. Friend, almost single-handedly in the House, has made a huge effort to draw the scale of the problem to the attention of industry, commerce and the Government. As a result, the United Kingdom is now rather better prepared than some other European countries; it is perhaps more on a par with the United States, which is certainly taking the problem seriously.
    I entirely understand why my hon. Friend introduced the Bill. He wants every company in the country to take the problem seriously, and he wants it to be considered at the top level. He wants company directors to consider the scale of the problem, to produce an assessment and then to produce some kind of strategic solution. I endorse that approach. Every organisation that depends to any extent on information technology for the operation of its business has a great deal at stake—perhaps more than many people appreciate. It is not just the relevant business that might be at risk; business A could be brought to its knees by the failure of business B, its supplier, to tackle the problem effectively.
    I was impressed by the note on the subject produced by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology in December. It listed some examples of what could happen. I will not trouble the House with all of them, but the document stated:
    "In 1992, Mary Bendar of Winona … USA was invited to join a kindergarten class because she was born in '88 (she was 104 years old)."
    when she received that invitation. That is just one example of what can happen, but there are many more. The problem will affect every business and everyone who has a personal computer, because a great deal of that software is already out of date.
    592
    I accept the premise on which the Bill is based; therefore, it is a matter of regret that I must tell my hon. Friend that, although I understand that he has introduced the Bill to give more prominence yet to the extent of the problem, I cannot support the Bill. I am not happy about placing more burdens on companies, as the Bill proposes. The amendments go some way towards meeting that difficulty by excluding small and medium companies from the Bill's ambit. My hon. Friend may say that that would exclude the vast majority of companies—I recognise that, but I am concerned about placing extra burdens on business. My hon. Friend wants to place a formal requirement on companies to undertake a formal assessment and publish the details in their directors' report.
    Mr. David Atkinson: My hon. Friend seeks to exclude the small and medium businesses from the scope of the Bill. He has made the point that it is important that those businesses that are connected to larger businesses through their computer systems should also be millennium-compliant. In doing so, he has already responded to the point that he now makes in order to try to convince the House to support his amendment. It is necessary to include in the Bill all businesses with computer systems that will be subject to problems at the millennium. To exclude the vast majority of them would negate the Bill's purpose.
    Mr. Smith: I said that I was not very enthusiastic about the whole Bill, but if we are to impose extra regulations on business, those best placed to cope with them will be large organisations. I believe that large companies are starting to take the problem seriously and, if they were required to comply with the terms of my hon. Friend's Bill, there would be a trickle-down effect. They would place in their contracts with suppliers—large, medium and small—conditions requiring them to be millennium-compliant.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Why did the hon. Gentleman not join us in Committee on Wednesday morning when he would have heard the Minister warn us against being stuck in an aeroplane or on the 20th floor of a building on new year's morning in 2000? There is a powerful argument for the Bill.
    Mr. Smith: I fully understand that. I also understand that a car might not start on the morning of 1 January 2000. But I am not happy about using the law to impose a solution on business. I have already said that I fully understand and support my hon. Friend's objectives, but I am not convinced that the Bill is the right way to go about achieving them. That is why I tabled my amendment.
    The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr. Ian Taylor): I should like to add to the praise that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) gave my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) for his work. He has focused the minds of the public and the professionals on the problem.
    In a nutshell, the problem is that a computer system that has built into its programme the use of only two digits for the year—this year would be 97—may fail to recognise what is happening when the two digits are double O. At that time, the computer may think through

    593
    the date as 1900 or it may decide to pick any date at random—perhaps the date when the software programme was first applied—or it may shut down. As there is more than one solution, the difficulty is that the company with the computing system may not know what the reaction will be and it will need to go through each of its computing systems, line by line, to eradicate the problem. In addition, the company may have to work with every other company with which it trades around the world to ensure that they have carried out the same exercise.
    This is what we call the millennium meltdown. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East raised the subject in the House and discussed it with me about 18 months ago—he and I have often been lone voices in the House. Much as I accept the motives of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, the amendment, which would exclude small companies, is a difficult one to accept.
    As I said in Committee, the difficulty with the legislation is that I do not want now—with only a short time to go until 2000—to focus people's minds on legalities, the accounting profession and attempts to follow set procedures. The attention of those people, from the chief executive down, should be focused on sorting out the problem.
    Different companies will have different problems. A company that uses its computers merely for word processing can correct the problem as it emerges, but a company that has hugely complex systems, such as those used for trading, will have great difficulty. Morgan Stanley has told me that it has earmarked $55 million and taken on 200 staff to deal with this issue. The difficulty will get worse as we get closer to 2000, for the simple reason that more companies will refuse to trade with companies that cannot guarantee that their own systems are millennium-compliant. The Government have said that their systems will be millennium-compliant by December 1998, and that will clearly have implications for trading and exchanging information with non-compliant systems thereafter.
    The difficulties will apply equally to embedded systems, such as those in lifts, aircraft, safety control devices—
    It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed on Monday 10 March.

  Remaining Private Members' Bills

    BRITISH NATIONALITY (HONG KONG) BILL [LORDS]
    As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
    Order for Third reading Read.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

    RESIDENTIAL HOMES BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Not moved.

    ACCESS TO THE COUNTRYSIDE BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    LICENSING (REFORM) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    SALE OF MEDICINES (YOUNG PEOPLE) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    BULL BARS (PROHIBITION) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    REGULATION OF DIET INDUSTRY BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    AIRPORTS AND AERODROMES (NOISE)BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    HOLOCAUST DENIAL BILL
    Read a Second time.
    Bill committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

    ABORTION (AMENDMENT) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

    EDUCATION (SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS) BILL [LORDS]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall take points of order afterwards.
    Second Reading deferred till Monday 3 March.

    TOWN CENTRES (INSURANCE AND RESTORATION) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    ADOPTIVE MOTHERS (MATERNITY LEAVE) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Monday 3 March.

    DANGEROUS DOGS (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS]
    Read a Second time.
    Bill committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

    DIGNITY AT WORK BILL [LORDS]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

    DISABLED PERSONS AND CARERS (SHORT-TERM BREAKS) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Monday 3 March.

    WASTE PREVENTION BILL
    Read a Second time.
    Bill committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

    VICTIMS OF CRIME BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    RIGHT TO WORK BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    SCHOOL INTRUDERS (CRIMINAL OFFENCE) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    SUNDAYS (DANCING AND LICENSING) BILL [LORDS]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Monday 3 March.

    POLICE (INSURANCE OF VOLUNTARY ASSISTANTS) BILL [LORDS]
    Read a Second time.
    Bill committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

    GREAT APES (PROHIBITION OF EXPERIMENTS) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Monday 3 March.

    DARTFORD-THURROCK CROSSING (AMENDMENT) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not grossly demeaning of this honourable House that we are open to the accusation of ignoring even as worthy a Bill as the one to help severely handicapped children, by a Government Whip—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not for the Chair to comment.
    Mr. Morris: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Nothing could be further to that point of order.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 14B (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community documents), the Speaker shall—

    (1) at the sitting on Monday 3rd March, put the Questions on the Motions in the names of Mr. Secretary Howard relating to the draft Representation of the People (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) Order 1997 and Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew relating to the draft Local Elections (Variations of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 not later than one and a half hours after the start of proceedings on the first such Motion; and these Motions may be proceeded with, though opposed, after Ten o'clock;

    (2) at the sitting on Tuesday 4th March, put the Questions on the four Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Forsyth relating to Local Government Finance (Scotland) not later than Seven o'clock; and

    (3) at the sitting on Wednesday 5th March—

    (i) put the Question on the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Howard relating to Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism not later than Seven o'clock; and

    (ii) put the Question on the Motion in the name of Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew relating to the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 not later than Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Peter Ainsworth.]

    Libya and Iraq
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Ainsworth.]
    2.34 pm
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: In 1993, with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), I visited Iraq; we did so at our own expense. The sanctions were cruel and counter-productive, but, as my hon. Friends the Members for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) will discuss Iraq, I shall discuss Libya, not simply because of the grave injuries to the families who lost their loved ones eight long years and two months ago, but on account of the on-going damage to British industry and our relations with the Arab world and Africa.
    I do not exaggerate. I quote from Nelson Mandela's letter to the Prime Minister:
    "I understand that Colonel Qhaddafy is prepared to allow the individuals to be tried in Europe or elsewhere and much as I respect the integrity of your courts, I wondered whether you would not give consideration to such an alternative arrangement. In making this approach, I am conscious of the policy of your Government which you previous explained to me, but do so in the interest not only of Libya but of the continent, the Muslim world and international reconciliation."
    The Prime Minister wrote to me on 30 May 1995:
    "I will of course be replying to your question about my correspondence with Nelson Mandela, but I am afraid I will not be agreeing to place it in the Library".
    This is the ninth Adjournment debate that we have had on this subject, but it takes place in very different circumstances from those of all previous debates, because something has happened; that something is that James T. Thurman, called often Tom Thurman, who was pivotal to the whole of the Government's case on Lockerbie, has been assigned to other roles for having fabricated forensic evidence.
    I ask the Minister—I warned him that I would do so—what reports the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has received from the United States of the judgment that has been made on Thurman, because he is the man who, on 15 June 1990, claimed identification of the crucial timing device. He is the man who, with Williams, interrogated Narwhan Khreesat, and I am told that, at that crucial interview, the Scottish police were not welcome, and were excluded.
    For 34 years, I have dealt with and known Lord Advocates. I have high regard for Crown agents, but I must say to the Crown Office, as the longest serving Scottish Member of Parliament, that I do not believe that they now have the evidence, which they claim to have, to conduct a successful court case. Indeed, I believe that the last thing they want is a trial, either in Edinburgh or in The Hague, because the professor of Scots law at the university of Edinburgh and many others in legal Edinburgh—including Peter Anderson, the lawyer of Simpson Marwick, who has been much involved—believe that any Scottish judge would throw out the case within hours, on the grounds that there was no case to answer.
    Nothing better illustrates the weakness of Washington's case against Libya than its cynical misuse of the law to destroy the character and reputation of anyone who dares

    599
    to challenge its position on Lockerbie. Juval Aviv, the investigator for Pan Am until his report implicating the CIA was leaked to the press, was immediately subjected to a relentless campaign of harassment and vilification by the FBI. For five years, a squad of agents spent thousands of man hours raking through his affairs for something that might discredit him.
    Charged last summer with faking a report to GEC in 1991—much to the surprise of GEC, which had not complained—Aviv was arrested by the FBI in a blaze of publicity designed to show that he was in the habit of producing fraudulent reports. The case against him was so obviously contrived, however, that a federal jury summarily threw it out. Concurring with the verdict, the judge observed that the charges had plainly been brought for another purpose—the inference, in his view, being that they were connected with Aviv's Lockerbie report.
    Aviv has written to the Crown Office. I warned the Minister that I would ask whether the Crown Office is minded to apologise to Aviv; otherwise, it will find itself involved in a court case.
    Still more scandalous has been Washington's systematic persecution of Lester Coleman III, the former American intelligence agent who publicly linked the Lockerbie disaster with the activities of the Drug Enforcement Agency in the middle east. Facing a similar trumped-up charge and a volley of death threats against himself and his family, Coleman sought asylum in Sweden, where he collaborated on a book, "Trail of the Octopus", with Don Goddard, in which he described what he had seen while stationed in Cyprus and mentioning its relevance to the Lockerbie inquiry.
    On the eve of the book's publication, Coleman was indicted in New York on charges of perjury based on a sworn statement that he had made some years earlier in a civil suit by Pan Am against the United States Government. Clearly intended to deter the publishers from bringing out the book, the charges were not only as flimsy as those levelled against Aviv but entirely without precedent in United States' law.
    Last October, unwilling to expose his wife and young family any longer to the rigours of life on the run, Coleman decided to return to the United States and clear his name, confident that the indictment would never stand up in court. Today, however, it begins to look as though that the charges against him will never be put to the test.
    Although he was clearly subject to some risk, Coleman returned home voluntarily to stand trial. As a perjurer in a civil matter, he is hardly a threat to the community, yet bail was set at such an impossibly high level that he was left literally to rot in a federal detention centre.
    In January, Coleman was diagnosed as suffering from cancer and had a malignant lump surgically removed from his left shoulder. He was sent back to prison in shackles and handcuffs with a supply of dressings, which he was left to change for himself. Inevitably, without proper treatment, he would have become grossly infected, and only the most strenuous effort on behalf of his volunteer defence attorney succeeded in getting him transferred to the prison wing of a New York public hospital, thereby almost certainly saving his life.
    By returning unexpectedly to face the music, Coleman has placed his accusers in a serious quandary. To prove its case against him, Washington will be obliged to open
    600
    its Lockerbie and intelligence files, which it has strenuously resisted doing for the past eight years on the grounds of national security. As it is unlikely to change its mind now, its only alternative in the long run is to drop the charges, although that would be tantamount to admitting that they should never have been brought in the first place.
    Faced with that unpalatable choice, it would seem that the Justice Department has elected to confine Coleman indefinitely in conditions that would disgrace a banana republic, in the hope that his declining health will eventually spare Washington the choice of taking either course.
    Coupled with the fragility of its forensic evidence, that ruthless campaign by the FBI to destroy any witness who might seriously challenge the Anglo-American position on Lockerbie serves to call the entire case against Libya into question.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I understand that those hon. Members standing have the permission of the hon. Member whose debate it is, but do they have the Minister's permission to speak?
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): If they are brief, yes.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Harry Cohen.
    2.45 pm
    Mr. Harry Cohen: I am grateful to both the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), whom I congratulate on getting this Adjournment debate. He will know that I tried for my own debate on Iraq.
    Mr. Phillipe Heffinck, UNICEF's representative in Iraq, said:
    "4,500 children under the age of five are dying every month from hunger and disease".
    That is deeply shocking.
    Three days after my parliamentary questions in December, the "oil for food" ban was lifted, but the main sanctions regime continues.
    I pay tribute to UNICEF for its relief operations. In a briefing, UNICEF's UK committee says that there is a "great need countrywide" in Iraq. It goes on:
    "The health and nutrition situation remains critical.
    Deteriorating living standards coupled with lack of immunity to the diphtheria toxin, in a large spread of the population over the age of five, are likely to result in a spread of the disease.
    Hospitals suffer from lack of disinfectants, in addition to the shortage of essential drugs and blankets needed for the cold winter.
    Deterioration in the quality of drinking water"—
    which UNICEF describes as "critical"—
    "has resulted in an increase of diseases such as typhoid and hepatitis."
    UNICEF says that 6,900 severely malnourished children under the age of five were admitted to its 14 nutrition rehabilitation centres in the space of just one month, and that that is exacerbated by high food prices. In 1995, UNICEF adopted an "anti-war agenda",

    601
    which insists on protecting the rights of children from the impact of wars, and demands that every effort be made to minimise the conflict's impact on the young. That is plainly not happening in Iraq.
    On 19 December 1996, Mr. Shevlin, managing director of Sterling Fluid Systems Ltd. of Reading, wrote to me:
    "We have recently visited Baghdad and were shocked to see the impact that the UN sanctions are having. The lack of food and basic medicines are hurting the citizens of Baghdad. Those in power appear somewhat protected. I was left with the impression of those who are least able to influence events are suffering most."
    It is shocking that the west has used the blunt sanctions weapon, with its consequences on children and the vulnerable. Other measures could have been put in place, such as suspending air links and foreign travel or freezing overseas bank accounts, targeted at the regime and the ruling elite rather than the citizenry and children. The effect of the sanctions has been barbarous.
    Last week, the New Statesman referred to Madeleine Albright's campaign for the US Secretary of State's job. She responded on American television to a question about the sanctions-related deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children by saying:
    "We think the price is worth it."
    That is what she said about the death of half a million children. It is revolting thinking, which should not be embraced by our Government.
    It is time—indeed, it is long overdue—to lift those cruel sanctions.
    2.48 pm
    Mr. John Austin-Walker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and the Minister for allowing me to make a brief intervention.
    Like my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), I want to speak about Iraq, but may I first add one comment to what my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow said about the possibility of trial in a third country for those accused of the Lockerbie bombing? Although I agree with all the points that President Mandela made in his letter to the Prime Minister, there is another argument for holding a trial in a third country at the earliest opportunity: the interests of the families of the victims of Lockerbie.
    I shall speak on the situation in Iraq on the same lines as my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton. I received a letter only this week from a constituent, Mrs. Laura Ann Sawyer, whose family has had a long association with Iraq and whose father was involved many years ago with the design and building of the bridge at Basra. Her teenage son has been staying for the past 18 months in Iraq with his grandparents, and became ill while he was there. That has brought home to his family in Thamesmead the implications of the sanctions.
    In her letter, my constituent points to the lack of drugs, medical supplies and equipment, which she says is unforgivable. She states that that
    "is hurting not the government but the person in the street. It is nearly seven years since the finish of the gulf war, and the people are still being penalised for it".
    She adds:
    "To my mind my son has had to suffer purely for political reasons, purely for the United Nations and the Western world to appear as the saviours keeping down the arch enemy Iraq. Just spare a thought
    602
    for the likes of my son and the thousands of children who have suffered and died within Iraq—can you imagine what it has been like in the hospitals trying to treat desperately ill or malnourished children caused by the blockade, without adequate medical facilities and medicines?"
    My constituent cites the facts that have been enunciated by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton about the number of children who have died. Mrs. Sawyer calls that the "massacre of the innocents". She asks in her letter—I put this point to the Minister—
    "how many countries are there in the world where the leadership is not only doubtful but tyrannical and corrupt, have they sanctions imposed on them? How many military dictatorships and juntas are there in the world where the high street travel companies send out package holiday makers to their shores?"
    I can tell the Minister one such country: Turkey. I have been to Turkey, to Diyarbakir and to south-east Turkey. I have seen the destruction of the villages and the massacre of the Kurdish population. There is nothing that Saddam Hussein has done against his Kurdish population that has not been done by the Turkish Government against their Kurdish population. Why do we have sanctions against Iraq, but supply the arms to Turkey to persecute its Kurdish population?
    Let us have an end to the hypocrisy, and let us stop the massacre of the innocents in Iraq.
    2.51 pm
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): I congratulate the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on securing the Adjournment debate—his 10th on the same subject, I believe. He asked whether sanctions against Libya are justified, in view of the doubts that he expressed about Libyan responsibility for Lockerbie.
    I am grateful to the hon. Members for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) for their contributions. I shall try to respond in the time available.
    What are the hon. Gentleman's doubts? Do they really undermine the position that has been taken consistently by the Government since my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate issued the petition warrants against two alleged Libyan intelligence officers on 14 November 1991?
    I begin by reminding the House that those warrants were issued after the biggest criminal investigation in British history. Two hundred and seventy innocent people from 22 countries died at Lockerbie. The evidence was gathered painstakingly by investigators from the Dumfries and Galloway constabulary and the United States. It led the prosecuting authorities in Scotland and the US to conclude that there were charges to be answered before a Scottish or US court.
    It is not the job of the Government to prejudge the outcome of any trial, so I will not be drawn into making assumptions about whether the evidence will be enough to secure a guilty verdict. In order not to prejudice the outcome of any trial, I shall not make any comment of substance on the evidence. I am reassured that three successive Lord Advocates, who have had access to the evidence against the accused Libyans, concluded that the evidence justified, and continues to justify, the proceedings against them. It remains the Government's position that the accused Libyans should stand trial in Scotland or the US.

    603
    The hon. Member for Linlithgow mentioned Mr. Thurman, an FBI forensic scientist. The Prime Minister told the House on 20 February that the charges against the accused Libyans did not depend on any evidence that Mr. Thurman might give.
    The United States authorities have told us that the FBI has transferred Mr. Thurman to other duties while the activities of the FBI laboratory are investigated by the Department of Justice's Inspector General. His report is yet to be published. There is nothing to suggest that it will reflect in any way on the Lockerbie case, but, if anything relevant emerges from it, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will evaluate the implications most carefully.
    The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of the acquittal of Juval Aviv on charges relating to an allegedly fabricated security survey. I refer hon. Members to the answer given in the Official Report of 27 January 1997, column 70, and add that the Crown Office statement released in relation to the Maltese double cross in May 1995 did no more than set out certain matters of public record as they existed at the time.
    In the meantime, the hon. Gentleman asks whether we are right to maintain United Nations sanctions against the Libyan Government. The answer is unequivocally yes. The petition warrants in respect of the two accused assert that the accused, while acting as Libyan Government intelligence officers, conspired to blow up a civil airliner, and caused the Lockerbie bomb to be placed on PA103.
    It is entirely correct that the Government should look to the Libyan Government to assist with the investigation—in particular, to arrange for the two accused to be made available for trial in Scotland or the United States, and to pay appropriate compensation. Sanctions were imposed by the international community in 1992 and 1993 as a mark of its condemnation of Libya's failure to co-operate with the United Kingdom, United States and French authorities over Lockerbie, and the murderous bombing, allegedly also by Libyans, of a UTA aircraft in September 1989.
    Libya's record of state sponsorship of terrorism is, rightly, a matter of deep and abiding concern. I freely acknowledge that Libya has provided some answers to our questions about its help to the Provisional IRA in the 1970s and 1980s. Libya at least offered France some belated assistance over the UTA bombing when it allowed the French examining magistrate, Judge Bruguière, to visit Libya last summer—and not before time. As a result of his investigations, the judge issued two further warrants against Libyan intelligence officers, bringing to a total of six the Libyan officials accused in connection with the UTA bombing. The French authorities have yet to declare their satisfaction with the Libyan co-operation.
    I also remind the House that, in October 1996, the German authorities issued arrest warrants against four former Libyan intelligence officers in the case of the bombing of the La Belle discotheque in Berlin in 1986, in which two people were killed and many were seriously injured.
    Where will this sordid catalogue of Libyan involvement in acts of state-sponsored terrorism end? The Libyan Government have a lot to answer for—not least a huge stockpile of arms and explosives, including Semtex,
    604
    that is still being used by the Provisional IRA. The only reasonable conclusion is that the pressure of UN sanctions must remain for as long as Libya continues to defy the will of the international community.
    I do not welcome our highly unsatisfactory stand-off with Libya, but it is not of our making. Let me explain why the current Libyan campaign to persuade observers of its good intentions concerning trial in a third country is actually a smokescreen for continued Libyan intransigence, and why it would be wrong for people of good will to be taken in by Libyan so-called offers to hold the Lockerbie trial in a third country.
    Accepting a trial in a third country would mean that we had bowed to the demands of suspected terrorists over the location and nature of the court that tried them. It would also imply that we accepted the argument that the accused would not get a fair trial in Scotland. The Security Council determined that the trial should be held in Scotland or the United States. Quite apart from our objections of principle to a trial outside Scotland or the US, there would be enormous practical and legal difficulties.
    Frankly, we do not believe that the Libyans intend that any such trial should take place. They argue that they cannot force the accused to leave Libya for trial in Scotland or the US in the absence of an extradition agreement with either country. I ask what powers they would have to ensure their attendance if we were to set up the arrangements for a so-called "Scottish" trial in The Hague when there is no extradition agreement between Libya and the Netherlands?
    I am conscious that my remarks will provide scant comfort to the relatives of the victims, and I am sorry about that. I assure them that we have looked hard for ways out of the current unsatisfactory solution, but so far we have been unable to identify a solution. We need a change of heart by the Libyan Government. If they are serious about wanting to rejoin the international community, they should surrender the two accused to a fair trial in Scotland or the United States.
    As for opportunities for British firms, I share the concern of the hon. Member for Linlithgow if British firms are losing valuable export markets. I have received letters on the subject. I am sorry, too, if good friendships developed in better times with the Libyan people now seem to be stretched. The fault lies with the Libyan Government, not the Libyan people. Our difficulties go back even further than Lockerbie—to the murder on a London street of Woman Police Constable Fletcher in April 1984. We are not prepared to allow commercial considerations to compromise our position of principle on these two particularly sensitive issues.
    Mr. Dalyell rose—
    Mr. Hanley: I do not have time to allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene because of the contributions of his hon. Friends. I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon.
    We should not forget why the United Nations applied sanctions. Following Iraq's illegal occupation of Kuwait in August 1990, the UN imposed measures to ensure Iraq's full compliance with the terms of the relevant Security Council resolutions. That was necessary to secure compensation for Iraq's victims, to extract from

    605
    Iraq an account of the fate of those Kuwaitis and others missing since the occupation, and to ensure that Iraq would not again pose a threat to regional security.
    The need for full Iraqi compliance with the relevant Security Council resolutions remains just as strong today. Saddam Hussein remains a threat to regional security and to his own people. There are articles in newspapers today about Iraq's chemical threat, even to European countries. I believe that Saddam Hussein's brutal attack on Irbil last August, by military forces including heavy artillery and tanks against civilian targets, was a clear violation of Security Council resolution 688, which demands an end to the regime's repression of the Iraqi people.
    It is now six years since Iraq invaded Kuwait and UN sanctions were imposed against Iraq, yet Iraq remains far from compliance with its obligations under the relevant Security Council resolutions. Of particular concern are Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Before the Gulf war, Iraq possessed enough chemical and biological weapons to destroy the world's population several times over. Saddam Hussein's continued desire to procure and produce these lethal weapons poses a serious threat to the region.
    The UN special commission was established in 1991 to oversee the elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass-destruction programmes. We strongly support its work, and we welcome Ambassador Rolf Ekeus to the United Kingdom. The commission has made good progress, despite Iraq's repeated attempts to obstruct and deceive it. We must remain vigilant. The special commission's chairman, Ambassador Ekeus, has warned that he does not have the full picture. I doubt that Iraq will ever tell the whole story while Saddam Hussein remains. The prospect of him retaining these horrific weapons does not bear thinking about. Until Iraq decides to comply fully with the demands of the Security Council's sanctions, they must remain.
    I share hon. Members' concern about the humanitarian situation in Iraq. Sadly, Saddam Hussein does not share this concern. It is his failure to meet the UN's demands
    606
    which prolongs the Iraqis' suffering. A relaxation of sanctions would not help the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein does not care for them. Experience shows that, if he were allowed to renew uncontrolled exports of oil, he would use the revenue not for food and medicine but to rearm and threaten the region again.
    I remind Opposition Members that food and medicines have never been subject to sanctions. We continue to support the efforts of the UN and non-governmental organisations in Iraq. Since April 1991, the United Kingdom has contributed over £92 million in aid, including last year £1.7 million on activities that directly benefit Iraqi children. I pay tribute to the work of the United Kingdom's NGOs in northern Iraq.
    We have done much to help alleviate the Iraqi people's suffering. As I have said, we have provided over £90 million in aid since 1991, making us the second largest donor. We co-sponsored Security Council resolution 986, which allows Iraq to export $1 billion-worth of oil every 90 days, mainly for the purchase of humanitarian supplies. Saddam Hussein's failure to agree to its implementation for over 18 months has caused further unnecessary suffering to the Iraqi people.
    I am delighted that the first consignment of humanitarian goods, purchased under Security Council resolution 986, is due to reach Iraq, possibly this weekend. That is good news for the Iraqi people. We want the benefit from Security Council resolution 986 to go to the Iraqi people, not the regime. The resolution contains safeguards to ensure that that happens. The UN has rightly insisted on implementing strictly the safeguards despite Iraqi attempts to undermine them. Each Iraqi should receive a significant increase in his—
    The motion having been made after half-past Two o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Three o'clock.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  South Africa
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received regarding the importing of South African goods; and what plans he has to assist South African industries to expand their world trade. [17712]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  Negotiations are in progress between the European Commission and the South African Government on South Africa's qualified accession to the Lomé convention and on a possible free trade agreement. The British Government are pressing for swift progress on this issue and have made it clear that they support the most liberal agreement possible. Representations in support of a generous line towards South Africa have been received from numerous members of the British public and from interested organisations.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings he has had in the last year to discuss housing and employment problems in South Africa. [17713]

  Dr. Fox
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has not, in the last year, held meetings to address these specific issues. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development has, however, had numerous meetings both in Britain and in South Africa, to discuss South Africa's development needs. Housing is not one of the five agreed priorities for the British aid programme, but our high commission in Pretoria has funded projects assisting with housing. The British development division in South Africa is also helping with small enterprise development and job creation.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Voluntary Bodies
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the total funding given by central Government Departments to voluntary bodies in the financial year 1994–95; and if she will make a statement. [18467]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Central Government funding of voluntary organisations in 1994–95, including grants from non-departmental public bodies, amounted to £3,453 million. Of this, £2,496 million was payments to housing associations. The remaining £957 million went direct to voluntary organisations to support the provision of services and a wide range of activities and projects, an increase in Government funding of 5 per cent. in cash terms and 3 per cent. in real terms over the level of provision in 1993–94.
  394
  The amount spent by each Department in 1994–95 with comparative figures for 1993–94 was as follows:

  Department

  1994–95 £,000

  1993–94 £,000

  Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries

  267

  242

  Crown Prosecution Service

  20

  20

  Ministry of Defence

  18,046

  18,919

  Department for Education and Employment

  Direct

  59,574

  (Education)

  5,908

  (Employment)

  50,057

  Equal Opportunities Commission

  26

  38

  Total—DfEE

  59,600

  56,003

  Department of Environment

  Direct

  40,621

  27,981

  Countryside Commission

  4,000

  4,178

  English Nature

  1,3000

  804

  Housing Corporation

  2,068,000

  2,510,000

  Rural Development Commission

  4,000

  4,744

  Urban Development Corporation

  10,600

  11,036

  Urban Programme

  13,900

  28,306

  English Partnerships

  1,000

  Housing Action Trusts

  565

  625

  Total—DoE

  2,143,986

  2,587,674

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  1,043

  1,011

  Department of Health

  Direct

  52,576

  49,434

  Alcohol and Drug Misuse

  2,400

  2,300

  Health Education Authority

  1,250

  Total—DH

  54,976

  52,984

  Home Office

  Direct

  61,043

  59,205

  Commission for Racial Equality

  4,855

  5,213

  Probation Partnership Funding

  3,582

  2,210

  Total—Home Office

  69,481

  66,628

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Direct

  163

  183

  Legal Aid Board

  1,074

  942

  Total—LCD

  1,237

  1,125

  Department of National Heritage

  Direct

  18,057

  15,855

  Sports Council

  17,814

  20,219

  Arts Council for Great Britain

  213,661

  Arts Council for England

  172,056

  English Tourist Board

  26

  27

  British Tourist Authority

  3

  3

  Total—DNH

  207,956

  249,764

  Northern Ireland Office

  Direct

  85,662

  85,768

  Housing Associations

  44,879

  49,293

  Sports Council for Northern Ireland

  626

  728

  Youth Council for Northern Ireland

  1,471

  1,421

  Arts Council for Northern Ireland

  3,318

  3,603

  395

  Department

  1994–95 £,000

  1993–94 £,000

  Northern Ireland Adult Education Centre

  32

  Northern Ireland Museums Council

  Rural Development Commission

  348

  176

  Total—NIO

  136,337

  140,990

  Overseas Development Administration

  185,114

  158,450

  Scottish Office

  Direct grants

  25,582

  24,231

  Highlands and Islands Enterprise

  1,241

  1,075

  Housing Associations

  268,540

  273,302

  Mental Illness Specific Grant

  8,680

  5,142

  Scottish National Heritage

  3,434

  2,900

  Sports Council for Scotland

  2,082

  1,898

  Urban Programme

  60,460

  48,062

  Scottish Arts Council

  24,477

  Total—Scottish Office

  394,496

  356,610

  Department of Social Security

  18,857

  13,110

  Department of Trade and Industry

  13,888

  14,435

  Department of Transport

  368

  422

  Welsh Office

  13,773

  14,071

  Direct

  148

  285

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation

  617

  575

  Development Board for Rural Wales

  1,548

  1,603

  Flexible Community Care

  114,556

  122,082

  Housing for Wales (Tia Cymru)

  1,912

  1,645

  Sports Council for Wales

  8,500

  Arts Council for Wales

  397

  398

  Welsh Development Agency

  177

  287

  Welsh Tourist Board

  5,711

  Strategic Development Scheme

  1,706

  (Rural Initiative)

  4,632

  (Urban Programme)

  Total—Welsh Office

  147,339

  147,283

  Total

  Direct grants

  594,655

  539,301

  Indirect Grants (excluding housing)

  362,381

  371,691

  Housing

  2,495,975

  2,954,677

  Total: All expenditure

  3,453,011

  3,865,669

  The 1994–95 figures include some data which have not been collected in past years. In order to provide a year-on-year comparison, similar data have also been obtained for 1993–94 and the figures for 1993–94 contained in the reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) given by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Home Department on 19 July 1995,—Official Report, columns 1445–47 have been updated in the table.

  In the case of indirect grants—payments by Government Departments to intermediary bodies, for distribution by them—end recipients are understood to be voluntary organisations in most but not necessarily all cases; and some of the expenditure may be used by the intermediary body in administering grant applications and payments.

  I am also placing in the Libraries of both Houses reports further analysing Government grants to voluntary organisations in 1994–95 and 1993–94.
  396

  Television Licences (Pensioners)
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what estimate she has made of the cost of providing free television licences for old age pensioners in Wales. [17877]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 27 February 1997]: I understand that the cost of providing free television licences for all old age pensioners in Wales would be likely to be in the order of £30 million a year.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Habitual Residence Test
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many people(a) were assessed under, (b) failed and (c) passed the habitual residence test in each month since August 1994 in each of the Newham benefit offices broken down by (i) United Kingdom,
  (ii) European Economic Area and (iii) other; [17831]

  (2) if he will provide a breakdown of the habitual residence test in the London borough of Newham since August 1994 for (i) Canning Town, (ii) Plaistow and Stratford benefit offices. [17833]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Tony Banks, dated 27 February 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking how many people (a) were assessed (b) failed and (c) passed the Habitual Residence Test (HRT) in each month since August 1994 in each of the Newham Benefit offices broken down by (i) United Kingdom, (ii) EEA and (iii) other and; if he will provide a breakdown of the HRT in the London Borough of Newham since August 1994 for (i) Canning Town, (ii) Plaistow and (iii) Stratford benefit offices.
  Benefits Agency (BA) statistics are collated at District level and not routinely by individual office. However the BA District of Newham, which includes the offices at Canning Town, Plaistow and Stratford, do maintain HRT statistics for individual offices to assist in the deployment of staff resources.
  The information is shown in the attached tables. The same level of information may not be available for all benefits and it will not be possible to obtain comparable data for every District.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Stratford office—habitual residence test

  EEA citizens

  UK citizens

  Other citizens

  Income support

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  Fail

  August 1994

  0

  5

  0

  0

  1

  0

  September 1994

  1

  20

  0

  0

  0

  0

  October 1994

  0

  20

  0

  0

  0

  0

  November 1994

  13

  29

  0

  0

  0

  0

  December 1994

  5

  10

  8

  15

  13

  3

  January 1995

  3

  6

  6

  4

  11

  3

  February 1995

  6

  8

  8

  10

  11

  5

  March 1995

  4

  9

  6

  3

  11

  2

  April 1995

  5

  4

  8

  2

  5

  3

  May 1995

  4

  4

  18

  2

  11

  8

  June 1995

  5

  6

  12

  3

  15

  14

  July 1995

  6

  4

  32

  19

  17

  10

  August 1995

  10

  7

  30

  7

  14

  12

  September 1995

  5

  7

  17

  11

  14

  4

  October 1995

  10

  7

  32

  9

  19

  5

  November 1995

  17

  3

  26

  4

  19

  0

  397

  Stratford office—habitual residence test

  EEA citizens

  UK citizens

  Other citizens

  Income support

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  Fail

  December 1995

  9

  5

  7

  2

  6

  1

  January 1996

  6

  7

  14

  9

  10

  2

  February 1996

  5

  9

  21

  9

  18

  2

  March 1996

  6

  14

  21

  6

  11

  3

  April 1996

  2

  11

  22

  18

  11

  2

  May 1996

  5

  3

  24

  13

  11

  3

  June 1996

  4

  4

  27

  12

  14

  2

  July 1996

  4

  1

  23

  11

  8

  7

  August 1996

  8

  5

  13

  16

  12

  5

  September 1996

  5

  5

  22

  12

  9

  2

  October 1996

  9

  6

  16

  16

  11

  2

  November 1996

  6

  2

  9

  7

  20

  2

  December 1996

  3

  0

  4

  2

  5

  1

  January 1997

  1

  1

  4

  1

  5

  1

  Data are provisional and may be subject to change.

  Plaistow office—habitual residence test

  EEA citizens

  UK citizens

  Other citizens

  Income support

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  Fail

  August 1994

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  September 1994

  0

  12

  2

  3

  1

  0

  October 1994

  1

  10

  2

  10

  5

  0

  November 1994

  5

  12

  7

  9

  8

  2

  December 1994

  2

  3

  8

  4

  2

  1

  January 1995

  0

  3

  15

  3

  5

  0

  February 1995

  3

  7

  20

  4

  17

  1

  March 1995

  8

  7

  24

  6

  14

  6

  April 1995

  1

  1

  28

  4

  15

  0

  May 1995

  3

  4

  34

  3

  18

  2

  June 1995

  1

  2

  37

  0

  13

  2

  July 1995

  1

  2

  54

  7

  25

  0

  August 1995

  2

  3

  43

  0

  18

  0

  September 1995

  3

  5

  53

  7

  19

  5

  October 1995

  8

  6

  25

  6

  21

  2

  November 1995

  4

  4

  20

  6

  5

  0

  December 1995

  1

  8

  10

  3

  9

  4

  January 1996

  12

  5

  3

  3

  15

  5

  February 1996

  7

  6

  17

  6

  12

  4

  March 1996

  13

  10

  21

  6

  5

  3

  April 1996

  7

  5

  10

  5

  6

  0

  May 1996

  4

  12

  12

  5

  2

  2

  June 1996

  2

  2

  13

  5

  8

  1

  July 1996

  1

  2

  27

  2

  11

  2

  August 1996

  5

  3

  17

  10

  13

  0

  September 1996

  4

  2

  16

  11

  7

  3

  October 1996

  10

  5

  21

  6

  11

  0

  November 1996

  8

  5

  10

  4

  7

  2

  December 1996

  3

  0

  8

  2

  2

  1

  January 1997

  4

  0

  8

  1

  5

  0

  Data are provisional and may be subject to change.

  Canning Town office—habitual residence test

  EEA citizens

  UK citizens

  Other citizens

  Income support

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  Fail

  August 1994

  0

  5

  5

  1

  2

  0

  September 1994

  0

  2

  5

  5

  1

  0

  October 1994

  0

  2

  11

  8

  1

  2

  November 1994

  0

  2

  6

  3

  1

  1

  December 1994

  0

  3

  4

  7

  1

  0

  January 1995

  2

  0

  9

  1

  0

  0

  February 1995

  2

  2

  14

  4

  1

  2

  March 1995

  2

  1

  13

  1

  4

  1

  April 1995

  0

  0

  4

  2

  2

  0

  May 1995

  0

  2

  5

  5

  3

  1

  June 1995

  1

  1

  14

  3

  2

  1

  July 1995

  1

  0

  10

  4

  3

  1

  August 1995

  1

  0

  10

  1

  4

  0

  September 1995

  0

  0

  8

  2

  1

  0

  October 1995

  1

  2

  4

  1

  0

  1

  November 1995

  3

  1

  0

  4

  0

  0

  December 1995

  1

  2

  1

  1

  0

  1

  January 1996

  0

  2

  4

  2

  2

  1

  February 1996

  1

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  March 1996

  1

  0

  7

  2

  1

  1

  April 1996

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  May 1996

  6

  2

  7

  1

  1

  2

  398

  Canning Town office—habitual residence test

  EEA citizens

  UK citizens

  Other citizens

  Income support

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  Fail

  June 1996

  3

  4

  6

  5

  2

  5

  July 1996

  0

  0

  4

  2

  0

  0

  August 1996

  1

  1

  9

  0

  0

  2

  September 1996

  0

  3

  7

  5

  1

  1

  October 1996

  2

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  November 1996

  0

  0

  5

  0

  0

  0

  December 1996

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  January 1997

  1

  0

  1

  0

  2

  0

  Data are provisional and may be subject to change.

  Housing and Council Tax Benefits
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to allow local authorities to contract out housing benefit and council tax benefit. [18484]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I announced on 12 November 1996,Official Report, column 196, my intention to open consultation with the local authority associations on a proposal to bring forward an order under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 which would allow contractors to carry out housing and council tax benefit determinations. Existing legislation prevents contractors from making benefit determinations and reduces the efficiency of contracts which local authorities are able to negotiate. Following consultation with the local authority associations, I am laying before Parliament today the Contracting Out (Functions of Local Authorities in relation to Income-related Benefits) Order 1997. The order will allow contractors to carry out the bulk of housing and council tax benefits administration, including benefit determinations. However, some functions relating to claims for central Government subsidy, overpayments, prosecutions, discretionary payments and appeals will be reserved for local authorities.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what requests he has received to make an oral statement to the House on recent developments in relation to sensorineural hearing loss and war pensions; and if he will make a statement. [17895]

  Mr. Lilley
  On 5 December 1996, my right hon. and noble Friend Lord MacKay of Ardbredknish announced to the Central Advisory Committee that he was seeking its views on a package of minor reforms to the war pension system. On the same occasion, he advised the Central Advisory Committee about changes to the handling of cases involving sensorineural hearing loss. Both prompted a substantial number of representations, only two of which suggested that an oral statement would be appropriate.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Selective Cull Scheme
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if producers who have cattle slaughtered under the selective cull scheme will be able to claim suckler cow and beef special premium and hill
  399
  livestock compensatory allowances for those cattle slaughtered in the retention period for those payments; and if he will make a statement. [17397]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 24 February 1997]: We have been in contact with the European Commission on this point and hope to be able to make an announcement in the near future.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total public expenditure under the CAP paid in the last year to farmers in(a) Devon and (b) Cornwall. [17391]

  Mr. Baldry
  Total public expenditure under the CAP paid to farmers in 1995—the last year for which figures are available—was as follows:

  (a) Devon: £55,005,315

  (b) Cornwall: £30,283,103

  It should be noted that a small proportion of these totals relates to non-CAP schemes funded by the EU and in some cases amounts include an element of national as well as EU funding. Devon and Cornwall farmers also benefit from expenditure on market support measures, even though this is not paid directly to them.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the prior options studies of the Insolvency Service, companies registry and trading standards branches of the Department of Economic Development have been completed; and if he will make a statement on the outcomes. [18507]

  Mr. Ancram
  These studies, which were undertaken by independent consultants, have been completed and Ministers have concluded that, given the size of the organisations involved, agentisation, either on an individual basis, or collectively, would be inappropriate. Ministers have agreed, however, that next steps principles should be applied to the management of the statutory and regulatory functions which all three branches are required to perform.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Juvenile Cases (Legal Aid)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what were(a) the total costs of legal aid in juvenile cases in the youth court and (b) the average cost per case in the latest year for which figures are available. [17284]

  Mr. Streeter
  The total gross cost of legal aid in respect of juvenile cases heard in the youth court during 1995–96 was £16.8 million. The average unit cost of these proceedings was £439.
  400

DEFENCE

  Radiobiological Research Laboratory Alverstoke
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the(a) reports and (b) other publications currently available from the radiobiological research laboratory at Alverstoke. [17901]

  Mr. Artbuthnot
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 28 February 1997:
  I have been asked to reply to your question asking for a list of reports and publications currently available from the Radiobiological Research Laboratory at Alverstoke. In the absence of more specific information I have assumed that your question refers to the former Defence Radiological Protection Service, now known as DERA Radiation Protection Services (DRPS) at Alverstoke. As Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) this matter is my responsibility.
  A list of reports and publications which have been issued by DRPS subsequent to the list published in Hansard, 8 December 1993 Col 285, is as follows: This list excludes classified reports and work which is still underway and not yet cleared for publication.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Unclassified DRPS reports and publications

  Marine Environmental Radioactivity Surveys at Nuclear Submarine Berths In the UK 1992, published by HMSO

  Investigations to determine the response of the DRPS Passive Radon Monitor

  DRPS Laboratory Support to RAF Carlisle, November 1993

  Quality Assurance Check of Canberra Emergency Systems

  DRPS Laboratory Support to RAF Carlisle—February 1994

  The Decontamination of Radium and Promethium Luminised P-11 Compasses

  DRPS Laboratory Support to RAF Carlisle—April 1994

  Compendium of Parliamentary Questions and Answers for 1992 and 1993

  CR39 Neutron Dosimetry Low Energy Neutron Response—Planar and Isotropic Neutron Dosimeters (March 1994)

  Dosimetry Statistics 1993

  DRPS Laboratory Support to RAF Carlisle—July 1994

  DRPS Radiological Survey at RAF Carlisle

  Marine Environmental Radiation Surveys at Nuclear Submarine Berths—1993, published by HMSO

  RAF Greenham Common Environmental Monitoring Report

  DRPS Radiological Survey at Purfleet Ranges

  DRPS Radiological Survey at RAF Sculthorpe

  Comparison of the Neutron Calibration Facilities at Berkeley Technology Centre and the Defence Radiological Protection Service

  CR39 Neutron Dosimetry—An Investigation into the Effect of Changing the Offset Parameter on the Autoscan 60 Reader on the Response and Signal to Noise Ratio of the DRPS CR39 Planar Neutron Dosimeter

  CR39 Neutron Dosimetry—The Effect of Changing Chemical Processing Parameters on the Response of the DRPS Neutron Dosimeter

  CR39 Neutron Dosimeters—Identification of CR39 Elements with Spuriously High Background Track Density Readings Prior to Use

  DRPS Laboratory Support to RAF Carlisle—February 1995

  RAF Upper Heyford—Radiation Monitoring Report

  401

  Dosimetry Statistics 1994

  DRPS Laboratory Support to RAF Carlisle—May 1995

  Royal Arsenal East Woolwich Radiological Survey

  DRPS Support to RAF Carlisle—May 1995

  DRPS Support to RAF Carlisle—August 1995

  DRPS Support to RAF Carlisle—September 1995

  Marine Environmental Radioactivity Surveys at Nuclear Submarine Berths in the UK 1994, published by HMSO

  Radio Frequency Monitoring Survey of the Kirkcudbright EMLF Facility

  DRPS Laboratory Support to RAF Carlisle—October 1995

  Personnel Radiation Hazard (RADHAZ) Survey of the Watchman Radar—HMS Cambridge

  DRPS Laboratory Support to RAF Carlisle—November 1995

  Measurement of Tritium in Air Concentration at Donnington Garrison

  Requirements for Setting Up a Facility at No. 16 MU (RAF Stafford) for Packing Equipment for Shipment to Drigg

  The Handling and Use of 20 mm DS, Linked MK 149 Rounds for the Mk15 Weapons System (Phalanx)

  DRPS Laboratory Support to RAF Carlisle—January 1996

  DRPS Survey of RAF Quedgeley (Sites 2 and 4)

  Radiological Survey of No. 3 and No. 4 Sites 14 MU RAF Carlisle

  Charm 3 Ammunition Container Assembly Radiation Trial

  DRPS Laboratory Support to RAF Carlisle—March 1996

  DRPS Survey of RAF Scampton

  DRPS Survey of RAF Finningley Radiological Survey of RM Coypool

  The following reports were issued after DRPS joined DERA (1 April 1996)

  DRPS Survey at IPTM Halton

  DRPS Survey of RAF North Luffenham Technical Site

  DRPS Survey at RAFH Halton

  CHARM 3 Ammunition in Tank Radiation Trial

  The use of Ionising Radiation Sources in the Ministry of Defence

  Radiological Survey of ABRO Old Dalby

  Rapier 2000 Repair Facility Radiation Trial

  Radiological Surveys of Ditton Park, Slough

  DRPS Survey of RAF North Luffenham EOD Enclave Area

  RAF North Luffenham Land Quality Assessment Radioactive Contamination Issues

  Radiological Survey of HMS Daedalus

  DRPS Survey of RAF Alconbury and RAF Upwood

  Land Quality Survey at ABRO Ashford

  232Th Survey at ABRO Donnington

  Land Quality Survey of ABRO Old Dalby

  Radiological Survey of OSU Weyhill

  DRPS Laboratory Support to RAF Carlisle—May 1996

  DRPS Laboratory Support to RAF Carlisle£June 1996

  Radiological Survey of Royal Marines Barracks Seaton

  Dosimetry Statistics 1995

  RAF Greenham Common Environmental Monitoring Report (amended)

  Radiological Survey of ABRO Aldershot

  RAF Swanton Morley Land Quality Assessment Radioactive Contamination Issues

  Radiological Survey of RNSD Spring Quarry

  Land Quality Survey at Ashford Site

  Intrusive Site Investigation, Rowcroft and Templar Barracks, Ashford

  402

  DRPS Support to MOD Compensation Scheme

  Radiological Safety Assessment of Radiography at NAML

  DRPS Support to RAF Carlisle

  RAF Norton Disney LQA

  RAF Lordsbridge LQA

  RAF Chilmark—Ham Cross Site LQA

  RAF Chilmark—Lady Down Site

  DRPS Laboratory Support to RAF Carlisle Decontamination

  DRPS Laboratory Support to RAF Carlisle Decontamination

  RAF Chilmark LQA—Radiation Monitoring in Buildings

  RAF Little Heath—DRPS Survey

  RAF Barnham—DRPS Survey

  DRPS Laboratory Support to RAF Carlisle Decontamination

  RAF Carlisle No. 9 Site—Preliminary Radioactive Contamination Survey

  DRPS Laboratory Support to RAF Carlisle Decontamination

  RAF Riseley LQA

  RAF Quedgley—Radioactivity Survey No. 6 Site

  DRPS Laboratory Support to RAF Carlisle Decontamination

  Marine Environmental Radioactivity Surveys at Nuclear Submarine Berths, 1995,

  Defence Costs Studies
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list each of his Department's defence cost studies; what were the estimated savings accruing from the implementation of proposals contained in each study; and what is his current estimate of how much each proposal will save. [18114]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer given to the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) on 26 November 1996,Official Report, columns 196–97.

  Nuclear Tests (Compensation)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy in respect of claims that former service personnel who participated in the nuclear tests programme in Australia and the south Pacific have developed(a) leukaemia, excluding chronic lymphatic and (b) multiple myeloma as a result of those tests; and if he will make a statement. [17953]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department's policy is based on the conclusions of the studies by the National Radiological Protection Board. The second report concluded that the excess of leukaemia in test participants compared with controls in the period two to 25 years after the tests is likely to be a chance finding, although the possibility that test participation may have caused a small risk of developing leukaemia in the early years after the tests cannot be completely ruled out. It also concluded that data available from the additional follow-up since 1988 did not support the suggestion from the previous report that participants may have experienced a small hazard of multiple myeloma, which also appeared to be a chance finding.

  The general conclusion of the NRPB studies was that participation in the nuclear weapon testing programme had not had a detectable effect on the participants' expectation of life nor on their risk of developing cancer or other diseases.
  403
  These findings provide no grounds for claims for compensation and no such claims have been made against my Department.

  Law of Armed Conflict
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the revision of the manual of military law of armed conflict currently planned by Her Majesty's Government are part of a concerted NATO revision. [18101]

  Mr. Soames
  No. However, the authors have been in informal consultations with other nations which are working on similar projects including some NATO countries.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the planned new joint service manual on the law of armed conflict to replace part III of the manual of military law will be published; what consultations will be held on its revision; and if he is prepared to accept representations on it. [18091]

  Mr. Soames
  A text for a draft joint service manual was prepared some years ago but held in abeyance pending decisions on the ratification by the UK of the additional protocols to the Geneva conventions of 1949. That text is currently being updated to take into account recent developments in the field although no final date can be given as yet for its completion. The draft is being prepared by service officers, assisted by an eminent academic consultant, and the final text will be subject to comment both within the Ministry of Defence and other interested Departments prior to publication. There are no plans for public consultation or comment. Once published, it will be available to the public and subject to regular update and amendment.

  Family Quarters (Rents)
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what financial assistance his Department plans to provide for service personnel to assist with increases in rents for family quarters; and if he will make a statement. [17948]

  Mr. Soames
  We do not propose to introduce any additional financial assistance to compensate for the rises in service accommodation charges.

  The Armed Forces Pay Review Body recommends levels of pay and charges broadly comparable to those in the civilian sector. The level of accommodation charge is based on the costs of comparable housing, less an abatement to take account of the relative disadvantages of living in service accommodation. Taking account of the increases in pay due to come into effect on 1 April and 1 December 1997, no personnel will experience a net decrease in pay as a result of the increases in accommodation charges.

  Scots Guardsmen Fisher and Wright
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representation he has received from General Sir David Scott-Barrett of the Scots Guards regarding Scots Guardsmen Fisher and Wright. [18208]
  404
  Mr. Soames
  My right hon. Friend has received one representation direct from General Scott-Barrett. He and I have received a number of others from hon. Members about the case of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright.

  Aircraft Crashes (Investigations)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list his Department's aircraft crashes which are still under investigation. [18112]

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is as follows:

  10 January 1996: 2 RAF Tornado F3s

  23 January 1996: RAF Jaguar GR1B

  13 February 1996: RAF Hawk T1

  19 February 1996: RAF Harrier GR7

  23 February 1996: RAF Tornado GR1

  26 February 1996: RAF Tornado GR1

  26 February 1996: RN Harrier T4N

  26 May 1996: RAF Hawk T1

  24 July 1996: RAF Jaguar GR1A

  18 September 1996: RAF Jaguar T2A

  28 September 1996: MOD(PE) Tornado F3

  9 January 1997: RAF Harrier GR7

  15 February 1997: RAF Puma HC1

  Empty Homes (Disposal)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 17 February,Official Report, column 367, what were the total receipts for the sale of the empty homes by the end of summer 1996. [18113]

  Mr. Soames
  Of the 5,348 disposals, 2,373 formed part of the service families married quarter sale to Annington Homes and the value of surplus homes cannot be separately identified. A total of 2,687 were sold through the normal processes but receipts information is not held centrally and therefore it has not been possible to collate cost data in the time available: I will write to the hon. Member. Two hundred and fifteen houses were demolished as surplus or as part of the demolition and rebuild programme and thus did not attract receipts. Seventy-three houses were leased pending later sale.

  The above figures cover the 18-month period to 30 September 1996 and include the Annington Homes sales for which contracts were exchanged on 24 September 1996.

  A1 Bilad Building
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of his staff work from the A1 Bilad building, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; if his Department is the owner of the building; and which organisation is responsible for its security arrangements. [17238]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 24 February 1997]: The building mentioned is not owned by my Department. I am withholding information on the security arrangements under exemption 4(f) of the code of practice on access to government information 1997.
  405

TREASURY

  Income Tax (Recovery of Interest)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he proposes to take to stop computer-generated claims for interest on tax payments received under self-assessment after 31 January where the cost of recovering the interest exceeds the interest; and if he will make a statement. [17182]

  Mr. Jack
  Self-assessment statements of account were not, and will not, be issued solely to advise taxpayers of small amounts of interest due.

  Repair and Maintenance (VAT)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the gross sum collected per annum by HM Customs and Excise in respect of the VAT levied on the repair and maintenance of private dwellings. [17082]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 24 February 1997]: Statistics on the VAT collected on repairs and maintenance of private dwellings are not directly available. The gross VAT liability in 1995 in respect of repairs, maintenance and alterations carried out by contractors on private sector housing is estimated at £1.2 billion.

  Inland Revenue (Corruption)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date the former head of the Inland Revenue special investigations unit(a) was arrested for corrupt practices and (b) requested information relating to the tax returns made by a right hon. Member. [17367]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 24 February 1997]: Mr. Michael Allcock, the former head of the Inland Revenue's London special office 2 was arrested on suspicion of corruption on 27 July 1993.

  With reference to the second part of the hon. Member's question, the rules on taxpayer confidentiality prevent the disclosure of any information relating to the tax affairs of any particular taxpayer or taxpayers.

  Vehicle and Fuel Taxation
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent environmental considerations informed the scale of increase in vehicle fuel taxation in his last budget. [17361]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Government's policy on fuel duties is an important part of their overall environmental policy. The policy of successive UK Governments has been to charge duty on road fuels at rates which will not only raise sufficient revenue but also take account of the need to conserve finite stocks of fossil fuels a protect the general environment.

  A commitment to raise road fuel duties by an average of at least 5 per cent. each year in real terms was announced in the 1993 Budget. The aim of these tax rises is to encourage fuel efficiency and to help to control harmful pollution. This will help to reach the Rio convention commitment by returning emissions of carbon
  406
  dioxide and other greenhouse gases—methane, nitrous oxide—to their 1990 levels by the year 2000. As a result, pollution from vehicles is already coming down.

  In order to encourage the use of high-mileage vehicles in our towns and cities and of more environmentally friendly fuels, two measures were announced: the duty rate of ultra-low sulphur diesel will be reduced by 1p per litre relative to ordinary diesel, when the necessary international agreement is attained. Ultra-low sulphur diesel is cleaner than ordinary diesel, but is slightly more expensive to produce. This measure will encourage the use of ultra-low sulphur diesel. We also announced 25 per cent. reduction in the duty on road fuel gases. This means the duty rate for gas used as road fuel is now 21.13 pence per kilogram—approximately 1.5 litres—compared with 41.68p per litre for leaded petrol and 36.86p per litre for unleaded petrol and diesel road fuel.

  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the yield in(a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96; and what is the estimated yield in 1996–97 from (i) petrol duty, (ii) derv duty, (iii) vehicle excise duty, (iv) VAT on petrol and derv rates and (v) VAT on vehicle sales. [17515]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information requested is shown in the table:

  £ billions

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97 (forecast)

  petrol duty

  9.6

  10.1

  —

  derv duty

  4.4

  5.3

  —

  Total fuel duties

  14.0

  5.3

  117.4

  VED

  3.8

  4.0

  4.3

  VAT on fuel duties

  2.5

  2.7

  3.0

  VAT on vehicle sales

  3.4

  3.6

  2n/a

  1 Petrol and derv forecast receipts are not published separately.

  2 Separate forecasts of VAT on vehicle sales are not available.

  Local Tax Offices
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of local tax offices are meeting their performance targets for dealing with(a) personal callers, (b) telephone calls, (c) repayment claims and (d) correspondence. [17890]

  Mr. Jack
  The Inland Revenue does not publish its performance against annual targets until results covering the full period are available and appropriate validation and checking of figures has been carried out.

  Based on latest provisional figures, most local tax offices are currently on course to meet or exceed their annual targets for personal callers and telephone calls, but are unlikely to achieve their correspondence targets. The claims target applies only to specialist repayment offices, which are on course to meet or exceed this target.

  Weatherguard, Halbeath, Fife
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list in respect of the action by Customs and Excise against Weatherguard, Halbeath, Fife, in 1992–93(a) the date and location of the seizure of jackets, (b) the number of jackets seized, (c) their country of manufacture and the manufacturer, (d) the

  407
  haulier involved, (e) the date of the alleged criminal act, (f) the fine charged against the company, (g) the date when the fine was paid and (h) the intended destination of the jackets. [17262]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 27 February 1997]: The Commissioners of Customs and Excise owe a duty of confidence to the trader in this case and cannot release the information requested.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the revenue consequences of raising the basic rate of income tax in Wales to 25p in the pound. [17869]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 27 February 1997]: The latest available information is for 1994–95. The full-year yield of increasing the basic rate of tax by 1p under the 1994–95 tax regime and at 1994–95 income levels is £70 million.

  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate of the revenue raised by a 50 per cent. tax rate on incomes of £40,000 plus per annum in Wales. [17867]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 27 February 1997]: The latest available information is for 1994–95. The full-year yield under the 1994–95 tax regime and at 1994–95 income levels of introducing a new rate of 50 per cent. on taxable incomes above £40,000 is £30 million. The yield does not take account of any behavioural effects which might result from the introduction of the new rate of tax.

  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the revenue consequences of raising income tax thresholds in Wales so that 30,000 people would be removed from income tax liability. [17871]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 27 February 1997]: The latest available information is for 1994–95. The full-year cost under the 1994–95 tax regime and at 1994–95 income levels of increasing non-aged and aged personal allowances by £330 is £70 million—this would have taken 30,000 taxpayers out of income tax.

  Mr. Lamont
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the changes in the basic top rates of income tax over the last 30 years. [18144]

  Mr. Jack
  Tables 1.5 and 1.10 of the 1996–97 "Tax Benefit Reference Manual" gives income tax rates for years 1967–68 to 1996–97, a copy of which can be found in the Library.

  Proposed rates for 1997–98 are as follows:

  £ per annul

  Taxable income

  Rate of income tax percentage

  Up to 4,100

  20

  4,101–26,100

  23

  Over 26,101

  40

  408

  European Funds (Republic of Ireland)
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the net transfer of European funds to the Republic of Ireland in each of the last five years. [17875]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 27 February 1997]: The European Court of Auditors annual reports indicate that the net benefits to the Republic of Ireland from the EC budget, for the years 1991 to 1995, the last five years for which information is available, are as listed in the table:

  Year

  Million ecu

  £ million1

  1991

  2357.3

  1650.3

  1992

  2140.1

  1571.3

  1993

  2371.9

  1846.6

  1994

  1752.0

  1355.6

  1995

  1886.9

  1545.2

  1 Converted from ecu to £ using the average annual exchange rate listed in the Annual White Paper, "Statement on the Community Budget".

  Public Finance Initiative
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide a breakdown by project of PFI schemes identified in table 5.5 of the Red Book. [18126]

  Mr. Jack
  Table 5.5 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1997–8", the Red Book, is derived from returns made by Departments as part of the pre-Budget expenditure round. Although the Treasury publishes these figures, ultimate responsibility for each departmental figure remains with individual Departments. Detailed questions on table 5.5 should therefore be directed towards the relevant Department.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Private Employment Agencies
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the private employment agencies used by his Department and its agencies in each of the past three years for which figures are available, indicating(a) the names of the agencies, (b) the numbers employed by the agencies in work for his Department, (c) the total cost to his department of using employment agencies and the median cost paid to the agency per person recruited and (d) the average length of contract for persons recruited via such agencies. [16182]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I have asked directors of the Department's executive agencies to reply to the hon. Member separately.

  For the headquarters of the Department, excluding agencies and the Government offices, it is not possible to provide information in the form requested. Temporary staff are recruited from employment agencies to cover, usually, short-term secretarial and administrative support duties. Data on the average length of temporary staff recruited from agencies, the numbers employed and the median cost paid to agencies per person employed are not available.
  409
  However, the agencies most commonly used in the past three years are Alfred Marks, Brook Street, Manpower, Josephine Summers and Kelly. The total cost to the Department for agency staff in the past three financial years is as follows;

  1994–95 £0.4 million

  1995–96: £1.3 million

  1996–97 (April—January) £2.1 million

  Expenditure in 1996–97 is not directly comparable with previous years, which do not take account of the machinery of government changes announced in July 1995.

  Letter from Peter Joyce to Mr. Mike Hall, dated 28 February 1997:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your question about the use made by The Insolvency Service of private employment agencies.
  I should first explain that The Service undertakes its own recruitment of permanent and many of its casual staff, and does not use the services of employment agencies for that purpose. It does however take on temporary staff from agencies, usually to cover a short-term need for example to assist in the completion of a specific project or to cover for the temporary absence of permanent staff. In addition, The Service has taken on accountancy and legal staff on short term contracts through agencies to support its investigative role.
  The total cost to The Service of agency staff in each of the last two years has been—

  1994–95: £476,700

  1995–96: £2,650,400

  The information held by The Service on its agency staff is not maintained in a form which would enable it to provide the further details you have asked for except at disproportionate cost.

  Letter from Iain MacGregor to Mr. Mike Hall, dated 28 February 1997:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to answer the question on behalf of the Chief Executive of NWML who is on business away from the office. The answer is set out below.

  Year

  Agency (a)

  Numbers (b)

  Total cost (c)

  Length of contract (d)1

  Employment agencies

  1993–94

  Reed Employment

  1

  2—

  14 months

  1994–95

  Reed Employment

  1

  2

  4 months

  1995–96

  Reed Employment

  1

  2—

  4 months

  1996–97

  Walch Employment Ltd.

  1

  2—

  3 months

  Recruitment agencies

  1995–96

  Capita Recruitment Services

  1

  1,983

  Permanent

  1996–97

  Draft Personnel Ltd.

  1

  2,645

  Permanent

  1 We are unable to provide an average length of contract because two recruits remain members of staff.

  2 Because of the nature of payments to Employment Agencies we are unable to extract the information at reasonable cost.

  Letter from J. C. Octon To Mr. Mike Hall, dated 28 February 1997:
  In the absence of the Chief Executive I am replying for the Patent Office to your Parliamentary Question to the President of the Board of Trade about the use of private employment agencies.
  The Patent Office operates in a competitive international market and has operated a policy of employing agency staff to minimise the risk to its permanent staff of redundancy consequent on fluctuations in demand. The agencies it has used to supply temporary staff are: Reed Employment, Securicor Recruitment Services Ltd., Western Staff Services, Acorn Recruitment, Manpower Employment Agency, Kelter International Ltd., Brook
  410
  Street, Meridian Business Support, Kelly Services and Select Appointments PD Bureau—London. The monthly average number of agency staff employed in the last three years has been 1994: 30, 1995: 50 and 1996: 42 and the total annual cost £323,958, £539,689 and £495,240 respectively. The average hourly rate paid to the agencies for the staff supplied was around £4.20 in 1994, £4.50 in 1995 and £4.80 in 1996. The average length of employment for agency staff has been in the range 3.5 to 4 months. The Patent Office also employs a small number of specialist IT practitioners employed normally through specialist companies. The figures given above exclude such staff.

  Letter from John Holden to Mr. Mike Hall, dated 28 February 1997:
  You recently asked the President of the Board of Trade for information about the use of private employment agencies within his Department and Agencies. I am responding as Chief Executive of Companies House Executive Agency.
  The following table gives names of agencies used over the last three years, the numbers of people from each agency, length of contract and the cost per hour.

  Year

  Agency name

  Length of contract

  Number employed

  Cost per hour £

  1994

  Jobwise

  5 weeks

  1

  6.85

  1994–95

  Target

  13 weeks

  1

  6.50

  1995

  Office Angels

  3 weeks

  2

  7.35

  1996

  Office Angels

  2–3 weeks

  2

  8.25

  1996

  Pertemps

  12–17 weeks

  5

  26.30

  1 Average.

  2 Average 7

  The total cost to the Agency for the years 1995–96 was £20,580; the average cost per person recruited is £6.90 per hour; contract periods average 5–6 weeks per person.

  Letter from Jim Norton to Mr. Mike Hall, dated 28 February 1997:
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he will list the private employment agencies used by his Department and its agencies in each of the last three years for which figures are available indicating (a) the names of the agencies, (b) the numbers employed by the agencies in work for his Department, (c) the total cost to his Department of using employment agencies and the median cost paid to the agency per person recruited and (d) the average length of contract for persons recruited via such agencies.
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply on behalf of the Radiocommunications Agency to the above PQ.
  Over the past three years the RA has used the following private employment agencies:

  1994–95

  Accountancy Personnel

  Adeeko/ADIA Ltd (Alfred Marks)

  Arena Staff Agency

  Manpower plc

  Reed Staffing Services Ltd

  1995–96

  Adeeko/ADIA Ltd (Alfred Marks)

  Badenoch and Clark

  EGB

  Manpower plc

  Nextep Ltd

  Office Angels

  Professional Recruitment Solutions

  Reed Staffing Services Ltd

  1996–97

  Adeeko/ADIA Ltd (Alfred Marks)

  Badenoch and Clark

  411

  London Staff Bureau

  Manpower plc

  Nextep Ltd

  Office Angels

  RJC (UK) Ltd.

  The total cost to the Radiocommunications Agency of using the employment agencies in the last three years was:

  1994–95: £64,322.05

  1995–96: £498,456.14

  1996–97 (April—January): £277,809.17.

  I am sorry that it is not possible to identify for each of the years the number of employment agency staff, the average length of contract for persons recruited from agencies and the median cost paid to agencies per person employed.

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the contracts awarded by his Department to(a) EDS, (b) Andersens, (c) BMI, (d) Capita and (e) Sema since 1992 and the broad function to be carried out by the contractor, and the value of the contract in each case. [17608]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The following information is held centrally on contracts awarded to the companies in question:

  Company

  Number of contracts awarded since 1992

  EDS

  0

  Andersens

  2

  BMI

  0

  Capita

  6

  Sema

  4

  All the above contracts relate to external consultancy and their total value is £512,613; commercial sensitivity prevents the disclosure of individual contract values.

  Information on other contracts could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The above information does not include contracts let by the Department's executive agencies, and I have asked the chief executives to reply separately to this question.

  Letter from Peter Joyce to Mr. Alan Howarth, dated 28 February 1997:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your question about contracts awarded to EDS, Andersens, BMI, Capita and Sema by The Insolvency Service since 1992.
  The Insolvency Service awarded a contract by competitive tender to Capita Managed Services Limited in November 1995 for the collection of costs awarded by the courts against directors who are disqualified under section 6 of Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. Capita's fees are based on a percentage of what they collect: it is thus not possible to say what fees will be earned by them in the three year period the contract runs.
  No contracts have been awarded by The Insolvency Service to EDS, Andersens, BMI and Sema since 1992.
  412
  Letter from J. C. Octon to Mr. Alan Howarth, dated 28 February 1997:
  In the absence of the Chief Executive on official business abroad I am replying for the Patent Office to your Parliamentary Question to the President of the Board of Trade about contracts placed with various named contractors. The Patent Office has awarded no contracts to any of the companies listed in the period since 1992.

  Letter from Dr. Seton Bennett to Mr. Alan Howarth, dated 28 February 1997:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory to your question about contracts awarded to five companies.
  The Agency employed Capita Recruitment last year to recruit a member of staff. We paid them at their normal commercial rate.

  Letter from Jim Norton to Mr. Alan Howarth, dated 28 February 1997:
  Mr John Taylor, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs, has asked me to reply on behalf of the Radiocommunications Agency to your Question about Agency contracts with certain firms.
  Since 1992 the Agency has contracted with:

  EDS Defence Ltd.,—investigation into increasing the usage and improving the quality of service available on shared channel private mobile radio services in the UK—£69,525;

  EDS Defence Ltd.,—study into PMR channel usage—£62,000; and

  Sema Group Systems Ltd.,—development and documentation of project management standards—£ 15,150.

  The Agency has also bought some IT equipment from GCAT (Govnerment IT/IS Catalogue) which Electronic Data Systems Ltd., (and ICL) operate on behalf of CCTA.

  Letter from John Holden to Mr. Alan Howarth, dated 28 February 1997:
  You recently asked the President of the Board of Trade about contracts awarded since 1992 to EDS, Andersens, BMI, Capita and Sema. I am replying in respect of Companies House Executive Agency.
  Companies House has awarded one contract which meets these criteria. On 1 July 1996 Capita Managed Services Ltd., was awarded a contract to operate a telephone enquiry service and a service involving the acceptance and fulfilment of orders for company searches for delivering by post or fax. The contract is for a 3 year period, and an approximate annual value of £800,000.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what terms the chief executive of Unipart was retained by his Department in connection with an initiative intended to improve the image of privatisation. [17396]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 24 February 1997]: John Neill, the chief executive of the Unipart group of companies, was one of four chief executives and company chairmen who accepted my invitation to speak at a DTI conference— "Privatisation: Setting Enterprise Free"—on 5 December 1996, the main purpose of which was to help British companies to secure privatisation business in other countries. Mr. Neill delivered a speech setting out his personal view on how the privatisation of Unipart had enabled the company to improve its performance. Like all speakers, he gave his services free of charge.
  413

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Carttiss
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to improve the arrangements for attracting inward investment into the eastern region; and if he will make a statement. [18558]

  Mr. Greg Knight
  The attraction of inward investment is a major UK success story and the Government intend to maintain this excellent record. In England, there are already eight regional development organisations working in partnership with my Department's own Invest in Britain Bureau to attract inward investment.

  I consider it important for an RDO to be established in the east of England because the region has some unique strengths that could help it to win business in a very competitive environment. I have been impressed, too, by the strength of the public and private sector partnership that has got the East of England Investment Agency under way so quickly.

  I am therefore announcing today a £505,000 grant, which will help the East of England Investment Agency to be launched formally in 1997–98 and hit the ground running. It is proof of our continuing commitment to the encouragement of inward investment.

  The many global companies already operating in the east of England are a clear endorsement of the advantages of doing business here and I have no doubt that the East of England Investment Agency will play a key role in maximising those benefits for the regional economy.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  St. Helenians
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the current upper age limit for St. Helenians coming to work in the United Kingdom under the training and work experience scheme. [17477]

  Mrs. Gillan
  No upper age limit is applied to St. Helenians wishing to undertake training or work experience in the United Kingdom.

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the contracts awarded by her Department to(a) EDS, (b) Andersens, (c) BMI, (d) Capita and (e) Sema since 1992, and the broad function to be carried out by the contractor and the value of the contract in each case. [17599]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The list of contracts awarded by the Department for Education and Employment and the Employment Service is as follows:

  EDS

  Costs £

  The Government catalogue of IT supplies

  207,000

  Software supply to Students Loan Company (1989–95)

  13,000,000

  IT Human Factors risk analysis

  5,000

  Andersens

  Systems analysis on Employment Services Payments project

  296,000

  414

  EDS

  Costs£

  Interface development between ES systems and NUBS2

  77,500

  Cobol programming support

  £33,500

  Systems design on Employment Services Payments system

  350,000

  Job Seekers Allowance project, implementation risk analysis

  88,000

  Job Seekers Allowance project, expert implementation assistance

  12,245,000

  Supply and support Optical Character Recognition system for the 1993 Census of employment

  4,000,000

  BMI

  There are no contracts recorded with a company called BMI

  Capita

  Consultancy on market testing of payroll

  25,000

  Nursery Vouchers pilot scheme

  450,000

  Nursery Vouchers national implementation

  15,000,000

  Contractorisation of Teachers Pensions Agency

  72,000,000

  Sema

  Ingres database design work

  31,800

  Database design work

  £44,400

  Job Seekers Allowance, expert implementation assistance

  12,500

  Information exchange and dissemination study

  57,000

  Human resource management systems feasibility study

  4,750

  1 Per annum.

  Nursery Schools
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of(a) four-year-olds and (b) rising fives attended (i) local education authority nursery schools and (ii) pre-primary classes in each metropolitan district in the most recent period for which figures are available. [17900]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department does not publish information on percentages or participation rates of four-year-olds or rising fives by local education authority area. Participation rates of children under five in maintained nursery schools and nursery classes in primary schools by local education authority area in England in January 1996 will be published in a statistical bulletin on 28 February and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Nursery Vouchers
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has received in the last six months relating to the introduction of nursery school vouchers, from (i) local education authorities, (ii) teaching bodies, (iii) nursery schools, (iv) parents, (v) parents representative bodies and (vi) others; and if she will make a statement. [17710]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has received representations from a variety of sources about the nursery education voucher scheme.

  Schools (Staff Checks)
  Mr. Jaimeson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment her Department has made as to whether(a) the Bradfield House school, Cullompton, and (b) the Quantock school, Taunton, have made the legally required checks on the suitability of staff to work with children. [17933]
  415
  Mrs. Gillan
  [holding answer 27 February 1997]: Ofsted and social services departments, in the course of their inspections, examine schools' observance of the legal requirements in this area. The Department received a social services department report in December 1996 which drew attention to shortcomings in Bradfield House school's staff recruitment and vetting procedures. An agreement has been prepared between the school, Devon SSD and the police for implementing measures to improve these procedures. Advice about Quantock school, Tauton, confirms that the correct procedures are followed.

  New Nursery Classes
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals to open new nursery classes in primary/infant schools she has received but has not yet approved and in each case when she received the proposal and how many places are involved. [17896]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following table shows proposals for new nursery classes received in the Department but not yet decided, when the proposals were published and the number of full-time equivalent places involved.

  Outstanding Nursery Proposals

  LEA

  School name

  Publication date

  Number of FTE places

  County schools

  Cheshire

  Woodlands County Infant School

  14 November 1996

  13

  Coventry

  St. Christopher Primary

  6 December 1996

  26

  Coventry

  John Shelton Primary School

  6 December 1996

  26

  Coventry

  Alderman Harris Primary

  6 December 1996

  26

  Coventry

  Allesley Primary

  13 February 1997

  26

  Coventry

  Ernesford Grange Primary

  6 February 1997

  26

  Coventry

  Ravensdale Primary

  6 February 1997

  26

  Devon

  North Prospect County Primary School

  24 January 1997

  26

  Devon

  Newton Abbot Decoy Primary

  24 January 1997

  26

  Devon

  Ladysmith First School

  24 January 1997

  26

  Devon

  Sherwell Valley Primary School

  31 January 1997

  26

  Devon

  Eggbuckland Vale Primary School

  31 January 1997

  26

  Essex

  Kings Ford County Infant School

  6 June 1996

  26

  Essex

  Northlands County Primary School

  6 June 1996

  26

  Essex

  Hazelmere Infant School

  4 June 1996

  26

  Essex

  Montgomery Infant School

  6 June 1996

  26

  Hertfordshire

  Priors Wood

  22 November 1996

  15

  Hertfordshire

  Panshanger

  22 November 1996

  15

  Hertfordshire

  Abel Smith JMI School

  22 November 1996

  15

  Hertfordshire

  Killigrew Infant School

  21 June 1996

  13

  Hertfordshire

  Goldfield Infant School

  21 June 1996

  13

  Hertfordshire

  Leavesden Green JMI School

  21 June 1996

  13

  Hertfordshire

  Grove Road Primary School

  22 November 1996

  26

  Hertfordshire

  Eastbury Farm JMI School

  22 November 1996

  13

  Hertfordshire

  Woodside JMI School

  22 November 1996

  15

  416

  Outstanding Nursery Proposals

  LEA

  School name

  Publication date

  Number of FTE places

  Hertfordshire

  Mayfield Infant School

  22 November 1996

  25

  Hertfordshire

  Holy Rood Infant VA School

  22 November 1996

  30

  Hertfordshire

  Wheatcroft JMI School

  6 December 1996

  22.5

  Hertfordshire

  Cassiobury Infants School

  6 December 1996

  30

  Hertfordshire

  Springmead JMI School

  6 December 1996

  30

  Hertfordshire

  Kimpton JMI School

  6 December 1996

  11.5

  Hertfordshire

  Templewood JMI School

  6 December 1996

  30

  Hertfordshire

  Abbots Langley School

  22 November 1996

  26

  Hertfordshire

  Fairfields JMI School

  22 November 1996

  17

  Hertfordshire

  Gade Valley JMI School

  22 November 1996

  15

  Hertfordshire

  Hollybush JMI School

  22 November 1996

  15

  Hertfordshire

  Micklem JMI School

  22 November 1996

  15

  Hertfordshire

  Mill Mead JMI School

  22 November 1996

  15

  Hertfordshire

  Millbrook JMI School

  22 November 1996

  15

  Hertfordshire

  Russell JMI School

  22 November 1996

  15

  Hertfordshire

  Sheredes JMI School

  22 November 1996

  18

  Hertfordshire

  The Reddings JMI School

  22 November 1996

  15

  Hertfordshire

  Ryde JMI School

  22 November 1996

  13

  Hertfordshire

  Studlands Rise JMI School

  22 November 1996

  15

  Hertfordshire

  Aycliff Drive JMI School

  14 February 1997

  21

  Hertfordshire

  Boxmoor JMI School

  14 February 1997

  15

  Hertfordshire

  Lordship Farm JMI School

  14 February 1997

  26

  Hertfordshire

  Westfield JMI School

  14 February 1997

  13

  Kent

  Parkside County Primary School

  19 December 1996

  26

  Kingston upon Thames

  Robin Hood Primary School

  31 January 1997

  26

  Liverpool

  Walton St. Mary's JMI School

  3 October 1996

  30

  Liverpool

  Belle Vale County JMI School

  11 October 1996

  30

  Redbridge

  Highlands Primary School

  16 January 1997

  26

  Voluntary aided schools

  Barnsley

  Ellis CE Junior and Infant School

  19 July 1996

  26

  Camden

  St. Mary's CE Primary School

  15 November 1996

  26

  Coventry

  All Souls RC (VA) Primary School

  10 October 1996

  26

  Croydon

  St. Joseph's Infant

  26 July 1996

  26

  Croydon

  St. Chad's RC Primary

  7 August 1996

  26

  Hertfordshire

  Broxbourne

  22 November 1996

  17.5

  Hertfordshire

  Nash Mills JMI School

  7 June 1996

  13

  Hertfordshire

  St. Dominic's RC Primary School

  7 June 1996

  13

  Hertfordshire

  St. Michael's JMI School

  7 June 1996

  13

  Hertfordshire

  St. John's RC JMI VA School

  11 November 1996

  13

  Hertfordshire

  St. Nicholas JMI VA School

  11 November 1996

  15

  Hertfordshire

  St. Joseph's RC JMI VA School

  7 February 1997

  21

  Hertfordshire

  Park Street JMI VA School

  14 February 1997

  13

  Hertfordshire

  St. Andrew's CE JMI VA School

  14 February 1997

  13

  Leeds

  Christ The King RC Primary

  29 November 1996

  26

  Liverpool

  St. Lawrence's CE VA Primary School

  3 October 1996

  30

  Redbridge

  SS Peter and Paul's RC Primary

  14 March 1996

  26

  Wandsworth

  Roehampton CE Primary School

  13 December 1996

  26

  Wandsworth

  Sacred Heart RC Primary School

  24 October 1996

  26

  York

  New Earswick Undenominational Primary

  3 December 1996

  26

  417

  Outstanding Nursery Proposals

  LEA

  School name

  Publication date

  Number of FTE places

  Voluntary controlled schools

  Bexley

  Foster's Primary

  7 November 1996

  26

  Cheshire

  St. Mary's CE (VC) Primary School

  18 December 1996

  13

  Cumbria

  Coniston Coe (VC) Primary School

  13 December 1996

  13

  Devon

  Great Torrington Bluecoat VC Infants' School

  6 January 1997

  26

  Devon

  Brixham C of E VC Infants' School

  6 January 1997

  26

  Hertfordshire

  St. John's Infants School

  21 June 1996

  26

  Hertfordshire

  Weston JMI School

  6 December 1996

  10

  Hertfordshire

  Wormley JMI School

  6 December 1996

  24

  Hertfordshire

  High Wych JMI VC School

  14 January 1997

  13

  Grant maintained schools

  Birmingham

  Walmley Infant GM School

  4 October 1996

  52

  Birmingham

  The Deanery CE GM Primary

  13 September 1996

  32

  Croydon

  Atwood Primary

  23 December 1996

  26

  Essex

  Upshire GM Primary School

  9 November 1995

  26

  Essex

  Waltham Holy Cross GM Infant School

  10 November 1995

  26

  Essex

  Coppins Green Primary

  31 October 1996

  26

  Essex

  Rochford Primary

  20 September 1996

  26

  Gloucestershire

  Sevenbanks GM Primary

  19 June 1996

  26

  Hertfordshire

  St. Mary's Catholic GM Primary

  9 February 1996

  13

  Hertfordshrie

  St. Catherine Of Siena Catholic Primary School

  20 December 1996

  26

  Lincolnshire

  William Hildyard CE GM Primary School

  19 December 1996

  13

  Rochdale

  Healey GM Primary School

  10 January 1997

  26

  Staffordshire

  Hollinsclough CE (GM) Primary

  4 January 1997

  14

  Surrey

  Hawkedale GM First School

  24 October 1996

  26

  Surrey

  Godstone Village School

  30 January 1997

  20

  Wiltshire

  St. Edmunds RC GM Primary

  14 December 1995

  34

  Teachers' Pensions
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been the cost to public funds of the teachers' early retirement scheme for each of the last five years. [14062]

  Mrs. Gillan
  [holding answer 3 February 1997]: The estimated total cost to public funds, for the last five years for which data are available, is given in the following table, split between the extra cost of premature retirement to the teachers' superannuation scheme, and the expenditure incurred by public sector teachers' employers on enhancements to teachers' pensions. These are the extra costs within each financial year of pensions payable to all teachers who then or previously retired prematurely.

  Year

  Cost to TSS (£ million)1

  Expenditure on enhancement (£ million)2

  Total

  1990–91

  130

  60

  190

  1991–92

  150

  80

  230

  1992–93

  180

  90

  270

  418

  Year

  Cost to TSS (£ million)1

  Expenditure on enhancement (£ million)2

  Total

  1993–94

  210

  110

  320

  1994–95

  230

  110

  340

  1 Estimated from data supplied by teachers' pensions.

  2 Derived from RO1 data, and estimates for further and higher education derived from data supplied by teachers' pensions.

TRANSPORT

  MV Braer
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current estimate of the costs incurred by his Department and agencies for which his Department is responsible in the clearing up operation which followed the grounding of the MV Braer on Shetland in January 1993. [17698]

  Mr. Bowis
  The marine pollution control unit, part of my Department's Coastguard agency, incurred costs of some £2.6 million in the clean-up operation following the grounding of the MV Braer. The Government have consistently said that their claim in respect of these costs and those incurred by the Scottish Office should be at the back of the queue for compensation.

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress made in(a) building the Birmignham northern relief road and (b) developing the A628 Woodhead route. [17748]

  Mr. Watts
  The Birmingham northern relief road has been the subject of a lengthy public inquiry and the inspector's report is awaited.

  The A57/A628 Mottram-Tinwistle bypass remains in the roads programme and a preferred route exists for it. The next stage will be the appointment of consultants to prepare the scheme for the publication of draft orders and of the environmental statement.

  London Underground
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the loans which have been made to London Underground since 1967 indicating the dates on which the loans were repaid and those debts that remain outstanding. [18118]

  Mr. Bowis
  London Underground Ltd. did not exist as a separate business until 1984. The Department is not aware of any loans having been made to LUL.

  Rolling Stock Leasing Companies
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reasons a clawback clause was not included in the contractual agreements used for the sale of the rolling stock leasing companies. [18158]

  Mr. Watts
  A proceeds clawback mechanism was rejected because it would almost certainly have led potential purchasers—most particularly venture capitalists
  419
  who offered the best bids for two of the three companies— either to withdraw altogether or at least to reduce their bids significantly.

  Additionally, such a clawback mechanism would have been complex, difficult to police and would have run counter to the policy of establishing a clean break.

  Railfreight Distribution
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the sale of Railfreight Distribution. [18157]

  Mr. Watts
  The British Railways Board has selected English Welsh and Scottish Railway as the preferred purchaser of Railfreight Distribution. The board is aiming to exchange contracts very shortly.

  National Bus Company
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what sums have accrued to Her Majesty's Government as a result of the clawback clause written into the sale of the National Bus Company. [18243]

  Mr. Watts
  To date, a total of £8,055 million has been received in respect of mortgage charges placed on former National Bus Company properties under the clawback arrangement.

  Train Operating Companies (Redundancy Payments)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the public service obligation payments made by the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising to the train operating companies includes payments to cover the costs of staff redundancies. [18156]

  Mr. Watts
  The franchising director makes payments under the franchise agreement to private operators, which purchase the rail services in the franchise agreement. It is for the operators to manage the services and the costs, including any redundancy costs.

  The franchising director also makes payments under section 52 of the Railways Act 1993 to British Railways Board-owned operators for the provision of services prior to franchising. The calculation of grants to the BRB is based on the operator's projected costs after deducting forecast revenue and includes any redundancy costs.

PRIME MINISTER

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 20 February,Official Report, column 1042, what factors led him to conclude that it was doubtful that the Libyan Government would deliver the suspects for trial in The Hague under a Scottish judge under Scottish rules of evidence. [18209]

  The Prime Minister
  The Libyan Government may have said they accept the holding of the Lockerbie trial in a third country, and a trial in The Hague is one such proposal. But they have not said that they will ensure the appearance of the accused at any such trial. Despite agreeing in 1993 that a trial in Scotland would be fair, they have argued that they cannot compel the accused to 420
  stand trial there, or in the United States, in the absence of a bilateral extradition agreement with either country. The same Libyan argument would apply to The Hague, there being no extradition agreement between Libya and the Netherlands.

  I conclude, after five years of Libyan prevarication over delivering the suspects for trial in Scotland, that it is extremely doubtful that they would surrender them for trial in a third country.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the contracts awarded by(a) the diplomatic wing of his Department and (b) ODA to (i) EDS, (ii) Andersens, (iii) BMI, (iv) Capita and (v) Sema since 1992 and the broad function to be carried out by the contractor and the value of the contract in each case. [17602]

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is in the table.

  Diplomatic wing, FCO

  (a) (i) EDS

  We have placed 33 contracts with EDS since 1992 for IT systems integration services, individual values (£) as follows:

  1. 8,114

  2. 17,881

  3. 604

  4. 3,376

  5. 80,760

  6. 13,832

  7. 4,682

  8. 4,682

  9. 4,682

  10. 82,746

  11. 8,788

  12. 72,950

  13. 7,562

  14. 9,265

  15. 11,950

  16. 2,100

  17. 8,200

  18. 58,990

  19. 1,254

  20. 35,726

  21. 11,000

  22. 4,885

  23. 4,500

  24. 54,000

  25. 4,720

  26. 17,881

  27. 9,992

  28. 1,900

  29. 7,000

  30. 7,500

  31. 2,400

  421

  32. 2,380

  33. 3,080

  (ii) Andersens—nil.

  (iii) BMI—nil.

  (iv) CAPITA

  Thirty-nine contracts (the more recent deriving from a frameworked agreement advertised in the Official Journal of the European Communities in 1995 for skills in benchmarking, process re-engineering, market testing, change management, strategic planning support and other services) have been placed since 1992 for management consultancy services. Individual values (£) as follows:

  1. 7,815

  2. 1,921

  3. 1,692

  4. 7,590

  5. 9,502

  6. 214,360

  7. 23,100

  8. 8,328

  9. 16,440

  10. 33,413

  11. 8,955

  12. 10,448

  13. 465

  14. 320

  15. 6,643

  16. 12,800

  17. 10,000

  18. 10,809

  19. 14,226

  20. 36,556

  21. 14,990

  22. 1,428

  23. 10,285

  24. 300

  25. 2,445

  26. 2,445

  27. 285

  28. 27,000

  29. 50,760

  30. 17,100

  31. 13,700

  32. 13,700

  33. 23,280

  34. 14,535

  35. 27,740

  36. 40,904

  37. 19,619

  38. 9,141

  39. 85,100

  (v) SEMA

  We have placed 6 contracts with Sema since 1992, individual values (£) as follows:

  1. 76,359

  2. 11,550

  3. 15,466

  4. 74,973

  5. 47,000

  6. 4,180

  422

  Aid wing, FCO

  (b) (i) EDS—nil.

  (ii) ANDERSENS.

  Two contracts placed with Anderson Consulting since 1992,
  individual values (£) as follows:

  1. 46,000.

  2. 1.330,000.

  (iii) BMI—nil.

  (iv) CAPITA.

  Two contracts placed with Capital since 1992, individual values
  (£) as follows:

  1.29,050.

  2. 81,058

  (v) SEMA—nil.

  Embassies and High Commissions
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria govern the circumstances in which United Kingdom embassies and high commissions are staffed by personnel not from his Department or the Department of Trade and Industry; and if he will list those posts which are permanently staffed by such officials. [17707]

  Mr. Hanley
  FCO and DTI staff are chosen to fill overseas vacancies on the basis of their suitability, using open, competitive boarding procedures. When specialist knowledge or expertise is needed, officers from other Government Departments are, on occasions, also invited to bid.

  Service attaché and support posts are permanently staffed by Ministry of Defence personnel. A proportion of entry clearance manager and officer posts are permanently staffed by members of HM immigration service. On the basis of available information, there are currently 371 MOD staff serving in 74 missions and 87 immigration service staff in 33 missions

  In addition, there is a small number of specialist posts—for example, drug and airline liaison officers—some of which are wholly or partially funded by other Government Departments or external bodies, and filled permanently by their staff. No definitive list is currently available. One is being compiled and will be sent to the hon. Member at a later date.

  UK MISSIONS IN WHICH CERTAIN POSTS ARE PERMANENTLY STAFFED BY MOD

  Abu Dhabi

  Accra

  Amman

  Ankara

  Athens

  Bahrain

  Bangkok

  Beirut

  Belgrade

  Berne

  Bogota

  Bonn

  Brasilia

  Bratislava

  Bridgetown

  BMATT Bridgetown

  423

  Brussels Embassy

  Brussels, UKDEL NATO and WEU

  Bucharest

  Budapest

  Cairo

  Canberra

  Caracas

  Colombo

  Copenhagen

  Damascus

  Dhaka

  Doha

  Dubai

  Dublin

  Guatemala

  Hague

  Harare

  Helsinki

  Islamabad

  Jakarta

  Kampala

  Katmandu

  Kiev

  Kingston

  Kinshasa

  Kuala Lumpur

  Kuwait

  Lisbon

  Madrid

  Manila

  Mexico City

  Moscow

  Muscat

  Nairobi

  New Delhi

  Nicosia

  Oslo

  Ottawa

  Paris

  Peking

  Prague

  Pretoria

  Rabat

  Riga

  Riyadh

  Rome

  Santiago

  Seoul

  Singapore

  Sofia

  Stockholm

  Tel Aviv

  Tokyo

  Vienna

  Warsaw

  Washington

  Wellington

  Zagreb

  424
  UK missions in which certain posts are permanently staffed by members of HM immigration service

  Abuja

  Accra

  Addis Ababa

  Amman

  Bankok

  Banjul

  Bombay

  Cairo

  Casablanca

  Colombo

  Dar Es Salaam

  Dhaka

  Dubai

  Dusseldorf

  Islamabad

  Istanbul

  Kampala

  Karachi

  Khartoum

  Kiev

  Kingston

  Kuwait

  Lagos

  Lusaka

  Madras

  Manila

  Moscow

  Nairobi

  New Delhi

  Paris

  Peking

  Sana'a

  St. Petersburg

  Metin Goktepe
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if a British official attended the hearing on 6 February of the judicial investigation into the death of the Turkish journalist Metin Goktepe; and if he will make a statement. [17856]

  Mr. David Davis
  No British official was able to attend the Goktepe trial on 6 February. But we continue to follow this case closely, and we hope to be able to send an observer to attend the next session of the trial on 11 April.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Turkish Government about the alleged use of torture by police officers on witnesses of Metin Goktepe's death on 8 January. [17852]

  Mr. David Davis
  Our embassy in Ankara has raised a number of aspects about the Goktepe trial with the Turkish authorities. These include reports that police officers used torture on witnesses. We will continue to follow this case closely.
  425

  Seals (Russia)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 25 November 1996,Official Report, column 76, on the use of seals by the Russian authorities, if the information on research activities has now been provided. [17909]

  Mr. Hanley
  Despite repeated approaches from our embassy in Moscow, the Russian authorities have still not provided information on research activities on seals. Our embassy was most recently advised by the Russians on 31 January that the information was not yet available. We continue to press for this.

  EU Information Offices
  Mr. Lamont
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many EU information offices there are; what are their running costs; and what proposals Her Majesty's Government have to reduce the number of offices. [18078]

  Mr. David Davis
  We believe that the public should have ready access to factual information about the EU so that the debate on these important issues is as informed as possible.

  Information about EU policy is available from Government Departments, public libraries and other information providers, including Commission representations in member states and third countries.

  European Council
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the General Affairs Council held in Brussels on 24 February. [17960]

  Mr. David Davis
  Twenty-three of the 25 A points in document 6052/97, the text of which will be placed in the House as soon as it is available, were approved. They included the decision to sign an interim association agreement and joint statement on political dialogue with the PLO. Denmark entered waiting reserves on two points; an EU/Mexico agreement on control of precursors and maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin.

  The Council noted the resolutions adopted by the European Parliament listed on documents 5091/97 and 5094/97. Copies of these documents will also be placed in the House as soon as they are available.

  The Commission and presidency gave an oral presentation to the Council on the preparations of the second meeting of Foreign Ministers within the framework of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership, which will be held in Malta on 15 and 16 April. The Council underlined the importance of the Malta meeting as an opportunity to take stock of progress and to set priorities for the future. The Council welcomed the signature of the EC-PLO interim association agreement, which was signed by Yasser Arafat for the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, the Commission and the presidency. The Council underlined its determination to conclude the negotiations with Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon as soon as possible.
  426
  The Council was unable to agree a common position for the political declaration on the structured dialogue with Cyprus. The structure dialogue meeting was therefore postponed, but the association council was held as planned.

  After lengthy discussion of the draft agreements on humane standards for leghold traps, the Council concluded that the Commission should renew its contacts with the Russian, Canadian and US authorities with a view to adapting the draft agreements to reflect a number of Council recommendations. The Commission undertook to report on the results of its further contacts, hopefully before the end of March and in any case before the Environment Council in June 1997.

  The Council noted, without debate, the Commission's report on the state of play on the US Helms-Burton Act. The Council expressed regret that the latest bilateral contacts with the USA had not produced an outcome sufficient for the EU to suspend its action in the World Trade Organisation, but underlined its willingness to seek an overall bilateral settlement and in that case to halt or suspend the panel procedure. The Commission gave a report on the successful outcome of the WTO telecoms negotiations in Geneva on 15 February.

  The Commission reported that all outstanding obstacles to South Africa's qualified accession to Lomé had been resolved in its 17 to 18 February talks with South Africa. The Council conclusions reiterated the importance of strengthening the relationship between the European Union and the Republic of South Africa through the establishment of a long-term framework of co-operation that will assist South Africa during and beyond its current transitional phase. The Council noted the resumption of negotiations in January 1997 and will consider taking advantage of the facilitating clause of article 364 of the revised Lomé IV convention, which would allow early accession without further ratification. The Council recalled its commitment that the qualified accession of South Africa to the Lomé convention will not negatively affect the interests of the current ACP membership.

  The Council discussed the overseas countries and territories mid-term review but was unable to reach agreement. The Council concluded that it would return to this at a future meeting.

  The Council called for an immediate ceasefire for humanitarian purposes in the Great Lakes region and reaffirmed the European Union's support for regional efforts to find a political solution and for the democratisation process in Zaire, noting the appointment of the Portuguese nominee, Mr. Vasconcelos, as head of the electoral unit in Kinshasa. It also asked for the Political Committee to examine the scope for a regional arms embargo. The Council welcomed the five point plan contained in UN Security Council resolution 1097 and the appointment of Mr. Mohammed Sahnoun as UN-Organisation of African Unity special representative to the Great Lakes region. It supported the efforts of African leaders, in particular President Mandela and welcomed their decision to hold a regional summit on 12 March in Nairobi.

  The Council discussed the economic situation in the Balkans, in particular the difficulties of the countries in transition in south eastern Europe and noted the measures

  427
  already taken by the European Commission to alleviate the consequences of the current crisis in Bulgaria. The Council agreed to follow the situation closely.

  The Council had an exchange of views on Albania and the possibilities for the Union to contribute to a solution to the present crisis. The Council agreed that a joint senior officials' mission with the European Commission would deliver a message reporting its concerns to the Albanian Government and the Opposition leadership.

  The Council discussed the situation in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in light of the fact-finding mission carried out by the presidency and the Commission in Belgrade on 20 February 1997. While acknowledging that the results of the elections of 17 November 1996 have been implemented, the council reiterated the need to implement the remaining parts of the Gonzalez report; the opening of a dialogue with the opposition on free access to the media and reform of the electorial law. The Council expressed concern about the situation in Kosovo and called upon the authorities of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to co-operate in the early implementation of a visit to the region by the special representative of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe chairman-in-office, Mr. Van der Stoel, and the chairman of the working group on ethnic and national communities and minorities, Ambassador Lutz. The Council agreed to return to these issues at its next session.

  The Council underlined the importance of implementing the decision on Brcko and expressed its full support for the high representative in this context. Recalling the importance of the regional approach, the Council welcomed the European Commission's report on the practical application of conditionality and called for relevant Council bodies to continue to examine this principle in preparation for further discussion at the next General Affairs Council.

  The Council noted the report of the fact-finding mission to Belarus and agreed with its recommendations. It asked the head of the mission, Mr Kosto, to pass the report's contents to Mr Lukashenko, President of Belarus.

  The Council discussed human rights in China and reaffirmed its willingness to continue a dialogue with China on this issue. The Council hoped progress would be achieved. Meanwhile, it invited the presidency to continue and intensify, in close co-operation with others, consultations and preparations already underway for the possible tabling of a resolution on human rights in China in the UN Commission for Human Rights in Geneva. A decision will be taken in the light of the development of the situation.

  Under any other business, the Commission's paper on preferential trade agreements was raised. The Council noted this for discussion at the March General Affairs Council.

  The 10th ministerial meeting of the intergovernmental conference was held on the afternoon of Monday 24 February, preceded as usual by an exchange of views with the President of the European Parliament. Discussion focused on the presidency's text on justice and home affairs. I made it clear that the real requirement was to provide for more efficient practical co-operation against, for example, criminals, drugs, illegal immigration and terrorism: there was no added value in institutional change
  428
  that simply extended the role of Community institutions and procedures in the third pillar. I emphasised the practical progress that had been made in the third pillar during the last five years, and the need to build on this.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prison Medical Examinations (Video-recording)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances video-recording occurs of prisoners undergoing examination in medical facilities within Her Majesty's prisons. [16356]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 27 February 1997]: 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. Kevin McNamara, dated 28 February 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the circumstances in which video recording of prisoners undergoing medical examination may occur in prison in England and Wales.
  It is not our normal practice to permit the video recording of prisoners undergoing medical examination. Exceptionally video recordings have been made during psychotherapeutic sessions to assist the therapeutic process. These recordings were made by the psychiatrist with the knowledge and consent of the individual prisoners concerned.

  Whitemoor Prison (Escape)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) which account relating to the escape of six prisoners from Whitemoor prison on the evening of 9 September 1994 has been logged as the official account; [17126]

  (2) how many different accounts have been given by prison officers relating to the escape of six prisoners from Whitemoor prison; and if he will make a statement; [17127]

  (3) at what time the escape at Whitemoor prison on 9 September 1994 commenced; and at what time the video taped recordings of the escape began; [17128]

  (4) in whose custody is the video tape from camera 27 recording part of the escape of six prisoners from Whitemoor prison on 9 September 1994; and if he will make a statement; [17129]

  (5) if the assistant governor of Whitemoor prison entered the control room at 20:15 hours on 9 September 1994; [17130]

  (6) why the second officer in the control room of Whitemoor prison on the evening of 9 September 1994 during the escape of six prisoners was not called to give evidence to (a) the police and (b) the Woodcock inquiry team. [17131]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answers 25 February 1997]: The circumstances surrounding the escape from Her Majesty's prison Whitemoor on 9 September 1994 were the subject of a full inquiry by Sir John Woodcock. He was asked to report his conclusions and make recommendations on any action that should be taken to avoid any recurrence. The report of Sir John Woodcock's

  429
  inquiry was published on 19 December 1994 and a copy is available in the Library. The actual escape and the shooting of a prison officer were the subject of a separate criminal investigation by the Cambridgeshire constabulary.

  I understand that neither Sir John Woodcock nor the Cambridgeshire constabulary was able to establish the precise time at which the escape began. However, it appears that staff in the emergency control room became aware of the escape at about 8:09pm and that video recording of the camera footage was manually activated shortly afterwards. The duty governor entered the emergency control room at approximately 8:15pm. I understand that none of the three video recorders in operation in the emergency control room that evening recorded images from camera 27.

  The conduct of the Woodcock inquiry and of the police investigation are matters for Sir John Woodcock and the Cambridgeshire constabulary respectively. However, I understand that all five members of staff in the emergency control room at the time of the escape were interviewed by the Cambridgeshire constabulary.

  Belmarsh Prison (Books and Periodicals)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons prisoners held in the special secure unit at HM prison Belmarsh have been informed that from 1 March they will not be allowed to receive books, magazines and newspapers. [17912]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 27 February 1997]: 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. Keven McNarmara, dated 28 February 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about prisoners held in the special secure unit at Belmarsh prison.
  Prisoners in the special secure unit (SSU) at Belmarsh will not be prevented from receiving books, newspapers and magazines from 1 March. The change in procedure from 1 March, which applies to all prisoners at Belmarsh and not just those in the SSU, involves a restriction on the volume of combustible material held by prisoners in cells, and a restriction on the source through which prisoners may acquire newspapers and magazines.
  These changes have been introduced to (a) reduce the risk of fire from accumulated material in cells; (b) improved security and the checking of incoming mail; and (c) speed up the distribution of publications to prisoners.
  Prisoners were informed of these changes on 5 February and supplied with details of an authorised newsagent with whom they can place orders. The procedures also allow for the supply of magazines or newspapers from overseas for foreign nationals.

  Metropolitan Police Manpower
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of his Department's analysis supporting his oral answer of 20 February,Official Report, column 1036, that more than 800 extra constables have been made available to Metropolitan police divisions for operational duties since 1992; and what functions have been taken into account in compiling the figures. [17894]
  430
  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 27 February 1997]: The figure which I used in my oral answer was derived from the data set out below.

  Actual number of uniformed constables posted to division:

  1 April 1992: 13,441

  31 January 1997: 14,257

  Increase: 816.

  The 1992 figure excludes officers on court duty who appeared on divisional strength, but are now assigned to headquarters.

  Roisin McAliskey
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if Roisin McAliskey's(a) father and (b) mother will be able to be present at her confinement. [17911]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 27 February 1997]: 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. Kevin McNamara, dated 28 February 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the attendance of Ms Roisin McAliskey's father and mother at her confinement.
  Women prisoners are permitted to be accompanied by a birthing partner during their confinement. This policy applies equally to Roisin McAliskey as to other prisoners.
  Ms McAliskey has asked for two close relatives to be present. This has been agreed subject to the policy of the hospital in which she will give birth.

  Policing (London)
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of policing levels in London; which areas he has assessed as being(a) over-policed and (b) under-policed; and if he will make a statement. [16221]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 17 February 1997]: The deployment of officers across London, in order to meet the agreed objectives set in the annual policing plan and to use police resources most effectively to combat crime in the capital, is a matter for the Commissioner and his senior officers. My right hon. and learned Friend and I regularly meet the Commissioner to discuss, among other matters, the performance of the Metropolitan police. I look forward to seeing the Commissioner's annual report on the Metropolitan police's performance during 1996–97.

  My assessment is that policing levels in London continue to improve. Since 1979, the Government have approved increases in Metropolitan police spending worth nearly 90 per cent. in real terms. The settlement for 1997–98 provides an extra £55 million over the 1996–97 allocation. This represents a 3.4 per cent. increase. The Commissioner, in welcoming the settlement, said that it would enable him to increase officer strength during 1997 to at leat 27,400. He then aims to hold that level to the end of the financial year. Latest nationally published statistics from the Audit Commission show spending on policing in the Metropolitan police district of £211 per head of population, compared with the national average

  431
  of £100. The figure in Surrey is around £105 per head of population. Audit Commission statistics also show that the number of police officers available for ordinary duty per 1,000 per population is 3.5 in the Metropolitan police district, well above the national average of 2.1.

  There are now around 4,500 more police officers in the Metropolitan police than there were in 1979. This is an increase of 20 per cent. More uniformed constables are now deployed to divisions than at the time of the last election. Moreover, a higher proportion of their time is spent on street duties: 35 per cent. compared to 32 per cent. in 1992 and 26 per cent. in 1984. The Commissioner's restructuring exercise has slimmed down headquarters staffing levels, releasing hundreds of officers for front-line duties.

  The Metropolitan police's operational performance continues to improve. The number of recorded notifiable offences has fallen by over 10 per cent. since 1992–93. Successful campaigns to target burglars, Operation Bumblebee, and street robbery, Operation Eagle Eye, have been complemented by Operation Crackdown, targeting the illegal supply and demand for drugs. These three offences, which impact so seriously on the quality of life for Londoners, feature as three of the six objectives in the agreed policing plan for 1996–97. The inclusion of drugs as an agreed objective for 1996–97 is a direct response to the Government White Paper, "Tackling Drugs Together". Figures from the Metropolitan police show that homicides are now at their lowest level since 1981. There were 132 murders in the capital in 1996—down 25 per cent. since 1991. Domestic burglary has fallen by 20 per cent. since 1991 and the overall clear-up rate has risen from one in six in 1991 to nearly one in four in the 12 months to November 1996. Moreover, the results from Operation Eagle eye indicate a slowing down in the growth of street robbery and an increase in the detection rate from 10 per cent. to 19 per cent. The latest Audit Commission report also shows that Londoners enjoy the best emergency response from their police of any major city in the country.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) police officers and (b) police constables in the Metropolitan police were (i) budgeted for and (ii) in post in March of each year since 1992; and what are the (1) numbers budgeted for and (2) estimated numbers in post for March 1997. [16217]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 17 February 1997]: The information requested is given in the table. The Commissioner, in welcoming the settlement for 1997–98, said that it would enable him to increase officer strength during 1997 to 27,400. He will then aim to maintain that level for the rest of the financial year.

  Police establishment at 31 March1

  Actual strength at 31 March

  Year

  Total

  Constables

  Total

  Constables

  1992

  28,471

  21,495

  28,484

  21,142

  1993

  28,308

  21,388

  28,290

  21,031

  1994

  28,274

  21,463

  28,135

  21,208

  1995

  28,099

  21,316

  27,945

  21,433

  1996

  1—

  1—

  27,834

  21,588

  1997 March2

  1—

  1—

  27,185

  20,989

  1997

  September2

  1—

  1—

  27,400

  21,190

  432
  1 The police establishment provided up to 31 March 1995 was that set annually by the Home Secretary. Since 1 April 1995, the settlement for all police forces has been based on the new national funding formula covering total resources. Police establishments are no longer set centrally.

  2 Estimated.

  Young Offenders
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons aged under 18 years were charged with a criminal offence in 1996 in(a) England and (b) Wales. [17697]

  Mr. Maclean
  Data on the number of people charged are not collected centrally.

  However, 1995 the latest available prosecution data for indictable offences by age and area are published in "Criminal Statistics England and Wales 1995 Supplementary Volume 3"—tables S3.3(B) and S3.3(C).

  Copies are available in the Library.

  Parliamentary Answers
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many questions were tabled for reply by his Department in each Session since 1979–80; in how many instances in each year the reply has been that providing the information involved disproportionate cost; and in how many instances in each year questions have been given the reply that the information was not available centrally. [16798]

  Mr. Howard
  The number of questions answered by the Home Office in each Session since 1982–83 is:

  Session

  Written

  Oral (including supplementaries)

  Total

  1982–83

  1,471

  260

  1,731

  1983–84

  3,512

  431

  3,943

  1984–85

  3,092

  367

  3,459

  1985–86

  3,466

  325

  3,791

  1986–87

  2,005

  223

  2,228

  1987–88

  3,846

  414

  4,260

  1988–89

  3,549

  274

  3,823

  1989–90

  3,252

  212

  3,464

  1990–91

  2,245

  238

  2,483

  1991–92

  1,351

  134

  1,485

  1992–93

  4,345

  361

  4,706

  1993–94

  3,348

  267

  3,615

  1994–95

  3,187

  278

  3,465

  1995–96

  2,831

  217

  3,048

  Figures for 1979–80 and 1981–82 are not available.

  The remainder of the information requested by the hon. Member could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  EU Citizens (Employment Applications)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his target period for dealing with European Union citizens' applications to register as exercising their economic rights by working in the United Kingdom; and to what extent the target is being met. [18089]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Targets are set for the issue of residence permits to European Economic Area nationals under the provisions of the various European Community rights of residence directives. Performance against the
  433
  targets is published in the annual report of the immigration and nationality directorate. Performance in 1995–96 was as follows:

  Completion target1

  Performance

  60 per cent. in 1 month

  35 per cent.

  80 per cent. in 2 months

  63 per cent.

  100 per cent. in 6 months

  94 per cent.

  1 From date of receipt of application.

  Equipment and Furniture
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the cost and number of items of equipment and furniture that(a) have been stolen and (b) are otherwise unaccounted for from his Department and its agencies during the past 12 months, listing by name any such items valued at £5,000 or more, and showing information technology material separately. [17068]

  Mr. Howard
  The cost and number of items of equipment and furniture that have been reported as stolen or are otherwise unaccounted for in 1996–97 are:

  Equipment/furniture

  Value £

  25 items below £5,000

  13,046

  Information technology equipment

  27 items below £5,000

  31,488

  Items stolen costing £5,000 or more

  5 vehicles stolen (in separate incidents)

  47,203

  1 portable personnel computer

  5,400

  Total value of losses

  97,137

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much his Department estimates it cost to establish each executive agency set up by his Department since the start of April 1992. [16975]

  Mr. Howard
  The Home Office has set up two executive agencies since April 1992: the Prison Service and the Fire Service College.

  Much of the work involved in establishing these agencies was absorbed within the normal duties of officials and the costs were not separately recorded. A dedicated unit was, however, established in the Prison Service to prepare for agency status. Its estimated salary cost was £220,000.

  Police Officers (Secondment to Department)
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many serving police officers are currently on secondment to his Department. [17623]

  Mr. Maclean
  The most recent figures relate to October 1996, when there were 682 police officers seconded to the Home Office, comprising two chief constables, nine assistant chief constables, two commanders, 71 superintendents, 52 chief inspectors, 90 inspectors, 237 sergeants and 219 police constables, of 434
  whom 50 per cent. are in the national directorate of police training and a further 30 per cent. in the National Criminal Intelligence Service.

  Prisons (Rule 43)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) male and (b) female prison inmates were on rule 43 at their own request on 17 February. [17588]

  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. Tom Cox, dated 28 February 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many (a) male and (b) female prison inmates were on Rule 43 at their own request on 17 February.
  The latest available information is for 31 January 1997. On that day there were 758 males and 18 females held on Prison Rule 43 or Young Offender Institution Rule 46 for their own interest or protection.

  Prisons (Drug Testing)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list each organisation short-listed for the contract to perform mandatory drug testing, indicating the interval each proposes between a mandatory drug test being carried out and the prison authorities being informed of the result, and the proposed cost per test; [17492]

  (2) when is the next round of tendering for drug testing in prisons scheduled to take place. [17494]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for these matters have 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. George Howarth, dated 28 February 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the organisations short-listed for the contract to perform mandatory drug testing, their proposed costs and turnaround times, and when the next round of tendering for the drug testing contract will take place.
  The organisations which were short-listed in 1995 for the mandatory drug testing contract were:
  The Laboratory of the Government Chemist
  The Forensic Science Service
  The tendering specification required that screening results should be communicated to individual prisons within two days of receipt of samples by the contractor. Both those short-listed confirmed their ability to meet such a timetable. Prices submitted by bidders must be treated as commercially restricted.
  The contract was awarded to the Laboratory of the Government Chemist in December 1995. This has a review date of 1 April 1997, with provision for extension for up to a further two years. No decision has yet been taken about when the next tendering exercise will be held.
  435
  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the average interval between a mandatory drug test being carried out and the prison authorities being informed of the test result; [17491]

  (2) if he will list each organisation which carried out drug testing for the Prison Service before the contract to perform mandatory drug testing was awarded; what was (a) the average length of time between a drug test being carried out and the prison authorities being informed of the result for each organisation and (b) the cost per test. [17493]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 28 February 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about which organisations carried out drug testing for the Prison Service prior to the award of the present contract, the interval between a mandatory drug test being carried out and the prison authorities being informed of the result, and the cost per test.
  Prior to the award of a contract to the Laboratory of the Government Chemist in December 1995, all laboratory urine analysis for the mandatory drug testing programme was carried out by two companies: Medscreen and Scientifics.
  The average length of time between a prisoner's sample being taken at the establishment and the screening test taking place at the laboratory is estimated as four days for Scientifics, four days for Medscreen and seven days for LGC. It is important to note that establishments may store samples in a refrigerator for up to seven days awaiting a sufficient number to justify calling out a courier. The Prison Service requirement is that the interval between receipt of the sample at the laboratory and notifying the outcome of the screening test to the prison should be no more than two working days; in the majority of cases that is met.
  It would be inappropriate to disclose the costs of testing; to do so would be likely to prejudice a future tendering competition.

  Prisoners (Birth)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners gave birth in each year since 1992(a) by the prison in which each woman was held immediately prior to giving birth and (b) in total. [17498]

  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. George Howarth, dated 28 February 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of women prisoners who have given birth each year since 1992.
  Information collected about births was not recorded by individual prison establishment before 1994–95.
  The tables attached summarise the numbers of babies born to women prisoners (a) in each year since 1994 by individual prisons and (b) in each year since 1991–92 in total.
  436

  Table 1: Number of babies born to women prisoners by prison

  Prison

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Askham Grange

  13

  112

  Holloway

  31

  32

  Low Newton

  1

  1

  New Hall

  2

  7

  Risley

  5

  4

  Styal

  11

  8

  Total

  63

  64

  1 Includes a set of twins.

  Table 2: Number of babies born to women prisoners in total

  Number

  1991–92

  56

  1992–93

  29

  1993–94

  56

  1994–95

  63

  1995–96

  64

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners gave birth in each year since 1992 while in prison; and in which establishments these births occurred. [17499]

  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. George Howarth, dated 28 February 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of women prisoners who have given birth while in prison in each year since 1992.
  It is very rare for a woman prisoner to give birth in prison. The normal practice is to move the prisoner to a National Health Service hospital when she is in labour.
  The most recent case of a woman giving birth in prison was at Risley prison on 23 February 1997 and prior to that at Styal prison in 1993.

  New Prisons (Construction)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many new prisons are at present under construction; where they are sited; and when they are due to be commissioned. [17586]

  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. Tom Cox, dated 28 February 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about new prisons.
  There are three new prisons under construction using the Private Finance Initiative, as follows:

  Name of prison

  Location

  Type

  Number of places

  Planned opening date

  HMP Altcourse

  Liverpool

  Category B local

  600

  January 1998

  HMP Lowdham

  Nottingham

  Category B training

  500

  February 1998

  Grange HMP Parc

  Bridgend

  Category B local

  800

  November 1997

  437

  Prisoners (Restraints)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) male and (b) female prisoners were put under restraint in each year since 1992 (i) by prison (ii) by prison type, and (iii) in total. [17497]

  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. George Howarth, dated 28 February 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of prisoners put under restraint in each year since 1992.
  This information is not collected centrally. It could only be made available at disproportionate cost.

  Number of babies held in each prison in each year since 1992, and the average amount of time they were held in each prison

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Number of babies held each year

  Average amount of time they were held

  Number of babies held each year

  Average amount of time they were held

  Number of babies held each year

  Average amount of time they were held

  Number of babies held each year

  Average amount of time they were held

  Number of babies held each year

  Average amount off time they were held

  Number of babies held up to 24 February 1997

  Average amount of time they were held

  Styal mother and baby unit

  20

  12 months

  27

  12 months

  22

  9 months

  25

  8 months

  26

  9 months

  4

  2—

  Holloway mother and

  Figures not collected baby unit until January 1993

  25

  5 months

  48

  6 months

  40

  6 months

  29

  5 months

  9

  2—

  Askham Grange mother and baby unit

  29

  5 months

  32

  6 months

  32

  8 months

  42

  5 months

  38

  5 months

  5

  2—

  New Hall mother and baby unit (Unit opened May 1995)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  120

  3 months

  18

  4 months

  2

  2—

  Total

  49

  84

  102

  127

  111

  20

  1May to December 1995.

  2Average length of stay for 1997 not yet available.

  Police Custody Deaths
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the results of the Police Complaints Authority analysis into deaths in police custody which occurred during 1994; and if he will make a statement on his plans for a further two-year study. [17522]

  Mr. Maclean
  The data collected by the Police Complaints Authority into deaths in police custody during 1994 are incomplete but have been provided to the Home Office police research group which has recently commenced an in-depth study of deaths in police custody. This work will analyse available records of all such deaths from 1990 to the most recent. It is anticipated that the results from this research will be published late in 1997.

  Prison Visitors (Searches)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons seeking to visit a prison inmate during 1996 were(a) on being searched, found in possession of illegal drugs and (b) subsequently charged with an offence; and if he will make a statement. [17585]
  438

  Prisons (Babies)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many babies have been held in each prison in each year since 1992; and what was the average amount of time they were held in each prison. [17495]

  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. George Howarth, dated 28 February 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of babies which have been held in each prison in each year since 1992; and the average amount of time they were held in prison. The information you have requested is given in the attached table.

  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. Tom Cox, dated 28 February 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of persons seeking to visit a prison inmate during 1996 who were (a) on being searched, found in possession of illegal drugs and (b) subsequently charged with an offence.
  A total of 1312 visitors to prisoners during 1996 were reported to the police because they were suspected of being in possession of illegal drugs. Figures on the number of prisoners who were subsequently charged with a criminal offence are not recorded by the Prison Service centrally.

  London Prisons (Drug Finds)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drug finds were made in each of the London prisons during 1996. [17587]
  439
  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. Tom Cox, dated 28 February 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of drug finds made in each of the London prisons during 1996.
  The number of drug finds reported to Prison Service Headquarters for the London prisons during 1996 were:

  Number

  Belmarsh

  10

  Brixton

  92

  Feltham

  309

  Holloway

  103

  Pentonville

  95

  Wandsworth

  160

  Wormwood Scrubs

  193

HEALTH

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the oral statement of the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), of 10 February,Official Report, column 119, on Department of Health and Medical Research Council funding of multiple sclerosis over the last six years, if he will reconcile that statement with the answer to the hon. Member for

  "Cold related conditions" in December and January—main diagnosis.

  Estimated number of Finished Consultant Episodes (FCEs), ordinary admissions and day cases combined, NHS hospitals, England

  Pneumonia

  Influenza

  Bronchitis

  Hypothermia

  Total1

  December 1989

  13,469

  2,327

  2,147

  216

  18,159

  January 1990

  7,684

  413

  1,370

  136

  9,603

  December 1990

  8,418

  150

  1,183

  239

  9,989

  January 1991

  7,778

  213

  1,162

  262

  9,415

  December 1991

  9,404

  188

  1,302

  205

  11,098

  January 1992

  8,759

  337

  1,108

  171

  10,375

  December 1992

  7,425

  80

  1,021

  239

  8,766

  January 1993

  7,973

  88

  1,110

  151

  9,322

  December 1993

  10,023

  401

  1,301

  202

  11,927

  January 1994

  8,018

  108

  1,115

  159

  9,399

  December 1994

  9,197

  83

  1,270

  195

  10,745

  January 1995

  8,842

  140

  1,237

  218

  10,437

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES):

  ICD9 code 480–486 (Pneumonia); 487 (Influenza); 490–491 (Bronchitis); 991.6 (Hypothermia).

  1 Some totals do not add up because of rounding.
  440
  Pendle of 10 December 1996, Official Report, column 151, setting out Department of Health and MRC funding on MS. [15897]

  Mr. Burns
  [holding answer 14 February 1997]: I regret that, due to a clerical error, the figure quoted in the oral statement on 10 February 1997 at column 119 should have been just over £1 million and not the figure of £2 million used.

  The hon. Member may be interested to know that the Medical Research Council also spent £6,280,000 in 1995–96 on research under the broader headings of autoimmune disorders and diseases of the central nervous system and is providing £4.9 million in core and capital building funding, and £1,840,000 for on-going research, for the MRC interdisciplinary centre in brain repair, Cambridge which carries out work on neurodegenerative diseases in a multidisciplinary environment.

  Cold-related Illnesses
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what have been the excess winter treatment rates for cold-relates illnesses by general practitioners in each of the past 10 years. [17471]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people received hospital treatment as(a) in-patients and (b) out-patients for cold-related illnesses for December 1996 and January 1997; and what were the figures for the same period in each of the last 10 years. [17383]

  Mr. Horam
  For the purpose of this question, "cold related conditions" have been defined as pneumonia, influenza, bronchitis and hypothermia. The information available for in-patients is shown in the table and covers the period 1989–90 to 1994–95. Data for out-patients are not available centrally.
  441
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people received treatment by NHS doctors for cold-related illnesses for the period December 1996 and January 1997; and what were the figures for the same months in each of the last 10 years. [17393]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the information in the replies given to him today on cold-related illnesses.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the excess winter hospital treatment rates for cold-related illnesses for(a) in-patients and (b) out-patients in each of the last 10 years. [17380]

  Mr. Horam
  Data in the form of excess winter treatment rates are not available centrally.

  Nursing and Midwifery Students
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many pre-registration nursing and midwifery students who commenced training as initial entrants by means of(a) salaried student places (b) Project 2000 and (c) undergraduate study (i) qualified and (ii) registered with the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting in each of the last five years. [17677]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not available centrally. I refer the hon. Member to the National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for England for the information that is available on the numbers entering training and qualifying, and to the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for the information that is available on the numbers of qualified nurses who registered with the council.

  Second-level Registered Nurses
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current number of second-level registered nurses; and how many are undertaking training to convert to first-level registration. [17678]

  Mr. Horam
  There were 34,470 whole-time equivalent second level nursing midwifery and health visiting staff employed by the national health service hospital and community health services in England as at 30 September 1995—the latest available figures.

  The number of second level registered nurses undertaking training to convert to first level registration is not centrally available. I refer the hon. Member to the English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting who record information relating to student nurse numbers.

  NHS Non-clinical Managers
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of non-clinical managers in the NHS earning over £30,000 per year were women in each year since 1991. [17679]

  Mr. Malone
  The information requested is not available centrally. In September 1995, 50.9 per cent. of administrative managers employed by the hospital and community health services in England were female.
  442

  Mental Health
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent on mental health in(a) the acute and (b) the community sector in each health authority area in each of the last three years. [17682]

  Mr. Burns
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Emergency Patients
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many emergency patients were transported more than 50 miles to receive hospital treatment in each of the last 18 months; and how many subsequently died. [17684]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Sir Harold Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of new variant CJD have occurred in each year since 1990, broken down by age groups and local authority areas. [17801]

  Mr. Horam
  The total number of definite and probable cases of new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease which have occurred since 1990 is 16, of which three died in 1995, 10 died in 1996 and three are still alive. The age range at death is from 19 to 50. The release of detailed data on the age and geographical location of the cases would, given the small numbers involved, put at risk the confidentiality of patients and their families. Cases of nvCJD have been found throughout the United Kingdom, and the distribution of cases of nvCJD by geographical location does not suggest a significant excess in any particular area.

  Forest Healthcare Trust
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what rate of return on assets has been produced by the Forest Healthcare trust in each year since its establishment. [18083]

  Mr. Horam
  The rates of return of Forest Healthcare national health service trust are as follows:

  Year

  Percentage

  1992–93

  10.7

  1993–94

  4.5

  1994–95

  5.8

  1995–96

  2.9

  Ecstasy
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he has received from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of drugs about the dangers of taking the drug known as Ecstasy; and if he will make a statement. [18598]

  Mr. Burns
  The Government have received advice from the council on this matter.
  443
  The council takes the view that the unpredictability of the effects of taking Ecstasy—MDMA—including the possibility of death, means that there is cause for serious concern about the risks involved.

  The council advises that, in contrast to the desired effects of the drug, there have also been regular reports of serious short-term effects. First-ever epileptic fits, panic attacks, paranoid states and confusional episodes are well known and often seen in some accident and emergency departments. These short-term disorders are potentially serious, although they are usually amenable to treatment.

  The council reports that long-term effects which have been observed include permanent visual changes, depression and panic attacks. Some individuals will be at risk of developing psychotic illness.

  Post mortems on some individuals who have died in circumstances associated with the drug have suggested direct damage to the liver and heart. The deaths which have occurred have been unpredictable and sporadic and seen usually to have been brought on either by hypothermia—overheating—and the complications which follow or, very rarely, through excessive water consumption which has led to acute water intoxication.

  The council advises that other similar drugs such as MDA or MDEA may well carry similar or greater risks. Misuse of Ecstasy in combination with other drugs or alcohol will have a tendency to increase the risks. The risks of dehydration and overheating are likely to be exaggerated by high ambient temperatures and crowding.

  The council advises that Ecstasy tablet seized in this country have not contained other harmful substances. The harmful effects are as a result of MDMA itself.

  The Department, through the Health Education Authority, is using the advice of the council to inform its drug prevention campaign, as part of the Government's drugs strategy, "Tackling Drugs Together". The advice will also be used to inform the forthcoming advice to local authorities on improving the health and safety of young people at clubs and similar venues.

  Disabled Parents
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department has issued, and what funding his Department provides to meet the needs of disabled parents. [18124]

  Mr. Burns
  Social services departments are empowered to provide services for disabled parents as disabled people through a range of welfare legislation, including under section 17(1)(a) of the Children Act 1989. "The Children Act 1989, Guidance and Regulations" volume II, paragraph 2.5 refers to that. Apart from this, the Department of Health has not produced specific guidance on the welfare legislation's application to disabled parents, but believes that the provisions are available to social services departments to use as appropriate, taking account of local and individual circumstances and priorities.

  The total resources provided for social services in England will increase by a further 4 per cent. next year to £7.7 billion, 73 per cent. more in real terms than in 1990–
  444
  91. It is for local authorities to manage and to decide on the allocation of these substantial resources in accordance with local circumstances and their own priorities.

  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to commission research into the numbers of disabled parents. [18120]

  Mr. Burns
  The Department of Health, through its research and development programme, is funding the research initiative, "Supporting Parents: How to Mobilise Supports to Promote Better Parenting", with a local budget of £2.5 million. One of the funded projects, which will begin work in May 1988, is "Parenting and Disability: The Role of Formal and Informal Supports". This will look fully at the types and amounts of both formal and informal support that is needed to support disabled people in their role as parents.

  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what statistics he collates on the number of disabled parents(a) nationally and (b) in each local authority. [18125]

  Mr. Burns
  Routine statistics are not collected from local authorities on this topic. However, information on the presence of long-standing illness or disability within households is included in the "Health Survey for England".

  Glaucoma
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prescriptions for the treatment of glaucoma were issued in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and what was the net ingredient cost for each year. [16601]

  Mr. Malone
  The table provides information on the number of prescriptions dispensed, and their net ingredient cost. The rate of growth is in line with the rates for other medicines for conditions associated in particular with elderly people.

  Number of prescription items dispensed and net ingredient cost of drugs used in the treatment of glaucoma: England 1991 to 1995

  England

  Year

  Prescription items (millions)

  Net ingredient cost (£ millions)

  1991

  2.9

  21.7

  1992

  3.1

  23.2

  1993

  3.3

  24.5

  1994

  3.4

  25.4

  1995

  3.5

  26.3

  1. The data cover all prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors, dispensing doctors and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered.

  2. The drugs used in the treatment of glaucoma are those preparations in the British National Formulary (BNF) [issue 28, September 19941 therapeutic group 11.6—treatment of glaucoma. Some of these drugs may have been prescribed for other conditions.

  445
  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients(a) by region and (b) nationally received hospital in-patient or day care treatment for glaucoma in each of the last five years. [16602]

  Finished consultant episodes—Glaucoma, England

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Northern RHA

  1,241

  1,295

  1,502

  1,879

  1,518

  Yorkshire RHA

  1,193

  1,527

  1,662

  2,123

  1,854

  Trent RHA

  1,822

  1,869

  1,895

  2,214

  2,049

  East Anglian RHA

  953

  911

  839

  1,031

  1,148

  North-west Thames RHA

  746

  1,099

  1,116

  1,152

  934

  North-east Thames RHA

  673

  703

  646

  904

  2,928

  South-east Thames RHA

  1,113

  1,397

  1,987

  1,871

  1,584

  South-west Thames RHA

  847

  1,072

  1,186

  1,271

  1,126

  Wessex RHA

  1,192

  1,296

  1,345

  1,581

  1,416

  Oxford RHA

  809

  860

  1,003

  1,304

  1,572

  South Western RHA

  1,437

  1,553

  1,668

  1,983

  1,998

  West Midlands RHA

  1,897

  2,144

  2,511

  2,372

  2,538

  Mersey RHA

  828

  1,074

  1,071

  1,446

  1,462

  North Western RHA

  1,928

  2,275

  2,894

  3,131

  2,999

  SHAS

  794

  894

  1,416

  1,616

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  England total

  17,474

  19,967

  22,941

  25,880

  25,125

  Notes:

  Figures include ordinary admissions and day cases in NHS hospitals, are rounded and may not total.

  Data in this table is grossed for both coverage and unknown/invalid clinical data.

  Finished consultant episodes are defined as the period that a patient spends under the continuous care of a specific consultant in a specific health care provider (which may be in more than one hospital within that health care provider).

  Special Health Authorities (SHAs) were abolished on 1 April 1994.

  Source:

  Department of Health, Hospital Episode Statistics (HES).

  Operations (Cancellations)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library figures(a) by district health authority, (b) by regional health authority and (c) in total, of the number of operations cancelled on the day of, or the day after, admission to hospital and the number of those patients who were not readmitted within a month for the third quarter of 1996–97. [16603]

  Mr. Horam
  The information will be placed in the Library shortly.

  Nurses (Training)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many pre-registration nursing and midwifery students who commenced training as initial entrants by means of(a) salaried student places, (b) Project 2000 and (c) undergraduate study gave up their training in (i) the first year, (ii) the second year and (iii) the third year, in each of the last five years. [16604]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 20 February at column 703.

  Long-term Care (Legislation)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about his proposed draft Bill for long-term care; what conclusions he has now reached concerning the financial aspects of his proposals; and when he intends to publish the draft Bill. [16982]

  Mr. Burns
  A policy statement to follow up the consultation paper, "A New Partnership for Care in Old Age", and a draft Bill will be published shortly.
  446
  Mr. Horam
  The latest available information for finished consultant episodes is set out in the table. Information on numbers of patients is not available centrally.

  Buckinghamshire Health Authority
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the funding of Buckinghamshire health authority over the last three years. [18229]

  Mr. Horam
  The final cash limits for Buckinghamshire district health authority for the last three years are as follows.

  £000

  1993–94

  190,475

  1994–95

  196,860

  1995–96

  202,365

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the reasons for his decision that Buckinghamshire health authority's deficit should be recouped by 31 March 1998 rather than the date originally planned. [18228]

  Mr. Malone
  All health authorities must remain within their allocated annual cash limit. However, a health authority might report in its accruals accounts a deficit position. In this situation it must agree a recovery plan with the national health service executive regional office to regain financial equilibrium. The plan could be reassessed to take account of changed circumstances.

  Health Authority Finance
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list in rank order health authorities in England showing in each case the amount in both cash
  447
  and percentage terms by which that authority's planned funding for 1997–98 exceeds or falls below its capitation target; and if he will make a statement. [18227]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many investigations are proceeding into allegations of transfer of prescriptions by multiple pharmacies from the pharmacy branch which received them for processing at another branch(a) in the same health authority and (b) in another health authority to maximise the professional practice allowance. [18121]

  Mr. Malone
  Comprehensive information about such cases is not held centrally. Cases may be investigated by both health authorities and the Prescription Pricing Authority fraud investigation unit. Enquiries made of the PPA fraud investigation unit indicate that no current investigations are known to be underway.

WALES

  Pupil Exclusions (Clwyd)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the(a) permanent and (b) temporary pupils exclusions in the former local education authority of Clwyd for the years 1993 to 1996; and if he will make a statement. [16951]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Returns from the former Clwyd county council show that, in the academic year 1994–95, there were 81 permanent exclusions from maintained schools in the authority. In 1995–96, a total of 101 permanent exclusions were reported by Wrexham, Flintshire, Denbighshire and Conwy unitary authorities. Information in respect of earlier years and fixed term exclusions is not available centrally.

  High Technology Companies
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many high technology companies have been attracted to Wales since 1992 giving their locations; and if he will make a statement. [17502]

  Mr. Hague
  Since January 1992, over 800 inward investment projects have been attracted to Wales promising over 40,000 new jobs, over 26,000 safeguarded jobs and capital investment of over £6.8 billion. The projects cover a wide range of activities which might be defined as high technology and include projects by the following companies:

  Company

  Destination

  General Electric

  Nantgarw

  Angrisense

  Treforest

  Surface Technology Systems

  Imperial Park

  Polyclonal Antibodies

  Llandysul

  Nimbus Records

  Cwmbran

  Xidex

  Brynmawr

  Bayer Diagnostic

  Bridgend

  Align-Rite

  Bridgend

  British Aerospace

  Broughton

  British Airways

  Rhoose

  448

  Company

  Destination

  Ford

  Bridgend

  Perkin Elmer

  Llantrisant

  Newport Wafer-Fab

  Newport

  LG

  Imperial Park

  ASAT

  Crumlin

  Northern Telecom

  Newport

  Raytheon

  Broughton

  Hoya

  Wrexham

  Pilkington Micronics

  Deeside

  Unemployment (Clywd)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many long-term unemployed men and women there are in(a) Wales and (b) in the area covered by the former county of Clywd. [17504]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is shown in the following table:

  Long-term unemployment, January 19971

  Male

  Female

  Clwyd

  3,024

  650

  Wales

  26,568

  4,931

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics.

  1 Claimant unemployed for 52 weeks or over. These figures are not seasonally adjusted.

  Youth Unemployment
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many unemployed people there currently are in Wales aged 24 years and under. [17505]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In January 1997, there were 27,894 people in Wales on the claimant unemployment count aged 24 and under. This figure is not seasonally adjusted.

  River Dee Estuary
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the impact upon the(a) Deeside communities and (b) the River Dee estuary environment of proposed construction of a power station. [17506]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Any developer of a power station with a generating capacity in excess of 50 mw is required to supply an environmental impact assessment in support of its application. The assessment needs to include an analysis of the effects upon the local communities and environment.

  Aerospace and Air Passenger Transport Industries
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his current estimate of the number of jobs connected with the aerospace and air passenger transport industries in Wales. [17503]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  According to the latest annual employment survey there were 48,000 employees in the aerospace and air transport industries' in Wales in September 1995.

  11992 standard industrial classification, classes 35.30, 62.10–62.20, 63.11 and 63.23.
  449

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 24 February,Official Report, columns 91–92, if he will seek out the procedure for a health authority investigation of allegations of transfer of prescriptions from one branch of a multiple pharmacy in another health authority area for processing in another branch in the area of the first health authority for the purpose of making a fraudulent claim for the professional practice allowances for community pharmacies; what provisions govern the obtaining of evidence from individual patients named on the prescription forms; and what assessment he has made of the ways in which the investigation procedure could be simplified. [18128]

  Mr. Hague
  The detailed procedure would be a matter for the health authority or authorities concerned, in accordance with their own fraud policies. They are required at an appropriate stage in their investigation to notify their statutory auditors and the police. I have been advised that the same duty of confidence applies to prescription forms as to other kinds of medical record.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what consultations he has had with the chairmen of the Bro Taf and Gwent health authorities about adjustment to their respective budgets for 1996–97 for prescription items arising from investigations into the transfer of prescriptions from a Gwent branch of a multiple pharmacy for processing at a cardiff branch of the same pharmacy; [18122]

  (2) what representations he has received from the chairman of the Bro Taf health authority and the Prescription Pricing Service about the cost of carrying out investigations into the alleged fraudulent transfer of prescriptions handed in at a Gwent branch of a multiple pharmacy to a Cardiff branch of the same pharmacy. [18115]

  Mr. Hague
  None.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many nursery places are available in total for pre-school children in the Cardiff area. [18230]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The information is not available in the form requested. In January, there were an estimated 6,119 pupils aged under five in maintained and independent schools in the area now covered by Cardiff local education authority. In addition, at 31 March 1996, there were 4,601 places at local authority day nurseries, registered day nurseries and registered playgroups.

  NHS (Private Finance Initiative)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list each scheme proposed under the private finance initiative in the Welsh NHS according to the stage it has reached. [18111]

  Mr. Hague
  There are 27 proposals for capital schemes, above individual NHS trusts' delegated capital spending limits, for which trusts are developing business cases. Of those, the following table shows schemes for which outline business case approval has been given and the relevant trust is testing for private sector interest within the private finance initiative.
  450

  Trust scheme

  PFI position

  Glan y Mor/local general hospital Baglan

  Advert places in OJEC

  Powys Healthcare/Bronllys— Mid Wales Merger and Newtown hospital

  Invitation to negotiate issued

  East Glamorgan/Staff Residences for the new district general hospital at Ynys y Plwm

  Invitation to negotiate issued

  Gwynedd Community/Porthmadog community hospital

  Invitation to negotiate issued

  Velindre/radiotherapy equipment replacement

  Invitation to negotiate issued

  Glan Hafren/Chepstow neighbourhood hospital

  Preferred private sector partner selected

  Gwent Community/Nevill Hall mental health development

  Preferred private sector partner selected

  Nevill Hall/day surgery unit

  Preferred private sector partner selected

  University hospital for Wales/multi-storey car park and slip road

  Contracts signed and under construction

  Nursery Vouchers
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many nursery vouchers have been distributed to parents in the Cardiff area, to date. [18155]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  More than 85 per cent. of parents in Wales have already completed and returned their application forms for vouchers and the nursery voucher centre is starting to issue vouchers to them today. Figures relating to specific areas are not yet available.

SCOTLAND

  Paedophiles
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with relevant individuals and bodies on the subject of the notification to statutory and other bodies of the whereabouts of paedophiles. [18215]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The crime and punishment White Paper, Cm 3302, published in June 1996 described our proposed arrangements for sex offenders to register with the police. That White Paper was widely circulated and attracted comments from a considerable number of bodies and it was debated by the Scottish Grand Committee at its sitting in Perth on 17 June 1996, when the hon. Member opened for the Opposition.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for compulsory treatment for paedophile offenders(a) within and (b) outwith prison. [18211]

  Mr. Forsyth
  Where an offender is not given a custodial sentence, the courts may require him, as part of a programme of probation supervision, to participate in treatment programmes. Work with offenders given a custodial sentence is carried out in a number of prisons, including Peterhead, Shotts and Barlinnie. The aims of sex offender treatment programmes are to get prisoners to accept personal responsibility for their actions, to address
  451
  the consequences of their behaviour for their victims, and to develop strategies to exercise self-control and avoid situations likely to lead to reoffending. Such programmes can be effective only if prisoners are willing to engage constructively. Prison staff strongly encourage and challenge prisoners to participate. Progression through the prison system is also dependent on addressing offending behaviour.

  Offenders released from prison on licence or where a supervised release order is in force may be required, as a condition of their licence or order, to participate in treatment programmes. Failure to comply with any such condition could result in an offender's return to custody. Measures further to strengthen supervised release orders, so that they will normally be mandatory in the most serious cases of sexual abuse and will last for up to 10 years, are contained in the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill and were debated by the Committee in which the hon. Member took part.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for(a) giving more assistance to the victims of paedophiles and (b) providing them with more information about the whereabouts of their abusers. [18214]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The crime and punishment White Paper, Cm 3302, published in June 1996, outlined a range of measures to support the victims of crime, including the victims of sexual abuse. Some of those measures are already in place and others are being developed. A victims steering group has been established to advise on the development of policy and good practice towards all crime victims. The group's operations were discussed in the Committee considering the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill, in which the hon. Member took part. In addition, as was announced last month, a scheme will come into effect on 1 April 1997 which will enable the victims of serious violent and sexual crimes, if they so wish, to be told of the release of their assailants from prison.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to establish a national paedophile register in Scotland. [18226]

  Mr. Forsyth
  The Government's plans have been clear for some time and will, subject to parliamentary approval, soon be implemented. The crime and punishment White Paper, Cm 3302, published in June 1996, noted that the Scottish Criminal Record Office already acts as a register of convicted sex offenders. That includes paedophiles. The White Paper committed the Government to require convicted sex offenders to notify the police of any change of address, so that the register can be kept fully up to date. The Sex Offenders Bill, now before the House, fulfils that commitment, as the hon. Member must be aware from his own involvement on the Committee of the Bill.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will ensure that statistical information on child abuse in Scotland is compiled and published. [18217]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The latest information about child abuse cases reported under local authority child protection procedures is available in statistical bulletin 452
  No. SWK/CP/1996/2, published by the Scottish Office in October 1996. The bulletin was placed in the Libraries of both Houses and a copy was sent to the hon. Member.

  Mr. William Duff
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take to recover NHS payments made to William Duff between 1991 and 1995. [12458]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 24 January 1997]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already directed Greater Glasgow health board to recover the sum of £75,000 from Mr. Duff following the report of the NHS tribunal and other such directions will be following. Consideration is being given to whether any payments which were made to Mr. Duff can be recovered within the terms of the regulations.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will draw on the sums relating to outstanding fee claims withheld from Mr. William Duff to compensate his former patients. [12724]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 28 January 1997]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no statutory power to draw upon sums relating to outstanding fee claims for the purpose of payment of compensation.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the total earnings in fees from the NHS by Mr. William Duff in each year from the time he began practising in the Greater Glasgow health board area. [12725]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 28 January 1997]: The information requested is listed in the table:

  Gross NHS general dental services item of service fees paid to Mr. William Duff 1988 to 1995

  Gross earnings

  £

  Year ending December 1988

  162,000

  Year ending December 1989

  258,000

  Year ending December 1990

  319,000

  Year ending December 1991

  373,000

  Year ending December 1992

  313,000

  Year ending December 1993

  268,000

  Year ending December 1994

  266,000

  Year ending December 1995

  1,000

  Total

  1,900

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what date Greater Glasgow health board commenced its investigation of the fees claimed by Mr. William Duff. [12726]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 28 January 1997]: Greater Glasgow health board commenced its investigation into fees claimed by Mr. Duff on 14 April 1993 when it received the first of 27 referrals from the Scottish Dental Practice Board.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many of the patients of Mr. William Duff who were interviewed by dental referral officers have received remedial treatment; [12727]
  453
  (2) how many patients of Mr. William Duff had been told in advance what treatment was being prescribed. [12730]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 28 January 1997]: This information is not held centrally.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total number of patients who have had unnecessary treatment carried out by Mr. William Duff; how many of these have had their complaint upheld and received compensation in full; how many have been refused compensation on the grounds of their being time barred; and if he will review these cases. [12728]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 28 January 1997]: The total number of patients who have received unnecessary treatment is not available. The national health service tribunal found that in 24 cases which were the subject of referrals to Greater Glasgow health board by the Scottish dental practice division, Mr. Duff had provided unnecessary treatment. In a further two cases where complaints were considered by the health board and which were the subject of appeals to my right hon. Friend, Mr. Duff was held to have provided such treatment.

  In one of the latter cases my right hon. Friend has directed that a sum be recovered from Mr. Duff for payment to the complainant to meet the cost of remedial treatment, and this has been set at the maximum contribution payable towards a course of NHS dental treatment. A similar direction is under consideration in the other case. In a total of 14 cases, complaints against Mr. Duff have not been considered by the health board's dental service committee because of the lateness of the complaint. In these circumstances, the question of compensation does not arise. There are no provisions whereby the cases which have been determined can be reviewed.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what date the Dental Practice Board called in regional dental officers to investigate the claims for treatment submitted by Mr. William Duff; and if he will publish their report. [12729]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 28 January 1997]: Inspections of Mr. William Duff's patients were first undertaken by regional dental officers on 25 August 1986. On 12 December 1990, Mr. Duff was referred to a dental service committee by Greater Glasgow health board on the grounds that he had not employed a proper degree of skills and attention in respect of a patient. On that occasion, Mr. Duff was found not to be in breach of his NHS terms and conditions of service. In view of the confidentiality relating to health records, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State cannot publish the reports compiled by regional dental officers.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total level of fines imposed upon Mr. William Duff for breach of professional codes of practice; and what plans he has to impose further penalties. [12731]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 28 January 1997]: In response to the report on Mr. Duff's performance by the national health service tribunal dated 6 February 1996 my right hon. Friend directed Greater Glasgow health board to recover £75,000
  454
  from Mr. Duff by withholding from remuneration or otherwise. The board has also been directed to recover from Mr. Duff up to the maximum contribution towards the cost of a NHS course of dental treatment, at present £325, in the case of one patient. A further direction is under consideration in another case.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will order an investigation into the handling of the case of Mr. William Duff by Greater Glasgow health board. [12732]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 28 January 1997]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans for such an investigation. Mr. Duff was the subject of an inquiry and report by the national health service tribunal which directed that his name should be removed from the dental list of Greater Glasgow health board and not included in the corresponding list of any other health board. My right hon. Friend drew the matter to the attention of the General Dental Council which has now barred Mr. Duff from practising dentistry. In addition, appeals in subsequent cases concerning Mr. Duff which were the subject of investigation by the health board's dental service committee have been determined by my right hon. Friend.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide financial support to Greater Glasgow health board to organise a helpline for ex-patients of William Duff. [13950]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 February 1997]: Greater Glasgow health board has no plans to organise a helpline for ex-patients of William Duff. The number of requests for information received from this source would not justify such an initiative.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to reply to the questions from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill of 24 and 28 January, relating to Mr. William Duff. [17392]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I replied to the hon. Member's questions today.

  Dental Services
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average current charge for(a) a crown and (b) root treatment. [12623]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 28 January 1997]: Patient charges for crowns range from £36.24 to £74.32, depending on the particular tooth, the material used, whether a post is required and whether the crown is free standing or part of a bridge. Patient charges for root treatment range from £18.12 to £43.52. These charges are net of any ancillary treatment.

  NHS general dental services are provided free or with partial relief to certain categories of adults and they are also provided free to children.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the limit on the number of patients any one NHS dentist can have registered with his practice. [14032]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 February 1997]: Patients are registered under NHS continuing care and capitation arrangements with an individual dentist and not with a dental practice. There is

  455
  no statutory limit on the number of patients a dentist may accept under these arrangements. At 31 March 1996, there was an average of 1,412 patients registered per dentist in Scotland.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will review the limit on compensation to patients for mistreatment by dental practitioners. [14033]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 February 1997]: There is no statutory provision for such compensation, although the National Health Service (Service Committees and Tribunal) (Scotland) Regulations, as they apply to complaints made before 1 April 1996, provide for the recovery from a dentist and payment to a person of expenses which, by reason of the dentist's failure to comply with his terms of service, that person reasonably and necessarily incurs in obtaining further treatment. Any such treatment should be obtained under the national health service. The maximum patient contribution for a course of NHS treatment is currently £325.

  Since 1 April 1996, the procedures for dealing with complaints and discipline have been separated following the recommendations of the review committee on NHS complaints procedures charged by Professor Alan Wilson. The regulations now deal only with discipline and any question of payment to a person by way of reimbursement of the remedial treatment or compensation would be a matter for consideration as part of the non-statutory complaints procedure.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what safeguards exist to prevent a dentist from falsifying a patient or guardian's signature on forms authorising treatment for under-16s. [14035]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 February 1997]: No routine practical mechanism exists at present for verifying signatures on dental payment claim forms but ad hoc checks are undertaken by the Common Services Agency's dental practice division.

  Ministerial Visits
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the overseas visits of Ministers, indicating if they were accompanied by officials and the costs involved, in each of the past five years. [16500]

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 February 1997]: Ministers are always accompanied on overseas visits by at least one official. Costs of visits prior to 1995 are not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Since 1992, Scottish Office Ministers have attended 28 Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Councils in Brussels or Luxembourg. The total costs of attendance at Councils in 1995 and 1996 was £34,861.70. Figures for 1997 are not yet available. In addition, Ministers also undertook the following visits to promote or represent Scotland's interests abroad:

  Date

  Place

  Minister

  Cost (£)

  1992

  —

  20–23 June

  Thessalonika

  Allan Stewart

  —

  12–19 September

  Japan

  Allan Stewart

  —

  12–19 September

  Boston

  Secretary of State

  —

  456

  Date

  Place

  Minister

  Cost (£)

  1993

  12 February

  Munich

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

  —

  25–27 March

  Florida

  Secretary of State

  —

  6–8 June

  Madrid

  Allan Stewart

  —

  17–18 June

  Lille

  Allan Stewart

  —

  17–23 September

  Jedda and Dubai

  Allan Stewart

  —

  2–9 October

  USA

  Allan Stewart

  —

  5–15 October

  New York and

  Lord James

  —

  Hong Kong

  Douglas-Hamilton

  1994

  17 February

  Oslo

  Sir Hector Monro

  —

  18 March

  Holland

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

  —

  26–29 May

  Crete

  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie

  —

  2–5 June

  Corfu

  Allan Stewart

  —

  8–10 June

  Golansk

  Allan Stewart

  —

  14–15 June

  Munich

  Allan Stewart

  —

  21–26 August

  Canada

  Sir Hector Monro

  —

  8–9 September

  Brussels

  Secretary of State

  —

  24 September to 2 October

  USA

  Secretary of State

  —

  24 September to 2 October

  Japan

  Allan Stewart

  —

  24 October

  Paris

  Sir Hector Monro

  —

  1995

  15–17 March

  Rome

  Secretary of State

  1,942,80

  20–21 March

  Brussels

  Secretary of State

  1,956

  26–31 August

  Taiwan

  George Kynoch

  14,508

  15–19 September

  Helsinki

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

  2,309.13

  24–30 September

  Boston

  George Kynoch

  8,294

  4–5 October

  Cologne

  Earl of Lindsay

  2,017.66

  8–10 October

  Stockholm

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

  3,029.81

  17 October

  Brussels

  Raymond Robertson

  748.50

  1–3 November

  Washington

  Earl of Lindsay

  7,162

  7–9 November

  Oslo and Tromso

  Raymond Robertson

  2,582.40

  8–10 November

  Toronto and Ottawa

  Earl of Lindsay

  7,246.83

  24 November

  Madrid

  George Kynoch

  982

  20–22 December

  Brussels

  Raymond Robertson

  1,748.50

  1996

  5–March

  Brussels

  Raymond Robertson

  748.50

  8–11 March

  USA

  Earl of Lindsay

  10,309.10

  17–19 April

  USA and Canada

  Secretary of State

  14,379.94

  24 April

  Brussels

  Raymond Robertson

  1,094.26

  15–17 May

  Cannes

  Earl of Lindsay

  4,872.72

  22–30 May

  Japan/Korea

  Secretary of State

  30,400.90

  7 June

  Bremen

  Raymond Robertson

  1,265.73

  27 August to 2 September

  Atlanta

  Raymond Robertson

  7,246.50

  5–8 October

  Lativa

  Raymond Robertson

  1,272

  22 October

  Paris

  Earl of Lindsay

  1,199.54

  25–27 November

  Oslo

  Raymond Robertson

  1,433.86

  2–3 December

  Denmark

  Earl of Lindsay

  1,177.60

  18–19 December

  Dublin

  Earl of Lindsay

  923.30

  Equipment and Furniture
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the cost and number of items of equipment and furniture that(a) have been stolen and (b) are otherwise unaccounted for from his Department and its agencies during the past 12 months, listing by name any such items valued at £5,000 or more, and showing information technology material separately. [17071]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Six items of equipment with a total estimated value of £250 and 17 items of information technology equipment, and some accessory pieces, with a total value of approximately
  457
  £15,000 have been reported missing over the last 12 months. No items of information technology or other equipment valued at £5,000 or more have been reported missing.

  Sleep Disorders
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what assessment he has made of the need for a Scottish centre for the diagnosis and management of sleep disorders; what funding he has provided since 1992 for such a service; and if he will make a statement; [17996]

  (2) what plans he has to ensure continued provision for a national diagnosis and management centre for sleep disorders; and if he will make a statement; [17997]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the implications of the closure of the sleep laboratory at the royal infirmary of Edinburgh; [18002]

  (4) what is the current availability of continuous positive airways pressure units and accessories in the NHS in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [18004]

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  I am glad to confirm that the royal infirmary of Edinburgh NHS trust will not be closing its sleep laboratory. I am pleased that the laboratory has secured sufficient funding of £530,000 to enable it to continue in operation after 1 April 1997.

  The assessment of need for sleep disorder services is a matter for health boards to determine. A Scottish needs assessment programme report on obstructive sleep apnoea and allied disorders is to be published shortly. In the light of the report, health boards, other purchasers and interested providers will wish to assess the appropriate level of sleep disorder services required and how best to deliver care locally and nationally, for patients across the length and breadth of Scotland.

  The current availability of continuous positive airways

  £ million

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  England

  Housing corporation net approved development programme

  1,154

  1,639

  2,306

  1,795

  1,487

  1,149

  1,030

  Housing annual capital guidelines

  1,396

  1,345

  1,290

  1,378

  1,038

  994

  943

  Estate action

  180

  268

  348

  357

  373

  316

  257

  Cash incentive scheme1

  —

  —

  31

  —

  30

  60

  60

  Estates renewal challenge fund

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  30

  Other local authority2

  121

  187

  80

  45

  39

  30

  30

  Management and maintenance allowances for local authority stock

  2,955

  3,070

  3,206

  3,266

  3,298

  3,324

  3,364

  Housing action trusts

  —

  10

  27

  78

  92

  93

  88

  London

  Housing corporation approved development programme

  n/a

  612

  701

  690

  553

  443

  416

  Housing annual capital guidelines

  473

  451

  454

  474

  355

  321

  299

  Estate action

  33

  58

  86

  85

  98

  88

  87

  Cash incentive scheme1

  —

  —

  21

  —

  16

  33

  34

  Estates renewal challenge fund

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  12

  Other local authority2

  86

  100

  8

  3

  12

  10

  10

  Management and maintenance allowances for local authority stock

  772

  820

  857

  912

  940

  958

  960

  Housing action trusts

  —

  —

  12

  34

  43

  47

  38

  West Midlands

  Housing corporation approved development programme

  n/a

  112

  154

  162

  134

  100

  88

  Housing annual capital guidelines

  122

  120

  120

  130

  101

  102

  100

  Estate action

  25

  35

  41

  47

  49

  41

  25

  Cash incentive scheme1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  4

  Estates renewal challenge fund

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8

  458
  pressure units and accessories in the NHS in Scotland is a matter for health boards and providers and information is not held centrally. Sleep disorder services at the royal infirmary's sleep laboratory were purchased on a national basis until 31 March 1996 when the purchasing of services was devolved to health boards. Funding from 1991–92 to 1995–96 is set out in the list.

  1991–92: £50,000

  1992–93: £55,000

  1993–94: £296,000

  1994–95: £287,000

  1995–96: £519,000

ENVIRONMENT

  Social Housing
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how much the Government spent on(a) new social housing and (b) maintenance of social housing in (i) England, (ii) the west midlands and (iii) London between 1990 and 1996; [16551]

  (2) how much the Government spent on (a) new social housing and (b) maintenance of social housing between 1990 and 1996; and what were the equivalent figures for other OECD countries. [16550]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 20 February 1997]: The available information on allocations for expenditure on social housing stock made by the government for the years 1990–91 to 1996–97 is set out in the table. Some of the resources allocated through the single regeneration budget challenge fund and city challenge will be used for investment in social housing but this element is not separately identified in the allocations made. Corresponding figures on a comparable basis for other OECD countries are not available.
  459

  £ million

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Other local authority2

  3

  5

  7

  5

  4

  3

  3

  Management and maintenance allowances for local authority stock

  207

  214

  225

  229

  231

  240

  249

  Housing action trusts

  —

  —

  —

  2

  6

  11

  14

  1 Resources were provided for cash incentives schemes in 1990–91 and 1991–92 but within a package of measures directed at homelessness which are included in the 'other local authority' row.

  2 Covers special programmes for homelessness, rural housing, energy efficiency, New Town defective dwellings, flats over shops and the Housing Partnership Fund.

  Equipment and Furniture
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the cost and number of items of equipment and furniture that(a) have been stolen and (b) are otherwise unaccounted for from his Department and its agencies during the past 12 months, listing by name any such items valued at £5,000 or more, and showing information technology material separately. [17067]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  During the 12 months from 1 February 1996 to 31 January 1997, 217 items of equipment and furniture have been stolen from this Department and its agencies with a total value of £200,013; this includes 174 items of IT equipment with a total value of £183,314, with one item being valued at £5,000 or more—a portable computer valued at £5,126. There is also one item of IT equipment valued at £300 that is unaccounted for.

  Landfill Directive
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received regarding the proposed European directive on landfill; and what meetings he has had with industrial and other non-governmental bodies to discuss the proposed directive. [17518]

  Mr. Clappison
  The European Commission has not yet published its draft proposals for a landfill directive. When it does so, we shall consult widely about what is being proposed with industrial and other non-governmental bodies.

  Landfill Sites (Methane)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the proportion of methane produced at landfill sites that can be captured for energy conversion over the entire period that methane will be produced. [17519]

  Mr. Clappison
  The quantity of methane gas which can be collected from a landfill site over its lifetime depends on a wide range of site specific details. However, for the purpose of investigations into landfill gas emissions, a gas extraction efficiency of 70 per cent. over the lifetime of the waste has been assumed. This is based on available published information resulting from field studies.

  It is further estimated that, in 1994, 28 per cent. of extracted methane was burnt in landfill gas energy recovery schemes the remainder being flared.
  460

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the proportion of organic compostable waste currently disposed of via landfill, incineration, anaerobic digestion and composting, and other disposal routes by the water industry and the agriculture, food processing, commercial and other industrial sectors; and how he predicts these disposal routes will change, following the introduction of the landfill tax. [17521]

  Mr. Clappison
  This information is not available. The Environment Agency's national waste survey and research is expected to improve data quality. We expect that one of the effects of the landfill tax will be to reduce the proportion of waste going to landfill.

  Landfill Sites
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for curbing greenhouse gas emissions from landfill sites. [17512]

  Mr. Clappison
  The waste strategy for England and Wales includes targets both for the reduction of waste going to landfill and measures to increase the proportion of organic (degradable) content in municipal solid waste (MSW) which is diverted from landfill to other forms of treatment.

  Additionally guidance to regulators drafting and enforcing waste management licences for landfill sites—set out in waste management paper 4—advises that the most satisfactory control option is the installation of whole-site landfill gas collection at new sites receiving biodegradable wastes and also for existing sites if the site has significant remaining capacity and if significant gas production is likely.

  As a result of these measures it is anticipated that landfill gas emissions will fall from the 1990 estimate of 1.89 mte to 1.54 mte in 2000.

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the contracts awarded by his Department to(a) EDS, (b) Andersens, (c) BMI, (d) Capita and (e) Sema since 1992 and the broad function to be carried out by the contractor and the value of the contract in each case. [17606]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The following contracts were held in 1995–96 by Electronic Data Systems:
  461

  Scope of work

  Value£ thousand

  Quality assurance on HMIP assessment of Nirex

  358

  The following contracts were let to Capita during 1996–97:

  Scope of work

  Value £ thousand

  Evaluation of estate action

  431

  Recruitment services

  312

  Evaluation of housing action trusts

  249

  Monitoring funding on special needs housing

  186

  Use of private sector finance in local authority housing

  85

  Housing investment programme: review of present process

  49

  Developing framework on codes of practice for standards in homes in multiple occupation

  31

  Legal and financial advice on rundown of Bristol development corporation

  27

  2 x training seminars

  0.6

  2 x services

  0.9

  Further information on years preceding 1999–97 is obtainable only at disproportionate cost.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the report by British Nuclear Fuels' Director of Health, Safety and the Environment on the reprocessing and high level waste storage at Sellafield presented to a conference at Drogheda on 11 and 12 January. [17263]

  Mr. Gummer
  None.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total sum allowed for local 462
  authority credit approvals for housing investment in 1996–97; what were the figures in current prices for each of the preceding three years; and if he will make a statement on his Department's current assessment of future needs. [17290]

  Mr. Curry
  The sum allowed for local authority credit approvals for housing in 1996–97 in England is £789 million. The figures for the preceding three years at current prices are:

  1995–96: £869 million

  1994–95: £893 million

  1993–94: £1,014 million

  The Department takes its figures for the need for repairs to local authority housing from the English house condition survey. The 1996 survey will give us an up-to-date picture of the need for investment in the local authority stock. We expect to publish results later this year.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the office of the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford),(a) received the letter dated 24 January concerning stage II of the Avon ring road from the hon. Member for Kingswood and (b) forwarded this letter to the Minister of State for Transport. [18116]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The hon. Member's letter dated 24 January was received in my private office on 30 January 1997. It was then passed to Department of the Environment officials in the Government office for the south-west on 4 February and was forwarded to regional transport officials on the following day to consider whether the issues raised were more appropriate to the Department of Transport. Once this became apparent, officials notified the Department of Transport centrally, on 21 February. I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay. I have asked my hon. Friend the Minister of State to reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester.

Legal Advice and Assistance (Scope) (Amendment) Regulations 1997
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 30th January be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving the above amendment regulations, I shall, with the leave of the House, speak also to the Legal Aid (Functions) Order, which follows. Both draft instruments were laid before the House on 30th January this year. The first instrument includes four amendments to the scope of the legal advice and assistance scheme. The draft functions order provides for the Legal Aid Board to be able to assess claims for costs in civil cases, and to assess the financial means of applicants for legal aid.
The first of the four amendments to the advice and assistance scheme would revoke the Legal Advice and Assistance (Scope) (Amendment) Regulations 1995. These regulations, which were debated in this House on 20th July 1995, dealt with a proposed change of procedure in the magistrates' courts. Section 44 of and Schedule 4(2) to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 provided for the abolition of the committals for trial procedure and its replacement with transfer for trial. The regulations we are seeking to revoke would have put transfer for trial on the same footing in relation to legal aid as committal for trial had been in the past. However, neither the relevant provisions of the Act nor the legal aid regulations were brought into force. It is important that the statute book is not cluttered with legislation which is not used. Accordingly, we seek the House's agreement to the revocation of this provision.
The other three amendments provide for Assistance by Way of Representation, or ABWOR, to be extended; first, to persons at risk of imprisonment for failure to obey a court order; secondly, to prisoners detained at Her Majesty's pleasure who appear before the Parole Board; and, thirdly, to persons in relation to whom a removal order is sought under Section 47 of the National Assistance Act 1948.
The first of these extensions is designed to address the points raised by the European Court of Human Rights in its judgment in the case of Benham v. the United Kingdom. Mr. Benham was committed to prison by Poole magistrates for non-payment of his community charge. The court held that there had been a violation of Articles 6(1) and 6(3)(c) of the European Convention on Human Rights in that legally aided representation should have been made available to Mr. Benham.
1410
Although the court's judgment in the Benham case dealt only with a failure to pay the community charge, it is the Government's view that any proceedings for failure to obey a court order, where imprisonment is the ultimate sanction, are affected by the judgment.
Although the Government are concerned to meet their international obligations in these matters, we are equally anxious that blanket legal aid coverage should not be provided to address circumstances which arise in only relatively few cases. Accordingly, this amendment would provide for publicly funded representation to be available only for defendants in enforcement hearings where there was a real risk of imprisonment. To depart from this view would inevitably result in further pressure on the legal aid budget. The aim, therefore, must be to target legal aid representation on those most in need.
To do so, we propose to allow such defendants to be represented by a court duty solicitor, and where there is no duty solicitor available, or the case is complex, to be able to apply to the Legal Aid Board for ABWOR. We also intend to issue guidance to the courts on what administrative arrangements might be appropriate for such cases. Accordingly, paragraph 3(2) of the draft instrument would amend Regulation 7(4) of the Legal Advice and Assistance (Scope) Regulations 1989 to extend ABWOR to cover enforcement hearings resulting from a defendant's failure to obey a court order where the failure is likely to lead to him being at risk of imprisonment. A further instrument—not requiring affirmative resolution—will extend the magistrates' court duty solicitor scheme to civil cases.
I turn now to the second extension of ABWOR, set out in paragraph 4 of this instrument. This article would provide for prisoners detained at Her Majesty's pleasure to be represented at Parole Board hearings relating to a review of their case. On 23rd July 1996, the Secretary of State for Home Affairs answered a Written Question from the honourable Member for Finchley about procedural changes relating to prisoners detained at Her Majesty's pleasure. Such prisoners who have served a period adequate to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence have their cases reviewed by the Parole Board, although the responsibility for their release rests with the Secretary of State. As an interim measure, the administrative arrangements for the review and release of prisoners were changed with effect from 1st August 1996. These arrangements include allowing such prisoners to have legal representation and an oral hearing before the Parole Board. The interim arrangements announced by the Secretary of State will be made permanent in the Crime (Sentences) Bill which is currently before the House.
The third proposed extension of ABWOR relates to people who are the subject of a removal order under Section 47 of the National Assistance Act 1948. Section 47 provides for the removal to suitable premises of people who for any of a variety of reasons are in need of care and attention. The application for removal can be made in the interests of the person whose removal is sought or to prevent serious nuisance or injury to the health of other people. The order to remove a person may be made for a period not exceeding three months

1411
in the first instance, and may be extended by the court. The result of this type of application may result in the individual concerned losing his liberty. Respondents to a Section 47 application are likely to be particularly vulnerable members of society, and are unlikely to be able to fully prepare a case or represent themselves before magistrates.
I turn now to the second instrument. This contains the draft functions order which would confer two functions on the Legal Aid Board. The first of these, set out in Article 3 of the draft order, is to correct an error in the current law. The Legal Aid Act 1988 specifically prohibits the board from performing certain functions, unless the Lord Chancellor directs by order, and then only to the extent set out in the order. Assessing claims for costs in civil cases is one of the functions which requires such an order.
The function of assessing costs was carried out by the Law Society prior to its functions relating to legal aid being transferred to the Legal Aid Board under the terms of the Legal Aid Act 1988. However, due to an oversight, no functions order was made to allow the board to carry on this function. Of course, the board has assessed costs since 1989 and the cost limits which apply to assessment by the board are set out in regulations. The absence of a functions order to enable the board to undertake this function was discovered only relatively recently and we have brought forward this draft order as early as it was practicable to do so. No one has been disadvantaged as a result of this error.
A second function which requires an order by the Lord Chancellor is the determination of the financial resources of persons for the purposes of the Act. This is the purpose of Article 4 of the draft order. At present, the assessment of means in civil cases is undertaken by the Legal Aid Assessment Office—a unit within the Benefits Agency. In criminal cases, means assessment is undertaken by the court to which the application for legal aid is made.
From 1st April this year, responsibility for means assessment in civil cases will transfer from the Benefits Agency to the Legal Aid Board. The aim of this transfer of functions is to create a more integrated and efficient service relating to the grant of legal aid in civil cases. The Legal Aid Assessment Office currently employs approximately 280 staff at a single site in Preston, but the intention is that during the year to 1st April 1998 the means assessment process will be assimilated within the Legal Aid Board's 13 area offices. Benefits Agency staff will be reabsorbed by the Benefits Agency during this process.
Although the Legal Aid White Paper, Striking the Balance, proposes that the assessment of means in criminal cases should also transfer, ultimately, from the courts to the Legal Aid Board, that is unlikely to take place for two to three years. It is important that civil means assessment is properly bedded into place before the board's attention turns to criminal matters. However, when the work of the Legal Aid Assessment Office transfers to the board, it will include the Special Investigations Unit which was set up in 1996 to investigate cases in which applicants' means are
1412
complex. This was part of our strategy for combating the grant of legal aid to apparently wealthy applicants. At present, the Special Investigations Unit deals only with civil cases. However, when the board has properly assimilated civil means assessment, we intend that the unit's remit should be extended to cover criminal cases.
Although the main purpose of this functions order is to enable the transfer of civil means assessment from the Benefits Agency to the Legal Aid Board to go ahead, it would also allow the unit to investigate criminal cases. Realistically, this is unlikely to take place before civil means assessment has been properly assimilated, in 1998.
The draft regulation amendments about which I spoke first will enable Britain to meet its international obligations in relation to defendants facing imprisonment, and prisoners detained at Her Majesty's pleasure. They will also provide for representation to be provided to vulnerable people whom the authorities seek to have removed to suitable premises. As such, I commend this instrument to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 30th January be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committed—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I am pleased to be the first Labour spokesman on this bright and beautiful morning. We support both instruments. In particular, we welcome the three extensions of ABWOR. I agree with the Government's interpretation of the Benham decision. In principle it must apply to a failure to obey any court order where there is a risk of imprisonment. It is not confined to its own facts—a failure to pay community charge.
We agree also with the other two extensions of ABWOR for the benefit of prisoners who appear before the Parole Board while detained at Her Majesty's pleasure and persons subject of a removal order under Section 47 of the National Assistance Act 1948. ABWOR should plainly extend to the latter because they are often the most vulnerable in society who could lose their liberty as a result of the application for removal.
We also support the second instrument. It is right that means assessment in civil cases transfer from the Benefits Agency to the Legal Aid Board. I specifically welcome the confirmation given by the noble and learned Lord that this transfer will include the Special Investigations Unit. It investigates cases where the resources of applicants are obscure and complex. We must bear down hard on those whose life styles give the lie to the want of resources which they profess, whether the case is a civil or a criminal one.
The sooner the investigations unit is up and running within the board and able to investigate both classes of case, both civil and criminal, the better for the public purse. There are a number of things which can bring legal aid into public discredit, but none greater than the huge fees sometimes paid out for the benefit of those who can well afford to pay for their own lawyers. We therefore welcome both instruments.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful for this support. We all know, of course, that sunny weather

1413
for some can change quite quickly into very dark and thunderous clouds. I am sure that the time between now and some other events may be quite sufficient for that purpose.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Legal Aid (Functions) Order 1997
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th January be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already explained this order and I have benefited from the support of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. Therefore, I also commend this instrument to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th January be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committed]—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Farm Woodland Premium Scheme 1997
11.18 a.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Lindsay)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Lindsay) rose to move, That the draft scheme laid before the House on 12th February be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this draft scheme I shall speak to the second scheme standing in my name on the Order Paper. These draft statutory instruments are presented in accordance with Section 2 of the Farm Land and Rural Development Act 1988. They were laid before the House on 12th February and approved by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments on 25th February. They apply in Great Britain only. Similar but separate arrangements operate in Northern Ireland.
I shall describe the background to the schemes. The farm woodland scheme was introduced in 1988 to counter growing agricultural surpluses and to encourage farmers to develop woodlands on land used for agriculture. The scheme offered payments to farmers over periods of up to 40 years to compensate for the agricultural income foregone when they planted trees on their land. The pilot scheme was reviewed after five years and its successor, the farm woodland premium scheme, was launched in 1992. The main changes introduced into the FWPS were increased payments over a shorter period and a reduction in the minimum eligible area. At the time we undertook to review the scheme and report to Parliament within five years.
The scheme is co-funded under EC Regulation 2080/92 on forestry measures in agriculture and we receive reimbursement of 50 per cent. of eligible expenditure from the CAP budget.
Both schemes have been successful with, to date, over 48,000 hectares approved for planting in the UK.
We conducted an economic and environmental evaluation of the scheme and sought views from the main farming, forestry and environmental interests. In light of the evaluations and views received, we conducted a detailed policy review of the scheme. A report was laid before Parliament on 24th July last year summarising proposed changes and shortly afterwards a detailed consultation paper was issued. That consultation paper was sent to farming, forestry and environmental interests and placed in the Library of the House.
Following that exercise, our final intentions were announced on 12th December last year and a list of the changes was placed in the Library of the House. The statutory instruments currently before your Lordships would enact those aspects of the proposed changes where legislative amendments are necessary.
Our review concluded that considerable public good derived from woodlands, most notably in the form of landscape and wildlife benefits. These benefits justify continued public support for the scheme.
The objectives of the scheme are being revised to stress the environmental reasons for the public subsidy. The new objectives are:
"To enhance the environment through the planting of farm woodlands, in particular to improve the landscape, provide new habitats and increase biodiversity. In doing this, land managers should be encouraged to realise the productive potential of woodland as a sustainable land use".
A number of detailed changes are being introduced by these statutory instruments. I would like to describe the most important of them.
First, we are seeking to increase payment rates, except on unimproved land where we consider the existing rates adequate. We are also making some changes to the payment structure. This is because the evaluations showed that the agricultural income foregone from planting trees was substantially higher on arable land than on grassland. Therefore, we are introducing a separate, higher rate that will apply to plantings on arable land, defined as land eligible for the arable area payments scheme. The new rates and payment structure will apply to both new and existing participants. Outside the less favoured areas, the new rate will be £300 per hectare for plantings on arable land and £260 per hectare for plantings on improved permanent grassland. It is my view that, bearing in mind the benefits many farmers and their successors will derive from woodland on their land, this will be an attractive proposition for many.
Secondly, we are removing the requirement for participants, once accepted into the scheme, to continue to run an agricultural business. I see this as an important development that will make the scheme considerably more attractive to farmers who are contemplating retirement from active agriculture. The change will also apply to existing participants.
Farmers will still have to be running an agricultural business to be accepted into the scheme, but we are widening eligibility for the scheme by broadening the definition of an agricultural business to include arrangements, such as grazing licences, where landowners retain some control over the management of the land.
We are also introducing more flexibility into the eligibility requirements by removing the current rule limiting applications to 50 per cent. of the agricultural area of a holding. However, this is a cash-limited scheme and we wish to see a wide range of plantings of varying nature and with different objectives. It would therefore not be desirable if the bulk of the funds went to a small number of businesses, to the exclusion of others. With this in mind, we are introducing a maximum area limit of 200 hectares on the area any one business can receive FWPS payments on. The limit will only apply to plantings ensuing from applications received on or after 1st April 1997.
On the administrative front, we want to make the scheme easier for farmers to apply for. The revised scheme will therefore be more closely integrated with the woodland grant scheme run by the Forestry Commission, with joint application and acceptance procedures. There will effectively be a one-stop shop for the farmer interested in establishing a woodland.
In summary, the intention of these changes is to make the FWPS more attractive and thereby help increase the amount of woodland on agricultural land around our towns and throughout our countryside, not only to our benefit but to the benefit of future generations. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft scheme laid before the House on 12th February be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am speaking to this statutory instrument in the absence of my noble friend Lord Carter. I am most grateful to the Minister for his rather long explanation of this complicated scheme. I thank also the Country Landowners' Association for the brief that it has forwarded to me.
I understand that the problem with the old scheme was that farmers were not willing to enter it because of the practical problems encountered when trying to do so. However, from what the Minister said, it looks as though individual farmers or landowners will still need more explanations if they are to be attracted into the scheme.
My general impression from the briefings I have been given is that provided that no hidden snags arise, as happened with the earlier scheme, this scheme is in general acceptable and will help to achieve increased plantings of trees on what was previously farm land or reclaimed land. Therefore, on behalf of this side of the House, I give the scheme a general welcome and only hope that this time we have got it absolutely right.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation. We too give a general welcome to the statutory instrument, but we have one or two queries.
For some years there has been concern about the planting of trees on hard-won improved land. The struggles to improve that land and to bring it into agricultural use have sometimes gone on for more
1416
than 100 years. Such land is to be found in Moray and Nairn, Kintyre, and Mull where farm units are already being lost to woodland. It is feared that the payment of the premium is encouraging landowners to plant trees and that that will exacerbate the problem. I know that the Minister has corresponded with my honourable friends in another place Sir Russell Johnston and Mrs. Ray Michie about the anxiety expressed by Mr. Alistair Maclennan, president of the Moray and Nairn area executive of the NFU of Scotland.
We generally welcome the SI but remain concerned that the more remote places which are already vulnerable will be at even greater risk from rural depopulation if more is not done to protect them. That is in addition to what I think is the probable need for more food and more food security for this country in future.
It is significant that the Cairngorm Partnership, which represents the various interests trying to reach a consensus about the management of the fragile environment of the Cairngorms, has mentioned a presumption against the loss of better land to other land uses, including most woodland planting, in its draft management strategy. It reinforces the concerns of the local NFU that scarce improved land would be lost to woodland planting undertaken by landowners and thus result in further depopulation if it is not specifically safeguarded. Our concern is that the SI does not in itself give adequate protection for areas such as that. Can the Minister give an assurance that further thought will be given to strengthening the guidelines relating to paragraph 6? Otherwise we support the Motion.
11.30 a.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am grateful for the general welcome that this new scheme has received from the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove and Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I should like to correct one general impression that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, may have given. He suggested that the existing farm woodland premium scheme was somehow disabled, limping along and suffering from various chronic problems. That is not so. It has been a very successful scheme. But, like all schemes, over a five-year period it is vital to review progress as circumstances evolve to deliver improvements wherever possible. The improvements we have identified include the removal of some restrictions that were not delivering benefits, the improvement of rates to deliver greater benefits, and the improvement of targeting.
The response to the scheme to date by farmers across the United Kingdom, especially in Scotland, has been very positive. We are planting across the United Kingdom about 70 million new trees per annum. Over the past 17 or 18 years we have planted over a third of a million hectares across the United Kingdom. We are re-afforesting this country at a considerable rate with an eye to planting the right trees in the right places rather than simply blanket the landscape with trees.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that efforts are made to inform farmers of the possibilities under the farm woodland premium scheme. We will

1417
be promoting the scheme through an introductory guide that is in preparation at the moment. Nevertheless, advice remains available to farmers through ADAS, the Scottish agricultural colleges, the agriculture departments and the Forestry Authority. While awaiting the publication of the introductory guide we will be reprinting the existing short practical guide with amendments to take into account proposed changes.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, referred to the concerns that had been expressed by his honourable colleagues in another place about the loss of good quality agricultural land in marginal areas. We fully understand that concern. I have sought to reassure his honourable friends in correspondence. We understand the concerns and have sought to ensure that they are groundless. The operation of the farm woodland premium scheme area limits will avoid the unlimited conversion of land that is valuable for other land uses while still providing reasonable further opportunities for farmers to plant woodlands under the scheme.
It is essential that farmers themselves decide within the limits whether to apply for entry to the scheme, how much land should be entered and which parts of farms should be converted into woodlands. Nevertheless, the Forestry Authority's procedures for consultation, for example with the agriculture, environment and fisheries department of the Scottish Office, on such scheme applications provide an opportunity for consideration of the effects of the proposals on the agricultural structure of the locality. In addition, in the course of wider consultations on forestry proposals, consideration is given to the balance between forestry and other land uses, including agricultural and environmental interests. These matters are also often reflected in indicative forestry strategies that have been prepared by local authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, is also aware that there is a 40-hectare limit on FWPS applications on unimproved land.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, asked about strengthening paragraph 6 which deals with the restriction on resumption of land for entry into the farm woodland premium scheme. The scheme rules already prevent this from occurring. I hope that the noble Lord can be satisfied on that point. Landlords cannot resume land from tenants in order that that land can go into the farm woodland premium scheme.
On the basis of those reassurances, I hope that the House accepts the scheme.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Farm Woodland (Amendment) Scheme 1997
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft scheme laid before the House on 12th February be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Courses for Drink-Drive Offenders (Experimental Period) Order 1997
11.35 a.m.
The Earl of Courtown The Earl of Courtown rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th February be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this order concerns an experimental scheme providing an incentive for drink-drive offenders to attend courses whose purpose is to persuade them not to re-offend. The incentive is that if they complete the course satisfactorily the court which referred them to it will reduce their period of disqualification from driving by up to 25 per cent. Only certain courts are involved in the experiment and able to make the referrals—a point I shall return to later—and the courses must be approved by the Secretary of State for Transport.
The effect of this order is very simple: the present powers for the experiment are due to lapse at the end of this year and the order will extend the duration of the experiment by two years until the end of 1999. Parliament will have a further opportunity before that date to decide whether to make the legislation permanent and remove the restrictions that apply to it while the experiment is under way.
Your Lordships may recall that the experimental powers were introduced by the Road Traffic Act 1991. These empower courts to make orders referring drink-drive offenders to courses and to specify a reduced period of disqualification if the course is successfully completed. Referrals are made at the discretion of the court and can be made only if the offender is willing to be referred and to pay the course fee. At the end of the course the organiser must either issue a certificate of completion, which the offender sends to the court, or a notice of non-completion which can be appealed against. The Secretary of State may issue guidance to course organisers on the conduct of courses.
Even before the legislation came into force there had been some experimentation in rehabilitating drink-drive offenders, notably by the Probation Service, with courts making referrals under the terms of probation orders. Some of these date back to the 1980s. The North review of road traffic law which reported in 1988 recognised their value as a constructive means of reforming attitudes or behaviour which might be inconsistent with a person's safety as a driver. The members of that committee were particularly impressed with courses run by the Hampshire Probation Service which served as a model for many subsequent ones. The North review therefore recommended that the courses should be established first on an experimental basis and should be carefully monitored and evaluated as a necessary precaution before making the heavy investment in time, skills and money that would be necessary to have the courses established on a permanent basis.
The Transport Research Laboratory has been monitoring the effectiveness of the courses and has been issuing regular progress reports. The latest of these provides evidence that course attenders are considerably less likely to re-offend than those who have not attended courses.
The current experiment relates to England, Wales and Scotland. A Northern Ireland order approved last year provides for a similar experiment in the Province but this still has to be set up. In mainland Great Britain around 500 courses have so far been run involving more than 5,000 offenders and 23 approved course organisers.
The question must arise: if the experiment has been so successful up to now, why is it necessary to extend it? Why can we not simply progress to a permanent and nationwide scheme which can benefit all drink-drive offenders? The main reason is fairly technical. The experiment intended to monitor two similar groups of people, one of which had taken the courses and the other of which had not. However, this assumed that virtually everyone who had agreed in court to attend a course and had been served an order would turn up and do so. These people could then be matched fairly accurately to a "control" group from another court. However, there was a much higher than predicted drop-out rate—people who agreed to an order being served but never took the trouble to attend the course. I am not talking about people who started a course but did not complete it—they form a relatively small group—but about those who did not even give it a try.
The problem for the researchers is that they know very little about those "drop-outs", but it is quite likely that their characteristics are rather different from those of the people who did participate. This makes it more difficult to interpret the data about the value of the courses, since it suggests that those who attended were self-selecting to a greater extent than we anticipated. These difficulties are not insuperable, but they do mean that we need a greater degree of confidence in the data we have got, and the most straightforward way of getting that is to monitor the effect of the courses for a little longer. If we track all the offenders in the experimental and control groups for a full three years from the date of the offence, we shall do better than if we just look at the position reached in the middle of 1997. This means extending the experiment by a further two years.
But extending the period will provide further opportunities too. We hope to use this next phase to extend the geographical spread of courses by designating further court areas, thus making the courses available to a larger number of drink-drive offenders and allowing further providers of courses to enter the field. A number of the existing providers of courses have the capacity to serve additional courts or expand to nearby towns, and an interest in doing so. We are looking for further opportunities to attract new interest in providing courses.
The rehabilitation scheme I have described can play an important part in the Government's continuing efforts to reduce drinking and driving by preventing people from re-offending, whether they be first time or repeat offenders. Drinking and driving is one of the most avoidable causes of road deaths. Certainly, we have made great progress in the past 10 years in reducing road deaths involving driving over the legal limit. But
1420
still around one in six of all road deaths is drink-drive related, so there must be no let up in the Government's measures to combat this problem.
Bearing in mind this and the encouraging initial results that I have mentioned, I commend this order to your Lordships and hope that you will give it your full support. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th February be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Courtown.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl for that comprehensive introduction. Let me say immediately that we welcome the provision of courses and the experiment which has been described. We shall therefore welcome the order itself. However, as a survey researcher, perhaps I may be forgiven one or two comments on the research issues which the noble Earl has discussed.
It is clearly right that there should be an experimental as well as a control group for the research. I also accept that the number of drop-outs before the course has even started seriously affects the credibility of the research design. I have two questions about that. First, why are the courses made available only to those who agree in court at the time of the imposition of the ban? Would it not have been possible to have approached those who were already banned to ask them whether they would be interested in taking part in the courses, with the obvious benefit of a reduction in the period of disqualification? That could have increased the number of cases studied in the experiment, and made it possible to reach a conclusion earlier than was originally intended.
My second comment is less critical. I understand the need to continue the experimental period, and I welcome what the noble Earl said about the extension of the experimental programme into new court areas—either completely new areas or by extension from the existing experiment. We support the order.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I welcome the order to a good degree. I declare my interest as a deputy chairman of the all-party group on alcohol misuse. Our group follows carefully the measures which have been taken by the Government. I congratulate the Government on what they have done recently to address the difficult problem of those who, in particular, re-offend in the drinking and driving area.
Perhaps I may follow what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said. The problem arises principally with repeat offenders. There has been a change in our culture towards drinking and driving. When I was a young man—I readily confess it—the attitude towards drinking and driving was much less stringent than it is now. Most young men and young women were at some stage, I am afraid, in charge of a vehicle when they were clearly not in a position to be so. Nowadays that is rare.
There is no doubt of the deterrent effect of police activity in stopping young drivers, in particular—it is not young drivers, I might add, who are generally the main offenders nowadays—to give them a sharp lesson which they will never forget. Over 15 or 20 years, that has had

1421
the effect of reducing the incidence of first-time drinking and driving offenders. If they are sensible, people nowadays—one hopes that young people are sensible—will ensure that they do not drive cars when they go to parties and that someone who has not been drinking does so. That is generally the pattern nowadays, and that is to be welcomed.
The problem of course arises with people who have a drinking problem. Most people drive cars nowadays. I am afraid that people with drinking problems drive cars. When I say "drinking problems" I do not mean people who are, in the accepted sense, addicts—that is, alcoholics—but people who may well end up that way and who are not easily persuaded that they should not drink and drive. It is those people whom one must target, and who will be effectively targeted by the Government's measures. It is those that we welcome.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, mentioned the problem of people who may not agree to take the training at the court stage. Of course someone who has a drink problem, as with any other person who has an addiction problem, is often in what is termed a state of denial. It is often only people who are known by their relatives, who can bring pressure upon them, who might accept the possibility of having this kind of training.
Even so, the courses may not be effective, in which case that must be identified during the course. That is why we should watch the results carefully. I am delighted that there is to be this extension, because we need more information in order to target the people who are most likely to be at risk themselves and ultimately a risk to other road users.
This is a very important development. I welcome it more than I welcome the idea of being more severe with random tests on the roads, and so forth, which have been called for in many quarters. I do not agree with that. One needs now to give road users who have decided not to drink and drive something of a pat on the back rather than to make life more difficult for them. One needs to target, as the Government are doing here, those who, if they do not have an alcoholism problem, have a drinking and driving problem which requires proper treatment. I was delighted to hear the noble Earl say that there is an indication that these courses are reducing the number of offences. We shall monitor the matter carefully. I am sure that my congratulations to the Government on this morning in particular are welcome. I hope that in many, many years' time, perhaps, we shall have the occasion to congratulate the noble Earl's party again on this matter.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this short debate, but it is noticeable that both Front Bench speakers opposite, although I agree with every word they have said in support of the order, mentioned the likelihood that what my noble friend called the "drop-out rate"—in other words, the non-participation rate—will continue in the same way as it has heretofore. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made suggestions on curing the problem which are dependent on a supposition,
1422
but what gives the Government the confidence that the continued experiment will be more successful?
Viscount Simon: My Lords, I wonder whether I am alone in thinking that the words "courses for drink-drive offenders" could be completely misinterpreted and should have been preceded by the word "rehabilitation"?
Nonetheless, I am delighted that the experimental' period is being extended. I am of the understanding that these courses have had some success in the West Country, have been adopted by at least one other police force and are under consideration by others which are looking at ways in which the legislation might possibly impinge upon the Road Traffic (New Drivers) Act 1995, funding for those unable to afford the course fee, and other matters, before making a decision. It should, of course, be recognised that what is successful in one part of the country will not necessarily be successful in another due to different local conditions. I am pleased that the Transport Research Laboratory is monitoring the results of the courses, as mentioned by the noble Earl, and I approve of the order.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their support of the order. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, raised a point concerning the extension of the scheme to those part way through a ban. I understand that it is a direction of the courts that they enter into the scheme in the first place. The legislation does not allow people already disqualified to take the course. It is important that the court decides what the period of disqualification shall be, whether or not the course is taken.
A number of noble Lords mentioned the improvement in relation to re-offending. That is happening gradually. Furthermore, the drop-out rate is falling too.
In answer to the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, research will be completed in 1999 and the final report will then be published. However, we are already obtaining useful feedback. The latest evaluation shows that course attenders are considerably less likely to re-offend than those who have not attended the courses. Thirty months after sentencing, those who had attended courses were three times less likely to have re-offended than the "control group". Particularly encouraging results were achieved with offenders in the high-risk offender category who, because of the seriousness of their offences or repeat offences, are thought to present a particular danger to road safety.
After attending courses they were no more likely to re-offend than the low-level offenders who had attended. This is an important finding. There was some doubt about how suitable the courses would be for the high-risk offenders. There is also evidence from questionnaires completed by people who had attended the courses that the courses had helped to improve the offenders' knowledge of alcohol and its effects and of just how few drinks it takes in order for them to be over the legal drink-drive limit.
I hope that that and the other points that I have made have adequately demonstrated the value of continuing with this experiment. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Police (Property) Bill
11.54 a.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill comes about as a result of an issue which came to light during debate on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill 1994 in another place.
I think it true to say that the Bill has modest objectives. Nevertheless, I believe that it is a worthwhile measure, being designed to make better use of public funds.
The main purpose of the Bill is to allow the police to retain particular items of property, instead of having to dispose of them, where the items are of such specific use that it would be more efficient to allow them to be retained for use in the police service.
The Bill extends to all parts of the United Kingdom. Whereas the legislative position is very similar for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, it is different for Scotland. I shall therefore speak separately about the Bill's provision relating to Scotland.
First, however, I shall speak about the position in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland, where the disposal of unclaimed or forfeited property in the possession of the police is governed by the Police (Property) Act 1897 and regulations made under this Act. At the moment, it is a requirement that the property be either sold or destroyed and the proceeds from all sales paid into a Police Property Fund, which is controlled by the police authority. Payments are made from the fund for charitable purposes.
There have been occasions where costly items of property, such as computer systems, have had to be sold at auction for a substantially reduced amount, when it would have provided far greater value for money to allow the police to retain the item for their own use.
As I have explained, the purpose of this Bill is to change the legislation to make it possible, on an exceptional basis, for items of unclaimed or forfeited property to be retained for use by the police. The decision would not be made by the police, but would remain with the police authority, which controls the Police Property Fund.
The number of occasions when it will make economic sense to do this will be very small and the totality of the sums involved will not be significant in terms of total police budgets. Nor will the income of charities be affected to any noticeable extent.
The Bill makes analogous changes in Northern Ireland where, as I have explained, the law is similar to that in England and Wales. The position is different in Scotland, where the courts already have the power to vest forfeited property in the police.
I would like to give a brief description of the clauses in the Bill. Clause 1 amends the Police (Property) Act 1897 to allow regulations made under the Act to provide that the police authority may decide that property is to be retained. Clause 2 makes consequential changes to the Powers of the Criminal Courts Act 1973 to allow regulations to provide for the retention of forfeited
1424
property. Clause 3 makes equivalent changes to the law on forfeiture in Northern Ireland to those made by Clause 2. Clause 4 makes two minor tidying amendments to the Police (Property) Act 1897 in respect of Northern Ireland. Clause 5 is also a tidying amendment which repeals a provision which is inconsistent with the Police (Property) Act 1897. I shall come to Clause 6, but Clause 7 provides the Short Title, commencement provisions and scope of each clause of the Bill.
Clause 6 of the Bill relates to Scotland. It makes provision for a new Part VIIA in the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 to enable the police in Scotland either to dispose of or to retain certain property which is at present excluded from Parts VI and VII of that Act, which respectively relate to lost and abandoned property and to property in the possession of persons taken into police custody.
Under the current terms of the 1982 Act, the police in Scotland may already dispose of any lost or abandoned property to which Part VI applies. For Scotland, therefore, the Bill will extend the provisions of the 1982 Act to allow the police to retain or to dispose of a new class of property.
This new class of property is purely that which has come into the possession of the police in connection with the investigation of a suspected offence, having been found in possession of a person taken into custody, which is reasonably suspected to be in the unlawful possession of that person, or is property which the prosecutor has determined is no longer required as a production in criminal proceedings, or for any other purpose relating to such proceedings.
I suggest that this is a commonsense and practical measure and I commend it to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Viscount Bridgeman.)
11.59 a.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Viscount for his introduction of this valuable little Bill. I hope that he will not mind my saying that it is a little Bill. It performs the function of a 100-year review of the 1897 Act. Perhaps we ought to adopt that procedure as a general custom. Why should we not review all legislation after 100 years instead of, as this Government appear to do, after 100 months at the most, and sometimes only 12 or 18 months.
Although it did not appear in the noble Viscount's speech, I thought there was to be some change also in the procedures whereby the police dispose of property when they wish to do so. The 1897 Act provided for auction and I understood that that had been changed by subsequent legislation. However, I may be wrong, and it is not essential to the Bill.
The Government will recall that in the consideration of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill 1994, in Standing Committee B in another place, the Labour Party proposed a similar change to the Bill in the form of an amendment. The Minister of State at the Home Office, Mr. David Maclean, said that it was

1425
inappropriate for it to be included in the legislation then under consideration and that it would have to be put forward in the form of a separate Bill. That is what this Bill achieves and to that extent it is welcomed.
I have only one sour point to make and I shall have to make it more than once today. This is what my honourable friend Dennis Skinner called synthetic Private Member's legislation. Government Back-Benchers who win the ballot for a Private Member's Bill are sent Bills which are already prepared by government departments—in this case the Home Office—and adopt them as Private Member's Bills. That is a distortion of what Private Member's Bills should be for. They should be for genuinely new legislative proposals. If the Government have Bills they should produce them in their own time rather than use the allocation, already severely limited, for Private Member's Bills in the Commons. With that proviso, I welcome the Bill.
12.2 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I welcome the Bill. I have only one point with which I am sure the Minister will deal. It is entirely sensible for the decision to be made by the police authority rather than the police themselves. That is an entirely desirable position. But, of course, London does not have a police authority, although it is hoped that it soon will have. That being so, what is the position in relation to London?
12.3 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Bridgeman on introducing the Bill today and I am grateful for the support that it has received. Although the Bill appears somewhat complicated, due to its technical nature, its main purpose is clear: to enable the police to deal more efficiently with items of unclaimed or forfeited property. I am sure that that is something we could all support. Indeed, the Bill has received cross-party support so far and I hope to see that continue.
As my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said, the issue came to attention in 1994 when an amendment was tabled to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill in another place. The amendment sought to enable the police to apply to the courts for the use of computer equipment forfeited by pornographers.
Although the amendment was rejected because it was defective the Government were sympathetic to the underlying aim of the amendment. Indeed the Government said at that time that if it were deemed desirable for the police to make use of forfeited property, the necessary provision should be made by amendment to the Police (Property) Act 1897 and regulations issued under it. I am pleased to see that that is happening with this Bill.
The Government indicated their support for such a measure in the White Paper Protecting the Public, issued in March 1996. By enabling the matter to be taken forward in this Bill my noble friend is seeing that action is taken sooner than would otherwise be possible. I am grateful to him for that.
1426
The Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and of Northern Ireland has been consulted and has confirmed that it would find it useful occasionally to be able to retain particular items of property. Likewise, the Association of Chief Police Officers of Scotland has welcomed the proposed measures. As was mentioned by my noble friend, the legislative position in Scotland differs to that in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, but it makes sense to allow the same sort of arrangements for dealing with property to be available in Scotland. The opportunity is taken in the Bill to make some minor tidying amendments to the legislation for Northern Ireland, and I agree that it is appropriate to do that.
I believe that the Bill's provisions reflect the intention that the option of retaining property is to be exercised on an exceptional rather than a general basis. The police authority, which has responsibility for managing the Police Property Act Fund, will need to satisfy itself that the property has remained in the possession of the police for a year (or for six months in the case of forfeited property); that the police are empowered to sell the property; and that the property can be used for police purposes. The police authority will need to make a determination that a particular item of property is to be retained. Regulations will provide for all such determinations by the police authority to be published. Those are features to reassure anyone who may be concerned that police priorities may become distorted.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, mentioned the situation relating to London. The Receiver for the Metropolitan Police takes the place of the police authority in London.
It will be necessary to ensure that decisions to retain property can be defended on value for money grounds. New regulations will be made and a Home Office circular will be issued explaining the circumstances in which property can be retained rather than sold.
As noble Lords may be aware, the proceeds of property disposed of by the police go to charitable purposes. Lest there be any concern that the Bill will have an adverse effect on charities let me give an assurance that this will not be the case. Given that only particular items of property that are likely to fetch a low price at auction should be affected, the impact of the Bill on charities should not be significant.
Some may wonder about the sort of items of property that might be retained for use by the police. It think it would be difficult to be precise. Computer equipment that has been forfeited is perhaps the most obvious example. That is because, for the moment at least, there is not a very effective second-hand market for computer equipment. Items of jewellery that have come into the hands of the police as stolen property and which have remained unclaimed by the owner would be examples of property that could not be retained.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am shocked by that. What about chief constables' wives?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I greatly enjoy the repartee with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I am sure that he is not being serious.

1427
Apart from the fact that jewellery would fetch a reasonable price at auction, it could not be used for police purposes and so would be ruled out. Property consisting of money is also ruled out. Given that the situation with second-hand markets can change, I do not believe it would be sensible for the Bill to define too closely the type of property that might be retained. I believe it is best left to the combined good judgment of the police and the police authority. That is what the Bill will do, and I agree.
I welcome the Bill and I commend it to your Lordships.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, will he respond to the point which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made about synthetic Private Member's Bills? The problem is not new; nor has it been confined to governments of one party only. If the noble Earl is not in the position to make a pronouncement, will he bring the matter to the notice of the business managers?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has mentioned that in the past. I shall of course bring his comments to the attention of the business managers.
12.8 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for taking part in the debate and for the broad support that the Bill has received. As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in relation to auction, as I understand it there is not merely an option to offer the property referred to at auction; there is an obligation to do so. I am grateful to all noble Lords, and I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Building Societies (Distributions) Bill
12.9 p.m.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This modest, genuine Private Member's Bill is designed to correct a signal unfairness which denies entitlement to shares or cash bonuses to particular individuals when building societies abandon neutral status to revert to public companies.
I am afraid that the requirements of parliamentary drafting demand more than five pages and nearly 250 lines of legislation to achieve that objective by amendment of the Building Societies Act 1986.
The injustice being addressed applies to many thousands of building society customers who, for reasons of age, sickness, disability, handicap or other good reasons, are not the first named member on their building society account, that first named position being occupied by their trustee. Current practice generally
1428
means that only the first named can qualify for bonus cash or shares and, moreover, can only fully qualify once irrespective of the number of accounts held.
If, as often happens, the matron of a nursing home or the manager of an old people's home is looking after and, as trustee, is the first named on the building society accounts of, say, 20 or 30 of their patients or residents, then, under existing legislation, those patients or residents would not be entitled to share in the benefits when their building society converts. Put in more formal language, this Bill will require building societies to make more than one distribution, of cash or bonus shares, to members who have more than one account where the other account is held by the member on trust for another person where it can be shown that it is not reasonably practical for that other person to hold the account.
I should make it clear that building societies are able under existing legislation to do of their own volition what this Bill will require them to do; in other words, the Bill would not force societies to do anything which they cannot do at present, if they so decide. The Bill will not place unreasonable administrative burdens on the societies who will be affected in the future. Potential beneficiaries will be required to make claims by way of statutory declarations (before a JP, a notary or a solicitor) and, as your Lordships know, making a false statutory declaration is perjury and a criminal offence. The onus for making a claim therefore rests with the individuals concerned and the building society is not responsible for searching out such individuals by hunting through its records.
As I explained earlier, complicated drafting has been required to achieve the relatively simple objectives of this legislation, and perhaps it would be unduly burdensome on your Lordships for me to read out the explanatory notes that I have been given about each detailed subsection of the Bill. I have, however, provided a copy of these explanatory notes to those noble Lords who indicated their intention to speak in this short debate and I hope that that will have been of assistance. I have also placed a copy of the notes in the Library.
As noble Lords know, the Halifax Building Society decided to convert earlier this week and there has been some press comment and speculation about whether the provisions of this Bill will, or should, apply. I must quickly extinguish any false hopes that the Bill will of itself redress the very real sense of grievance felt by those Halifax customers who are disadvantaged by current practice. Whatever the merits of their claims—and, indeed, of similar claims from members of other converting societies—I fear that practical political realities have ensured that this Bill is very narrowly focused. It does not have retrospective effect on societies—for example, the Alliance and Leicester, the Halifax, the Northern Rock and the Woolwich—which announced their plans some time ago. Retrospection would impose considerable costs and difficulties on those societies and could disadvantage by delay the majority of their members who are looking forward to their bonuses later this year. The Bill will only apply to societies who make their announcements after

1429
22nd January 1997 and that trigger date is set out in Clause 2 of the Bill. As I understand it, no society has made such an announcement since 22nd January, so it will only apply to those societies which make announcements in the future.
I should explain that this Bill was introduced by my honourable friend, Douglas French, the Member of Parliament for Gloucester, under the Ten Minute Rule in another place on 22nd January of this year. As a result of widespread consultation and most careful drafting, it completed all its subsequent stages without discussion or debate—in effect, on the nod—on Friday, 14th February and came to this House on Monday, 17th February for its first reading. Perhaps I may pay tribute to the Treasury Minister, Mrs. Angela Knight and her officials, to the Opposition spokesmen concerned in another place, to the Building Societies Commission, the Consumers' Association and, not least, to Lesley Furlonger for her skilled drafting of this Bill.
I must also make it abundantly clear that this Bill, which is supported by leading charities like MENCAP, SENSE and the Royal National Institute for the Blind, can only reach the statute book in the current Session of Parliament in its unamended form. It does not deal with every difficulty or anomaly but if the smallest or the most sensible and reasonable amendment is made, which requires the Bill to go back to another place, it will not survive as I understand there will be no parliamentary time available for further consideration in another place. Either the Bill is agreed precisely in its present form by your Lordships' House, as I hope it will be, and as a result goes directly for Royal Assent, or it will fall due to lack of parliamentary time and many deserving people who stand to gain from its modest but well worthwhile provisions will be bitterly disappointed. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be read a second time.—(Lord Hayhoe.)
12.16 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I welcome the Bill. There is indeed quite a history behind Private Members' Bills on building societies and in particular about second named account holders. I believe that it was about a year and a half ago that two similar Bills were launched, one by Douglas French MP in another place and one by myself in this Chamber. As is only proper, I deferred to his Bill, withdrew mine and supported his. That Bill established certain rights for second named account holders, especially widows. However, it was conceded at the time that that Bill inevitably left a number of other gaps. I am happy to say that one of them is being filled by the Bill now before us.
Some time ago I discussed the whole principle with someone from a building society who said that it had been put to their lawyers who concluded that the problem was too difficult to solve; and, indeed, they had been unable to bring anything forward in that respect. Therefore, I am even more pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, and his colleague in another place, Douglas French, have managed to find a way to produce a Bill that seems to meet a particular and specific need.
1430
I am bound to say that I found the Bill rather difficult to understand when I read through it. Therefore, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, for sending me some explanatory notes. All became clear to me after reading those notes but, without them, it is a particularly difficult Bill to understand. I appreciate that it has to be complex because its provisions are quite difficult in legal terms to ensure that the legislation achieves its stated objectives.
One of the difficulties that has faced building societies up to now is that they have not known enough about the identity or the responsibilities of first named account holders. In my discussions with building societies, those concerned have said to me that, in future, they will need to find a different way of registering first named account holders so that they can distinguish between those who are trustees, wives, husbands or whatever. Had that been the case, I suspect that the Bill would in some respects have been much simpler. However, as I said, it is complicated because of the need to find a way in which people can declare what their position is as first named account holders and what their responsibilities are for other names on the list. In future, I hope that building societies will approach the matter somewhat differently so as to facilitate the process. Having said that, they will be helped significantly by the Bill.
I believe that building societies have been a little amiss in allowing the situation to develop. When I say "situation", I have in mind all the anxieties facing different categories of second named account holders. The whole process has led to a sense of unfairness. We have often talked about people who are very poor and for whom a small distribution of money could make a substantial difference. Having, so to speak, complied with all the requirements, people feel a sense of unfairness when they have been deprived of the money because of what seems to them to be a mere technicality. That is why there has been a need for this legislation. I welcome this Bill. I take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, said; namely, if it is amended, it will fall simply because there is no time between now and an election to get it through. In that spirit we shall look at the Bill in the hope of not needing to amend it as opposed to looking for amendments.
However, I am irritated by one other matter. This Bill is a Private Member's Bill; the previous Bill was a Private Member's Bill. Yet in a sense I should have thought it was up to the Government to introduce legislation on building societies. That was the thrust of some of the debates that took place on earlier Bills. The Government have a responsibility and because they have not exercised that responsibility, private Members have stepped in.
I was irritated to note that at 11 o'clock this morning a Building Societies Bill was introduced in another place. The only reason I knew about that was because I read articles in today's papers indicating that a Bill was to be introduced today. One of the articles suggested that the Bill would be passed today. I think there was some confusion in that newspaper between

1431
the new Bill and the Bill we are discussing. I managed to get hold of a copy of that Bill when the embargo was lifted at 11 o'clock this morning.
I am less irritated about that than about the late arrival of a Bill which many of us had hoped would be on the scene much earlier and which could have dealt with the matter in the Bill we are now discussing and other matters which still need some tidying up in the area of second-named account holders. It is somewhat irritating to note that the Government have not dealt with any of those matters; they have dealt with different matters. After all the discussion that has taken place and the hints from government Ministers that a Bill would be available before too long—that was said a year and a half ago—many of us thought that was a commitment, as it were, on the part of the Government to introduce a Bill. Now we have this other Bill today I have mentioned which I do not see getting through before an election, so it is simply a marker—
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): It might get through!
Lord Dubs: My Lords, the Minister suggests it might get through before an election. However, it is a pretty hefty Bill to get through before an election; it has 109 pages. I am sure it is a worthwhile measure, although I have not had time to examine it. Perhaps I should not say I am sure it is a worthwhile measure; I hope it is a worthwhile measure. However, since I picked it up from the Printed Paper Office I have not had time to look at it. As I said, I am somewhat irritated that the Government have not done what they should have done.
Having said that, I welcome this Bill. It will deal with the sense of unfairness that a small number of second and lower-named account holders quite properly feel. It will put that matter right and I wish it a quick passage through this House.
12.22 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I appear to be speaking in the gap. I presume that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will sum up the debate when he speaks and therefore this is the only moment when I can speak in the debate. I apologise for not giving notice, but I only arrived from Australia at six o'clock this morning and therefore I did not have an opportunity to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said that the Building Societies Bill in another place was expected earlier. I have spent some time on a building society board although I am no longer involved. I have also been a member of the all-party building societies group. The toing and froing between building societies and the Government has been extensive. I believe that is why the Bill has not arrived earlier in another place. It was a case of trying to produce a measure that would be acceptable to all the parties involved.
I add my voice to those who welcome this measure today. I note that other noble Lords who are currently members of building society boards are present in the
1432
Chamber. The administration of building societies is far more complicated than one realises. It is complicated to sort out who is entitled to what. I believe that this measure is a step in the right direction. I support the Bill.
12.24 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, all we can really say about this Bill is that we are thankful it is here and we wish it had been here earlier. It addresses a matter of natural justice. The people we are discussing had money in an account which was being held for them for their use and was accruing interest for their use. However, they were denied the bonus that was paid out when some building societies changed their status. That should not have happened. I believe that building societies and the Government have become totally reactive on this matter. They have waited for problems to arise and then waited for pressure from this House, another place and the press to build up before they did something about it.
When building societies were first created they were not expected to become banks. When they decided to change their status someone should have examined their future structure and any problems that might arise. This is a warning to all of us that, if we are considering great changes, we should spend a great deal of time planning for that. We should also be prepared to listen to people's opinions and to consult widely.
Those who have spoken before me have covered the technical details. I am only sad that we cannot do more for those who have been adversely affected prior to this point. We can wish the Bill well. The lesson we can learn from this matter is that when one undertakes change which affects the general public one must consider such change from their point of view. It is quite clear that that was not done in this case. I hope that any future government, of whatever colour or persuasion, will bear that in mind and will show far more consideration for those people who are directly affected by a change which is often thought of as an administrative one.
12.26 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I start by paying tribute to my noble friend who has so persuasively introduced this Bill and who will take it through its remaining stages in this House. I also pay tribute to my honourable friend the Member for Gloucester, Mr. Douglas French, for his considerable efforts in drafting the Bill and his enviable achievement in ensuring its swift passage through all its stages in another place.
As all noble Lords have said, the concern behind the Bill is over cases where a carer or family member is the first-named on a building society account held for a person for whom it is not reasonably practicable to operate his account, and at the same time has another membership account with the same building society. Of course in the normal run of things, this makes little difference to either person. But recently it has made a difference where the accounts are held with a society which is proposing to convert or to be taken over.

1433
In these cases, the general practice is for only one bonus to be paid to the carer in respect of both accounts. Depending on the circumstances, there may well be a duty under trust law to pass on part of the bonus received to the disabled people, but as a consequence, the benefits accruing to the disabled person, and indeed to the first-named account holder, may well be substantially less than a first-named account holder would expect to receive.
Societies have generally paid only one bonus because their schemes are based on voting membership. Provided a scheme is within the law, it is for the society board and members to decide on a distribution scheme. Under the Building Societies Act 1986, only the first-named member on an account has a vote on the transfer proposals, or any other resolution of the society. This provision reflects the mutual constitution of societies. It also ensures against distortion of the voting base, for example by someone adding several names to an account to get extra votes. Likewise, a person with more than one account in his or her name will have only one vote. Both of these rules underpin the nature of mutual building societies, where the principle is one member, one vote.
I say "general practice" because there is no compulsion on converting societies to tie their distribution schemes to voting membership. A society embarking on conversion could propose a different scheme, including one with special provision for disabled and other second-named savers if it wished, not in precisely the way envisaged by this Bill, but with similar effect. This Bill is designed to make sure that in future, distribution schemes will specifically cater for savers who are limited, by disability, ill-health or age, in their ability to operate their accounts from day to day.
It is generally open to savers and carers to decide whose name should be first on the account, and so who has voting membership. Indeed, the 1986 Act gives joint savers and borrowers the statutory right to choose the order of names on an account if they wish. I hope that my noble friends and others will join me in welcoming the initiative of the Building Societies Association, which has issued guidance notes for its members in opening accounts where the saver—the person whose money it is—may not be the best person to manage the account on a day-to-day basis. In such cases, the saver may be the first-named member on the account, with a second-named member carrying out the practical operation of their account. Clearly that will go a long way towards resolving the problems that the Bill addresses.
The Bill we are discussing would address those cases where the first-named or sole named member on an account is acting on behalf of someone for whom it is not reasonably practicable to operate the account. At the time the account was opened it seemed sensible to put the account operator's name first, and no one could have foreseen that the order of names would have had the unwelcome consequence that it has turned out to have.
I started by praising the significant achievement of my honourable friend the Member for Gloucester, Mr. Douglas French. I hope that he will have a double
1434
whammy. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, reminded us that my honourable friend has already to his credit a Private Member's Bill on building societies on a closely related topic. With a bit of luck, and with your Lordships' support, he should have two such Bills to his credit. That is pretty good going with Private Members' Bills in another place, and especially Private Members' Bills on such a complex and technical subject as this Bill and indeed, the other measure. I congratulate him, and my noble friend Lord Hayhoe on taking up this issue in this House. I thank the three noble Lords who spoke, including my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, whom I welcome back. I am impressed with her stamina in speaking in the debate having got in on an overnight flight from the other side of the world. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part. Given the level of support, I am sure that the Bill will reach the statute book before the end of this Parliament.
12.30 p.m.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, I am grateful for the support that this limited measure has received. In view of the comments of my noble friend Lady Gardner, perhaps I should declare an interest. I was—I underline "was"—a non-executive director of a building society, as the noble Baroness was of a different society. I hope that the building societies which are converting will take note of what was said in the debate, in particular what has just been said by the Minister. If the Bill becomes law, the Bill will require societies in the future to act to redress the grievance of the elderly, the handicapped, the sick and the aged. But there is nothing to stop building societies which are converting now from taking that action of their own volition. I hope that they will take note of what has been said and of the fact that the Bill had all-party support in another place. I hope that those building societies will find some way of helping those people who have a real sense of grievance with the present situation.
I am grateful for the support that the Bill has received. I hope that it will now receive a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Police (Health and Safety) Bill
12.33 p.m.
Lord Luke: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill seeks to put right an anomaly which has existed since 1975 when the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 came into force.
I think that some of your Lordships will be surprised to learn that police officers who face a firebomb attack in the course of a riot are not covered by the health and safety legislation. This is because, unlike their civilian colleagues, the employment status of police officers does not fall within the 1974 Act's definition of employment.

1435
This Bill, which was introduced in another place by my honourable friend the Member for Wycombe, will put right this anomaly. It seeks to place police officers, special constables and police cadets in the same position as other workers under the health and safety legislation.
At this point I think that I should declare an interest as I have held the appointment of High Sheriff for Bedfordshire and I have served on the county police authority. But before that I had the honour of serving as a special constable in the City of London.
Pressure for this Bill has come from two directions. First, the police service itself wants to be covered by the health and safety legislation on a statutory basis. Secondly, the enactment of the Bill will enable Her Majesty's Government to implement more fully a series of European Union directives on health and safety, which apply to all workers.
The police federations and the other police representative bodies believe that the extra discipline which comes from statutory compliance will lead to real improvements in the health, safety and welfare of police officers.
Support for the legislation comes also from the Associations of Chief Police Officers, who are concerned by the drain on force budgets from sickness and early retirements due to accidents and assaults. Industrial experience indicates that good health and safety arrangements are beneficial both in economic terms and in improved morale.
I should like now to outline what the Bill does. Clause 1 is the key provision. It inserts a new section into the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and brings police officers, special constables and police cadets under the protection of the Act. In legal terms it provides that a person who holds the office of constable, special constable or an appointment as a police cadet shall be treated as an employee for the purpose of the Act.
The Bill will apply to all constables and cadets. This will include those who serve in the area forces established under the Police Act 1996 and the Police (Scotland) Act 1967, and also to forces established under other enactments, such as the Ministry of Defence Police, the British Transport Police and the forces which are responsible for docks and harbours.
The Bill will also apply to constables who are members of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad, which will be given statutory identities when the current Police Bill is enacted. Police officers who are seconded to central service units, such as the National Directorate of Police Training and Her Majesty's Inspectorates of Constabulary will also enjoy the Bill's protection.
For the purposes of the 1974 Act the employer of constables and cadets will be the chief officer of police for the area forces, and the Directors-General of NCIS and the NCS. In the case of other forces and central service the employer will be the person who has the direction and control of the constables or cadets in question.
1436
The new section provides also that, in the case of the area forces, the national police federations and the police representative bodies will perform the functions which the 1974 Act confers upon recognised trade unions. This is very important because it means that these bodies will be empowered to appoint safety representatives and require their chief officers to establish safety committees. In the case of the central service bodies and the other forces the Bill empowers the Secretary of State to make corresponding provisions by means of regulations under Section 2 of the 1974 Act.
Clause 2 of the Bill extends the definition of "work" and "at work" as these terms are used in the 1974 Act. The effect is that a chief officer will only be responsible for securing the health and safety of his constables and cadets when they are actually on duty, that is during the hours that they are subject to his direction and control.
Clauses 3 and 4 insert new sections into the Employment Rights Act 1996. The effect of these clauses is that, where a constable or a police cadet is penalised or dismissed because of actions which he has taken on grounds of health and safety, he will be able to seek redress from an industrial tribunal, over and above the rights he has under the police disciplinary procedures. At present police officers are expressly excluded from the protections provided by the Employment Rights Act 1996. This will put them on a par with other employees.
Clause 5 authorises police authorities to make payments from police funds in respect of compensation, costs or expenses awarded against the chief officer. In the case of civil proceedings the police authority will be required to pay the costs; but in the case of any settlement made out of court the authority is first required to approve the amount of the settlement.
Clause 5 also empowers a police authority, at its discretion, to pay a fine and costs imposed upon the chief officer who is the subject of criminal proceedings for breaches of the health and safety regulations. But I emphasise that this is a discretionary power and it will be for the police authority to determine on the facts of each case whether or not it would be appropriate to pay the fine.
Clause 6 makes two consequential amendments. The first is to the definition of "employment" in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The second amends Section 200 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 which specifies provisions of that Act which do not apply to persons in police service.
Clause 7 is simply a procedural matter to facilitate the extension of the health and safety legislation to constables and police cadets in the Royal Ulster Constabulary and other forces in Northern Ireland. Clause 8 was approved as a money resolution in another place.
Finally, Clause 9 gives the Act its short title and also provides that it will come into force by order of the Secretary of State. It is important that there should be some flexibility over the commencement of the Act. Although the police service is already well on the way

1437
to complying with this legislation, forces will need some time to review their existing arrangements and to ensure that they are in a position to comply from the outset.
I believe that the Bill will contribute to substantial improvements in the health and safety of the police service. I am confident that the House will agree that this is a worthwhile objective and will wish to give the Bill a Second Reading. I commend the measure to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Luke.)
12.42 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is the duty of the Opposition to oppose. I have tried very hard to find some flaw in this Bill to "hang on to" in order to retain some reputation as an Opposition spokesman. But both the Bill and the excellent introductory speech of the noble Lord, Lord Luke, failed to provide me with any ammunition. On every point I have examined, the Bill is well thought out and well drafted.
All the questions that were raised by my honourable friends in another place appear to have been answered by the noble Lord and by the Government during the Bill's passage there. Their concerns were as to the extent of the Bill, in that it referred to police forces and police authorities. They were assured, as I am, that it covers the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the National Crime Squad, the British Transport Police and other special police forces, and indeed all central services. They were concerned with the definition of "at work". Although it excludes police acting when not on duty, which is clearly necessary, it is a very wide definition and includes all the occasions when health and safety legislation appears to be necessary.
My honourable friends were concerned with the representation of trade unions and the ability of trade unions to have safety representatives and a safety committee. That has been assured by the Bill. They were concerned that there should be access to industrial tribunals when there is a dispute on safety matters and that has been provided in addition to existing police disciplinary procedures. So I can think of very little to object to.
The Bill itself is clearly right. It is seriously overdue. In the 23 years that have passed since the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 the police ought to have had this protection and have never had it until now. It is welcome that at long last the protection is being extended to them.
I am therefore forced back on to my sour note of saying that this is another synthetic Bill. It is a noble aim for Sir Raymond Whitney and a noble aim for the noble Lord, Lord Luke. However, it is an abuse of procedures—particularly in another place where it is so difficult to find time for Private Member's Bills—that when a ballot is won government Bills are taken up rather than Bills of more independent origin. With that very minor caveat, we welcome the Bill.
12.45 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, first I should like to congratulate my noble friend on explaining his Bill so clearly and concisely. I was particularly glad to hear the support expressed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey.
As some noble Lords will know, the Bill will implement the policy which my right honourable friend the Minister of State at the Home Office announced last October. In their collaborative work he and my noble friend have earned the gratitude of the police service.
The Government are strongly committed to providing police officers with the best possible protection against the many dangers they face daily in the course of their duties. In recent years my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has provided forces with substantial resources to enable them to improve standards of officer safety. Officers have welcomed the additional protection provided by the new styles of baton and handcuffs, and the training which has accompanied their issue. Improvements have been made also to the standards of protective clothing, including the wider distribution of body armour. Following a successful pilot project last year, he has authorised the wider use of CS sprays.
My noble friend will be glad to know that in the past two years my right honourable friend has allocated £10 million to improving standards in the special constabulary. Much of the money has been spent in bringing their safety equipment and training up to the same level as that of their regular colleagues. The Government are very conscious of the debt we owe to the men and women who serve their communities in the special constabulary.
The Bill will complement this and will make police managers more aware of their responsibilities towards the safety of the officers they command. The Bill will empower the police representative bodies to play an important role in the appointment of safety representatives and establishing safety committees. These are essential components in the effective management of health and safety.
When the Bill was in another place the Police Federation, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh said, asked for a number of the provisions to be clarified. If your Lordships will permit me I will address the federation's concerns and provide the assurances it sought. I hope that that will also assist your Lordships' understanding of the issues.
The first issue concerns the role of the national police federations and the police representative bodies in appointing safety officers and serving on safety committees within the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the National Crime Squad and central service establishments such as the National Directorate of Police Training and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary.
As my noble friend explained, the Bill provides that, in the case of the area forces, the national federations and representative bodies will be deemed to be "recognised trade unions" for these purposes. In the case of NCIS, the National Crime Squad, central service organisations and the private forces, my right

1439
honourable friend will be empowered by the Bill to make regulations under Section 2(4) specifying which bodies will represent constables employed by those bodies. These regulations will be made in consultation with the chief officers and the representative bodies concerned. In policy terms our intention will be to designate the national federations and the other police representative bodies.
The Police Federation has been concerned also by a change in policy with regard to the right of access to industrial tribunals. I confirm that the effect of the Bill will be to provide a right of access to industrial tribunals for officers who have suffered detriment in health and safety cases, even in cases where they also enjoy a right of appeal to a police appeals tribunal.
In other words, the Bill will not affect an officer's rights of appeal to the police appeals tribunal. It will provide him with additional rights to take grievances on health and safety grounds to an industrial tribunal.
Work is already in hand to assist forces in implementing the legislation. Last October the Home Office published a comprehensive package of guidance on the steps which forces need to take in order to comply fully with the health and safety legislation. The guidance contains advice to senior officers on their strategic role for ensuring the effective management of health and safety. For middle managers there is a compendium of materials, covering such issues as training, the law, and how to prepare risk assessments.
An important part of our strategy has been a series of seminars to introduce the programme, firstly to chief officers and the chairmen of police authorities, and then to the key managers who will be responsible for applying it within forces. We are also reviewing current standards of health and safety training.
This work has been developed in close collaboration with the police and local authority associations and the Health and Safety Executive. Our aim is to ensure that forces will be in a position to comply with the new legislation from the outset. If your Lordships approve the Bill, my right honourable friend intends to allow forces at least 12 months' preparation time.
The Government are ever conscious of the risks which officers are exposed to daily in safeguarding the communities they serve. We shall always accord high priority to officer safety. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
12.50 p.m.
Lord Luke: My Lords, I thank your Lordships for the attention given to the Bill. I think we have had a successful and useful short debate and some interesting points have been made. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, did not find any points to oppose.
I said earlier that I have had the honour to serve as a special constable. I am extremely glad that the Minister told us of the considerable support the Government are giving to the special constabulary which is a worthwhile body. I also know from personal experience some of the dangers which confront officers when patrolling our streets and investigating crime. During the 12 years
1440
when I served as a special, I took part in experiments with what were then called hand-held radios. They have contributed very considerably to the safety of constables by enabling proper communication to be maintained at all times on the beat. So much so that they are now entirely taken for granted.
I am convinced that the Bill will give the added protection the police deserve. That is certainly the view of the police service. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Company Accounts (Disclosure of Directors' Emoluments) Regulations 1997
12.51 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 6th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move that the House consider the Company Accounts (Disclosure of Directors' Emoluments) Regulations 1997; and will speak to the Companies Act 1985 (Directors' Report)(Statement of Payment Practice) Regulations 1997. Both of these statutory instruments make amendments to the accounting schedules of the Companies Act 1985.
I shall deal first with the new requirement to disclose payment policies in the directors' report. Your Lordships will be aware that the problems caused by late payment continue to cause concern to a number of small businesses. Indeed it was one of the main concerns highlighted last year when we gave small firms the opportunity to shape future policies through the regional Your Business Matters Conferences.
While there are no easy answers to tackling the problems caused by late payment, the Government are committed to helping small businesses. We have consulted widely and have introduced a number of positive measures to tackle the problems associated with late payment.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I think that the statement of payment practice regulations are the next item on the Order Paper. At the moment we are dealing with the disclosure of directors' emoluments.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, my brief has been prepared for both items so I may have to repeat what I have said on the statement of payment practice regulations later.
I shall now turn to the second draft order which will amend the statutory disclosure requirements relating to directors' emoluments.
Companies are required to provide information on directors' emoluments under Schedule 6 of the Companies Act 1985 so that shareholders and other readers of company accounts can satisfy themselves that

1441
the directors, in setting their remuneration, are acting reasonably. The Government believe that a statutory disclosure requirement continues to be necessary for all levels of company to achieve this objective.
The purpose of the order is to lay down revised basic disclosure rules applicable to all companies. Your Lordships will know that listed companies are subject to more detailed disclosure requirements under the Listing Rules of the London Stock Exchange.
The need for the revisions stems from the recommendations of the study group on directors' remuneration chaired by Sir Richard Greenbury. Noble Lords will recall that the Greenbury group was set up in 1995 in response to public and shareholder concerns about the remuneration of company directors in the United Kingdom. The group concluded that UK companies mostly deal with directors' remuneration in a sensible and responsible way, but it felt also that there was scope to build on the progress that had already been made in improving corporate remuneration practices. Sir Richard put forward various proposals designed to ensure that directors' rewards were linked to performance and that the interests of directors and shareholders in promoting the company's progress were aligned.
One of the key Greenbury recommendations was that a report should be sent to shareholders each year explaining the company's approach to executive remuneration and providing full disclosure of all elements in the remuneration of individual directors. The London Stock Exchange incorporated this recommendation into its Listing Rules in December 1995.
The Government fully support the view that full disclosure of directors' pay by listed companies is of great importance in improving the accountability of directors to their shareholders. The Government therefore welcomed the Stock Exchange's lead in introducing new Listing Rules to require compliance with the key Greenbury recommendations, and the President of the Board of Trade gave an undertaking in another place that he would ensure that the provisions in the Companies Act relating to disclosure of directors' emoluments were consistent with the new Listing Rules. These draft regulations meet that commitment. They also implement two specific recommendations by the Greenbury group; namely, that the Government should remove from companies which make full disclosure of their directors' remuneration the obligation to show it in £5,000 bands; and that it should review the present requirements for disclosure of information on directors' pensions.
In revising the statutory disclosure requirements on directors' pay, the Government have sought to ensure that the requirements on unlisted companies are set at the minimum level necessary to ensure that directors are accountable to shareholders when setting their remuneration. The department accepts that it would not be appropriate for unlisted companies, whose shares are not publicly traded, to be subject to the same level of disclosure as listed companies. This is particularly so in the case of small companies, where, very frequently, all
1442
the shareholders are also directors of the company. The regulations therefore do not attempt to replicate the Listing Rules. Rather, they lay down a basic disclosure rule which is set at a level appropriate for unlisted companies, leaving to the Listing Rules to require more detailed disclosures by listed companies. There is a specific exemption from many of the disclosure requirements in the order for small unlisted companies.
We have been especially careful not to require information from unlisted companies which would impose additional costs on them. In particular, we have taken care not to require unlisted companies to make any disclosures which would require them to employ an accountant to make valuations of their shares or to employ an actuary to value pension entitlements.
The Government believe that the draft regulations will provide more useful information to shareholders than the current requirements without increasing the disclosure burden on companies. I would like to bring to the attention of noble Lords two examples of the way in which this has been achieved.
In the first place, they follow the Greenbury recommendation that information should be provided on each element of directors' remuneration. Companies will be asked to provide separate aggregate figures relating to basic pay, share options, long term incentive schemes and money purchase pension schemes. This will not mean extra work for companies since the individual figures are needed to compile the overall total, but it will enable readers of company accounts to see how companies structure their directors' remuneration packages.
In the second place, we have, in line with the recommendation by the Greenbury study group, reviewed the disclosure requirements relating to pension entitlements. In the case of money purchase schemes, the draft regulations require companies to disclose the value of company contributions, since this gives an accurate picture of the value to the director and the cost to the company. We do not believe, however, that the same holds true in the case of defined benefit schemes, where the level of company contributions may he misleading, if, for example, there is a contributions holiday in force or the director has received a big pay rise and is close to retirement.
The draft regulations therefore require companies to disclose the number of directors in each type of scheme as a marker to users of accounts that directors are accruing benefits under a defined benefit scheme. Companies where aggregate remuneration totals £200,000 or more are additionally required to disclose the accrued pension benefits of the highest paid director.
In summary, the aim of these draft regulations is twofold: first, to implement the recommendations of the Greenbury group to the Government and to bring the Companies Act disclosure requirements into line with the new Stock Exchange Listing Rules; and, secondly, to rationalise the disclosure requirements on unlisted companies.
I commend the regulations to the House.

1443
Moved. That the draft regulations laid before the House on 6th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Miller of Hendon.)
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the statutory instrument, which, as she told us, came from the recommendation of the Greenbury Committee. It is obviously designed to clarify payments made to directors in the form of salary and bonuses, gains made by the exercise of share options or incentive schemes and contributions to money purchase pension schemes.
The Minister explained why this measure applies only to quoted companies; namely, because the value of shares in unquoted companies in unknown. But that is the nub of the problem which Greenbury was asked to solve. The Minister will remember that the Greenbury Committee was set up largely because of public disquiet over the huge salary increases and wholly unreasonable share option schemes granted to directors of newly privatised utilities and public transport companies. They were unquoted companies and the public perception was and still remains that those companies are run for the benefit of the shareholders and the directors and not for the customers who depend on them—certainly not for the success of the staff who were quickly disposed of and, in the case of South West Trains, rather too quickly.
Perhaps an estimate should be made of the value of share options given to directors in unquoted regulated companies. That would certainly help to improve the public's perception of those companies. The Minister may remember that that point was raised when we debated the report of the commission on the regulation of privatised utilities in your Lordships' House on 12th February. I feel that it is misleading of the Government to say that it is impossible to estimate the share value of unquoted regulated companies, since they are doing it all the time. Only last week at that Dispatch Box a Minister gave us an estimate of the value of London Underground. The Government must be the biggest customer of the financial consultants who specialise in that kind of work.
The utilities and transport companies are an essential part of our infrastructure. It is right that they should be high in the public's esteem, so that they will use them and our economy will benefit. More transparency will certainly help that. The Minister must also be aware that many of our basic utilities are now controlled by foreign firms quoted in different countries. Will that regulation apply to them and, if so, how?
Away from the regulated sector, this regulation is probably adequate but it could he improved. Why should firms concentrate only on the remuneration of a small group of directors? What consumers are interested in is the relative pay between directors and the shop floor. Companies serving the public need some form of social consent and that is not best served by a growing disparity in pay between the top and the bottom. Differentials and incentives work for all, not just for directors.
1444
Let me make one final point. Is the Minister satisfied that this regulation will take care of all the tax devices thought up by the remuneration consultants? I mean such things as payments to a director's privately owned consultancy, split remuneration paid in several countries, remuneration paid to a spouse and generous allowances such as home moving costs. Also, I know that share options are not relevant where hospital trusts and quangos are concerned. But will the remaining regulations apply regarding payments made by those institutions?
In a small way this regulation touches on the difficult problems of pay determination. I hope that the Minister's department will lay down a code of best practice for that. Then companies can declare whether they are or are not following that code. Let us remember that more and better information helps to improve the operation of the capital market and the relationships between companies and stakeholders and helps everyone to make better long-term decisions. This regulation is a small but welcome start.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am not quite sure at the moment whether the noble Baroness has formally moved the next regulation which deals with payments to creditors. If she has done so, I should like to speak to it now. If not, I prefer to wait until she has done so.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I had better say that I have not done so. It was a mistake. I shall come back to that regulation afterwards and the noble Lord can ask me what he will.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, was rightly concerned about whether the disclosure should also cover quango board members and directors of private utilities. He was concerned with transparency, and so indeed are we. Information on the remuneration of board members and chief executives, for example, of national health service bodies or other non-departmental public bodies, is published in the Cabinet Office's annual publication Public Bodies and in the bodies' annual reports. The noble Lord is probably aware that copies are available in the House's Library.
But perhaps he was slightly more concerned with the utilities. So far as concerns the utility regulators, the salaries of the directors general are published in the 1996 Oftel and Ofgas reports. The 1996 annual report for Offer will be published later—I believe this week or next week. I am happy to tell the noble Lord that he can be reassured on that point. There is no secret. He has only to look at the Utility Weekly, which has a table of all the figures. So he can reassure himself on that point.
The noble Lord was also concerned in the case where the utility was a wholly owned subsidiary. Directors of wholly owned subsidiaries are not in the same position as directors of the parent companies, so far as concerns the ability to determine their own remuneration. The pay of directors of wholly owned subsidiaries is a matter for the parent company as the sole shareholder. The parent will have full access to relevant information without needing to rely on statutory disclosures.

1445
The noble Lord had great concern about the different ways in which the director works perhaps as a consultant to the company, having set up his own consultancy. The draft regulations require companies to disclose directors' remuneration and pension contributions in respect of their services as directors of the company or otherwise in connection with the management of the affairs of the company. The draft regulations retain the wording in the current Companies Act provisions. The words:
"the management of the affairs of the company"
have been given a very wide interpretation by the courts in another context. In our view, they encompass amounts received by a director in connection with any or all of his services to the company, including those undertaken in a consultant capacity.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, can also be reassured that the existing provisions in the Companies Act which require things such as payment to wives or expense allowances to be included in figures to be disclosed in the report remain unchanged. So there is not a problem there.
The noble Lord was also concerned that directors of some United Kingdom companies are overpaid. We believe it is important to distinguish myth from reality. The Greenbury Report noted that for the most part remuneration levels of directors in the United Kingdom lie within the range of European practice and well below American levels. It is essential that British industry remains competitive. That will sometimes mean companies paying high salaries to attract or retain the very best executives. Those are decisions which can only be taken by companies and shareholders.
The noble Lord was concerned that directors' pay appears to rise more quickly than workers' pay. We believe that what is important in this matter is that United Kingdom industry remains internationally competitive. All salaries should be justified by performance and affordability. That is true for all levels.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I was concerned about the ratio between directors' pay and shop floor pay, which is measured now by most firms trying to assess the effectiveness of a business.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, we believe it is important that the United Kingdom remains internationally competitive. We believe that all salaries, whether directors' pay or the pay of people working on the shop floor, should be justified by performance and affordability. We would like it to be true at all levels.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Companies Act 1985 (Directors' Report) (Statement of Payment Practice) Regulations 1997
1.11 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 27th January be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this statutory instrument makes amendments to the accounting schedules of the Companies Act 1985. I shall now deal with the requirement to disclose payment policies in the directors' report. I apologise to noble Lords if the first part sounds like a repeat performance.
Your Lordships will be aware that the problems caused by late payment continue to give concern to a number of small businesses. Indeed, it was one of the main anxieties highlighted last year when we gave small firms the opportunity to shape future policies through the regional Your Business Matters conferences. While there are no easy answers to tackling the problems caused by late payment, the Government are committed to helping small businesses. We have consulted widely and have introduced a number of positive measures to tackle the problems associated with late payment.
These regulations are just another element of that package of measures designed to help small businesses to help themselves and to change the culture towards payment practice. We have tried to find a straightforward way of stating payment performance which provides useful information in a readily understandable way. The figure to be disclosed represents in very broad terms the average time taken to pay suppliers. To ensure that all companies are working on a comparable basis, only one method has been stipulated in the regulations. This figure will help meet the needs of small suppliers by providing additional and easily understandable information on the payment practices of larger companies.
The new disclosure requirement is a logical next step to complement the payment policy disclosure we introduced last year. It is therefore only sensible that it should apply to the same companies. These are public limited companies and their large private subsidiaries. The new requirement will go in the directors' report alongside the policy disclosure. This should help smaller supplier companies which will not have to go through pages of notes to the accounts to search for just one figure. It should also enable users of the information to keep track, in a relatively straight forward way, of how a company's performance measured up to its stated policy year-on-year. No doubt, it will also give directors at the annual general meeting the opportunity to explain if these figures diverge.
The main aim of the regulations is to help small businesses to help themselves. We are providing useful information on the payment performances of PLCs and their large subsidiaries in a readily understandable format. We have consulted with the business community to identify the least burdensome method of doing this and the information should be relatively straightforward for companies to produce.
This new requirement is one of a number of measures implemented to tackle late payment. The regulations build upon the payment policy disclosure that was introduced last year and will enable small businesses to obtain more details of the payment record of larger companies that they may be considering doing business with. This measure should not, however, he seen as a substitute for proper credit management procedures but as an additional tool for small businesses which provides

1447
easy to understand information on the payment records of large businesses. As such, it is a valuable tool and shows how this Government are able and willing to listen to the views of the small business community and to act on its wishes and in its interests. I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 27th January be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Miller of Hendon.)
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's explanation of these new regulations dealing with statements of payment practice. They come not a moment too soon. For many years now it has been the practice of some large companies—not all—and some government departments—but not all—to delay payment to some of their suppliers that lacked the protection of bigness. That is particularly applicable to small businesses, many of which, over the past 18 years—and even before that—have literally gone out of business because they have failed to get bank support in respect of some of their debtors that have delayed payments for as long as possible.
In connection with this, I observe that the regulations will be signed by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Small Businesses, Industry and Energy in the Department of Trade and Industry. I suppose there is a certain poetry about that because the president himself, the right honourable gentleman the Member for Henley, revealed in his memoirs, published comparatively recently, that one of the foundations of the success of his businesses was the delay he was able to enforce in paying his suppliers. In fact, the document shows that he had some pride in that. His companies paid up at the last possible moment before the coming to court of the writs that would be issued in some cases.
Still, I do not make any point of that now. We are in a very friendly pre-election atmosphere and I would not wish to take undue advantage of it. I understand that since the parliamentary row was created on this matter, mainly from this side of the House, the payment of government departments to their suppliers has considerably improved. I am told that in 85 per cent. of the cases involving government department payments are made within a reasonable time and within the time stipulated by the government department to the suppliers themselves. Mind you, 85 per cent. still leaves 15 per cent., and 15 per cent. of outsourcing government requirements to subcontractors still represents a considerable sum within the national turnover. Therefore, I sincerely hope that the performance will improve.
These regulations deal with companies and the consequent alterations or additions to the Companies Act. I have no complaint about the content of the regulations, which, I understand, have been discussed with the representatives of small business interests and my own profession. Incidentally, I should declare a professional interest in that I am a practising chartered accountant and have to deal with matters of this kind.
What troubles me a little is that the information is to be given not in the notes to the accounts, but in the directors' report. Doubtless there is the very good reason
1448
of convenience, but I am bound to point out that the contents of the directors' report, unlike notes to the accounts to which the report relates, are not subject to surveillance and certification by the company's auditors. It is to be hoped, even though the report contains the particulars required and being unaudited, that they are going to be reliable. I sincerely trust that that will be the case because if not it would be a matter of serious worry.
If one refers to the particular parts of the regulations that have some impact on this, one has to look only to the disclosure in the directors' report:
"if the company's policy is different for different suppliers or classes of suppliers, the report shall identify the suppliers to which the different policies apply".
It continues,
"In this sub-paragraph references to the company's suppliers are references to persons who are or may become its suppliers".
I imagine that that can be quite a lengthy addition to the directors' report which, I am devoutly assured, is read eagerly by all the shareholders.
But what happens to the suppliers themselves? If the company is a very large one it may have perhaps 50 or 70 suppliers. How are they going to get this information? It is no requirement of the Companies Act that the directors' report should be circulated to the suppliers of the company. The accounts of the company are supplied to the shareholders with a copy in due course to the company's file in Companies House. How is a disgruntled supplier going to go about pursuing the company concerned which he is supplying and against which he may have a complaint?
First, he has to go to Companies House and get the information required, and that is not always very easy. It is also time consuming. Then he has to wade all through the material to find out exactly how the company has complied with this particular regulation. It is quite true that if a supplier belongs to a trade association looking after his or her interests or a small company's interests, then that association may have a routine examination of the files of directors' reports at Companies House. All this does not make the information required readily available to the people it most concerns.
I have no doubt that we shall be told, with some justification, that the very existence of this regulation of itself may do much to address the evils of late payment to suppliers and that may well be so. But I would have thought that without some surveillance at some point by the company's auditors, some of the reports are not always going to be reliable, and once that becomes known, then much of the deterrent effect will not be present.
One welcomes the regulations themselves. I believe that it was a great mistake to put the material in the directors' report rather than to formally incorporate it in the notes to the accounts, which, as your Lordships know, are subject to audit by the auditors of the company. I press that point with diffidence because it would mean increased fees to my profession and I do not like to stomach that, of course. Being a very modest man, I would not wish the company to bear unnecessary

1449
costs. The best thing for companies to do, therefore, if they want to avoid the ultimate imposition of my own profession on their activities, is to make quite sure that they never make a mistake and pay all their suppliers promptly as they should.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for explaining the statutory instrument and we welcome it but under the "too-little-too-late" heading. I agree with my noble friend Lord Bruce that the matter of late payments has been discussed for many years and I thank him for reminding us that the Deputy Prime Minister told us that is how he financed his business many years ago. Fortunately, business thinking has moved on since then and payments now form one part of the relationship between customers and suppliers. That of course is why this proposal is too late.
It is too little because choosing a balance sheet ratio, as my noble friend Lord Bruce will know, is open to all kinds of manipulation. For instance, a company can be a bad payer for 11 months but pay promptly for one month before the end of the financial year and the ratio will then look very good. Also, many businesses are seasonal and if the financial year-end is at a time of low purchases, then again the ratio will look good. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how this manipulation can be dealt with.
I also believe that this proposal misses the essential point that it is not necessarily quick payment that is important in running a small business, but payment on time. Many small firms give extended credit and cost it in. What firms need to know is which companies pay on time, not necessarily which of them pay quickly. The culture of payment practice needs to be established within the trading relationship between the customers and the suppliers. Customers want good, reliable suppliers as they are essential to their own business; and suppliers want good, paying customers. This culture of mutual dependence needs to be encouraged.
I agree with the Minister that it is important to encourage best practice and that that involves credit management and a system of discounts. In addition, I wonder why companies should not be encouraged to adopt the British Standard for Prompt Payment (BS 7890). Announcing the adoption of this standard will overcome all the balance sheet manipulations. The standard can be adopted too by local authorities, government departments and other institutions which do not trade as companies. As part of that best practice auditors could report on the company's record of keeping to their prompt payments policy—how many days early or late they are and not just how long they take. That could be in the audited accounts and not in the directors' report. I often think that the DTI is at its best when it is suggesting and encouraging best practice. In that way we could be doing a lot more to encourage prompt payment.
Setting an example is also important. The Government have promised us league tables on their own payment performance. The initial record was not good so let us see whether the league tables produce an improvement. But if they are an incentive, why does not the Minister adopt Labour's proposal of collating the payment records
1450
of those companies which have reported on them and publish them in the form of league tables? That would help deal with the point made by my noble friend Lord Bruce about how firms are going to find that information. In this way small firms can see for themselves the relative performance of large companies. One may never know, but it may shame some companies and debtors into improving their performance.
As regards the statutory right to interest, which is always involved with this matter of prompt payment, business is divided. I believe that a statutory right could motivate companies to pay on time, but I believe that perhaps that would only work largely between major companies because small ones are not going to sue major companies for the money. The Minister said that the Government are anxious to keep reporting requirements to a minimum, but the Minister may have noticed that recently companies are voluntarily reporting more and more about things other than their financial record. They are reporting on corporate objectives, the development of skills, training, new technology and their relationships with suppliers and customers. In the context of their relationship with suppliers, companies can report on how well they have done regarding their payments policy in terms of both time and promptness.
It is important to encourage best practice because, as my noble friend Lord Bruce reminded us, late payments have helped to drive many small and medium-sized companies out of business or have caused them in turn to pay their suppliers late and thereby set up a chain of trouble. This is a serious matter. We should like to see much more done to change the culture, but we welcome the regulations as a first step.
1.30 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, noble Lords have asked many questions and I very much hope that I shall be able to answer them all satisfactorily. I shall read Hansard carefully to see whether I have replied to all of them and if I have not managed to do so, I promise to write to noble Lords.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, explained how very bad it is for a small company to be kept waiting for payment. I totally agree. As the noble Lord rightly said, that was one of the reasons for introducing the regulations. The noble Lord commented on what my right honourable friend the former President of the Board of Trade, now the Deputy Prime Minister, said about late payment. I was interested that the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, also commented on that. So perhaps I should start by saying that the remarks cited are not exactly what the Deputy Prime Minister said. He highlighted the fact that many small businesses are dependent upon trade credit and that if there are temporary cash flow difficulties they will need tolerance from their creditors and the flexibility to negotiate payment terms. That is not condoning late payment; it is recognising a fact of business life. Businesses can, and should where possible, protect themselves from

1451
those who abuse their trust. Effective credit management procedures will reduce the number and degree of payment problems that small businesses face.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Before she parts company with the position of the right honourable Member for Henley, perhaps I should advise her that I can if necessary—and shall—confront her with the quotation from his book, which I have in my possession, in which he boasted of the fact that he paid as late as possible in order to found the prosperity of his business.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I have no doubt at all that the noble Lord will indeed show that to me. The noble Lord also commented on the fact that in many respects the Government are the worst offender when it comes to late payment. We are now constantly monitoring our payment performance. I think that that is very good news and something to be applauded.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, also asked why the disclosure should appear in the directors' report and not in the actual accounts. I know that that has nothing to do with the fact that the noble Lord happens to be an accountant because the noble Lord actually said that that was not why he had made the suggestion. We believe that putting the new requirement in the directors' report, alongside the policy disclosure, should help smaller supplier companies who will not have to go through pages of notes to the accounts to search for one figure. It should also enable users of the information to keep track in a relatively straightforward way of how a company's performance measures up to its stated policy year on year. No doubt, it will also give directors at the annual general meeting the opportunity to explain any divergence of the figures. It will not be a lengthy addition to the directors' report. It is a minimum requirement. We are trying to deal with this problem by means of a light touch. It is always open to directors, however, to explain and to present additional evidence when questioned.
The noble Lord was also concerned about how the requirement would be enforced. He felt that if the information was in the directors' report, it would not be as secure and safe, as it were, as if it formed part of the auditors' responsibility when preparing the accounts. Under the Companies Act, it is a criminal offence for company directors to fail to comply with the disclosure requirements in the directors' report. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, knows far more about that than I do. In addition, it is currently the case that auditors are required to ensure that information given in the directors' report is consistent with that given in the accounts. There is an obligation on them to do that. Furthermore, any supplier is entitled to ask for annual accounts from any company that he wants to supply.
I turn now to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, who was concerned about whether there might be some "manipulation" of the figures. I believe that the noble Lord used that word. We do not believe that companies will manipulate their trade creditor figure at the end of the year simply to achieve a better
1452
payment practice figure as that would have an adverse effect on their overall cash flow and on their liquidity position. It could be the case that the year-end figure for trade creditors is unrepresentative. However, overcoming that would require a more onerous calculation; for instance, through requiring a monthly rather than an annual calculation, which would increase compliance costs and so negate the overall advantage of the proposal.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, was also concerned that there might be seasonal distortions in the overall manipulation of the figures, as he put it. I hope that any fluctuation due to seasonality would be explained by the company. The only way of avoiding such a fluctuation would be to devise a more onerous calculation, for instance, through requiring a monthly rather than an annual calculation. However, that would increase compliance costs and negate the overall advantage of the proposal. As I said earlier, we have tried to deal with this problem by means of a light touch. I believe—I stress that this is only a belief and that if I am wrong I shall write to noble Lords and place a copy of my letter in the Library—that there was wide consultation on the point and that this was felt to be the best way of dealing with the problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, was also concerned about how long it takes a company to pay its creditors. He said that a supplier would want that information. Any requirement to provide such information on a detailed statistical basis would be quite burdensome, but it will be open to companies to comment on their performance. As the payment performance figure will be reported alongside the statement of payment policy, any discrepancy between the two will be apparent to readers of the accounts.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. The point I was trying to make was that it is not the length of time taken to pay that is important—firms sell credit; many firms give long credit and cost it in—but the promptness of the payment. If somebody is due to pay in three months' time, what matters is whether they pay in three months or in four months. That extra month of credit is what causes the difficulty.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord suggested that the Government should produce or introduce league tables showing that performance so that everybody can have access to such information. We do not have any plans to do that. The disclosure of payment performance will be publicly available in the directors' reports of companies which are filed with the Registrar of Companies. It will, of course, be open to anyone who would like to produce league tables of such information to do so. As an aside, I should point out that there are an enormous number of companies and that I am not quite sure of how practical such a suggestion might prove. In any event, the Government do not see that as their role.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, also asked why the Government have again rejected legislation on a statutory right to interest. The recent review of the case

1453
for legislation highlighted concerns about the possible effects of statutory interest, particularly on small businesses. It was notable that a number of organisations representing the interests of small firms had changed their views on the merits of legislation. The vast majority of such organisations are now opposed to statutory interest. Concerns continue to be raised that legislation would be used primarily against small businesses rather than for and by them. As the noble Lord said, small businesses would be reluctant to use such legislation for fear of jeopardising their business relationships and legitimising late payment, and large businesses would simply extend their credit terms.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, also asked me about BS7890. Both the Department of Trade and Industry and Her Majesty's Treasury have acknowledged that they will be adopting that standard. We believe that all other departments will follow their lead.
It may be that I have not answered all the points that have been raised by noble Lords. I will ensure that a fuller answer is provided if my response has not covered the points that have been made.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Sexual Offences (Protected Material) Bill
1.40 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill he now read a second time.
The Bill now before your Lordships is a relatively complex solution to a readily understandable problem. That problem is the misuse by defendants and others of statements and photographs of victims of sexual offences. These statements and photographs of victims in sexual offence cases often contain intimate details of both the victim and the offence itself. Victims' statements, photographs of victims and medical reports on the physical condition of the victims of sexual offences will all become protected material under this Bill. Material of this kind has been used as pornography and passed round prisons to other inmates unconnected with the case. On occasion it has even been circulated by defendants and relatives outside prison in an attempt to intimidate the victim during legal proceedings.
These practices are evil and the Bill will put an end to them. If the Bill is complex it is because it must allow a defendant to examine material while at the same time preventing the possibility of that material being used for nefarious purposes.
The Bill provides a supervised access regime which would confer automatic protection on a victim's statement (written or recorded on video, audio or other media), photographs and pseudo-photographs and medical examination reports of the victim's physical condition.
The material covered by this scheme relates only to sexual offences because it is the misuse of this material in such cases that has caused the greatest concern. The range of offences covered by the Bill is set out in Schedule 1 to the Bill. They include any attempt, incitement or conspiracy to commit these offences.
1454
The scheme in this Bill is designed to prevent the defendant from keeping a copy of the protected material, although he would be able to have full access to it under supervision. This means that he could not have it in his possession to show others as pornography or to copy and circulate further. To prevent the defendant from obtaining unsupervised access from other sources, no one else would be allowed to see the material except under strict conditions.
For the vast majority of defendants who are legally represented supervised access to protected material would be provided by their legal representatives, whether or not the defendants were in custody. The legal representative would be required to take reasonable steps to ensure that the material was not shown to the defendant other than in circumstances in which there was adequate supervision to ensure that the defendant could not keep it or make copies. The legal representative would also undertake to make sure the material was not shown to another person other than the defendant, except where the legal representative thought it necessary in connection with any relevant proceedings or for the purposes of assessment or treatment of the defendant.
In the comparatively rare case of a defendant in a sexual offence case not wishing to have legal representation, access to protected documents would be provided by the police or the Prison Service, depending on whether the defendant was on bail or in custody. The defendant would be told that the material was subject to the regime and that it would be an offence for him to have it in his possession but that arrangements would be made for him to have access to it under supervision at the local police station if on bail or in prison if in custody. The scheme provides for the defendant to have such supervised access that he reasonably requires for the purpose of preparing his defence, appeal or any other criminal proceedings.
If the scheme is to be effective it must he capable of being enforced. The Bill makes it an offence for the defendant or any other person to whom the protected material is given to breach the requirements of the regime. In the event of an alleged breach, it would be for that person to show that he did not know or suspect or have reason to suspect that the material was subject to the regime. The maximum penalties for a breach would be imprisonment for two years or a fine or both. The court would be able to order the return of the material to the prosecutor. There would be a right of appeal in the normal way against conviction and any order requiring the return of the material.
I turn briefly to the main provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 defines protected material as including copies of victim statements, photographs, pseudo-photographs and medical reports of victims which are disclosed by the prosecutor in sexual offence cases. Clause 3 provides for the prosecutor to disclose material in one of two ways. If the defendant has a legal representative who is willing to give the undertaking to supervise the defendant's access to the material then the prosecutor will give a copy of the protected material to the

1455
defendant's legal representative. If not, the prosecutor will give the material to the appropriate person to disclose to the defendant under supervised conditions.
Clause 4 describes in more detail the undertaking by the defendant's legal representative. Not only must he show the material only to the defendant in supervised circumstances but he must also provide that material to third parties only if it is necessary for the purposes of the legal proceedings or for the treatment of the defendant. He must inform anyone to whom he gives the material that it is protected material and that it would be an offence to pass it on to any other person.
Clause 5 defines the appropriate person to reveal protected material to an unrepresented defendant. If the defendant is in custody then the appropriate person is the prison governor or his nominee. If the defendant is not in custody the appropriate person is the officer in charge of a suitable police station or his nominee.
Clause 6 provides for the prosecutor further to disclose protected material if this is necessary because a legal representative dies or an unrepresented defendant acquires a legal representative.
Clause 7 provides for the Criminal Cases Review Commission to disclose material to an applicant in the same way that the prosecutor discloses material to a defendant. The commission will be responsible for disclosing material to the defendant where it declines to refer a case to the Court of Appeal. Clause 8 creates offences of possessing protected material and passing the protected material to others except as allowed by the Bill.
The Bill does not prevent a defendant from having access to the material which he must have in the interests of justice, to prepare his defence. A defendant will be able to examine protected material, but his examination will be supervised to prevent his retaining the material or making a verbatim copy of it. The defendant will be allowed to make manuscript notes of parts of the material in order to prepare his defence, but it will be an offence to pass these notes to others.
The Bill is designed to prevent the misuse of material relating to victims of sexual offences while at the same time protecting the rights of defendants. I believe that it contains a workable solution to end a scandalous practice. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Byford.)
1.50 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, this is an admirable Bill, most effectively introduced, and clearly long overdue. I suspect that most of us were unaware of the way in which this unpleasant material circulates in our prisons to the obvious added distress of the victims of sex crime. There is only one thing wrong with it: its great benefits do not extend to the whole of the UK. Why that should be, I do not know. Surely it is not beyond the wit of the lawyers and draftsmen in the Home Office, the Scottish Office and the Northern Ireland Office to ensure that the benefits of the Bill extend to the whole country.
1456
Without some such relatively speedy action, victims whose attackers happen to be incarcerated in Scottish or Northern Irish prisons will go on suffering to some extent, mentally even if not physically. Clearly a Committee stage amendment to try to rectify that would fall foul of the fact that it is late in the Session, and might jeopardise the Bill's passage. That is the very last thing that we should wish. Better that the benefits of the Bill extend to England and Wales than to nowhere at all.
Could the Minister say whether the Government will do their best to try to see that the Bill's benefits are extended to Scotland and Northern Ireland at some point? It would also be nice if the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, could guarantee, if his party comes to power in a couple of months' time, that Labour will do its best to ensure that the benefits are extended to the UK as a whole.
1.52 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this is a good Bill which was ably introduced. In responding to the two previous Private Members' Bills I did not make the usual proviso that I speak personally and not on behalf of my noble friends. There is a good reason for that: these are not really Private Members' Bills; they are Home Office Bills. Under those circumstances it is perfectly proper for the Opposition to speak formally as the Opposition. Having done that, I shall repeat my sour note: these should not be Home Office Bills. The Private Members' Bills procedure should be used for Bills whose origin is not the Government's. It is an abuse of the Private Member's Bill procedure to have synthetic Bills of this sort.
The Bill addresses a narrow but important issue, as the noble Baroness said. It is not one that is new. The Home Office itself produced a consultation paper on the problem in 1991 without reaching a firm conclusion about how to tackle the problem. The Runciman Royal Commission reporting in 1993 addressed the problem, and again was not clear about the solution to it, although I think that the response of the Law Society to the Royal Commission came close to describing the kind of protection which is offered by the Bill.
In the proceedings of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill in this House only a year ago (19th February 1996) my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 19 which was, in a single new clause, an attempt to address this problem. He was supported in that by my noble friend Lady Mallalieu and the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow. In her response, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, properly referred to the need for any measure of this kind to accord with the general principles of open justice and indeed our international obligations to ensure that defendants have access to the material they properly need in order to present their defences. There is no reference to international obligations in the Bill, but it would be useful if, in responding, the noble Earl could record, as I hope that he will be able to, that the Government believe that we are meeting our international obligations by the way in which the Bill is drafted.

1457
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, had a number of objections to my noble friend's amendment which was in the end withdrawn. Again, I would be grateful if the noble Earl, in responding for the Government, could confirm that the Bill meets the objections which were raised. The noble Baroness's first objection was that my noble friend's proposal for the prosecution to apply for an order restricting access to this material was a burden upon the prosecution. I understand the Bill to say that, instead of the prosecutor having to apply for an order, the prosecutor discloses material but only when suitable undertakings about restricted access have been given.
The noble Baroness referred to the need to make provision for unrepresented defendants. I understand that Clause 4, in designating the prison governor or the officer in charge of the police station, meets that point. She referred to the lack of a penalty, although my noble friend, I think rightly, in reply said that the penalty could perfectly well have been a contempt of court penalty; but it is true that the Bill provides for specific criminal penalties.
So, after at least six years of discussion, we appear to have come up with a solution of supervised access which seems to be acceptable. I have a tiny point on the explanatory and financial memorandum. Although it is called the Sexual Offences (Protected Material) Bill, the memorandum refers to:
"Proceedings relating to specified sexual and other offences".
I should like to know what is meant by "other offences" when the Bill's Short Title and its schedule are specific about it being restricted to sexual offences.
I shall not repeat the arguments for the Bill's necessity, which were made by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and had been made last year by my noble friend Lord Williams. It is clearly highly undesirable that pornography of this kind, normally violent pornography, should be circulated inside or outside prison, using what has been a loophole in our criminal procedures. We welcome this attempt to block that loophole.
1.58 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I support and congratulate my noble friend Lady Byford who has moved the Second Reading of the Bill. I am glad also that she has the support of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey.
The Bill gives statutory effect to proposals which we announced last year and which were very widely welcomed. I believe that it will make a real contribution to the fight against this dreadful crime.
I should like to begin by placing the Bill in the context of the Government's general strategy for dealing with sex offenders. A number of recent tragic cases have brought home to us all the risks posed, particularly to children, by sex offenders, and there is a clear need for additional measures to strengthen the arrangements already in place to protect the public against them. We are taking a number of steps to improve that protection. For example, the Crime (Sentences) Bill provides that all sex offenders will receive extended supervision after
1458
release for a minimum of 12 months or 50 per cent. of the sentence, extendable up to 10 years at the court's discretion.
The Sex Offenders Bill contains two main proposals, both of which are intended to protect children from sexual abuse. First, it imposes a requirement on those convicted of sexual offences against children and other serious sexual offences to register their name and address, and any subsequent changes, with the police. Secondly, it makes it an offence for UK residents to commit sexual acts against children abroad.
The third government measure is the Protection from Harassment Bill. This provides protection against stalking, a phenomenon that may often have a sexual element sometimes directed against child victims.
We are also supporting an important Private Member's Bill, the Criminal Evidence (Amendment) Bill. This Bill extends police powers to obtain DNA tests for all convicted sex offenders still serving a sentence.
As well as these legislative measures, we published proposals last month for a prohibition on sex offenders seeking employment with children. Copies of the proposals were placed in the Library. That was one of the elements discussed in the consultation document we issued last year entitled Sentencing and Supervision of Sex Offenders. It received widespread support, but it was clear from the comments received that further work was necessary to develop an effective scheme. The results of that work are contained in the paper published last month jointly by the Home Office and the Scottish Office.
I turn now to the Bill introduced by my noble friend. It contains proposals for a statutory scheme to provide defendants in sexual offence cases with supervised access to sensitive victim statements, photographs and pseudo-photographs, and medical reports. This type of material often contains detailed and intimate information about the victim and the crime. Defendants have previously used and circulated such material to others as a form of pornography. Such misuse causes great distress to victims and their families. It may also discourage victims from reporting crime and so make more difficult the task of providing the public with better protection from sex offenders.
Action to tackle the problem raises fundamental issues about the rights of defendants to know the evidence against them, and the rights of victims to protection from further distress by the misuse of their statements or photographs of them.
In 1991 the Home Office issued a consultation paper, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, which set out a number of options, statutory and voluntary, for tackling the problem. But no consensus emerged on how best to proceed. The Royal Commission on Criminal Justice subsequently recommended, in its report published in 1993, that in sexual offence cases defendants should be required to return victims' statements to the instructing solicitor at the end of the case. We took the view that such an approach would not provide an effective solution because defendants would be able to misuse statements or photographs, and take

1459
copies of them, during the proceedings. Any scheme must provide immediate and certain protection for material of this kind throughout the proceedings and with the minimum disruption to the normal conduct of the case.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, mentioned the amendment tabled last year to the Criminal Procedure and Investigation Bill. I know that the party opposite shares the view of the Government that action is needed to tackle the misuse of victim statements and other material. The amendment tabled at Third Reading in this House would have allowed the prosecutor, in any case, to apply to the court for an order restricting access by the defendant to a statement or photograph if he reasonably believed that it might be misused.
The Government acknowledged the spirit in which the amendment was moved but was unable to support it. We believed that there should be a clear category of material which would be protected automatically without the procedure of having to make an application to a court. An application procedure would involve prosecutors and the courts expending a great deal of effort to identify material to be protected. We also believed that any measures should be targeted at helping victims of sexual offences, including children. That is where there is the greatest potential for misuse of material of this kind. Finally, the amendment was silent on the critical issue of disclosure to the unrepresented defendant. There were no provisions for the enforcement of the scheme.
Those concerns were expressed earlier in the debate by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. As he said, the unrepresented defendant will be shown the material by the governor or the police in charge of the case. Penalties for misuse exist in the form of fines. I can confirm that what the noble Lord said was correct. The Bill introduced by my noble friend Lady Byford overcomes the difficulties inherent in the amendment tabled last year and the Government are pleased to support it.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, raised two important issues concerning Scotland and Northern Ireland. My information indicates that the legal system is very different in Scotland. Investigation is conducted by the defence, so it is not the same system of disclosure of material by the Crown to the defendant as in England and Wales.
I am told that consultation in Northern Ireland revealed no specific evidence of any particular problem in relation to the misuse of victims' statements. However, I will pass the noble Lord's comments to my right honourable friend, so perhaps the issue can be kept in mind.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the noble Earl leaves that point, perhaps I may give the assurance asked for by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that I will pass his comments to my honourable friend
1460
Jack Straw. I shall bring to his attention the request of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that the Bill should be extended to cover Scotland.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I am so glad that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is passing the noble Lord's comments to his honourable friend.
In conclusion, the Bill is entirely consistent with the Government's general strategy for dealing with sex offenders. It provides an effective means of tackling the misuse of victims' statements and other material in sex offence cases and I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading.
2.6 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in this short debate. We are all most anxious about the loopholes in the law which have existed for some time. It is important that we protect the victims, in particular children. Those of us who have children—in my case, grandchildren—will he only too well aware of the heart-rending that has been caused by those loopholes. I take on board the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that the legislation should cover the whole country and I shall look into that further. With those few comments, I ask that the Bill be given a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Deregulation (Employment in Bars) Order 1997
2.8 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown The Earl of Courtown rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th December be approved [11th Report from the Deregulation Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this order is to be laid under the powers provided in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. It amends Section 170 of the Licensing Act 1964 to allow 16 and 17 year-olds to work in bars if they are employed on a training scheme which has been approved for the purpose by the Secretary of State. In the first instance, approval is expected to be limited to the modern apprenticeship scheme.
The order has received the usual comprehensive examination since it was first laid before Parliament in draft form on 10th June 1996. At the end of that initial scrutiny period the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee recommended that a number of amendments be made to the draft order. The Government accepted those recommendations and laid an amended order on 16th December. The committee has now reported that the order is in a form satisfactory to be submitted to this House for affirmative resolution.
As your Lordships will be aware, the law currently prohibits anyone aged under 18 from working in a bar while it is open for the sale or consumption of alcohol. That prevents the licensed trade recruiting

1461
16 and 17 year-old school leavers into the industry at a time when many of the best candidates make their career choice. Employers have expressed concern that too many of those who enter the industry are the less motivated and responsible candidates who have previously failed to settle to a career. That creates a burden on the licensed trade which is seen in a less efficient workforce, greater and more costly training needs and a higher staff turnover than might otherwise be expected.
The licensed trade is a successful and expanding area of the economy. Employment in this sector is forecast to grow rapidly and the ability to recruit and retain high quality staff will play an important part in its future success. This proposal would benefit young people by opening up a valuable career opportunity. It would also benefit customers because better trained and motivated staff should raise the overall quality of service provided.
The order now before the House gives the Secretary of State the power to approve a training scheme if he is satisfied that it meets certain specific requirements. In particular the scheme must include satisfactory arrangements for monitoring the quality of training provided and for assessing the progress of apprentices. It must also ensure that the apprentice is properly supervised, either by the licensee or by a suitable adult who acts on his or her behalf. Such supervision will protect the young person from being placed under pressure from customers, including under-age friends asking to be served, or from any difficulties arising from drunkenness or disorder.
Any employer wishing to participate in the training scheme will have to inform the police of his intention to do so. The police will then have the opportunity to raise with the scheme organisers any concerns about the suitability of the employer or the premises before a decision is taken.
Finally, the order allows apprentices to work in the bar only during normal licensing hours. That will prevent their late night employment in night clubs or in premises which change their nature as a result of late night licence extensions.
To sum up, the order will provide new career opportunities for young people while retaining those protections necessary to prevent exploitation and alcohol abuse. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th December be approved [11th Report from the Deregulation Committed]—(The Earl of Courtown).
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will expect us to welcome the order, and we do. It is in line with the deregulation policies of the Government and it is in line with those parts of the deregulation policy which we support. In particular, we welcome it because of the impetus that it gives to training for young people and, as the Minister knows, we are very much in favour of the modern apprenticeship scheme of which this could and should form an important part.
I am rather surprised to read in paragraph 13 of the Home Office statement on the order the reference to the representations made to the Home Office by
1462
representatives of the licensed trade but no reference to the representations made by the Trades Union Congress. The TUC wrote on 11th April of last year to the Home Office and it wrote on 1st July of last year to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. In view of the importance of the TUC in representing workers, including young workers, that should have been recognised not just in the list of people invited to consult but in the list of people who made representations.
The TUC had no objection in principle to the order because it recognises and supports the need for training and protection of young people. It recognises that the order requires that there should be satisfactory arrangements for monitoring the quality of training and the progress of apprentices.
There are worries which are not the fault of the Government. However, the simple fact is that a very large number of bars, the places of employment covered by the order, are small and very difficult to monitor. If the monitoring is to be the responsibility of the training and enterprise councils, which I understand to be the case, will the Minister assure us that the TECs have the capability to cope with monitoring health and safety, the quality of supervision, the quality of training itself and the progression provided by the training; and that there is adequate provision for action to be taken against employers who fail to meet the requirements? As I say, I am not blaming the Government for this, but it is intrinsically a difficult and expensive problem for TECs to provide the monitoring for such relatively small places of employment. With that proviso and that query, I repeat my welcome for the order.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I also welcome the order. Only last week we had the Bass Carrington annual lunch which is given to parliamentarians during which the chairman gave his address and explained the strategy and the results of the past year and told us how the group was progressing. He placed special emphasis on the importance to that group—and that will be duplicated elsewhere—of the training of young people in the licensing trade. He was criticised from the floor afterwards when questions were asked as regards the low rates of pay for young people starting in the trade. However, as the chairman pointed out, that training is very complete and thorough. They are aiming to bring people to the point where they could possibly run a public house on their own after two years' training.
I have a niece who started in the trade at the age of 21 and, by 23, she was running a pub in Clapham which cannot be an easy area in which to do so. She now has a very lucrative job in the pharmaceutical industry so, unfortunately, they did not manage to keep her. However, I was most impressed by the training which she received and by the way in which she dealt with the day-to-day running of a pub, especially as regards violence in pubs which, of course, is always a danger. Only if you have trained people—and trained young people—who are able to spot trouble before it happens, will you be able to reduce the possibility of such flare-ups which, unfortunately, happen in our society and in other societies.

1463
This is an admirable effort by the Government; indeed, for the second time this morning. I am delighted that common sense is being brought into the whole area at last. Having said that, and on a cheery note, I congratulate the Government yet again on their efforts. I hope that we shall see further efforts along the same lines in the future.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their support of the order. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, mentioned a number of points regarding TECs and health and safety. The TECs are bound by a detailed contract with the Department for Education and Employment which covers the quality, health and safety and the content of all modern apprenticeships. Each TEC in turn holds contracts with individual employers either directly or through a training provider covering such matters. Such issues are no less important for the modern apprenticeship schemes that TECs monitor perfectly satisfactorily. Under the order the police have the opportunity to raise objections with a TEC if any employer or premises is considered unsuitable for participation in the apprenticeship scheme.
Questions have also been raised about supervision. The TEC has to be satisfied as to the suitability of an employer before agreeing to support a modern apprenticeship. It will look at an employer's ability to provide structured training, arrangements for the apprentice to be assessed against NVQ standards and the employer's arrangements for managing the modern apprenticeships, including monitoring and reviewing the apprentice's progress through the NVQ system.
I was asked what action could be taken against employers. I can tell the noble Lord that licensees failing to meet their responsibilities may be prohibited from further participation in the scheme. Employers would normally be given the opportunity to put matters right before being withdrawn from the scheme. The Hospitality Training Foundation, which is the industry training organisation for this particular modern apprenticeship, will issue guidance to all prospective employers setting out their responsibilities and the consequences of failing to meet them. Once again, I should like to thank noble Lords for their support. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deregulation (Casinos) Order 1997
2.18 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown The Earl of Courtown rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th January be approved [13th Report from the Deregulation Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this order, which has been scrutinised by the parliamentary scrutiny committees of both Houses, amends the Liquor Licensing Act 1964 and the Gaming Act 1968 as follows. First, it allows casinos in England and Wales to apply for special hours certificates to enable them
1464
to serve alcohol up to 3 a.m. in London and 2 a.m. elsewhere; and, secondly, it reduces the waiting period before new members may game in a casino from 48 hours to 24 hours.
I will briefly explain the two changes. At present, casinos in England and Wales are not permitted to serve alcohol beyond midnight, although they may open until 4 a.m. That is because the Liquor Licensing Act 1964 allows licence extensions beyond midnight only for establishments offering live entertainment. Under the gaming legislation, casinos are prohibited from providing live entertainment. There are no plans to change this because entertainment could stimulate the demand for casino gambling.
Therefore the order allows casinos to apply for special hours certificates in the same way as other late night establishments, such as night-clubs. We do not expect this change to cause any problems. Casinos in Scotland have had extended liquor licensing hours since 1976 without any difficulties. As is the rule now, players will not be allowed to take alcohol onto the gaming floor. This merely allows casinos to offer the facilities which people expect to find in a late night establishment.
I now turn to the relaxation regarding the membership rule. Casinos in this country are subject to a strict regulatory regime. Many people have quite the wrong impression of what they are like, mainly because few people have been inside them. They are not at all like the casinos in Las Vegas with their rows of slot machines and cabaret acts. They are discreet establishments which provide mainly table and card games. Casinos here are not allowed to advertise and they are required to operate as members' clubs. You cannot walk off the street into a casino as you could into a night club, and they are closely supervised by the Gaming Board's inspectors.
The strict regime for casinos will remain, as they are places for hard gaming, but it is appropriate to relax slightly the rules on membership, reducing the waiting period from 48 hours to 24 hours.
At present if someone wants to game in a casino and they are not already a member or a guest of a member they have to apply for membership at the casino and wait 48 hours before they can participate in the gaming. This can mean that casinos, especially those in London, lose custom from tourists. The Government do not intend to change the club status of casinos but we have agreed that it would be reasonable for the waiting period to be reduced to 24 hours.
Both these changes have been the subject of extensive consultation and have the support of the Gaming Board, the Magistrates' Association and the police.
The Deregulation Committee in another place and the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee have unanimously recommended that the order is in a form satisfactory to be submitted to the House for affirmative resolution. The order provides sensible relaxation to rules on casinos. I am grateful—I hope—for noble Lords' support. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th January be approved [13th Report from the Deregulation Committed—(The Earl of Courtown.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, gaming is a euphemism; the word is "gambling". I can say that because gambling is the only vice that I do not have. I have never been inside a casino in this country although I have been to casinos in Las Vegas, to which the noble Earl referred. I am a little puzzled about the need for an extension of a licence to sell alcohol. Casinos in Las Vegas at any rate offer free drinks, including alcoholic drinks, in order that people can indulge their vice for gambling and to keep them doing so. Indeed, they offer food and sometimes free accommodation—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Where is this?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is in Las Vegas. If my noble friend Lord Graham wants to visit he can confirm the truth of what I say. Is the noble Earl saying it is necessary for casinos in this country to sell alcohol to the punters? I am surprised. Seriously, the law is a nonsense as it stands. Not being able to sell alcohol after midnight unless one provides live entertainment, and not being able to provide live entertainment if the establishment is a casino, is the classic case of catch-22. It is desirable that it should be removed by this order and we support it.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I am sure the order is fine but I am puzzled. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I had a misspent youth and quite often visited casinos and betting shops. On every occasion when I speak in your Lordships' House and express surprise at the vision that is painted of these places, I am treated in a certain way. On one occasion I was described as "the dotty Peer" by one newspaper. I do not mind being called a dotty Peer as regards other areas, but in the area of casinos and betting shops, which I understand, I should like to think I am not dotty.
When I am told that entertainment stimulates gambling more than drink, I wonder where the architects of this measure have lived their lives. The only reason I am here now and not a bankrupt is probably because I did not drink when I gambled. If there had been more entertainment, perhaps I would have more money in my pocket now. As usual on gambling subjects—the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is right; we are talking about gambling—I am absolutely mystified about the thought processes underlying the measure.
Gambling in this country seems now to have gone beyond the old public policy of discouragement. In order to get the lottery through, we had to pretend that there was no public policy to discourage gambling—or what the noble Earl refers to as gaming. But matters have now changed. All that is required is sensible regulation of these places. By and large I think that betting shops are now reasonable places, although perhaps lacking bunches of flowers and groups of children happily gambolling, or gaming, about while their parents bet. Neither are casinos salubrious places
1466
where foregather the kind of people one would like to meet one's mother. However, since we have these places let us hope that the Government regulate them properly. But there is a lot of nonsense going on, is there not?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, I have never been into a casino in this country. Therefore I have learned about them second hand. As regards drink and the selling of alcohol, premises can and do sell alcohol up to 12 o'clock; and a special hours certificate enables them to sell it up to three o'clock. I understand that drinks cannot be served at the table. People have to move away from the gambling tables to drink.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, was concerned as to whether live entertainment would encourage or discourage people. He will correct me if I am wrong. Perhaps he will remind me of the point.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I am delighted to continue along this line. I shall grasp any opportunity. I am saying that if you are gambling, whether playing blackjack, roulette or standing in a betting shop looking at the runners, if someone entertains you it will take you away from that form of betting for a while. Therefore I should have thought that entertainment is a good thing. If you drink while playing any gambling game, whether a respectable club game such as backgammon or poker, or in a casino, you get further into the world of unreality which is, after all, what is behind gambling. You are likely to lose everything you have, and more.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for repeating his comments. Casinos in this country are some of the most heavily regulated in Europe, if not in the world. They are generally, I think almost wholly, well run establishments. I do not think that the picture of people behaving badly or getting out of control is valid.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, the noble Earl is most courteous in giving way. I did not wish to imply that that was the case. I said that what encourages or discourages gambling seems slightly out of focus in the reasoning underlying the order. People who run betting shops and gambling places are probably paragons of virtue. I do not go to them nowadays.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for the explanation and thank noble Lords for their support. I commend the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deregulation (Betting Licensing) Order 1997
2.30 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown The Earl of Courtown rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th January be approved [15th Report from the Deregulation Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this order amends the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 to extend from one year to three years the duration of betting permits and licences. It has been scrutinised by both deregulation committees, which recommended minor amendments to the order, which has now been redrafted to the committees' satisfaction.
The main benefit of the order is that bookmakers will not have to apply every year for renewal of their permits and licences. The order contains a new power to cancel betting office licences. The committees were satisfied that the order contains sufficient protections for the betting public.
This is a modest deregulation measure which will relieve some of the red tape on the betting industry. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th January be approved [15th Report from the Deregulation Committee].—(The Earl of Courtown.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Earl describes this as a modest measure. It is indeed. There is nothing wrong with it. However, last year we had another modest measure in relation to betting shops which referred to the angle of the television screen and whether it could be seen from the door. We are playing silly games with betting shops, are we not? We try to make them into places that are deliberately unattractive.
I have no desire to go into a betting shop, but this approach reminds me of when I was at university in the state of Ohio, where all spirits had to be sold by state liquor stores with blank windows. You went in through one door, went up to a counter and put in a slip saying that you wanted your whisky, gin or whatever it was. You then went to another counter and were given the whisky or gin carefully put into a brown paper bag, and you were supposed to slink out feeling guilty. I sometimes feel that the Government want people who go into betting shops to think like that. Why can we not have the proper deregulation of betting shops, and not do it slice by slice in this way?
The Viscount of Falkland: Oh dear, my Lords. Now we have gone down this track of betting, I shall merely say that I am quite sure there is nothing wrong with this order. I must say that I am jaundiced about the whole idea of betting shops—not because I think that those who run chains of betting shops are in any way reprehensible; it is just that betting shops happen to attract the least economically benefited in our society. I have always opposed the easy extension of hours and other matters to do with betting shops because, for those who are drawn into such places to follow their dreams of making money out of betting in whatever form they choose, they are not a good thing.
As I said during the course of our last debate on this matter, it is a pity that the public policy of not encouraging gambling was released so easily. If we can make sure that people do not get into trouble and do not find themselves in squalid situations where they are offered stolen goods and other things—which can
1468
happen in such places—all well and good. I hope that the picture painted of an improvement in this area is the case. However, wherever there is a possibility to gamble in this country, I am afraid that a lot of the most disadvantaged people will be found going to it like bees to a honeypot. That is just the way of the world.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, this betting licensing order, as I said, contains two main provisions: it extends the licence from one to three years, and introduces new powers to cancel betting office licences—that is, so far as the grounds for the cancelling of licences can be regarded as laying down the character and condition of the premises, whether or not they are suitable for use as a licensed betting office, and also whether the premises have been conducted properly under the licence.
In addition, there is a new power to cancel betting office licences if a betting shop has been left empty for a period of more than 12 months. I note the comments made by noble Lords. I commend the draft order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

The Cornish Economy
2.34 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the performance of the economy of Cornwall; and whether they will encourage the use of millennium funding for regeneration in the county.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I apologise in advance to the House for the condition of my voice. It requires me to take what is an unusual step for me; namely, reading my speech word for word. If my voice gives up on me, I hope that with the leave of the House my noble friend Lord Berkeley can stand up and take over from me.
Noble Lords may wonder why a lass from Lancashire is speaking up for the Celtic of Cornwall—or perhaps, as I am regarded in Cornwall, an "emmet", as the Cornish refer to foreigners. I am proud to take my title from my birthplace in Lancashire and a Lancashire lass I will always be. But in recent years I have made my home in a Cornish town, the historic harbour town of Falmouth. In that time I have come to realise that the south west and Cornwall in particular have been getting a very rough deal for far too long. The case I make for Cornwall is not for some special hand-out or pleading. It is for recognition that, if we are moving into an era of more regional and local communities and accountabilities, the Duchy of Cornwall has a very strong case indeed; not as Devon and Cornwall but as the Duchy itself in its own right, west of the Tamar River.
For the truth is that the economy of Cornwall is facing great difficulty. Cornwall has always suffered for its distance from the centre of government: a kind of geographical postscript to England is how many in

1469
Cornwall regard it. It is possibly a case of "out of sight, out of mind". Even today's better road and rail connections have not overcome that.
Every relevant economic indicator for Cornwall is at the wrong end of the scale. Unemployment is the highest for any county area in Britain and it is continuing to rise, even against the national trend. In January, when the overall national level fell to 7 per cent., in Cornwall it increased—the only county to do so—to a level of 9.2 per cent. In West Cornwall that rises to 11.3 per cent., in the towns of Helston, Camborne and Penzance. Since the publication of those January figures, some 300 jobs have been lost in the St. Ives Creamery in St. Erth, and another 300 have gone at English China Clay. Those two closures alone would put up the unemployment rate by at least 1 per cent., possibly 2 per cent.
Average earnings are some 20 per cent. less than the national average. The GDP per capita—a crucial overall measure of the economic welfare of any county—at 73 per cent. of the UK average is almost the lowest in the country. Unbelievable as it may sound, it is lower even than Merseyside.
On top of all this, the people of Cornwall have to grapple with the relatively poor public transport. The economy of Cornwall is as fragile as the landscape is dramatic and it is in a dire state. The unemployment figures reveal a steady decline in jobs in the primary sectors, such as agriculture, mining and fishing. There is but one tin mine left in Cornwall, grimly hanging on, having been rescued by hundreds of local people who bought shares to keep it alive.
Noble Lords will not need reminding of the difficulties of the fishing industry. Whole communities in Cornwall, in places like Newlyn and Looe, continue to depend upon fishing, but it is getting harder and harder and there is no alternative employment at the moment. The manufacturing base is relatively small. While there are many first-class companies in Cornwall, they are mostly small. Some 90 per cent. of all companies have fewer than 24 employees. Tourism is certainly an important employer, but it is seasonal and many of its jobs are part-time and low paid. At the same time, Cornwall's population is growing, above the national trend, fuelled by inward migration of working people and their children. Cornwall's population has grown by 13 per cent. since 1981, the fastest rate of growth after prosperous Buckinghamshire and Cambridgeshire.
Yet Cornwall still has one of the lowest percentages of its population in England economically active. There is also a high net outward migration of young people because there are no broadly-based higher education facilities at all in the county. That is a point to which I shall return later. Cornwall probably has the lowest population per square mile in the UK. No town has more than 20,000 people living in it. Those are worrying trends which present higher delivery costs in providing essential services like health, social services and the fire brigade. Yet that is not recognised in funding from central government.
Perhaps I may just give a snapshot of one ward in the area of Falmouth in which I live. Some 31 per cent. of the households are poor; 34 per cent. of all the children
1470
in that ward live in homes where no parent has a job and 23 per cent. of children live with a lone parent. Yet the privatised water industry of the south west has increased charges by 100 per cent. since privatisation compared with the national average of 39 per cent. We have to provide some hope for the future of the people of Cornwall. There is a huge backlog of low standard accommodation crying out for repair and renovation. Local authorities such as Carrick Council know of some 30,000 properties in the area which are in need of urgent attention. If we could get to work on those it would generate demand, provide jobs and give a real spin to the flywheel of the local economy.
Many of the statistics that I give to your Lordships are invisible to the politicians at both Brussels and Westminster. That is because Cornwall is lumped together for statistical purposes with Devon or, even worse, with the south west. The distorted picture shows a highly prosperous region with above average level of wealth and below average unemployment. Why is that? It is because Wiltshire, for instance, with only 3.5 per cent. unemployment, is included with data for Cornwall and the south west. Yet it is nearly 250 miles from Penzance to Swindon, which is further from London than my own county of Lancashire. I cannot imagine Lancashire accepting that it should be lumped in with London. The purpose of this Question is to reduce that invisibility and put Cornwall's special problems on the map in their own right—but not with special pleading.
I should mislead your Lordships' House if I did not also point to some of the good news from Cornwall. There are many excellent firms, including substantial exporters, in high technology and niche markets, although most of them are small and do not employ large numbers. The county attracts some 3½ million visitors a year—more, I believe, than the whole of Scotland. Cornwall's tourism industry has many strengths, although it receives under £½ million from the West Country Tourist Board. Scotland, attracting fewer tourists, receives £16.9 million annually. Think of what could be done in Cornwall with that kind of money.
The education service is good. Cornwall has higher than national average GCSE results. The county council's local education authority received a recent glowing report from the Ofsted inspectorate. There is a fine dual carriageway from the M5 at Exeter and what I call passport control to Bodmin. It replaces the old, tortuous A30 over Dartmoor and Bodmin Moor. I congratulate the Government on announcing completion of the A30 upgrade by agreeing to the completion of the Goss Moor section. But, I respectfully ask the Minister, when will it happen? I hope that the Minister can tell me when it will be started and when it is expected to be completed.
Road access is important to any inward investor. It is among the top three questions any investor asks. Can the Minister say if there is an early plan to upgrade what must surely be the only 14 foot 3 inch high bridge on any trunk road in the United Kingdom? It is a nightmare. It is essential that that bridge is widened and raised.
Cornwall's own-generated In Pursuit of Excellence initiative has brought together people from all the various interest groups in the county. It has galvanised people to work together for the recognition of excellence. It includes many of Cornwall's smaller businesses. South West Enterprise—again for small companies—is doing a grand job. But there is no Cornwall redevelopment agency specially for the county. I understand that my noble friend Lord Graham may well refer to regional development and I await with interest his contribution.
The people of Cornwall are doing what they can to help themselves. But what your Lordships have just heard is not good enough. It needs a kick start and a few big projects to act as catalysts for economic growth. There too, the county is trying to help itself.
I would like to mention three key projects. The first is the Exeter University initiative, which is essential because there is such a paucity of higher education provision in Cornwall. Of course, in Falmouth, we have the excellent Falmouth College of Art and Design, which is nationally recognised for the quality of work it does. But that is not enough. As noble Lords will recognise, it does not provide higher education across a board range of subjects. In fact, there is no higher education provision in Cornwall that provides that broad range from within Cornwall.
Exeter University provides a wide range and the project, if millennium funds are forthcoming, will facilitate an international institution in the county. Exeter will move all its activities in Cornwall, including the Camborne School of Mines, into a new campus at Trereife just outside Penzance. Penrith district council, the local authority, despite tight funding, has voted the £1 million which is needed to purchase the site. It will create 300 new jobs directly and at least another 240 in the community. There will be 5,000 students, full-time and part-time, on that new campus. It is essential that the Millennium Commission gives its answer this summer if that year 2000 deadline is to be met.
The second initiative is the Eden project, an imaginative initiative, which is a development for science and research to investigate man's dependence on plant life. It will be a major visitor centre and will provide innovative research and a splendid educational establishment of worldwide significance. The third initiative is the planned move to Falmouth of the National Maritime Museum's small boat collection, a project which will bring visitors into Falmouth and create jobs in the area.
All three initiatives will be immensely important catalysts and must not be allowed to fail. Each is going through the complex hoops of seeking to secure lottery and EU funding. On this point, in a county with some 90 per cent. of businesses employing not more than 24 people, cannot some way be found whereby "in kind" factors, such as work and time, can be agreed to be a part of what is defined as matching funding? It is a serious point for Cornwall. Small and medium-sized enterprises usually have few funds to spare to give by way of grants. There are no FT 100 businesses in
1472
Cornwall to help with funding. There are branches, yes, but money is quite often concentrated where the company head office is.
I ask the Minister for an assurance that her colleagues in another place who have responsibility for these areas, especially the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for National Heritage, will do all they can to ensure that these projects do not fail.
Finally, I call on the Minister to ensure that there remains a strong floor of EU regional funding for Cornwall. The present objective programme is good, but many projects are having difficulty because of the complexities. I welcome the Government's commitment to seek "NUTS 2" status within the EC so that Cornwall can have its own discrete statistics recorded and published so that they are not lost in the wider prosperous south west. I would welcome such an assurance from the Government on regional funds which are to be renegotiated in 1999, but perhaps I should address that question to my noble friend on the Front Bench, who no doubt will be in a position in a few weeks' time to give me those assurances.
Cornwall needs symbols for the future. The Exeter University plan is one; the Eden project and the Falmouth project are others. We need less rhetoric and more action. The people and their representatives are prepared to do what they can to help themselves. We need central government to take their fair share.
2.48 p.m.
Lord Saint Levan: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for calling attention to the performance of the economy in Cornwall. After she has spoken so forcefully in our favour, I can assure her that if she comes to Cornwall again no one will call her emmet.
I really should be in Par this afternoon in the heart of the English China Clay district where my wife is opening a new Marie Curie cancer care office, but I am very grateful that the noble Baroness has persuaded the House to debate the economy of Cornwall.
As the noble Baroness said, it is evident that, as a result of a report on property in Cornwall in the 1990s, prepared by Bristol University, on a very wide range of indications Cornwall is a very deprived county. These include low weekly earnings, high rates of unemployment and, in the remote rural areas, lack of good transport facilities and even medical and education opportunities. However, the environment in Cornwall is now very favourable for a dynamic expansion of business in the country. There is a proven record of successful companies trading profitably in Cornwall at the moment.
One problem is that industrial land in Cornwall requires substantial public investment in infrastructure. The private sector cannot make profits with such a heavy bill for roads and sewers. An example of that is Hayle harbour which, after much effort and many false dawns, still lies derelict. The difference between funding for Wales, Scotland and Cornwall has been mentioned by the noble Baroness. I believe that it is a hangover

1473
from the days when Wales and Scotland themselves were facing very serious social challenges, particularly in the coal mining industry and in Clyde shipbuilding.
I am responsible for a number of the jobs in the tourist industry and it does not seem to me to be at all fair that last year the West Country Tourist Board received only £400,000 from the Government for the whole of the south west, whereas Scotland received over £16 million and Wales nearly £15 million. Also, as the noble Baroness said, it is clearly wrong that statistically Cornwall should be linked with Devon and even further afield.
Over the past fortnight all of us in Cornwall have been deeply shocked by the recent loss of 307 jobs at the St. Ivel creamery at St. Erth and the 300 redundancies announced by English China Clay. We were pleased that a delegation from Cornwall, including Members of Parliament and county and district councillors, was so well received by the Government Minister for the south west, David Curry. As my local newspaper the Cornishman said, they were pushing at an open door. It was particularly good news that the Devon and Cornwall Enterprise Council would be given the necessary resources for the training of men and women for alternative jobs. It was also good that funding would he provided to replace the business advisers who have recently been axed from the business advisory service of the Rural Development Commission, which has traditionally funded money into rural areas.
It is very sad that the successful services for businesses in rural areas, until now provided by the Rural Development Commission, will not be reinstated. I hope that Ministers will reconsider that. It is not easy to see where new jobs will be found, especially for skilled workers from the St. Ivel creamery. The greatest demand for jobs and vacancies comes from the hotel and catering section, with much lower wages and less security.
As the noble Baroness said, the primary industries in Cornwall—agriculture, mining and fishing—have all suffered in the numbers employed. The biggest provision of alternative employment might come from the small businesses employing fewer than 10 people. There is a predominance of small businesses in Cornwall. It is important that these firms should receive assistance from the Devon and Cornwall TEC.
I would strongly urge Ministers that, if jobs are to be protected in small businesses in Cornwall, additional funding will be vital in the future. I have personal experience of the value of help provided by the Training and Enterprise Council. I am a director of a company with electrical and television shops all over Cornwall. Due to the recession and the competition of out-of-town new shopping developments, we were very concerned about the future of the company and probable redundancies and loss of jobs. We consulted the Devon and Cornwall TEC for independent advice, and the advice, for a nominal fee, was of great value.
I understand that Ministers are fully aware of the lack of available factory units in Cornwall. Perhaps English Partnership is the only agency with the necessary financial structure to address this problem. I hope that
1474
the Government will encourage English Partnership under its Factories First Initiative Scheme to build factories and develop industrial land. Eight hectares in Restormel and six acres in Penzance are required immediately to replace lost jobs.
Local authorities have done a magnificent job in designating specific areas of land for new factories. In Cornwall there is a large amount of land which is derelict and ripe for reclamation.
As I live close to the fishing port of Newlyn and am on the committee of the Fishermen's Mission, perhaps I may advise your Lordships that the problems that have been debated previously in your Lordships' House are still of great concern. It is important that the entire process of quota hopping should be resolved for the benefit of British industry before we have the intergovernmental conference.
Ministers are right to think that Cornwall has in the past received considerable help from regional funds and there are grounds for hope of a less gloomy economic situation in the future. It should be remembered that high-speed InterCity trains in the south west were first introduced in the late 1970s. Since bus deregulation, "Hoppa" buses provide a much better service to remote rural areas. The county planning officer pointed out in his comments on the revised county structure plan that in the 1960s there were virtually no dual carriageways in Cornwall, but now, in the 1990s, many of the main towns of Cornwall have been bypassed. There has been a large increase in private car ownership. There have been massive improvements to the A.30 and the A.38 roads. We had a debate some time ago in your Lordships' House on the Okehampton bypass when many speeches were made in favour of it. That bypass has been of enormous benefit to farmers and other businesses in Cornwall.
There have also been considerable benefits to Cornwall from European grants. I often think that the commemorative signs put up on completion of a scheme financed by funding from Europe are far too modest. Perhaps there could be larger and more prominent displays. However, the forms are difficult to complete for applicants and many of us cannot find the necessary matching funds. It is not only important—it is vital—that the Government should support Cornwall County Council's bid to be classified separately from Devon for European funding. Such a classification would give Cornwall the highest rate of European economic support.
I echo what the noble Baroness said about the campaign "In Pursuit of Excellence". It has done a good job in encouraging wealth creation in Cornwall. Much has been done to increase awareness of Cornwall as a place for sound business investment. "In Pursuit of Excellence" is doing a marvellous job persuading people of the tremendous advantages of doing business in Cornwall. Cornwall's manufacturing base accounts for more than a quarter of the gross domestic product. Many companies in Cornwall can boast of considerable success in exporting their products. Exporting is vital for any successful economy. The Duchy of Cornwall education award scheme is encouraging school and

1475
college students to become involved with the wider business community. The campaign particularly wants more funds to enable Cornish companies to promote their wares at world trade fairs. I believe that other countries provide such help.
I am personally involved in tourism and farming in Cornwall on which a very considerable number of jobs depend. The future prosperity of those industries is, to say the least, extremely precarious in Cornwall. I have been at two meetings of farmers recently when two separate bank managers warned that the relative prosperity of the past four years may not continue even without taking into account the problems of BSE. The future of farmers growing early potatoes and vegetables in west Cornwall is even more uncertain. We have had two bad seasons due to the weather. Even with the help of the new farm marketing co-operatives, it is difficult to see how it will be possible to be paid reasonable prices when the buyers for the supermarkets are buying so much produce from abroad. In the recent frost which lasted 10 days in Cornwall, it was said that they were even importing vegetables from America. That is, of course, a commercial problem over which Ministers have no control, but it does highlight the precarious situation of the Cornish economy.
We have experienced two good years for tourism due to good weather and the magnificent work done to promote tourism in Cornwall by the tourist boards and the Cornish Association of Tourist Attractions. However, I am worried that we now have to rely on foreign visitors as such a large proportion of the visitors' trade. We rely particularly on the Dutch and Germans. The number of foreign visitors can suddenly drop without warning due to currency fluctuations, changes in holiday habits or competition from cheap package holidays, particularly to Turkey and South America. Last week I was informed of one minor case involving a fall in income from German visitors. The YMCA in Penzance relies to a very large extent on German students. Last year there were a number of cancellations. The reason given was that their mothers were afraid that they might inadvertently eat British beef disguised as hamburgers or Cornish pasties.
There may be good arguments in favour of the minimum wage for part-time workers in tourism, but there is no doubt that it will cause employers a few headaches as well as inconvenience from the measures and regulations contained in the social chapter. I suggest that without greatly increased funding for tourism in Cornwall there is a real danger of a large loss of jobs. The jobs may not be well paid but part-time work suits a good number of families with children or those where both partners are working. There is undoubtedly an enormous amount of poverty in Cornwall behind the tourist image of well-kept villages and beautiful countryside. I am president of Cornwall Church Action for the Unemployed which, together with the Duke of Cornwall's Princes Trust and Church Action on Poverty, tries to help people in ways that bureaucracy cannot reach. The Bishop of St. Germans has organised a conference in St. Austell next March to give
1476
unemployed and socially deprived people a chance to talk about their lives to policymakers on the county council and other local authorities.
As the noble Baroness said, the worst problems are the price of electricity and the fact that water bills have gone up by 100 per cent. There is also a problem of affordable rural housing. It is sad that local authorities do not have the funds to enable housing associations to build and rent affordable homes. In my own district of west Cornwall the local authority is free of debt and is doing a magnificent job with money from council house sales. At present I believe that three housing association projects are under way. I hope that Ministers can do more to encourage housing associations. It is hard to see how affordable accommodation for local people can be provided by the private sector. I own a number of cottages that are occupied by pensioners or low-paid workers. The cost of repairs, insurance and management means that there is a considerable annual deficit that I must fund out of other income.
The question that is asked is whether the Government have done enough for the economy of Cornwall and, if not, whether more millennium funds should be released to Cornwall. Obviously, the very exciting Eden Project that is before the Millennium Commission would be a vital boost to visitors to Cornwall and would create many well-paid jobs in the St. Austell area. The Millennium Commission also has an important proposal for a university for Cornwall. The plan for a university has widespread support from all political parties in Cornwall. I hope that it will be actively supported by the Government. Cornwall has excellent sixth form and technical colleges but a vocational campus would greatly improve the county's educational base. Far too many young people leave Cornwall for higher education in other parts of the country. The Vice-Chancellor of the University of Exeter has said that at the moment the greatest need is for a commitment to provide capital. Once someone starts, others will follow. We also need an early decision on funding from the National Lottery and European sources.
In my view, the Minister for the south west has been very effective in pressing the case for the economic regeneration of Cornwall. I believe that the Government's heart is in the right place so far as concerns Cornwall, but I hope that some of the questions that are raised in this debate will receive very serious consideration.
3.4 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, this Question exposes a raw nerve. People in Cornwall are disadvantaged, with the GDP gap between it and other parts of the United Kingdom becoming more acute. The only question is: what can be done about it? Support for positive action comes from all quarters. The Lord Lieutenant, Lady Mary Holborow, mindful of any political divide, rightly feels that,
"Cornwall with its high unemployment and very low weekly earnings really needs to be looked at as a special case like Wales and the Highlands of Scotland".

1477
An acclaimed recent study by Plymouth University concluded:
"Cornwall is a problem county in a prosperous region. Crossing the border between Devon and Cornwall is like falling off an economic cliff."
Supporting figures, caused by Cornwall losing so many of its traditional industries, are on the record and indisputable. I shall not dwell therefore on existing ground but consider differing approaches to rectify the situation.
That has to come as a mixture of public funds and private investment to revitalise the local economy, combined with expansion of the tourism industry at, I believe, the quality end, and equally as important, implementation of the two substantial projects, the Eden project at St. Austell and the University project at Penzance, both by millennium and European structural funding.
Before dealing with the specifics, however, I wish to add my voice to the vital matter of delinking European regional classification of Cornwall from its wealthier neighbour, Devon. There is a hidden imbalance that must be corrected to enable grant-aid to flow directly to Cornwall and so allow an economic level playing field.
Campaigning must start now, in face of possible opposition from Brussels, as the European Union is set to redefine its regional boundaries post-1999 and so identify areas of special need. An altered designation would not only give Cornwall access to a larger budget but also permit projects to qualify for a 75 per cent. grant rather than just the 50 per cent. at present. Will the Minister please give an assurance today that it will press hard for the case? Indeed, Mr. Robin Teverson, the local MEP must also be encouraged to negotiate, after the national consultation stage, with Eurostat and the European Commission. Success would go a long way towards correcting the economic imbalance for Cornwall, for I have seen at first hand the extraordinary transformation of a region's fortunes through Brussels intervention.
Other key issues need also to be addressed by government. We have already heard of some of these this afternoon. The delays in improving the spine road, the A.30, to include dualling and rebridging at Goss Moor, remain a missing link in Cornwall's continued infrastructure improvement and are a major concern and deterrent to some investors.
Appreciably increased distribution costs are generated by up to one hour additional transport time on eastbound traffic by needing to divert high-cube lorries around the bridge. That is not helpful and needs urgently to be addressed. Commercial traffic must contend in addition with horrendous traffic through the summer when distribution operations must compete with the tourist deluge. Why are the Government unwilling to accelerate that project? There has been unanimous support since pre-planning meetings as far back as 1994. The scheme needs to advance.
Will the Government please commit to making the bridge top priority for funding once the decision is made; and, secondly, ensure that the railway issue does not hinder the road development. I am sure that it
1478
has not escaped the Minister's attention that there are two Tory marginals being contested in the upcoming election so what better time than today for an announcement?
There is potential for great cause for concern over the continuation of the Newquay to London air link. Currently the plan is to move the slots away from Heathrow to Gatwick, which probably affects Plymouth more than Newquay; but there is a reliance on continuing service from Plymouth to keep the Newquay service viable. What can the Government do to ensure that the Plymouth to London link remains open, and, ideally, will they use their good-offices to allow the service to remain at Heathrow?
I now want to turn to an emotive subject—the question of government incentives for attracting employment from one region to another. I should like to know why Wales has been such an apparent increased beneficiary of grants over Cornwall—up to three times the value, I understand?
I am tempted to ask for a costing of a hypothetical scenario. I shall not. But what I do ask, however, is this: what are the criteria and why is Wales such an apparent disproportionate beneficiary? What is the policy between regions for work-creation funding? A fair distribution of grants around the regions must be the right and just approach. Current policy suggests a certain iniquity. I shall wait for the Minister's reply before passing final judgment, but would point out that whatever it is Wales is doing needs to be replicated.
In the grander scheme, there are other matters which also need to be addressed. Improving the supplier base required to support investors by resourcing locally and so enable them to grow into world-class companies, is important. This can be achieved through education addressing and reducing the long-term skill shortages needed to support business growth and would require high quality training in contemporary business theories and best practices along with a dynamic link to industry.
As a point of strategy, there are some who say that there are too many fragmented groups promoting Cornwall, creating a co-ordination problem, and that what is needed is a well thought through strategy backed by a single voice—a one-stop shop. One of the big questions is whether it is feasible for Cornwall to have its own development agency, or whether it should continue to combine with Devon to have critical mass, or, to put it in the words of Sir John Banham,
"to be a large enough blip to be on the radar".
I accept fully that Devon and Cornwall can be marketed jointly, but the important factor is that there must be a coherent Cornish strategy forming part of a wider promotion in overseas markets.
While the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, and Mr. Matthew Taylor, during his recent adjournment debate in another place, should be thanked for their respective initiatives in highlighting the many difficulties facing Cornwall, it should not be forgotten that there is also good news—not least Cornwall itself.
The peninsular represents some of the best that Britain has to offer with multiple needs being fulfilled. There is, for example, a willing, reliable and affordable

1479
workforce not known for industrial problems; many suitable cost competitive facilities and sites; government funding assistance and a commitment at least to continually improving infrastructure. There are also excellent standards of education, notwithstanding concerns as outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, recreation and hospitals. Indeed, I had occasion to spend the weekend before last at the Duchy Hospital in Truro for a minor operation and can testify to the dedication, professionalism and general approach which, with regret, is now not so often found in this hectic world in which we live.
Nevertheless, I believe that we must balance the undeniable case for special assistance for Cornwall with believing that the news is necessarily all doom and gloom. There would be something inherently wrong if Cornwall could not attract more than its fair share of foreign direct investment; after all, the United Kingdom is second to the United States in investment volume, with 40 per cent. of all inward investment into the European Union coming to our shores. There is still an increasing realisation for the need by foreign companies to have a direct presence in the European Union.
I would, however, caution those responsible in such matters to be aware that enlargement of the Union will bring increased competition, because exactly what Cornwall has to offer will also be offered by many others. Cornwall, nevertheless, provides a perfect springboard to organisations offering financial services, data processing, telephone communications or any other high value added industry. They need look no further than Cornwall for their European or domestic corporate offices. Post deliveries to London and the Continent take no longer than if posting from Windsor or Cardiff; and the telephone network gives competitive world-wide access.
All the more reason for my disappointment to hear this week of Virgin Intercity creating 300 jobs for a call centre in Edinburgh in connection with its rail link which terminates at Penzance. If I were more directly involved, I would certainly look for an explanation from those responsible in the south west as to the reasons why. This type of job creation would have lent itself ideally to Cornwall.
Given these uncertain political times with the upcoming election, I want to encourage the Labour camp also to defend some of its stated policies. Clearly the emotive subject of the minimum wage might shortly raise its head. This is a delicate question, not least because pitching it at the wrong level would do uncountable damage to the Cornish economy. My Lords, how will that be dealt with?
Will a future Labour government continue to have a Minister responsible for south west affairs? The Government have clearly shown their commitment to the area by creating such a post. The Labour party has said it would restore business rates to local control. Will there be a proper system of equalisation to reflect Cornwall's small business base measured against needs? That is important, for without it the policy could be a disaster for Cornwall. I understand that new unified business rates are as much as 30 to 40 per cent.
1480
higher than, say, sites outside Birmingham. And lastly, Mr. Frank Dobson, the shadow environment spokesman, has attacked what he determines is the iniquity of the grant system that seems to give Westminster City so much. The point behind that is that visitors' nights, on which Westminster scores highly, and arguably unfairly, is crucial for Cornwall with its 25 million visitors' nights per annum. A policy which attacks Westminster that affects Cornwall could be a nightmare scenario.
In conclusion, Cornwall is not looking for a special deal, just a fair deal and so in that spirit I have no doubt that I shall return to this matter, failing hearing positive news from the Minister; but, in the meantime, I am off to traipse the spectacular rugged clifftop walk between Port Isaac and Port Quin.
3.17 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, for giving us the opportunity to speak about Cornwall. My late father, who was not a frequent speaker in your Lordships' House, made his maiden speech, I think in 1964, on the subject of the economy of Cornwall. I recall that he had an excellent brief from the English China Clay Company. I tried to dig that out in the short time available before the debate but the precarious ladder and the time available made it seem too risky. I am not such a gambler as that.
I have spent a good deal of time in Cornwall. My father lived there. I am a Devonian and my mother was a Lancastrian. My Devon roots come from just two miles inside the Devon border at St. Giles-on-the-Heath, which is two miles from Launceston.
Cornwall is a remarkable county. I was fascinated by it as a boy. It has extremes of landscape. It has the most extraordinary variations of climate—10 degrees in January between the north and south coast. It produces flowers and vegetation the like of which are not seen anywhere else in the British Isles. You can see hydrangeas, myrtle, azaleas and rhododendrons of a kind and a size unequalled.
As the noble Baroness will know, Cornish people are very particular. They are extremely independent-minded and articulate, very much like the Welsh. They are very fond of singing. However, when my father lived in Fowey, I found that on one side of Fowey were the people who had settled in Cornwall; for example, people who had retired from the Army and so on. To see the true Cornish, you had to go to the other side of the river, to the pubs and so on, to hear the singing. Sometimes, you would have thought that you were in Wales, hearing the quality of the singing. The Celtic language of Cornwall is of the same type as that spoken in Brittany and Wales. I am glad to say that in recent times, probably over the past 20 years, more people speak Cornish than they did 30 or 40 years ago.
On these Benches, I am somewhat Euro-sceptical in many regards but if I could be optimistic I believe that if Europe progresses in the way that we all hope it will, Cornwall may do rather well within a closer Europe. If you go across the Channel to the northern coast of France there is an extraordinary difference. Cornwall is

1481
a very poor county; indeed, it has an unemployment level of 25 per cent.—the same as some of the poorest parts of Europe. Britain has a very high unemployment level. Yet along the coast of Brittany, which faces Cornwall on the other side of the Channel, you will find a greater concentration of its peculiar qualities and of its history and tradition than exists in Cornwall which resembles it in so many ways.
At some stage in the not too distant future—I agree with other speakers in this respect—I hope that Cornwall will be viewed as the unique county that it is, not only for statistical purposes but also for other purposes. I fear that tourism in Cornwall is somewhat overemphasised. The noble Baroness and I may disagree in that respect. The great influx of tourists into Cornwall took place because of people's ability to take paid holidays, and so on. They went down to Devon and Cornwall, bringing about an enormous change in the coastal area and creating a huge hotel trade. However, with the growth of tourism in Europe and the advent of cheap travel, many people whose mothers and fathers might have gone to Cornwall and Devon go instead to Spain, Portugal, Malta and so on.
Cornwall has a most unique geology and history. After all, in Cornwall you will probably find more prehistoric items of interest than anywhere else in the British Isles and you will see more unspoiled battlefields, or unchanged battlefields, from the time when such battles took place. Noble Lords will recall that during the Civil War Cornwall was uniquely Royalist for a long period thanks to two extremely gay—that is, "gay" in the old-fashioned sense of the word—and dashing cavaliers, Sir Ralph Hopton and Sir Bevil Grenville who finally capitulated when they could not agree as to who was the most senior of them at Pendennis Castle, which I believe is close to where the noble Baroness lives. There was also the extraordinary march from Cornwall in the 15th century to protest against the tax to levy money for the Scottish wars. The Cornish were only stopped at Blackheath which gave an enormous fright to the throne at that time.
Cornish tin mining has been of long duration. I am not sure whether the relationship with the Phoenicians is not slightly apocryphal. There is good evidence to show that there was trade with the Phoenecians as early documents from that part of the world refer to the "tin island"; and, indeed, many think that Lundy Island may be that island. Certainly, the Romans found no opposition when they invaded Cornwall and, as recorded in contemporary documents, were surprised to find the people industrious, articulate and prosperous. The Saxons invaded Cornwall and pretty well laid the place to waste, so that at the time of the Norman conquest one finds very little of what might be called a co-ordinated Cornish identity.
Cornwall has an extraordinary history. From the tourism point of view, I would suggest that it needs to be regarded as a high, added-value area. I say that because the kind of things that it offers are irreplaceable but require much effort as opposed to just lying on a beach, playing golf or doing the things that people do as laudable pastimes. There is so much more in Cornwall. That is why I support the noble Baroness in
1482
the millennium project—the Question on the Order Paper mentions "millennium funding"—for a University of Cornwall. That is an excellent idea; I hope that the Government will support it. Not only would it bring employment to Cornwall; it would also provide an additional opportunity for people to go into further education. It would also offer the possibility of concentrating on selling the unique character of Cornwall.
This is all a case of looking to the future and at long-term possibilities. Quite rightly, if Cornish people should hear of this debate they will wonder why I am taking such a long-term view when at this moment people in Cornwall are suffering from high unemployment. I am told that the air link between Heathrow and Cornwall may not exist for much longer. If that happens, companies will have to think twice about establishing themselves in Cornwall. The loss of the air link would be an enormous deterrent to executives travelling to Cornwall.
Like the noble Baroness, I am glad that the Government have agreed that the A.30 needs to be further improved, but when will that happen? Cornwall has much to offer which, in my view, has been under-exploited and under-developed. It has a peculiar and rich culture and heritage to offer tourists as well as others. Within the medium and long term it must offer food for thought for those who seriously want to develop this region of Europe which has enormous value. I am a Devonian but I must admit that Cornwall probably has more going for it than Devon. Devon is a richer county in any case. I hope that the unique character of Cornwall will be recognised.
I hope that the statistical classification will take place. We and the Cornish can then focus around the university and its activities. The other millennium project, the Eden Project, is interesting. I believe one newspaper described it as the largest greenhouse in the world. There is no better place for it. It is unbelievable how plants flourish in Cornwall. Of course many of the plants used in the project will be grown under glass if it were to go ahead. That would draw an enormous amount of higher added value tourism to Cornwall. I am sure that it would be a case of higher added value rather than high volume, small margin business which has destroyed so much of the hotel trade in the western peninsular. I do not know whether any of your Lordships have had a real Cornish pasty.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Yes.
The Viscount of Falkland: I am not surprised. The noble Lord, as we know, is something of a gourmet. A Cornish pasty is an extremely expensive thing to make. It requires special meat, special potatoes, special pastry and special herbs. Various people have tried to create small businesses to export them but that has been difficult because of the high overheads and their inability with under-capitalisation to develop the market. But there are many such things that are special to Cornwall, both as regards food and other areas.
What better place is there for large horticultural projects than the extreme west of Cornwall? One would expect daffodils to be grown there but there are many

1483
other possibilities. Cornwall has been linked with other counties. That has been done for perfectly good reasons but it does not work to link Cornwall with other counties in the western peninsular. They all have their particular needs and problems. I repeat that Cornwall is special. I am sure that if it were developed it would yield great profits. As the noble Baroness knows, there are many educated, able and lively people in Cornwall—as, I am sure, there are Lancastrians—who are able to develop these ideas and promote an under-used British asset.
All the other points about Cornwall have been mentioned. It is a shame that English China Clay is laying off people. I do not know the reason. When the noble Baroness replies, perhaps she will be able to tell us. The china clay is peculiar to Cornwall. The curious granite structure was caused by eruptive activity millions of years ago. It created the extraordinary kaolinisation which produced this quality material. The material comes mostly from Par where, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Saint Levan, should be this afternoon. It is sad that English China Clay, upon which the Cornish people have depended for so long, should be laying off people.
I am optimistic about Cornwall because, like most Celtic people, the Cornish are lively and imaginative. Given the opportunity, I am sure that they can overcome the problems, making Cornwall again the most extraordinary area.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, having heard the earlier contributions, I began to think that I had stumbled into a warm, family-like debate. In her able introduction my noble friend Lady Dean introduced the debate without a trace of political malice. She recognised, as do many others, that in such issues the people of Cornwall will get nowhere if they mount a political charger and accuse either one political party or another of reneging on commitments or forgetfulness. This afternoon we have had a first-class demonstration of a Back Bencher in this House seizing the opportunities which our procedures allow to discuss her concerns about a local issue. She has pitched the debate at the right level.
No one sought to blame unduly either governments or circumstances. I shall not depart from that path. Yet at the end of the day the message given concerns the sense of unfairness felt. The people of Cornwall have done no wrong and have done no harm, yet they seem to have got the dirty end of the stick compared with others.
I wish to add a few words of support for the case for fairness. I begin, as have most noble Lords, by parading credentials for speaking in a debate on Cornwall. From 1943 to 1945 I served as a member of the Royal Marines. Between the three depots of Chatham, Portsmouth and Plymouth, I had the good fortune to be allocated to Plymouth. I was Plymouth rating, PLYX 112105, corporal, and proud of it. I tramped many a mile out of Plymouth over the bridge into Cornwall, and began to love the place, especially when I found the orchards full at a certain time of the year. The people
1484
were hospitable and I was made very welcome. Sadly, the last time I visited Cornwall was on my way to the Isles of Scilly for the funeral of my late and still lamented former Prime Minister, Harold Wilson. Every speaker has professed a deep love of the people and the place.
However, on behalf of the Labour Party I have a duty warmly to welcome the possibility that the Government—whether it is this Government or another—recognise that there are as many disparities in this country as there are between those who live in the third world and the developed world. There are disparities between those who live in the luckier parts of Britain and those who live in the less lucky parts. Life in Cornwall certainly does not appear to be fair. The nagging thought that I have is that the talent, skill and natural resources of the place that we call Cornwall and the people we call Cornish men and women are being wasted. I do not necessarily mean with a capital "W"; they may not be wasted entirely. However, it must concern all of us as politicians that there are communities who resent the fact that they do not receive an equitable share of what is going.
I could relate a great many of the statistics, but they have all been given. I repeat, I speak without malice and without making political points. I should certainly never accuse the Government of neglecting Cornwall. I know that they have created not merely a series of initiatives and structures, but that they genuinely wish to see that those initiatives are well and truly supported.
I very much enjoyed the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Saint Levan. He knows far more about Cornish people and places than I and many others here do. I say to the noble Lord with the deepest respect that a Member of this House listening to another Member speaking from the heart recognises that that is where his remarks come from. They do not come from a brief, a newspaper article, a cutting or a request from someone to make a point. When one hears someone who speaks from the heart one recognises that, and the contribution is all the greater.
The noble Lord convinced me by his references to tourism, farming and fishing—the three fields in which he modestly claimed to play a part in the county of Cornwall—that much is wrong. There is much for those affected to grieve about, not least economically. The case has been made that economic life is not the only life in Cornwall or any other place. There is history, pride and ambition. And from the remarks of my noble friend Lady Dean I see that there is a determination to try to get the Government to act a little more fairly and urgently.
The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, convinced me that he is an enthusiast, that he cared and that he was concerned about the issue. The noble Viscount also appreciated the benefit of the debate in putting on record some of the proposals that he wanted. He was a fine advocate. He left me with one or two points with which I shall now deal.
The problem that the Labour Party sees in relation to the Government's initiatives is that they lack democracy. They lack a contribution or input from the

1485
people themselves. Over the past 17 years the Government have been very good at trying to put right things that need to be put right. I served on a London local authority for many years. I was involved with the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, the legislation out of which stemmed the urban development corporations. In retrospect, it rode roughshod over the democratic shambles at that time and succeeded in creating an economic instrument which, with hindsight 16 years later, has been for the good.
We also know that the Government have introduced a tier of regional government, including 10 powerful government offices in the regions. They are headed by regional directors. Incidentally, the CBI calls those directors "prefects". They co-ordinate the work of four major government departments: the Department of Trade and Industry; the Department of the Environment; the Department of Transport; and that part of the Department for Education and Employment that was formerly under the Department of Employment.
However, as in many respects, the Government may be getting a job done, but they are not getting the job done. They are spending £60 billion of public money through quangos, and it may be money well spent but it has not been well spent to the extent that there has been little contribution from local councils, public bodies and so on.
What the Labour Party wants to see in the future is a great deal more than that. Labour will strengthen the role of development agencies in Scotland and Wales and establish a network of regional development agencies in each English region, building on existing initiatives. It will empower them to work with venture capital funds to provide small business finance through public/private partnerships.
I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is here, because she entertained us earlier today on the subject of late payments. That is one of the problems that bedevils small businesses, as she well knows. I picked up the statistic that 90 per cent. of the businesses in Cornwall employ 24 or fewer employees. That is extraordinary. So small business needs encouragement. It will not get much from the statement made by Michael Heseltine, who admitted that he was quite skilful in stringing creditors along. We need to stop that attitude and encourage governments—even though government departments are guilty of paying 5 per cent. of their bills late or very late.
What the Government can do for the people of Cornwall, in my view, is to consider carefully the case made by my noble friend Lady Dean, particularly on the initiatives raised. The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, mentioned the minimum wage and its effect on people and the economy. He is right, of course. That is why, when the Labour Party introduces the minimum wage, it will be sensitive. There will not be one day when it is not there and one day when it is; there will be consultation. One needs to take differing circumstances in different parts of the country into account.
The noble Viscount quite rightly raised the point that an attempt to deal with inequity in Westminster may rebound on the people of Cornwall. Of course one will
1486
need to take that into account. One needs to be fair to the people of Cornwall when trying to deal with another problem. I should certainly ensure that that is the case.
On the question of the business rate coming under local control, all such matters are policies which will be put into practice, but not willy-nilly. It cannot be the object of any government's policy to destroy something which exists. I say to the Minister that it would not be the job of an incoming Labour Government simply to look at what is in place and say: "Out, out, out". One must recognise that the present Government have a great deal to their credit in dealing with such matters.
We in the Labour Party are delighted that a small place like Cornwall has so many advocates in this House. The people of Cornwall will want to hear not necessarily that there are immediate solutions at hand to their problems, but that there are people who might be able to influence decisions. Members of your Lordships' House have heard powerful advocates for the people of Cornwall this afternoon. I believe that the people of Cornwall can rest content after today that the case made will not be lost. I look forward very much to hearing what the Minister has to say which will be of encouragement not least to the people of Cornwall but also in other areas like Cornwall throughout the country.
We are a rich country in comparison with many others, but we need to recognise, even inside a rich country like Britain, that there are pockets of discontent, places which have not been dealt with fairly. I hope that the Minister will congratulate all speakers this afternoon and also give us some hope. Let us pray.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, on initiating this short debate and on the interest that she has shown in the future prosperity of the County of Cornwall. She said at the start that she wanted to put Cornwall on the map. She has undoubtedly done that with her usual clearness, conciseness and, if I may say so, charm. I am sure that the whole House is pleased that her voice lasted until the end and that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, did not have to stand in for her. I should also like to say that I believe that the excellence of the first speech tempted and prompted all the excellent speeches that we heard. I particularly join with the noble Lord, Lord Graham, in saying what a pleasure it was to listen to my noble friend Lord Saint Levan, whom I have not had the pleasure of hearing before. He spoke with long knowledge of the county and its history.
I took note of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, did not wish to be political. Certainly, I have no intention of being political either. But it may help noble Lords if I briefly set the context for the Government's response.
We have done well on the economy. Underlying inflation has been below 4 per cent. for over four years, which is the best performance for almost 50 years. Underlying manufacturers' output price inflation is at the lowest level for almost 30 years. GDP has now risen for almost five years and is 13 per cent. above the trough

1487
in the first quarter of 1992. The OECD forecast that the UK would be the fastest growing major EU economy in 1996, 1997 and 1998. Since 1980, manufacturing productivity has grown faster than in any other G7 country. The United Kingdom tax burden on business is the lowest of the major European economies. Investment in plant and machinery is up by three fifths and business investment is up by a half since 1979. Unemployment is falling steadily and there are more people in jobs.
The south west economy has also been doing well. The latest Plymouth Business School report, for example, sees recovery in the south west to be well established. Overall, in 1996, the indicators show growth similar to the economic upturn in 1986–87. There has been good news in Cornwall, too. Within the general picture, many outstanding individual companies are doing well. United States companies Harman International and Continental Sprayers are creating 185 valuable new jobs in Redruth. Redruth Brewery has won the brewing and distribution licence for the first Chinese beer to be produced outside China, with Hong Kong among its customers. Cornwall's In Pursuit of Excellence initiative is an excellent example of how the county can be promoted as a place for business to succeed. The Tate of the West in St. Ives is drawing visitors from far and wide, bringing more money into the local economy. Last summer was the best ever for tourism in the West Country with spending up by £200 million and more overseas visitors.
I am aware of the perception that the West Country generally gets a raw deal compared with Wales and other areas. I believe that one will always get groups in every county which feel that they are hard done by and could produce statistics to show the difference. But Cornwall and Devon do not, of course, tend to have the very large sites for major developments which major inward investors seek, and which tend to be associated with large sums of regional selective assistance which receive media attention. Nevertheless, the regional development organisation, Devon and Cornwall Development International, has had its best year yet, securing inward investment of over £73 million. Perhaps I should just mention that it is appropriate to look at the scale of the problems. In assisted areas of Wales, for example, there are more than three and a half times as many unemployed people as in the whole of Cornwall: 72,500 compared with 19,500. The Government obviously have to look at the total picture.
We know that there is special concern about the level of unemployment in Cornwall and we share it. Unemployment in the county remains too high. It is a sadness for those who are unemployed themselves and for their families. But we have already achieved a great deal. The unemployment rate fell from a peak of 15.5 per cent. in January 1986 to 14.5 per cent. in December 1992 and is currently 9.2 per cent. There is clearly much more work to be done. But we believe that we have the right policies and programmes in place to tackle the problems, in partnership with local people.
1488
These problems do not go unrecognised by government programmes. It is in the areas of most need that our programmes are most concentrated. Much of Cornwall has been granted assisted area status in recognition of these problems. In the past 10 years, over £75 million of regional selective assistance has secured investment of nearly £500 million in businesses and over 17,000 jobs in the assisted areas of the region, mainly in Cornwall and Devon. Nearly £5 million of RSA has already been offered in 1996–97 to companies in Cornwall alone, generating over £31.5 million investment and 600 new and safeguarded jobs. Cornwall has won £11.5 million of grant support in the first three bidding rounds of our single regeneration budget challenge fund, which is expected to create over 6,700 jobs and 800 new businesses. English Partnerships is to provide advance industrial units that inward investors need through a special £5 million programme in the West Country. Penzance, Redruth, Indian Queens and St. Austell in Cornwall will benefit. Cornwall, with parts of Devon and west Somerset, benefits from by far the largest European Objective 5b rural development programme in England with £170 million available—599 projects have been approved so far, totalling £56.4 million grant. These include the £8 million private sector-led Bodmin Business Park which will create 60 new business units and 477 new jobs. Cornwall and Devon have £8.9 million—nearly half the total for England—under the European Leader II programme to help develop rural communities, of which £1.8 million project grant has already been approved. And there are many more examples. This adds up to very substantial support.
The Government have demonstrated their support for Cornwall in other ways. The noble Baroness asked whether there is a commitment from the Government. The answer to that is absolutely so. There has been, among other things, the appointment of the only Minister in England, my right honourable friend David Curry, given special responsibility for this area. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Saint Levan for welcoming that move. This appointment has been widely welcomed locally and so too have the many things which he has achieved in just a few months, in partnership with local organisations, led by the West Country Development Corporation. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that they do consult and that it is in partnership with local organisations. It is this kind of partnership approach which is needed and which has been successful.
The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, and other speakers mentioned the job losses at St. Ivel and English China Clay. We are saddened that that has happened. The Government are helping with a response to this and will continue to do so. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, asked me to give him an answer. I do have one. However, many other noble Lords have asked questions and so I think I should move on; otherwise I shall not be able to meet all the points.
The Minister for the South West met a local delegation and gave a positive response to four immediate priorities for action, which are already in hand, and has promised further support where needed.

1489
The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, referred to the importance of good infrastructure to the Cornish economy. The Government agree. Communications have been improved greatly over the years and work on key strategic routes continue. Many noble Lords mentioned the A.30, the main strategic route through Cornwall which provides faster and direct access to the M.5. following substantial government investment over many years. Preparatory work on the key section in Cornwall between Bodmin and Indian Queens will resume later this year, demonstrating that the Government listen to what local people say. A possible application by Railtrack for European regional development funds towards diversion of the Newquay rail line where it crosses the section of the A.30 at Goss Moor Bridge is being discussed. The noble Baroness asked when work will start. It will start shortly.
Many noble Lords asked about the same problem. As part of the total improvement scheme for the A.30 Bodmin-Indian Queens section, Railtrack is also looking at possible applications for European regional development funds to help divert the bridge. The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, was particularly concerned about that.
Rail links to London and other major cities are good and Railtrack is commissioning a feasibility study for investment options for improving the Great Western route to Penzance, Plymouth and Newquay and provide direct air links to international routes in London. These are crucial to business. I know that the decision of Brymon Airways to switch flights to Gatwick has not met with universal approval. But that has removed uncertainty about the future. It will enable the development of services, which was not possible due to the congestion at Heathrow. I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, that the link was not closed. It was simply switched to Gatwick, which to many people would be considered more acceptable for central London and might be more helpful for businessmen, visitors and tourists.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, surely the importance of the Heathrow link is not for tourism, but to enable businessmen to fly to other parts of the world, which they cannot do from Gatwick.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene for one moment. The fact is that 100 destinations are now served from Gatwick, which has grown at a huge rate. There is an enormous number of services to American destinations from Gatwick. The Gatwick link will probably benefit Cornwall more than if the airline had stayed at Heathrow.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her intervention, but it is important that I move on.
The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, has argued forcefully about how millennium funding can help the regeneration of our cities, towns and villages. The Government agree. Although regeneration is not one of the primary purposes of the Millennium Commission, Cornwall will benefit substantially from millennium
1490
and lottery funding. Up to £2.7 million of millennium funding will support parish-based community initiatives ranging from village halls to playing fields. Over £15 million of lottery money will support nearly 120 projects in Cornwall, providing new and better facilities for local communities. There is also a major application, which the Millennium Commission is considering, for the Eden project near St. Austell, which many noble Lords have asked about today. It has huge potential for the creation of jobs and the attraction of more visitors to Cornwall. I am pleased to tell the noble Baroness that this application has now been long-listed for more detailed appraisal. Indeed, I believe that my noble friend Lord Saint Levan will be pleased about that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, also asked about the Falmouth project. Applications have been submitted by the Falmouth International Maritime Initiative for National Lottery funding, but that is a matter for the National Lottery to consider.
The noble Baroness argued specifically in support of the benefits that a university campus for Cornwall can bring to the economy of Cornwall and has asked if Government will give their own support to the bid for millennium funding for this project proposed by the University of Exeter. It is, of course, for the Millennium Commission to decide on the application for funding and Government cannot interfere in that process.
I can say, however, that the University for Cornwall project is an example of what we are seeking to encourage in terms of local initiatives financed to a significant extent through sources other than public funds.
The Government recognise that higher education is a major contributor to local regional and national economic growth and regeneration, and the prestige that a university can bring. That is why we have asked the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, led by Sir Ron Dearing, to take this into account when making its recommendations later this year, alongside the principles of Government policy to encourage diversity and responsiveness to national and local needs for higher education. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, sits on that committee.
Government also encourage enterprise in our universities, and the level of public funds for an individual university is determined irrespective of the level of private income which it is able to generate. Because of public funding constraints, we are currently controlling the aggregate number of full-time undergraduate students in higher education. The Higher Education Funding Council for England distributes public funds to universities within this limit.
The noble Baroness asked specifically whether the Government would support the case for European Objective 1 status for Cornwall. The Government will always seek to achieve the best results for Cornwall, as for the rest of the United Kingdom. Cornwall is currently linked with Devon as a European statistical region. The proposals for revision of the UK regions for European purposes, as set out by the Office for National Statistics, have been out for consultation. It is suggested

1491
that Cornwall should be a separate level 2 region. The Government are considering those proposals, which will need to be put before the Commission's Eurostat Agency for approval.
I am aware that my 15 minutes are up and that I have not quite managed to answer all of the points that have been raised. I shall read Hansard carefully and, if necessary, will write to noble Lords on any points that I have not covered. I hope that the noble Baroness and all noble Lords who have spoken will feel that, although one can never be totally satisfied with the performance
1492
of any part of the economy—things could always be better—the fact is that the Government have recognised the problems and have done their best to make them better. Indeed, the position is steadily improving.
Cornwall is a unique county with its own history, about which the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, has told us so much. Cornwall has its own culture and language. Indeed, the noble Viscount also told us about Cornish pasties. Cornwall is a very special place. Moreover, it is one of the most beautiful parts of England. It deserves to prosper. We wish it—I wish it—well.
House adjourned at one minute past four o'clock.

  Low Income Countries: Education Assistance
  Low Income Countries: Education Assistance
  Aid Trade Provision
  Aid Trade Provision
  General Affairs Council, Brussels, 24 February
  General Affairs Council, Brussels, 24 February
  Ecstasy Drug
  Ecstasy Drug
  Merseyside Dock and Harbour Company: Government Shares
  Merseyside Dock and Harbour Company: Government Shares
  British Airways—American Airlines Proposed Merger: Competition Concerns
  British Airways—American Airlines Proposed Merger: Competition Concerns
  NATO
  NATO
  N. I.: Dept. of Economic Development, Branch Studies
  N. I.: Dept. of Economic Development, Branch Studies
  Channel Tunnel Rail Link: Speed Capability
  Channel Tunnel Rail Link: Speed Capability