Sitting of 13 January 1997

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

    Sea Empress
    Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish the marine accident investigation branch report on the Sea Empress. [8785]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Sir George Young): The chief inspector has advised me that he hopes to complete his report and submit it to me as soon as possible. He has to consider comments made to him by those he has consulted under the marine accident investigation regulations and amend his draft report if he considers it appropriate to do so in the light of those comments. The report will be published after it has been submitted to me.
    Mr. Ainger: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the inquiry will cover Lord Donaldson's recommendations, which were made some 20 months before the Sea Empress ran aground, and that the recommendations about the placing of a powerful tug in the western approaches were not implemented either by him or by his predecessor, the present chairman of the
    2
    Conservative party? Can the Secretary of State also confirm that no Minister has been interviewed by the MAIB on those important issues? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree, bearing it in mind that we need a full and open investigation of those matters, that if Ministers are not held to account or questioned on those matters, the only conclusion can be that the part of the report covering ministerial responsibility will be a whitewash?
    Sir George Young: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the inspector will of course cover everything that is relevant to the conduct of his inquiry into why the accident happened.
    On the second point, it is the case that no Minister has been interviewed by the inspector.
    On the third point, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reconsider what he said. The inspector is carrying out an inquiry under procedures set out by the House of Commons. It is already clear that he will not refrain from criticising those whom he believes should be criticised, but it is a betrayal of natural justice for the hon. Gentleman to say in advance that, if the report does not produce the verdict that he prefers, the verdict is wrong.
    Mr. Waterson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is encouraging that the marine pollution control unit report concluded that the clean-up operation following the incident went well? Does he also agree that it is an elementary breach of natural justice that what was essentially a draft report has been leaked to the media?
    Sir George Young: On the first point, the MPCU report has just been published and it shows that, with the co-operation of many voluntary and statutory organisations, the damage done by that serious incident was minimised and that the impact on the tourism industry in Pembroke was not nearly as bad as had initially been feared.

    3
    On my hon. Friend's second point, I take seriously the selective and inaccurate leaking of a chief inspector's draft report. That should be condemned, as should the leaking of any confidential document that may adversely affect the reputations of innocent parties.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: Does the Secretary of State agree that, amid all the environmental damage and the anguish to the hotel industry and fishermen in the area, one fact stands out: the exemplary way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) has represented his constituents?
    Sir George Young: That may be for others to judge later this year. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) has been diligent about questioning Ministers, as have a number of other hon. Members on both sides of the House.

    Cyclists
    Mr. Soley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what new proposals he has to improve safety on the road for cyclists. [8784]
    The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. John Bowis): A third fewer cyclists were killed or seriously injured on the roads in 1995 than in the 1981 to 1985 annual average. We will build on this improvement through the national cycling strategy by encouraging local authorities to provide for safe cycling in their transport policies and programmes.
    Mr. Soley: Is the Minister aware that, when I occasionally cycle from Shepherd's Bush to Westminster, I feel like a by-election waiting to happen? As I have no wish to be the person responsible for restoring the Government's majority, will the Minister bear in mind the fact that the majority of people who cycle feel unsafe and that is why the figures are so low? Will he publish a map of cycle routes—particularly in London—that are regarded as safe or can be protected? Will he take steps to restore the minor works budgets to local authorities? It is no good the Government saying that they are encouraging local authorities, when they are taking the grant away.
    Mr. Bowis: Let me not speculate on any absences from this House, temporary or permanent.
    The hon. Gentleman knows that, for the first time, we have in place a national strategy for cycling and that we have put serious money into cycling, with some £42 million being spent on Sustrans for the national network. There is also the £4 million programme for the London cycling network this year, which we have extended for the coming year by another £4 million. The hon. Gentleman will also know that most boroughs produce maps of cycle routes. Some 50 local transport packages with a cycling element are planned for this year, with 65 packages planned for next year, and we are providing resources and advice for cycling networks. If our target is to increase cycling, it is important that it is done safely.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: Given that the level of cycling deaths is the lowest since records were first compiled in
    4
    1927, is it not entirely right and desirable that the Government should continue to encourage cycling on our roads? In that context, would it not be a good idea to revisit the question of cyclists being a danger to themselves by going through red traffic signals, as they are doing more and more frequently?
    Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend highlights an important point. Safe cycling is enhanced by responsible cyclists. People who cycle through red lights—or cycle without lights or on the pavement—are not enhancing the good name of cycling and are doing nothing for their own safety or that of other people. It is important that we continue our training programmes for children, and it is good that some 40 per cent. of children now receive cycling training before the age of 12. We must continue our campaigns to improve the quality of cycling, and we are about to consult on the mandatory fitting of bells and lights to cycles at the point of sale.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Would it not be a good way of ensuring that more mothers were confident about allowing their children to ride to school if we put money into research into safety, particularly of children? Perhaps we ought to look at the provision of cycle helmets on a mandatory basis. Before any decisions are taken, should we not assess the practical steps that the Government can take to keep children safe on the roads?
    Mr. Bowis: The hon. Lady is right. We are engaged in research and campaigns to encourage safer cycling by children, and our cycle safe campaign was very much geared towards the wearing of helmets. We can encourage safe cycling from an early age if schools continue to work with local authorities and road safety officers, and mothers can then have confidence that their children can cycle safely. The Department will continue to support local authorities that make sensible plans in that direction.

    South Thamesside Development Route
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on Government support for the south Thamesside development route, phase 4. [8783]
    The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): My hon. Friend is quite rightly a strong supporter of the south Thamesside development route, phase 4. We have undertaken to fund the scheme through transport supplementary grant, at an estimated cost of £14.1 million.
    Mr. Arnold: Will not this project be, in effect, the Northfleet town bypass? The town will have, on one side, the Thames tunnel of the channel tunnel rail link and, on the other, Ebbsfleet international station. During the construction of those large projects, heavy goods vehicles will rumble through the town, as there is currently no other route for them. Does my hon. Friend accept that the people of Northfleet are fed up to the back teeth with Kent county council, which has delayed the introduction of the project? Two years after the public exhibition, the council is now involved in an inspector's inquiry. Will my

    5
    hon. Friend give an assurance that, as and when Kent county council does its work properly, he will ensure that the inquiry is carried out as fast as possible?
    Mr. Watts: We are waiting for Kent county council to contact us about suitable dates for the public inquiry. When it has done so, we shall make the arrangements for the inquiry as rapidly as possible and take the scheme through its statutory procedures without undue delay.

    A38
    Sir Robert Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce the commencement of the design and other preparatory work for the A38 trunk road improvement scheme between Carkeel and Stoketon Cross; and if he will make a statement. [8782]
    Mr. Watts: The A38 Saltash to Stoketon Cross improvement scheme has been retained in the main road programme. Design work on the scheme will be resumed when resources allow.
    Sir Robert Hicks: Is my hon. Friend aware that that much-needed road improvement will help to provide access to the Broadmoor Farm business park and that, when Caradon district council considered the application, it was obliged by the Highways Agency to impose a condition that will not allow that exciting development, with a job creation potential of 2,500, to go ahead until the new road is complete? Surely, in view of its importance to the local economy, he should provide the necessary funds for the design and preparatory work now.
    Mr. Watts: I am well aware of the importance of the scheme to that imaginative development. That is why, in the 1995 review of the road programme, I separated that part of the improvement from a larger scheme. My understanding is that the developers are content with the condition that has been imposed by the district council following the direction from the Highways Agency, but we have made it clear to both the council and the developers that the agency is willing to negotiate with the developers on a more limited road improvement, to enable the scheme to be occupied; the development may proceed, but the condition is that it may not be occupied until the necessary road improvements have been carried out. We remain ready to negotiate on the extent of the improvements.
    Mr. Bradley: On behalf of the millions of motorists who may use the A38 trunk road improvement and similar trunk roads throughout the country, I ask the Minister to confirm that he is considering his senior management proposal to abolish the option of a six-month road fund licence and the option of the purchase of licence stamps, as a cost-cutting exercise—
    Madam Speaker: Order. This is a very specific question, and the hon. Gentleman must either be specific or resume his seat—one or the other.
    Mr. Bradley: The abolition of the six-month road licence will be used by motorists on the A38 improvement—
    Madam Speaker: Order. That must be it. The hon. Gentleman cannot widen a question as specific as this.

    Heathrow-Plymouth Flights
    Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with British Airways regarding the slots into Heathrow from Plymouth. [8781]
    Sir George Young: I have recently written to the chief executive of British Airways to pass on local concerns about the future of the Brymon Airways service between Heathrow, Plymouth and Newquay.
    Mr. Jamieson: Is the Secretary of State aware that, if the merger between British Airways and American Airlines goes ahead, the President of the Board of Trade could make British Airways give up a substantial number of slots in and out of Heathrow, which in turn could seriously affect flights from Plymouth and Newquay to Heathrow? Is he further aware that the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration has also said that those air links are vital to investment in the south-west? When will the Government do some joined-up thinking on the question? May I suggest that the Secretary of State's Department make a start by ring-fencing the slots to protect the flights to and from Heathrow and the south-west, which would in turn protect jobs and investment in west Devon and Cornwall?
    Sir George Young: As the hon. Gentleman said, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is holding consultations on proposals concerning the alliance between British Airways and American Airlines, and I do not propose to make any comment on those consultations, which are fairly and clearly a matter for him.
    I recently received a deputation led by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe), who made clear the importance of the service. As I understand it, Brymon Airways considers the service to be profitable. The latest figures that I have seen show that custom is increasing. The service is well used, and there are no plans to vary it.
    Mr. Harris: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate the importance of this service to the economy of Cornwall and of Plymouth and west Devon? Today, still more job losses in Cornwall have been announced at English China Clays. Will my right hon. Friend receive a delegation of both Government and Opposition Members from the south-west to discuss this important issue and the absolute need to safeguard this facility for the south-west?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend extends an invitation that I find difficult to decline. Although I have recently received a deputation of south-west Members, in view of the strength of feeling on the matter, if my hon. Friend contacts my private office to arrange a meeting I shall be pleased to see him.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Does the Secretary of State not understand that one reason why British Airways' American tie-up should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is the threat that it poses to consumer interests? This matter affects consumer interests in the south-west. Is not my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) correct to demand the matter's referral? Is it not bad form that the

    7
    Government are discussing BA bailing them out with millennium money at the same time as this matter is before the Government? It should be demonstrably clear that nothing will impede a fair and appropriate consideration of the need for referral, uncluttered by the nice offers made by British Airways in respect of the wider United Kingdom interest.
    Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point, but he has made it at the wrong Question Time. Referral rests not with my Department but with that of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

    Humberside International Airport
    Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to require the privatisation of Humberside international airport. [8780]
    Sir George Young: It is our policy to encourage privatisation of local authority-owned airports, as we believe that the commercial approach of the private sector benefits their operation and efficiency. The policy is working, and I hope that the owners of Humberside airport will consider the benefits of private ownership.
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reply, but he and his predecessors have been encouraging Humberside airport to go private for many years, and no notice has been taken. Is it not time that the Government introduced legislation to require Humberside airport to be put into private hands? Even East Midlands airport, which used to have Labour-controlled Derbyshire county council among its shareholders, has been put in private hands.
    Humberside no longer exists; the term is not understood by anyone. Why is the name not changed and why do the Government not introduce legislation? I cannot fly from my Humberside constituency to London because the airport is still run by a Labour-controlled group of local authorities. The only way in which those authorities will respond to my right hon. Friend's encouragement is if he introduces legislation. The time for encouragement is over; the time for legislation is before us.
    Sir George Young: Exciting ideas for the Conservative manifesto are always welcome, but, as my hon. Friend implied, the existing policy has been successful in persuading a number of local authorities, many of them Labour controlled, to dispose of their interests in local airports such as Liverpool, East Midlands and Cardiff. I shall reflect on my hon. Friend's proposition on compulsion.
    Mr. Gunnell: I hope that the Secretary of State recognises that there would be no Humberside airport but for the strategic authority, which represented Humberside as a whole, that developed it. Will he ensure that that strategic approach is continued by the successor authorities and that no local authority-owned airport is privatised against the will of its owners?
    Sir George Young: The position, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) made clear, is that the Government are making good progress
    8
    by persuasion. Many local authorities understand the advantage of privatising their airports to allow them access to capital that would not have been available to them had they remained in the public sector. We can debate on another occasion whether Humberside airport would have come about without the existence of a strategic authority. I hope that the new authorities responsible for Humberside will see the good progress made by local authority airports that have been privatised, which, in conjunction with private sector capital, have expanded in a way that would not otherwise have been possible.

    Rail Freight
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to what extent the volume of rail freight has changed in the past five years. [8779]
    Mr. Watts: In 1991, rail carried 134.8 million tonnes of freight, falling to 97.3 million tonnes in 1994, but rising again to 103.2 million tonnes in 1995. The key to rail freight's revival is privatisation. New private sector freight companies are attracting new traffic to the railway.
    Mr. Spring: In thanking my hon. Friend for his answer, may I particularly welcome the announcement last autumn on rate increases and the rail freight grant? Does he share my view that that will encourage the movement of freight on to rail, which is good not only for motorists but for the environment?
    Mr. Watts: I certainly hope that the increase in the mileage rate for motorway traffic will attract more of that road freight on to rail. Since 1979, more than 150 rail freight grants have been awarded, securing to rail the equivalent of about 3 million lorry journeys a year. About one in eight of all types of rail freight traffic have benefited at some time from grant.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: If the Government are serious about rail freight, why has the freight facility grant not been fully spent? Of the £70 million available, why was only £32 million spent between 1985 and 1996? Is it not the truth that the Government have no intention of trying to increase rail freight?
    Mr. Watts: On the contrary, the reason why I have adjusted the mileage rates, and why we have under way a review of ways in which administrative procedures for the grants could be further streamlined, is that we wish the grants to be taken up fully. Evidence shows how effective they are in encouraging new traffic to move off roads on to rail, or to be retained on rail, whereas it might otherwise have been lost to road.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Is it not time for everyone to acknowledge that the best prospects for rail freight are in the private sector and that the whole railway is being transformed by privatisation, which is liberating the management and injecting the capital, as state ownership could never possibly have done? Should we not remind ourselves that we were told that this was all going to be chaotic and disastrous, but the reverse is happening?
    Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend is entirely right. English, Welsh and Scottish Railway and Freightliners have

    9
    impressive investment plans and both have already demonstrated their ability to attract new business for the freight railway. It is in the new private environment that rail freight has its brightest future.
    Mr. Chidgey: Is the Minister aware that, in the mad scramble to sell off the passenger franchise for the west coast main line, rail paths that are essential for the efficient operation of freight are being sacrificed? Will he advise the Rail Regulator that, in the negotiations to let passenger franchise, freight capacity must not be reduced?
    Mr. Watts: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's initial supposition. The Rail Regulator needs no instructions either from me or from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to discharge his responsibilities to ensure that access to the railway is available both for passenger and for freight traffic.

    London Underground
    Mr. Gerrard: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding proposed investment in London Underground for the next and subsequent financial years. [8778]
    Sir George Young: From time to time, I receive representations from a range of organisations and individuals about investment in London's underground rail network.
    Mr. Gerrard: I am sure that the representations that the Secretary of State has received lately will have told him that, in the Budget, he and his colleagues produced an investment programme for London Underground for the next few years that will mean that, shortly, we will have the lowest investment for 20 years. Is it not true that there will be nearly £400 million-worth of cuts in essential renewal and maintenance programmes on existing lines? What does the right hon. Gentleman have to say to people in London who, because of his cuts, will get worse services, while their fares go up by as much as 20 per cent.
    Sir George Young: Next year's grant to London Transport has been protected—there has been no reduction. That should allow investment of about £1.1 billion over three years from Government grant. If we then include all the resources available to London Underground from private finance and elsewhere, that should allow a total of £2.2 billion of investment in London Transport over the three years, including completion of the Jubilee line extension. Far from being low, the investment level in the core network will, on average, be 50 per cent. above the 1980s level and twice the 1970s level, so the gloomy scenario that hon. Gentleman paints is simply not true.
    Mr. Wilkinson: May I urge my right hon. Friend to shift his focus from investment in London Underground—on which, as his figures show, the Government have an excellent record—to its future under private enterprise, which would give an opportunity for the higher-quality service that the travelling public so urgently need?
    Sir George Young: As my hon. Friend will know, back in October my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said
    10
    that we were considering whether we could apply the success of railway privatisation to London Underground. That exercise is now under way and I am heartened by my hon. Friend's support for it.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: Is not the experience of passengers and businesses alike that the Government's record on London Underground is a disgrace to London and damaging to the economy? Does it not show how Conservative Members lurch from one extreme to the other when, after slashing maintenance and investment in the tube, all they can now offer for a nightmare Tory fifth term is the extreme of privatisation?
    Does the Minister accept that, because of the effects of the overspend on the Jubilee line extension, the estimate he just gave was not a true reflection of what is actually happening on the underground and that, because of the budget that he has imposed on London Underground, there will be damaging and dangerous cuts in investment and maintenance? Is it not time that we had the public-private partnership that is necessary for investment in a first-rate tube and an integrated public transport system that is worthy of the nation's capital?
    Sir George Young: The difference between the Opposition and the Government on this subject could not be clearer: Opposition Members allege that we are under-investing, but they are not able to commit themselves to spending one penny more than the Government currently spend. We are investing at double the rate of the 1970s and, in addition, we are prepared to consider privatisation as a means of improving on that record. Londoners will draw their own conclusion as to which of those two approaches is the most constructive.

    Northern Line
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many new trains London Transport has received for the Northern line; and how many are planned to be delivered in 1997. [8777]
    Mr. Bowis: I understand that GEC Alsthom delivered the first new Northern line train to London Underground last month and plans to deliver 23 more trains during 1997. The first trains are expected to enter passenger service from the middle of this year.
    Mr. Marshall: As one who has been at the controls of the first new Northern line train, I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he confirm that, because those trains come under the private finance initiative, they are immune from any public spending decisions taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor? Will he also confirm that the PFI can be used to finance further developments on the Northern line and that, whenever privatisation has taken place, it has led to strict price controls and increased investment by the private sector?
    Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend puts it succinctly and brilliantly, and I am delighted to learn that he has personally tested the trains and knows the quality of the additional service that has been brought forward by the private sector in support of London's underground. He is right to say that the £400 million that is coming from the private finance initiative in support of those trains means

    11
    that Londoners will have the new service earlier and at a price that they do not have to pay themselves. The Northern line is benefiting from new trains and from the refurbishment of 10 stations, and it will go on to benefit from other aspects of the PFI that are currently being planned and proposed by London Underground in respect of power, ticketing and communications.
    Ms Glenda Jackson: How can the House attach any credibility to the Minister's reply, when the Government propose to threaten not only the introduction of new rolling stock on the Northern line but the entire underground network with the abyss of privatisation? Does not the sudden advocacy of the extreme right-wing views of the right hon. Members for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) show the Government's desire to placate the enemy within rather than to create a modern and properly integrated public transport system for London?
    Mr. Bowis: Well, well! The hon. Lady refers not once to the massive investment in London's underground in recent years, or to the programme of future investment. She describes privatisation as a great threat and ignores the fact that, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we are carefully considering whether the principles of privatisation could apply to London Underground and whether they could do so to the benefit of the London travelling public. If that review finds that privatisation would benefit Londoners, and if the best route to achieve that can be found, Londoners will be pleased and I suspect that, within a few months of its implementation, the Labour party will claim parentage for the privatisation of London Underground.
    The Labour party's policy is not a penny more and no new lines for London Underground. As Capital Transport—not a magazine that I normally quote in support—has said:
    "The lack of clarity surrounding the position of the other main parties should not be tolerated any longer."
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend recall how poorly run the Northern line and other underground services were under the unlamented Greater London council, run by the Labour party? Will he ensure that steps are taken and proposals made to maintain improvements that have been made since the GLC abandoned that task and all others, and ensure a better future for the London traveller, who jolly well deserves it?
    Mr. Bowis: Yes, like my hon. Friend I recall those days, when the underground was a very poor service and investment was at a minimum. Investment is going into the lines. We have just spoken about investment in the Northern line. About £800 million of modernisation is now being completed on the Central line. Train refurbishments have taken place on the Bakerloo, Circle, Hammersmith and City and Victoria lines and are in hand for the Metropolitan and Piccadilly lines.
    Under the Government, underground services are improving. The core is being protected and the expansion of the service means new and exciting prospects for travellers in London in future.

    North London Line
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to ensure the continuing improvement of rail services on the North London line over the franchise period. [8776]
    Mr. Bowis: The improvements to the railway infrastructure on the North London line carried out by Railtrack during the past two years and the commencement in spring 1997 of heavy overhauls of the rolling stock used on the route will provide a solid foundation on which the North London Railways franchisee will build throughout the franchise term.
    I also announced on 16 December a further transport policies and programmes grant towards the upgrading of stations on the Gospel Oak to Barking section of that line.
    Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister comment on why the franchise documents that have been dispatched to encourage people to take over the North London line include nothing about new stations, improvements of services, increased train frequency or station safety and pay no regard to the unanimous views expressed by local government and train users of the current appalling state of the line?
    The Minister knows the state of the line; two of his ministerial colleagues travelled along it. On the stations, they all gave nice answers to questions about how terrible it was and how it would be improved, but there is nothing in the documents to suggest that there will be any improvement in the appalling service that passengers have to suffer on that line.
    Mr. Bowis: I beg leave to differ with the hon. Gentleman. In our previous exchange on the subject, he challenged me to travel unannounced on that line. I did so and experienced the service, and I became aware of where improvements were needed. The reliability and punctuality of the service have greatly improved in the past year or two, but obviously the service needs the investment that will come from privatisation.
    The hon. Gentleman knows that the franchising director requires that replacement trains be provided on the Gospel Oak to Barking section of the line by 2000. That could not be a more self-evident improvement in the line. As he knows, we have put money into station improvements three times, first at Haringey Green Lanes, then at Leytonstone High Road, and now Waltham Forest, as the lead borough, will consider where the next tranche of money should go. As he must also know, Railtrack is assessing the scope for further development of that line for freight and passengers. I think that the future looks quite promising.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Could my hon. Friend find a simpler way of answering the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and the fears that he expresses? Similar fears were expressed by all political parties when we were franchising Network SouthWest and the line from Weymouth to Waterloo. Would not a cheap awayday ticket—
    Mr. Bowis: A single.
    Mr. Bruce: Not a single ticket as we want him to come back to London. Would not an awayday ticket allow the hon. Gentleman to see exactly what is happening—improved services, stations, frequency and punctuality, and reduced fares—which is what my constituents want?
    Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend is right to point to the benefits of privatisation. He highlighted the benefits that have come on lines in his area and asked me to act as post box to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) to go on an awayday down the south-west line. With our present majority, I am happy to invite him to go on an awayday any day.

    Thames Gateway
    Mr. Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are his priorities for transport investment in the Thames gateway area. [8775]
    Mr. Bowis: The transport strategy for London described the Government's strategy for transport investment in the Thames gateway area. It includes construction of the channel tunnel rail link, with stations at Stratford and Ebbsfleet; improvements to the A13 and other trunk roads in London and Kent; the Jubilee line extension; and the proposed package of new river crossings.
    Mr. Timms: Does the Minister share my concern about the threat to the prospect of regeneration of the Thames gateway arising from the current investment crisis at London Underground? Is it true, as the Evening Standard reports today, that the reopening of the East London line will be delayed for another two years? Does he deprecate, as I do, the deferral for two years of the planned refurbishment of District line stations in my constituency? The Minister saw for himself recently the condition of East Ham station and talked to staff about their aspirations for refurbishment. How will the Government address the serious crisis in east London and the Thames gateway area, which was precipitated by the catastrophic Budget settlement for London Underground?
    Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was responding on the Budget question, because there is no such budget cut. For the coming year, the figure will be as planned. There is no reduction for London Underground. Indeed, increasing quantities of money will come from London Underground's operating surplus and from the private sector.
    On the hon. Gentleman's specific points, as he said, I have visited his borough and many other boroughs on my urban rides to look at facilities, challenges and opportunities, and I have seen the station at East Ham to which he referred. Any decisions on that are for the management of London Transport. There is a lot of speculation about the decisions that may be taken but I am aware of no decisions having been made. Indeed, the board does not meet until next month, so no decisions can have been made. The Northern line river tunnel has been strengthened and has opened on time.
    14
    London Transport has announced its expectation for reopening the East London line and I have no reason to doubt its word on that.
    Mr. Dunn: Given that the Dartford constituency contains a significant number of projects associated with the Thames gateway concept, will my hon. Friend assure me that his officials will monitor rigorously and robustly the transport infrastructure developments as they take place so that my constituents and people from the south-east region as a whole can gain easy access to Ebbsfleet, Bluewater, and other north Dartford developments for commerce, leisure and housing?
    Mr. Bowis: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that officials of the Highways Agency and the transport authorities look carefully at volumes and flows of passengers and at the various developments. A key development will be Ebbsfleet station, which will be looked at carefully in terms of its road and rail connections to the part of Kent to which my hon. Friend refers. As he knows, a number of road schemes are in the programme.
    Mr. Spearing: Is not one of the proposals for the Thames gateway the extension of the valuable North London link line from Silvertown across the river to Woolwich arsenal and along the North Kent line to the area of the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn)? Is the Minister aware that the Government insist that that should be funded by the PFI? The revenue from about a mile and a half of track will certainly not pay for the capital, so they are effectively blocking an imaginative and sound public proposal.
    Mr. Bowis: Nothing has been blocked. The hon. Gentleman is referring to a package of crossings that were highlighted in the report. The Woolwich rail tunnel is one proposal; the Gallions Reach multimodal crossing is another; and the third Blackwall crossing is the third. Those are being considered carefully to see whether they are viable, and progress will be announced in due course.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Catering Staff
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what estimate the Commission has made of the wages bill for catering staff in 1996–97. [8755]
    Mr. A. J. Beith (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): On current estimates, £4.1 million. Estimates for catering and administration staff within this total are not made separately, but there is a separate budget for banqueting and souvenir staff costs, which are borne on a House of Commons Refreshment Department trading account. The approved trading account budget for 1996–97 includes staff costs of £827,000.
    Mr. Marshall: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that answer. No Member of the House grudges a

    15
    penny that is spent by the Refreshment Department on wages, but many of us feel that when the Department is investing in new facilities, it goes for the gold plated rather than the practical. Will he give us an assurance that that will be considered thoroughly before any new investment is agreed?
    Mr. Beith: The details of schemes of improvement in the Refreshment Department are for the Catering Committee and the Accommodation and Works Committee. The Commission has regard to the overall cost, but it must also have regard to staff working conditions and health and safety requirements.
    Mr. Faulds: Would it not have been wiser to have increased the poor wages of the catering staff in this place, instead of the ridiculous introduction of an extremely expensive and not very well functioning restaurant, when the previous arrangements were perfectly satisfactory?
    Mr. Beith: The Commission was advised that the previous arrangements were not satisfactory from a health and safety point of view. They were not satisfactory in respect of the conditions in which we expect our staff to work. It is not sufficient to pay tribute to our staff: we must also give them satisfactory working conditions.

    Disabled Employees
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, how many Commission staff are disabled. [8754]
    Mr. Beith: Twelve staff of the Commission are registered disabled people, but there are other disabled staff employed in Departments of the House who have not registered.
    Mr. Corbyn: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that 12 staff out of the very large staff complement in this building is an extremely low proportion? What steps are being taken to increase the number of registered disabled people who can work in this building? What is being done to improve access and other facilities so that disabled people can work on all floors in the building and in a much wider variety of jobs? Recently, people with disabilities, in a delegation to the Select Committee on Social Security, were given no fewer than three different routes to get from the street to present their case before the Committee, and went through a traumatic experience trying to get there. Is it not a disgrace that the Commission has failed to provide proper access to the building?
    Mr. Beith: At 0.9 per cent., the proportion of disabled staff is lower than the Commission would like. The Commission would like to employ more disabled people on the staff of the House. It has a policy of showing the availability of all posts to people with disabilities, and of trying to make sure that the facilities available assist people with disabilities to take employment. It has pursued that policy vigorously. On access to the building for staff and visitors, the Commission has sought to implement all the advice that it has been given by the Accommodation and Works Committee and that
    16
    Committee's consultants on ways in which access can be improved. The Commission will continue to look favourably at suggestions for improvement of access.

    Visitors' Facilities
    Mr. Ainger: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what additional facilities are planned for visitors to the Palace of Westminster. [8753]
    Mr. Beith: In its first report of 1992–93, the Catering Committee recommended that the area currently occupied by the Westminster Hall cafeteria should be converted to a visitor centre, but that that should take place only when a suitable alternative was found for the present lunchtime users. The House agreed to the Committee's report on 12 July 1994. The Catering Committee considers that, until the cafeteria in the new parliamentary building is operational, the recommendation for a visitor centre cannot be implemented.
    Mr. Ainger: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's answer, but I think that he will agree that it is wholly unacceptable that, although the recommendation for a new visitor centre was accepted in 1994, the plans are no further advanced. Many hon. Members' constituencies are located some distance from London and, when school parties from those areas visit the Palace of Westminster, schoolchildren may catch buses as early as 5 or 6 o'clock in the morning, and they have no opportunity to take any refreshment until they arrive at the House. Will he bring forward plans for the visitor centre so that we can at least offer some refreshment to schoolchildren who travel many miles to visit Westminster?
    Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point that is widely shared in the House. If he has some ideas about how the Catering Committee or the Accommodation and Works Committee could deal with the problem, I hope that he will put them to those bodies. At present, 500 people use the Westminster Hall cafeteria at lunchtime and there is a practical problem to be resolved.
    Mr. Viggers: Other countries with lesser parliamentary traditions than ours have museums associated with their Parliaments that are well supported and attended. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that if there were a larger parliamentary museum than that housed in the Jewel House—which is not well advertised—it might reduce the number of visitors to Parliament, relieve the pressure and provide an additional attraction?
    Mr. Beith: There could be new facilities to depict the history of this building, but I do not think that anything would take the place of schoolchildren and other visitors being able to see the House of Commons Chamber in which debates take place. Therefore, we must organise our affairs so that they can do so.

  TRANSPORT

    Heathrow Airport
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress by the European Community on its review of slots at Heathrow airport. [8774]
    Sir George Young: We are awaiting proposals from the European Commission on revisions to the current regulations governing slot allocation at all Community airports.
    Mr. Steen: My right hon. Friend will be aware that a fearful row is going on in Europe between two socialist Commissioners, Commissioner Kinnock and Commissioner van Miert. As a result, the report about the future of grandfather rights and slot trading in major European airports has been delayed by more than a year. Is that an example of the British Government being unable to do anything because Brussels bureaucracy is sovereign over matters that it decides to investigate?
    Sir George Young: We can carry on with the present position, under which a certain amount of slot trading is acceptable. As I said in my original answer, we are awaiting proposals from the European Commission. It has expressed the view that trading is contrary to current regulation, but it remains a grey area. In the meantime, I am not aware of any substantial disadvantage to the United Kingdom civil aviation industry.
    Mr. Cunliffe: Does the Minister appreciate that the best way to relieve pressure on slots at Heathrow would be to grant a second runway to Manchester airport immediately? Hundreds of thousands of people from areas north of Manchester must travel to Heathrow to fly to Strasbourg, Bonn and other destinations in Europe—including the British parliamentary delegations to the European Union, and those to the Council of Europe and the Western European Union, of which I am a member. Therefore, I have a vested interest in the matter. I ask the Secretary of State to take an immediate decision that would bring automatic relief to Heathrow.
    Sir George Young: I commend the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity in introducing a question about Manchester airport as a supplementary to a question about slot allocation. He will be pleased to hear that a decision about the second runway at Manchester is imminent.

    Heathrow-London Rail Link
    Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will report progress on the Heathrow to London rail link. [87731
    Sir George Young: Work on the Heathrow express project, financed by BAA plc, is progressing well. It expects to start operating in June 1998.
    Mr. Dykes: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the project is on schedule and will provide a wonderful facility from the airport direct to Paddington? Is he
    18
    confident that additional services may be grafted on to the line to serve other stations in addition to a full express service?
    Sir George Young: I confirm what my hon. Friend just said. It is a £350 million investment by the private sector in improving infrastructure in London, which puts a gloss on the debate that we had earlier in Question Time, in which it was implied that improvement could come only through public finance.
    As to grafting on further services, I was encouraged to hear that BAA recently announced that it is considering the introduction of a sister service to the Heathrow express. That service, which could start in 1999, would operate between St. Pancras and Heathrow and would include some local stops. That would clearly be of great advantage to the travelling public in London.

    London Underground
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the level of investment in safety on London Underground in (a) 1995 and (b) 1996 to date; and what is the planned level for 1997. [8772]
    Mr. Bowis: Decisions on investment priorities are a matter for London Underground Ltd. It is impossible to estimate how much money is spent each year on safety because very many projects include some element of safety-related work.
    Mr. Hughes: That was a pretty hopeless answer, if I may say so. Did not London Underground warn the Government that its funding for the coming year would put at risk many of the necessary routine safety works that it needs to carry out? Is it not the case that only the most urgent repairs of escalators are being carried out, such that other escalators are often closed and not used? What is the point in ensuring that the brickwork in the East London line tunnels is restored if, at the end of the day, the opening of the line will have to be deferred for a further two years because London Underground cannot carry out basic work on the line and the track?
    Mr. Bowis: If I may return the compliment, that was not a very satisfactory supplementary question, because the truth is that any investment in London Underground's track and trains is likely to improve safety. That is what I was saying in my initial answer, and given the real-terms increase in investment, that has to be good news.
    In terms of safety, the hon. Gentleman will know that, under the Railways (Safety Case) Regulations 1994, London Underground was required to submit a safety case. It did so and its case was approved by the railway inspectorate. From this year, London Underground will produce annual safety plans. The hon. Gentleman can be reassured that—certainly from the Government's point of view and that of the management of London Underground—safety is the top priority, and the good news is that the number of fatal accidents on London's underground fell from 46 in 1990 to 26 last year.

  LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

    EU Legislation
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement about the House's procedures for the scrutiny of EU legislation. [8752]
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The House's procedures for scrutiny of EC legislation provide for comprehensive and detailed examination of legislation coming before the Council of Ministers. As the Select Committee on European Legislation acknowledged in its recent report on the subject, our system compares extremely well with systems elsewhere in the European Union.
    Mr. Jenkin: While I have no doubt that our system compares extremely well with those of our European counterparts, may I, as a member of a Committee that considers EU legislation, explain to my right hon. Friend how topsy-turvy it feels to take part in the legislative process? We deal with extremely significant draft legislation in a Second Reading debate, tucked away in Committee upstairs, and then when the primary legislation emerges to implement European legislation, we have proper scrutiny debates of proposed Acts of Parliament down here. There is no way to bind Ministers or to alter legislation once it has been enacted in Europe. Is that not something that we desperately need to consider at the intergovernmental conference?
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government have made a number of proposals in the context of the IGC, not least of which is that there should be a minimum of four weeks before a proposal can be adopted by the Council of Ministers, to allow for proper scrutiny by national Parliaments. I am glad to say that that idea has attracted significant support.
    Sir James Molyneaux: Will the Lord President consider extending the scope and authority of European Standing Committees A and B, in which we sometimes have quite stimulating debates?
    Mr. Newton: I agree that the debates are sometimes stimulating, although I am not quite sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) appeared to share that view.
    As to the general arrangements, the right hon. Gentleman will know that the Select Committee on European Legislation has produced some thoughts on
    20
    scrutiny, which will be linked in due course with a report that the Procedure Committee is preparing. We shall look at any suggestions with great care.

    Divisions
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Lord President of the Council how many Divisions there have been in the House during 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996, and if he will estimate the number likely in the first four months of 1997. [8751]
    Mr. Newton: There were 390 Divisions in the House in the 1992–93 Session, 339 in 1993–94, 202 in 1994–95 and 33 so far this Session. I have made no estimate of the likely number of Divisions in the first four months of 1997.
    Mr. Hughes: I suggest that it may be fewer than 33, which was the last figure that the right hon. Gentleman gave. Are the Government likely to obtain Royal Assent for all their legislation before the end of the Session? What are the odds on the month when the election will be called? Will it be decided by the Government at their choice or by the Opposition with our votes?
    Mr. Newton: I am a politician and not a gambling man, although I occasionally buy a lottery ticket. I do not propose to be drawn on that matter by the hon. Gentleman. However, I will say that I hope and expect that we shall be able to carry out our legislative programme, given that the number of Divisions held so far partly reflects the extensive support for that programme.
    Mr. Skinner: Is it not true that the number of Divisions fell dramatically in the past two years principally because the Government called upon the vast majority of their Back Benchers to push through the Jopling recommendations? That resulted in many orders, such as the Common Market orders to which the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) referred, being sent upstairs to Committee. It should be clear to all and sundry that, after the next election, when the Tory party will be in opposition, many Conservative Members will rue the day that they sent all that legislation to Committee.
    Mr. Newton: As hon. Members know, the notion that the Jopling changes were rammed through by a Tory majority is far fetched. Total agreement was reached through the usual channels. I accept that the hon. Gentleman did not agree with those changes, but he should take the matter up with his hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who supported them.

Madam Speaker's Statement
3.31 pm
Madam Speaker: I would like to make a short statement, for the guidance of hon. Members and others outside the House, about the use of the House emblem.
The crowned portcullis has been used for many years as the emblem of the House of Commons. It is a royal badge and its use by the House has now been formally authorised by licence granted by her Majesty the Queen.
The use of the emblem has been authorised for display on official stationery, publications and circulars, furniture and furnishings used in the Palace of Westminster, souvenir objects and books sold on the premises and club clothing. In addition, I am authorised to give my permission for similar uses of the emblem that indicate authorisation by or connection with the House.
It is important for the dignity of the House that the emblem should not be used for purposes to which such authentication is inappropriate, or where there is a risk that its use might wrongly be regarded or represented as having the authority of the House.
All Members of the House have a duty to ensure that the emblem is not misused. For my part, I intend to use my authority to give permission for its use only sparingly. I am aware that the emblem is currently in use by the media in a number of contexts concerned with coverage of our affairs. Such use makes a serious contribution to public understanding of Parliament, and I therefore regard it as appropriate that the House emblem should be used in those contexts. New uses will, however, require my authorisation, which will not be given if the use could possibly reflect adversely on the House or be misunderstood.
Finally, at this stage of the political cycle it is appropriate for me to remind Members that neither the crowned portcullis nor the royal arms, whether or not associated with the words "House of Commons", may be used to support the return of any person to public office. In case of doubt, Members should consult the Serjeant at Arms.

Points of Order
3.33 pm
Mr. George Mudie: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Last week, my constituent Edna Harrison collapsed in the snow a few hundred yards from St. James's hospital, the largest teaching hospital in western Europe. She could not be found an intensive care bed. Four hours later, having suffered further brain damage, she was found a bed in Hull hospital, 60 miles away, where, sadly, she died. Last year, following a similar occurrence, the Secretary of State for Health made a statement to the House promising fresh resources and new procedures to deal with the acute shortage of intensive care beds. As that does not appear to be working, has the Secretary of State sought to make a statement on the crisis affecting intensive care beds? If he has not sought to do so voluntarily, how can we induce him to come to the House and explain the current alarming state of affairs?
Madam Speaker: The Secretary of State certainly has not informed me that he is seeking to make a statement on the issue. The hon. Gentleman might care to look at the Order Paper, so that the next time the Department replies to questions he might get some answers to the questions that he is attempting to raise today.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You may have been informed that the stock exchange surveillance department and the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising are investigating movements in the shares of the Go Ahead Group, which rose 40 per cent. in seven weeks during the company's franchise bid for north-east Regional Railways. One would have thought that Ministers would have volunteered a statement to the House as the matter raises immense issues of public concern-notably revenues from privatisation and speculative share dealings. Could you carry out inquiries and find out whether Ministers intend to make a statement to Parliament as I and many of my hon. Friends believe that there should be a full statement so that we can question Ministers on the issue?
Madam Speaker: Ministers always inform me, at the latest by midday, when they are seeking to make a statement at 3.30 pm. However, there are opportunities later in the day for statements to be made.
Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You may be aware that a suggestion has been made—not from Conservative Benches—that there should be a windfall tax on private utilities. I understand that it has been suggested in the national press over the weekend that if legislation were passed through the House to introduce such a windfall tax, that tax could be deemed illegal by European institutions. It would be helpful to the House, Madam Speaker, if you could look into the matter. Is it right and

23
proper and appropriate that the House should pass a tax that could then be ruled out of order by courts and institutions outside this country?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that he is not raising a point of order but describing a hypothetical situation and I shall have nothing whatever to do with it.
Mr. Chris Mullin: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie). In Sunderland over the new year, a 20-month-old baby who desperately needed an intensive care bed had to be taken 120 miles to Edinburgh for the nearest available paediatric intensive care bed, there being none available in the northern region. When I checked again last week, that remained the position. Do you have any influence with the Secretary of State for Health as the House ought to hear from him on an issue that concerns many hon. Members of all political persuasions?
Madam Speaker: I am not certain what my influence is with any Minister, but if I were a Back Bencher in those circumstances I would be knocking on the Minister's door without delay.
Mr. David Hinchliffe: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you confirm that the only line of accountability in the national health service is that of the Secretary of State to the House, bearing it in mind that we have the most serious crisis in the national health service for many years? My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) mentioned a case in Leeds and my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) referred to another case in the north-east. Pinderfields hospital in my constituency is facing its worst crisis for many years. Bearing in mind the fact that the chief executives of those hospital trusts and the Minister for Health have been commenting publicly, what help can you give us, Madam Speaker, to ensure that the Secretary of State accepts his accountability to the House and comes here today to deal with our constituents' serious concerns?
Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman and the House certainly know, I have no authority to demand that the Secretary of State or any other Minister with responsibility for a portfolio comes to the Dispatch Box to make a statement. Leading Ministers are on the Treasury Bench, and they have heard those points of order. It will be some time before questions to Ministers at the Department of Health can be tabled, but no doubt the hon. Gentleman will table some questions at that time.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to those points of order, Madam Speaker. I find it very strange that the Secretary of State for Health cannot be in the Chamber to reply to the points of order that have been raised with you, Madam Speaker. There is no more pairing—all that is finished—and he has no excuse not to be here. He should be here, because the public are demanding a statement. I rather suspect that he is not here because he would be embarrassed, as Glenfield general hospital, the
24
heart hospital in his constituency, made the decision over the weekend not to accept any more patients who are suffering from heart problems. It is a scandal that the Secretary of State cannot present himself to answer questions which our constituents demand that he answer.
Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order but a matter of opinion.I hope that the remaining matters are points of order that I can deal with.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On the matter of the conduct of Ministers at the Department of Health, may I seek your advice, Madam Speaker, on a sequence of unhappy events? In the middle of November, forums of general practitioners in three boroughs in east London and the local medical committee sent a letter to the Secretary of State, which was not replied to in an Adjournment debate on 18 December 1996, the last sitting of the House before Christmas. During that debate, the Minister assured me that he would provide some explanation for the lack of a reply to the letter and reply in full. So far I have received no reply to the letter, although I believe that another hon. Member may have done so.
May I seek your advice, Madam Speaker? I intend to refer the matter to the Public Service Select Committee, which I believe has a remit in the matter. Is there anything else that you would advise me to do in these serious and difficult circumstances?
Madam Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman will let me have the correspondence, I will see what I can do with it. He is perfectly correct in referring the matter to that Select Committee, but I should also like to have the correspondence.
Mr. John Gunnell: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie). The Secretary of State for Health appeared in the House twice last year—the second occasion was in March last year—to make statements on intensive care beds, but neither of the promises that he made in those statements has been realised. Because of the current crisis, which has been highlighted by the British Medical Association, do you not think that it is appropriate, Madam Speaker, that the Secretary of State should come to the House to explain what is happening in intensive care and with the many hundreds of operations that are being postponed because beds are required for emergencies?
Madam Speaker: As I said earlier, those on the Treasury Bench will have heard the concerns expressed by Opposition Members, and no doubt they will report those concerns in the appropriate quarter.
Mr. Hugh Bayley: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). I seek your advice, Madam Speaker, on a very specific point. Last week, it was revealed that the Go Ahead Group—one of the bidders for Regional Railways' north-east franchise—was privy to inside information from British Rail, in breach of the franchising rules, which gave it an advantage in the bidding process. As my hon. Friend mentioned, the surge in its share price may well be related to the possession of

25
that inside information and the commercial advantage that it gave the company. As the Government intend to announce their preferred bidder for the franchise very soon—possibly later this week—it is essential, before any such announcement, that the Minister makes a statement to the House and that the Government assure us that the franchise will not be granted until the investigation is completed by the stock exchange.
Madam Speaker: That is not really a point of order for me, but I have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of what has been said today, may I bring to your attention the report on the front page of the Evening Standard about the death of an elderly woman at Guy's hospital arising from the fact that her heart operation was postponed three times? Considering all that has gone on since the House went into recess, is it not essential that the Secretary of State for Health comes to the House at some stage today to explain what is happening? Are not Ministers accountable to the House?
You advised one of my hon. Friends, Madam Speaker, to table a question—presumably an oral question—for the next time when the Secretary of State for Health and his colleagues are due to answer. That could be some time away. Given the urgency of the issue and the fact that people are dying because of failures in the health service and the failure of the Government to protect the NHS, the Secretary of State should make a statement today, or at least on Tuesday. Is there any way in which we can persuade the Secretary of State to come to the House and make such a statement?
Mr. David Shaw: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Does it refer to the same matter?
Mr. Shaw: No.
Madam Speaker: As I explained earlier, I have no authority or influence over the Secretary of State, but what has been said today will no doubt be related to him without delay and perhaps there may be a statement forthcoming later today or tomorrow on these issues, which are of obvious concern to a number of hon. Members.
Mr. Shaw: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that, shortly before Christmas, there was a small problem that, on the face of it, had nothing to do with the House: a unit outside the Palace of Westminster—known as the audience participation unit—endeavoured to fiddle a BBC poll. In view of the way in which points of order have been raised today, is there not substantial evidence that the audience participation unit is active within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster?
Madam Speaker: That is a very good try. I can see that we are in for a very happy and joyous new year.

Orders of the Day
  Crime (Sentences) Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Crime (Sentences) Bill
    New clause 1

      EXTENDED PERIODS OF SUPERVISION FOR VIOLENT OFFENDERS SENTENCED TO FOUR YEARS OR MORE
      '.— (1) Subsection (2) below applies where—

      (a) there is released under this Chapter an offender who has been sentenced to imprisonment for a term of four years or more in respect of a violent offence committed after the commencement of this Chapter; and

      (b) the court by which he was so sentenced gave a direction under subsection (3) below.

      (2) Section 13 above shall have effect in relation to the offender as if for subsection (2) there were substituted the following subsection—

      "(2) On his release, the offender shall be subject to a release supervision order—

      (a) where he is released otherwise than under section 8 above, for such period as is specified in the direction under section (extended periods of supervision for violent offenders sentenced to four years or more) (3) below;

      (b) where he is released under section 8 above, for a period equal to the aggregate of—

      (i) the period mentioned in paragraph (a) above; and

      (ii) a period equal to so much of the remainder of his term as he would have served but for his release under section 8 above;

      and in applying paragraph (b) above account shall be taken of any early release or additional days awarded to the offender before his release."

      (3) Where a court sentences an offender to imprisonment for a term of four years or more in respect of a violent offence committed after the commencement of this Chapter, it shall give a direction under this subsection unless it is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances which justify its not doing so.

      (4) Where the court does not give a direction under subsection (3) above, it shall state in open court that it is of that opinion and what the exceptional circumstances are.

      (5) A direction under subsection (3) above shall direct that the offender's release supervision period shall be such period as is specified in the direction.

      (6) The period so specified shall be—

      (a) a period equal to 50 per cent. of the offender's term of imprisonment (rounded up to the nearest whole day) or a period of 12 months, whichever is the longer; or

      (b) if the court considers a longer period necessary for the purpose of preventing the commission by the offender of further offences and of securing his rehabilitation, such longer period, not exceeding 10 years, as it may determine.'. —[Mr. Michael.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      3.46 pm
      Mr. Alun Michael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The new clause addresses one of the great scandals of our time—the failure of the criminal justice system to deal with violent behaviour in British society. We all know that there is no magic solution. It is not just the criminal justice system that is failing. We shall deal later with issues relating to the treatment of offenders with psychiatric and mental health problems.

      27
      The basic failures of the criminal justice system, which we have highlighted in previous debates on the Bill, were laid bare during the Christmas recess by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), the shadow Home Secretary. In figures published during the holiday, he showed that fewer violent offenders are convicted or cautioned now than in 1980, despite the doubling of the number of recorded violent crimes.
      The police force area figures complied by the House of Commons Library from Home Office statistics show convincingly that violent criminals are almost three times more likely to get away with their crimes than was the case when the Conservative party took office. Between 1980 and 1995, the number of recorded violent offences went up by 137 per cent., from 133,359 to 316,332—a dramatic rise—while the number of convictions and cautions dropped by almost 15 per cent., from 71,924 to 61,398. The number of people found guilty in magistrates and Crown courts has fallen by more than 39 per cent.
      Since 1992 alone, recorded violent crime has risen by 11 per cent., while the number convicted or cautioned has dropped by a quarter. The 19 per cent. drop in cautions since 1992 has not been reflected in a corresponding increase in convictions. Indeed, in the magistrates courts, 39 per cent. fewer people were found guilty in 1995 than in 1992.
      Those are shocking figures, which show a widening gap between the number of violent crimes and the number of violent criminals being brought to justice for those crimes.
      Mr. Tony Marlow: The number of criminals who are brought to justice obviously has an impact on deterrence and therefore violent crime. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the reintroduction of corporal punishment would also deter violent crime, and if not, why not?
      Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman obviously did not listen to a word that I said and simply came out with his soundbite in order to contribute to debate, not thought. I highlighted the fact that the number of violent offences has increased massively under the Conservatives, while the number going before the courts to be punished has fallen. If offenders are not brought before the courts, there can hardly be any deterrence. The hon. Gentleman obviously wants there to be punishment without even the bother of a conviction. The issues are more serious than his question implies and I am not going to allow the debate about violent offenders and the problem that we face in our society to be so trivialised.
      Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have been totally misrepresented by the hon. Gentleman, who has not even sought to address himself to my question.
      Madam Speaker: That is a point for argument and debate, not a point of order.
      Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman's point was neither a point of order nor a sensible contribution to the debate.
      On the basis of the very serious figures to which I have referred—I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) wants to divert
      28
      attention from Conservative failure on such issues—Labour has made several suggestions about how to tackle violent crime. The new clause is not a panacea, but the crude facts that I have cited—the massive rise in violent offences by 137 per cent. and the drop in the number found guilty in magistrates courts and Crown courts by more than 39 per cent. —illustrate how important it is to do everything we can to deal with the problems of violent crime. As I said, Labour would like to do many other things too, but they would take us very far wide of the scope of the Bill and the new clause.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Michael: I want to focus attention specifically on the new clause. I shall be glad to give way to the hon. Lady, if she can contain herself for a moment. I hope that her intervention will concern the subject matter of the new clause: the extension of supervision of offenders who have committed violent offences after their release from prison.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I appreciate that the new clause concerns that, but the hon. Gentleman raised the question of the failure to secure convictions. Does he agree that the abolition of the so-called right to silence assists the courts in securing convictions?
      Mr. Michael: I knew that the intervention would have nothing to do with the debate. The matters that the hon. Lady is trying to raise were addressed by Opposition Members in 1994 during constructive debate on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act and when we moved the proposals that were put forward by the royal commission, which the Government established to give them advice that they then ignored.
      Mr. George Howarth: It is the pantomime season.
      Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend suggests that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) wants to participate in the pantomime season. I want to get away from such lighthearted contributions and address the serious topic of this debate.
      The public have been scandalised by the evidence provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, which is based on police and Home Office statistics and reveals a massive increase in violent crime and a reduction in the number of those taken before the courts, found guilty and punished. Reoffending after being punished and sentenced, with which the new clause deals, is a serious problem.
      The new clause gives the court the power to specify a longer period of supervision for offenders who have been found guilty of violent offences, so that they can be supervised after their release from prison for
      "a period equal to 50 per cent. of the offender's term of imprisonment".
      Indeed, the new clause allows for a longer period where the court believes that it is
      "necessary for the purpose of preventing the commission by the offender of further offences and of securing his rehabilitation".

      29
      That will pick up on the punishment given by the courts and will be as well as that punishment and not instead of it. It is important for Parliament to legislate for supervision and rehabilitation of offenders so that when they come out they are less likely to offend, rather than more likely to offend. We argue that the new clause is necessary for the protection of potential future victims.
      The new clause is about protecting the public from violence. It would provide that a system of extended post-release supervision, similar to that which clause 17 will provide for sex offenders, should also apply to the most serious violent offenders—those serving sentences of four years or more. We are talking about not minor violent offences, but serious ones. Home Office research into the parole system has shown that parole supervision produces markedly lower reconviction rates than would otherwise have been expected from parolees' records and characteristics. There is also a substantial reduction in the gravity of offences as well as the rate of reoffending.
      I refer to Home Office research study No. 94 from 1987, "The Validity of the Reconviction Prediction Score", which showed that the reoffending rate of those on parole was markedly lower than would otherwise have been predicted from the characteristics of parolees based on an assessment of 16 factors that research has shown are related to the likelihood of reconviction. In other words, even when the fact that parolees were better bets than non-parolees had been fully allowed for, parole supervision still substantially reduced their reoffending rates. I underline that fact because the Minister of State said in Committee:
      "I do not take seriously Home Office research that works on prediction rates. Any research that works on what a person might be predicted to do compared with what they have previously done is very flawed … one cannot rely on prediction rates of what some sociologist thinks offenders should have done when they were released."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 28 November 1996; c. 208–9.]
      It is astonishing that painstaking and rigorous Home Office research, using objective factors that previous research has found to be linked to the rate of offending, should be dismissed by a Home Office Minister as simply what some sociologist thinks. That is even more astonishing given that statistical risk prediction scores worked out by Home Office researchers—and I am quoting a Home Office Minister's remarks—are currently in use by the Parole Board and that the Home Secretary's directions to the board require it to take into account any available statistical indicators as to the likelihood of reoffending. There does not seem much point in the Minister saying that he does not believe in predictions when the Home Secretary requires the responsible Home Office body to use the available statistical indicators.
      The Minister developed his view further on 10 December when he said:
      "All the available research applies to offenders sentenced before the 1991 Act came into force. In those days, those refused parole received no post-release supervision. There was no proper control group, therefore, against which to measure the success of parole."
      That was precisely why the research did not use the control group method and instead compared the actual rate of reoffending with the rate that known predictors of reoffending showed would otherwise have been likely from those granted parole.
      30
      The Minister appeared to realise the need to shift his ground and acknowledge that post-release supervision can reduce offending when he said:
      "There is no evidence whatsoever that parole, rather than well-targeted and effective supervision, leads of itself to a reduction in offending."
      If it is acknowledged that supervision can reduce reoffending, that is a powerful argument for the new clause, which would not retain the parole system but would extend periods of post-release supervision for serious violent offenders. In other words, on the basis of the Minister's remarks, he should support the new clause.
      When resisting our arguments in Committee, the Minister argued that some violent offenders would be subject to automatic life sentences under clause 1. He said:
      "Of the 1,900 violent offenders sentenced to custody of four years or more in 1995, we estimate that 120 would have been eligible for an automatic life sentence had the Bill been then in force."
      However, 120 out of 1,900 is just 6 per cent. of the offenders concerned. What about the other 94 per cent.? The Minister argued that they would receive long prison sentences and, in consequence,
      "would be subject to lengthy supervision on release." —[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 10 December 1996; c. 341–42.]
      Let us examine the length of those supervision periods. The extent to which the Bill will affect post-release supervision periods for offenders depends on the results of the Minister's agreement in Committee to consider increasing post-release supervision from a period equivalent to 15 per cent. of the sentence to 25 per cent.— a matter to which we will return later on Report.
      4 pm
      If the Bill is passed, the change in post-release supervision for any prisoner will depend also on whether he would have been granted parole. The Bill proposes that those who are released on parole would receive substantially shorter periods of post-release supervision than has been the case in the past. For example, a prisoner who is sentenced to six years and is granted parole at the first review is currently released after three years and supervised for 18 months, followed by an 18-month at-risk period. Under the Bill's proposals, he would be sentenced to four years and, on release, would be supervised for seven months with no at-risk period. If the Government agree to increase the supervision period to 25 per cent. of the sentence, the same offender would be supervised for a year with no at-risk period, compared with the current 18 months of supervision plus an 18-month at-risk period. If one believes that supervision is effective—as the Minister has argued—it must be clear that the situation will be worse in this respect after the enactment of the Bill.
      The Government have pointed out correctly that a long-term prisoner who does not currently get parole would receive a longer period of supervision under the proposals. However, the amount of extra supervision in these cases will be minimal. For example, an offender who is sentenced to six years' imprisonment and who does not get parole is currently released after four years and supervised for six months, followed by an at-risk period of one and a half years. Under the Bill's proposals, he would—in accordance with clause 22—be sentenced to four years' imprisonment. On release, he would be under

      31
      supervision for a period equivalent to 15 per cent. of that sentence—namely, seven months. That compares with the current six months of supervision, and there would be no subsequent at-risk period.
      If the Government increase post-release supervision periods to 25 per cent. of the sentence length—as we suggest—the same offender would be supervised on release for a year, and that would be a considerable improvement. Even then, any increases in supervision for those who do not currently get parole would have to be set against the reductions in supervision periods for the majority of released prisoners. I am sorry to have to go into some detail but it is a detailed point, the result of which is an unsatisfactory level of supervision for those who have committed serious violent offences. That is the nub of my argument.
      Clause 17, to which I have referred, provides that in the case of sexual offenders, courts shall order—unless there are "exceptional circumstances"—periods of post-release supervision equivalent to 50 per cent. of the term of imprisonment or 12 months, whichever is the longer. That is a parallel provision. If the court considers a longer period of supervision necessary—under conditions similar to those contained in new clause 1—it may order post-release supervision for any period up to a maximum of 10 years. But the clause applies only to those who are convicted of sexual offences, and not to those convicted of purely violent offences—although, obviously, the sexual offences referred to are in themselves violent incidents.
      The case for extending supervision of sex offenders was clearly set out by the Government in their consultation document "Sentencing and Supervision of Sex Offenders" in June last year. In our view, the same arguments apply to offenders convicted of serious violence. The document said clearly that
      "as the length of post-release supervision for the majority of sex offenders is at present directly proportional to the length of the time spent in custody, the time on licence may also prove too short for effective work to be undertaken. The longer the period of supervision on release from custody, the greater the opportunity for the probation service to continue to work with the offender to address his offending behaviour, to assess the risk he poses to the community and to take steps to minimise that risk by arranging further treatment or helping the offender to avoid a relapse."
      Those are the Government's logical arguments relating to sex offenders; they apply with equal force in the case of serious violent offenders. For identical reasons, extended post-release supervision of those convicted of serious violent offences is crucial if the public are to be protected effectively from such offenders.
      If the Government do not accept the case for 25 per cent. as opposed to 15 per cent. —I hope that the Minister will tell us about that—the need for such extended supervision will be even more essential, because of the extremely large reduction in post-release supervision periods for many offenders which would be the result of the Bill as it stands. Even if the Government accept that 25 per cent. should be the norm—an amendment has been tabled to that effect—the arguments for extended supervision for serious violent offenders are as valid as for sex offenders.
      In Committee, the Minister said:
      "It has long been recognised that sex offenders are considered to be different from other offenders, including violent offenders. It was on that premise that the Criminal Justice Act 1991 provided for a
      32
      longer period of supervision for sex offenders. I do not want radically to depart from the signal that we are sending that sex offenders are a case apart. They need special treatment and the public need special defences from them … Sex offenders tend to continue offending for much of their lives. That is a crucial point. Sex offenders get worse the older they get. Generally, violent offenders stop offending at an earlier age."
      He also said:
      "We all know that sex offences are particularly damaging to victims. That is why we treat them as a special case … Quite apart from the other reasons that I have given, I should be worried that the new clause might appear to devalue the currency."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 10 December 1996; c. 342–43.]
      I accept that sex offenders are different and need different treatment, but I do not accept that it would devalue the currency if we also tried to protect the public by increasing supervision for serious violent offenders. Sexual offences and offences of violence can both not merely damage but destroy the victim's life; a whole life can be destroyed, even if the individual survives the attack. The case for extending supervision for sex offenders is widely accepted, and the impact of violent offences can also be especially damaging to victims. I hope that the Minister will accept that general point.
      A Home Office research study in 1994 showed that 47 per cent. of violent offenders were reconvicted within two years, compared with 25 per cent. of sex offenders. That suggests that there is a greater likelihood of violent offenders reoffending. Comparisons are difficult because of the different nature of the offences, but that serious point should be taken on board.
      No one familiar with patterns of sexual offending would be deceived by the relatively low reconviction rate, because the sex offences that remain undetected for various reasons cannot result in a conviction, but the rate of reoffending by violent offenders underlines the case for taking steps to reduce further offending on release.
      The argument of the Home Office consultation document on sex offenders, that longer periods of supervision give the probation service a greater opportunity
      "to continue to work with the offender to address his offending behaviour, to assess the risk he poses to the community and to take steps to minimise that risk",
      applies equally to violent offenders. To talk of devaluing the currency and departing from the signal that sex offenders are a case apart does not constitute a convincing counter-argument.
      I underline strongly the fact that the court will use the power only when it feels that it is appropriate and that an extended period of supervision for a violent offender would have an impact and be desirable for the protection of the public. It is surely unlikely that the public will view sexual offending as less serious simply because Parliament has decided that they also need protection from serious violent offenders.
      Violence is a scourge of modern British society. There is a lack of public confidence in the criminal justice system and in Parliament. The figures published by my hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary show that that lack of confidence is based on fact and on problems with the present system. The new clause would not solve all the problems but it would improve supervision for serious offenders and increase the likelihood that the criminal justice system will succeed in reducing the number of prisoners who reoffend after release.
      Mr. Clive Soley: My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) made a good case for new clause 1. He was right to focus on prevention. As the Home Office research shows, good supervision can prevent further violent offences. I sometimes get frustrated when the Government talk about getting tough with crime when they mean that they are shouting, but doing nothing. The Government have done little to prevent crime effectively. Sadly, they have allowed us to accept more easily than we should ever have done violent crime, and the threat of it, in the community. Violent crime is different from property crime. That does not mean that property crime should be tolerated, but it means that violent crime and the threat of violence pose a different problem to people, both in the street and in their homes. We should do everything possible to prevent it.
      My hon. Friend pointed out that good supervision after an initial offence can be preventive. First, it reminds offenders that the court and prison system through which they have been is still there should they reoffend. If the Government want to talk about prevention and deterrence, that point is important, because it is an effective reminder to offenders and a better form of deterrence than saying, "We will lock you up if you commit a violent crime." Many violent offenders do not commit their crimes with premeditation. They do not work out in advance what their sentences will be.
      Many people who use or threaten violence do not want to be like that for the rest of their lives. Often, they would like to be able to control the violence that drives them from within, but cannot. That is the second reason why supervision after a sentence, whatever it may be, can be beneficial: offenders can gain better insight into their behaviour and it gives them someone to turn to when things start to get out of control. Much of their violence is directed against people they know, including family and friends. When the pressure is increasing, either in their families or in their lives, it is beneficial to have someone to turn to for supervision.
      I want to take my point further. As I said earlier, we have come to be a little too tolerant of violence in our society. The Government can be absolved of some of the causes of the rise of violence. Drug and alcohol abuse will always be major causes of crime, not least violent crime. While we could do more than we are doing, I accept that there is a limit to what a Government can do about those problems. We cannot blame the Government for the behaviour of every drug addict, but we can recognise that there is a problem.
      I have a specific point for the Minister that also touches on the next group of new clauses. It is rather odd that we should spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on a full inquiry when someone who is mentally ill commits a murder, but do no such thing when a conventional murder is committed by someone who is not mentally ill. It is odd, because we assume that we can learn something from an inquiry that will help prevent murders by mentally ill people, but that we cannot do so in cases involving people who are not mentally ill. That does not make sense. There is a strong case for a more effective audit of the causes that underlie extreme cases of violence.
      The Home Office is lucky in having one of the best research departments in the western world. One would not think so, from what the Government say at times to try to conceal the research. They hush it up in an attempt to
      34
      keep it away from public view, not least because much of the department's research goes against the general drift of the Government's philosophy on crime and law and order, but it is a good research department. If we are to talk effectively about prevention, it would be useful for all of us to know the background of violent offenders.
      4.15 pm
      We know that alcohol and drug abuse are major causes of violence, but the other cause that receives far too little attention in society is family problems, particularly treatment of children in the early stages of their life. We know that children who are violently treated by their parents are more likely to use violence as adults. That is one reason why I always find it bizarre that Conservative Members call for more corporal punishment, more thrashings at home or whatever. So far, the only evidence that we have shows that such treatment of a young person is more likely to increase that person's use of violence as an adult. It is one reason why we should always consider cautiously the introduction of corporal punishment or encouraging parents to hit their children. Perhaps the most disturbed individuals are those who are beaten inconsistently and harshly by one parent, while the other parent turns a blind eye or pretends to love that child, often producing what we like to call the psychopathic personality.
      If we could do a little more research on that, we might achieve some prevention. It is one reason why, in considering the wider causes of crime, we should examine things such as nursery provision and truancy in schools, which would enable us to spot the child who is getting into difficulties early on.
      Good supervision prevents some further criminal offences, particularly violent offences. It enables a probation officer or some other suitably qualified person to spot problems as they emerge, to offer help and to recall the person to prison if he is on parole, which must be done from time to time, to prevent an offence taking place, so the new clause is wholly appropriate. I urge the Government, however, to go a step further, and to consider the bizarre system whereby we have a full inquiry every time someone who is mentally ill commits murder. Instead of continuing with that process, the Government should consider allowing the Home Office research department to do an audit of serious violent offences, including murder, so that we can be a bit more sophisticated in spotting those problems in advance and in measuring the effectiveness of the supervision that the new clause entails.
      I recommend the new clause to the House. It is a small step in the right direction and it might show people that we are trying to prevent violence, rather than just expressing outrage after the event, when the victim's life has been devastated.
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): The new clause seeks to increase the period of post-release supervision for all violent offenders sentenced to four years or more. It would mean that, following their release from prison, all such offenders would be supervised for a period equivalent to 50 per cent. of their sentence. The court could increase that period by up to 10 years where it considered a longer period to be necessary. In broad terms, the new clause's

      35
      effect would be to extend the provisions for the post-release supervision of sexual offenders, as set out in clause 17, to certain violent offenders.
      I do not need any persuading that the law should provide greater protection for the public from the most serious violent offenders—indeed, that is the Bill's key objective—but I am not convinced that there is a case for extended periods of post-release supervision for a particular group of violent offenders, as the new clause proposes. The public are better protected by a long prison sentence, not by supervision by a probation officer in the community. That is why we have included in clause 1 provision for an automatic life sentence for people who are convicted for a second time of a serious sexual or violent offence. That is why we want to ensure that prisoners serve their full term and are not released after serving as little as 50 per cent. of their sentence.
      Mr. Soley: What about the first time?
      Mr. Maclean: I hear the hon. Gentleman's comment from a sedentary position. I remind him that for rape, serious violent offences and murder, the court can impose a life sentence on the first occasion if it wishes to do so. In the Bill, we insist merely on an important protection for the public: there will be an automatic life sentence for a second conviction.
      Mr. Soley: The sort of offence to which the Minister should direct his attention is that of a man who stabs his wife during a matrimonial dispute and although the stabbing is, by its very nature, serious, it is not immediately life threatening. He receives a fairly long sentence—probably quite a few years—and comes out on parole. There are many such cases, and I could quote chapter and verse, if the Minister wants.
      Currently, the period of parole can be very short. During that period, the man can be recalled to prison if it is thought that the marriage is again becoming troubled and he is likely to be violent, but nothing can be done from the day that the parole order ends, which is usually fairly soon after the offender's release from prison.
      Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman has failed to read the Bill and has not realised that, although parole in the conventional sense will be ended, we are creating a new supervision period during which conditions can be applied. If any of those conditions are breached, an offence will have been committed and the individual can be sentenced for that breach. After careful consideration of the matter, I have decided to go for a minimum period of supervision of 25 per cent. of the sentence. In the more minor cases, that will exactly equate to the present level.
      Under the present system, those who have been sentenced, who have behaved well in prison and obeyed the rules and who are eligible for parole can be released early. The period that they will spend under supervision or on licence is 25 per cent. of their sentence. The really bad guys, who have misbehaved in prison and are not eligible for parole, have to be released automatically at the two-thirds point, so they currently receive supervision for a period of only 9 per cent. of their sentence.
      In our original proposals, we considered a blanket 15 per cent.I shall say this again at the proper point in my speech, but it might help the debate if I say now that
      36
      I am happy to opt for a supervision period of 25 per cent. of the sentence for all, which will ensure that those in the lesser category—those who have behaved themselves in prison—will get no less supervision than they currently receive and that badly behaved prisoners will be subject to a greatly increased period of supervision.
      The main method whereby the Bill protects the public is not by insisting that a newly released prisoner should have a few more contacts with the probation officer, but through automatic life sentences for second-time serious violent and sexual offenders, including those who kill, seven years for those who deal in drugs and three years for persistent burglars. That is how to protect the public. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and his colleagues appear to be less convinced by that approach: they want longer periods of supervision for some violent offenders on release from prison, but their proposals for amending clauses 1 and 22 would lead to shorter periods in prison for certain offenders, including some of those convicted for a second time of a serious violent or sexual offence.
      I shall not stray into a forthcoming debate, but it is relevant now to point out that, although Labour Members call for extended supervision of violent offenders, examination of amendment No. 1 reveals that they want to water down our proposals for automatic life sentences for those convicted of a second serious wounding. It appears that they would rather violent criminals, such as those who knife others, spent less time in prison and more time out in the community, albeit under supervision. That would not give the public the protection that they deserve.
      Of course, a period of supervision after release from prison is valuable for any offender who has spent a significant length of time in prison.
      Mr. Paddy Tipping: Does the Minister accept that it important to do both: to impose a longer term of imprisonment and a longer term of supervision on the outside, as we advocate?
      Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman should read Opposition amendment No. 1, which is to be debated later. To quote the words of the Lord Chief Justice, if that amendment was successful, its effect would be that a judge would
      "avoid passing a mandatory sentence in any case where he considered it simply anomalous to do so!"
      It would drive a coach and horses through the main provisions of the Bill, in clauses 1, 2 and 3. The hon. Gentleman is not right, therefore, to insist that the Opposition proposals would result in longer terms of imprisonment and longer supervision. They would result in longer supervision if the proposal that we are discussing became law, but if the remaining Labour amendments were passed, there would be many fewer seriously violent offenders in prison, because the Opposition proposals would drastically widen the exceptional circumstances part of the Bill.
      I accept that I said that a period of supervision after release from prison can be valuable, especially if the person has spent a long time inside. We have provided for that in the Bill. As I told the House, I am minded to accept amendment No. 2, which suggests that the supervision period should be 25 per cent. of the term of imprisonment, not 15 per cent.

      37
      However, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth proposes longer supervision periods for violent offenders who receive the longest sentences, who already have the longest supervision periods. Some of those people will be eligible for the automatic life sentence under clause 1 and will be supervised for life. We estimate that, of the 1,900 violent offenders sentenced to custody of four years or more in 1995, 120 would have been eligible for the automatic life sentence.
      Those who are not eligible will nevertheless receive a long prison sentence, during which time they should have access to treatment programmes to tackle their offending behaviour. I agree with the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth that if people are in prison for offences of violence, and if they have behavioural problems—I believe that the euphemism is "anger management problems"—those should be tackled. The best place to do so is in prison, where the person is under supervision 24 hours a day, not outside, where, as the Opposition proposals envisage, the person would be eligible for supervision of merely one visit to the probation officer every two months.
      Programmes to tackle offending behaviour are important, and the Prison Service is keen to develop proposals and increase the work that is up and running. It is developing a treatment programme specifically aimed at violent offenders. It will be piloted in about six establishments during the current financial year, with the aim of accreditation before the end of 1997. A lengthy period of supervision following prisoners' release will allow for further action to build on the work begun in prison.
      Unlike the present provisions on release, length of supervision will be commensurate with the length of the sentence. I understand that the present provisions mean that those who do not receive parole because they are judged to be at most risk receive less supervision than those who are paroled early.
      Under the Bill's proposals, an offender who receives a four-year sentence will serve between three years and four months and four years and, on release, will be supervised for slightly more than seven months if the period equals 15 per cent. of the term of imprisonment, or 12 months if we increase the figure to 25 per cent. That is a significant supervision period. According to the minimum standards for supervision following release from custody, that would mean a minimum of 19 contacts between offender and probation officer. Of those 19 contacts, the first 10 would occur in the first three months, and that will not change under our proposals and under new clause 1.
      That intensity of supervision in the first three months is in recognition of the fact that, if we are to have any success in heading off people from reoffending when they are released from prison, the key period is the first few months after release, when they have the problems of resettlement and reintegration into the community. That is when they are at the biggest risk of going astray—of returning to a life of crime. That is why all our efforts in supervising criminals when they are released concentrate on maximising our resources to get at them in the period immediately following release. It is important to do it then—not two, three, four or five years later.
      Under our proposals, the person sentenced to three years and four months would have a minimum of 19 contacts with the probation officer, 10 of which would
      38
      be in the first three months. If we increased that level of supervision to 50 per cent., it would not double the contacts, because the bulk of them happen early in the sentence. It would increase the contacts to 31 over the period, as opposed to 19.
      I stress that supervision is most important when an offender is first released from prison. That is why the arrangements in the Bill for most offenders are the most cost-effective way of protecting the public from possible reoffending by a prisoner on release. New clause 1 would increase the period of supervision further by applying our special conditions for sex offenders. However, sex offenders are a special case, and the whole House had always recognised that fact—until our debate in Committee and today.
      4.30 pm
      Clause 17 proposes extended supervision powers, having regard to the special problems caused by sex offenders. In the consultation document that we published in the summer, we drew attention to the research evidence in that area. We know that men convicted for the first time of sexual offences often have a history of sexual offending that began many years earlier and which involves an escalation to more and more serious offences as they get more and more devious and clever at hiding their behaviour. The research also tells us that, once a pattern of sex offending has been established, the risk of reoffending can persist for many years and that, in most cases, the offender manipulates people and circumstances in order to set up the opportunity to offend.
      Because sex offenders are in a special category of cleverness and deviousness, the provisions for extended supervision apply to all those who receive a prison sentence, not just to those who receive a relatively long prison sentence and who will, in any case, receive a substantial period of supervision on release.
      It is sensible to target resources effectively, and that is what the Bill provides for: lifelong supervision for the most serious violent and sex offenders, and extended supervision for other offenders. There is a clear and specific need to provide that in the case of such offenders. For other offenders, however, supervision periods should be commensurate with the seriousness of the offence and proportionate to the prison sentence imposed.
      We also know that the general trend is that the majority of young men committing violent offences tend to grow out of it in later life. As teenagers reach their 20s and 30s, the number committing violent offences decreases substantially.
      Mr. John Morris indicated assent.
      Mr. Maclean: I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is nodding and agrees with me.
      Thus the trend in the behaviour of violent offenders is exactly the reverse of that of sexual offenders. As young men who may be violent get older, their offending decreases; as sexual offenders get older, their sexual offending increases and becomes cleverer, more devious and more manipulative. That is why we need special arrangements for the supervision of sex offenders and why we need to keep it distinct from the supervision that we propose for other offenders.

      39
      If supervision in the community is to mean anything, what matters is its quality rather than its quantity. There is no point in continuing it indefinitely, whether it is doing any good or not. I want the best possible supervision in the community when people are released from prison. That is why we must concentrate on clearly defined categories of offenders, and why we must concentrate our resources and target prisoners in the initial period following their release when they are most at risk of reoffending. The new clause fails to do that. For the reasons that I have given, I cannot accept it.
      Mr. Tipping: I have listened to the Minister's interesting comments, many of which he made in Committee. They are characteristic of the argument that we have had throughout debates on the Bill. The Minister argues strongly that prison works because of its deterrent effect but, in so doing, he demeans the benefit of supervision in the community. He asked what was the value of a few more contacts with the prisoner's probation officer, then went on to ask what was the value of one visit to the probation service every two months.
      One of the interesting aspects of the Bill is the Government's commitment to put significant extra resources into the Prison Service—perhaps as much as £140 million—yet they argue that the probation service needs no extra resources. The explanatory and financial memorandum to the Bill states that the Bill is cost neutral to the probation service.
      The Minister argued that the Bill was about putting resources where they are needed. He has argued strongly that prison works. That argument implies that there is little need for community service and extended supervision after prison. I shall argue that both are needed.
      It is vital that prison should be a positive experience. I was delighted to hear the Minister's comments about the new treatment centres to tackle violent offending. I am worried that the Prison Service will not be able to accomplish that. I am anxious about the number of people going into prison, and the pressure on prison governors and officers.
      It is important, as the Minister rightly said, that when a prisoner is incarcerated for 24 hours a day, that time is put to constructive use, but the pressures on the Prison Service may militate against that. I have listened with great care to what prison governors have been saying recently. I am concerned that the value of prison for treatment, as opposed to deterrence, is not maximised.
      Violent crime creates severe anxiety. People may be more troubled by the fear of crime than by the reality of crime. I know that, in Nottinghamshire, many people, especially women and elderly people, are extremely concerned. They lock themselves in their houses because they are worried to death about violent crime. Their fear is disproportionate to the risk. We must acknowledge that fear and respond, first, with severe prison sentences. I support the Minister in that respect. Secondly, we should not devalue the probation service.
      The Minister and some of his colleagues have a history of running down the morale of professional groups and putting the blame for the problem on them. We must recognise the strength and value of the probation service, which would improve if it were properly resourced. It
      40
      could be argued that some of the money that, under the Bill, is to be voted to the Prison Service should be diverted to the probation service.
      There is a strong argument for examining the work of the Home Office research department. During discussion of the Bill, several Home Office research unit publications have been highlighted. I shall mention two: study paper No. 94, entitled "The Validity of the Reconviction Prediction Score", and a later paper, No. 136, entitled "Explaining reconviction rates: a critical analysis". The Minister has misrepresented both. I read them during my vacation and they acknowledge the value of supervision following release from prison. The Minister said that prison works. I draw his attention to Home Office study paper No. 136 and to a key point on page 7, which states:
      "there was no firm indication that community penalties outperformed custody or vice versa in preventing offending."
      The Minister acknowledged the need to focus resources and to involve the probation service soon after a prisoner's release. I agree: the first three months after release are vital. However, people may face life crises following release from prison and continue to experience problems far beyond three months. I believe that we should proceed carefully in this area. We must acknowledge the importance of prison and the need for positive treatment and the reinforcement of good behaviour in prison. We must also use the probation service, both in prison—it is important to acknowledge that probation officers are losing their role in prison—and outside it.
      I argue for long prison sentences and for extended periods of supervision outside prison. I know the real fears of women and of the elderly throughout the country about violent crime. We have a responsibility to acknowledge those fears and to allocate resources where they are needed. I argue that those resources are needed not only in prison, but to support the probation service. People such as the Minister must build morale in the probation service, but I am afraid that some of his comments today demeaned the service—which is in no one's best interests. We must fight crime together: we must all support the campaign if we are to win.
      Mr. John Hutton: This is a useful new clause that would improve the Bill. It should, therefore, be supported by the House. I was sorry to hear the Minister caricature Opposition Members' arguments in support of it. Once again, he distorted—I am sure it was unintentional—the effect it would have.
      The new clause does not state that serious violent criminals who have been sentenced to prison terms of four years or more must see a probation officer once every two months—which is what the Minister implied. That is not our intention. Furthermore, it is not fair to say that, by supporting an extension of the period of post-release supervision orders to violent criminals, Opposition Members are questioning the role of extended supervision orders for serious sexual offenders. We can have both extended periods of post-release supervision for serious violent criminals and longer periods of supervision after release for serious sexual offenders. We do not need to choose between the two forms of post-release supervision.
      The Minister claimed that he would choose his words carefully, but those of us who study his comments will know that that would be out of character. Those who read

      41
      and heard his comments at the weekend about beggars from Scotland will hope that he has had time to reflect upon them. He has not done the House a service by characterising our amendments as he did earlier. This is a serious debate and the Opposition will take no lectures from the right hon. Gentleman about the need to be serious about violent crime and criminals. We want to ensure that violent criminals are out of harm's way and spend the correct period in prison where they do not present a threat to the community and innocent law-abiding citizens. That is not the issue here.
      I support strongly those parts of the Bill that concern post-release supervision orders. I presented legislation, before the Government published the Bill, that advocated longer periods of post-release supervision for serious sexual offenders.I am glad that that concept is now part of the Bill. We must consider carefully our strategy for the effective containment and management of serious violent criminals, and it is difficult to determine the Minister's objection to the new clause.
      4.45 pm
      It is hard to argue that the public will not be better protected by more extensive periods of post-release supervision. The extended periods about which we are talking in this context would fall within the mainstream of the terms and conditions in clause 13 which specifies the details of post-release supervision orders. We are trying not to weaken the concept of post-release supervision or to minimise the impact of supervision orders, but to extend and enhance the scope and range of the orders as far as they affect serious violent criminals.
      Mr. Soley: The Minister mistakenly assumes that, because most ex-offenders get into trouble within a few months of their release from prison, greatest efforts must be made in that period. We do not argue with that, but the Minister forgets that emotional patterns at home may cause some ex-offenders to become violent again. That is why we need the flexibility of long-term supervision rather than hoping that we can get it over and done with in the first three months and then go home.
      Mr. Hutton: My hon. Friend makes a good point. No two criminals or crimes are the same, so we must be as flexible as we can in developing the right solutions to the problems. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that part of the Minister's response to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). I suspect that, when he described our new clause, the Minister attempted to comply with the Tory central office brief and the campaign documents that argue that Labour is somehow soft on crime, but no rational person could interpret it—as the Minister tried to—as representing a soft position on crime. It is not.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) said that, in discussing violent crime and how to deal with violent criminals, we agree that prison must play a central role. Violent criminals must spend an appropriate period in prison with 24-hour supervision. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) also made a good point: as the vast majority of ex-offenders will be released into the community, we must ensure that there is a more effective way of supervising serious violent criminals.
      42
      No one can guarantee that there will be no reoffending; we understand that point and we approach the debate from that perspective, but we are considering extending the Government's post-release supervision orders and the procedures, mechanisms, conditions and whatever else the orders contain to include serious violent criminals. I think that the Minister's response was partly an attempt to cram the new clause into his pre-packaged Tory central office brief by characterising it as another example of Labour's being soft on crime. That is not the case. The new clause represents a useful strengthening of the Bill rather than a diminution or watering down of its essential requirements, and I am surprised and saddened that the Minister will not support it.
      Mr. Michael: I welcome the Minister's indication that he will accept amendment No. 2, which would bring about a general increase in the period of supervision after release from prison from 15 per cent. of the sentence to 25 per cent. He has, as he hoped, helped the debate. Indeed, the House of Commons is shown at its best when it is possible to have as sensible a debate in Committee as this one has been, and when a Minister, who has genuinely listened to the debate, has kept his promise to go away and think about the matter and come back with a positive response. I congratulate him on showing such mature judgment. Labour Members welcome that step forward.
      The Minister's differentiation between those who commit sexual offences, particularly paedophiles, and those who commit offences of violence has some meaning and importance. We do not seek to suggest that the two categories should be rolled up together. There should be very different supervision and treatment in the two cases. I agree that there are differences, particularly so far as those who commit sexual offences on children are concerned. There is a great deal of evidence that they are some of the most devious of all offenders. There is evidence that some come out of prison expecting to commit further offences. The evidence shown on "The Cook Report" last year is of considerable anecdotal importance and the statistics are difficult to interpret, but I agree with the Minister that that puts the issue in a separate category of seriousness, a separate category which the criminal justice system has to be finely tuned to tackle.
      Nevertheless, violent offences are also very serious. In the new clause, we are talking about people who commit a second serious violent offence. They may have committed several. One of the important points that comes from the statistics, and the facts revealed by my hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary over the Christmas holiday, is that so few such offences result in punishment by a court. A very small proportion result in the prison sentence to which the Minister referred. There is no difference between hon. Members on both sides of the House on the need for greater protection of the public, so I cannot understand why the Minister does not accept the new clause. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) and for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) on their thoughtful contributions to the debate.
      The Minister said that there is a crucial point immediately after release when things can go wrong, and that that is the period of maximum risk. I do not disagree with that, but that is not the only period of risk. Let us

      43
      consider an offender who comes out of prison, perhaps goes into temporary accommodation, and has to find permanent accommodation and a job, which may not be easy after release, to settle into a new life. A few weeks is not sufficient time in which to do everything that we can through the probation service to guarantee success in that rehabilitation. We cannot guarantee it, of course; it depends on choices by the individual as well as the quality of supervision, but it is important that the public services in which we invest, in the hope that they will reduce reoffending, are given the best possible chance of success. That is in the interest not just of the statistics of the probation service, but of those who, if the individuals reoffend, will be the victims. That is why this issue is so important.
      The Minister talked about supervision after release as though it was an alternative to the effectiveness of prison sentences. The new clause does not deal with prison sentences. Nothing in it would diminish the sentence passed by the court on the offenders whom the new clause would affect. We are arguing that supervision should be given in addition. We do not seek to shorten the prison sentence. We seek to lengthen the period of supervision after release to increase the likelihood that public investment in prison will be fruitful by avoiding reoffending.
      Is not an offender who has committed violent offences just the sort of case on which we should target action? If that is successful, it is likely that we can prevent not just one victim, but a number of victims, from being created by that individual's future offences—perhaps several violent offences before he is caught and brought before the courts again. I must underline the fact that violent criminals are now three times more likely to get away with it than they were in 1980, that violent offences recorded by the police went up by 137 per cent. between 1980 and 1995, and that convictions are down by 39 per cent.
      Given those statistics, and knowing that some of those offences will have been committed by people who have previously been found guilty and punished by the court, including the punishment of prison, it is surely in the public interest in terms of the cost of punishing reoffenders, as well as protecting people who may become the victims of violent offences, that we target everything that we can on reducing the likelihood of reoffending. In the circumstances of today, we should take this new clause very seriously indeed.
      It is a matter of regret that the Minister considers it enough that an offender who is released and commits another offence should receive a further and heavier sentence. My hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary revealed last year the difficulties and inconsistencies between different courts and the fact that it is not possible to guarantee that those who commit subsequent offences of violence will get a heavier sentence. Indeed, there are many cases in which reoffending led to a lighter rather than a heavier sentence. There is no difference between us in wanting consistency and progression in the sentence passed by the court, but it would be far better, once we have identified that somebody is a violent offender, to try to prevent their committing further offences once they have served their punishment.
      44
      There are anecdotes of people who took a long time to stop offending, about people who suddenly realised, through a new relationship but also through things such as supervision, that what they were doing was childish and was damaging the lives of their victims. We heard recently, in the all-party group on penal affairs, a couple of offenders speaking about their experience. They said how they had been changed dramatically by the counselling and help that they had received. We need to increase the likelihood that somebody will decide not to continue to commit violent offences, and that they will begin to realise that they must take responsibility for their behaviour. That is the purpose of supervision.
      Supervision is not a panacea—I do not pretend that it is a magic wand—but it can be effective. We want to increase its effectiveness. The Minister suggested that it becomes less likely that supervision will be required and less likely that young men will reoffend violently as they get older. Statistically, that is true. Statistically, there is a dropping off in the number who offend, but that does not happen in every case. There are some violent, nasty and vicious old men, as well as violent, nasty and vicious young men. There are people who will continue in a negative pattern of behaviour unless something happens to change them. Perhaps that change will come about in prison, particularly if the regime is positive and constructive, as well as involving the loss of liberty, but it is also likely to come through constructive intervention under supervision, either in the community, in the general sense, or after release. We believe that the Bill will be left too weak unless the new clause is accepted.
      The Minister's finding is statistical rather than one that addresses reality: a violent offence is committed by one individual on another individual or individuals. We must look carefully at the motivation and thinking of those individuals and how we can positively and effectively intervene with them.
      The Minister also referred to 19 individual contacts. It is not adequate to require a probationer, after he is released from prison, merely to turn up at the probation office on a number of occasions: clocking in and getting a tick on a sheet is not sufficient. In Committee, the Minister referred to the national standards for supervision—we had a discussion about them. The point of such standards is to ensure that intervention is positive and effective, and that it is targeted at individual circumstances and behaviour. We should have high standards of intervention and supervision, and such standards should constantly be improved.
      I am the first to accept that in any profession there is good and bad practice; it is not good practice for people merely to turn up and get a tick. Good practice involves people's behaviour being challenged, or perhaps their being referred to voluntary organisations that encourage people to live positive and useful lives. We should build on good practice and criticise the failings when the system is less than perfect. The Minister seems to believe in nominal supervision. In view of his expertise, we must assume that his view is based on research.
      5 pm
      It is important to increase the oversight of violent offenders when they are released. We must ensure that there is proper and adequate supervision to minimise the chances of their committing further acts of violence. For that reason, we will vote for the new clause.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 220, Noes 279.

      Division No. 34]

      [5.1 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Foster, Derek

      Ainger, Nick

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Foulkes, George

      Allen, Graham

      Fyfe, Mrs Maria

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Garrett, John

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      George, Bruce

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Gerrard, Neil

      Austin-Walker, John

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Barnes, Harry

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Barron, Kevin

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Battle, John

      Gunnell, John

      Bayley, Hugh

      Hain, Peter

      Beith, A J

      Hanson, David

      Benn, Tony

      Hardy, Peter

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Harvey, Nick

      Berry, Roger

      Hattersley, Roy

      Betts, Clive

      Henderson, Doug

      Blair, Tony

      Heppell, John

      Bradley, Keith

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Hinchliffe, David

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Hoey, Kate

      Burden, Richard

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbemauld)

      Byers, Stephen

      Hood, Jimmy

      Caborn, Richard

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Callaghan, Jim

      Howarth, Alan (Stratfd-on-A)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Hoyle, Doug

      Campbell-Savours, D N

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)

      Cann, Jamie

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Carlile, Alex (Montgomery)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Chidgey, David

      Hutton, John

      Clapham, Michael

      Illsley, Eric

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Ingram, Adam

      Clarke, Eric (Midbthian)

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

      Clelland, David

      Jamieson, David

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)

      Cohen, Harry

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)

      Corbett, Robin

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Cox, Tom

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Cummings, John

      Keen, Alan

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Khabra, Piara S

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Darling, Alistair

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Davidson, Ian

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)

      Lewis, Terry

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Denham, John

      Litherland, Robert

      Dewar, Donald

      Livingstone, Ken

      Dixon, Don

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)

      Dowd, Jim

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Loyden, Eddie

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Eastham, Ken

      McFall, John

      Ennis, Jeff

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Etherington, Bill

      McLeish, Henry

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Fatchett, Derek

      McNamara, Kevin

      Faulds, Andrew

      MacShane, Denis

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      McWilliam, John

      Fisher, Mark

      Madden, Max

      Flynn, Paul

      Maddock, Mrs Diana

      46

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Martlew, Eric

      Sheldon, Robert

      Meacher, Michael

      Short, Clare

      Michael, Alun

      Skinner, Dennis

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Milburn, Alan

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Miller, Andrew

      Soley, Clive

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Spellar, John

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Squire, Ms R (Dunfermline W)

      Morley, Elliot

      Steel, Sir David

      Morris, John (Aberavon)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mudie, George

      Stevenson, George

      Mullin, Chris

      Strang, Dr Gavin

      Murphy, Paul

      Straw, Jack

      Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Olner, Bill

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Thumham, Peter

      Orme, Stanley

      Timms, Stephen

      Pearson, Ian

      Tipping, Paddy

      Pendry, Tom

      Trickett, Jon

      Pickthall, Colin

      Turner, Dennis

      Pike, Peter L

      Vaz, Keith

      Pope, Greg

      Walker, Sir Harold

      Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Primarolo, Ms Dawn

      Watson, Mike

      Purchase, Ken

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Radice, Giles

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Reid, Dr John

      Wilson, Brian

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Winnick, David

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Worthington, Tony

      Rogers, Allan

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Rooker, Jeff

      Rooney, Terry

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Ross, Emie (Dundee W)

      Mr. Joe Benton and

      Rowlands, Ted

      Mrs. Jane Kennedy.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Brooke, Peter

      Alexander, Richard

      Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)

      Alison, Michael (Selby)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Amess, David

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Burns, Simon

      Ashby, David

      Burt, Alistair

      Atkins, Robert

      Butler, Peter

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Butterfill, John

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Carlisle, John (Luton N)

      Baker, Sir Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)

      Baldry, Tony

      Carrington, Matthew

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Cash, William

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Bates, Michael

      Churchill, Mr

      Batiste, Spencer

      Clappison, James

      Bendall, Vivian

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochfd)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Biffen, John

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Body, Sir Richard

      Coe, Sebastian

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Colvin, Michael

      Booth, Hartley

      Congdon, David

      Boswell, Tim

      Conway, Derek

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Cope, Sir John

      Bowis, John

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Boyson, Sir Rhodes

      Couchman, James

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Curry, David

      Brazier, Julian

      Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)

      47

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Day, Stephen

      Key, Robert

      Devlin, Tim

      King, Tom

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Knapman, Roger

      Dunn, Bob

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Elletson, Harold

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Knox, Sir David

      Evans, David (Welwyn Half'ld)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Lamont, Norman

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Legg, Barry

      Evennett, David

      Leigh, Edward

      Faber, David

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Fabricant, Michael

      Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Lidington, David

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lilley, Peter

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Forman, Nigel

      Lord, Michael

      Forth, Eric

      Luff, Peter

      Fowler, Sir Norman

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      MacGregor, John

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Freeman, Roger

      Maclean, David

      French, Douglas

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Madel, Sir David

      Gale, Roger

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Malone, Gerald

      Garnier, Edward

      Mans, Keith

      Gill, Christopher

      Mariand, Paul

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Marlow, Tony

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Greenway, Harry (Ealling N)

      Merchant, Piers

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Mills, Iain

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Gummer, John

      Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

      Hague, William

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Hamilton, Sir Archibald

      Molyneaux, Sir James

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hannam, Sir John

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Harris, David

      Newton, Tony

      Haselhurst, Sir Alan

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hawkins, Nick

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Norris, Steve

      Hayes, Jerry

      Onslow, Sir Cranley

      Heald, Oliver

      Ottaway, Richard

      Heath, Sir Edward

      Page, Richard

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Paice, James

      Hendry, Charles

      Patnick, Sir Irvine

      Heseltine, Michael

      Patten, John

      Hicks, Sir Robert

      Pawsey, James

      Higgins, Sir Terence

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

      Pickles, Eric

      Hogg, Douglas (Grantham)

      Porter, David

      Horam, John

      Portillo, Michael

      Howard, Michael

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Howell, David (Guildf'd)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Redwood, John

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Richards, Rod

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Hunter, Andrew

      Robathan, Andrew

      Hurd, Douglas

      Roberts, Sir Wyn

      Jack, Michael

      Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Jenkin, Bemard (Colchester N)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Jessel, Toby

      Rowe, Andrew

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Rumbold, Dame Angela

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Ryder, Richard

      Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

      Sackville, Tom

      Jopling, Michael

      Sainsbury, Sir Timothy

      48

      Scott, Sir Nicholas

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Shephard, Mrs Gillian

      Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)

      Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)

      Tracey, Richard

      Shersby, Sir Michael

      Tredinnick, David

      Sims, Sir Roger

      Trend, Michael

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Trotter, Neville

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Viggers, Peter

      Soames, Nicholas

      Waldegrave, William

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Walden, George

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Waller, Gary

      Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)

      Ward, John

      Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Waterson, Nigel

      Spring, Richard

      Watts, John

      Sproat, Iain

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Stanley, Sir John

      Whittingdale, John

      Steen, Anthony

      Widdecombe, Miss Ann

      Stephen, Michael

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Stem, Michael

      Wilkinson, John

      Streeter, Gary

      Willetts, David

      Sumberg, David

      Wilshire, David

      Sweeney, Walter

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Wolfson, Mark

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Wood, Timothy

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Yeo, Tim

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Young, Sir George

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Thomason, Roy

      Mr. Bowen Wells and

      Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

      Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New clause 2

      REQUIREMENT UPON THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO ESTABLISH COURT PSYCHIATRIC ASSESSMENT SCHEMES
      '(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations make provision for the establishment in magistrates' courts of schemes which provide for the psychiatric examination on court premises after conviction and prior to sentence of persons who are or appear to be mentally disordered.

      (2) The regulations may be made so as to apply only to specified geographical areas.

      (3) In this section "psychiatric examination" means the examination of the mental condition of persons by a medical practitioner approved for the purposes of section 12(2) of the Mental Health Act 1983.'.—[Mr. Michael.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Michael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 8—Court psychiatric assessment schemes—

      '(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations make provision for the establishment in magistrates' courts of schemes which provide for the psychiatric examination on court premises after conviction and before sentence of persons who are or appear to be mentally disordered.

      (2) Regulations made under this section may be made so as to apply only in specified areas.'.

      New clause 12—Court to be aware of provision in custody for mentally disordered offenders—

      49
      'It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to make available to any court passing a custodial sentence upon any offender whom the court believes to be mentally disordered an assessment of the provision available in any prison or other custodial institution to which the offender is liable to be committed of facilities for providing treatment appropriate to his condition.'.
      Amendment No. 37, in clause 43, page 31, leave out lines 30 to 34.
      Mr. Michael: The new clauses and the amendment—[Interruption.]
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues, I ask that there be much greater quietness in the Chamber and that hon. Members who intend to leave do so quickly and quietly.
      Mr. Michael: The new clauses and amendment deal with an important issue, which is the way in which we deal with mentally ill offenders. Hon. Members will be familiar with recent horrific headlines, such as the question posed by the Daily Express:
      "Why Was Machete Man Free?"
      The Times of 13 December 1996 proclaims:
      "Zito's killer wins right to sue over 'inadequate' care".
      The House must answer such proper questions. In the case of Christopher Clunis, who killed Jonathan Zito, there are questions about the efficacy of community care and about the system's failure to act on problems known long before the tragic offence that led to Clunis's court appearance. The introductory paragraph of the Daily Express story on Horrett Campbell states:
      "A court knew machete maniac Horrett Campbell had mental problems months before he attacked children at a teddy bears' picnic."
      Such facts demonstrate why we have introduced the new clauses.
      We believe that courts must have powers and systems in place to ensure that mental illness is identified and dealt with, before sentence, by the courts and, after sentence, by prison staff or by means of the disposal chosen by the courts. Far too often, prisoners have mental conditions that are known to the responsible authorities, but far too little happens and there is inadequate treatment for the problems, with the result that offenders reoffend. The heart of this debate is the need to ensure that the courts and criminal justice system are effective in nipping matters in the bud and preventing reoffending.
      One cannot prevent every breakdown in the system after the commission of an offence and a diagnosis of mental illness, but I should be surprised if anyone were to say that the system is perfect and there is no need for change. There is a need in the criminal justice system for change, for great improvement and for greater effectiveness.
      New clause 2 would provide for
      "psychiatric examination on court premises after conviction and prior to sentence of persons who are or appear to be mentally disordered."
      It would provide courts, without delay, with the ability to satisfy themselves as to the existence of mental illness in cases in which there appears to be a problem, and with the provisions for a proper sentence.
      50
      New clause 8 would provide the Secretary of State with powers to make regulations
      "for the establishment in magistrates' courts of schemes which provide for the psychiatric examination"
      of offenders after conviction, and would allow for those regulations
      "to apply only in specified areas."
      The two new clauses are, therefore, alternatives. New clause 8 would offer the possibility of addressing the issue over time through the introduction of specific pilot projects and experiments. If the Minister is unable to accept new clause 2, he may find that new clause 8—which would go part but not all the way to dealing with the matter—has some advantages.
      Mr. Soley: Does my hon. Friend believe that, when a person who appears to be mentally ill is first brought before a court, the court might suggest that he or she should be held for observation under section 38 of the Mental Health Act 1983—which may enable the court, then or soon afterwards, to make an appropriate disposal under that Act?
      Mr. Michael: I understand that point, but I think that the interface between the mental health and criminal justice systems is uneven. However, that issue goes way beyond what we want to achieve in new clause 8. We want the court, in taking its decision, to be in the best possible position to understand both the offence and the offender. New clause 12—the third new clause in the group—is extremely important in dealing with that issue. Various disposals—those not only under mental health but under criminal justice provisions—are available to the court, and, after considering reports, it may want to take one of those options. Under our proposals, the court would have the information that would allow it to do so.
      In new clause 12, we want to place a duty on the Secretary of State
      "to make available to any court passing a custodial sentence upon any offender whom the court believes to be mentally disordered an assessment of the provision available in any prison or other custodial institution to which the offender is liable to be committed of facilities for providing treatment appropriate to his condition."
      Therefore, authorities would have a duty to ensure that the court is aware that facilities for the treatment of mental illness are available should it impose a prison sentence on an offender who requires such treatment. Moreover, the provision would increase pressure on the Home Secretary and the Prison Service to ensure that adequate services are available to treat people with mental illness in the prison system.
      Under the proposals, courts would have a choice of disposal, and they might choose the option suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). However, as we know, many mentally ill offenders are simply sent to prison, and new clause 12 would ensure that appropriate treatment is available to them. The purpose of treatment is not only to deal with offenders' mental conditions but to reduce the likelihood of their reoffending. Many of those who enter the prison system and do not receive treatment for their conditions return to the streets more likely to reoffend.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) and some of my colleagues on the health team have taken a strong interest in the serious issue of

      51
      the overlap between the criminal justice and health systems. We cannot be happy that the two systems, individually or together, do not provide the effective services that the public and those who require mental health treatment have a right to expect. I hope that those comments answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and set in context the first two new clauses. I also hope that they demonstrate how we are attempting to improve the situation more widely within the Prison Service.
      Amendment No. 37, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), is grouped with the three new clauses, although I shall not deal with it now as I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery will speak to it in his own manner. I am sure, however, that we shall be at one in attempting to make the criminal justice system more effective in tackling the problem of mental illness among offenders.
      New clause 2 requires the Secretary of State to make regulations to establish court psychiatric assessment schemes in magistrates courts, to enable both accused defendants and convicted offenders to be examined psychiatrically on court premises. It is framed so that the Secretary of State could implement it on an area-by-area basis.
      In the year ending 31 March 1995, 2,481 psychiatric reports were prepared on defendants remanded in custody. Prison is one of the worst possible places for someone with a mental disorder. We all know of the gloomy conditions and restrictive regimes in the older Victorian prisons, which are likely to exacerbate the mental health problems of prisoners prone to depression and those suffering from a disorder with a depressive element. Such conditions can increase the risk of suicidal self-mutilation among those prisoners and do nothing to reduce the likelihood of them being released from prison in a condition worse than that in which they started their sentence.
      Medical experts have made considerable comment on the issue. A recent research study published by the British Medical Journal in December 1996 of 750 male remand prisoners in 13 adult prisons and three young offenders institutions found psychiatric disorders, which were broadly defined to include substance misuse—that is not the subject of the debate, but will be debated when we come to a new clause to be moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North—in 63 per cent. of inmates. Even with such a broad definition, that is an enormous proportion of the prison population with psychiatric disorders. Apart from substance abuse, diagnosed in 38 per cent. of cases, the main diagnoses were neurotic illness at 26 per cent., personality disorder at 11 per cent. and psychosis at 5 per cent.
      5.30 pm
      The researchers judged that 9 per cent. needed transfer to an NHS hospital. They wrote:
      "It is government policy that prisoners on remand who have a serious mental disorder should be transferred to a psychiatric hospital but this is often not done. Even when a prisoner is transferred there are delays, during which the patient remains in
      52
      prison and is at increased risk of self-harm and suicide … In addition to causing unnecessary suffering to mentally ill prisoners, this situation creates a risk to the public."
      I stress those last words, because we are highlighting not just the risk to the individual, but the risk to the public.
      The report continues:
      "Three recent inquiries into killings by mentally ill people described previous remands in custody during which mental disorder was recognised but not adequately managed. Some of the most difficult psychiatric patients in the country are assessed and treated entirely within prisons, which are not designed for this purpose and cannot match the standards of hospitals."
      I do not want to enter into the debate about where people should be placed. It is a difficult debate and professional views have been expressed on it. Some parts of the Bill are helpful, offering a more sympathetic assessment and more flexibility. However, the report makes it clear that conditions in our prisons result in people not receiving the treatment that they need.
      An earlier study of mentally disordered remand prisoners' carried out for the Home Office by Adrian Grounds, Susanne Dell and Katie James of the Cambridge Institute of Criminology and Graham Robertson of the Institute of Psychiatry, examined details of 952 remand prisoners in Holloway, Brixton and Risley prisons over a five to six-month period who came to the attention of prison doctors for psychiatric reasons. Only a small proportion of them had been charged with serious crimes of violence. Most had been charged with relatively minor offences, predominantly theft, public nuisance offences or criminal damage. When hospital orders were subsequently made, the subjects were routinely sent back to prison to await admission for up to 28 days.
      We should pay attention to the researchers' conclusions, which
      "showed remands in custody to be not only an inhumane, but an ineffective way of securing help and care for disturbed people."
      Even those who are not concerned about the inhumanity of the failure to treat conditions speedily should be concerned about the ineffectiveness of the current process.
      The report goes on:
      "For those who obtained hospital places it meant weeks or months of imprisonment, at the end of which they were admitted to beds for which they had been qualified at the outset. And for the mentally ill people who were not offered beds, the process was equally unsatisfactory. In most cases they were petty offenders without social roots, for whom magistrates had evidently ordered custodial remands in the hope that some kind of solution to their problems would be found. After weeks in prison they were generally discharged back to the situations they had come from without the courts being about to arrange for accommodation, treatment or support."
      Many magistrates and judges agree to a disposal in the hope not only that the person's liberty will be lost by the sentence, but that the condition that has led to, or been a contributory factor in, their offending will be addressed. It is therefore important to improve greatly the standards of both assessment and treatment. Both are addressed by our new clauses.
      The study goes on:
      "We concluded from our study that as a method of obtaining psychiatric help for mentally disordered offenders, the custodial remand has nothing to commend it: it is inhumane, expensive and ineffective. It exposes mentally disordered people to conditions and regimes which are cruelly harsh and inappropriate. It brings into prison thousands of defendants who do not need to be there and for whom penal disposals are never contemplated."

      53
      Regardless of whether that general conclusion is accepted, it surely cannot be denied that there is a problem to be addressed and that our new clauses address both sides of that problem.
      One important approach to tackling the problem, commended by Home Office circulars in 1990 and 1995—during the time in office of existing Ministers—is the establishment of court psychiatric assessment schemes. Some such schemes involve psychiatrists attending court on a sessional basis to carry out psychiatric assessments and to make oral reports to the courts. Others involve initial screening at court by community psychiatric nurses. Our new clauses would allow the flexibility for that initial assessment by psychiatric nurses, avoiding excessive costs falling on the system.
      A study of a psychiatric liaison service at Clerkenwell magistrates court, published in 1991, reported on the impact of a scheme in which two psychiatrists attended court to examine people in custody on whom psychiatric reports had been requested and gave oral reports to the court on the same day. We all agree that speed is of the essence when deciding disposal in court and, when possible, long delays and adjournments to obtain information should be avoided. We want to help to speed up the court process.
      When hospital orders were made, direct admission to the hospital from the court was arranged if possible. The authors compared the outcomes of 80 referrals to the psychiatric liaison scheme over a nine-month period with those of 50 offenders given hospital orders by London magistrates courts after being remanded to Brixton prison for reports. The psychiatrist attending Clerkenwell court recommended hospital admission in 39 of the 80 cases. For those reaching hospital through the scheme, the mean number of days from arrest to admission—the time between the arrest and something starting to happen—was 8.7. In contrast, for those remanded to Brixton, the mean time from arrest to hospital admission was 50.8 days. That is a remarkable difference.
      A study of the psychiatric assessment service based at Bow Street and Marlborough Street magistrates courts was published in 1993. During the 18 months of that study, there were 201 referrals to the service. Following initial assessment, 51 people were admitted directly to hospital and 14 were admitted following a further period in custody. For the 65 hospital admissions, the average time from court assessment to admission was 10 days. A further 101 people were released after assessment. Some 58 cases were discontinued by the Crown Prosecution Service and 99 were dealt with by conditional discharge, fines or probation orders. A follow-up study of the 65 people admitted to hospital found that 77 per cent. had derived some or marked benefit from psychiatric treatment.
      All that research highlights why there is such a widespread problem that needs to be addressed. It will not be addressed adequately unless our new clauses are accepted.
      The interdepartmental Reed committee report of 1992 recommended that
      "there should be nationwide provision of properly resourced court assessment and diversion schemes"
      and that
      54
      "purchasers and providers of health and social services must regard the availability of assessment and diversion schemes as part of a standard service."
      That would draw together the expertise of the health service and the Prison Service, as we would surely want.
      From 1993, the Home Office has made available funding to meet the sessional costs or fees of psychiatrists or community psychiatric nurses who attend magistrates courts. The 1996 Home Office annual report said that the total funding provided to date amounted to just over £1 million and that 53 schemes were funded.
      A growing number of schemes are funded from other sources. In Committee, the Under—Secretary, the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), said that, in total, 130 schemes were in operation. He added:
      "Further good news is the fact that the £1 million currently allocated by the Home Office for the purpose will be substantially increased—I cannot give the exact figure because it is not yet finalised, but it will be substantial. Other schemes will therefore also receive financial support."
      There is a powerful argument for the establishment of psychiatric assessment schemes throughout the country. I take it from the Minister's remarks that he would agree with the Opposition on that general principle.
      Although no recent cost evaluation has been published, the 1991 study of the Clerkenwell scheme estimated that it was saving the Prison Service approximately £17,800 a month, which amounted to several times the cost of the two psychiatrists' attendance fees. It can therefore be realistically argued that the development of such schemes does not involve any overall increase in public expenditure. Labour was disappointed in Committee that the Under-Secretary did not accept the argument on the ground that
      "it is not necessary to amend the Bill to achieve what those on both sides of the Committee want".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 10 December 1996; c. 346.]
      A statutory requirement to establish such schemes would, however, reinforce the trend towards their extension, promote more consistency of provision throughout the country and safeguard such schemes in future against the risk that they might be sacrificed in expenditure cuts.
      In complementing such a requirement, new clause 12 would place on the Secretary of State the onus to make available
      "an assessment of the provision available in any prison or other custodial institution".
      That is intended to ensure not only that the need for treatment for mental illness is identified, but that there is necessary provision in the criminal justice system for those who are transferred to a custodial institution.
      The most recent study on the matter, that conducted by the British Medical Journal, showed the extent to which there was a prevalence of psychiatric disorders. It also showed that there is a need to tackle problems during a sentence, not only for humanitarian reasons—although those are essential in themselves—but because failure to do so greatly increases the risk of reoffending. In the Home Office's national prisons survey in 1991, 41 per cent. of prisoners cited drink or drugs as contributing factors when asked for their reasons for reoffending. It is clear from research that there is a link between drink and drug-related problems and psychiatric problems. Very often, one is laid on top of the other.

      55
      If we bear in mind the fact that, as I cited earlier, the BMJ stated:
      "Some of the most difficult psychiatric patients in the country are assessed and treated entirely within prisons",
      we must surely do something to address the quality and nature of the treatment that they receive. By placing the onus on the Home Secretary to certify to the court the availability of provision, the new clause will ensure that there is much closer and effective oversight by the Home Secretary and the Home Office.
      The combination of the new clauses ensures first that assessment is made on a proper understanding of the mental illness of any offender who comes before the court after the person has been found guilty but before the court decides the sentence, and that, secondly, for those who on the decision of the court go to prison or any other institution, the appropriate system of treatment for their mental illness is put in place.
      The balance of the new clauses makes a very positive contribution, especially given the paucity and poorness of facilities in many of our prisons, which has been highlighted on a number of occasions. I commend the new clauses to the House not only because they are right but because they address the horrific headlines that identified people who went on to commit the most violent of crimes, including murder, after a court had been in possession of the facts about their mental illnesses and should therefore have been in a position to intervene.
      The acceptance of the new clauses will increase the likelihood of a court, in the knowledge of a condition that requires treatment, being able to decide on the sentence and disposal on the basis of accurate information. It will also enable courts to have confidence that, during the period in which people are deprived of their liberty in prison, they will receive the psychiatric treatment that may help them to leave prison less rather than more likely to reoffend, and less likely to reoffend to the serious extent highlighted in headlines.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Alex Carlile: The three new clauses and the amendment deal with three important issues. The first is the question of gatekeeping in magistrates courts to try to ensure that those who are mentally ill are recognised as such. The second deals with the nature of the provision that is available in prisons—an important issue relating to the sentencing choice made by the court. The third, which is addressed by amendment No. 37, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends, relates to the question whether a person suffering from mental illness, other than those who are diagnosed as psychopaths, should fall within certain of the new provisions.
      I turn to the gatekeeping role—contained particularly usefully in new clause 8, which provides for pilot projects and for them to apply in selected areas. We know from statistics, which have already been cited by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), many articles, Home Office research and comments of prison staff that a great many prisoners, including very many who are serving short sentences for relatively minor offences, are suffering from various forms of mental illness. It is certainly correct that many who appear before
      56
      magistrates courts do so when they are suffering from mental illnesses that do not put their or anybody else's life in danger. They are however suffering from mental illnesses that put the safety and security of themselves and those members of the public against whom they commit offences at risk.
      It is extremely expensive and destructive to treat people with minor depressive illnesses and other conditions such as untreated but potentially treatable schizophrenia by locking them up in prison. Such treatment does little to resolve their mental illness. Despite what is sometimes said, it is quite clear that the treatment for minor psychiatric illnesses in prisons for short-term prisoners is lacking and, sometimes, verging on the pitiful, and that prisoners emerge from prison not having been treated for the mental illnesses from which they are suffering. It therefore seems entirely sensible that pilot projects should be set up for gatekeeper psychiatry to be made available in the busier magistrates courts.
      I do not suppose that such problems arise very often in rural and small-town magistrates courts because generally people are much better known in those areas for their idiosyncrasies, there is often more time to deal with cases and probation officers know the defendants and their families rather better. If one talks to magistrates in the big cities—I had a conversation on the subject recently with a stipendiary magistrate in one of our great cities—one hears that a significant proportion of the people who appear before the courts do so when suffering from some discernible psychiatric condition. Although pre-sentence reports are prepared before any custodial sentences are passed, they do not offer a full opportunity for a medical assessment to be made. It seems sensible that, at the least, experienced psychiatric nurses should be made routinely available to carry out examinations so that those who are suffering from apparent mental illness can be screened into medical procedures rather than forced into an otherwise inevitable cycle of minor criminality and imprisonment which may ruin the rest of their lives and the lives of their nearest and dearest.
      New clause 12 deals with the second issue. Courts are faced every day with choices on sentencing, despite some of the Government's best efforts. Sometimes judges and magistrates face a choice between an order that involves mental health provision and a sentence of imprisonment. Judges may feel that the level of culpability of the offender, despite a psychiatric condition, is high; and may feel that the appropriate sentence would be one of imprisonment with appropriate psychiatric provision during that sentence. Believe it or not—and some would not believe it—judges approach such problems responsibly and have a genuine interest in what happens to the people they sentence, especially if the offenders are suffering from psychiatric conditions that have affected their criminality.
      Judges would be more ready, in some cases, to pass prison sentences if they knew that the prisoners' conditions would be treated appropriately in prison. In most such cases at present, the judge has no way of knowing what psychiatric treatment will be given in prison. Indeed, if a judge inquires, save in the most serious cases, about what will be done if he passes a sentence of imprisonment, he will receive no answer or the most general of answers. New clause 12 would resolve that situation responsibly.

      57
      I turn to amendment No. 37. Clause 43 will insert a new section 45A into the Mental Health Act 1983. It will empower courts to pass prison sentences with what are called "hospital and limitation" directions on mentally disordered offenders, and section 45A(2) will provide that that power should apply to psychopathic offenders. I have no complaint about that because those powers will be useful and will enable hospital and limitation directions to be passed on psychopathic offenders. The reason for the power is that there are often doubts about whether offenders suffering from psychopathic disorder will be receptive to treatment. Psychiatry is, if the psychiatrists will forgive me for saying so, often as much art as science, and frequently a question of trial and error. It is sometimes the case that psychiatrists will be able to treat psychopaths usefully by, for example, removing the trait—by medication or other treatment—that makes the offender a danger. After treatment, a psychopath might not be especially dangerous. Nevertheless, it is right that those who bear significant responsibility for their criminal offences, albeit that they are psychopathic, should serve their sentences of imprisonment. Clause 43 will ensure that that can happen.
      The new section 45A(10), however, will enable the Secretary of State to extend the power by order to cover other categories of mentally disordered offenders, including not merely those suffering from a psychopathic condition but those suffering from a discernible and diagnosable mental illness. The Bill's explanatory and financial memorandum explains that the provision in clause 43
      "will be implemented in two or more phases."
      Presumably, subsequent phases will cover other categories of mentally disordered offenders other than psychopaths.
      The Reed report of 1994 was mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. The joint Department of Health and Home Office working group, chaired by Dr. John Reed, recommended a version of the hybrid order when it reported in 1994, but it did not recommend the version that is included in the Bill. The working group's recommendation was limited to offenders suffering from psychopathic disorders. The White Paper, in contrast, proposed to make the order available for other categories of mental disorder and mental impairment. Moreover, under the 1994 proposals by the Reed working group, the offender would be transferred back to prison only if hospital treatment were inappropriate or refused, whereas the order proposed by the Government would involve automatic return to prison even if treatment were successful.
      The 1996 discussion paper issued by the Home Office and the Department of Health recognised that the development of the hybrid concept beyond the recommendations of the Reed working group could raise difficulties. In particular, the paper recognised that the uncertainties about treatability which characterise psychopathic disorder are rarely present in cases of true mental illness. In cases of diagnosable and definable mental illness, it is beneficial for rehabilitation to be managed in a flexible time frame and for there to be continuity of care if the patient is to make a successful return to the community with minimum risk to the public. There is no evidence that that could be achieved if the provisions were to be extended from psychopathy to people suffering from mental illness who then found
      58
      themselves being returned to prison. The machinery simply does not exist in prison to provide the follow-through that would be needed and that is why both the Reed working group and the joint discussion paper identified that as a problem.
      I do not need to repeat the protests that have arisen as a result of the proposals. Opposition in unison has come from the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Nursing, MIND, the Law Society, the Penal Affairs Consortium and others. I suggest to Ministers that it is not necessary to include a provision that would extend the new hospital and limitation directions beyond those who are suffering from psychopathy. There is no evidence that such powers are necessary, but there is evidence that they would be detrimental to the care of mentally ill people. Indeed, if orders are made under section 45A(10), the resulting hybrid order could increase the number of mentally disturbed offenders detained in hospital beyond the period of clinical necessity because doctors would be reluctant to remit patients to prison, either because that would be clinically unwise or because they believed that it would be medically unethical to do so. Furthermore, if hospital and limitation directions were linked with determinate sentences, some offenders might be released sooner than if they had been admitted on an indeterminate restriction order under the Mental Health Act 1983.
      I urge the Minister to think again about amendment No. 37 and to leave the matter open, at least until the Bill completes its stages in another place—if that is ever to happen—so that a measure too far need not be taken.
      Mr. Soley: This interesting group of amendments and new clauses gives the Government an opportunity to work with the Opposition in looking at what my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) rightly called the interface between our criminal justice system and mental health services. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will have some knowledge of this area following his previous ministerial responsibility in the Department of Health.
      The one caveat that I have about the new clauses is that I do not think that we should assume that a good psychiatric assessment can be made within the confines of a court or that we can act on that assessment by making a long-term committal to a psychiatric hospital. The new clauses would not be suitable for that, although I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth is thinking of the matter in those terms.
      Mr. Michael: It is more likely that such circumstances will be identified so that appropriate action can be taken, and we claim no more than that for the amendments in dealing with the sort of cases to which my hon. Friend refers.
      Mr. Soley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification, which he also gave me when I intervened earlier. There is a real possibility here of identifying some mentally ill offenders at an early stage and of taking appropriate action.
      6 pm
      My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth referred to the experiment at Clerkenwell court—a court I know extremely well, as I served there for some

      59
      10 years, first as a probation officer and then as senior probation officer. I was then committed to this institution at the 1979 general election on an indeterminate sentence. There is no hope of parole here—just the steady erosion of one's personality.
      In an inner-city court such as Clerkenwell—the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) referred to this matter—it can be difficult to deal with these cases. Clerkenwell covers two major rail terminals—King's Cross and Euston. Many of the people dealt with by the court were on the move, had shattered life styles and were mentally ill. It does not surprise me that a large proportion of such defendants are mentally ill, and the figures suggest that close to 50 per cent. have a definable mental illness. If the figures are correct, they give us advance warning and an idea of what could be achieved by better co-ordination between the criminal justice system and the NHS on mental health.
      For example, I wish to refer to section 38 of the Mental Health Act 1983, which allows for detention in an NHS hospital for a period of observation. There is no doubt that many people who end up in magistrates courts are on the edge of mental illness, and are facing an incipient breakdown or perhaps full mental illness. Having the section 38 procedure readily available to a court—because a psychiatrist is present—could be of great benefit not only to the court and the offender, but to the community.
      When I was a probation officer at Clerkenwell, people who one knew to be psychiatrically ill—and who the magistrates knew to be ill from their general judgment of the defendant's demeanour and behaviour—were nevertheless released into the community immediately because one could not justify a custodial sentence or a remanding in custody except in special circumstances; he or she might be a danger to other people, for example. The defendant would be released again and could possibly break down within the community. If we could do more to focus our attention on people when they first come before magistrates courts, it would be beneficial in terms of spotting the mentally ill.
      I emphasise the importance of the care in the community procedures. I am a great supporter of care in the community in principle, but without the proper resources care in the community is a disaster, as has been demonstrated by the Zito case and others. The tragedy—as many hon. Members will be aware from their postbags—is that many people are not getting the degree of care in the community that they need to prevent a collapse into a full psychotic state, perhaps because they are not taking a course of drugs. It is possible—although it is important to remember that this occurs only in a minority of cases—that they will resort to some sort of dangerous and violent offending behaviour.
      The idea of having a psychiatrist present or available to a court is useful. I do not pretend that a psychiatrist should be present in every court in the land, but my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has hit on a good point in saying that it would be an advantage in a number of areas. It would enable us to spot those people who are supposed to be getting care in the community but are not getting it, and who are, as a result, offending. At the moment, such a person appears in court—more often than not for a petty offence—and is either remanded on bail or in custody for a psychiatric
      60
      report. Three or four weeks later, he or she comes back to court and is disposed of by the court—perhaps by way of a mental health order, but more likely by a custodial or non-custodial sentence of a conventional type. There may be no effective follow-up to the sentence unless psychiatric and probation reports indicate the direction that the court should take on the level of psychiatric or probationary supervision.
      The Minister must address an issue that the Minister of State failed to address on the previous occasion that I spoke on this matter. The issue is relevant to the group of amendments and deals with the way in which we treat mentally ill people who murder. As I stated previously, we persist in having a full inquiry when someone who is mentally ill murders, although no such inquiry takes place when a sane person murders. I am not sure what the point of that is. These inquiries cost hundreds of thousands of pounds, and we must consider carefully whether the system should continue. I do not expect an immediate answer, but we must look at whether it is sensible to have full and expensive inquiries every time a mentally ill person murders. Perhaps we should have an assessment of the causes and the background of the murder which might apply to the sane and the insane.
      It is bizarre that we spend vast amounts of money on inquiries—some of which produce useful conclusions, some of which do not. But the present system suggests that a murder committed by a mentally ill person is more fearful or terrifying than a conventional murder. Frankly, if one has been murdered, it does not matter too much whether the person who did it was mentally ill or not. That is a serious point, and we should assess more effectively the background to murder rather than the background of those who murder and who are psychiatrically ill. This is a complex area that I know the Department has thought about from time to time. I will give the Minister time to respond to the matter before I leave for an appointment that I must keep. But if I am not here when he replies, I assure him that I will look carefully at his comments in Hansard.
      My final point deals with the issue of psychopathy, which was raised by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. Most psychiatrists agree that psychopathy is not a treatable condition, and that is why it is not described as such in the Mental Health Act 1983. It is true that some drugs and other forms of treatment can help, but we are on a slippery slope if we start giving drug treatments to people who are not defined as mentally ill under the Mental Health Act. Some special units have been set up to deal with people who have a psychopathic personality, as it has been labelled—frankly, that is a bit of a dustbin label. We must concede that there is no known method of treatment that guarantees any form of advantage, but there are ways of treating and constraining such people that one can have reasonable confidence are helpful.
      We should give more attention to such people who come before the courts and need treatment, as the general public's image of a psychopath is of a raving lunatic who is out to kill. In fact, the vast majority of psychopaths—as they are labelled—are rather inadequate and pathetic individuals who repeat their offences over and over again. They do not seem to learn from their behaviour, and generally are not liked by anyone. They are often very isolated individuals as well.

      61
      In all seriousness, there is a problem because we write people off with a dustbin label and talk about psychiatric treatment, which in most cases is not relevant, appropriate or effective. There are treatments, such as group therapy and other treatments in a residential setting, which can help such people. If we want to stop the persistent minor offenders who are a menace to everyone and whose behaviour in public causes discomfort to most people, we might do better to focus on such treatments rather than on drug treatments, which have certainly not been proven to offer any advantage and can have dangerous outcomes.
      Mr. Denis MacShane: The concerns about these matters have been brought home to me in at least two serious constituency cases in the past couple of years, in which crimes were committed by people who were not given adequate psychiatric counselling or assessment before release.
      This is an example of a matter on which Parliament should work at its best. The new clauses are practical and sensible and have been tabled by Opposition Members of considerable experience. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) is a Justice of the Peace, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) is a Queen's counsel and my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) has deep experience of the probation service.
      The public will ask why the Government refuse to accept new clauses that suggest experiments, are modest in their reach and would none the less contribute to people feeling a little more secure about the process of sentencing in magistrates courts. The underlying philosophy is simple: an ounce of prevention or of knowledge is worth more than a ton of cure or retribution.
      I shall refer the Minister, perhaps after the debate, to a wonderful book by a leading Rotherham criminal solicitor, Mr. Stephen Smith, who works in the local magistrates courts. The book contains true-life stories of the past 20 years of his life as a professional solicitor. Time and again, he has had to defend the most inadequate and pathetic characters, who make great copy for a book but who have not been given a helping hand. They do not need an overdose of counselling, but they merely need a helping hand in terms of assessment, to allow the criminal justice system to treat them with due respect as citizens and human beings.
      The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery mentioned the useful role of the probation service. In South Yorkshire, the probation service faces both cuts and a redefinition of its role that will take away the knowledge and training available to it and its ability to intervene adequately in such cases.
      I do not suppose that the Minister will accept the new clauses at this stage, given the nature of our system of government, in which no amount of common sense or intervention can make any difference once the steamroller has been set in motion, but perhaps, if time allows, more serious and mature consideration can be given to the proposals in another place.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Tom Sackville): This has been an interesting and thoughtful debate about a subject that has to be addressed: the appropriateness of sentencing and disposals for some people who may be mentally disordered and who in the past may often have been remanded to prison inappropriately.
      62
      The value of mental health assessment at magistrates courts is fully accepted and the Home Office has been active in encouraging the development of such schemes. Guidance was issued, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said, in 1990 and 1995, and funds were made available to assist with the costs of medical staff attending court. Support has been increased from £0.5 million in 1993 to more than £1 million this year, and substantial additional funding is expected to be available from the next financial year.
      In 1990, there were only a handful of such local arrangements; now there are about 130 schemes in operation, some of which cover more than one court. In addition, some courts have access to a panel of mental health care professionals away from the court; the Home Office is helping to pay for 53 of those this year, but many more are funded from local resources. I do not regard Home Office central funding as the main way in which such schemes should be financed, but such funding is available because we are extremely keen to encourage them.
      6.15 pm
      It is important not to be prescriptive about how such schemes should operate; they are local initiatives and it would be unhelpful to tie the hands of the local agencies involved, which are best placed to devise the right response to local needs and to make the most effective use of the available resources.
      The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) talked about flexibility. I am not sure whether the new clauses would achieve that. Two points of detail may illustrate the point. First, the new clauses appear to limit those who can run the schemes to doctors, as defined by the Mental Health Act 1983, when in fact teams of community psychiatric nurses and others would be, and are, involved.
      Secondly, it would be a step back to restrict assessment to the pre-sentence stage, as that would limit examination to those who had been convicted and exclude those on remand. A major benefit of any assessment scheme would be the early identification of mental disorder and the availability of advice to the court at first hearings, to avoid unnecessary remands to prison.
      On new clause 12, existing arrangements for sentencing mentally disordered offenders already require the court to consider the offender's condition and the treatment available for it before passing a custodial sentence. When there is evidence of a treatable mental disorder, the court can make a hospital order in most cases. If the offender is psychopathically disordered, the court will have the option under clause 43 of attaching a hospital direction to a custodial sentence. Our aim is to extend the hospital direction to other mental disorders.
      If, having considered the offender's mental state, the court has not selected one of those options, the question of the availability of treatment in the custodial setting is unlikely to serve any purpose and should not be a major part of the sentencing decision.
      It may be argued that information about treatment facilities would allow the court to express a view about where the offender should serve his or her sentence—that is clearly part of the thrust of new clause 12—but I do not think that it is either sensible or appropriate to predict at the time of sentencing where a sentence will be served,

      63
      and it is not part of the court's function to direct offenders to specific Prison Service establishments. That decision is for the Prison Service, which will keep the offender's placement under review, considering a wide range of factors, including the prisoner's response to different prison regimes and the appropriateness and availability of specific programmes and treatment during the sentence.
      I recognise that there may be prisoners whose mental condition at the time of sentence may not be such as to justify imposing a hospital order or a hospital direction, but that need not prevent treatment from being provided. The Prison Service has procedures in place to identify prisoners who are suffering from recognised categories of mental disorder. The identification can be on first reception into prison after sentence or, for those who develop such disorders, during the course of a term of imprisonment.
      Where a prisoner is suffering from mental disorder so severe that he or she needs treatment in a psychiatric hospital, the prison doctor will seek to arrange his or her transfer to such a facility, using procedures provided in section 47 of the Mental Health Act 1983. The number of sentenced prisoners transferred to hospitals by direction of the Home Secretary under that provision has increased significantly in recent years, from 87 in 1985, to 145 in 1990, to 251 in 1995. There are already arrangements in place to identify offenders suffering from mental disorder who would be better held and treated in hospital. If an offender appears to be mentally disordered, the court will have considered evidence about his or her need for treatment before sentencing. If the offender needs treatment in hospital, he or she should be sent to hospital either by the court on sentencing or by warrant of the Home Secretary. It is not clear what the courts would be expected to do with the information that new clause 12 proposes that they should have.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: If he will forgive me for saying so, the Minister is to some extent ducking the question. The real question is not about people who are so ill that they are sent to mental hospitals for treatment, but about people suffering from relatively minor psychiatric illnesses, such as depression or incipient schizophrenia. Surely he would agree that in the real world, the Prison Service fails to give people the treatment that would, in many cases, prevent them from offending in future. Do the Government have any proposals to deal with that large-scale problem?
      Mr. Sackville: The hon. and learned Gentleman may feel that the medical services available in prison are inadequate, but it is not clear what new clause 12 would do to improve them. The courts can pass hospital orders. Prisons can use section 47 transfers to refer prisoners for mental treatment outside. The mechanisms are there; he is making a statement about how they are working.
      Mr. Michael: It is clear that the Minister did not understand the intervention of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). As the Minister may by now have received more advice, I ask him to consider seriously the question that he was asked. He also said that the facilities in prison are inadequate. There is overwhelming research and other information from his
      64
      own Department to show that the situation in prison is seriously inadequate. Does he accept the seriousness of the problem?
      Mr. Sackville: I believe that there may be room for improvement in prison medical services, but there is nothing in new clause 12 that would achieve it. Doctors are available to prison medical services and there are contracts between prisons and local community mental health services. All those services are in place. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) simply said that he believes that they are inadequate. We are dealing with an amendment about hospital direction, which provides further flexibility on how mental services can be offered.
      Mr. Carlile: Will the Minister give way on that point?
      Mr. Sackville: If I may continue, I was just going to deal with amendment No. 37, which was tabled by the hon. and learned Gentleman. It would prevent the hospital direction that is introduced by the Bill from being extended beyond people who are deemed to be psychopathic. We believe that it is reasonable that there should be an order-making power to extend the hospital direction beyond such people. There may often be cases where prisoners appear to be mentally ill and in need of treatment at the time of sentence, but cannot be deemed to be psychopathic. There may be many instances where they need treatment and, having been treated, need to be remanded back to prison. If someone was deemed sufficiently dangerous to be given a long sentence—perhaps a large importer of drugs, who merited a sentence of 10 years or more—but appeared to need mental treatment at the time of sentence, it would be wrong for the court not to have the flexibility to allow that treatment to be given, with the prisoner then being remanded back to prison. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that to do otherwise would mean that the public were not adequately protected from the behaviour of that individual.
      I do not think that there is disagreement about the value of assessing prisoners before sentence or in the early stages of the process, but the best that I can say for the new clauses is that they provide a statutory framework for a process that is already happening apace in our system: the extension of psychiatric assessment at all stages of the sentencing process. I cannot advise the House to accept the new clauses.
      Mr. Michael: The Minister's response was disappointing. Some of his points were simply wrong. I suggest that he looks again at the report of the Reed committee, and especially at the advice given by solicitors, who deal with their clients in the courts but are not directly involved in the Prison Service or the health service. The evidence from the Law Society about the experimental or pilot projects involving duty court psychiatrists or other such liaison schemes that are in operation was specific. The Minister was wrong to say that our new clauses would limit the involvement of medical practitioners to doctors. We specifically drafted one of the new clauses to allow the use of psychiatric nurses. That was one of the practicalities that we noted in considering amendments that might help the Bill.

      65
      When discussing such schemes, the Law Society said that one of the advantages reported to it was psychiatric reports that could be quickly identified and acted upon. That is an important requirement. As I said earlier, it is far too easy for the need for professional help or specialist advice to lead to delays in the criminal justice system. I have always thought that justice delayed is justice denied, and we have frequently tabled amendments to address that point of principle. Psychiatric reports are one of the advantages identified by solicitors who, in my experience, are not always identified with the avoidance of delay.
      The Reed report praises the involvement of all relevant agencies, which assists co-operation and the speedy arrangement of services. It points out that the availability of local facilities can be made known to the court so that it has the knowledge with which to address the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) about courts targeting their sentencing decisions and knowing that their intentions can be followed through properly.
      The solicitors also found that procedural difficulties can be overcome to avoid unnecessary and lengthy remands in custody. Remands in custody are not only bad in principle but extremely expensive, so in the general public interest that should surely be encouraged. Earlier, I mentioned the cost savings that have been identified in the available research, but the whole-hearted support of the Law Society for the nationwide provision of such schemes should be noted because it is argued on very positive grounds.
      One of the other points in the Law Society's evidence is that boundary disputes between different authorities are a source of constant frustration for solicitors trying to ensure placement and service for mentally disordered offenders. The need for collaboration between probation officers, people involved in court and people involved in sentencing is clear, but that does not mean that we should just say to people in the health service authorities, psychiatric services and the criminal justice system, "It would be nice if you would talk to each other." It is the Government's responsibility to create the framework and to ensure that the two facilities deal with people who are at the point of interface—people who are in the criminal justice system but who perhaps should be in an institution that deals with mental health, or who are in prison and require psychiatric treatment. The Minister should accept our new clauses on the ground that they would help to create the right structures for that overlap between the health service and the criminal justice system.
      6.30 pm
      The Law Society also underlined the need for more reliable information on the need and potential demand for community services for mentally disordered offenders. I have referred to the Zito case and others where a failure to ensure that appropriate community-based services were available for people with psychiatric problems led to offences that were far more serious than those that first brought those individuals to the attention of the court.
      The Law Society comments that many mentally disordered and vulnerable people are currently being cared for by their families without any contact with the psychiatric health or social services, and that without the provision of adequate support and services, those
      66
      arrangements are likely to break down. That is true. The breakdown of such arrangements can be dramatic and serious. I shall give a simple example. I am sure that many of my hon. Friends could give examples from their constituencies, and that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith has professional experience that he could draw on.
      A young man sought help from a mental hospital that was treating him because he felt that things were getting out of hand and that he might offend due to the development of his illness and the pressures on him. He asked for help and to be taken in. His mother said that she was seriously concerned that something would go wrong unless treatment was made available. It was known that he needed help, but he was not given it and the result was a victim, a violent offence, a criminal record and great expense to the public purse. There was little that was positive in the outcome, but a massive negative outcome, the cost of which was borne by the criminal justice system and, ultimately, by the public purse.
      I understand—I do not think that the Minister acknowledged this adequately—the health service's fears about becoming an adjunct of the Prison Service. Personally, I have much sympathy for the combination order, which allows more flexible movement between one and the other. The answer is not greater separation, but greater co-operation. The basic principle, as put by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) when we discussed these issues earlier, is that it is important that people with a mental illness of the sort that responds to treatment should receive that treatment wherever they are held.
      There should be facilities for treating people and maintaining treatment programmes in prison, and for transferring people to hospitals for short-term and long-term treatment, whichever is the more suitable. We are talking not about additional costs, but about the appropriate targeting of treatment and the matching of the individual to the treatment that he needs.
      In making that point, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport made the crucial point that, if facilities in prisons are poor, special hospitals will be chock-a-block with prison transfers, not because they provide a more appropriate environment, but simply because there is a lack of facilities in prisons. That point is surely relevant to some of the Bill. That would inhibit the special hospitals' ability to deliver treatment regimes for non-offenders. One way forward would be for the prison services to utilise special hospital skills in the prison environment through an outreach service, but the real answer is to improve the targeted service in prisons.
      There is a pass-the-parcel approach and no real clarity of purpose—I suspect because prisons have difficulty coping with the bizarre and challenging behaviour of some mentally ill prisoners. Some offenders have profound personality disorders that are not treatable on a medical model. My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) recently visited Ashworth hospital, which has separated that group out and deals with it differently. That expertise and approach is transferable from hospital to prison. It is important that special hospitals are not used as a dumping ground, but they will continue to be used in that way as long as they can be used in that way and as long as there are poor facilities in prisons.

      67
      On the other side of that equation, the Home Office and the Prison Service will not be under pressure to improve mental health facilities in prison. The attachment of the mental illness label to all sorts of behaviour is not helpful, particularly to people who are genuinely mentally ill. The key is proper assessment at the time of sentence and proper assessment of the right disposal, taking into consideration both the offence and the clinical judgment about the offender of people in the mental health service.
      This should not be a bureaucratic issue of managing beds in the hospital system or prison cells in the prison system. That is why our new clauses both address the assessment, giving full information to the court and allowing it to be able to use properly the disposals available to it, including the disposals proposed elsewhere in the Bill, and to ensure that the facilities are available to people in prison. I have said on a number of occasions that there is a great cost to the public purse, in terms both of the criminal justice system and of the mental health system, in failing to address these issues adequately.
      The Minister said that our new clauses would destroy local flexibility and—I quote him directly—that it would be "unhelpful to tie the hands" of people who can voluntarily make those arrangements at local level. This is a fine time for the Government to discover, suddenly, that it is a good thing to have local flexibility, and for a Minister to say that the Government do not want to tie the hands of people to do things for the public benefit at local level. Is the Minister saying that the requirement of a high standard set at a central level necessarily involves bureaucratic interference by Government Departments? The answer to that is yes under the Conservatives, but no if it is done properly.
      These things must be done with sensitivity and balance. We should set the standards and then allow flexibility for local delivery of those standards, and for the courts to be able to take decisions on the basis of the right framework having been put in place. I underline again that flexibility on the use of psychiatric nurses—and not just doctors—is allowed, at least in the initial assessment, by the way in which we have approached this issue.
      The Minister suggested that we should have concentrated on the remand element rather than on post conviction. I take his point about the identification of people who need mental treatment before the case has gone through. I commented on that in my earlier remarks, but we have concentrated particularly on the point that, if someone has been found guilty, the court, in deciding its disposal, should have a full analysis of the offender's condition, as well as knowledge of the offence. I remind the Minister that this is, after all, the Crime (Sentences) Bill: so it is sensible for us to concentrate on sentencing. It was the Government's choice that we should concentrate on sentencing; that is why our new clauses and my remarks in this short debate have concentrated on sentence, rather than on remand.
      The Minister suggests that the outcome is uncertain—that it is not certain what the court is to do with the information made available to it. It is not prescribed, but that is not the same as its being uncertain. It is not prescribed in the sense of slot-machine justice, whereby a piece of information is fed in and a disposal pops out, although I know that some Ministers are enamoured of
      68
      that approach. We are trying to ensure that the court has the appropriate information to enable it to make the right decision—a decision that might, in certain circumstances, be tough, but which includes appropriate psychiatric treatment for the offender, whether through a hospital order, a combination order or a prison sentence. What is required is that the court uses the information made available to it to do the job that it is there to do—to exercise common sense in its application of the law. That is perfectly clear and not uncertain at all.
      I also found it most odd that the Minister did not respond in detail to the serious intervention from the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). During that exchange, the most the Minister would acknowledge was that there may be room for improvement in the services available in prison. I tell him that it is not conditional and that "may be" is not the right term—there is room for improvement in the psychiatric treatment available in prison.
      Mr. George Howarth: There is room for a quantum leap.
      Mr. Michael: As my hon. Friend says, there is room for a quantum leap of improvement in standards of psychiatric care in prisons. I would put it more strongly: there is a crying and desperate need for major improvements in prison psychiatric treatment and in the liaison between the criminal justice system, especially the Prison Service, and the national health service in respect of the treatment of mentally ill prisoners.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is simply not good enough for the Government to say that contracts are being entered into with individual psychiatrists and groups of psychiatrists to provide services in prison? Is he aware that the psychiatrists who provide services in many of the busier prisons say that under their contracts, which are part-time and limited, they are able only to stem the tide and deal with the most serious cases?
      Mr. Michael: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for making that point which, with his knowledge of the criminal justice system, he does with great authority. He confirms my suspicions that we are seeing the Elastoplast approach to mental health, just as we are seeing the Elastoplast approach to the health service and the criminal justice system in general. He makes the point effectively and I agree whole-heartedly with him.
      Sir Ivan Lawrence: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. He has spoken a great deal of common sense, which I applaud, but is he prepared to make a commitment on behalf of his party to make the massive expenditure that would be required to bring the treatment of mentally ill offenders up to the standard that he seeks?
      Mr. Michael: I am not sure how long ago it was that the hon. and learned Gentleman wandered into the Chamber but, despite his compliment on the common sense of my remarks, I have to say that I am surprised that he claims to have been paying close attention to my

      69
      speech. I have already dealt explicitly with the matter he raises, twice in my opening speech and once in my current speech.
      A great burden is placed on the public purse by, first, the failure properly to identify the need for psychiatric treatment and, secondly, the failure to give psychiatric treatment where it is needed, especially to those in prison. The hon. and learned Gentleman does not seem to understand the point, so I shall repeat it slowly for his benefit: it is costing us an enormous amount of money to be ineffective, and much of that cost could be saved by better liaison, by better targeting of activity and by ensuring that the work of the Prison Service and the health service is properly co-ordinated and that each does its job properly. The expenditure is not additional, but comes from dealing with the waste of money that results from the ineffective identification of those who need help and the ineffective way of providing that help.
      The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard)rose—
      Mr. Michael: It is such a clear and simple point that it requires the Home Secretary to come to the defence of his junior Ministers.
      Mr. Howard: The junior Ministers are doing extremely well. What needs to be clarified is the novel approach to public expenditure commitments being advanced by the hon. Member. He knows perfectly well that the explanation—if that is the right word—that he has just given could be used to justify additional public spending on any subject under the sun. Has he cleared the words that he has just used with the shadow Chief Secretary or the shadow Chancellor?
      Mr. Michael: That intervention demonstrates that it is inadvisable for the Home Secretary to wander into the Chamber, pick up on one sentence and try to criticise the Opposition. If he had paid attention to the whole of my speech, he would have heard me quoting evidence from his own Department about the money to be saved by proper identification and targeting. It is a pity that he does not appear to have read the research that he publishes.
      Mr. Soley: Is not this the same Home Secretary who told the country that he will build a couple of dozen new prisons, without any regard to expense? It all falls on the taxpayer. That is another case of failure.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Michael: This is also the Home Secretary who has managed to cut £700 million from the funding available to the victims of violent crime. I do not think that we need any lessons from the abacus of the Home Secretary—our point is that he is wasting money. The money available within the Home Office, the criminal justice system and the health service is being wasted. That waste is not necessary and could be avoided by the sort of measures proposed in the new clauses.
      70
      I hope that the Home Secretary will take the trouble to read the whole of this debate in Hansard and not just a little bit of it; he will see how silly he looked making that intervention and asking a question that had already been adequately answered much earlier in the debate.
      Mr. Howard: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Michael: Of course. I am delighted that the Home Secretary is coming back—more, more.
      Mr. Howard: Will the hon. Gentleman now answer the very simple and specific question that I put to him? The formula that he used could be used to justify any increase in public spending on anything under the sun—has he cleared the words he used with the shadow Chancellor or the shadow Chief Secretary?
      Mr. Michael: I am sure that what I said could, with the twisted logic of the Conservative party, be used to justify anything—but not under the tight financial control and management that the Chancellor of an incoming Labour Government after the general election will apply, not only to spending commitments, but to the effective use of the resources that are currently available. That is the point. The Home Secretary stands condemned in this debate of not being willing to listen to advice from his own Department and his own research on how he and the Secretary of State for Health could use the resources that are currently available to them to reduce the burden of psychiatric care, to reduce offending and reoffending, to reduce the commitment to prison building and to reduce the massive expense resulting from the Home Secretary's mismanagement of the criminal justice system.
      It is not good enough for the Government to try to avoid the issue by saying, "We'll tell the health and prison services to get together and that will bring about the end required by the Opposition." That is what the junior Minister said would happen and, according to the Home Secretary and his junior Minister, it does not involve extra resources. Telling the services to get on with it does not cost a penny more, but Ministers now argue that requiring them to get on with it in the way that we propose—by providing a framework that will make it easier for them to do so and that will allow money to be saved—will somehow cost more. It is just as well that the Home Secretary became a lawyer and not an accountant—he would have been drummed out of that profession long ago on the strength of the false accounting that he has tried to bring to bear this evening. The right hon. and learned Gentleman stands condemned out of his own mouth for a spurious and silly intervention.
      It is not enough for the Home Secretary and the Minister to say that people involved in psychiatric services and in the Prison Service should co-ordinate their activities more effectively. It is not enough to say that provision should be made available voluntarily in the courts. It is not happening apace, as the Minister said. If it is happening apace, it is at a pace of a snail. That is not good enough.
      We have tabled constructive new clauses that would tackle a significant problem and which I seriously expected the Minister to welcome, in view of the comments that he made in Committee, which I quoted back at him earlier. I regret the fact that he did not

      71
      welcome our new clauses. Nevertheless, there may be enough Opposition Members—and, perhaps, Conservative Members, given that the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) said that there was much common sense and logic in what I said—to pass the new clause.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 246, Noes 297.

      Division No. 35]

      [6.49 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)

      Ainger, Nick

      Davies, Chris (Littleborough)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Allen, Graham

      Denham, John

      Alton, David

      Dewar, Donald

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Dixon, Don

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Dobson, Frank

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Dowd, Jim

      Austin-Walker, John

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Barnes, Harry

      Eastham, Ken

      Barron, Kevin

      Ennis, Jeff

      Battle, John

      Etherington, Bill

      Bayley, Hugh

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Beith, A J

      Fatchett, Derek

      Benn, Tony

      Faulds, Andrew

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Reid, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Fisher, Mark

      Berry, Roger

      Flynn, Paul

      Betts, Clive

      Foster, Derek

      Blair, Tony

      Foulkes, George

      Boateng, Paul

      Fraser, John

      Bradley, Keith

      Fyfe, Mrs Maria

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Galbraith, Sam

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Gapes, Mike

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Garrett, John

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      George, Bruce

      Burden, Richard

      Gerard, Neil

      Byers, Stephen

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Caborn, Richard

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Callaghan, Jim

      Gordon, Ms Mildred

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Campbell-Savours, D N

      Grocott, Bruce

      Canavan, Dennis

      Gunnell, John

      Cann, Jamie

      Hall, Mike

      Carlile, Alex (Montgomery)

      Hanson, David

      Chidgey, David

      Hardy, Peter

      Clapham, Michael

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Harvey, Nick

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Henderson, Doug

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Heppell, John

      Clelland, David

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Hinchliffe, David

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Cohen, Harry

      Hoey, Kate

      Connarty, Michael

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Corbett, Robin

      Howarth, Alan (Stratfd-on-A)

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Cousins, Jim

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Cox, Tom

      Hoyle, Doug

      Cummings, John

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hutton, John

      Darling, Alistair

      Illsley, Eric

      Davidson, Ian

      Ingram, Adam

      72

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)

      Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)

      Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

      Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)

      Jamieson, David

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Janner, Greville

      Prescott, John

      Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)

      Primarolo, Ms Dawn

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)

      Purchase, Ken

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Radice, Giles

      Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)

      Randall, Stuart

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Reid, Dr John

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Rendel, David

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Keen, Alan

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Khabra, Piara S

      Rogers, Allan

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Rooker, Jeff

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

      Rooney, Terry

      Lewis, Terry

      Ross, Emie (Dundee W)

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Rowlands, Ted

      Litherland, Robert

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Livingstone, Ken

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)

      Sheldon, Robert

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Skinner, Dennis

      Loyden, Eddie

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Snape, Peter

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfld)

      Soley, Clive

      Macdonald, Calum

      Spearing, Nigel

      McFall, John

      Spellar, John

      McLeish, Henry

      Squire, Ms R (Dunfermline W)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Steel, Sir David

      MacShane, Denis

      Steinberg, Gerry

      McWilliam, John

      Stevenson, George

      Madden, Max

      Stott, Roger

      Maddock, Mrs Diana

      Strang, Dr Gavin

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Straw, Jack

      Mandelson, Peter

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Martlew, Eric

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Meacher, Michael

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Meale, Alan

      Thurnham, Peter

      Michael, Alun

      Timms, Stephen

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Trickett, Jon

      Milburn, Alan

      Turner, Dennis

      Miller, Andrew

      Tyler, Paul

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Vaz, Keith

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Walker, Sir Harold

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Morley, Elliot

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Morris, John (Aberavon)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Mudie, George

      Watson, Mike

      Mullin, Chris

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Murphy, Paul

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Wilson, Brian

      Olner, Bill

      Winnick, David

      O'Neill, Martin

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Orme, Stanley

      Worthington, Tony

      Pearson, Ian

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Pendry, Tom

      Pickthall, Colin

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Pike, Peter L

      Ms Angela Eagle and

      Pope, Greg

      Mr. Joe Benton.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Baker, Kenneth (Mole V)

      Alexander, Richard

      Baker, Sir Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Alison, Michael (Selby)

      Baldry, Tony

      Amess, David

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Ashby, David

      Bates, Michael

      Atkins, Robert

      Batiste, Spencer

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Bendall, Vivian

      73

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Gale, Roger

      Biffen, John

      Gallie, Phil

      Body, Sir Richard

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Garnier, Edward

      Booth, Hartley

      Gill, Christopher

      Boswell, Tim

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Bowis, John

      Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)

      Boyson, Sir Rhodes

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Brazier, Julian

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Gummer, John

      Brooke, Peter

      Hague, William

      Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)

      Hamilton, Sir Archibald

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Burns, Simon

      Hannam, Sir John

      Burt, Alistair

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Butler, Peter

      Harris, David

      Butterfill, John

      Haselhurst, Sir Alan

      Carlisle, John (Luton N)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hayes, Jerry

      Carttiss, Michael

      Heald, Oliver

      Cash, William

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Hendry, Charles

      Churchill, Mr

      Heseltine, Michael

      Clappison, James

      Hicks, Sir Robert

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)

      Higgins, Sir Terence

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hogg, Douglas (Grantham)

      Coe, Sebastian

      Horam, John

      Colvin, Michael

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Congdon, David

      Howard, Michael

      Conway, Derek

      Howell, David (Guildf'd)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Cope, Sir John

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Hunter, Andrew

      Couchman, James

      Hurd, Douglas

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Jack, Michael

      Curry, David

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)

      Jenkin, Bemard (Colchester N)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Jessel, Toby

      Day, Stephen

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Devlin, Tim

      Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Jopling, Michael

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Key, Robert

      Dunn, Bob

      King, Tom

      Dykes, Hugh

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Elletson, Harold

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Knox, Sir David

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

      Kynoch, George

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Evennett, David

      Lamont, Norman

      Faber, David

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Fabricant, Michael

      Legg, Barry

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Leigh, Edward

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)

      Forman, Nigel

      Lidington, David

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Lilley, Peter

      Forth, Eric

      Lord, Michael

      Fowler, Sir Norman

      Luff, Peter

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      MacGregor, John

      Freeman, Roger

      MacKay, Andrew

      French, Douglas

      Maclean, David

      Fry, Sir Peter

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      74

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Madel, Sir David

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)

      Malone, Gerald

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Mans, Keith

      Soames, Nicholas

      Marland, Paul

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Marlow, Tony

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Merchant, Piers

      Spring, Richard

      Mills, Iain

      Sproat, Iain

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Stanley, Sir John

      Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

      Steen, Anthony

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Stephen, Michael

      Molyneaux, Sir James

      Stem, Michael;

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Stewart, Allan

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Streeter, Gary

      Moss, Malcolm

      Sumberg, David

      Nelson, Anthony

      Sweeney, Walter

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Newton, Tony

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Norris, Steve

      Thomason, Roy

      Onslow, Sir Cranley

      Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Page Richard

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Paice, James

      Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)

      Patnick, Sir Irvine

      Tracey, Richard

      Patten, John

      Tredinnick, David

      Pattie, Sir Geoffrey

      Trend, Michael

      Pawsey, James

      Trotter, Neville

      Peacock Mrs Elizabeth

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Pickles, Eric

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Porter, David

      Viggers, Peter

      Portillo, Michael

      Walden, George

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Waller, Gary

      Redwood, John

      Ward, John

      Renton, Tim

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Richards, Rod

      Waterson, Nigel

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Watts, John

      Robathan, Andrew

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Roberts, Sir Wyn

      Whittingdale, John

      Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)

      Widdecombe, Miss Ann

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Wilkinson, John

      Rowe, Andrew

      Willetts, David

      Rumbold, Dame Angela

      Wilshire, David

      Sackville, Tom

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Sainsbury, Sir Timothy

      Wolfson, Mark

      Scott, Sir Nicholas

      Wood, Timothy

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Yeo, Tim

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Young, Sir George

      Shephard, Mrs Gillian

      Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Shersby, Sir Michael

      Mr. Bowen Wells and

      Sims, Sir Roger

      Mr. Roger Knapman.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New clause 3

      REQUIREMENT UPON THE COURT OF APPEAL TO ISSUE SENTENCING GUIDELINES
      '(1) Without prejudice to any other power in that regard, it shall be the duty of the Court of Appeal to consider and review sentencing practice and policy and from time to time to issue guidelines in respect thereof.

      (2) Without prejudice to any rule of law, a court in passing sentence shall have regard to any relevant guideline issued under subsection (1) above.'.—[Mr. Straw.]

      75
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 4—Sentencing guidelines—

      '.—(1) In disposing of any criminal appeal, the Court of Appeal may, without prejudice to any other power in that regard, pronounce an opinion on the sentence or other disposal which is appropriate in any similar case.

      (2) Without prejudice to any rule of law, a court in passing sentence shall have regard to any relevant guidance issued under such subsection (1) above.'.

      New clause 5—Unduly lenient sentences (No. 1)—
      'Section 35 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 shall be amended by substituting for subsection (3) the following subsection—
      "(3) This Part of this Act applies to any case in which sentence is passed by the Crown Court.".'.
      Mr. Straw: The new clauses seek to impose a duty on the Court of Appeal to lay down sentencing guidelines in respect of all the main offences in the criminal calendar, and to extend the power of the prosecution, through the Attorney-General, to appeal against a much wider range of sentences than is currently the case.
      In a paper published a few years ago, entitled "Custody Reconsidered", for the Centre for Policy Studies, Professor Andrew Ashworth wrote:
      "People are right to expect consistency in sentencing, since consistency, together with predictability, lies at the heart of the rule of law."
      However, he went on to state:
      "The present sentencing system fails to achieve a proper balance between flexibility and consistency."
      Professor Ashworth's conclusion seems inescapable: the lack of consistency and the absence of proper machinery to enforce and monitor sentencing practice is one important reason why public confidence in the criminal justice system as a whole is so low.
      In the paper entitled, "Honesty, Consistency and Progression in Sentencing", which I published last March, I gave detailed figures that highlight the current inconsistency in sentencing between different courts. I provided two tables, one which examined the range of the use of custody by different tiers of the Crown court, and another which did similar work in respect of magistrates courts.
      In Crown courts, there is significant variation in the proportion of defendants coming before Crown courts of the same level who are sentenced to immediate custody. For level 3 courts, the range varies from 38 per cent. at Woolwich Crown court, to 67 per cent. at Hereford Crown court, where the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) is a recorder. His practice obviously belies his Liberal rhetoric. That has been my consistent experience of my friends at the Bar—the moment they sit on the Bench, the soft ones end up giving the longest sentences. The reverse is also true. That may explain the liberality of the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) on the Bench, although not in the House.
      A similar range is apparent in respect of level 2 courts, where the proportion of defendants who are convicted and go into immediate custody varies from 40 per cent. in
      76
      Gloucester to 65 per cent. in Luton. The same applies to level 1 courts, where the range is from 42 per cent. in Bristol to 64 per cent. in Caernarfon, and a higher proportion at the Old Bailey, but I do not regard that as an equivalent court for the purpose of these comparisons.
      There is an even wider range in magistrates courts. On average, 13 per cent. of defendants who appear before magistrates courts receive a sentence of immediate custody, but the range is huge. I refer to indictable offences triable summarily; I am not speaking of motoring offences. At one end of the range, at Staffordshire, Moorlands magistrates court, one in six defendants are given a sentence of immediate custody. At the other end, at Maidenhead magistrates court, one in 66 defendants receive a sentence of immediate custody. Try as I might, I can find no explanation for those differences.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Michael Stephen: I am sure that, like most of us, the hon. Gentleman believes in local justice and believes that magistrates are local people dispensing justice in their locality. How far does he believe that there should be discretion for local Benches to treat more seriously particular offences that might be prevalent in their area, and therefore to depart from national guidelines?
      Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The same point was made, improbably, by the Secretary of State in an interview in "Constabulary Magazine", in favour of unfettered discretion by local Benches in magistrates courts. None of us could accept complete uniformity in sentencing. It would be odd if every court's sentencing practice was around the average. My concern is that the range is far too wide, and that the differences in practice appear to be informed not by any explicit local policy, but rather by custom and practice.
      I shall give a specific example. Blackburn and Oldham are two similar industrial towns in the old county of Lancashire. They have similar social structures and similar rates of crime. A defendant at the magistrates court in Oldham has a one in 10 chance of receiving a sentence of immediate custody. A defendant at the magistrates court in Blackburn has a one in 20 chance of receiving such a sentence.
      I do not know which sentencing policy has a greater impact on crime levels in those two towns. With regard to my own constituency, however, I know that because of major problems in the amount of feedback and guidance that magistrates courts are given, the policy of the court in Blackburn—and, I suspect, also in Oldham—is not really a policy, but the way in which the court has behaved traditionally, without any rational scrutiny of that behaviour.
      Of course, I accept—this is one of the reasons why we want changes in the way in which the Crown Prosecution Service operates—that if there is a particular problem in an area, the Bench and prosecutors are right to take it seriously and, for example, to issue exemplary sentences as a deterrent against further wrongdoing.
      The figures that I have given are for comparisons between courts. Another set of figures reveals inconsistency of a different kind. The public currently expect the court's attitude to offending to equate to their own experience at home, at school or in the workplace.

      77
      In each of those environments, the sanction for misbehaviour takes account not only of the immediate offence, but of the past record of the miscreant. That is part of people's natural instinct about what is just and sensible. That is explicitly written into employment law where, save for grave offences, employees are entitled to a series of warnings before they can be dismissed.
      Apart from the short-lived aberration of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, such an idea of progression in sentencing, taking account of previous offending behaviour, has long been enshrined as a principle of sentencing in the British courts. In any court on any day, one will hear defence counsel arguing in mitigation for a last chance for a defendant to avoid a custodial sentence. Equally often, in imposing a non-custodial sentence, the Bench will issue a dire warning that further offending will lead to a prison sentence.
      However, the idea of proper progression, which I believe is accepted across the House, is not consistently translated into sentencing practice. My paper, like the White Paper, gave examples of what on average may happen to defendants on a first, second or third conviction. The picture painted by those figures can be described only as bizarre and as one that is unlikely to enhance public confidence in the sentencing system.
      Let me give some examples that I quoted in my paper. I asked the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), for figures of the proportion of defendants aged 21 or more who had received convictions for domestic burglary and, separately, for drug dealing, and who received sentences of immediate custody, and what the length of the average sentence was. It is true that for domestic burglary and drug dealing, an increasing proportion of defendants received a custodial sentence at the second and third offence, but it is odd that for domestic burglary, the sentence stayed level at 15 months, whereas for drug dealing in class A drugs, the sentence went down from 32 months at the first conviction to 30 months at the third conviction. Those figures do not enhance confidence in our sentencing system.
      Mr. Howard: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that both the examples that he has cited will be dealt with by the minimum mandatory sentencing provisions in the Bill? Will he specifically deny that he has given any private assurances to senior members of the judiciary that, if elected, Labour would not implement the Bill's mandatory sentencing proposals?
      Mr. Straw: I shall deal with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's first point in a moment. The issue of a drug dealer or domestic burglar who is convicted for a third time is dealt with elsewhere in the Bill. However, such provisions—whatever their merits—are not an alternative to effective guidelines from the Court of Appeal. The proposals affect sentences at a third conviction in only two specific areas of offence within the criminal calendar.
      As to the Home Secretary's second question, I have not given any such undertakings—either in private or in public. He will have to wait for my speech on Third Reading—we want to see the Bill's final form—to hear our definitive decisions about its proposals. I am glad that the Home Secretary has accepted, by implication, that the Labour party will form a Government after the election.
      78
      As we know from reports in yesterday's newspapers, he has already accepted that fact and is spending more time preening himself for election as Leader of the Opposition than doing his job as Secretary of State.
      As hon. Members know, I was not a member of the Standing Committee that examined the Bill, but I have read the Hansard record of debates. I was almost as impressed by the contribution of the hon. and learned Member for Burton in Committee as by the brilliant interventions of my colleagues. The hon. and learned Gentleman supported our amendments and poured vitriol on the ill-thought-through provisions in the Bill so often that I think he must be halfway to defecting to new Labour. He brought to his observations his experience not only as a distinguished parliamentarian but as a recorder of the Crown court. We know that the court in which he sits has a reputation for much softer sentences than the court of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. On at least three occasions, the hon. and learned Gentleman commented that the Bill's provisions
      "would have been unnecessary if the court had laid down guidelines about minimum sentences".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 14 November 1996; c. 49.]
      He added:
      "it would have been far better if, many years ago, judges had got to grips with their powers and set out guidelines to introduce the type of sentence that we are having to lay down in statute".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 19 November 1996; c. 104.]
      I refer to the question that the Home Secretary asked a moment ago. We shall discuss separately the Bill's so-called minimum sentence provisions, but they will cover only a limited number of cases and criminal offenders—those affected by clause 1, convicted for a second time of a listed offence that already carries life as a maximum sentence; and those affected by clauses 2 and 3, convicted for a third time of offences of domestic burglary or trafficking in class A drugs. The vast range of offences and offenders will be unaffected. Therefore, the need for better machinery to secure consistency and progression will remain.
      The achievement of that aim has actively exercised the House for at least a decade. In its 1986 White Paper on criminal justice, the Government proposed giving statutory form to the Judicial Studies Board's function of publishing the Court of Appeal's sentencing guidelines in a more coherent and accessible form. However, they dropped that idea in favour of a limited right of appeal against unduly lenient sentences by the Attorney-General.
      When the ill-fated 1991 Act was before the House, one of our main criticisms of the Bill was that it failed to deal with "unacceptable discrepancies in sentencing"—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said at the time. We advanced proposals for a sentencing council to achieve greater consistency in sentencing. It is a measure of how far the Government have moved in six short years that, at the time, our proposal was condemned out of hand by Ministers and voted down by Government Members—including the present Home Secretary—on the risible grounds that it would produce the "dead hand of conformity" and
      "end up like the experience in the United States."—[Official Report, 20 November 1990; Vol. 181, c. 232.]

      79
      The Conservative party's campaign guide went much further and said that our proposals would have denied the courts
      "the discretion they need if they are to deal adequately with the wide variety of criminal acts that come before them".
      It added that our position—which was in favour of more consistency—illustrated Labour's
      "traditional mistrust of the judiciary and provides Labour with an institution to shackle them to a rigid penal system."
      I am glad that the Home Secretary can see the joke. I hope that when he responds to the debate, he will apologise for the position that he took in 1991. The truth is that, if our proposals for proper machinery on sentencing guidance had been accepted—they were widely supported at the time—we would not now need some of the provisions in the Bill.
      Despite Ministers' complacency about sentencing practice at the time, the Court of Appeal could—and we believe should—have been more proactive in its development of sentencing guidance. Sentencers have available much excellent work from the Judicial Studies Board, Thomas's "Current Sentencing Practice", and a few guideline judgments from the Court of Appeal—notably on rape. However, Professor Ashworth was correct to criticise the Court of Appeal in 1992 for the
      "manifest abdication of its role in giving guidance for the lower courts."
      He said that that
      "suggests that the ideal partnership between legislature and judiciary, implicit in the White Paper of 1990, is likely to be realised slowly, if at all".
      He added for good measure that most of the Court of Appeal's decisions on domestic burglary were
      "a veritable wasteland in terms of guidance".
      Little has happened in the intervening period. Mr. Ralph Henham, senior lecturer in law at Nottingham Trent university, in a 1995 paper on sentencing policy for the Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, commented on
      "the apparent failure of the Court of Appeal to consistently advert to other sentencing decisions in the course of developing sentencing principles, thus hindering the process by creating problems of interpretation. In addition, there is a tendency for the Court of Appeal to concentrate on the immediate case without questioning the general principles behind cases of that type or their inter-relationship with other types of cases thus creating a lack of coherence and direction in the development of sentencing principles."
      That is strong criticism and I am sorry that the Court of Appeal has not taken it on board properly.
      As I said, the alternative proposed by the Government in their 1986 White Paper was for the Attorney-General to have a limited right of appeal to the Court of Appeal. That provision became law in the Criminal Justice Act 1988. In most other jurisdictions—including common law jurisdictions—the prosecution has long had a much more active role in sentencing. The notion has always raised profound anxiety in many quarters. I suspect that we have been held back in many ways by our history. Indeed, many ingrained assumptions of English common lawyers about rules of evidence and sentencing date back to the last century, when many property offences were capital crimes, and when the defendant was not allowed to give
      80
      evidence in his own defence. There was no general defence appeal against conviction or overly severe sentences until 1907.
      Anxiety about the possibility of injustice and of political influence in appeals led my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook to oppose the right of the Attorney-General to make an appeal under the 1988 Act. Significantly, in the same debate he expressed qualified support for a much more comprehensive scheme, whereby the prosecution could suggest sentences to the court. In the event, the anxieties of many about the development were not borne out and we supported measures to strengthen the arrangements in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
      Today, the Attorney-General is able to appeal as "unduly lenient" any offence triable on indictment only, but just a limited number triable either way. However, a large number of offences tried in the Crown court, and any offence tried in the magistrates courts, are excluded. New clause 5 seeks to extend the power of the Attorney-General to appeal against any conviction that arises in the Crown court.
      I should add—this does not form part of the formal propositions of the debate, so we should not take an immediate decision about it—that although there are strong, practical difficulties in extending that principle to magistrates courts, I believe that, in principle, the prospect should be considered. Under current law, there is no possibility of the Attorney-General appealing against an unduly lenient sentence for domestic burglary—a subject that has correctly exercised the Home Secretary—or for quite a number of offences of violence.
      7.30 pm
      The Government were wrong in 1986 to see a more active role on guidance by the Court of Appeal and a right of appeal by the Attorney-General as alternatives. In our view, one should buttress the other. In its guidance role, the Court of Appeal should, as many have proposed, work through the criminal calendar and provide clear guidance on each of the main offences. It should publish such guidance in draft, encourage informed professional and public debate on it and then promulgate it.
      Some judges and practitioners have said that that would be difficult; that domestic burglary, for example, covers a wide range of actions and of culpability. So it does, but that does not mean that the range is incapable of analysis and categorisation. After all, rape also covers a wide range of culpability, and on that the Court of Appeal has issued proper guidance.
      In addition to the promulgation of guidance, much improved arrangements need to be put in hand to enhance the memory of the criminal justice system. I have often heard magistrates complain that they are effectively sentencing people in the dark, with little or no systematic feedback on the effect of their sentencing decisions.
      My final point is about Scotland. The Scottish legal system is different and it is entirely right that its development should be determined by what is right for Scotland, but too often we ignore better practice there, for example on delays in getting cases to court. The White Paper on crime and punishment in Scotland, Cm 3302, has two proposals in chapter 8 that are fully consistent with our new clauses for England and Wales. In 1995,

      81
      the appeal court in Scotland, as the White Paper pointed out, was given a power to lay down sentencing guidelines, which I understand has now been activated.
      In paragraph 8.23, the Government proposed to extend to the prosecution the right of appeal in all summary cases. I am aware that the definition of "summary" is different from that in England, but it is very much wider than in cases that simply end up in the Crown court. That intention has now been put into effect by a negative statutory instrument, which was approved without any Division in the House.
      Those are persuasive examples of why such provision should be made in England and Wales. We need a criminal justice system that has more memory, that has greater and more effective progression, and one that above all ensures greater consistency. When practitioners express concern that the public do not understand how the courts operate, they should bear it in mind that what the public inevitably latch on to is not the average practice in sentencing, but the aberrant practices in sentencing, which too often excite—quite rightly—great public concern, and about which very little can be done.
      The Attorney-General has an important role to play, which we wish to see extended, but we believe that there is an overwhelming case for the Court of Appeal to extend its role within the framework that Parliament has laid down for sentencing and to establish effective sentencing guidelines and then ensure that they are properly monitored and put into practice.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: The issue is whether the Court of Appeal, criminal division, should have a statutory obligation to promulgate sentencing guidelines for the whole calendar of cases coming before the Crown courts.
      The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) was, perhaps, less than generous to the Court of Appeal in his criticism of the guidelines that it has given hitherto. It is instructive to spend, as some of us have occasionally, a day, or nearly a day, sitting in one of the courts of the Court of Appeal, criminal division, and hear the throughput of cases. First, they work under considerable pressure. It is quite impossible for them to consider each case as a guideline case.
      Secondly, the courts work extremely fast. In most appeals against sentence, they are fully apprised of the facts of the case before the appeal is heard and are usually able to put propositions to counsel appearing for an appellant at the beginning of the hearing and come to a rapid conclusion. Thirdly, in most of the cases that they hear, the submissions that are put before them are subjective rather than objective. Many sentence appeals turn on subjective issues arising from the circumstances of the offender perhaps more than from the circumstances of the offence.
      The Court of Appeal, under its current procedure, is not really equipped by the nature of its hearings to deal with the issue of guidelines on every offence in every category that comes before the Crown court. It is a demand-led place. It has recognised that its role is to issue guidelines. I suggest to the House that it has done so conscientiously on a very wide range of issues. Drug offences are extremely difficult for judges and, indeed, for defence counsel, to deal with because they cover such a huge range. For example, the supplying of a class B drug can range from offences that are easy to sentence—the
      82
      biggest—to those that are far less easy to sentence, those near the smallest—supply to a group of friends, supply among a group of students in a university, supply in a club.
      Those are offences that courts find very difficult to sentence, and it is helpful to courts throughout the country that the Court of Appeal has issued widespread and detailed guidelines on them. Guidelines have been issued on sexual offences, on offences involving the use of arms and on a wide range of other offences coming before the courts.
      I agree with the hon. Member for Blackburn that the Court of Appeal could issue guidelines on the full calendar coming before the criminal courts. In my view it would be desirable that it did so. My view is that the Court of Appeal, provided that it is given the resources, and that is a real issue, would welcome the opportunity to set out in written form, after due debate, each year or periodically, the range that one could expect given certain facts.
      Before we could reasonably expect the Court of Appeal to do that, however, having regard to its very considerable work load, it would be necessary to ensure that the assistance that is now given to the Court of Appeal in the form of professional, clerical additions was expanded. Young lawyers are now being appointed to assist the Court of Appeal in preparing cases. The Government would also have to consider creating an increased number of Lords Justices to enable this work to be done. If the Court of Appeal was to promulgate a volume of guidelines periodically, we could not reasonably expect it to do so in its spare time, for it does not have any spare time at present.
      Lord Taylor, the last Lord Chief Justice, Lord Lane, his predecessor, and, of course, Lord Bingham, the present Lord Chief Justice, have shown total willingness to issue guidelines in appropriate cases, and if this new duty were imposed on them by Parliament, they would take it on themselves and carry it out with great efficiency, but they would have to be given the resources to do so.
      The more orderly promulgation of such guidelines by the Court of Appeal would make a daily contribution to consistency in sentencing in courts around the country. However, I hope that we all agree that sentencing should never be uniform—that reflects the point that was made earlier about regional variations in sentencing. The stealing of sheep in Montgomeryshire is an extremely serious offence, and one would expect it to be severely punished.
      Mr. Straw: It obviously is.
      Mr. Carlile: It is, as the hon. Gentleman said. I have the honour to be the honorary recorder of Hereford, which has a tough record on sentencing. It is an orderly city because offences are dealt with efficiently—I am referring not to my conduct, but to that of the judges who sit there more regularly. The sentences that are passed in Hereford reflect the needs of that city. Whether in Hereford,

      83
      Blackburn, Oldham or Montgomeryshire, it is important to allow variation in sentencing to reflect local circumstances.
      Mr. Straw: Is there a connection between the tough sentences passed by the Crown court in Hereford and the orderly conduct of its citizens?
      Mr. Carlile: I would not make so bold as to answer that question with a yes. However, I would hazard a guess that if people in a small city such as Hereford—it is much easier in a small city—or in a city such as Chester, which I know extremely well because I practised law there for many years, know that the judges before whom they could appear are likely to be pretty tough on, for example, house burglary, the chances are that they will either do less house burglary or will go and do it in Blackburn. I hope that they will not take the latter approach, but it is a possibility and it argues for greater consistency in sentencing while retaining variation between areas.
      The Attorney-General has the power to refer sentences to the Court of Appeal when he is advised or perceives that they are unduly lenient. Many of us were opposed to the introduction of that power. I am not too proud to say that I was wrong to oppose it when it was introduced, because it has worked well. I am pleased to see the Attorney-General in his seat. He has exercised that power more frequently in recent years than in the past. It has made a contribution to the production of guideline cases. I believe that I am right in saying that more guidelines have emerged from Attorney-General's references than from any other category of cases that one could define.
      I hope that we shall continue to use Attorney-General's references constructively. There is no logic for allowing an Attorney-General's reference in one category of case coming before the Crown court but not in another. I would hesitate for a long time before extending that power to magistrates courts, as I fear that it would clog up the courts and would merely provide jobs for lawyers, which is usually perceived—in the House at least—as a bad thing.
      There is a good deal of sense in allowing the Attorney-General to exercise his discretion on advice and in appropriate circumstances in all cases before the Crown courts. I am sure that that jurisdiction would not be exercised over-generously by any Attorney-General. The Attorney-General is as subject to criticism by the Court of Appeal as anyone else, and wasteful applications to that court are dealt with robustly. It is a constructive suggestion, and I hope that the Home Secretary will support it.
      Mr. Stephen: I shall not be able to support new clauses 3, 4 and 5 in the Division Lobby. I have a particular interest in new clause 5. I had thought long before 1988 that we had an extraordinary position in this country whereby, if a criminal considered his sentence too harsh he could appeal, but if it was generally considered to be too lenient, the public could do nothing about it. That caused a great deal of public disquiet and brought the law itself into disrespect among our constituents.
      In 1987, I wrote a paper, which was published by the Bow Group, in which I proposed that the Attorney-General should have power to appeal against
      84
      over-lenient sentences. At that time, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) was Home Secretary, and I had a great deal of correspondence with the then Minister of State, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor). I received a number of letters from the Home Office—I do not know whether my right hon. and learned Friend read them, but he certainly signed them—which contained some absurd reasons why my suggestion should not be implemented.
      7.45 pm
      One of the reasons given was that it would be wrong to allow an appeal against an over-lenient sentence because the Court of Appeal would not have heard the evidence in the court below. I responded that that was precisely what the courts did every day when asked to decide appeals by defendants who thought their sentences too heavy.
      The next Home Office argument was that it would be wrong to impose double jeopardy on the defendant, to which I responded that the concept of double jeopardy is usually understood to apply to people who have not been convicted of any crime and who, until they are convicted, must be given the benefit of the doubt. I pointed out to the Home Office scribe that here we were dealing with people who had actually been convicted of crime. If people do not want to be subjected to judicial process, the remedy is not to commit crime.
      The Home Office eventually agreed that my proposal should be implemented, but said, "Yes, let us give the Court of Appeal power to review those cases upon the application of the Attorney-General, but we think it would be wrong to give it power to change the sentence that the court below had imposed." I responded that it was adding insult to injury to tell the victim of a crime or his family that the defendant had been too leniently punished, but nothing could be done about it. The Home Office eventually agreed that that too was not a sustainable argument.
      The Home Secretary of the day agreed in Standing Committee to what are now sections 35 and 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. I recall that the Labour party was opposed to those provisions. The Liberals also opposed them, but the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) had the grace to say today that he had been wrong, and I suppose that a sinner who repenteth is deserving of praise.
      When I wrote to the Home Secretary of the day, I wanted all cases to be subject to the right of the Attorney-General to appeal. However, I was persuaded that the power should be restricted to more serious cases, because it would increase pressure on the Court of Appeal—which is a very busy tribunal, as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery has said—and would also increase the cost to the public. I felt that the power could be justified only in more serious cases, and should not therefore apply to magistrates courts.
      When dealing with sentences, we are not, as I have said, dealing with double jeopardy properly so called. Nevertheless, it is desirable, once sentence has been passed, for an offender and his family to know exactly what sentence he will have to serve. Unless a case is serious, it should not, therefore, be subject to a right of appeal.

      85
      I am opposed to new clause 5. My proposal in 1987 was that, as an appeal against a sentence passed by a Crown court is a serious matter, the decision should be made only by the Attorney-General and his colleague, the Solicitor-General, personally. As those two Law Officers already have a considerable work load, it would not be right to expand the category of cases too widely so that they became over-burdened and perhaps made mistakes. We all make mistakes, but the more over-burdened we are, the more likely that is. In any event, new clause 5 is not necessary because the 1988 Act already contains the power by statutory instrument to widen the category of cases to which the right of appeal applies. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who I am glad to see in his place, has already exercised that power on a number of occasions.
      With regard to new clauses 3 and 4, let us not delude ourselves into thinking that we can apply some computerised formula that will produce exactly the right sentence every time. Each case is different. The circumstances of each offence are different and each offender is different. The court has to consider both the offence and the offender in deciding upon the right sentence. The criminal appeal law reports are full of guidance which the Court of Appeal is handing down every day to the lower courts. In addition, there are sentencing conferences and other extrajudicial methods by which the Lord Chief Justice and his colleagues can give guidance to the lower courts.
      Having attended law school in America, I would caution the House against the use of law clerks, and I recall that a distinguished American lawyer publicly cautioned us against it only a few days ago. As the work load becomes heavier, the delegation to the law clerks tends to increase and, although they are bright young men and women, they are not the experienced judges who sit in the Court of Appeal and whose judgment is expected to be applied to each individual case.
      The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) mentioned the role of the prosecution in the criminal process. When I was at the Bar I found it unsatisfactory. I would listen to the defence counsel—sometimes I would be the defence counsel—pointing out to the court that the defendant was a very good son, who looked after his mother very well and did errands for the old lady round the corner and that it was quite out of character that he smashed a glass and thrust it into the face of his unfortunate victim.
      When I sat down, expecting as a result of my orations a lenient sentence for my client—which was sometimes the case and sometimes not—I often felt uneasy that the prosecuting counsel sat mute.It was his duty only to draw the attention of the court in fairly bland and factual terms to the defendant's criminal record. He did not argue that the offence and the offender required a more severe sentence than the defence counsel had argued.
      It is often said that judges are not influenced by speeches in mitigation. If that is so, the legal aid fund is wasting a great deal of public money. I do not agree. In some cases the court is influenced by the speech in mitigation and there are circumstances in which a prosecuting counsel—who has that right—should point out to the court that the defendant deserves not a more lenient sentence but a more severe one. If that were the case, perhaps the courts of first instance would make fewer mistakes.
      86
      Finally, the hon. Member for Blackburn mentioned the need for courts to be as fully informed as possible before passing sentence. Ten years ago, we could not do much about that, but now, because of the availability of information technology, we have the solution at hand.
      My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has caused a number of studies to be made on the use of information technology in the courts, and so has the Lord Chancellor, but we still have a long way to go. I look forward to the day—not very far hence—when a terminal will be available so that the judge and the clerk to the magistrates will be able to access a database giving full details of the criminal history of the defendant before them—not just the criminal record, but the way in which that individual has responded to the treatment that the criminal justice system has seen fit to impose on him. With the investment of a certain amount of money—of course, nothing is free—it should be possible to have such a system in operation in our courts within the next five or six years.
      For those reasons, I oppose new clauses 3, 4 and 5.
      Mrs. Llin Golding: I support new clause 3 in the name of my hon. Friends. I believe that the Court of Appeal should review sentencing practice and from time to time issue guidelines. In that respect, I return to a subject that I have often raised in the House—the treatment of children by our courts and the sentences handed down to the people who abuse them.
      About two months ago a case was heard at Bristol Crown court concerning the abuse of seven children by their parents. A report of the case stated:
      "It was a case of Dickensian deprivation and squalor: hungry children bound and gagged, punched, beaten with belts and sticks, made to take cold showers and sleep in a dark attic on urine-soaked beds … It went on for 11 years."
      The jury was told that while all that was taking place, the parents dressed and ate very well indeed.
      Just as shocking to many of those who attended the court was the reaction of Judge Lester Boothman. The report continued:
      "Although he said the beatings were serious enough to warrant a prison sentence, he added that they amounted to no more than excessively violent punishment, that the physical injuries were not severe and that 20 years ago 'It may be that nobody would have raised an eyebrow.'"
      What a thing to say. He gave the man, who cannot be named to protect the children's identity, a sentence of just 15 months. Of course he was released fairly soon afterwards as he had already served seven months on remand.
      The judge passed that sentence
      "despite hearing psychiatric reports that three of the children may never recover from the emotional damage caused by their prolonged suffering and following a catalogue of independent evidence from neighbours, teachers and doctors about the children's ill treatment and their injuries."
      The three eldest children gave evidence that they had been regularly beaten and assaulted. In one incident, one was punished because he had accidentally broken a glass. His hands were tied in front of him with his father's dressing gown cord and a gag was placed in his mouth to stop him crying out as he was beaten. His brother was told to hold his feet so that he would not move and when he refused he was given similar treatment.

      87
      Although the judge said that the offences were "so serious" as to merit a prison sentence and that to do otherwise would "send a wrong message", he said that he had been satisfied that there was
      "always a good reason for the punishment."
      He said:
      "It may not have seemed a good reason for the child concerned at the time, but I am satisfied that this is not a case that someone uses violence just simply for the sake of it."
      The House has spent many hours examining criminal justice Bills and moving amendments to improve the way in which children give evidence in court. Although we have done a great deal, we still have not got it right. When a judge can pass such a sentence for that type of crime, it is clear that we have a long way to go to provide justice for our children.
      I was so incensed by that case that I wrote to the Attorney-General—I am very pleased to see him in the Chamber tonight, as I know that he has a great concern for children—because I thought that I would get a sympathetic hearing from him. I received a reply from him, in which he said:
      "I received a full report from the Director of Public Prosecutions on the proceedings. I considered the matter very carefully, as did the Solicitor-General, and it is my opinion that this is an unduly lenient sentence and accordingly I have referred the case to the Court of Appeal, for the Court to consider the matter.
      Thank you for drawing this case to my attention."
      It should not be necessary for the likes of me to draw the case to the attention of the Attorney-General, so that he can take action, because courts should pass proper sentences. Everyone who is concerned about the mental and physical abuse that is meted out to far too many of our children should be concerned that our courts still dish out 15-month sentences. Something is very wrong with the system. I am convinced that we could do much better in providing justice to our children if the Court of Appeal were to issue further guidelines on sentencing practice and if such cases were examined in far more detail than, obviously, they have been.
      8 pm
      Sir Ivan Lawrence: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), who has identified a terrible case. It is difficult to know to what extent we can improve the system by referring to the occasional terrible case; we must deal with the overwhelming majority of cases.
      This debate, in its very low-key and reasonable terms, has caused a change of heart in many hon. Members. Not only the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) has changed his view about lenient sentences being referred to the Court of Appeal by the Attorney-General, because I, too, have had a change of heart. There seems to have been a change of heart on tougher sentences also among Labour Members. The difference is that, whereas the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and I have changed our views on lenient sentences after having observed that no great harm and some considerable benefit seems to have come from the measure, the Opposition have changed their view because of the nearness of the general election and the necessity of giving the electorate the impression that they are
      88
      tougher on sentences than—after many months of their opposition on matters of law and crime—the electorate, and certainly Conservative Members, believe that they are.
      The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery made a brilliant speech in defence of the Court of Appeal, to which I hope that he will soon be elevated—no doubt to adorn the judiciary. If he does so, it may well be that a little more sense will be shown by that body than it has sometimes shown. He sits in Wales and the Borders—where men are men and sheep are nervous—and perhaps those who steal sheep are nervous when they appear in his court. However, I think that he is wrong in suggesting that there should be an extension of the power to refer lenient sentences.
      Although the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery may go to the Court of Appeal, he will never be Attorney-General. I cannot conceive of any circumstances in which we can inflict on an Attorney-General—even one who is backed up by the excellence of the current Solicitor-General—the burden of each year examining hundreds if not many hundreds of cases to determine whether they should be referred to the Court of Appeal. It is simply not possible. Once the power is extended to civil servants and other individuals, who may or may not have had any direct experience of our courts, we would be entering the stratosphere, which would be undesirable.
      I am sure that the reason why it would be utterly and completely wrong to pass new clause 5 is that it is totally impractical to expect the Attorney-General to become involved in many more cases. It is a source of wonder to me that he gets through as many cases as he does and still answers summonses to the Chamber to appear on the Treasury Bench when legal matters arise. I pay him the fullest compliments. As he knows, I have enormous respect for him, particularly in the way in which he survived the scurrilous and wrong criticisms made of him in Scott. That concludes my comments on new clause 5, although I should be interested to hear how my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State or my right hon. Friend the Minister respond to them.
      On the fundamental matter of guidelines, I again take issue with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. There was no real problem preventing the Court of Appeal from issuing more guidelines than it has done. There is no reason why a Court of Appeal should not have said that only in exceptional circumstances should a professional burglar who has committed three offences escape with a prison sentence of less than three years.
      There is no reason why, many years ago, a Court of Appeal should not have said that drug pushing and drug trafficking is such a corrupting and terrible influence upon children in our society that someone who is a professional and has been convicted three times—although he will have been very unlucky to have been caught and convicted if he had offended only three times, as most of those professionals have done it hundreds of times—should only in exceptional circumstances expect a sentence of less than seven years.
      I do not know why the Court of Appeal should not have said—it is not terribly complicated—that if someone has raped once and then rapes again, he should be removed from society until it is safe to return him to society, and that the only way in which we can protect society is by a

      89
      life sentence. That would not have involved the Court of Appeal in too much heartache or consumed too much time, but it never did so. Because the Court of Appeal never did so, we have been forced to make these recommendations for minimum sentences, which is the heart and soul of the Bill. I regret that it has been necessary.
      It has been made clear that I sit as a recorder, and so I have enormous respect for the judiciary. I do not want Parliament or, less still, the Executive to replace judges in judgments on legal affairs. I should not like to see that happen, but it is inevitable. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and I attend, as recorders, sentencing seminars. Time after time, in the dozen or so cases in our exercises, we go through the sentencing process and hear the sentence imposed by the Crown court. We then hear what the Court of Appeal has done to the sentence that has been passed, and we are left feeling that something is wrong with the Court of Appeal and that it does not act in tune with the feelings of the overwhelming majority of people—to whom recorders are closer, and to whom magistrates are sometimes very much closer.
      Ordinary judges need support. Those of us who sit as judges and agonise when we read social inquiry reports and hear powerful mitigation presented by counsel, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel—
      Mr. Stephen: Shoreham.
      Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am sorry; my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen)—although Arundel is not too far away. It is very difficult to harden oneself and to say that the appropriate sentence is such and such and not the lighter sentence that has been urged upon us. Judges are human. They are subjected to such pressures and respond to them and try to resist the pressures of the people outside the court who have not heard the circumstances of the case.
      The result is that we have been encouraging burglars, drug traffickers and even the most violent and serious offenders—rapists and others—by the inadequacy of the sentences that have been passed. With 60 per cent. of seven-time burglars in magistrates courts and 30 per cent. in Crown courts not even being given a prison sentence, something serious has gone wrong with the system. Not only does it not reflect the wishes of the people, it does not protect them, because there is no deterrence in a system in which offenders are not detected. If they are detected they are not convicted. Those who are not convicted are not sentenced and those who are sentenced do not receive an appropriate sentence.
      That is why we cannot have second thoughts about the Bill and go back to arguing about what would have happened if only the Court of Appeal had issued guidelines many years ago. It did not and there is no going back. There is too much crime and we have to protect society by removing from circulation for longer those who persistently commit crime in a professional way. We must also lay down proper deterrents, so that criminals know that sentences will be substantial if they are caught and convicted. That will help to reduce crime and protect society. That is why we have the Bill. It is no use, in my respectful submission, going along with new clauses 3 and 4, or even new clause 5. I shall therefore certainly support the Government in opposing them.
      Mr. David Hinchliffe: I shall speak briefly in support of new clause 3, referring to a
      90
      constituency case that is relevant to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). As he said, the new clause would place a duty on the Court of Appeal to consider and review sentencing practice.
      Having sat here for some time, I am conscious that I am in a small minority of non-lawyers tonight. I speak solely as a constituency Member of Parliament. I do not find the time to do my full-time job as a constituency Member of Parliament. I am full of admiration for my hon. Friends and others who are able to practise at the Bar here, there and everywhere. I accept that they bring relevant experience to this place, but it is beyond me how they find the time to do their job as Members of Parliament.
      I am concerned that constituents frequently come to me believing that a court has not acted appropriately in a particular case. Some elements of the Bill have some merit in addressing that problem. There is also strong merit in the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn about regular reviews of sentencing practice.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) brought us down to earth with reference to a specific case. She rightly felt that the court had dealt with the circumstances inappropriately. I should like to refer to a constituency case that has caused me particular concern. It raises questions about how, over a number of years, the justice system has impacted on one individual, who eventually took the life of the daughter of one of my constituents.
      8.15 pm
      Last September, I was contacted by my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Roy Wickenden from Middlestown in Wakefield, with regard to the tragic circumstances of the death of their 22-year-old daughter Julia in 1994. Julia was a fourth-year medical student in Liverpool who was killed while cycling in Wavertree, Liverpool. The court heard that she was, as the press report said,
      "tossed through the air like a rag doll and never regained consciousness."
      A 22-year-old man from Wavertree was convicted of causing her death by dangerous driving. He was gaoled for seven years. The court heard that he had been found guilty of driving while disqualified on 13 occasions and had convictions for reckless and dangerous driving. He had also never passed a driving test.
      In September last year, after the trial had been reported in the press, Mr. and Mrs. Wickenden received a letter from the son of a woman whom the same man had killed while driving a stolen car in November 1990. He had received a 12-month probation sentence for that offence.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn referred to the relevant issue of past records. Through the efforts of Mr. Wickenden, I have found out that the court service has confirmed that, at the time of the sentence in respect of Julia Wickenden, the judge had no knowledge of the previous conviction. The Home Secretary, whom I am pleased to see here, may have been told about the case by his Minister of State, to whom Mr. Wickenden wrote last year with his concerns. Mr. Wickenden sent me a letter on 16 November last year, which said:
      "I refer to the letter I received today from David Maclean MP written as a reply to my letter written to Michael Howard on 29 September. The points made in this letter fail to address the questions that were put in my letter to Michael Howard."

      91
      He went on to say:
      "I am appalled to find that someone can be banned from driving on 13 separate occasions (the ones he was caught on) then continue to do the same thing, that is, to drive without any form of licence (and obviously insurance) with no supervision or training. To also drive continuously in a careless and reckless manner over a period of six years. During this period of driving he caused the death of a lady for which a sentence of one years probation was given.
      It is because this person was not deterred from this persistent unlawful and anti social behaviour that he went on to exhibit exactly the same contempt for the laws of the country and take the life of our daughter. It could have been anyone's life … It is because I do not wish to see a repeat of this situation and others similar to it, that I am appealing for you to consider making changes now! If the legal system had possessed the powers and directions that I feel it needs, then my daughter would have stood a far better chance of becoming the doctor she had so wanted to be."
      That letter makes my point. The Home Secretary will understand—I appreciate that he has listened carefully—that the family does not believe that the Government have treated the case seriously in the responses given by the Minister of State, who is also here tonight.
      I repeat the facts. A 22-year-old man had 13 separate convictions for driving while disqualified, together with convictions for reckless and dangerous driving, and had previously caused a death. Why was he at liberty to cause the death of Julia Wickenden? We need to act on such gross injustices. New clause 3 offers some hope. If the Home Secretary refutes that, I should be interested to hear what he can offer those parents on the circumstances that caused the death of their daughter.
      Mr. Andrew Miller: I intend to follow very closely the theme of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe).
      For a number of years, I have had the honour of being a patron of the charity RoadPeace, which is active in giving support to families and victims of road tragedies. I am careful not to use the term "road accidents" because it implies that circumstances could not have been helped. Tragedies such as the one to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield referred would never have happened if the right legislative process had been in place.
      One of my concerns, for which I do not blame the Government—I blame us all in this House and society as a whole—is that we view road traffic issues with an attitude of, "There but for the grace of God go I." The simple fact is that 3,000 people die needlessly in this country each year as a result of road tragedies—many of them in the circumstances described by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield. If one of us walked down Oxford street carrying a loaded shotgun that accidentally discharged, we would be prosecuted not for illegally or improperly carrying a gun but rightly for a charge relating to the resulting death. Yet we accept as a society that we can kill while handling a tonne of steel and face a charge that seldom relates to the consequent death of an individual. Had the Government pursued the arguments set out in the Law Commission's report No. 237, the family of the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield may have been given some hope.
      There is no easy solution. Having read very carefully the Law Commission's arguments and those presented by the Government on proving intent, I recognise that we are
      92
      not dealing with an area of the law that can be satisfactorily changed at the stroke of a pen; there is no quick fix to this very complicated issue. There is however a powerful argument that this place ought to give some leadership to ensure that, when cases as blatant as the one described by my hon. Friend come before the courts, something is done.
      The principle of new clause 5 could provide the Attorney-General with some means of addressing the problem. I appreciate the difficulties facing him. To be totally fair to him—although the matter does not relate directly to the Bill—I should say that he courteously sent me a very gracious letter today apologising for a mistake in his Department. Although I appreciate that the Department is stretched, we cannot allow circumstances such as those we have just heard described to go unquestioned. We have a responsibility to people outside the House to get things right.
      It has been said to me that, in the context of death on the road,
      "we have to bear in mind that if unduly severe penalties are related to specific traffic infringements, one of the dangers is that the courts will not press those charges for fear that there might be acquittal." —[Official Report, 22 April 1996; Vol. 276, c. 8.]
      Does the Home Secretary agree with that line of thought?
      Mr. Howard indicated dissent
      Mr. Miller: I am pleased to see the right hon. and learned Gentleman shaking his head in disagreement. That statement was made by the then Minister for Transport in London in response to my asking him whether he would join me in congratulating the Law Commission on its report. Although the then Minister acknowledged my interest in the matter, he went on to use the words that I have just quoted.
      We need to take a lead. We cannot allow the confused and unsatisfactory system of charges and subsequent penalties associated with the 3,000 deaths to which I have referred to continue. Many victims' families have written to me as a result of my involvement with RoadPeace, setting out tragic concerns arising from matters that have occurred in coroners courts, magistrates courts and higher courts. The one theme that runs through all the letters is a general concern that the system does not seem to care because the deaths were a result of a road traffic "accident". Such incidents were not road traffic accidents; people were killed. We view death as a result of somebody accidentally discharging a shotgun differently. Why do we not take the same view when a death occurs on the road?
      We have a general duty to look very carefully at the way in which lenient sentences are meted out and why there is a great tendency for the prosecution to press for a lesser charge due to the difficulties associated with proof of intent. There is a massive problem in the existing framework of law. I do not deny that we would have difficulties in trying to frame precise legislation around the Law Commission's report, but I think that we have a general duty to bring about such change.
      I read at a service that was held by RoadPeace in November and met many families who are looking to the House to bring about the necessary changes so that they can at least feel that justice can be done.I appreciate entirely the efforts that have been undertaken by the

      93
      Department of Transport to achieve the most important thing—a reduction in the number of deaths in the first place—but given that many of the deaths occur in circumstances such as those described by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield, we must not allow them to go unquestioned and simply be written off as yet another road traffic "accident".
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Walter Sweeney: I intend to speak only briefly. First, I wish to commend the determination and perseverance of my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) in his attempts to change the mind set of the Home Office and persuade it that it was appropriate to introduce a right of appeal against soft sentencing in certain specified circumstances. His success and the fact that the Government have legislated on that point have provided great reassurance to the public and improved the reputation of Parliament and of our judicial system. I hope that I will not embarrass my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham by mentioning the fact that the Boundary Commission has not smiled on him in his constituency. I hope that he will soon return to the House, because he has been an adornment to it.
      New clause 5 is inappropriate and would impose an intolerable burden on the Attorney-General. I am not averse in principle to the extension of the right of appeal against soft sentences, but some other mechanism should be found. On new clauses 3 and 4, I fully endorse the remarks made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence). Even without any statutory duty, the Court of Appeal could have provided obiter dicta to help the lower courts in their task in the manner suggested by my hon. and learned Friend, but it did not do so. That is why Parliament is considering the Bill and that is why the Government thought it appropriate to introduce tough minimum sentences for persistent burglars, traffickers in hard drugs and violent offenders. If the Court of Appeal had addressed those problems, perhaps the legislation would not be necessary. It is patently obvious that it is necessary, but new clauses 3 and 4 are not necessary or appropriate.
      Mr. Howard: We have had an interesting debate that has been marked by some moving contributions from the hon. Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller).I shall return to their points in a moment. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston may be counting his chickens prematurely.
      The debate has been noticeable for the fact that it has evoked cross-party support from all quarters of the House, although not always explicitly expressed, for the proposition that prison works. I especially welcome the belated conversion of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) to that banner. He was robust in his acceptance of the relationship between the firmness with which the court at Hereford deals with offenders who appear before it and the excellent record on law and order in the city of Hereford. I was, however, alarmed by the emphasis that he placed on the seriousness with which the offence of sheep stealing had to be dealt with in Montgomeryshire. I hope that he was not making any distinction between sheep stealing in Montgomeryshire
      94
      and sheep stealing on Romney marsh. Had he made any such distinction, he would give great offence to many of my esteemed constituents.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: Of course not.
      Mr. Howard: I am glad that he does not pursue any such distinction.
      I agree with hon. Members on both sides of the House that lenient and inconsistent sentencing can undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system. It is important—I have devoted much of my time at the Home Office to the issue—to achieve a situation in which criminals receive the punishments that are appropriate for their crimes and that, as far as possible, achieve consistency. That is exactly what the Bill is about.
      We believe that the public need greater protection from certain carefully targeted categories of serious, dangerous and persistent offenders and that is why we proposed the introduction of mandatory sentences. The Labour party has refused to support mandatory sentences. We have been told this evening that we shall learn the Labour party's final position on minimum mandatory sentences in due course. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said that he does not know what will happen, but the Government have made their proposals clear for long enough and it would be nice to know what his position is on those proposals. However, we know that the hon. Gentleman has many audiences to please and is engaging in the Labour party's usual tactic of pretending to those various and inconsistent audiences that he will give them what they want.
      Outside the categories set out in the Bill of serious violent and sexual crimes, house burglary and dealing in hard drugs, judges will continue to be free to exercise their discretion, but it is right that in exercising that discretion they should be guided by the higher courts. The lower courts already obtain assistance. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery that the lower courts are, to some extent, assisted in sentencing by guidance given by the Court of Appeal through its judgments on the appropriate penalty range for particular offences. Indeed, that practice has been developed in recent years to a greater extent than previously. Court of Appeal guidelines have been particularly useful in ensuring that the courts take a more consistent view of certain offences and reflect levels of public concern in their sentencing practice.
      I do not disagree with the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) and my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) that the Court of Appeal may not have gone far enough, but it is right to give it credit for the extent to which it has given guidance. I shall give a couple of examples. The 1986 guideline judgment in the case of Billam suggested starting points for sentences for rape and that case has had the effect of increasing significantly sentence lengths for rape. The case of Aramah, the judgment on which showed the appropriate penalties for offences involving the importation, supply and possession of class B drugs according to the scale of distribution and quantity of drugs involved, has also had an effect.
      Currently, any Court of Appeal judgment in an appeal against sentence, whether it allows or dismisses the appeal, gives a clear sign of the opinion of the court on

      95
      the sentence passed in the lower court and explains the reasoning behind the decision. In that sense and to a significant extent, the judgments of the Court of Appeal are regarded as precedents for cases in which the circumstances are similar and the court can and does give opinions on appropriate sentence lengths for different categories of offence. There is also the Judicial Studies Board, and we should not overlook its role in disseminating Court of Appeal guidance to the courts and in training the judiciary.
      I conclude that new clauses 3 and 4 are unnecessary. The Court of Appeal has the power to issue guidance and frequently does so. There may be scope for increasing the guidance that it issues, but it is not necessary to introduce the statutory duties contained in new clauses 3 and 4. They are cosmetic and would add little, if anything, to the existing powers of the court.
      Mr. Straw: I shall deal with the Home Secretary's charge that the new clauses are cosmetic when I wind up in a moment, but I wish to ask him why, if the new clauses are unnecessary in England, the Secretary of State for Scotland has taken a wholly different view on both the issues raised by our debate.
      Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are significant differences between the legal systems in Scotland and in England and Wales. One of the most significant differences, which is relevant to this discussion of the issues, is the fact that the Scottish system is much smaller and fewer cases come to the court of appeal in Scotland. That fact has a considerable bearing on the different approach to the question there. Where there have been grounds for concern in particular areas, we have not hesitated to act; for example, through the power to appeal against unduly lenient sentences vested in my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and the proposals for automatic life and mandatory minimum sentences in the Bill.
      I shall deal with the points made by the hon. Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme, for Wakefield and for Ellesmere Port and Neston. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme told us in moving terms about a particular case in her constituency. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has acknowledged that, on the face of it, the sentence passed in that case appeared to be unduly lenient and he has accordingly referred the matter to the Court of Appeal. She said that she should not have needed to draw the case to his attention. In fact, I understand that the case was drawn to his attention by the Crown Prosecution Service as well as by the hon. Lady. I hope that it will provide her with some comfort to hear that even if the case had not come to her attention as the constituency Member of Parliament, it would have been drawn to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend, who would have pursued it in the appropriate way.
      There will be many cases that will cause anxiety and distress of the kind to which the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme referred. That is why it is so important that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General continues to have his power in that matter, and he has said that he intends to use the power in the case to which the hon. Lady referred.
      96
      The offence of causing death by dangerous driving can also be dealt with by my right hon. and learned Friend, who has the power to refer to the Court of Appeal instances of unduly lenient sentences for death by dangerous driving, as well as for the new offence that we created of causing death by careless driving under the influence of drink. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said that the House should give a lead to show the seriousness with which it takes those offences. I entirely agree with him about the seriousness of those offences, which give rise to a number of casualties on our roads. It is no comfort to those whose loved ones are the victims of events of that kind—I share his distaste at the use of the word "accident" in that context—that the numbers of deaths have been reducing over the years. They feel anguish at the fact that they have lost a loved one, and regrettably that anguish is sometimes compounded by an unduly lenient sentence.
      The House recently created the entirely new offence of causing death by careless driving under the influence of drink, and it has doubled the sentence for causing death by dangerous driving from five to 10 years. The House has provided my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General with the power to appeal against lenient sentences passed for both those offences. It cannot be said that the House or the Government have failed to respond to those legitimate and understandable concerns. We have taken them seriously and we have responded in a practical way.
      In a sense, the concerns illustrate the importance of the power that was given to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General by the 1988 Act—against, as has been acknowledged by hon. Members of all parties, the opposition of the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties. Following the introduction of the provision, we have taken steady and measured steps to extend it by order as permitted by the legislation. In 1994, it was extended to cover offences of indecent assault, threats to kill and cruelty to a child, together with attempts to commit or incite the commission of those offences. In 1995, it was extended to refer sentences passed in fraud cases. The effect of paragraph 13 in schedule 4 will extend the power to include automatic life sentences and minimum sentences.
      It is no use ignoring the present position, which is that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General personally consider every case. The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Blackburn and the speech that he made have shown not the slightest consideration of the practical implications of the changes that he proposes. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham for his persistence in securing the provision of the power in the first place in 1988.
      8.45 pm
      If the hon. Member for Blackburn is proposing a new clause in those terms, we need to know his position on this matter. Does he intend that the personal involvement of the Law Officers should continue? If so, the effect of the increased work load would mean that both the Law Officers would spend one third to one half of their entire working time simply considering such cases. Does he intend that some new arrangements should be put in place to take away the personal role of my right hon. and

      97
      learned Friend and my hon. and learned Friend in the matter? Perhaps there is a case for that, but if so we should be told what that case is and how the hon. Gentleman sees the new arrangements working. We also need to know how they would be paid for.
      I am bound to say that the utter failure of the hon. Member for Blackburn even to address those fundamental questions in his speech is the most eloquent evidence we could have that the new clause—in common with his other new clauses—is a pure piece of cosmetics. We know where the hearts of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues lie in these matters. They acted on their instincts when they all trooped into the Lobby to oppose the introduction of the power. Their opposition was expressed in a fundamental way by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who said that he regarded the proposal as "wrong in principle".
      We do not have to go back as far as 1988. Five years later, I announced that we intended to extend the right of appeal to all serious violent and sexual crimes, including child cruelty and indecent assault. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), no less, dismissed my proposal as a gimmick. That is the reality behind the position of the Labour party on those matters. Labour's attempts this evening to disguise that baggage are wholly unconvincing, and I invite the House to reject the new clause.
      Mr. Straw: We can always rely on the Secretary of State to lower the tone of good debates. Since he referred to the approach of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), I must point out that he should have taken the trouble to read a couple of columns further on in the speech made by my right hon. Friend in January 1988. Along with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) and, I believe, almost all my hon. Friends, I am prepared to say that our anxieties about the effect of giving the Attorney-General the power to appeal in certain offences were misplaced, as it turned out. Those anxieties were widely expressed in the House—including by, for example, the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence).
      Happily, our concerns were misplaced and, in retrospect, we should have supported the measure back in 1988—just as the Secretary of State should have supported our proposals at that time to ban the sale of knives to children aged 16 and under and to ban the advertising of combat knives. He voted against those proposals. At that time, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook said:
      "If we wish to change the system so that prosecution counsel become involved in suggestions about the length of sentence, we must go all the way and do what happens in other countries, where prosecution counsel have been known to suggest, after considering the reports to which my hon. Friend refers, that a long sentence would be inappropriate and a short sentence would be more correct." —[Official Report, 18 January 1988; Vol. 125, c. 694.]
      That shows that my right hon. Friend did not dismiss the idea of involvement by the prosecution but objected to the particular system that had been proposed.
      Mr. Howard: Has the hon. Gentleman forgotten that he felt so passionately in 1988 about the need to ban the sale of knives to under-16-year-olds that he was not even present to vote for his party's amendment?
      Mr. Straw: The Home Secretary has made that rather silly point before. Pairing was in operation at the time,
      98
      although it is not tonight. The more important point is that he and many of his right hon. and hon. Friends voted against the ban; had they voted in favour, there would have been a ban on the sale of knives to children under 16 not this year but nine years ago.
      I listened with great care to the serious part—short though it was—of the Home Secretary's speech. I do not understand why he opposes our proposals in new clause 3, under which the Court of Appeal would be given a duty to issue guidance in respect of all the main categories of offence. He said that the court currently did that in respect of some offences, but I spelt out in my opening speech the serious criticism made by highly regarded academic observers of the court's practice, regarding the fact that, although there are guidelines in respect of certain offences, the court has not worked through the range of major offences and issued guidelines to cover them all. That was the Government's expectation in 1990 when they published the White Paper on the criminal justice system, but it has not happened.
      It is therefore inappropriate for the Home Secretary complacently—unusually for him—to seek to excuse the Court of Appeal's practice on the ground that it has worked out all right, because all the evidence adduced both by him and by us is that the court has not been playing the role that the Government set out for it and that, as I understand from my reading of a great deal of research work, was accepted implicitly by senior members of the judiciary at the time.
      The problem of the lack of guidance covering the range of offences has been well illustrated by many of the speeches that we have heard this evening. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) made an eloquent and moving speech about a constituent whose daughter had been killed in Liverpool as a result of appallingly reckless driving by an individual who had the most dreadful criminal record.
      The Home Secretary was right to say that the offence for which the defendant in question was ultimately convicted is one on which the Attorney-General can exercise a right of appeal, but my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield also drew attention to the fact that the defendant had not only committed that dreadful offence but had been disqualified on 13 separate occasions as a result of serious driving offences and had previously been convicted of causing death by dangerous driving, a conviction for which he received the risible sentence of 12 months' probation.
      I do not believe that any sentencer considering the matter in the abstract would have said that it was appropriate to continue issuing disqualifications against that individual on the 10th, 11th and 12th convictions. It is my belief that anyone approaching the matter rationally would say that to continue disqualifying an individual who had already been disqualified two, three or four times for such an offence raised the most serious questions about enforcement and about whether there was any progression written into the sentencing system.
      If the Home Secretary stood back for a moment, he might say that such a record was not only appalling for the individual defendant but raised serious questions about the practice of the courts. Many of the decisions would have been made by magistrates courts. For reasons to which the Home Secretary referred—we are concerned about the Attorney-General's work load—we did not

      99
      suggest in the new clauses that all offences should be the subject of potential appeal by the Attorney-General. That said, there is an even greater necessity for much clearer guidance from the Court of Appeal about the circumstances in which magistrates courts and Crown courts should stop issuing ridiculous and useless sentences of disqualification that, as anyone examining the record would know, were unlikely to be enforced.
      I believe that the public understand the need not only for progression and consistency in sentencing but for machinery to ensure that such progression and consistency are far better enforced than at present. I do not know why we are arguing about that; it can stand entirely separately from the rest of the Bill's provisions.
      The Magistrates Association has issued some guidance and I understand that the Lord Chief Justice attaches his name to it but, however worthy the association is, its guidance cannot carry the weight of guidance promulgated by the Court of Appeal. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield pointed out a major defect in the current arrangements and the Home Secretary has not given a proper answer.
      There is another defect in that, at the moment, even if the Court of Appeal were more willing to issue guidance judgments, such issuing depends on the happenstance of there being a suitable appeal. Our proposals would not require that happenstance but would place an additional statutory duty on the Court of Appeal to act proactively and issue guidance to cover the major crimes that are dealt with not only in the Crown court but in magistrates courts.
      It is worth remembering that, of the convicted individuals who go to prison, 55 per cent. have been sentenced by the magistrates courts. Those courts do not deal only with trivial matters; they deal with important issues, especially in relation to either-way offences.
      On the parallel with Scotland, I accept, as does everyone else, that the Scottish legal system is different from that in England and Wales. It is entirely right that the Scottish legal system should be determined by what is right for Scotland. The Scottish system palpably operates more efficiently than that in England and Wales. Cases get to court much more quickly and they are disposed of more rapidly.
      We also know that the Secretary of State for Scotland proposed for Scotland a year and a half ago—it has now passed into law—exactly the same power that we propose for England. When I put to the Home Secretary the fact that the Scottish appeal court has a power—which is almost the same thing as a duty—to issue sentencing guidance, all he could say was that the two systems were different. It is clear from the 'White Paper that that power will be used. The Secretary of State cannot explain why that system is appropriate for Scotland but not for England.
      Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman has just acknowledged that the court of appeal in Scotland has a power. The whole thrust of my argument was that the Court of Appeal in England already has the power to issue guidance; it does not need a specific statutory power to
      100
      issue it. The argument is about whether it should be under a duty to do so and, for the reasons that I gave, I do not believe that it is necessary.
      Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State is wrong. If he looks at the power given to the appeal court in Scotland under the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1995, to which the Secretary of State for Scotland refers in paragraph 8.19 of his White Paper, he will see that the power given to the court of appeal in Scotland is different from and, I understand, significantly wider than, the power that the Court of Appeal in England has taken unto itself. He cannot get away from the fact that the Court of Appeal in England, unlike the Scottish appeal court, has not exercised its powers as it should have.
      The Secretary of State said that the Bill was about consistency and that it targeted specific offences. Apart from those affected by clause 1, which is about indeterminate life sentences, the Bill targets two offences from the whole criminal calendar: domestic burglary and trafficking in class A drugs. It targets those offences only where there has been a third or subsequent conviction. That is a tiny proportion of the totality of offences that come before magistrates courts or Crown courts for sentencing. Even if the Bill goes through unamended—which, as the Government keep amending it, remains a large question—it will scarcely touch the inconsistency and lack of progression of which the Secretary of State has made so much in the months since he published his crime White Paper. It will leave largely untouched the inconsistency and lack of progression to which I referred in the paper that I published in March and again this evening.
      New clause 3 would put a duty on the Court of Appeal to issue sentencing guidance. It appears from the debate that that proposal has wide support in the House. I am sorry that the Government, for the most spurious and artificial reasons, have chosen to oppose it. They will rue the day, because they will be responsible for the lack of progression and consistency in sentencing and for the sort of appalling situation that my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield mentioned. We wish to press new clause 3 to a vote.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time: —
      The House divided: Ayes 240, Noes 283.

      Division No. 36]

      [9.1 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Benton, Joe

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Ainger, Nick

      Berry, Roger

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Boateng, Paul

      Allen, Graham

      Bradley, Keith

      Alton, David

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Burden, Richard

      Ashton, Joseph

      Byers, Stephen

      Austin-Walker, John

      Cabom, Richard

      Barnes, Harry

      Callaghan, Jim

      Barron, Kevin

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Battle, John

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Beith, A J

      Campbell-Savours, D N

      Bell, Stuart

      Canavan, Dennis

      Benn, Tony

      Cann, Jamie

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Carlile, Alex (Montgomery)

      101

      Chidgey, David

      Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Clapham, Michael

      Hutton, John

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Illsley, Eric

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Ingram, Adam

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Jamieson, David

      Cohen, Harry

      Janner, Greville

      Connarty, Michael

      Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Cousins, Jim

      Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)

      Cox, Tom

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)

      Cummings, John

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Dalyell, Tam

      Keen, Alan

      Darling, Alistair

      Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)

      Davidson, Ian

      Khabra, Piara S

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Davies, Chris (Littleborough)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

      Denham, John

      Lewis, Terry

      Dewar, Donald

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Dixon, Don

      Litheriand, Robert

      Dobson, Frank

      Livingstone, Ken

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Dowd, Jim

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Loyden, Eddie

      Eastham, Ken

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Ennis, Jeff

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Etherington, Bill

      McCartney, Ian (Makerf'ld)

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Fatchett, Derek

      McFall, John

      Faulds, Andrew

      McKelvey, William

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      McLeish, Henry

      Fisher, Mark

      McNamara, Kevin

      Flynn, Paul

      MacShane, Denis

      Foster, Derek

      McWilliam, John

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Madden, Max

      Foulkes, George

      Maddock, Mrs Diana

      Fraser, John

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Fyfe, Mrs Maria

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Martlew, Eric

      Gapes, Mike

      Meacher, Michael

      Garrett, John

      Meale, Alan

      George, Bruce

      Michael, Alun

      Gerrard, Neil

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Milburn, Alan

      Gordon, Ms Mildred

      Miller, Andrew

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Morley, Elliot

      Grocott, Bruce

      Morris, John (Aberavon)

      Gunnell, John

      Mudie, George

      Hall, Mike

      Mullin, Chris

      Hanson, David

      Murphy, Paul

      Hardy, Peter

      Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      O'Brien, Mike (N Walks)

      Harvey, Nick

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Henderson, Doug

      Olner, Bill

      Heppell, John

      O'Neill, Martin

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Orme, Stanley

      Hinchliffe, David

      Pearson, Ian

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Pendry, Tom

      Hoey, Kate

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hood, Jimmy

      Pike, Peter L

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Pope, Greg

      Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

      Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Hoyle, Doug

      Prescott, John

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Primarolo, Ms Dawn

      102

      Purchase, Ken

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Randall, Stuart

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Reid, Dr John

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Rendel, David

      Thumham, Peter

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Timms, Stephen

      Rogers, Allan

      Tipping, Paddy

      Rooker, Jeff

      Trickett, Jon

      Rooney, Terry

      Tyler, Paul

      Ross, Emie (Dundee W)

      Vaz, Keith

      Rowlands, Ted

      Walker, Sir Harold

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Sheldon, Robert

      Wareing, Robert N

      Skinner, Dennis

      Watson, Mike

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Smith, Chris (Islington S)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Snape, Peter

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Soley, Clive

      Winnick, David

      Spellar, John

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Squire, Ms R (Dunfermline W)

      Worthington, Tony

      Steel, Sir David

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Stevenson, George

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Stott, Roger

      Mr. Dennis Turner and

      Straw, Jack

      Mr. David Clelland.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Churchill, Mr

      Alexander, Richard

      Clappison, James

      Alison, Michael (Selby)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Amess, David

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Arbuthnot, James

      Coe, Sebastian

      Ashby, David

      Colvin, Michael

      Atkins, Robert

      Congdon, David

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Conway, Derek

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

      Baker, Kenneth (Mole V)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Baker, Sir Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Cope, Sir John

      Baldry, Tony

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Couchman, James

      Bates, Michael

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Batiste, Spencer

      Curry, David

      Bellingham, Henry

      Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Day, Stephen

      Biffen, John

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Body, Sir Richard

      Devlin, Tim

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Booth, Hartley

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Boswell, Tim

      Dover, Den

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Duncan Smith, lain

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Dunn, Bob

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Dykes, Hugh

      Bowis, John

      Elletson, Harold

      Boyson, Sir Rhodes

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)

      Brazier, Julian

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

      Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Evennett, David

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Faber, David

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Fabricant, Michael

      Burns, Simon

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Burt, Alistair

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Butcher, John

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Butler, Peter

      Forman, Nigel

      Butterfill, John

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Carlisle, John (Luton N)

      Forth, Eric

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)

      Fowler, Sir Norman

      Carrington, Matthew

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Cash, William

      Freeman, Roger

      103

      French, Douglas

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Maginnis, Ken

      Gale, Roger

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Gallie, Phil

      Malone, Gerald

      Garnier, Edward

      Mans, Keith

      Gill, Christopher

      Marland, Paul

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Marlow, Tony

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)

      Merchant, Piers

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Mills, Iain

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

      Gummer, John

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Hague, William

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Hamilton, Sir Archibald

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hannam, Sir John

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Newton, Tony

      Harris, David

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Haselhurst, Sir Alan

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Norris, Steve

      Hawksley, Warren

      Onslow, Sir Cranley

      Hayes, Jerry

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Heald, Oliver

      Page, Richard

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Paice, James

      Hendry, Charles

      Patnick, Sir Irvine

      Heseltine, Michael

      Patten, John

      Hicks, Sir Robert

      Pattie, Sir Geoffrey

      Higgins, Sir Terence

      Pawsey, James

      Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hogg, Douglas (Grantham)

      Pickles, Eric

      Horam, John

      Porter, David

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Portillo, Michael

      Howard, Michael

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Howell, David (Guildf'd)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Redwood, John

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Renton, Tim

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Richards, Rod

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Hunter, Andrew

      Roberts, Sir Wyn

      Hurd, Douglas

      Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)

      Jack, Michael

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Jenkin, Bemard (Colchester N)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Jessel, Toby

      Rowe, Andrew

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Rumbold, Dame Angela

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Sackville, Tom

      Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

      Sainsbury, Sir Timothy

      Jopling, Michael

      Scott, Sir Nicholas

      Key, Robert

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      King, Tom

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Shephard, Mrs Gillian

      Knapman, Roger

      Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Shersby, Sir Michael

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Sims, Sir Roger

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Knox, Sir David

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Kynoch, George

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Lamont, Norman

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)

      Legg, Barry

      Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

      Leigh, Edward

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Spring, Richard

      Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)

      Sproat, Iain

      Lidington, David

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Lilley, Peter

      Stanley, Sir John

      Lord, Michael

      Stephen, Michael

      Luff, Peter

      Stern, Michael

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Stewart, Allan

      MacGregor, John

      Streeter, Gary

      MacKay, Andrew

      Sumberg, David

      Maclean, David

      Sweeney, Walter

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      104

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Waller, Gary

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Ward, John

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Waterson, Nigel

      Thomason, Roy

      Watts, John

      Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Whittingdale, John

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Widdecombe, Miss Ann

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Wilkinson, John

      Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)

      Willetts, David

      Tracey, Richard

      Wilshire, David

      Tredinnick, David

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Trend, Michael

      Wolfson, Mark

      Trotter, Neville

      Wood, Timothy

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Yeo, Tim

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Young, Sir George

      Viggers, Peter

      Waldegrave, William

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Walden, George

      Mr. Bowen Wells and

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Mr. Richard Ottaway.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New clause 7

      TESTING AND TREATMENT ORDER
      '.The Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 shall be amended in Schedule 1A by adding the following paragraph—

      "7.(1) This paragraph applies where a court proposing to make a probation order or a combination order is satisfied—

      (a) that the offender is using a Class A drug;

      (b) that his use caused or contributed to the offence in respect of which the order is proposed to be made; and

      (c) that his use is such as may be susceptible to treatment.

      (2) The court shall not form such an opinion as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above unless it has obtained a pre-sentence report and a drugs test.

      (3) The probation order or combination order shall, subject to sub-paragraph (6) below, include a requirement that the offender shall submit to drug testing and drug abuse treatment by or under the direction of a person having the necessary qualification or experience with a view to the reduction or elimination of the offender's drug use.

      (4) The testing required by such an order and by subparagraph (2) above shall be by provision of a sample of urine for the purpose of ascertaining whether he has any drugs in his body.

      (5) The treatment required by any such order shall be such one of the following kinds of treatment as may be specified in the order—

      (a) treatment as a resident in such institution or place as may be specified in the order;

      (b) treatment as a non-resident in or at such institution or place as may be so specified: or

      (c) treatment by or under the direction of such person having the necessary qualifications or experience as may be so specified.

      (6) A court shall not by virtue of this paragraph include in a probation or combination order a requirement that the offender shall submit to testing or treatment for his drug use unless it considers that such a requirement is appropriate in all the circumstances and it is satisfied that the arrangements have been made for the testing and treatment intended to be specified in the order.

      (7) The court shall review the offender's progress four weeks after making the order, and thereafter at intervals of not more than four weeks and not more than four months.

      (8) While the offender is under treatment as a resident in pursuance of a requirement of the probation or combination order, the probation officer responsible for his supervision

      105
      shall carry out the supervision to such an extent only as may be necessary for the purpose of the revocation or amendment of the order.

      (9) Where the person by whom or under whose direction an offender is being treated for dependency is of the opinion that part of the treatment can be better or more conveniently given in or at an institution or place which—

      (a) is not specified in the order; and

      (b) is one in or at which the treatment of the offender will be given by or under the direction of a person having the necessary qualifications or experience.

      he may make arrangements for him to be treated accordingly.

      (10) Where any such arrangements as are mentioned in subparagraph (9) above are made for the treatment of an offender—

      (a) the person by whom the arrangements are made shall give notice in writing to the probation officer responsible for the supervision of the offender, specifying the institutions or place in or at which the treatment is to be carried out; and

      (b) the treatment provided for by the arrangements shall be deemed to be treatment to which he is required to submit in pursuance of the probation or combination order.".'. — [Mr. George Howarth.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. George Howarth: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 13—Court to be aware of provision in custody for certain dependent offenders—
      'It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to make available to any court passing a custodial sentence upon any offender whom the court believes to be dependent on drugs or alcohol an assessment of the provision available in any prison or other custodial institution to which the offender is liable to be committed of facilities for providing treatment appropriate to his condition.'.
      Mr. Howarth: In Committee, we debated a new clause that had a similar effect to new clause 7, which would allow for the rehabilitation and treatment of problem drug users to be recommended as part of a sentence. New clause 13 would be consequential on new clause 7 and would empower the courts to recognise that a treatment and testing order was available in those circumstances.
      I suspect that the Minister will argue that the new clause is unnecessary—that is what he said in Committee when he opposed the similar proposal—but evidence suggests that we need treatment and testing orders because the current arrangements do not serve us well. We seek an effective course of action that is permissive rather than prescriptive. The courts should have the option of imposing treatment alongside punishment as an effective way to deal with drug abuse and drug-related crime. We want to present the courts and offenders not with a soft option, but with a means of providing a system that deters and deals with drug abuse and drug-related offending.
      The new clause is based on Labour's treatment and testing programmes in a document entitled "Breaking the Vicious Circle", launched by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) during our conference in October. A number of arguments can be used to support the proposals. First, treatment is a humanitarian
      106
      imperative, not in the sense that it lets people off or gives them a way out of proper punishment but because it takes effective action to deal with the causes of other kinds of offending behaviour.
      Secondly, a great deal of crime is drug driven. If we can remove the incentive to steal and get involved in crime because people are no longer dependent on drugs, we shall make an important contribution. Good empirical evidence suggests that approximately half of all property crime—burglary and other acquisitive crime—is committed by people seeking to feed their drug habit. The Metropolitan police commissioner recently estimated that, in his police area, the true figure is more like 60 per cent. —so in our capital city and elsewhere there is a powerful incentive to deal more coherently with the cause as well as the effect of drug-related crime and drug offences.
      Another important argument in this context is that drugs in prisons are closely associated with prison disturbances. Drug treatment would reduce demand in prison. I shall talk later about the effects of mandatory drug testing, but there can be no doubt, not least on the basis of the reports of Her Majesty's inspector of prisons, that there are far too many drugs in our prison system and that drugs can lead to disorderly behaviour. They lead to offences within the prison system and can lead to serious disturbances. We may deal later with the statistics that underpin those arguments.
      Mandatory drug testing has revealed a steady increase in hard drugs—opiate-based drugs such as heroin and crack cocaine—during 1996. In other words, drug abuse in prisons has shifted away from cannabis to harder drugs.
      The Government seem to have no information on the amount of time that prisoners spend in drug rehabilitation. The source for that observation is the Official Report of 29 November 1996, columns 450–52. The Government cannot evaluate how much of a prisoner's period of incarceration might be devoted to drug rehabilitation in appropriate cases. It is important for us to understand the relationship between treatment, offending and drug abuse.
      There is a significant amount of anecdotal evidence to suggest that the time spent in rehabilitation in prison is decreasing. That might result from the reductions in expenditure that have recently taken place in the Prison Service, but we would need to study a great deal more evidence before arriving at that conclusion.
      There are two additional reasons why the new clause merits support. Before I deal with those, it is important to make the point that all drug abuse, whether it takes place in prisons, in nightclubs, in the streets or in people's homes, is wrong. It is right and proper for us to maintain that position whether we are dealing with cannabis or with harder drugs. It is right that those who are apprehended for trading in drugs or using them are properly punished; it is also right that where drug abuse is a habitual part of people's lives, treatment should be available, as well as punishment. The siren voices calling for decriminalisation or a more permissive attitude towards drug abuse will in the long run serve neither those who are caught up in the vicious cycle of drug abuse, nor society in the wider context. They may believe that there is a humanitarian aspect to their argument, but it dissolves on closer examination.
      I mentioned two other reasons for supporting the new clause. The first is the point made by Justice—not an organisation with which I always agree—that drug

      107
      rehabilitation and treatment may no longer be an option under the Bill. If that argument can be sustained, the new clause would rectify such an omission by setting out in detail where the House stands.
      Secondly, if direction on treatment were available in guidance issued by the Home Office, judicial discretion through the courts could be maintained, at least in part. That would mean that the courts could make clear judgments about the most appropriate way of dealing with individual cases.
      The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), speaking from his experience as a recorder at Hereford Crown court, said that in some cases the courts find it difficult to deal with drug-related offences because of the many complicating factors involved. Home Office direction would make life easier for those in the courts who deal with such cases.
      Since March 1996, when mandatory drug testing was introduced in all prisons—we agreed with that move—the scale of drug abuse in prisons has become clear. Initial conclusions show a disturbing shift away from cannabis use—which is wrong and unacceptable—to harder forms of drugs, particularly opiates. That shift is evidenced by a number of factors. Since the introduction of mandatory drug testing in prisons—I shall cite the statistics in a moment—there has been a shift from cannabis interceptions to interceptions of various forms of opiate.
      The Minister and I have disagreed about the figures in the past, but I hope that we shall agree on a conclusion tonight. One of the reasons for the shift is that cannabis remains detectable in the blood for up to 28 days, whereas opiates remain detectable for only two to four days. It has been claimed that prisoners are switching from cannabis to opiates to evade detection. Statistics bear out that claim, and there is a growing body of anecdotal evidence that that is occurring in the prison system. In the normal course of my duties as a shadow home affairs spokesman, I visit many prisons where people tell me about that trend.
      9.30 pm
      Between 1 March 1996 and 30 September 1996, the percentage of random drug tests showing positive for opiates increased from 5.94 per cent. to 6.35 per cent. If my mathematics have not let me down, that represents an increase of about 7 per cent. in the number of prisoners testing positive for opiates. If we project that figure on to the entire prison population, the number of prisoners regularly using opiates has increased from 3,192 to 3,595.
      The fact that prisoners change to hard drugs to escape detection suggests that the figures underestimate the extent of opiate use. I received a letter today from Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons, Sir David Ramsbotham, who said:
      "Like so many things connected with the drugs scene, I am suspicious of all statistics … I expect that it"—
      he is referring to the use of heroin in prisons—
      "is considerably higher than the figures disclosed."
      That is an authoritative source in support of my argument, and it is a view based on evidence gathered during recent prison inspections. During an interview for the journal Focus, the Minister of State who has responsibility for the
      108
      Prison Service refused to acknowledge the problem of a shift in usage from cannabis to harder drugs in prisons. She said:
      "there is precious little evidence that this shift to opiate use is happening."
      I do not wish to be disrespectful to the hon. Lady—perhaps I shall be if I am pushed hard enough—but I would rather accept the evidence of the chief inspector of prisons, who speaks to the relevant people and has more experience and greater exposure to what is occurring in the prison system, than the hon. Lady's comments during an interview.
      We are concerned about the perceived move from abuse of cannabis—which is bad enough-to harder drugs. We must face the fact that many prisoners—particularly younger inmates—who at present take no drugs, or who use cannabis, may begin to take harder drugs during their period of incarceration. If that is what is going on, we should be very concerned indeed. One reason why the new clause should be given a fair wind and accepted is that such factors, and the ability to treat people while they are in the prison system, should be given greater prominence.
      Apart from the cost of administering mandatory drugs testing in the Prison Service, each positive test results in an additional number of days in prison. There was a total of 7,618 such punishments between March and September of last year, which led to an extra 112,354 days in prison. There is nothing wrong with that. That was the system that was introduced, we supported it, and if people are going to get involved in drug abuse, they must be prepared to accept the consequences. If we could treat them and stop them from abusing drugs while in the prison system, however, that would prevent their serving extra days in prison. It would also yield savings to the Treasury.
      I estimate that, at an average cost of about £400 per prisoner per week, the expenditure arising from extra days in prison has amounted to more than £864,000 since March 1996. It is a very large amount. If that is added to the initial start-up costs, which were assessed at £948,840, we realise that the amounts involved are substantial. In addition, each test costs, on average, £45.52—and between March and September there were 47,425 tests. The running costs of the tests alone are £2,158,786. The costs of the problem are enormous and it is in everybody's interest, not least the Exchequer, that we get to grips with it.
      We have consistently argued the case for rehabilitation of drug users. There are examples of good practice, not least of which is the excellent scheme at Her Majesty's prison Downview, of which I shall say a little more later. I have had the opportunity to visit it. If the Under-Secretary has not been there to see what goes on, I suggest that he does so. One thing that is abundantly clear is that if we deal with those who are convicted of drugs or drug-related offences by treating them, there is a strong possibility that that takes away the incentive to get involved in drug abuse in future. That has to be worth while.
      The Government, however, appear to have little if any knowledge of the amount of drug rehabilitation that occurs in the Prison Service. When we ask them questions about it, they seemed to confuse rehabilitation and detoxification and have information only about

      109
      detoxification which, although worth while, is not the whole answer to the problem. It is clear that we need a system that does not encourage prisoners who use soft drugs to take harder drugs, or lead those who take no drugs to start taking harder drugs.
      If we are to make progress, mandatory drugs testing, although welcome and necessary, is inadequate to deal with the problem. Under the current system, there is a danger that we will send the small-time cannabis user and dealer to prison and release him seven years later as a confirmed heroin addict. The need for an option to include mandatory treatment is therefore obvious.
      There is international evidence to support the claims that I am making. In California, an evaluation of the FIRST—fast, intensive, report, supervision and treatment—programme, which reviewed the work of the drug court programme in Oakland, showed impressive savings in terms of custody costs to the Alameda county sheriff's department. Last October,I visited Alameda county, which has a drug court programme. We could replicate elements of that interesting experiment in our system. The evaluation showed that the average number of arrests per defendant during the three-year period following the arraignment was reduced by about 40 per cent. if they had been through the drug court process. A cost-benefit analysis from the same report showed that those who had been diverted from custody into treatment spent approximately 34,000 fewer days in custody.
      I also saw what was being done in Miami. An evaluation of the drug court in Dade county suggested that closely monitored drug treatment had extremely positive results. A comparison of defendants who had been in the programme with similar defendants who had not drew some interesting and useful conclusions. Defendants in the programme had lower incarceration rates, less frequent re-arrests and longer times before re-arrest—about three times as long. Clearly, the experiments in diversion are working in the state of Miami.
      A study of the intensive, 18-month programme that is run by Osteraker prison in Sweden showed significantly reduced rates of recidivism and drug relapse since 1979, when the scheme was introduced. A 1992 study showed that recidivism over a six-year period was 58 per cent. higher in a control group than it was in a group of people participating in the programme.
      Her Majesty's prison Downview provides a more local example. The chief inspector of prisons said:
      "We are particularly impressed by the"—
      drug rehabilitation—
      "scheme at Downview which has developed a special residential programme for drug users in conjunction with the Addictive Diseases Trust".
      The evidence for that conclusion is in a report produced in March 1996—which the Home Office has received—entitled "The ADT Drug Treatment Programme at HMP Downview". That study found that applicants had been dependent on drugs for an average of nine years, so they were well-established drug users of one kind or another. It also found that the overwhelming majority of applicants identified their habit as the main cause of their offending, whatever its precise nature. All but one of the sample studied had stayed drug-free since joining the programme's pre-admission group. That finding was supported by the use of drug tests, which I think were
      110
      voluntary. Moreover, 21 of the 23 graduates of the programme had not used drugs since completing the programme.
      The evidence in support of the new clause is overwhelming. When we debated this matter in Committee, the Minister said that such provision was unnecessary, and cited Downview as evidence that such schemes already exist. The existing programmes and the action that is being taken, welcome though they are, are merely nibbling at the edges. An increasing number of drug-dependent criminals find their way into the prison system and end up in a worse state by the time they finish their sentences. That is unacceptable, it is certainly not cost-effective, and it is not the way in which the general public expect the prison system to work.
      We offer an option for—not a compulsion on—the courts. Courts should take into account the fact that drug abuse is part of the crime, and that the offender is involved in crime because he is also involved in drug abuse. In suitable cases, defendants could be diverted into treatment programmes either within the prison system or outside it if appropriate. That has to be a good move. The Minister will have to produce some powerful arguments to convince me—and, I hope, the House—that new clause 7 is not worthy of support.It represents a better way forward and if he has no solid arguments against it, I hope that the House will support it.
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Sackville: The hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) is absolutely right to sing the praises of drug treatment as an alternative to prison and to say that there should be such treatment in prison, for all the reasons that he set out. However, he was also right to predict that I would say that the new clause was unnecessary, for the very simple reason that schedule 1A to the Powers of the Criminal Courts Act 1973, supported by the Criminal Justice Act 1991, provides all the necessary legislation to give courts the power to pass community sentences that are conditional upon following drug treatment. It is all there and nothing more needs to be added to the statute book.
      There are many examples. The most significant is in Plymouth, where the Devon probation service is running a drug assessment and stabilisation programme. If the hon. Gentleman has not already done so, I recommend that he should see it. The probation service has purchased 100 places on a drug treatment programme. When I visited it, 94 of those places were taken up by individuals who had not gone to prison, but who had been given a community sentence, with drug treatment provided immediately—hence the necessity to purchase those places—by the local community drug service.
      The scheme has proved successful. Very few have dropped out and breached their community sentence. It appeared that all those who were on the programme were not simply avoiding prison, but wanted to get off drugs and had been offered an opportunity to do so. Therefore, they had a dual motive.
      As I said, the legislation is already in place. We have to persuade the courts, the police, probation and health services and other drug treatment providers to get together in such a way that the courts would have the confidence to say that although certain individuals would normally be sent to prison, because they appeared willing to follow

      111
      a drug treatment programme, society would be better served if they stayed out of prison. Those individuals would probably reduce their offending or eradicate it altogether and have a good chance of remaining off drugs. We want to encourage that. All the drug action teams around the country should be encouraging exactly those arrangements between the courts, the probation service and local drag treatment, perhaps through local health authorities. I make that point whenever I visit drug action teams.
      I do not entirely understand a number of points in the new clause. For example, the hon. Gentleman proposes that only those who have been involved with class A drugs should receive the sentence envisaged in the new clause. However, when not injected, amphetamines are class B drugs, so an entire category of drug users who, according to some surveys, account for some 30 per cent. of local offenders, would be excluded. There are a number of reasons why the new clause is unsatisfactory, but it is particularly unsatisfactory because the relevant legislation is already on the statute book.
      The hon. Gentleman rightly says that drug treatment should be available in prisons and proposes that courts should be able to demand some assessment of what drug treatment is available. That certainly should not be a major part of sentencing policy. Sentencing should be performed on the basis of the seriousness of the crime. It is up to the Prison Service to decide how to allocate prisoners and where they should be treated.
      The hon. Gentleman may think that the new clause would stimulate the provision of more drug treatment in prisons, but there has already been great progress. There are now between 50 and 60 schemes in prisons. He mentioned one of the schemes, at Downview. I visited one of its sister schemes, at Pentonville, which is also run on the 12-steps basis by the Rehabilitation of Addicted Prisoners Trust—although, as he said, it was previously known as the Addictive Diseases Trust. Those prisoners—some of whom have been taking drugs for years, literally in and out of prison—seem to have the expectation of getting off drugs. Such schemes should be encouraged.
      As I said, there has been an enormous growth in the number and variety of drug treatment schemes offered in prisons. Treatment has been stimulated further by mandatory drug testing in prisons. However, it is not necessarily possible to accelerate further the process. We must find drug treatment schemes that are accepted by staff and, ultimately, by prisoners—because prisoners who have drug treatment or who enter drug-free wings are essentially volunteers. That process is already happening.
      I do not want to sound complacent, because for years there was very little progress on drug treatment in prisons. We witnessed the ridiculous spectacle of people who may not have been drug users entering prison, but who came out, typically, as heroin addicts. The growth in treatment schemes is welcome.
      In his speech, the hon. Gentleman made a point that he has already made in Committee and elsewhere, about the apparent switch from cannabis use to heroin and other opiate use in prisons. As he said, according to the best figures available, opiate use is now at 7 or 8 per cent. Some of the increase may be due—I believe that it is a misconception—to prisoners' belief that it is easier to get
      112
      away with opiate use. The figures are skewed also because one would have to be an extremely heavy cannabis user to reach the 28-day mark mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. It is likely that the trend has been affected more by the unfortunate fact that there is a great deal of cheap heroin around.
      Mr. George Howarth: The Minister has made that point before, and I know that he has received medical advice to support it. I have taken a fairly broad range of medical advice on the matter, and I should tell him that the issue is contentious. He may have received such advice, but many experts would disagree strongly with it.
      Mr. Sackville: I agree that a switch from one drug to any other drug in prisons—particularly a switch from cannabis to opiates—is worrying. Drug use is a health matter that greatly concerns the Government, and much is being done to reduce such use in prisons. However, drug use is a matter not only of treatment but of stopping drugs from getting into prisons—by supervising visits, by imposing sanctions against those found to be bringing drugs into prisons and by using a series of new disciplinary offences and practices, which is already happening in prisons.
      Although the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and I do not disagree on the basics, I think that new clause 7 is mainly a device to make some virtuous-sounding remarks on the problem of drugs in prisons. I agree with those remarks, but I do not believe that his new clause adds anything to action that is already being taken. Therefore, I cannot advise the House to accept it.
      Mr. Soley: That was one of the most incredibly complacent speeches that I have heard for many years from a Home Office Minister. Any visitor from outer space who examined the Home Office's own research would know without a shadow of a doubt that most offences committed in the United Kingdom are committed under the influence of alcohol or drugs. It is high time that we started taking the matter more seriously.
      Mr. Sackville: Nothing that I have said contradicts that proposition.
      Mr. Soley: Precisely. Then let us do something about it. That is what I am arguing for.
      The Minister should focus on new clause 13, because it is very important. With so many offences being committed by people under the influence of alcohol or drugs, why do we not have a range of treatments available in every prison in Britain? The Minister must know as well as I do that, often, people with a history of drug or alcohol abuse are discharged from prison with nowhere to go. The first decision that they have to make is whether to turn left or right when they get outside the prison gate.
      I shall tell the Minister a true story drawn from my experience as a probation officer. I know that similar situations occur today. John Healey wrote a book on alcohol abuse, called "The Grass Arena", which was then made into a BBC 2 film that won an award at the Edinburgh festival. He was in and out of prison over and over. At that time—the 1970s—only limited alcohol abuse programmes were available in prison, but at least we had a significant number of programmes outside

      113
      prison. Those programmes—or at least those funded by public expenditure—have been reduced by the Government. We tried to fit an offender coming out of prison into one of those programmes so that, even if they had accommodation and job problems, they had somewhere to go.
      On one of the occasions related in his book, which is one of the most powerful books written about a vagrant alcoholic and how to get off drink—perhaps the Minister ought to read it to understand the problem—John Healey wrote to me from prison. I had spoken in court, suggesting that he should have a prison sentence to keep him there until the new year so that I could then get him into the Lee clinic in Oxfordshire, which provided one of the best treatment programmes for alcoholics.
      However, the court and I had miscalculated the remission period. The result was that I suddenly got a desperate letter from Mr. Healey, saying that he would be released on Christmas eve. We had nowhere to put him and no treatment facilities. He had had no treatment for alcohol abuse during his three months in prison. At that time, the best that a prisoner could get was an offer of a place on the alcohol abuse programme.
      I went to see the prison governor, who rightly pointed out that he could not keep Mr. Healey in prison until the new year. The only way to get round the problem, as the governor suggested, was for Mr. Healey to commit a minor offence in prison, so that the governor could give him an extra seven days and keep him in until the new year. Mr. Healey wanted to be kept in so that he could take advantage of the Lee clinic programme.
      That was a deeply unsatisfactory solution, so we trawled through Mr. Healey's many previous convictions, among which was an unpaid fine. I went back to the court and asked the magistrate to give seven days in lieu of that unpaid fine. The magistrate did so and we kept John Healey in prison until 2 January.
      Such situations still occur. I am not asking for a grand scheme to keep people in prison beyond the court's sentence, but if the appropriate treatment facilities were available in prison, we would be able to spot the problem long before it arose, not a week or two before the discharge date.
      There is no coherent overall strategy on drug or alcohol treatment in prison, but drugs and alcohol are two of the major causes—if not the major causes—of crime in Britain. For the Minister to say that we already have enough programmes in place is unadulterated nonsense. Those programmes are not there. People are being discharged without any treatment.
      114
      Drug abuse and alcohol abuse are notoriously difficult to treat in or out of prison. It is no good just saying that we know that a particular offender has a drug or alcohol problem, so we should encourage them to join Alcoholics Anonymous or another programme. The problem needs to be worked on over a long period, perhaps over several prison sentences.
      The Minister ought to recognise that new clause 13 offers an opportunity to rethink the way in which we address problems concerning addiction in our prisons—indeed, the way in which we address an abuse of a substance, be it alcohol or drugs, which leads to repeated patterns of offending. We ought to consider the matter again, so that we can direct a person to an appropriate treatment regime in prison.
      Until we reach the stage where, after the sentencing procedure and after a person has been sentenced to imprisonment, we are able to try one type of regime for one person and recognise that we might have to try a number of different treatment programmes or patterns for a particular individual—instead of relying on one and giving up if it fails—nobody, but nobody, can say that we are taking the problem seriously.
      The Government are yet again about pretending that they are doing something about crime while literally ignoring all its causes. As long as they go on doing that, they will continue to preside over a disastrous increase in crime—
      It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
      Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

  SCOTTISH LEGAL SERVICES OMBUDSMAN AND COMMISSIONER FOR LOCAL ADMINISTRATION IN SCOTLAND BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 94E (Scottish Grand Committee (Bills in relation to their principle)),
  That the Bill be committed to a Scottish Standing Committee.—[Mr. Anthony Coombs.]
  Question agreed to.

  ADJOURNMENT
  Resolved,
  That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Anthony Coombs.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Ten o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Ministerial Leave
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) how many days leave he has taken in the Easter, Whitsun and summer adjournments; and how many days leave he took during the time in which Parliament was prorogued this year; [9802]

  (2) how many days of leave he plans to take during the Christmas adjournment. [9803]

  The Attorney-General
  I refer to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Attorney-General what estimates he has made of the amount spent on external consultants by his Department's non-departmental public bodies in each of the last five years. [10174]

  The Attorney-General
  I am not responsible for any such bodies.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the actions his Department has taken on each of the recommendations contained in the Cabinet Office report on the Government's use of external consultants. [10175]

  The Attorney-General
  The departments and agencies for which I am responsible are not large users of external consultants. A number of recommendations in the report related to other named Departments. Of those of general application, some were already established working practices in my departments and agencies. Measures taken to implement the remaining recommendations include the introduction of a new internal guidance manual by the Crown Prosecution Service, and arrangements under which departments submit to me plans showing the expected use of external consultants and obtain my approval for proposals involving expenditure of more than £50,000.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Public Appointments
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what changes have been made to the appointment procedures for non-departmental public bodies within her Department since July 1995; and if she will make a statement. [10152]
  2
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  New procedures have been implemented based on the "Guidance on Appointments to Executive Non-Departmental Public Bodies and NHS Bodies" issued by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments in April 1996.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if the appointments of(a) the chairman of the Independent Television Commission, (b) the chairman and deputy chairman of the Broadcasting Standards Commission and (c) the chairman of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission were made on the advice of an independent appointment committee. [10276]

  Mrs. Bottomley
  The appointment of the chairman of the Independent Television Commission was made following an executive search exercise and consideration by an advisory panel with independent membership. The appointments of the chairman and deputy chairman of the Broadcasting Standards Commission pre-dated the introduction of the advisory panels that were set up as a result of Lord Nolan's report.

  The Broadcasting Complaints Commission will cease to exist as a separate body on 31 March 1997. In order to ensure continuity, only candidates who were already members of the commission were considered for appointment as its chairman when the previous chairman resigned in September. The decision was made without recourse to an advisory panel.

  Listed Buildings
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when she expects to announce the outcome of her Department's review of listed buildings in Buxton. [9843]

  Mr. Sproat
  The draft review for Buxton is currently being considered by my Department with the aim of issuing the revised list in early February.

  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many buildings have been listed in each category in Sheffield for each of the last three years. [10329]

  Mr. Sproat
  The figures are as follows: in 1994, five buildings—all in grade II; in 1995, 376 buildings—all in grade II. In addition, three buildings were upgraded from grade II to II*. In 1996, three buildings—all grade II. Following a re-survey, a revised list for Sheffield was issued in December 1995; this accounts for the high number of new listings during that year.

  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what criteria are used by English Heritage to determine which buildings should be listed. [10328]

  Mr. Sproat
  Before recommending a building for listing to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, English Heritage must be satisfied that it is of special architectural or historic interest. The criteria against which buildings are assessed for listing are set out in paragraphs 6.10 to 6.16 of "planning policy guidance note 15: "Planning and the Historic Environment", published jointly by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for National Heritage in September 1994.

  Ministerial Leave
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) how many days of leave she plans to take during the Christmas adjournment; [9821]

  (2) how many days leave she has taken in the Easter, Whitsun and summer adjournments; and how many days leave she took during the time in which Parliament was prorogued this year. [9820]

  Mr. Sproat
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given toady by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Legislation
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many items of legislation relating to her Department have been repealed since January 1994; how

  Revenue from general admission charges (£000)

  Revenue from temporary exhibition charges (£000)

  Revenue generated from admissions charges as a percentage of total revenue

  British Museum

  —

  102

  0

  Imperial War Museum

  3,049

  243

  15

  National Gallery

  —

  398

  1

  National Maritime Museum

  1,439

  —

  10

  National Museum of Science and Industry

  3,215

  390

  12

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside

  302

  120

  2

  National Portrait Gallery

  —

  189

  2

  Natural History Museum

  3,297

  —

  8

  Royal Armouries

  52

  —

  1

  Tate Gallery

  203

  1,711

  4

  Victoria and Albert Museum

  1259

  364

  2

  Wallace Collection

  —

  —

  —

  Geffrye Museum

  —

  —

  —

  Horniman Museum

  —

  —

  —

  Museum of London

  289

  —

  2

  Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester

  422

  —

  10

  Sir John Soane's Museum

  —

  —

  —

  1 In addition, voluntary entrance donations amounted to £996,000.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when she plans to introduce regulations amending the television licence concessionary scheme. [10644]

  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when she plans to bring forward new consolidated television licensing regulations. [10664]

  Mr. Sproat
  As I indicated on 3 December 1996, in my reply to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin),Official Report, column 588, the Government intend that new, consolidated television licence fee regulations will come into force from 1 April 1997. In accordance with the Government's undertaking during the passage of the Broadcasting Act 1996, these regulations will include an amendment to address the anomalous situation where the residents of a sheltered housing scheme, which meets all the other qualifying criteria, fail to qualify for concessionary television licences because a small number of units within the scheme were purchased under the right-to-buy provisions before the accommodation was designated as sheltered
  4
  many statutory instruments were introduced during the same period; and how many of the latter were (a) deregulatory and (b) fee orders. [9365]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 17 December 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates) on 17 December 1996, Official Report, column 492.

  Museums and Galleries
  Sir Timothy Sainsbury
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what revenue has been raised from admission charges to museums and galleries sponsored by her Department for each institution, broken down to show(a) revenue from (i) general admission charges, (ii) charges for entry to temporary exhibitions and (b) the proportion of total museum revenue accruing from (a) in the last year for which figures are available. [8939]

  Mr. Sproat
  For 1995–96, the information is as follows:

  housing. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will announce this month details of the changes to be effected in the regulations, which will also bring into force the new licence fees announced on 18 December last year. The regulations themselves will be laid before Parliament as soon as possible thereafter.

  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when she expects the regulations to take account of the changes in the use of television in recent years, referred to in the answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) on 18 July,Official Report, column 601, to be introduced. [9212]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 16 December 1996]: As I indicated on 3 December in my reply to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) Official Report, column 588, the Government intend that new, consolidated television licence fee regulations will come into force from 1 April 1997. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State hopes to announce this month details of the changes to be effected in the regulations and the level of the licence fee also coming into force from 1 April. The regulations themselves will be laid before Parliament as soon as possible thereafter.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the actions her Department has taken on each of the recommendations contained in the Cabinet Office report on the Government's use of external consultants. [10159]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Cabinet Office report on the Government's use of external consultants had 34 recommendations. Six of these relate to other Government Departments—recommendations numbers 4, 5, 7, 10, 19 and 21.

  In respect of the remaining 28, my Department has implemented four in full—recommendations numbers 3, 6, 9 and 20; the rest are to be implemented in the context of a new procurement strategy on which my Department is currently working.

  Staff
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many (a) permanent and (b) non-permanent staff there have been in (i) her Department and (ii) executive agencies of her Department in each year since 1992. [9630]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 18 December 1996]: The number of permanent and non-permanent staff within the Department of National Heritage and agencies since 1992 is shown in the table:

  Permanent

  Non-Permanent

  DNH

  1992–93

  264

  4

  1993–94

  317

  18

  1994–95

  337

  22

  1995–96

  355

  15

  1996–97

  353

  8

  Historic Royal Palaces

  1992–93

  322

  109

  1993–94

  368

  145

  1994–95

  423

  129

  1995–96

  1312

  159

  1996–97

  316

  202

  The Royal Parks

  1993–94

  272

  12

  1994–95

  266

  19

  1995–96

  263

  18

  1996–97

  242

  15

  1 The Historic Royal Palaces figure decreased between 1994–95 and 1995–96 due to contracting out of 70 warding staff at Hampton Court.

  The Royal Parks/Royal Parks Constabulary are unable to provide details of staff for 1992–93 because they did not become an agency until 1993.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list for her Department(a) how many people in total are employed, (b) how many of the total number of staff are (i) male and (ii) female and (c) how many (I) men and (II) women are employed on a (1) full-time and (2) part-time basis. [9483]

  Mr. Sproat
  The current staff in post for the Department of National Heritage is:6

  Full time

  Part time

  Total staff

  Male

  185

  1

  186

  Female

  169

  6

  175

  Total

  354

  7

  361

  National Lottery
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to her answer of 6 November,Official Report, column 533, what funds have been allocated to Sheffield-based charities by the National Lottery Charities Board since its inception; if she will identify the charities and voluntary organisations receiving each amount; and if she will make a statement. [10506]

  Mr. Sproat
  Since my hon. Friend's earlier question, the National Lottery Charities Board has awarded grants under its third grants round to almost 2,000 organisations across the United Kingdom. Of these, 30 are based in Sheffield. This means that a total of 88 grants, worth over £6.45 million, have been made by the National Lottery Charities Board since its inception to organisations based in Sheffield. The details of the awards concerned are as follows:

  Grants made by the National Lottery Charities Board to charities and voluntary organisations based in Sheffield

  £

  Abbeydale Youth Project

  50,100

  African Women's Health Group

  64,025

  Ashiana

  9,868

  Awaaz Asian Women's Training Project

  28,000

  Azaardgi—Asian Women's Training Project (Freedom)

  3,276

  Black Action Self-Help-Mentoring Project

  92,812

  Black Justice Project

  78,000

  Black Media Training Trust

  137,299

  Breaking Bounds

  27,218

  Brightside Community Project

  22,760

  Castle Advice Service

  1,220

  Castle Advice Service

  70,184

  Chapelgreen-one-parent-in-need-group (c.o.p.i.n.g)

  1,380

  Cot-Age-Child Safety and Nursery Equipment

  30,757

  Cruse Bereavement Care

  23,459

  DART—Homelink Project

  300,000

  Family Support Group

  2,850

  Firth Park Advice Centre

  135,784

  Firth Park Computer Club

  7,420

  Granville Road Housing Project

  10,000

  Green City Action

  69,714

  Handy Hands Group

  2,500

  Haven House Project

  28,375

  Heeley and District Community Transport Organisation

  24,000

  Heeley Health Project

  103,199

  Herdings Centre Association

  20,000

  Highfield Childrens Playbase

  38,000

  House of Help

  1,860

  Law Centres Federation

  93,097

  Manor Rights and Advice Service

  42,642

  Manor Training and Resource Centre Ltd.

  121,000

  Maypole

  102,000

  McMurphy's

  135,742

  Middlewood Citizens Advice Bureau

  160,223

  Mosborough Citizens Advice Bureau

  85,262

  Network Housing and Care Ltd.

  71,570

  Nomad Nomore Community Furniture Store

  134.000

  Norfolk Park Domestic Violence Project

  57,879

  7

  Grant made by the National Lottery Charities Board to charities and voluntary organizations based in Sheffield

  £

  Norfolk Park Women and Childrens Centre

  10,150

  North Sheffield Federation for the Disabled Self-Help Group

  47,844

  Northern Refugee Centre

  123,129

  Osteoporosis 2000

  267,148

  Pakistan Muslim Centre

  121,427

  Playschemes, Activities and Recreation for Kids

  160,008

  Remington Youth and Community Centre

  100,371

  Roshni-Asians Womens Resource Centre

  75,000

  Sadacca

  150,000

  Sharrow Citizens Advice Bureau

  21,758

  Sheffield African Caribbean Mental Health Association

  25,000

  Sheffield Association for People with Cerebral Palsy

  76,475

  Sheffield Association for People with Cerebral Palsy

  24,636

  Sheffield Association for the Voluntary Teaching of

  English

  108,235

  Sheffield Cathedral Breakfast/Archer Project

  69,540

  Sheffield Childrens Centre

  35,000

  Sheffield Chinese Community

  143,586

  Sheffield Citizen Advocacy

  140,563

  Sheffield Citizens Advice Bureaux Debt Support Unit

  68,736

  Sheffield Community Transport

  190,000

  Sheffield Deaf Childrens Society

  53,804

  Sheffield Dial-a-ride

  67,960

  Sheffield Gayphone

  10,828

  Sheffield Gingerbread

  3,116

  Sheffield Law Centre

  7,000

  Sheffield Mencap

  100,246

  Sheffield NASS

  1,654

  Sheffield Newpin

  99,378

  Sheffield Occupational Health Project

  85,555

  Sheffield Out of School Network

  70,318

  Sheffield Reclamation Limited

  19,290

  Sheffield Sickle Cell Anaemia and Thalassaemia Foundation

  168,358

  Sheffield Women's Aid

  178,125

  Sheffield Womens Cultural Club

  121,288

  Sheffield Young Carers Project

  161,906

  Shiregreen Tranx Self-Help Group

  5,000

  Somali Mental Health Project (SMHP)

  183,207

  Somali Special Needs Scheme

  123,327

  South West Area Sitting Service

  25,250

  Support Dogs

  37,722

  The Ethel Trust

  122,741

  The Flower Estate Dream Scheme

  27,664

  The Ruth Hayman Trust

  11,250

  The Sheffield Club for the Hard of Hearing

  1,000

  Trinity Day Care Trust

  21,000

  Woodcraft Folk—Venturer Camp Committee

  7,007

  Worthwhile Occupational and Recreational Krafts Ltd. (WORK)

  75,000

  Wybourn Youth Trust

  247,833

  Young Carers Support Group

  3,000

  Young Women's Housing Project

  66,996

  Millennium Projects, Wales
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much Millennium Commission grant aid has been offered to projects in Wales to date; how many projects this figure covers; and what is grant aid per head of population in Wales. [7616]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 16 December 1996]: The Millennium Commission has supported eight capital projects in Wales, two capital projects which cover England and Wales, and four
  8
  projects which cover the whole of the UK. Of the eight capital projects supported specifically in Wales, the total grant aid to date is £92,824,028. Of the projects which cover more than one country, £11.2 million has been allocated to Wales, making a total capital projects allocation of £104,024,028. The commission has also offered grant to six millennium award schemes. These grants are allocated in response to applications. Four will cover the whole of the UK and one scheme for £365,134 is specifically targeted at Wales. Thus, the total grant allocation is £104,389,162. Working on the basis that the population of Wales is 2,906,500, grant aid per head is £35.92.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make statutory instruments available on the Internet. [10407]

  Mr. Freeman
  I have been asked to reply.

  With effect from the first printed statutory instrument of 1997, all new statutory instruments will be placed on the Internet within 15 working days of publication in printed form, at the following address: http://www.hmso.gov.uk/stat.htm.

  Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the new Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland has ever been a member of a political party. [10289]

  Mr. Streeter
  Judicial appointments are made on professional and personal merit. The Lord Chancellor does not require candidates for, or holders of, judicial office to declare their political affiliation.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what procedures were followed in appointing the next Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland; in what ways the procedures differ from that for other United Kingdom jurisdictions; and when the appointment was announced. [10287]

  Mr. Streeter
  The Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland is appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Lord Chancellor. In England and Wales, the Lord Chief Justice is appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister, as is the Lord President in Scotland. The appointment of the right hon. Sir Robert Carswell as Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland was announced on 29 November 1996, and took effect on 6 January 1997.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which(a) bodies and (b) individuals were consulted about the appointment of the new Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland. [10288]

  Mr. Streeter
  In making recommendations to the Queen in respect of senior judicial appointments, the Lord Chancellor has discretion to consult as he thinks fit, and such consultations are confidential.
  9
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the next Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland is or has been a member of(a) the Masonic Order, (b) the Orange Order and (c) other societies membership of which must be declared. [10545]

  Mr. Streeter
  Judicial appointments are made on professional and personal merit. The Lord Chancellor does not require candidates for, or holders of, judicial office to declare membership of any lawful organisation.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what estimates he has made of the amount spent on external consultants by his Department's non-departmental public bodies in each of the last five years. [10176]

  Mr. Streeter
  The amount spent by the Department's NDPBs during the relevant financial years was as follows:

  1991–92: £128,843

  1992–93: £209,794

  1993–94: £155,947

  1994–95: £110,650

  1995–96: £96,659.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the actions his Department has taken on each of the recommendation contained in the Cabinet Office report on the Government's use of external consultants. [10177]

  Mr. Streeter
  In response to the Cabinet Office report on the use of external consultants, the Lord Chancellor's Department corporate board issued a policy statement in June 1995 designed to help ensure value for money in the employment of consultants. It set the criteria for their use, operating principles and monitoring arrangements and included a requirement for ministerial approval for contracts where the final cost could exceed £20,000 and for an annual report to the Department's corporate board on the use of consultants. It covered recommendations 1, 2 and 12 of the Cabinet Office report.

  Other actions taken are as follows:
  The implications of recommendations 8, 11 to 18, 22 to 25 and 26 to 31 are dealt with by way of central guidance. The Department's procurement manual will be amended to reflect these recommendations.
  Arrangements are in place to review the central guidance periodically and the internal assurance division has included the use of external consultants in its audit programme (recommendation 33).
  Expenditure on consultants is identified separately in the departmental accounts (recommendation 3).
  Arrangements are in place which require a business case and senior management authority for consultancy projects costing more than £10,000 (recommendation 6).
  There are centres of expertise in the purchasing of consultancy skills. Each centre keeps under review, in consultation with managers, the contracts typically used for the employment of consultants (recommendations 9 and 20 to 21).
  Although the DTI database for the use of consultants is not available, the LCD is establishing its own (recommendation 10).
  10
  The LCD's procurement services division submitted its first annual report to the corporate board, which was approved on 3 October 1996 (recommendation 32).
  Although recommendations, 5, 7, 10, 19 and 34 are supported, they are not for the LCD to implement.

  Legal Services
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what estimate he has made of the average length of time that cases were before the legal services ombudsman before an investigating officer was appointed in each of the last three years. [10445]

  Mr. Streeter
  The legal services ombudsman considers that cases are properly before him only when he is satisfied that the matter falls within his jurisdiction and he has obtained the case file from the relevant professional body. The average interval from receipt of the professional body file to allocation to an investigating officer is:

  1994 four to five months

  1995 five to six months

  1996 six to seven months.

  Green Form Scheme
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what percentage of(a) the population of and (b) households in England and Wales were eligible for (i) civil legal aid and (ii) legal advice and assistance under the green form scheme, in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [10438]

  Mr. Streeter
  We have no reliable means of estimating the percentage of the population eligible for civil legal aid. The most recent estimates of the percentage of households eligible for civil legal aid in each of the five years up to 1996–97 are:

  Financial year

  Percentage

  1992–93

  53

  1993–94

  48

  1994–95

  50

  1995–96

  50

  1996–97

  48

  We do not collect information on eligibility for legal advice and assistance under the green form scheme.

  Ernest Saunders
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the amount of legal aid paid to Mr. Ernest Saunders in the cases resulting from the Guinness affair. [10485]

  Mr. Streeter
  The sum of £1,286,234 was paid to Mr. Saunders' legal representatives for work done in relation to the Crown court proceedings resulting from investigations into the takeover by Guinness of the Distillers Group. A further amount of £296,111 was paid in relation to proceedings in the Court of Appeal. Legal aid is not available for proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights.

  The total amount paid in legal aid in relation to R v. Saunders is therefore £1,582,345.

  Transaction Criteria
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list(a) the areas in which transaction criteria have been published and the date of publication and (b) the areas in which transaction criteria are still being developed and the expected date of publication. [10436]

  Mr. Streeter
  Transaction criteria were published, ahead of the introduction of the Legal Aid Board's franchising scheme, in July 1994, in the nine franchised areas of work, as follows: family matrimonial, personal injury, employment, debt, contract, housing, immigration, welfare benefits, criminal litigation. I am informed by the chief executive that the Legal Aid Board is currently looking at areas where the scope of transaction criteria might be extended.

  Transaction criteria have recently been drafted to extend the audit scope within the welfare benefits and housing categories. It is expected that these will be published in April 1997, ahead of implementation.

  Franchising Advisory Committee
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on how many occasions the franchising advisory Committee has met; when it plans to meet next; and if he will make a statement. [10435]

  Mr. Streeter
  The franchising advisory committee—FAC—was established to facilitate communication and consultation with the legal profession and its representative bodies during the early development of the Legal Aid Board's franchising scheme following its introduction in August 1994. I am informed by the board's chief executive that the committee met on two occasions. In December 1996, the Legal Aid Board decided that the committee should be discontinued, as more effective mechanisms for communication and consultation had been developed. Members of the FAC have been informed of this decision.

  Emergency Legal Aid
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on how many occasions the decision to grant an emergency legal aid certificate by a solicitor's practice with devolved powers under a legal aid franchise has subsequently been overruled by a legal aid area office in each of the last five years. [10437]

  Mr. Streeter
  The number of occasions on which a legal aid area office has overruled the decision of a franchised solicitor to use their desolved powers to grant emergency civil legal aid is given below. Also given is the number of occasions on which the terms of the grant decisions was amended by the area office.

  Year

  Overruled decisions

  Amended decisions

  August 1994 to March 1995

  62

  61

  April 1995 to March 1996

  197

  185

  April 1996 to December 1996

  365

  261

  Franchising was introduced in August 1994.

  Magistrates Courts Committees
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received from Coventry and Solihull magistrates in respect of the proposed amalgamation of Birmingham, Solihull and Coventry magistrates courts committees; and if he will abandon the project. [10745]

  Mr. Streeter
  I have received 145 individual representations and a petition from Coventry magistrates and 36 individual representations from Solihull magistrates on this subject. A decision on the way forward will be made after consideration of all the representations received.

  Probate Districts
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the running costs of each probate district and the income generated for the latest year for which figures are available. [10798]

  Mr. Streeter
  The question concerns a matter which has been assigned to the Court Service under the terms of its framework document. I have therefore asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Paddy Tipping, dated 13 January 1997:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question about the running costs of and income generated by each Probate District.
  The following table details the running costs of each district for the financial year 1995–1996 and the fees recovered for the calendar year 1995:

  Probate district

  Fees recovered (calendar year 1995)

  Running costs (financial year 1995–96)

  Birmingham

  3,097,675

  333,404

  Brighton

  4,091,954

  356,055

  Bristol

  3,349,502

  400,071

  Ipswich

  3,368,046

  351,956

  Leeds

  2,739,697

  369,301

  Liverpool

  2,454,852

  332,946

  Manchester

  2,834,928

  380,594

  Newcastle

  2,609,140

  386,457

  Oxford

  3,613,422

  331,746

  Wales

  1,611,637

  394,952

  Winchester

  4,617,840

  337,002

  London (PRFD)

  25,417,488

  25,864,191

  1 This figure includes fees received from the Record Keeper's Department (which provides copies of wills and grants).

  2 This figure is the overall running cost of the Principal Registry of the Family Division in London which houses the Family Proceedings Department and the PRFD Secretariat as well as the Probate Department.

  Additionally, £2,996,597 was paid for probate accommodation centrally during the financial year 1995–96.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Ministerial Leave
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) how many days of leave he plans to take during the Christmas adjournment; [9807]
  13
  (2) how many days leave he has taken in the Easter, Whitsun and summer adjournments; and how many days leave he took during the time in which Parliament was prorogued this year. [9806]

  Mr. Freeman
  Ministers are required to be available for Government business at all times. Subject to this overall requirement they may take leave as and when Government business permits.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how many days of leave he plans to take during the Christmas adjournment; [9805]

  (2) how many days leave he has taken in the Easter, Whitsun and summer adjournments; and how many days leave he took during the time in which Parliament was prorogued this year. [9804]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio (1) how many days of leave he plans to take during the Christmas adjournment; [9809]

  (2) how many days leave he has taken in the Easter, Whitsun and Summer adjournments; and how many days leave he took during the time in which Parliament was prorogued this year. [9808]

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) when each Department produced its(a) initial report on progress and achievements and (b) final report on formulating an action plan in response to paragraph 31, page 9 of the efficiency unit's report. "The Government's Use of External Consultants", August 1994; [9993]

  (2) what assessments have been made on the use of external consultants since the August 1994 efficiency unit report reviews. [9995]

  Mr. Freeman
  All Departments have taken action to implement the recommendations of the scrutiny. Action plans were received from all Departments shortly after publication of the scrutiny report and all Departments have carried out, or have programmes in place to carry out, implementation as described in those plans. As part of the continuing initiative to improve value derived from expenditure on consultancy, the Prime Minister's adviser on efficiency, at the end of 1995, conducted as assessment of the processes Departments use to subject related expenditure to ministerial approval. The efficiency unit continues to monitor Departments' expenditure on consultants.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in what form advice and guidance is issued to(a) individual Government Departments and (b) non-departmental public bodies on the use of external consultants. [9983]
  14
  Mr. Freeman
  Comprehensive and relevant advice and guidance on good practice is contained in the efficiency unit's scrutiny, "The Government's Use of External Consultants" (HMSO: August 1994); this is available to all Departments and non-departmental public bodies. Many Departments have produced and issued their own guidance in light of the report.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will update his estimate of the 20 most used external consultant firms as contained in the efficiency unit's report "The Government's Use of External Consultants", August 1994. [9994]

  Mr. Freeman
  I have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the amount spent on external consultants by his Department's non-departmental public bodies in each of the last five years. [10190]

  Mr. Freeman
  No money has been spent on external consultants by my Department's non-departmental public bodies in the last five years.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the actions his Department has taken on each of the recommendations contained in the Cabinet Office report "The Government's Use of External Consultants". [10191]

  Mr. Freeman
  The Cabinet Office has acted on the 34 recommendations contained in the report. In implementing the recommendations it has improved its management and control of the use of consultants, including monitoring expenditure and value gained. Guidance on buying and using external consultancy has been circulated to staff.

  Ministerial Resignations
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list those Ministers who have resigned from Government office since the 1992 general election, indicating from which ministerial position they resigned, how much severance was paid following their resignation and the date in each case on which payment was made. [10277]

  Mr. Freeman
  Ministers and Government office holders who have resigned since the 1992 general election are as listed. Unless otherwise noted, each was paid a severance payment in accordance with the terms of the Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991.

  Under the Act, payments are made no less than three weeks after the date of resignation. The actual dates on which payments were made by Departments were not held centrally before February 1994. However, the dates of payments made after February 1994 are as listed.

  Name

  Position

  Date of payment

  The right hon. Tom King MP

  Secretary of State, Defence

  1—

  The right hon. Kenneth Baker MP

  Secretary of State, Home Office

  1—

  The right hon. Peter Brooke MP

  Secretary of State, Northern Ireland

  1—

  15

  Name

  Position

  Date of payment

  The right hon. the Lord Waddington QC

  Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Lords

  1—

  The right hon. Alan Clark MP

  Minister of State, Defence

  1—

  Michael Fallon MP

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Education and Science

  1—

  Alan Howarth CBE MP

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Education and Science

  1—

  The hon. Colin Moynihan MP

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Energy

  1—

  David Trippier MP

  Minister of State, Environment

  1—

  Baroness Hooper

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Health

  1—

  The right hon. Angela Rumbold CBE MP

  Minister of State, Home Office

  1—

  The right hon. The Lord Belstead

  Minister of State, Northern Ireland

  1—

  The right hon. Tim Renton MP

  Minister for the Arts

  1—

  Lord Reay

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Trade and Industry

  1—

  Christopher Chope OBE MP

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Transport

  1—

  Lord Brabazon of Tara

  Minister of State, Transport

  1—

  The hon. Francis Maude MP

  Financial Secretary to the Treasury

  1—

  John Maples MP

  Economic Secretary to the Treasury

  1—

  Nicholas Bennett MP

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Welsh Office

  1—

  Lord Cavendish

  Lord in Waiting

  1—

  The right hon. David Mellor QC MP

  Secretary of State, National Heritage

  1—

  Nigel Forman MP

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Education and Science

  1—

  The right hon. Norman Lamont MP

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  1—

  The right hon. Archibald Hamilton MP

  Minister of State, Defence

  1—

  Edward Leigh MP

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Trade and Industry

  1—

  Robert Jackson MP

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Office of Public Service and Science

  1—

  Kenneth Carlisle MP

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Transport

  1—

  The right hon. Tristan Garel-Jones MP

  Minister of State, Foreign Office

  1—

  Michael Mates MP

  Minister of State, Northern Ireland

  1—

  The right hon. Lord Hesketh

  Chief Whip, House of Lords

  1—

  Timothy Yeo MP

  Minister of State, Environment

  8 February 1994

  The right hon. The Earl of Caithness

  Minister of State, Transport

  11 February 1994

  Michael Brown MP

  Assistant Government Whip

  7 June 1994

  The right hon. The Lord Wakeham

  Lord Privy Seal

  20 July 1994

  The right hon. John MacGregor OBE MP

  Secretary of State, Transport

  14 July 1994

  The right hon. Peter Brooke CH MP

  Secretary of State, National Heritage

  23 August 1994

  The right hon. John Patten MP

  Secretary of State, Education

  10 August 1994

  The right hon. Sir Wyn Roberts MP

  Minister of State, Welsh Office

  15 August 1994

  The right hon. Peter Lloyd

  Minister of State, Home

  20 July 1994

  16

  Name

  Position

  Date of payment

  MP

  Office

  The right hon. Nicholas Scott MBE MP

  Minister of State, Social Security

  20 July 1994

  The right hon. Sir John Cope MP

  Paymaster General

  12 August 1994

  The hon. Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd MP

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  2 September 1994

  Robert Key MP

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Transport

  14 July 1994

  Sir Irvine Patnick OBE MP

  Lord Commissioner

  12 August 1994

  The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne

  Deputy Chief Whip, House of Lords

  12 August 1994

  The Viscount St Davids

  Lord in Waiting

  12 August 1994

  Lord Annaly

  Lord in Waiting

  12 August 1994

  Patrick McLoughlin MP

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Trade and Industry

  23 August 1994

  The right hon. Timothy Sainsbury MP

  Minister of State, Trade and Industry

  31 August 1994

  Timothy Smith MP

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Northern Ireland

  29 November 1994

  Neil Hamilton MP

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Trade and Industry

  28 November 1994

  The Earl of Arran

  Captain of the Queen's Bodyguards of the Yeoman of the Guard

  14 February 1995

  Allan Stewart MP

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Scottish Office

  28 February 1995

  Charles Wardle MP

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Trade and Industry

  7 March 1995

  Robert Hughes MP

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Office of Public Service and Science

  31 March 1995

  Thomas Dawson QC

  Solicitor General for Scotland

  31 May 1995

  The right hon. John Redwood MP

  Secretary of State, Wales

  18 July 1995

  The right hon. Jonathan Aitken MP

  Chief Secretary to the Treasury

  28 July 1995

  The right hon. David Hunt MBE MP

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  28 July 1995

  The right hon. Douglas Hurd CBE MP

  Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Not eligible (over 65)

  The right hon. Richard Ryder OBE MP

  Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Chief Whip)

  28 July 1995

  The right hon. Richard Needham MP

  Minister of State, Trade and Industry

  31 July 1995

  The right hon. Robert Atkins MP

  Minister of State, Environment

  28 July 1995

  The right hon. The Viscount Ullswater

  Minister of State, Environment

  31 July 1995

  Sir Hector Monro DL MP

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Scottish Office

  Not eligible (over 65)

  The Viscount Astor

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, National Heritage

  31 July 1995

  David Lightbown MP

  Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household

  28 July 1995

  Sydney Chapman MP

  Vice-Chairman of Her Majesty's Household

  28 July 1995

  Nicholas Baker MP

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Home Office

  11 November 1995

  The right hon. The Lord Rodger of Earlsferry QC

  Lord Advocate

  30 November 1995

  Roderick Richards MP

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Welsh Office

  28 June 1996

  David Heathcoat-Amory MP

  Paymaster General

  19 August 1996

  17

  Name

  Position

  Date of payment

  Steven Norris MP

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Transport

  25 September 1996

  The right hon. Tim Eggar MP

  Minister of State, Trade and Industry

  25 September 1996

  David Willetts MP

  Paymaster General

  7 January 1996

  1 Not available.

  Business Appointment Rules
  Mr. Derek Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he has taken to monitor the effectiveness of the business appointment rules and the way in which they are followed in individual Departments. [9780]

  Mr. Freeman
  The Cabinet Office—Office of Public Service—continually monitors the general effectiveness of the rules as part of its consideration of the cases which Departments and agencies are required to refer to it under the rules. The chairman and deputy chairman of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments review a sample of these cases annually.

  Mr. Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the business appointment rules; and if he will make a statement. [9884]

  Mr. Freeman
  The business appointment rules for Crown servants are at chapter 4.3 annexes A and B of the "Civil Service Management Code", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Government Policy Reviews
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which reviews of Government policies have been undertaken by the Cabinet Office in each of the last five years. [9996]

  Mr. Freeman
  The process of policy review is continuous and integral to much of the work of Cabinet Office. The Cabinet secretariat supports the work of the Cabinet and its Committees in all areas of Government policy. The Office of Public Service has policy responsibility for: the citizens charter programme; deregulation initiative; competitiveness agenda; efficiency scrutiny programme; co-ordination of the market testing 18
  programme and the next steps executive agencies programme; and development of an inter-departmental strategy for information technology. OPS also has responsibility for a number of civil service management, personnel and organisational issues.

  Several Cabinet Office reviews of Government policies have culminated in the publication of a White Paper, including:

  "Realizing our Potential; Strategy for Science, Technology and Engineering"—Cm. 2250

  "The Citizen's Charter: 1st Report"—Cm. 2101

  "The Citizen's Charter: 2nd Report"—Cm. 2540

  "The Citizen's Charter: Facts and Figures"—Cm. 2970

  "The Citizen's Charter: 5 years on"—Cm. 3370

  "The Civil Service: Continuity and Change"—Cm. 2672

  "The Civil Service: Taking forward Continuity and Change"—Cm. 2748

  "Development and Training for Civil Servants"—Cm. 3321

  "Open Government" White Paper—Cm. 2290

  "Government Response: 1st Report to the Committee for Standards in Public Life"—Cm. 2931

  "Competitiveness: Creating the enterprise centre of Europe"—Cm. 3300

  "government.direct—A prospectus for the Electronic Delivery of Government Services"—Cm. 3438

  The Government's "Guide to Market Testing"—ISBN 011430078 x.

PRIME MINISTER

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what estimates he has made of the amount spent on external consultants by his Department's non-departmental public bodies in each of the last five years; [10170]

  (2) if he will list the actions his Department has taken on each of the recommendations contained in the Cabinet Office report on the Government's use of external consultants. [10171]

  The Prime Minister
  For these purposes my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the replies given today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

TREASURY

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 20 November,Official Report, column 570, about the total amount spent by local government, what was the total amount spent by local government in 1979 at current prices. [5902]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  In the financial year 1979–80 the total amount spent by local government, by national accounts definitions, and adjusted to 1996–97 prices was £68 billion.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 20 November,Official Report, column 570, about local government funding, what was the figure for 1995–96 at current prices. [5903]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  As set out in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1997–98" (HC 90), total central Government support to local authorities in the United Kingdom in 1995–96, including credit approvals, was £61,815 million; in 1996–97 prices this is equivalent to £63,360 million.

  Computers
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect which the century date change for computer systems will have on the introduction of a single currency; what discussions he has had with his European Union colleagues on this matter; and if he will make a statement. [6664]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  In assessing the implications of the century date change, the Treasury has made no assessment of the effect on the introduction of the single currency. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has not had any discussions with colleagues in the Council of Economic and Finance Ministers—ECOFIN—on this matter.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will investigate the reasons for the delay in the delivery of his letter dated 31 October concerning the European Monetary Institute report on economic and monetary union to the Select Committee on European Legislation; and if he will make a statement on his Department's liaison with the Committee. [6805]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The letter in question was misdirected as a result of an administrative error. I shall ensure that the correct procedures are followed in future.

  The European Legislation Committee published a report on 9 December entitled "European Documents on
  20
  Economic and Monetary Union: The Scrutiny Process". Paragraph 29 of its report said—
  "we acknowledge the Chancellor's punctilious approach to the requirements of scrutiny in this case as in many others. Timely information, often exceeding the strict requirements of the scrutiny process, and good explanatory memoranda, have made our task easier."

  Nuclear Power Stations (Decommissioning)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost savings to the Treasury from changing the time scale over which nuclear power stations are to be decommissioned. [8048]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  There are no plans to change the time scale over which nuclear power stations are decommissioned and therefore no estimates of cost savings have been produced.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions (i), he, (ii) his Ministers and (iii) his officials have had regarding changing the time scale over which nuclear power stations are to be decommissioned. [8049]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The time scale for decommissioning nuclear power stations was addressed in the White Paper, "The Prospects for Nuclear Power in the UK" (Cm 2860) published in May 1995. The financial effects of different decommissioning strategies were considered prior to the privatisation of British Energy. Since then this issue has not been the subject of discussions by me, by my ministerial colleagues or by my officials.

  Taxation Statistics
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of earnings of a married couple with two children and with one earner on average male earnings is estimated to have been paid(a) in income tax, (b) in income tax and national insurance and (c) in total direct and indirect tax in (i) 1978–79 and (ii) 1992–93; and what the corresponding figures are expected to be in 1997–98. [9499]

  Mr. Jack
  I refer to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr, Darling),Official Report, 11 December 1996, column 190–202 and to the "Tax Benefit Reference Manual", a copy of which has been placed with the House of Commons Library.

  Staff
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for his Department(a) how many people in total are employed, (b) how many of the total number of staff are (i) male and (ii) female and (c) how many (I) men and (II) women are employed on a (1) full-time and (2) part-time basis. [9493]
  21
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To total number of current Treasury staff in post is as follows:

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Full-time

  524

  353

  877

  Part-time

  0

  39

  39

  Total

  524

  392

  916

  Ministerial Leave
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many days of leave he plans to take during the Christmas adjournment; [9817]

  (2) how many days leave he has taken in the Easter, Whitsun and summer adjournments; and how many days leave he took during the time in which Parliament was prorogued this year. [9816]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has given today.

  Insurance Premium Tax
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy towards disparities in the insurance premium tax applying to(a) travel agents and (b) insurance dealers; and what representations he has received from (i) representatives of the travel industry and (ii) consumers on his Budget measures relating to insurance premium tax. [10147]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Under Finance Bill proposals, with effect from 1 April 1997, all travel insurance sold through a travel agent, unless supplied free of charge, will be liable to insurance premium tax—IPT—at 17.5 per cent. As with the other insurances affected by this higher rate of IPT—primarily mechanical breakdown insurance on motor vehicles and domestic appliances and insurances sold with television and car hire—this tax measure addresses the VAT revenue currently lost through the disproportionately high margins often applied to ancillary sales of VAT exempt insurance by suppliers of taxable goods and services in these sectors. Those who practise such pricing policies, regardless of whether their prime

  Shares of gross incomes before tax (per cent.)

  Group of taxpayers

  Top 1 per cent.

  Top 5 per cent.

  Top 10 per cent.

  Bottom 70 per cent.

  Bottom 10 per cent.

  1996–97

  9

  20

  30

  43

  3

  1997–98

  9

  20

  30

  43

  3

  Amount of gross incomes before tax (£ billion)

  Top 1 per cent.

  Top 5 per cent.

  Top 10 per cent.

  Bottom 70 per cent.

  Bottom 10 per cent.

  All taxpayers

  1996–97

  37.1

  87.0

  127.7

  183.9

  12.4

  425.6

  1997–98

  39.2

  91.6

  134.5

  193.8

  13.2

  448.1

  22
  motivation is commercial or fiscal, have a tax advantage and can distort the market. In the travel sector most travel insurance is sold by travel agents and tour operators despite their charging significantly higher prices than direct insurers. The current pricing and marketing arrangements indicate, therefore, that although insurance purchased direct from an insurer will be subject to IPT at 4 per cent., this tax differential is unlikely to have any significant effect.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the gross domestic product of the United Kingdom in 1995; and what percentage of European Community gross domestic product it comprised in that year. [9777]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Peter Shore, dated 13 January 1997.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on what was the gross domestic product of the United Kingdom in 1995; and what percentage of the European Community Gross Domestic Product it comprised in that year.
  The latest information for UK gross domestic product as published on 21 November in Table A2 of the ONS First Release UK output, income and expenditure shows that gross domestic product at current market prices for 1995 was £700,575 million.
  International comparisons of GDP for the UK and the European Community are shown in the OECD publication Main Economic Indicators which is available in the House of Commons Library. The latest available issue shows that at current prices and exchange rates expressed in billions of dollars, the UK accounted for 13.1 per cent. of the total gross domestic product of the European Community.

  Taxation
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update his answer to the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) of 27 March 1995,Official Report, columns 427–30, relating to taxation by giving figures for (a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98. [10225]

  Mr. Jack
  Provisional estimates are given in the table.
  23

  Average amount of gross income before tax (£ per year)

  Group of taxpayers

  Top 1 Per cent.

  Top 5 Per cent.

  Top 10 Per cent.

  Bottom 70 Per cent.

  Bottom 10 Per cent.

  All taxpayers

  1996–97

  144,900

  68,000

  49,900

  10,300

  4,800

  16,600

  1997–98

  152,900

  71,600

  52,600

  10,800

  5,200

  17,500

  Shares of total income tax liability (per cent.)

  Group of taxpayers

  Top 1 Per cent.

  Top 5 Per cent.

  Top 10 Per cent.

  Bottom 70 Per cent.

  Bottom 10 Per cent.

  1996–97

  17

  35

  45

  28

  1—

  1997–98

  18

  35

  46

  28

  1—

  1 Less than 0.5 per cent.

  Amount of total income tax liability (£ billion)

  Group of taxpayers

  Top 1 Per cent.

  Top 5 Per cent.

  Top 10 Per cent.

  Bottom 70 Per cent.

  Bottom 10 Per cent.

  All taxpayers

  1996–97

  12.6

  25.2

  33.0

  20.6

  0.2

  72.7

  1997–98

  13.3

  26.4

  34.5

  21.0

  0.3

  74.7

  Public Bodies (Christmas Cards)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the amount of public money spent by public bodies on sending unsigned Christmas cards in 1996; what assessment he has made of the benefits of sending such cards; and if he will make a statement. [10515]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  None; none; and no.

  Oil and Gas Revenues
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cumulative total for Government revenues from oil and gas production from 1979–80 to 1996–97 expressed in 1996–97 prices. [7821]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 6 December 1996]: Using the Budget forecasts of North sea tax revenues and the GDP deflator in 1996–97, the cumulative total for Government revenues from oil and gas production from 1979–80 to 1996–97 expressed in 1996–97 prices is £125 billion. This represents about 1.75 per cent. of general Government receipts over the period.

  Monetary Union
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his oral statement of 3 December,Official Report, column 797, if article 3 of the convergence criteria of the treaty of European union is operating. [8119]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 9 December 1996]: Article 3 of protocol No. 6 on the convergence criteria still forms part of the EC treaty, although its interpretation is uncertain because the operation of the exchange rate mechanism has changed considerably since Maastricht. The interpretation of the criterion will be considered by Heads of Government when they meet to decide which member states satisfy the necessary conditions for the adoption of a single currency. These decisions will be taken in early 1998 at the earliest.

  Abortion
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what methods of abortion are included in the term "other surgical method" used in the abortion statistics published by his Department. [7925]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 9 December 1996]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. David Alton, dated 13 January 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply to your recent question on what methods of abortion are included in the term other surgical method used within the abortion statistics published by his Department.
  An examination of the forms of notification of termination of pregnancy in the most recent two years for which forms are available showed that the Other surgical method was in each case used by clinicians to provide specific information about a procedure which could otherwise have been indicated in another category. The information given fell into three groups:

  (a) the induction of labour by means of a surgical procedure, for example intra or extra amniotic prostaglandins administration. (Some practitioners record this procedure under the category Medical termination.);

  (b) where the initial procedure preceding the abortion involved procedures to stop the fetal heart, such as injection of intra-cardiac potassium chloride. (Some practitioners record this information under Other medical agents.);

  (c) where it was necessary to carry out surgical procedures post-termination, for example removal of the placenta, insertion of an intrauterine contraceptive device or other gynecological procedures.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the number of abortions performed from 21 weeks' gestation by "other surgical methods" in the last year for which figures are available. [7926]
  25
  Mrs. Knight
  [holding answer 9 December 1996]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. David Alton, dated 13 January 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on the number of abortions performed from 21 weeks gestation by other surgical methods in the last year for which figures are available.
  There are four cases at 21 weeks and over in 1995, the most recent year for which information is available.

  Revenue and Expenditure Balance (Scotland)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) pursuant to his answer of 25 November,Official Report, column 68, if he will estimate the total relative surplus or deficit of Government expenditure and revenue in Scotland for each year from 1978–79, assuming a constant relationship between the Scottish deficit, as published in the "Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland 1994–95", and the United Kingdom general

  Estimates of Scotland's share of the UK General Government Borrowing Requirement (GGBR), assuming a GDP share of privatisation proceeds and 90 per cent. of North Sea oil revenues

  £ billion

  UK GGBR excluding privatisation proceeds (pps) and North Sea oil revenues

  Scotland's share of column 1 for 1994–951 (per cent.)

  Scotland's implied share of UK GGBR excluding North Sea oil revenues and pps

  90 per cent. of oil revenues, and GDP share of UK pps2

  Implied estimates of Scotland's GGBR

  Implied estimates of Scotland's GGBR, 1996–97 prices3

  1978–79

  9.4

  17.9

  1.7

  0.5

  1.2

  3.6

  1979–80

  13.2

  17.9

  2.4

  2.2

  0.2

  0.4

  1980–81

  17.5

  17.9

  3.1

  3.4

  -0.3

  -0.6

  1981–82

  13.5

  17.9

  2.4

  4.1

  -1.6

  -3.3

  1982–83

  15.9

  17.9

  2.8

  4.9

  -2.1

  -3.9

  1983–84

  19.8

  17.9

  3.6

  8.0

  -4.5

  -7.9

  1984–85

  23.3

  17.9

  4.2

  11.0

  -6.8

  -11.5

  1985–86

  20.9

  17.9

  3.7

  10.4

  -6.7

  -10.7

  1986–87

  14.1

  17.9

  2.5

  4.7

  -2.2

  -3.4

  1987–88

  7.8

  17.9

  1.4

  4.6

  -3.2

  -4.7

  1988–89

  -1.5

  17.9

  –0.3

  3.4

  -3.7

  -5.1

  1989–90

  -0.0

  17.9

  -0.0

  2.5

  -2.5

  -3.2

  1990–91

  7.1

  17.9

  1.3

  2.5

  -1.3

  -1.6

  1991–92

  22.8

  17.9

  4.1

  1.6

  2.5

  2.9

  1992–93

  47.3

  17.9

  8.5

  1.9

  6.6

  7.2

  1993–94

  53.5

  17.9

  9.6

  1.6

  8.0

  8.5

  1994–95

  45.8

  17.9

  8.2

  2.0

  6.2

  6.5

  Total

  -26.7

  UK GGBR. Source:

  Public Finance Trends, 1996. A negative figure indicates a budget surplus.

  1 Source: Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland 1994–95, and Public Finance Trends 1996.

  2 Scotland's GDP at factor cost (current prices) as a percentage of GDP in the UK less Continental Shelf, calendar years. Source: Regional Trends, 1996.

  3 Based on the Budget forecast of the GDP deflator in 1996–97.

  Prednisolone
  Mr. Flyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people have(a) become crippled and (b) died from taking the steroid Prednisolone in each of the best five years; and if he will make a statement. [9645]
  26
  Government borrowing requirement, excluding privatisation proceeds and North sea revenues and included in Scotland's revenue total a 90 per cent. share of North sea revenue and a gross domestic product share of privatisation proceeds; [8877]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 25 November Official Report, column 68, if he will estimate the total relative surplus or deficit of Government expenditure and revenue in Scotland, excluding the gross domestic product share of the United Kingdom surplus or deficit of the general Government borrowing requirement, for each year from 1978–79, assuming a constant relationship between the Scottish deficit, as published in the "Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland 1994–95", and the United Kingdom general Government borrowing requirement, excluding privatisation proceeds and North sea revenues and including in Scotland's revenue total a 90 per cent. share of North sea revenue and a gross domestic product share of privatisation proceeds. [8876]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 12 December 1996]: The table shows the calculations requested. The assumptions made to produce these figures—particularly for the allocation of North Sea oil revenues to Scotland—are inevitably imprecise.

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 17 December 1996]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  27
  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 13 January 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on how many people have (a) become crippled and (b) died from taking the steroid Prednisolone in England in each of the last five years.
  Data are not held centrally by ONS or the Department of Health on the number of people crippled as a result of taking Prednisolone. Death records with the relevant ICD9* codes for 1993 to 1995 were searched for a mention of Prednisolone. One death in 1993 and one death in 1994 was recorded as having a mention of Prednisolone on the death certificate. To search the data for deaths occurring before 1993 would have incurred disproportionate cost.
  *International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision, underlying cause codes E932.0 and 305.9 and secondary cause code 962.0.

  Information Technology (Euro)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what tenders his Department has put out to convert its information technology systems to be euro compliant; what is the cost and person hours required to convert the systems to handle the euro; and when he expects his Department's systems to be fully economic and monetary union compliant. [9453]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 18 December 1996]: My Department and agencies will need to assess the impact which a single currency, at present assumed to be starting on 1 January 1999, would have on their information systems whether or not the United Kingdom decides to participate in the third stage of economic and monetary union.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  "Tackling Drugs Together"
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what new proposals he has in respect of the initiatives in "Tackling Drugs Together". [8750]

  Mr. Newton
  "Tackling Drugs Together", contains 19 new specific tasks for the current year, and 20 such tasks for the year 1997–98. I am also announcing today the second drugs challenge fund which provides £2 million additional Government money to be bid for by local drug action teams, in partnership with private business and voluntary groups, for innovative and effective projects.

  Sitting Hours
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Lord President of the Council on how many occasions the House rose before 10.30 pm on Thursdays(a) in the last Session and (b) since the beginning of the present Session. [8749]

  Mr. Newton
  The House has risen at or before 10.30 every Thursday last session and so far this Session, apart from once, on 18 April 1996.

  Parliamentary Reforms
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what assessment he has made of the operation of the reforms implemented following the Jopling report. [8748]

  Mr. Newton
  I believe the reforms have been a great success.

  Recesses
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will review the distribution over the year of parliamentary(a) Sessions and (b) recesses. [8747]

  Mr. Newton
  This matter was reviewed in 1992 by the Select Committee on Sittings of the House—the Jopling Committee—whose principal recommendation was that the House should rise for the summer recess by mid-July.

  Parliamentary Business
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will increase the amount of parliamentary business taken in the morning. [8746]

  Mr. Newton
  I have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to extend the period for which he routinely announces the future business of the House. [8745]

  Mr. Newton
  In addition to announcing the business of the House for the following week, I try to give as much information as I can, on a provisional basis, about the likely business for the following week. I also use my best endeavours to give early notification of some major debates. I see no reasonable prospect of being able to go beyond this.

  Defamation Act 1996
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what assessment he has made of the impact of the Defamation Act 1996 on the proceedings of the House. [8744]

  Mr. Newton
  I have not made any such assessment.

  Points of Order
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the procedure for raising points of order during a Division. [8743]

  Mr. Newton
  I refer my hon. Friend to page 366 of the 21st edition of Erskine May and to the Second Report from the Sessional Committee on Procedure (HC 152 (1976–77)).

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Royal Family (Overseas Visits)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 20 November,Official Report, column 555, how much of the sums paid for clothing to members of the royal family and those accompanying them went to (a) the Duke and Duchess of Kent and (b) the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester; and what sum was devoted to hiring charges. [9950]

  Mr. Rifkind
  In 1995–96, the cost to my Department for clothing for official overseas visits by the Duke and Duchess of Kent and those accompanying them was £5,300; for the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester and those accompanying them, it was £3,000.

  None of these sums was devoted to hiring charges.

  North Korea
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed the situation in North Korea with the United States Government; and if he will make a statement. [9830]

  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed North Korea with the US Secretary of State on 10 December when he raised our concern over the increased tension on the Korean peninsula since the submarine incident in September. Since then, the North Korean Government have issued a statement of apology on 29 December.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed the situation in North Korea with the Government of the Republic of South Korea; and if he will make a statement. [9831]

  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary had a meeting with the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Korea on 3 December, and I held talks with the Vice-Minister on 17 December. At both we discussed the situation on the Korean peninsula in the aftermath of the submarine incident. The statement of apology issued by North Korea on 29 December undertaking to ensure no recurrence of such incidents has led to a welcome easing of tension on the peninsula.

  Ministerial Visits (Accommodation)
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the occasions when Cabinet Ministers on official visits to(a) Singapore, (b) Thailand, (c) Malaysia, (d) Japan and (e) South Korea have used (i) the official residence and (ii) a residence other than the official residence since 1994, indicating the cost involved. [9960]

  Mr. Hanley
  The official visits made by Cabinet Ministers to Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Japan and South Korea since 1994 are shown in the table.

  We are still awaiting information from other Departments which may add to this list. I shall write when it has been received.

  Official visits by Cabinet Ministers to Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Japan and South Korea 1994 to 1996

  Date

  Minister

  Destination

  Accommodation

  Cost £

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  1994

  11 to 20 September

  Secretary of State

  Thailand and Japan

  Residence, Bangkok x two nights; residence, Tokyo x two nights

  1996

  26 August to

  Secretary of

  Japan

  Residence,

  4 September

  State

  Tokyo x one night

  27 October to 2 November

  Secretary of State

  Thailand

  Residence, Bangkok x three nights

  There were no visits made by the Secretary of State in this period to Singapore, Malaysia or South Korea

  30

  Official visits by Cabinet Ministers to Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Japan and South Korea 1994 to 1996

  Date

  Minister

  Destination

  Accommodation

  Cost £

  Ministry of Defence

  1996

  January

  Secretary of State

  Singapore and Malaysia

  Residence, Singapore; residence, Kuala Lumpur

  January

  Secretary of State

  South Korea

  Hotel

  Guest of Government

  September

  Secretary of State

  Japan

  Residence, Tokyo

  Department of Health

  1995

  13 to 17 March

  Secretary of State

  Japan and South Korea

  Residence, Tokyo; Hotel, Seoul

  11 to 14 September

  Minister of Health

  Singapore, Thailand and Malaysia

  Hotel, Singapore; residence, Bangkok; residence, Kuala Lumpur

  859.93

  1996

  14 to 20 September

  Minister of Health

  Singapore, Thailand, Japan and South Korea

  Hotel, Singapore; Residence, Singapore; Hotel, Kuala Lumpur; Hotel, Tokyo; Residence, Tokyo; Residence, Seoul

  424.34

  385.42

  601.91

  Lord Chancellor's Office

  1994

  8 January 1994

  Lord Chancellor

  Singapore

  Residence, Singapore

  Department of National Heritage

  1996

  27 to 30 May

  Secretary of State

  Japan

  Residence, Tokyo

  Department of Transport

  1995

  18 to 24 April

  Secretary of State

  Japan and South Korea

  Residence, Tokyo x two nights

  Hotel, Nagoya x one night (20)

  £425.22

  Hotel, Kyoto x one night

  £232.91

  Hotel, Seoul x three nights

  £252.00

  1996

  10 to 11 April

  Secretary of State

  Singapore

  Residence, Singapore

  29 to 30 July

  Secretary of State

  Malaysia

  Hotel, Langkawi x one night Residence, Kuala Lumpur one night

  £155.00

  Welsh Office

  1994

  6 to 9 September

  Secretary of State

  Japan

  Hotel, Osaka x one night Residence, Tokyo three nights

  no cost available

  1995

  10 to 15 September

  Secretary of State

  Japan and South Korea

  Residence, Tokyo x two nights Hotel, Osaka x two nights Residence, Seoul x two nights

  no cost available

  31

  Official visits by Cabinet Ministers to Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Japan and South Korea 1994 to 1996

  Date

  Minister

  Destination

  Accommodation

  Cost x £

  1996

  9 to 14 September

  Secretary of State

  South Korea and Japan

  Residence, Seoul x one night

  Residence, Tokyo x two nights

  Hotel, Osaka, x one night

  no cost available

  Hotel, Heppu, x one night

  no cost available

  Hotel, Osaka x one night

  no cost available

  Scottish Office

  1996 May

  Secretary of

  Japan and

  Residence,

  State

  South Korea

  Tokyo

  Hotel, Osaka Residence, Seoul

  £893.00

  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the official residences owned by his Department in south America; and if he will indicate the occasions when Cabinet Ministers on official visits to each country have used(a) the official residence and (b) a residence other than the official residence since 1994, indicating the cost involved. [9955]

  Mr. Hanley
  Official residences are owned in the following cities: Asuncion, Belmopan, Bogota, Brasilia, Buenos Aires, Caracas, Guatemala City, La Paz, Lima, Montevideo, Panama City, Quito, Rio de Janiero, San Jose, San Salvador, Santiago, Sao Paulo.

  Information currently at hand indicates the following visits by Cabinet Ministers to the area since 1994:

  Lord Chancellor

  Chile 25 to 28 May 1996 (accommodation at Santiago residence);

  Peru 29 to 31 May 1996 (Lima residence);

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  Argentina 22 to 24 August (Buenos Aires residence);

  Bolivia 25 to 28 August 1994 (La Paz residence);

  Colombia 29 August to 2 September 1994 (Bogota residence);

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  Brazil 4 to 11 April 1994 (Maksoud Plaza hotel);

  Sao Paulo Copacabana Palace hotel,

  No cost—guest of Government

  Rio de Janiero, Brasilia residence)

  Brazil and Bolivia 8 to 17 April 1996 (Brasilia residence);

  Copacabana Palace hotel, Rio de Janiero

  No cost—guest of Government

  Hotel Moferraj Sheraton, Sao Paulo

  Lord Presidence of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons:

  Ecuador, Paraguay, Uraquay and Brazil, 7 to 22 August 1996 (Quito residence, Asuncion residence, Montevideo residence, hotel International Brasilia (Cost not available));

  Secretary of State for Education and Employment:

  Chile and Colombia, 28 May to 4 June 1996 (Residences at Santiago and Bogota but for one night in hotel—cost £362);

  Secretary of State for Defence:

  Chile December 1996 to January 1997 (Santiago residence).
  32
  We are still awaiting information from other Departments which may add to this list. I shall write separately when it has been received.

  Ministerial Leave
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many days of leave he plans to take during the Christmas adjournment. [9799]

  Mr. Rifkind
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many days leave he has taken in the Easter, Whitsun and summer adjournments; and how many days leave he took during the time in which Parliament was prorogued this year. [9798]

  Mr. Rifkind
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Former Prisoners of War
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the response to date from Japanese business men to the Minister of State's invitation to them to extend help to British prisoners of war held in Japan during the second world war; and if he will make a statement. [9882]

  Mr. Hanley
  As I made clear in the debate on 4 December,Official Report, columns 969–73 our policy is to encourage all initiatives which promote reconciliation and recognise the sacrifices made by former prisoners of war. The British Government have made extensive efforts to develop non-governmental approaches and some activities such as exchange visits are going ahead.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the actions his Department has taken on each of the recommendations contained in the Cabinet Office report on the Government's use of external consultants. [10163]

  Mr. Hanley
  Following the efficiency scrutiny on the Government's use of external consultants, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Overseas Development Administration produced action plans which were agreed with Ministers and submitted to the efficiency unit. Both Departments produced guidelines to cover all the points made in the report. The revised guidelines, in the form of office instructions, were brought to the attention of all staff to whom they were relevant.

  In addition to revising their guidelines, the FCO and ODA have also tightened up their procedures on the use of consultants. Last year, it was agreed that consultancies for internal purposes costing more than £50,000 should be authorised by Ministers.
  33
  The great majority of ODA expenditure on consultants is undertaken at the request of, and for the benefit of, overseas Governments and institutions; where relevant to this type of activity, the scrutiny recommendations have been implemented in full.

  International Agreements
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy with respect to the nomenclature for the United Kingdom and the country to the south and west, utilised on both copies of agreements that he signs with that country; and if he will make a statement. [10481]

  Mr. Rifkind
  The UK original of treaties and agreements between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland uses the nomenclature appropriate under UK law which is "the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" and "the Government of the Republic of Ireland". The Irish original of such treaties and agreements uses the nomenclature for the two countries which the Irish Government consider appropriate.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the article of(a) the treaty on European Union, and (b) its associated treaties, under which the Commission of the European Committees has a locus in respect of the June intergovernmental conference concerning amendments to the treaty; and what communications he has received from the Commission of the Community relating to this matter. [10874]

  Mr. David Davis
  The Commission of the European Community has a locus in respect of the intergovernmental conference—IGC—under article N of the treaty of European union. The Commission submitted its opinion on convening the IGC on 28 February 1996. This was submitted to Parliament for scrutiny. The Commission has submitted a number of other proposals to the IGC, which have been placed in the Library of the House. The outcome of the IGC will be decided by member states, by unanimity.

  Indonesia
  Mrs Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the frequencies and the locations of the transmitters supplied under the contracts which followed on from the shortwave radio transmitters project in Indonesia; and who were the contracting parties. [10715]

  Mr. Nelson
  I have been asked to reply.

  I understand from GEC Marconi Communications Ltd. that the shortwave radio transmitters project in Indonesia has helped in securing three follow-on items of business on commercial terms. The details are:

  (i) a turnkey project near Jakarta, including the provision of three 250kW high frequency transmitters and antennae system. The contracting parties were Marconi Communications International Ltd. and the directorate of radio television and film of the Department of
  34
  Information of the Government of Indonesia. The transmitters are to provide an external overseas broadcasting service and operate on frequencies in the internationally recognised broadcasting bands in the 4–26 MHz range.

  (ii) the supply and installation of transmitting equipment for 19 sites in Malaysia. The contracting parties were Eddystone Radio Ltd., GEC Malaysia and the Malaysian Ministry of Information. The transmitters operate in the 88–108MHz broadcasting band.

  (iii) the supply of medium frequency transmitters and a directional antennae system in Vietnam. The contacting parties were Marconi Communications International Ltd. and Radio Voice of Vietnam. The equipment operates on the fixed frequencies of 549kHz and 675kHz.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Cells
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of nights spent by prisoners in police cell accommodation in each month this year. [9105]

  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 13 January 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of nights spent by prisoners in police accommodation this year.
  No nights have been spent by prisoners in police accommodation this year as a result of overcrowding at establishments. This key objective has applied since June 1995 and continues to be achieved in spite of extreme population pressures.
  Under completely separate arrangements, prisoners have, from time to time, to be accommodated overnight in police accommodation following court appearances. This is usually because a late court sitting or the distance involved make it impossible for an escort contractor to get the prisoner back before reception at the establishment closes for the evening.
  This continues a practice developed when all prisoner escorts to and from court were undertaken by the Police or Prison Service and is of many years standing. Prison reception times were developed to meet local circumstances. If prisoners could not be delivered before the prison closed for the night the police held them overnight and delivered them the next morning. The number of prisoners lodged overnight by the police in these circumstances prior to contracting out is not available centrally.
  The general service to courts, prisons and police forces has improved significantly since the contracting out of escort services. Court contractors are required to get prisoners back to prison by a certain time. This is not always possible for reasons which may be outside their control. However, if they fail to meet this commitment as a result of an error or omission on their part they have to meet any subsequent costs that may arise as a result of the use of police cell accommodation. Well over 99 per cent. of prisoners are admitted to establishments each evening.

  35
  The table below gives the number of nights in which prisoners have been accommodated in police cells in these circumstances between January and October this year. Information for November is not yet available. The figures are affected by the fact that during the period in question more escort contracts have started. As a result, better management information on these cases within the contract areas is now available.

  Month

  Number

  January

  124

  February

  171

  March

  177

  April

  160

  May

  129

  June

  181

  July

  142

  August

  185

  September

  176

  October

  250

  As you will see this amounts to an average of about five prisoners per night.

  The number of prisoners held two in a cell designed for one by Prison

  1996

  Prison type code

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  Aylesbury

  IM

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Bedford

  BM

  154

  134

  134

  134

  134

  134

  Birmingham

  CM, BM, EM

  630

  616

  630

  630

  618

  632

  Blakenhurst

  BM, VM

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  66

  Blundeston

  CM

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bristol

  BM, CM, EM

  152

  162

  162

  68

  68

  68

  Brixton

  BM

  328

  328

  328

  328

  328

  398

  Buckley Hall

  CM

  0

  0

  20

  20

  16

  16

  Canterbury

  BM

  210

  166

  154

  154

  204

  204

  Cardiff

  AM, BM, VM

  368

  286

  366

  376

  386

  332

  Channings Wood

  CM, VM

  200

  192

  186

  186

  182

  186

  Chelmsford

  BM

  332

  332

  324

  296

  296

  296

  Cookhamwood

  CF

  12

  12

  12

  12

  26

  26

  Doncaster

  BM, VM

  194

  194

  376

  376

  376

  376

  Dorchester

  AM, BM, VM

  144

  160

  122

  164

  164

  188

  Down View

  CM

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Durham

  BM, CF, VM, CM

  428

  474

  476

  472

  532

  704

  Everthorpe

  CM

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Exeter

  AM, BM

  302

  352

  352

  322

  384

  384

  Feltham

  AM, IM, LM, SM

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  AM, HM, IM, SM

  Glen Parva

  VM

  138

  378

  204

  236

  212

  254

  Gloucester

  BM, AM

  91

  102

  118

  118

  122

  134

  Guys Marsh

  CM, IM, JM

  0

  0

  6

  0

  4

  8

  Highpoint

  CM, CF

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hindley

  AM, IM

  0

  0

  140

  0

  0

  0

  Hull

  BM, SM

  140

  236

  204

  178

  160

  156

  Lancaster Farms

  AM, IM

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Leeds

  BM

  548

  584

  754

  0

  0

  98

  Leicester

  BM, VM

  238

  244

  244

  268

  250

  250

  Lewes

  BM, VM

  22

  22

  22

  30

  24

  24

  Lincoln

  BM, VM

  418

  538

  490

  514

  514

  536

  Littlehey

  CM, HM, VM

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Liverpool

  BM, VM

  188

  208

  66

  230

  230

  260

  Low Newton

  AM, BF, VM

  180

  224

  224

  234

  236

  204

  Manchester

  BM, VM

  446

  456

  444

  444

  448

  446

  Moorland

  AM, CM, IM

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Mount

  CM

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Northallerton

  AM

  114

  168

  170

  164

  162

  168

  Norwich

  AM, BM, VM

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Nottingham

  CM, EM

  0

  4

  4

  4

  6

  8

  P'klechurch

  AF (SHUT)

  28

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Pentonville

  BM

  599

  610

  176

  596

  616

  604

  Prison Accommodation
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of prisoners sharing two to a cell designed for one by prison type in each month this year. [9103]

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

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. George Howarth, dated 13 January 1996.
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the number of prisoners sharing two to a cell designed for one by prison type in each month this year.
  Data concerning prisoners sharing cells designed for one is only collected for the prison as a whole. It is therefore not possible to provide information by prison type because many prisons have multiple roles. A list of all prisons which have two prisoners sharing cells designed for one and the various roles they undertake, is provided in the attached table.
  37

  The number of prisoners held two in a cell designed for one by Prison

  1996

  Prison type code

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  Portland Yoi

  AM, IM, LM

  16

  16

  16

  16

  0

  0

  Preston

  BM

  258

  258

  258

  258

  258

  394

  Reading

  AM, IM

  38

  60

  52

  82

  44

  44

  Risley

  BF, CM, SM, VM, AM, BM, CM, VM,

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rochester

  IM

  44

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  Shepton Mallet

  CM, VM

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  76

  Shrewsbury

  BM

  272

  260

  268

  270

  254

  262

  Stafford1

  CM, VM

  396

  400

  374

  368

  394

  378

  Stocken

  CM

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Swaleside

  CM

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Swansea

  AM, BM

  144

  144

  132

  148

  164

  166

  Usk

  CM, DM, JM, VM

  74

  66

  88

  86

  80

  80

  Verne

  CM

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wakefield

  CM, EM

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wandsworth

  BM, VM

  148

  148

  80

  80

  80

  96

  Wayland

  CM, VM

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wealstun

  CM, DM

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Winchester

  BM, CM, CF

  194

  186

  194

  218

  208

  234

  Wolds

  BM, VM

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Woodhill

  AM, BM, SM, VM

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wormwood Scrubs

  BM, CM, EM, SM

  300

  530

  250

  238

  244

  304

  Total

  8,448

  9,256

  8,626

  8,324

  8,430

  9,202

  1996

  Prison type code

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  Aylesbury

  IM

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Bedford

  BM

  142

  132

  142

  166

  168

  Birmingham

  CM, BM, EM

  616

  622

  622

  632

  626

  Blakenhurst

  BM, VM

  66

  122

  130

  138

  140

  Blundeston

  CM

  0

  0

  0

  18

  0

  Bristol

  BM, CM, EM

  68

  70

  80

  98

  92

  Brixton

  BM

  358

  358

  302

  354

  362

  Buckley Hall

  CM

  18

  18

  12

  22

  20

  Canterbury

  BM

  210

  210

  218

  248

  234

  Cardiff

  AM, BM, VM

  332

  256

  388

  458

  458

  Channings Wood

  CM, VM

  196

  194

  206

  224

  244

  Chelmsford

  BM

  322

  14

  0

  108

  72

  Cookhamwood

  CF

  48

  50

  72

  48

  46

  Doncaster

  BM, VM

  420

  414

  352

  389

  416

  Dorchester

  AM, BM, VM

  178

  172

  182

  180

  164

  Down View

  CM

  0

  0

  0

  0

  12

  Durham

  BM, CF, VM, CM

  676

  678

  700

  712

  742

  Everthorpe

  CM

  0

  0

  64

  32

  Exeter

  AM, BM

  356

  324

  358

  404

  408

  Feltham

  AM, IM, LM, SM

  0

  0

  0

  10

  12

  AM, HM, IM, SM,

  Glen Parva

  VM

  358

  222

  154

  236

  222

  Gloucester

  BM, AM

  128

  80

  116

  108

  142

  Guys Marsh

  CM, IM, JM

  8

  8

  6

  6

  26

  Highpoint

  CM, CF

  0

  0

  22

  22

  Hindley

  AM, IM

  0

  0

  0

  32

  0

  Hull

  BM, SM

  188

  194

  202

  206

  194

  Lancaster Farms

  AM, IM

  0

  0

  0

  0

  34

  Leeds

  BM

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Leicester

  BM, VM

  304

  266

  280

  298

  268

  Lewes

  BM, VM

  30

  30

  54

  26

  24

  Lincoln

  BM, VM

  532

  500

  496

  486

  482

  Littlehey

  CM, HM, VM

  0

  0

  0

  16

  32

  Liverpool

  BM, VM

  260

  260

  264

  264

  264

  Low Newton

  AM, BF, VM

  226

  198

  218

  236

  266

  Manchester

  BM, VM

  444

  480

  482

  480

  484

  Moorland

  AM, CM, IM

  60

  60

  60

  60

  60

  Mount

  CM

  0

  0

  0

  76

  76

  Northallerton

  AM

  156

  150

  158

  292

  286

  Norwich

  AM, BM, VM

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Nottingham

  CM, EM

  8

  18

  4

  P'klechurch

  AF(SHUT)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  38 39

  1996

  Prison type code

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  Pentonville

  BM

  654

  658

  706

  696

  688

  Portland Yoi

  AM, IM, LM

  0

  0

  0

  0

  114

  Preston

  BM

  404

  404

  370

  358

  362

  Reading

  AM, IM

  78

  110

  110

  144

  122

  Risley

  BF, CM, SM, VM

  0

  0

  0

  0

  18

  AM, BM, CM, VM,

  Rochester

  IM

  4

  6

  6

  12

  Shepton Mallet

  CM, VM

  98

  100

  120

  104

  112

  Shrewsbury

  BM

  278

  268

  282

  294

  290

  Stafford1

  CM, VM

  390

  390

  386

  404

  0

  Stocken

  CM

  48

  14

  42

  52

  52

  Swaleside

  CM

  0

  0

  0

  0

  30

  Swansea

  AM, BM

  132

  138

  146

  161

  244

  Usk

  CM, DM, JM, VM

  88

  88

  84

  108

  96

  Verne

  CM

  0

  0

  0

  0

  16

  Wakefield

  CM, EM

  56

  94

  86

  82

  96

  Wandsforth

  BM, VM

  162

  166

  230

  134

  138

  Wayland

  CM, VM

  0

  0

  0

  56

  50

  Wealstun

  CM, DM

  0

  0

  0

  6

  6

  Winchester

  BM, CM, CF

  230

  208

  230

  230

  244

  Wolds

  BM, VM

  0

  0

  0

  60

  0

  Woodhill

  AM, BM, SM, VM

  0

  0

  0

  54

  94

  Wormwood Scrubs

  BM, CM, EM, SM

  320

  260

  300

  300

  292

  Total

  —

  9,652

  8,996

  9,360

  10,384

  10,210

  1 A new cell certificate issued in November has re-certified single cells as double cells.

  Description of codes

  M—Male

  F—Female

  A—Remand Centre

  B—Local prison

  C—Closed training prison D—Open training prison

  E—Hostel

  H—National resource hospital

  I—Closed young offender institution

  J—Open young offender institution

  K—Short sentencer institution

  L—Juvenile institution

  S—Special unit

  T—Additional special unit

  V—Vulnerable prisoner unit

  Adjustments to figures returned from Liverpool and Northallerton means that the total number of prisoners held two to a cell designed for one has been revised for the months between July and November.

  Adjustment table: Total number of prisoners held two to a cell designed for one

  1996

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  Previous total

  9,236

  8,726

  8,938

  10,120

  9,946

  Adjusted new total

  9,652

  8,996

  9,360

  10,384

  10,210

  Europol
  Mr. David Hunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what international obligations or guidelines apply in the United Kingdom in respect of harmonising practices regarding the interception of communications, with particular reference to the work of Europol. [10217]

  Mr. Howard
  None. Such practices are a matter for national law.

  Ministerial Leave
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many days of leave he plans to take during the Christmas adjournment; [9793]

  (2) how many days leave he has taken in the Easter, Whitsun and summer adjournments; and how many days leave he took during the time in which Parliament was prorogued this year. [9792]

  Mr. Howard
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster today.

  Interception of Communications
  Mr. David Hunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research his Department has evaluated into recent developments in the interception of communications; and what proposals he has to introduce legislation in this area. [10218]

  Mr. Howard
  The adequacy of legislation is kept under review in the light of developments in the interception field.

  Mr. Hunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff, and at what grades, are
  41
  deployed in undertaking the work required under the Interception of Communications Act 1985, separately identifying the work of (a) the commissioner and (b) the relevant division of his Department; and what other costs are involved in this work. [10216]

  Mr. Howard
  The commissioner appointed under the Interception of Communications Act 1985 is assisted by a secretary (higher executive officer grade). Within the intelligence and security liaison unit of the Home Office, one grade 7, one higher executive officer, two executive officers, one administrative officer and one typist are engaged on casework under the 1985 Act. Members of the senior civil service are also involved in the consideration of applications. Other costs fall to the agencies requesting interception; it is not the Government's practice to give details of such costs.

  Mr. Hunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the safeguards adopted to deal with interception of communications procedures, including the clandestine listening to telephone calls, in the Commonwealth, the Council of Europe countries and the United States of America; and if he will place such assessment in the Library together with a listing of the principal procedures in each country and the source of that information. [10432]

  Mr. Howard
  I have made no such assessment. Procedures concerning interception in other countries are a matter for the Governments concerned.

  Mr. Hunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what methods exist for establishing whether the police have been responsible for an unlawful interception of communications procedure. [10429]

  Mr. Howard
  A person who believes that his or her communications have been intercepted in the course of transmission by post or by means of a public telecommunications system may apply to the tribunal established under section 7 of the Interception of Communications Act 1985 for an investigation of whether a relevant warrant has been issued and, if so, whether there has been any contravention of the Act. The investigation of an allegation that interception has taken place without the authority of a warrant is, like the investigation of other allegations of criminal offences, a matter for the police.

  Illegal Immigrants
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many employers have been prosecuted for employing illegal immigrants in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [9788]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Prior to the introduction of section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, which comes into force on 27 January 1997, it has not been an offence for an employer to employ an illegal entrant.

  Prisons (Sanitation)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many prisons in England and Wales inmates do not currently have access to sanitation at all times; and if he will make a statement. [9770]
  42
  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. Archy Kirkwood, dated 13 January 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about prisons where inmates do not have access to sanitation at all times.
  An extensive programme of work in recent years resulted in the ending of the practice of slopping out in April 1996. There are now no prisons in England and Wales where prisoners housed in normal accommodation do not have access to sanitation at all times.
  Most of our establishments have retained a small amount of accommodation where integral sanitation would not be appropriate for example special cells or dirty protest cells. These do not form part of the certified normal accommodation of the establishment.
  There are also exceptional occasions when essential maintenance work requires the temporary suspension of access to sanitation.

  Hand Grenades and Balaclavas
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to control the sale of imitation hand grenades and SAS-style balaclavas. [9844]

  Mr. Maclean
  None.

  Police Scientific Development Branch
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how much has been spent to date on the prior options review of the police scientific development branch; and from which budget these sums were paid; [10058]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the future costs of the prior options review of the police scientific development branch; and from which budget these sums will be paid. [10059]

  Mr. Maclean
  The costs of the prior options review of the police scientific development branch are estimated to be £64,000. This figure represents the costs of the review team and of consultancy advice obtained by PSDB. The sums were paid from the budget of the police policy directorate.

  The review was completed in March 1996 and, as such, no future costs are anticipated. The findings of the review remain under consideration.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many(a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees include employees of the police scientific development branch as representatives of United Kingdom interests; and how many of these employees are leading the United Kingdom team on their committee; [10060]

  (2) how many (a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees are chaired by employees of the police scientific development branch. [10061]

  Mr. Maclean
  Employees of the police scientific development branch sit on 84 United Kingdom committees, five European committees and eight committees with a wider international membership. PSDB
  43
  staff take the lead for the United Kingdom on three of these European committees and six of the wider international committees.

  Nine United Kingdom committees and one European committee are chaired by employees of PSDB.

  Intoxicating Substances
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 10 December,Official Report, column 148, if he will identify the substances covered by the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985 and the number of prosecutions that have taken place in each of the last five years providing a regional breakdown where available. [10224]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Act covers the supply of any substance which is likely to be inhaled for the purpose of causing intoxication; no particular substances are specified. But the compounds and products commonly associated with volatile substance abuse are listed in annexes D and E of the 1995 report of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs on volatile substance abuse, a copy of which is in the Library.

  The number of prosecutions for offences under the Act by region, in the last five years for which figures are available, were as follows:

  Region

  1995

  1994

  1993

  1992

  1991

  Totals

  North

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  4

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  East Midlands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North West

  —

  1

  2

  1

  1

  5

  West Midlands

  —

  4

  —

  2

  1

  7

  East Anglia

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  South West

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  South East

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  2

  Wales

  1

  —

  2

  —

  3

  6

  England and Wales

  3

  7

  5

  5

  8

  28

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department is he will list the actions his Department has taken on each of the recommendations contained in the Cabinet Office report "The Government's Use of External Consultants". [10195]

  Mr. Howard
  The Home office is either acting on or has already complied with each of the relevant recommendations of the scrutiny report. In particular, a policy statement has been issued, new arrangements for ministerial approval of external consultancies are being followed and reporting arrangements are in place. A new guidance manual, covering these areas and consolidating existing guidance, is about to issue.

  Pepper Sprays
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many reviews his Department has carried out into the health effects of pepper sprays, oleoresin capsicum, since 1990; who carried out each of 44
  the reviews; what were the conclusions of each of the reviews; when each review (a) started and (b) ended; and what is the current security classification of the report arising out of each review. [10251]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Home Office police scientific development branch started reviewing all available data relating to the health effects of oleoresin capsicum in early 1991, and continues to do so. The data have also been reviewed by the Department of Health and the Ministry of Defence. This has not resulted in any published report, although a summary of the police scientific development branch's findings were included in an article in "Police Science and Technology Review" last June. In addition, my right hon. and learned Friend commissioned research into the possible carcinogenic effects of oleoresin capsicum's main incapacitating ingredient, capsaicin. This was undertaken by Hazleton Europe between 14 July 1994 and 22 August 1994. This resulted in two reports, entitled "Capsaicin: Measurement of Unscheduled DNA Synthesis in Rat Liver Using an In Vivo/In Vitro Procedure" and "Capsaicin: Induction of Micronuclei in the Bone Marrow of Treated Mice", which are unclassified and available in the Library.

  Speaker's Conferences
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of(a) the typescript minutes of evidence of the Speakers' conferences on electoral law 1965 to 1968 and (b) the minutes of evidence he retains in respect of earlier Speakers' conferences. [10444]

  Mr. Sackville
  Successive Speakers have directed that the unpublished papers of Speakers' conferences should be publicly available only on the expiry of 50 years and the subject to the consent of the Speaker in office in respect of each application for access to them.

  Refugees
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of refugee applications in each of the past five years. [10491]

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

  Applications1 for asylum received in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, 1992–96 (January to November)

  Year

  Number of principal applications

  1992

  24,605

  1993

  22,370

  1994

  32,830

  1995

  43,965

  1996 (January to November

  25,590

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest five.

  Mr. Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons he funds(a) the Refugee Council and (b) the refugees arrival project. [10489]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  We provide a core grant to the Refugee Council which contributes to a range of the council's activities as an umbrella organisation supporting the interests of refugees and refugee organisations.
  45
  The grant from the Home Office contributes about 80 per cent. of the total funding available to the refugee arrivals project to enable it to provide advice and support to asylum seekers arriving at airports in Greater London.

  Mr. Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who advises him on the monitoring of the refugee situation and on the appropriate levels of financial support to those voluntary organisations who are providing services to refugees. [10493]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Statistics are maintained on the number of people seeking asylum each year and those given permission to remain either as refugees or exceptionally outside the immigration rules. The voluntary agencies funded by the Home Office are alive to the changing refugee situation which influences the aims and objectives which underlie the grant we pay.

  Mr. Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much public money has been made available to refugee agencies in each of the past five years. [10490]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The total amount of grants given to refugee voluntary agencies in each of the past five financial years is set out in the table. The amounts vary from year to year due to the fluctuating level of funding needed to support the programme offering temporary protection to refugees from the former Yugoslavia.

  Year

  Total grant £million

  1996–97

  5.2

  1995–96

  6.1

  1994–95

  9.4

  1993–94

  7.4

  1992–93

  4.2

  Mr. Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consult the(a) Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster and (b) other Church and faith leaders about services to refugees. [10494]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The provision of services to refugees is a matter for local authorities and those central Government Departments with policy responsibility in the relevant areas. We are always ready to listen to the views of Church and other faith leaders about issues affecting refugees.

  Mr. Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what specific advice has been given by his Department to refugee aid and advice agencies about changes in the levels of funding in recent years. [10492]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Home Office officials have regular discussions with the refugee organisations to which we make grants. We have made it clear during these meetings that, due to the need to control public expenditure, no guarantees could be given that the level of grants would necessarily be maintained.

  Metropolitan Police (Accommodation) Clearance Costs
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the acquisition and clearance cost of the sites at(a) Grafton square and (b) Old Town SW4. [10487]
  46
  Mr. Maclean
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the acquisition and clearance costs of both sites are as follows:

  Item

  Cost £

  Purchase of Grafton Square

  912,500

  Purchase of 63 Old Town

  1,260,000

  Legal fees, stamp duty and agents fees

  70,000

  Demolition costs

  126,000

  Total

  2,368,500

  Part of the land was surplus to the scheme and was subsequently sold for £50,000

  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the strategic review of the provision of police accommodation in Lambeth started and finished; what external views were sought on this strategic review; and if the views of the Lambeth divisional commander were sought. [10486]

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that a review of the long-term police accommodation needs in Lambeth is ongoing as part of the process to update the Metropolitan police's operational building strategy by September 1997. The review will take a number of months to complete, during which time the Metropolitan police intend to seek the views of interested parties, both internally and externally.

  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the architects' and surveyors' costs to 31 March 1996, in the preparation of the divisional police headquarters at Grafton square. [10488]

  Mr. Maclean
  The commissioner tells me that the proposals were developed mainly by architectural staff in the Metropolitan police property services department. All costs, up to March 1996, totalled the equivalent of £857,000, inclusive of external consultants' fees.

  Game Licences
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for the future of game licences. [10404]

  Mr. Sackville
  My right hon. and learned Friend has announced the Government's intention to abolish the licence to kill game. Consultation on the proposal to abolish the licence, and to abolish and/or simplify other aspects of the game licensing system, will take place as soon as possible.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what request he has made, and what reports he has received, to or from the advisory committee for the Metropolitan police concerning the recent review of its support services. [10499]

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received regular reports from the Metropolitan police committee on the recent review of support services. He received a copy of the final report published on 4 November 1996, and has asked to be kept informed of progress on the implementation of the recommendations.

  Airports (Passenger Handling)
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on passenger handling arrangements at(a) Heathrow and (b) other United Kingdom airports. [10323]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Paragraph 27(1)(a) of schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 requires that carriers disembark passengers from ships and aircraft in accordance with arrangements approved by the immigration service. These arrangements invariably include a requirement that passengers who are not European Union—European Economic Area nationals be presented in an orderly manner to the immigration officer for interview. This requirement is met in a variety of ways at different locations, reflecting the different traffic patterns and accommodation configurations which exist. At Heathrow airport, carriers have engaged a private security firm to carry out this function on their behalf.

  Licensing (Special Hours Certificates)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representation he has received on problems arising from the granting of special hours certificates under section 77 of the Licensing Act 1964 as extensions to standard licences; what plans he has to alter the licensing arrangements; and if he will make a statement. [10517]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  We have received a number of representations from the licensed trade about a 1995 Crown court judgment, whose effect appears to be to restrict premises which hold a special hours certificate from operating as public houses during the day and as discotheques at night. I understand that a test case, sponsored by the trade, received judgment in the High Court on 16 December, and that the plaintiffs have been given leave to take the matter to the Court of Appeal. We shall continue to monitor developments closely, and will

  £ million (unless otherwise stated)

  Capped expenditure limit

  Police rule 2 grant

  Police rule 3 grant

  Aggregate for

  Aggregate for

  Increase over

  Increase over Per cent.

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1997–98

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1996–97

  1996–97

  Police Authorities

  Avon and Somerset

  154.1

  159.0

  0.5

  1.6

  0.0

  154.6

  160.6

  6.0

  3.9

  Bedfordshire

  57.3

  59.2

  0.2

  0.6

  0.0

  57.5

  59.8

  2.2

  3.9

  Cambridgeshire

  66.2

  68.3

  0.3

  0.8

  0.0

  66.5

  69.1

  2.6

  4.0

  Cheshire

  98.2

  101.3

  0.4

  1.1

  0.0

  98.6

  102.4

  3.9

  3.9

  Cleveland

  73.2

  75.6

  0.2

  0.6

  0.0

  73.4

  76.2

  2.8

  3.8

  Cumbria

  57.9

  59.7

  0.2

  0.6

  0.0

  58.1

  60.3

  2.2

  3.8

  Derbyshire

  92.1

  95.3

  0.3

  1.0

  0.0

  92.4

  96.3

  3.9

  4.2

  Devon and Cornwall

  152.9

  157.8

  0.6

  1.8

  0.0

  153.5

  159.6

  6.1

  4.0

  Dorset

  67.8

  70.0

  0.3

  0.8

  0.0

  68.1

  70.8

  2.7

  3.9

  Durham

  71.3

  73.6

  0.2

  0.7

  0.0

  71.5

  74.3

  2.7

  3.8

  Essex

  152.9

  157.8

  0.6

  1.7

  0.0

  153.5

  159.5

  6.0

  3.9

  Gloucestershire

  58.3

  60.2

  0.2

  0.6

  0.0

  58.5

  60.8

  2.3

  3.9

  Hampshire

  174.9

  180.5

  0.7

  2.0

  0.0

  175.6

  182.5

  6.9

  3.9

  Hertfordshire

  90.1

  93.0

  0.3

  1.0

  0.0

  90.4

  94.0

  3.6

  3.9

  Humberside

  102.8

  106.1

  0.3

  1.0

  0.0

  103.1

  107.1

  3.9

  3.8

  Kent

  163.6

  168.9

  0.6

  1.8

  0.0

  164.2

  170.7

  6.4

  3.9

  Lancashire

  163.0

  168.3

  0.5

  1.6

  0.0

  163.5

  169.9

  6.3

  3.8

  Leicestershire

  94.5

  97.5

  0.3

  1.0

  0.0

  94.8

  98.5

  3.7

  3.9

  Lincolnshire

  63.1

  64.2

  0.2

  0.7

  0.9

  63.3

  65.8

  2.5

  3.9

  Norfolk

  75.7

  78.2

  0.3

  0.9

  0.0

  76.0

  79.1

  3.0

  3.9

  Northamptonshire

  61.8

  63.8

  0.2

  0.7

  0.0

  62.0

  64.5

  2.4

  3.9

  48
  consider whether action is needed in the light of the decision of the courts.

  Remand Prisoners (Newspapers)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons remand prisoners are not entitled to receive(a) the Irish Times, (b) the Irish News, (c) the Irish Press and (d) the Belfast Newsletter. [10637]

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

  Letter from Hugh Taylor to Mr. Kevin McNamara, dated 13 January 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the supply of Irish papers to prisoners.
  Prisons provide, at public expense, one newspaper for every ten prisoners, taking into account the preference of prisoners and the need to provide as full a range of newspapers as possible. Additionally, prisoners can receive newspapers directly from publishers, newsagents or booksellers, either at the order of relatives or friends or by payment from prisoners' private cash or prison pay. For unconvicted prisoners the supply of newspapers at their own expense is specifically provided for in the Prison Rules and there are no particular restrictions on the four titles you mention.

  Police Expenditure
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the aggregate of (i) each police authority's capped expenditure limit or in the case of the Metropolitan police the estimated budget requirement, (ii) police rule 2 grant for additional police officers and (iii) police rule 3 grant for(a) each individual police authority, (b) each class of police authority and (c) all police authorities in 1996–97 and 1997–98 and the change in each in pounds and as a percentage. [10306]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is set out in the table.
  49

  £ million (unless otherwise stated)

  Capped expenditure limit

  Police rule 2 grant

  Police rule 3 grant

  Aggregate for

  Aggregate for

  Increase over

  Increase over Per cent.

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1997–98

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1996–97

  1996–97

  North Yorkshire

  69.4

  71.6

  0.3

  0.8

  0.0

  69.7

  72.4

  2.8

  4.0

  Nottinghamshire

  114.9

  118.5

  0.4

  1.1

  0.0

  115.3

  119.6

  4.4

  3.9

  Staffordshire

  109.5

  113.0

  0.4

  1.1

  0.0

  109.9

  114.1

  4.3

  3.9

  Suffolk

  61.5

  63.5

  0.2

  0.7

  0.0

  61.7

  64.2

  2.5

  4.0

  Surrey

  87.0

  88.5

  0.3

  0.9

  1.3

  87.3

  90.7

  3.4

  3.9

  Sussex

  150.9

  155.7

  0.6

  1.7

  0.0

  151.5

  157.4

  5.9

  3.9

  Thames Valley

  203.3

  209.8

  0.8

  2.4

  0.0

  204.1

  212.2

  8.1

  4.0

  Warwickshire

  49.3

  50.9

  0.1

  0.5

  0.0

  49.4

  51.4

  1.9

  3.9

  West Mercia

  103.21

  106.5

  0.4

  1.2

  0.0

  103.6

  107.7

  4.1

  4.0

  Wiltshire

  61.4

  63.3

  0.2

  0.6

  0.0

  61.6

  63.9

  2.4

  3.9

  Total English shire authorities

  3,102

  3,200

  11

  34

  0.0

  3,113

  3,233

  120

  3.9

  Greater Manchester

  341.8

  352.8

  1.0

  2.9

  0.0

  342.8

  355.7

  12.8

  3.7

  Merseyside

  226.2

  233.5

  0.5

  1.6

  0.0

  226.7

  235.1

  8.3

  3.7

  Northumbria

  187.7

  193.7

  0.5

  1.6

  0.0

  188.2

  195.3

  7.1

  3.8

  South Yorkshire

  154.3

  159.2

  0.5

  1.4

  0.0

  154.8

  160.6

  5.9

  3.8

  West Midlands

  343.2

  354.2

  1.0

  3.0

  0.0

  344.2

  357.2

  13.0

  3.8

  West Yorkshire

  260.0

  268.3

  0.8

  2.3

  0.0

  260.8

  270.6

  9.9

  3.8

  Total metropolitan authorities

  1,513

  1,562

  4

  13

  0.0

  1,518

  1,575

  57

  3.8

  Metropolitan Police1

  1,646.2

  1,694.9

  3.4

  10.1

  0.0

  1,649.6

  1,705.0

  55.4

  3.4

  City of London Police2

  0.1

  0.3

  0.0

  Dyfed Powys

  48.4

  50.0

  0.2

  0.5

  0.0

  48.6

  50.5

  1.9

  3.9

  Gwent

  62.6

  64.6

  0.2

  0.6

  0.0

  62.8

  65.2

  2.4

  3.8

  North Wales

  69.1

  71.3

  0.2

  0.7

  0.0

  69.3

  72.0

  2.7

  3.9

  South Wales

  150.6

  155.4

  0.5

  1.4

  0.0

  151.1

  156.8

  5.7

  3.8

  Total

  331

  341

  1

  3

  0.0

  332

  345

  13

  3.8

  Total (All authorities)

  6,592

  6,798

  20.0

  60.0

  2.2

  6,612

  6,860

  247

  3.7

  1 Estimated budget requirement.

  2 No separately identifiable figures exist for the City of London Police

  All figures have been rounded from the original calculations.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the aggregate of (i) each police authority's capped expenditure limit or in the case of the Metropolitan police the estimated budget requirement and (ii) police rule 3 grant for(a) each individual police authority, (b) each class of police

  £ million (unless otherwise stated)

  Capped expenditure

  Police rule 3 grant

  Aggregate for

  Aggregate for

  Increase over

  Increase over

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1997–98

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1996–97

  1996–97 (per cent.)

  Police Authorities:

  Avon and Somerset

  154.1

  159.0

  0.0

  154.1

  159.0

  4.9

  3.2

  Bedfordshire

  57.3

  59.2

  0.0

  57.3

  59.2

  1.9

  3.3

  Cambridgeshire

  66.2

  68.3

  0.0

  66.2

  68.3

  2.1

  3.2

  Cheshire

  98.2

  101.3

  0.0

  98.2

  101.3

  3.1

  3.2

  Cleveland

  73.2

  75.6

  0.0

  73.2

  75.6

  2.4

  3.3

  Cumbria

  57.9

  59.7

  0.0

  57.9

  59.7

  1.8

  3.1

  Derbyshire

  92.1

  95.3

  0.0

  92.1

  95.3

  3.2

  3.5

  Devon and Cornwall

  152.9

  157.8

  0.0

  152.9

  157.8

  4.9

  3.2

  Dorset

  67.8

  70.0

  0.0

  67.8

  70.0

  2.2

  3.2

  Durham

  71.3

  73.6

  0.0

  71.3

  73.6

  2.3

  3.2

  Essex

  152.9

  157.8

  0.0

  152.9

  157.8

  4.9

  3.2

  Gloucestershire

  58.3

  60.2

  0.0

  58.3

  60.2

  1.9

  3.3

  Hampshire

  174.9

  180.5

  0.0

  174.9

  180.5

  5.6

  3.2

  Hertfordshire

  90.1

  93.0

  0.0

  90.1

  93.0

  2.9

  3.2

  Humberside

  102.8

  106.1

  0.0

  102.8

  106.1

  3.3

  3.2

  Kent

  163.6

  168.9

  0.0

  163.6

  168.9

  5.3

  3.2

  Lancashire

  163.0

  168.3

  0.0

  163.0

  168.3

  5.3

  3.3

  Leicestershire

  94.5

  97.5

  0.0

  94.5

  97.5

  3.0

  3.2

  Lincolnshire

  63.1

  64.2

  0.9

  63.1

  65.1

  2.0

  3.2

  Norfolk

  75.7

  78.2

  0.0

  75.7

  78.2

  2.5

  3.3

  Northamptonshire

  61.8

  63.8

  0.0

  61.8

  63.8

  2.0

  3.2

  50
  authority and (c) all police authorities in 1996–97 and 1997–98 and the change in each in pounds and as a percentage. [10307]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is set out in the table.
  51

  £ million (unless otherwise stated)

  Capped expenditure

  Police rule 3 grant

  Aggregate for

  Aggregate for

  Increase over

  Increase over

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1997–98

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1996–97

  1996–97 (per cent.)

  North Yorkshire

  69.4

  71.6

  0.0

  69.4

  71.6

  2.2

  3.2

  Nottinghamshire

  114.9

  118.5

  0.0

  114.9

  118.5

  3.6

  3.1

  Staffordshire

  109.5

  113.0

  0.0

  109.5

  113.0

  3.5

  3.2

  Suffolk

  61.S

  63.5

  0.0

  61.5

  63.5

  2.0

  3.3

  Surrey

  87.0

  88.5

  1.3

  87.0

  89.8

  2.8

  3.2

  Sussex

  150.9

  155.7

  0.0

  150.9

  155.7

  4.8

  3.2

  Thames Valley

  203.3

  209.8

  0.0

  203.3

  209.8

  6.5

  3.2

  Warwickshire

  49.3

  50.9

  0.0

  49.3

  50.9

  1.6

  3.2

  West Mercia

  103.2

  106.5

  0.0

  103.2

  106.5

  3.3

  3.2

  Wiltshire

  61.4

  63.3

  0.0

  61.4

  63.3

  1.9

  3.1

  Total English shire authorities

  3,102

  3,200

  0.0

  3,102

  3,200

  98

  3.1

  Greater Manchester

  341.8

  352.8

  0.0

  341.8

  352.8

  11.0

  3.2

  Merseyside

  226.2

  233.5

  0.0

  226.2

  233.5

  7.3

  3.2

  Northumbria

  187.7

  193.7

  0.0

  187.7

  193.7

  6.0

  3.2

  South Yorkshire

  154.3

  159.2

  0.0

  154.3

  159.2

  4.9

  3.2

  West Midlands

  343.2

  354.2

  0.0

  343.2

  354.2

  11.0

  3.2

  West Yorkshire

  260.0

  268.3

  0.0

  260.0

  268.3

  8.3

  3.2

  Total Metropolitan authorities

  1,513

  1,562

  0.0

  1,513

  1,562

  49

  3.2

  Metropolitan Police1

  1,646.2

  1,694.9

  0.0

  1,646.2

  1,694.9

  48.7

  3.0

  City of London Police2

  —

  —

  0.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dyfed Powys

  48.4

  50.0

  0.0

  48.4

  50.0

  1.6

  3.3

  Gwent

  62.6

  64.6

  0.0

  62.6

  64.6

  2.0

  3.2

  North Wales

  69.1

  71.3

  0.0

  69.1

  71.3

  2.2

  3.2

  South Wales

  150.6

  155.4

  0.0

  150.6

  155.4

  4.8

  3.2

  Total Welsh authorities

  331

  341

  0.0

  331

  341

  11

  3.2

  Total (All authorities)

  6,592

  6,798

  2.2

  6,592

  6,800

  208

  3.1

  1Estimated budget requirement.

  2No separately identifiable figures exist for the City of London Police. All figures have been rounded from the original calculations.

  Representation of the People Acts
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the occasions on which the operation of the Representation of the People Acts has been found to be in breach of the European convention on human rights. [10768]

  Mr. Sackville
  The United Kingdom is currently challenging in the European Court of Human Rights a decision of the European Commission of Human Rights last year on an application brought by Mrs. Phyllis Bowman, executive director of the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child, on the operation of section 75 of the Representation of the People Act 1983.

  There are no other instances.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to bring forward amendments to the Representation of the People Acts in respect of material issued about a candidate without his or her permission following the recent ruling of the European Commission of human rights. [10769]

  Mr. Sackville
  There are no plans to do so at this time.

  Firearms
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Office what plans he has to offer compensation to owners of handguns or other weapons who wish to surrender them to the authorities although not compelled by law to do so. [8159]
  52
  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 18 December 1996]: We accept that the provisions in the Firearms (Amendment) Bill relating to gun clubs will make it difficult for some owners of .22 pistols to continue to shoot. We have therefore decided to make payments, on an ex gratia basis, to firearm certificate holders who choose to surrender such guns to the police. There are no such plans in relation to other weapons whose surrender will not be required.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in respect of how many and which public appointments a nominee has been specifically and separately sought from the Government of the Irish Republic at Maryfield since 1 January 1990; and if he will make a statement. [5115]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The following list sets out the vacancies which were notified to the Irish Government separately from those notified in the six-monthly lists. The bodies covered by the six-monthly lists were set out in my reply to the hon. Gentleman of 6 November 1996,Official Report, columns 556–59. The following list represents the vacancies not foreseen when the six-monthly lists were drawn up, for example arising from the creation of new bodies and from resignations.
  53
  VACANCIES NOTIFIED TO THE IRISH GOVERNMENT SEPARATELY FROM THOSE CONTAINED IN THE SIx-MONTHLY LISTS (FROM 1 JANUARY 1990)

  1990

  NI Railways—1 vacancy

  Independent Commission for Police Complaints—2 vacancies

  Police Authority for NI—2 vacancies

  Local Government Boundaries Commission—1 vacancy

  Probation Board for NI—1 vacancy

  NI Electricity—1 vacancy

  1991

  Equal Opportunities Commission—1 vacancy

  Fair Employment Commission—1 vacancy

  NI Electricity—4 vacancies

  1992

  Local Enterprise Development Unit—9 vacancies

  Equal Opportunities Commission—1 vacancy

  NI Tourist Board—1 vacancy

  Industrial Research Technology Board—number of vacancies not stated

  Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside—6 vacancies

  Warrenpoint Harbour Authority—I vacancy\

  Certification Officer for NI—1 vacancy

  Planning Appeals Commission—1 vacancy

  Health and Social Services Trusts—50 vacancies

  Council for Catholic Maintained Schools—Education Committees—16 vacancies

  Community Relations Council—3 vacancies

  Local Government Staff Commission—2 vacancies

  New Sports Council for NI—1 vacancy

  NI Higher Education Council—8 vacancies

  Planning Appeals Commission—1 vacancy

  1993

  Arts Council—2 vacancies

  Fire Authority—3 vacancies

  NI Economic Council—2 vacancies

  Enterprise Ulster—1 vacancy

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing NI—2 vacancies

  Mental Health Commission—2 vacancies

  NI Council for the Curriculum Examination and Assessment—1 vacancy

  General Consumer Council for NI—14 vacancies

  NI Regional Medical Physics—1 vacancy

  Industrial Development Board—1 vacancy

  Law Reform Advisory Committee—1 vacancy

  Local Enterprise Development Unit—1 vacancy

  Eastern Health and Social Services Board—1 vacancy

  Sports Council for NI—1 vacancy

  Warrenpoint Harbour Authority—1 vacancy

  NI Citizens' Charter Advisory Panel—1 vacancy

  Northern Health and Social Services Council—1 vacancy

  Fair Employment Commission—1 vacancy

  Board of Visitors: HM Prison Maghaberry—2 vacancies

  1994

  Southern Health and Social Services Council—2 vacancies

  Health and Social Services Trusts—24 vacancies

  Lay Observer—1 vacancy

  Western Health and Social Services Council—3 vacancies

  Laganside Corporation—I vacancy

  NI Economic Council—1 vacancy

  Eastern Health and Social Services Board—3 vacancies

  54

  Eastern Health and Social Services Council—2 vacancies

  The Senate of Queen's University, Belfast—1 vacancy

  NI Blood Transfusion Services Agency—1 vacancy

  Western Health and Social Services Board—1 vacancy

  NI Higher Education Council—2 vacancies

  Southern Health and Social Services Board—1 vacancy

  Southern Eastern Education and Library Board—1 vacancy

  Southern Education and Library Board—2 vacancies

  Planning Appeals Commission—2 vacancies

  1995

  Health and Social Services Trusts—39 vacancies

  Western Health and Social Services Board—1 vacancy

  Northern Health and Social Services Council—1 vacancy

  NI Housing Executive—3 vacancies

  Down and Connor Diocesan Education Committee—1 vacancy

  Southern Health and Social Services Board—1 vacancy

  Belfast Education and Library Board—1 vacancy

  Western Health and Social Services Council—3 vacancies

  Southern Health and Social Services Council—2 vacancies

  Northern Health and Social Services Council—2 vacancies

  Eastern Health and Social Services Council—5 vacancies

  South Eastern Education and Library Board—1 vacancy

  Arts Council of NI—1 vacancy

  Ulster Museum—1 vacancy

  NI Guardian Ad Litem Agency—3 vacancies

  NI Commission for Protection against Unlawful Industrial Action—1 vacancy

  Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights—5 vacancies

  Council for Catholic Maintained Schools—Armagh Diocesan

  Education Committee—2 vacancies

  Agricultural Wages Board—1 vacancy

  Lay Observer—1 vacancy

  NI Transport Holding Company—4 vacancies

  General Consumer Council for NI—1 vacancy

  Law Reform Advisory Committee—1 vacancy

  The Senate of Queens University, Belfast—5 vacancies

  NI Sports Council—15 vacancies

  1996

  Health and Social Services Trusts—4 vacancies

  Southern Health and Social Services Council—1 vacancy

  Western Health and Social Services Board—5 vacancies

  NI Disability Council—11–20 vacancies

  Local Government Staff Commission—1 vacancy

  Labour Relations Agency—1 vacancy

  Local Enterprise Development Unit—2 vacancies

  Eastern Health and Social Services Council—2 vacancies

  Eastern Health and Social Services Board—1 vacancy

  Police Authority for NI—2 vacancies

  Equal Opportunities Commission—1 vacancy

  Southern Health and Social Services Council—2 vacancies

  Central Services Agency—3 vacancies

  Arts Council for NI—13 vacancies

  Fair Employment Commission—2 vacancies

  Northern Health and Social Services Council—1 vacancy

  Planning Appeals Commission—2 vacancies

  Industrial Development Board—1 vacancy

  Punishment Shootings
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many so-called punishment shootings have taken place in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years and the current year to date; and how many were believed in each year to have been carried out by (1) the Provisional IRA,

  (2) other Republican terrorists,

  (3) the Ulster Defence Association,

  (4) the Ulster Volunteer Force and

  (5) other Loyalist organisations. [9220]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The number of casualties as a result of "punishment" shootings for the period 1 January 1991 to 11 December 1996 is as follows:

  Year

  By Loyalist groups

  By Republican groups

  Total

  1991

  40

  36

  76

  1992

  72

  61

  133

  1993

  60

  25

  85

  1994

  68

  54

  122

  1995

  3

  0

  3

  19961

  19

  3

  22

  1 To 11 December.

  It is not possible to specify which individual group carried out an offence.

  Council for Voluntary Action Report
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the report entitled, "Missing the Target: a critique of Government policy on Targeting Social Need in Northern Ireland", published by the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action; and what plans he has to implement its recommendations. [9689]

  Mr. Ancram
  The Government have noted the report on targeting social need published by the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action in December 1996. Though it contains some constructive comments, other criticisms of Government policies are not accepted, particularly when it is suggested that Northern Ireland should diverge from particular national or European Union policies. It would not be appropriate to come to a final view on the report's recommendations in advance of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights' report on employment equality which is scheduled to be published in the near future and which will also deal with targeting social need.

  Disability
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people from Belfast, West (i) are currently in receipt of disability allowance, (ii) have had applications for disability living allowance turned down in 1996, (iii) are currently in receipt of incapacity benefit and (iv) have had applications for incapacity benefit turned down in 1996. [9751]
  56
  Mr. Moss
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Social Security Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Alec Wylie. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Alec Wylie to Dr. Joe Hendron, dated 20 December 1996:
  I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question on Incapacity Benefit and Disability Living Allowance.
  I have attached a table showing the number of people in the Belfast West constituency who are in receipt of Incapacity Benefit and Disability Living Allowance. Unfortunately, figures are not available for either benefit for the number of applicants who have been turned down in 1996.
  I hope this explains the position for you but I would be happy to provide any further information you require.

  Number of people in the Belfast west constituency in receipt of incapacity benefit and disability living allowance

  Benefit

  Number of recipients August 1996

  DLA

  10,263

  IB

  6,350

  Based on 1991 population census.

  Ministerial Leave
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many days of leave he plans to take during the Christmas adjournment; [9827]

  (2) how many days leave he has taken in the Easter, Whitsun and summer adjournments; and how many days leave he took during the time in which Parliament was prorogued this year. [9826]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the amount spent on external consultants by his Department's non-departmental public bodies in each of the last five years. [10192]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Expenditure details are not immediately available for all bodies, especially in the first three years. However, from the information available to Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office, the amount spent by their non-departmental public bodies on external consultants in each of the last five years was:

  Year

  Expenditure (£000)

  1991–92

  968

  1992–93

  1,746

  1993–94

  1,696

  1994–95

  1,861

  1995–96

  2,890

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the actions his Department
  57
  has taken on each of the recommendations contained in the Cabinet Office report, "The Government's Use of External Consultants". [10193]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The report did not extend to Northern Ireland because of the separate public expenditure accountability and administrative arrangements that exist there. However, guidance has been issued to the Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office based on the report's recommendations.

  Language Teaching
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much was spent on the promotion and teaching of(a) the Irish language and (b) the Ulster-Scots language in 1996 in each of the last five years. [10645]

  Mr. Ancram
  The table shows the identifiable expenditure on projects with an Irish language or Ulster-Scots dimension for the financial years 1991–92 to 1995–96. It includes expenditure on education through the medium of the Irish language, but does not include expenditure on the teaching of the Irish language in English medium schools because this information is not collected separately. Applications for grant assistance are assessed on their merits and the disparity between the levels of funding reflects the number of Irish language and Ulster-Scots cultural groups in Northern Ireland, and the relative stage of development of the Irish language and Ulster-Scots cultural movements.

  £ million

  Year

  Irish

  Ulster-Scots

  1991–92

  1.222

  Nil

  1992–93

  1.347

  0.004

  1993–94

  1.554

  Nil

  1994–95

  1.942

  0.003

  1995–96

  2.521

  0.021

  Fluoridation
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the consulting engineers who have been involved in the M and E design work associated with the proposals for the fluoridation of the water supply in Northern Ireland. [10543]

  Mr. Moss
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Water Service under its chief executive, Mr. H. R. Plester. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from H. R. F. Plester to Mr. Peter Robinson, dated 7 January 1997:
  Mr Moss has asked me to reply to your parliamentary question asking if he will list the consulting engineers who have been involved in the M & E design work associated with the proposals for the fluoridation of the water supply in Northern Ireland.
  The Water Service has not commissioned any consulting engineers to carry out design work associated with the proposals for fluoridation of the water supply in Northern Ireland. All design work to date has been undertaken by the Water Service's own design staff.

  EU Financing
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money Northern Ireland has received in each financial year from EC sources apart from payments under the structural funds. [10811]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The following amounts have been identified as being received in Northern Ireland from European Community sources other than the structural funds since 1987–88, when meaningful figures first became available:

  Financial year

  Total £ million

  1987–88

  27.6

  1988–89

  27.8

  1989–90

  46.0

  1990–91

  48.0

  1991–92

  59.5

  1992–93

  56.1

  1993–94

  89.7

  1994–95

  114.7

  1995–96

  128.7

  These receipts are from the guarantee section of the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund. However, it should be noted that the bulk of guarantee section receipts are disbursed centrally by the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce and details of payments are not generally maintained at regional level. Other small payments are made by the European Commission direct to recipients which are not passed through the United Kingdom Government.

  EU Social Fund
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money under the European social fund for Northern Ireland in each financial year to date accrued to(a) the private sector, (b) non-central Government public sector bodies and (c) central Government. [10814]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information is as follows:

  £ million

  Year

  (a) Private/voluntary sector

  (b) Non-central Government public bodies

  (c) Central Government

  1973–74

  —

  —

  —

  1974–75

  0.41

  0.31

  2.68

  1973–76

  —

  —

  —

  1976–77

  0.77

  0.58

  5.05

  1977–78

  0.90

  0.68

  5.92

  1978–79

  1.80

  1.35

  11.85

  1979–80

  1.80

  1.35

  11.85

  1980–81

  2.76

  2.07

  18.17

  1981–82

  3.00

  2.25

  19.75

  1982–83

  4.22

  3.17

  27.81

  1983–84

  4.56

  3.42

  30.02

  1984–85

  4.56

  3.42

  30.02

  1985–86

  3.00

  2.25

  19.75

  1986–87

  6.39

  4.80

  42.11

  1987–88

  6.77

  5.08

  44.55

  1988–89

  4.33

  3.25

  28.52

  1989–90

  4.17

  5.57

  36.66

  1990–91

  4.57

  6.08

  40.05

  1991–92

  4.75

  6.32

  41.63

  1992–93

  3.77

  5.03

  33.10

  59

  £ million

  Year

  (a) Private/voluntary sector

  (b) Non-central Government public bodies

  (c) Central Government

  1993–94

  3.16

  4.21

  27.73

  1994–95

  6.36

  8.47

  55.77

  1995–96

  3.41

  4.55

  29.94

  75.46

  74.21

  562.93

  The totals for European social fund receipts are taken from published Government and Northern Ireland public expenditure plans.

  As the information is not readily available in the format requested, the breakdown for each year is based on the percentage outturn for 1994.

  EU Regional Development Fund
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money Northern Ireland has received in each year to date from the European regional development fund; how much has been devoted to(a) infrastructure projects undertaken by non-central Government bodies, (b) infrastructure projects undertaken by central Government and (c) industrial projects. [10813]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information is as follows:

  Infrastructure projects

  £ million

  Financial Year

  Non-central Government

  Central Government

  Industrial projects

  Programmes1

  Total

  1975–76

  0.6

  —

  2.3

  —

  2.9

  1976–77

  0.6

  2.8

  3.8

  —

  7.2

  1977–78

  3.2

  0.7

  2.5

  —

  6.4

  1978–79

  2.4

  0.8

  0.8

  —

  4.0

  1979–80

  9.7

  3.3

  3.0

  —

  16.0

  1980–81

  9.7

  1.3

  10.0

  —

  21.0

  1981–82

  4.7

  4.0

  7.6

  0.1

  16.4

  1982–83

  3.8

  11.3

  2.5

  0.4

  18.0

  1983–84

  3.9

  7.5

  1.3

  0.8

  13.5

  1984–85

  5.1

  7.5

  3.0

  1.3

  16.9

  1985–86

  7.0

  9.0

  1.0

  1.4

  18.4

  1986–87

  10.3

  6.8

  3.8

  2.3

  23.2

  1987–88

  22.9

  6.4

  11.1

  5.5

  45.9

  1988–89

  18.9

  7.0

  15.2

  5.6

  46.7

  1989–90

  8.4

  4.9

  16.9

  10.2

  40.4

  1990–91

  6.9

  4.3

  4.9

  31.5

  47.6

  1991–92

  2.2

  1.7

  4.4

  29.81

  38.11

  1992–93

  3.8

  0.5

  5.7

  69.21

  79.21

  1994–95

  0.7

  —

  0.6

  33.6

  34.9

  1995–96

  0.0

  —

  0.2

  64.05

  64.25

  1996–972

  —

  —

  —

  150.50

  150.50

  Totals3

  125.8

  80.1

  101.5

  507.88

  815.28

  1 These programmes combine elements of both industry and infrastructure. Under the new structural funds arrangements from 1989 emphasis was placed on programmes rather than individual projects and some of these so combine the industrial and infrastructural elements that they cannot be validly separated. The table therefore shows an extra column in respect of this class of ERDF receipt.

  2 Includes estimated receipts to date for 1996–97 financial year.

  3 European regional funds receipts to community initiative programmes benefiting Northern Ireland are included in answer number 14 of 13 January 1997.

  European Community (UK Payments)
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was Northern Ireland's share of the United Kingdom's payments into the European Economic Community from 1 January 1973 to date; and what was Northern Ireland's share of receipts for the same period. [10812]

  Sir John Wheeler
  It is not possible to determine Northern Ireland's actual share of the United Kingdom's contribution to the European Community because payments are made on a national and not a regional basis. Similarly it is not possible to identify the full extend of receipts from the Community. However, a Northern Ireland attributed share of the contribution to the EC is calculated as an accounting mechanism because of the operation of a separate Northern Ireland consolidated fund. This notional attributed share does not count as an item of expenditure within the Northern Ireland public expenditure programme and has therefore no bearing on the level of public expenditure in the Province.

  Figures for the notional attribution of part of the Northern Ireland's share of the United Kingdom's payments and for those areas where the receipts from the European Community's structural funds can be separately identified are as follows:

  £ million

  Financial year

  Attributed share (part)

  1 Identified receipts

  1973–74

  1

  0

  1974–75

  6

  4

  1975–76

  8

  4

  1976–77

  13

  16

  1977–78

  16

  14

  1978–79

  24

  19

  1979–80

  28

  31

  1980–81

  28

  44

  1981–82

  50

  41

  1982–83

  66

  53

  1983–84

  66

  51

  1984–85

  68

  58

  1985–86

  74

  44

  1986–87

  62

  77

  1987–88

  91

  111

  1988–89

  85

  96

  1989–90

  104

  95

  1990–91

  107

  110

  1991–92

  78

  132

  1992–93

  121

  158

  1993–94

  2171

  186

  1994–95

  2173

  155

  1995–96

  2

  146

  Total

  1,647

  1,645

  1 This comprises total identified EC structural funds receipts and, from 1994–95, financial instrument for fisheries guidance receipts in Northern Ireland. Receipts under the guarantee section are disbursed centrally by the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce and are, therefore, not included in the above figures.

  2 Attributed share figures for the last three years are provisional estimates which will be revised when final details of NI's attributed share of tax revenues is determined.

  European Initiatives
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money has been received by Northern Ireland under each of the European Community initiatives in each financial year to date; and what

  £ million

  Initiative

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  INTERREG I (assistance to border areas)

  5.09

  5.70

  16.11

  —

  —

  —

  STRIDE (research and technological development)

  —

  5.28

  3.27

  —

  —

  —

  ENVIREG (environmental improvement)

  0.77

  1.66

  033

  8.89

  —

  1.11

  PRISMA (assistance to firms)

  —

  1.21

  2.19

  —

  —

  —

  TELEMATIQUE (promotion of telecommunications service)

  —

  3.35

  —

  —

  —

  —

  EUROFORM (qualifications, new skills, and employment opportunity)

  —

  0.05

  0.96

  0.62

  —

  0.16

  NOW (employment opportunity for women)

  —

  0.30

  0.54

  —

  0.15

  —

  HORIZON (handicapped and certain disadvantaged groups)

  —

  0.23

  0.75

  0.20

  0.21

  —

  —Support Structures

  0.03

  0.02

  0.13

  0.08

  0.09

  —

  RETEx I (diversification for textile regions)

  —

  —

  0.9

  0.55

  —

  —

  LEADER I (rural development)

  —

  1.09

  —

  1.17

  —

  —

  KONVER I (restructuring of defence-dependent areas)

  —

  —

  —

  0.25

  —

  —

  Under the 1994–99 structural funds allocation, Northern Ireland benefits under 10 Community initiative programmes including the EU special support programme for peace and reconciliation. The amounts received to date under each initiative are:

  £ million

  Initiative

  1995–96

  1996–97

  INTERREG II (promoting cross border areas)

  5.94

  —

  SMEs (small firms)

  2.55

  —

  RETEx II (diversification for textile regions)

  1.54

  —

  EMPLOYMENT (addressing exclusion and marginalisation in the labour markets)

  0.51

  4.30

  ADAPT (industrial change)

  —

  0.70

  URBAN (developing selected urban areas

  5.65

  —

  PESCA (development of fishing areas)

  —

  0.08

  LEADER II (rural development)

  1.89

  0.68

  KONVER II (restructuring of defence-dependent areas)

  —

  0.06

  PEACE PROGRAMME

  8.83

  33.25

  (a) Receipts earned by the private sector and by non-central Government public sector bodies are paid to the claimant. The receipts represent cash additions to the recipients. Receipts earned by central Government are paid into the Northern ireland consolidated fund. All receipts are subject to EC audit arrangements and normal Government accounting requirements
  62
  proportion of funding each year (a) represented a cash addition to the Northern Ireland economy and (b) was used to offset Government expenditure. [10810]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Under the 1989–93 structural funds allocation, Northern Ireland had 11 approved Community initiatives. The amounts received to date under each initiative are:

  (b) The overall level of receipts is taken into account in the Government's decisions on public expenditure allocations, and their availability enables expenditure to be maintained at a higher level than would otherwise be feasible.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy that in each submission put to him for public appointments where an Irish Government nominee is on the list that any nominee of an hon. Member or a political party for that vacancy is also placed on the same list. [9580]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 18 December 1996]:

  I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 4 December 1996, Official Report, column 705.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Teachers' Pensions
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will estimate the cost to the teachers' superannuation scheme if all current contributors and deferred pensioners chose to transfer their accrued pension rights from the teachers' scheme into a personal pension arrangement. [8561]
  63
  Mrs. Gillan
  [holding answer 10 December 1996]: The cost to the teachers' superannuation scheme—TSS—if all current contributors and deferred pensioners as at 31 March 1997 chose to transfer their accrued pension rights into a personal pension arrangement is estimated at £14 billion. This estimate assumes that current contributors opt out of the TSS and so transfer their benefits only in respect of service after 5 April 1988.

  Mr. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will estimate the cost to the teachers' superannuation scheme if all current contributors aged(a) 50 or over and (b) 55 or over years, as at 31 March 1997 chose to transfer their accrued pension rights from the teachers' scheme into a personal pension arrangement. [8562]

  Mrs. Gillan
  [holding answer 10 December 1996]: The costs to the teachers' superannuation scheme—TSS—if all contributors aged (a) 50 or over and (b) 55 or over as at 31 March 1997 chose to transfer their accrued pension rights into a personal pension arrangement are estimated as £3½ billion and £1½ billion respectively. These estimates assume that contributors opt out of the TSS and so transfer their benefits only in respect of service after 5 April 1988.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate she has made of the reduction in the teacher work force consequent upon the proposed changes in the superannuation scheme; and if she will make a statement. [9981]

  Mrs. Gillan
  My right hon. Friend does not expect the proposed changes to lead to reductions in the teacher work force.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the adequacy of current teachers' superannuation regulations to deal with teachers aged 55 years and over in the local education authorities of Wales. [9979]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Under the current regulations, the costs of premature retirement are pooled among all employers of teachers, and are brought to account some years after the event. This system does not encourage employers to behave prudently. Under the proposed new arrangements, since employers will have to pay the extra cost of each premature retirement as and when they make it, they will make more considered, prudent, decisions. These considerations apply to local authorities in Wales and to all other teachers' employers.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate she has made of the impact upon the morale of the teaching profession of her proposals to make changes in the superannuation scheme. [9980]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The Budget settlement allows for the cost to employers of a continuing programme of premature retirement. There is therefore no reason why teachers' morale should be affected by the proposals.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the principal changes she proposes in the teachers' superannuation scheme; and if she will make a statement. [10220]
  64
  Mrs. Gillan
  The principal changes proposed by my right hon. Friend are as follows: a reduction in the employers' contribution rate from 8.05 per cent. to 7.2 per cent.; making teachers' employers pay the extra cost of premature retirements as and when they make them; including the cost of pensions increase in the finances of the scheme; increasing the death grant from one to two years' salary from 1 April 1998; making teachers who have been barred for misconduct ineligible for ill health retirement benefits; and re-introducing the requirement that teachers should be permanently incapacitated in order to qualify for ill health retirement benefits.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has received concerning her proposals to make changes in the teachers' superannuation regulations for teachers aged 55 years and over. [10142]

  Mrs. Gillan
  My right hon. Friend has received a large number of representations in respect of the proposed changes to the teachers' superannuation regulations.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if teachers who are members of the teachers' pension scheme currently have an entitlement to receive an unenhanced pension based on years of service up to the date of dismissal; if dismissed as redundant aged over 50 years; and what legal advice she has obtained on the lawfulness of changing that entitlement, as proposed on 22 October, by means of amending regulations. [10281]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Under the current regulations, a teacher over 50 receives an immediate pension only if their employer certifies to the Secretary of State that the teacher's employment has been terminated by reason of redundancy or in the efficient discharge of the employer's functions. Under the proposed regulations, teachers' employers would be allowed to make enhanced severance payments, up to 66 weeks' of salary, as an alternative to premature retirement, The Superannuation Act 1972 empowers the Secretary of State to make amending regulations after consultation.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will estimate the financial consequences of the proposed changes to funding early retirement for teachers in the maintained and in the independent sector. [10497]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The reductions in the employers' contribution rate from 8.05 per cent. to 7.2 per cent. will lead to estimated reductions of £87 million and £8 million in spending on superannuation contributions in maintained and independent schools respectively. The Budget settlement assumes that maintained schools will continue to make premature retirements at 75 per cent. of current levels in 1997–98. The estimated net extra cost in the first year of that level of premature retirement would be £15 million. If a similar rate of premature retirement takes place in independent schools the extra cost in the first year would be £1.8 million in 1997–98.

  Mr. Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many applicants by teachers for early retirement have been (i) accepted, (ii) rejected and (iii) not determined in each of the past three years; and what she estimates the numbers might be if her draft proposals are enacted. [10495]
  65
  Mrs. Gillan
  The Department collects data on the number of premature retirements granted by teachers' employers, but not on the number of applications made by teachers to their employers. Premature retirement is at the discretion of the employer.

  Mr. Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if the costs of early retirement for teachers is proposed to fall on the last school or on the education authority. [10498]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Under the current legislation, the cost of premature retirement for teachers in LEA-maintained schools falls on the LEA, unless it has good reason to charge the cost to the school's delegated budget. The Government have tabled an amendment to the Education Bill now before the House which would allow LEAs to charge the cost to a school's budget if the authority has not agreed to the premature retirement.

  Mr. Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if teachers and former teachers have accumulated customary rights to early retirement that will not be extinguished by the proposed changes to funding arrangements. [10496]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Teachers have no accumulated right to premature retirement, which is at the discretion of the employer.

  National Advisory Council on Employment of People with Disabilities
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what is the total annual budget for the National Advisory Council on Employment of People with Disabilities; [9148]

  (2) what proportion of the total budget of the National Advisory Council on Employment of People with Disabilities is accounted for by administrative costs and the remuneration of members; [9151]

  (3) if he will list the members of the National Advisory Council on Employment of People with Disabilities and the terms of their appointments. [9152]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The members of the National Advisory Council on Employment of People with Disabilities—NACEPD—are: Mr. Alan Smith CBE, FIPD (Chairman), Professor Ian Bruce, Mrs. Guinette Davies, Mrs. Andrea Dean, Ms Rita Donaghy, Dr. Stephen Duckworth OBE, Mr. Richard Excell, Dr. Ann Fingret, Sir Peter Large CBE, Mr. Bert Massie OBE, Mr. Paul Newman, Mr. Tim Papé OBE, Ms Susan Scott-Parker, Mr. Richard Sermon, Mr. Ian Sneddon, Mr. John Spencer, Mr. Roger Spoor OBE, and Mrs. Dianah Worman. NACEPD was reconstituted on 1 July 1994 for three years until 30 June 1997, when the terms of members' appointments expire.

  The total estimated costs for NACEPD in 1996–97 are £70,200, of which 96 per cent. covers allowances for members' loss of earnings and travel and subsistence expenses, and the provision of the council's secretariat.

  Exam Results
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what have been the average 66
  exam results for state sector schools (a) in the Bolton local education authority area and (b) nationally in each of the last three years. [9665]

  Mrs Gillan
  The average exam results for state sector schools(a) in the Bolton local education authority area and (b) England in each of the last three years are:

  GCSE achievements

  Percentage of 15-year-old pupils achieving

  Five or more GCSE grades A* to C

  Five or more GCSE grades A* to G

  One or more GCSE grades A* to G

  Bolton

  '1993–94

  41.9

  85.3

  91.0

  1994–95

  41.4

  85.8

  91.0

  1995–96

  41.9

  84.8

  90.5

  England

  1993–94

  39.8

  85.3

  92.3

  1994–95

  40.4

  85.9

  92.2

  1995–96

  41.7

  86.3

  92.4

  GCE A/AS examination achievements of 16 to 18-year-old candidates

  Average GCE A/AS point score

  Per entry

  Per candidate entered for two or more GCE A/AS

  Bolton

  1993–94

  4.8

  17.5

  1994–95

  4.9

  17.7

  1995–96

  5.0

  18.1

  England

  1993–94

  4.8

  15.1

  1994–95

  4.9

  15.9

  1995–96

  5.1

  16.8

  Official Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list for each of the Ministers in her Department how many official ministerial visits they have undertaken since 1 January; and how many of these have been abroad. [9389]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Since 1 January 1996 up to the present day, Ministers in this Department undertook the following visits:

  Minister

  Number of visits

  Of which were abroad

  Secretary of State, Mrs. Gillian Shephard

  100

  4

  Mr. Eric Forth

  93

  7

  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan

  88

  1

  Mr. James Paice

  107

  6

  Mr. Robin Squire

  88

  0

  Lord Henley

  69

  2

  Jobcentres
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment with whom she has consulted
  67
  regarding the suitability of open plan arrangements in jobcentres with respect to the safety of Employment Service staff. [10283]

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

  Letter from R. D. Horne to Mr. Ian McCartney, dated 13 January 1997:
  The Secretary of State has asked me, in the absence of the Chief Executive, to reply to your question about who has been consulted regarding the suitability of open plan arrangements in Jobcentres.
  Jobcentres operated by the Employment Service and its predecessors have always been open plan since their inception in the early 1970s. From the mid-1980s a programme, with staff agreement, to convert to open plan layouts in Unemployment Benefit Offices was in progress.
  Our new integrated Jobcentres, combining the two services, retained an open plan layout because it provided a much more effective and pleasant environment for delivering our services. These require interviews with jobseekers that involve sensitive discussions about their personal circumstances and requirements. Space Planning experts and design consultants were employed to help plan the interior layouts, which have since been subject to thorough risk assessments designed to reduce the risk to the safety of our people to a minimum after the introducation of the Jobseekers Allowance (JSA). The assessments conducted by competent assessors were undertaken in all Jobcentres during 1996. A further round of assessments is planned for 1997 when we have sufficient experience of operating JSA.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what factors underlay the decision by Employment Service management on 1 October to appeal against the issue of a Crown notice of improvement to the Employment Service following an assault at the Camberwell jobcentre. [10282]

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

  Letter from R. D. Horne to Mr. Ian McCartney, dated 13 January 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked me, in the absence of the Chief Executive, to reply to your question about the Employment Service response to the issue of a Crown Notice following an assault at Camberwell Jobcentre.
  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) informed us of their intention to issue a Crown Notice and invited our comments. Our officials met with theirs and provided further information and evidence to clarify the issues raised by HSE. Following this meeting and a further exchange of correspondence we were informed by HSE that they no longer intended to proceed with the issue of a Crown Notice.
  I hope that this is helpful.

  Contract for Work Pilots
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on what date contract for work pilots will commence; in what areas they will be located; what will be the procedure for referring claimants to the programme; if benefit sanctions will apply for refusal to attend; and if these pilots will be linked to project work pilots. [10265]
  68
  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) on 12 December 1996,Official Report, columns 316–17, for a list of potential areas. There are no plans to introduce project work in any of these areas. The contract for work pilots will begin in the spring of 1997, once tender negotiations have been completed satisfactorily. The Government's intention is that clients will be referred to the programme by the Employment Service at the first restart interview that they receive after the start of the pilot, and that, subject to the approval of Parliament, those who fail to attend without good cause will be subject to benefit sanction under the provisions of section 19 of the Jobseekers Act 1995, and regulation 69, 73 and 75 of the Jobseeker's Allowance Regulations 1996.

  Jobmatch Programme
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in what ways the jobmatch programme for claimants aged 18 to 25 years will differ from the rules and provisions of the pilot programme. [10261]

  Mr. Forth
  The new jobmatch programme will be delivered through the Employment Service and will remain broadly similar to the pilot programme. It will offer 4,000 places in 1997–98 to help those aged under 25 who have been unemployed for two years or more to leave unemployment for a part-time job. The programme will differ from the pilots in that there will no longer be two payments of the weekly jobmatch allowance after the initial payment period of 26 weeks, and in that the procedures for issuing training vouchers will be simplified.

  Literacy and Numeracy
  Sir Roger Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if her proposed mandatory baseline assessments will incorporate screening for children at risk of literacy and numeracy difficulties. [10262]

  Mrs. Gillan
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) on 3 December 1996,Official Report, column 611.

  Education Standard Spending Assessment
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list in percentage terms the amount of the education standard spending assessment(a) distributed directly to schools and (b) retained by the local education authority indicating the sum of each amount transferred to the county for each of the county authorities. [9745]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Local education authorities are free to set education budgets higher or lower than their education standard spending assessments—SSAs. As education SSAs are not earmarked, there is no prescribed proportion for delegation to schools, or deployment by the authority for other purposes. The table sets out, for each shire county LEA unaffected by local government re-organisation,

  (a) its education SSA,

  69

  (b) its adjusted aggregated schools budget—ASB—representing the funding to be distributed directly to schools, and

  (c) the adjusted ASB as a percentage of the SSA.

  The figures are for 1996–97.

  Education SSA £ million

  Adjusted ASB £ million

  Adjusted ASB as percentage of SSA

  Bedfordshire

  220.156

  165.703

  75.3

  Berkshire

  282.308

  211.899

  75.1

  Buckinghamshire

  252.855

  182.777

  72.3

  Cambridgeshire

  237.278

  180.996

  76.3

  Cheshire

  348.970

  282.632

  81.0

  Cornwall

  164.930

  120.886

  73.3

  Cumbria

  170.602

  136.829

  80.2

  Derbyshire

  319.922

  243.069

  76.0

  Devon

  345.862

  260.300

  75.3

  Dorset

  207.427

  155.123

  74.8

  Durham

  216.644

  159.569

  73.7

  East Sussex

  219.761

  170.270

  77.5

  Essex

  566.981

  451.469

  79.6

  Gloucestershire

  183.797

  143.271

  78.0

  Hampshire

  525.153

  436.658

  83.1

  Hereford and

  Worcester

  229.005

  172.192

  75.2

  Hertfordshire

  387.245

  318.261

  82.2

  Kent

  581.733

  462.400

  79.5

  Lancashire

  510.448

  386.353

  75.7

  Leicestershire

  333.840

  257.073

  77.0

  Lincolnshire

  213.026

  175.552

  82.4

  Norfolk

  243.384

  199.426

  81.9

  Northamptonshire

  222.270

  179.817

  80.9

  Northumberland

  113.513

  88.719

  78.2

  Nottinghamshire

  365.135

  270.030

  74.0

  Oxfordshire

  192.571

  141.698

  73.6

  Shropshire

  145.332

  113.234

  77.9

  Somerset

  150.908

  120.837

  80.1

  Staffordshire

  366.019

  283.219

  77.4

  Suffolk

  217.470

  178.819

  82.2

  Surrey

  307.474

  243.503

  79.2

  Warwickshire

  164.025

  131.492

  80.2

  West Sussex

  235.410

  183.856

  78.1

  Wiltshire

  197.517

  156.683

  79.3

  Adjusted ASB includes both the aggregated schools budget for LEA schools, and the annual maintenance grant paid to grant-maintained schools.

  Nursery Vouchers
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate she has made of the percentage of four-year-olds expected to take up a pre-school place in the first year of the national voucher scheme. [9765]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The percentage of four-year-olds expected to take up a pre-school place in the first year of the national nursery education voucher scheme will depend upon a number of factors, including the number of pre-school places that satisfy parents' choice, bearing in mind their needs and those of their children.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the number of four-year-olds whose parents do not speak English as a first language in each local education authority area; and how many leaflets she plans to make available for distribution to parents of 70
  four-year-olds in each local education authority, in languages other than English, to inform them about the nursery voucher scheme. [10148]

  Mr. Squire
  It is Departmental policy to make education leaflets for parents available in the nine most widely spoken languages other than English; 130,000 copies of the guide for parents on the nursery education voucher scheme have been printed in these nine languages. All parents have been given the opportunity to request this and future information on the scheme in one of the nine languages via a special multi-language order form sent with their initial mailing of the guide. The size of the print run was informed by the take-up of translated versions of leaflets in previous Departmental campaigns and it is expected that the supply will meet the demand over the first year of the scheme.

  Ministerial Leave
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many days of leave she plans to take during the Christmas adjournment; [9819]

  (2) how many days leave she has taken in the Easter, Whitsun and summer adjournments; and how many days leave she took during the time in which Parliament was prorogued this year. [9818]

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to you today.

  Claimants (Interviews)
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what will be the format of the new intensive series of advisory interviews for claimants unemployed more than two years; what will be the procedure for referring claimants; if benefit sanctions will be imposed for non-attendance; and what will be the impact of the programme on the 1-2-1 interview programme. [10264]

  Mr. Forth
  The new jobfinder programme will comprise a series of intensive interviews which focus on helping people who have been unemployed for two or more years back into work. It will build on the success of the 1-2-1 programme, which will continue to help people who have been unemployed for 12 months. The Government's intention is that jobseekers reaching two years or more unemployment will be referred to the programme by the Employment Service at the relevant restart interview and that, subject to Parliament, those who fail to attend without good cause will be subject to benefit sanction under the provisions of section 19 of the Jobseekers Act 1995, and regulation 69, 73 and 75 of the Jobseeker's Allowance Regulations 1996.

  National Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer of 12 December,Official Report, column 313, on national vocational qualifications, if she will list those national vocational qualifications which were accredited before July 1994 which (a) had not attracted full awards and (b) had attracted fewer than 100 awards. [9776]
  71
  Mr. Paice
  The information requested is contained in a number of tables, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Pre-school Pupils
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer of 25 November,Official Report, columns 24–26, what was the (a) number and (b) percentage of three and four-year-olds in (i) reception classes in primary schools and (ii) nursery schools or nursery classes in primary schools, in each local education authority and nationally in January. [9778]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The available information is shown in the table:

  Pupils aged three and four in maintained nursery and primary schools in England—Position as at January 1996

  Nursery schools and nursery classes within primary schools

  Infant classes1

  Pupils

  Percentage of population

  Pupils

  Percentage of population

  Camden

  1,049

  25

  984

  23

  Greenwich

  3,344

  50

  1,103

  17

  Hackney

  2,242

  33

  1,597

  24

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,731

  44

  559

  14

  Islington

  1,908

  37

  1,475

  28

  Kensington and Chelsea

  851

  27

  368

  12

  Lambeth

  2,433

  31

  1,056

  13

  Lewisham

  2,753

  37

  1,123

  15

  Southwark

  3,065

  41

  2,060

  27

  Tower Hamlets

  3,545

  61

  1,547

  26

  Wandsworth

  2,387

  33

  1,668

  23

  Westminister

  1,246

  32

  544

  14

  Barking and Dagenham

  2,101

  46

  1,543

  34

  Barnet

  2,544

  31

  2,153

  26

  Bexley

  1,533

  25

  2,022

  33

  Brent

  2,600

  36

  2,066

  29

  Bromley

  183

  3

  2,395

  33

  Croydon

  2,148

  23

  2,888

  31

  Ealing

  3,821

  46

  2,458

  30

  Enfield

  1,682

  22

  2,417

  31

  Haringey

  2,769

  44

  1,905

  31

  Harrow

  1,029

  19

  1,605

  29

  Havering

  552

  10

  1,943

  36

  Hillingdon

  3,383

  50

  151

  2

  Hounslow

  2,396

  40

  1,693

  28

  Kingston upon

  Thames

  1,334

  39

  1,074

  31

  Merton

  2,711

  54

  1,007

  20

  Newham

  4,575

  52

  1,279

  15

  Redbridge

  1,430

  22

  1,507

  23

  Richmond upon Thames

  863

  21

  1,160

  29

  Sutton

  1,949

  40

  74

  2

  Waltham Forest

  2,817

  39

  1,051

  15

  Birmingham

  11,217

  35

  10,029

  31

  Coventry

  2,085

  24

  2,817

  33

  Dudley

  3,270

  39

  2,676

  32

  Sandwell

  4,556

  53

  2,912

  34

  Solihull

  1,872

  37

  1,990

  40

  72

  Pupils aged three and four in maintained nursery and primary schools in England—Position as at January 1996

  Nursery schools and nursery classes within primary schools

  Infant classes1

  Pupils

  Percentage of population

  Pupils

  Percentage of population

  Walsall

  4,388

  59

  2,396

  32

  Wolverhampton

  3,912

  54

  2,224

  31

  Knowsley

  2,957

  63

  1,673

  36

  Liverpool

  6,160

  46

  4,212

  32

  St. Helens

  1,620

  33

  1,600

  33

  Sefton

  2,882

  40

  2,532

  35

  Wirral

  2,251

  26

  2,936

  34

  Bolton

  3,172

  42

  2,503

  33

  Bury

  1,625

  32

  1,636

  32

  Manchester

  7,307

  53

  2,432

  18

  Oldham

  2,452

  37

  2,168

  32

  Tochdale

  2,243

  35

  2,048

  32

  Salford

  3,663

  55

  2,052

  31

  Stockport

  2,188

  29

  2,505

  33

  Tameside

  2,596

  40

  2,143

  33

  Trafford

  2,640

  45

  1,828

  31

  Wigan

  2,167

  25

  2,778

  32

  Barnsley

  2,957

  47

  1,124

  18

  Doncaster

  3,654

  44

  2,756

  33

  Rotherham

  3,347

  47

  1,200

  17

  Sheffield

  5,729

  42

  2,531

  19

  Bradford

  6,550

  44

  4,263

  29

  Calderdale

  1,945

  35

  1,780

  32

  Kirklees

  4,475

  41

  3,472

  32

  Leeds

  8,980

  46

  5,771

  30

  Wakefield

  4,813

  54

  1,818

  20

  Gateshead

  1,926

  37

  1,686

  33

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  2,799

  38

  2,250

  31

  North Tyneside

  2,671

  55

  1,671

  34

  South Tyneside

  2,226

  55

  1,373

  34

  Sunderland

  3,678

  44

  2,628

  32

  Avon

  5,267

  21

  7,782

  31

  Bedfordshire

  5,254

  32

  2,972

  18

  Berkshire

  6,987

  32

  922

  4

  Buckinghamshire

  3,342

  18

  3,022

  16

  Cambridge

  2,254

  12

  5,854

  31

  Cheshire

  5,569

  22

  8,551

  33

  Cleveland

  10,017

  63

  5,324

  34

  Cornwall

  1,689

  15

  3,584

  32

  Cumbria

  3,470

  28

  4,120

  33

  Derbyshire

  9,815

  39

  5,971

  24

  Devon

  3,153

  13

  4,066

  16

  Dorset

  800

  5

  4,875

  33

  Durham

  7,325

  47

  5,235

  33

  East Sussex

  1,963

  12

  5,247

  32

  Essex

  3,389

  8

  9,400

  23

  Gloucestershire

  22

  0

  4,388

  31

  Hampshire

  2,021

  5

  13,311

  32

  Hereford and worcester

  2,179

  12

  2,877

  16

  Hertfordshire

  9,900

  36

  5,481

  20

  Humberside

  9,369

  39

  5,769

  24

  Isle of Wight

  170

  6

  960

  36

  Kent

  2,467

  6

  13,260

  33

  Lancashire

  8,163

  21

  12,617

  33

  Leicestershire

  5,090

  20

  4,924

  20

  Lincolnshire

  2,349

  16

  4,880

  34

  Norfolk

  1,409

  8

  5,491

  30

  North Yorkshire

  3,928

  22

  5,198

  30

  Northamptonshire

  3,332

  20

  5,491

  32

  Northumberland

  3,112

  43

  2,496

  34

  73

  Pupils aged three and four in maintained nursery and primary schools in England—Position as at January 1996

  Nursery schools and nursery classes within primary schools

  Infant classes1

  Pupils

  Percentage of population

  Pupils

  Percentage of population

  Nottinghamshire

  14,125

  51

  2,152

  8

  Oxfordshire

  3,377

  20

  1,231

  7

  Shropshire

  2,325

  21

  2,083

  19

  Somerset

  607

  5

  3,873

  33

  Staffordshire

  7,336

  27

  9,075

  33

  Suffolk

  3,306

  19

  2,606

  15

  Surrey

  3,238

  12

  7,486

  29

  Warwickshire

  2,108

  17

  4,178

  34

  West Sussex

  1,281

  8

  2,941

  17

  Wiltshire

  792

  5

  3,630

  23

  England 2,3

  364,271

  28

  344,222

  26

  1 Includes reception and other classes.

  2 Includes Isles of Scilly.

  3 Includes Corporation of London.

  Connahs Quay High School
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will visit Connahs Quay high school to discuss her proposed superannuation scheme. [9982]

  Mrs. Gillan
  No.

  Failing Schools
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many primary schools(a) nationally, (b) in the west midlands and (c) in Coventry were classified as failing in (i) 1994–95 and (ii) 1995–96; [9986]

  (2) how many secondary schools (a) nationally, (b) in the west midlands and (c) in Coventry were classified as failing in (i) 1994–95 and (ii) 1995–96. [9987]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is given in the table:

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Number of failing primary schools

  Nationally

  46

  116

  West Midlands

  4

  11

  Coventry

  —

  1

  Number of failing secondary schools

  Nationally

  35

  65

  West Midlands

  2

  4

  Coventry

  —

  —

  1. The answer covers the academic years 1 September 1994 to 31 August 1995 and 1 September 1995 to 31 August 1996.

  2. The classification of failure applies from the date that the school received the Office for Standards in Education published report.

  3. The numbers include those schools which were subsequently restored to health or were closed. They do not include five failing special schools which have both primary and secondary provision, one of which is in the west midlands (Walsall).

  4. The west midlands region has been defined as comprising Coventry, Walsall, Staffordshire, Solihull, Warwickshire, Wolverhampton, Birmingham, Dudley, Shropshire, Hereford and Worcester, and Sandwell.

  National Curriculum (Exempt Schools)
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which schools are exempt from the national curriculum; and if she will make a statement. [9970]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Independent schools, non-maintained special schools, maintained special schools established in hospitals, and pupil referral units are the only schools which do not have to follow the national curriculum.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimates she has made of the amount spent on external consultants by her Department's non-departmental public bodies in each of the last five years. [10166]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information in the form requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the actions her Department has taken on each of the recommendations contained in the Cabinet Office report on the Government's use of external consultants. [10167]

  Mr. Squire
  On 23 February 1995, the Employment Department sent the efficiency unit an action plan for implementing all the recommendations of the original report which were relevant to the Department.

  The action plan is being implemented. The merger of the Department for Education and the Employment Department afforded an opportunity to review the guidance available on the use of external consultants. New guidance issued since the merger and procurement and contract management guidance, due to be issued by the end of this financial year, takes full account of the recommendations.

  Challenge Fund Grants
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the eligibility criteria for awarding grants under the challenge fund for science equipment announced in the Budget; and if she will make a statement. [9886]

  Mr. Forth
  It is for the Higher Education Funding Council for England to decide on the detailed criteria for its 1997–98 research equipment initiative. The council intends to finalise the criteria before the end of the current financial year, and details will be placed in the Library. The 1996 Budget letter to the council made clear, however, that the £20 million grant earmarked for research equipment would be expected to generate matching private funds from industry and other users of research.

  GCSE Scores
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of school leavers gained GCSE grades A* to C in(a) mathematics, (b) English and (c) science in the most recent year for which figures are available, broken down by grade. [9975]
  75
  Mrs. Gillan
  The information requested is not available for school leavers. However, the percentage of l5-year-olds in England who gained GCSE grades A* to C in(a) mathematics, (b) English and (c) science in 1994–95 were as follows:

  Mathematics Per cent.

  English Per cent.

  Science Per cent.

  Grade A*

  2

  2

  3

  Grade A

  7

  8

  7

  Grade B

  13

  17

  15

  Grade C

  19

  23

  18

  Grades A* to C

  40

  50

  43

  On-the-job Training
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of employees of working age received on-the-job training in(a) the south-west and (b) the United Kingdom broken down by gender in the most recent year for which figures are available. [9977]

  Mr. Paice
  From the spring 1996 labour force survey, the percentage of employees of working age who received on-the-job training in the four weeks prior to the interview is:

  Total Per cent.

  Men Per cent.

  Women Per cent.

  South west

  6.6

  6.4

  6.9

  United Kingdom

  6.3

  6.2

  6.4

  Information on the number receiving training in a year is not available in the form requested.

  Schools (Parental Choice)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the recent Audit Commission report on the Government's policies in respect of parental choice over school places and provision. [10406]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Audit Commission's report "Trading Places" covers some important topics. I welcome the attention it gives to removing surplus

  Amounts per pupil and percentage of GSB—Section 122 1996–97

  Aggregated schools budget

  Discretionary exceptions within the PSB

  Discretionary exceptions outside the PSB

  Mandatory exceptions

  LEA

  £ per pupil

  percentage of GSB

  £ per pupil

  percentage of GSB

  £ per pupil

  percentage of GSB

  £ per pupil

  percentage of GSB

  Barking/Dagenham

  2,031

  60.8

  2,244

  6.4

  144

  4.3

  952

  0.3

  Barnet

  1,994

  67.3

  2,230

  8.0

  171

  5.8

  561

  0.2

  Barnsley

  1,512

  70.9

  1,705

  9.1

  179

  8.4

  248

  0.1

  Bath and North-east Somerset

  1,926

  77.1

  2,147

  8.8

  161

  6.5

  190

  0.1

  Bedfordshire

  1,771

  73.6

  1,916

  6.0

  205

  8.5

  167

  0.1

  Berkshire

  1,825

  76.8

  1,953

  5.4

  109

  4.6

  314

  0.1

  Bexley

  1,718

  73.5

  1,870

  6.5

  144

  6.2

  323

  0.1

  Birmingham

  1,971

  77.1

  2,158

  7.3

  214

  8.4

  184

  0.1

  Bolton

  1,694

  74.6

  1,913

  9.7

  201

  8.8

  156

  0.1

  Bradford

  1,684

  64.8

  1,876

  7.4

  220

  8.5

  502

  0.2

  Brent

  2,042

  71.0

  2,157

  4.0

  183

  6.4

  534

  0.2

  Bristol

  2,113

  78.7

  2,328

  8.0

  157

  5.9

  199

  0.1

  Bromley

  1,689

  71.1

  1,945

  10.8

  99

  4.2

  332

  0.1

  Buckinghamshire

  1,704

  68.6

  1,914

  8.4

  136

  5.5

  437

  0.2

  76
  places, which we have been emphasising for some time. I also welcome its acknowledgement that Government policies have driven up standards.

  I am, however, disappointed with some of the simplistic conclusions the commission draws. There is no mismatch between LEAs' responsibilities and their powers. LEAs can determine their own priorities. They retain all the powers they need to manage the supply of school places and to respond, with other providers, to parental choice. It remains true that some LEAs have been rather slow in removing surplus places.

  School Expenditure
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what is(a) the average sum per pupil and (b) the average percentage of the general schools budget, allotted by each local education authority in the current financial year for (i) mandatory exception from delegation, (ii) discretionary exceptions outside the potential schools budget, (iii) discretionary exceptions within the potential schools budget and (iv) the aggregate schools budget; [10401]

  (2) what is (a) the average sum per pupil and (b) the average percentage of the general schools budget allotted by each local education authority in the current financial year for discretionary exceptions outside the potential schools budget and which is (i) delegated and (ii) not delegated to schools; [10400]

  (3) what is (a) the average sum per pupil and (b) the average percentage of the general schools budget, allotted by each local education authority in the current financial year for (i) money allocated to schools via age-weighted pupil units, (ii) premature retirement compensation, (iii) school transport, (iv) statementing and support for statemented pupils and (v) school meals (net of income). [10402]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table sets out the information requested, except in respect of two items. In relation to funding allocated via age-weighted pupil units, I shall write to my hon. Friend when the requisite figures have been extracted and collated. Where a local education authority has chosen to delegate funding which it might have retained as a discretionary exception outside-or within-the potential schools budget, the amounts in question form part of the aggregated schools budget and cannot ordinarily be separately identified from the LEA's local management of schools' financial statements.
  77

  Amounts per pupil and percentage of GSB—Section 122 1996–97

  Aggregated schools budget

  Discretionary exceptions within the PSB

  Discretionary exceptions outside the PSA

  Mandatory exceptions

  LEA

  £ per pupil

  percentage of GSB

  £ per pupil

  percentage of GSB

  £ per pupil

  percentage of GSB

  £ per pupil

  percentage of GSB

  Bury

  1,762

  78.2

  1,906

  6.4

  221

  9.8

  127

  0.1

  Calderdale

  1,636

  69.5

  1,837

  8.5

  166

  7.1

  353

  0.1

  Cambridgeshire

  1,670

  67.6

  1,866

  7.9

  180

  7.3

  423

  0.2

  Camden

  2,530

  63.6

  2,868

  8.5

  186

  4.7

  924

  0.2

  Cheshire

  1,784

  77.0

  1,955

  7.4

  158

  6.8

  203

  0.1

  Cornwall

  1,730

  69.8

  1,959

  9.3

  174

  7.0

  345

  0.1

  Corporation of London

  3,196

  66.9

  360

  7.5

  439

  9.2

  780

  0.2

  Coventry

  1,934

  76.4

  2,127

  7.6

  131

  5.2

  272

  0.1

  Croydon

  1,934

  72.3

  2,118

  6.9

  225

  8.4

  332

  0.1

  Cumbria

  1,780

  73.9

  1,949

  7.0

  198

  8.2

  263

  0.1

  Derbyshire

  1,551

  70.7

  1,738

  8.5

  228

  10.4

  226

  0.1

  Devon

  1,765

  75.6

  1,934

  7.3

  192

  8.2

  206

  0.1

  Doncaster

  1,795

  71.9

  2,042

  9.9

  182

  7.3

  273

  0.1

  Dorset

  1,610

  73.0

  1,794

  8.4

  132

  6.0

  278

  0.1

  Dudley

  1,752

  81.6

  1,823

  3.3

  152

  7.1

  171

  0.1

  Durham

  1,681

  74.1

  1,898

  9.6

  181

  8.0

  190

  0.1

  Ealing

  2,019

  76.5

  2,231

  8.1

  262

  9.9

  146

  0.1

  East Riding

  1,854

  77.4

  2,069

  9.0

  230

  9.6

  97

  0.0

  East Sussex

  1,840

  74.2

  2,043

  8.2

  187

  7.5

  250

  0.1

  Enfield

  1,916

  68.5

  2,124

  7.4

  158

  5.7

  514

  0.2

  Essex

  1,751

  75.5

  1,943

  8.3

  180

  7.8

  195

  0.1

  Gateshead

  1,806

  66.5

  2,081

  10.1

  149

  5.5

  488

  0.2

  Gloucestershire

  1,640

  73.3

  1,797

  7.0

  121

  5.4

  318

  0.1

  Greenwich

  2,357

  78.6

  2,530

  5.8

  220

  7.3

  250

  0.1

  Hackney

  2,355

  68.8

  2,635

  8.2

  405

  11.8

  382

  0.1

  Hammersmith/Fulham

  2,505

  73.5

  2,745

  7.1

  390

  11.4

  273

  0.1

  Hampshire

  1,872

  76.9

  2,054

  7.5

  144

  5.9

  235

  0.1

  Haringey

  2,134

  64.9

  2,471

  10.2

  243

  7.4

  573

  0.2

  Harrow

  2,096

  77.1

  2,327

  8.5

  75

  2.8

  316

  0.1

  Hartlepool

  1,685

  76.7

  1,892

  9.4

  158

  7.2

  146

  0.1

  Havering

  1,894

  83.6

  2,056

  7.1

  90

  4.0

  120

  0.1

  Hereford/Worcester

  1,724

  75.0

  1,910

  81

  120

  5.2

  268

  0.1

  Hertfordshire

  1,891

  79.1

  2.019

  5.4

  170

  7.1

  200

  0.1

  Hillingdon

  1,915

  72.5

  2,124

  7.9

  134

  5.1

  385

  0.1

  Hounslow

  2.061

  72.9

  2,290

  8.1

  138

  4.9

  400

  0.1

  Hull

  1,735

  77.4

  1,931

  8.8

  202

  9.0

  109

  0.0

  Isle of Wight

  1,757

  76.4

  1,955

  8.6

  148

  6.5

  195

  0.1

  Isles of Scilly

  3,289

  76.9

  3,523

  5.5

  281

  6.6

  473

  0.1

  Islington

  2,313

  681

  2,464

  4.4

  194

  5.7

  741

  0.2

  Kensington/Chelsea

  2,804

  72.6

  3,092

  7.5

  229

  5.9

  539

  0.1

  Kent

  1,753

  74.4

  1,971

  9.2

  119

  5.1

  267

  0.1

  Kingston

  1,926

  80.3

  2,121

  8.1

  83

  3.5

  195

  0.1

  Kirklees

  1,693

  73.5

  1,903

  9.1

  177

  7.7

  222

  0.1

  Knowsley

  1,885

  77.5

  2,025

  5.7

  204

  8.4

  203

  0.1

  Lambeth

  2,361

  66.1

  2,700

  9.5

  297

  8.3

  574

  0.2

  Lancashire

  1,736

  73.1

  1,953

  9.2

  201

  8.4

  221

  0.1

  Leeds

  1,840

  72.2

  1,964

  4.9

  167

  6.5

  419

  0.2

  Leicestershire

  1,750

  76.2

  1,988

  10.4

  176

  7.7

  131

  0.1

  Lewisham

  2,285

  78.6

  2,532

  8.5

  236

  8.1

  140

  0.0

  Lincolnshire

  1,815

  75,1

  2,033

  9.0

  128

  5.3

  254

  0.1

  Liverpool

  1,824

  76.3

  1,967

  6.0

  185

  7.7

  238

  0.1

  Manchester

  1,837

  71.2

  2,001

  6.4

  235

  9.1

  346

  0.1

  Merton

  1,933

  63.7

  2,155

  7.3

  77

  2.5

  802

  0.3

  Middlesbrough

  1,761

  66.8

  2,000

  9.1

  183

  6.9

  451

  0.2

  North-east/Lincolnshire

  1,801

  77.4

  2,005

  8.7

  218

  9.4

  105

  0.0

  Newcastle

  1,855

  74.6

  2,084

  9.2

  201

  8.1

  201

  0.1

  Newham

  1,855

  68.4

  2,179

  11.9

  190

  7.0

  344

  0.1

  Norfolk

  1,846

  72.0

  2,024

  6.9

  222

  8.7

  317

  0.1

  North Lincolnshire

  1,813

  75.2

  2,042

  9.5

  242

  10.0

  129

  0.1

  North Somerset

  1,891

  77.4

  2,111

  9.0

  158

  6.5

  173

  0.1

  North Tyneside

  1,769

  73.2

  1,923

  6.4

  183

  7.6

  312

  0.1

  North Yorkshire

  1.828

  79.2

  2,018

  8.3

  181

  7.8

  108

  0.0

  Northamptonshire

  1,770

  74.9

  1,905

  5.7

  124

  5.2

  334

  0.1

  Northumberland

  1,739

  75.3

  1,909

  7.4

  229

  9.9

  172

  0.1

  Nottinghamshire

  1,588

  73.9

  1,786

  9.2

  196

  9.1

  168

  0.1

  Oldham

  1,811

  77.9

  1,995

  7.9

  190

  8.2

  138

  0.1

  Oxfordshire

  1,798

  70.5

  1,954

  6.1

  151

  5.9

  446

  0.2

  Redbridge

  1,959

  75.2

  2,131

  6.6

  129

  4.9

  346

  0.1

  Redcar and Cleveland

  1,741

  76.5

  1,957

  9.5

  165

  7.3

  151

  0.1

  Richmond

  2,032

  81.3

  2,226

  7.8

  55

  2.2

  217

  Oil

  Rochdale

  1,701

  76.2

  1,822

  5.4

  201

  9.0

  210

  0.1

  Rotherham

  1,732

  78.0

  1,933

  9.1

  134

  6.0

  153

  0.1

  Salford

  1,775

  66.3

  1,959

  6.9

  191

  7.1

  528

  0.2

  Sandwell

  1,692

  75.2

  1,898

  9.1

  141

  6.3

  211

  0.1

  78 79

  Amounts per pupil and percentage of GSB—Section 122 1996–97

  Aggregated schools budget

  Discretionary exceptions within the PSB

  Discretionary exceptions outside the PSB

  Mandatory exceptions

  LEA

  £ per pupil

  percentage of GSB

  £ per pupil

  percentage of GSB

  £ per pupil

  percentage of GSB

  £ per pupil

  £percentage of GSB

  Sefton

  1,821

  74.7

  2,037

  8.9

  154

  6.3

  244

  0.1

  Sheffield

  1,690

  72.8

  1,934

  10.5

  189

  8.1

  198

  0.1

  Shropshire

  1,718

  71.2

  1,871

  6.3

  214

  8.9

  327

  0.1

  Solihull

  1,834

  81.8

  1,943

  4.9

  161

  7.2

  137

  0.1

  Somerset

  1,769

  77.9

  1,939

  7.5

  113

  5.0

  219

  0.1

  South Gloucestershire

  1,863

  74.0

  2,075

  8.4

  172

  6.8

  271

  0.1

  South Tyneside

  1,668

  74.8

  1,876

  9.3

  143

  6.4

  209

  0.1

  Southwark

  2,255

  71.9

  2,524

  8.6

  299

  9.5

  313

  0.1

  St. Helens

  1,821

  77.1

  2,025

  8.6

  201

  8.5

  136

  0.1

  Staffordshire

  1,675

  77.5

  1,801

  5.8

  171

  7.9

  189

  0.1

  Stockport

  1,801

  74.4

  1,975

  7.2

  150

  6.2

  294

  0.1

  Stockton on Tees

  1,790

  78.7

  1,980

  8.3

  205

  9.0

  88

  0.0

  Suffolk

  1,879

  79.4

  2,030

  6.4

  166

  7.0

  170

  0.1

  Sunderland

  1,819

  77.5

  1,938

  5.1

  148

  6.3

  261

  0.1

  Surrey

  1,860

  72.0

  2,055

  7.6

  226

  8.7

  302

  0.1

  Sutton

  1,896

  66.7

  2,075

  6.3

  174

  6.1

  592

  0.2

  Tameside

  1,556

  66.8

  1,731

  7.5

  165

  7.1

  433

  0.2

  Tower Hamlets

  2,241

  65.4

  2,503

  7.6

  252

  7.4

  672

  0.2

  Trafford

  1,556

  72.7

  1,757

  9.4

  147

  6.9

  236

  0.1

  Wakefield

  1,586

  62.0

  1,818

  9.1

  184

  7.2

  556

  0.2

  Walsall

  1,758

  78.9

  1,956

  8.9

  84

  3.7

  190

  0.1

  Waltham Forest

  2,160

  73.8

  2,299

  4.8

  255

  8.7

  374

  0.1

  Wandsworth

  2,313

  72.7

  2,585

  8.5

  243

  7.6

  355

  0.1

  Warwickshire

  1,713

  66.6

  1,907

  7.6

  185

  7.2

  480

  0.2

  West Sussex

  1,795

  77.4

  2,012

  9.4

  139

  6.0

  167

  0.1

  Westminster

  2,351

  71.7

  2,629

  8.5

  215

  6.5

  435

  0.1

  Wigan

  1,892

  77.7

  2,037

  6.0

  179

  7.4

  217

  0.1

  Wiltshire

  1,713

  73.5

  1,904

  8.2

  246

  10.6

  180

  0.;l

  Wirral

  1,780

  75.3

  1,962

  7.7

  184

  7.8

  219

  0.1

  Wolverhampton

  1,756

  74.9

  1,906

  6.4

  162

  6.9

  283

  0.1

  York

  1,718

  78.6

  1,931

  9.8

  119

  5.4

  136

  0.1

  The information in this table has been derived from financial statements produced under the section 122 of the Education Act 1996 (formerly section 42 of the Education Reform Act 1988), incorporating LEAs' changes to their statements notified to the Department by 31 December 1996.

  Amounts per pupil and percentage of GSB—Section 122 1996–97

  Premature retirement compensation

  Home to school transport

  Cost of statements

  School meals (net of income)

  £ per pupil

  Percentage of GSB

  £ per pupil

  Percentage of GSB

  £ per pupil

  Percentage of GSB

  £ per pupil

  Percentage of GSB

  Barking/Dagenham

  16

  0.5

  27

  0.8

  74

  0.1

  71

  2.1

  Barnet

  13

  0.4

  60

  2.0

  75

  0.1

  39

  1.3

  Barnsley

  19

  0.9

  16

  0.8

  88

  0.1

  78

  3.7

  Bath and North-east Somerset

  44

  1.8

  80

  3.2

  68

  0.1

  39

  1.6

  Bedfordshire

  22

  0.9

  65

  2.7

  19

  0.0

  65

  2.7

  Berkshire

  10

  0.4

  57

  2.4

  15

  0.0

  25

  1.1

  Bexley

  5

  0.2

  25

  1.1

  51

  0.1

  43

  1.9

  Birmingham

  23

  0.9

  49

  1.9

  41

  0.0

  94

  3.7

  Bolton

  20

  0.9

  35

  1.5

  83

  0.1

  59

  2.6

  Bradford

  38

  1.4

  39

  1.5

  81

  0.0

  101

  3.9

  Brent

  42

  1.5

  59

  2.0

  18

  0.0

  70

  2.4

  Bristol

  41

  1.5

  46

  1.7

  24

  0.0

  70

  2.6

  Bromley

  6

  0.3

  36

  1.5

  100

  0.2

  40

  1.7

  Buckinghamshire

  15

  0.6

  82

  3.3

  36

  0.0

  17

  0.7

  Bury

  38

  1.7

  23

  1.0

  18

  0.0

  93

  4.1

  Calderdale

  25

  1.1

  20

  0.9

  88

  0.2

  61

  2.6

  Cambridgeshire

  22

  0.9

  61

  2S

  90

  0.0

  45

  1.8

  Camden

  7

  0.2

  54

  1.3

  63

  0.1

  88

  2.2

  Cheshire

  22

  0.9

  57

  2.4

  40

  0.0

  17

  0.7

  Cornwall

  19

  0.8

  60

  2.4

  120

  0.1

  49

  2.0

  Corporation of London

  19

  0.4

  5

  0.1

  0

  0.0

  313

  6.6

  Coventry

  26

  1.0

  29

  1.1

  33

  0.0

  67

  2.6

  Croydon

  10

  0.4

  51

  1.9

  50

  0.1

  51

  1.9

  Cumbria

  46

  1.9.

  62

  2.6

  72

  0.1

  42

  1.7

  Derbyshire

  22

  1.0

  48

  2.2

  93

  0.0

  87

  4.0

  Devon

  28

  1.2

  89

  3.8

  61

  0.0

  40

  1.7

  Doncaster

  27

  1.1

  24

  0.9

  96

  0.1

  53

  2.1

  Dorset

  16

  0.7

  73

  3.3

  43

  0.0

  25

  1.2

  Dudley

  18

  0.8

  28

  1.3

  11

  0.0

  54

  2.5

  Durham

  23

  1.0

  61

  2.7

  83

  0.0

  51

  2.2

  80 81

  Amounts per pupil and percentage of GSB—Section 122 1996–97

  Premature retirement compensation

  Home to school tramsport

  Cost of statements

  School meals (net of income)

  £ per pupil

  Percentage of GSB

  £ per pupil

  Percentage of GSB

  £ per pupil

  Percentage of GSB

  £ per pupil

  Percentage of GSB

  Ealing

  20

  0.8

  77

  2.9

  66

  0.1

  77

  2.9

  East Riding

  25

  1.1

  85

  3.6

  6

  0.0

  58

  2.4

  East Sussex

  9

  0.4

  51

  2.1

  36

  0.0

  58

  2.4

  Enfield

  19

  0.7

  29

  1.0

  70

  0.1

  65

  2.3

  Essex

  6

  0.3

  76

  3.3

  87

  0.0

  34

  1.5

  Gateshead

  35

  1.3

  27

  1.0

  32

  0.0

  76

  2.8

  Gloucestershire

  22

  1.0

  71

  3.2

  72

  0.1

  30

  1.3

  Greenwich

  4

  0.1

  52

  1.7

  9

  0.0

  98

  3.3

  Hackney

  17

  0.5

  93

  2.7

  55

  0.1

  133

  3.9

  Hammersmith/Fulham

  11

  0.3

  97

  2.8

  67

  0.1

  161

  4.7

  Hampshire

  13

  0.5

  47

  1.9

  24

  0.0

  39

  1.6

  Haringey

  19

  0.6

  34

  1.0

  15

  0.0

  106

  3.2

  Harrow

  12

  0.4

  32

  1.2

  74

  0.1

  26

  1.0

  Hartlepool

  23

  1.0

  28

  1.3

  16

  0.0

  70

  3.2

  Havering

  12

  0.5

  23

  1.0

  61

  0.1

  25

  1.1

  Hereford/Worcester

  9

  0.4

  73

  3.2

  76

  0.0

  16

  0.7

  Hertfordshire

  14

  0.6

  59

  2.5

  68

  0.0

  17

  0.7

  Hillingdon

  15

  0.6

  92

  3.5

  21

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Hounslow

  9

  0.3

  37

  1.3

  40

  0.0

  52

  1.9

  Hull

  30

  1.3

  44

  2.0

  7

  0.0

  83

  3.7

  Isle of Wight

  10

  0.4

  58

  2.5

  70

  0.2

  56

  2.4

  Isles of Scilly

  78

  1.8

  74

  1.7

  207

  18.9

  102

  2.4

  Islington

  0

  0.0

  51

  1.5

  42

  0.1

  74

  2.2

  Kensington/Chelsea

  16

  0.4

  7

  0.2

  0

  0.2

  146

  3.8

  Kent

  13

  0.5

  72

  3.1

  72

  0.0

  35

  1.5

  Kingston

  22

  0.9

  35

  1.5

  72

  0.2

  22

  0.9

  Kirkless

  21

  0.9

  35

  1.5

  64

  0.0

  56

  2.4

  Knowsley

  29

  1.2

  36

  1.5

  14

  0.0

  98

  4.0

  Lambeth

  4

  0.1

  71

  2.0

  168

  0.2

  131

  3.7

  Lancashire

  31

  1.3

  56

  2.3

  107

  0.0

  53

  2.3

  Leeds

  22

  0.9

  31

  1.2

  20

  0.0

  53

  2.1

  Leicestershire

  14

  0.6

  64

  2.8

  8.5

  0.0

  42

  1.8

  Lewisham

  5

  0.2

  35

  1.2

  65

  0.1

  104

  3.6

  Lincolnshire

  23

  1.0

  95

  3.9

  69

  0.0

  14

  0.6

  Liverpool

  34

  1.4

  34

  1.4

  36

  0.0

  88

  3.7

  Manchester

  50

  1.9

  40

  1.6

  8

  0.0

  119

  4.6

  Merton

  27

  0.9

  35

  1.1

  88

  0.1

  3

  0.1

  Middlesbrough

  11

  0.4

  22

  0.8

  17

  0.0

  71

  2.7

  North-east Lincolnshire

  41

  1.8

  32

  1.4

  12

  0.0

  78

  3.4

  Newcastle

  0

  0.0

  23

  0.9

  52

  0.1

  111

  4.5

  Newham

  26

  1.0

  33

  1.2

  105

  0.1

  88

  3.2

  Norfolk

  18

  0.7

  95

  3.7

  73

  0.0

  48

  1.9

  North Lincolnshire

  34

  1.4

  66

  2.7

  4

  0.0

  69

  2.8

  North Somerset

  40

  14

  81

  3.3

  72

  0.1

  40

  1.7

  North Tyneside

  35

  1.4

  23

  1.0

  63

  0.1

  78

  3.2

  North Yorkshire

  11

  0.5

  111

  4.8

  47

  0.0

  20

  0.9

  Northamptonshire

  11

  0.5

  53

  2.3

  19

  0.0

  28

  1.2

  Northumberland

  40

  1.7

  80

  3.5

  64

  0.1

  39

  1.7

  Nottinghamshire

  45

  2.1

  36

  1.7

  12

  0.0

  56

  2.6

  Oldham

  17

  0.7

  17

  0.7

  16

  0.0

  72

  3.1

  Oxfordshire

  42

  1.6

  79

  3.1

  63

  0.0

  37

  1.5

  Redbridge

  13

  0.5

  56

  2.2

  19

  0.0

  32

  1.2

  Redcar and Cleveland

  24

  1.0

  34

  1.5

  29

  0.0

  61

  2.7

  Richmond

  10

  0.4

  27

  1.1

  73

  0.2

  0

  0.0

  Rochdale

  25

  1.1

  26

  1.1

  36

  0.1

  102

  4.6

  Rotherham

  13

  0.6

  29

  1.3

  31

  0.0

  51

  2.3

  Salford

  34

  1.3

  46

  1.7

  42

  0.0

  85

  3.2

  Sandwell

  11

  0.5

  37

  1.6

  31

  0.0

  61

  2.7

  Sefton

  26

  1.1

  28

  1.1

  40

  0.0

  71

  2.9

  Sheffield

  40

  1.7

  35

  1.5

  78

  0.0

  75

  3.2

  Shropshire

  28

  1.2

  90

  3.7

  41

  0.0

  36

  1.5

  Solihull

  18

  0.8

  31

  1.4

  47

  0.1

  31

  1.4

  Somerset

  17

  0.7

  72

  3.2

  80

  0.1

  27

  1.2

  South Gloucestershire

  35

  1.4

  54

  2.1

  67

  0.1

  69

  2.8

  South Tyneside

  25

  1.1

  16

  0.7

  16

  0.0

  74

  3.3

  Southwark

  10

  0.3

  87

  2.8

  65

  0.1

  118

  3.8

  St. Helens

  44

  1.9

  54

  2.3

  71

  0.1

  60

  2.5

  Staffordshire

  27

  1.3

  47

  2.2

  48

  0.0

  40

  1.8

  Stockport

  14

  0.6

  24

  1.0

  66

  0.1

  56

  2.3

  82 83

  Amounts per pupil and percentage of GSB—Section 122 1996–97

  Premature retirement compensation

  Home to school transport

  Cost of statements

  School meals (net of income)

  £ per pupil

  Percentage of GSB

  £ per pupil

  Percentage of GSB

  £ per pupil

  Percentage of GSB

  £ per pupil

  Percentage of GSB

  Stockton on Tees

  5

  0.2

  30

  1.3

  24

  0.0

  60

  2.6

  Suffolk

  13

  0.6

  78

  3.3

  45

  0.0

  21

  0.9

  Sunderland

  10

  0.4

  26

  1.1

  38

  0.0

  59

  2.5

  Surrey

  18

  0.7

  98

  3.8

  71

  0.0

  28

  1.1

  Sutton

  6

  0.2

  45

  1.6

  27

  0.1

  46

  1.6

  Tameside

  27

  1.2

  34

  1.5

  50

  0.1

  24

  1.0

  Tower Hamlets

  21

  0.6

  48

  1.4

  82

  0.1

  135

  3.9

  Trafford

  19

  0.9

  34

  1.6

  49

  0.1

  48

  2.2

  Wakefield

  20

  0.8

  31

  1.2

  61

  0.0

  79

  3.1

  Walsall

  30

  1.3

  20

  0.9

  34

  0.0

  55

  2.5

  Waltham Forest

  20

  0.7

  43

  1.5

  4

  0.0

  73

  2.5

  Wandsworth

  14

  0.4

  82

  2.6

  107

  0.2

  72

  2.3

  Warwickshire

  35

  1.4

  68

  2.6

  23

  0.0

  43

  1.7

  West Sussex

  3

  0.1

  53

  2.3

  40

  0.0

  30

  1.3

  Westminster

  15

  0.5

  27

  0.8

  77

  0.1

  113

  3.5

  Wigan

  46

  1.9

  32

  1.3

  24

  0.0

  53

  2.2

  Wiltshire

  21

  0.9

  113

  4.9

  52

  0.0

  48

  2.0

  Wirral

  45

  1.9

  53

  2.2

  40

  0.0

  67

  2.8

  Wolverhampton

  50

  2.2

  35

  1.5

  22

  0.0

  75

  3.2

  York

  10

  0.5

  45

  2.1

  55

  0.1

  33

  1.5

  The information in this table has been derived from financial statements produced under the section 122 of the Education Act 1996 (formerly section 42 of the Education Reform Act 1988), incorporating LEAs' changes to their statements notified to the Department by 31 December 1996.

  Professors of General Practice
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many professors of general practice there were in each of the last five years. [10677]

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is not available centrally. I understand that in the 1995–96 academic year there were 23 professors of general practice in post at universities in the UK.

  "Going GM" Conference, Warrington
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list those organisations(a) invited to attend, (b) who attended the "Going GM" conference for head teachers and governors scheduled to be held in Warrington on 21 October; and what was the total cost to public funds of (i) organising and (ii) running the conference. [10629]

  Mr. Forth
  Invitations to the "Going GM" conference in Warrington on 21 October 1996 were sent to head teachers and chairmen of governors of all LEA-maintained primary and secondary schools in Cheshire, Knowsley, Liverpool, St. Helens, Sefton, Wirral, Bolton, Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, Stockport, Tameside, Trafford, Wigan and Lancashire; 118 delegates attended the conference, 90 representing primary schools and 28 representing secondary schools.

  The conference cost around £3,500 to organise and £10,700 to run on the day.

  Education Standard Spending Assessment (Buckinghamshire)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what factors underlay the scale of the increase in the education standard spending 84
  assessment for Buckinghamshire county council between 1996–97 and 1997–98 relative to that of other local authorities in England. [10699]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The provisional education standard spending assessment for Buckinghamshire in 1997–98 represents an underlying increase of 2.6 per cent. compared with the national average increase of 3.4 per cent. The below average increase is mainly due to a marginal reduction in secondary pupil numbers, a reduction in the proportion of children entitled to free school meals, and a reduction in the area cost adjustment. Standard spending assessments will be finalised at the end of the month.

  Professors of Practice and Community Nursing
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many professors of(a) practice nursing and (b) community nursing there were in each of the last five years. [10678]

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Standing Committee of Employment Reports
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what reports have been issued by the Standing Committee of Employment of the European Communities since the Essen European Council; to whom they have been distributed; when and where they were published; what participation United Kingdom personnel have had in their deliberations; and what actions Her Majesty's Government have taken in response to these reports. [10820]

  Mr. Paice
  The EC Standing Employment Committee does not issue reports.

SCOTLAND

  Mearnskirk Hospital
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the Greater Glasgow health board concerning future NHS provision from the site of Mearnskirk hospital; and if he will make a statement. [6890]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Greater Glasgow health board has granted preferred provider status to the Victoria Infirmary NHS trust for the development of 60 care of the elderly beds at Mearnskirk hospital. It is expected that this facility will more than match expected future needs in that sector. Both the board and the trust are keen to seek best value for money and to ensure that the proposed development is of a high standard and provides an environment best suited to providing care.

  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to reach a decision on the future development of Mearnskirk hospital, Newton Mearns. [6891]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Victoria Infirmary NHS trust remains on track to open new facilities at Mearnskirk hospital in 1998.

  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with East Renfrewshire council concerning a partnership for the provision of future services from Meanskirk hospital. [6900]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None. Having been granted preferred provider status by Greater Glasgow health board for the development of 60 care of the elderly beds at Mearnskirk hospital, I understand the Victoria Infirmary NHS trust is currently considering how the private finance initiative might contribute to establishing the new unit. Its plans do not involve East Renfrewshire council, and I understand that neither Greater Glasgow health board nor the Victoria Infirmary NHS trust is aware of any discussions with East Renfrewshire council in relation to this development.

  Ministerial Leave
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (i) how many days leave he has taken in the Easter, Whitsun and Summer Adjournments; and how many days leave he took during the time in which Parliament was prorogued this year; [9794]

  (2) how many days of leave he plans to take during the Christmas Adjournment. [9795]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Curriculum Projects
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the projects undertaken by the Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum since 1989 from the Gordon Cook Foundation of Aberdeen grant of £250,000 and the value of expenditure on each. [9514]
  86
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 18 December 1996]: The Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum has undertaken the following projects since 1989 using resources from the Gordon Cook Foundation grant. A number of these have been jointly funded with other bodies, as indicated in the table.

  Publications and projects which address specific aspects of the values dimension

  1. Values in Education: A Paper for Discussion and Development, 1991.

  2. Values in Education: An Evaluation, 1992.

  3. The Heart of the Matter, 1995.

  4. A Review of Personal and Social Education, 1995.

  5. Climate for Learning, 1996.

  6. Parents and the Curriculum, 1996.

  7. Ethos and Education (Perspectives; 1).

  8. Values and Educating the Whole Person (Perspectives; 3).

  9. The Moral Role of the Teacher (Perspectives; 3).

  10. A Holistic Approach: Steiner Waldorf Education (Perspectives; 4).

  11. Guidelines for Values for the International and Humanistic Dimension of Education, UNESCO/CIDREE, 1994.

  12. Scottish delegation visit to Ontario schools, 1993.

  13. In collaboration with SCRE, a project on Values and Classroom Language.

  14. Association of Moral Education Conference, 1995.

  Collaborative projects addressing aspects of the values of dimension

  1. In association with CIDREE Values in Education in Europe Project (VEEP) A Select Annotated Bibliography for 27 Countries, 1985–92.

  2. In association with VEEP A Comparative Overview of a Survey of 26 Countries in 1993.

  3. Technology and Values Seminar, 1994.

  4. Curriculum Conference on School Climate and Ethos (and Report), 1993.

  5. Curriculum Conference on Special Educational Needs (which had a Values input).

  6. CCC Values input to Review and Developments Groups of 5–14 Programme.

  7. Higher Still Framework: a major contribution to the aims of the Government's Higher Still Development Programme.

  8. Values input to the Higher Still Personal and Social Education Specialists Group.

  9. In collaboration with SOEID:

  (i) Thinking European, 1994.

  (ii) Sharing Responsibility, 1995.

  (iii) Personal and Social Development 5–14 Exemplification.

  10. Collaboration with a number of international partners in the Values in Education Project (VEEP).

  11. The Dillingen International Symposia on the European Dimension, co-directed by Scottish CCC Directorate, 1991–96.

  Seminar, networks, forums and discussion groups

  1. Values, Environmental Education and the School Curriculum: Conference and Report, 1992.

  2. Values, Generic Issues and the School Curriculum: Seminar and Report.

  3. A Sense of Belonging (Seminar).

  4. A Sense of Belonging (Reflections in Curricular Issues, No. 4).

  5. OECD international Seminar on Environmental Education.

  6. Membership of Association of Moral Education.

  87

  7. Journal of Moral Education Conference, St. Martin's College, Lancaster: Workshop for Personal and Social Development.

  Ongoing projects

  1. Working with Peers.

  2. Learning and Being Together.

  3. 'Perspectives' 5 and 6.

  4. In collaboration with St. Andrew's College, Climate for Achievement: Alternative Paradigms for Assessment.

  5. In collaboration with the University of Ulster, Staff Development on Peer Mediation and Conflict Resolution.

  £

  Parents and the Curriculum

  5,000.00

  Values and Communication

  15,000.00

  Climate for Learning

  62,500.00

  Heart of the Matter

  18,125.00

  Values in Education

  7,500.00

  Perspectives Series

  15,000.00

  Ethos Conference

  16,800.00

  Seminars

  10,000.00

  Seminar Reports

  5,000.00

  Network (7 years)

  15,000.00

  European Collaboration

  4,000.00

  Conference Reports

  8,000.00

  Travel, Admin, Distribution and

  39,000.00

  Materials

  £5,500 per annum (x 7 years)

  Total

  221,000.00

  The initial investment from the Cook Foundation was £200,000, which has generated interest of £180,270 over the period since 1989. In addition, officer time to a value of £95,000 has been funded by the Scottish Office via core grant to the Scottish CCC.

  Biological Hazards
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) who authorised the closure of the category 4 containment laboratory at Ruchill hospital, Glasgow; when the closure took place; what were the criteria for closing the laboratory; what public consultation took place; and if he will make a statement; [10693]

  (2) what arrangements apply in Scotland for dealing with category 4 laboratory specimens; and what assessment he has made of the safety of (a) patients and (b) specimens. [10696]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Hazard group 4 covers the most pathogenic of the biological hazards which have required to be investigated in category 4 containment laboratories. The only organisms in the group that have been the subject of any laboratory investigations within the United Kingdom are those which cause viral haemorrhagic fever. During the time the category 4 containment laboratory at Ruchill hospital was open it was used very infrequently for the investigation of suspected category 4 organisms. Across the United Kingdom the vast majority of cases of suspected viral haemorrhagic fever have proved to be malaria. No case of viral haemorrhagic fever has ever been recorded in Scotland.
  88
  In 1992, and acting on advice received from the Health and Safety Executive, it was agreed that a number of specific improvements required to be made if the facilities were to continue to operate at Ruchill. A sub-committee of the advisory group on infection was tasked to consider whether the required improvements should be made and, if not, what alternative arrangements needed to be put in place. The sub-committee recommended the closure of the high security clinical facility. The subsequent retirement of two of the staff who were skilled in the use of the category 4 laboratory precipitated the closure of the laboratory, which ceased to be operational early in 1995.

  Interim guidance on the management of suspected cases of viral haemorrhagic fever was issued in May 1995 from medical advisers within the Scottish Office Department of Health to all consultants involved in communicable diseases in Scotland. The guidance covered the arrangements for initiating laboratory investigations, for obtaining clinical advice or care and for the transportation of patients. Also included were details about the new locus to be approached following the withdrawal of the service from Ruchill. The principles outlined in the guidance have been incorporated into an updated guide on the control of viral haemorrhagic fever which the United Kingdom Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens has recently finalised. The new document entitled "Management Control of Viral Haemorrhagic Fevers" is scheduled for publication later this month. I shall arrange for copies to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  GP Fundholding Practices
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what have been the amounts retained by general practitioner fundholding practices at the end of each financial year since the introduction of general practitioner fundholding for each health board area in Scotland. [10698]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information in the table sets out GP fundholder savings which are retained by the health board on the fundholder's behalf to be used for the benefit of patients.

  £000

  Health Board

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Argyll and Clyde

  56

  nil

  55

  214

  446

  Ayrshire and Arran

  —

  —

  330

  214

  253

  Borders

  —

  —

  65

  291

  144

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  —

  —

  76

  278

  Fife

  —

  —

  96

  150

  242

  Forth Valley

  —

  —

  23

  101

  154

  Grampian

  103

  95

  551

  1,207

  739

  Greater Glasgow

  —

  13

  185

  888

  1,459

  Highland

  —

  —

  87

  —

  87

  Lanarkshire

  —

  —

  458

  1,360

  1,607

  Lothian

  29

  39

  354

  868

  1.207

  89

  £000

  Health Board

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Orkney

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shetland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tayside

  —

  12

  278

  363

  428

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Scotland

  188

  159

  2,482

  5,732

  7,044

  Maternity Unit (Glasgow)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 25 November,Official Report, column 43, what is the proposed building start date for the new maternity unit at Glasgow royal infirmary. [10530]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The trust's current timetable provides for the building work to commence in summer 1998.

  Highlands and Islands Convention
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) by what means of transport and at what cost to public funds he returned to the House following the meeting of the Highlands and Islands convention in Inverness on 16 December; [10293]

  (2) if the transport facilities used by him to return to the House from the meeting of the Highlands and Islands convention in Inverness on 16 December were offered to other hon. Members attending the convention; and if he will make a statement; [10294]

  (3) when a request was made to the RAF to provide him and the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch), with transport facilities to return to the House from Inverness following the Highland and Islands convention on 16 December. [10509]

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what was the total cost to the Scottish Office of the RAF flight which took him to and from the Highlands and Islands convention in Inverness on Monday 16 December; [10690]

  (2) where he boarded the RAF flight which took him to the Highlands and Islands convention in Inverness on 16 December; [10692]

  (3) if he will specify the type of aeroplane and the seating capacity of the aircraft which transported the Secretary of State for Scotland and his Minister of State to and from the Highlands and Islands convention in Inverness on 16 December; and what were the names and designations of all the passengers on the flights. [10684]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A request for transport was made by my office and approved by the RAF on Tuesday 10 December in order to enable me to carry out all my engagements on 16 December. Going north, I boarded the flight at RAF Northolt. The aircraft was a HS125 which seated seven people. On the return flight from Inverness I was accompanied by my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside—the Parliamentary Under-90
  Secretary of State for Scotland—and three Scottish Office staff. A number of matters of ministerial business were dealt with during the flight.

  The cost of the flight was £682 per flying hour, plus £62 per hour of waiting time after the first three hours, which are not charged. The cost of a single ticket on a scheduled British Airways flight from Inverness to London would have been £145 per person.

  As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) knows from his own experience, I am always willing to offer transport to hon. Members where possible.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the total costs, including travel costs, of the Highlands and Islands convention on 16 December. [10691]

  Mr. Forsyth
  Costs incurred to date for the meeting of the Convention of the Highlands and Islands on 16 December amount to £1,058.

  This amount excludes travel and subsistence costs for which claims are still being received from convention members.

ENVIRONMENT

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many responses he has received to the consultation paper on the future of the home energy efficiency scheme; how many of the responses supported additional measures within the scheme; and how many indicated that additional measures should be dependent on an increase in the scheme's financial resources; [10232]

  (2) what will be the maximum grant under the home energy efficiency scheme once the revised scheme comes into effect; and from what date this will apply; [10231]

  (3) what changes will be made to the standard draught-proofing job available under the home energy efficiency scheme, once the revised scheme comes into effect; and from what date these changes will apply. [10244]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  We received 59 responses, many of which were from bodies representing a number of organisations and companies. Sixty one per cent. of respondents supported the introduction of additional measures to the scheme, and 24 per cent. suggested that additional measures should be accompanied by the allocation of more money.

  Following the consultation exercise I have announced revisions to the scheme, increasing the range and choice of energy efficiency measures available, and I hope they will come into effect in April this year. I intend that the maximum grant will remain unchanged at £315. The measures to be included, and their specifications, have yet to be determined.

  These changes, together with the increase in the allocation for 1997–98 for this popular programme of 3 per cent. to £75 million, demonstrate our commitment to helping the most vulnerable people keep warmer and use energy more efficiently.
  91
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what were the total sums paid to over 60-year-olds under the HEES in the financial years(a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96; and what is his estimate of the amount to be paid in (c) 1996–97 and (d) 1997–98; [10223]

  (2) how those householders not on low-income benefit but who are entitled to assistance under the HEES have their contributions calculated; [10221]

  (3) how many (a) applicants for and (b) recipients of full assistance under the HEES there were in the current year and the year preceding the changes announced on 28 November 1995. [10222]

  Mr. Jones
  A total of 624,000 grants were paid under the home energy efficiency scheme in 1995–96 and 470,221 in 1994–95. There is no distinction between applicants and recipients, since grant is applied for after the work has been done by a network installer. There is no central record of inquiries to installers which do not result in work being done under the scheme.

  The total amounts of grant paid to applicants giving age as their ground for qualification are set out in the table. It should be borne in mind that those applying on the grounds of age may also be entitled through receipt of a qualifying benefit.

  Year

  Total amount of grant £ million

  1994–95

  40.4

  1995–96

  65.9

  1996–97

  34 (estimate)

  It is not possible to estimate the number of grants to over-60s in 1997–98, since I have announced that the scheme will be extended to include a wider range of measures during 1997, and this may affect current patterns of demand.

  Householders aged 60 and over applying since April 1996 receive grant of 25 per cent. of the cost of the work, provided that the cost does not exceed the maximum grant level. Their contribution is therefore 75 per cent. of the cost. If the work costs more than the maximum grant, which happens in the case of a minority of houses which are either very large or of unusual design, the work may still go ahead with grant aid if the client wishes. The client is then required to pay the amount of the excess in the same way as all claimants.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how much money from the 1996–97 home energy efficiency scheme budget has been used to fund work where the application was made on or before 31 March 1996; and how many grants have been made in relation to such applications to the latest available date; [10236]

  (2) how many grants have been made under the home energy efficiency scheme from 1 April 1996 to the latest available date; in how many cases these were maximum grants; and in how many cases the applicants were required to meet a proportion of the costs; [10237]
  92
  (3) what was the average grant made under the home energy efficiency scheme in each of the last three years; and what is the estimated amount for the average grant for 1997–98. [10238]

  Mr. Jones
  A total of 159,318 grants were paid to householders who had registered an interest before 31 March 1996, at a cost of around £27 million, between 1 April and 30 November 1996. This represents about half of the 319,747 grants paid in the period. Of these, 79,773 were for the maximum amount permitted, and 53,737 applications indicated that the cost of work exceeded this maximum. The number of cases where the applicant paid the excess is now known.

  This information about average grants is as follows:

  Year

  Mean grant value

  1996–971

  167

  1995–96

  165

  1994–95

  170

  1993–94

  171

  1To end of November.

  I cannot yet estimate the mean grant value for 1997–98, when the revised, more flexible scheme offering a wider range of energy efficiency measures will start operating, because the pricing bases have not yet been decided.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) in respect of how many cases where application for home energy efficiency scheme grants have been approved the work has not yet been carried out at the latest available date; [10240]

  (2) what was the national average waiting time for (a) processing applications for home energy efficiency scheme grants and (b) carrying out the work under the home energy efficiency scheme once an application was approved in each month of 1996 to the latest available date; [10229]

  (3) what was the average waiting time in each region of England and in Scotland and Wales for processing applications for home energy efficiency scheme grants and carrying out work under the home energy efficiency scheme once an application was approved in each month of 1996 to the latest available date; [10230]

  (4) what is the waiting list of applicants for home energy efficiency scheme grants which have been received but have yet to be processed at the latest available date. [10239]

  Mr. Jones
  During the first three months of 1996, installers nationally had order books of between 14 and 18 weeks' work. Between April and November, the latest date for which information is available, the average installer had over 30 weeks' work. Information is not available by region. Latest indications are that this period is decreasing, while customer satisfaction research indicates that actual waiting times tend to be significantly shorter than installers' order books suggest.

  The increase was caused by the pre-registration of better-off householders aged 60 and over before the end of March in order to qualify for grants under the old rules. The scheme managers and installers have dealt with the demand efficiently and have ensured that the proportion

  93
  of the scheme budget going to benefit the least well-off has not diminished by comparison with previous years. The scheme managers will shortly be writing to about 210,000 people who registered an interest last year but have not yet claimed grant to remind them to contact an installer. I estimate that another 40,000 householders have more recently applied to installers for grants and are waiting for work to be done.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many representations he has received which criticised his decision to restrict assistance under the home energy efficiency scheme to low-income households in the three months following the announcement of his decision; [10253]

  (2) how many representations he has received which criticised the universal entitlement of householders aged 60 years or more for assistance under the home energy efficiency scheme from its inception until the announcement on 28 November 1995 of its restriction to low-income households. [10252]

  Mr. Jones
  In April 1994 the scheme was expanded to allow full grants to people aged 60 and over regardless of income. This drew comment from both energy action organisations and the press. For example, the report "HEES: The Impact of Change", published by National Energy Action in September 1995, concluded that other sectors of the HEES clientele were becoming marginalised, and that more affluent over-60s clients, particularly those in larger owner-occupied dwellings, were over-represented in numerical terms, and were claiming a disproportionate amount of HEES funding. Since April 1996 householders aged 60 and over who do not receive income-related benefits or disability allowances have been required to make a contribution to the cost of measures provided under the scheme. Around 200 representations were received following the announcement of the change, though most of these were primarily about the scheme's level of funding.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what revision he has made to his estimate of the total number of jobs to be carried out under the home energy efficiency scheme in 1996–97 since his answer of 7 March 1996,Official Report, columns 303–304; and what assessment he has made of the reasons for the changes in the anticipated number of home energy efficiency scheme jobs to be carried out in 1996–97; [10233]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the impact on job numbers in (a) energy efficiency services and (b) suppliers of energy saving materials and related services of the reduction in the home energy efficiency scheme budget from 1 April 1996 to the latest available date. [10235]

  Mr. Jones
  I have not changed my expectation that more than 400,000 grants will be paid under the home energy efficiency scheme in 1996–97, and present indications are that this will be the outcome. Already more than 2 million grants have been paid under this scheme, improving almost 10 per cent. of the entire housing stock and helping people in the greatest need to keep warmer and use energy more efficiently. This is a substantial achievement. One of the criteria for choosing installers within the scheme is their portfolio of work, to ensue that 94
  they should not rely on the scheme as their only source of income. There are many opportunities at present for the domestic energy efficiency supply and installation industries. As well as the home energy efficiency scheme there are the regional electricity companies' standards of performance schemes and the Energy Saving Trust's cavity wall insulation scheme. The latter is supported by the Department and I expect at least 40,000 homes to be insulated by the end of the present financial year. In total, these energy efficiency grant, subsidy and cashback schemes should benefit about 500,000 homes, mostly occupied by the more vulnerable households, in the current financial year.

  Hot Water Tank Insulation
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many(a) total dwellings and (b) dwellings with a hot water tank have (i) hot water tank insulation and (ii) hot water tank insulation of 80 mm or more in (1) England, (2) Wales, (3) Scotland and (4) Northern Ireland. [10242]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Recent information is not available in this precise form. The following table provides estimates of the number of households in England, Wales and Scotland with hot water tank insulation in December 1995 and the number of dwellings in Northern Ireland with insulation in 1991.

  Thousands

  Total households/dwellings

  With hot water tank

  With hot water tank insulation

  With 80mm or more insulation

  England

  19,581

  16,667

  15,788

  10,699

  Wales

  1,151

  969

  877

  574

  Scotland

  2,108

  1,991

  1,871

  1,406

  Northern Ireland

  574

  not known

  492

  not known

  Health and Safety Laboratory
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much has been spent to date on the prior options review and conversation to agency status of the health and safety laboratory; and from which budget these sums were paid. [10074]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The conversion of the health and safety laboratory to an internal agency of the Health and Safety Executive on 1 April 1995 followed a review by the Health and Safety Executive's then director general, John Rimington. The estimated cost to the health and safety laboratory of preparing for agency status during 1994–95 was £507,000. It is not possible to quantify the related costs of the other staff of the Health and Safety Executive who were involved in the review of the laboratory and in its subsequent conversion to agency status.

  The estimated cost to the Health and Safety Executive of the prior options review was £61,000. All costs were met from within HSE's existing resources.

  The health and safety laboratory's status as an agency provides greater exposure to the market place and this is increasing both its efficiency and effectiveness.
  95
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many(a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees include employees of the health and safety laboratory as representatives of United Kingdom interests; and how many of these employees are leading the United Kingdom team on their committee. [10076]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Employees of the health and safety laboratory serve on(a) 73 United Kingdom, (b) 62 European and (c) 25 international committees. They lead the United Kingdom team on 21 European and 12 international committees.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the future costs of the prior options review of the health and safety laboratory; and from which budget these sums will be paid. [10075]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The review of the health and safety laboratory has been completed and its outcome was announced by my noble Friend Earl Ferrers on 24 July 1996. The Health and Safety Executive has established a team to prepare a detailed plan to implement to the Government's decisions. The estimated cost of preparing this plan is £50,000. It will not be possible to estimate the full costs of implementation until that plan has been finalised. All these costs will be met from within HSE's existing resources.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many(a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees are chaired by employees of the health and safety laboratory. [10077]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Employees of the health and safety laboratory chair(a) six United Kingdom, (b) eight European and (c) seven international committees.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimates he has made of the amount spent on external consultants by his Department's non-departmental public bodies in each of the last five years. [10164]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be made available only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the actions his Department has taken on each of the recommendations contained in the Cabinet Office report on the Government's use of external consultants. [10165]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  A large number of the report's recommendations addressed controls that are already part of the strong framework my Department has in place over the use of external consultants. However, that framework has been strengthened further, through:

  (a) issuing revised guidance. This re-emphasises in particular:

  —the requirement for a project brief or business case for each consultancy;

  —the role and responsibilities of the project manager for each consultancy contract; and

  —the procedures for establishing that the consultancy has delivered value for money.

  96

  (b) Ministerial approval for the Department's annual expenditure plan for consultants.

  In addition, the Department's purchasing has been made more professional through the establishment of centres of procurement expertise at key points in the organisation, including those who buy consultancies.

  Building Research Establishment
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (i) how much has been spent to date on the prior options review and privatisation of the Building Research Establishment; and from which budget these sums were paid: [10002]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the future costs of the privatisation of the Building Research Establishment; and from which budget these sums will be paid. [10003]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The costs of the prior options review, which is complete, and of the privatisation will fall to the Department's administration vote. Work on the review involved staff from this Department overseen by an advisory group drawn from Government and industry. Work on the privatisation involves staff the majority of whom are not working full time on this work. In both cases the staff and related costs could be determined only at disproportionate cost. Expenditure on professional fees in connection with the prior options review were around £100,000. It is estimated that professional fees in connection with the privatisation will be in the region of £1.3 million.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many(a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees include employees of the Building Research Establishment as representatives of UK interests; and how many of these employees are leading the UK team on their committee. [10004]

  Mr. Jones
  The information is as follows:

  UK

  European

  International

  Number of Committees

  350

  143

  56

  UK team leader from BRE

  0

  6

  5

  Mr Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many(a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees are chaired by employees of the Building Research Establishment. [10005]

  Mr. Jones
  The information is as follows:

  Committees chaired by BRE employees

  UK

  34

  European

  23

  International

  6

  Loft Insulation
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many(a) total dwellings and (b) dwellings with access to a loft have (i) loft insulation, (ii) loft insulation of 150 mm or more and (iii) loft insulation of 200 mm or more in (1) England, (2) Wales, (3) Scotland and (4) Northern Ireland. [10241]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Recent information is not available in this precise form. The following table provides estimates of the number of households in England, Wales and Scotland with loft insulation in December 1995 and the number of dwellings in Northern Ireland with insulation in 1991.

  Thousands

  Total households/dwellings

  With accessible loft

  With loft insulation

  With 150 mm or more insulation

  England

  19,581

  15,649

  14,306

  2,687

  Wales

  1,151

  959

  870

  97

  Scotland

  2,108

  1,352

  1,203

  93

  Northern Ireland

  574

  534

  465

  not known

  Draught-proofing
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many dwellings have(a) draught-proofing and (b) draught-proofing of 40 per cent. or more of the dwelling's rooms in (1) England, (2) Wales, (3) Scotland and (4) Northern Ireland. [10243]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Recent information is not available in this precise form. The following table provides estimates of the number of households in England, Wales and Scotland with draught proofing in December 1995 and the number of dwellings in Northern Ireland with draught proofing in 1991.

  Thousands

  Total household/dwellings

  With draught proofing

  With 40 per cent, or more rooms treated

  England

  19,581

  6,078

  2,357

  Wales

  1,151

  281

  96

  Scotland

  2,108

  895

  318

  Northern Ireland

  574

  269

  not known

  National Non-domestic Rates
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list(a) the estimate he has made of national non-domestic rates available for distribution in 1996–97 and 1997–98 and (b) the percentage difference in both cash and real terms between the two years; and if he will list the differences between the two years. [10479]
  98
  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information requested is as follows:

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Percentage difference

  Distributable Amount of non-domestic rates

  —cash prices

  12,736

  12,027

  -5.6

  —1996–97 prices

  12,736

  11,791

  -7.4

  For a list of the differences between the two years, I refer the hon. Member to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) on 27 November, Official Report, columns 242–44.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment from what date the shadow unitary local authorities scheduled to come into effect in April 1998 are permitted to enter into PFI contracts. [10439]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Where an authority gaining unitary status is an existing county or district council, it will be a continuing authority and there is no need for a shadow council; the role of the authority acquiring new functions is expanded to encompass the shadow role. In these cases, whether the authority can enter a PFI contract before it assumes full unitary powers depends on whether the contract pertains to one of its existing or one of its new functions. If it concerns one of the new functions, the authority can enter into a contract only if it will facilitate the preparation for the discharge of its new functions.

  There are only two authorities which will be new authorities with a shadow council elected in 1997 and with assumption of full unitary status on 1 April 1998. A shadow authority may enter into contracts only pursuant to those functions which include powers to facilitate the preparation for the discharge of its new functions.

  South Yorkshire Supertram
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the effect of the South Yorkshire supertram project on the rates of council tax in Barnsley metropolitan borough council from April 1997. [10321]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Under the Secretary of State's provisional capping principles, the South Yorkshire supertram project would have no impact on council taxes in Barnsley. It is, of course for Barnsley to decide whether to spend up to its cap.

  Local Government Finance
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the(a) total standard spending assessment and police grant and (b) total external support including revenue support grant, non-domestic rates, standard spending assessment reduction grant and police grants to be received by (i) each individual local authority, (ii) education authorities and (iii) all authorities in (1) 1997–98 and (2) 1996–97 and for

  99
  each the change over 1996–97 and (a) cash and (b) percentage terms, adjusting 1996–97 amounts for local government reorganisation and for changed local authority functions and responsibilities in 1997–98, and the transfer of responsibilities for care in the community from central Government budgets in 1997–98; and if he will supply this information in written and machine-readable forms; [10694]

  (2) what is the (a) total standard spending assessment and police grant and (b) total external support including revenue support grant, non-domestic rates, standard spending assessment reduction grant and police grants to be received by (i) each group of local authority classified by Department of Environment regions, (ii) each group of education authority classified by Department of the Environment region and (iii) all authorities classified by Department of the Environment region in (1) 1997–98 and (2) 1996–97 and for each the change over 1996–97 in (a) cash and (b) percentage terms, adjusting 1996–97 amounts for local government reorganisation and for

  1997–98 provisional SSAs calculated using both the proposed Area Cost Adjustment (ACA) factors and the ACA factors in the Elliott report

  1997–98 provisional SSA using proposed ACA factors £ million

  Hypothetical 1997–98 SSA using ACA factors from Elliott report (rounded) £ million

  Difference (rounded) £ million

  Difference £ Per cent.

  Buckinghamshire CC

  282.824

  292.4

  +7.5

  +2.6

  Aylesbury Vale DC

  12.491

  13.2

  +0.8

  +6.1

  Chiltern DC

  6.939

  7.0

  +0.1

  +0.9

  Wycombe DC

  13.249

  14.0

  +0.7

  +5.4

  Thames Valley Police

  103.541

  106.3

  +2.8

  +2.7

  The hypothetical SSAs using ACA factors from the Elliott report are approximate. They are believed to be a reasonable guide to the extent of the difference in SSAs, but would require detailed refinements if they were to be used in determining revenue support grant.

  Coal Mines (Injuries)
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many major injuries were reported under the requirements of the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985 for all United Kingdom coal mines for the year April 1995 to March 1996. [10685]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The number of major injuries reported to HM inspectorate of mines occurring in UK coal mines for 1 April 1995 to 31 March 1996 was 159.

WALES

  Adult Education (Learning Disabilities)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total funding in Wales, in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available, for adult education for people with learning disabilities; what is the projected spending for the next three years; and if he will make a statement. [10200]
  100
  changed local authority functions and responsibilities in 1997–98, and the transfer of responsibilities for care in the community from central Government budgets in 1997–98; and if he will supply this information in written and machine-readable forms. [10702]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are(a) the provisional standard spending assessment for 1997–98, (b) the standard spending assessment for 1997–98 as it would have been had the Elliott report on area cost adjustments been implemented and (c) the difference between those two figures expressed in (i) percentage and (ii) cash terms for (1) Buckinghamshire county council, (2) Aylesbury Vale district council, (3) Chiltern district council, (4) Wycombe district council and (5) the Thames Valley police authority; and if he will make a statement. [10682]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information is contained in the table.

  Mr. Hague
  Expenditure of this kind is determined by local authorities and other bodies; aggregate information is not collected centrally.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the amount spent on external consultants by his Department's non-departmental public bodies in each of the last five years. [10184]

  Mr. Hague
  None. This is a matter for individual non-departmental public bodies to determine as part of the day-to-day management of their affairs.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the actions his Department has taken on each of the recommendations contained in the Cabinet Office report, "The Government's Use of External Consultants." [10185]

  Mr. Hague
  My Department has reviewed its procedures to take account of the scrutiny report recommendations. The revised arrangements have been applied to all consultancies undertaken in this financial year.

  Skilled Workers
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the number of skilled workers in Wales(a) in employment and (b) unemployed. [9890]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The spring 1996 labour force survey estimates of the skills of persons in Wales are shown in the following table:

  Skills of persons of working age in Wales, Spring 19961

  Thousands

  Skill type

  In employment

  ILO unemployed1

  Professional/intermediate

  380

  15

  Skilled (non manual)

  242

  16

  Skilled (manual)

  266

  21

  Partly skilled

  187

  24

  Unskilled

  66

  10

  1 Excludes persons in the armed forces and those who did not answer.

  2 Skill type defined by last job. Information on the skills of the ILO unemployed who have never worked (estimated to be 14,000 people in Wales) are not available from the Labour Force Survey.

  Employment (Students)
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of successful full-time higher education students from institutions in Wales other than the University of Wales gained first destination permanent employment in each of the years 1989–90 to 1993–94. [9974]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The information requested may be found in table 6.10 of the recent Welsh Office publication "Further and Higher Education and Training Statistics in Wales 1996", published in May 1996. A copy of the publication is available in the Library of the House.

  Training
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of employees of working age received on-the-job training in Wales, broken down by gender in the most recent year for which figures are available. [9976]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The spring 1996 labour force survey estimated that, in Wales 8 per cent. of male, 5.5 per cent. of female and 6.8 per cent. of all employees of working age received on-the-job training in the four weeks before the interview. The information for numbers receiving training in a year is not available in the form requested.

  Academic year

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–1996

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Clwyd

  177

  179

  186

  191

  —

  —

  —

  Dyfed

  52

  52

  55

  61

  —

  —

  —

  Gwent

  219

  208

  221

  214

  —

  —

  —

  Powys

  81

  87

  88

  91

  —

  —

  —

  South Glamorgan

  171

  165

  173

  169

  —

  —

  —

  Bridgend

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14

  28

  42

  Roads
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on planned expenditure on new construction and improvement of roads in Wales for the next year. [9972]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend announced our spending plans for 1997–98 on 12 December 1996,Official Report, columns 405–19. These include £113 million for the trunk road and motorway network and £76 million for local roads, including £54 million for transport grant schemes. Details of future improvements to the road network will be published in the Welsh Office's departmental report in the spring.

  GCSE Grades
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of school leavers gained GCSE grades A*-C in(a) mathematics, (b) English and (c) science in the most recent year for which figures are available, broken down by gender. [9978]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Information is not collected centrally on grades achieved in individual GCSE subjects by school leavers. Information relating to pupils aged 15—age as at 31 August 1995—or the academic year 1995–96 is contained in the following table.

  Percentage of 15 year olds1 in Wales achieving GCSE grade A*-C by subject—1996

  Mathematics

  English

  Science

  Boys

  39

  40

  42

  Girls

  42

  58

  43

  Pupils

  40

  49

  42

  1Age as at 31 August 1995.

  Assisted Places
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many pupils in each county in Wales have been included in the assisted places scheme in the last five years; and how many are planned in the next two years. [9850]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The number of assisted place pupils in Wales in the last five years, in each of the counties within which participating schools are located, is shown in the following table, along with information the number of assisted places planned in the next two years. Information on individual pupils' place of residence is not held centrally.

  The table for 1996–97 and beyond reflects local government reorganisation and includes the additional places made available through the expansion of the scheme from September 1996, at a further seven schools across Wales. Planned places for Denbighshire are subject to redistribution should the proposed closure of Howells senior school, Denbigh proceed.
  103

  Academic year

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–1996

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Cardiff

  —

  —

  —

  —

  208

  233

  258

  Carmarthenshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  69

  77

  85

  Conwy

  —

  —

  —

  —

  142

  166

  190

  Denbighshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  94

  108

  122

  Gwynedd

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9

  18

  27

  Monmouthshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  228

  238

  248

  Newport

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15

  30

  45

  Powys

  —

  —

  —

  —

  101

  111

  121

  Swansea

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7

  14

  21

  Totals

  700

  691

  720

  726

  887

  1,023

  1,159

  General National Vocational Qualifications
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the percentage of successful GNVQ candidates in Wales who(a) obtained full-time employment, (b) obtained part-time employment, (c) entered further training schemes, (d) continued with further or higher education and (e) became unemployed in (i) 1992–93, (ii) 1993–94 and (iii) 1994–95. [9967]

  Student staff ratios and average class sizes at further education institutions in Wales1

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Institution

  Student staff ratio

  Average class size

  Student staff ratio

  Average class size

  Student staff ratio

  Average class size

  Student staff ratio

  Average class size

  Student staff ratio

  Aberdare College

  14.1

  18.2

  20.5

  26.6

  19.6

  25.2

  20.0

  26.7

  16.7

  Afan College

  11.5

  14.5

  15.2

  15.5

  15.0

  23.0

  13.9

  16.9

  13.4

  Barry College

  11.4

  14.1

  12.8

  15.7

  13.3

  15.1

  12.3

  14.2

  14.9

  Bridgend College

  11.1

  15.1

  13.9

  18.4

  13.9

  18.4

  15.5

  20.2

  14.3

  Carmarthen College of Technology and Art

  12.8

  16.8

  13.8

  16.5

  14.5

  16.6

  16.2

  18.7

  18.9

  Coleg Ceredigion

  11.5

  13.0

  11.7

  14.0

  12.1

  13.6

  11.3

  12.5

  9.7

  Coleg Glan Hafren2

  12.1

  13.9

  16.4

  15.8

  17.1

  15.8

  —

  —

  21.3

  Coleg Glynllifon3

  6.0

  9.5

  6.9

  8.8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Coleg Harlech

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9.7

  7.9

  14.0

  4.1

  16.3

  Coleg Llysfasi College

  8.1

  11.1

  8.0

  10.5

  9.8

  11.0

  9.5

  9.8

  11.2

  Coleg Meirion-Dwyfor3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9.3

  11.4

  8.8

  11.9

  10.6

  Coleg Meirionydd3

  9.2

  11.0

  10.2

  12.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Coleg Menai4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17.0

  Coleg Pencraig4

  11.1

  12.9

  13.1

  14.8

  14.4

  15.5

  13.0

  13.2

  —

  Coleg Powys

  9.9

  12.8

  10.4

  13.8

  12.0

  15.3

  13.0

  16.1

  14.6

  Crosskeys College5

  10.0

  12.6

  14.0

  15.3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Deeside College6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  12.7

  17.0

  13.7

  17.5

  14.5

  Ebbw Vale College1

  7.6

  9.9

  10.2

  12.4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gorseinon College

  12.0

  14.4

  12.7

  14.1

  14.2

  14.6

  13.4

  14.1

  14.8

  Gwent Tertiary College5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  12.9

  14.4

  14.1

  14.2

  12.3

  Gwynedd Technical College4

  10.0

  13.2

  11.5

  13.7

  12.2

  14.2

  15.1

  18.1

  —

  Llandrillo College

  11.2

  15.9

  12.7

  15.2

  15.7

  17.3

  15.0

  17.3

  12.9

  Merthyr Tydfil College

  11.3

  14.8

  13.4

  16.0

  15.7

  17.5

  14.9

  16.8

  14.4

  Neath College

  13.0

  15.8

  14.1

  16.3

  15.8

  16.5

  16.9

  16.9

  14.7

  Newport College3

  10.7

  12.5

  12.9

  15.4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North East Wales Institute6

  11.5

  14.5

  13.1

  19.5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Pembrokeshire College

  14.0

  16.8

  14.4

  16.4

  14.9

  16.9

  15.6

  17.0

  11.4

  Pencoed College

  6.3

  8.9

  8.1

  11.5

  9.2

  12.3

  14.2

  18.4

  12.1

  Pontypool College5

  10.8

  11.9

  12.6

  13.4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Pontypridd College

  12.2

  14.3

  12.9

  17.5

  13.7

  18.5

  13.5

  16.0

  15.4

  Rhondda College

  11.5

  14.9

  12.7

  16.3

  13.4

  14.9

  14.1

  16.5

  17.4

  St. Davids 6th Form College

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15.4

  16.8

  12.2

  Swansea College

  15.6

  17.0

  16.0

  17.2

  16.0

  17.0

  16.7

  17.7

  17.4

  104
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Further Education
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list(a) the student-staff ratio and (b) average class size for each of the institutes of further education in Wales in each of the years 1990–91 to 1995–96. [9969]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The available information is shown in the following table.
  105

  Student staff ratios and average class sizes at further education institutions in Wales1

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Institution

  Student staff ratio

  Average class size

  Student staff ratio

  Average class size

  Student staff ratio

  Average class size

  Student staff ratio

  Average class size

  Student staff ratio

  Usk Agricultural College5

  7.0

  9.2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Welsh Agricultural College7

  9.1

  19.9

  9.5

  18.4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Welsh College of Horticulture

  8.9

  12.3

  10.9

  15.8

  13.3

  19.1

  12.1

  17.2

  11.8

  Yale College

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14.4

  14.9

  11.8

  Ystrad Mynach College

  12.0

  14.7

  13.2

  16.1

  13.6

  15.8

  13.9

  16.7

  14.0

  Wales average

  11.4

  14.3

  13.2

  13.5

  13.8

  16.1

  14.1

  16.0

  14.3

  Source:

  Welsh Office and Further Education Funding Council for Wales.

  Notes:

  1 Data from Welsh Office annual monitoring survey to 1993–94. Calculated from Welsh Office further education student record and FEFCW staff individualised record for 1994–95. Data for 1990–91 to 1993–94 relate only to further education courses of students, 1994–95 data relate to all courses of study at further education institutions. Excludes WEA north and south and YMCA which are not colleges.

  2 1993–94 data not given.

  3 In September 1992, Coleg Glynllifon and Coleg Merionydd amalgamated to form Coleg Merion-Dwyfor.

  4 In September 1994, Coleg Pencraig and Gwynedd Technical college amalgamated to form Coleg Menai.

  5 In September 1992, the colleges of Newport, Crosskeys, Pontypool (including Usk college, from 1991–92) and Ebbw Vale amalgamated to form Gwent tertiary college.

  6 In January 1993, North East Wales Institute divided to form Deeside college and North East Wales Institute of HE.

  7 In February 1993, Welsh Agricultural college became a higher education institution.

  Inward Investment
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of direct inward investment projects attracted to Wales in each of the years 1992–93 to 1995–96. [9971]

  Mr. Hague
  The number of overseas generated inward investment projects attracted to Wales in each of the years 1992–93 to 1995–96 are provided in the following table:

  Projects

  1992–93

  87

  1993–94

  77

  1994–95

  57

  1995–96

  69

  Figures based on financial year.

  Secondary Schools (Expenditure)
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the amount spent per secondary school pupil in each of the(a) grant-maintained and (b) LEA schools in Wales in the most recent year for which figures are available. [9997]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Comparable information on expenditure per pupil in LEA and grant-maintained schools is not readily available. I will write to the hon. Member to provide him with the information and place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the average class size in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in each of the past 10 years. [10654]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The information requested is shown in the following table:
  106

  Average class size1

  Year

  Primary schools

  Secondary schools

  January 1996

  25.9

  20.2

  January 1995

  25.9

  20.2

  January 1994

  25.6

  20.1

  September 1992

  25.0

  21.4

  September 1991

  25.0

  21.5

  September 1990

  24.8

  21.0

  September 1989

  24.8

  20.5

  September 1988

  24.8

  20.7

  September 1987

  24.5

  21.3

  September 1986

  24.4

  21.6

  Notes:

  1 Average class size is calculated as the number of pupils divided by the number of classes. In the case of primary schools, the number of classes used is the number of registered classes (including ordinary, special and nursery classes) whereas for secondary schools it is the number of classes in which the pupils were taught in a specified period on the day of the schools' census.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average class size in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in each local authority area in Wales. [10673]

  Mr. Evans
  The information requested is shown in the following table. Both LEA maintained and GM schools are included.

  Average class size

  Local education authority

  Primary schools

  Secondary schools

  Blaenau Gwent

  27.8

  18.9

  Bridgend

  27.7

  20.2

  Caerphilly

  26.9

  20.7

  Cardiff

  27.4

  22.3

  Carmarthenshire

  22.9

  20.1

  Ceredigion

  21.2

  19.3

  Conwy

  25.6

  19.5

  Denbighshire

  25.8

  20.0

  Flintshire

  27.5

  19.6

  107

  Average class size

  Local education authority

  Primary schools

  Secondary schools

  Gwynedd

  22.6

  18.0

  Isle of Anglesey

  22.6

  19.5

  Merthyr Tydfil

  26.9

  19.5

  Monmouthshire

  27.2

  19.8

  Neath Port Talbot

  25.0

  20.5

  Newport

  28.8

  22.3

  Pembrokeshire

  23.9

  20.1

  Powys

  22.1

  17.9

  Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

  27.0

  19.6

  Swansea

  26.1

  20.8

  Torfaen

  27.6

  20.0

  The Vale of Glamorgan

  26.9

  20.4

  Wrexham

  26.9

  21.8

  Wales

  25.9

  20.2

  Source:

  January 1996 Schools' Census.

  Schools
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of schools in Wales(a) have no spare places and (b) are less than 75 per cent. full. [10655]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Information is currently available centrally only for most schools outside the former county of Gwynedd. Of those schools, in 1995 approximately(a) 30 per cent. had no spare places and (b) 25 per cent. were less than 75 per cent. full.

TRANSPORT

  London Underground
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to ensure safety on London Underground. [8771]

  Mr. Bowis
  Safety is the top priority for both the Government and for London Transport. The Railways (Safety Case) Regulations 1994 required London Underground to prepare a safety case setting out its approach to safety management, and this was accepted by HM railway inspectorate last January. London Underground intends to update its safety case on a regular basis and to publish an annual safety plan.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve the existing infrastructure of the London Underground system. [8766]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Government's plans for improving public transport in London, including services on the existing London Underground network, were set out in the transport strategy for London.

  London Transport
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of London Transport to discuss London's transport needs. [8769]

  Mr. Bowis
  I last met the chairman of London Transport on 9 January when we travelled on the first passenger-carrying run of the new Jubilee line extension 108
  trains. We were able to see and celebrate the remarkable progress in this expansion of London Underground services.

  River Transport
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions in the last 12 months he has travelled on the River Thames in his official capacity to assess river transport. [8768]

  Sir George Young
  I have travelled on the River Thames once in the past year in my official capacity, when I visited the Port of London Authority in June last year.

  Heathrow-London Rail Link
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the cost of establishing an underground connection at Ealing on the Paddington to Heathrow express line; and if he will make a statement. [8767]

  Mr. Bowis
  None. The Heathrow express scheme to which my hon. Friend the hon. Member refers is being developed by BAA plc and it would be a matter for it to consider if it wished to introduce a stop at Ealing or on any other part of the route. However, a stopping service is proposed to run from St. Pancras to Heathrow. This is likely to include a stop at Ealing Broadway.

  Fenchurch Street Line
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received on the Fenchurch Street line. [8765]

  Mr. Watts
  None.

  Road Users (Medicinal Drugs)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the dangers posed by road users who are under the influence of medicinal drugs. [8764]

  Mr. Bowis
  Some prescribed and over-the-counter medications may impair driving skills. However others, if taken as advised, will improve driving performance by removing the adverse effects of the medical condition. A 1989 study by the Transport Research Laboratory found that the incidence of medicinal drugs in fatal accidents was six times lower than that of alcohol. We recently began a further three-year survey of road fatalities to update our knowledge in this area.

  Motorway Noise
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to reduce noise from increased traffic levels on existing motorways affecting domestic properties; and if he will make a statement. [8763]

  Mr. Watts
  Tighter noise emission standards for new vehicles were introduced on 1 October 1996. In addition, when renewing the surface of a road the Highways Agency considers the materials and technology available. Some of the surfacing products now available generate
  109
  significantly less tyre noise than older surfaces, and they can be used where they are no more expensive in whole-life cost terms than conventional surface treatment.

  Manchester Airport
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received concerning his Department's open skies policy at Manchester airport. [8762]

  Sir George Young
  I have received a number of letters recently, including one from my hon. Friend, as a result of Manchester airport's open skies campaign.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which airlines have a right of veto in respect of air services between Bangkok and Manchester airport; what assessment he has made of the conformity of such vetos with fair competition policy; how many such vetos exist; and what proposals he has to remove them from bilateral agreements. [9885]

  Infrastructure
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he has taken in the last year to improve transport infrastructure in south-east England. [8761]

  Sir George Young
  The Government are committed to a wide range of measures to improve transport infrastructure in the south-east. In the last year. this has included signing the development agreement for CTRL, continuing work on the Jubilee line extension and funding for 27 local authority transport packages and including in our revised trunk road programme schemes in the south-east with a total value of about £2 billion.

  Rail Safety
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he has had recently with bodies responsible for rail safety. [8760]

  Mr. Watts
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I met Frank Davies, the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission, on 21 October 1996, to discuss various railway safety matters.

  We have also had reports both from the Anglo-French Intergovernmental Commission and from the independent Channel Tunnel Safety Authority on the recent fire in the channel tunnel.

  Passenger Rolling Stock
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the total investment in cash terms in new passenger rolling stock serving north Kent and south London destinations over the last 10 years. [8758]

  Mr. Watts
  Expenditure on new passenger rolling stock serving north Kent and south London destinations, for the 10 years from 1986–87 to 1995–96 totalled £510 million at cash prices.

  Infrastructure Expenditure (London)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received
  110
  from (i) the Board of London Transport and (ii) London Underground Ltd. concerning their allocation of expenditure for renewal of their infrastructure. [8757]

  Mr. Bowis
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and I meet the chairman and other members of the board of London Transport on a regular basis and discuss a wide range of issues including finance.

  Shipping Safety
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to promote safety for shipping in United Kingdom waters; and if he will make a statement. [8756]

  Sir George Young
  We have successfully pursued a number of proposals, through the International Maritime Organisation and the European Community, leading to agreements on improving safety standards in shipping. These include the Stockholm agreement on ferry safety, which we shall be implementing shortly through new regulations. We shall continue to work towards the implementation of higher standards in construction and management of ships.

  Ministerial Leave
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many days of leave he plans to take during the Christmas adjournment; [9797]

  (2) how many days leave he has taken in the Easter, Whitsun and summer adjournments; and how many days leave he took during the time in which Parliament was prorogued this year. [9796]

  Sir George Young
  I refer to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster today.

  Second Tamar Bridge
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the estimated costs to his Department of(a) consultancy work and (b) compulsory purchase in relation to the second Tamar bridge projects in each of the last three years; and what was the total cost to his Department. [10207]

  Mr. Watts
  The costs for consultancy work are as follows:

  1994: £44,000

  1995: £16,000

  1996: £45,000

  Compulsory powers have not been used to purchase properties in relation to this project.

  However, properties have been acquired in response to blight notices served on the Secretary of State under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or applications under discretionary powers in the Highways Act 1980. The approximate costs of these acquisitions are as follows:

  1994–95: £48,000

  1995–96: £1,880,000

  1996–97: £2,425,000

  111
  Following the abandonment of the project, the properties will be re-sold as soon as possible.

  InterCity West Coast
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the public subsidy for InterCity West Coast for services to(a) Watford and (b) Milton Keynes in each of the last five years. [9760]

  Mr. Watts
  It is not possible to provide subsidy figures for individual rail services. The grant claim for InterCity West Coast over the last three years is as follows:

  1996–97: £92.53 million

  1995–96: £84.69 million

  1994–95: £99.05 million

  Prior to 1 April 1994, grant was paid to British Railways Board as a whole, and not in respect of individual rail companies.

  Manchester Metro
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if departmental grants towards the costs of the Manchester metro Salford Quays-Eccles extension are conditional on the best and final lowest tender price being secured for this contract. [9842]

  Mr. Watts
  No. Bidding for the contract to build the Manchester metrolink extension to Salford Quays and Eccles has been conducted under rules prescribed by the

  £ thousands

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Trinity House

  42

  30

  34

  32

  88

  Northern Lighthouse Board

  271

  216

  43

  13

  59

  London Regional Passengers' Committee1

  —

  —

  —

  18

  2

  The Traffic Director for London

  40

  120

  2,050

  3,250

  3,700

  1The Department only assumed responsibility for the London Regional Passengers' Committee in April 1994.

  The Department's other non-departmental public bodies—the rail users' consultative committees and the Disabled Persons' Transport Advisory Committee—did not incur expenditure on external consultants in the last five years.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the actions his Department has taken on each of the recommendations contained in the Cabinet Office report, "The Government's Use of External Consultants". [10181]

  Mr. Bowis
  The actions taken by the Department of Transport in response to the multi-departmental scrutiny on the Government's use of external consultants are listed in the Department's implementation report, which was submitted to the Cabinet Office in April 1996. Copies of the implementation report have been placed in the House Library.

  Civil Aviation Authority
  Sir Peter Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 29 November,Official Report, columns 420–21, when his officials have discussed with the Civil Aviation Authority the issue of commissioning a balance of benefits study in
  112
  European procurement directive. Award criteria were set at the outset of the competition, and notified to the tenderers; bids were evaluated against these criteria.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what account he will take when considering funding for the Greater Manchester metrolink extension—Salford Quays to Eccles—of any subsidies paid to EU manufacturers successful in the competitive tendering; and if he will make it a condition of funding that no such subsidies have been or are being paid. [10653]

  Mr. Watts
  Funding of £17.3 million for the Manchester metrolink extension to Eccles via Salford Quays, through the capital challenge programme, was announced on 16 December. Greater Manchester passenger transport executive is responsible for the award of tenders to build and operate the system.

  State aids to manufacturers are regulated and policed by the European Commission. Her Majesty's Government would not knowingly provide support towards a contract to any firm which is in receipt of illegal state aid.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the amount spent on external consultants by his Department's non-departmental public bodies in each of the last five years. [10180]

  Mr. Bowis
  The following amounts were spent on external consultants by the Department of Tranpsort's non-departmental public bodies in the last five years:

  relation to the renegotiation of the US-UK air service agreements (Bermuda II); and what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the analysis in relation to the bilateral talks. [10292]

  Mr. Bowis
  Officials regularly discuss UK-US aviation matters with the Civil Aviation Authority, and such discussions have included the feasibility of an overarching "balance of benefits" study of liberalising UK-US air services. We decided not to instruct the CAA to undertake such an analysis: the number of variables which would need to be taken into account, and assumptions which would have to be made, would make it impossible to model results which could be treated with any confidence. I am however satisfied that UK negotiators are fully briefed for the current series of bilateral talks.

  Mr. Bowis
  The current UK-Thailand air services arrangements do not permit the operation of services between Bangkok and Manchester by Thai Airways International. The Department of Transport has been seeking talks with the Thai authorities for some time now with a view to liberalising these arrangements.

  London Transport Prestige Project
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if a tender for the London Transport prestige project which is not fully compliant with the specification set by London Transport will be eligible for consideration as a preferred bid; and if he will make a statement. [10430]

  Mr. Bowis
  This is a matter for London Transport. I understand that it is conducting the prestige competition in accordance with both its normal procurement practices and the relevant European procurement legislation.

  Rail Services (Financial Support)
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by what mechanisms he plans to deliver financial support for rail services in the English and Scottish passenger transport executive areas in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000; and what estimates he has made of the amounts to be provided. [10422]

  Mr. Watts
  We intend that, subject to the approval of the House of Commons, special grant should be paid in 1997–98 and beyond to all the English passenger transport authorities, for local railway services in their areas. Similarly, The Scottish Office intends, subject to the approval of the House of Commons, to pay special grant to Strathclyde PTA. The exact level of support for these rail services in future years will not be determined finally until the franchises have been signed, and the levels of services settled with the PTEs.

  Road Maintenance Costs
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the average cost per mile of maintaining(a) motorways and (b) A roads in (i) 1990 and (ii) 1995. [10346]

  Mr. Watts
  I regret that data for 1990 are not readily available. However, in financial year 1991–92, roads maintenance expenditure—capital and current—was approximately £152,000 for each mile of motorway and £25,000 for each mile of A road. The equivalent figures for financial year 1994–95 were £166,000 and £34,000 respectively.

  South Yorkshire Supertram Project
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will carry out a review of the basis on which his Department took its initial decision to award a section 56 grant to the South Yorkshire supertram project; [10316]

  (2) what assessment he has made of his Department's role in sanctioning the total funding package for the South Yorkshire supertram. [10315]

  Mr. Watts
  As with all such cases, the Department's decision to award section 56 grant, and to sanction other elements of the funding package, was based on an appraisal put forward by the promoter of the project, in this instance South Yorkshire passenger transport executive, and was in accordance with the procedures and criteria published in circular 3/89, "Section 56 Grant for Public Transport." I will consider whether experience of South Yorkshire supertram has wider implications.

  Mr Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will(a) publish and (b) place in the Library the
  114
  results of studies undertaken by his Department into the cost-effectiveness of his Department's support for the South Yorkshire supertram. [10317]

  Mr. Watts
  Work is still in progress on the supertram monitoring study, commissioned jointly by my Department and South Yorkshire PTE. The "before" surveys relating to this project have already been published. When the full study has been completed, my Department will be discussing arrangements for publication with South Yorkshire PTE.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment he has made of the liabilities which will fall due to the South Yorkshire metropolitan borough councils after 31 March 1997, arising from the South Yorkshire supertram project; [10320]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the advantages of extending the period over which debts incurred by the South Yorkshire metropolitan borough councils arising out of the construction and operation of supertram may be repaid. [10319]

  Mr. Watts
  My Department and the South Yorkshire local authorities are currently discussing these issues.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the costs to public funds to date of the South Yorkshire supertram project, including all credit approvals, capitalised debts, revenue costs and other liabilities. [10318]

  Mr. Watts
  The funding authorised by my Department for the construction costs of South Yorkshire supertram is as follows:

  £ million

  Section 56 grant

  62.529

  Non-trading credit approvals

  62.529

  Trading credit approvals

  81.741

  Capitalised interest

  15.790

  ERDF grant

  6.526

  Pre-1991 spending

  12.759

  Total

  241.874

  The figure for pre-1991 spending includes some items that were funded by South Yorkshire PTE. The total does not include administrative costs incurred by my Department, which could be quantified only at disproportionate cost. These figures do not include operating losses and other post-construction costs, which are a matter for South Yorkshire PTE.

  Boeing 747 Fuel Tanks
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the safety of Boeing 747 aircraft fuel tanks. [10322]

  Mr. Bowis
  The United States National Transportation Safety Board is investigating the accident to TWA flight TW800. The cause of the accident has not yet been established although it is the view of the NTSB that the centre wing fuel tank exploded as part of the accident sequence. The source of ignition for the explosion has yet to be identified and the three theories—bomb, missile and aircraft malfunction—remain open.
  115
  Under International Civil Aviation Organisation rules, primary responsibility for promulgating information necessary to maintain the continued airworthiness of an aircraft type rests with the state of design. In the case of the Boeing 747 the US Federal Aviation Administration is the body responsible. As a result of its investigation the NTSB has made some interim safety recommendations to the FAA. If, following consideration of the NTSB safety recommendations, the FAA determines that mandatory corrective action is necessary, it will issue an airworthiness directive. It is the policy of the Civil Aviation Authority automatically to endorse all such directives and to ensure that the operators of relevant UK registered aircraft undertake the prescribed action.

  Motorway Service Stations
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will discuss with the franchisees of motorway service stations the measures they can take to show when services on one side of the motorway, other than petrol filling stations, are closed. [10324]

  Mr. Watts
  All motorway service areas are required to offer a range of basic facilities, including toilets, free short-term parking and fuel, 24 hours a day every day of the year. Operators are entitled to close parts of their MSAs during quiet periods but the specified minimum facilities must remain available at all times to all motorway users, including the disabled. If my hon. Friend has a particular problem in mind, perhaps he will let me know and I will arrange for it to be taken up with the operator concerned.

  M1 (Lighting)
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in lighting the remaining parts of the M1; what is the future timetable; and if he will make a statement. [10330]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Sir Irvine Patnick, dated 13 January 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question about the M1 motorway and the possibilities for lighting provision along those remaining unlit sections.
  The M1 is lit from Junctions 1 to 19, 20 to 21A, 23 to 26, and 40 to 42. The section between Junctions 42 and 43 will be lit as part of the M1—A1 Link Road Scheme which is currently under construction. In addition, the M1 between Junctions 31 and 32 is programmed to be lit as part of the motorway widening scheme which remains in the programme. There are currently no further lighting schemes programmed for the M1.

  Greater Manchester Rail Services
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what schemes are being provided, by what mechanism, for rail services in the Greater Manchester area in 1996–97 which in previous years were supported by the section 20 "bolt on" arrangement and metropolitan railway grant; and what arrangements he plans to introduce for future years. [10420]

  Mr. Watts
  From 1 April 1996 the franchising director assumed responsibility for the financial support of local rail services in the Greater Manchester area previously 116
  supported by the Greater Manchester passenger transport executive. It is intended that from 1 April 1997 responsibility for those services will revert to GMPTE, supported by special grant. It is intended that the level of services to be so supported will broadly reflect that currently supported by the franchising director. Subject to approval by the House of Commons, the grant would be paid under section 88B of the Local Government Act 1988.

  A46–A47 Link Road Scheme
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which(a) bodies and (b) individuals have requested meetings with representatives of his Department in respect of the A46–A47 link road scheme; and who notified him of each request. [10314]

  Mr. Watts
  With the exception of the hon. Member himself, we have no record of any such requests.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if discussions to date involving his Department in respect of the A46–A47 link road constitute routine discussions about funding under the transport policies and programmes process. [10343]

  Mr. Watts
  Those with Leicestershire county council.

  Two-wheeled Motor Vehicles (Training)
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the Driving Standards Agency circular letter to all registered keepers of two-wheeled motor vehicles up to 125cc, dated November 1996, advising them that learners must obtain a compulsory basic training certificate by 1 January 1997; and what assessment he has made of whether the time provided allows a reasonable time for learners to complete the necessary training course. [10331]

  Mr. Bowis
  We have received about 350 letters and a number of telephone calls since the DSA letter to registered keepers of small motorcycles and mopeds was issued. The change to motorcycle training rules was first announced in August 1995, giving 11 months before the planned date of implementation on 1 July 1996. In March 1996 we deferred implementation until 1 January 1997 to give more time for publicity to reach those affected and for them to take training under the existing rules. The DSA has been publicising the change using leaflets and the media and the November letter to individuals was intended as a final reminder.

  The strong demand for training courses during the autumn indicates that the message about the need for training was reaching people. We appreciate that there has nevertheless been a rush to take training courses from those who missed the earlier publicity or had left matters until the last moment and we understand that motorcycle training bodies are endeavouring to meet the demand for courses.

  Rail Services (Government Financial Support)
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by what mechanisms Government financial support for rail services is delivered to the passenger
  117
  transport executives in England and Scotland; and what estimate he has made of the level of that support during the current financial year. [10421]

  Mr. Watts
  Metropolitan district councils in England receive recognition of the costs of PTE support for railway passenger services payments. In the current financial year this is included within the calculation of revenue support grant. The support given in this way, and through the Scottish local government finance settlement, amounts to £281.2 million for 1996–97. Railways passenger services in those areas also benefit from expenditure funded by payments under the terms of the deeds of assumption.

  National Roads Programme
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by parliamentary constituency each of the schemes in the national roads programme before the 1994 review and the changes to the status of each scheme in the 1994, 1995 and 1996 reviews, including any additional schemes. [10345]

  Mr. Watts
  I will write to the hon. Member with details and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  M66 (Contract 3)
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when work is expected to commence on contract 3 for the construction of the M66; what is the length of the contract; and in what month of what year work is expected to be completed. [10502]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Chris Davies, dated 13 January 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your question about the timing of Contract 3 of the M66 Manchester Outer Ring Road.
  The present intention is to let this contract in 1998 subject to the availability of funds. We would expect it to be for a period of some two years.

  White Hart Roundabout, Northolt
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Sectetary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the cost and time expended by the traffic director and staff to achieve the repair of the phased traffic lights at the White Hart roundabout, Northolt, in December. [10636]

  Mr. Bowis
  The traffic director for London was not involved in the repair and consequently did not incur any costs. The fault was repaired by the traffic control systems unit under its maintenance contract.

  Air Cargo
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent assessment he has made of the economic consequences for Scotland of a liberalised international air cargo regime; and if he will make a statement. [10665]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department of Transport has not made any assessment of an overall liberal air cargo regime for Scotland, since air cargo matters are negotiated bilaterally 118
  with individual countries on behalf of the United Kingdom as a whole. In assessing the economic benefits of cargo liberalisation in specific bilateral arrangements, the Department takes account of the overall interests of the United Kingdom, including consumers, airports and airlines.

  Rail Privatisation (Pension Funds)
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the names of the trustees of all the pension funds created out of the former British Rail pension fund following the privatisation of British Rail. [10631]

  Mr. Watts
  In common with other multi-employer pension schemes, the railways pension scheme has one central corporate trustee covering the whole scheme and, if the relevant employers so decide, a pensions committee for individual section funds. These pensions committees operate under arrangements delegated from the central trustee and have the relevant duties and obligations of trustees. The Secretary of State has a locus only in the appointment of members of the pensions committee of the 1994 pensioners section, for which he is the designated employer.

  Only the Railways Pension Trustee Company has the names of all current trustees. The current members of the pensions committee of the 1994 pensioners section of the railways pension scheme are:

  Employers' side

  Members' side

  F. Robertson

  C. A. Cullen

  D. Allen

  J. F. Craig

  M. Carpenter

  M. Gee

  C. Grimsey

  V. C. Hince

  D. F. Renn

  A. D. Hoadley

  E. M. Sandland

  J. H. Mayfield

  B. Westbrook

  D. Tyson

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list for each franchise let since 31 October the details of payments to or from the franchise in the same format as his answer of 31 October, to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, (Mrs. Dunwoody)Official Report, columns 241–42; [10418]

  (2) if he will list the amount of support paid to British Rail for franchises let since 31 October before franchising and the amounts of administered profit included within such support. [10419]

  Mr. Watts
  The information is set out in the table.
  119

  £ million

  Cost of advisors

  1995–96 Budgeted messenger revenue

  1996–97 Budgeted support to BR for whole year

  Including administered profit1

  Support paid at franchising Year 12

  Year 2

  Year 3

  Year 4

  Year 5

  Year 6

  Cross Country Trains

  1.68

  133.70

  127.20

  8.35

  130.19

  112.86

  95.50

  80.00

  71.98

  65.96

  West Anglia Great Northern

  1.08

  121.60

  71.07

  9.09

  60.30

  53.45

  33.83

  24.71

  12.73

  4.16

  Anglia

  1.09

  43.00

  40.87

  3.30

  37.25

  35.90

  26.02

  22.05

  15.98

  12.99

  Great Eastern

  0.91

  125.90

  40.59

  8.48

  24.52

  29.08

  14.04

  8.14

  2.79

  0.31

  Merseryrail Electrics

  1.27

  27.10

  84.13

  2.67

  81.10

  80.72

  72.80

  67.23

  64.90

  62.04

  Total

  5.98

  491.70

  363.86

  31.89

  333.36

  511.95

  242.17

  202.12

  168.57

  144.84

  Savings on BR Support

  —

  —

  —

  —

  30.50

  91.91

  121,89

  161.74

  195.09

  218.02

  Commutative savings

  —

  —

  —

  —

  30.50

  82.41

  204.10

  365.83

  561.33

  780.35

  £ million

  Year 7

  Year 8

  Year 9

  Year 10

  Year 11

  Year 12

  Year 13

  Year 14

  Year 15

  Year 16

  Cross Country Trains

  49.16

  38.43

  21.54

  13.44

  6.87

  2.97

  0.79

  0.00

  -4.99

  -10.01

  West Anglia Great Northern

  -14.21

  -24.81

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Anglia

  8.58

  6.29

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Great Eastern

  -5.12

  -9.54

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Merseyrail Electrics

  61.65

  60.80

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Total

  100.07

  72.17

  21.54

  13.44

  6.87

  2.97

  0.79

  0.00

  -4.99

  -10.01

  Savings on BR support

  263.79

  55.03

  105.86

  113.76

  120.33

  124.23

  126.41

  127.20

  132.19

  137.21

  Cumulative savings

  1,044.14

  1,055.17

  1,204.83

  1,318.59

  1,438.91

  1,583.15

  1,589.56

  1.876.76

  1,948.93

  2.086.16

  1 The Merseyrail BR support figures have been restated on a comparable basis to the franchise agreement and include budgeted payments from Merseyside PTE.

  2 Not covered by the franchise.

  3 The Year 1 franchise payment to the full year equivalent payment that appears in the franchise agreement to allow for accurate comparisons.

  All the franchises except Merseyrail commenced on 5 January 1997. Merseyrail will complete at a later date.

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

  Payments to the Franchising Director appear as negative amounts.

  All payments are real amounts.

  Advisor costs are correct to December 1996.

DEFENCE

  Range Facilities
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what facilities are available at the Shoeburyness range that are not available at any other range of his Department. [10153]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the chief executive, DERA, to write to the right hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Dr. John Cunningham, dated 13 January 1997:
  I have been asked to reply to your question about the facilities available at the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) Shoeburyness range which are not available at any other range, since as Chief Executive of DERA this is a matter for which I am responsible.
  The Shoeburyness range has the only facilities within DERA which enable the following activities to be undertaken:

  (a) overwater recovery for shells to a range of 24 kilometres

  (b) long range ground to ground firing up to 17 kilometres

  (c) Environmental Test Centre for hazardous stores and weapons

  (d) ammunition disposal meeting Environmental Agency requirements

  (e) fragmentation trials routinely requiring a danger area above 1,800 metres radius.

  I hope this information is helpful.
  120
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy for the long-term provision of range facilities for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency; and if he will make a statement. [10274]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  DERA's ranges are provided to meet the current and future needs of the Ministry of Defence and its prime contractors in a competitive and cost-effective manner. Because current requirements are declining, especially for ranges in support of the land programmes, DERA is at present undertaking a study to determine the most cost effective way to provide these essential capabilities. Major users of DERA's land ranges, both within the Ministry of Defence and UK industry, are being consulted. No final decisions have been taken, but if the study recommends significant changes to the way in which the land ranges are run, then staff, unions and other interested parties will be fully consulted in the normal way.

  Nerve Agents
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies have been carried out by the Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down, to test the new treatment of a combination of the drugs physostigmine and hyoscine against nerve agents; when
  121
  these tests (a) began and (b) ended; what were their conclusions; and when the new treatment entered service with the armed forces. [10245]

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

  Letter from John Chisolm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 13 January 1997:
  I have been asked to reply to your question concerning studies carried out by Porton Down to test the new combination of physostigmine and hyoscine against the effects of nerve agents. The Chemical Biological Defence Section (CBD) at Porton Down is now part of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) for which I am responsible as Chief Executive.
  Assessments of the physostigmine hyoscine combination as a possible pre-treatment against nerve agent poisoning were first reported by CBD in 1984. Further studies into its effect against a range of different nerve agents and its electrophysiological, biochemical and behavioural effects have continued since then and are still ongoing.
  No work to determine the efficacy of the pre-treatment against the effects of nerve agent poisoning has been conducted on humans. Studies to assess the military acceptability of the commercially licensed drugs which are combined in the proposed pre-treatment have recently commenced. This work will continue for some years before any recommendations can be made regarding the suitability of the proposed pre-treatment for general use with UK armed forces. The new physostigmine/hyoscine pre-treatment has not yet entered service with UK armed forces.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Franco-British Naval Agreement
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the text of the Franco-British naval agreement signed at the recent Franco-British summit at Bordeaux. [9768]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis), on 13 November,Official Report, columns 214–15, to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson). A copy of the UK-French naval letter of intent is in the Library of the House.

  Auxiliary Oilers
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to announce the award of an order for auxiliary oilers for the Royal Navy. [10544]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence hopes to be able to make this announcement within the near future.

  Organophosphate Pesticide Investigation Team
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of the work of the organophosphate pesticide investigation team set up on 11 October; and what budget is allotted to support its future work. [9591]

  Mr. Soames
  The organophosphate pesticide investigation team has not been assigned a separate budget, and costs incurred by its activities currently form part of the budget of the Deputy Chief of Defence Staff 122
  (Programmes and Personnel). The estimated net staff cost associated with the production of the substantive report dated 6 December is £30,725.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to rectify the failings of his Department to keep files in accordance with standing procedures to which reference is made at paragraph 1.B.15 of the report D/OPPIT/3 of his departmental organophosphate pesticide investigation team, dated 6 December. [9594]

  Mr. Soames
  Steps have been taken to ensure that the administrative support necessary to keep files in accordance with standing procedures is available to those areas of the Department referred to in paragraph 1.B.15 of the organophosphate pesticide investigation team report.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will extend the remit of his organophosphate pesticide investigation team to examine the methodology of earlier studies into effects of organophosphates, to which reference is made in paragraph 1.A.9 in his departmental substantive report of the organophosphate investigation team, dated 6 December. [9672]

  Mr. Soames
  The earlier MOD documents referred to in paragraph 1.A.9 of the Departmental substantive report of the organophosphate investigation team are concerned with the use of, not the effects of exposure to, organophosphate pesticides. As it made clear in paragraph 3.H.12 of the report, the organophosphate investigation team is not qualified to assess the effects of exposure to pesticides.

  Chapelcross and Calder Hall Reactors
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost to his Department of operating the (i) Chapelcross and (ii) Calder Hall reactors for each of the last five years. [9636]

  Mr. Soames
  The reactors at Chapelcross and Calder Hall are owned and operated by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. Details of the contracts between BNFL and the Ministry of Defence for services provided at these sites are commercially confidential and therefore under the code of practice on access to Government information are not given as such information could harm the effective management and operations of the public service.

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment was made of the quality control applied to the production of the pertussis vaccine purchased from France, to which reference is made in his departmental memorandum issued in support of the statement made about Gulf war illness on 10 December Official Report, columns 119–23. [9633]

  Mr. Soames
  No assessment was made of the quality control applied to the production of the pertussis vaccine purchased from France for use during Operation Granby. The Department of Health acted as agents for the import of the vaccine, and arranged for it to be tested by the National Institute of Biological Standards and Control before it was released for use.
  123
  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the basis of the difference in assessment between his Department and that of the United States Government concerning the likely threat posed by plague in the Gulf war; and which is now assessed to be more accurate. [9568]

  Mr. Soames
  The factors influencing US Government assessments are not a matter for my Department. The UK assessment at the time of the Gulf war was that Iraq had probably developed plague as a biological weapon. We have had no cause to revise this assessment since then.

  Staff
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for his Department(a) how many people in total are employed, (b) how many of the total number of staff are (i) male and (ii) female and (c) how many (I) men and (II) women are employed on a (1) full-time and (2) part-time basis. [9489]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The information requested in respect of my Department and its agencies, as at 1 November 1996, is set out.

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Full/Part time

  115,683

  79,593

  36,090

  Full time

  110,649

  79,121

  31,528

  Part time

  5,034

  472

  4,562

  Both permanent and casual UK based staff are included. The information is in the form of a headcount, i.e. both full and part-time personnel count as one.

  Training Airspace
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes in air defence training airspace requirements will occur as a result of the introduction of the Eurofighter 2000; what factors underlie these changes; and what plans he has for changes in airspace structure to accommodate such changes. [9838]

  Mr. Soames
  Work is under way to identify the training airspace requirements for Eurofighter.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the briefed western boundary of the airspace in use over northern England and southern Scotland on 17 November 1995 for mutual air combat training by RAF Tornados and Dutch air force F16 aircraft operating from RAF Leeming. [9841]

  Mr. Soames
  The briefed western boundary of the airspace used by RAF Tornado and Royal Netherlands Air Force F16 aircraft for mutual air combat training on 17 November 1995 was a line from 55 degrees 59 minutes north, 2 degrees 50 minutes west to 55 degrees 3 minutes north, 2 degrees 12 minutes west.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to exclude advisory route airspace from military exercises. [9840]

  Mr. Soames
  There are no plans to exclude advisory route airspace from military exercises.

  Scheduled Exercises (Purple Series)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the dates and locations of scheduled exercises in the Purple series in the next 12 months. [9873]

  Mr. Soames
  The next exercise in the Purple series is programmed for October 1997 and has been designated Purple LINK. It will be a computer-assisted exercise based in the United Kingdom and will be undertaken with the Americans. This is the only Purple exercise planned for 1997.

  Air Combat Manoeuvring Instrumentation
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to acquire air combat manoeuvring instrumentation equipment for the Royal Air Force which can be used without ground relay facilities. [9834]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  We are planning to issue an invitation to tender for the rangeless airborne instrumented debriefing system in the near future. If a limited trial programme proves successful, we plan to procure RAIDS for the entire fast jet fleet by around the turn of the century.

  AWACS Controllers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to permit airborne warning and communication system controllers to co-ordinate traffic under their control directly with(a) ground-based military air traffic controllers and (b) ground-based civil air traffic controllers. [9877]

  Mr. Soames
  There are currently no plans to permit AWACS controllers to co-ordinate traffic under their control directly with ground-based military or civil air traffic controllers.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what circumstances controllers in AWACS aircraft are permitted to provide a radar service to aircraft under their control using a radar picture generated by a ground-based radar; and what plans he has to change these rules. [9875]

  Mr. Soames
  Controllers in AWACS aircraft are not permitted to provide a radar service to aircraft under their control using a radar picture generated by a ground-based radar. There are currently no plans to change this.

  Air Traffic Control
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those civil air traffic control radars which supply data directly to the UK air defence ground environment; and what plans he has for additional civil radars to be so linked. [9839]

  Mr. Soames
  The civil air traffic control radars which supply data to the UK air defence ground environment are Burrington, Pease Pottage, Debden, Claxby, Clee Hill and Great Dun Fell. Additional radars which can be linked as required are Perwinnes Hill, Tiree, Stornoway and Sumburgh.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under what circumstances United Kingdom air
  125
  defence ground environment controllers are permitted to provide a radar service to aircraft under their control using a radar picture generated by an airborne warning and communications system aircraft; and what plans he has to change these rules. [9876]

  Mr. Soames
  UK air defence ground environment controllers are not permitted to provide a radar service to aircraft under their control using a radar picture by AWACS aircraft. There are currently no plans to change this.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under what circumstances UK air defence ground environment controllers are permitted to provide a radar service to aircraft under their control using a radar picture generated by more than one ground-based radar; and what plans he has for changes to these rules. [9836]

  Mr. Soames
  UK air defence ground environment controllers provide a radar service to aircraft under their control with a single radar selected and are not permitted to provide such a service using more than one ground-based radar. There are currently no plans to change this.

  Radiation Experiments
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what follow-up tests his Department has conducted on the long-term effects of radiation experiments on volunteers at(a) Harwell and (b) Porton Down; [10206]

  (2) if he will place in the Library copies of the consent forms signed by volunteers taking part in human radiation experiments at (a) Harwell and (b) Porton Down. [10208]

  Mr. Soames
  It is important to draw a distinction between studies involving minimal amounts of radioactive material used as a tracer and so-called radiation experiments in which individuals are exposed to high doses of radiation in order to assess the damage produced. All studies carried out by my Department, including those carried out on volunteers attending Porton Down, were in the former category. Consequently, no follow-up action was deemed necessary by Porton Down. Consent forms were not in use in the 1950s/early 1960s when the studies involving radio-labelled tracers were conducted at Porton Down.

  Matters relating to Harwell are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library copies of the guidelines issued by his Department to(a) the Harwell medical ethics committee regarding radiation experiments on humans and (b) the Committee for the Safety of Human Experiments, the medical sub-committee of the Defence Scientific Advisory Council, and the independent ethics committee regarding radiation experiments on humans at Porton Down. [10209]

  Mr. Soames
  All studies involving volunteers at Porton Down are governed by the principles for ethical control of human experiments as stated in the Nuremburg code, the Helsinki declaration and the guidelines of the Royal College of Physicians. My Department does not issue guidelines to the independent ethics committee of experts who oversee the volunteer programme at Porton Down.126
  Porton Down has not carried out any radiation experiments on humans. Work carried out in the 1950s and early 1960s involved the use of radio-labelled tracer materials in decontamination and medical evaluations and was subject to the normal ethical controls.

  Matters relating to Harwell are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information is made available to civil operators concerning the activity status of low-level overland training areas. [9874]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 8 February 1996,Official Report, columns 356–57.

  Tornado F3
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the capability of the identification friend or foe system in the Tornado F3 aircraft to receive the secondary surveillance radar codes of civil aircraft. [9879]

  Mr. Soames
  The Tornado F3 is able to receive secondary surveillance codes of civil aircraft, provided it has been notified of the civil aircraft's code number. In common with other military aircraft and our allies, civil aircraft are located chiefly through use of the F3' s primary radar and visual identification. These techniques augment procedural separations enforced by air traffic authorities.

  Air Force Training (Former Warsaw Pact)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the dates and locations of scheduled training deployments to the United Kingdom by units from air forces of former Warsaw pact countries in the next 12 months. [9833]

  Mr. Soames
  No such deployments have been finalised for 1997, although discussions with a number of air forces are continuing.

  Ministerial Leave
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many days leave he has taken in the Easter, Whitsun and summer adjournments; and how many days leave he took during the time in which Parliament was prorogued this year; [9800]

  (2) how many days of leave he plans to take during the Christmas adjournment. [9801]

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Vosper Thorneycroft (Official Appointment)
  Mr. Derek Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what scrutiny procedures were undertaken in respect of the recent appointment of a senior MOD official to Vosper Thorneycroft; if any recommendation was made to delay the appointment; what(a) formal and

  127
  (b) informal contact the official had with Vosper Thorneycroft while at his Department; and if he will make a statement. [9881]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The official's application to take up the appointment with Vosper Thornycroft (UK) Ltd. was considered under the rules on the acceptance of outside appointments by Crown servants. Although he had frequent contact with his prospective employer, he was not in a position where he could influence the award of defence contracts. Ten competitors of Vosper Thornycroft (UK) Ltd. were consulted about the proposed appointment but none wished to raise objections. It would not have been appropriate, in the circumstances, to have placed any restriction on the proposed employment.

  Murdered Tour Guide (Cyprus)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the parents of the murdered tour guide in Cyprus have been informed by Her Majesty's Government that they have the right to claim compensation against the Ministry of Defence. [10326]

  Mr. Soames
  I understand that the family in question are aware that they have the same rights to make a claim for compensation against the Ministry of Defence as they would have against any other employer or organisation.

  Battle of Trafalgar
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to begin preparations for the commemoration of the bicentenary of the battle of Trafalgar and the death of Nelson. [10865]

  Mr. Soames
  It is too early for detailed arrangements or plans to have been considered by my Department for this important event in October 2005. However, we expect that there will be major coverage, and we are already looking at the possibility of Navy days being held at Portsmouth that year.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the actions his Department has taken on each of the recommendations contained in the Cabinet Office report on the Government's use of external consultants. [10169]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  In response to the Cabinet Office's report my Department drew up an action plan, which was forwarded to the Cabinet Office in October 1994. This set out the action my Department would be taking on the recommendations contained in the report. As a follow-up exercise to the action plan, all Departments were required to submit, within two years, an implementation report setting out progress on their action plans. My Department's implementation report was forwarded to the Cabinet Office in March 1996 and I have arranged for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Expenditure
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for each year since 1979 the adjustments made to the cash plans for defence spending in future years to take into account revised forecasts of the level of 128
  inflation indicating, in each case, whether the increase or decrease in the cash plan matched exactly the revised inflation forecast. [9468]

  Mr. Soames
  Like all Departments, the Ministry of Defence determines its spending plans in consultation with the Treasury during the public expenditure survey. Adjustments to the previous years' plans are made for a variety of reasons, of which forecast inflation is only one. Therefore it is not usually possible to identify a specific figure from any given set of spending plans that represents an adjustment solely attributable to changes in forecast levels of inflation. The spending plans announced in November 1996, however, maintained the real value of the money planned for spending in 1997–98 because of the Government's commitment to a period of stability for the armed forces. Lower inflation forecasts enabled this to be achieved at a lower cost than estimated at the time of the 1995 public expenditure survey. Money has also been added to the defence budget to cover special housing costs.

  Insecticides
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what exemptions apply to his Department in respect of the(a) Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, (b) Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986 and (c) Plant Protection Products Regulations 1995, in respect of the use of insecticides. [10635]

  Mr. Soames
  The Food and Environment Protection Act 1985—the 1985 Act—does not apply to land where there is no interest other than a Crown interest or to land which is exclusively in Crown occupation.

  The Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986—the 1986 regulations—were made under the 1985 Act and the same exemptions apply.

  The Plant Protection Products Regulations 1995—the 1995 Regulations—were made under the European Communities Act 1972, which does not provide for Crown exemption. However, where the 1995 regulations refer to the 1986 regulations, the exemption provided in the 1985 Act would apply.

  Vaccinations
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department decided to declassify details of vaccinations used by departmental medical personnel; and what factors underlay this decision. [10650]

  Mr. Soames
  I announced in my statement to the House on 10 December,Official Report, columns 119–23, our decision to declassify details of the vaccinations used during the Gulf conflict. The decision was taken in the light of a detailed review of the classification of the vaccination programme, given the developments in UK defensive capability against biological warfare agents since 1991.

  Polaris
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the current operating costs of the Polaris fleet; what were the costs in each of the last 15 years at 1996
  129
  prices; and what sum the Government have allocated for (a) decommissioning and (b) scrapping the Polaris (i) submarines, (ii) missiles and (iii) warheads. [10746]

  Mr. Soames
  The operating costs of the Polaris fleet in each of the last 15 years at 1995–96 prices are as follows:

  Financial year

  Spend at constant prices £million1

  1981–82

  470

  1982–83

  472

  1983–84

  410

  1984–85

  367

  1985–86

  383

  1986–87

  434

  1987–88

  434

  1988–89

  373

  1989–90

  303

  1990–91

  250

  1991–92

  183

  1992–93

  162

  1993–94

  107

  1994–95

  67

  1995–96

  63

  1 All at 1995–96 prices using GDP deflators.

  Details of operating costs during the current financial year are in the course of preparation.

  The estimated cost for the defuelling, de-equipping and laying-up of the Polaris fleet of submarines is approximately £71 million at 1996–97 prices, over the next 10 years. No firm estimate is yet available of the likely cost of eventual disposal.

  The cost of decommissioning and scrapping Polaris missiles currently totals £8 million. These costs include sums already spent plus values of contracts let. The sum covers missile decommissioning/scrapping costs but excludes warhead disposal.

  It is not our practice to reveal costs associated with the warhead.

  Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service men and women and of what rank obtained vocational qualifications in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [10453]
  130
  Mr. Soames
  All three services are placing increasing emphasis on accreditation of service training and experience.

  It is Navy Board policy to negotiate from civilian awarding bodies the highest level of recognition for naval skills and training which meet operational performance statements. The Royal Navy is vigorously pursuing the issue of VQs, principally in the area of NVQs. Within the Royal Navy there are currently three approved assessment centres for NVQs and a further three are planned for designation during the next year. During the current financial year the Royal Navy expects that nearly 8,000 civilian qualifications will be awarded as a result of in-house training programmes and this figure is expected to increase year on year.

  Under the Army's VQ policy, all Army personnel are to be given the maximum opportunity throughout their careers to gain VQs and other forms of professional recognition for their workplace skills, knowledge and experience. The process of mapping Army trades and employments against the national vocational standards is progressing well. Over 1,700 VQs were gained by Army officers and soldiers during the period 1 April to 30 September 1996. It is anticipated that schemes offering appropriate qualifications will be available to most Army personnel within two years.

  It is RAF policy that everyone will have the opportunity to achieve an NVQ within 18 months of joining the service and most trades have either incorporated NVQs into their initial training courses or are on the verge of doing so. Many RAF personnel are also achieving further trade based or management VQs throughout their service. A range of schemes are being pursued with a view to increasing the availability of VQs including the NVQ accreditation of prior learning which, since its introduction in 1996, enrolled some 9,800 RAF engineering and supply personnel, of whom over 500 have already been awarded certificates.

  In addition to in-house initiatives, across the three services individuals are encouraged to pursue VQs in a private capacity to prepare themselves for outside employment when they leave the service.

  Detailed information on the vocational qualifications obtained by different ranks of service personnel during the last five years is not held centrally and could not be provided without disproportionate costs.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Staff
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list for his Department(a) how many people in total are employed, (b) how many of the total number of staff are (i) male and (ii) female and (c) how many (I) men and (II) women are employed on a (1) full-time and (2) part-time basis. [9484]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Department employs 6,095 staff in the headquarters area, of whom 3,377 are male and 2,718 are female; 3,337 male staff are full-time and 40 are part-time; 2,314 female staff are full-time and 404 are part-time.

  Ministerial Leave
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many days of leave he plans to take during the Christmas adjournment; [9815]

  (2) how many days leave he has taken in the Easter, Whitsun and summer adjournments; and how many days leave he took during the time in which Parliament was prorogued this year. [9814]

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on Wednesday 18 December 1996,Official Report, column 699.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many(a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees include employees of the Babraham Institute as representatives of United Kingdom interests; and how many of these employees are leading the United Kingdom team on their committee; [10112]

  (2) how many (a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees include employees of the Institute for Animal Health as representatives of United Kingdom interests; and how many of these employees are leading the United Kingdom team on their committee; [10104]

  (3) how many (a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees include employees of the Institute of Arable Crops Research as representatives of United Kingdom interests; and how many of these employees are leading the United Kingdom team on their committee; [10044]

  (4) how many (a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees include employees of the Institute of Food Research as representatives of United Kingdom interests; and how many of these employees are leading the United Kingdom team on their committee; [10048]

  (5) how many (a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees include employees of the Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research as representatives of UK interests; and how many of these employees are leading the UK team on their committee; [10140]
  132
  (6) how many (a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees include employees of the John Innes Centre as representatives of UK interests; and how many of these employees are leading the UK team on their committee; [10136]

  (7) how many (a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees include employees of the Roslin Institute as representatives of United Kingdom interests; and how many of these employees are leading the United Kingdom team on their committee; [10108]

  (8) how many (a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees include employees of the Silsoe Research Institute as representatives of UK interests; and how many of these employees are leading the UK team on their committee; [10132]

  (9) how many (a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees are chaired by employees of the Institute of Arable Crops Research; [10045]

  (10) how many (a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees are chaired by employees for the Institute for Animal Health; [10105]

  (11) how many (a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees are chaired by employees of the Institute of Food Research; [10049]

  (12) how many (a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees are chaired by employees of the Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research; [10141]

  (13) how many (a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees are chaired by employees of the John Innes Centre; [10137]

  (14) how many (a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees are chaired by employees of the Roslin Institute; [10109]

  (15) how many (a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees are chaired by employees of the Silsoe Research Institute; [10133]

  (16) how many (a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees are chaired by employees of the Babraham Institute. [10113]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The staff at these institutes are employed by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council—BBSRC. The prior options process is designed to ensure that the interests of the United Kingdom are best served by these institutes. In most cases, membership of committees in fact reflects the professional or personal qualifications of the individual concerned. Although there are a number of questions of definition, the institutes have provided information on committee membership which is summarised in the table.

  Committee membership of staff at BBSRC institutes

  (a) UK

  (b) Europe

  (c) International

  Babraham

  2

  Institute of Food Research

  5

  1

  133

  Committee membership of staff at BBSRC institutes

  (a)UK

  (b)Europe

  (c)International

  Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research (IGER)

  1

  1

  1

  Silsoe Research Institute (SRI)

  15

  2

  9

  IGER has indicated that a UK and an international committee is chaired by staff. SRI has indicated that three international committees are chaired by staff.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many(a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees include employees of the Daresbury and Rutherford Appleton Laboratories as representatives of United Kingdom interests; and how many of these employees are leading the UK team on their committee. [10128]

  Mr. Taylor
  The prior options process is designed to ensure that the interests of the United Kingdom are best served by research establishments.

  Employees of the Daresbury and Rutherford Appleton Laboratory are members of a very large and diverse range of UK, European and international bodies. The total number of such bodies is in excess of 400. This includes some 45 European bodies, and some 40 international bodies, on which members of the laboratories' staff represent UK interests. In about a quarter of these, the member of the laboratories' staff leads the UK team.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many(a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees include employees of the British Geological Survey as representatives of United Kingdom interests; and how many of these employees are leading the United Kingdom team on their committee; [10100]

  (2) how many (a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees are chaired by employees of the British Geological Survey. [10101]

  Mr. Taylor
  The staff at the British Geological Survey are employed by the Natural Environment Research Council. The prior options process is designed to ensure that the interests of the United Kingdom are best served by these bodies. In most cases, membership in fact reflects the professional or personal qualifications of the individual. However, information on committee membership is set out in the attached table.

  Chair

  Member1

  United Kingdom

  7

  7

  European

  6

  2

  International

  10

  15

  1 Those holding senior positions.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how much has been spent to date on the prior options review of the British Geological Survey; and from which budget these sums were paid; [10098]

  (2) how much has been spent to date on the prior options review of the institutes and laboratories making up the Centre for Coastal and Marine Sciences; and from which budget these sums were paid. [10094]
  134
  Mr. Taylor
  Work on this and other similar reviews has principally involved staff in the Natural Environment Research Council. The NERC estimates the Council's expenditure on the reviews covering the three NERC establishments: the British Geological Survey, the Centre for Coastal and Marine Sciences and the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology as £0.4 million, borne by the NERC allocation from the science budget. It is not possible to quantify the costs related to the work by staff elsewhere, for example in Government Departments.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what estimate he has made of the future costs of the prior options review of the Toxicology Unit; and from which budget these sums will be paid; [10027]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the future costs of the prior options review of the Radiobiology Unit; and from which budget these sums will be paid; [10035]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the future costs of the prior options review of the Virology Unit; and from which budget these sums will be paid; [10051]

  (4) what estimate he has made of the future costs of the prior options review of the Reproductive Biology Unit; and from which budget these sums will be paid; [10031]

  (5) what estimate he has made of the future costs of the prior options review of the Dunn Nutrition Unit; and from which budget these sums will be paid. [10039]

  Mr. Taylor
  The reviews of these units have been completed. Any implementation costs would depend on decisions which have not yet been taken.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what estimate he has made of the future costs of the prior options review of the Roslin Institute; and from which budget these sums will be paid; [10107]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the future costs of the prior options review of the Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research; and from which budget these sums will be paid; [10139]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the future costs of the prior options review of the Institute of Arable Crops Research; and from which budget these sums will be paid; [10043]

  (4) what estimate he has made of the future costs of the prior options review of the Silsoe Research Institute; and from which budget these sums will be paid; [10131]

  (5) what estimate he has made of the future costs of the prior options review of the Babraham Institute; and from which budget these sums will be paid; [10111]

  (6) what estimate he has made of the future costs of the prior options review of the Institute of Food Research; and from which budget these sums will be paid; [10047]

  (7) what estimate he has made of the future costs of the prior options review of the Institute for Animal Health; and from which budget these sums will be paid; [10103]

  (8) what estimate he has made of the future costs of the prior options review of the John Innes Centre; and from which budget these sums will be paid. [10135]
  135
  Mr. Taylor
  The reviews of these institutes have been completed. Any implementation costs would depend on decisions which have not yet been taken.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how much has been spent to date on the prior options review of the Toxicology Unit; and from which budget these sums were paid; [10026]

  (2) how much has been spent to date on the prior options review of the Radiobiology Unit; and from which budget these sums were paid; [10034]

  (3) how many has been spent to date on the prior options review of the Virology Unit; and from which budget these sums were paid; [10050]

  (4) how much money has been spent to date on the prior options review of the Reproductive Biology Unit; and from which budget these sums were paid; [10030]

  (5) how much has been spent to date on the prior options review of the Dunn Nutrition Unit; and from which budget these sums were paid. [10038]

  Mr. Taylor
  Work on all these reviews has principally involved existing staff in the Medical Research Council and several Government Departments. It is not possible to quantify the costs relating to individual reviews. However, the MRC considers that overall expenditure on readily identifiable specific costs were £65,000 broken down as follows:

  MRC Head Office staff time: £38,000

  Consultants' fee: £23,000

  Travel: £4,000.

  The overall figure specifically excludes staff time at the MRC units concerned and clerical support at head office.

  These sums are paid from the MRC allocation from the science budget.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much has been spent to date on the prior options review of the Daresbury and Rutherford Appleton Laboratories; and from which budget these sums were paid. [10126]

  Mr. Taylor
  The cost of two prior options reviews of the Daresbury and Rutherford Appleton Laboratories was £36,000, excluding the cost of time spent by existing members of the laboratories' staff. The cost was met from the laboratories' running costs budget.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the future costs of the prior options review of the Daresbury and Rutherford Appleton Laboratories; and from which budget these sums will be paid. [10127]

  Mr. Taylor
  The prior options reviews of the Daresbury and Rutherford Appleton Laboratories have been completed and announced, and there are no future costs to be met.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many(a) United Kingdom, (b) European
  136
  and (c) international committees are chaired by employees of the Daresbury and Rutherford Appleton Laboratories. [10129]

  Mr. Taylor
  The approximate numbers of committees chaired by employees of the Daresbury and Rutherford Appleton Laboratories are as follows:

  (a) United Kingdom: 15

  (b) European: 10

  (c) International: 5.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how much has been spent to date on the prior options review of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory; and from which budget these sums were paid; [9998]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the future costs of the prior options review of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory; and from which budget these sums will be paid. [9999]

  Mr. Taylor
  The prior options review of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory was announced on 29 September 1995. It formed part of an interdepartmental review of the options for the future of all of Government laboratories. NWML's review was carried out by DTI staff. Costs cannot specifically be disaggregated but are estimated to have been less than £10,000. The conclusions of the review were that NWML should remain an agency. There are no costs associated with the implementation of the review's findings.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many(a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees include employees of the Centre for Coastal and Marine Sciences as representatives of United Kingdom interests; and how many of these employees are leading the United Kingdom team on their committee; [10096]

  (2) how many (a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees are chaired by employees of the Centre for Coastal and Marine Sciences. [10097]

  Mr. Taylor
  The staff at the Centre for Coastal and Marine Sciences are employed by the Natural Environment Research Council. The prior options process is designed to ensure that the interests of the United Kingdom are best served by these bodies. In most cases, membership in fact reflects the professional or personal qualifications of the individual. However, information on committee membership is set out in the attached table.

  Chair

  Member

  United Kingdom

  3

  24

  European

  3

  14

  International

  10

  44

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what estimate he has made of the future costs of the prior options review of the British Geological Survey; and from which budget these sums will be paid; [10099]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the future costs of the prior options review of the institutes and laboratories making up the Centre for Coastal and Marine Sciences; and from which budget these sums will be paid. [10095]
  137
  Mr. Taylor
  The reviews of the three NERC establishments the British Geological Survey, the Centre for Coastal and Marine Sciences and the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology have been completed. Any implementation costs will depend on decisions which has not yet been taken.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many(a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees include employees of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory as representatives of United Kingdom interests; and how many of these employees are leading the United Kingdom team on their committee; [10000]

  (2) how many (a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees are chaired by employees of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory. [10001]

  Mr. Taylor
  I have asked the chief executive of the NWML executive agency to reply directly to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Seton Bennett to Mr. Adam Ingram, dated 13 January 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 employees as chairman of committees.
  The details are as follows:

  (a) 2 UK committees

  (b) 2 European committees

  (c) 1 international committee.

  Letter from Mr.Seton Bennett to Mr. Adam Ingram, dated 13 January 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 employees as members of committees.
  The details for those appointed by the UK Government are:

  (a) 12 UK committees;

  (b) 8 European committees; and

  (c) 7 international committees.

  A total of 10 employees are leading the UK teams on their respective European or international committees.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many(a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees include employees of the Dunn Nutrition Unit as representatives of United Kingdom interests; and how many of these employees are leading the United Kingdom team on their committee; [10040]

  (2) how many (a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees are chaired by employees of the Dunn Nutrition Unit; [10041]

  (3) how many (a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees include employees of the Toxicology Unit as representatives of United Kingdom interests; and how many of these employees are leading the United Kingdom team on their committee; [10028]

  (4) how many (a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees are chaired by employees of the Toxicology Unit; [10029]
  138
  (5) how many (a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees include employees of the Virology Unit as representatives of United Kingdom interests; and how many of these employees are leading the United Kingdom team on their committee; [10052]

  (6) how many (a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees are chaired by employees of the Virology Unit; [10053]

  (7) how many (a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees include employees of the Radiobiology Unit as representatives of United Kingdom interests; and how many of these employees are leading the United Kingdom team on their committee; [10036]

  (8) how many (a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees are chaired by employees of the Radiobiology Unit; [10037]

  (9) how many (a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees include employees of the Reproductive Biology Unit as representatives of United Kingdom interests; and how many of these employees are leading the United Kingdom team on their committee; [10032]

  (10) how many (a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees are chaired by employees of the Reproductive Biology Unit. [10033]

  Mr. Taylor
  The staff at these institutes are employed by the Medical Research Council. The prior options process is designed to ensure that the interests of the United Kingdom are best served by these institutes. In most cases, membership of committees in fact reflects the professional or personal qualifications of the individual concerned. Although there are a number of questions of definition, the institute has provided information on committee membership which is summarised in the table.

  Committee membership of staff at MRC units

  (a) UK

  (b) Europe

  (c) International

  Reproductive Biology Unit

  2

  1

  0

  Virology Unit

  0

  0

  0

  Dunn Nutrition Unit

  2

  1

  0

  Toxicology Unit

  9

  0

  0

  None of these committees are chaired by staff.

  1 The Radiation and Genome Stability Unit and the Mammalian Genetics Unit were formed in a reorganization of the former Radiobiology Unit.

  Oil Platforms
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the viability of zero-discharge oil platforms. [10483]

  Mr. Page
  My Department is supporting and co-operating in the research and development which is leading towards the reduction of emissions to the marine
  139
  environment and to the atmosphere. The concept of a zero discharge platform is very difficult to put into practice but my Department is working to encourage the adoption of such arrangements where these are possible and likely to bring a real benefit to the environment.

  Arms Contracts (British Companies)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the extent of British companies' involvement in arms contracts prohibited under UN sanctions. [10749]

  Mr. Nelson
  Enforcement of export controls and controls on the supply and delivery of goods to specific destinations, imposed in accordance with resolutions of the United Nations Security Council is a matter for the Commissioners of HM Customs and Excise. It is not, however, Customs' general practice to comment publicly about the existence or nature of any investigations of individuals or companies not yet accused of criminal offences, since to do so could risk prejudicing any ongoing inquiries or future criminal proceedings.

  Armoured Vehicles (Indonesia)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 9 December,Official Report, column 29, relating to the issue of licences to Avis for the export of armoured vehicles to Indonesia, what is the associated equipment to which he referred in his answer. [10744]

  Mr. Nelson
  The associated equipment to which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade referred in his answer of 9 December 1996 consists of ammunition, radio equipment, two gunnery desk top simulators, technical publications and a supply of spare parts and workshop tools. The latter equipment comprises basic components for such items as engine controls, steering, brakes, electric gearbox controls, and exhaust systems all for the support of the armoured vehicles. They would be too numerous to list.

  Iraq (Trade Restrictions)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent relaxations there have been in trade restrictions between British companies and Iraq. [10747]

  Mr. Nelson
  On 11 December, my Department issued an open general licence to communicate. This allows UK companies to comply with the procedures that will be employed by the United Nations Security Council Committee, established by resolution 661 (1990), to implement the arrangements set out in resolution 986 (1995). Under the licence, companies may discuss and sign contracts with a view to exporting to Iraq, medicine, health supplies, foodstuffs and materials, and supplies for essential civilian needs, as well as parts and equipment essential for the safe operation of the Kirkuk-Yumurtalik pipeline system in Iraq. However, companies will still require individual licences to export such goods.

  Energy Council
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress was made towards agreeing a European directive on gas liberalisation at the EU Energy Council of Ministers meeting on 3 December, and if he will make a statement. [10823]

  Mr. Page
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) on 9 December,Official Report, column 30 and the hon. Member for Blaneau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 11 December, Official Report, column 274.

  Crown Post Office, Newcastle under Lyme
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade for how long the Crown post office has operated from the Iron Market in Newcastle under Lyme. [10503]

  Mr. Page
  I understand from the Post Office that a post office has operated in Iron Market, Newcastle under Lyme since 1969.

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the turnover for(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1995–96 at the Crown post office in Newcastle under Lyme. [10504]

  Mr. Page
  Turnover figures for individual post offices are commercially confidential.

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many customers used the Crown post office in Newcastle under Lyme in each year since 1988. [10505]

  Mr. Page
  I understand from the Post Office that the annual number of transactions since 1993-94 at the Crown post office in Iron Market Newcastle under Lyme has been:

  Year

  Number of transactions

  1993–94

  1,480,281

  1994–95

  1,646,161

  1995–96

  1,615,557

  1996–97

  1942,814

  Information for earlier years is not available.

  1To end November 1996.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate lie has made of the amount spent on external consultants by his Department's non-departmental public bodies in each of the last five years. [10182]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  My Department is responsible for 22 executive non-departmental public bodies, 25 advisory bodies and seven tribunals, considering the 28 industrial tribunals as one body. I regret that the information requested by the hon. Member is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Toxic Chemicals
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many United Kingdom companies
  141
  are licensed under the Chemical Weapons Act 1996 to manufacture toxic chemicals; and how many licence applications he has refused. [10414]

  Mr. Nelson
  Two applications have so far been received for individual licences to produce schedule 1 chemicals in excess of 5g in 1997; licences have been issued in both cases. Any companies or individuals wishing to produce up to 5g of schedule 1 chemicals under the open general licence issued pursuant to the Chemical Weapons Act 1996 are required to submit a notification by 15 January or 14 days after the date of first production; no such notifications have been received to date.

  Surveillance and Bugging Equipment
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what controls there are on the sale to the general public of surveillance and bugging equipment. [10416]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  None, but the use of such equipment is subject to relevant legislation, for example governing the integrity of communications.

  Newspapers
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) when he last met representatives from the Multiple Newsagents Association; and if he will make a statement on the matters which were discussed at that meeting; [10648]

  (2) if he will request the Director General of Fair Trading to refer newspaper distribution to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. [10646]

  Mr. John. M. Taylor
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) on 2 December 1996,Official Report, column 495.

  Subsidence Claims
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those constituencies in which there are outstanding claims under the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991; and how many cases there are in each constituency. [10542]

  Mr. Page
  This is a matter for the Coal Authority or other "responsible person" as defined by the Coal Industry Act 1994.

  Faraday Partnership Scheme
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the level of financial support given by his Department to the Faraday partnership scheme announced by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council; and what is the projected expenditure. [9973]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The DTI welcomes the EPSRC Faraday partnerships scheme as a contribution to wider efforts to link academia and industry, and will monitor progress. It may be possible for potential partnerships to make bids into any further rounds of the sectoral challenge.
  142
  No allocation has been made from DTI central funds for 1997–98 because of financial constraints.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are currently receiving invalidity benefit in the Rhondda benefit district; what percentage this is of the total population of working age; and what are the average percentages for(a) Wales and (b) England and Wales. [7969]

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of incapacity benefit 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. Allan Rogers, dated 18 December 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many people are currently receiving Invalidity Benefit (IVB) in the Rhondda benefit district; what percentage this is of the total population of working age; and what are the average percentage for (a) Wales and (b) England and Wales.
  The information is not available in the format requested. Sickness Benefit and IVB were replaced by Incapacity Benefit (IB) on 13 April 1995. The Rhondda area is dealt with by Tonypandy Benefits office, this forms part of the Benefits Agency (BA) South Wales District.
  At 31 May 1996, the latest date for which figures are available, 9,820 customers were in receipt of IB from the Tonypandy Benefits Office.
  Data on the working population is not available for individual BA office therefore it is not possible to give the percentage of the working population in receipt of IB for Tonypandy Benefits office.
  The available information is shown in the attached table. I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Percentage of total population of working age in receipt of incapacity benefit

  Per cent.

  Tonypandy Benefits Office

  n/a

  Wales

  8.7

  England and Wales

  4.3

  The Incapacity Benefit figures are taken from a 5 per cent. sample of the PSCS (INCAP) computer system at 31 May 1996, and exclude a small number of cases not held on this system.
  Percentage population figures are calculated from the latest figures available (mid 1994) from "Population Trends" published by the Office for National Statistics, Summer 96 edition.

  Benefits Agency (Telephone Calls)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of claimants of benefits other than the jobseeker's allowance make their first contact with the Benefits Agency by telephone(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in Wales. [9353]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  This is a matter for Peter Mathison, chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.
  143
  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Nick Ainger, dated 18 December 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what proportion of claimants of benefits other than the Jobseeker's Allowance make their first contact with the Benefits Agency (BA) by telephone (a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in Wales.
  The information is not available in the format requested. This is because there has been no UK customer survey on first contact with the BA since 7 October 1996, when Jobseeker's Allowance came into operation.
  The statistics available from the most recent customer contact research, conducted in 1995, show percentage of first contact with BA for six benefits. The research makes no distinction between the UK as a whole and individual countries within. Consequently a breakdown of the information to show data for Wales is not available.
  The findings of the research concluded that the percentage of benefit recipients whose first contacts with the BA were through the telephone was, by benefit: Income Support 35 per cent.. Social Fund 40 per cent., Retirement Pension 56 per cent., Family Credit 58 per cent., Disability Living Allowance 56 per cent. and Child Benefit 57 per cent.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many recipients of family credit there have been in each year since 1990 in Darlington. [9732]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Alan Milburn, dated 18 December 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many recipients of Family Credit (FC) there have been in each year since 1990 in Darlington.
  The information is not available in the format requested. It may he helpful if I explain that FC is administered centrally by the Family Credit Unit. Statistics are produced on a national basis and provide the number of families in receipt of FC within a particular Benefits Agency (BA) office area at a given date. However, this only serves as a "snap-shot" of the position at that given date and does not provide details of the number of families in receipt of FC annually.
  Furthermore, details relating to FC claims are normally destroyed after 18 months. However, the information requested is currently available from 1993 onwards and these figures are as follows:

  Families in receipt of FC in the area of the BA Darlington Office

  Number

  April 1993

  1,605

  October 1993

  1,773

  April 1994

  1,748

  October 1994

  1,911

  April 1995

  2,016

  October 1995

  2,087

  April 1996

  2,119

  October 1996

  2,298

  Figures are provisional and subject to change.
  I hope you find this reply useful.

  Benefits Agency Appointments
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social 144
  Security (1) how many people were given financial assistance to travel to Benefits Agency appointments in each of the last five years; [9354]

  (2) what was the total amount paid out in financial assistance to people travelling to Benefits Agency appointments in each of the last five years. [9355]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Nick Ainger, dated 18 December 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking how many people were given financial assistance to travel to Benefits Agency (BA) appointments in each of the last five years and; what was the total amount paid out in financial assistance to people travelling to BA appointments in each of the last five years.
  The information is not available for the number of people given financial assistance and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  Financial assistance is given to people travelling to BA offices when they have been invited to attend an office to discuss benefit entitlement. The BA provides reimbursement of the travelling expenses where these are in excess of £0.80p.
  The BA also meets the cost of travelling expenses and where appropriate loss of earnings and travelling expenses for a companion or interpreter, incurred in attending a medical examination at a medical examination centre. Most medical examination centres are situated within BA office accommodation although not necessarily on the same site. The amounts paid out are shown on the attached Annex.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Financial assistance for travel to the Benefits Agency for the last five financial years

  £

  Reimbursement of travel in excess of £0.80:

  1991–92

  84,966

  1992–93

  100,018

  1993–94

  98,234

  1994–95

  118,189

  1995–96

  123,528

  Reimbursement of travel costs for attending
  a medical examination

  1991–92

  2,450,945

  1992–93

  2,498,012

  1993–94

  13,202,965

  1994–95

  21,589,733

  1995–96

  32,271,155

  1 The increase here is as a result of additional activity for War Pension medical referrals.

  2 The decrease reflects a transfer of funding to War Pensions Agency for medical examinations.

  3 The increase here is as a result of increased activity in respect of Incapacity Benefit medical referrals.

  Figures are provisional and subject to change.

  Social Security Expenditure
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out the revised estimates of(a) the number of claimants and (b) expenditure for each benefit for each year from 1995–96 to 1999–2000 which were the basis for the total expenditure figures contained in table 5.7 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report"; and if he will give equivalent information for cyclical social security expenditure in each of those years. [9284]
  145
  Mr. Burt
  Detailed breakdowns of total expenditure figures in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" are made available in the subsequent social security departmental report. This will be published in March 1997.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out the successive estimates of the number of claimants in 1995–96 for each social security benefit(a) within the new control total and (b) included in cyclical social security expenditure, which were used as the basis for the figures published in each "Financial Statement and Budget Report" since the 1992 autumn statement. [9285]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Caseload forecasts for 1995–96 from FSBR 1992 to FSBR 1995

  Forecasts underlying:

  FSBR

  FSBR

  FSBR

  FSBR

  19921

  19932

  19943

  19954

  New Control total

  Retirement Pension Basic

  10,060

  9,800

  10,033

  10,231

  Earnings related component

  —

  4,401

  4,299

  4,591

  Widows Benefits Basic

  320

  323

  306

  322

  Earnings related component

  —

  251

  239

  253

  Sickness Benefit

  135

  159

  n/a

  n/a

  Statutory Sick Pay

  330

  10

  10

  Invalidity Benefit

  10

  Basic

  1,775

  1,773

  n/a

  n/a

  Earnings related component

  —

  1,702

  n/a

  n/a

  Incapacity Benefit

  Short Term

  n/a

  n/a

  223

  214

  Long Term

  n/a

  n/a

  1,673

  1,670

  Earnings related component

  1,482

  1,467

  Maternity Allowance

  15

  19

  14

  12

  Statutory Maternity Pay

  90

  90

  90

  95

  Guardians' Allowance/Child's

  Special Allowance

  —

  5

  3

  3

  Non-contributory Retirement

  Pension

  30

  30

  32

  33

  War Pension

  305

  357

  346

  341

  Attendance Allowance

  1,050

  1,138

  1,044

  1,099

  New control total

  £ million

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  1992 plans

  65,015

  67,150

  70,750

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1993 plans

  68,771

  72,900

  76,150

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1994 plans

  72.798

  75,950

  79,200

  1—

  1—

  1995 plans

  76,274

  79,050

  81,700

  1—

  1996 plans

  79,740

  82,950

  86.200

  1 Figures are not available as plans were not produced at the time for these years.

  1. Plans for 1992 to 1995 inclusive are those published in the relevant social security departmental reports (1993–96). Control total figures for 1996 are those published in the FSBR. Cyclical social security figures are those published in the FSBR excluding Northern Ireland.

  2. Figures are the total Department of Social Security expenditure on benefits and administration. They do not include other benefit expenditure administered by local authorities and other Government Departments.

  Cyclical social security

  £ million

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1998–2000

  1992 plans

  14,744

  15,800

  16,250

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1993 plans

  14,223

  14,900

  15,600

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1994 plans

  13,459

  13,400

  13,800

  1—

  1—

  146

  Caseload forecasts for 1995–96 from FSBR 1992 to FSBR 1995

  Forecasts underlying:

  FSBR

  FSBR

  FSBR

  FSBR

  19921

  19932

  19942

  19952

  Invalid Care Allowance

  270

  306

  301

  323

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  360

  338

  350

  365

  Disability Living Allowance

  1,160

  1,430

  1,483

  1,609

  Disability Working Allowance

  25

  53

  9

  8

  Industrial Disablement Benefit

  285

  300

  335

  322

  Industrial Death Benefit

  20

  20

  19

  20

  Other Industrial Injuries Benefit

  —

  2

  1

  2

  Income Support - New Control

  Total

  1,848

  1,851

  1,757

  Income Support - Total

  6,215

  6,213

  5,831

  5,585

  Child Benefit:

  Number of children

  12,855

  12,885

  12,754

  12,900

  Number of families

  7,105

  7,064

  6,955

  7,065

  One Parent Benefit

  1,030

  1,036

  943

  1,005

  Family Credit

  490

  603

  640

  627

  Rent rebate

  3,545

  3,244

  2,906

  2,902

  Rent Allowance

  1,355

  1,479

  1,817

  1,805

  Community Charge/Council Tax

  Benefit

  7,185

  5,453

  5,637

  5,642

  Cyclical Social Security

  Unemployment Benefit

  725

  697

  474

  424

  Income Support—cyclical

  3

  4,365

  3,980

  3,828

  1 Table 6 of 1993 department report - (average annual caseload).

  2 Underlying caseload forecasts used as the basis for the expenditure forecasts in Table 1 of the 1994, 1995, 1996 departmental reports -(average annual caseload).

  3 Cyclical social security was defined in July 1992 and is only available for plans for 1993–4 and beyond.

  1. Figures cannot be totalled as individual claimants may be in receipt of more than one benefit.

  — data not available.

  n/a = not applicable.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out the plans in each Budget since 1992 for Government spending for each year to 1999–2000 in respect of(a) social security expenditure within the new control total and (b) the level of cyclical social security expenditure. [9286]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the tables.
  147

  Cyclical social security

  £ million

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  1995 plans

  13,292

  13,550

  14,000

  1—

  1996 plans

  13,515

  13,638

  14,008

  1 Figures are not available as plans were not produced at the time for these years.

  1. Plans for 1992 to 1995 inclusive are those published in the relevant social security departmental reports (1993-96). Control total figures for 1996 are those published in the FSBR. Cyclical social security figures are those published in the FSBR excluding Northern Ireland.

  2. Figures are the total Department of Social Security expenditure on benefits and administration. They do not include other benefit expenditure administered by local authorities and other Government Departments.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the basis for the statement in paragraph 5.64 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" relating to the advantage of encouraging private provision in pensions as part of the reform of social security expenditure; and what savings resulted from that policy. [9287]

  Mr. Heald
  The Government are committed to funded occupational and personal pension provision, and have encouraged growth in this area by the introduction of greater choice and flexibility in pension options. As a result, this country is almost uniquely well placed to meet its pension promises in the new millennium. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the International Monetary Fund have acknowledged the strong position of the UK compared with other countries.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update the forecasts of the growth of social security, given in figure 10 of the DSS departmental report (Cm 3213)(a) on the basis of the latest FSBR projections concerning the level of unemployment (b) on the assumption of a constant level of unemployment and (c) using the unemployment assumption as contained in Cm 3213. [9289]

  Mr. Burt
  Long-term projections of social security benefit expenditure will be made available in the social security departmental report, which will be published in March. I will write separately to the hon. Member about any information he has requested in his answer which is not answered in the departmental report when it is published.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out(a) in cash terms and (b) at constant prices (i) the actual outturn and (ii) Budget estimated outturn of cyclical social security expenditure in each year since 1992; and if he will show the principal factors which affected the difference for each year between the actual outturn and the estimated outturn. [9290]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table:

  Cyclical social security

  £ million

  Expenditure

  CASH PRICES

  1993 plans

  1993–94 estimated outturn1

  13,470

  Outturn3

  13,822

  1994 plans

  148

  Cyclical social security

  £ million

  1994–95 estimated outturn2

  13,602

  Outturn3

  13,697

  1995 plans

  1995–96 estimated outturn3

  13,942

  1995–96 current estimated outturn4

  13,904

  REAL TERMS (1996–97 PRICES)

  1993 plans

  1993–94 estimated outturn1

  14,394

  Outturn3

  14,770

  1994 plans

  1994–95 estimated outturn2

  14,281

  Outturns3

  14,381

  1995 plans

  1995–96 estimated outturn3

  14,291

  1995–96 current estimated outturn4

  14,252

  1 March 1994 departmental report.

  2March 1994 departmental report.

  3March 1994 departmental report.

  4 1995–96—Cyclical social security includes benefits paid from the national insurance fund. The 1995–96 accounts for national insurance fund are not yet published so final outturn figures are not available.

  1. Data for 1992–93 have not been provided as cyclical social security spending was only defined for public expenditure purposes in July 1992. Estimated outturn figures for social security for 1992–93 were therefore not on the same basis and are not directly comparable with plans for 1993–94 and beyond.

  2. The principal factors giving rise to the differences in expenditure between estimated and actual outturn were: higher than anticipated increases in numbers of lone parents and sick and disabled receiving income support; higher than anticipated average amounts paid to income support recipients; and lower than anticipated numbers of unemployed claimants.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much of the private finance initiative expenditure by his Department listed in table 5.5 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" has already occurred; and what are the future commitments implicit in this private finance initiative expenditure. [9288]

  Mr. Burt
  Table 5.5 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" gives the capital sums which the Department estimates will be spent by the private sector between 1997–98 and 1999–2000 as a consequence of any private finance initiative include any expenditure by the Department itself or any expenditure estimated already to have place.

  Revenue commitments resulting from the PFI deals concluded by this Department are still subject to negotiation and are currently commercial-in-confidence.
  149
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide a breakdown by project of the estimated capital spending on his Department's private finance initiative projects for each year given in table 5.5 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report". [9291]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available as disaggregating the figures quoted in table 5.5 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" into individual, identifiable projects at this stage would harm the competitive position of a third party and prejudice the Department's position in on-going and future project negotiations.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of the expected future private finance initiative expenditure by his Department listed in table 5.5 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" is contracted for; and what proportion is estimated. [9292]

  Mr. Burt
  Of the capital sum which this Department estimates will be spent by the private sector between 1997–98 and 1999–2000 as a consequence of any private finance initiative deals it may make, broadly half has been contracted for already. All figures are estimated as the total level of private sector capital expenditure is not specified contractually.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the amount spent on external consultants by his Department's non-departmental public bodies in each of the last five years. [10196]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows:

  Financial year

  Expenditure £

  1996–97(to end of November)

  34,766

  1995–96

  40,219

  The Department of Social Security's non-departmental public bodies—NDPBs—are funded directly from the Department's overall administration and miscellaneous services vote. The vote accounting arrangements prior to April 1995 preclude separate identification of NDPBs' expenditure on external consultants.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the actions his Department has taken on each of the recommendations contained in the Cabinet Office report, "The Government's Use of External Consultants". [10197]

  Mr. Burt
  The information has been placed in the Library.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many sets of guidelines and instructions have been issued by his Department to its officials since 1986 to help them decide whether to award war pensions to claimants who are claiming disablement as a result of experiments at the Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down. [10227]
  150
  Mr. Heald
  Under war pensions legislation, awards may be made in respect of any disablement which is attributable to, or has been and remains aggravated by, service in the armed forces. No distinction is made between those who participated in experiments at Porton Down and other members of the armed forces who did not.

  Guidance and instruction in determining entitlement to a war pension is contained in the war pensions manual available to all appropriate staff of the War Pensions Agency.

  The version of the manual current in 1986 did not include a section which related solely to Porton Down cases.

  That version was comprehensively rewritten in 1993, when a section about such claims was included. The manual was restructured in 1995 to coincide with the introduction of a new computer system and now consists of 12 separate guides, two of which mention Porton Down claims.

  Of these two guides, a total of 79 and 117 sets respectively are currently in issue.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the current members of the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions; in what form the advice of the committee is communicated to the Minister with special responsibility for war pensions; if this advice is publicly available; on what dates the committee has met since January 1993; and(a) if the minutes and (b) the committee's annual report are publicly available. [10228]

  Mr. Heald
  The current members of the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions are listed below. Advice from members comes through discussion at the meetings, which are chaired by my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and through individual written representations. Copies of the minutes of committee meetings and supporting papers are distributed to members of the committee, the chairmen and vice chairmen of war pensions committees and to certain ex-service organisations which are not directly represented on the committee. Copies are not usually distributed more widely, but details of the main issues considered by the committee are published in the war pensioners' annual report1. The committee does not produce its own annual report.

  Since January 1993, the committee has met on the following dates: 24 June 1993; 2 December 1993; 23 June 1994; 7 December 1994; 29 June 1995; 7 December 1995; 13 June 1996; and 5 December 1996.

  Members of the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions

  Members

  Mrs. P. A. Ade OBE

  Chairman, North and West Wales War Pensions Committee (WPC)

  Major J. Aitkin TD CA

  Chairman, The Royal British Legion Scotland

  Major General C. G. Cornock CB MBE

  Chairman, The Confederation of British Service and Ex-Service Organisations

  Mr. T. S. Deeming MBE

  Chairman, Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Staffordshire WPC

  Brigadier A. K. Dixon

  Director, Ex-Services Mental Welfare Society

  Mr. P. H. Dixon OBE MA

  Vice Chairman, SSAFA Forces Help

  Mr. G. Downing

  Chairman, The Royal British Legion

  151

  members of the Central Advisory committee on War Pensions

  members

  Mr. I. Duncan Smith MP

  Conservative party

  Mr. W. R. Dunn MBE

  Chairman, Northumbria WPC

  Mr. I. Grainger

  Departmental Representative

  Major J. W. Henning MBE UD

  Chairman, Northern Ireland WPC

  Mr. D. B. Hilton

  The Royal British Legion Scotland

  Lt. Col. R. R. Holland OBE BEM

  General Secretary, British Limbless Ex-Servicemans' Association

  Mr. T. C. House

  The Royal British Legion

  Mr. W. G. MacDonald

  Chairman, North of Scotland WPC

  Lord Mackie of Benshie CBE DSO DFC

  Liberal Democrat party

  Mr. A. Meale MP

  Labour party

  Mrs. H. Murphy MBE

  Honorary Secretary, War Widows' Association of Great Britain

  Mr. W. S. Mutimer MBE JP MIPM

  Chairman, London South WPC

  Mrs. P. Newnes OBE

  Chairman, West Midlands,

  Northamptonshire and Warwickshire WPC

  Mr. F. E. Onyon MBE

  Chairman, Lancashire WPC

  Sir Roger Palin KCB OBE MA

  Controller, RAF Benevolent Fund

  Mr. A. G. Palmer MBE

  Chairman, East Anglia WPC

  Mr. H. L. Payne CBE

  President, National Federation of FEPOW Clubs and Associations

  Brigadier H. L. B. Salmon OBE

  Chairman, The Chilterns WPC

  Mr. F. E. Walker MBE

  Chairman, Sussex WPC

  Lt. Col. R. G. Woodhouse DL

  Chairman, South West England WPC

  The Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and Mrs. Anne Bowtell, DSS permanent secretary, are ex officio members of the Committee.

  Captain D. J. Mooney, Chairman of the Republic of Ireland War Pensions Advisory Committee, is an official observer to the Committee.

  1Report to Parliament by the Secretaries of State for Social Security, Health. Scotland and Wales in accordance with the Transfer of Functions (Ministry of Pensions) Order 1953 (SI 1198).

  European Court of Justice Ruling
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the recent interim ruling by the European Court of Justice in respect of measures concerning poverty and the elderly. [9992]

  Mr. Heald
  The Government welcome the Court's interim ruling on 24 September 1996. The Court held that no payments of grants to projects should be made until the Court's final decision and that the Commission must make it clear that any commitments it enters into to make grants will be subject to the Court upholding the legality of payment in the main proceedings. The final ruling is not expected until later this year at the earliest.

  European Programmes
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has made to the German Government regarding their blocking of the older people's programme and the poverty programme in the Council of Ministers. [9991]

  Mr. Heald
  Officials are in regular contact with their German counterparts on a wide range of European Union and bilateral issues.

  Social Security Appeal Tribunals
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many social security appeal tribunal sessions were held in each month of 1996 for which information is available; and to what extent changes in the number of sessions were affected by the financial situation of the Independent Tribunal Service. [10428]
  152
  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is set out in the table:

  Month

  Number of sessions

  January

  2,200

  February

  2,294

  March

  2,437

  April

  2,781

  May

  3,125

  June

  3,100

  July

  3,779

  August

  3,594

  September

  3,589

  October

  3,649

  November

  3,349

  December

  1—

  1 Not yet available.

  The running of sessions is a matter for the president of the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS), Judge Bassingthwaighte. However, the ITS has informed me that sessional activity is determined, and regularly reviewed, in the light of a number of factors including caseload, expected and actual intake of new appeals, the readiness of cases to proceed to hearing, the need to clear appeals expeditiously and value for money considerations.

  Retirement Pensions (Payments Abroad)
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the foreign countries in which the highest number of retirement pensions are paid by the Northern Ireland Office, the numbers of pensioners involved and the average ages of pensioners per country, specifying if pensions are or are not uprated. [10446]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table. The pensions of former Northern Ireland residents living outside the United Kingdom are paid by the pensions and overseas benefits directorate of the Benefits Agency. Figures are available only for the United Kingdom as a whole. It is not possible to identify the Northern Ireland cases separately.

  Country

  Total number of United Kingdom retirement and widow pensioners in July 1996

  Average age of Pensioners

  pensioners uprated?

  Australia

  189,520

  73

  No

  Canada

  129,512

  72

  No

  USA

  94,910

  71

  Yes

  Republic of Ireland

  78,128

  72

  Yes

  South Africa

  33,927

  73

  No

  New Zealand

  32,789

  74

  No

  Spain

  30,870

  71

  Yes

  Italy

  21,981

  70

  Yes

  Germany

  21,373

  70

  Yes

  Jamaica

  20,946

  72

  Yes

  Pensioner Incomes
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will recalculate charts 1 to 7 in Government economic service working paper No. 129 using pensioner incomes for 1994 which are compatible with those given in table 5 of the pensioners' income series 1994–95. [10525]
  153
  Mr. Heald
  The information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  PENSIM is based on data from the 1988 retirement survey, the 1987 social change and economic life initiative, which contain details of work histories essential to the way in which PENSIM forecasts pensioners' incomes, and the 1988 family expenditure survey. The results are not compatible with the pensioners' income series, which is based mainly on data from the family expenditure survey covering the financial year 1994–95.

  The rates of growth in pensioners' incomes, and their individual components, forecast by PENSIM are robust and present a best estimate of what is likely to happen under certain assumptions. It is planned to restructure PENSIM and incorporate more recent data in the future.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of net pensioner income by quintile in 2010 and 2025; and what assessment he has made of how these figures relate to the figures given in table 5 of the pensioners' income series 1994–95. [10524]

  Mean net before housing cost income by population quintile: single and couple pensioners 2010 and 2025 at 1996 prices, and forecast growth since 1994

  Q1

  Q2

  Q3

  Q4

  Q5

  Mean

  Single pensioners 2010

  £61

  £89 20 per cent

  £107 20 per cent

  £139 30 per cent

  £293 60 per cent

  £138 35 per cent

  Growth 2025 Growth

  £68 15 per cent

  £99 30 per cent

  £120 30 per cent

  £158 45 per cent

  £350 95 per cent

  £159 55 per cent

  Pensioner couples 2010

  £141 15 percent

  £193 30 percent

  £248 35 percent

  £335 45 percent

  £635 65 percent

  £310 45 percent

  Growth 2025 Growth

  £151 25 percent

  £205 35 percent

  £260 40 percent

  £338 45 percent

  £606 55 percent

  £312 45 percent

  1 Represents less than 5 per cent.

  1. Growth figures show growth from PENSIM estimates for 1994.

  2. Pensioners are defined as those single aged at state pension age or above, or couple in which the husband is aged at state pension age or above.

  3. Figures have been rounded to the nearest £1 and 5 per cent.

  4. Quintiles for single pensioners and pensioners couples have been calculated i.e. the bottom quintile of single pensioners represents those pensioners in the bottom 20 per cent of the income distribution of single pensioners.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will recalculate the figures in table 6, paragraph 7.12 of "Options for Equality in State Pension Age" for a woman retiring aged between 55 and 65 years, with a pivotal age of 60 years, on the basis of current prices. [10526]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is in the table:

  Basic pension available at different agaes 1996–97 prices

  Age 60 'piot' (£)

  55

  44

  56

  47

  57

  50

  58

  53

  59

  57

  154
  Mr. Heald
  Estimated mean incomes for quintiles of the single pensioner and pensioner couple populations are given in the table for 2010 and 2025, at 1996 prices. Also shown in the table are estimates of the growth in mean income in each quintile between 1994 and 2010 and 1994 and 2025. All estimates have been made using PENSIM, a dynamic simulation model that projects pensioners' incomes into the next century. PENSIM estimates are based on a number of economic and behavioural assumptions. Due to the reliance on assumptions and the time period covered, estimates should be treated with caution, and have been rounded.

  The percentage increases in 2025 for pensioner couples shown in this table correct the information I gave you in my written answer of 18 December, Official Report, columns 765–66.

  The net income quintile mean estimates contained in the table are not directly comparable with those contained in table 5 of the pensioners' income series 1994–95, as they are necessarily based on a different data source, are at 1996 prices, and have been calculated using a different methodology. However, PENSIM does provide a good indication of the likely future growth in pensioners' incomes levels.

  Basic pension available at different ages 1996–97 prices

  Age 60 'pivot' (£)

  60

  61

  61

  66

  62

  71

  76

  64

  82

  65

  89

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.

  Note:

  Table 6, paragraph 7.12 of "Options for Equality in State Pension Age" applies to men and woman as it was assumed that, as now, men and women would receive the same adjustment to their pension for retiring at different ages. Thus the equivalent figures given above apply equally to men and to women.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  BSE
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the agreement entered into at Florence relating to BSE will be implemented in full by the United Kingdom. [9218]

  Mr. Baldry
  There are five preconditions for the lifting of the export on UK beef under the Florence agreement. We have made substantial progress on four of these. With regard to the fifth precondition, the selective cull, I refer the hon. Member to the statement that the Minister made in the House on 16 December,Official Report, columns 632–34.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the total number of cases reported to his Ministry of BSE in cattle imported from the Netherlands since January 1996, by month. [9845]

  Mrs. Browning
  No cases of BSE have been reported in cattle imported into Great Britain from the Netherlands since January 1996.

  We are however investigating the possibility that one cow, confirmed positive in September 1996, may have been imported from the Netherlands in 1994, but was carrying a British ear tag at the time of report. The Dutch authorities will not be contacted until all details have been verified.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research into BSE has been conducted on behalf of his Department at the ADAS research establishment. [10642]

  Mr. Boswell
  ADAS conducts BSE research on behalf of MAFF on maternal transmission at three research centres and embryo transfer at one research centre.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library a list of the contracted research undertaken on BSE for his Department. [10643]

  Mrs. Browning
  The contracted research undertaken on BSE for my Department has been placed in the Library, as requested by the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent reports his Department has received of strains of BSE in lambs. [10765]

  Mrs. Browning
  There have been no reports of BSE strains being found in lambs. Scrapie, a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy of sheep, became a notifiable disease on 1 January 1993.

  Mr. John Townend
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about bovine spongiform encephalopathy. [10143]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [pursuant to his reply 17 December 1996, c. 5741: A further report on bovine spongiform encephalopathy was placed in the Library of the House today.
  156
  The report gives an update on new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease cases and explains the new measures taken on cattle identification and animal feed. Reference is made to the five point plan agreed in Florence for the resumption of exports and explains that all the preconditions, with the exception of the accelerated slaughter programme, have been complied with. It also details the sustained improvement in the handling of specified bovine material in slaughterhouses. The report also announces the occurrence of transmissible spongiform encephalopathy in a domestic cat after the extension of the specified bovine offal ban in September 1990.

  The number of clinically suspect cases of BSE reported in Great Britain has continued to fall, and at 31 October 1996 was 36.1 per cent. less than at the same time in 1995 and 63.3 per cent. less than the same time in 1994. A continued improvement is expected for the future.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list for each of the Ministers in his Department how many official ministerial visits they have undertaken since 1 January; and how many of these have been abroad. [9382]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I can confirm that I and my officials have undertaken a total of 288 official ministerial visits during 1996. Of these, 57 have been abroad.

  Anonymous Individuals (Financial Assistance)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what was the largest amount of public money paid by way of grants and other financial assistance by his Department to a private individual in each year since 1990; [9435]

  (2) if he will list the grants and other financial assistance which are paid to private individuals whose identity is kept confidential. [9436]

  Mr. Boswell
  MAFF's financial database does not record the legal status of payees. The information requested in respect of private individuals is therefore not readily available and could not be produced without disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to make public the names of private individuals in receipt of grants and other financial assistance from his Department above a given level. [9434]

  Mr. Boswell
  The registration of the system holding these data, under the Data Protection Act 1984, does not allow for the publication of information concerning individuals. I have no plans to change the position.

  Live Fish Imports
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations his Department has received about the enforcement of the provisions of the Import of Live Fish (England and Wales) Act 1980; and if he will make a statement. [9413]
  157
  Mr. Baldry
  I have received representations from the Environment Agency and other bodies about introductions of non-native fish, and I am concerned that existing controls have not been entirely successful in preventing the introduction and spread of such fish into inland waters in England and Wales. I intend, therefore, to consult interested organisations on the possibility of making an order under the Import of Live Fish (England and Wales) Act 1980 to provide greater safeguards against the introduction and spread of non-native fish.

  Cattle Cull
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received urging him to implement the selective cull. [9439]

  Mr. Baldry
  My colleagues and I have received many such representations, mainly from farmers and their representative organisations. The Government announced on 16 December that the selective cull would go ahead in the new year, and the necessary legislation was made and laid later that week.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many, and what percentage of the cattle slaughtered under the over-30-month scheme have been disposed of; where they are stored; and in how many sites. [10340]

  Mr. Baldry
  The information requested, as at 5 January, is as follows:

  Numbers

  Percentage

  Slaughtered

  1,139,799

  100.00

  Incinerated

  43,641

  3.83

  Rendered

  848,798

  74.47

  In cold storage

  247,361

  21.70

  The meat and bonemeal from animals slaughtered and rendered is stored in 11 dry warehouses in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the tallow is stored at two sites in England. The material in cold storage is stored in 41 depots throughout the United Kingdom.

  French Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Christopher Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what classes of French fishing vessel, are prohibited from fishing within the French 12 mile limit. [9573]

  Mr. Baldry
  It is for the French authorities to decide whether to conserve stocks and limit catches by restricting the classes of vessel permitted to fish within their 12 mile limits provided such restrictions apply solely to French fishermen, are compatible with Community law and are in conformity with the common fisheries policy.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much has been spent to date on the prior options review of the Veterinary Laboratories Agency; and from which budget these sums were paid. [10122]
  158
  Mr. Boswell
  The report of the review of the Veterinary Laboratories Agency was produced between March and June 1996 by officials from this Department, assisted by an independent member of the review team. The cost of the review amounted to about £20,000 and was met by the Department.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much has been spent to date on the prior options review of Horticulture Research International; and from which budget these sums were paid. [10066]

  Mr. Boswell
  The report of the review on Horticulture Research International was produced between October 1995 and March 1996 by officials from this Department, assisted by an independent member of the review team. The cost of the review amounted to about £17,000 and was met by the Department.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much has been spent to date on converting the Directorate of Fisheries Research into a next steps agency; and from which budget these sums were paid. [10070]

  Mr. Boswell
  The costs of converting the Directorate of Fisheries Research to an Agency, which will be named CEFAS—the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science—have so far amounted to £373,000, all of which has been met by the Department. This total includes the costs of the prior options review conducted in 1995–96; additional temporary posts and consultancy work to provide for direct set-up costs within 1996–97; and the work of the agency steering group activities involved in overseeing preparations.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much has been spent to date on the prior options review of the Central Science Laboratory; and from which budget these sums were paid. [10054]

  Mr. Boswell
  The report of the review on the Central Science Laboratory was produced between October 1995 and March 1996 by officials from this Department, assisted by an independent member of the review team and an external accountant. A further study linked to the review was conducted by external consultants between August and October 1996. The total cost including official costs was about £130,000. All these costs were met by the Ministry.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food how much has been spent to date on preparing for the privatisation of ADAS; and from which budget these sums were paid. [10062]

  Mr. Boswell
  The cost of preparing for the privatisation of ADAS, excluding internal costs in ADAS itself and in MAFF and the Welsh Office, has been £422,713, excluding VAT, to date. The sums are being paid out of a budget specifically established for this purpose.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many(a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees include employees of the Veterinary Laboratories Agency as representatives of United Kingdom interests; and how many of these employees are leading the United Kingdom team on their committee; [10124]
  159
  (2) how many (a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees include employees of Horticulture Research International as representatives of United Kingdom interests; and how many of these employees are leading the United Kingdom team on their committee; [10068]

  (3) how many (a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees include employees of the Directorate of Fisheries Research as representatives of United Kingdom interests; and how many of these employees are leading the United Kingdom team on their committee; [10072]

  (4) how many (a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees include employees of the Central Science Laboratory as representatives of United Kingdom interests; and how many of these employees are leading the United Kingdom team on their committee; [10055]

  (5) how many (a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees include employees of ADAS as representatives of United Kingdom interests; and how many of these employees are leading the United Kingdom team on their committee. [10063]

  Mr. Boswell
  The numbers of employees from the relevant establishments who represent UK interests in each category of committee are as follows:

  Organisation

  United Kingdom committees

  European committees

  International committees

  ADAS

  81

  14

  17

  CSL

  65

  37(12)

  28(10)

  DFR

  42(6)

  6(2)

  95(55)

  HRI

  15

  10

  19(1)

  VLA

  14

  15(5)

  7(3)

  The figures in brackets indicate the numbers of staff leading UK teams, as appropriate.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many(a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees are chaired by employees of ADAS; [10064]

  (2) how many (a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees are chaired by employees of the Central Science Laboratory; [10056]

  (3) how many(a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) internationial committees are chaired by employees of Veterinary Laboratories Agency; [10125]

  (4) how many (a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) internationial committees are chaired by employees of Horticulture Research International; [10069]

  (5) how many (a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees are chaired by employees of Directorate of Fisheries Research [10073]

  Mr. Boswell
  The numbers of employees from the relevant establishments who chair committees in each category are as follows:160

  Organisation

  United Kingdom committees

  European committees

  International committees

  ADAS

  4

  2

  1

  CSL

  5

  6

  5

  DFR

  6

  1

  14

  HRI

  2

  4

  7

  VLA

  0

  1

  2

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the future costs of the prior options review of the Veterinary Laboratories Agency; and from which budget these sums will be paid. [10123]

  Mr. Boswell
  The review itself has been completed. Any implementation costs will depend on decisions which have not yet been taken.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the future costs of the prior options review of Horticulture Research International; and from which budget these sums will be paid. [10067]

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the future costs of converting the Directorate of Fisheries Research into a next steps agency; and from which budget these sums will be paid. [10071]

  Mr. Boswell
  In my answer earlier today I gave the costs which will be incurred up to the launch of the CEFAS agency. Thereafter, any further costs will be contained within the ongoing running costs of the agency, as part of its day-to-day operation.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the future costs of the prior options review of the Central Science Laboratory; and from which budget these sums will be paid. [10057]

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend announced the outcome of the prior options review of the Central Science Laboratory on 9 December. It is not possible at present to estimate future implementation costs.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the future costs of privatising ADAS; and from which budget these sums will be paid. [10065]

  Mr. Boswell
  The future cost of privatisation of ADAS, excluding internal MAFF costs, is estimated to be £930,000 excluding VAT. The sums will be paid out of a budget specifically established for this purpose.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimates he has made of the amount spent on external consultants by his Department's non-departmental public bodies in each of the last five years. [10172]
  161
  Mr. Boswell
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the actions his Department has taken on each of the recommendations contained in the Cabinet Office report on the Government's use of external consultants. [10173]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department produced and implemented an action plan in response to the multi-departmental scrutiny on the Government's use of external consultants and its recommendations. Accordingly, the Department issued new guidance on the employment of external consultants, and revised its procedures for authorising the use of external consultants and for improving information within the Department on consultancy expenditure. Analogous arrangements exist in departmental agencies.

  Gelatin
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the amount of gelatin used in(a) human food, (b) animal feed and (c) cosmetic, medical or pharmaceutical products since 20 March. [10413]

  Mrs. Browning
  We estimate that the quantity of gelatin manufactured in the UK from bovine raw materials which is suitable for food, feed, cosmetic, medical and pharmaceutical uses may amount to approximately 7,000 tonnes. Further details are not available.

  Southall Horse Market
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the recent visit to Southall horse market by his officials. [10652]

  Mrs. Browning
  The last visit was on 11 December and suitable welfare standards were observed.

  Beef Labelling
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultations he has had with representatives of Muslim and Jewish butchers about the draft EC regulation on beef labelling, document 10495/96; and if he will make a statement. [10527]

  Mrs. Browning
  Representatives from the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Union of Muslim Organisations of the UK and Eire together with other interested organisations were invited to, and attended, a consultation meeting held by the Ministry on 28 October 1996 to discuss the Commission's proposals for Council regulations on beef labelling.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has made in renegotiating the terms of the draft EC regulation on the labelling of beef and beef products since 13 November. [10529]

  Mrs. Browning
  Since 13 November 1996, the draft proposals have been considered twice at Council working group and by the Special Committee on Agriculture and the Council. Further discussions are not expected to take place until the end of this month at the earliest.
  162
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the impact of the EC regulation on the labelling of beef and beef products, document 10495/96, as currently drafted on the labelling of meat as kosher and halal; and if he will make a statement. [10528]

  Mrs. Browning
  The proposal as drafted provides for information on methods of slaughter to be included on beef labels providing that those using such labels can verify that information, to the satisfaction of the relevant competent authority.

  Farmers (Negative Equity)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the number of farmers with negative equity; and if he will make a statement. [10546]

  Mr. Boswell
  No information is available on the equity position of farmers, but the results of the farm business survey indicates that in 1995–96 less than 1 per cent. of full-time farm businesses in England were in a negative equity position.

  Departmental Prosecutions
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what factors underlay the delay in replying to the question from the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West relating to prosecutions by his Department. [10756]

  Mr. Boswell
  The delay in question was due entirely to an administrative oversight, which is regretted.

  Poultry Feed Antibiotics
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research into the effects of poultry feed antibiotics on human drug resistance he has evaluated in formulating voting intentions in the Council of Ministers. [10764]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Government take very seriously the possibility of the development of antibiotic resistance in humans and animals as a result of the use of antibiotics in animal feed. This is carefully examined as part of the safety assessment of applications for authorisations for antimicrobial products, and is kept under review by the independent scientific Veterinary Products Committee, which advises the Government on the safety, quality and efficacy of veterinary medicines. In considering the use of antibiotics, the committee has consistently followed the principles established in the report of the joint committee on the use of antibiotics in animal husbandry and veterinary medicine—the Swann report—of 1969. The VPC's policy has been that new antibiotics should not necessarily be precluded from therapeutic use in animals but that their prophylactic use should be discouraged. The committee considers each case on its merits against this background.

  In 1995 Germany and Denmark took unilateral action to ban the use of avoparcin in animal feed because of an alleged link between its use and the development of bacterial resistance to vancomycin in human medicine. The EU Commission's Scientific Committee on Animal Nutrition—SCAN—evaluated data submitted by

  163
  Germany and Denmark, including research which suggested the possibility of transfer of resistance between animals and man. SCAN concluded that the evidence presented did not establish a risk to human or animal health or to the environment. The VPC examined SCAN' s report and supported its conclusions.

  Bone Meal
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the current permissible uses of bonemeal in the United Kingdom; and if he will indicate those areas where bonemeal has been banned in the last five years. [10770]

  Mrs. Browning
  The permitted uses for mammalian meat and bone meal are landfill, incineration and, provided the MBM is not derived from BSE suspects, specified bovine material, or animals slaughtered under the over-30-month scheme—non-agricultural fertilisers and pet food. Controls on the use of MBM have been progressively tightened in the light of experience and the latest available advice from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, the Government's independent advisor on BSE issues. The controls introduced in the last five years are:1994—prohibition of all mammalian protein, including MBM, in ruminant feed;
  March 1996—prohibition on the feeding of MBM to all farmed livestock;
  April 1996—prohibition on the use of MBM as agricultural fertiliser; and
  August 1996—the banning, except in very tightly defined and controlled circumstances, of MBM from premises where livestock feed is produced, stored, or used.

  Animal Feeds
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 18 December,Official Report, columns 648–49, concerning the actions of the Agriculture Council of the European Community, which members of the Commission proposed to ban the use of specified risk materials in the manufacture of animal feeds; if he will list the materials and animals concerned; and what was the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the proposal. [10819]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The proposal in question was by the Commission for a Council decision on the exclusion from human and animal feed of specified risk material as regards transmissible spongiform encephalopathies.

  For the substance of the proposal—reference number SEC(96) 2300 of 10 December 1996—I refer the hon. Member for Newham, South to the related explanatory memorandum submitted on 6 December 1996 which was deposited in the Library of the House. At the Agriculture Council discussions on 16 and 17 December the United Kingdom Government were one of five to support this proposal.

  Countryside Stewardship Scheme
  Sir Robert Hicks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what is the average length of time his 164
  Department takes to process and approve applications for the countryside stewardship scheme; and if he will make a statement. [8694]

  Mr. Boswell
  [pursuant to his reply, 17 December 1996, c. 576]: The average length of time to process agreements in 1996 is likely to be about six months. This is longer than had been expected, owing in part to receipt of more applications than anticipated. It is the Ministry's intention to reduce the processing time for 1997.

HEALTH

  Dental Services (Sunderland)
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the registration rate of children aged(a) under four years, (b) five to 10 years and (c) 11 to 19 years with general dental practitioners in the Sunderland health authority area. [4415]

  Mr. Malone
  The information requested is contained in the table.

  General dental service: Percentage of child patients registered with general dental practitioners at 31 October 1996 by age group of the population at 30 June 1995—Sunderland health authority

  Percentage

  4 years and under

  5 to 10

  11 to 17

  Registration rate

  37

  81

  75

  Excludes patients registered with salaried dentists. Patients aged 18 and over are treated as adults and registered into continuing care.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many national health service dentists routinely use amalgam in fillings; and how many use materials developed since the introduction of amalgam. [5572]

  Mr. Malone
  The information requested is contained in the table.

  General dental service: estimated number of dentists1 receiving payment for at least one amalgam and non-amalgam filling in a quarter2

  England

  Number of dentists3

  At least one amalgam

  413,675

  At least one filling in a material other than amalgam

  413,016

  1 Figures include dentists who claimed in respect of adult and child treatments. However, the majority of child treatments are currently carried out under capitation arrangements. Fillings paid for under capitation arrangements are not reported and are not included in the analysis.

  2 This information is taken from the payment schedule data of one quarter (September-November 1996).

  3 The information presented relates to the number of dentists who made claims for fillings. Dentists claim payment at the end of a course of treatment. These figures thus show the number of dentists who finished courses of treatment in which they performed fillings.

  4 These figures rely on data from a 5 per cent. sample and are therefore estimates.

  165
  A total of 15,249 dentists received a schedule of payment in the period September to November 1996.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 6 December,Official Report, columns 820–21, on the largest annual NHS payments to dentists, for how many hours work on NHS patients the dentist was paid in each of the years given. [9076]

  Mr. Malone
  Dentists are paid item of service fees and a fee for each patient registered with them. They are not paid by the hour.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 6 December,Official Report, columns 820–21, on the largest annual NHS payments to dentists, how many patients were treated by the dentist in each of the years given. [9074]

  Mr. Malone
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Year

  Gross fee earnings1

  Capitation per cent.

  Continuing care per cent.

  Weighted entry per cent.

  Adult item of service per cent.

  Child item of service per cent.

  1995–96

  604,000

  8.4

  6.0

  0.9

  79.2

  5.5

  1994–95

  617,000

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  2.9

  97.1

  1993–94

  661,000

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  3.5

  96.5

  1992–93

  486,000

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  4.0

  96.0

  1991–92

  395,000

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  3.3

  96.7

  1 These have been rounded to the nearest £1,000. Gross fee payments do not account for all NHS earnings.

  Other payments such as maternity, seniority and long-term sickness payments are payable in addition to gross fees.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 6 December,Official Report, columns 820–21, on the largest annual NHS payments to dentists, if he will list each category of payment which can contribute to NHS earnings. [9077]

  Mr. Malone
  The categories of payment are: item of service fees; continuing care and capitation payments; seniority payments; vocational training allowances; maternity payments; long-term sickness payments; postgraduate education allowances; and partial reimbursement of non-domestic rates. These are contained in the statement of dental remuneration. Copies of the latest statement of dental remuneration have been placed in the Library.

  Sterilisation Reversals
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has issued on the availability of sterilisation reversals within the NHS; and what estimate he has made of how many(a) health authorities and (b) GP fundholders will commission such services for their NHS patients. [10284]

  Mr. Horam
  The priority given to sterilisation reversal operations generally is a matter for local decision in the light of health authorities' first-hand knowledge of local priorities and competing claims on resources.
  166
  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 6 December,Official Report, columns 820–21, on the largest annual NHS payments to dentists, if he will list the categories of treatment and the percentage of the total NHS fee income for each category earned by the dentist in each of the years given. [9073]

  Mr. Malone
  Gross fee payments are made up of the following categories of treatment:Capitation payments: monthly fees received for each child under 18 registered to cover the cost of "routine" treatments;
  Continuing care payments: small monthly fees received for each adult aged 18 and over registered;
  Weighted entry payments: one-off payments made in respect of child patients with poor oral health to restore the child's teeth to a reasonable standard;
  Adult item of service: payments made in respect of adult treatments;
  Child item of service: payments made in respect of mainly advanced child treatment.

  Gross fee earnings and the percentage of the total national health service gross fee income attributable to each category for the highest earning dentist of each year is in the following table.

  No guidance has been issued specifically on the availability of sterilisation reversals on the NHS. However, information on family planning services generally is contained in "Guidelines for reviewing family planning services" (January 1992) copies of which are available in the Library.

  Hospitals
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many community, GP or cottage hospitals delivering primary care were operating in each regional health authority area in (i) 1979 and (ii) the most recent year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [9772]

  Mr. Malone
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Ministerial Leave
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many days of leave he plans to take during the Christmas adjournment; [9791]

  (2) how many days leave he has taken in the Easter, Whitsun and summer adjournments; and how many days leave he took during the time in which Parliament was prorogued this year. [9790]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy gave him today.

  Dental Services (Children)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children under 16 years of age were registered with a dentist, in each region, in each year since 1990; and if he will make a statement. [9837]

  Mr. Malone
  The data held centrally are for children aged 17 and under and by health authority and, prior to 1 April 1996, family health services authority. Tables containing this information have been placed in the Library.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Sir Roger Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of expenditure in the year 1997–98 on research into ME, chronic fatigue syndrome, excluding psychiatric investigation; and if he will list the specific projects. [10263]

  Mr. Horam
  Information is not available centrally on expenditure in the national health service on research into chronic fatigue syndrome—myalgic encephalomyelitis. The Department is currently funding a research project through the national health service research and development programme called, "Should GPs manage chronic fatigue syndrome? A controlled trial" and expects to provide a further £6,032 during 1997–98. However, the main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council. It always welcomes high-quality applications and these are judged in open competition with other demands for funding, and awarded according to their scientific quality.

  East Anglian Ambulance NHS Trust
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations his Department has received regarding the performance of the East Anglian Ambulance NHS trust over the last six months; and if he will make a statement. [9766]

  Mr. Horam
  A small number of representations have been received in the Department. The Anglia and Oxford Regional Office of the national health service executive is monitoring the trust's performance.

  Doctors
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what statistics he collates on the number of doctors leaving the profession within five years of qualification. [10447]

  Mr. Malone
  Evidence of doctors leaving the profession is available from studies published in 1991 by Professor James Parkhouse. This gives the results of surveys of doctors who qualified in 1974, 1977, 1980 and 1983.

  The Department has commissioned further cohort studies of doctors' careers by the medical careers research group at the Oxford unit of healthcare epidemiology. These will examine career patterns of doctors who qualified in 1988, 1993 and 1996. The studies, which collect data via questionnaires, will continue to look at wastage from the medical profession and the reasons why doctors leave the NHS.

  Foreign Doctors
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current number of non-British doctors employed by the NHS who are(a) citizens of EU countries and (b) citizens of non-EU countries. [10449]

  Mr. Malone
  The Department receives no information on citizenship of doctors.

  Community Care
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the total amount of funding transferred from the health budget of each local health authority for community care purposes for 1996–97; and if he will make a statement. [10313]

  Mr. Burns
  This information is not held centrally.

  Staff Shortfalls
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current shortfall in the NHS of the number of practising(a) orthopaedic surgeons, (b) anaesthetists, (c) urologists, (d) paediatricians and (e) psychiatrists. [10448]

  Mr. Malone
  The information available relates to the number of vacancies for these specialties. These are shown in the table. However, data on vacant posts are difficult to interpret. The census is a snap shot of 30 September each year. Some vacancies will be wholly or partly filled by locums. For others, national health service trusts may find alternative ways to provide the service rather than re-advertising. The numbers give no indication of how long the post has been empty; some of these will be in the process of being filled.

  Vacant posts in selected medical specialties England at 30 September 1995

  Whole time equivalent

  Number

  Traumatic and orthopaedic surgery

  90

  Anaesthetics

  160

  Urology

  30

  Paediatrics

  100

  Psychiatry group

  360

  All figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  The available information relates to consultants, staff grade, senior registrar, registrar and senior house officers.

  Raw Fish (Worms)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the United Kingdom have contracted worms from eating(a) sushi and (b) other raw fish in the last year for which figures are available. [10417]

  Mr. Horam
  There have been no cases of human infection due to fish roundworms reported in the United Kingdom since 1991.

  NHS Budget
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the average annual cash increase at 1996 prices in the NHS budget from 1991–92 to 1996–97; and what percentage of the additional spending has been on bureaucracy. [10405]
  169
  Mr. Horam
  Table 1 shows the average annual cash increase at 1996–97 prices in the national health service budget from 1991–92 to 1996–97; 1996–97 figures are forecasts.

  Table 1: NHS total gross expenditure (£ million)

  Cash

  Cash at 1996–97 prices

  1991–92

  26,788

  30,695

  1996–97

  34,798

  34,798

  Increase over period

  8,010

  4,103

  Average per year

  1,602

  821

  Information on additional spending bureaucracy is not available.

  Care Funding
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the bids for adult intensive and high dependency care funding for 1996–97. [10751]

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

  Fluoridation
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he or his departmental officials last met representatives of(a) the British Dental Association and (b) the British Fluoridation Society; and what matters were discussed. [10656]

  Mr. Malone
  Meetings between Department of Health officials and the British Dental Association are held during the course of the year to discuss different aspects of dentistry, and with the British Fluoridation Society to discuss water fluoridation. The last meeting with the BFS was in March last year.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received since 1992 regarding artificial fluoridation; and if he will make a statement. [10657]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 2 December 1996, at columns 547–48.

  Computers
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when reimbursement from public funds was first given for computers in general practice. [10675]

  Mr. Malone
  The computer reimbursement scheme came into effect on 1 April 1990 but was retrospective to 1 April 1989. The first payments were made during the 1990–91 financial year.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when national requirements for the accreditation of general practice computer systems first came into force. [10676]

  Mr. Horam
  The requirements for accreditation were released in April 1993 for implementation in general practice computer systems from April 1994. Copies of the latest version have been placed in the Library.
  170
  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total amount reimbursed to general practitioners from public funds for purchase of computer systems in each of the last six years. [10674]

  Mr. Malone
  The total amounts directly reimbursed to general practitioners from public funds for the purchase of computer systems in each of the last six years is as follows:

  £ million

  1990–91

  19

  1991–92

  34

  1992–93

  40

  1993–94

  39

  1994–95

  45

  1995–96

  64

  Source:

  The annual financial returns of the Family Health Services Authorities.

  Note:

  1 1995–96 data are provisional.

  Inter-country Adoption
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information his Department disseminates about its procedures relating to the granting of health certificates for inter-country adoption home study reports. [10730]

  Mr. Burns
  Information on the provision of the Department's inter-country adoption certificate of approval has been disseminated to all statutory authorities and approved voluntary adoption agencies in the United Kingdom, to embassies, consulates and high commissions of appropriate countries appointed to the United Kingdom, to British posts abroad, to individual adopters and to individual social workers.

  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration he is giving to providing section 64 grants for a help and advice service to people wishing to adopt children from other countries. [10732]

  Mr. Burns
  In the current financial year £50,000 has been set aside from the section 64 general grant scheme to fund the overseas adoption helpline which provides information on inter-country adoption requirements to those interested. Section 64 funding has also been awarded to other organisations which provide information on adoption matters.

  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the applications for section 64 grant to provide a help and advice service to people seeking to adopt children from other countries. [10731]

  Mr. Burns
  In the financial year 1996–97 funding was provided to the Bridge child care development service for the overseas adoption helpline which provided information on overseas adoption. No application was received for an exclusive overseas adoption information service for 1997–98.
  171
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for which inter-country adoption home study reports his Departments' certificates have been(a) granted and (b) withheld. [10729]

  Mr. Burns
  The Department of Health introduced certificates in July 1992 confirming that the application to which it was attached met the statutory requirements of both the United Kingdom and the country to which the application was made. Certificates are provided for applications which have been approved by the statutory authorities in the United Kingdom. Certificates are not provided for privately commissioned home study reports.

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what mechanisms exist for the disposal of dissecting instruments used in autopsies conducted at the CJD surveillance unit in Edinburgh. [10628]

  Mr. Horam
  Autopsies on patients with suspected Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease conducted in Edinburgh by surveillance unit staff are carried out in a dedicated high-risk autopsy suite in the Edinburgh royal infirmary. This autopsy suite has both disposable and non-disposable instruments which are not used for general autopsy purposes. After a CJD autopsy, the disposable instruments are handled according to guidelines published in 1994 by the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens entitled, "Precautions for work with human and animal transmissible spongiform encephalopathies"—copies of which are available in the Library—and then incinerated. Non-disposable instruments are autoclaved in the high-risk autopsy suite at temperatures which are known to substantially inactivate the transmissible agents responsible for CJD. In the event of breakage, the non-disposable instruments would be disposed of according to the ACDP guidelines.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the average time general practitioners spent on administration for each year for which figures are available since 1979. [10671]

  Mr. Malone
  The Health Departments and the General Medical Services Committee of the British Medical Association have jointly conducted surveys of general practitioners' workload in 1985–86, 1989–90 and 1992–93. Copies of the results are in the Library.

  Hepatitis B
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the estimated cost of treating hepatitis B in the NHS in the last year for which figures are available; and what is the estimated cost of universal hepatitis B immunisation per annum. [10679]

  Mr. Horam
  Information on the cost to the national health service of treating hepatitis B is not collected centrally. At manufacturers' current listed prices, the cost of hepatitis B vaccine for those born in any one year would be approximately £20 million. In addition, there would be vaccine administration costs which could vary depending upon the immunisation programme chosen.

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what form, for what purpose, and with what public consultation he plans to review the working of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990; and if he will make a statement. [10523]

  Mr. Horam
  In the light of expressed concerns about whether the specific provision in schedule 3 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 for consent to be in writing reflected current clinical and lay opinion, the Government announced on 5 December a review of that provision and the potential implications for the remainder of the 1990 Act. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health expects to announce shortly details of the review.

  Hospitals
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals there are currently; and how many there were in 1979. [10689]

  Mr. Horam
  The number of national health service hospitals in England, as defined by section 128 of the NHS Act 1977, is not available centrally, nor has it ever been.

  For the years 1979 to 1991, figures are available, based on a count of hospitals providing residential facilities. These were set out in the answer to a question from the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) on 16 May 1995, Official Report, columns 173–76.

  Challenge Funds
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the bids for 1996–97 challenge funds. [10733]

  Mr. Burns
  Details of the successful bids for the 1996–97 mental health challenge fund were given in the press release of 23 April 1996.

  In addition the emergency pressures fund for 1996–97 received bids as listed.

  Mental Health Services: Funding to meet pressures in 1996–97 Summary, of bids

  £000

  Health authority

  Amount of bid

  Amount awarded

  South and West

  Avon

  150

  120

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  150

  120

  Gloucestershire

  41

  40

  North and East Devon

  45.5

  45

  Portsmouth

  38.5

  38

  Southampton

  150

  120

  Wiltshire

  50

  50

  Total

  625

  533

  Trent

  Leicestershire

  150

  130

  Lincolnshire

  150

  130

  Nottingham

  100

  75

  Rotherham

  70

  70

  South Humber

  150

  130

  Total

  620

  535

  173

  Mental Health Services: Funding to meet pressures in 1996–97 Summary, of bids

  £000

  Health authority

  Amount of bid

  Amount awarded

  West Midlands

  Wolverhampton

  350

  200

  Birmingham

  1,047.65

  250

  Shropshire

  250

  100

  South Staffordshire

  338

  100

  Solihull

  50

  50

  Total

  3,010.212

  700

  Anglia and Oxford

  Northamptonshire

  207

  207

  Total

  207

  207

  North West

  Manchester

  1,000

  700

  Total

  1,000

  700

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Newcastle and N Tyneside

  239.2

  200

  Leeds

  305

  250

  Wakefield

  75

  75

  County Durham

  75

  75

  Total

  694.2

  600

  South Thames

  Merton Sutton and Wandsworth

  225.617

  200

  Croydon

  87.383

  75

  East Kent

  84

  75

  West Surrey

  116.15

  100

  West Sussex

  112

  100

  Lambeth Southwark and Lewisham

  175

  175

  Total

  800.15

  725

  North Thames

  Enfield and Haringey

  238

  225

  North Essex

  150

  130

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  250

  225

  Barking and Havering

  160

  150

  Brent and Harrow

  176

  150

  Kensington Chelsea and Westminster

  150

  120

  Total

  1,124

  1,000

  Grand total

  8,280.562

  5,000

  Social Services Spending
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, further to his speech to the social services conference in Edinburgh on 18 October, if he will list the average annual compound growth rate of spending on social services, in real terms, for the period since 1970–71, indicating the basis of his calculation; if he will list the real terms annual percentage increase in funding for personal social services, for each year from 1992–93 to 1997–98—projected; and in which years since 1979 that increase has been lower than the projected 1997–98 increase in real terms. [10514]

  Mr. Burns
  Net expenditure by social services departments was £80.6 million in 1970–71 and is budgeted to be £7,903.1 million in 1996–97, an average 174
  real terms growth of 10 per cent. per annum. The figures used in the speech to the social services conference additionally included expenditure on Department of Social Security benefits paid to people in residential care and nursing homes.

  The real terms percentage increase in funding provided for personal social services for each year from 1992–93 to 1997–98 is set out as:

  Year

  Real terms annual percentage increase

  1993–94

  11.9

  1994–95

  12.6

  1995–96

  6.1

  1996–97

  5.2

  1997–98

  2.4

  Since 1979 the annual real terms increase in net expenditure on personal social services was less than 2.4 per cent. in 1981–82, 1984–85 and 1985–86.

  Aldehydes
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the carcinogenic effects of aldehydes on humans. [10649]

  Mr. Horam
  None.

  Staff Train Travel
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department has issued to health authorities and trusts on the subject of first class train travel by staff when on business. [10672]

  Mr. Malone
  Section 23 of the General Whitley Council handbook deals with the reimbursement of travelling expenses including first class travel. Copies of this have been placed in the Library.

  Contraception
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) the average cost of a vasectomy and (b) the average yearly cost of providing contraceptive care to a patient. [10680]

  Mr. Horam
  Information on the cost of a vasectomy is not collected centrally. Provision of contraceptive care by the national health service costs an average of just over £40 per year per user of family planning services.

  Health Authority Budgets
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the NHS budget by health authority for(a) 1994–95, (b) 1995–96 and (c) 1996–97. [10688]

  Mr. Horam
  Comparison between 1996–97 and previous years is not meaningful as the abolition of regional health authorities on 31 March 1996 and the reorganisation of health authorities on 1 April 1996 have resulted in changes to health authority responsibilities, boundaries and funding.
  175
  Details of district health authorities' final cash limits for 1994–95 and 1995–96 were set out in the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) on 11 November 1996, Official Report, column 39.

  For details of health authorities' 1996–97 cash limits I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr O'Brien) on 3 December 1996, Official Report, column 638.

  General Allocations
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funds have been returned to the general allocations for 1997–98 as a result of the death before 1 April 1996 of patients with(a) mental illness and (b) learning disabilities admitted before June 1970, in both hospital-based and community-based accommodation. [10735]

  Mr. Horam
  The 1997–98 general allocations to health authorities have been enhanced by £20 million as a result of the net reduction in the special allocation which funds the care of patients with mental illness admitted before 1 January 1971 and patients with learning disabilities admitted before 1 January 1970. Patient deaths is one of the factors in this net reduction but this element is not separately identified in the information held centrally.

  NHS Supplies Management
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response his Department has made to the Audit Commission's report, "Improving Supplies Management in National Health Service trusts"; and what decisions have been made by Her Majesty's Government in relation to potential savings outlined in the report. [10754]

  Mr Horam
  It will be for national health service trusts to respond to the specific recommendations made by their external auditors, who are appointed and regulated by the Audit Commission, following local audits based on the good practice recommendations in the report. The Department fully supports the report's emphasis on the importance of good supplies management and its relevance to quality patient care, and we particularly welcome the Audit Commission's call for senior trust management to take a more active interest in this area.

  The potential savings quoted in the report were derived from a small sample of trusts. The examples quoted were historic and the figures therefore do not take account of improvements since made in this area.

  Computer Records
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who owns the(a) written and (b) computer records that general practitioners hold on patients. [10686]

  Mr. Malone
  Ownership of records on patients maintained by general practitioners in accordance with their terms of service, is vested in the health authority.

  Continuing Care
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the bids for 1996–97 continuing care challenge funds. [10750]
  176
  Mr. Burns
  Health authorities' bids for additional continuing care funding for 1996–97 are listed in the table. Details of allocations to health authorities were announced in a press release on 27 December 1996.

  Health authority

  £ bid

  South Thames

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  290,000

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  876,000

  East Surrey

  217,721

  West Sussex

  216,000

  East Sussex

  75,000

  West Surrey

  267,783

  West Kent

  771,000

  East Kent

  310,000

  Bromley

  300,000

  Kingston and Richmond

  165,000

  Bexley and Greenwich

  116,000

  Croydon

  121,000

  Trent

  North Derbyshire

  275,975

  South Derbyshire

  466,000

  Doncaster

  40,000

  Leicestershire

  509,560

  Lincolnshire

  186,750

  North Nottinghamshire

  219,085

  Nottingham

  330,088

  Rotherham

  100,000

  Sheffield

  225,000

  South Humber

  185,000

  West Midlands

  Herefordshire

  50,605

  Worcestershire

  600,201

  North Staffordshire

  181,500

  South Staffordshire

  195,984

  Birmingham

  797,922

  Coventry

  100,100

  Dudley

  370,000

  Sandwell

  137,000

  Shropshire

  140,000

  Solihull

  100,000

  Walsall

  53,500

  Warwickshire

  175,000

  Anglia and Oxford

  Buckinghamshire

  120,000

  Cambridge and Huntingdon

  778,000

  North West Anglia

  396,500

  Northamptonshire

  278,425

  Oxfordshire

  190,500

  Bedfordshire

  60,000

  South and West

  Avon

  500,000

  Cornwall

  300,000

  Dorset

  170,000

  Isle of Wight

  33.098

  North and East Devon

  341,832

  North and Mid-Hampshire

  200,000

  Portsmouth

  309,100

  Southampton

  282,400

  South and West Devon

  646,025

  Wiltshire

  299.188

  North West

  Liverpool

  385,000

  Sefton

  790,000

  Manchester

  530,000

  Wirral

  600,000

  Morecambe Bay

  108,000

  Bury and Rochdale

  531,500

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  100,000

  177

  Health authority

  £ bid

  North West Lancashire

  91,191

  North Cheshire

  309,688

  West Pennine

  85,595

  Salford and Trafford

  263,380

  South Cheshire

  137,280

  Stockport

  210,000

  Wigan and Bolton

  134,000

  East Lancashire

  133,595

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  162,350

  North Cumbria

  100,000

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  320,000

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  89,000

  Sunderland

  160,000

  Tees

  210,000

  North Yorkshire

  210,000

  Bradford

  100,000

  Leeds

  (min) 717,500

  (max) 1,185,500

  Wakefield

  649,500

  North Thames

  East London and the City

  647,100

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  541,150

  Barking and Havering

  508,000

  Hillingdon

  623,000

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  485,840

  East and North Hertfordshire

  53,500

  Enfield and Haringey

  347,100

  Brent and Harrow

  39,000

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  191,000

  North Essex

  36,800

  Camden and Islington

  123,500

  Cancer Treatments
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent on cancer treatments in each year since 1992(a) nationally and (b) in the west midlands; and what was the percentage change from the previous year in each case. [10246]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not available centrally. It is estimated that the care and treatment for cancer patients forms a substantial part of national health service work in primary and secondary care sectors of around 7 per cent. of NHS resources.

  Drugs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his planned budget for the next three years to advertise the potential dangers of(a) aspirin, (b) coproxamol, (c) dothiepin and (d) paracetamol. [9846]

  Mr. Malone
  Aspirin, coproxamol, dothiepin and paracetamol are effective medicines, the indications and side-effects of which are documented in the authorised product information and publications such as the "British National Formulary". The main system for providing regular information to health professionals about important drug safety issues arising with medicines is a bulletin called "Current Problems in Pharmacovigilance", which is produced by the Committee on Safety of Medicines and the Medicines Control Agency. It is sent to all doctors, dentists, pharmacists, and coroners, by post approximately quarterly and is available on the Internet. The current annual budget for this bulletin is £260,240.
  178
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to assess the level of use of anti-psychotic drugs and drugs containing morphine in residential homes for the elderly. [9847]

  Mr. Burns
  None. The prescribing of any drug as part of the medical treatment received by a person living in residential care is the responsibility of that person's general practitioner. Medical and pharmaceutical advisers are available to help doctors prescribe most effectively for their patients.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the drugs that were available only on prescription in 1979 that are now available without prescription. [9848]

  Mr. Malone
  Since 1979 exemptions to prescription control have been made for the substances in the table, subject, in some cases, to conditions such as indication, maximum dose or route of administration.

  Certain medicinal products now available containing these substances may not have been authorised in 1979.

  Reclassification of medicines: POM to P switches

  Substance

  1983

  Loperamide

  Ibuprofen

  1987

  Hydrocortisone

  1988

  Astemizole

  1989

  Mebendazole

  1991

  Hyoscine butylbromide

  1992

  Carbenoxolone sodium

  Clotrimazole

  Econazole

  Econazole nitrate

  Isoconazole nitrate

  Miconazole

  Miconazole nitrate

  1993

  Acrivastine

  Cetirizine

  Ketoprofen

  Loratadine

  Terfenadine

  Aciclovir

  1994

  Beclomethasone dipropionate

  Cimetidine

  Famotidine

  Mebendazole

  Pseudoephedrine hydrochloride

  Sodium cromoglycate

  Tioconazole

  Diclofenac diethylammonium

  Felbinac

  Flunisolide

  Minoxidil

  Oxethazaine

  Piroxicam

  Ranitidine hydrochloride

  179

  Reclassification of medicines: POM to P switches

  Substance

  1995

  Fluconazole

  Hydroxyzine hydrochloride

  Ketoconazole

  Pyrantel embonate

  Budesonide

  1996

  Azelastine hydrochloride

  Nizatidine

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much has been spent to date on the prior options review of the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control; and from which budget these sums were paid; [10090]

  (2) how much has been spent to date on the prior options review of the Public Health Laboratory Service; from which budget these sums were paid. [10082]

  Mr. Horam
  Work on this and similar reviews has principally involved staff in the Department of Health and several other Government Departments, and it is not possible to quantify the related costs. Expenditure on consultancy costs was £7,000.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent to date on the prior options review of the National Radiological Protection Board; and from which budget these sums were paid. [10086]

  Mr. Horam
  Work on this and similar reviews has principally involved staff in the Department of Health and several other Government Departments, and it is not possible to quantify the related costs. Expenditure on consultancy costs was £26,614.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many(a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees include employees of the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control as representative of United Kingdom interests; and how many of these employees are leading the United Kingdom team on their committee; [10092]

  (2) how many (a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees are chaired by employees of the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control. [10093]

  Mr. Horam
  Employees of the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control serve as the chair or vice-chair of the United Kingdom committee, three European committees and three international committees; serve as United Kingdom representatives on four European committees and one international committee; and lead a United Kingdom team on one European and one international committee.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many(a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees include employees of the Public Health Laboratory Service as representatives of United Kingdom interests; and how many of these employees are leading the United Kingdom team on their committee; [10084]
  180
  (2) how many (a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees are chaired by employees of the Public Health Laboratory Service. [10085]

  Mr. Horam
  No employees of the Public Health Laboratory service chair, or serve on United Kingdom, European or international committees as representatives of United Kingdom interests, or as leaders of a United Kingdom team.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many(a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees include employees of the National Radiological Protection Board as representatives of United Kingdom interests; and how many of these employees are leading the United Kingdom team on their committee; [10088]

  (2) how many (a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees are chaired by employees of the National Radiological Protection Board. [10089]

  Mr. Horam
  Employees of the National Radiological Protection Board serve as the chair of four United Kingdom committees, one European committee and six international committees; serve as United Kingdom representatives on one European committee and four international committees; and lead a United Kingdom team on one European committee.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the future costs of the prior options review of the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control; and from which budget these sums will be paid; [10091]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the future costs of the prior options review of the Public Health Laboratory Service; and from which budget these sums will be paid; [10083]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the future costs of the prior options review of the National Radiological Protection Board; and from which budget these will be paid. [10087]

  Mr. Horam
  The reviews were completed on 31 December 1996. Any implementation costs will depend on decisions which have not yet been taken.

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will estimate how much will be spent on accident and emergency departments in the financial year 1997–98(a) nationally and (b) in the west midlands; and what will be the percentage change from the previous year; [10248]

  (2) how much the Government plan to spend on intensive treatment units in the financial year 1997–98 (a) nationally and (b) in the west midlands; and what will be the percentage change from the previous year; [10249]

  (3) what estimate he has made of expenditure on (i) non-surgical and (ii) surgical departments in financial year 1997–98 (a) nationally and (b) in the west midlands (1) in cash terms and (2) as a percentage change on the previous year; [10311]
  181
  (4) what estimate he has made of expenditure on (i) geriatric care and (ii) cancer treatments in financial year 1997–98 (a) nationally and (b) in the west midlands; (1) in cash terms and (2) as a percentage change on the previous year. [10312]

  Mr. Horam
  It is not possible to provide precise estimates of expenditure on specific services for future years. Health authorities' general allocations are not hypothecated and it is for individual health authorities and general practitioner fundholders to use their funds to respond to the health needs of their local populations; spending on specific services can be determined accurately only in retrospect once health authority and trust accounts have been completed.

  Geriatric Care
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent on geriatric care in each year since 1992(a) nationally and (b) in the west midlands; and what was the percentage change from the previous year in each case. [10247]

  Mr. Burns
  The figures given are for the money spent on the specialty of geriatric care within the national health service—the definition of which is care which is led by a consultant geriatrician. The figures reflect the shift in expenditure from acute-based care which is defined under the term geriatric care towards care provided in community-based settings.

  Total NHS expenditure on persons 65 and over is far higher than the expenditure on the narrow geriatric care definition and includes significant proportions of expenditure for the elderly mentally ill and other community services. In 1992–93 we estimate that spending on persons over 65 accounted for some £8,530 million rising to £9,190 million in 1994–95. This accounts for some 42 per cent. of hospital and community health services expenditure, even though people over 65 account for only 16 per cent. of the population.

  NHS trust expenditure on geriatric care in England and west midlands region in each year since 1992 is as follows:

  England

  West Midlands

  Financial year

  Spend £000

  Percentage change from previous year

  Spend £000

  Percentage change from previous year

  1992–93

  1,531,258

  3.8

  149,423

  13.8

  1993–94

  1,493,311

  -2.5

  150,537

  0.8

  1994–95

  1,422,867

  -4.7

  135,994

  -9.7

  1995–96

  1,365,688

  -4.0

  122,564

  -9.9

  Notes:

  1. 1995–96 information is provisional.

  2. Expenditure on geriatric care is for the consultant specialty of geriatrics (in and out patient) and geriatric day care only.

  Source:

  1. The annual financial returns of NHS trusts.

  2. The annual financial returns of the directly managed units of health authorities.

  3. The annual financial returns of the special health authorities of the London postgraduate teaching hospitals.

  "The House Party"
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much public money has been invested in the game 182
  "The House Party"; and what assessment he has made of the appropriateness of his Department funding such a project. [9883]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department of Health has neither seen nor funded "The House Party", nor had any involvement in its production.

  Stroke
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information her Department(a) collates centrally, (b) seeks from the regional offices, (c) seeks from health authorities and (d) seeks from each national health service trust in order to determine performance in relation to "The Health of the Nation" targets concerning (i) the incidence of stroke and (ii) acute treatment for those who have had strokes. [10250]

  Mr. Horam
  The relevant "Health of the Nation" targets concern mortality. This is monitored by death registration data from the Office for National Statistics at national, regional and health authority level and by the number of deaths from stroke in hospital at health authority level from the Department's common information core.

  There is no single measure of the incidence of stroke.

  Incidence of stroke can be estimated from the patient consultations with general practitioners for stroke, measured through the morbidity statistics from general practice and the weekly returns of the Royal College of General Practitioners. These estimates are collected from a sample of GPs in England and Wales and are present as total figures for England and Wales.

  Hospital episodes where stroke is diagnosed can be identified from the department's hospital episode statistics system. The information can be aggregated to trust, health authority, regional and national level. However not all patients with stroke will be admitted to hospital.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the actions his Department has taken on each of the recommendations contained in the Cabinet Office report on the Government's use of external consultants. [10161]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department's response to the Cabinet Office report on the use of external consultants is set out in the detailed action plan sent to the Cabinet Office in 1994. Copies will be placed in the Library.

  All the actions stated in this plan have now been implemented.

  Electroconvulsive Therapy
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those hospitals in which ECT treatment has been given to patients aged over 18 years without their specific consent since 1 April 1994 and the number of patients so treated in each hospital listed. [10254]

  Mr. Burns
  Information on the number of electroconvulsive therapy treatments given without specific consent is not available centrally.

  Wheelchair Initiatives
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress towards the implementation of the wheelchair initiatives announced by his Department in February 1996. [9989]

  Mr. Burns
  Both initiatives are now under way. Wheelchair services are supplying, or are about to supply, a powered indoor/outdoor wheelchair to severely disabled people who meet their local eligibility criteria. We have recently issued guidance to the national health service on the detailed arrangements for the phased introduction of the voucher scheme.

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham Health Authority
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the effect of the projected reduction in the purchasing budget of the Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham health authority on the number of(a) patient treatments and (b) operations in the current financial year; and if he will list them by category and hospital; [10433]

  (2) what resources he plans to transfer to Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham health authority in the current financial year. [10434]

  Mr. Horam
  The hospital and community health services general revenue allocation for Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham health authority in 1996–97 is £390 million which represents a real terms increase of £2.5 million, and a cash increase of £12.8 million.

  In addition, the health authority has received £4 million in short-term funding to support it during a period of major structural and strategic change and £1.4 million from the mental health challenge fund.

  There has been no reduction to the purchasing budget of Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham health authority. The integrated hospital and community health services revenue allocation for 1997–98 is £441 million, which represents a real terms increase of £9.4 million, and a cash increase of £18 million. This includes a general revenue allocation of £420.6 million which represents a real terms increase of £7.6 million, and a cash increase of £15.9 million.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date he received a letter from the forums of general practitioners of Hackney, Tower Hamlets and Newham and their local medical committee dated 5 November concerning local health provision; when he(a) acknowledged and (b) replied to it; and if he will place copies of the correspondence in the Library. [10709]

  Mr. Malone
  An advance copy of the forums' letter was received by the Department of Health on 6 November 1996, and the text of the open letter as signed by local general practitioners was received on 15 November. A copy of the letter was received from the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) on 26 November and acknowledged the same day. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health replied to the hon. Member on 23 December. Copies of the correspondence will be placed in the Library.

  Prostate Cancer
  Sir Julian Critchley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the work of his Department's standing group on health technology in respect of carcinoma of the prostate in relation to health technology assessment. [10760]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department of Health's standing group on health technology commissioned research on the detection, management and screening for carcinoma of the prostate which was recently reported. The findings have been referred to the Department's national screening committee for advice. I will consider the findings following receipt of this advice.

  Hospital Staff
  Sir Julian Critchley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the national health services's policy towards staffing levels in hospitals with casualty and emergency departments over the Christmas and new year holiday periods. [10762]

  Mr. Horam
  National health service trusts should ensure that appropriate staff cover is maintained over holiday periods.

  Primary Care
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the increase in NHS research and development spending related to primary care announced in his White Paper, "Primary Care: Delivering the Future" will be new funding. [10793]

  Mr. Malone
  Our aim is to double the existing proportion of national health service research and development directly related to primary care. The total level of NHS research and development spending is reviewed annually in the light of the needs and priorities of the NHS overall.

  Health for All Targets
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library a paper listing in relation to each of the World Health Organisation's health for all targets(a) Government actions to attain the target, (b) the current deadline for meeting the target, (c) indicators used by his Department to monitor progress towards meeting the target and (d) current performance and target performance in terms of those indicators. [10797]

  Mr. Malone
  The World Health Organisation carries out regular evaluation exercises on progress towards the achievement of its health for all targets. I will place in the Library copies of the United Kingdom report sent to WHO as part of the second evaluation exercise carried out in 1994. We are currently taking part in the third evaluation exercise which is expected to be completed later this year.

  Nurse Prescribing
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate his Department has made of the resources implications of nurse prescribing. [10792]
  185
  Mr. Malone
  Indications from the evaluation suggest that the net revenue costs of nurse prescribing will be broadly neutral and that there will be clear benefits for patients.

  Acute Beds
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the percentage of NHS beds in the acute sector used for private patients in each health authority area in(a) 1979, (b) 1983, (c) 1987, (d) 1992 and (e) 1996; and if he will make a statement. [9872]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not available.

  NHS Executive
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent by the NHS executive in each of the last three years on(a) conference registration fees,
  186
  (b) lease cars for senior management, (c) air travel, (d) hospitality and (e) business travel within the United Kingdom. [8485]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 12 December 1996]: Available information is given in the table. Information on conference registration fees is not collected separately. The 1995–96 figures take account of the transfer into the national health service executive of responsibilities, and 292 people, from other parts of the Department of Health during 1995–96.

  NHS Executive

  £000

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Lease cars for senior management

  68

  34

  22

  Air travel (internal United Kingdom and overseas)

  68

  101

  114

  Hospitality (includes working lunches)

  89

  85

  144

  Business travel within the United Kingdom (excludes air travel)

  995

  1,430

  1,781

Preamble
Reassembling after the Christmas Recess, the House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Norwich.

Clerk of the Parliaments
On consideration of the letter from Sir Michael Addison John Wheeler-Booth, KCB, announcing his retirement from the office of Clerk of the Parliaments:
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, before I pay a well deserved and no doubt inadequate tribute to the last Clerk of the Parliaments, perhaps I may say on behalf of the whole House how very pleased indeed we are to see the noble Lord, Lord Richard, in his place. From his demeanour, I hope I can conclude that he has made a full recovery.
On 31st October last year I had the sad duty of reading to your Lordships the letter in which Sir Michael Wheeler-Booth announced his intention of retiring from the office of Clerk of the Parliaments with effect from 4th January this year. On that occasion I said that, in accordance with the customs of your Lordships' House, your Lordships would in due course have an opportunity to pay tribute to Sir Michael. To that end I now rise to move:
That this House has received with sincere regret the announcement of the retirement of Sir Michael Addison John Wheeler-Booth, KCB, from the office of Clerk of the Parliaments and thinks it right to record the just sense which it entertains of the zeal, ability, diligence, and integrity with which the said Sir Michael Addison John Wheeler-Booth executed the important duties of his office.
On the two most recent occasions when the Leader of the House has moved such a Motion, he has done so within a few weeks of appointment to his own office.
2
My predecessors have thus been able to plead diffidence in honouring the wisdom and experience of the retiring Clerk of the Parliaments. I can claim no such indulgence but I am nevertheless sure that the whole House will agree with me that it is indeed a heavy responsibility to lead your Lordships' House in tributes to such a figure as Sir Michael. I feel this most acutely because so many of your Lordships have known Sir Michael and benefited from his experience for much longer than I have. I am sure that others of your Lordships, from all sides of the House, will accordingly wish to say a few brief words today.
We should recall that Sir Michael's service to your Lordships' House has been a long and extremely distinguished one. He entered the service of your Lordships' House as long ago as 1960. As with many of our Clerks, he came from one of our great universities. Unlike more recent arrivals however, he preceded his time in academia with a period of National Service as a midshipman in the Royal Navy. He has, I think I am right in saying, never forgotten that period of his life and it has, I have particularly noticed, formed a more than useful bond with others around your Lordships' House with similar experience.
After serving five years in the various posts allotted to junior Clerks, Sir Michael was seconded to be Private Secretary to the Leader of the House and the Government Chief Whip. I know from experience that Leaders of your Lordships' House are fortunate indeed to be served in their private offices by some of the ablest of an able group of Clerks. But I am sure that, for instance, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, will agree with me that he was perhaps more than usually fortunate to have had Sir Michael as a private secretary and I am certain that Lord Shackleton would have echoed those sentiments had he still been with us today.
In 1967 Sir Michael was assigned to what might be described as a "special operations" unit. He was seconded to be the joint secretary to the inter-party conference on Lords reform. His diligence and ability, for which your Lordships' Motion rightly commends him today, were perhaps nowhere more evident than in

3
the vast amounts of detailed work that he undertook on Lords reform at that time. It may not have escaped your Lordships' attention that reform is once again a topic on the minds of at least some of your Lordships. I am sure that those studying these questions will benefit from a careful scrutiny of the work done by Sir Michael all those years ago.
In the early 1970s Sir Michael was intimately involved in the work that your Lordships undertook to establish a means of scrutiny for European Community legislation. It is perhaps the greatest tribute that we can pay to his work that we can observe that that work continues with undiminished vigour today. Other member states of the European Union and, indeed, dare I say it, another place, are only now beginning to attempt to match the work that your Lordships have been quietly doing for over 20 years. I do believe that this House will recognise that this continuing scrutiny will serve as perhaps one of the more lasting memorials to Sir Michael's efforts on behalf of the whole of this House.
In more recent years, during his period as Clerk of the Parliaments since 1991, Sir Michael has continued to devote himself tirelessly to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of your Lordships' House. It was under his leadership that the Ibbs reforms to financial administration were carried through, with relatively little pain and with the result of both substantial savings and an expansion of services without an increase of expenditure in real terms, a virtuous circle which has not always been imitated by those who have benefited from government expenditure in other directions.
Sir Michael also saw the establishment of the Jellicoe Committee which has led to so many valuable developments in the Committee work of your Lordships' House. He has also advised informal procedural working groups designed to shorten the hours sat by your Lordships. We are all grateful to Sir Michael for what he has done to square the circle of improved scrutiny within shorter sitting hours. That was something which some of us thought was an impossible task, but which he showed was not nearly as impossible as we thought.
Sir Michael's record of service in your Lordships' House is an impressive one. He can look back with pride on the many improvements and achievements he has caused, or at least encouraged and facilitated. He will be remembered as a most amiable and generous man: his staff parties in Oxfordshire were, I understand, great occasions. He will be warmly remembered by his many friends here and around the Commonwealth.
On a more personal note, I know that Sir Michael has a clear view of the dignity and purpose of this House. It informed all aspects of his work and it informed in particular the way in which he introduced new Members to this place. I should like to record my own appreciation of the way in which he introduced me to your Lordships' ways and for the frank but tactful approach with which he has helped me during the past five years, and the past two-and-a-half in particular. He has an enjoyment of life that is infectious and which
4
has much enlivened our exchanges. It enabled me to anticipate my meetings with him with a heightened sense of pleasure.
I am not convinced that Sir Michael does in fact intend to retire in the traditional sense of that word: for example, I know that he has agreed to continue with some valuable work on the Parliament volume of Halsbury's Laws. It would thus perhaps be a little premature for me to wish him a happy retirement just yet. But as he leaves the service of your Lordships' House, I know your Lordships will join with me to wish Sir Michael and Lady Wheeler-Booth, and their family, many happy and peaceful years together, and to record our appreciation of the great service he has rendered to our House, which we will remember with pride and affection.
Moved to resolve, That this House has received with sincere regret the announcement of the retirement of Sir Michael Addison John Wheeler-Booth, KCB, from the office of Clerk of the Parliaments and thinks it right to record the just sense which it entertains of the zeal, ability, diligence, and integrity with which the said Sir Michael Addison John Wheeler-Booth executed the important duties of his office.—(Viscount Cranborne).
Lord Richard: My Lords, I begin by thanking the Leader of the House for his kind words. I come back not inspirited or totally reinvigorated, but recovered, and hope that I shall be able to play a modest part in the workings of this House in the next three or four months.
It gives me great pleasure on behalf of the Opposition to second the Motion moved so ably by the Leader of the House this afternoon. He started by telling us that on two or three previous occasions it had been moved by a Leader of the House within weeks of that Leader attaining office. He will understand me totally if I express the hope that on this occasion it has been moved by a Leader of the House within weeks of his leaving office.
To turn to the subject matter of the Motion itself, Sir Michael Wheeler-Booth was a remarkable man and a remarkable servant of this House. The Leader of the House set out his career. It was long and it was distinguished. He played a large part—I echo what the Leader said—in relation to the setting up of the European Communities Scrutiny Committee. That committee, as those of us who have been in Brussels at any time will know, has a reputation which is frankly enviable and unmatched by any House and any other Parliament in the European Communities. Its reports were read with care, certainly within the Commission. I remember being grilled at one of the meetings of the sub-committees. I can only say that it was a cross-examination which I remember, if not for the comfort it gave me, certainly for the vigour with which it was pursued. That stands very much as a monument to Sir Michael Wheeler-Booth.
In relation to Sir Michael's work in the House, it is fair to say that everything he did, he did in order to try to improve the functioning of this House and to establish better ways in which we could function properly. I think particularly of his attempts to take more business off the

5
Floor of the House and into Committee. That was a subject close to his heart and one which we followed with great interest.
The qualities of the man spoke for themselves. He was scrupulously fair and non-partisan. I speak as an Opposition Member in this House, but I think I can say that the advice we received from Sir Michael throughout my time in the job was clear, undoubtedly objective, fair and non-partisan. He was an open-minded man—he is an open-minded man: we should not treat this as if it is an obituary, because it is not. He was colourful and, as some of your Lordships will know, he was sometimes delightfully outspoken. He was kind and considerate. Nothing was too much trouble for him.
He was an innovator as far as this House was concerned and his roots were in precedent and in practice. He was very careful to build upon what the House had achieved in the past and tried to make sure that the ways in which the House was now moving were consonant with what had gone before and would be consonant with what was to come after. He was a great believer in this House and he was a great believer—he is a great believer—in the need for co-operation between the two Houses.
I hope that we have not seen the last of Sir Michael Wheeler-Booth. I am sure that he is not retiring in the conventional sense of the word. I hope that in some form or another it will be possible to maintain his connection with the House. I echo what the Leader of the House said about conveying our good wishes to him and his family in their temporary and partial retirement.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I have seen many Clerks of the House of Commons come and go but I have seen the full term of only one Clerk of the Parliaments in your Lordships' House. The contrast which is imprinted on my mind is that, particularly in my younger days in the other place, Clerks always seemed to be immensely venerable figures, bowed down with Victorian tradition and precedent, while Sir Michael Wheeler-Booth always seemed to me to be a figure of youth, gaiety and flair. That is so partly, I suppose, for the very good reason that he is probably the first in the series to have actually been a good deal younger than me. Thinking that Clerks of the Parliaments have come to look young is a serious advance on thinking that policemen look young, but it also owes a good deal to the fact that he has essentially been a buoyant as well as an efficient and devoted servant of your Lordships' House. I think he will go down as a Clerk of the Parliaments whose style will not quickly or easily be forgotten. I hope he will have a long and productive retirement.
It has been suggested that a combination of our modern demography and our early retirement habits means that there is a lot to look forward to at the end of a first career. If Sir Michael were a Member of your Lordships' House, he would be regarded as distinctly on the junior side. We wish him very well in the future, just as we welcome his successor to his new responsibilities.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, recounts in his memoirs that one day a former Cabinet colleague came to him in the Chair and said, "Mr. Speaker, may I have a word with you please after this debate as an old friend?", to which the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, replied, "Mr. Speaker has no old friends". It is one of the glories of parliamentary traditions that, like the Speaker in the other place, the Clerks in both Houses of Parliament are totally impartial, giving guidance and advice to Members, irrespective of party political allegiance. We on these Benches do not have splendid and reliable Whips to ensure that we do not stray from the paths of righteousness. I suspect that from time to time all 309 of us have sought the advice of Sir Michael Wheeler-Booth as individuals. We hold him in the highest regard and affection and we will always be grateful to him for his wisdom, kindness and courtesy to us.
It was Edmund Burke who once said darkly of a Clerk of his day, "There are persons in this world whose whole soul is a previous question and whose whole life is an adjournment". It is to the new Clerk of the Parliaments, Mr. Michael Davies, who we welcome very warmly, that we shall in future be bringing our previous questions. For Sir Michael, after 36 years of dedicated service to Parliament, it is the adjournment. In my experience he was the most assiduous of the Clerks in keeping in touch with the other place. More than many in this House, I am able to say how absolutely essential and important it is that Parliament should operate as a whole. We on these Benches wish him and Lady Wheeler-Booth a long and a very, very happy retirement and we shall all look upon him henceforth as a very, very good friend.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, because diversity is one of the glories or perhaps features of the Church of England, when a Bishop speaks, one cannot always be sure that what he says will be endorsed by all his brother Bishops. However, there is a unity deeper than that diversity which surfaces when it really matters. I know that what I say now most genuinely expresses the feelings of all my brother Prelates in this House. I am their sole representative today because they are assembled in Liverpool this week to conduct essential ecclesiastical business from which one of their number must absent himself to be on duty in this place. I have to say that my offer to spend the week here instead of in Liverpool was not a painful sacrifice.
The turnover of Bishops in this House is regular and even during the time since he became Clerk of the Parliaments Sir Michael has supervised the introduction of two Archbishops and 15 diocesan Bishops. My own experience is mirrored by others. Entering this place for the first time is for all the world like entering a new school or university—an ancient institution, awesome and bewildering, and unless one is supremely self-confident, which few of us are, the cause of much anxiety about geography, forms and customs. It is difficult to describe the relief at one's first interview with Sir Michael; the new boy reassured by a kind housemaster and gently introduced into the ways of this

7
strange and wonderful institution. Like the best of housemasters or tutors, he always made one feel welcome to return to him for advice. I think the wise Bishops did just that because Sir Michael has a perceptive and profound understanding of the Church of England and especially, of course, a long and varied experience of Bishops in this place.
I am personally deeply grateful to Sir Michael for his wise guidance, encouragement and friendship during the past six years. I speak for all my brethren in wishing him fulfilment and every blessing in the future when no doubt he will continue to be, as he has been here, a good servant not only of the nation but of the Church.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, in his fine tribute, echoed by other speakers, mentioned the fact that Sir Michael was Private Secretary to myself and to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. Therefore, it seems right and proper that I should say just a few words.
We are told in the Scriptures—the previous speaker is a better authority on this than I am—that no man can serve two masters. The present—and perhaps future— Leader of the House will be aware that he has to serve two masters; namely, the interests of this House and those of the nation. Sir Michael Wheeler-Booth served both sublimely. In my case, and I believe it is also true today, he had to serve two masters: the Leader of the House and the Government Chief Whip. He had to deal with my old, gentle, self-effacing self and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who is a very efficient person, with superhuman energy and drive. He had to reconcile our requirements and he did that sublimely.
I am sure that everyone in the House will agree with me that Sir Michael is a man of extraordinary skill and integrity. He has an inscrutable smile which leaves one uncertain as to what is really going on in his mind. But whatever he was thinking, he was doing what was right and proper. If the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, were here I am sure that he would join me and everyone else in paying tribute to him.
We are also told in the Scriptures by the founder of our religion that he said to his disciples, "I shall call you henceforth not only servants but friends". Sir Michael Wheeler-Booth was a great public servant. He has made innumerable friends in this House.
Earl Jellicoe: My Lords, following all the top brass, may I very timidly add a few words. I have benefited enormously from Michael Wheeler-Booth's interest and advice in a number of capacities, going back to years ago when I was a humble member of the Council of Europe. I have almost forgotten what that body was, but he was involved with it at the time; and I was a junior member of the inter-party conference on Lords' reform, where he played so notable a part, as he did also when I was Leader of your Lordships' House.
I would like to say how much in particular I owe to Michael Wheeler-Booth for his extraordinary wisdom in terms of knowledge of people and institutions when, for some unknown reason, I was chairman of a Select
8
Committee on the committee work of your Lordships' House. It was quite wrongly nicknamed by my noble friend the Leader of the House the "Jellicoe Committee".
In those and in many other ways I benefited enormously from the advice, wisdom and experience of Michael Wheeler-Booth. His advice was willingly given and always with great humour. It was enormous fun to be involved with him.
I join with those who have already spoken in wishing Michael and his wife a very happy retirement. Perhaps I may also say how glad I am to welcome his successor, Michael Davies, who was once, and will always remain in my mind, a very esteemed secretary of mine.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I would like to add a few words to those spoken by my noble friend the Leader of the House and others, including the Leader of the Opposition, about Sir Michael Wheeler-Booth's work in the European section of the deliberations of your Lordships' House. I was one of the members of the ad hoc committee in 1972 which decided to establish the Select Committee on the European Communities. It was very much Sir Michael's guidance which enabled us to reach what I hope was a right decision that there should be a Select Committee continuing year after year to look at this very important matter in your Lordships' debates.
It was Lord Maybray-King who chaired that committee. His inheritance remains with us as the years pass. Later, after he was promoted, Sir Michael kept a close eye on that committee from a vantage point above. I believe that the work done by the committee is unsurpassed by any House in any Parliament of the 15 member states. I hope that those of us who served in the European Parliament and who are now in your Lordships' House have happy memories of that committee and of the red books which arrived month after month. They were seen not only by members of the European Parliament but, dare I say it, by Commissioners not only from the United Kingdom but who spoke tongues other than our own. There was even talk at one time in the Commission of translating those documents into many different European languages. No doubt there would have been a certain amount of criticism of the expense if that had have been done. That was a measure of the value placed on your Lordships' reports, to which Sir Michael contributed so much. I join other noble Lords in wishing him and his family happiness in his retirement.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, as your Lordships know, it fell to Sir Michael as Clerk of the Parliaments to guide me in my Woolsack duties over the time when he occupied that office. To the extent to which I followed that guidance I got it right; to the extent to which I neglected to follow it I got it wrong. The guidance was always delivered with that wisdom and fine humour of which so many of your Lordships have already spoken.
I regard Sir Michael and his wife as great friends. I join with those noble Lords who have expressed for them the very best of happiness, good health and prosperity in the years ahead.

9
On Question, Resolution agreed to nemine dissentiente; it was ordered that the Lord Chancellor do communicate this resolution to the said Sir Michael Addison John Wheeler-Booth, KCB.
Then, the then Leader of the House having informed the House on 31st October last that Her Majesty had, by Letters Patent, appointed John Michael Davies, Esquire, to the Office of Clerk of the Parliaments, in the place of Sir Michael Addison John Wheeler-Booth, KCB, the Letters Patent were read. The said John Michael Davies, Esquire, made the prescribed declaration (which declaration is set down in the Roll among the oaths of the great officers) in terms as follows:
"I, John Michael Davies, do declare that I will be true and faithful and troth I will bear to Our Sovereign Lady the Queen and to Her Heirs and Successors. I will nothing know that shall be prejudicial to Her Highness Her Crown Estate and Dignity Royal, but that I will resist it to my power and with all speed I will advertise Her Grace thereof, or at the least some of Her Counsel in such wise as the same may come to Her knowledge. I will also well and truly serve Her Highness in the Office of Clerk of Her Parliaments making true Entries and Records of the things done and passed in the same. I will keep secret all such matters as shall be treated in Her said Parliaments and not disclose the same before they shall be published, but to such as it ought to be disclosed unto, and generally I will well and truly do and execute all things belonging to me to be done appertaining to the Office of Clerk of the Parliaments."
After which he took his seat at the Table.

Clerk Assistant of the Parliaments
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
In accordance with the Statement made by me on 31st October last, I have appointed Mr. Paul David Grenville Hayter to be Clerk Assistant in place of Mr. John Michael Davies, appointed Clerk of the Parliaments. I therefore beg to move.
Moved, That this House do approve the appointment by the Lord Chancellor, pursuant to the Clerk of the Parliaments Act 1824, of Paul David Grenville Hayter, Esquire, to be Clerk Assistant of the Parliaments in place of John Michael Davies, Esquire, appointed Clerk of the Parliaments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente.

Reading Clerk and Clerk of Outdoor Committees
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
In accordance with the Statement made by me on 31st October last, I have appointed Mr. Michael Graham Pownall to be Reading Clerk and Clerk of Outdoor Committees in place of Mr. Paul David Grenville Hayter, appointed Clerk Assistant. I therefore beg to move.
Moved, That this House do approve the appointment by the Lord Chancellor, pursuant to the Clerk of the Parliaments Act 1824, of Michael Graham Pownall, Esquire, as Reading Clerk and Clerk of Outdoor
10
Committees of the House in place of Paul David Grenville Hayter, Esquire, appointed Clerk Assistant.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente.

Rwandan Refugees: Assistance
3.12 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their latest estimate of the number of refugees and displaced persons in each of Rwanda, Burundi, Zaire, Tanzania and Uganda; and what progress is being made towards a regional settlement.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, about 1 million refugees have returned from Zaire and Tanzania to Rwanda over the past three months. UNHCR reports that there are about 260,000 refugees in Tanzania; more than 500,000 in Zaire; and almost 60,000 in total in Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi. In addition, there are about 250,000 people internally displaced in Zaire and more than 200,000 in Burundi. We support the efforts of regional leaders who are working for an international conference under UN and OAU auspices.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Will she be assured that she has the support of this House in doing everything possible to meet the great humanitarian need in the Great Lakes area? Has the Minister been able to study the report of the UN Commission last month on eastern Zaire, which identified 300,000 refugees, displaced people and Zaireans living in grim conditions? Specifically, what is being done to help those people in their plight? Similarly, what is being done to protect those compulsorily returned from Tanzania, particularly those whose lives are at risk in Burundi where unfortunate and large-scale killings have already taken place?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, having returned only two days ago, I have not yet had the opportunity to read the UN report. However, from what I know about those in eastern Zaire, I can advise the noble Lord that the non-governmental organisations, supported by governments such as ours, are doing their very best to help. We shall take further action as such action becomes possible. Our ambassador in Kigali is visiting Bujumbura at the moment, as are other representatives who are active in the field in eastern Zaire. We shall be able to take the necessary action when we have their reports.
On the point about compulsory returns from Tanzania and the very sad news that members of the Burundi army killed 124 people in Muyinga on Friday night, there is no doubt that that is a deeply regrettable incident, which the government of Burundi have admitted. They have sent a team to undertake an immediate investigation and have said that those responsible will be dealt with severely. We have no

11
further details at the moment, but the international community and the government of Burundi are determined that there should be no repeat of that sort of behaviour.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, has the Minister noted the reports that foreign mercenaries have been gathering in Kisangani with a view to attempting to recapture eastern Zaire in collaboration with the Zairean Army? Would the Minister support proposals that the OAU should send a special envoy to Kisangani to make inquiries about the presence of the mercenaries and, if necessary, bring the matter to the attention of the Security Council?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we are aware of press reports of mercenary activity in eastern Zaire. Indeed, last week when I was in Angola we received other reports of mercenary activity in other parts of Zaire. We deplore any such activity. We are certainly not aware of any French military intervention, as has been intimated. We have been working closely with the French and our other European partners towards a regional political solution. There is no doubt that the OAU and the UN must work together to make sure that such reports are not true and that those responsible are not allowed to get away with any such activity, if such activity does take place even on a small scale.
Lord Rea: My Lords, when is the interdepartmental inquiry into the involvement of a British firm in selling arms to renegade Rwandan forces to take place? I understand that that was supposed to have been reported to both Houses by 19th December.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord a specific answer; but I shall write to him with the answer which I shall make available to other noble Lords also.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the fundamental need is to have a political settlement in the Great Lakes region as a whole? The noble Baroness has indicated that the Government are determined to support the initiatives of Julius Nyerere, Nelson Mandela and other regional heads of government. What action are the British Government taking to try to build a common approach with the French Government on a solution which can encompass both Francophone and Anglophone countries in the area?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the Assistant Under-Secretary for Africa was in Paris shortly before Christmas for talks about those very matters. Other exchanges are also taking place with our French colleagues. However, it is not enough just for British and French diplomats and humanitarian workers to be in agreement; there has to be agreement between all those who may be involved in some way positively— or even negatively—in the events that have taken place in the Great Lakes region. That is why we should welcome the initiative taken by Presidents Moi,
12
Mandela, Mugabe and Biya. I believe that following the Nairobi summit that will help us to build the sort of peace which may be lasting in that region.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, does the Minister agree that given the number of refugees who have been returned to Rwanda, that country needs a great deal of additional help with its reconstruction? In particular, does the Minister agree that there is a need for more human rights monitors in that country and a need to rebuild its judiciary? Can the Government give any additional help?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, more human rights monitors are needed in both Rwanda and Burundi. I took the opportunity of discussing this matter with Judge Goldstone who was much involved in these matters during the Christmas holiday. A number of us are looking at ways in which such measures could be more speedily and more effectively implemented. There is also a need to train people in Rwanda and Burundi to become human rights monitors so that there is that capacity within those nations which then do not always have to look outside for help with such matters.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, the Minister refers to non-governmental organisations helping in eastern Zaire; but is there not some urgency in ensuring that there is protection afforded to non-governmental organisations and churches that are operating from other countries?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I do not believe that currently there is a problem in Rwanda unless there is information that has not yet come to my notice. The government of Rwanda, while suspicious of the actions of a few, are very supportive of the actions of the majority of non-governmental organisations. There are bandits still about in these places. They do not have the civilised discipline that we enjoy in our society. There will always be risks, but they are quite limited compared to some that NGOs take, very bravely, in many other parts of the world, including Angola, to which I referred a few moments ago.

Student Maintenance: "Top-up" Fees
3.20 p.m.
Lord McNally Lord McNally asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to introduce a loan scheme for student maintenance in order to cover the "top-up" fees which some institutions propose to charge in the 1998-99 academic year.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have no current plans to extend the student loans scheme to cover top-up fees. We believe that top-up fees are neither necessary nor desirable, particularly in the light of the 1996 Budget

13
settlement; and we regret that those higher education institutions which are considering such fees may be prejudging the outcome of the Dearing inquiry.
Lord McNally: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the amount of concern felt by students, academics and others about reports of activities in the university sector? I refer to statements by the LSE about the introduction of top-up fees and statements about a premier division of universities and colleges. I suggest that all of these reflect a drift in the +Government's policy. Assurances need to be given, particularly to young people who plan to go into university education, that they will not take on new unbearable fees. The Minister's action of kicking everything into the long grass of Dearing is not good enough.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not accept the noble Lord's point. I have made it clear, as have other Ministers, on a number of occasions that I see no need for top-up fees, particularly in the present funding context. I am grateful that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has also offered its advice to universities. It has said quite clearly that they ought to defer decisions about any such fees for full-time home undergraduates and to keep open all funding options while the Dealing inquiry is under way. I believe that it would be wrong, as I put it earlier in my original Answer, to prejudge that inquiry.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, is it not the case that two institutions, the London School of Economics and the University of Birmingham, have gone some way towards introducing a scheme for the academic year 1998-99? Can the Minister inform the House how advanced these proposals are and what discussions those institutions have had with his department?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is for the institutions to make these decisions. It is open to them to make such decisions. The noble Lord is right to refer to those two particular institutions. We have made it clear that, particularly in the light of the current funding arrangements and the extra money that we have been able to secure in the recent Budget settlement, we see absolutely no need for such fees. As I said in answer to the first supplementary, I believe that it would be wrong to go down that route in advance of Dealing. We believe that they are trying to prejudge that inquiry.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, can the Government advise the House what legal authority universities have for charging top-up fees? Does that legal authority extend to schools charging top-up fees for education in high schools, possibly after the age of 16?
Lord Henley: My Lords, schools are another matter, but I do not believe that they would have such authority. However, I shall write to the noble Lord on that matter if I am wrong. The universities have such authority because they are private institutions and can make such decisions as they wish.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I declare an interest as a staff member of the London School of
14
Economics. Does the Minister accept that the most important element in deferring decisions until Dealing comes along is the fact that the Dearing Committee will not report until after the election, and that, sadly, both the Government and the main Opposition party wish to kick the matter into touch? Does the Minister accept that any government are unlikely to find extra funds for universities of the kind that we need to maintain the highest quality higher education?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we make very large amounts of public money available to higher education in this country. The figure made available to higher education is some £7 billion, which represents about 20 per cent, of all the money that is made available by the taxpayer for education. I believe that that is a very significant amount of money. I do not accept that we have kicked higher education into the long grass, as the noble Lord puts it. Over the past few years we have seen dramatic changes to higher education. Higher education has expanded and numbers have doubled and doubled again. We thought it right that some 20 or 30 years after the previous report into higher education there should be another independent inquiry into the whole shape, size, future and structure of that sector. Obviously, one of the matters that Sir Ron will have to address is funding. Following his report, the Government will look very carefully at the recommendations that he makes.

Cyprus
3.25 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their latest assessment of the prospects for a settlement in Cyprus leading to a unification of the island and the withdrawal of Turkish troops.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, 1997 presents an opportunity for a solution to the Cyprus problem on the basis of a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation. A comprehensive settlement must take account of the genuine security concerns of both communities.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is unacceptable for a sovereign state, the Republic of Cyprus, to be threatened militarily by Turkey on the basis of the planned purchase of surface-to-air missiles purely for defensive purposes, particularly at a time when Turkey has an overwhelming military superiority both in Northern Cyprus and even more so 40 miles away on the mainland? Further, does the Minister agree that this threat will prejudice the possibility of a settlement of this very difficult issue? Do the Government have any further initiatives in mind to deal with this latest threat to the settlement process in Cyprus?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that when the United Nations Security Council expressed its unanimous concern on 23rd December about the excessive level of military forces and

15
armaments in Cyprus, including the introduction of sophisticated weaponry, it spoke for everyone. The concern about the build-up of weaponry and forces applies to both sides. The decision by the Government of Cyprus to buy Russian-built SAM 10 missiles was very unwelcome. That increases the risks in an already tense region. That risk has also been increased by the Turkish build-up in the north. But none of this must deter us from our efforts to promote a settlement. Indeed, it underlines for all of us why those efforts are so important. Both sides must calm the situation. We are taking as much action as we can to ensure that that is so. Today, the Foreign Secretary has written to Prime Minister Clerides. We will continue to urge the Turkish Government to resist the impulse to make the bellicose statements that they have made in the past and to respond to all of the recent developments with restraint. That must be the only way to get a dialogue going.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, in these times of extreme tension between the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots, would it not be better for the Greek Cypriots' application to the European Union to be postponed until such time as the picture is clearer and they cease to rearm in the alarming way that they have?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, this is a most difficult matter. The prospect of the accession of Cyprus to the European Union is a new opportunity to make progress towards a settlement. We want to see the whole island join on the basis of bi-zonal, bi-communal federation because accession will benefit both communities. We cannot make a political settlement a precondition for accession because that would give one party an effective veto over the other. On the other hand, I do not believe that accession without a comprehensive political settlement in place will come about. But we must ensure the success of the accession negotiations and work on a settlement for Cyprus at the same time.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, while everyone can see the advantages to this country and to all third countries in adopting an even-handed stance between the two sides in all conflicts everywhere in the world, is it not rather obvious that the greatest single contribution to the solution of the Cyprus problem at the moment would be for the Turkish Government to heed the repeated declarations by the Security Council and remove their army of occupation so that the peaceful settlement between the communities which we all desire could begin?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, no. It is not as simple as the noble Lord implies. The most sensible decision would be for both sides to take measures which reduced rather than increased tension. There is no doubt about that. A significant reduction in Turkish troops in Northern Cyprus would improve the climate for negotiations. The only sensible direction is for the number of arms and troops on both sides to go down. That is what we have to work for.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, while I express some surprise that the deployment of a purely defensive
16
system can be regarded as provocative, has the Minister any information to judge upon what threat assessment the Greek Cypriots thought it necessary to deploy sophisticated missile systems such as the SAM 10?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I regret that I cannot tell the noble Lord upon what threat assessment their decision was based. There is a great deal of threat making going on at the margins. Although it will take some 18 months before there is a delivery of these SAM 10 missiles, we should in no way underestimate the seriousness of what is going on.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say to what extent, if any, Russian intervention has exacerbated the situation? Generally, is there some hidden Russian policy in this area?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend highlights a suspicion held, I know, by many, but we have no evidence to support what he suggests. We know that these SAM 10 missiles are available. The fact that they came from Russia was no surprise, but we have no evidence at present that it is part of Russian policy.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I may strongly endorse what the Minister said about the need for restraint on both sides in what is turning out to be a very unfortunate military escalation in Cyprus. Will the Minister say what is the timetable now for trying to bring the two sides together in talks to negotiate the kind of long-term settlement to which she referred earlier in her response?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her support for the way in which we are going about this matter. The Security Council has of course been unanimous in calling for a cessation of the arms build-up in Cyprus. We have had a determined and active role. We are working closely with others in the international community to support the work that the UN is doing. The Foreign Secretary was in Cyprus in December. While there, he identified 10 elements as a basis for a solution, but it will ultimately be up to both sides to make compromises if there is to be a successful negotiation. The security concerns of both sides will be a key element in any comprehensive settlement. At present we have to go on working. Our own special envoy to Cyprus will be back there shortly. We have others working on the matter. I understand that the UN special representative, Professor Han Sung Ju, is going there shortly on behalf of the new Secretary-General.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, given our understanding of what the Minister has said, does she accept that for the past 23 or 24 years there has been almost continuous provocation on the part of an intransigent Turkish Government? Does she further accept that the Turks have ignored scores of UN regulations and resolutions and statements from Her Majesty's Government, who act as a guarantor? What confidence can we have that

17
they will take any more notice of what she has said this afternoon, when we know that the population of the occupied territory has increased from 104,000 to something over 200,000 during the same period, and for one reason only: they are trying to establish that that occupied portion will become a permanent factor? We all know that. Everyone knows that. Why do the Government not refer that to the UN for serious discussion?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that the whole House knows that both sides in this dispute are capable of ignoring the UN, the EU and practically anyone else who tries to bring about a settlement of this long running dispute. I do not expect the Turkish Cypriots or the Greek Cypriots to take any particular notice of what I say this afternoon, but they should be taking a great deal more notice of what the people of the island are saying: that is, that they want a resolution to this situation. Whatever the rights and wrongs on both sides—it will only be through patient negotiation at the UN and bilateral envoys that we can make a change. We regard the situation with the utmost seriousness, and we shall be doing all that we can to ensure that recent events are not allowed to escalate further.

Prisons: Identification of Visitors
3.36 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the present requirements for visitors to prisons to prove their identity when an appointment with a prisoner has been arranged.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, all visitors to prisons are liable to be asked to prove their identity. All visitors to Category A prisons whether official or social must show proof of identity. For Category B or C prisons all official visitors must show proof of identity, and for family and friends visiting prisoners that is also increasingly required.
In order to improve consistency the security manual is being revised and will make it clear that all visitors to all closed prisons must provide adequate identification.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, does the Minister realise that those who visit prisons will think that hers is the most astounding Answer given during the course of these past few years? I have visited prisons for over half a century. I have visited twice a week. I visited three times last week. Is the Minister aware that one is not always asked to prove one's identity? I can speak from personal experience only. Is she aware that one is sometimes asked to do so? One may be asked to produce a bus pass with a picture of oneself—beautiful or otherwise—on it. That may or may not be sufficient. In some cases, yes; in some cases no. In one case the governor of a prison that I had visited for many years had to be called in before I was allowed into the prison. Perhaps I may suggest to the Minister, with the greatest
18
possible respect, that were she to make a few inquiries she would find that she has been talking absolute nonsense this afternoon.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it will not be the first time that the noble Earl has accused me of talking nonsense across the Dispatch Box. This is a serious point. Identifying people entering prisons is a serious matter. From time to time not everyone will recognise the noble Earl, although he has an impressive and long record of visiting prisons. Not all prison officers will know him by sight, and therefore they will ask for identification. One of the issues is that each governor is allowed local discretion as to how that is to be done in practice. Therefore sometimes people will be asked for identification. Sometimes it will be a bus pass that will be looked at, and sometimes they will need corroborative evidence; in other words, another form of identification will have to be provided as well. Perhaps I may refer the noble Earl to my first reply. I said that it is a requirement at Category A prisons. It is also carried out, although not in every case, at other closed prisons. The intention is that it should be a requirement at all closed prisons.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, as far as I can understand it, the Minister has advised the House that it will be up to the local governor's discretion as to what is required to prove identity. It is surely likely to cause problems for people visiting prisons if they do not know beforehand what is likely to be required. Surely it would make much more sense were there to be a centralised national list of the type of things that could be used to prove one's identity when visiting prisons.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point about consistency. We believe that there is a case for consistency and that is why the manual is being revised. We believe that there is probably too much discretion at governor level. It is not always the case that an individual visiting a prison understands precisely what is required of him. We believe, first, that people should be made aware of what is required of them when they visit a prison in order that they can be better prepared and, secondly, that there is a case for more consistency.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister's indication that the manual is to be revised is good news. However, would it not be sensible during that revision to ensure that, for example, probation officers and members of boards of prisoners are provided with identification which will be instantly acceptable and recognised? Furthermore, although my noble friend's Question is about proof of identity, does the Minister accept the concern in particular of probation officers about the extraordinary degree of searching of official visitors such as probation officers and prison visitors?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the case for probation officers is not that they should have some form of identification—they are expected to have that when they

19
visit prisons—but that they should be exempt from the normal searches of people entering prisons. There are two particular reasons for such searches. The first is to prevent illicit substances and perhaps weapons from entering prisons. It is no good us wringing our hands and saying that drugs and even weapons get into our prisons without ensuring that all visitors, whether professional or not, are subject to searches. The second is that we need to offer protection to such people, particularly probation officers, who might be intimidated and have pressure put upon them to take in illicit substances. If there were a known category of people who are exempt from such searches it is possible that prisoners will exploit that situation. It is as much for their protection as anything else that they should be subject to searches, which is the subject of their complaints to the Prison Service.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, would the Minister think that I was mischievous if I were to suggest that the noble Earl might sometimes find difficulty in obtaining admission to prisons not because they have not recognised him but because they have?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that it would be diplomatic of me not to comment on that.
Lord Annan: My Lords, when will it be necessary to shackle the noble Earl when he visits prisons, since it has been reported that a prisoner died in shackles?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall ignore the first part of that question. The second part relates to a serious issue which is being investigated. It is the subject of an inquiry and it is, of course, the subject of another Question.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford: My Lords—
Noble Lords Noble Lords: Order! Time!

Lieutenancies Bill [H.L.]
3.43 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to the lieutenancies in Great Britain. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979 and the enactments amending it. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
20
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Geneva Conventions (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 to enable criminal proceedings to be taken in the United Kingdom for breach of Article 3 of the conventions. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.— (Lord Avebury.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Examiner of Petitions for Private Bills
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, pursuant to Private Business Standing Order 69, Miss Fiona Philippa Tudor be appointed an Examiner of Petitions for Private Bills in place of Mr. Brendan Patrick Keith.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(The Viscount of Falkland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Bill [H.L.]
3.45 p.m.
Report received.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL HIGH RISK AREAS
(".—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision as appropriate in relation to—

(a) the identification of marine environmental high risk areas in the territorial seas and pollution zone of the United Kingdom; and

(b) the introduction of necessary measures to safeguard

21

(i) maritime safety, and

(ii) the environment of marine environmental high risk areas from pollution by matter from ships, offshore installations or submarine pipelines.

whilst respecting rights of transit passage in international straits and freedom of navigation.
(2) In making the regulations and subsequent identification of marine environmental high risk areas, the Secretary of State shall inform the International Maritime Organisation of—

(a) the identity of such sites;

(b) the significance of such sites for recognised ecological, sociological or scientific reasons and the vulnerability to damage by shipping activities; and

(c) the necessary measures to safeguard safety and the environment.

(3) In making and applying any regulations under subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall publish by placing on a public register—

(a) the identity and boundaries of sites designated as marine environmental high risk areas;

(b) the ecological, scientific, environmental or sociological features of any marine environmental high risk area;

(c) the vulnerability of any marine environmental high risk area to pollution from shipping; and

(d) the measures taken to minimise the risk of harm to features defined in paragraph (b).

(4) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State maintaining a register under this section—

(a) to secure that the register is available, at all reasonable times, for inspection by the public free of charge;

(b) to afford members of the public facilities for obtaining copies of the documents kept in the register, on the payment of reasonable charges;

(c) to supply members of the public with copies of the documents kept in the register, on payment of a reasonable charge for copying, not more than two months following receipt of written request for such documents; and

(d) to ensure that all documents arising under subsection (3)(a) to (d) are placed on the register within two weeks of their being brought into existence.

(5) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to make regulations under subsection (1) above within two years of the entering into force of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as we indicated on Second Reading and in Committee, we very much welcome Recommendation 59 of the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, and Clause 1 of the Bill, which goes towards the establishment of marine environmental high risk areas (MEHRAs)—one of a number of unhappy acronyms which appear in our political life today—related to a limited number of areas of peculiarly high sensitivity which are at risk from some shipping operations.
Important recommendations were made in the report as to how those ideas might be progressed. The report identified some examples of possible MEHRAs. Interestingly enough, they included Skomer, off Pembrokeshire, which is very close to the area where the "Sea Empress" was grounded. As yet, the Government have not indicated when and to what areas the enabling powers to permit the designation of MEHRAs are to be put in place. Perhaps the Minister can throw a little more light on that important issue.
This debate enables the Government also to clarify their position in relation to certain obscurities which still appear to persist. In Committee the Minister asserted that,
"if we wish to place restrictions on the movement of vessels, we can only do so through the IMO".—[Official Report, 25/11/96; col. CWH4.]
With respect, that does not appear to be wholly right. First, the committee's report specifically asserted that:
"There is no need for the Government to wait for international agreement before promulgating MEHRAs in UK waters".
There is an apparent contradiction between the stance of the Minister and the point of view represented in the report. I am perfectly prepared to concede that I may be wrong about that. However, there appears to be an ambiguous position. Perhaps the Minister will comment upon it.
Restriction on the movement of ships is but one of a number of management measures which can be deployed within MEHRAs to reduce pollution risks from shipping. I shall not go through the whole list, but one can think in terms of improved aids for navigation; using tugs to escort laden tankers to terminals; oil spill contingency planning, and so forth. In my view, none of those would require the approval of the IMO, although in making progress in this and the whole international area it would be desirable to secure maximum consensus on the principle. The point is that the United Kingdom could act unilaterally over such areas in relation to its own seas.
We appreciate that similar thinking to that set out in Clause 1 is proceeding at European Union level. There, such areas are referred to by a different but not altogether happy acronym, MESA—a marine environmentally sensitive area.
I do not believe that the two things are absolutely identical—a MESA and a MEHRA. However, they are designed to serve a similar purpose. We believe, as does the Marine Conservation Society, that two years after this Bill has been enacted and comes into force, which would seem to represent an appropriate period to assess what progress has been made at European Union level, it would be right to require the Secretary of State to make the requisite regulations in order to designate MEHRAs. That is set out in subsection (5) of the proposed new clause.
If the European Union proposals were then agreed, it would follow in any event that the situation would have to be legislated upon by subordinate legislation. However, if not, the suggestion made in the Donaldson Report could be followed by finalising the relevant criteria. I believe that those are also under discussion by the Government and those MEHRAs to be put in place should be identified.
This amendment has widespread support from a large number of influential and important NGOs. I shall not mention them all but something like 15 have communicated with the Opposition on these matters.
Before I sit down, I wish to do what I should have done at the very beginning; that is, to thank the Minister for the great courtesy which he has extended to Members of this House during the Recess following

23
points raised in Committee. It is characteristic of this Minister and I thank him. He has seen a number of your Lordships personally during the Recess, including myself. That is the right kind of stance for a Minister to take. He has clearly listened carefully and has acted, as the House will discover later, on a number of representations that were made. I am sure that other noble Lords will join with me in believing that that is an appropriate listening and acting stance on the part of the Minister. We thank him very much for doing that. I beg to move.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I too join with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, in thanking the Minister for his consideration in advising us on progress from time to time during the Recess and for his willingness to listen.
With regard to this amendment, in Committee the Minister said:
"We are not delaying consideration of MEHRAs until such time as EC proposals are clearer. We are already considering, together with the statutory environmental advisers and other interested groups, the development of possible criteria for the establishment of MEHRAs.'— [Official Report, 25/11/96; col. CWH6.]
That seems to show that it is possible to proceed with those measures without necessarily waiting for international agreement.
Obviously, the matter must eventually go to the IMO for identification and endorsement in particularly sensitive sea areas, but as a matter of urgency the UK must identify MEHRAs and introduce measures to safeguard their future. I have pleasure in supporting the amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, I thank the two noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment for their kind words relating to the handling of this Bill. As has been said on many occasions, not least on Second Reading and again in Committee, the Bill has received widespread support around the House and, indeed, outside it. That has enabled us to take forward our considerations in a very constructive manner indeed.
The amendment proposes to give powers to the Secretary of State to designate marine environmental high risk areas—MEHRAs. In the course of my remarks I hope that I shall give considerable support to the thinking behind the aims of the amendment although I have some specific difficulties with it. They are much the same as those to which I alluded in Committee but perhaps for the convenience of the House, I should give the reasons why I am not able to accept this amendment.
There are three principal reasons why the Government cannot support this amendment. First, we already have powers to implement the definition of MEHRAs which was proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, in his excellent report of which we have heard a great deal. Secondly, this amendment, which appears to go beyond the proposal made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, is partly inconsistent with international law. That is a point which
24
the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, made and perhaps I may touch on that later in my remarks. Thirdly, it is premature as work on new measures to protect environmentally sensitive areas is being carried forward by the International Maritime Organisation and the European Commission.
The Government have considerable sympathy with the principle behind the noble and learned Lord's proposal for MEHRAs. In the Government's response to his report, we accepted that there are areas of the UK coast where mariners need to operate with extreme care and vigilance for the sake of the marine environment. MEHRAs are one mechanism which could be used to bring these areas to the attention of masters and crew.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, proposed that in the first instance MEHRAs should be protected by giving masters non-statutory guidance about their existence. That can be achieved without legislation. If that non-statutory approach did not lead to a change in behaviour, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, recommended that consideration should be given to a number of different routeing measures. Each of these measures can be implemented using existing powers, although the agreement at the International Maritime Organisation may be needed for specific mandatory measures. I believe that that is really the key to the issue which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, highlighted in his remarks. If a MEHRA were simply to advise mariners there would be no need to refer to the IMO. However, as well as a mandatory routeing measure, it may be necessary to achieve agreement if the restriction applied as a condition to entry into a particular port. However, any restriction of right of innocent passage in territorial waters or in adjacent high seas must be adopted by the IMO.
The IMO also endorsed the voluntary routeing measures for laden oil tankers through the Fair Isle channel, which were agreed with the Chamber of Shipping following the "Braer" incident. Radar surveys show that, with the IMO endorsement, there is a high degree of compliance with these voluntary routeing measures.
I must emphasise that progress is being made on MEHRAs. We are currently taking action to make use of the powers that are available to us. In consultation with the Department of the Environment and the Joint Nature Conservancy Councils, we are developing criteria for the designation of environmentally sensitive areas around the UK coast. We are also developing the Seaway Code which will give important information to mariners. This was another proposal made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. The Seaway Code could include information relating to MEHRAs.
The definition of a MEHRA in the noble Lord's amendment does appear to go further than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, recommended. It allows a wide discretion for measures which may be taken to protect an area. We already have some powers to protect specific areas; for example by tightening the regulations on what can be discharged or, in some circumstances, banning certain discharges altogether.

25
We are, for instance, seeking international agreement to have the seas around the UK declared a special area for the purposes of discharges of oil from ships. That would effectively ban all oil discharges from all but the smallest of ships. Should that proposal be accepted by the IMO, we already have legislative power to implement it.
In my introduction I said that elements of the proposal were inconsistent with international law. The amendment would give wide powers to take measures within the territorial sea and the United Kingdom's pollution zone. However, under the law of the sea, measures may only be taken in the pollution zone which are consistent with existing international law or which have been agreed by the International Maritime Organisation. It would not be sufficient simply to inform the IMO, as envisaged by the amendment.
I also said that the amendment was premature. There is growing international awareness on the need to protect individual sea areas. The IMO is developing a range of measures to protect sensitive areas. It already has a designation of particularly sensitive sea areas, or PSSAs. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, was concerned about the number of acronyms around the subject; and, indeed, there is another for him to deal with. The European Commission has undertaken to develop a similar concept called marine environmentally sensitive areas, or MESAs, to which I believe the noble Lord also referred. In his report, the noble and learned Lord highlighted the confusion that would be caused if too many different areas were identified. Clearly, given the international nature of shipping and ship routeing, any measures that we introduce should be consistent with the other work being undertaken internationally. We must also guard against taking steps which may be quickly overtaken by other measures taken either by the IMO or in Europe.
To summarise, we already have considerable powers to provide protection to environmentally sensitive areas. Those powers are being used, and will continue to be used, to safeguard our coastline. I should stress that we are developing the concept of MEHRAs, which can be implemented within our existing powers. Where we do not have powers, we are constrained by international law on what can be done unilaterally. We are taking full part in international debate on measures which could be introduced. Until those measures are developed, further legislative provisions would, I suggest, be premature.
I seek the indulgence of the House for having given a somewhat long and detailed explanation of our policy with regard to MEHRAs. However, I believe it most important that the matter should be put into context. For that reason, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
4 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the Minister has no cause to apologise to the House for the lengthy explanation that he has given; indeed, he has provided us with a good deal of useful information. We support the progress that has been made thus far. However, I am a little troubled about the delay in identifying the
26
environmental criteria. When we debated the matter on the last occasion, I believe that the Minister said that agreement on those criteria was still some way off. With the leave of the House, perhaps he could reflect on that point before he concludes. Can he tell us how far from agreement the Government are as regards the environmental criteria? What stage have the present consultations reached in that respect? In other words, are they near to fruition; if not, when is that point likely to be reached?
I turn now to my understanding of the identification of MEHRAs. The Minister was absolutely right to refer to the PSSAs—the identification of particularly sensitive sea areas—where the IMO agreed the relevant criteria as long ago as 1991. They were needed for recognised ecological, sociological or scientific reasons and because such sites were very vulnerable to maritime activities. But under the IMO definition, such criteria can also be used by national administrations to identify sensitive areas within their territorial waters. I believe that the Minister accedes to that point, but he is also saying that a voluntary approach should be applied initially. I am not against that. However, I should like to know what sort of period the Minister would regard as an appropriate testing time to show the efficacy of a voluntary system?
We know that accidents at sea last year were particularly serious. Consequently, I do not want to be in a position of blaming anyone—whether it be this Minister, a Labour Minister or, indeed, myself—for a situation which may occur because we have not accelerated the need to give consideration to such issues. However, I concede that the Minister is probably right at this point in saying that it would be better to try out a voluntary system. Subject only to the point that I raised regarding the consultation process, I propose in due course to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to thank the noble Lord for the approach that he has taken to his amendment. I believe that we are at one as regards the need, first, to have proper information available to masters and, secondly, to ensure that those areas about which we are particularly concerned are followed through properly in that respect. That was the reason why we decided to have the comprehensive radar surveys. We wanted to see how well the voluntary measures which are in place at present were being observed. I am happy to say that they have been observed rather more diligently than perhaps was at first thought.
I turn now to the timing. Although it is an on-going matter, I believe that it is one of some urgency. It is important for government to undertake their consultations quickly. I understand that meetings will be taking place within the next few weeks between officials from my department and from other government departments, together with representatives of outside interested bodies. Therefore, there is progress. I hope that in a very few months we shall see more progress.

27
Indeed, if there is more progress to report, I shall of course be happy to come back to the House and inform your Lordships accordingly.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Powers of intervention where shipping accident threatens pollution]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 35, leave out ("In").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving the amendment it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 7, 51 and 55, together with Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 8 tabled in the name of noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. We now have before us a large group of amendments but they are closely related. They are some of the most important that we shall consider during today's deliberations.
Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 7 would further widen the intervention powers conferred by Section 137 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. They provide for the implementation of one of the interim recommendations made by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch as regards the grounding and salvage of the "Sea Empress". They will also make a further change to Section 137 to ensure that the use of the powers is not unduly circumscribed.
Section 137 of the 1995 Act gives the Secretary of State power to give directions and to take other action where there is a threat of pollution following a maritime casualty. Currently, directions may be given to the owner, master or salvor of a ship. The MAIB has recommended that this power be widened to allow directions to be given to harbour authorities, harbour masters and pilots. We have consulted interested parties. The MAIB's proposals have met with considerable support. The amendments, therefore, provide for such implementation.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, also earlier recommended such a widening of the intervention powers. In addition, he proposed extending the powers of direction to cargo owners. However, the consultation exercise showed little support for a power to direct cargo owners or other cargo interests. We are discussing a complex and difficult matter. I should like to tell the House that we have not ruled out future action in the area, if it should prove desirable and practicable after a longer examination. I believe however that it would be premature to make any amendment to the intervention powers in that regard at this stage.
I should like to stress that these new powers will not alter our preference to work through co-operation rather than coercion. As set out in the national contingency plan, it is our normal practice to seek to agree the course of action to be pursued with all affected parties. Only in cases of extreme urgency would we give a direction which went further than this without prior consultation. Our intention is that, in general, we would use the powers to require salvage plans to be submitted for
28
agreement by the Secretary of State's senior representative. However, as I have said, we would have the power to intervene where the situation warranted it.
In addition to implementing the MAIB recommendation, Government Amendment No. 7 makes a further change to the intervention powers. In Committee, the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Beaumont of Whitley, raised the issue of the circumstances in which the powers can be exercised. I undertook to check that the current drafting of Section 137 does not leave any loopholes, taking account of the provisions of international law.
We have concluded that the best means of avoiding loopholes is to adopt the language used in the 1969 Intervention Convention and in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. This would ensure that the powers conferred by the 1995 Act are as wide as they can be without contravening the provisions of international law. In particular, it would ensure that the powers can be used in respect of a ship which, for whatever reason, is drifting without power. I know that was one of the concerns of the Committee.
The noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Berkeley, have tabled Amendment No. 8 which has much the same intention as Amendment No. 7. However, for the reasons I have given, I prefer the wording in the Government amendment. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment as I believe the Government amendment achieves much the same aim.
Amendment No. 5 seeks to implement the MAIB's recommendation. However, it is less precise than that tabled by the Government. For example, it provides no definition of the term "pilot". I trust that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw that amendment.
I now turn to the national contingency plan. There is some overlap between the Government's Amendment No. 51 and Amendment No. 4 which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. Both amendments seek to put the national contingency plan on a statutory footing, as recommended by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch. The Government Amendment No. 51 would do this by making the preparation, review and implementation of the plan one of the statutory functions of the Secretary of State in relation to marine pollution. The Marine Accident Investigation Branch made its recommendation because it considered that there would be benefit in clarifying the status of the plan. In particular, it believed that the plan should be given formal recognition under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. We agree that this would make the plan more authoritative. The noble Lord's amendment, on the other hand, would put the plan on a statutory footing in just one situation. For that reason I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to agree that the Government amendment is the more effective one.
I should like to take this opportunity to announce that I have asked the Coastguard Agency to initiate a review of the national contingency plan in the light of several recent developments. The revised plan will take account of a number of factors. First, it will reflect the legislative changes made by this Bill, should it be enacted.
Secondly, it recognises the changes brought about by local government reorganisation in England, Scotland and Wales and the establishment of the Environment Agency and the Scottish Environment Agency. Thirdly, the revision will have regard to the proposed regulations to implement the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation.
Finally, it will take account of the lessons learnt by the agency during the "Sea Empress" incident, in particular those set out in the Marine Pollution Control Unit's report on the clean-up operation, which was published last week. In addition, the scope and nature of the review may need to be reconsidered in the light of any relevant recommendations made by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch, whose report is due early this year; or by the "Sea Empress" Environmental Evaluation Committee, which is due to report in September.
The revised plan will be submitted to the Secretary of State for his approval. The review process will involve consultations with interested parties. In particular, the agency will consult other government departments, representatives of local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales, representatives of harbour authorities, operators of oil terminals, the International Salvage Union and the British Tugowners Association.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has also tabled Amendment No. 6 which seeks to implement the third of the MAIB's interim recommendations. The MAIB recommended that we should review the powers of the Marine Pollution Control Unit promptly to charter equipment in the event of a pollution incident. Amendment No. 6 would seem to be an attempt to implement this recommendation. However, it would not achieve the desired end. The amendment would simply give the Secretary of State power to give directions to the Marine Pollution Control Unit. As that body acts on behalf of the Secretary of State, this power would not be necessary. As recommended by the MAIB, we are reviewing the MPCU's powers. However, we do not believe that any amendment to the 1995 Act is needed.
Finally, I should like to mention the issue of the Pilotage Act 1987, which was discussed in Committee. I believe this point was stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. The noble Lord was concerned that a direction to a pilot might result in his inadvertently committing another offence. The noble Lord asked for reassurance on that point. There is an offence under Section 21 of the 1987 Act if a pilot, through breach of his duty, causes damage or loss of life. However, if a direction is given to a pilot under the new power provided by Amendment No. 7, the pilot's duty would then be to comply with the direction. Only if he performed this new duty in a manner which is contrary to Section 21 of the Pilotage Act—for example, by negligently causing further damage while under the influence of alcohol— would he commit an offence under that section.
I hope that the House will welcome the Government's amendments, which give further breadth to the Government's intervention powers, and that it will recognise the sentiments that I have expressed in the course of the discussion on these amendments. I hope
30
that noble Lords opposite will feel that the Government's amendments achieve the aims that they seek. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, once again I thank the Minister for his explanation of the Government's amendments and for his comments on amendments that I and my noble friend have tabled. The debate gives us the opportunity not only to consider the amendments but also to reflect on the interim report to which the Minister has already referred. Many of the issues involved in the "Sea Empress" incident have entered the public domain, but perhaps not always in altogether praiseworthy circumstances.
There has been an extensive programme on the BBC on this matter. The programme sought to articulate certain anxieties regarding the system that is deployed by the Government at the present time. Other agencies of the media have also dwelt at some length on these matters. Therefore there must be considerable public concern about the situation. I do not propose to adopt those criticisms because I believe we should await the findings of the final report. However, I propose to ask the Minister certain questions that have been posed. I shall not reach any conclusions as that would be wrong for two reasons. First, these are leaked reports and the final report may not comply with the criticisms raised. We do not know. Secondly, where people or organisations have been criticised it is right that the Minister should have an opportunity to consult with those bodies to give them an opportunity to offer any rebuttal of the criticisms. That is done in the course of all forms of inquiry; and I believe that there is no reason for us to depart from it on this occasion. However, for the reasons that I have already adduced, it is important that we should proceed with the publication of the report at the earliest possible opportunity to dispel some of the criticisms made and/or to ensure that necessary action is taken at the earliest opportunity.
In a letter to me on 19th December, the Minister said:
"We are consulting interested parties about the interesting proposals that Lord Donaldson and the MAIB have made regarding the widening of the Secretary of State's intervention powers. If, following this consultation exercise, the Government considers that amendments to the Bill are appropriate, these will be brought forward in the New Year."
A consultation paper was offered. Have we reached the final stage of the consultations? Are any further amendments likely to be introduced in another place? The Minister indicates negatively. I was not quite sure of the position in the light of that comment. I compliment the Government on undertaking that exercise. I believe that it was appropriate that there should be as full consultation as possible. Although the period was short—the consultation document went out in, I think, early December; only a few weeks were given for parties to respond—there was a sense of urgency on the part of those consultees and the Government have now come forward with their amendments to the Bill.

31
First, I wish to deal with some of the statements made in the leaked report. I wish to emphasise this. I do not adopt the criticisms in referring to this matter.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his constructive and responsible attitude and the remarks he made at the beginning of his intervention on the subject. However, when I respond it is unlikely that I shall be able to answer specific points if they relate to parts of the document that were issued in confidence to those named parties affected. As the statement by the chief inspector said, to do so would be to breach natural justice. I know that the noble Lord will not refer to specific parties in the remarks that he will make. However, we are at present in the middle of an investigation of all the issues. It is clearly in everyone's interest for the investigation to be completed and the report issued as soon as possible. I join with the noble Lord wholeheartedly on that. However, I believe that we should constrain our discussions in particular as regards what is supposed to have been said in a leaked report which forms part of an ongoing investigation.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for those observations. I hope that I shall not cause any embarrassment by the questions that I pose. But I start with what was a grave reflection on an individual where action was taken, not by the Government but by the Milford Haven port authority. While the investigation was proceeding, it suspended the pilot who was on board the vessel in what I believe was a wholly unforgivable and premature way. Subsequently, the pilot was reinstated following a further investigation. That is not the way to ensure good relations which are essential between pilots and the port authorities.
I say now as I said earlier that I am the president of the United Kingdom Pilots (Marine) Association. It is a responsible body; I could not be the president otherwise. The fact is that it was a reckless thing to do and I hope that it will not be repeated by any other harbour authorities in any situation which might arise in the future. I say no more about it. However, I hope the Minister will recognise that in the light of what occurred that is a justifiable criticism and does not reflect in any way adversely upon the Government.
There will be government reaction or reaction from others about some of the other matters raised. One matter requires the Government to offer some response now. The Minister has been in touch with NUMAST, the officers' union, about the question of tugs. What the Minister said in effect—he will correct me if I misrepresent the position in any way whatsoever—is that one has to have some regard to the cost involved in using tugs. The question is: how many tugs do you use? How many do you have available? I do not raise now the question whether it would have been appropriate to have more tugs available, and whether in any future situation we shall have to apply to a Mongolian restaurant for translation purposes as was done here with a Chinese takeaway. However, if the Minister says that there are cost implications, as obviously there are, will
32
he explain to the House the cost of using the present tugs available, and what the cost might be if that situation were accelerated? It is presumably a fairly simple calculation, although in these situations things are not always as simple as that. Also, does the Minister agree that in the past year tugs chartered from companies were deployed on 80 occasions?
It is important to relate the cost also to the cost of not having the tugs available. It is always a difficult factor to measure; but concerning environmental matters we are required to recognise not only the costs of preventing damage to the environment but also the costs of not doing so.
There is an immediate problem. Whether the leaked report is right or wrong is important and worrying, and does not brook delay. The problem relates to the value of the navigational charts which exist in that and other areas. It is said that the navigational charts around the mouth of the harbour were outdated and inadequate. Without commenting on whether that is a justifiable charge, I wish to hear from the Minister whether action is being taken to ensure that navigational charts in sensitive areas in the first place are brought up to date. Perhaps he will comment not on the specifics of the Milford Haven situation but on the action that the Government are taking in a more general way. Information relating to tides is very important. I hope that the Government will be able to assure the House that they are doing their best to ensure that around our coasts accurate information relating to tides is provided.
I understand the Minister's situation. I have suffered myself from what has been called "salvage by committee". It is very difficult because so many interests are involved. One has the sense that if one does not consult while such situations are going on, people with a pecuniary or other interest will feel that they have not been treated fairly. On the other hand, it is very important to ensure that the swiftest possible and most direct action and responsibility is taken when such situations arise. I do not cast blame on the Government even if they are ultimately found to be responsible in some way or another in the final report. I know the pressures that are on the Minister. I know that mistakes can be made by any government. These are largely regulatory matters. Therefore, except where there has been an action taken deliberately (I do not say at this stage that it happened in this case) to take avoiding action or action which might mitigate a disaster on a political basis, I do not criticise the Government. I want to make that very clear.
I repeat: I believe that wider lessons can be learnt than will be available from consideration of the reports that will be made available to us. I have said on many occasions, having consulted the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, that I believe it would have been right—I still believe that it may be right, and it is not too late—to reconvene the committee to see whether any wider lessons can be learnt. I put that point to the Minister once again. I am sorry that I have taken so long, but it is important to comment on some of these matters.

33
I now turn to the amendments. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 seek to define the circumstances that trigger intervention. They are comparable in seeking to define an accident. They are not exactly similar but the objects are clearly the same. I suggest that Amendment No. 8 adds certain important components; namely,
"the loss or impairment of propulsion, navigational facilities or power on board a ship".
The Minister said that that is outside the definition that has been internationally approved. Certainly existing provisions were inadequate in terms of a dangerous situation such as that of the "Braer" where a vessel was incapacitated but not yet damaged.
The Minister said that the Government take their position from Article 221 of the UNCLOS intervention convention of 1969. He thereby recognises the inadequacy of the existing law. That is why his amendments are before the House today. However, while that definition would probably encompass a systems failure on board, there remain difficulties in the requirement of an imminent threat of material damage to the vessel or to cargo. But when damage is imminent, may it not be too late to intervene? Therefore we suggest expanding the definition of "occurrence" to extend, as in Amendment No. 8, to,
"the loss or impairment of propulsion, navigational facilities or power on board a ship";
and we would remove the word "imminent". I understand that the Minister feels that he has gone so far as he can under international law. However, I submit that in domestic legislation we are not obliged to follow in precisely the same terms the form of a convention. I further submit that the requirement regarding the word "imminent" is necessary. It drastically reduces the possibility of taking effective action if there is no possibility of that until the last possible moment.
We await the Minister's response to this matter. It is possible that guidance will be issued following the lines of our amendment. I suggest that the Minister might take that idea on board. However, if there is any doubt and he is reluctant to do so, I suggest that our amendment is needed to ensure greater effectiveness and safety of the intervention that is proposed. The suggestions we have made provide in this respect a more secure way of dealing with the matter than that proposed by the Minister.
The Minister dealt with the other amendments. We sought in Amendment No. 4 to clarify the status of the Marine Pollution Control Unit's national contingency plan by giving it formal recognition in the Act. The Minister does not want to do so at this stage.
4.30 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, indeed I do. Another amendment in my name whose number I need to check effectively does the same thing.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister.
The question that we raise in relation to pilots was effectively dealt with in the Minister's remarks. I am grateful to him for following up the debates that we had in Committee.
34
This has been a useful debate. The Minister might like to comment on just one other point. Are the Government proposing to remove winter-only tug charterers at Dover, Stornoway and Falmouth? If so, why? In what way would that be an advantage? If the Minister says that there are no such plans, I shall be delighted. However, that was reported in the press and that is the reason I pursue the matter.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I had intended to remain silent during this debate because I did not take part in previous debates on the Bill. However, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, raised a point that I should like to support.
I accept the Minister's comment about the inappropriateness of a long discussion of a leaked report, particularly if we are to have a chance to discuss the report once it is published. I should like a reassurance that tide tables and navigational charts are kept continuously under review.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I join in the welcome that was given to government Amendment No. 7. It is essential that the power should extend to harbour authorities and harbourmasters, and also to pilots. Let me make it clear that, although I suggested that it should extend to cargo owners, I am not in the least bit troubled by the fact that that has not been done—not least because in most pollution cases, the pollutant is oil. Most oil is carried for the oil majors, who in their own interests in terms of public relations and other more financial matters will co-operate to the full. I just thought that in terms of comprehensiveness it would be no bad idea. However, as I say, I am not in the least troubled by that omission.
I am a little troubled by the general remarks made by the Minister that it did not follow that intervention powers would be used in every case—I agree that they would not necessarily be used in every case—and that it was the intention to continue with co-operation. I wholly support that. A large number of people are involved in these incidents each of whom has expertise, and co-operation is essential. However, the bottom line is that the Secretary of State, through his official on the spot, is responsible whether he intervenes or whether he does not intervene. He is either responsible because he did not intervene or responsible because he did do so. But what is absolutely clear is that that official cannot stand by while arguments are taking up valuable time. He cannot stand by and concur in the form of not exercising intervention powers in a plan with which he is not in total agreement. If he is not in total agreement, he simply has to intervene. There are no two ways about it.
At one stage I gently enquired, in a quite different case, whether intervention powers were contemplated and I was told that they were contemplated. But I gained the impression, which may be wrong, that the exercise of intervention powers was thought to involve some formality—some drafting or drawing up of documents. I hope that is not the correct view. I see that the Minister agrees that that is not the correct view and I am delighted.

35
There have been various references to keeping charts and tide tables up to date. Obviously that is important. But there is a limit to the extent to which charts can be corrected. The shingle bank which is not far from where I live is, I am told by the Southampton Port Authority, permanently on the move. One cannot produce charts every six months. Tide tables are at best a very crude guide to how much water there will be under the keel at any particular time, since the depth of water depends on atmospheric considerations of one kind or another.
The plain answer surely is that it is desirable that major changes should be recorded on charts but subject to that it is for masters of ships to allow a wide margin before they try to plot a course and if they want up-to-date and precise information to communicate with the harbour authority, who will undoubtedly have tide gauges and other means of giving him more precise information.
Apart from that, the only very minor point that I want to mention—I am sure that there is very good reason for it—concerns the definition of "pilot". I had always understood that traditionally the master had the conduct of his vessel—he was responsible for it—and the pilot was his adviser. It may very well be that this is taken from a succession of pilotry definitions, in which case I have nothing further to say about it. Indeed, I have nothing further to say about it anyway because we must get this Bill through and no doubt everyone will know what is meant by a "pilot", even if this is not a very good description.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps I may just ask the Minister another question. I am sorry but I forgot to put the point. In the review that is to be undertaken of the national contingency plan, will the national wildlife contingency plan which is currently in preparation by country conservation agencies in association with the MCPU be taken into account?
4.45 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate which has ranged widely, as do the amendments.
I turn to the general points made by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, first with regard to the "Sea Empress". He was absolutely true to his word and did not engage in anything that would be inappropriate, given the draft nature of the report about which we have heard. I shall repeat again: clearly, it is in everyone's interests that the investigation is completed and the report issued as soon as possible. But what I find particularly distressing about the events over the weekend and the reportage of a leaked document is not only that the document was leaked and issued to those affected in confidence but also that it is in draft and this is very much part of the investigative procedure. The MAIB interviews witnesses, takes a great deal of information into account and then puts its report to those who are affected directly for comment. That is the opportunity quite rightly for those who are affected to make representations. If the MAIB does not accept them, it is for them to submit alternative texts.
36
I draw your Lordships' attention to a statement issued by the chief inspector on Friday. It reads:
"Under the statutory procedures covering marine accidents I am required to consult those whose reputations may be adversely affected by my report into a marine accident. This procedure is essential to ensure fairness and to allow those involved to comment on the accuracy of my findings. Until I have had an opportunity to consider any comments I receive from the individuals concerned my report cannot be finalised. I stand ready to consider modifying my findings in the light of any new points which may be put to me by the individuals I have consulted.
"The draft report on the SEA EMPRESS has been circulated in confidence under these procedures. I very much regret that this confidence has not been honoured. It is unfair to those involved with the incident to assume that any material said to come from the draft will, in fact, represent the eventual findings and recommendations of my final report".
I do not want to go on about this matter unduly but that puts the picture in its completeness.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, made a number of points more generally. The first was about the issue of tugs and a letter which I wrote to NUMAST. I do not have a copy of the letter in front of me but I know the correspondence to which he refers. We are in agreement in saying that tugs were an expensive outlay and any such very considerable expense has to be justified. It has to be weighed up against potential benefits and other options of how money can be spent on combating marine pollution and saving lives. That, essentially, is what I have always maintained and what I said in my correspondence with NUMAST.
The noble Lord asked about the cost of the tugs. In round terms—there are contractual details here—the cost is some £3 million per year now for three tugs, bearing in mind that these are for the winter period only. So it is approximately £1 million per tug per winter period. Those are the sums about which we are talking. They are very considerable sums indeed when put against other search and rescue assets.
The noble Lord concluded by asking me whether I had any proposals to remove the tugs. Clearly, when one is spending very considerable amounts of taxpayers' money, one has to be absolutely convinced that they are good value for money and they are achieving their aim. I have nothing at the moment to suggest that that is not the case. Very shortly a technical report will be published detailing what the tugs were tasked to do in their first two trial periods of operation. One has to recall that only three years ago there were no government paid-for tugs of any kind around the coast. To my understanding, this kind of very large salvage tug had never been chartered on a stand-by basis by the Government at all. So this is new territory that we have gone into. We have spent a great deal of money on this and I believe it is right that the lists should be analysed very properly. But I do not think there is anything between the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and me on that subject. Certainly, he should not read anything into any correspondence with NUMAST which indicates anything other than that. The tugs have been extremely useful and have demonstrated their ability as a valuable asset.
The noble Lord also asked me about wider lessons to be learnt from the "Sea Empress" incident. The priority is now for the MAIB investigation to be completed, for

37
the comments to be taken into account and for the report to be published. There is the environmental investigation as well. I am absolutely with the noble Lord. All the lessons to be learnt must be taken fully into account. Should there appear to be any need to re-examine any of the conclusions put forward by previous statements on maritime policy or indeed by the conclusions of the noble and learned Lord's report, clearly we shall have to look at that, if any of the recommendations from the inquiries into the "Sea Empress" showed that way. I can give the House a firm undertaking that the Government will take the recommendations of the Marine Accident and Investigation Branch extremely seriously. It is right that we learn all the lessons that are available from the report.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, returned to the amendments which deal with the definition of "accident". He is quite right in that we have gone as far as we can within our international obligations in coming up with a definition which we firmly believe enables us to react in a proper manner where there is the threat that we have established. For that reason, I prefer our amendment to that of the noble Lord. My advice is that the government amendment would cover ships drifting without power where there is a threat of pollution as defined in the amendment. But Amendment No. 8 could prevent the UK from acceding to the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention.
On the question of tides and charts, the problem was dealt with extremely thoroughly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, in terms of the changing nature of the seabed and the effects of the atmospheric conditions on any specific day on tides and the amount of water available for navigation. The Hydrographic Office has a good reputation for its work. My understanding is that it was not sent a copy of the MAIB's draft report. One has to draw one's own conclusions from that. It is not for me to make specific statements on that until the report is with Ministers and published.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will give way. In relation to the question of hydrography, how many, if any, hydrography vessels are in the ownership of the department or any other agency? Is it that the department charters hydrography vessels? Is the Minister satisfied that sufficient is being done in that respect to ensure that appropriate research is being conducted and accurate information given to those who are working in ships and to those who own them?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, in the general round of things and not referring specifically to the incident in question, I have not been aware of any such problems. In regular meetings with shipowners, fishermen and others who rely on charts around the UK coast, I have not been made aware of such problems. With regard to the detail of the chartering of vessels and so forth, I shall be more than happy to write to the noble Lord.
38
Turning to a point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, with regard to my statement in relation to co-operation, it is our view that these matters work best through co-operation. However, there is to be a review of the national contingency plan. What I said about intervention powers in general is that we would use powers to require salvage plans to be submitted for agreement by the Secretary of State's senior representative. Therefore there could well be an intervention that stopped short of intervening directly to take overall command of an incident. However, those powers are available where necessary.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, that addresses a point which troubles me. If there is a distinction to be made between taking overall powers and intervening in specific respects, we shall find ourselves in difficulties. Surely the Secretary of State's representative must be able to say: "I have heard what you say. I have considered it, but I do not agree. It would be better if we did this". He should not have to use intervention powers to achieve that. If there is the slightest reluctance on the part of people who have power, such as harbour authorities and so forth, to go along with the Secretary of State's chosen route, then he merely says, "This is what we are going to do".
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I do not believe there is very much between myself and the noble and learned Lord on this point. Perhaps I have not explained myself sufficiently clearly. I agree that where the Secretary of State's senior representative felt that in the case of disagreement with advice that had been given and the taking of overall command where there was good reason to do so, he should be able to do that and, indeed, is able to do that.
The noble and learned Lord pressed me on another point and inquired whether there was some great bureaucratic chain that had to be followed or whether the procedure could be followed rapidly. I am pleased to reassure him that it can be done rapidly and there is not a great long process to be undertaken where the situation demands it and where it can be so justified.
The final point the noble and learned Lord asked me was in regard to the definition of "pilot". I understand—I am subject to correction—that that has been directly taken from previous legislation. I hope that answers the questions put forward.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I intervened after the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, to ask whether the national wildlife contingency plan was to be taken into account in the review of the national contingency plan itself.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the answer is yes. I hope that with that single word answer the noble Lord is satisfied and the House will feel able to accept Amendment No. 2.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 38, after ("waters)") insert ("is amended in accordance with subsections (1A) to (1C).
(1A)").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to. [Amendments Nos. 4 to 6 not moved.]
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 41, at end insert— ("(IB) In subsection (2)—
(a) after sub-paragraph (b) there is inserted—
"(bb) to any pilot of the ship, or"; and
(b) at the end there is inserted "or
(d) where the ship is in waters which are regulated or managed by a harbour authority—

(i) to the harbour master, or

(ii) to the harbour authority."

(1C) In subsection (9)—
(a) for the definition of "accident" there is substituted—
""accident" means a collision of ships, stranding or other incident of navigation, or other occurrence on board a ship or external to it resulting in material damage or imminent threat of material damage to a ship or cargo;"; and.
(b) after the definition of "owner" there is inserted—
""pilot" means any person not belonging to a ship who has the conduct of the ship;".").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke to this with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Clause 5 [Waste reception facilities at harbours]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 4, line 38, after ("may") insert (", after consulting interested bodies,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can be perhaps uncharacteristically short in moving Amendment No. 9. The question that arises here relates to the nature of consultation that will be taken into account. I do not need to adumbrate upon that further. The Minister has engaged in a good deal of consultation, but we are here talking of the actual process and how those situations will emerge and develop. I beg to move.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, perhaps I may give a similarly brief response. A major plank of the Government's policy is to consult with interested parties on a wide range of measures. However, Amendment No. 9 duplicates existing provisions. There is already a requirement for the Secretary of State to consult interested organisations. The requirement is given in Section 306(4) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, as amended by
40
paragraph 14(5) of Schedule 6 to the Bill, and therefore Amendment No. 9 is unnecessary. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, unhesitatingly I rise to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 5, line 11, at end insert—
(" () No order may be made under this section or any of sections 130B to 130D unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in this context is there any reason why the affirmative resolution procedure should not be applied? I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord has made the shortest speech to an amendment that I have yet heard. I regret that my answer, clear as it will be, will take a fraction longer. The intention of the amendment would appear to be to make all regulations on port waste reception facilities subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That would unnecessarily delay the making of regulations on waste management planning. It is important that the regulations are made as quickly as practicable. Our intention is that the regulations would evolve as the Government and the industry gain more experience of the practicalities of the measures we are introducing. Once the first regulations—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, can the noble Viscount explain why matters would be delayed if there were an affirmative resolution?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my understanding is that time has to be found in both Houses of Parliament for matters to be debated. Hence the delay that might well occur.
Once the first regulations had been made we would intend to keep them up to date with technical amendments. It would therefore be inappropriate and unnecessarily time-consuming for all such amendments to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Furthermore, the drafting of the amendment is flawed because it would conflict with existing provisions on the procedure for making regulations.
For those reasons, I hope the noble Lord will agree with me that the current arrangements in the Bill are more appropriate.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am little puzzled. I could understand if the Minister were to say that for a particular class of draft regulation it would not be appropriate to follow this procedure. However, he excludes them all.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, in the interest of brevity, I did not go on to describe the procedures for this section of the Bill in terms of the fact that both affirmative and negative resolution procedures are used.

41
New Section 130D(3) and (4) would apply both affirmative and negative resolution procedures to different parts of Clause 5, depending on the nature of the regulations. The noble Lord's amendment would add a conflicting provision to Section 130A and, if it were to be adopted, would add ambiguity. It is not very clear which of the conflicting provisions would apply. Different procedures are used for different parts of the Bill. That is essentially the answer to the noble Lord's question.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 5, line 12, at beginning insert—
("() The Secretary of State shall produce draft regulations on waste management plans no later than 1st July 1998.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if adopted, Amendment No. 11 would require the Secretary of State to produce draft regulations on waste management plans by no later than 1st July 1998. The history of this matter goes back to Recommendation 27 of the Donaldson Report. It suggested that the Government should place a statutory obligation on port and terminal operators to provide reception facilities and encourage them to consult and to set up a system of certification. The Government's response can be summarised by saying that the matter was under consideration.
In Committee, the Minister suggested (at col. CWH 17 of the Official Report) that the Government's response should be to bring forward plans on a voluntary basis. They did not want to bind themselves or be overprescriptive. The Minister said:
"we need a system which enables plans to be properly scrutinised".—[Official Report, 25/11/96; col. CWH 17.]
However, the plans first need to be produced. The amendment therefore sets out a timescale for draft plans to be produced. I emphasise the word "draft".
The Department of Transport announced in January 1996 its intention to require ports and harbours to produce waste management plans as part of the 18 new measures to reduce discharges of waste from ships. In the announcement the department recognised that at the moment the provision of such port reception facilities is haphazard and that research by the MSA had shown that where the facilities existed they could be hard to find and were poorly publicised. The department also stated that the problems would be addressed by the strict application of a waste management planning process. However, the Bill as drafted states:
"The regulations may make provision requiring a harbour authority for a harbour in the United Kingdom".
Therefore, the Bill does not require; it simply says "may".
In the intervening period, some ports and harbours, including some of the ports owned by the ABP group, have voluntarily produced waste management plans. However, I am informed that the MSA currently does not propose to assess the adequacy of those plans. What is the point of producing plans if no one is to look
42
at them? Scrutiny could be through a sub-group of the Maritime Pollution Action Group, which comprises a number of different organisations, but it does not deliver the system of certification of all the waste reception facilities as called for in Recommendation 27 of the Donaldson Report.
The Government may say that the ports are responding favourably to a voluntary initiative so they should be given more time to see what happens. Our amendment would give them more time, but it would be a fixed amount of time. The Government need to decide which government agency should be responsible for assessing the adequacy of the plans. Is it to be the MSA; is it to be the Maritime Pollution Action Group; or should it be the Environment Agency? We must ensure that any such plan does not make British ports less competitive, although I believe that such an argument can be overemphasised. We would need to see evidence that British ports would be less competitive if this happened.
Finally, perhaps the Minister can help the House by telling us how much the production of these plans would cost. As my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis said in connection with an earlier amendment, there is not only the cost of making the plans; there is also the cost of the clean up when things go wrong.
It is important that consultation on these plans should be as wide as possible. I am convinced that all ports should produce draft waste management plans. If there are no waste management plans, there can be no assessment. That is the purpose of the amendment. It requires the Secretary of State to produce draft regulations on a fixed timescale. The timescale of 1st July 1998 seems appropriate. I beg to move.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, this is an area in which we need to have a degree of uniformity. That can be produced only by regulations. There is considerable variation between ports. The more these matters are left to voluntary and unregulated plans, the less likely it is that there will be a fairly uniform code of practice. It is clear that not every port will need to have exactly the same regulations. However, there should be a general standard which can be relied on by everyone who has to deal with this matter. For that we need draft regulations to be produced fairly soon. Without regulations it is likely that there will be no resources. Resources are needed. If one has regulations, one has enforcement, and resources have to be produced. That is a good reason for supporting the amendment.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, there has certainly been good progress made on waste management plans. It was an important part of the package of 18 measures which I announced to combat the problem of illegal discharges. I believe that one major side effect was to draw attention to the issue of illegal, deliberate discharges. Waste management plans are a significant part of the approach. I do not believe that there is a great deal of difference between any of us who have spoken on the issue today.

43
As regards the amendment itself, I do not believe that it is necessary because the Government are already committed to making regulations on port waste management plans. I have stated on a number of occasions that we intend to make these regulations as quickly as possible and practicable.
However, we need to allow sufficient time to take account of the lessons learnt from the voluntary planning regime introduced last year. The amendment is undesirable because it would restrict the time available to do this.
It is important to note that the concept of port waste management planning is relatively new. I am anxious, therefore, to ensure that we learn the necessary lessons in the light of the experience gained from the current voluntary regime before we make regulations.
As I stated in Committee, a sub-group of the Maritime Pollution Advisory Group is reviewing the port waste management plans which have been produced so far. That is in answer to the specific question of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. Following consideration by the full group, my department will consult more widely on draft guidelines on the preparation and content of port waste management plans. These guidelines will be based on the best practices used in the guidelines produced so far.
It is of course better to make effective regulations after due consideration rather than to make bad regulations quickly. However, I certainly hope that we will be in a position to make draft regulations well before the date which the noble Lord gave of July 1998.
To the best of my knowledge there is no precedent for a provision of the type proposed by this amendment. It would also be ineffective. It would only require the Secretary of State to produce draft regulations by a set date, not to bring them into force. In fact, what I propose is for regulations to be brought forward as soon as possible following consultation on these new arrangements on the voluntary regime and for regulations—not just draft regulations—to be made as soon as possible. Getting the draft regulations in place is a key part of that.
As I have already said, we are committed to making these regulations just as soon as it is sensible and practicable to do so. I hope that the House will accept that, based on the experience that has been gained since we announced that this was due to be part of our policy, a great deal has changed. I commend the ports industry, environmental bodies and others in the waste management business who have been involved in this process for the hard work that has been put into reaching the position that we have today. The Government accept that it is an important part of policy to make sure that waste management plans are right and we are committed to that. For those reasons I hope that the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to include the specific provision that he has mentioned.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his remarks about the progress which the Government are making in encouraging ports to
44
produce these plans. It is extremely good news that he hopes to beat the date that has been inserted in the amendment for the production of a draft. It is obvious that the amendment is not in a form which could enter the statute book because, as the noble Viscount has rightly said, it is to some extent meaningless. The regulations may come in and it is good to hear that so much consultation is going on. I am sure that it will continue in the future. I believe that we have had a very useful debate on this issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 6, leave out lines 37 and 38 and insert ("The master of a ship shall—").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment for the convenience of the House I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 16. Amendment No. 12 is designed to replace what one may interpret as a slightly nebulous statement to the effect that,
'The regulations may make provision requiring the master of a ship",
with
"The master of a ship shall if reasonably required to do so by a Departmental officer or in such other circumstances … to deposit any waste carried by the ship [in] prescribed … facilities".
Many groups with which we have had discussions have emphasised as have others—and I support this— that there should be a power on the face of the Bill to allow, not require, a departmental officer to require the discharge of waste from ships in port where the officer has reasonable cause to consider it appropriate. At the moment the drafting of the Bill includes just enabling powers. These powers would allow a departmental officer to detain a ship which does not comply with this request. Again, as the Bill is currently drafted, they are just enabling powers.
I believe that it is extremely important that these powers should be there for cases where the departmental officer has reasonable cause to believe that something untoward could happen. This amendment does not aim to put a universal requirement for mandatory discharge on the face of the Bill because I believe that would be unacceptable. Obviously, there needs to be much thought and consultation before such regulations are drafted.
It is important to focus on exceptional cases because it is in such cases that things can go wrong. As an example of an exceptional case one might consider a vessel which has made an illegal discharge in the past— we shall be discussing later today whether there will be records of such illegal discharges, but let us assume that that is known—and a vessel which is proposing to leave port with full waste tanks.
I believe that the judgment and discretion to use these new powers should rest with the MSA inspectors themselves. They have shown that they have used judgment and discretion in the exercise of their existing port state control powers. One would assume that these powers would not be very different.
It is very important that, if a ship comes into a UK port fully laden with waste and refuses to discharge, the port state control inspectors should have the power to require discharge to reception facilities if they think fit.
I now move to the imposition of charges. I believe that I have covered Amendments Nos. 12 and 13. I shall not be moving Amendment No. 14. Amendment No. 16 will enable the Secretary of State to implement regulations which make it a requirement for ports to implement an inclusive fee system rather than simply just giving them the option to do so. I am speaking to this amendment for the convenience of the House. I shall continue and then the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, can make his comments afterwards. It is extremely important that that facility exists.
There has been much argument about whether an inclusive fee system is the most appropriate for all ports. There have been discussions about whether such a system would make British ports uncompetitive. However, for waste such as garbage and non-cargo oily wastes it should be possible to enable the Secretary of State to require ports to implement an inclusive fee system rather than merely giving them the option if, as a result of consultation with the environmental groups and the industry, that is thought desirable. I beg to move.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I entirely agree with all that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has said on the earlier amendments. I shall limit my remarks to Amendment No. 16 which stands in my name. Although I understood the noble Lord to be in general support of it, I note that he has not put his name to it.
Amendment No. 16 allows regulations requiring the use of inclusive fee systems. The text of new subsection (4)(a) in the Bill as it stands will allow regulations prohibiting charging for reception facilities. The implication is that the regulations could require that reception facilities must be provided completely free of charge by harbour authorities. We do not believe that prohibiting charges is in the best interests of the environment. We would prefer that the use of reception facilities was charged for, but that the charges were included in the harbour dues that vessels pay automatically when entering port. That is known as the inclusive fee system.
The logic behind it is that vessel owners are more likely to use something that they have already paid for. The system was recommended in the Donaldson Report at Recommendation 27C. Furthermore, in January 1996 the Government stated that they,
"will seek powers to allow for the voluntary [inclusive fee system] regime to be made mandatory, should this appear to be necessary".
Our amendment therefore intends to avoid regulations which would require completely free use of reception facilities. Instead, we propose regulations that would require the introduction of an inclusive fee system. We acknowledge that the inclusive fee system is probably most appropriate for garbage and non-cargo oily wastes. Oily waste from cargo tanks is likely to be more voluminous and specialised and would therefore cost more than an inclusive fee system could cope with
46
easily. Those differences in approach for different types of waste could easily be taken into account when the regulations are drafted.
The Government may state that the Bill as it stands allows for regulations requiring an inclusive fee system. However, we consider that any text prohibiting charges for the use of reception facilities clearly rules out the inclusive fee system. That is because the inclusive fee system still involves a charge, albeit included in harbour dues.
The ports industry is known to be opposed to the inclusive fee system because it considers that it would create more administration for it since the industry would generally have to reimburse waste contractors out of their dues. In addition, the industry fears that it could make UK ports unattractive when compared with countries which do not use such an inclusive fee system. We acknowledge that more administration would be involved, but believe that the inclusive fee system is likely to be introduced anyway on a North Sea-wide basis in the medium term. We do not foresee that it will make UK ports more unattractive. When we come to Amendment No. 16, I hope that the Government will be prepared to accept it.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we have had an interesting discussion on the issues raised by Amendments Nos. 12, 13, 14 and 16 to which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has just spoken.
Noble Lords clearly support the purpose of our proposals in new Section 130C(2) and wish them to be brought into effect as soon as possible. The new powers would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring ships to discharge waste into port waste reception facilities. Discharge would be required either in such circumstances as prescribed in the regulations or when directed to do so by a port state control inspector. The issue of the enforcement of compliance is raised again in Amendment No. 15, which follows this group.
The powers could be a useful addition to existing powers to enforce pollution regulations. Clearly, no ship should be allowed to leave port if it is carrying too much waste on board. However, a power to require waste to be discharged would provide only part of the answer. It would not stop ships from discharging into the sea before they entered port. We have to be careful about producing a system which might unintentionally bring about such a reaction from unscrupulous owners or masters.
It is also vitally important that we do not act too hastily. The new powers would need to be used carefully. We have repeatedly stated that we will consult fully on these regulations, as we have already consulted on the other elements of the Bill. This is necessary to ensure that the benefits and costs are proportionate, and that the practical difficulties of mandatory discharge are fully addressed. We also need to make sure that the regulations are consistent with international law and our treaty obligations.
Our first priority remains to develop regulations on waste management planning to improve the provision of port waste reception facilities. The planning process will

47
ensure that ships which regularly visit a port should be consulted about the adequacy of the facilities in that port. It would be far better to encourage ship operators to use facilities than to attempt to force them to do so. But, if encouragement does not achieve the results that we are committed to, we are fully ready to consider making mandatory discharge regulations under this power, as I have already made clear.
The amendment would remove a number of safeguards which Clause 5 provides for the regulations: for example, Clause 5 currently requires that there should be full consultation with interested parties and that the regulations would need to be approved by both Houses. It also stipulates the offences for non-compliance with the regulations. The amendments would have the effect of exempting mandatory discharge from these provisions. I doubt whether that is the intention.
Amendment No. 13 would add the words "by regulations" after "prescribed". This is unnecessary because the term "prescribe" is defined in new Section 130E as meaning "prescribe by regulations". That is merely a technical point but, as I have said, there is a difficulty with this amendment with regard to consultation.
I turn now to Amendment No. 16, to which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, spoke. The Bill allows for regulations to prevent direct charges from being levied for the use of waste reception facilities. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, pointed out that mariners are more likely to use port waste reception facilities if direct charges are not imposed when the facilities are used.
This amendment would require port authorities to include charges for waste reception facilities in harbour dues. Although we expect that many port authorities might choose to recover costs in this way, it is not the only means available to them. For example, some port authorities might choose to recover costs through fixed term contracts with port users. The costs of some facilities may also be recovered through profits made by recycling waste materials. The legislation should recognise the need for operational and commercial decisions by individual ports.
The Bill achieves the same results as this amendment by providing for regulations which, if made, would prohibit direct charges. The intention behind Amendment No. 16, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, is already covered by the terms of the Bill. There is additional flexibility for such charging systems as fixed term contracts to be employed. The Bill allows, but does not compel, port authorities to recover those costs through harbour dues if they so choose. We believe that this is a far more effective and flexible mechanism which recognises the commercial decisions that port authorities must take about the operation of their business.
To sum up the final amendment in this group, there is very little between the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and me on the issue of direct charging. I have given the Government's overall view on that subject. However,
48
I hope that the noble Lord will agree that the Bill already contains what he requires while providing additional flexibility to port operators. With those words, I hope that both noble Lords will feel able to withdraw the amendments that they have tabled.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of Amendment No 12. He has given me a good deal of comfort that in many ways the Government's heart is in the right place, as we have heard throughout this debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 not moved.]
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 6, line 44, at end insert—
("() The Departmental Officer may order the detention of a ship which fails to deposit waste as required by subsection (2) until such time as the master of the ship shall comply with the initial request.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall not detain the House long on Amendment No. 15. The amendment seeks to put into words what the Minister said in a recent letter addressed to my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. He said that the best way to ensure that ships complied with waste requirements was to prevent them from leaving harbour. In regard to the requirement to comply with the requirement to discharge waste, he said that the best deterrent for a ship operator was the threat that the ship could be detained in port and therefore prevented from trading until the waste had been discharged. That is the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, this amendment has much the same intention as the Government's Amendment No. 50 which adds a new paragraph 13A to Schedule 6. Both amendments will enable a port state control inspector to delay the departure of a vessel until the master has complied with the requirement to discharge waste. However, the government amendment would achieve this by extending the existing powers to prohibition notices which would ensure consistency with other enforcement measures and also ensure that the master had recourse to existing rights to refer the notice to arbitration, which is an important safeguard, if he considered that the power had been used unreasonably. The noble Lord's amendment creates a wholly new power of detention which is not fully defined in legislation. I suggest that is neither justified nor desirable.
This is another case of great minds thinking remarkably alike. I hope that the noble Lord will express a preference for the Government's amendment, Amendment No. 50, and seek leave to withdraw Amendment No. 15.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am very pleased that the Minister has taken his own advice and drafted a suitable amendment. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 16:
Page 7, line 5, leave out ("prohibiting the imposition") and insert ("requiring the inclusion in harbour dues").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I listened with interest to what the Minister had to say. I will go away and work it out on the back of an envelope. In the meantime, I do not propose to move my amendment.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 17:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
REGISTER OF COMPLIANCE OF VESSELS WITH STATUTORY PROVISION
(".—(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to maintain a register containing—

(a) any documents produced under section 257(2)(a) or copied under section 257(2)(b) of the 1995 Act;

(b) any improvement notices served under section 261 of the 1995 Act;

(c) any prohibition notice served under section 262 of the 1995 Act;

(d) all other relevant or consequent documents associated with the serving of prohibition or improvement notices under section 261 and 262 of the 1995 Act;

(e) written details of any offences committed under sections 131, 139 or 266 of the 1995 Act; and

(f) written details of fines imposed for offences under sections 131 or 139 of the 1995 Act.

(2) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State maintaining a register under this section—

(a) to secure that the register is available, at all reasonable times, for inspection by the public free of charge;

(b) to afford members of the public facilities for obtaining copies of the documents kept in the register on the payment of reasonable charges;

(c) to supply members of the public with copies of the documents kept in the register on payment of a reasonable charge for copying, not more than two months following receipt of a written request for such documents; and

(d) to ensure that all documents mentioned in subsection (1) are placed on the register within two weeks of their being brought into existence.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 17 is concerned with a register of compliance of vessels with statutory provisions. This matter was discussed at some length at Committee stage. I apologise to the House for returning to it. There is a need to revisit the question of public accountability and public availability of records. This stems from the fact that it is desirable that pollution regulation in the shipping industry is brought into line with that of land-based industry in terms of access to environmental information. The pollution regulation of land-based industry is already open to public scrutiny by virtue of a number of public registers set up under the Water Act 1989, the Water Resources Act 1991, the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and other Acts and regulations. All enforcement and prohibition notices served on offenders by the Environment Agency under the system of integrated pollution control are available on a public register, as will be the new notices to be served on premises and companies to secure improvements in water pollution control.
I do not accept the argument of the Government that marine industrial pollution should be the subject of any less public scrutiny than land-based pollution. Of course, the problem is that enforcement and prohibition notices are not geographically limited and a vessel on which an enforcement notice may be served will probably be a danger to the marine environment wherever it may be in the world. However, it is desirable to have a register and that improvements in ship practices to meet international standards should not be limited by geography. Despite what was said by the Minister during Committee, it is arguable that the Government could not legitimately refuse to publish inspected garbage records if required to do so by an individual under the terms of the EU's Freedom of Access to Environmental Information Directive (90/313). The refusal to support the proposed public register does not sit well with the Government's own code of practice on access to government information. It would be interesting to learn how the information could be refused if requested under the Environmental Information Regulations 1992.
I am sure that the Minister would not take it unkindly if I questioned his statement that the documents contained in such a register could be open to misinterpretation. I suggest that that is hardly a legitimate reason for refusing to set up the register. That is certainly not a valid exemption under the EC directive. I suggest to the Government that the setting up of such a register and making available such information would be a progressive action. It would bring the matter into line with the register and information available for land-based pollution. It would also comply with EU directives. I believe that this is a very positive step. I suggest that it would not cost a great deal of money. I do not know whether the Minister has an estimate of the possible cost. I believe that this is a very important matter to be considered. I beg to move.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, as ever, I am grateful for helpful advice from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. We had an interesting discussion on this issue in Committee. I have looked again at the arguments that have been put forward. I maintain that we have gone to considerable lengths to publicise offences where they occur. That is a much better method of giving the matter publicity as a deterrent effect, which is what we are all concerned about, and entails a considerably smaller bureaucracy than the cost of maintaining a comprehensive register. This amendment would entail considerable additional cost and bureaucracy without providing any significant benefits to safety or pollution prevention.
We already publicise serious cases of safety and pollution offences. On one occasion we circulated to the media full colour aerial photographs of a vessel discharging wastes into the sea. Such publicity makes it clear which ships have been found to be substandard or to be operating illegally. Publicity of this type affects the choices made by cargo interests of the vessels that they charter and encourages ship operators

51
to behave responsibly. For such publicity to be effective, it needs to be precisely targeted on serious safety and pollution offences.
The register of offences proposed in this amendment would not be targeted in this way. It would have the effect of obscuring serious safety and pollution offences by a mass of information about less important incidents, including offences which had been committed accidentally. It would also be available only to those who go looking for it rather than the approach we have taken which is to be rather more proactive. We believe that we can achieve a greater impact by providing information which can be published in the specialist press. That way it is quickly and effectively brought to the attention of cargo owners and others involved in transportation by sea.
We must maintain a sense of proportion over this issue. We shall continue to target resources on publicising serious offences. A register such as the one that has been suggested would be bureaucratic and costly. It would divert resources from where they are most needed, while providing little or no tangible environmental or safety benefit. Surely what we have to do with the resources that are at our disposal, without making the whole process unduly bureaucratic and complicated, is to make the maximum use of the resources that are available.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Will he give us some idea of the cost of this bureaucratic organisation that he has mentioned several times? It does not need to be particularly bureaucratic or costly. It would be useful if he could also give the House some information about the cost of operating the equivalent land-based public registers that I mentioned earlier. Will he also explain the difference between the land and the marine approach?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I do not have figures to reply to the questions that the noble Lord asked. Working up figures is in itself an expense on bureaucracy. The noble Lord has asked why one approach is taken for land-based pollution and another for marine-based pollution. Without making an obvious point, the answer is that ships can travel, discharge oil and commit offences in a wide variety of states and jurisdictions. So such a register maintained in the UK alone would have little real effect because it could in no way be comprehensive, apart, I suppose, for vessels that trade only within UK waters.
I have a feeling that that will not satisfy the noble Lord, but I hope that he thinks that we take this issue seriously and that we feel the best way of achieving it is to use the resources on generating publicity. As a final serious point, for any register to be maintained it would have to be done properly. One could not have a slap-dash, haphazard attempt at doing so, at minimal cost. It would have to be maintained with scrupulous accuracy and that in itself takes resources.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I listened carefully to what the Minister said, and I am grateful to him for his replies. I shall study them carefully, and may wish to revisit the matter. However, at present, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 18:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
INSPECTION AND REGISTER OF OIL RECORDS
(".—(1) It shall be the duty of port state control inspectors to make copies of all oil record books inspected.
(2) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to maintain a public register containing—

(a) any such copies made under subsection (1) above; and

(b) any written record of any reports to any harbour authority made under section 136 of the 1995 Act.

(3) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State in relation to any register under subsection (2) above—

(a) to secure that the register is available, at all reasonable times, for inspection by the public free of charge;

(b) to afford members of the public facilities for obtaining copies of the documents kept in the Register, on the payment of reasonable charges;

(c) to supply members of the public with copies of the documents kept in the register, on payment of a reasonable charge for copying, not more than two months following receipt of written request for such documents; and

(d) to ensure that all documents defined in subsection (2) are placed on the register within two weeks of their being brought into existence.

(4) In this section, 'oil record book' means any book having been issued to, and completed by, all visiting ships under regulation 10 of the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) Regulations 1996 or under any relevant international convention.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an amendment to insert an extra clause on oil record books and freedom of access to information. Oil record books are now to be provided to ships under the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) Regulations 1996. Ships are required to record a range of information about ballasting, discharging and disposing of oil residues. Harbour authorities have the power, but not the duty, to inspect them.
To be effective, those oil record books need to be inspected and made available in a public register to allow the legitimate scrutiny of ships' environmental records. Ships subject to those requirements are in port for some duration, easily giving adequate time for that inspection and copying to be undertaken. It is also required under the 1995 Act that any discharges of oil into harbours are reported to the harbour authority. That information, together with the copies of the oil record books, should be kept in a public register and so be subject to legitimate public scrutiny. The combination of requiring records to be kept, along with the prospect of public scrutiny, would secure a greater use of port reception facilities for oil by visiting ships.
The pollution regulation of the shipping industry is thus brought into line with land-based industry in terms of access to environmental information, which is immensely important. The pollution regulation of land-based industry is already open to public scrutiny by virtue of a number of public registers set up under the Water Act 1989, the Water Resources Act 1991, the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and other Acts and regulations.
We do not accept the Government's arguments that marine industrial pollution should be open to any less public scrutiny than land-based pollution. Furthermore, it is arguable that the Government could not legitimately refuse to publish inspected garbage records if required to do so by an individual under the terms of the Freedom of Access to Environmental Information Directive 90/313 EEC, nor does the refusal to support the proposed public registers sit well with the Government's own code of practice on access to government information.
It would be far more progressive were the government to set up a public register and thereby make the information accessible far more effectively and at a lower cost than would be the case if the legal machinations of applying the EEC directives had to be dealt with for each request. Without public registers there will be greater, not less, bureaucratic impact. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I shall not detain the House long over this amendment because it is similar to Amendment No. 17 to which I have just spoken. However, it gives me the opportunity to say that the content of this amendment in terms of freedom of information and freedom of access to environmental information directive from the European Community covers the same ground. When the Minister responds, perhaps he could answer the question which I posed just now, which applies equally to this amendment: how could the Government legitimately refuse to publish this information under the EEC freedom of access to environmental information directive?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the arguments with regard to this amendment have many similarities with the arguments to do with the previous amendment. They are to do with the bureaucracy of setting up formal registers. The Government's commitment to reducing pollution from vessels, be it accidental or deliberate, is without question. A large part of the Bill is to do with that very aim. We all have the same aim.
The amendment would require port state control inspectors to make copies of all oil record books inspected. Noble Lords will be aware that port state control inspectors carry out the majority of their work whilst on board ships. They do not generally have access to copying facilities while on board. It would be needlessly costly and time-consuming to remove all oil record books from the ship for them to be copied and then returned. It could also be contrary to our international obligations that port state control inspections should not cause undue delay for ships. It would not be justified to delay ships while copies are
54
made of oil record books, unless those record books suggested that there had been a breach of oil discharge regulations.
The amendment is also of questionable benefit. As with other amendments proposing registers of information, it would require voluminous information to be collated at considerable cost. It would be much more effective to use the information selectively to publicise ships which are found to be substandard or deliberately causing marine pollution. That remains our policy.
Many of the suggestions that have been put forward by noble Lords from all sides of the House have been picked up, and we have come forward with amendments to implement them. So I have no dogmatic opposition to the intention behind the proposals that have been put forward. My concern is one of practicality. I do not want to saddle the industry or the Government with additional bureaucracy unless it can be shown that that would have major benefits in terms of reducing pollution.
The government view is that a register such as this one, or the one proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on the previous amendment, would not have the effect of achieving major reductions in pollution and would not be justified. For those reasons, which are similar to the ones I used on the previous amendment, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he respond to the point about the application of the freedom of access to information directive? Is my noble friend right about the interpretation of that directive? If not, perhaps the Minister will explain why. I have some sort of interest in the directive because I introduced it.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, any document introduced by the noble Lord must be of considerable quality indeed. I am sure that the House will join me in that opinion.
The warmest words aside, I regret that I cannot answer either noble Lord who posed that question. I must take specific advice on that matter. Once I have done so, I shall be happy to write to the noble Lords and copy the letter—
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he assure the House that such correspondence will be placed in the Library and will be available well before the Third Reading?
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen: My Lords, yes.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I do not entirely accept the Minister's arguments, particularly in view of his present inability to answer the question posed by the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Clinton-Davis. When we have the answer I shall decide whether to proceed with the matter on Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 19:
Before Clause 7, insert the following new clause—
OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 131 OF 1995 ACT
(". In section 131(l)(a) of the 1995 Act the words "or master" shall be omitted.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee we had an interesting debate about the substance of this amendment. The Minister indicated that he would look again at the matter. He wrote to me on 19th December stating:
"Our policy is to seek to prosecute the owners and operators of ships rather than the crew. We believe that this will help to ensure that shipping companies instruct their crews to comply with regulations on pollution prevention and allow them sufficient time to do so. As regards the failure to comply with the requirement to discharge waste, the best deterrent for ship operators is the threat that the ship could be detained in port and thereby prevented from trading until the waste has been discharged".
I believe that there was also another letter but I cannot now remember. At all events, as regards the Bill the Minister was not moved to support the idea that a different regime should apply to masters as distinct from ship owners.
I agree with the Minister that the offences that we are considering are serious. It is important that the courts should take a more serious view of such acts and omissions. They need to be tough on offenders, but the evidence thus far is that they are not. Neither Parliament nor the Government can or should try to dictate to the courts, but at the end of the day the Minister is entitled to seek to guide them. It must be only a matter of guidance and perhaps the Minister will be able to tell the House about the actions that he has taken in that regard.
The issue between us is simply whether it is practicable to impose a penalty of £250,000 on a master against the background of the courts' actions thus far and whether it is right to give a signal to the courts that masters and owners should be dealt with on a similar basis. Of course, one recognises that once a conviction has been brought in a court must carry out an examination of means when it is contemplating a financial penalty.
We are considering the situation affecting magistrates' courts, the courts of summary jurisdiction, and not the Crown Courts where quite different powers apply. However, because we are dealing with a situation in which foreign ships may be involved and may seek to leave with some rapidity, it follows that in most cases, if not in all, thus far such trials have taken place in the magistrates' courts. The practical reason for that is that the trials need to take place quickly.
As a lawyer, I wish to see the courts given reasonable powers; powers that they will be inclined to exercise not necessarily as regards maxima but powers which on the face of an Act are reasonable. However, our experience is that in almost every instance it is inconceivable that a master of a ship will be capable of paying such a maximum fine and that no maxima of this kind, or even of £50,000, have been imposed in any case of which I know. Again, the Minister may be able to say that I am wrong and may be able to point to precedents in that regard, but I think not.
The reasonableness and the practicability of penalties that can be imposed represent very important criteria when it comes to sentencing. I believe that it is right that courts should take into account the fact that a master holds an extremely responsible position on a ship and that he has the ultimate responsibility for the day-to-day operations of that ship. However, he is responsible to the owner, who is his employer, and therefore has vicarious liability, and the Act does not distinguish between deliberate or accidental discharge.
If the Minister does not wish to remove the master from liability—we are not saying that he should be removed from liability but that the penalty should be limited to £50,000—perhaps he will consider an alternative if he does not agree with the figure of £50,000. We are seeking to strike a balance between what is practicable and what kind of signal should be sent to the courts by legislation. We also wish to recognise that there is a fundamental difference as regards the master who may be under very serious pressure from an irresponsible owner to take actions which may land him in trouble.
The Minister has been most kind and has seen me and discussed the matter with me. I am not sure that I was able to persuade him, but we will see in a moment. I would ask him to think again seriously about it. It is not a question of not wanting to be tough on masters who commit irresponsible acts or omissions, but the fact is that it seems that in no circumstances are the courts likely to impose a fine of this kind. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, as this is the Report stage I shall intervene briefly, anticipating what I understand will be the Minister's answer. It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has made a formidable case and I ask the noble Viscount to consider the matter further with a view to fixing an appropriate maximum for someone in the position of a master of a ship.
6 p.m.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, the danger is that a proposition such as that contained in the Bill might make the law look silly. Nobody wants that to happen, particularly if nobody believes that at the end of the road effect is going to be given to that massive, indeed draconian, fine. It is right that a strong signal should be sent to all concerned and that we should concentrate the minds of all concerned on the consequences of their actions or inactions. However, a fine of a £j million is out of all proportion to either the responsibility of the master or his ability to pay. As my noble friend said, it is the owner who is responsible for managing the ship and for the performance of the ship and its crew. The master is an employee. He is certainly an extremely important employee, but his role is subsidiary to that of the owner. If the purpose is to concentrate the mind of the owner, surely to goodness £50,000 is quite adequate for that purpose.
I understand that the Minister has been known to express doubts as to whether magistrates would levy such a fine. I understand that he has pointed out that such a fine would quite possibly be changed on appeal.

57
But if there are doubts in his mind, that underlines the fact that the threat of a potential fine of £j million is totally unrealistic. It is much more realistic and sensible to follow the course proposed in the amendment.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, at present either the ship's owner or its master can be prosecuted for a discharge of oil in harbour waters. As we have heard, this amendment would prevent the prosecution of a master.
As I have said already in correspondence with the noble Lord, at meetings and on the Floor of the House, our general policy, where possible, is to seek to impose penalties on the owners and operators of ships rather than on ships' masters. That should encourage shipping companies to instruct their crews to comply with regulations dealing with pollution prevention and to allow them sufficient time to do so.
However, there are occasions when it is appropriate and justified to prosecute a master. It is quite possible that a ship's crew will choose to discharge waste illegally, even when a shipowner has taken all reasonable steps to prevent that. In the case of foreign ships, it may not always be possible directly to prosecute the shipowner. In such circumstances and, indeed, in some others I see no reason why the master should escape prosecution. It is extremely important that we recognise the power of the master. He is ultimately the man responsible on the spot and I do not believe that in any of our discussions about this we should lose sight of that fact. The court will of course take account of the means of the offender when fixing the level of the fine.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, described the Government's approach to giving information to magistrates about oil pollution offences. We are doing that in two ways. Clause 7 provides for increases to the maximum fines which magistrates may impose for illegal discharges. We wish to see also increases in the actual fines which magistrates impose. I have written to the Magistrates' Association offering to provide magistrates with information to help them to assess what level of fines would act as a deterrent to polluters. The association has agreed that I should do so by writing an article for its journal The Magistrate.
The increases about which we have heard are long overdue. The one point that I should like to make in relation to the matters raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and other noble Lords is that in the case of the fine for oil pollution the maximum has not been increased since 1971, and in 1971 the maximum fine was higher in real terms than that which is now proposed. Therefore, if we cast our minds back to when the fines were introduced originally, the fines, including those for masters, were higher than those which we propose now. That must be an important factor in our considerations.
I feel very strongly indeed that we should still have powers to prosecute a master where appropriate. I am very firm about that. However, strong sentiments have been expressed in the House about the level of the fine. While I can give no undertaking in any form that I shall make any changes on Third Reading, I undertake to look
58
once again at this issue in consultation with other government departments which have considerable experience on the matter of fines. With that, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I am glad that he is prepared to reflect on the amount of the fine. The debates that we have had on this matter have certainly stimulated the Minister to consult on these matters. I am glad that he will do so. Certainly we shall need to return to this matter on Third Reading.
There is something to be said in favour of the proposition that a master should not be excluded entirely. I concede that. But the essence of the matter is the amount of the fine. The Minister said—and I believe that it is not a good argument—that because in 1971 the maximum was established at £50,000, it is right to increase it in relation to the different financial circumstances which prevail today, so that in real terms it can be compared with the fine as it was then. That is an extremely theoretical approach because the truth of the matter is that in some instances the courts have not even come within reach of a fine of £50,000. Therefore, to increase the fine in line with inflation in order to adopt a theoretical position does not make a lot of sense.
We must look at what is the experience of the courts. The Minister is absolutely right to say that the courts have not taken a sufficiently strong view about those matters, particularly with regard to owners. We support the Minister's view that the courts should be guided in the direction of recognising more than they have in the past how serious are some of those offences.
But at the end of the day, I want to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and my noble friend Lord Murray for their interventions because I feel that we may have begun to persuade the Minister. I have a feeling that the Minister is already half-persuaded, although I accept that he has given no undertakings. It may be that the debate on Third Reading will bring forward a more positive result. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 [Ships receiving trans-shipped fish]:
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 12, line 33, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall, by 31st December 1997,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now turn to Clause 11 and klondykers. This amendment is designed again to seek out information from the Government about the progress of the implementation of the proposals in relation to klondykers. It is based on Recommendation 77 of the Donaldson Report and the recommendation contained therein that the system should be in place by the winter of 1997.
It provides powers to link the issue of fish transhipment licences to klondykers with certain safety and pollution prevention criteria. Since the Donaldson Report was published in 1994, the klondykers' pollution has continued and the Shetland Islands Council has reported at least six oil pollution incidents between that

59
date and the present involving klondykers at Lerwick. Five of those incidents were quite small, but one was relatively serious and took place in bad weather.
In Committee the Minister stated that, as soon as the Bill became law, they would take forward consultation on the klondyker regulations with the aim of enforcing them for the winter of 1997. On that basis the amendment as set down fits very nicely, but can the Minister inform the House about progress that has been made on consultation and tell us whether the Government are on programme for the enforcement to start by the end of 1997? I beg to move.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the amendment has flaws in it such as those which I described and which I believe in all fairness the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, accepted as regards a previous amendment that attempted to include deadlines for the Secretary of State to produce draft regulations. As in that circumstance, the Government's commitment to the issue goes without saying. As I announced in Committee, we intend to act quickly after full consultation with interested parties. Indeed, I can tell the noble Lord that the target remains the same. We hope to have klondyker regulations in place by the winter of 1997. It is extremely important that we pursue that target with vigour. I can assure the noble Lord that that is our aim.
As I said earlier, I do not know of any precedent for a provision of the kind suggested. Of course, the amendment would only require the Secretary of State to make regulations by a certain date, not bring them into force at any particular time. Therefore, with the assurance of the Government's commitment on the issue, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for giving us the good news as regards progress on the klondykers. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 13, line 25, at end insert—
(" () No new trans-shipment licence shall be issued until—
(a) any fines and inspection fees have been settled; and
(b) the contravention specified in the notice under subsection
(2) has been remedied.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment follows the argument which has been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and upon which the Minister has been most helpful. As we know, one of the problems with klondykers is that the threat of monetary fines is unlikely to be sufficient to deter some of them from evading such requirements. That is possibly because they do not pay the fines.
Experience in Shetland has shown that certain klondykers—for example, the "Borodinskoye Polye" and the "Pionersk"—have a poor record of paying what they owe, at least regarding clean-up bills. It is
60
considered that fines should be supplemented with a threat that no further transhipment licence will be issued unless fines have been settled and sub-standard features have been rectified. I believe that that is the only way of policing the situation. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, in rising to express my support for the amendment, I have nothing further to add to what the noble Lord has said, save to congratulate him on his excellent Polish.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, clearly the linguistic skills of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, are without parallel in this House. I have considered carefully the noble Lord's proposal that no new licences should be issued to klondykers until any fines and fees have been paid and the contravention put right. I am not persuaded that the amendment is necessary.
If a new licence for a particular ship were issued before any fines and inspection fees had been settled and the contraventions specified in the prohibition notice had been remedied, the prohibition notice already in force would also override the new licence. The notice would not be revoked until the contravention had been remedied. That would be done after an inspection, for which fees are payable in advance. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will feel that the point he is pursuing, with such ability in foreign tongues, is already covered.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I believe that that is probably the case. However, I shall read carefully what has been said. It seems to me that what the noble Viscount said means that the point is already covered. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 13, line 37, leave out ("the statutory maximum") and insert ("£50,000").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have considered carefully the representations made by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, in Committee to raise the financial penalties for klondykers contravening the requirements of their transhipment licences. I believe that this significant increase in the level of fines to be imposed on those contravening those requirements is justified, from the current statutory maximum of £5,000 to £50,000, and that it will act as a positive deterrent against future bad practices. I commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for considering what we said in such a positive fashion. We are most grateful to him. Indeed, it is possible that the increased sum of £50,000 may have a sentiment in another direction—namely, in relation to the earlier amendment that we discussed.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 23:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause—
PREPARATION OF PLANS UNDER INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON OIL POLLUTION PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE AND CO-OPERATION
(". In section 128 of the 1995 Act (prevention of pollution from ships etc.) after subsection (3) there is inserted—
"(3A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, an Order in pursuance of paragraph (d) of that subsection may also in particular include provision imposing on local authorities responsibilities in relation to the preparation, review and implementation of any plans required by the agreement mentioned in that paragraph."").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving the above amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 54. The Government have introduced these amendments to clarify existing powers to regulate contingency planning for oil spills. They would allow regulations to be made to give local authorities a statutory duty to maintain contingency plans for responding to oil spills.
The first amendment would amend Section 128 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. The section allows the Government to make regulations to implement a number of international conventions, including the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation 1990. This convention, known as the OPRC Convention, requires states to maintain an integral oil spill response capability. The convention stipulates that states should have an oil spill planning regime which co-ordinates the roles of the state, ports, oil terminals and offshore installations.
However, as with most international conventions, it does not explicitly mention the role of local authorities. In the UK, local authorities have traditionally taken a voluntary role to clean up beaches which have been affected by maritime oil spills. Amendment No. 23 would make clear that this voluntary role could be made into a statutory duty by regulations made under Section 128. At the moment, it is unclear whether Section 128 could be used for that purpose because local authorities are not explicitly mentioned in the OPRC Convention.
In June of last year, we consulted interested organisations about the issue. This was prompted both by the need to establish how best to implement the OPRC Convention, and also to help consider the action which should be taken following the recommendations of the inquiry of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, into pollution from merchant shipping. The inquiry recommended that local authorities and harbour authorities should have statutory duties for the planning and response tasks that they already voluntarily undertake.
We are not yet in a position to take a decision on whether local authorities should have a statutory duty for their role in oil pollution contingency planning. The response from the consultation exercise has not been conclusive. We will therefore consider the point further, in consultation with local authorities and others, and in concert with the review of the national contingency plan which I described earlier. I believe that full consultation
62
is essential because, as we are all agreed, an effective response to oil spills requires the co-operation of all parties involved.
However, we did not want to pass up this opportunity pending the outcome of the consultation. If it is concluded that local authorities should be given a statutory duty, the amendments would give us powers to include that duty in regulations made under Section 128. The powers would not be used until the review had been completed.
There is also the consequential amendment to Clause 29 (Amendment No. 54) which would ensure that the new powers relating to oil pollution preparedness and response may be exercised from the day on which the Act is passed. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, we welcome this amendment. However, I wish to ask the Minister one or two questions. Will local authority contingency plans be subject to the approval of the MPCU? As regards Amendment No. 54 to Clause 29, will the requirement to prepare contingency plans also apply to harbour authorities and oil handling facilities? I may have missed something the Minister said, but can he be a little more specific on the timing as regards the introduction of this requirement? I think he said something about when the review was completed, after the passage of the Bill. Can he give some indication how long the review will take? I welcome full consultation and I applaud what he suggests in that regard, but perhaps he can be more specific on that. If he cannot respond tonight, perhaps he will write to me about the matter. It would be better if he could reply this evening as that may mean that we do not have to revisit the matter at the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I have one small drafting point to raise. The proposed new clause states:
"Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1)".
That is a useful drafting device but it can be misleading if it is used when it is not required, and it also then acts as a precedent. It might be required if the clause went on to say "shall in particular", although even that would be arguable. But as it is permissive, I cannot see how it can possibly be,
"Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1)".
All I ask is that the noble Viscount should consider the matter with the draftsman and satisfy himself that those words are necessary.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, did not have any particular difficulties with the explanations given as regards the history of consulting local authorities on this subject, the importance of consulting fully and reaching a decision at the end of that process. As I said, the initial consultation did not produce a firm result. It is important that it dovetails with the review of the national contingency plan. The noble Lord asked me two specific questions about approval

63
by the MPCU and about oil handling at terminals and the like. My understanding is that the answer to both those questions is in the affirmative.
I trembled when I heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, refer to detailed drafting issues, on which he is infinitely more experienced than I. I have difficulty in venturing an opinion, and my opinion on the subject may not coincide with his. However, I am advised that new Section 128(3A) is needed because Section 128(1) gives general powers to implement conventions. This provision clarifies its extent. I do not know whether that detailed explanation meets with the approval of the noble and learned Lord! Perhaps he will indicate whether that is the case. I sincerely hope it does.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, all I ask is that the matter should be looked at again in the light of what I said.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I have asked for advice on the points that the noble and learned Lord made. I have been advised that it is necessary to take the action I have described. I hope it will meet with the approval of the noble and learned Lord if we accept this amendment tonight, but if on further examination a problem arises between now and Third Reading, I undertake to remedy it. I hope that approach meets with the approval of the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, will the noble Viscount consider arranging a meeting at which the matter can be discussed with the draftsman and I can express my point rather better than I think I have this afternoon?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I do not believe there is anything wrong with the noble and learned Lord's explanation of his point. However, I do not know whether the same can be said of my explanation. Certainly I can arrange a meeting. Would it meet with the noble and learned Lord's approval if we accepted this amendment this evening, held the meeting subsequently, and if there was a problem we could return to the matter on Third Reading and amend the amendment? I hope that would be acceptable to the House.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, that seems to be entirely appropriate.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I suggest that we take that course of action on the understanding that I shall arrange a meeting with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and any other noble Lord who wishes to attend.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 [Funding of maritime services]:
Lord Greenway: My Lords, to save time, I shall not move this or the following group of amendments for reasons which will become clear when we discuss the two following groups of Government amendments.
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Funding of maritime services]:
[Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 not moved.]
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 27, line 20, at end insert ("or Part VIII").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 27 it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 30 and 33 to 38. This group of amendments represents a package of revised proposals for the contingent treatment of the General Lighthouse Fund in Schedule 2. At the Committee stage I envisaged that we would seek to improve these provisions. I am pleased to inform the House that as a result of meetings that have occurred in the intervening period with the general lighthouse authorities, and with great assistance from the noble Lords, Lord Greenway, Lord Clinton-Davis and others, we have produced a group of amendments which to a considerable extent, I trust, bring us to a common position and allay the concerns that the general lighthouse authorities expressed at earlier stages of the Bill. I thank most sincerely those who have been involved in this matter. I also thank the general lighthouse authorities for the constructive attitude they have adopted to finding solutions to the concerns they have voiced.
At Second Reading concerns were expressed that the measures proposed in this Bill as published would permit the Secretary of State too wide a power to amend the operation of the General Lighthouse Fund. Fears were expressed that there were wide-ranging implications for the operation of both the GLF and indeed the general lighthouse authorities themselves. I have given extensive assurances both in the House and in correspondence that there is, and never was, any intention to interfere with the operation of the general lighthouse authorities.
We recognise the way in which the General Lighthouse Fund is managed. We are content with the current arrangements. We see the GLF as likely to remain the main source of future funding for the main activities of the general lighthouse authorities unless and only in so far as the fund became incompatible with Community or international obligations. I am happy to repeat those assurances this evening.
A package of measures has been brought forward some of which have complexities associated with them. Therefore I shall attempt to describe in a little detail the effect of each and how it works.
I focus my remarks in particular on Amendment No. 30 which considerably tightens the test which must be satisfied before the whole arrangement could be operated, and on Amendment No. 33 which removes from the Bill a provision which might have permitted abolition of the GLF in certain circumstances. The arrangement therefore envisaged in this group of amendment is that the general lighthouse authority powers and duties remain unchanged, but in certain circumstances its single source of funding, the General Lighthouse Fund, would be replaced by dual funding, in part from the GLF and in part from arrangements which
would result from a Community or international agreement. The amendments maintain the position, on which I have previously given assurances, that there would be no powers in the Bill permitting changes to the statutory operations of the GLAs. I know that that prospect, has they had interpreted it, has caused them concern and I am happy to repeat that assurance in precise terms.
The Bill as published provided in Schedule 2, paragraph 3, that if it appeared to the Secretary of State that light dues under Section 205 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 could no longer be levied because they had or would become incompatible with a Community or international obligation, then the Secretary of State could make regulations to make appropriate adjustments to the coverage provided by the General Lighthouse Fund.
Amendment No. 30 substitutes a much more explicit test in paragraph 3, which must be satisfied before the operation of the GLF might be changed. The element of judgment formerly accorded to the Secretary of State has been withdrawn. Instead, the test proposed in Amendment No. 30 would require the existence of a European Community obligation, or of an international agreement which included the Republic of Ireland and at least one other country, before changes could be made to the current funding arrangements for the GLAs. The reference to the Republic of Ireland is significant as of course it has direct interest in the operations of the Commissioners of Irish Lights, which are funded from the GLF.
Further, the reference to GLA activities has been made more explicitly operational, referring to lighthouses, buoys and beacons, so making clear that other expenditures of the GLAs would continue to be funded from the GLF, even if the contingency envisaged in paragraph 3 were activated.
An international agreement on user charges does not yet exist, and our point at the October Transport Council of last year was to seek practical studies of how an equitable charging system should be developed. In particular, we see the need for mature maritime nations such as those in Europe to take a view on this, as there is evidence elsewhere in the world of the development of such systems, which might in time come to affect our ships. We therefore see a twin track, developing the basis of the principles but also a practical mechanism.
Amendment No. 30 defines precisely the circumstances in which such a mechanism could be introduced in the UK, while the remaining amendments in the group describe the mechanical effects on the GLF. But it is worth repeating at this stage that if the tests set out in the revised text of paragraph 3(1) are not met, the Secretary of State cannot act. The new powers are strictly contingent on satisfying the tests set out, and the regulations envisaged in paragraph 3 must themselves be subjected to the affirmative resolution procedure by virtue of paragraph 15 of Schedule 2.
I turn now to Amendment No. 27. There was earlier discussion on the definition of "maritime functions" in Schedule 2. This amendment clarifies that, for the purposes of Schedule 2, paragraph 2, functions
66
conferred under Part VIII of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, that is everything to do with lighthouses, cannot be "maritime functions" as defined. Therefore regulations under paragraph 2 cannot impose Secretary of State charges in respect of any Part VIII functions. The only way in which those functions can be addressed is by regulations made under paragraph 3 of the schedule, and only then provided that the conditions mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 3 can be met. The effect is to reinforce the strict test required for paragraph 3 regulations, and incidentally this amendment meets a point raised in an amendment previously proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway.
Amendment No. 33 deletes from the Bill a power to abolish the GLF. This results from the narrowing of potential effects on lighthouse business, as envisaged by Amendment No. 30. Their expenditure potentially affected is more closely defined and cannot amount to the total of their spending. So it follows that in the circumstances envisaged by Amendment No. 30, there must be dual funding, first from the GLF for much, perhaps most, of GLA spending, with international agreement funding restricted to particular services. That being so, there is no need, even contingently, to take powers to abolish the GLF, and since the issue has caused some concern I am happy to remove the provision from the Bill by Amendment No. 33.
In Amendment No. 34, we set out in more detail the financial mechanics which would need to be put in place if we made regulations under paragraph 3 of the schedule. The amendment replaces the existing wording of Schedule 2 paragraph 12(b) with more explicit provisions allowing the system of dual funding to operate in the circumstances I have described. All present GLA expenditure would be covered, but from a combination of sources. The GLF could fund many existing GLA activities, act as a pension fund and receive income from asset sales and investments. The new international or EU agreement could pay for certain activities now funded from the GLF, but only if paragraph 3 could be activated. The replacement for paragraph 12(b) allows a strictly consequential transfer of parts of the duty of funding, at present solely on the GLF, to the new international source of funding, while leaving the rest of the GLF in place. The next sub-paragraph allows for the related splitting of receipts between the GLF and the international agreement via the Consolidated Fund. The next sub-paragraph allows for the first time for the Secretary of State to pay money to the GLF, so permitting the accounts to be balanced.
The new paragraph 12(bb) does not conflict with more general provision in paragraph 14 of the schedule, which requires payments in consequence of regulations to be made into the Consolidated Fund. The intention in the revised paragraph 12 is to provide a self-contained financial mechanism to allow for the particular financial consequences of making regulations under paragraph 3. Paragraph 14, as your Lordships will recognise, applies more broadly to the charges in Schedule 2, to which the contingent nature of paragraph 3 charges does not apply. So we do not see any need to amend paragraph 14 by a cross reference to the new paragraph.
I hope that the House will agree that the revised wording, though perhaps complex, meets earlier criticisms that the paragraph as published was rather too broadly sweeping.
Amendment No. 35 is a drafting amendment in consequence of Amendment No. 36. Amendment No. 36 deletes from paragraph 12(c) a reference to the general lighthouse authorities. Having made the whole system more explicit, and in particular defining more closely which GLA activities might be affected by paragraph 3 regulations, and also having made more explicit by Amendment No. 34 the financial transaction envisaged, we accept that there is no longer a need to refer even contingently to the general lighthouse authorities in paragraph 12(c).
In the same spirit Amendment No. 37 tightens the circumstances in which the powers of the Secretary of State might be exercised by regulation. In making amendments and repeals consequential upon paragraph 3 of the schedule, it is no longer necessary to allow the Secretary of State the judgment about whether such consequences are "appropriate". As part of the drafting of regulations, it will be necessary for him to demonstrate that they are "necessary" or "expedient" consequences of the decision to make regulations envisaged in paragraph 3.
Lastly, Amendment No. 38 is a drafting amendment in consequence of the changes envisaged in Amendment No. 34.
In summary, this group of amendments does three things. First, it tightens the tests which the Secretary of State must satisfy in producing regulations under paragraph 3 of Schedule 2. Secondly, it restricts to certain operational activities of the GLAs the scope of expenditure over which paragraph 3 regulations might have effect and therefore makes explicit the need to continue the General Lighthouse Fund to cover other expenditures. Thirdly, it seeks to make the whole operation more explicitly mechanical, and thereby underlines assurances previously given on the limited and restricted nature of the powers now sought. I commend this group of amendments to the House.
I hope that the House will forgive me for providing a very long and detailed explanation of the purpose of this package of amendments. I wanted an opportunity to repeat assurances that I have given before and to stress that in the opinion of the Government—I hope that we shall hear the opinion of the GLAs as well and that of noble Lords who have received their advice—it constitutes an appropriate response to the issue of the contingent effect of a European or other agreement on the issue of light dues.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that very lengthy explanation of an extremely complex batch of amendments. Perhaps I might take up a point made at the outset of our proceedings this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. The Minister and his department were extremely helpful during the Recess. I had meetings with him, and the Government also talked to the general
68
lighthouse authorities. As a result of those discussions we now have the set of amendments read out by the Minister which go a long way towards allaying the fears that were originally in the minds of the general lighthouse authorities at an earlier stage of the Bill. I express my thanks to the Minister for what he was able to do to help our case.
Perhaps I may make a few remarks on behalf of the general lighthouse authorities, as, I know, will other noble Lords. I know that the authorities are greatly gratified by assurances given by the Minister that their functions are not to be unduly tampered with and that the General Lighthouse Fund will continue to exist in its present form. We are also extremely pleased that the Secretary of State's previous wide discretion has to a great extent been removed in regard to making new regulations under Community or international obligations.
As the Minister said, relations over the years between the general lighthouse authorities and the department have been extremely good. We have a system that works very well. Our expertise is widely regarded throughout Europe. Anything which might have disrupted that good working arrangement would have been a shame. In the course of our deliberations we have come up with a measure that allays those fears.
I also point out how important it is for the general lighthouse authorities to maintain this particular means of funding. It gives them the most important freedom to plan ahead. That is not always possible with other countries where lighthouse and buoyage functions are centrally funded. It is an enormous plus point so far as our operation is concerned. We certainly want to see it preserved.
I do not intend to go into detail. The Minister gave a very adequate explanation of what is proposed. It has certainly taken the place of the amendments that I originally tabled. I do not ask for any more. However, there is just a niggling fear on the part of the lighthouse authorities that the General Lighthouse Fund could be marginalised if any international obligation were to trigger a disproportionate reduction by setting up an alternative fund which would deal not only with the international obligation but also with the existing responsibilities of the General Lighthouse Fund. I know what the Minister said, and the thrust of the other amendments allays many of those fears. However, a further possible assurance might bear repetition by the Minister and would go a long way towards getting rid of that final niggling point.
I repeat my broad welcome for these amendments. I thank the Minister for his efforts and those of his officials in relation to this matter.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, who has immense experience in this field, in congratulating my noble friend on the great improvements that he has achieved. I welcome them and am glad that all the matters under dispute, which were of great anxiety, have

69
now been disposed of so elegantly and with such good will. Accordingly, my noble friend is greatly to be congratulated on his achievement.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, I wish to join with noble Lords who have just spoken in congratulating the noble Viscount the Minister on the manner in which he has handled Schedule 2. When the schedule was first printed it started alarm bells ringing in Trinity House, the Northern Lighthouse Board and the Commissioners of Irish Lights. It was difficult to understand how the provision was ever thought up. It threatened the core of the GLAs' operations, their method of funding and fund management. It is therefore a matter of relief that the Minister tackled the problem after the Committee stage. All of us who had to deal with it, and with the Minister, thank him most sincerely for the great attention he paid to the representations. He has very cleverly managed this group of amendments. They tie the whole matter up and completely change the meaning of Schedule 2.
The Minister has improved the situation with Amendments Nos. 31 and 34. Amendment No. 31 allows the GLAs to collect funds for other purposes than light dues. Amendment No. 34 deals with a mechanism of financing which could be useful outside the main purpose of the schedule in dealing with international agreements. The GLAs are a resource of marine skills and experience which is becoming increasingly scarce. That is because of the much reduced opportunities for young people to enter into a marine career as a result, I am sorry to say, of the decline of the British merchant fleet. It could therefore become advantageous, and perhaps economic, for related work around these coasts to be undertaken by the GLAs. These two amendments make that possible.
I assure the House that the GLAs welcome the amendments and thank the Minister for the trouble he has taken. I have specific instructions from the Commissioners of Irish Lights to express their gratitude to the Minister for the way the matter has been handled.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I was among those who were not particularly against Schedule 2 at the beginning. The wording of my noble friend's amendment is nevertheless an improvement.
However, where does that leave us in regard to charging for certain activities for which the GLAs do not presently charge? It is money that cannot presently be recouped. Do we have to wait for an international agreement with three or more countries; or, with the help of this Bill, can my noble friend introduce regulations to allow all charges to be made where costs are incurred and for which charges are not recouped at the moment?
I should also like to pay tribute at this stage to the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, for the enormous amount of work that I know he has done and reiterate the respect with which he is held not only in this House
70
but outside for his knowledge of these matters. It is greatly due to him that we have the changes that are before us.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the noble Earl has just asked the question that I intended to put. I look forward to the Minister's answer. I should like to join noble Lords who complimented the Minister on the way in which he has listened to the representations that have been made. I am not sure that I entirely follow his explanation but it seemed basically all right to me. It seemed to be on the right lines. But I shall ponder that and, after several sleepless nights, hope to come to the conclusion that he was absolutely right.
I join the noble Earl in complimenting the noble Lord, Lord Greenway. He conducted a formidable and diplomatic campaign which has had the desired results. It is an example that I hope will be followed in many other respects.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am very grateful indeed for the kind words of many noble Lords this afternoon. It was never our intention to bring forward any proposals that would cause the general lighthouse authorities particular alarm. I have sought to reassure them. I am very pleased indeed that this package of measures, which addresses their specific concerns, does just that.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, inquired whether any response that we would make to an international agreement would be proportionate. I can give him that assurance. That is certainly our intention and not to go beyond that. I hope that that gives additional assurance to the noble Lord, the House and indeed the general lighthouse authorities.
I was grateful for the view of my noble friend Lord Caithness that these proposals represented an improvement. I say that very genuinely indeed. Essentially, they allow what was originally envisaged by this schedule but they do so with added protection for the GLF. So in essence everybody is happy.
The point raised by my noble friend about wider charging is quite right. During our discussions on the Bill we have concentrated on the GLF side of things. But there are provisions in the Bill to charge for a number of counter-pollution services. It is our clear aim to seek international agreement for that. Our clear preference would be to take this forward on a multilateral approach. I certainly understand very clearly what would be the effects on the competitiveness not just of UK shipping but also of industry in the UK in a wider sense if charges were raised unilaterally. I certainly take that strong point made by my noble friend. We should certainly have to consider any implications for the competitiveness not only of UK ports and shipowners based in UK ports but also of exporters and importers using those ports. Certainly, I can assure the House that the Government would not introduce charges unilaterally without first carrying out a full evaluation of compliance costs for business and the adverse effects on competitiveness. Again, I re-emphasise that our

71
preferred approach remains to achieve international agreement and we are making every effort to achieve that.
Again, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this discussion, especially those who have entered into the arena on the issue of charging of lights. I mention in particular the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, the noble Lord, Lord Cooke of Islandreagh, my noble friend Lord Cochrane and, of course, my noble friend Lord Caithness who contributed to this debate. I am very pleased that we now have an agreed solution. I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 not moved.]
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 27, leave out lines 27 to 36 and insert—
("3.—(l)If—

(a) any Community obligation, or

(b) any international agreement made between any three or more countries including the Republic of Ireland and ratified by the United Kingdom,

requires the United Kingdom to provide for any of the costs incurred by general lighthouse authorities in respect of lighthouses, buoys and beacons to be recovered otherwise than by means of the levying of general light dues in accordance with section 205 (as it has effect on the commencement of this Schedule), regulations under this Schedule may make provision imposing charges for the purposes of recovering all or any part of the costs so incurred.
(2) In this paragraph "buoys and beacons" includes equipment which is intended as an aid to the navigation of ships and, subject to that, expressions used in this paragraph and in Part VIII of this Act have the same meaning as in that Part.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with a previous group. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 31: Page 29, line 36, at end insert—
("(2) Regulations made under this Schedule by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above may in particular confer on general lighthouse authorities functions relating to the collection and recovery of charges.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 39. The Government have considered the best way to collect any new maritime charges. The GLAs currently undertake the collection of light dues, as we heard. They have developed a most efficient collection system which involves a collection contract with the Institute of Chartered Shipbrokers. This might be utilised to collect any other charges.
Amendment No. 31 would permit the GLAs to collect any new charges under Schedule 2. Amendment No. 39 would permit the Secretary of State to pay for this service. But I stress that any such arrangement between the Secretary of State and the GLAs would be voluntary and therefore by agreement. It seems sensible to make
72
provision for what could be, in the event of a new charging regime coming forward, an effective and indeed cost-effective means of collection. I beg to move.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, if the matters that we have been discussing could be referred to as the lottery, I feel that this provision could be called the bonus. It is something which was not foreseen in our initial discussions. It is a provision that the Government have brought forward only recently. I say only that it is most welcome and I thank the Government very much for it.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am always more than happy to hear such sentiments. I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): My Lords, before calling Amendment No. 32, I should advise the House that if this amendment be agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 33 to 38.
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 33 to 38:
Page 30, leave out line 7.
Page 30, leave out lines 8 to 10 and insert—
("(b) provide for payments which, apart from the regulations, would fall to be made out of the General Lighthouse Fund to be made by the Secretary of State out of money provided by Parliament,
(bb) provide for amounts which, apart from the regulations, would fall to be paid into the General Lighthouse Fund (other than general light dues levied in accordance with section 205) to be paid by the Secretary of State into the Consolidated Fund,
(bc) provide for the payment out of money provided by Parliament into the General Lighthouse Fund of amounts representing the whole or part of any charges imposed by virtue of paragraph 3, and").
Page 30, line 12, at end insert ("or").
Page 30, line 13, leave out ("or general lighthouse authorities").
Page 30, line 14, leave out ("appropriate") and insert ("necessary or expedient").
Page 30, line 16, leave out ("(a) or (b)") and insert ("(b), (bb) or (be)").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 33 to 38 with the group relating to Amendment No. 27. I beg to move these amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 30, line 16, at end insert—
("12A. If regulations under this Schedule make any provision by virtue of paragraph 9(2) above, regulations under this Schedule may also provide for the making by the Secretary of State to each general lighthouse authority out of money provided by Parliament of payments in respect of expenses incurred by that authority in connection with the collection or recovery of charges.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 31, to the pleasure of the noble Lord, Lord Greenway. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 30, line 24, leave out ("with the consent of the Treasury").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment raises a point that I raised in Committee. As the noble Viscount with his habitual accuracy and honesty pointed out, I have raised it on other occasions as well. However, I do not apologise for raising it again.
The paragraph says that:
"Any sums received in consequence of regulations under this Schedule"—
that is, from the General Lighthouse Fund—
"shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund".
Subsection 15(1) states:
"Regulations under the Schedule shall be made by the Secretary of State with the consent of the Treasury".
The point is that in this context the consent of the Treasury does not have to be expressly stated. The general background is that in 1975 the Renton Committee remarked on the prolixity of the statute book. Within a few years the statute book (which was then in three volumes) had grown to five volumes and contained no more general statutes—in fact, it contained less. As a result of that the format was changed. That was highly inconvenient because the new format did not fit the bookshelves that had been made for the old one. However, it enabled the volumes to be reduced once again from five to three. But within a few years they were back again at five in a larger format.
The amendment refers to those six words only, but they occur again and again in statute after statute and cumulatively involve a fantastic waste of material, time and money. The first question I ask the noble Viscount is: if those words are omitted, what difference does he think it would make? Does he think that the Treasury should not in any event be consulted when the question arises of transferring funds to the Consolidated Fund?
I have two specific reasons for raising this matter again in the context of this Bill. The first is that in Committee we had the wise counsel of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who has had experience in many offices where he served with uniform distinction and in the office which is responsible for this Bill. He bore out that the Treasury would be concerned in this sort of transaction whether or not the words appeared in the statute. He bore out that there is a department or body of officials in the Treasury which is in close liaison with every government department and in close touch and almost daily communication with it. The noble Earl went on to say, "and very valuable that is, too".
That is my first reason; that it leads to a great waste and the words are entirely unnecessary. The second is that it seems appropriate to raise the point in connection with a merchant shipping Bill. On two occasions in the past in the context of merchant shipping legislation official obduracy has, in the end, yielded to common sense and reason.
The first occasion that will occur to your Lordships was when the ascertainment of longitude arose. Latitude was early found to be ascertainable; but for centuries longitude could not be ascertained with any accuracy.
As a result, there was great loss of life and materials. So much so that in the event the Admiralty offered a large sum to anybody who could solve the problem of finding how to ascertain a ship's longitude. It was an obscure provincial clockmaker who found the answer by devising what is the predecessor of the present nautical chronometer. But that was not acceptable to officialdom. It took decades before they finally gave way to the great saving of life and materials.
The second occasion that will occur to your Lordships was the loading line on vessels. Merchant vessels were frequently overloaded by greedy owners and charterers with the result again of loss of life and materials. Samuel Plimsoll proposed the loading line. Was that acceptable to officialdom? No, it was not. Time after time in Bill after Bill he urged what is now called "the Plimsoll line". In the end he lost his temper on the Floor of the House of Commons. I do not propose to lose my temper on this occasion, though it is extremely irksome to have the same stonewalling answer put forward.
With those two examples, plus the testimony of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, I raise the matter again and I end as I began. Can the noble Viscount really stand at the Dispatch Box keeping a straight face and assure your Lordships that money can be transferred into the Consolidated Fund other than with the consent of the Treasury? I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I have only a few words for the Minister: go on, upset the Treasury a bit; accept the advice that has been given; it makes sense. The whole thing is otiose to requirements. It may be that the current Chancellor of the Exchequer fears that he may be cut out of any consultation with his colleagues; that might be the real reason for the inclusion of the words.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, there are those who say that compared with solving the problems of navigation, changing the mind of the Treasury would be an extremely simple task. However, we have not heard that argument from anyone in the House today.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, has come back to his guns on his impressive campaign for deleting these words from all Bills, and particularly he has taken the opportunity of this Bill to wage his battle. I am advised that the need for an express requirement for Treasury consent or Treasury approval arises whenever Parliament, by placing a responsibility on a departmental Minister, might otherwise appear to reduce the authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in matters of finance. Granting the Secretary of State for Transport the power to make decisions on the levying of fees and charges clearly falls into that category.
I would be more than slightly surprised if the noble and learned Lord stood up and said that I had entirely convinced him and that he would now retire from the fray a happy man. I do not suppose he will do that, but perhaps he will accept that this is not necessarily the choicest battleground on which to conduct his final campaign.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who have spoken. The noble Viscount is quite right. I am not satisfied. I have heard those words before. It is not one of those vintages that improves with being laid down or with age. He did not answer my question. Does he really think that if these words were not there the fund could be transferred to the Consolidated Fund other than with the consent of the Treasury? No doubt he did not answer that question because he did not feel he had sufficient command of his features to give the answer that is implied in his brief. If so, I sympathise with him. I am sorry but I shall not stop. However, on this occasion, as we want to get on, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 not moved.]
Clause 15 [Compulsory insurance]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 17, line 45, at end insert—
"Illegality of insurance contracts or other security providing indemnity for fines and other criminal penalties Insurance or security against fines or other penalties,
192B. Any insurance contract or other security which purports to indemnify a shipowner in respect of a fine or other penalty imposed by or under this Act shall be illegal and unenforceable."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment relates to insurance indemnifying a shipowner for a fine or other penalty imposed in the Bill. We believe that there are grounds for saying that that should be illegal and unenforceable. I do not propose to go over the entire ground because as I understand it from the Minister, he is consulting with insurers about the matter. He has indicated that he is not satisfied with the position. I am grateful to him for responding to the debate which I initiated in Committee. I recognise that it is not an easy matter; it is a highly complex and international one. Fines for which shipowners are indemnified generally relate to foreign situations. It is right that discussions should also take place in international fora.
It is my understanding that under common law a plaintiff cannot maintain an action for indemnification for a fine or other punishment imposed for the commission of a crime and that probably insurance for such loss would be unenforceable or void. It is doubtful whether under English law a shipowner could recover through an action based on an indemnity which was provided under its club's liability cover if the club refused to pay. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, dealt with this matter in his report. He and his colleagues cast some doubt whether the practice was in all circumstances undesirable. I do not propose to go into that at the moment. The issue of compulsory insurance is high on the IMO agenda. I wish the Minister success in being able to move that forward.
I did not intend—the Minister knows this because we had discussions the other day—to push the matter further forward at this stage beyond giving the Minister an opportunity to tell us what is happening in the IMO and what the Government are doing. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, I have considerable sympathy with the intention behind the amendment. We too should be concerned if insurance cover were available for fines imposed under the Merchant Shipping Act. However, the provision proposed is unnecessary and unworkable.
It is unnecessary because existing UK legislation already excludes from insurance cover any loss attributable to the misconduct of the shipowner. I understand that most other maritime states have equivalent legislation. As a result, we have been given assurances that all major marine insurers do not provide cover for fines arising from wilful or reckless acts or misconduct on the part of the shipowner.
The amendment is unworkable because of the international nature of the shipping and insurance industries. This means that UK legislation is not applicable to the vast majority of insurance contracts between shipowners and marine insurers. My officials are therefore pursuing this important matter at an international level, through the International Maritime Organisation. I was pleased that the noble Lord felt that that was an appropriate forum to push this issue.
As a result of proposals put forward by the UK last year, the IMO has established a correspondence group on marine insurance. One of the issues which the group is considering is what are acceptable conditions of cover. We shall strongly argue to this group that insurance should not cover fines. The specific issue of insurance cover for fines is to be discussed later this year by the relevant IMO committees, including the legal committee and the marine environment protection committee. We shall play an active role in these discussions.
I hope that this work within the IMO will help us to work towards the elimination of any practices within the insurance industry which might harm the effectiveness of enforcement action carried out by governments. In particular, I believe it is unacceptable if insurance cover reduces the deterrent effect of fines. That would run counter to our policy of taking tough measures to combat marine pollution. We shall therefore press for the elimination of any practices which could have this result.
Broadly, the noble Lord and I are of much the same mind in believing that the international forum is where this has to be solved. I am grateful to him for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important issue, but I hope that he can now withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I hope that the signals he has given will be important in the discussions that take place within the IMO and other fora. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 [Retention of documents by Registrar General]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 19, line 41, at end insert—
("(5) The Secretary of State shall ensure that the Registrar General of Shipping and Seamen records and preserves all documents transmitted to him for a period of at least 85 years.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that records are available to deal with the arbitration, accident investigation and welfare needs of seafarers for the natural life of those seafarers. The figure of 85 allows for a person of 100 years of age who first went to sea at 15 years of age. The records of the seafarer would then be available in the vast majority of cases not only until he or she passed away but until any claims in respect of that person through the next of kin might be pursued. I have no doubt that the Government would not wish to abuse an open-ended clause such as that offered by Clause 21. However, without any crystal ball to hand, we feel that the individual has a right to know that his or her records will be available to him or her whenever required. Such a clause might assist the registrar general in his arduous task and reduce the amount of recording and preserving without prejudicing the individual.
The cases that have demonstrated a need for access to documents that may become important over time concern, for example, asbestosis, where it is not possible within even a normally reasonable period of time to ascertain that someone has contracted the disease. It might take 30 years. There is a social interest in these matters as well but I think that is dealt with in the next amendment.
The Minister was good enough to discuss this matter with me. I understand that he is prepared to discuss the matter further with those concerned. If that is his reply, I shall be delighted. I beg to move.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, Clause 21 replaces the requirement for the registrar general to record and preserve all documents transmitted to him with a requirement to hold all such documents as required by the Secretary of State. The recording and preserving of all documents is an onerous task. In practice, the majority of records are infrequently accessed. This clause reduces the burden of document storage and subsequent cost to the department by allowing the Secretary of State to limit the period of storage.
I do not believe that an amendment on the face of the Bill is necessary. There would be no question of material being lost which is either of interest to historians and archivists or which can be of use or of interest regarding the career records of seamen. To allay any fears about this I am happy to give an undertaking that relevant parties, including such bodies as RMT and UMAST—those concerned with representing seafarers—would be consulted, and also those with an interest in historic archives when the criteria are drawn up for what is retained and what is destroyed or passed on to other bodies. Documents which are no longer of use to the Registrar General will be made available to the Public Record Office or other institutions, provided
78
that there are no constraints with regard to confidentiality. I hope that that meets the test that the noble Lord set me.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the Minister is meeting most of the tests this evening. I am very grateful to him for that undertaking. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]
Schedule 4 [Amendments of Part III of Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 58, line 47, at end insert—
("Inspection of ships and harbour areas
6A. In section 36(2) (powers of authorised person on inspection of ships or harbour areas), in paragraph (c), for "or the occupier of the land" there is substituted "the occupier of the land or any harbour operator".").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the proposed amendment is intended to rectify a simple omission from the changes we propose to make to the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990. The harbour operator concept, which forms the basis for some of the other amendments proposed in this schedule and agreed in Committee, needs also to be recognised in relation to the inspections carried out by government security inspectors. The amendment will place all harbour operators on an equal footing with harbour authorities, shipowners and other relevant recipients of directions in respect of supplying information required by an inspector. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 [Piracy]:
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 21, line 37, at end insert ("and
(b) those provisions shall apply equally to the territorial waters of the United Kingdom.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall not detain the House very long with this amendment. It is to seek clarification from the Government about the applicability of the piracy legislation. The Government have taken a major step forward by importing the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 into the Merchant Shipping Act. But the drafting has led to some doubt about the definition of territorial waters. This amendment is intended to seek clarification of that. We do not have a piracy problem at the moment in the United Kingdom. This measure will allow the United Kingdom to send firm signals of its intent around the world.
At Committee stage the Minister explained that there is no need to state the scope because it is covered by the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990. But the part of that Act imported into Schedule 4 speaks only of harbour areas. I suspect that the intention is that it covers all areas of British territorial waters. I shall be very grateful if the Minister can

79
clarify that and confirm that the Government intend to take action through the courts wherever piracy occurs within UK territorial waters. I beg to move.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, as we all agreed during Committee stage, piracy is a significant problem in many parts of the world. It is not something that went out with sailing ships; indeed, the situation is the reverse of that. There are many areas of the world where the seas are unsafe and horrendous incidents have taken place involving heavily armed gangsters effectively attacking merchant vessels. So piracy is important and we recognise that.
However, I do not believe that there is the loophole which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is concerned about. I explained in Committee that under international law piracy means illegal acts taken on the high seas. By definition, it does not apply within a state's territorial sea and the ordinary criminal law applies there. If it takes place at home it is within territorial waters and it is not piracy. Therefore, there is no need to extend the provision.
The Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 provides a wide range of powers to control illegal acts in the territorial sea. I believe that the two together cover every possible situation so I do not believe that this amendment is necessary.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I shall study his remarks carefully. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 6 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 61, line 6, at end insert—
("The Supreme Court Act 1981 (c. 54)
1A. In section 20 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (Admiralty jurisdiction of High Court), in subsection (5)(b) for "International Oil Compensation Fund 1984" there is substituted "International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund 1992".").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment which will correct a minor error in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. The amendment will delete an erroneous reference to the International Oil Compensation Fund 1984 and substitute the correct reference, which is the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund 1992. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 61, line 14, at end insert—
("2A.—(1) With respect to applications made after the commencement of this paragraph, section 158 of the 1995 Act (limitation actions), including that section as set out in Schedule 4 to that Act, is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2)—

(a) for the words "and is entitled to limit it" there is substituted "but has not found that he is not entitled to limit it", and

(b) for "the limit of the liability" there is substituted "the limit which would apply to the applicant's liability if he were entitled to limit it".

80
(3) After subsection (2) there is inserted— "(2A) Where—

(a) a distribution is made under subsection (2)(b) above without the court having found that the applicant is entitled to limit his liability, and

(b) the court subsequently finds that the applicant is not so entitled,

the making of the distribution is not to be regarded as affecting the applicant's liability in excess of the amount distributed."").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment to the legislation on compensation following oil spills by tankers. Section 158 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 implements provisions of the International Convention on the Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage. This amendment seeks to ensure that the Act implements the convention as closely as possible. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 62, line 2, at end insert—
("13A. In section 261 (improvement notices), in subsection (4)(a), after "130" there is inserted "130A"").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a small but important amendment which adds teeth to Clause 5. It relates to a discussion that we had some hours ago at the beginning of the consideration of the Report stage of the Bill and to an amendment laid by noble Lords opposite. I said that there was a government amendment that had broadly the same purpose and, lo and behold, we discover it at the end of the Bill.
The clause contains enabling powers for the Secretary of State to place a requirement on a ship's master to discharge waste in port in specified circumstances. As the clause is currently drafted, we could enforce such a requirement in just one manner: by making non-compliance an offence. This is somewhat inflexible. It would mean that, if a port state control inspector's persuasive powers failed to ensure compliance, he would have no option but to bring a prosecution. This rigidity is not consistent with the general approach adopted in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 in relation to other offences.
Generally, the Act provides my department's inspectors with a more comprehensive armoury of enforcement powers. In particular, a common means that we use to ensure compliance with the statutory requirements laid down under the 1995 Act is the power to serve improvement and prohibition notices.
We have concluded that port state control inspectors' powers should be enhanced and made more flexible. This can be achieved by giving them the ability to issue improvement and prohibition notices. This would be the effect of this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 62, line 2, at end insert—
("13B. In section 293 (functions of Secretary of State in relation to marine pollution), in subsection (2), before sub-paragraph (a), there is inserted—

81
"(za) the preparation, review and implementation of a national plan setting out arrangements for responding to incidents which cause or may cause marine pollution with a view to preventing such pollution or reducing or minimising its effects;"").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Greenway Lord Greenway moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 62, line 26, leave out ("or Schedule 11 A").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment refers to consultation. While I admit that it probably seeks to go further than the Government would wish in making the general lighthouse authorities statutory consultees under the Bill, there is slight sensitivity on the part of those authorities as regards consultation. When this Bill was in preparation the Government had the usual consultations with those who might be affected. However, in the great hurry to put the Bill together one or two items were slipped in at the last moment which were not consulted upon and which have caused us all so much extra work. The Minister apologised for that omission and I have taken that apology in good faith. I am now merely seeking to see whether the Minister is prepared from the Dispatch Box to give some sort of assurance that in future, especially when we are dealing with any type of international agreement, the lighthouse authorities will be properly consulted before we go ahead. I beg to move.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I understand fully the sensitivities which the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, elucidated when speaking to his amendments, Amendments Nos. 52 and 53. It is the Government's policy to consult as widely as possible and in as much detail as possible. A great deal of what we have discussed during this Report stage has centred on consultation with the various authorities, bodies and individuals concerned. Consultation is a major plank of the way we approach legislation and when bringing forward proposals of almost any sort.
We published a draft consultation paper last February and took account of the responses to it in the draft Bill that we published last June. The replies to that consultation in turn influenced the form of the Bill which was introduced last autumn. I have acknowledged that consultation on the provisions in Schedule 2, relating to light dues, was not all that it should have been. I am happy to repeat that and to apologise again to the House for the lack of consultation on that specific issue. However, that was not due to any lack of willingness on our part to consult but more to a late change in our understanding of what the existing legislation allowed. I believe that that point and the Government's good intentions have now been accepted.
I am happy to assure the House that there will be continuing consultation with the GLAs as work towards an international agreement proceeds both on technical issues and on methods of collection—and, indeed, on any other issues with which the GLAs are properly involved and on which they need properly to be consulted. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord
82
Greenway, that I do not want to do anything which causes him—or, indeed, myself—any extra work. It is in all of our interests to consult as widely and as fully as possible. However, for the reasons that have been given on many occasions, I do not believe that statutory consultation is necessary to achieve that aim. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister, first, for pointing out that there was no misintention in the Government not consulting on certain issues in the first place and, secondly, for his assurance that full consultation will be undertaken in any future deliberations. On that basis, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]
Clause 29 [Short title, interpretation and commencement]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 23, line 33, after ("11,") insert ("(Preparation of plans under International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation)").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 23. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 23, line 33, after ("Schedule 2") insert ("and paragraph 13A of Schedule 6").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with the group of amendments considered with Amendment No. 2.1 beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
7.34 p.m.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Britain's shellfish industry produces nearly 125,000 tonnes of various types of molluscs and crustaceans a year, worth about £145 million. Those valuable catches provide an essential living for British fishermen, growers, processors, traders and retailers around our country's coastline. However, there are now indications that some stocks are being over-exploited and the need for extra protection in the form of conservation and controls is becoming a priority.
This Bill will provide the legislative changes needed to extend the conservation benefits of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 to lobsters and other crustaceans.
The Act makes provision for the establishment, improvement and maintenance of fisheries for lobsters and other crustaceans. It will allow inshore fishermen in England, Scotland and Wales to benefit from lobster

83
stock enhancement schemes and other conservation measures under the rights of several and regulated fisheries.
The lobster is one of the UK's most valuable shellfish. Landings in 1995 had a first-sale value of £12 million and this crustacean, which is caught in baited pots, is eagerly sought after by British fishermen.
Not surprisingly, catch rates in nearly all of our traditional fishing areas have fallen and there is now an urgent need to increase stock levels. The UK lobster stocks are only protected by a single conservation measure—the minimum legal landing size, which is now set at 85mm carapace length (just under a one-pound lobster in weight).
Lobsters are slow growing and it takes five to six years for a female to reach maturity. Furthermore, while the mother lobster may carry up to 100,000 eggs depending on her size, only a very small proportion of this number survives in the wild.
A further increase in the legal landing size would protect more breeding females, but this move will result in a short-term loss in landings. To compensate, fishermen will set more lobster pots and stocks will become further depleted. Some control on fishing effort seems necessary and I believe that this could be done on a local rather than national basis.
Lobster stock enhancement could be a further way of replenishing local stocks and could involve inshore fishermen. MAFF scientists working since the late 1970s have developed a hatchery system for rearing lobsters under controlled conditions. Eggs from wild broodstock were grown to market-sized adults, but it was too costly to make "lobster farming" seem economically viable.
Encouraged by the Shellfish Association of Great Britain and the lobster industry, MAFF turned to the idea of ranching, which involves the release into the wild of hatchery-produced juveniles on suitable areas of seabed.
In 1983, a programme of lobster stock enhancement was started to assess the survival of hatchery-reared juvenile lobsters in the wild. More than 90,000 juveniles, each three to four months old, have now been released in trials by MAFF, the Sea Fish Industry Authority and the North Western and North Wales Sea Fisheries Committee. Each baby lobster was marked with a coded microwire inserted into a leg. This minute "tag" is not lost when the lobster moults to grow and it can be detected later with a magnetometer. This innovation has made it possible for the first time to make a proper scientific evaluation of the benefits of lobster stock enhancement using hatchery-reared animals.
Lobster catches at the ports adjacent to the release areas in England, Scotland and Wales, have been screened for the presence of these marked lobsters. Scientists at sea have checked fishermen's catches and field sampling with traps has also been done. The results are most encouraging. With survival rates estimated to be between 50 to 80 per cent., the trials have been
84
biologically successful and demonstrate that hatchery-reared lobsters can survive and can improve a fishery.
The UK now leads the way on lobster ranching because these results provide quantitative evidence that juvenile lobsters released into the wild on lobster habitat can survive to fishable size in substantial numbers, enter baited pots set by commercial lobstermen, and can contribute to commercial catches and the breeding stock. Lobster stocking therefore seems feasible biologically and requires to be tested economically and on a larger scale. However, to prevent future benefits of lobster stock enhancement being dissipated by increasing fishing effort it will be necessary to manage access and harvesting effectively and possibly in the long term to grant individual ownership rights.
The Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) (Amendment) Bill seeks to extend the original 1967 Act, which covers only molluscs, to give protection and enhancement to lobster stocks. Cockle, mussel and oyster fishermen in England and Wales have benefited for over 30 years by having several and regulated fisheries which they manage themselves or with the aid of sea fisheries committees. There are now in place 28 fishery orders in England and Wales and two several orders in Scotland. Individual fishermen have their rights protected. All applications for fishery orders are rigorously scrutinised by fisheries departments and Ministers have powers to limit the size and duration of the orders granted to applicants. A well established consultation procedure ensures that traditional fishermen are not disadvantaged by curtailing their rights to the public fishery. A recent consultation exercise by the Scottish Office showed that regulating orders were welcomed by many inshore fishermen who responded. They were seen as helping local fishing interests by the management of local stocks and preventing their over-exploitation.
The new Bill will enable suitable sites to be considered for lobster stock enhancement, possibly using artificial reefs to help create or extend existing resources for the public good. This Bill which is supported by the Shellfish Association of Great Britain is essential if we are to progress crustacean management and conservation schemes like lobster stock enhancement in the future. The Bill will help to extend the protection and conservation of inshore lobster stocks up to six miles from our coast. It will give greater opportunity in future years to boost traditional lobster fisheries by stock enhancement and give extra protection to breeding females by V-notching schemes—measures that fishery scientists predict will be necessary to conserve the UK's valuable lobster fisheries in years to come. The Cornwall sea fisheries committee, backed by the county council and local fishermen, already plans to build a lobster hatchery at Padstow using grants from the Millennium Fund and the EC. The plan is to rear 80,000 juveniles a year for release on selected over-fished lobster grounds around Cornwall. So that this effort is not dissipated, my Bill will help conserve and manage lobster release areas to benefit the local industry. Similar schemes are planned for Shetland and other parts of Scotland.

85
As well as managing the country's marine resources, we have a unique opportunity to expand shellfish farming, including stock enhancements, and boost coastal resources in years to come. Our fishing industry has suffered badly in recent years. The great deep-sea fleets have dwindled away. Modern technology let loose and our fish-hungry neighbours have combined to ravage our seas and upset the fragile balance of nature's marine life. Twenty years ago I watched from the bridge of my own ship two purse-seiners with a cod-end net scoop mackerel into a mile long trace so accurately guided by the then new electronic fish trackers. I realised then that wild fish from the sea would soon become a rare and expensive luxury on a restaurant menu. I knew then that part of the future harvest of the sea would lie in sea meadows, sea ranching, sea farming and harnessing science and technology to work for new growth. So it is proving. Allied to good husbandry, sound conservation methods and effective regulation and distribution herald the dawn of a new era for the industry to which I and generations of my family have turned for our livelihoods.
This Bill will provide the legislative changes that are needed to help British fishermen and farmers of lobsters and other crustacea to secure a new future. With the support of your Lordships, this could be good news indeed—new opportunities, jobs and horizons, locally-owned initiatives, the revitalisation of local communities and the conservation benefits of the Sea Fisheries (Shell Fish) Act extended to this most precious resource.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Baroness Wilcox.)
7.45 p.m.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: My Lords, looking at my noble friend, she makes a rather improbable crew member of a fishing boat. However, I am carried away by her enthusiasm and wish to support her. She has also produced a commendably (and almost uniquely) short Bill. I hope that it will be regarded as an example to all but particularly to the Government. My noble friend makes a formidable case and has made the purposes of her Bill exceedingly clear.
I speak as a council member of the Shellfish Association of Great Britain which expresses the strongest possible support for this Bill. My livery company, the Fishmongers Company, also strongly support the Bill. Indeed, financially and in other ways it has supported the programme of lobster stock enhancement for a number of years. As my noble friend has said, there is now evidence that this system works.
The inevitable corollary of the release of young lobsters into the sea is a degree of control of over who is to catch them. In any case, lobster stocks all round the country, certainly in my part of the world (off the west coast of Scotland), are now under great pressure, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, is well aware. If something can be done to rehabilitate the stocks and protect the livelihood of fishermen, that is good news.
An excellent example of what can be done is the Thames estuary cockle fishing industry. One crucial feature of the benefits that have been derived from its
86
success is the fact that these committees are local in nature. Their efforts are devoted to bringing about benefits to all. I only wish that that could be said of so many other attempts at fishery control that have not been so significantly successful. It may be that a wider lesson is to be learnt from this admirable Bill. I congratulate my noble friend and hope that her Bill will have a speedy and unimpeded passage through both Houses of Parliament.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I too should like to congratulate the noble Baroness on tabling this Bill. It is an example to us all. Others should have brought forward such a measure some time ago. She is an example of the excellence of the life peerage system. It brings to the House people with background knowledge, expertise and a history in the fishery business. I mean that in the best possible way. More than expertise, she brings a certain passion for the whole question of sea resources.
The excellence of the Bill is demonstrated by the fact that two small amendments make it possible. That is itself a great virtue.
I have been aware of this problem for many years, because 30 years ago I was the Member of Parliament for Caithness and Sutherland. We had a great deal of trouble then with a sort of warfare between the islands and the mainland. Seine netters from Shetland and Orkney used to come around the coast to John O'Groats. They would drop 300 creels around the coast, return a couple of days later, move off with their catch and leave the local boys bereft of their living.
I had a great supporter called Jock Mowland, who was a crofter fisherman at John O'Groats. He was a frank and outspoken man. I was explaining to him that there was a case for renting a section of the coast to local fishermen. He recoiled in horror and said with genuine passion, "The sea is free to all". That was because he believed that he was suffering under a landowner on the land, whereas at least the sea was free to all. He came round, and the fishermen have come round, to the view that modern technology is denuding the seas and that we must do something about it.
The excellent technical details produced by the noble Baroness and the brief that I have have been extremely useful. They show that a great deal can be done, and will have to be done around the coast, or we shall be wholly dependent for our fish on the large corporations employing people and the countryside will be denuded of people like my friend Jock Mowland, now long dead, but no doubt enjoying on the heavenly shores a plentitude of lobsters and a high price for them. We can preserve the independence of the communities that we all know that we must keep if we are not to degenerate into an industrial society.
I was interested in the figures supplied. I see that lobsters are worth about £9,000 a tonne, while crabs are worth only £1,000 a tonne. However, they are both worth preserving. The lobster in particular is worth preserving. The methods described must be adopted all around. It will take a great deal of work because it is

87
not just a question of organising the areas and the local fishermen who will take part; it is a question of organising the hatcheries, the distribution and the research necessary, because I cannot believe that the last word has already been said on this. It will need constant research and assessment into how it is going. If we can do that, it is obvious from the high prices paid for lobster that it will be a major factor in preserving the sort of life that we all want to see around our coasts and in our communities.
The Bill is excellent. I applaud the initiative of the noble Baroness, and I trust that the Minister will do all that he can to see that the Bill goes through quickly.
7.54 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing the Bill. It is clear that she wants to do for lobsters what Molly Malone did for cockles and mussels. She gave an excellent explanation of the Bill, so I can be brief. Of course we support it from these Benches. It is a sensible Bill. We are attracted by the arguments that she produced about conservation and employment.
I shall ask just a few questions about the Bill. As I understand it, the effect of the grant of a several order is to give exclusive access to a group of fishermen or individuals. That removes temporarily the public right to fish for the type of shellfish specified. If the effect of a regulating order is to allow the public the right to fish, which is then subject to control by the grantee of the order—it is a point I put to the noble Baroness outside the Chamber—is there any cost to the public? If the public are granted the right under the order to fish, which has been specified by the several order, is there any cost to the public?
There is a question which I hardly dare ask. Does the common fisheries policy have anything to do with this area of fishing? I should be interested to know whether it does. If it does, there may well be problems in the future, because we know that the CFP is in an awful mess. I shall be interested to know whether any aspects of the CFP bear any relationship to the Bill.
I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree with me that it is a pity that when the 1967 Act was first drafted there was not an extension by regulation so that the Minister could bring forward an affirmative order to change the Bill, instead of having to take up time with primary legislation, as she has had to do.
As I understand it now, with the new wording, the relevant section of the 1967 Act will read:
"Cockles, clams, lobsters and any other molluscs or crustaceans",
of a kind specified in regulations made by the appropriate Minister. Presumably, that means that in future any other crustacean which it is wished to include would be picked up by regulation. It is a pity that no regulation-making clause was included in the original Act.
I have a final procedural point. We always have a problem when a Bill amends a previous Act. When one goes to the Library to look up the Sea Fisheries
88
(Shellfish) Act 1967 there is no mention of clams or molluscs. They come in a later amendment. It is still not possible to pick up a copy of an Act which includes all the amendments over time so that one has the final draft. That is a procedural point that we have had before. I am not sure that there is any answer to it. It makes it hard for those of us without the resources of the Government to track down the various amendments and so forth.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: That will change!
Lord Carter: My Lords, I will not promise. I have a final point which has nothing to do with the Bill itself but relates to the marginal notes. The marginal note talks of 1967 and Chapter 70. I went to look up 1967 and Chapter 70 to track down the original Act, but 1967 Chapter 70 is in fact the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act. I do not know how it gets in here, but I am sure that there is a good procedural explanation for it. With those few points—the last points were entirely procedural and not about this Bill in particular—from these Benches we are extremely pleased to support the Bill.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Wilcox for introducing the Bill with great eloquence from her long experience, and her family's long experience, of the industry. I am delighted to be able to say that it is a measure that the Government can wholeheartedly support.
I do not want to detain the House by enlarging on our enthusiasm for the Bill. From what has been said, so long as I say that I join with everything that has been said today, that can be taken for granted. I should like to cover in a little detail some of the ways in which this amendment will be put into practice, were the Bill to be passed.
As my noble friend said, the 1967 Act enables several or regulating orders to be granted for molluscan shellfish. The purpose of both several and regulating orders is to maintain and improve shellfisheries, and as such they are a conservation measure. Several fisheries are so-called because they sever the public right to fish and give the grantee of the order exclusive rights to exploit shellfish in the area cited in the order. In return, grantees must cultivate the fishery by preparing ground to encourage new seed, and often by bringing in seed stocks to grow on in the fishery.
Regulating orders, on the other hand, are used to regulate the management of the fishery by the use of licences to control the number of people who may fish there, and by regulating their fishing effort. In that way, we can preserve fisheries which might otherwise have been at risk of over-exploitation.
There are at present in total some 30 orders in Great Britain, of which 21 relate to several fisheries, seven to regulated fisheries and two to hybrid orders; that is to say a mixture of the two. This low number, 30 in 20 years, illustrates how careful we have been in granting these orders.
Applicants for licences have to go through arduous and stringent procedures. Applicants must first obtain the consent of all those parties with rights in the area

89
concerned. They must then apply to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Scottish Office or the Welsh Office, setting out their plans for managing and improving the fishery.
Expert advice is sought from government fisheries scientists on the application and on whether the area is suitable for this kind of fishery. If this hurdle is overcome, the applicant must then consult all parties with a potential interest in the fishery, public bodies and utilities, conservation, sports and recreational groups and any other appropriate bodies including, in England and Wales, local sea fisheries committees. If the responses are satisfactory, and once any points raised have been taken into account, the order is advertised publicly; it is open to anyone with an interest to object to the proposal. Any objections must be resolved to the satisfaction of the objector or, assuming that they are not frivolous or irrelevant, a full public inquiry must be held at which anyone may raise their concerns, and all of the evidence is considered carefully.
These procedures are designed to guard carefully the rights of individual fishermen and others who may be affected by the granting of an order. Indeed, it might be argued that they are too onerous. But as these orders curtail public rights, it is surely right that they should not be granted too easily.
In the case of lobster fisheries, which occur mainly in coastal waters already exploited by fishermen, we would expect most applications to relate to regulating orders. It is possible that in some cases local sea fisheries committees, or groups of fishermen, will seek a regulating order in order to manage a wild lobster or crab fishery without any intention of stocking it. In such cases, the procedures I have outlined will ensure that the interest of all those who exploit the fishery will be fully taken into account before any order is granted. In any case, licences to fish in a regulated fishery are usually issued in the first instance to those with a track record of fishing the area. This, of course, ensures that a local fishery is fished by those traditionally engaged in fishing the area, and helps to protect it from others who might wish to move in to exploit a profitable fishery.
In most cases, however, we expect the principal interest in regulated fisheries for lobsters to be from those intending to improve the fishery by stocking it with juveniles. As my noble friend has indicated, some sea fisheries committees have already explored this possibility.
This Bill will extend to Scotland, where some 45 per cent, of the UK lobster catch was landed in 1995, but where there are only three several orders and no regulating orders in force. Although Scotland has less experience of these orders, a recent consultation exercise, as my noble friend has pointed out, has shown that there is considerable support among the traditional fishing sector for regulating orders, which would allow local fishermen to manage their local fisheries. I believe that this measure would benefit Scottish, as well as English and Welsh, fishermen. I am sure that my noble friend will have been encouraged by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, in that respect.
90
The Bill before the House today is a very simple one. If it is to work as intended, we feel that it may need to be slightly extended to make some minor consequential amendments to the 1967 Act. We will discuss our concerns with my noble friend before Committee.
Perhaps I may again congratulate my noble friend for bringing forward this measure. If it is adopted, it will serve two valuable purposes. First, it will enable fishermen to benefit from important research into the feasibility of rearing and stocking lobsters. Secondly, it will help conserve for the future, and for future generations of fishermen, our coastal lobster fisheries.
Perhaps with my noble friend's permission I may trespass on her prerogative and offer some comments on the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. The grantees of regulating orders and several orders can charge for access to the fishery. However, the money so raised must be used for improving and managing that fishery. It cannot be taken as a profit. Of course, the common fisheries policy covers that area. We are talking about fisheries within the six mile limit, which is the preserve of United Kingdom fishermen. However, we must notify these agreements to Brussels and one presumes that potentially they can be wound up in some future readjustment of the common fisheries policy, but—
Lord Carter: My Lords, is there any chance of quota hopping on lobsters?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, only within the six mile limit. That is not a consideration which applies. I do not wish to raise the familiar horrors of the common fisheries policy tonight. However, if, as we are totally committed to doing, we defend our six mile limit absolutely, the problem will not arise.
I always admire the noble Lord's forensic abilities in tracking down the way in which an Act is amended and how a Bill is put together. That is a matter which has proved beyond me since the noble Lord advised me of this problem. Why a lobster should cross the road is beyond me, too.
Finally, the noble Lord asked why an order-making power was not incorporated in the 1967 Act. There are two answers. First, it was a consolidating Act but I have not been further back to discover what Acts were being consolidated. Secondly, even as regards the greatest governments small mistakes are made. As regards the great Fred Peart, whose Bill this was, one ought to allow some measure of mistake—even to that great man.
8.6 p.m.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. My noble friend Lord Lucas spoke most encouragingly on behalf of the Government in support of the Bill and I thank him. My noble friend Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal has great experience with the Shellfish Association and the Fishmongers Company. It undertakes excellent work on fish farming and fish development and it is lovely to see one of the great livery companies of the City still working and supporting its origins. On behalf of my industry, I thank my noble friend for that.

91
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, most generously referred to my "fishy" background and spoke of local fishermen—in his case of local crofter fishermen—in a way that I remember so well. Years ago one tried to explain to them how the possibility of renting an area of the seabed could ever come about. I believe and hope that now the moment has come to support the local community in that way.
I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, was attracted by the conservation and employment elements of this amendment Bill. He kindly gave me forewarning of his questions and I was somewhat prepared for them. However, I am grateful that my noble friend Lord Lucas was able to answer them. I feel happy with those answers and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, does too.
As regards confusion about the Road Traffic Act, I can think only that if it is brought into effect in this Bill it will at least control the lobster quadrilles. If the noble Lord has ever seen a crab's sideways scuttle, I am sure that he will agree that it is contravening the underwater traffic Act somewhere along the line.
The Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 has worked well for molluscs, giving obvious conservation benefits, and it has allowed that part of the fishing industry to thrive. This amendment Bill will extend those conservation benefits to lobsters and other Crustacea, while managing more of the country's marine resources. We now have the opportunity to expand shellfish farming, including stock enhancements, boosting our highly valuable British coastal resources in the years to come.
I ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading. In doing so, I wish again to say how grateful I am for the support that has been brought to me at this late hour. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Education (Special Educational Needs) Bill [H.L.]
Report received.

British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill [H.L.]
8 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—{Lord Willoughby de Broke.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Baroness Hooper) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Acquisition of British citizenship]:
[Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [British citizens "otherwise than by descent"]:
Lord Willoughby de Broke Lord Willoughby de Broke moved Amendment
No. 3: Page 1, line 24, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: The deletion of subsection (2) of this clause will remove any danger of attack upon the Bill whereby it may be construed that it interferes with the provisions of the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990. Therefore, this provision will tighten the Bill and make it more acceptable to the Government. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: The Government see this amendment as an improvement. The present Clause 2(2) conflicts with the clearly stated principle behind the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990 that, as a short-term measure dealing with an exceptional situation, its benefits should not extend to future descendants of those selected under the British Nationality Selection Scheme. It would also give to the solely British ethnic minority scheme beneficiaries an advantage denied to other scheme beneficiaries. The Government welcome the fact that those deficiencies are being rectified by the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Supplementary]:
[Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Short title and extent]:
Lord Willoughby de Broke Lord Willoughby de Broke moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 26, leave out ("section 3(3)") and insert ("section 4(3)").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to correct a typographical error in Clause 5(2). It should refer to Section 4(3) instead of Section 3(3).
Perhaps I may explain to the Committee the reasons for not moving Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. Certain issues have arisen which need further thought and clarification. I hope to return to deal with those matters at Report or on Third Reading. I look forward to doing that. In the meantime, I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Wilson of Tillyorn: It may seem odd to rise to speak on an amendment which seeks to correct a typographical error, but the proceedings have gone through so quickly that I was not able to rise earlier.
I wish to express my support for the earlier amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke. More important, I wish to express my support for the tremendous effort that he has made to deal with

93
this very small but real problem which affects a significant group of people in Hong Kong. That deserves our support.
Perhaps I may merely comment on that earlier amendment that it is a form of rough justice but a perfectly acceptable form of rough justice for the reasons which the noble Lord and the Minister referred to; namely, it avoids conflict with the earlier British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990. If we are to deal with that group of people, we must make sure that we do not become tangled up in the thorns of some other problem because this issue now deserves to be dealt with. I should like to express my support for the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke.
Lord Geddes: I rise to support my noble friend Lord Willougby de Broke and to echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn. This is a cause which is well worth pursuing. It has been pursued now for some years on all sides of the Chamber. I ask my noble friend to take very seriously both the fact and the principle behind the fact of the Bill.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I strongly support the Bill. I feel that there is an issue of timing here. It is vital that we should be seen to do the honourable and proper thing now and not be forced to do it in some very ambiguous way later which would probably cause infinitely more trouble and danger to our future relationship with China. It is better to take this action
94
now as a matter of course—tidying up a family issue and an issue of loyalty and honour. I believe that the Chinese respect people who respect themselves. They would find it very difficult to respect us if we do something unwillingly later under pressure or perhaps not do it at all, which would be even worse.
Lord Dubs: I support this amendment and in doing so, I take the opportunity to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, on the effort that he has put into this Bill. It is an extremely worthwhile measure which I hope will meet with the approval of the House in its later stages. I hope that it becomes law before the election. It is an excellent measure and it will make a significant difference to a very small group of people in Hong Kong whose rights would otherwise have been taken away from them.
Baroness Blatch: As regards the amendment itself, as my noble friend said, it merely seeks to rectify an incorrect cross-reference and as such, the amendment is acceptable. However, in view of the general comments that have been made, I should repeat that the Government are still not supporting the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes past eight o'clock.

  "Sea Empress": Clean-up Operation
  "Sea Empress": Clean-up Operation
  40-Tonne Lorries: Strengthening of Road Structures
  40-Tonne Lorries: Strengthening of Road Structures
  London Underground: Employee Activities
  London Underground: Employee Activities
  Insolvent Companies: Transfer of Assets
  Insolvent Companies: Transfer of Assets
  War Pensions: Reasons for Award
  War Pensions: Reasons for Award
  Children Dependent on Income Support
  Children Dependent on Income Support
  Income Support Recipients
  Income Support Recipients
  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990: Review of Schedule 3
  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990: Review of Schedule 3
  Cavity Wound Dressing Provision
  Cavity Wound Dressing Provision
  Drug Tariff: Cavity Wound Dressings
  Drug Tariff: Cavity Wound Dressings
  Consultancies: Expenditure by Government Departments
  Consultancies: Expenditure by Government Departments
  Gulf War: Allegations of Chemical Warfare
  Gulf War: Allegations of Chemical Warfare
  Show Houses: Rating
  Show Houses: Rating
  Fishing Vessels: "Kilowatt Days"
  Fishing Vessels: "Kilowatt Days"
  MAFF-funded Research: Exploitation Following Privatisation
  MAFF-funded Research: Exploitation Following Privatisation
  BSE
  BSE
  Agriculture Council, 16th and 17th December
  Agriculture Council, 16th and 17th December
  Firearms-related Deaths: International Statistics
  Firearms-related Deaths: International Statistics
  Kairos Prison Ministry
  Kairos Prison Ministry
  Immigration Act Detention Centres
  Immigration Act Detention Centres
  Police Cautions: Disclosure
  Police Cautions: Disclosure
  Custody Time Limit: Excess Detention
  Custody Time Limit: Excess Detention
  Parliamentary By-elections: Timing
  Parliamentary By-elections: Timing
  Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951
  Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951
  British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill: Ethnic Minorities
  British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill: Ethnic Minorities
  Prisoners: Responsibility for Mental Health
  Prisoners: Responsibility for Mental Health
  Prison Conditions
  Prison Conditions
  Local Prisons: Population Statistics
  Local Prisons: Population Statistics