Sitting of 23 January 1997

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

    Electoral Registration
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimates he has made of under-registration on the electoral registers which will be used in the next general election; and if he will make a statement. [10547]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Tom Sackville): Figures for the number of electors on the registers coming into force on 16 February are not yet available. In 1996, there were 42.8 million names on the electoral register in Great Britain, compared with an estimated resident population of eligible age of 45 million.
    Mr. Barnes: Will the new registers operating from 16 February, which will be used in the next general election, be in a better state than previous registers which had millions of people missing from them? I have raised this matter many times before in the House. Can details comparing the registered and eligible populations in each constituency be published as soon as possible so that we can see what state the registers are in? Will every effort be made to put people on supplementary lists so that, even under the current inadequate system, as many people as possible are on electoral registers before the general election?
    Mr. Sackville: We continue to spend substantial sums trying to encourage people to register through advertising and in other ways. As the hon. Gentleman knows, however, even after the obvious discrimination was removed from our electoral system, we retained an element of permanency of residence as a condition. That means that those who cannot claim to have been resident in a constituency on a particular date in the preceding October will not be registered there. It does not mean that we are not making the greatest effort to ensure the highest possible level of registration.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend agree that, by law, an electoral registration officer may not have his or her register up to date but that it must be at least five months out of date? Can serious consideration be given—perhaps not for the forthcoming general election, but for
    1058
    the one after that—to introducing a system of rolling registration so that people can be registered to vote at the place where they are resident?
    Mr. Sackville: A rolling register would be expensive, bureaucratic and unlikely to achieve a higher overall level of registration. The current system of a register which requires people to prove residence in October has served us well.
    Mr. Henderson: Does the Minister accept that if democracy is worth having it must be paid for? Is it not embarrassing to our democracy that some 3 million adults will be disfranchised in the election that will take place in a few weeks' time? Should that not be a matter of concern to the whole House? Should not the Government now consider establishing an all-party Committee of the House to see how best we can tackle the problem and enfranchise all our country's citizens?
    Mr. Sackville: Obviously ideas can be put forward, but the hon. Gentleman should remember that we cannot force people to register if they cannot be bothered or simply do not wish to register. What we can do, however, is try to encourage all those who are prepared to take an interest to take the trouble to ensure that they are on the register.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My hon. Friend referred to a degree of permanency of residence. In considering that aspect, will he bear in mind the question of constituencies with universities? Students are there for a very ephemeral time and yet they can affect the whole outcome. They need make no effort to get on the register; they are simply put on it by the university authorities. Could they not register in their home towns rather than in those where they are ephemeral students?
    Mr. Sackville: Students can register in any place where they can establish a degree of permanency of residence. If any misdemeanours are taking place involving people being registered but not at their own request, my hon. Friend's electoral registration officer should look into the matter.

    Reoffending
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his current estimate of the proportion of the prison population who reoffend after being released. [10548]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe): The most recent available information indicates that 51 per cent. of all sentenced prisoners discharged in 1992 from Prison Service establishments in England and Wales were reconvicted for a standard list offence within two years.
    Mr. Cohen: Does not the fact that more than half of all prisoners reoffend within two years of release make a mockery of the Home Secretary's claim that prison works? Are not the reoffending rates similar after prison and after probation, whereas the cost per prisoner is £1,800 per month and the cost of probation is less than £200 a month? Are there not strong cost and rehabilitation grounds for putting fewer people in prison?
    Miss Widdecombe: No, in either case. First, prison reconviction rates at present are better than reconviction

    1059
    rates for those being sentenced in the community. Secondly, it is not merely a question of cost. The hon. Gentleman should understand that prison works by protecting the general public from the activities of those who are kept within it.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is it not astonishing that the reconviction rate for those sentenced in the community is higher by 4 per cent. than the reconviction rate for those sent to prison? Does my hon. Friend draw from that fact the conclusion either that the probation service is not so effective as it ought to be in rehabilitating offenders in the community, or that prison is more effective than many people think that it is in rehabilitating offenders inside prison?
    Miss Widdecombe: I attribute the success of the Prison Service in rehabilitation to the tremendous strides that it has made in its programmes over the past few years. The number of prisoner hours in education has increased from 4.6 million in 1979 to 9.4 million in 1995–96.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: You have doubled the number of prisoners.
    Miss Widdecombe: There has been a rise of 21 per cent. in expenditure between 1993 and 1995. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) called out from a sedentary position that the number of prisoners has doubled. If he works it out, he will see that the rise in the number of hours has far outstripped the rise in the number of prisoners. The types of national vocational qualification offered have increased from 24 only three years ago to 48, and there has been a similar increase in offending behaviour courses. That is where the explanation lies.
    Mr. Winnick: Is it not important that those who commit the most serious crimes should be in prison in the first place? Is the Minister aware that many of us are deeply concerned that those responsible for the murder of Stephen Lawrence have not been brought to justice? Is it not important that every effort should continue to be made to put those who murdered that 17-year-old lad in the dock? We hope that speedy progress will be made by the police force.
    Miss Widdecombe: Whereas I can extend my sympathy to the relatives concerned, I cannot comment on the case in the terms that the hon. Gentleman invites. Where serious crime has been committed, it is important that the perpetrators are brought to justice. If the hon. Gentleman feels that as strongly as I do, and if he believes that those who commit the most serious crimes should be in prison, why did the Labour party abstain on the Crime (Sentences) Bill last week?
    Mr. Booth: As was stated in the lead-up to the Prisoners' Earnings Bill last year, Home Office research shows that prisoners released from prison after having proper work experience in prison had a reoffending rate that is 50 per cent. better. As the Home Office supported the Bill, will it go on monitoring the working of the legislation?
    Miss Widdecombe: I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing that Bill. I can confirm that it assists prisoners
    1060
    if they have good work opportunities in prison. We shall, of course, monitor that and seek to increase those opportunities.

    Cannabis
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to allow cannabis to be prescribed by medically qualified doctors. [10549]
    Mr. Sackville: No.
    Mr. Prentice: What on earth is so dreadful about allowing medically qualified doctors to prescribe cannabis when it was quite lawful before 1971? Many people with disabling conditions, such as multiple sclerosis and arthritis, claim that cannabis gives them relief. Is it not curious that only two days ago the Minister said that dronabinol, which is an active derivative of cannabis, may be prescribed lawfully by hospital doctors? Some 24 years after cannabis was banned from use in hospitals, it has been discovered that dronabinol can combat nausea suffered by patients undergoing chemotherapy. Is there not a compelling case for allowing the doctors—and not the politicians—to decide?
    Mr. Sackville: If there are medicinal claims about cannabis or its derivatives, they must pass through the same mechanisms as other medicines. Unless clinical trials prove that they are safe and efficacious and that there is a consistent level of product quality, they will not be licensed as medicines.
    The World Health Organisation made recommendations about dronabinol. A company must lodge a licence application for the product, which must then pass through clinical trials in order to get a licence in this country. In the event of medicinal claims about products, applications can be made to the relevant authorities at the Medicines Control Agency.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend recall the words of the late Home Office pathologist, the famous Professor Francis Camp, who said that soft drugs such as cannabis inevitably lead to hard drugs and that hard drugs lead to death—often within seven years? Is that not a warning to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), for the Liberal Democrats and for all who advocate the use of soft drugs?
    Mr. Sackville: Although there are some genuine cases, there is no doubt that many of those calling for the medicinal use of cannabis are using it as a stalking horse to promote the campaign for its legalisation. The Liberal Democrat party conference voted for the legalisation of cannabis, and I hope that the Liberal justice and home affairs spokesman, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), will withdraw from that decision. If there are medicinal uses for cannabis, they must be proved. In the absence of such evidence, we must not send a confused message to young people when we have told them that cannabis and all illegal drugs are dangerous and should be avoided.
    Mr. Flynn: Would not the better message be that all drugs are dangerous, that young people who smoke

    1061
    cigarettes are 22 times more likely to use hard and soft drugs than other groups, and that in 95 per cent. of cases hard drugs are used under the influence of alcohol? Does the Minister recall that, in answer to a letter from three hon. Members representing three political parties—including his own—the Medical Research Council said that it was an established fact that cannabis was uniquely valuable in treating multiple sclerosis, the side-effects of chemotherapy and several other diseases and that there was no replacement product? Why on earth are the Government sticking to their line in order to gain popularity with the voters and thereby denying the sick a unique medicine?
    Mr. Sackville: It is open to any producer to apply for a licence for a cannabis product. As to the hon. Gentleman's comments about other dangers, no one disagrees that pharmaceutical drugs and cigarettes are dangerous. However, he should not use them as a front for implicitly calling for the legalisation of drugs. I hope that Opposition Front Bench Members will distance themselves from his remarks.

    Members of Parliament
    Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the number of hon. Members. [10550]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): The full complement of this House stands at present at 651 right hon. and hon. Members. That figure will rise to 659 from the next general election.
    Sir David Knox: After the general election, there will be 34 more Members of Parliament than there were when I was first elected to the House almost 27 years ago. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the time has come at least to stabilise the number of Members of Parliament or, preferably, to start to reduce the number?
    Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The steady increase in the number of constituencies in recent years is a consequence of the way in which the rules for the redistribution of seats have been interpreted. I do not think that that outcome was wholly foreseen when the rules were first agreed, which is why I have announced my intention to conduct a review of them.
    Mr. Dalyell: As the question on the Order Paper is about "honourable" Members, may I ask the Home Secretary whether he has had brought to his attention the new statements of Mohamed Al Fayed on television, which many of our constituents throughout the country have seen, reflecting the gravest allegations—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is making a very good point with which we may have some sympathy, but it really does not relate to
    1062
    the question on the Order Paper, which is an important question, and I shall call a couple of hon. Members from both sides of the House.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Does the Home Secretary agree that what is required for this honourable House is many more Labour Members on the Government Benches?
    Madam Speaker: I thought that I was doing the House a service, but it does not appear that I am. However, I am sure that the Home Secretary will want to reply.
    Mr. Howard: I think that the hon. Gentleman will have to whistle in the wind for quite some time. The truth of the matter is that the House provides a most effective way of representing the views of our constituents, as reflected by a majority on the Conservative Benches. I have every confidence that such a majority will continue after the election.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Would not the creation of a Parliament with tax-raising powers north of the border call into question the number of Scottish Members in the House? Is that not a particularly important issue to address?
    Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) did not raise the West Lothian question, which he originated and which is central to this issue. The Labour party has still not begun to provide an answer to the question: why should Members be elected in Scotland to come to this place to decide matters of health, education and transport in England when English Members of Parliament will have no say whatever in deciding questions of health, education and transport in Scotland?
    Mr. Llwyd: Does the Home Secretary not realise that the answer is simple and straightforward? He could reduce the number of seats in the House by 112 immediately by granting proper legislative Parliaments to both Scotland and Wales, which would be to everyone's benefit.
    Mr. Howard: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's view of what should happen is entirely shared by Opposition Members who argue the cause of devolution so strenuously. There may well be a logical consequence and a link between the two which the hon. Gentleman identifies, but it is a question and a link that the Labour party has consistently failed to recognise.

    Metropolitan Police
    Sir Michael Shersby: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on current manning levels and prospects for recruitment during 1997–98; and if he will make a statement. [10552]
    Mr. Howard: I regularly discuss with the Commissioner staffing levels and prospects for recruitment in the Metropolitan police. He assures me that

    1063
    the proposed settlement for the Metropolitan police for 1997–98 would enable him to increase officer strength to 27,400 during 1997.
    Sir Michael Shersby: Despite the very welcome drop in crime of about 13 per cent. in the Metropolitan police area as a whole, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is concern in the outer London boroughs—particularly in south-west area No. 5, which includes my constituency—about proposed changes in manpower? Is he further aware that the need for effective policing means that there is a need to maintain those manpower levels? Will he therefore review the impact of the national funding formula arrangements on the Metropolitan police and provide an appropriate mechanism to ensure that the special needs of the Metropolitan police area are taken fully into account and that manpower continues to be maintained at a high level?
    Mr. Howard: I have, indeed, undertaken to review the application of the national funding formula to the Metropolitan police and the arrangements that we have made for the funding of the Metropolitan police include a recognition of the special needs of the Metropolitan police force. Indeed, the funding that we propose for 1997–98 represents a 3.4 per cent. increase on the 1996–97 allocation—an increase of no less than £55 million.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Home Secretary explain how he reconciles with his declared policy on the effectiveness of police officers a reduction of 755 Metropolitan police officers in the past four years and a reduction nationwide of about 1,000 police officers over the past four years? Those are Home Office figures.
    Mr. Howard: The truth of the matter is that the September 1996 figures showed that there were more than 98,000 police constables in England and Wales, which is more than there have ever been before. The public are interested in seeing police officers on the street on patrol duty helping to create a safer Britain. That is exactly what is happening.
    Mr. Congdon: I very much welcome the fact that there are 5,000 extra police officers in the Metropolitan police area compared with 1979. When my right hon. and learned Friend quite properly reviews the national funding formula, will he take particular account of the impact on outer London?
    Mr. Howard: I understand my hon. Friend's point. The internal allocation of funding and officers within the Metropolitan police area is an operational matter for the Commissioner, but I am sure that all relevant matters will be taken into account in the review.

    Clear-up Rates
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of crimes notified to the police were cleared up in the latest year for which figures are available. [10553]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): Clear-up rates vary considerably, depending on the type of crime. The overall clear-up rate for
    1064
    notifiable offences in 1995 was 26 per cent. For the most serious types of crime, clear-up rates were very high: 92 per cent. of all homicides, 77 per cent. of acts of violence against the person and 76 per cent. of sexual offences were cleared up.
    Mr. Bayley: Is the Minister aware that since the Conservatives came to power in 1979 the number of offences committed in North Yorkshire has trebled from 20,000 to 59,000 a year? According to the chief constable's reports during that period, the detection rate has fallen from 49 per cent. to 23 per cent., and North Yorkshire now has fewer police officers than it had in 1979 under the Labour Government. Is that not a crushing indictment of the Conservatives' failure to control crime and convict criminals? Is it not time that the Conservatives went?
    Mr. Maclean: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman brings his facts up to date. According to the figures that we have received from North Yorkshire, the chief constable expects to recruit 20 extra officers this year as a result of the additional funding that we are giving him. If the hon. Gentleman and his party were concerned about crime in North Yorkshire in the 1980s, they did not show much sign of it. They voted against everything that chief constables in North Yorkshire and elsewhere wanted in order to tackle crime. With regard to the power of the Attorney-General to review lenient sentences, for instance, Labour Members voted against that measure then, and they did not even have the guts to vote for the Crime (Sentences) Bill last week.
    Mr. Bayley: You are lying, and you know it.
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has used unparliamentary language, which is unacceptable. Will he withdraw what he has just said?
    Mr. Bayley: The Minister's comments were—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I will deal with this matter.
    Mr. Bayley: The Minister's comments were a total misrepresentation of the position in the 1980s, but if you require me to withdraw the word that I used, Madam Speaker, I do so.
    Madam Speaker: I do require you to do so.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: In seeking to cool the atmosphere, may I ask whether my right hon. and learned Friend accepts that closed circuit television has made a major contribution not just to reducing crime, but to bringing people who have committed offences before the courts? Will he continue to give maximum financial and other support to the establishment of closed circuit television systems in town centres, and particularly in the centre of my town of Macclesfield, which has submitted an application that I hope will be warmly endorsed by his Department?
    Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is well known as one who pours oil on troubled waters whenever he can. He will know of the tremendous funding that we have given

    1065
    to the establishment of closed circuit television. We see CCTV as a means of preventing crime, of catching criminals and of helping to convict the guilty, which is why we put £5 million into it in the first year and £15 million last year. We are reviewing the bids for CCTV in the current round and we shall consider all representations carefully because we want to spend the £15 million as wisely as possible throughout the country. I thank my hon. Friend for his warm welcome for that initiative.
    Mr. Michael: Can we cut through the Minister's rhetoric and deal with facts? Does the Minister not realise that the only people who are happy with the Government's record on crime are the criminals? As crime has doubled and prosecutions have dropped, the criminals are twice as likely to get away with it as they were under the last Labour Government, and three times as likely to get away with violent crimes. Is the Minister proud of his record?
    Mr. Maclean: That was rhetoric if ever we heard it. The hon. Gentleman talks about criminals being happy. I think that it was the head of the Superintendents Association, Chief Superintendent Brian Mackenzie, who said this week—following Labour's behaviour in the other place—that criminals would be clapping their hands with joy because Labour peers had voted for two contradictory amendments. [Interruption.] I have not given the House rhetoric; I have given the House facts. I have given the House the facts of the Labour party's voting record, which has been consistent in the 1980s and the 1990s. Last week, when we discussed the Crime (Sentences) Bill—which gives powers to lock up automatically, for life, the most serious violent and dangerous offenders, powers to lock up drug dealers for seven years and powers to lock up persistent burglars for three years—Labour Members abstained. They voted against such legislation in the 1980s and abstained in the 1990s. That is why they will be rejected in a few months' time.

    Woodhill Prison
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for the future of Woodhill prison. [10554]
    Miss Widdecombe: There are no plans to change the role of Woodhill as a local prison, or its capacity. It will also continue to take category A prisoners, and a programme of work is under way to provide improved physical and procedural security to meet the relevant recommendations of Sir John Woodcock and General Sir John Learmont.
    Woodhill will continue to take a small number of disruptive prisoners, and they will be housed in a new close supervision unit. In addition, the same building will include a small unit for holding female prisoners who need to be kept in conditions of high security.
    Mr. Butler: May I begin by saying what a pleasure it will be to address my hon. Friend as my right hon. Friend? I offer my congratulations on behalf of Conservative Members.
    My hon. Friend will be aware that there has been great concern in my constituency and elsewhere near Woodhill about constant reports that there is to be upgrading and
    1066
    that money is to be spent to permit Myra Hindley to be held there. May I make it clear to my hon. Friend that although we want Myra Hindley to be held for as long as possible, we do not want her to be held anywhere near Milton Keynes and we do not require luxury facilities to be built for that purpose?
    Miss Widdecombe: I think that I can reassure my hon. Friend. No decision has been made about the location of any particular prisoner in connection with Woodhill. As for the stories of luxury, they are similar to the scaremongering stories that we often hear from the Labour party. In fact, there is only the most basic provision in Woodhill, in keeping with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary's policy that prison should be decent but austere. There will be no in-cell television or radio, normal volumetric control will apply and furniture and equipment will be standard prison issue, including metal-frame beds. Association areas will have standard furnishings and equipment.

    Recorded Crime
    Mr. Sweeney: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the overall levels of recorded crime for the last three years for which figures are available. [10555]
    Mr. Howard: Recorded crime levels in the last 12 months to June 1996, the latest period for which figures are available, were 10 per cent. lower than three years before that. That is a fall of more than half a million offences—the biggest continuous fall over three years since records were first kept in 1857.
    Mr. Sweeney: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the figures that he has given compare favourably with those for any country in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development? Will he join me in congratulating the Vale of Glamorgan police, who have achieved a substantial reduction in the rate of recorded crime for the last two years? Will he also accept the plaudits of the people of the Vale of Glamorgan for the contribution made by the additional police whom he has provided? Tougher penalties for criminals have helped to produce that success.
    Mr. Howard: In the last two years for which figures are available, the fall in recorded crime in England and Wales was the highest recorded in a survey of 18 OECD countries. Across the country, the police deserve congratulation on that success. I am delighted to be able to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the police in the Vale of Glamorgan on their success.
    Mr. Sheerman: The Home Secretary must know that the public are suffering from reporting fatigue. They are fed up of reporting burglaries and car break-ins. Real crime is still rising, and rising fast. Is not it time that he spoke to the great British public, who would tell him that time and again?
    Mr. Howard: The odd thing is that when the crime figures were rising, Labour never criticised them. When we introduced the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, the Leader of the Opposition, no less, asked:

    1067
    "If it does not cut crime, will he accept that it has failed?"—[Official Report, 11 January 1994; Vol. 235, c. 21.]
    Since it has been on the statute book, recorded crime has consistently fallen. I hope that the Labour party will now accept that that Bill and our other measures have succeeded in helping to make Britain a safer place.
    Mr. Garnier: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the best ways to reduce crime is to introduce closed circuit television'? In the borough of Oadby and Wigston, in my constituency, the predominantly Liberal Democrat council refuses to support an application by schools and the police in Leicestershire for its introduction. Following that application by the police and by Conservative-minded and anti-crime people, £95 million of Government money is to be spent introducing it, to the benefit of the population.
    Mr. Howard: I am not at all surprised by what my hon. and learned Friend said. The attitude of that Liberal Democrat-controlled council is typical of Liberal Democrats across the country. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) likes to pontificate, but the actions of Liberal Democrats in control of local government show that they do not care in the slightest about taking effective action to deal with crime.
    Mr. Straw: Does the Home Secretary recognise that he is no more convincing when he talks about crime figures than he was when he used to talk about unemployment figures? Why does he not own up not to figures for the past 12 months but to those for the past 18 years, during which crime has doubled? The Conservatives have achieved the worst record of any Government since the war. Internationally, they have the worst record of any industrialised country. On serious crime alone, their record since 1979 is 10 times worse than that of the United States. That is a record of abject failure.
    Mr. Howard: Unlike the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), the hon. Gentleman seems to set great store by the figures. I hope that he accepts what the figures show for the past three years. He is not in the best position to talk about sounding convincing. Earlier this week, he gave an interview to The Independent, which was reported by no less a person than Polly Toynbee who said, roughly, that she trusted the hon. Gentleman because she did not believe a word that he was saying.

    Drug Abuse (Prisons)
    Mr. Hawksley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what initiatives the Prison Service is taking to control prisoners' access to drugs. [10557]
    Miss Widdecombe: Specific measures to control the supply of drugs into prisons include enhanced searching, increased use of closed circuit television and sniffer dogs. We are also assessing the results of a pilot scheme on the mandatory use of non-contact or closed visits. In addition, many establishments have taken the opportunity to develop local initiatives for controlling the supply of drugs.
    Mr. Hawksley: I had hoped that when people were sent to prison, there would be an opportunity to reduce the
    1068
    amount of drugs that they took. I welcome the mandatory drug-testing regime, but its results show that in Cardiff 74 per cent. of tests were positive and in Featherstone and Dorchester the figure was more than 50 per cent. Has any disciplinary action been taken against the warders and governors of prisons that show high levels of positive results from mandatory testing? They appear to be turning a blind eye to the problem, because almost all the drugs must come from visitors, whom they could control.
    Miss Widdecombe: It is certainly not the case that a blind eye is being turned to drugs in prisons—many initiatives and ring-fenced funding have demonstrated our commitment to combating the problem. A prisoner who was found to have taken drugs could be subject to disciplinary action, resulting in the loss of up to 42 days' remission; a prison officer who was found have brought in drugs would be subject to dismissal; and a visitor who was found to have brought in drugs would be subject to prosecution. We have a firm programme, which is working.
    Mr. George Howarth: I congratulate the hon. Lady on being made a Privy Councillor. Will she acknowledge that, over the past few months, Ministers have repeatedly given me inaccurate information on the scale and types of drugs being detected in the prison system? Does she accept that as soon as accurate information is available, it should be published so that we can make a proper assessment of what is happening in prisons and informed decisions on how to combat the growing menace of drug abuse in our prison system?
    Miss Widdecombe: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. As I met him this week specifically to discuss the issue, he will be aware that there are some doubts and questions—which are perhaps not particularly large or with a particularly vast effect—on the integrity of retests, which are given after test results have been challenged, and on the impact of that matter on the overall figures. He will be aware—as I have given him an undertaking—that the matter is being examined urgently, that the figures are being refined and that any past statements we have made that may have been based on old and questionable figures will be corrected.

    Violent Crime
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the finding of the British crime survey regarding the proportion of adults who were victims of violent crime once or more during 1995. [10559]
    Mr. Maclean: The 1996 British crime survey found that overall 5.2 per cent. of adults were victims of violent crime one or more times during 1995. That percentage includes woundings, robberies and domestic violence.
    Mr. McAvoy: Are not those figures a shocking indictment of the Tories' record on crime prevention? They claim to belong to the party of law and order, but, during a 12-month period, one in 14 adults were mugged at least once, and very few of the offenders were caught. Does the Minister accept that a Government who are incapable of protecting citizens should go?
    Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman has not been paying attention to the substantial falls in crime over the

    1069
    past three years. We do not merely claim to be the party of law and order—we are the party of law and order, because we vote for law and order measures. If the hon. Gentlemen and the Labour party want to inherit that mantle, they had better start voting for such measures, rather than voting against them or abstaining.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Are not the reductions in crime, which are very welcome, a direct result of the measures taken by the Government to ensure that legal obstacles are swept aside, so that guilty people can be convicted? Are not criminals the only group who would welcome the election of a Labour Government, as they would know that a Labour Government would not lift a finger to remove other legal obstacles to imprisoning more criminals?
    Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As Chief Superintendent Brian Mackenzie said this week, criminals will not have been lifting their fingers but clapping with joy at the decision taken by Labour peers in another place. Over the past three years, under a Conservative Government, crime has decreased considerably, which is testimony to the record number of police constables that we now have.

    Police Duties
    Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of how many more police officers will be on the beat in 1997 than (a) 1979 and (b) 1992. [10560]
    Mr. Maclean: On the basis of chief constables' estimates, by March 1997 there could be over 16,000 more police constables in England and Wales than there were in May 1979, and about 3,000 more than in March 1992.
    Mr. Hawkins: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Do not those figures demonstrate that the Conservative party has consistently supported a policy of getting more police officers back on the beat? Will he confirm that the Government intend to provide ever more funding for ever more police officers on the beat? Is it not true that, on law and order, the British people can trust only the Conservative party—unlike the Labour party, whose Front-Bench spokesman was this week so strongly supported by a fellow 1960s liberal?
    Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We do not need to look at forecasts to see the record of the Labour party in power on police numbers. In 1979, the police force was 8,000 under establishment; now, we have 16,000 more constables, paid for and provided by the British taxpayer under a Conservative Government. We shall continue with our pledge to have 5,000 more police officers—I notice that the shadow Home Secretary has not acknowledged or promised to commit himself to that pledge.
    Mr. Hutton: Will the Minister remind the House how many police forces in England and Wales will have fewer officers on the beat in 1997 than in 1992? If he needs any
    1070
    help in answering that question, I can tell him that one of those police forces will be Cumbria constabulary, which covers his constituency and mine.
    Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman is totally wrong on that, too. I have given the House the figures, which show that we have record numbers of constables, and they are constables for operational duty. Cumbria, too, has benefited from the increased funding provided for the 5,000 more officers promised by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. A party that left the police force 8,000 under strength is in no moral position to quibble about the present record police numbers.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Salmond: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 January. [10577]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Salmond: Does the Prime Minister realise that for £200 million we could re-equip every primary school in the United Kingdom with books and new computers to the tune of £10,000 per school? Would not that be a more meaningful project for the millennium generation than building a giant dome in Greenwich with a lifespan of 10 years? How does he think people in Birmingham, Swansea or Glasgow feel about the concentration of funds on Heseltine's folly on the Thames?
    The Prime Minister: Many different projects will come out of the millennium fund—all of them worthy—including that to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It is not a question of having only a single project for the millennium. As a result of the lottery, which we established, about £1.8 billion will be available for the millennium. It will be spent in a variety of ways, and I think that, in one way or another, it will benefit almost every part of the country.
    Mr. Alexander: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, since the last general election, unemployment figures have fallen dramatically and without resort to a windfall tax? If anyone was minded to impose one, should not we be told which companies would be subject to it, on what basis they would be subject to it, how much it would cost them and what revenue would result?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about the desirability of knowing precisely what the windfall tax might amount to and who would pay for it. There seems to be some confusion about who would pay for it. I gather that yesterday the Leader of the Opposition's office said that British Airways did not fit inside the terms of the windfall tax but that the shadow Trade and Industry Secretary said that, as far as she was aware, no one had ruled out the fact that British Airways

    1071
    would have to pay a windfall tax. Remarkably, having contradicted the leader's office, she went on to add that she did not think there was any confusion about that policy.
    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister seems very keen to ask me questions and have me answer them. I suggest that if he is really keen on that, he goes ahead and calls the general election. However, let us do things in a more conventional way to begin with.
    After this morning's Cabinet meeting, will the Prime Minister confirm unequivocally what he said unequivocally in December: that he will not rule out the option of joining a single currency in the next Parliament, even in the first wave, and that that will remain his party's position at the next general election?
    The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm that point and I will explain to the right hon. Gentleman what the Cabinet did and decided this morning. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has conducted a review of the criteria for a single currency and that was looked at in depth in Cabinet this morning. We have concluded, on the basis of that detailed examination of the criteria and on the basis of the information currently available, that it is very unlikely, although not impossible, that a single currency will be able to proceed safely on 1 January 1999. I am talking not just about Britain's participation, but about the single currency itself. If it did proceed without reliable convergence, we would not, of course, be part of it.
    Mr. Blair: Let us just—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Blair: Let us be clear about what the Prime Minister means there. Is he saying that it is unlikely—
    Mr. David Evans: What is your policy?
    Madam Speaker: Order. This is not a time when the Opposition answer questions; it is a time when the Opposition ask questions.
    Mr. Blair: Let us be clear about what the Prime Minister is saying, particularly in light of the interview that the Chancellor has just given on television. Is the Prime Minister saying that it is unlikely that the whole system will go ahead on 1 January 1999? Is it clear that if the system does go ahead on 1 January 1999, he retains the option to join?
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman reads what I have said, he will find that I answered that question quite explicitly just a few moments ago. I said that on the information currently available, it was very unlikely that the single currency would proceed safely on 1 January 1999 and that if it did proceed without reliable convergence, we would not be part of it.
    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister is not answering the question of whether he agrees with the Chancellor that if
    1072
    the single currency does proceed on the right criteria, he retains the option to join. Let him answer that question specifically and then let him answer this question, too. If that is the position of the Conservative party, is it the position of the whole Conservative party? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] "Yes", they all chorus. Will he then tell us whether he will prevent—[HON. MEMBERS: "Bye bye."] I know quite well why Conservative Members want this question to be shouted down. Will the Prime Minister undertake to say that if that is the position of the whole Conservative party, he will prevent any group of Conservative party candidates from standing on the manifesto of ruling out the option altogether?
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman had had a mirror in front of him so that he could see the faces behind him, he might just have settled on my first two answers, both of which I am happy to reiterate to him.
    Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if any politicians try to persuade voters that living standards and pay packets are safe in their hands by making a few pledges about income tax rates, and if those politicians do not simultaneously and unequivocally rule out any tampering with the ceiling on national insurance contributions, they are guilty of a gross and serious fraud on the British people that only he and a continuing Conservative Government can prevent?
    The Prime Minister: It was an extraordinary speech by the shadow Chancellor the other day, and one I greatly enjoyed reading and will greatly enjoy revisiting time and again between now and the election. The reality is that it is not a case of whether a Labour Government would increase taxes; it is simply a question of where a Labour Government would increase taxes. Would it be by increasing national insurance contributions, changing the rate of national insurance contributions, cutting tax allowances or raising inheritance tax? The scope is very wide.
    Mr. Blair: What about the 22 tax rises?
    Mr. Major: Twenty-two tax rises says the Leader of the Opposition. Which of those would he repeal? Which of those would he reverse? What about the 25 tax reductions that he never mentions?
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 January. [10578]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Cohen: Is the Prime Minister aware that, in my constituency, one in five primary school children are taught in classes with more than 30 other children? [AN HON. MEMBER: "Lucky."] A Conservative Member says, "lucky." Does the Prime Minister agree with that? I presented the Class Size (Reduction) Bill, and Labour has made a firm election pledge on the matter. Why have his Government done nothing except preside over ever-rising class sizes? Why do his Government prefer silly status symbols to sensible class sizes?
    The Prime Minister: I am not sure whether that counts as an expenditure commitment; it will be interesting to see in due course. The proportion of children in classes of more than 31 has fallen since 1979. Beyond that—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen might wait a moment. Beyond that, there is evidence that parents agree that class size is not the most important factor. If the hon. Gentleman doubts that, let me tell him that the average class size for 11 to 16-year-olds in Islington is smaller than at the London Oratory.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is less expensive to keep good youngsters good, which is why any initiative to expand the cadet forces must be welcomed? Such an initiative would impose on left-wing authorities the cadet forces' right of access to school property and buildings.
    The Prime Minister: I saw the speculative stories in the press this morning about cadet forces and must say that they were a touch overblown in the way in which they were printed. I strongly encourage participation in cadet forces. They provide young people with the opportunity to develop qualities of responsibility, self-reliance, resourcefulness and endurance.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Why did the right hon. Gentleman not join, then?
    The Prime Minister: I did not join because I was playing cricket, which provides exactly the same qualities for people.
    There are now more than 130,000 young people in the cadet organisation. I would certainly wish to encourage wider voluntary participation in the cadets. That of course requires more assistance from adult volunteers, but I hope that it will be possible to increase the scheme.
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 January. [10579]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. McAvoy: Will the Prime Minister confirm that one of his reasons for wanting school children to join the cadets is that they can learn the qualities of loyalty, self-discipline and leadership? Is it not therefore regrettable that the Defence Secretary, the Deputy Prime
    1074
    Minister and the Prime Minister were never members of the cadets, as the first needs lessons in loyalty, the second in self-discipline and the third in leadership?
    The Prime Minister: That was very well rehearsed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Author."] One scans the sides to my hon. Friends' cries of "Author". The hand behind the words can readily be discerned.
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 January. [10580]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bellingham: Does the Prime Minister agree that businesses need certainty and stability when planning investment? Do not the conflicting statements about which companies would pay a windfall tax prove yet again that there is a gaping hole at the heart of Labour's spending plans that can only—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question about the Government's policies. If he can do that, I will hear him, but if he cannot he must resume his seat.
    Mr. Bellingham: Is the Prime Minister aware that any windfall tax would lead to higher gas, water and electricity bills for my constituents?
    The Prime Minister: It is undisputed that if there were to be a new tax at an undisclosed rate on an undisclosed number of companies at an undisclosed time, it would have an impact not only on the price of the products those companies produce, but on the dividends that the shareholders legitimately expect from having invested in those companies. At the moment, there is complete uncertainty about any windfall tax proposals. Clearly, the proposals are coming apart at the seams. It is a case of give Labour spokesmen the facts and let them draw their own confusions.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Can the Prime Minister say why he is spending hundreds of millions of pounds in compensation for farmers in the BSE crisis and is preparing to spend more than £100 million in compensation under the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, yet adamantly refuses to pay any compensation to those infected with hepatitis C by contaminated blood transfusions? Where is the justice in that? Will he take personal charge, show some compassion and, even now, ensure that legitimate compensation is paid?
    The Prime Minister: Everyone has great sympathy for the people who suffer from hepatitis. The underlying point is essentially whether action was taken that could have been better done at the time that then created the problem faced by the sufferers from hepatitis. If one accepted that principle, it would be a wholly new principle for the national health service and not one that any Government have accepted in the past. The hon. Gentleman himself understands that.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor (Dewsbury): May I ask the Leader of the House for details of future business?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 27 JANUARY—Until about Seven o'clock, Second Reading of the Sex Offenders Bill. Followed by progress on remaining stages of the Education Bill.
TUESDAY 28 JANUARY—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Education Bill.
WEDNESDAY 29 JANUARY—Until Two o'clock, there will be debates on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Conclusion of remaining stages of the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill.
Motion on the Police Grant Report (England and Wales).
THURSDAY 30 JANUARY—Until about Seven o'clock, Second Reading of the Civil Procedure Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY 31 JANUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 3 FEBRUARY—Motions on the English Revenue Support Grant Reports. Details will be given in the Official Report.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 29 January there will be a debate on artists' resale rights in European Standing Committee B. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
Wednesday 29 January:
European Standing Committee B: European Community Document: 7050/96 relating to Artists' resale rights. Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports: HC51-xx111 (1996–96). Monday 3 February: The relevant orders are as follows:
The Local Government Finance Report (England) 1997/98, Special Grant Report (No 23); The Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Relevant Notional Amounts) Report (England) 1997/98.
I regret that once again I am not able to be as forthcoming as I would like about the second week.
Mrs. Taylor: I start by thanking the Leader of the House for moving the debate on the police grant report to Wednesday which will allow more hon. Members to participate in the debate on the English revenue support grant reports on the following Monday. Can he tell us whether an Opposition day will be scheduled during that week?
Are the Government intending to respond to Lord Nolan's suggestion today that the funding of political parties should be examined by a Select Committee of the House? Does the Leader of the House agree that that issue should be examined, but that it is a pity that the remit of the Nolan committee was not widened as requested by the Labour party two years ago? Does he further agree that the principle of an independent inquiry has to be maintained in all those areas if public confidence in any new rules is to be established? Is not the Nolan committee itself an appropriate body to look at party funding?
1076
Secondly, what arrangements is the Leader of the House making to ensure that the House is kept updated on the issue of BSE, in view of the reported memo from the Meat and Livestock Commission that the rules to protect the public from BSE are still being broken and today's report that cattle are being exported with misleading BSE-free certificates? The issue has been widely discussed, but it still causes much concern to constituents and Members of Parliament and everyone should be kept as fully informed as possible. Will there be a statement next week?
Thirdly, has the Leader of the House seen today's report on child benefit fraud by the Select Committee on Social Security? If so, will he now reconsider his refusal of our offer of co-operation on legislation to change the rules for obtaining birth certificates to close "The Day of the Jackal" loophole? Does he now regret not taking up the offer that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) made in November 1995? Has he ruled out taking any action in what is left of this Parliament? Would not closing that loophole save millions of pounds of taxpayers' money?
Finally, what are the Government's intentions with regard to the Wirral, South by-election?
Mr. Newton: First, I thank the hon. Lady for her acknowledgement of the way in which we have responded, following discussions in the usual channels, to the number of points made about next week's business, including the handling of the Education Bill. I am also aware of the desire of the Labour party—and, no doubt, the minority parties—for Opposition time, and I continue to bear that in mind.
So far as Lord Nolan is concerned, I thought the request by the hon. Member for Dewsbury was a little curious as she did not acknowledge the fact that there was a thorough investigation by the Select Committee on Home Affairs in 1994. It may be that she preferred not to refer to that because we have implemented all the recommendations and the Labour party has not.
I cannot promise a statement next week on BSE, but I will bring the hon. Lady's point to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who has over many months made plain his willingness to keep the House informed on developments when he thinks it appropriate.
On the question of the Select Committee on Social Security's report on fraud, we recognise that the report makes a valuable contribution to the debate on curtailing fraud, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will give the recommendations careful consideration. I will also draw his attention to the point that the hon. Member for Dewsbury has made today—I acknowledge that she has made it on previous occasions—about birth certificates.
Lastly, the hon. Member for Dewsbury will be aware of what has been said by my right hon. Friends on the Wirral, South by-election. The moving of the writ is not a matter for me and I cannot add to what has been said.
Mr. Charles Wardle (Bexhill and Battle): Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the conduct of Department of Trade and Industry inspectors' inquiries? Is he aware that questions remain unanswered about earlier inquiries—for example, those into Blue Arrow,

1077
Guinness and House of Fraser? Is he further aware that there are questions about the circumstances in which inspectors were appointed and about the conduct of the inquiries?
Mr. Newton: I will certainly bring those matters to the attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
Mr. Paul Tyler: How soon will the House have an opportunity to examine the implications of the apparent change in stance by the Cabinet this morning on the subject of monetary union? On a separate and more detailed point, when will we have a statement on the Government's attitude to investment in the tourist industry? The promotion and development of that industry to its full potential is incredibly important to many parts of the country. Yesterday, Ministers gave me the figures relating to the reduction in the amount of money now made available to the English tourist board. It has dropped from 30p per head in real terms to just 10p, while at the same time, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have increased spending on their tourist boards by 50 per cent. in real terms. That demonstrates how important they consider the tourist industry to be to their economic development.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on the first matter he raised, so I do not see any need to add to that.
I acknowledge that tourism is an important industry. It makes a great contribution to employment opportunities in this country as well as to foreign earnings for this country. I am sure that his desire for a debate on the subject is shared by my hon. Friends, but he need only look at today's business statement and recall the other matters that he knows will come before the House to appreciate that there is great pressure on time.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: My right hon. Friend may be aware that the Lib-Lab coalition running Kent county council is so monumentally incompetent that one of its spokesmen has said that it requires a 10 per cent. increase in real terms merely to stand still. As the confusion, anxiety and distress among the population of Kent at the proposed cuts by that incompetent coalition is so extreme and well-founded, may we have a debate on the council as a matter of urgency?
Mr. Newton: From what I hear at the Dispatch Box each week, my hon. Friend's view of that council is unanimously shared by the Members of Parliament for Kent. Perhaps they would like to group together to put in an application for a debate on the council on a Wednesday morning.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: We have.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the Child Support Agency, which is still not working efficiently or fairly? It is causing a great deal of distress to thousands of families and also a great deal of work for Members.
Mr. Newton: I am afraid that I cannot undertake to provide time for a debate for the reasons that I have
1078
already touched on. I draw the hon. Lady's attention to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is due to answer questions on Tuesday.
Mr. Tony Marlow: In past European debates one must admit that there have been slight differences of nuance on the subject between myself and my right hon. Friend. Could we have another debate on Europe soon so that my right hon. Friend and I can debate our identity of view on what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said today? My right hon. Friend would then be able to agree utterly with me that it is totally out of order for anyone on the continent to suggest that we should have a unified system of taxation in Europe.
Mr. Newton: That is a very helpful question from my hon. Friend, and I should simply like to thank him for it.
Mr. Andrew Faulds rose—
Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend is always being called these days.
Mr. Faulds: Not often enough.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we must have a debate [HON. MEMBERS: "Prompt him."] I do not need prompting; I am very good at my own words. We must have a debate on foreign affairs before the Government eventually cede to the need for a general election. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of two areas where an international crisis could break out literally at any moment, for both of which the British Government in the past have been responsible? Is he aware that in Cyprus the British Government were guarantor to the constitutional arrangements of 1960, which the Greek Cypriots aborted in 1963 and in which the Turkish forces only intervened 11 years later, as they were entitled to do under the treaty of guarantee, after the Nikos Sampson coup, which tried to bring about enosis with Greece?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the other area is Israel—a fake country which was created because of the Balfour declaration promises and because of the immense American pressure under President Truman on Haiti to give the one critical vote needed to create Israel? It has depended entirely on American subvention ever since.
Mr. Newton: I can readily agree that the hon. Gentleman is very good with his own words, but there do seem to be rather a lot of them. I will bear in mind his request.
Mr. Keith Mans: Following the Government's decision to provide more opportunities for youngsters to join the cadet movement, will my right hon. Friend seek time for an early debate on the subject so that Conservative Members can reinforce their long-standing commitment to the movement—a commitment that can be contrasted to the attitude of Labour Members, particularly members of the teaching profession who have been hostile to the movement for many years? In such a debate we could also show our resistance to the proposals made by the shadow spokesman on education, the hon. Member

1079
for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), for a politically correct millennium youth movement, which will doubtless be run by social workers.
Mr. Newton: I shall bear in mind that suggestion for a debate as many important points could be made in it. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the excellent cadet forces in my constituency which I visit from time to time.
Mr. Doug Henderson: I declare an interest as a member of the GMB. The Leader of the House may be aware that 200 workers at GCHQ have had their jobs privatised and taken over by a company called Vosper Mantech, which is to announce today that it has reached a recognition agreement with the GMB union. In light of the new situation, will the Leader of the House find time next week for a debate on GCHQ, where double standards now apply? Some 200 engineering workers and others now have the benefit of trade union recognition, which I welcome, while 4,000 other employees of GCHQ are denied that liberty. Will the Leader of the House accept that that is a priority subject and that time should be found for a debate on it?
Mr. Newton: Given the background to which I have already referred a couple of times, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot promise an early debate on the subject. I will, however, ensure that his words are studied by my right hon. Friends involved.
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire): Does my right hon. Friend recognise that there is no more important subject for the House to debate during this Parliament than the future and structure of the United Kingdom? Will he find time, either on one of the three days the week after next, or shortly thereafter, for a full day's debate on a substantive motion affirming the integrity of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Newton: As I rather expected, my hon. Friend's suggestion has widespread support from my hon. Friends and I will give it most careful consideration.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why is the Leader of the House fighting shy of having a debate or a statement on the funding of political parties prior to a general election? It should be the first item on the agenda before the general election is called so that when people cast their votes they know where the money is coming from. My hon. Friends refused to support the recommendation, not because it was no good, but because it did not go far enough. We are demanding that the Tory party reveals where it gets its funds from and the Tory party refuses to say. It was £19 million in the red last year and now it is suddenly £24 million in the black. Where has the money come from? Overseas. The public should know where the money comes from before the general election. We are prepared to tell everyone where our money comes from and it is time that the Tory Government came clean.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman might be in a stronger position if his party had implemented the recommendations of the report that we have already had.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South
1080
Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), has it not been an enormously long time since the House had the opportunity of debating whether, if Scotland had its own Parliament, Scottish Members of Parliament would be able to vote and decide on matters of English taxation, but English Members of Parliament would not have the opportunity of voting on Scottish taxation? Is not that matter so important that we should have debate on it very soon—or at least, before the general election?
Mr. Newton: I have already told my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire that I shall give that suggestion careful consideration and I anticipate support for such a debate from the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).
Mr. David Winnick: We can discuss political party funding on 12 February. As for next week, should not the Secretary of State for Defence return to the House early next week and explain the circumstances that have now surfaced—that the decision about the royal ship was made four months ago and the only reason for its being announced yesterday was because of the forthcoming election? Is it not unfortunate, to say the least, that the present Government—desperate to win the next election—are willing to bring the Queen into electioneering? Why should the Secretary of State for Defence have made his statement yesterday when that decision, rightly or wrongly, was made immediately after the Tory party conference?
Mr. Newton: I reject, out of hand, the suggestion that the Government are seeking in any way to bring Her Majesty into electioneering.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 432?
[That this House recognises the problem caused to the Teachers' Pension Agency funding by the increasing number of teachers seeking to retire shortly after reaching the age of 50; also recognises that such early retirements are, in many cases, of value to the teacher concerned, the school and its pupils; and believes also that further bipartisan consultation is necessary before any final decision is made on teachers' early retirement.]
This relatively new early-day motion relates to teachers' early retirement and has been signed by distinguished Members of Parliament on both sides of the House. It asks that the consultation period, which officially ended last Friday, be extended. As a result of the responsible and constructive mass lobby of the House by the National Association of Head Teachers, I believe that there are good grounds for permitting further time for consultation. Will my right hon. Friend find time either for a short debate or for a statement from the appropriate Minister?
Mr. Newton: Perhaps I might draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is due to be in the House on Wednesday next week to answer questions.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: As the Leader of the House found an earlier question from the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) helpful, will he advise the House on whether the Foreign Secretary will

1081
be making a statement to the House next week? We have all been told that, in the near future, he is going to make various speeches in respect of flexibility in European Community developments, yet the House of Commons is to be denied the opportunity to question him. Of particular interest to me are the issues of structural funds and cohesion funds, because, under the auspices of the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Highlands and Islands Convention will be meeting in Stornoway on 3 March and it would be helpful if we could have some form of discussion about the Government's view of those matters.
Mr. Newton: Going slightly at a tangent, I take this opportunity to assure the hon. Lady that, after the difficulties that she felt were caused on an earlier occasion, I have carefully noted the date of the next meeting of the Highlands and Islands Convention. Having said that in a helpful and friendly spirit, I have to say that I do not know of any plans for a statement to the House by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary next week.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have a debate next week on the important subject of libraries and their great value in respect of the education and recreation of our citizenry of all ages? That will give me an opportunity to raise in the House the threat to libraries in Ealing posed by Ealing's Labour council, which threatens to close Pitshanger library and curtail services in other libraries so as to save £300,000 out of a budget of no less than £250 million, which is a record budget for Ealing. The council is incompetent.
Mr. Newton: I sometimes think that my hon. Friend's observations about Ealing borough council could occupy every Wednesday morning from now until whenever and I must confine myself to encouraging him to apply for one of the slots.
Mrs. Helen Jackson: When the Leader of the House is considering a further statement or debate on the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis, will he ensure that that debate or statement contains a full presentation about the disposal of BSE waste? He will be aware that it is apparent from answers in Hansard that only 3.8 per cent. or 1.1 million of all the slaughtered cattle have been destroyed. The rest are stored all over the country in warehouses and cold storage. The House has never been given a proper statement about the escalating costs of storage, transportation and incineration of that waste and it is high time the Government put it on the record.
Mr. Newton: That is certainly a matter which the House has had opportunities to question my right hon. and learned Friend about on many occasions when statements have been made. Of the many logistical difficulties of this whole exercise, the disposal question has been among the most difficult. No one has made a secret of that. I shall bring the hon. Lady's remarks to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend.
Mr. Tim Devlin: If, as I hope, the Leader of the House is now considering a debate on the constitutional arrangements, may we include in it some reference to the progress of the English regions? People in my part of the world are now beginning to wake up to
1082
the fact that, if we have a regional assembly in Newcastle, not only will they pay a Geordie tax to Newcastle but they will be given the crumbs from Newcastle's table when everything from London is filtered through the regional assembly sitting 40 miles away.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is right to say that the confusion and dangers of much that the Opposition say on the constitution are not confined to the issues previously raised in relation to Scotland. They underline the case being made for a debate.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On Thursday 16 January, Mr. Mohamed Al Fayed went far further on television during a "Dispatches" programme than he has ever gone before. May we have a statement next week in defence of the good name of us all? This goes beyond a party matter. The leader of the House should watch a video of what was said because the statements that were made brought us all into disrepute. It is simply not good enough for the Leader of the House to say that the matter is being looked at. It is like the Dickensian circumlocution office, because a number of the right hon. Gent's colleagues want to know whether what was said was true. If it was, something had better be done about it; if it was not, our good name should be protected. That is a duty of the Leader of the House.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, in one sense, his question puts me in a little difficulty because it has been the convention for many years that, as Leader of the House, I am also Chairman of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, which is examining cases that interrelate with what I understand was on the "Dispatches" programme. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) is also a member of the Standards and Privileges Committee and she will agree that the right course is to ensure that the Committee's attention is drawn to the hon. Gentleman's remarks so that it can consider them.
Mr. Phil Gallie: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the gastronomical and cultural disaster that faces countrymen of ours right across Europe? I refer to the haggis ban by the European Community. Is he aware that the haggis consists mainly of sheepmeat? Will he find time for a debate to discuss the merits of French frog legs and snails, or German rubber sausages, compared with the juicy, succulent haggis?
Mr. Newton: This sounds like dangerous territory for an English man to get involved in, so I shall confine myself to saying that I hope that, as normally happens to me annually, I shall have the chance to enjoy some haggis at the Burns night celebration in my constituency.
Ms Jean Corston: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the subject of early-day motion 434?
[That this House notes the Government's decision to suspend the General Household Survey for 1997; notes that this survey has provided essential national information annually about how society is changing not available in such rich variety from any other source and which accounted for 27 tables selected for inclusion in the Government's own key report Social Trends 1996

1083
covering trends in household size, patterns of family building and dislocation, contraception, school-leavers and adults with GCSE grades A-C, membership of occupational and personal pension schemes, consumer durables in the home, visits to dentists, cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption, kind of help given by carers, unpaid services given voluntarily, mobility aids for the elderly, dwelling tenure by ethnic group and occupation, tenure one year after divorce, underoccupation and overcrowding, use of car, activities in the home, and participation in sport, games and physical activities; finds that the consultation period for this decision was 20th December 1996 to 3rd January 1997, covering the Christmas period and when the House was in recess; and urges the Government to restore the GHS on a regular annual basis in 1998.]It concerns the Government's decision to suspend publication of the "General Household Survey", a unique survey of 10,000 households. In the introduction to the last survey, two major users were described the Government for policy formulation and public sector organisations for measuring change. The survey was also the source of 27 tables or sections in the 1996 edition of "Social Trends". To add insult to injury, the consultation period for that decision was 20 December to 3 January, when the House was not sitting, most people were away for the Christmas holiday and Government Departments, research and university departments were closed. Was that done because the Government do not want people to see the evidence of how people's life chances have been betrayed by the Government? It is important that we discuss the matter, so that the household survey can be restored as soon as possible.
Mr. Newton: I am sure that the hon. Lady's words will be carefully examined. I understand that the decision by the Office for National Statistics was taken in the light of an overall consideration of users' needs for social survey data. The introduction of several new household surveys in recent years means that we are now better informed than ever about social conditions.
Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend call for an early debate on EDM 383?
[That this House welcomes the RSPCA's review of the United Kingdom's system of quarantine and rabies control; notes that the review concluded that rabies vaccines are now very effective and failure rates are minute, blood tests to check that the vaccine is effective are now standardised, international standards for microchips have now been agreed, there has been no proven case of rabies in quarantine in the United Kingdom in the last 25 years, the EU rabies eradication programme has reduced the rabies-infected area in Western Europe to only 130 square miles, Sweden, which introduced a system of vaccination, blood testing and permanent identification in 1995, has reported no health or security problems, the costs and inconvenience of quarantine lead many pet owners to smuggle animals into the United Kingdom, there are no statutory welfare standards for quarantine kennels and in a recent NOP survey, 86 per cent. of people said they would accept an alternative system to quarantine if it was scientifically proven to keep the United Kingdom rabies-free; supports the RSPCA view that a system of vaccination, blood
1084
testing and permanent identification for cats and dogs from EU countries which are recognised by the World Health Organisation as being rabies free in those species would provide the United Kingdom with equal, if not greater protection against rabies as quarantine; and therefore calls upon Her Majesty's Government to commission a full-scale risk assessment and full economic audit to determine how a different system could be effectively implemented to maintain the United Kingdom's rabies free status.] Does he accept that the present rules in respect of quarantine for dogs are unkind to their owners, unkind to the animals and unnecessary. An early debate would be well received by both sides of the House.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will know that the Government announced in November that our rabies policy was being reviewed. Work is continuing, and it would be more appropriate to consider a debate when that work has been completed.
Mr. Edward O'Hara: Will the Leader of the House find time for an urgent debate on the future of the car industry in Britain, consequent upon Ford's recent announcement that it intends to shed 1,300 jobs at the Halewood factory in my constituency? The implications are extremely serious. Apart from those 1,300 jobs, a further 3,200 jobs at Halewood may be in jeopardy in the near future, not to mention the gearbox plant there, and 10,000 or more jobs at Ford's plants elsewhere in the country. Ford, the leader in car sales in Britain, will end up importing three of the four best-selling models, at a cost of several billion pounds to the balance of trade. That demonstrates that the vaunted policy of easy inward investment, especially in the car industry, is also easy go.
Mr. Newton: While I understand why the hon. Gentleman raises the matter, and why several Merseyside Members did so last week, I should say firmly that the totality of car investment decisions taken and announced recently, including that by Nissan, makes it clear that the car industry has a good future in this country—significantly better than it had 17 or 18 years ago, when the Government came into office. The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry has agreed to meet a delegation of local Members of Parliament, local authorities and trade union delegates to discuss further the concerns that have been expressed about Halewood.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: May I support the earlier call for a debate on the financial crisis at Kent county council? My constituents are in uproar at the proposals by the Labour and Liberal Democrat coalition running Kent county council that there should be cuts of 34 per cent. in the adult education budget, 34 per cent. in the youth budget, 3 per cent. off primary schools and 7 per cent. off secondary schools—all that at a time when the Government have made available an extra £22.5 million, which means an extra 3.6 per cent. on the funding for education. During that debate it should be pointed out that Labour finance spokesmen in the House have said that they do not need more money. Let us reflect on what would happen if the Labour party was in government.
Mr. Newton: I certainly acknowledge that the speech by the shadow Chancellor earlier this week undermines—

1085
to put it mildly—the usual lines of argument by Labour-controlled local authorities, no doubt including Kent. As I understood the sedentary interruptions earlier, efforts have already been made to stage a Wednesday morning debate. I am sure that you, Madam Speaker, will bear in mind the obvious concern that is felt in Kent.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Leader of the House reflect on the fact that all 16 Members of Parliament in Kent are Conservatives? Will he take on board the concerns of many of my colleagues on Kent county council who are very angry about the way in which their affairs are being grossly misrepresented in Parliament by Conservative Members? They, too, want to see a debate so that the full story about the financial position of Kent county council may be revealed, their words may be heard and justice may be served in allocating money to the precious services that they are trying so valiantly to protect.
Mr. Newton: As you will realise, Madam Speaker, there is cross-party support for a debate on Kent. That will not necessarily influence the position, but I am sure that it will be noted.
Madam Speaker: As soon as I get to my office I shall look to see whether an application has been made for an Adjournment debate, as I also heard the comment from a sedentary position.
Mr. Edward Leigh: May we have a debate on the interesting idea of expanding the cadet forces? If such a debate were to take place, would the Government articulate their view that it is quite appropriate for suitable and trained youngsters to acquire military and firearms skills? Would the Government argue also that, when those youngsters leave the cadet forces, they would be encouraged to join the many institutions in this country whose constitutions state specifically that they are set up to instruct young people about firearms skills—namely, the 2,000 registered gun clubs across Britain?
Mr. Newton: I echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who said that participation in cadet forces gives young people the opportunity to develop qualities of leadership, responsibility, self-reliance and the like. I would want to continue to encourage such development.
Mr. Norman Hogg: May I strongly support what the Leader of the House has said. I was a national serviceman and I am very proud of the fact that I completed my two years' service—unlike a certain member of the Cabinet who ran away from his obligations to his country. We would therefore contribute to a debate with some authority, and I hope that it will take place soon.
Mr. Newton: Should such a debate take place, I would look forward to the hon. Gentleman's contribution.
Mr. Peter Luff: May I press my right hon. Friend to hold a debate on the terms and conditions of employment of public sector employees in light of the shadow Chancellor's implausible pledges on public
1086
spending and public sector pay, and the trade unions' veiled threats of a new winter of discontent. Those threats are made all the more potent by the experience in my county of Hereford and Worcester where Unison is taking the county council Lib-Lab pact to court for the shocking mistreatment of its employees, which has prompted a leading Labour councillor, Adrian Gregson, to say that his members were better off under the Tories.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend makes yet another plea for what I shall call a locally directed debate. I always bear in mind such requests, but I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the possibilities that exist for debate on Wednesday mornings.
Mr. Kevin Barron: Will the Leader of the House allow time for a statement or debate about the operation of the cold weather payments scheme? The southern half of my constituency is served by the Nottingham weather station, which triggered one severe weather payment during the recent cold spell. The northern half of my constituency is served by the Leeds weather station, which did not trigger any such payments. Just over the border, the neighbouring constituency to the north is served by the Waddington weather station, which triggered two payments during the recent cold spell. People who live five miles apart cannot understand why some of them get one payment while others get two, and those in the middle cannot understand why they get none at all.
Mr. Newton: As I think I said last week in response to one of my hon. Friends, the suitability of weather stations in respect of that scheme is reviewed annually, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's representations will be taken into account as part of that.
Mr. Tony Banks: May I add my voice to the clamour for a debate on the cadet forces? Unlike the Prime Minister, I served my nation when at school by joining the Air Training Corps, where I became a sergeant, and I think the whole House can see the mess that it made of me. We do not need any lectures on the desirability of the cadet forces from a trio of white-feathered "jobbies" in the form of the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence. Would not it be better, if we have that debate, to encourage our children to join the woodcraft folk, so that they can learn to love their fellow creatures rather than how to shoot them?
Mr. Newton: I am left slightly open-mouthed by the hon. Gentleman's description of his youth, which appears to bear little relationship to his adulthood, except, perhaps, that he learnt the qualities of resourcefulness and endurance, which were among those on my list. There are many other excellent organisations, including the scouts and the guides and their associated groups, and many others as well, and none of us would wish to do anything other than encourage them. Before anybody asks me, I did not join the cadet force, because I went to a Quaker school that did not have one.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South): May I return yet again to my non-political subject of last week? Bearing in mind the fact that the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) is shortly to introduce the Bill of the

1087
late Lord Houghton, which twice went through the other place, I ask the Leader of the House to prevail on his colleagues to give that Bill some assistance through the House during the current Parliament, as it brings into effect many of the proposals contained in the Home Affairs Select Committee's report on dogs, and it would be both a tribute to the late Lord Houghton and a great service to the canine population of this country, which needs some protection.
Mr. Newton: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will take careful note of the hon. Gentleman's observations.
Mr. Paul Flynn: When can we debate the report of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology on nano-technology? This is the technology that will delight and provide jobs for our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren. Britain had a worldwide lead in this, yet the Government have cancelled research and broken up the nano-technology forum. Will not future generations look at this Parliament and say that we were mad, because we are spending £60 million on a symbol of the nation's pride in the last century and refusing to spend £4 million on what could be the nation's pride in the next century?
Mr. Newton: I have not had an opportunity to study the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I shall ensure that I obtain a copy and look at it.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: May we have an early debate on the crisis in further education? Is the Leader of the House aware that, in my constituency, Nelson and Colne college decided yesterday to make redundant no fewer than 37 teachers and lecturers? Is he further aware that, since incorporation in 1992, one post in every five in further education has been lost? The Governments's own chief inspector said in the annual report last year that the drift towards part-time work in colleges was seriously damaging standards. If we cannot have an early debate on that, what on earth can we have a debate on?
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise an early debate, again for reasons that I have touched on several times. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have noted that the Education and Employment Secretary is due to answer questions next Wednesday, and I shall bring that possible debate to her attention.
Mr. Stephen Day: Can my right hon. Friend advise me whether, during the business that he announced
1088
to the House for next week, there will be an opportunity for me to raise in some detail the case of, Mrs. Sherratt, a constituent of mine who, regrettably, was shot and paralysed by an off-duty policeman while on holiday in Morocco? The Moroccan Government have refused to accept any responsibility for the actions of their police officer. I wish to raise this matter in some detail in the House.
Mr. Newton: It is obviously the sort of matter that, under certain circumstances, could be raised on a Wednesday morning. There is a great deal of pressure for such debates. Indeed, Wednesday mornings have been a considerable success. Apart from that, I think that the right course would be for me to ensure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has his attention drawn to my hon. Friend's concerns.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I hesitate to add your burdens, and I certainly make no complaint about being snuffed out during Question 4 to the Home Office, but could I ask that, over the weekend, you have brought to your attention what was said by Mohamed A1 Fayed that Thursday evening, 16 January? This is far beyond a party matter. It reflects on the good name or otherwise of the House of Commons. You, Madam Speaker, have a stake in that, to put it mildly. All I am asking is that you obtain the video and make a judgment for yourself. If you decide to make a statement, that is Madam Speaker's judgment. At least you should be formally alerted to the situation. More than a million people up and down the country saw what happened, and they were left open-mouthed.
Madam Speaker: I listened attentively to the hon. Gentleman's question to the Leader of the House a few moments ago on that matter. I am sensitive to the points that he makes, and I shall take every opportunity to defend the honour of the House. I shall reflect over the weekend on what he said. He may find that I shall come back to the House next week on those matters.

BILL PRESENTED
  POLICE AND FIREMEN'S PENSIONS
  Mr. Secretary Howard presented a Bill to amend the Police Pensions Act 1976 and the Fire Services Act 1947 so as to make provision in respect of transfer values and other lump sum payments and permit police and fire authorities to provide information relating to pension schemes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 78].
  Orders of the Day

    Finance Bill
    (Clauses Nos. 40, 62, 68, 82 and 92 and Schedules Nos. 7 and 13.)
    Further considered in Committee.
    [MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair]

  Clause 40

    GROUPS CONTAINING BODIES OF DIFFERENT DESCRIPTIONS
    Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
    4.18 pm
    Ms Dawn Primarolo: I would have wished to move amendment No. 8. Is that not in order? May I have some guidance, please?
    The Chairman: That amendment was not selected. The debate is on clause 40 stand part.
    Ms Primarolo: I am grateful for that information. I can make the points in this debate that I would have made on our amendment, had it been selected. I hope that that is in order.
    The notes on clauses explain that clause 40 clarifies how members of VAT groups, who have a special status, are treated, and prevents potential tax avoidance. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his Budget statement on 26 November 1996, he made several important points that relate directly to this clause and to a number of others. He said:
    "Inland Revenue tax experts will be redeployed to investigate even more rigorously how some big, sophisticated companies seem to pay so little tax. They will make sure that companies are paying what they owe, and what we"—
    the Government—
    "intended they should owe…
    There will be more resources in the Revenue and Customs to stem the growth of the shadow economy … There will be more Customs and Excise officers to tackle value added tax and other tax abuse, including … more to target the smuggling of alcohol…
    The 'spend to save' package will cost £80 million over the next three years to secure … revenue and expenditure savings of well over eight times that amount—£6.7 billion."—[Official Report, 26 November 1996; Vol. 286, c. 163.]
    Given the Chancellor's explicit statements relating specifically to companies, I feel that we should seek further scrutiny of the arrangements to allow VAT groups of companies. I also seek an assurance that the Government have considered the possibilities for tax avoidance that may be created by the existence of such groups. Although we do not propose that the present arrangements should be disturbed at this stage, we think that an assessment should be made, as problems have occurred in the past.
    In this and previous Finance Bills, the Government have expended considerable effort on trying to close VAT loopholes, some of which have been potential loopholes rather than giving rise to significant loss of revenue. At the same time, the Government have allowed VAT group treatment to continue virtually unchanged. In discussing
    1090
    the relationship during debates on previous Finance Bills, they have told us that this treatment of groups costs the taxpayer some £400 million, because VAT that would otherwise be chargeable has not been charged. Clause 40 addresses the position again.
    It should be put on record that the amount of revenue that would be involved if the present arrangements were disturbed might not be £400 million for very long, because companies could reorganise themselves in order to realign their tax affairs. The withdrawal of VAT group treatment might well impose a greater administrative burden on both the taxpayer and Customs and Excise, and in that sense it would not be a sensible strategy. None the less, the arrangements should be scrutinised.
    Clause 40 is designed to ensure that, when a VAT group includes a company that is entitled to zero rating or exemption as a result of some special status, that zero rating or exemption does not extend to the rest of the group. Special status companies include insurance companies, education institutions and charities. Customs describe the provisions as dealing with a potential problem. If he is in a position to disclose the information, I should be grateful if the Minister could explain the potential problem and say how much revenue may have been at risk.
    Overall, clause 40 appears to achieve its objective, and seems unlikely to cause significant problems. Several universities rely on their education exemption not extending to their trading subsidiaries. The debate revolves around the loss of VAT receipts. The Government have had problems for several years in forecasting likely income from VAT receipts. It would be helpful if the Government could show that the group companies arrangement does not continue to provide loopholes.
    Many clauses contain anti-avoidance provisions, which are especially important given the Minister's declared objectives. The previous Minister responsible for VAT, the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), wrote to me on the matter on 31 May 1996. I had sought an assurance on potential VAT anti-avoidance problems with the group relationships. He said:
    "Customs give a high priority to anti-avoidance activities. A new Headquarters branch has been set up to co-ordinate anti-avoidance policy as a response to more aggressive tax planning and marketing of avoidance schemes. Additional resources have been deployed to enable the branch to monitor and evaluate new avoidance schemes and propose measures, including possible legislative changes, for countering them. The branch is supported by a national network of Tax Avoidance officers whose role is to identify and report avoidance schemes and to provide advice to local visiting staff."
    So far, so good.
    Specifically, the group relationship is being examined—big companies that make tax returns individually and, in particular, companies that are grouped for tax purposes. A shortfall of some £5.5 billion has been identified—no small amount—from three possible causes. The first is a shift in consumer spending; certainly the group relationship would give an opportunity to build on that. The second is an increase in tax avoidance, or, as it is politely called, tax planning. Thirdly, it could be straightforward non-compliance and evasion—the growth of the shadow economy.
    As the Government have spent so much time and effort establishing the unit and explaining the problems of VAT collection, and given the considerable press speculation,

    1091
    we need more guidance from the Minister about why he does not intend to scrutinise the group arrangements more closely than is provided for in clause 40.
    The issue of VAT receipts and companies' ability to minimise their obligations to pay VAT is building up considerable pressure, and not only because VAT is now set at 17.5 per cent. and is a significant revenue source. In his reply on clause 40, I should be grateful if the Minister would make a clear statement on VAT-grouped companies; on whether the Government will continue to monitor and investigate VAT relationships; on whether it may be necessary to revisit the issue of VAT groupings, on precisely which potential loophole clause 40 is intended to close, on how much revenue will be protected, and on whether alternative tax-planning strategies will be open to companies so that they can minimise payments to the Exchequer—which would only be bad for citizens.
    4.30 pm
    Mr. Paddy Tipping: Clause 40 is important because it provides the Committee with an opportunity to examine the issue of tax loopholes. The clause deals with
    "Groups containing bodies of different descriptions"
    and the way in which those groups are able to manipulate VAT payments. It also sets out the way in which loopholes or potential loopholes—perhaps in the insurance industry, or for educational institutions—could be closed. The sum involved—potentially £400 million—is not insignificant.
    I was impressed by figures provided in the Red Book, on page 69, on the shortfall in VAT receipts. Halfway down the page, it states:
    "VAT receipts in 1995–96 would have been £6 billion higher."
    It also contains lengthy speculation—on which I should like the Minister to comment in his reply—on the various reasons why VAT receipts have been much lower than predicted.
    The Red Book goes on to state:
    "VAT receipts have picked up this year, and it looks likely that 1996–97 will see the first rise in the VAT/consumer spending ratio since the late 1980s".
    I should be grateful if the Minister will confirm whether that is likely to happen.
    Among the various reasons given by the Red Book for VAT receipts falling so far short of predictions, one is particularly applicable to clause 40. It states:
    "better tax planning and increasing tax avoidance by companies"
    is a significant factor. The clause potentially closes tax loopholes, but it leaves it open to companies to review the situation and to indulge in reorganisation. I suspect that tax planning consultants will give advice on that matter.
    There is an interesting tension in that the Minister, his advisers and Customs and Excise are engaged in combat with a group of highly paid and well-organised professionals. I do not think that they would put it in those terms, but it is the reality. It is important that the Government have the people necessary to be on the winning team.
    I was particularly interested in some comments that the Chancellor made in his Budget speech. He said that he recognised that there was a problem and that some measures needed reinforcing. He talked at some length about a range of "spend to save" initiatives, and said:
    1092
    "As part of our continuing fight against tax and benefit fraud and tax loopholes, I am introducing a package of measures called "spend to save" … There will be more resources in the Revenue and Customs to stem the growth of the shadow economy … There will be more Customs and Excise officers to tackle value added tax and other tax abuse".—[Official Report, 26 November 1996; Vol. 286, c. 162–3.]
    The Chancellor said that his proposals would cost the public purse £800 million, but would bring in eight times that amount—£6.7 billion.
    I hope that the Minister will confirm that clause 40 will close the £400 million loophole, but the "spend to save" package is extremely ambitious—spending £800 million over three years to bring in £6.7 billion over three years will take a great deal of doing. I support the commitment—it is right that we should go for it—but it is an ambitious target, which, if not met, will leave a hole in the finances which will have to be filled by a future Government.
    How many Customs and Excise staff will be working specifically on the technical issues of VAT avoidance? I am conscious of the fact that I am an outsider, a non-professional, but I read the financial press and I see the advertisements from and publicity surrounding VAT consultants. I am anxious about the impression given and the rewards that appear to accrue to such consultants' clients.
    In summary, I support clause 40. I am pleased that the Government are closing the loophole, or the potential loophole. I believe that companies will employ experts to try to find a way around the proposal. It is right that we attempt to tackle fraud and abuse, but the targets that the Government have set themselves are very ambitious. I hope that they can be achieved, and I am pleased that resources are to be put into Customs and Excise to tackle the problem.
    There seems to have been a real change in the Government's approach. In the past, they appeared content to allow Customs and Excise staff to decline in number, but there is now a change of emphasis—perhaps a recognition that civil servants such as Customs and Excise staff are valuable in dealing with this highly technical problem. I hope that the Government succeed, but I remain slightly sceptical.
    Mr. Stephen Timms: I rise to support the amendment—
    The Chairman: Order. If the hon. Gentleman had been here at the beginning, he would have noted that amendment No. 8 was not on the selection list; I clarified that point. I remind the hon. Gentleman that this is the clause stand part debate.
    Mr. Timms: I am grateful to you, Mr. Morris, for that clarification.
    I welcome the clause, because it signifies, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) explained, a change of heart by the Government and a recognition that the hole in the VAT receipts is now the biggest threat to public finances and to control of the public sector borrowing requirement.
    The clause is one of a small number of provisions aimed at improving the alarmingly poor rate of VAT collection. I hope that the 1Government will keep a close

    1093
    eye on its effects of the clause. As I understand it, Customs and Excise is saying, "This is a potential problem. We do not really know why the hole has appeared in VAT collection. This is one possibility, or one contributing factor." If we are to solve the problem, it is of the greatest importance that we watch carefully the effects of the clause and the other measures that are being taken to try to put the problem right.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood mentioned the "spend to save" initiative, which stands alongside the clause and is designed to try to tackle the problem. It is remarkable that the Red Book projects that, to secure about £2 billion from reduced fraud, about half a billion pounds of extra spending will be needed in social security—rather less than £200 million in the Inland Revenue, and just £100 million in Customs and Excise.
    The Government anticipate that, for a very small amount of extra spending—£100 million—they will raise an extra £2 billion in VAT, which will be a welcome addition. I hope that the clause will contribute to that process. We are talking about a very small amount of extra spending, from which a large amount of extra revenue is anticipated. I hope that we shall keep the whole exercise under scrutiny to ensure that it goes in the right way, because the amounts involved are so large.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood suggested that many people have been wondering why it took the Government so long to realise that the problem had arisen, and why, as recently as last May, the then Paymaster General said that the Customs and Excise review would
    "enable it to reduce staffing levels while maintaining or improving outputs."—[Official Report, 16 May 1996: Vol. 277, c. 567.]
    Clearly, that has not been the case, and the clause may be a sign that the Government are recognising the problem and doing something about it.
    The Treasury has accepted, as part of the broader "spend to save" initiative, that it should publish data on the overall achievements of the initiative, monitoring spending and savings against the published targets. I hope that, in that spirit, the Government will accept that it will be valuable to monitor what happens as a result of the implementation of the clause—to monitor whether it helps to bring in some of the missing VAT revenue and to consider whether some other initiative is required as well to crack the problem.
    The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Phillip Oppenheim): I warmly welcome the Opposition's support for our measures against VAT avoidance. In this bipartisan spirit, I am prepared, generously, to overlook their previous criticisms.
    When we have closed loopholes, we have suddenly been accused of putting up VAT rates. That accusation was made, notably, in a leaflet produced by the Opposition entitled "Twenty-two tax increases". One "increase" was a loophole that we closed by imposing VAT on gold granules. Nevertheless, converts, however belated, are always welcome. The Opposition's support is part of their current fashion of poodling along behind us. That is something, in a generous spirit, that we all welcome.
    The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) asked about the current position on VAT receipts. They are 10 per cent. up over the past year on current figures,
    1094
    which reflects the uplift in the economy, the effect of closing loopholes in the previous Budget, and the effect of measures in this Budget.
    The hon. Gentleman also asked about the number of new staff who would be devoted to combating VAT avoidance. There will be 1,100 VAT staff, additional or retained, dealing with general high-profile cases and areas of VAT avoidance that we consider particularly sensitive. An extra 100 customs men and women will be put on specific fraud issues. That is quite a large increase over the previous estimated totals for the year.
    4.45 pm
    I am also delighted that the Opposition chose this particularly high-profile clause out of all the clauses they could have chosen for debate on the Floor of the House. The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) asked why clause 40 was necessary, and whether we had any indication that there might be avoidance problems in the area it covered.
    It is part of good tax management to anticipate where problems may come from, and we had some indication from tax planners and tax lawyers that they might probe in this area. There were one or two cases in which the results were a little ambivalent, so we thought that it was good fiscal management to ensure that any loophole was closed in advance, although we do not have any evidence at the moment that there is any revenue loss. We estimate, however, that the revenue protection as a result of the clause will be £50 million, which is quite a significant sum.
    The hon. Lady also asked why we were not doing more than introducing the clause. The answer is that we are doing more, because clause 41 also addresses potential group abuses. Last year, schedule 9A was designed to counter most of the existing group abuses and it appears to have succeeded. Obviously, one can sometimes move in advance of loopholes and close them, but sometimes it is not possible. Loopholes sometimes become apparent unexpectedly because, as the hon. Member for Sherwood rightly said, highly paid tax accountants and lawyers are swarming over company accounts and wanting to sell their services, and they come up with wheezes. As soon as they do, if we have not anticipated the loopholes, we try to close them.
    The hon. Member for Bristol, South and some of her hon. Friends went a little further, and asked why we could not get rid of the group concession altogether. She asked whether we should not scrutinise the matter more closely; I think that that was the purpose of amendment No. 8, which was not called.
    Ms Primarolo: I would like to clarify that point, because I would not like the Minister to mislead the Committee. I asked whether the Government had scrutinised the question whether VAT groups, which were provided under the existing arrangements, were in themselves opportunities for avoidance. If the Minister checks the Hansard record tomorrow, he will see that I was not proposing that the groups should be disturbed now.
    Mr. Oppenheim: I am sensitive to the hon. Lady's sensitivities in this area; they are very touching. The Opposition should not—[Interruption.] Would the

    1095
    hon. Lady like to make that comment again at the Dispatch Box in exactly the same terms as she made it just now?
    Ms Primarolo: The debate would be helped enormously if we could conduct it in a grown-up fashion. I do not wish to trade insults with the Minister, and I hope that he does not wish to do so with me.
    Mr. Oppenheim: As I said, I have noted the hon. Lady's sensitivities. She stood at the Dispatch Box and was quite critical of Government policy. It is reasonable for a Minister to probe the Opposition about what their policies are and to point out that the hon. Lady said in her opening remarks that we should look at the possibility of changes to the group concessions that we have given.
    My response, if the hon. Lady will listen to it rather than trading insults that she is, understandably, not prepared to confirm from the Dispatch Box, is this. We constantly scrutinise the position of groups, and where we think abuses are happening, we will close the loopholes. That is precisely what clauses 40 and 41 are about. If the hon. Lady thinks that there is scope to go further—if she will listen to the response to her question—she should make it clear to the Committee. We will make available any information she wants with regard to this matter. If it is the Opposition's policy to go further, they should make it absolutely clear.
    The Government do not at the moment want to go further than closing the potential loopholes described in clauses 40 and 41, because the facility was originally introduced to provide administrative advantages, giving businesses an alternative to organising themselves on a divisional basis. The VAT position of a company organised in divisions and a group of companies should therefore be the same.
    Steps could be taken to remove companies that are involved in exempt or partially exempt businesses from groups, because that is, as was rightly identified, an area of revenue loss. The likely reaction, however—it is likely in all sectors except, possibly, insurance—is that businesses and organisations will respond by vertically integrating to achieve a position similar to a single entity organised on a divisional basis. That will almost certainly wipe out any revenue gain.
    It would be very difficult to argue that that is not a legitimate business move rather than a tax-avoiding move. To keep regulation to a minimum, and on the grounds that such a measure would be particularly onerous to business and especially difficult practically to act on, we have decided to go no further than the proposals in clauses 40 and 41.
    The other point of which Opposition Members should be mindful is that many of the groups involved are not businesses—although some of them are in the insurance sector. Many are charities and educational institutions. That is why we are very keen to tread very sensitively.
    Clause 40 clarifies how members of VAT groups who have a special status are treated, and prevents possible tax avoidance. The VAT liability of some supplies is dependent on the status of the person providing those supplies. For example, a supply of insurance is exempted only if provided by a permitted insurer. Where such a body is the
    1096
    representative member of a VAT group, some tax planners have suggested, as I said, that the status should be automatically passed to other members of the group.
    If that were to be so, businesses would be able to reorganise their affairs so that the VAT reliefs associated with the representative member of a VAT group could be shared by all other group members, to the detriment of the Exchequer and the public services that it finances. It would also be contrary to the original intention of grouping provisions. The measure is designed to clarify the current position, close potential opportunities for abuse, and therefore, in effect, maintain and reinforce the status quo.
    Ms Primarolo: May I put on record our acceptance of the Minister's kind offer to supply us with whatever information we require during the course of our deliberations in Committee on the clauses on VAT and potential loopholes? I am sure that it will assist greatly in our deliberations.
    Mr. Oppenheim: The offer that I made the hon. Lady—I can understand why she wants to expand the concession into a major loophole—is of further information on the situation regarding groups, as described in clauses 40 and 41, with a view to changing her policy to take away the group concession. We would supply any information in relation to that—
    Ms Primarolo: No.
    Mr. Oppenheim: More generally, any reasonable request for information will not be refused.
    Ms Primarolo: Another Tory promise has already been broken. The Minister made his offer when I gave way to him during my earlier speech.
    Consistency is a wonderful quality, which politicians do not always display. I remind the Minister that, in Standing Committee D on 14 March 1995, his predecessor said that there was no need for extra Customs and Excise staff, and that, as the Government, they could maintain and improve the collection of revenue with fewer staff rather than more. The Opposition are very pleased that it has now been agreed that we were right last year to say that resources were needed.
    This debate is important, despite the bristling between the Minister and me, which I am sure will develop and illuminate the Committee. I hope that it will not deter us from proper scrutiny of the Bill, with which the House charges us.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Schedule 7

    SPECIAL TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN DISTRIBUTIONS
    Sir Robert Hicks: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 137, line 34, at end insert 'in relation to distributions made on or after 5 December 1996'.
    The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to take amendment No. 9. in schedule 7, page 141, line 25, at end insert—
    '13. Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, and 10 above shall not apply to any distribution unless the transaction in securities is carried out for bona tide commercial reasons and does not form part of a scheme or arrangement of which the main purpose, or one of the main purposes, is the obtaining of a tax advantage.'.
    Sir Robert Hicks: The purpose of amendment No. 10 is to clear up any confusion that may have arisen over the date of implementation of the proposed new arrangements for the tax treatment of certain distributions where a company purchases its own shares. I must emphasise that I have no quarrel with the Government's proposals for such a change in tax policy. The genuine confusion, and with it a suggestion of retrospection, was drawn to my attention by a family-owned company that has a major investment in my constituency. Indeed, it is the largest single employer.
    The company acted in a totally legitimate manner under the previous arrangements, and it was not until the draft legislation was published on 5 December 1996 that it realised that the specific provisions might be applied retrospectively and a tax liability therefore imposed that could be damaging to its business and future investment plans. On the basis of clarity and equity, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to accept the amendment.
    Mr. Paul Tyler: I am delighted to support my parliamentary neighbour the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Sir R. Hicks). He and I share not only a boundary but the distinction and responsibility of representing the two bakeries of Ginsters Ltd., which manufactures, as everybody in the House will know, the best-known Cornish pasties in the world. The business is extremely important to us. It also manufactures a number of other products, including custard pies. I shall leave it to the House to determine whether it is appropriate that the hon. Gentleman should represent one product and I the other.
    The issue is extremely important, although, as the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall said, it is very technical and appears to apply to very few people. It has the unfortunate effect of applying retrospectively at precisely the moment when the company—Samworth Brothers Holdings Ltd.—had thought that it had obtained clearance from the Inland Revenue for appropriate treatment of the business that it wished to undertake. A press release gave the business confidence that there was no problem, and it proceeded with the transaction only to find that, when the draft legislation was published, its effect was precisely the opposite of what the business and its financial advisers had anticipated.
    I am delighted that the Government are minded to respond positively to the amendment, which I am sure will be welcome. As the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall said, the business is extremely important to our part of Cornwall. Indeed, it is a flagship business for Cornish products generally.
    I should like to draw the Committee's attention to an article that appeared in Taxation on 2 January, which emphasised that although the issue was a minor one, it raised important wider implications. The author of the leading article said:
    1098
    "To my mind, if we are now entering an era in which tax rules are changed retrospectively without announcement, there is not really any point in having any rules at all in the first place. The idea of tax legislation is to tell people what tax they owe and on what date. If the legislation no longer does that, we may as well abandon our sophisticated and refined system and simply have the Revenue send round heavy boys periodically to relieve people of as much of their wealth as possible."
    I acknowledge that Treasury Ministers have responded swiftly to the concerns that have been expressed on behalf of the company and I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that problem was an unfortunate oversight rather than an attempt to get away with something that the House would deplore.
    Mr. Tim Smith: I believe that the paragraph from Taxation that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) read out is, if I may say so, a slight exaggeration. The problem is not exclusively Cornish and I have received a letter from a company in Nottinghamshire that said that its family-owned business would be severely hit by the retrospective and unannounced nature of the proposals. It continues:
    "Clearance had been obtained from the Inland Revenue for my Companies to buy their own shares but no mention was made of a charge on the Trustees for additional tax liability."
    5 pm
    Only one issue of principle arises—albeit an important one—because it was not clear, when the Inland Revenue press release was published on 8 October, that the change would take place or take place on that date. It was not clear until 5 December, by which time another Inland Revenue press release had been issued. I have always been concerned that tax legislation should not contain any element of retrospection. It is not fair on tax payers who need to have a clear understanding about the tax consequences of their decisions. They cannot do that if announcements are made subsequently about changes that will take place retrospectively. We are talking only about a few weeks but a number of taxpayers are affected and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to respond positively to the representations he has received.
    Mr. Christopher Gill: I wish to speak briefly in support of amendment No. 10. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) quoted from the article in Taxation on 2 January 1997. Later the article says:
    "with self assessment being imminent … taxpayers will have to volunteer their own tax liabilities. They are far more likely to do so fairly and conscientiously if they consider that the tax regime is itself imposed by fair and proper means."
    That brings me to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) about retrospection in tax legislation. There should be no retrospection in tax legislation, otherwise none of us knows where we are and nobody can make their tax planning dispositions.
    Samworth Brothers is one of the most pre-eminent companies in the food manufacturing industry in this country. Mr. Samworth, whose letter was mentioned by the hon. Member for North Cornwall, won this year's Massey-Ferguson award for agriculture and gave a most impressive presentation when he accepted that award. He demonstrated how his company, which I have known of for many years, has grown and grown to become a pre-eminent company in the meat industry. It provides a

    1099
    good example to many other British companies. I have no doubt that the company's planning of its financial and tax affairs has been involved in its success story.
    I hope that the Minister will agree that it would be wrong for the House to act retrospectively and I hope that he will accept the amendment.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: I hope that it will be for the convenience of the Committee—if you agree, Mr. Morris—if we have a wide-ranging discussion on the amendments and also schedule 7. In that case, we would not have to have a separate stand-part debate.
    The Chairman: The Chairman is here to serve the Committee. We should have discussed that point at the beginning, but if all parties are happy for the general principle of schedule 7 to be incorporated in this debate, I am happy.
    Mr. O'Brien: Thank you, Mr. Morris.
    Amendment No.10 deals with the issue that arises in relation to cornish pasties and pork pies and the Minister must address it. There have been complaints not only from Samworth Brothers but from organisations such as the Law Society. I suppose I should declare an interest because I am a member of the Law Society, but I have no other interest in the matter. The Inland Revenue press releases appear to have misled certain people—innocently, I am sure. The Inland Revenue press release of 8 October 1996 said in paragraph 1 that
    "the income tax liability of taxpayers who receive such distributions will be unaffected by the change."
    The second press release, on 26 November, went further and it said:
    "the income tax liability of taxpayers who receive such distributions will be largely unaffected by the change."
    The significance of the insertion of the word "largely" became clear only when the draft legislation was published on 5 December and it became clear that it will impose a new tax liability on trusts.
    The Minister should explain the sequence of events behind the press releases. Why was it not made clear on 8 October that the Minister and the Inland Revenue intended to take the course of action that they later took? As a result, certain people arranged their tax affairs in a particular way and might, as a consequence, face a liability that might not have arisen if the Inland Revenue had clearly indicated what it intended to do. I hope that the Minister will deal with that issue today.
    More broadly on schedule 7, share buy-backs and special dividends have been identified as a problem for some time. Much credit must go to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Pearson), who has repeatedly pointed out to the Chancellor, in a series of letters and parliamentary questions, the abuse of the system of share buy-backs and special dividends. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for recognising the problem and putting pressure on at an early stage to ensure that the Treasury also recognised the difficulty. When my hon. Friend raised the issue in March with the Financial Secretary, he provided reassurances. In a letter to my hon. Friend, the Financial Secretary stated:
    1100
    "The availability of a tax credit on a special dividend is not a tax loophole."
    That begs the question of why the Government are now taking action. The definition of a tax loophole is a technicality, but surely creating opportunities for streaming is a loophole for all practical purposes.
    The media became agitated by the way in which special dividends and share buy-backs have been used and major company takeovers that resulted in special dividend payments have highlighted the issue of tax-exempt shareholders receiving tax-exempt credits at the expense of the taxpayer. Articles in The Times and in the Lex column in the Financial Times have brought the inconsistencies in the system to public attention. In The Times on 18 August 1996, Graham Sargent wrote:
    "Since the beginning of 1995, buy-backs have totalled some £4.8 billion. Those buy-backs cost the taxpayer more than £1 billion in tax subsidies in just 20 months."
    Another example of these arrangements is Granada's bid for Forte, the loss to the taxpayer from which has been estimated at roughly £40 million. Special dividends have been widely used in the circumstances, and there are a number of estimates as to the total lost by the Inland Revenue during the past year as a result. I hope that the Financial Secretary will be able to state how much has been lost. It is right for the Treasury to examine this area as a tax issue, and we welcome the Government's decision to make changes to the treatment of share buy-backs and dividends. Our concerns are twofold: why did the Government not do this before, and why are they doing it in this way?
    I shall return to a number of issues arising from the wording of the schedule in a moment. The amendment seeks to restrict access to exemptions to bona fide commercial arrangements and not those set up merely to avoid taxation. There may be circumstances in which share buy-backs and special dividends have market benefits, but the issue is whether they should be used merely to avoid tax. A legitimate use, for example, might be when a mature company with cash to spare has insufficient good investment opportunities. In such circumstances, it may be better for the surplus to go to the shareholders, who may divert it to other companies which could use the surplus more effectively.
    A difficulty is that the tax rules regard dividends and share buy-backs as essentially the same thing, and treat them as the distribution of capital from a company. Companies are currently required to pay advance corporation tax on distributions at a rate of 20 per cent. on the gross dividend or 25 per cent. on the net dividend, which is the dividend paid less the ACT. Shareholders receive a dividend from the company together with a credit for the ACT paid, and UK taxpayers will pay tax on the gross dividend and can use the tax credit to offset their tax bill. Shareholders who pay income tax at the basic and lower rate pay no further tax on the dividend, and higher rate taxpayers pay an extra 20 per cent. on the gross dividend received.
    Pension funds and other tax-exempt institutional shareholders may reclaim the ACT paid on dividends from the Inland Revenue by, in effect, cashing in their credit. In the financial year 1995–96, the Inland Revenue collected £23.6 billion in corporation tax, of which £9.9 billion was ACT. Tax-exempt pension funds and other institutional investors are the largest investors in UK

    1101
    equities or shares, so a substantial proportion of the ACT paid will be reclaimed. That will reduce the tax yield to the Inland Revenue.
    The Government proposals in the schedule will have the effect of preventing shareholders from claiming back ACT where their company has paid it as part of any share buy-back, or as dividends paid in more limited special cases. A fundamental principle of UK company law, and of tax law as it applies to companies, is that all shareholders should be treated in the same way. However, prior to the Government's decision to deny the reclaiming of tax credits, various UK companies were engaging in schemes or arrangements where most of the shares offered for buy-backs were purchased by tax-exempt institutions. This practice is often referred to as streaming, and offends the principle of equal tax treatment for all shareholders. It also applies in many ways to special dividends.
    The Lex column in the Financial Times on Wednesday 10 January 1996 reported:
    "Granada's increased bid for Forte includes a helping hand from the Inland Revenue. The 47p special dividend Granada is proposing to pay from Forte's balance sheet comes with a 11.75p tax credit for tax-exempt institutions such as pension funds. These shareholders—who will determine the bid's outcome since they account for perhaps 50 per cent. of Forte's shares—will receive an extra £50 million or so from the Revenue if the bid succeeds."
    The column continued:
    "No public interest is served by a loophole that involves taxpayers subsidising corporate raiders."
    The timing of the Government's initial announcement in October was prompted by a transaction proposed by Reuters that involved the creation of special shares which could have cost the taxpayer an estimated £150 million. However, instead of dealing directly with the problem of streaming, the Government have denied the reclaiming of tax credits on all share buy-backs, irrespective of whether the shares have been streamed or not. The rules are mandatory, and the Inland Revenue seems to have no discretion as to how to apply them.
    5.15 pm
    The clause is broadly defined, and there is some danger that the innocent may be caught with the guilty. I hope that the Minister can assure us about the way in which the scheme will be enforced. The scheme may affect company reorganisations and will create another layer of complex fiscal detail. Fiscal detail is sometimes necessary, but we should be careful not to indulge in the creation of fiscal detail for the sake of it, and full explanations will be needed from the Treasury. Companies will have to contend with complex provisions when they arrange their corporate financial affairs as a result of the schedule. It will provide income for lawyers and accountants, but may in effect frustrate many bona fide financial engineering projects within the City.
    Mr. Tim Smith: What point is the hon. Gentleman trying to make? Who is he saying should decide whether a "financial engineering project"—as he described it—is bona fide or not?
    Mr. O'Brien: My point relates to the provisions contained in section 703 of the Taxes Act 1988, which allowed the Inland Revenue to deal with issues of tax avoidance. The Revenue can look at particular
    1102
    mechanisms and ask whether they are geared towards tax avoidance or towards dealing with genuine commercial arrangements with a practical benefit. Why did the Government not get the Inland Revenue to look at whether the arrangements were bona fide? There may well be good reasons for that, but it remains to be seen whether the Minister can provide a justification for the course that has been taken. The House has a right to hear such a justification.
    The Government have provided exemptions to clause 68 but have not sought to distinguish between bona fide operations and any abuse of the exemptions. Why do the Government believe that those in the City who, in a sense, abuse the current system will not abuse the proposed system by, for example, exploiting the exemptions for preference shares and pre-sale distributions? I hope that the Minister can reassure us on that.
    The amendment denies the benefit of the exemptions to transactions that do not have commercial justification. Each case would be considered on its merits, and the Inland Revenue would be able to exercise discretion. Where the Inland Revenue and taxpayers agree, both would have recourse to the courts which would decide on the facts and the law in each case. The Red Book forecasts that the Government will save £200 million in 1997–98, rising to £400 million in 1998–99 and 1999–2000. The amendment might provide a little extra help for the taxpayer by increasing resources. It is difficult to gauge precisely how much will be raised, but ensuring that the exemptions are used only for bona fide purposes seems to be a good way to proceed.
    I have a series of questions to which I hope the Minister can give me some answers. Why have the Government taken so long to tackle the problem? They knew about the special dividend issue when it arose in bids for several electricity companies back in 1995, as well as in the Lloyds-TSB merger. Surely the Minister could have acted to deal with the matter in the 1995 Budget. Why did it take a further year to take the necessary action? Surely the Treasury must have thought about it during the intervening period, so why did a subsequent complication arise as a result of the various press releases that were issued? That complication had a detrimental effect not only on Ginsters and Samworth Brothers, but various other people have complained to their accountants that they did not realise what would happen.
    Even if action was not taken in the 1995 Budget, the Chancellor was aware of the abuse. Why was it not possible to use the powers in sections 703 to 709 of the Taxes Act 1988 to challenge the tax advantages from special dividends in takeovers? The respected Stephen Edge of Slaughter and May wrote an article in The Tax Journal on 10 October 1996 in which he questioned whether the current changes were necessary. He thought that section 703 of the 1988 Act enabled the Inland Revenue to act. Will the Minister clarify the position with regard to that section and explain why it was impossible to use it to deal with the issues that arose in various takeovers?
    Why is schedule 7 so widely drawn? Why has it not been possible better to target the abuses? Accountants and lawyers will do very well as they work out the meaning of paragraph 1(3)(a), especially the meaning of
    "was … referrable (in some way and to any extent) to, or to the carrying out of, a transaction in securities".

    1103
    Is it the intention that United Kingdom tax exempts should never qualify for ACT refund on share buy-backs? Are we not left with a complex schedule with an uncertain meaning? Will the Minister confirm that the legislation requires to say on the dividend voucher whether the distribution is affected by that legislation? That may prove difficult.
    The schedule may create uncertainty because the scope of the wording is too complex and difficult to understand. It requires that companies should prejudge the outcome of any difficulty or complexity before they can issue any dividend. A company is prevented from paying up and arguing later with the Inland Revenue about whether it is covered by the schedule. If that is so, it is likely that mistakes will be made.
    Are we not in danger of creating an extra burden on businesses, many of which are not large but may still be affected by the terms of the schedule? Should we not have dealt with the issue of complexity with more care?
    A judgment must be made about the dividend voucher before the dividend is issued. What is the penalty for getting it wrong? I have been unable to discover it, but perhaps the Minister can let us know.
    The Labour party strongly supports action to tackle the abuse of share buy-backs and special dividends for the purposes of tax avoidance. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West deserves credit for repeatedly warning the Treasury about that abuse. We are concerned about the Government's failure to act earlier and the complexity of the method used to tackle the problem. The schedule adds yet a further layer of complexity to an already complex system of corporation tax. It follows other fundamental changes to the imputation system, which have been passed in recent years, such as the decoupling of ACT and the basic rate of income tax and the introduction of foreign income dividends.
    The system will become yet more complex because of the schedule and because the income tax and corporation tax structures have changed significantly since the introduction of the imputation system in 1993. Is it not therefore time to consider whether we can simplify that complex system as soon as possible?
    I should like to ask the Minister a few questions of a more technical nature, although I accept that he may be unable to answer them immediately. If so, perhaps he can write to me and ensure that those answers are published because the current proposals have led to a number of confusions. Can the Minister confirm that foreign recipients will not be able to claim tax credit repayments on the double taxation agreements? If so, can the Minister explain why such shareholders would be affected in that way?
    Can the Minister say whether the words "made to" in paragraph 1(3) in relation to the scope of special rules for trustees referred to in sub-paragraph (4) mean that the provisions apply to bear trusts and not to just to qualifying distributions belonging to the trustees? As for the meaning of payment, can he explain whether the term "payment" in paragraph 1(2) covers payments in kind as well as payments in cash? That uncertainty might create an opportunity for abuse, so I hope that the Minister can clarify that.
    1104
    As for the meaning of arrangements in paragraph 6(2), can the Minister explain whether the word "arrangement" means any agreement or understanding whether or not it is legally enforceable? On the extent of transactions in securities, can the Minister explain whether the phrase "transaction in securities" in paragraph 1(3)(a) could include the payment of the dividend? Can he clarify the meaning of the words "by virtue of which" and "made referrable to" in paragraph 1(3), which seem to add to the confusion? Can the Minister cite some examples to illustrate the strength or laxity of those important connecting words?
    On the scope of exclusion for pre-sale dividends, can the Minister explain the basis of the 14-day limitation in paragraph 6? Why should a dividend that is paid more than 14 days before a sale be regarded as more offensive than one that is paid within that 14-day window? That difference may be academic, but we are here to clarify such details. It is important that we do so because a lot of people will read the answers in Hansard.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Jack): We will be here all night.
    Mr. O'Brien: I hope not.
    The schedule also has the odd effect that the longer the time the dividend is paid prior to sale, the more likely it is to be safe. It will not be referrable to the later sale. As the time lapse shortens, the risk gradually increases, until at 14 days it suddenly drops to nil. That does not seem logical. I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to deal with all those questions, but I want to place them on record so that answers are given to aid those who will have to deal with the issue later.
    Can the Minister advise us whether for the purposes of relief as set down in paragraph 6, it is necessary that the sale should have been completed by the end of the 14 days?
    We have sought to clarify the meaning of a complex set of provisions. We also want to strengthen them. The Government are tackling the right issue, but we have doubts about their methods. The Minister must answer some important questions about the effects of the press releases. The points that were raised by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) are important and I hope that the Minister will be able to deal with them. He must deal with those problems—and not just in terms of retrospective legislation. There is also the question of the press releases and whether or not the Inland Revenue properly clarified what it intended to do.
    If the Committee wishes, I shall later move amendment No. 9 formally and seek to commend it as one that will add strength and clarity to the schedule.
    5.30 pm
    Mr. Ian Pearson: My speech will fall into three parts: first, schedule 7 and the general principle behind it; amendment No. 10; and, finally, amendment No. 9.
    Clause 68 and schedule 7 tell a story—
    The Chairman: Order. We have finished with clause 68 and are now debating schedule 7.
    Mr. Pearson: Thank you, Mr. Morris.

    1105
    Schedule 7 tells a story that I have been highlighting, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) said, for well over a year. It is the all too familiar story of Government dithering, denial and delay followed by climbdown and belated action. That is pretty much par for the course with this Government, but what marks out this case is the fact that their negligence has cost the hard-pressed taxpayer, by my calculation, £1.75 billion in lost revenue, and possibly more.
    On the face of it, schedule 7 provides a number of technical amendments to be made to the treatment of certain distributions by companies. They apply to purchases by companies of their own shares and other distributions, mainly special dividends, which are linked to transactions in securities. The decision to make the changes was sneaked out on 8 October—no doubt coincidentally, but certainly conveniently, during the Conservative party conference. It did not, therefore, receive much publicity; it would probably not have received much coverage anyway. The subject of the operation of the imputation system of taxation and its effect on tax-exempt institutions does not interest the average person in the street and would not grab the imagination of the popular press, but if the story had been headlined, "Ken throws away nearly £2 billion of taxpayers' money"—which is what has happened—perhaps the tabloids would have been interested.
    Mr. Tim Smith: The hon. Gentleman has twice said that there has been a huge haemorrhaging of revenue. Does he agree that, if the rules that are now proposed had been in place, the companies would not have behaved in the same way? It is unrealistic to think that, if there is a major change in the law, it does not influence people's behaviour. It is nonsense to suggest that a great deal of revenue was lost.
    Mr. Pearson: Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that the estimated cost savings—on the Treasury's own assumptions—to be made from introducing the Bill will be £200 million in the next financial year and £400 million the year afterwards. Substantial savings are predicted even if people's behaviour has been modified as a result of the change.
    If the headlines had been, "Ken throws away nearly £2 billion of taxpayers' money", the tabloids would, rightly, have been interested in what happened. The sum being thrown away by the Government is the approximate equivalent of 1p off the basic rate of income tax—or about the total amount that has been given out in grants to good causes since the national lottery began. That money has been needlessly squandered by the Government when it could have been well spent on improving education and the health service.
    We are talking about an abuse of the taxation system or, put differently, a tax loophole—something that the Chancellor always denies exists, but later takes action over. The loophole has been consistently pointed out to the Government by the Opposition. In this instance, it consists of a range of smart schemes that have been drawn up by corporate financiers and which favour the big pension funds at the expense of other shareholders. It has cost the taxpayer millions each time for each deal and it has distorted competition in takeovers.
    The loophole was becoming known when the 1995 Finance Bill was passing through the House of Commons, and it was apparent long before the drafting of the 1996
    1106
    Act. Selective share buy-backs were increasingly used by large companies through 1995 and, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire said, the use of special dividends was common in the water and electricity industries. Special dividends were also used in other situations, such as Lloyds bank's bid for TSB and, more recently, Granada's takeover of Forte last year.
    It has already been mentioned that many respected financial commentators, such as Lex in the Financial Times and Graham Searjeant in The Times, graphically pointed out the abuse. On 10 January last year, the Financial Times, not for the first time, talked about
    "the special dividend wheeze and its close cousin the share buyback".
    It said that
    "no public interest is served by a loophole that involves taxpayers subsidising corporate raiders."
    Labour Members, both here and in the other place, highlighted the abuse. I tabled a number of parliamentary questions on special dividends and raised the subject on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill. I even went so far as to table amendments to the Bill to alter sections 703 to 706 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. That was a clear sign to Ministers that something was wrong, but no attention was paid and the scandal of the abuse of share buy-backs and special dividends was allowed to continue.
    The Government's response was to deny the problem. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who has unfortunately slipped out of the Chamber for a moment—he probably has an inkling of what is to come—in a parliamentary answer dated 1 February 1996 said:
    "The payment of a special dividend does not involve a tax loophole."—[Official Report, 1 January 1996; Vol. 270, c. 862.]
    Owing to the Minister's dithering and denial, the use of share buy-backs and special dividends escalated. Figures from Kleinwort Benson demonstrate that quoted companies cut their equity capital by £3 billion from the start of the last calendar year to the end of July alone through selective buy-backs.
    The cost to the Exchequer has been an estimated £750 million. That loss could easily have been avoided by a half-competent Government. So, too, could the £50 million or so that the Revenue had to pay to subsidise Granada's takeover of Forte, not to mention the money paid in other special dividends.
    In The Times on 19 August 1996, Graham Searjeant expressed the hope that
    "even at this late stage, the Chancellor might be stirred from his supercilious lethargy to take some action in his autumn Budget."
    If the Chancellor read that article—no doubt, while he was on the beach—it took him until Tory party conference week to act. Typically, he blustered his way through the climbdown, conveniently forgetting what had happened before.
    The Inland Revenue press release of 8 October 1996 quoted the Chancellor as saying:
    "We have seen recently companies buying their own shares or paying special dividends in such a way that the proceeds end up entirely in the hands of those who are entitled to payment of a tax credit. This has costs for the Exchequer, and if action is not taken soon that cost would escalate."
    That was the issue of streaming mentioned early by my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire.

    1107
    In the press release, the Chancellor said:
    "we will not hesitate to take any further action should further evidence of abuse appear."
    At least he finally admitted that it was an abuse—a tax loophole exploited by companies and their advisers—and, in so doing, he directly contradicted the Financial Secretary who has said all along that it is not a tax loophole. Perhaps he will now apologise and admit that he got it wrong.
    During the debate on the Loyal Address, I challenged the Government to publish their figures on the cost to the Exchequer of allowing the loophole to remain open for so long. I had to follow up my inquiry with a parliamentary question, which was due to be answered on 7 November but was not answered until 2 December—and even then it contained an error. That shows just how unwilling the Government have been to tell the truth on this matter.
    The answer from the Financial Secretary used the same method of calculation as that used for the estimated cost savings projected from closing the tax loophole, which produced an estimate of the total cost to the Exchequer of £400 million in the financial year 1995–96 and £450 million in the period from 1 April to 8 October, when the Inland Revenue announcement was made. There we have it—the Financial Secretary admitted that the cost to the Exchequer was a total of £850 million over a period of less than two years.
    I believe that that is a gross underestimate and many respected commentators agree. On 9 October, the day after the press release, The Times made what I think is a wonderful comment on the Chancellor's decision. It said:
    "The only fair complaint against the Chancellor's attack on the gross dividend scandal is that it has taken him at least a year too long to close a loophole so large that it must be visible from outer space."
    It went on:
    "The Inland Revenue, so deft at plucking numbers from the air, reckons yesterday's change will eventually save £400 million a year."
    That is the figure still quoted by the Government today. However, The Times pointed out:
    "share buybacks in 1996 alone appear to have attracted about £750 million in tax subsidies. Over two years, buybacks and special dividends paid in takeovers have probably extracted £1.75 billion from taxpayers."
    The staff of The Times know a few things about goings-on in the City, and they should be listened to.
    I simply do not believe the figures quoted by the Financial Secretary, nor do I accept that the long overdue changes that are to be made will yield only £200 million in 1997–98 and £400 million from 1998–99 onwards. In my view, the yields will be substantially higher than that, which will be good news for a future Labour Government.
    Who will take responsibility for losing taxpayers' money on such a grand scale? Nobody, it seems. That comes as no great surprise, even though the financial director of a public company who was this incompetent at managing the business's finances would be dismissed as soon as blunders on such a large scale came to light. We have to ask, who took their eyes off the ball? Was it the Chancellor? Was it the Financial Secretary? Should everything be blamed on the hapless civil servant who
    1108
    undoubtedly gave the Financial Secretary bad advice when he was replying to my question? The taxpayer deserves some honest answers.
    The Government's failure to act speedily in the face of the growing scandal of share buy-backs and special dividends exposes as a myth Tory claims to economic competence. When he gave evidence to the Treasury Committee on 9 December 1996, the Chancellor tried to gloss over the Government's negligence in not acting sooner. According to him, the Government acted speedily. He said:
    "The particular announcement was timed because the nature of share buy-back was changing at the time and a whole new type of share buy-backs was being devised which in our opinion was not consistent with the purposes for which the previous regime was devised. That was a classic case whereby an allowance or tax arrangement was used for one purpose for a very long time and then suddenly with great ingenuity people found a new way of taking advantage of the tax relief. It is not at all unknown for the government to move quickly, we would have been criticised if we had not, to stop this."
    5.45 pm
    I am not sure what planet the Chancellor was on when he claimed that the Government moved quickly. Eighteen months previously, it was quite well known in the financial community that such arrangements were an abuse of the tax system. One could talk to any corporate financiers of repute about the issue and they would say, "Well, yeah, it probably is an abuse of the tax system, but we're allowed to get away with it." They all thought that it was a loophole and one that would certainly be closed—not in this Budget, but in the one before.
    I shall now consider amendment No. 10, which I support. It should be clear from my remarks that I do not approve of share dividends and share buy-backs being used as a tax wheeze; however, I do believe that retrospection of taxation is an important issue and one that the Minister should address. I hope that he will take the amendment seriously—indeed, I understand that he might do so.
    It is not only one prominent company in Cornwall that will be affected by the proposal. A company called The Birmingham Guild Ltd., which is based in Netherton—which is not in my constituency, but which I hope, with boundary changes and after a short general election campaign, will fall comfortably within it—wrote to me about tax-saving measures in respect of companies buying their own shares or paying special dividends. The letter says:
    "Our Company, The Birmingham Guild Limited, has over the past few months been involved in certain transactions for bona fide commercial reasons. These transactions have involved the purchase of the Company's own shares from Trustees of family Accumulation and Maintenance Settlements. We have been advised in these transactions by Messrs Coopers and Lybrand who applied for tax clearances on 13 and 24 September 1996"—
    before the Chancellor's announcement—
    "and such clearances were duly received in October 1996. The retrospective nature of the legislation adversely affects the transactions we have entered into in good faith and in the light of the legislation prevailing at the time."
    The company is clearly being penalised as a result of proposed legislation that was rather woollily outlined on 8 October and only inadequately clarified in December.

    1109
    The letter goes on to quote a number of reputable sources and highlights the interest shown by the chairman of Coopers and Lybrand and by Deloitte and Touche, which has also contacted the Inland Revenue in respect of this issue. The letter concludes by saying:
    "I hope you will agree that the retrospective nature of the proposed legislation is quite unacceptable in breaking as it does a long established principle and is absolutely contrary to natural justice. Your help in addressing this matter will be appreciated."
    I wanted to read that because it is important for the Committee to realise that the Bill affects real businesses in the black country as well as in Cornwall. We should therefore consider accepting amendment No. 10.
    Amendment No. 9 seeks to withdraw the allowance made in paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 10 of schedule 7 if transactions are not carried out for bona fide commercial reasons. The Minister must look seriously at this matter. It was clear to me when I sought to amend sections 703 to 706 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 last year that those sections could not easily be used to stop streaming. That may be why the Government have adopted such an approach in schedule 7 rather than making a simple alteration to that Act.
    However, it is a clear principle—I suspect that the Minister will use it as a reason for opposing the amendment—that "bona fide commercial reasons" is an accepted term in law and is referred to in sections 703 to 709 of the 1988 Act. That Act relates directly to schedule 7, as it provides that if a
    "transaction or transactions were carried out either for bone fide commercial reasons or in the ordinary course of making or managing investments, and that none of them had as their main object, or one of their main objects, to enable tax advantages to be obtained",
    tax advantages gained can be counteracted. I hope that that is clear.
    The amendment is similarly clear about how we would expect it to operate in law. Section 703 of the 1988 Act could apply to a takeover bid involving the offer of a special dividend but that would depend on two further requirements: first, the obtaining of a tax advantage and, secondly, the absence of a bona fide commercial defence.
    In the case of Shepphard and another, trustees of the Woodland Trust, v. Commissioners of the Inland Revenue, members of a family who were also trustees of a charitable trust decided that the trust should be financed by dividends. The company issued bonus shares, which were announced in favour of the trust. The family then renounced the right to a dividend in favour of the trust, and the company paid the dividend to the trust. As a non-taxpayer, the trust was able to claim back the advance corporation tax paid by the company on the distribution. The Inland Revenue sought to deny the claim for repayment, relying principally on section 703 of the 1988 Act, and said that the right to claim repayment of the advance corporation tax was a tax advantage.
    That was accepted in the High Court, where Mr. Justice Aldous held that the ability to claim the advance corporation tax paid by the company on the making of the distribution at a later stage on appeal was not a "tax advantage" for the purpose of the provisions, having regard to the statutory definition. He said:
    "The whole idea of a tax advantage is that the taxpayer has done something which allows him to resist an assessment and the Inland Revenue can point to something which alters his position to his advantage."
    1110
    That ruling followed the words of Lord Wilberforce. It is significant to amendment No. 9, which refers to "bona fide commercial reasons" and
    "the obtaining of a tax advantage".
    I was not surprised that the Government rejected the amendment that I sought to table last year to sections 703 to 706 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, but I am surprised that they have not sought to go down that route themselves in their rather complicated schedule 7. I support the principles behind the schedule, but remain to be convinced whether it is effectively drawn. I suspect that clever tax accountants will still find ways to get round it.
    The schedule misses the target of special dividend shares that do not require consolidation, and does not establish a level playing field for takeovers. Will the Minister clarify that, because it is an accepted principle that there should be a level playing field for takeovers in terms of the tax system. Whereas the old system offered corporate raiders a tax advantage by allowing them to make a special dividend payment from the target company on a successful takeover, schedule 7 will shift the bias from favouring the bidder to favouring the target company, which will be able to take account of certain tax advantages not available to the bidding company. I suspect that, for that reason and many others, we shall return to the matter in future Finance Bills.
    I support amendments Nos. 9 and 10 and hope that the Minister will consider them favourably.
    Mr. Stephen Timms: I wish briefly to put three specific questions to the Minister. First, why have the Government taken so long to stop this abuse? The original announcement of the proposals on 8 October last appeared to be linked to Reuters' proposed special dividend, but the Government could have acted much earlier. Special dividends were used in the bids for a number of electricity companies in 1995 and by Lloyds bank when it merged with the Trustee Savings bank. The Chancellor could have taken action before the 1995 Budget. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Pearson) tabled an amendment to the Finance Bill following that, and the Government did not act. If those bids were not enough, Granada's bid for Forte should have made the Chancellor sit up and take action no later than January 1996.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West mentioned what Graham Searjeant said in The Times on 22 January 1996. The problem was well known more than a year ago, so I want to know why the Government are taking so long to deal with the abuse.
    Secondly, why did the Inland Revenue not use existing anti-avoidance legislation to tackle the problem? As a number of hon. Members have said, the powers in sections 703 to 709 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 exist to allow the Inland Revenue to cancel tax advantages from certain types of transactions in securities. The growth in the use of special dividend and buy-back schemes was probably prompted by the Revenue's apparent unwillingness to use those existing powers.
    Stephen Edge wrote in The Tax Journal on 10 October, referring to the proposal that we are debating:
    "This is probably an unnecessary change if the provisions of s703 were applied properly and it is somewhat puzzling that the Inland Revenue has not responded to the press clamour by saying that it already had adequate weapons to deal with this abuse."

    1111
    Thirdly, why has the schedule been so widely drawn? Why does it not target the problem that has been identified? As it is drawn, it could catch almost any dividend, as Stephen Edge noted in The Tax Journal. The schedule is riddled with complexity and uncertainty, and clever people will probably find ways around it.
    Those are my three questions to the Minister: why did the Government wait so long, why was the existing legislation not used by the Inland Revenue, and why has the schedule been drawn so wide?
    6 pm
    Mr. Martin O'Neill: When we are dealing with a Government changing tack, there is always a tendency for us not to adopt the generosity of spirit implicit in the Bible when it says that there is rejoicing in Heaven over one sinner that repenteth.
    Ministers always start their speeches in debates such as this by telling us that the Government have changed and that they have listened to what people have been saying. I would respond to that with the words that, as a schoolteacher, I used to write on essays, "Not good enough. Try harder." We are trying this evening to give the Minister the chance to do a little better.
    The Government—inept as they may be—have recognised that for 20 months there has been a massive leakage of potential revenue. The ability of predatorial companies to make use of loopholes, and the impact of that on potential revenue, was recognised even by the Government as a matter on which they had to act.
    We should all be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Pearson), who has worked hard to highlight company excesses. We are entitled to claim credit for the Opposition's effectiveness in drawing attention to the shortcomings.
    We must find out why the Revenue felt unable to use sections 703 to 709. If those provisions were not appropriate, that is a reasonable defence. It would not be unfair for the Government to accept that. The problem is that several tax experts are of a different mind: they say that the provisions could have been used and that, if the Revenue had applied its ingenuity to the problem, it could have had a go. Even if its attempts had failed, the fact that the Revenue was trying would have deterred some of those who were trying to take advantage of the loophole.
    It is not good enough for the Government to claim that on the dawn of 8 October a new world was in prospect, another avoidance scandal was about to break and that, as a consequence, they had to act. Even this wretched Government probably recognised that they could not afford to ignore the issue any longer, so they drafted the measure. Unfortunately, they have botched it again. It is such a blunt instrument and is so widely drawn that it could pull into the provisions certain activities that are quite legitimate.
    Amendment No. 9 is more explicit. It states:
    "Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, and 10 above shall not apply to any distribution unless the transaction in securities is carried out for bona tide commercial reasons and does not form part of a scheme or arrangement of which the main purpose, or one of the main purposes, is the obtaining of a tax advantage."
    A culture has developed over the past 17 years—it has assumed the proportions of an industry—that legislation should be framed in such a way that individuals can obtain
    1112
    tax advantages. Schemes are offered by the City to enable individuals to benefit as a consequence. That should not be the purpose of legislation. If there is to be distribution, it should be for bona fide commercial reasons.
    The Minister cannot complain about our amendment. When the Opposition draft amendments, they are advised by skilled draftsmen, but those draftsmen do not have the authority of the Treasury or Inland Revenue solicitors. Amendments are often defective, but the wording of amendment No. 9 is clear and specific. The words are part of everyday parlance in the circles in which those matters are considered.
    The Minister cannot say that he does not object to the amendment—he simply does not like the words. He could table a drafting amendment in Committee. That would be no problem. We all know that, from time to time, even the Treasury and the Inland Revenue are less than precise in their language. We are prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt. If the Minister wants to play around with our amendment once he has accepted it, we will be more than happy to let him do that.
    We have witnessed 20 months of grief and failure. Various commentators have estimated the amount of revenue lost—£40 million in one deal alone, the Granada bid for Forte. That was a hostile bid which was hotly contested. The advantage gained by the predator in that case must have been critical in determining the price of the bid: if it appeared that assistance would be available, the bid could be framed in such a way that the company was, in effect, being subsidised to the tune of £40 million.
    That example and others cited by my hon. Friends add weight to the argument that action must be taken. The Government have responded in part, but they have not got it right. We expect the Minister to claim that the Government have changed, have responded and should be given the benefit of the doubt. If we give the Government the benefit of the doubt, many people will either make a lot of money or lose a lot of money. We want to ensure that the legislation is as tightly and precisely drawn as possible. It must exclude bona fide transactions and a clearance procedure should decide what transactions would be affected. The rules should be mandatory so that the Inland Revenue has no discretion not to apply them. It must be required to do so; we must not see a return to the laissez-faire approach that existed before 8 October 1996.
    The legislation must be clear; it is not enough to produce a memorandum of understanding or some form of statement of practice as guidance. The information should be in the core of the legislation. An abuse is being corrected and the issues must be clearly defined. If there is a case for moving on this matter—we accept that there is—there is an even greater case for ensuring clarity and precision.
    The Government have come to the issue late in the day. I am sure that the pushing and probing of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West has played a large part in the Government's U-turn. The Government must tell us why they have decided to move. Is it because the legislation at their disposal is not appropriate and that sections 703 to 709 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 are not relevant? If that is so, the Government should refute the claims of those individuals who have argued that the relevant powers exist. The Minister must not provide a bland assurance such as, "We have been

    1113
    advised that the legislation would not be appropriate to act in these cases." We want more than that: we want a clear statement from the Minister and precise legislation.
    We believe that our amendment would afford such clarity: it would give Inland Revenue clear and explicit instructions about how to do its job. That would be far more effective than any side notes or advice to accountants and lawyers. We want to see clear instructions. The measure must come into effect only for bona fide commercial reasons. People must be protected and legitimate business operations should be encouraged. The Government must not introduce a catch-all provision, which we would have to change and improve in subsequent Finance Bills.
    The Government deserve a little credit: the massive ship has turned around. However, it has not yet reached its destination, and we shall help it on its way. The amendment offers the Minister much-needed assistance in dealing with the matter properly once and for all. That would be a major step forward in our treatment of this anomaly.
    Mr. Tipping: I support amendment No. 10, tabled by the hon. Members for South-East Cornwall (Sir R. Hicks) and for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). I do not know quite how to describe them. Earlier in the debate, the hon. Member for North Cornwall described the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall and himself as Cornish pasty and custard pie, and he invited us to adjudge which was which. That is a bit like being asked to separate the sheep from the goats, but I think that their amendment is right and just.
    The hon. Members mentioned a case in Cornwall, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) mentioned a case in Nottinghamshire, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Pearson)—to whom the Committee owes much recognition and praise for his work in this area—referred to yet another firm. I know of many other examples across the country. It is a straightforward matter: those firms acted in good faith. They were aware of the press release issued on 8 October and they believed that they were acting properly. A further press statement issued on 5 December changed the situation completely and, although the companies had acted properly with the benefit of the appropriate advice, they now stand to lose significantly. I hope that the Financial Secretary will look favourably on the amendment, and I look forward to his reply to the debate.
    6.15 pm
    The Committee has discussed a wider issue this evening: the significant loss of finance to the Exchequer over a considerable period. As the debate progressed, it became clear that the problem was identified 24 months ago; yet the Government have been slow to act. The Committee has disagreed on the extent of the loss to the Exchequer. For example, we are told that the Granada takeover of Forte involved a potential loss of £40 million. I think that it would be appropriate for the Minister to give us his best estimate of the loss. There is argument, first, about the length of time that it has taken Ministers to act and, secondly, about the cost to the Exchequer.
    The Budget statement has featured prominently in the proceedings this afternoon, and I wish to contrast the Chancellor's words with the Government's actions. The Chancellor said:
    1114
    "As part of our continuing tight against tax and benefit fraud and tax loopholes, I am introducing a package of measures called 'spend to save'."
    That is an important statement of the Government's intention to act. The Chancellor devoted considerable time to the subject in his Budget statement. I support his objective: it is vital to close tax loopholes such as this.
    However, I shall contrast the determination and vigour of the Budget statement with the Government's tardiness in acting on the matter. I return the Financial Secretary to the Budget statement, when the Chancellor said:
    "The 'spend to save' package will cost £800 million over the next three years to secure, in a well-planned and measured way, revenue and expenditure savings of well over eight times that amount—£6.7 billion. These measures are additional to the effective steps that we have taken previously".—[Official Report, 26 November 1996; Vol. 286, c. 162–63.]
    I contrast that vigorous statement and the commitment of significant resources—£800 million that will result in a payback of £6.7 billion in three years—with the Government's actions in the circumstances described in schedule 7. It is clear that the Government have been tardy and that a significant amount of money has been lost. Their actions contrast markedly with the Chancellor's promises in the Budget.
    That leads me to my final point. Commentators are sceptical about the effect of the "spend to save" package: £800 million spent to bring in £6.7 billion in three years' time. Ministers may not be here in three years' time. It is quite clear that we will have a different Government then. It is important that the Financial Secretary assures the Committee this evening that the rhetoric in the Chancellor's Budget statement will be put into practice. Certainly the example that we have discussed tonight belies what was in it. Unless the "spend to save" package is achieved, my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench in a future Labour Government will face a real financing difficulty. We will have an inheritance of neglect.
    I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West on his long battle to get action on this issue. I believe that he has been successful. I wish that we had seen the same passion from the Government on it.
    Mr. Gary Waller: I shall make the briefest possible contribution about amendment No. 10, to which I have added my name.
    I do not think that anybody would disagree with the objective of closing unsatisfactory tax loopholes. Nevertheless, I believe that it is a key precept of our system—indeed, of any truly democratic system—that legislation should not have a retroactive effect. Many people—rightly in my view—consider that schedule 7, as drafted, will be retroactive in effect, bearing in mind the wording of the original Inland Revenue press release. As a consequence, some family trusts will be adversely affected.
    We have it in our power to put matters right. I very much hope that my hon. Friend will accept the amendment.
    Mr. George Stevenson: I support amendment No. 9, which stands in the name of my hon. Friends. I shall reflect a little on the circumstances that have led us to consider this schedule and amendment. I shall also talk about the situation that we shall face if the schedule is not amended, and how that will be interpreted, given the evidence that we have, particularly that from the early 1990s onwards.

    1115
    We all know that the Conservative party is desperate—perhaps more than desperate—to establish itself as the party of tax prudence and to have probity in all matters concerning tax. If we look at the circumstances that led to schedule 7, which the Government proposed, and try to relate it to the old saying, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't force it to drink", we will have a good illustration of the Government's complacency—some would say irresponsibility—in this area.
    Some of my hon. Friends have described the situation as a tax scam. I am not sure how individual hon. Members would describe a scam, but it is a scam when a law is being abused and those abusing it benefit. I think that that is the generally accepted definition of a scam. Could any hon. Member effectively deny that that has been happening since the early 1990s in this regard?
    I am pleased to say that the horse to which I referred, and which we are hypothetically taking to drink, had a halter put around its neck when the companies involved—Reuters, Granada, some takeovers of privatised electricity companies, and perhaps many more—led even the Inland Revenue to accept that millions, not tens of thousands, of taxpayers' money was being creamed off as a result of the abuse of the regulations and the irresponsibility of the Treasury and Ministers in not applying the law properly, to the evident detriment of taxpayers.
    My hon. Friends referred to the estimated £40 million that was lost to the taxpayer due to the Granada takeover. I leave hon. Members to contemplate what they could do with a very small fraction of that money, which they could spend on the dilapidated schools in their constituencies. That underlines how serious this is.
    I realise that the Government can sit back complacently and think, "This is a technical matter. It is buried in the schedules and clauses of the massive Finance Bill. Who gives a damn? The general public aren't going to worry about this, only the high fliers in the City, and so on." However, as has been amply shown by my hon. Friends, it does matter, because the more money the Conservative Government complacently allow to be creamed off—money that should legitimately be paid into the public purse—the less there is available for vital projects in our constituencies.
    In 1995, that mechanism was used in the Reuters and Granada takeovers and in the acquisition of several electricity companies. The same electricity companies as the Government undersold when they privatised them, which had benefited from massive public subsidy when they were privatised, used this mechanism to cream off more taxpayers' money and the Government sat on their hands and did nothing.
    I have heard no one challenge the fact that the provisions of section 703 of the Taxes Act 1988, had they been implemented, could have stopped this scam dead in its tracks. We are legitimately entitled to ask why.
    Mr. Pearson: I should like to point out two things to my hon. Friend, who talked about the giveaway to electricity companies. According to my figures, the water and electricity companies combined have probably benefited to the tune of £400 million as a result of the loophole not being closed before the 1995–96 financial year.
    1116
    Someone in the Inland Revenue must have signed cheques, because this money had been paid out to people. That is how the system works.
    Mr. Stevenson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting several noughts on the figures that I quoted. I have no doubt that he is correct. I suspect that no hon. Member present in the Chamber could deny that this is the tip of a pretty large iceberg.
    6.30 pm
    I used the metaphor of the horse being taken to water. The halter should have been put around its neck when this scam emerged. It was tightened by Stephen Edge, who, in The Tax Journal on 10 October 1996, said that the Government should do something about the scam. He said that they should use their powers and did not need to amend the law, and that it was costing the public purse.
    This is the Government of tax probity and financial probity: they stand up in the Chamber day after day, week after week, telling us how they intend to close tax loopholes. In 1996, they were told by a reputable, well-recognised authority to do something about it. What happened? Nothing. So the halter was tightened around the horse's neck.
    The next step was that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Pearson) got hold of the halter and pulled it towards the water trough. The amendments that he tabled to the Finance Bill hit the nail on the head.
    Mr. Jon Trickett: On the horse's shoe.
    Mr. Stevenson: On the horse's shoe. In a most effective and devastating critique of the Government's complacency and irresponsibility, he urged them—[Interruption.] Some hon. Members may think that this is a laughing matter, but I do not. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West urged the Government to take action, and tabled an amendment to that effect. What happened? They did not do "nothing" this time. They were shaken out of the complacent and irresponsible attitude that they had taken for well over 12 months. Heaven knows how much money had been lost to the Revenue by that time because of this scam. They said, in effect, "We will not accept it."
    The halter that was put around the neck of the Government horse, the pull that it was given by the reputable authority and the further pull that was given by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West have brought the Government to the trough. I commend them, because they are now at the trough and their heads are bent forward ready to drink. Unless they accept amendment No. 9, they will bend their heads to drink and, before they know where they are, the clever people in the City will have pulled the plug and there will be no water left in the trough.
    What can possibly be wrong? How can the Government concoct or construct a case against an amendment that says:
    "Paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 10 above shall not apply to any distribution unless the transaction in securities is carried out for bona fide commercial reasons and does not form part of a scheme or arrangement of which the main purpose, or one of the main purposes, is the obtaining of a tax advantage."
    That is critical.
    Mr. Jack rose—
    Mr. Stevenson: I realise that the Minister is getting jocular, impatient and nervous. He should be nervous: he should be ashamed of himself, not nervous. His predecessors allowed this situation to develop.
    Had the evidence of this scam not been there for the Government to see in the past few years, perhaps they would be entitled to say, "We do not need this amendment. We think that we have got it right." I congratulate the Government on going as far as they have already. The evidence is overwhelming that the bona fide people involved have been penalised and the scam merchants have been allowed to get away with it. That is why our amendment is so essential.
    The amendment is based not on a party-political knock-about, but on the facts as we know them. First, the Government's complacency has bordered on the irresponsible. Secondly, they have allowed this scam to continue, which has cost the taxpayer millions. That blows a hole in the Government's propaganda: they have tried to convince the public that they are prudent on tax and want to close loopholes. They are now trying to close a loophole, but they will fail unless the amendment is carried. Thirdly, they will leave a mess that, after the next election, a Labour Government will lose no time in clearing up.
    Mr. Jack: This has been a wide-ranging and interesting debate. I should first like to deal with the amendment that has attracted the most attention and support. It was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall (Sir R. Hicks) and supported by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and my hon. Friends the Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), for Keighley (Mr. Waller) and for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). The hon. Members for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) and for Dudley, West (Mr. Pearson) also took up this point. I thank them all, especially my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall, for raising this issue. A number of family companies affected by the new legislation have already made representations to me on this point.
    I looked again at the Inland Revenue press release that announced these proposals, to which hon. Members referred. Although it did not intend any element of retrospection, we accept that the original press release was ambiguous, which may have led trustees to take an overoptimistic view. We are prepared to err on the side of the taxpayer and accept the amendment.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: This problem is clearly due to the Government's incompetence. Will the Minister give us the cost involved during the period between the publication of the Bill and that press release? We want to know the cost of this new commitment as a result of the Government's incompetence.
    Mr. Jack: I am sad that the hon. Gentleman calls it incompetence. As I said, it was a matter of interpretation. I said that we erred on the side of the taxpayer. If we have made an error, I am always the first to put my hand up and agree that we should put matters right. That is precisely what we have done. The hon. Gentleman
    1118
    implored us so to do, and other hon. Members made their particular points. We have decided to act, but there are some lessons to be learnt for the future.
    Mr. O'Brien: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Jack: No, I shall not give way, because the hon. Gentleman had plenty of time to give his view.
    In future, it would be sensible if taxpayers and their advisers remembered that Inland Revenue press releases are no substitute for the eventual legislation passed by the House. They simply inform the public that changes are being made. People who are considering entering into transactions can and should contact the Inland Revenue for further guidance, or wait until the legislation is finalised.
    I should like to return to the substance of the remarks made by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and his hon. Friends. It is important to focus on the heart of the matter, which is the use of the tax credit. Many hon. Members have said that money has been wasted, as if it has disappeared. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) even said that money had been creamed off. This money has gone, by and large, to exempt institutions—by that, we mean charities and pension institutions—ultimately for the benefit of recipients, especially of pensions.
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor decided to act, because the cost and the use of the mechanism of paying special distributions by company share buy-backs was getting out of hand, and action had to be taken. I have been asked a number of times why we did not act more quickly. The answer—and, to be fair, the hon. Member for Dudley, West has probed us on this—is that, although we had seen what was happening, the situation had not reached the stage at which we felt that we must act.
    In 1996, the use of this mechanism took on a much bigger proportion than was the case in 1995, as I think is shown by the figures published in the parliamentary answer. We therefore decided that it was right to end the activity in connection with security transactions. That is why we took the action that we took to stop the abuse that was eventually occurring. That said, the use of tax credits is important for exempt institutions, but we decided to halt the way in which they were being used by means of the mechanism of "streaming".
    It has been asked why we did not use section 703 of the 1988 Act. The simple answer is that the existing legislation was not effective against most manipulation of that kind. If it had been, we would have used it, and we would not be debating the matter tonight. We have also been asked why we chose the mechanism that we chose. Classifying distributions in transactions associated with securities as the equivalent of FIDs was the most effective way in which to deal with the problem, and the terms under which that will apply are clearly stated in the schedule. The arrangements avoid the necessity to include a motive test, and the Bill sets out, precisely and unambiguously, how they will work.
    The hon. Member for North Warwickshire asked a series of questions. I was grateful for his kindness when he said that he would allow me to write to him about specific points that he raised, and that is precisely what I shall do.

    1119
    As for amendment No. 9, Opposition Members are clearly concerned that what they describe as bona fide activities are not effectively ruled out by our proposals. The legislation has been cast widely to ensure that all the transactions associated with securities that had exploited the streaming mechanism were caught, except those involving bona fide reasons—hence the exemptions for stock options, fixed-rate preference shares and ordinary pre-sale distributions. Those were carved out to ensure that bona fide transactions would not be prevented. In view of the exemptions, which have been carefully drafted to ensure that they do not put the Exchequer at risk, the amendment would produce a further set of hoops for taxpayers to jump through, and would introduce an additional and unnecessary element of bureaucracy.
    Our drafting follows the spirit of amendment No. 9, but I think that the amendment is unnecessary. I hope that the Committee will accept amendment No. 10, and that the Opposition will not press amendment No. 9 at this stage.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am very sorry that the Financial Secretary has not seen fit to accept our amendment, which would clarify the position in a way that he has said is in the spirit of his intention. It is regrettable that the Government have not accepted an amendment that would have clarified a complex schedule. The schedule clearly needs clarification, and, in due course, we intend to press our amendment to a vote.
    We have seen this Financial Secretary, and the other Treasury Ministers who are present, rise repeatedly to demand that the Labour party provides costings for this, that and everything. Here we have a Treasury Minister making a concession at the Dispatch Box as a result of the Government's incompetence in failing to set out their tax intentions properly on 8 October. He has no answer to the question, "How much will this concession cost?", but we know that the cost to the taxpayer of the Government's failure to act over the past year has been considerable. It may have been as much as £2 billion. It may have been a good deal less, but it has certainly been in the hundreds of millions.
    That money has been used to finance corporate raiders and takeovers. It has been used in a way that is not in the public interest—in a way that has left hospitals short of resources, and schools facing cuts. It could have been used to build hospitals, to provide police officers on the beat and to prevent education cuts, but the Minister has failed to act.
    Mr. Jack: I apologise for not dealing with the question of the cost of amendment No. 10. It would be less than £10 million.
    6.45 pm
    Mr. O'Brien: Over the past year, however, the Government's failure to act has cost the taxpayer much more than that—and now, simply through his incompetence in releasing a press release from the Inland Revenue, the Financial Secretary has cost the taxpayer £10 million. As one of my hon. Friends has rightly said, he should apologise to the Committee. I am ashamed that the Government have taken such a course. They knew the problems, but failed to do anything about them in the
    1120
    1995 Budget. They failed even to express displeasure at the abuse that was taking place in various takeovers. They did not use the anti-avoidance provisions in the 1988 Act. The Times said that there was a loophole big enough to be recognised from outer space, but the Minister did not even see it.
    Today, we have seen the complacency of an incompetent Government and the failure of Treasury Ministers to protect the Revenue. The complexities of tax legislation all too often deter the public from taking an interest; that is a pity, because here we have a scandal that the Financial Secretary has not properly explained. How can the Government justify failing to act when the electricity industry was using £400 million of taxpayers' money, and Granada's bid for Forte was costing up to £50 million of their money—money that could have been used in the public interest? They have wasted taxpayers' money, and that is why we must press our amendment to a vote.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed: No. 9, in schedule 7, page 141, line 25, at end insert—
    '13. Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, and 10 above shall not apply to any distribution unless the transaction in securities is carried out for bona fide commercial reasons and does not form part of a scheme or arrangement of which the main purpose, or one of the main purposes, is the obtaining of a tax advantage:.—[Mr. Mike O 'Brien.]
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 222, Noes 280.

    Division No. 50]

    [6.47 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Clelland, David

    Ainger, Nick

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Allen, Graham

    Cohen, Harry

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Corbett, Robin

    Armstrong, Ms Hilary

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Ashdown, Paddy

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Ashton, Joseph

    Cousins, Jim

    Austin-Walker, John

    Cox, Tom

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Cummings, John

    Barnes, Harry

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)

    Barron, Kevin

    Cunningham, Ms R (Perth Kinross)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Dalyell, Tam

    Beckett, Mrs Margaret

    Darling, Alistair

    Bell, Stuart

    Davidson, Ian

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Davies, Chris (Littleborough)

    Berry, Roger

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

    Blair, Tony

    Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Blunkett, David

    Denham, John

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Dewar, Donald

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Dixon, Don

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Dowd, Jim

    Burden, Richard

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Byers, Stephen

    Ennis, Jeff

    Caborn, Richard

    Etherington, Bill

    Callaghan, Jim

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Fatchett, Derek

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Faulds, Andrew

    Campbell-Savours, D N

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Canavan, Dennis

    Fisher, Mark

    Cann, Jamie

    Flynn, Paul

    Carlile, Alex (Montgomery)

    Foster, Derek

    Clapham, Michael

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    1121

    Fyfe, Mrs Maria

    Mudie, George

    Gapes, Mike

    Mullin, Chris

    George, Bruce

    Murphy, Paul

    Gerrard, Neil

    Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)

    Gilbert, Dr John

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    O'Hara, Edward

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Olner, Bill

    Gordon, Ms Mildred

    O'Neill, Martin

    Graham, Thomas

    Pearson, Ian

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Pike, Peter L

    Grocott, Bruce

    Pope, Greg

    Gunnell, John

    Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)

    Hain, Peter

    Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)

    Hall, Mike

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Hardy, Peter

    Prescott, John

    Henderson, Doug

    Primarolo, Ms Dawn

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Purchase, Ken

    Hinchliffe, David

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Randall, Stuart

    Hoey, Kate

    Raynsford, Nick

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Reid, Dr John

    Hood, Jimmy

    Rendel, David

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Hoyle, Doug

    Rogers, Allan

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Rooker, Jeff

    Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Rooney, Terry

    Hutton John

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Illsley, Eric

    Ruddock, Ms Joan

    Ingram, Adam

    Salmond, Alex

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Jamieson, David

    Sheldon, Robert

    Janner, Greville

    Shore, Peter

    Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)

    Smith, Chris (Islington S)

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Jowell, Ms Tessa

    Soley, Clive

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Spellar, John

    Keen, Alan

    Squire, Ms R (Dunfermline W)

    Khabra, Piara S

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Stevenson, George

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Stott, Roger

    Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

    Strang, Dr Gavin

    Livingstone, Ken

    Straw, Jack

    Loyden, Eddie

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    McAllion, John

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    McCartney, Ian (Makerf'ld)

    Timms, Stephen

    Macdonald, Calum

    Tipping, Paddy

    McFall, John

    Touhig, Don

    McKelvey, William

    Trickett, Jon

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Turner, Dennis

    McLeish, Henry

    Tyler, Paul

    MacShane, Denis

    Vaz, Keith

    McWilliam, John

    Walker, Sir Harold

    Maddock, Mrs Diana

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Wareing, Robert N

    Mandelson, Peter

    Watson, Mike

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Welsh, Andrew

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Martlew, Eric

    Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

    Maxton, John

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Meacher, Michael

    Wilson, Brian

    Meale, Alan

    Winnick, David

    Michael, Alun

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Milburn, Alan

    Wray, Jimmy

    Miller, Andrew

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Morris, John (Aberavon)

    Mr. Clive Betts and

    Mowlam, Ms Marjorie

    Mrs. Jane Kennedy.

    1122

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Elletson, Harold

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Alexander, Richard

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)

    Alison, Michael (Selby)

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

    Amess, David

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Arbuthnot, James

    Evennett, David

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Faber, David

    Ashby, David

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Baker, Kenneth (Mole V)

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Baldry, Tony

    Forman, Nigel

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Forth, Eric

    Bates, Michael

    Fowler, Sir Norman

    Batiste, Spencer

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Bendall, Vivian

    Freeman, Roger

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    French, Douglas

    Biffen, John

    Fry, Sir Peter

    Body, Sir Richard

    Gale, Roger

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Gallie, Phil

    Booth, Hartley

    Garnier, Edward

    Boswell, Tim

    Gill, Christopher

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Bowden, Sir Andrew

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Bowis, John

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Boyson, Sir Rhodes

    Gorst, Sir John

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)

    Bright, Sir Graham

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Brooke, Peter

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)

    Gummer, John

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Hague, William

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Burns, Simon

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Burt, Alistair

    Hannam, Sir John

    Butler, Peter

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Carlisle, John (Luton N)

    Harris, David

    Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)

    Haselhurst, Sir Alan

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hawkins, Nick

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hawksley, Warren

    Cash, William

    Hayes, Jerry

    Channon, Paul

    Heald, Oliver

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    Heath, Sir Edward

    Churchill, Mr

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Clappison, James

    Hendry, Charles

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)

    Heseltine, Michael

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Hicks, Sir Robert

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Higgins, Sir Terence

    Coe, Sebastian

    Hogg, Douglas (Grantham)

    Colvin, Michael

    Horam, John

    Congdon, David

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Conway, Derek

    Howard, Michael

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

    Howell, David (Guildf'd)

    Cope, Sir John

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

    Couchman, James

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)

    Curry, David

    Hunter, Andrew

    Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)

    Hurd, Douglas

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Jack, Michael

    Day, Stephen

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)

    Devlin, Tim

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Dicks, Terry

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Jopling, Michael

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Dover, Den

    Key, Robert

    Duncan, Alan

    King, Tom

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Dunn, Bob

    Knapman, Roger

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Eggar, Tim

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    1123

    Knox, Sir David

    Sackville, Tom

    Kynoch, George

    Sainsbury, Sir Timothy

    Lamont, Norman

    Scott, Sir Nicholas

    Lang, Ian

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Legg, Barry

    Shephard, Mrs Gillian

    Leigh, Edward

    Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)

    Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)

    Shersby, Sir Michael

    Lidington, David

    Sims, Sir Roger

    Lilley, Peter

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)

    Lord, Michael

    Soames, Nicholas

    Luff, Peter

    Speed, Sir Keith

    MacKay, Andrew

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Maclean, David

    Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Spink, Dr Robert

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Spring, Richard

    Madel, Sir David

    Sproat, Iain

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Major, John

    Stanley, Sir John

    Malone, Gerald

    Steen, Anthony

    Mans, Keith

    Stephen, Michael

    Marland, Paul

    Stern, Michael

    Marlow, Tony

    Stewart, Allan

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Streeter, Gary

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Sumberg, David

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Sweeney, Walter

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Sykes, John

    Merchant, Piers

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Thomason, Roy

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

    Needham, Richard

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'y'hth)

    Newton, Tony

    Tracey, Richard

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Tredinnick, David

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Trend, Michael

    Norris, Steve

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Onslow, Sir Cranley

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Viggers, Peter

    Ottaway, Richard

    Waldegrave, William

    Page, Richard

    Walden, George

    Paice, James

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Patnick, Sir Irvine

    Waller, Gary

    Patten, John

    Ward, John

    Pawsey, James

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Waterson, Nigel

    Pickles, Eric

    Watts, John

    Porter, David

    Wheeler, Sir John

    Portillo, Michael

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Whittingdale, John

    Rathbone, Tim

    Widdecombe, Miss Ann

    Redwood, John

    Wilkinson, John

    Renton, Tim

    Willetts, David

    Richards, Rod

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Riddick, Graham

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)

    Rifkind, Malcolm

    Wolfson, Mark

    Roberts, Sir Wyn

    Wood, Timothy

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

    Yeo, Tim

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Young, Sir George

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Rowe, Andrew

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Rumbold, Dame Angela

    Mr. Bowen Wells and

    Ryder, Richard

    Mrs. Jacqui Lait.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
    Bill (Clauses 40,62,68 82 and 92 and Schedules 7 and 13), reported, with amendments; to lie upon the Table.

    Local Government and Rating Bill
    Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
    Ordered,
    That the Local Government and Rating Bill be considered in the following order, namely, New Clauses, amendments relating to Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clause 5, Schedule 2, Clauses 2 and 3, Clause 6, Clause 4, Clauses 7 to 33, Schedules 3 and 4, Clauses 34 and 35, New Schedules.—[Mr. Curry.]

  New clause 1

    PARISH COUNCILS: ADDITIONAL POWERS
    '(1) A Parish Council may provide on an agency basis within the Council's area any service within the area by any public body or statutory undertaker.
    (2) A Parish Council may make grants towards the enhancement or preservation of any service by any public body or statutory undertaker, including any local authority health authority, public utility, public transport operator, quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation, housing association or any agency or voluntary body acting on behalf of or as contractor to any such body in exercise of their functions.'.—[Mr. Bendel.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    7.2 pm
    Mr. David Rendel: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 3—Audit—
    '( ) Before a parish council or community council may exercise a power given to it under this Part it shall subject its accounts to audit in accordance with Part III of the Local Government Finance Act 1982.'.
    New clause 4—Local partnerships—
    '(1) Where a parish council or community council exercises a power under sections 26 to 30, it shall have regard to any transport plans published by a local authority in its area which co-ordinates local partnerships, including any interested body.
    (2) Where a parish council or community council exercises a power under section 30, it shall have regard to any community safety or crime prevention plans published by a local authority in its area which co-ordinates local partnerships, including any interested body.'.
    Mr. Rendel: I am grateful for the opportunity to move new clause 1. As Liberal Democrats have said all along, the Bill is generally to be welcomed, because to some extent it enhances local powers. However, we have tabled the new clause because the Bill misses a good opportunity—it misses more than one good opportunity—to do much more to enhance local powers and to devolve central powers down to local councils.
    When speaking in Committee about part III of the Bill, which deals with new powers for parish councils, the Minister said
    "It is a deliberately limited measure".—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 3 December 1996; c. 147.]
    I do not know whether it was deliberate, but it is certainly limited. The purpose of new clause 1 is greatly to enhance the new powers provided in the Bill to parishes.
    Some parishes are very small and may not wish, or may not be able, to take on many new powers. Other parishes, however, are now remarkably large, and some are even as

    1125
    large as the smallest district councils and unitary authorities. It is ludicrous that powers should not be given to such large parish councils after the Government have decreed that the similar powers should be given to district and unitary councils of a similar size.
    It would be wrong to impose on all parishes all the powers that might be granted to the larger parishes, but there is no reason why the Bill should not at least enable parishes to take on greater powers if they feel that they are able to do so and are sufficiently large. That consideration is why new clause 1 would provide parishes with the opportunity to take such powers. Larger parishes may wish to take up those powers, even if the smaller ones do not.
    The first part of the new clause would provide parishes with an opportunity to act as agent for other bodies. An important point, however, is that they would also be able to purchase improved services or even, in some cases, to preserve services that might otherwise be stopped because of financial cuts imposed on higher-level authorities.
    Subsidiarity is the principle behind the new clause. Liberal Democrats believe that we should not only talk about devolving powers to lower level authorities but implement devolution whenever possible. I congratulate the Government on, to some extent, implementing that objective in the Bill. The principle of subsidiarity, however, should not be half-hearted, or available in some areas and to some authorities but not more generally. If it is true that we should pass down powers from Europe to national Governments, it is equally true that we should pass down powers from national to local authorities and from larger local authorities to smaller ones.
    If the Government are genuinely to fulfil their pledge that they believe in subsidiarity, and if the Labour party is to fulfil its similar pledge, I hope that they will accept new clause 1.
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I apologise for missing the first minute of the speech of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel). I assume that he believes, in moving new clause 1, which deals with parish councils, that its provisions should apply equally to community councils in Wales. An argument can certainly be made for certain powers to be given to larger community councils in Wales.
    When one thinks of towns such as my home town of Caernarfon and of Colwyn Bay—which have the status of a community council, with very few powers—the need for change to current legislation is apparent. Towns such as Colwyn Bay may exist in a local authority in which the hinterland and the town itself have very different natures. They therefore require the ability to fine-tune policies to respond to the wishes of an urban area, such as Colwyn Bay or Llandudno, for example, as distinct from the wishes of the entire district or county authority in which they are located. I am not certain whether the wording of new clause 1 is appropriate to achieve that aim, although I am sure that the Minister will tell us.
    In coming years, there will be a growing tide of pressure from identifiable communities, such as those I have mentioned, to be provided with greater autonomy and to be able to take the decisions that they can take for themselves—which is, after all, the basis of the concept of subsidiarity.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: In principle I support the comments of the hon. Member for Newbury
    1126
    (Mr. Rendel) and new clause 1, and I do so as an honorary vice-president of the National Association of Local Councils—an office which I have held for more than 20 years. I agree with his comment that we should make all levels of local government meaningful. Like him, I also very much commend the Government on the modest initiative that they have shown in the Bill to recognise the role not only of parish councils and—as the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said—community councils in Wales but of town councils, which, in urban areas, do very much the job of parish councils in the rural areas of the United Kingdom. In principle, I warmly welcome what the hon. Member for Newbury said. I presume that the brevity of his remarks, on which I also commend him, means that the new clause is perhaps a marker, and not something on which he intends to divide the House.
    If it is any consolation to the hon. Gentleman, I know that some Conservative Members support the idea behind the new clause, which is to pass greater powers down to parish, town and community councils, to enable them, with their unique knowledge of the areas they serve, to carry out jobs currently carried out either by borough or district councils, perhaps even by county councils, or even, occasionally, by the Government. That work is more appropriately undertaken by those—I hope that they will forgive me for using this phrase—who operate at the grass roots level of local politics.
    If, in due course, the concept behind the new clause is taken up and additional powers are granted to parish, town and community councils, perhaps more people will seek to serve in local government—people who have local knowledge and commitment and want to serve those with whom they live. They could bring to that task a unique knowledge of their area. I thus warmly support the new clause.
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: I shall be brief. I support new clause 1 in principle, but wish to relate it to new clause 3. If we are considering giving new powers to any public organisation, those organisations should be subject to proper scrutiny and public accountability. New clause 3 provides that, if a parish, town or other council is to be given new powers, its accounts should be carefully audited by the district auditor before those powers are granted in order to ensure that it is absolutely appropriate to proceed.
    New clause 3 is important because there is a significant difference between a parish council and a local community association. Both can be used for consultative purposes—the consultation role is extremely important—but the power of parish councils derives from their power to levy a precept and manage a budget. That is what makes parish councils different and what makes it important that their public accountability should be stressed in the Bill.
    My constituency contains the only parish councils in the city of Sheffield; the rest of Sheffield regards them in a rather bemused way and is unsure about what they are and do. There are three such councils, and each one is very different. One is in a very rural area of scattered communities but does an enormous amount—it manages and maintains the whole public footpath network in part of the Peak park and manages other parks, which it does extremely well. Its budget, however, is only slightly more than £100,000.

    1127
    The second council serves a larger population but covers an area that is not so rural. It does less but has a much higher local profile and spends more of its budget on its premises. The third is a small town council which is genuinely in a state of confusion about its powers, duties and budget. The district auditor is at the moment trying to clear up some of that confusion. That is one of the reasons why it is important that the Bill sets out more clearly what we intend such councils to do.
    7.15 pm
    New clause 3 should be accepted because the public and parish councils must be sure and made aware of the fact that their finances are to be presented publicly and be open to scrutiny. "Sleaze" is a nasty word, but sleaze is sleaze is sleaze, whether it is found on the Government Benches or our Benches, on a city, county or parish council, or whether it involves Mr. X the builder whose wife is on the parish council—we all know how local communities work.
    I believe that the Audit Commission should be properly consulted about the provisions that it wants included in the Bill if, as I think we should, we pass more power to local level. That would ensure that greater accountability followed that power.
    Mr. Andrew Rowe: I have to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) that I was part of the original working group that led to the formation of the National Association of Local Councils, and I am delighted to learn that it is in such excellent hands. I am also a vice-president of the Kent Association of Parish Councils.
    I congratulate the Government warmly on their efforts to enhance the powers of parish councils, which I believe to be entirely appropriate. It is clear that the pool of people from which parish councillors can be drawn is growing every day as people take earlier retirement, or are even forced to do so. I have great sympathy for the new clause, but, even if it cannot be accepted, I hope and believe that Ministers will agree that parish councils are increasingly demonstrating their capacity to take on more roles. I hope that the move to give them more control over their local communities—communities of which parish council members have great knowledge, on which those members are able to spend much more time and to which they can offer greater personal commitment than is often possible for borough and county councillors—will continue.
    Ms Hilary Armstrong: This is an interesting little debate. I am sure that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) will not press the new clause, because it would in essence give parish councils a power of general competence, and therefore many more powers than other authorities would have.
    Until we properly address the relationship between central and local government and the powers of other authorities, it would be perverse of the House to give parishes powers that other tiers of government cannot exercise. Were we to do that, new legislation would have to be introduced to ensure that parish councils were made accountable for those powers and that all the necessary checks and balances were in place.
    1128
    I am a fellow vice-president of the National Association of Local Councils and president of the Durham Association of Parish and Town Councils. I greatly support the important role that such councils play in their localities, but I am not convinced at this stage that they want to become county and district councils too. However, I believe that they have an important role to play, together with those authorities, in exercising functions that are currently the responsibility of other tiers of government.
    That is why our new clause 4 offers models of partnership on two activities that are identified in the Bill—transport, and crime prevention and community safety. Given the current framework of local government, new clause 4 is by far the best way in which to proceed. We should ensure that there is real partnership between parish councils, town councils and the other tiers of government that have responsibilities in the areas they serve.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) referred to new clause 3. If the Government were minded to be sympathetic to new clause 1, new clause 3 would become even more important as an acknowledgement that the auditing of parish and town councils should be far more onerous than it is at present. I thank the Minister for his letter about auditing, which did not arrive until after we had tabled new clause 3; if we had delayed tabling the new clause, it would not have been discussed today. I appreciate that it does not take into account some of the measures that the Minister addressed in his letter.
    Those of us who are concerned about probity in public office will be reassured by many of the measures outlined in the letter. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough on her persistence in pursuing the matter and on ensuring that we looked at it in detail in Committee. I felt that it was important to pursue it on the Floor of the House. I hope that the Minister can reassure us that the measures outlined in his letter of 21 January will be implemented swiftly, as the Bill is implemented, so that the new powers in the Bill do not come into effect until those measures come into effect.
    New clause 4 deals with the powers relating to transport, and to crime prevention and community safety; it emphasises a partnership approach. The Bill addresses transport and crime prevention, but we believe that it is important to reflect the work going on in local government on the face of the Bill. Local government is committed to seeking to achieve more sustainable patterns of transport use and successful local crime prevention initiatives. Local authorities have extensive responsibilities in both areas, and, in many senses, they are in a prime position to tackle the real problems that local communities face.
    We had some interesting and wide-ranging debates in Committee on the problems of transport in rural areas, which local authorities are in a prime position to tackle. By going along with the spirit of new clause 4, the Government would ensure that parish councils were involved with district councils, county councils or metropolitan authorities in ways that would mean that there was a close look at transport needs and what could be done to tackle them.
    The Department of Transport is already working with local authority associations to develop further a package approach to transport investment, to ensure that

    1129
    authorities in a local area work out what is needed and to ensure that they target the finance available to tackle those needs. Parish councils have an important role to play in that and we should ensure that they are fully part of any plan that is being made.
    I reiterate that we believe that local authorities need to be able to secure improvements in the quality of bus services and the integration of bus services with other forms of transport. Our debate in Committee highlighted the problems of rural areas in that regard and how important it was to take account of them.
    It is also important that local authorities retain the ability to influence rail services. That is not as important in rural areas as it once was or as it should be. None the less, it is important that, as part of a wider transport strategy, all the different aspects of public transport come within the partnership approach that we seek to develop through new clause 4.
    We want to ensure that the Government establish a policy and a financial framework within which authorities are encouraged to implement innovative transport strategies embracing a package of measures designed to improve the quality of public transport. They should look at car use; I know that the Road Traffic (Reduction) Bill, which is before the House tomorrow, deals with that.
    Yesterday, I was in Loughborough looking at what the council has done to enable that small market town to provide pedestrian access, accessibility from the edges of the town and access for the disabled. Those developments have come about because the various authorities in the area have worked together and, despite the financial constraints, have come up with a package that is working for the town. It is our job to provide the framework to encourage and give an incentive to local authorities to work together on such developments.
    There are things that can be done and there are things that local authorities are already doing. We believe that the Bill offers an opportunity for the Government to emphasise that parish and town councils play an important part and need to be consulted effectively. More importantly, they should be seen as partners in transport proposals.
    The same is true of crime prevention, which is important in rural areas as well as in urban areas. When I was in Loughborough yesterday, I realised the importance of the integrated way in which the authorities had tackled crime prevention and transport in the town centre.
    The second part of new clause 4 addresses crime prevention by encouraging concerned people and organisations to work together, each of them playing a vital role. We know very well that, if crime prevention is left to the police and seen as the responsibility of one agency rather than all agencies, adequate solutions simply do not come forward.
    I have visited areas where they have spent a year considering crime prevention and bringing together voluntary organisations, different tiers of local government, the police, crime prevention panels, and so on, so that they work in partnership to identify practical ways in which they can deter criminals and find new ways of reassuring local people about security and community safety. Getting local government to take responsibility for ensuring such co-ordination would change things radically.
    1130
    The recent Audit Commission report on finding ways forward for young offenders, "Misspent Youth", marked a remarkable departure for the Audit Commission, bringing together some of the things that it does best. It made it clear that we can save an enormous amount of money and more effectively tackle the problem of young people committing offences if we take a much more co-ordinated approach and if local government plays a strategic role in ensuring such co-ordination. All our experience points to that approach. New clause 4 would ensure that parish and town councils were in the middle of a partnership approach to the development of a strategy for crime prevention and community safety. The Government ought to listen to such suggestions.
    I have re-read what the Minister said the last time we debated crime prevention. He thinks that it is an issue for the police. I was not satisfied with his approach then and remain dissatisfied. The Audit Commission's report identifies other ways of going forward and the new clause would enable the Government to take them up. The new clause is not dictatorial or profess that we know best. It offers local solutions to local problems. It would begin to tackle problems in a way that I know can work. We ought to be pushing to ensure that such an approach works.
    7.30 pm
    The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): If I were to recommend to the House that we vote for new clause 1, there would be a corporate heart attack among parish councillors. They constantly tell us that they want to be consulted and listened to more effectively. There is not an enormous demand for vast new powers. Parish councils range enormously in size, as I am sure the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) would acknowledge. In my constituency, the populations they cover range from 15,000 to covering 150 people. We must be prudent, so that we give them realistic and sensible powers that are relevant to local circumstances.
    As the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) said, new clause 1—which, to put the record straight, would not cover community councils in Wales—would give more competence to parish councils than district or county councils. Many people think that there are enough tiers of local government. We need to ensure that they work together effectively. I am afraid that I cannot commend the new clause to the House.
    I agree with the points made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) about accountancy. As she will know from the letter of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), we have recently revised accountancy rules. They come into effect on 1 April—before most parts of the Bill come into effect. The rules were revised after consultation with the parish councils, and we should give them a chance to work. We are looking for accountancy with as light a hand as is necessary to provide probity. I know that she will agree with me on that.
    I have sympathy with the spirit of new clause 4, and I would like to consider the inclusion of advice on any consultation to which the hon. Member for North-West Durham referred and in any guidance that we give to councils on their use of the new powers. I of course know that, as she says, the Department of Transport is considering what form of advice would be sensible, and is

    1131
    discussing with local authorities what form of advice they would find useful. That is sensible co-operation. The problem of putting that in the Bill is that it would impose a mandatory burden on a council that sought to exercise its powers and involve a new, rather more complicated level of procedure. The new clause is somewhat unclear and vaguely expressed, although I realise that it is rather difficult to put such responsibilities in precise terms. I hope that she finds it sensible to consider practical guidance.
    I have reached the same sort of conclusion with regard to crime prevention. I agree with what the hon. Member for North-West Durham is trying to do—sensible people would. She is trying to put into statute what is common sense, but is doing so in statutorily unusable language. I hope that she will therefore agree that it is sensible that local authorities, which know what they are trying to do and have practical experience, deal with the issue pragmatically and sensibly. If they think that we should be able to give guidance, we would of course want to do so. That is the sensible way in which to proceed. I therefore hope that hon. Members do not feel that it is necessary to press the new clause to a Division.
    Mr. Rendel: I am very grateful to those who have supported new clause 1. Many more have spoken in support of it than in opposition to it. Perhaps that is yet another example of Conservative and Opposition Back Benchers having rather more sense than the Government.
    Two points that have been made could be considered to be in opposition to the new clause. The first is that, if such powers were given to parish councils, district councils should have them also. I entirely agree with that, but do not think that that is a reason why we should not give the powers to parish councils in the first instance. Let us give such powers to parish councils and then go on to give a power of general competence to districts and boroughs as well.
    The second point was that the powers might give many parish councillors heart attacks. I do not see how offering parish councillors powers that they may or may not take up, depending on whether they feel that they are able to do so and that the council is a relevant size for the powers to be used effectively, could give any parish councillor a heart attack. I therefore reject that criticism.
    I suspect that the new clause would not succeed if I pressed it to a Division. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
    Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  New clause 2

    EXEMPTING SHOWHOUSES FROM NON-DOMESTIC RATING
    '(1) Part III of the 1988 Act is amended as set out in subsection (2) (which provides for the abolition of liability to non domestic rating in respect of housebuilders showhouses).
    (2) In section 66 there shall be inserted:
    "(5A) (a) Where property

    (i) has been constructed or adapted for use as living accommodation;

    (ii) has not since it was constructed or adapted for use as living accommodation been used for that purpose; and

    (iii) it is used wholly or mainly as a showhouse;
    1132
    it shall be treated as next in use as domestic property for the purposes of subsection (5) above.

    (b) for the purposes of subsection (5A)(a) above property whether furnished or not is used as a showhouse if

    (i) it is used by or on behalf of its owner for display to members of the public as an example of other property constructed or to be constructed by him in order to market that other property, and

    (ii) that other property is, or will be when constructed, domestic property by virtue of subsection (5) above".'.—[Mrs. Peacock.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    My right hon. Friend the Minister will be aware of my long interest in the provision of housing for purchase and for rent. This is an occasion on which the Government can help reduce the cost of new houses.
    My right hon. Friend the Minister will recall that, in a rating tribunal case in 1995—Ideal Homes v. Ian Walker—it was decided that house-builders' show houses were properly subject to uniform business rate, not council tax. That decision followed a long period of uncertainty after the introduction of the UBR, during which some authorities claimed UBR on show houses and others were satisfied to collect council tax. Given that the uncertainty was resolved by the decision, it is understandable that most local authorities started to charge UBR, and that, based on research undertaken by the House-Builders Federation, the charge paid by house-builders paying council tax would be roughly doubled. The federation has always argued that show houses should be subject not to UBR but to council tax, and new clause 2 sets out to achieve that.
    I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be asking himself—and possibly me—about the cost of the proposal. Perhaps I might tell him. The cost of making show houses subject to council tax rather than UBR is—I estimate—about £5 million per annum, based on current levels of house-building activity. That is a small sum in United Kingdom accounting terms, but it is real money that has to be paid by housebuilders at a time of relatively poor trading activity, although recently we are seeing many more house starts and much more activity.
    The change in law requested would have no cost to the Government: it would merely switch funds between local authority budgets. Levying UBR on what is housebuilders' stock is an unusually onerous approach and one that breaches the general principle of not taxing stock. The showhouse is an empty, unsold house and should be subject to the appropriate council tax regime, which is intended to provide an incentive to avoid keeping property empty unnecessarily. A showhouse serves the same purpose as a new car in a car showroom—it is there to increase the rate of sale of other stock. A car in a showroom is not taxed until it is sold. That principle is already breached by the levying of council tax at the basic rate.
    I appreciate that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State may choose to remind the House that showhouses are sometimes used as sales offices and we must bear that in mind. It is, however, penalising the legitimate use of housing stock to subject it to UBR, which was essentially intended for commercial, retail or industrial property. Moreover, it appears from the original record of debates

    1133
    in Hansard that it was never the intention of Parliament to tax domestic buildings with the commercial rating legislation. A showhouse, like a car in a showroom, is temporarily and briefly used for demonstration purposes before reverting to the residential use for which it was designed and built. It should therefore be taxed only in the manner appropriate to its intended residential use—through the council tax.
    The impact of UBR is uneven. Some 50 per cent. of authorities charge UBR and the other 50 per cent. charge council tax. That is clearly unfair, but the removal of the anomaly can be achieved only by increasing costs in a sector in which I imagine the Government wish to see non-inflationary recovery. Any further cost burden will only retard recovery, while its removal would be a small but welcome step forward.
    The majority of housebuilders are not large, publicly quoted companies, as we are sometimes told. They fall within the small and medium-sized enterprise sector, which the Government and all of us wish to encourage. Removal of the anomaly and reduction in cost would therefore clarify the tax treatment of an important group of SMEs and, I hope, be reflected in house prices, which would benefit all our constituents.
    7.45 pm
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I declare my interest as chairman of the Manufacturing and Construction Industries Alliance. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) on new clause 2 and register strong support for what it seeks to achieve. My hon. Friend advised the House that the cost to the housebuilding industry of making showhouses subject to uniform business rate rather than council tax is estimated to be some £5 million. I am sure the House will agree that that is not a huge sum in the context of the size of that important sector of our economy, but I emphasise that the small to medium-sized building firms and companies are hit disproportionately by the tax, at a time when—as my hon. Friend said—profit margins have been squeezed by the recent severe recession in the housing market for which the industry itself was not to blame in any way.
    Newly built showhouses awaiting sale are simply the stock—I emphasise the word "stock"—of the housebuilding industry or, at worst, are unoccupied residential premises. Their prime purpose and their prime use is simply display so that potential purchasers of a new home can see the product that they are considering buying. It is inevitable that in some showhouses there may be a receptionist to greet visitors or perhaps even a salesman or saleswoman available, on a part-time basis or by appointment, to negotiate a sale, but that is not necessarily typical of many of the showhouses on the many small developments where the local building company or firm has neither the resources nor the inclination to maintain the cost of a sales team. We need therefore to assess the tax liability of such premises not on the basis of what minor activities may on occasion be undertaken in showhouses but on the basis of their prime purpose which is, as I have already said, as the stock of the building industry.
    Some people have expressed the irrational fear that the new clause's amendment to the local government tax regime would set a precedent for other industries seeking to widen the benefit. I do not accept those arguments.
    1134
    Dentists or pharmacists who use one or two rooms in their home for their practice are using those premises not as stock for sale but as a place of business under the prime purpose criteria. Retailers who live above the shop could not claim the shop as part of their residence because its prime purpose is the conduct of retail trade.
    Simply because a housebuilder might on occasion undertake limited secretarial or administrative work in a showhouse—as Members of Parliament sometimes do in their homes—should not mean that suddenly the prime purpose of the premises is considered to be the commercial conduct of secretarial and administrative work. The prime purpose of the property is its sale. If that were not the case, in the interests of justice all right hon. and hon. Members who cannot escape paperwork, correspondence, filing, meetings and even media interviews at home would have to be charged the uniform business rate as well as the council tax.
    I sincerely commend the new clause to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and I hope that he will listen carefully and sympathetically to what has been said tonight and accept that the unjust anomaly should be addressed. I hope that he will undertake to make acceptable proposals of his own for putting the matter right. We have spoken briefly but to the point and I hope that the Government will make proposals to put right the current unjust anomaly.
    Mr. Curry: As my hon. Friends will know, we can add to the list of eligible properties and businesses under the order-making powers that are attached to the Bill. We would look to use that mechanism in any additions we made to the Bill and on those grounds I will ask my hon. Friends to withdraw the new clause.
    I wish to state clearly, so that there is no misunderstanding, that I am in two minds on the issue. There is a good case on both sides of the argument. As my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) said, the land tribunals have defined the problem recently so the legal uncertainty is now at an end. She also admitted that the way some builders use the showhouses has a business element. When showhouses lie empty for a while, we must also take into account the tax treatment of empty properties under the council tax regime.
    Equally, I can see that placing show houses on the business rate list—even for a short time—and moving them on to the council tax list once they are sold as dwellings would place an administrative burden on the council tax payer and the Valuation Office. Therefore, on the grounds of deregulation, there is a case to be listened to. I can tell my hon. Friends the Members for Batley and Spen and for Macclesfield that I am ready to listen to that case and I am willing to receive representations to balance the arguments. If they can persuade me that this is the correct move, I will use the order-making powers in the Bill to bring it into effect and I shall do so conterminously with the discussions on the legislation.
    Mrs. Peacock: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State has obviously listened to what I and my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield have had to say, and I hope that he will be able to introduce a measure along the lines that we have suggested. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
    Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  New clause 5

    EXEMPTION FOR SPORT AND RECREATION CLUBS
    'In Schedule 5 to the 1988 Act there is inserted—
    "Sport and Recreation Clubs
    15A. A hereditament is exempt to the extent that it consists of property used wholly or mainly by a club, society or other organisation not established or conducted for profit for purposes of sport or recreation.".'.—[Mr. Macdonald.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Calum Macdonald: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    The intention of the new clause is to remove the liability for non-domestic rates from voluntary sports and recreation clubs and associations. The effect of this would be to bring the treatment of clubs in England and Wales into line with the treatment of clubs in Scotland. I hope that the Government will recognise that this is an important issue, and that it is a fair and reasonable proposition to which they should respond positively.
    The Government should make a positive response for two reasons; the first being the importance of sport to our national life. The Government have explicitly acknowledged that, and the Prime Minister made his contribution last year in a document called "Raising the Game". The document was all about the need to improve the access of British people—particularly young people—to sporting facilities. We all acknowledge that an important part of that is the role of voluntary clubs and associations, and particularly the role of the thousands of volunteers who devote much of their time trying to involve young people in sport and recreational activities.
    The second reason why the Government should accept the fairness and common sense of the new clause is that clause 2 of the Bill aims to correct the anomaly that currently exists between the treatment of sporting rights in England and Wales and the treatment of sporting rights in Scotland. However, I wish to point out to the Minister that a second anomaly—between the treatment of sporting clubs in England and Wales and the treatment of such clubs in Scotland—still exists. That anomaly is no different in principle from that which the Government are trying to tackle in clause 2 affecting sporting rights. If it is right to do away with one of those anomalies, I suggest that—by the same logic—the Government should do away with the other. That is what I am trying to do in new clause 5.
    One of the reasons why the Government could not include the measure at the outset was that they were apparently unaware of the existence of the anomaly. Certainly the Minister seemed to be unaware of the matter when I raised it in Committee, although he has since checked and found that it does exist. He wrote to me on the matter and sent copies of the letter to all other members of the Committee. I hope that he is now prepared to take a fresh look.
    The question of costs must be addressed, and the Central Council of Physical Recreation—the umbrella body that covers all voluntary clubs and associations—has looked at this. Its most recent study of the effect of the new clause suggested that the cost to the Exchequer would be £14 million a year. That sum, I suggest—although it is not negligible—is relatively modest when
    1136
    compared with the total take of taxation, whether local or national. More relevant, perhaps, is that it is a reasonable sum when compared with the cost of removing the anomaly affecting sporting rights.
    The Government estimate that the cost of removing the sporting rights anomaly will be £4 million to £5 million. That anomaly affects only 6,000 holders of sporting rights in England and Wales. By comparison, the sporting clubs anomaly affects over 150,000 clubs and associations—25 times as many clubs—and will affect the 6.5 million people who enjoy and use these clubs. Given that the additional costs of removing the anomaly dealt with by the new clause are only £14 million—compared with the £5 million costs of clause 2—the Government will be getting good value for money.
    I represent a Scottish constituency, and I am aware that I am speaking on an issue affecting England and Wales, but that is entirely within the rules of the House. I have tried to be brief, and I shall conclude by quoting briefly some of the clubs and associations that have been in touch with me to allow them to have their say directly—as it were—on the importance of the issue. The National Cricket Association has been in touch with me through the firm of chartered surveyors that acts as rating adviser to the association, and it pointed out that most of the individual members of the association are small voluntary cricket clubs
    "who survive purely on the income that can be generated from their individual members. Over the last few years … many of the clubs have fallen into severe financial difficulty".
    This has occurred as a result of the generally difficult economic background of the past few years. Inevitably, the association said, a number of clubs will not survive.
    At the same time, the association said that a
    "substantial increase in rate liability … has fallen on the clubs as a result of the rating revaluations in 1990 and 1995, and the generally unsympathetic attitude of Local Authorities to the applications which have been made for … rate relief".
    The association's letter continued:
    "The first effect of this is usually that the club will halt any expenditure on maintenance or equipment. Club premises fall into disrepair, reducing the attraction of the club to new members. The falling standard of facilities such as nets and practice equipment also deters parents from encouraging their children to participate in the youth activities at clubs which in turn will have a knock-on effect in the next few years on the number of talented youngsters rising to the top level of our—
    meaning the English—
    "national summer game."
    Given the state of English cricket today, that seems to be a cry from the heart to which the House should respond. The association then stated:
    "A straightforward and very tangible benefit which could be provided for clubs would be mandatory rate relief … clubs would undoubtedly view this as a significant encouragement to their activities which would help strengthen the long term future of the game throughout the United Kingdom."
    I should like to mention a letter that I received from the secretary of the English Indoor Bowling Association to illustrate the different types of sport that are affected by the rating liability. He pointed out that a lot of capital investment is needed to provide the basic facilities for indoor bowling. The association believes that it has a strong case for arguing that those facilities should benefit from rate relief. He made an important relevant point when he stated:

    1137
    "Indoor bowls is played by people of all ages, there is no advantage in gender, size, age, and within reason, physical fitness. It is played by many people with disabilities with the majority of clubs providing sessions each week for the blind and partially sighted, wheelchair bound bowlers and other mentally and physically handicapped people … the operation of the bowls hall is often left to the clubs themselves and in common with the majority of the members clubs, they are run mainly with voluntary labour since without this they would not be viable."
    8 pm
    It is useful to compare the services that such associations provide for young people, the handicapped and the old with those provided by the holders of shooting rights, who will enjoy a 100 per cent. exemption under clause 2. That comparison makes clear the case for extending the exemption to voluntary clubs and associations.
    The Football Association has told me that many of its members are voluntary clubs, local clubs and associations. It has stated in a letter to me:
    "We understand that it is the intention of the Government to introduce measures which will assist financially those business `sporting rights' owners throughout the UK. In our view, it is equally important that our affiliated voluntary clubs that have to pay the Uniform Business Rate should be afforded equal status".
    The FA goes on to point out that it
    "is committed to investing in establishing links between clubs and local schools."
    It argued that if such clubs were granted relief from rates they could reinvest the finances in youth coaching programmes.
    The letters and representations that I have received from different clubs and associations make my case. I hope that the Minister will offer a positive response. I cannot see any reason why the anomaly between England and Scotland in respect of sporting clubs should be allowed to continue if it is the Government's intention to remove the anomaly between England and Scotland in respect of the holders of sporting rights.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): I agree with the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) that sports clubs play an important role in communities across England, Wales and Scotland. I, too, would like to play tribute to the individuals whose voluntary efforts help to sustain those clubs which play such an important part in the community, especially for young people. It is because of the potential value of sports clubs to the community that they are eligible for 100 per cent. rate relief at the discretion of the local authority.
    I believe that it is right that discretion should continue to rest with the local authorities since they are in the best position to decide which club is of genuine benefit to the community. Local authorities will know the needs of the local community and will be able to judge the importance of particular sports clubs in the light of the range of services already on offer. Not all such clubs will be equally deserving. Even those that are not conducted for profit may have constitutions or membership rules that effectively exclude sections of the community. In all the circumstances it is appropriate that relief should be discretionary.
    As the hon. Gentleman said, the funding of discretionary relief was discussed in Committee. Local authorities in Scotland can grant discretionary relief to non-profit-making sports clubs in the same way as they
    1138
    can in England and Wales. In England and Wales, however, 25 per cent. of the cost must be met by the local authority, whereas in Scotland the Exchequer meets the full cost. I appreciate that, because of those arrangements, sports clubs in England and Wales may consider that they are at a disadvantage compared with their colleagues north of the border. That is certainly an anomaly and we are as keen as anyone to avoid such anomalies.
    Changes to the funding arrangements are a matter for secondary legislation. I and my colleagues at the Welsh Office and Scottish Office propose therefore to undertake a review of how discretionary relief is funded in England, Wales and Scotland with a view to providing consistent treatment for all sports clubs. We will aim to complete that review by the time that the Bill receives Royal Assent. In the meantime, I invite the hon. Gentleman to accept my arguments about why discretionary relief should be awarded. I invite him to accept what I said about the review that we will carry out into the funding of that relief and to withdraw the new clause.
    Mr. Nick Ainger: On the anomaly between England and Wales and Scotland, can the Minister assure the House that the review will not have any detrimental effect on Scotland?
    Mr. Clappison: I would not like to pre-empt or prejudge how that review will be conducted. We have all accepted that there is a case for such a review and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that our approach to it is constructive.
    I should like to share the timely sentiments that the hon. Member for Western Isles expressed about English cricket, although we may diverge on other sports.
    Mr. Macdonald: I am grateful to the Minister for his constructive reply.
    I am happy to withdraw the new clause on the assumption that the result of the review will not mean that clubs in Scotland end up being liable for rates or that their local authorities will end up losing some of the support that they currently receive. The Minister would not be a popular person if he chose to go down that road. I look forward to seeing the results of the review. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
    Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  Schedule 1

    RELIEF FROM NON-DOMESTIC RATES FOR GENERAL STORES ETC. IN RURAL SETTLEMENTS: ENGLAND AND WALES
    Ms Armstrong: I beg to move amendment No. 38, in page 20, leave out lines 21 to 23 and insert—
    '(a) on the day concerned the hereditament is

    (i) within a settlement identified in the billing authority's rural settlement list for the chargeable financial year, or

    (ii) is designated by the billing authority as being used for purposes which are of benefit to the local community'.

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 29, in page 20, line 29, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 21 and insert
    'any conditions prescribed by the Secretary of State by order are satisfied'.
    No. 30, in page 21, line 37, leave out '(ii)'.
    No. 31, in schedule 2, page 23, leave out lines 2 to 23 and insert
    'any conditions prescribed by the Secretary of State by order are satisfied'.
    Ms Armstrong: In many senses the amendment brings us back to the debate on the definition of a general store and a post office which kept us busy for some time in Committee. We simply want the Government to think about the matter.
    As it stands, the Bill makes it clear that to be eligible for mandatory rate relief a hereditament must fulfil several key conditions. It must be situated in a rural settlement with 3,000 people or fewer; it must be used as a general store or post office; it must be the only general store or post office within the settlement; and it must have a rateable value below an amount prescribed by the Secretary of State by order.
    In Committee, we discussed in detail what was a post office or a general store. The argument about that definition relates to where such a facility may be located. We were concerned particularly about urban areas where relative social exclusion and social deprivation have meant that the role of the urban post office or general store is now similar to that of the village post office or village general store. The Government went some way towards trying to meet those concerns in Committee, for which we were, and are, grateful. They made it clear that the Secretary of State intends to designate rural areas even when they may fall within the boundary of a metropolitan district and be on the edge of a much larger conurbation.
    In Committee, several of my hon. Friends raised that issue and were grateful for the Government's response. However, there remains the problem of urban estates that may be at the edge of a conurbation, but be isolated because their residents do not move from the estate very much. In Committee the Minister said that that issue could be tackled through the use of the single regeneration budget.
    I have been considering the matter and I do not believe that the SRB is designed to help struggling general post offices or general stores in an urban area. The SRB is important in terms of raising an area's economic status and improving it generally. There is no doubt that, if that happens, the ability of the general store or post office to survive will improve, but the size of the SRB fund means that there is no chance of every estate with such a problem being able to use it. In addition, the SRB programme is designed to tackle much more comprehensive situations than the sort of problem that the Bill seeks to resolve.
    I understood what the Minister was trying to say, but he did not give an adequate answer. I shall not seek to press the amendment to a vote, but I ask the Minister to recognise that the responses that we have received so far are not sufficient. Problems exist on some bleak and desolate urban estates that are similar to those of a rural
    1140
    village. It is the responsibility of the House not to forget that problem when we tackle similar problems in rural areas. It is in that spirit that I have moved the amendment.
    Mr. Rendel: I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak to amendments Nos. 29, 30 and 31, which go to the heart of the decision on how discretionary or mandatory relief should be given to local businesses. I think that all hon. Members are aware of the needs of small businesses in rural areas and of the benefit that the Bill may bring to some of our smaller rural communities, but the way in which that benefit is to be given has to be questioned. The aim of my amendments is to enable all the rate relief to be given on a discretionary basis rather than the mandatory basis contained in the Bill.
    One of the most interesting aspects of the Government's decision to make some of the relief mandatory is that, in other areas of their business, they have been keen to try to ensure that where Government money is handed out it is targeted on those who are most in need. That has happened in the past with discretionary rate relief and, more recently, with the Government's benefit legislation. It seems odd that in this instance the Government are moving away from targeting the rate relief on those who are most in need and moving towards a generalised policy of giving rate relief of at least 50 per cent. to certain types of business even if some of them do not need it.
    Once again, we come back to the important principle of subsidiarity, which lies at the heart of my amendments. In Committee I said that it was odd that the Government should go for a half-and-half policy; my point was not properly answered. Half the rate relief for post offices and general stores is to be mandatory and the other half is to be discretionary.
    8.15 pm
    In Committee, the Minister said that it was not a half-and-half policy; he said that businesses that were most important for rural villages would receive mandatory relief, but less important businesses would not, but that was not the half-and-half aspect to which I was referring. I was making the point that the Government cannot make up their mind about the best way to give rate relief, even to those businesses that they consider to be the most important in rural areas—small post offices and general stores. They cannot decide whether rate relief should be given on a mandatory or discretionary basis. I see no logic behind this half-and-half system, where some of the relief can be left up to the discretion of the local authority and some of it has to be decided here in Westminster.
    The one criticism of the amendments that has been made, and which may, if not properly understood, concern some smaller local authorities that may benefit from rate relief, is that some of them simply would not have the money to give discretionary relief. It is clear that the Government will set aside the money in their future Budgets as soon as the rate relief system is introduced. That money can be distributed in a number of ways. If the mandatory part of the Bill were removed, it would be possible for the Government to decide, in next year's rate support settlement, that some of that money should be used directly to enhance rate support for those local authorities that are expected to pass on rate relief on a discretionary basis. If that is done, there is no reason to

    1141
    assume that any local authority will be worse off as a result of using discretionary powers. The discretionary powers will be properly available to them, as will the money to use them. Therefore, the small businesses that need the rate relief will receive it.
    I firmly believe that local people know best where to spend the money. I was happy to hear that that belief was strongly supported by two Conservative Members who spoke on new clause 1. If councils believe that the right way to use the money that they will have in future is to give discretionary relief to local businesses, they will do so. If they do not believe that, they should have the right to choose how best that money should be spent. Some authorities may have greater needs for the money than rate relief for small businesses. It is their choice; they are in the best position to know. Some local authorities may give much more discretionary relief than the Government currently envisage.
    By making part of the rate relief mandatory, the Government are showing that they do not trust local government to support vital rural businesses in the way that all hon. Members would like them to be supported. It is a case of, "We know better than them." The Government are saying that they know better than local authorities where the rate relief is needed, but that is not true, and I was happy to have the support of two Conservative Members on that issue. The amendments provide a touchstone to show the commitment of parties in the House to the principle of subsidiarity, of devolving powers to the lowest level, and of trusting local authorities to take the right decisions for their people because they are in the best position to make the right decisions. Because the amendments go to the very heart of the principle of subsidiarity, I shall do everything I can to force a Division on them tonight.
    Mr. Curry: I am grateful to the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) for the way in which she introduced her amendment, saying that she wanted to extend further the debate about isolated shops. She was effectively talking about estates that are rather remote from cities.
    I hope we agree that, in practice, the relief scheme might be of little assistance in such cases. Generally speaking, in villages, there are unlikely to be a range of social problems affecting the environment in which a shop operates—basically, it is a question of numbers. In urban areas, there are far more likely to be adverse factors arising from the broader environment in which a shop operates. Such factors may include a deficiency in purchasing power, social problems, vandalism and crime—in short, the sort of problems that we have seen in city challenge areas.
    Whereas in a village one can address the specific problem of a shop in terms of a deficiency in its financial buoyancy, in urban areas one has to look mainly at the general environment. In such areas, the sort of schemes I spoke about—the single regeneration budget schemes, of which there will shortly be 500 throughout the country—can be of assistance. If the hon. Lady would like to discuss how SRB schemes or other Government programmes can incorporate the sort of problems she raised, I should be happy to oblige her. Such programmes have to be developed, and each succeeding round brings its own lessons. When discussing such issues, I can wear my urban regeneration hat as well.
    1142
    As for the points raised by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), I recall that when I was in the Committee on what became the Housing Act 1996, the Liberal Democrat spokesman spoke at great length about how wicked was our intention to do things by order and through secondary legislation. He said that everything should be on the face of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman is now saying that it is terrible that everything appears on the face of the Bill, and that discretionary powers should be used. That would give my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment gargantuan powers.
    The hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that, under the amendment, the Secretary of State would have to prescribe the conditions that have to be fulfilled before the relief was exercised. I know that my right hon. Friend will be deeply touched by the hon. Gentleman's confidence in him, but, for once, my right hon. Friend believes that this responsibility and power should be expressed clearly and defined by Parliament. The purpose of the Bill is simple, easy to administer, easy to deliver and easy to understand. Local authorities have made it clear that there will be no problem applying it.
    The village shop and post office in the circumstances that we have described represent a clear and definable case for assistance. We should extend mandatory assistance to them so that they can be sure they will receive that assistance. The measure is an indication of our willingness to address the real concerns affecting those areas. I am, therefore, not willing to transfer that assistance into a discretionary relief. We have tried to be precise in our intentions, and our action has been welcomed. If we were to accept amendment No. 29, we would remove certainty, clarity and simplicity from the Bill, so I cannot commend it to the House.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment proposed: No. 29, in page 20, line 29, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 21 and insert
    'any conditions prescribed by the Secretary of State by order are satisfied'.—[Mr. Rendelj
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 10, Noes 97.

    Division No. 51]

    [8.23 pm

    AYES

    Ashdown, Paddy

    Rendel, David

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Carlile, Alex (Montgomery)

    Tyler, Paul

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Maddock, Mrs Diana

    Mr. Archy Kirkwood and

    Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)

    Mr. Chris Davies.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Butler, Peter

    Ancram, Michael

    Carrington, Matthew

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Cash, William

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Channon, Paul

    Baldry, Tony

    Clappison, James

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Biffen, John

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Coe, Sebastian

    Bowis, John

    Congdon, David

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Conway, Derek

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    1143

    Curry, David

    Merchant, Piers

    Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)

    Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

    Dover, Den

    Nelson, Anthony

    Duncan, Alan

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Dykes, Hugh

    Norris, Steve

    Eggar, Tim

    Ottaway, Richard

    Elletson, Harold

    Paice, James

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Pickles, Eric

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

    Portillo, Michael

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Redwood, John

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Roberts, Sir Wyn

    French, Douglas

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Fry, Sir Peter

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Gill, Christopher

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Sproat, Iain

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Steen, Anthony

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Stephen, Michael

    Harris David

    Sumberg, David

    Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

    Sweeney, Walter

    Hurd, Douglas

    Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)

    Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)

    Tredinnick, David

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Trend, Michael

    Knapman, Roger

    Twin, Dr Ian

    Waller, Gary

    Kynoch, George

    Waterson, Nigel

    Lamont, Norman

    Watts, John

    Legg, Barry

    Whittingdale, John

    Leigh, Edward

    Widdecombe, Miss Ann

    Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)

    Willetts, David

    Lidington, David

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfld)

    Lord, Michael

    Wolfson, Mark

    Luff, Peter

    Wood, Timothy

    MacKay, Andrew

    Young, Sir George

    Maclean, David

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Malone, Gerald

    Mrs. Jacqui Lait and

    Matlow, Tony

    Mr. Bowen Wells.

    Question accordingly negatived.

  Clause 27

    GRANTS FOR BUS SERVICES
    Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 32, in page 15, line 38, leave out 'in the council's area'.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 23, in page 15, line 39, after 'area', insert
    'or which serves the needs of persons living within the Council's
    area.
    Government amendments Nos. 33 and 24.
    Mr. Clappison: Amendments Nos. 32, 33 and 24 fulfil undertakings we gave in Committee, and I believe that they will be widely welcomed. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) will feel able to withdraw amendment No. 23.
    Mr. Rendel: I shall not detain the House long on this amendment. I was delighted to see that one of my amendments had been taken over by the Government, particularly as I had already tabled it for this debate before the Government tabled their amendments. I moved this precise amendment in Committee, when the Minister said that he would look at it again and bring forward a technically proven amendment on Report. I am delighted
    1144
    to hear that my original amendment in Committee and this amendment on Report have now been proved by him to be technically competent.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendments made: No. 33, in page 16, line 4, after `if' insert—
    '(a) the bus service benefits, or appears to the council likely to benefit, persons living in the council's area, and
    (b)".'.
    No. 24, in page 16, leave out lines 8 to 10.—[Mr. Clappison.]

  Schedule 3

    MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
    Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 35, in page 24, line 9, at end insert—
    'Local Government (Financial Provisions etc.) (Scotland) Act 1962 (c.9)
    . In section 4 of the Local Government (Financial Provisions etc.) (Scotland) Act 1962 (reduction and remission of rates)—

    (a) in subsection (5) for "the following subsection" there is substituted "subsection (6) or, as the case may be, (6A) of this section",

    (b) in subsection (6) for "the following subsection" there is substituted "subsection (7) of this section", and

    (c) after subsection (6) there is inserted—

    "(6A) Without prejudice to subsection (6) of this section, where any reduction or remission of rates is determined under subsection (5) of this section in the first six months of a year, the reduction or remission may be granted—

    (a) for the preceding year;

    (b) for a specified term of years, not exceeding five, beginning not earlier than the preceding year nor more than twenty four months after the date of the determination;

    (c) for an indefinite period beginning not earlier than the preceding year, subject to the exercise by the rating authority of their powers under subsection (7) of this section.".'.

    Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendment No. 36.
    Mr. Clappison: The purpose of the amendment is to give local authorities greater flexibility at the end of the financial year to deal with certain cases where otherwise injustices would arise as a result of the year coming to an end and not working with council procedures.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment made: No. 36, in page 27, line 28, at end insert—
    '. In section 47(7) (discretionary relief), after "made" there is inserted "more than six months".'.—[Mr. Clappison.]
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Queen's consent? I shall suspend the sitting for five minutes owing to a technicality.
    Sitting suspended.
    8.41 pm
    On resuming—
    Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's Consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    Mr. Bendel: I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak briefly on Third Reading. We discussed subsidiarity earlier this evening, but there is one aspect about which, for various reasons, we have not spoken.
    We failed to get across the point about whether discretionary or mandatory relief should be given, and the point about the powers of parish councils. It is sad that the Bill afforded yet another opportunity that was not taken up by the Government: the chance for London boroughs to have parish councils.
    Since the matter was raised in Committee, there has been a great increase in interest in whether London boroughs should be allowed to have parish councils. A number of campaigns have begun, and it was reported in the Evening Standard that many Labour councillors in London support the idea, although their party did not support the relevant amendment in Committee.
    I hope that the amendment will be moved in the House of Lords, as that is now the only chance of its being including in the Bill. That is a strong possibility. The matter was raised once before in this House—a Bill on London parish councils was introduced about 20 years ago. Its purpose was to make changes in the administration of local government in Greater London by the establishment of London parish councils. The Bill was presented by the then hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, Mr. Graham Tope, now Lord Tope. Among the Bill's supporters was the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). I should be interested to know whether he still supports the principle.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed.

    Chesterfield Tribunal Suite
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Ainsworth.]
    8.44 pm
    Mr. Harry Barnes: The subject of the debate is the closure of the Chesterfield tribunal suite. In normal circumstances, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) would be present, as the tribunal is located in his constituency, but he has flu and cannot be with us tonight; my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is present—all three of our constituencies are affected by the closure.
    From correspondence that the Minister has sent me, I know that an apology will be made later on certain matters in which he is involved and which affect aspects of the matter under debate.
    The Chesterfield tribunal suite operates under the independent tribunal service. It hears about 1,000 cases each year and has a six-month backlog, with 329 cases outstanding on social security matters alone. Throughout the whole of the east midlands last year, 4,591 cases were dealt with, and that figure includes the considerable work load of the Chesterfield tribunal suite.
    Five types of case are heard: appeals on social security matters, appeals on disability living allowance and so on, child support appeals, vaccine damage appeals and medical appeals. Sixty per cent. of the Chesterfield tribunal suite's cases are social security appeals, 20 per cent. are disability appeals and 20 per cent. cover the other three types.
    The catchment area is wide, covering sections of west Derbyshire from Buxton to Matlock, virtually all the constituencies and districts of Amber Valley, Bolsover, North-East Derbyshire and Chesterfield. As the Mansfield suite was closed in February 1996, cases from Nottinghamshire are also occasionally dealt with in Chesterfield.
    In many cases, representatives appear on behalf of the appellant. It is estimated that 50 per cent. of Chesterfield's cases are attended by representatives of various organisations assisting the appellant. That compares with a figure of 25 per cent. nationally and for the east midlands. The Minister may have more accurate information; those figures were supplied by the organisations involved.
    The bodies that represent appellants include the welfare rights service of Derbyshire county council, which covers about 60 per cent. of cases. Nottinghamshire county council's similar service is occasionally involved. Representatives of citizens advice bureaux from a wide area attend, including those from Chesterfield, Staveley, North-East Derbyshire, Matlock and Worksop. Trade unions such as Unison, the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union, the GMB and the National Union of Mineworkers, and bodies such as the Chesterfield law centre, the Derbyshire unemployed workers centre, the Chesterfield support network and Incapacity Action are involved. A wide range of organisations, many centred in Chesterfield, are concerned with the well-being of citizens who are dependent on benefits, and who often encounter difficulty in the interpretation of their cases and need assistance.

    1147
    The appeals procedures were changed last year under SI 2540, Social Security (Adjudication) and Child Support Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1996. I believe that that change affects four of the five areas—vaccine damage is excepted—that I have mentioned. However, the traditional pattern of procedure still operates—I shall describe that which applies in the social security area. Recommendations are issued by the independent tribunal service, which supervises the activities of tribunals, and hearings are held in public unless there are agreed exceptional circumstances. If hearings are to be public, I think that it is more sensible to hold them locally. Any decisions reached by tribunals are likely to have local significance and to affect local organisations, including some of those that I have mentioned. If hearings were held further afield, it would be more difficult to translate the information at a local level.
    People have a right to attend appeals hearings and be heard—although it is argued that the statutory instrument to which I referred discourages that practice. It is much easier for people to attend, present their case and be heard if hearings are held locally. People will feel much more comfortable in a local setting. The appeals procedure is traumatic enough without requiring people to travel to distant parts and present their case in unfamiliar surroundings.
    The independent tribunal service procedure guidelines state that appellants should be put at ease. That is much more likely to occur—although it will always be difficult to achieve—if hearings are held in familiar surroundings where people may be represented by local bodies with which they are associated. The appeals board is expected to determine the facts by questioning the appellants and their representatives—although the statutory instrument seems to suggest that it should deal with matters of law and that the facts of the case should be resolved at an earlier stage. Nevertheless, the sequence of events is significant.
    The results of appeals are very interesting. The Minister provided some figures on 4 November 1996 in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) about social security appeals and the all work test. They show that 46.2 per cent of appeals were successful. The success rate was roughly the same for cases that were presented by either the appellant or his representative—46.3 per cent. for the appellant and 45.8 per cent for the appellant's representative. However, 67.3 per cent of cases were successful when the appellant and the representative appeared together. When neither the appellant nor his representative attended the hearing, the success rate was only 6.5 per cent.
    The results for other tribunals follow a similar pattern, and the pattern in Chesterfield is of that nature: the most successful hearings by far are those where the appellant and his representative appear together, and the least successful are those where no one turns up. If the Chesterfield tribunal suite is closed and people are forced to travel further afield, there is an increased danger that they will fail to attend hearings—or, at best, only the appellant will turn up. That will reduce the appellant's chance of achieving a successful outcome, as the best results are achieved when both the appellant and his
    1148
    representative are in attendance. I cannot stress that point too strongly: the success rate of appeals hearings will suffer if the closure takes place.
    Why has the tribunal been threatened with closure? I refer to "The Annual Report of the Council of Tribunals for 1995–96", which was laid before Parliament by the Lord High Chancellor and Lord Advocate pursuant to section 4(7) of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992. It was ordered to be printed by the House of Commons on 17 December 1996. Page 52 states:
    "The President"—
    the president of the independent tribunal service—
    "informed our Chairman in December 1995 that they had appointed an Estates Manager to establish their accommodation policy, and it was hoped that the appointee would be reporting on needs, demands and overall policy, by the autumn 1996. The Estates Manager subsequently explained to our Secretariat that the Independent Tribunal Service were preparing their accommodation plan against a requirement to reduce their accommodation costs by 30 per cent. over three years."
    The policy to reduce accommodation costs considerably is affecting the tribunal service. Between January and early November 1996, no fewer than nine venues were closed—at Mansfield, which is near Chesterfield, Bridgend, Merthyr Tydfil, Pontypridd, Gloucester, Yeovil, Huddersfield, Scunthorpe and Paisley. Those closures took place despite the fact that the tribunal's report said that it would move towards considerable cuts late in 1996. Those cuts took place in advance of the schedule set out in the report.
    In a written answer that will be a matter of some discussion, in which he was given the information about the nine venues that had closed, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West was also informed:
    "The independent tribunal service has no plans to close any other venues."—[Official Report, 4 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 386.]
    The Minister sent me a letter today, before the debate, in which he pointed out that there were inaccuracies in the previous answer and that it should have been different in the circumstances. People in the area are considerably agitated, because things were said in the House that turned out not to be correct, and the independent tribunal service was moving towards closure programmes, which had been denied in the earlier answer.
    On 14 January 1997, it was announced at a meeting of tribunal users that the Chesterfield tribunal suite was to be closed. Furthermore, that announcement is in conflict with letters that Members of Parliament for the area have received. I refer in particular to a letter sent to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield on 6 January, from the operation manager of the Birmingham region of the independent tribunal service, which said:
    "As yet, however, there has been no formal decision about closure. We will continue to consult with all local interested parties and this process will include discussion on whether, having perhaps closed the permanent venue, we can/should identify a suitable casual venue that could be used on an ad-hoc basis. A tribunal user group meeting has been arranged for 14 January and it is hoped that some of the issues raised by local welfare rights groups can be addressed more fully.
    I will ensure that all interested parties are notified of any developments in this matter."
    However, at the meeting on 14 January, which was attended by 40 people from user groups, and by those who support user groups, it was announced that the venue was to close and that any consultations would be about not the

    1149
    closure of the venue but the mechanism of transformation, or possibly the establishment of a casual venue. That resulted in a powerful reaction in the area, because people expected that the meeting would occur at a stage in the process of consultation on whether the venue would close.
    I have given the Minister prior notice of a number of questions so that he can provide answers. I shall elaborate on each question. First, when was the decision made to close the Chesterfield suite? Was it made by 4 November, when the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West was answered in Hansard? Was it made by 6 January, when the letter went to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield? Had it been made by 17 January, when early-day motion 354 was submitted, which had the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield and of my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover and for Mansfield (Mr. Meale)? Exactly when was the decision taken?
    Secondly, who was involved in the decision-making process? Had any prior consultation taken place? The letter that the Minister sent to me earlier suggests that there was some consultation, because letters were flowing between Members of Parliament and the industrial tribunal service. To my knowledge, those letters arose because of objections from Members of Parliament, and they received answers. I think that that was the approach with many user organisations as well.
    Thirdly, what criterion is used when deciding to close the venue? Is it mainly costs? Is any consideration given to what benefit the tribunal's operations might have to the local community that it serves? There will be financial benefits within that community. Are they assessed in any way against the revenue costs involved, perhaps per case?
    Fourthly, what are the accommodation costs of the Chesterfield suite? Is any consideration given to the moneys, for example, that it raises for the local economy? If we had that information, perhaps we could judge the cost criterion among the interested groups, individuals and Members of Parliament.
    Fifthly, what other venues are to be closed? In particular, is the Derby venue safe, given the closure in February 1996 of the nearby Mansfield venue? Derby is a single tribunal suite similar to the Chesterfield model. If it were also under threat, there would be no provision in Derbyshire. That is not to say that the maintenance of the Derby suite would be adequate for north Derbyshire, because many cases would be directed to Sheffield rather than to the other end of the county.
    Sixthly, are there plans to abolish and replace the independent tribunal service? A number of people have expressed their concerns about that. Seventhly, is the current closure programme due to pressures on the ITS? Has it come up with a programme of reduced costs in response to those pressures?
    Eighthly, why was the closure of the Chesterfield suite announced without proper prior consultation with interested parties? Ninthly, is not the decision to close the suite contrary to the written answer that was given to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West? I suspect that the Minister will say that it was, but that a further answer has been provided, so there has been a retrospective adjustment. I am not sure that retrospective adjustments are acceptable; it is the information in the original answer that has affected the position until now. Only now, in this debate, will the problems be clearly explained to us, and we can respond to that.
    1150
    My final question is, can the decision to close the Chesterfield suite be withdrawn, at least to allow the promised consultation on its future genuinely to take place? There are strong reasons for holding such consultation, given the written answers in Hansard on 4 November.
    A high representational level at Chesterfield would be helpful to the tribunal service. Welfare rights bodies and bodies such as the unemployed workers centre discuss cases, and if they do not stand much of a chance, because the facts of the case do not comply with the regulations, they are weeded out. It is helpful to have well-organised experts who can advise people locally.
    If people want me to put a case to the ombudsman, I feel that it is my duty to ensure that they put their case as fully as possible; otherwise, I say to them, "No, this is not a matter for the ombudsman. You would be better going to a solicitor. There are other avenues that you could take first, so that your case is stronger at a later stage." The bodies in the area are as well organised as they can be with limited resources. They have expertise, and can offer this type of assistance.
    The alternative to the Chesterfield suite is in Sheffield. It is not in the centre of Sheffield, so some people have to make three or four bus journeys. It has been argued that that is no different from people having to travel from north Derbyshire to Sheffield for social and shopping purposes, but that is not so. As it is not in the centre, people have to travel to Attercliffe. Judge Keith Bassingthwaighte, president of the industrial tribunal service, advanced that argument in a letter which, although it has been circulated quite widely, has not been sent to local Members of Parliament.
    Many people in the area are in the poverty trap. They do not have cars, or access to them. People living in areas in my constituency such as Danesmoor and Holmewood would find it very difficult to get to the other side of Sheffield. The Minister may say that the tribunal service can offer alternative facilities, and in some circumstances it is possible to use taxis, but even with the Chesterfield suite it is not easy to establish such an arrangement.
    "A Guide to Reviews and Appeals", NI 260, contains a section on taxis and hired cars. Page 89 states:
    "You can claim for the hire of a taxi or private car if:
    you are unfit to travel by public transport (this could be because of age or infirmity)
    or public transport is not available at a suitable time. You will be asked to give a written explanation.
    You should get a receipt for expenses. If the DSS agrees that a taxi is necessary and you would like the fare to be paid in advance, arrangements can be made with the taxi company for a bill to be sent direct to the DSS for payment."
    That is clear when we study the detail, but the arrangement is not simple or straightforward for those who are trying to deal with officialdom, and to obtain what assistance they can.
    Not only appellants but bodies representing them will be affected. In many cases, the further afield they are supposed to be going, the harder they will find it to act on behalf of individuals. The problem will be as bad for them as it is for appellants, if not worse.
    It is difficult for people even to use the current provision. In many instances, the pressure of dealing with an alien system full of rules and difficulties puts

    1151
    people off. The Derbyshire unemployed workers centre, operating from Chesterfield, published the case of a Mansfield man who had written to the centre. He had tried to cancel his appeal, and had then refused to attend. He wrote:
    "I have been made sick by the trauma which has been put on me and I wish I had never started this nightmare.
    The laws and rules are against you before you start anything.
    I have not been sleeping at night worrying about the Tribunal. I will stay on my small pension.
    It's worse than being tried for murder.
    So please do as you like. I can't do anything about it. I am trying to put the nightmare out of my mind. Please, please leave me alone and let me forget this nightmare".
    We do not know the details of that case. Perhaps the individual concerned had a particular problem; perhaps a bit of counselling and assistance would have enabled the case to be pursued. It does, however, illustrate the daunting nature of the procedure for many people, and that procedure should not be made even more daunting.
    The context of the tribunal procedures has been affected by the statutory instrument to which I referred earlier. Many people feel that they are under pressure to forgo oral hearings. Things will be more difficult in the Chesterfield tribunal, but the move to Sheffield will add to the problems.
    I forwarded to the Minister a letter from my constituent, Mr. Marsden-Jones of Holymoorside, who helps at a citizens advice bureau. The Minister replied:
    "Mr. Marsden-Jones is concerned with oral hearings, on which there has been a misunderstanding of the effect of the regulations. Articles in the Press have fuelled that misunderstanding. Those opposed to the change have contended that it represents a reduction in an appellant's rights. I can assure you that it does not; the right to an oral hearing remains absolute."
    I know that that right remains, but the rest of the Minister's explanation suggests why people might turn to the procedures less and less. He continued:
    "Appellants are being asked at the outset if they want to attend the hearing of their appeal and if they do not reply, or say no, arrangements will be made for the appeal to be heard on the papers. Appellants can change their minds at any time up to the issue of the tribunal decision on the case. This change is designed to identify in advance those appellants who will not be attending so that the Independent Tribunal Service can arrange its work more efficiently."
    However, that change also means that appellants are more likely to be persuaded by the rules to forgo their right of appearance; they will be encouraged to pursue appeals through written documentation.
    The Minister's letter continued:
    "As Mr. Marsden-Jones is aware, some appellants undoubtedly find the prospect of appearing at even an informal hearing daunting. We believe that they would welcome the opportunity to appeal, and still have the opportunity to respond to the adjudication officer's contentions, but not feel obliged to appear in person."
    I grant that there is a sense in which that might be true for some people, but the Minister is really saying that the procedure is good because it works in cutting the number of oral cases. I do not think that its operation will benefit the people concerned.
    Mr. Marsden-Jones said:
    "As a volunteer in the CAB for over nine years my experience is with the 'real world'. The average member of the public cannot be aware of the implications for them of the ever increasing benefit
    1152
    and disability legislation, consequently we only see a very small percentage of those with legitimate claims. It is crucial therefore that these changes do not further prejudice their chances at appeal. I feel strongly that these changes should be challenged and that careful monitoring will prove this to be well founded."
    Even if my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover and I persuade the Minister to put off closure of the Chesterfield tribunal suite, many problems will remain for it and its equivalents elsewhere. Certainly, the difficulties increase the further away such services are from centres of population.
    Until now, the House has been misled about whether there would be further closures, but I know that that situation will be corrected. Retrospective answers are not entirely satisfactory. That is another reason why the closure statement should be withdrawn. User organisations should be able to enter into proper consultations so that their points can be fully put and weighed.
    Today I received a copy of a letter from Philip Robinson, chairman of CHART '99—the Chesterfield area regeneration team—to the president of the independent tribunal service. He states:
    "The main purpose of CHART '99 is the economic regeneration of North Derbyshire and most of our activity is directed to the supply side of market activities. We are, as may appear obvious, also concerned with the demand side of economic life in our area though our interventions are typically more problematic and probably have a tendency towards maintaining positions rather than increasing them.
    In our area blighted by pit closures and general 'downsizing' in other local industries, too many of our citizens, through no fault of their own, are dependent on welfare benefits. Our task is to reduce their number by creating jobs. However we can only be concerned that, until we have made significant progress in that direction, the legitimate take up of benefits is maximised."
    He goes on to say:
    "I am led to understand that just one of the Chesterfield based agencies recovered over £250,000 following appeals and £1.3 million totally. In a stressed economy such as ours, that is not an insignificant sum to place in jeopardy.
    I am sure my Board would support me in appealing that you reconsider your decision to remove tribunal facilities in Chesterfield."
    There is therefore widespread feeling against closing the suite among trade unions and organisations in the Chesterfield area—such as CHART '99, for example. They are very concerned about the matter and urge the Government to ensure that the doors are not closed and that a consultation exercise—which they had expected to occur—is undertaken. They understand that the ITS is involved in a rationalisation programme, but believe that there should first be consultation. I ask that we first fully consider all the factors, so that perhaps some of the heat that has built up on the issue in the Chesterfield area can be diffused.
    9.21 pm
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) for stepping in for me last week on a point of order on this matter to Madam Speaker. He asked her whether she could intervene in the issue, and she very kindly told him that he should use his ways and means to try to raise it in the House, and that he might be allowed 15 minutes to do so. Today, the net result has been that

    1153
    he has been able to speak on it at much greater length than we had expected, because the House finished its business early.
    I also compliment my hon. Friend on his chronology of events leading up to the meeting with Mr. Coulthard, the regional director of the independent tribunal service. Last week, in Chesterfield, Mr. Coulthard met my friends and other people's friends, who thought that they were going to meet him for consultation on the proposed closure of the Chesterfield tribunal suite.
    Those people thought that the meeting would allow them an opportunity to make a case against the closure, but, lo and behold, it turned out to be a completely different type of meeting. Contrary to what we have been told by the Tory Minister, who said that consultation was on the way, the director told them, "There ain't any consultation; we've come here to sound a death knell," such as has been sounded over factories and pits across Britain, especially in our area.
    For some years before I was elected as a Member of Parliament, I represented many people—mostly miners with whom I worked in the coalfield—at tribunals. It was not unusual for me to go to places such as Sutton in Ashfield, which is in a neighbouring constituency, to Chesterfield, to Mansfield or to a medical appeal tribunal in Nottingham to represent disabled people. Although we occasionally fought other cases, by and large we made representations on behalf of people who worked in the coal mining industry who would be gasping for breath when we met them on the stairs. They were casualties of the coal mining industry and people who needed help, and we operated with that in mind.
    My job as those people's representative was to make a case on their behalf and say, "Look here, you got it wrong. This person should have the special hardship allowance." The Government changed the hardship allowance to the reduced earnings allowance, and then reduced the reduced earnings allowance from about £40 to about £9 a week. The people represented at last week's meeting are the same type of casualties who want to appeal against what they regard as harsh decisions. As my hon. Friend pointed out, other groups now need to be represented, some of whose appeals relate to disablement benefits. However, in the main, it is still the same kind of operation with which I was involved.
    Recently—since I came to the House—the Sutton in Ashfield venue was closed, and then the Mansfield venue closed. That meant more people having to go to the Chesterfield tribunal to have their cases heard. As my hon. Friend asked, is it any wonder that Chesterfield not only has to deal with more than 1,000 cases a year but has a backlog of more than 300, according to the local social security office? They are not our figures—we have not culled them from a Marxist periodical—but the Government's figures.
    We fervently believed that our friends were going to take part in a consultation to try to convince the regional director of the need to keep the Chesterfield venue open. Parts of a total of six constituencies are affected. The total area covered includes High Peak and Buxton and extends to west Derbyshire. Much of the area is rural and descends into Bolsover, which is nearly 30 miles long and contains 20-odd villages. My hon. Friend's constituency probably also has 20 villages.
    1154
    Bus services in those areas are poor, and the people affected by the closure are the very ones who had difficulty getting even to Chesterfield, but are now being required to make the long trek not just to Sheffield but to the far side of Sheffield. We have calculated that, in future, some people going to appeal against decisions will have one train ride and two or three bus rides—in some cases, four.
    In the past few years, some of us—my hon. Friend in particular—have been fighting for equal rights for disabled people. We have been told time without number that the Government are anxious to help the disabled and give them equal rights, so they introduced a Bill—it was a tinpot Bill and not what we wanted, but the Government claimed that it was going to provide some form of equality.
    I have to say that one cannot provide equality to disabled people by closing appeal venues and calling on those people to go to Chesterfield station, down the steep hill—it is not on the flat—get off the train at Sheffield and find their way to the other side of the city. And all for what? Presumably the aim is to save money.
    The people affected live in an area where there used to be 30-odd coal mines and some factories associated with the mining industry. They have all been closed; not a single pit remains—but the casualties are still there.
    Surveys carried out in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend found that, in some areas, unemployment is more than 50 per cent. Of course, not all the unemployed get unemployment benefit. Some get the benefits to which my hon. Friend referred—that is the nature of things. The unemployment figures are phoney. We are dealing not with the same work force that we once had but with people who probably need benefits of one kind or another, and need to appeal against decisions on those benefits to a greater extent than was the case when all the pits were open.
    The area is generally rural. If it was a chunk of a city, I could understand some civil servants sitting in their room and charting out a little place for a tribunal venue. We are talking, however, about all or part of six constituencies; we are talking about a population of well over 300,000. All those involved are having to tramp up and down to get their cases heard.
    We are not talking about golden handshakes, are we? There is a world of difference between somebody receiving a golden handshake and somebody appealing at the Chesterfield tribunal for a benefit of the kind that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire described. We are talking about a few pounds a week in some cases, not about the golden handshakes that are handed out to the fat cats in the City. Is it any wonder that, when the consultations took place last week, there were 30-odd representatives from the unemployed workers centre, from every local authority, from all the unions concerned and from the citizens advice bureau, whose workers do their jobs on a voluntary basis?
    It was not just Labour people who attended the meeting; there were people from other political parties. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire referred to Mr. Robinson. He is part of a well-known Tory family in Chesterfield; there are not many left. He is head of some quango, as one would expect, but even he has put his name alongside the names of those who want the Chesterfield tribunal to remain in operation.

    1155
    This is a class issue; I know that this is only an Adjournment debate, but it is a class issue. There are people who can make money when they leave their jobs, but we are talking about people who are scratching about for a few pounds a week, and who are being told that they have got to go to Sheffield.
    The net result—they probably know this—is that the Government will save a bit of money because some people will not be able to make the journey. Everyone knows that disabled people have to weigh up the consequences of marching here, there and everywhere. For disabled people, it is a matter not just of sitting on a bus, but of the problem of having to go through a bit of exercise. The time they will have to spend is also a problem. Some of them want to be at home; they do not want to travel for more than two hours to Sheffield, attend the tribunal and then have a journey of more than two hours back home.
    The Government should play the game. The answers that I and my hon. Friends received led us to believe that there would be a nice little consultation and that we could rely on the people from the local authorities and the others to put forward such a sterling case that the tribunal would be able to survive. That did not happen, and it is unfair.
    On that count alone, the Minister should say, "Let's turn the clock back. A wrong has been done." The Minister gave me a parliamentary answer that turned out not to be true. We think that he will admit that tonight; he has already done so in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire. A mistake has been made. As the Minister has made a mistake—he may have done so inadvertently, but a mistake has been made, and somebody has been led up the garden path—he should do the decent thing and say that the Department will start all over again. We are not talking about £60 million for a royal yacht. I only say that en passant, but I am trying to make a comparison. We are talking about a small amount.
    The Minister should be big enough to say, "Yes, a wrong has been done. I made a false statement. I didn't realise that the information I received was wrong, and I passed it on to the House. I am sorry. As there has been a mistake, we are going to start the process again."
    I have a suggestion for the Minister—my hon. Friend has more or less put it to him as well. Let us not close the door today. Let us have a meeting between Members of Parliament, to which we will bring some of the representatives who were at the meeting last week, so that the case can be put again and they will know that at least some consultation has taken place. If the Minister agrees to that, they will be able to convince him—perhaps more effectively than myself and my hon. Friend—why it is necessary to keep the place open.
    Some people say that the Chesterfield tribunal suite is going to close because of the cost. I should tell the Minister, in case he does not know, that the lease for the suite includes other rooms—some of which are unoccupied. That is not the fault of the representatives who go there to put cases on behalf of their clients from the unemployed workers centre, welfare rights groups or citizens advice bureau. It is part of the Government's philosophy to keep such rooms empty. The Government should not blame the representatives for part of the block not being let, or say that the costs are so extreme because of it.
    1156
    The Minister should not tell us, either—I do not think that he will, although my hon. Friend and I suspect that it is true—that the service is being shifted to Sheffield because his Department has some spare space up there as well. The disabled people who are going to be plodding down the hill to Chesterfield station, plodding back up the other one in Sheffield—another hilly city—and then getting on a bus will have to suffer just because the Minister's Department has not been able to deal with things that are out of other people's control and ensure that the leases get full value for money. That responsibility should belong with the Government.
    I could draw a comparison with the Department of Trade and Industry. I have been walking up Victoria street for the past 20-odd years, and over the past five or six, I have been passing closed DTI offices. That closure has cost a small fortune; a third of Victoria street has not been let. It belongs to the Government and has been paid for by the taxpayer. Now, it has opened again. How much has that cost?
    We are talking about a little place, where a few representatives go along to meet the chairman of the tribunal, someone from one side of industry and someone from the other to hear the case of someone who has come up the stairs coughing their lungs up, or someone who has a leg missing, or someone who does not have two ha'pennies to rub together. That is a far cry from all the money that has been spent on the DTI offices just up the road.
    I could cite many more examples of how the Government have wasted money, such as £6 million on refurbishing the Tea Rooms and other facilities in this place during the long recess. Our friends up in north-east Derbyshire, Bolsover and Chesterfield read the papers, and they cannot understand why they have been picked on in such a fashion. First their jobs have been taken away from them, and then, when they have to appeal to get a few benefits, they are kicked in the gutter.
    Judge Bassingthwaighte has told us that his information is that there was a noisy meeting last week with our friends the representatives. They were bound to be noisy. Such was the nature of the response, there were not enough seats. It is very rare to get representatives of every local authority and welfare rights group together in one fell swoop. They had to sit and listen to this fellow say, "There is no consultation. I have come to tell you that the place is going to close."
    I am told that, at one point in the meeting, there was a little chink of light, when it was indicated that there might be an opportunity to use another Chesterfield venue on occasions. I do not know whether the Minister knows that.
    I have another proposition to put to the Minister, apart from suggesting another meeting. We have a place called the miners' offices, which have a lot of space—after all, there are only a few miners left. If there are cost problems at the Chesterfield suite, the Minister should try the miners' offices—they will come a lot cheaper. Those offices would be ideal, and they are in a good situation in the middle of Chesterfield.
    There is a case to be made. The Government's parliamentary answer was not correct: people were led up the garden path. People also felt that that they had a raw deal from consultation. Somebody has to climb down and give those people a second chance to ensure that their cases are put. We are ready and willing—myself, my hon.

    1157
    Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), when he has got over the flu—to meet the Minister.
    The Minister or some of his civil servants should go and look at the place. They should visit a few villages. As I said earlier, the tribunal area starts at the bottom of my constituency, including Pinxton and South Normanton, and it extends way out to West Derbyshire and up to Buxton. The Minister or his civil servants should go and see those pretty villages which are all part of that hinterland. Chesterfield and Staveley are highly populated, but the rest are old-fashioned pit villages or farming areas. The area is too big for the tribunal to be moved to Sheffield. The Minister should have a site visit, and take a fresh look before the matter is closed for good.
    The issue will not benefit my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire and me. I do not suppose that we would be inconvenienced if the suite closed. We would feel guilty about it, but the issue is not about us. It is about disabled people, because most of those people who use that place in order to appeal against threatened reductions in benefits have been damaged in some way, either by their work or in other ways. In many cases, mother nature has not has been as kind to those people as she has to my hon. Friend, the Minister and me. Some of them have been born with disabilities, and are constantly fighting against the system. Instead of telling them that they must travel another 20 or 30 miles to make their appeal, a decent society should enable those people to go round the corner to their village hall or local town council.
    The case has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire, and I am here to help him to ask the Minister not to close the book. Give us a another chance to ensure that the Chesterfield tribunal suite, or some other place in Chesterfield, remains open for those people, many of whom are disabled.
    9.43 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): It is one of the glories of the House of Commons that hon. Members can raise serious constituency interests at length, as has been done this evening. We have listened to two very powerful speeches. I am especially grateful to the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) for writing to me today and setting out a list of his queries. He outlined those queries in his speech, but I have had the courtesy of notice from him and I hope to answer as many of his questions as possible.
    I shall begin with the matter of a parliamentary answer, which has been mentioned several times. I gave a written answer to a question tabled by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn):
    "To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which venues have ceased to be used by social security appeals tribunals since January 1996; and which venues it is proposed to cease using."
    I answered by listing the nine venues referred to by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire, and I will not delay the House by repeating them. I then added:
    "The independent tribunal service has no plans to close any other venues".—[Official Report, 4 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 386.]
    I will explain what happened in detail, and then explain why, in my view in retrospect, that was not a satisfactory answer. I shall also apologise. From the point of order raised by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire on
    1158
    15 January, I was aware that the answer had been queried. Since then, I have asked for a number of inquiries to discover precisely what happened.
    When a parliamentary question is asked about the activities of the ITS—which is an independent service—information is requested by my officials from the ITS. Officials of the ITS and my Department then liaise on the reply. It is done in this way to be as helpful as possible to parliamentary colleagues and to avoid having to refer them directly to the ITS. At the time that I approved the draft answer submitted to me, I believed that the reply was correct. After the point of order was raised, I ordered a thorough investigation to be made into the circumstances surrounding the preparation of the answer.
    What had happened was that the parliamentary question was faxed to an official of the ITS, and a reply was given by telephone. I do not have a written answer from the ITS or a note of that telephone conversation, but it seems reasonable to say that there was a misunderstanding between the two people who dealt with this as to the extent and nature of the question and the reply. When I answered that there were
    "no plans to close any other venues"
    the language was too simple for what was at stake. Does "plan" mean a settled and determined course that has been finally decided? Does it mean a mere proposal? Is it a promise—as the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire believed—that nothing will happen in the future? That kind of ambiguity should have been resolved by a more detailed wording to explain the background. My view, in retrospect, is that the answer should have stated that the ITS constantly reviews its running costs—of which accommodation forms a large part—and that the ITS was considering the continued usage of a number of tribunal venues. The answer should have stated that liaison with local users was also taking place.
    The hon. Member for Bolsover told us this evening—although I was unaware of it at the time of the answer—that he and other parliamentary colleagues had corresponded with the ITS on the Chesterfield situation. Open correspondence concerning Chesterfield had been raised as early as March 1996, and continued with various local interested parties for the rest of the year. But I stress that no firm decision had been made at the time I gave the answer on 4 November.
    After making further inquiries, I have been informed that it was not until 17 December 1996 at a management meeting that a provisional conclusion about the viability of the venue was reached. That provisional conclusion remained such so that a meeting could be held with local users on 14 January 1997 where arguments in favour of keeping the venue open could be considered. It is clear from everything that I have read—and from what I have been told this evening—that the meeting of 14 January was, if I can use the most neutral language, not a happy occasion.
    The intention of ITS was that arguments could be listened to, and that the decision would be made afterwards. The ITS took the view that no persuasive arguments were raised at that meeting and the decision was made, I am told, the next day—15 January—when it began to be circulated. I apologise unreservedly, as I should have been aware of more of that detail. I should have made further inquiries. Unhappily, I did not, and I

    1159
    gave a simple answer to what was clearly a complex history and background of which, at that time, I was unaware.
    I should like to deal with the serious, immediate and practical issues involved, particularly those raised by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire about where do we go from here. The hon. Member for Bolsover made a powerful peroration to the effect, "Would the Minister do that and would the Minister do this?" I shall specifically answer his questions in a moment, but the position is not quite as simple as his speech might have suggested.
    The independent tribunal service is by statute just that. The responsibility for running the ITS rests with its president, his honour Judge Keith Bassingthwaighte, who is appointed by the Lord Chancellor in accordance with the Social Security Administration Act 1992. He is both the judicial and—this is the unusual feature—the administrative head of the ITS. He is responsible for providing the forum to hear appeals against decisions of adjudicating officers. It is a matter of statute that decisions about tribunal venues, for example—the material matter which we are considering this evening—are a matter for him.
    I cannot think of another parallel in Government or in the judicial system in which a judge is responsible by law for administrative matters. It is one of the oddities or unusual features of the ITS. That is one of the very matters considered in the consultation paper on improving decision making and appeals in social security which was mentioned by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire. It is a matter which the Government are considering now. In due course decisions will be made and subsequently announced.
    That is the background to the debate. I should now like to consider the 10 specific questions that the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire asked me. First, he asked when the decision was made to close the Chesterfield tribunal suite. A number of different dates were put to me.
    I am advised by the ITS that the final firm decision was made on 15 January 1997 following the unhappy meeting the day before on the 14th. That news was communicated in a press release on 15 January and in a subsequent letter on 20 January from the president to interested parties, including some hon. Members who attended the meeting.
    Mr. Barnes: The Minister mentioned a meeting on 17 December 1996 at which a provisional proposal for closure was put forward. It was then made the subject of consultation at the meeting on 14 January. There are clear differences of perception about what occurred at the meeting on 14 January. The ITS is treating it as a consultation meeting at which the user organisations would not focus on the issue. They went away on 15 January and finally made their decision. That is not the perception of the user organisations, which all argue that its representatives were told from the start that the venue was to be closed and that they were only there to be consulted about the method of closure. There is a case to look again more closely at what happened on 14 January because it affects the procedures involved. Although it was not satisfactory to have consultation on the 14th and the decision made on the 15th, with hardly any time to mull things over, it was procedurally
    1160
    permissible because it represented a certain order of things. Did the process occur like that? If not, there is a good case for going back to the beginning of the process.
    Mr. Evans: I hear what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I will outline what we should do next when I have finished answering his 10 questions. The hon. Gentleman is saying quite clearly that there is a conflict of view about exactly what happened at the meeting on 14 January. One party appears to take the view that it was a fait accompli and that it was just a question of the mechanics. I readily concede that that is not a proper consultation. The other view, which I gave on instruction, was that the meeting was a consultation.
    In fairness, I was not there any more than you were, Mr. Deputy Speaker—all that we can do is rely on those who were and their recollections. His Honour Judge Bassingthwaighte wrote a letter to the various interested parties on 20 January. I imagine that the hon. Gentleman may have seen it. I shall quote from the letter because it is important that both views of the meeting are given. He said:
    "I directed that tribunal user groups should be set up throughout the ITS because I wanted to build a better relationship between the ITS and those who use the facilities which we provide. I did so expecting to provide a forum for rational and considered discussion by people who are willing at least to accept that different viewpoints exist, whether or not those viewpoints are ones upon which agreement can be reached. Such meetings have been held widely throughout the ITS during 1996 and have generally been successful, ordered and well received.
    I am saddened to hear that the meeting on 14 January was ill-tempered"—
    the judge was not there; he was reporting what his officials had told him—
    "and at times abusive and that a group of representatives left the meeting in a demonstration of dissent. Such behaviour does not augur well for future such meetings."
    Neither I nor the judge was there. There are conflicting reports of what happened, but I think that I can describe that meeting with fair accuracy as not a happy one.
    Mr. Skinner: The judge does not know any more than us, does he? Many of the people who went to Chesterfield had been to Mansfield earlier in 1996 when it was proposed that Mansfield should close. They did not view the matter with the same importance and they took part in the consultation, which seemed to be at a different level. Many of those who went to Chesterfield were at Mansfield, where there was no animosity, nobody got terribly excited and the decision was finally accepted. The reason why there was such ill-feeling and rancour at the Chesterfield meeting was simply that, having arrived in a crowded room where there were not enough chairs for everyone, people were told, "What's the point of you being here? We're going to close it."
    Mr. Evans: I was not present and I cannot helpfully comment on that account, but I readily agree that if that is what happened, it was not a happy way to spend the evening and it was not a constructive consultation exercise.
    I was asked who was involved in the decision-making process. I understand that the final decision was taken by the president after consultation with senior and local managers. I was asked what criteria are used when

    1161
    deciding to close a venue. That is a difficult question to answer helpfully. I am advised that the broad principles taken into account include accessibility, suitability, usage of venues and value for money. Having regard to those principles, the ITS decided that Chesterfield did not meet the criteria for remaining open. I was asked what that meant; I was asked what the accommodation costs were at Chesterfield.
    I am instructed that the ITS is liable for £128,000 a year in respect of rent and rates and for certain maintenance and utility costs of another £3,500. The point made by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is correct: the ITS occupies only a portion of the building and pays about £28,000 of the rental costs. The ITS is responsible, on its budget, for the balance. Of the ITS budget, £7 million is spent on accommodation; if £100,000 is spent on unutilised accommodation—however it has arisen and whatever the circumstances—that is a sufficiently large sum for concern.
    I was asked, not merely to correct the position in respect of Chesterfield, but about what other venues were to be closed. Understandably, the hon. Member for Bolsover asked me specifically about Derby. Let me bring the picture up to date. I stress that it is a matter for the ITS, but I am advised that Derby remains a core area for the maintenance of a tribunal venue for the foreseeable future.
    In fairness to other hon. Members, having asked further inquiries to be made, I shall give the picture for other parts of the country. Consideration is being given to a new venue at Chelmsford that would replace the current leased venue at Colchester and poor-quality, casually hired venues in Essex. In Newport, Isle of Wight, consideration is being given to replacing a leased venue with casually hired premises. Bury St. Edmunds cases have been transferred to Ipswich. There is some rationalisation of casually hired venues in London. Barking and Walthamstow appeals are being heard in central London at Whittington house. Discussions are taking place on future plans for Edmonton. On the other hand, new premises have been opened in Blackburn and further new premises are planned for Motherwell.
    I was asked specifically whether all that was due to pressure relating to the future of ITS—is it all about abolition? The answer is simply no. Decisions on venues are a matter for ITS. Decisions on the future of the appeals process are elaborately discussed in the document that was mentioned earlier. As I have indicated, the Government are considering the consultation and will make decisions and announce them in due course.
    ITS has responsibility for its budget and it has to deal with the problems facing it. It is important that I stress the problems—
    It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Timothy Wood.]
    Mr. Evans: There are serious problems facing ITS. The figures that the hon. Member for Bolsover quoted do not come from Marxist comics; they are, in part, the Department's figures. The striking figure was the six-month wait to get an appeal heard, as mentioned by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire, which is typical throughout the country. It is too long and is
    1162
    especially unfortunate because, generally speaking, no benefit is received without the appeal being heard. Cases such as we have discussed should be tried more quickly.
    What has happened is that the numbers of appeals have been rising dramatically in recent years. That is partly due to the introduction of incapacity benefit, but there are several other factors. The appeals intake in 1993–94 was 198,000, in the next year, it was 210,000, in 1995–96 it was 236,000, in 1996–97 it was 291,000 and it is anticipated to reach 334,000 in 1997–98. ITS has had the resources to match that. Strikingly, in 1994–95 there was actually an underspend of £5 million and the money was returned to the Department. There was a £2.3 million underspend in 1995 on a budget of £52 million. In 1996, the budget was increased to £54 million and it is not expected that there will be an underspend, but it is intended—this was part of the changed programme of economy measures—that somehow administration costs must be reduced. For 1997–98, the budget in the books is £49 million.
    The effect of all that is that while in 1993–94 there were 35,000 sessions a year, that figure will rise to 68,000 in 1996–97. In other words, ITS has almost doubled the number of cases that it is hearing. That is extremely important in the interests of the public and Ministers are greatly concerned that that progress be maintained.
    Mr. Skinner: It sounds to me as if, instead of closing the suites, the Government should be turning their attention to opening more. Here we have a massive backlog of cases and a rising number of people who are appealing—mainly, as the Minister said, for incapacity benefit, because about 4 million people have no job. Instead of closing the Chesterfield suite, the Government should open a few more.
    Mr. Evans: Would that it was quite as easy as that. The problem is how to use such resources as are at ITS's disposal in the most effective way. I am not making this point in respect of Chesterfield, but, in the past, ITS venues have grown up haphazardly over a large number of years.
    The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire talked about the problem of oral hearings—indeed, one of his concerns was that, for several reasons, fewer people would attend, which argument he developed powerfully in connection with Chesterfield. Our change to the appeals regulations in asking people to request an oral hearing was made because, quite often, people filled in the form saying that they wanted to appeal, but did not explain what the issue was all about and then never turned up. If six cases are listed for a hearing before an appeals tribunal in a morning or an afternoon and one, two or three people whose appearance was expected and awaited and provided for then fail to turn up—often they never had any intention of turning up—it causes massive dislocation. It is an inefficient deployment of resources and forces other people to wait.
    The Government have looked at that problem, which is why we have tried to improve the adjudication regulations. It is really a matter of domestic housekeeping to try to make the system work more smoothly and increase throughput. I stress that it is not a case of deterring people from appealing, nor of hoping, as the hon. Member for Bolsover suggested in one of his more

    1163
    rhetorical passages, that we would save programme expenditure, as we are processing nearly twice as many appeals. We are trying to get the system moving more quickly because we are faced with a large caseload.
    Mr. Barnes: I presume that people's failure to turn up for oral hearings and the problems that that creates for the ITS would be a smaller issue in Chesterfield than in many other areas. My argument was that in 50 per cent. of cases people were represented but only 25 per cent. of people were represented nationally. The strong organisations that exist in the area are feeding people through and sorting out some of the problems. They are ensuring that the cases are not simply speculative with no information behind them. It can therefore be said that Chesterfield is doing the type of job that many other bodies should be doing.
    Mr. Evans: I heard what the hon. Gentleman said and, in my judgment, it was a striking feature of his speech that he made that point. I am not trying to argue—I would not dream of doing so—that, if the appellant and the person representing him are there, they will not do better. The hon. Member for Bolsover has represented people before such tribunals, and I did not practise at the Bar for more than 20 years without appreciating that advocacy occasionally produces results. We all know from our constituency surgeries, when we help people, that if one is there to help and advise, the chances are that one will identify the problem at least and point people in the right direction. If people go along to argue, that is better. I shall certainly draw Judge Bassingthwaighte's attention to that matter.
    The next issue that I was asked was why the closure of the Chesterfield suite was announced without proper prior consultation with the relevant interests, a promise having been made in a letter to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) on 6 January 1997. Let me say straight away that there is clearly a conflict about the history of what actually happened, and I shall come to what we shall do about that in a moment.
    The next question that I was asked—realistically, this is the most important question—was whether Chesterfield's closure could be withdrawn at least to allow the promised consultation about its future to take place on a genuine basis. The hon. Member for Bolsover ended his speech on a very powerful note. I respectfully say that I was moved by it. He said, "A mistake has been made; do the decent thing and start all over again." Indeed, he asked me personally to do that.
    I have a genuine difficulty: I cannot say that we shall start again because that is a decision for the judge, not for me. However, I can certainly say, and I will if it is desired by either of the hon. Gentlemen or their colleagues, that if they want to discuss the matter my door is open and I shall happily see them. It may be more constructive and helpful for them to meet representatives of the ITS because I think that what they really want to do is persuade the ITS that it should give the matter another thorough examination with an open mind. I cannot direct that such a meeting take place but I have heard the arguments—
    Mr. Skinner: You can give them a nudge though, can you not?
    Mr. Evans: I shall send the ITS a copy of Hansard, including the powerful speech of the hon. Member for
    1164
    Bolsover and that of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire on the matter. It makes one unhappy when one has the sense that what has happened was not fair. That is not satisfactory.
    Let us be practical for a moment. There are real problems with the present premises for a variety of reasons, of which I suspect the £100,000-worth of vacant space is the greatest. I surmise that it would be more practical to come up with some other venue in Chesterfield. The hon. Member for Bolsover made a specific proposal, but I will not play estate agent with him. I will communicate it to the independent tribunal service. It may be a helpful suggestion, which I will be happy to discuss with the hon. Gentleman later. It may be appropriate for the owners of the building to make a formal proposal in writing.
    To sum up, there has been an unhappy clash over the past couple of weeks and an unhappy meeting on 14 January. A reorganisation may be necessary, and the ITS considers that there are compelling reasons to leave the present accommodation.
    With regard to the inconvenience that would be caused to the hon. Gentleman's constituents if they had to travel to Sheffield, I am not familiar with the geography of the area.
    The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire referred once or twice to the industrial tribunals service—an easy slip of the tongue, but an entirely different organisation.
    The independent tribunal service was said to be limited and daunting, but one of its striking features is its offer to pay for public transport or taxis to bring people to a hearing, and there are occasions when tribunals can be convened in people's homes. People who claim to have been unfairly dismissed would not get such treatment, but those who are unable to move might get it. It is a matter for the independent tribunal service. I shall re-examine the guidance. If there are difficulties in the way in which it is drawn and it puts people off, we will see whether anything more can be done.
    Mr. Barnes: The Minister's contribution has been helpful. He has not opened the door in the way that we requested—he said that he could not do so, and that it was a matter for the Independent Tribunal Service—but he has not closed the door on us. He has given us some hope, and will pass on some material to the ITS. We might then have an opportunity to meet that body and, if necessary, the Minister.
    Mr. Evans: I stress that I cannot open the door, as it is not my door, but that of the Independent Tribunal Service. I will meet the hon. Gentlemen and commend to the ITS the desirability of an early meeting. If the hon. Gentleman could put together alternative proposals for Chesterfield as quickly as possible, that would be helpful.
    This has been an unfortunate matter as far as I am concerned, which began with the answer to a parliamentary question. I did not dream of the complications that lay beneath what appeared to be a simple matter to answer. Now that I have been informed of the facts, it is clear that there was more to it. I repeat the apology that I made earlier to the House.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Ten o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  Council Housing
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council properties have been built in each of the London boroughs in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [11312]

  Mr. Clappison
  Local authorities' primary housing tasks are the efficient management of their own stock of housing and enabling other organisations to provide new housing. Housing associations are now the main providers of new social housing.

  The publication "Local Housing Statistics" shows estimates of housebuilding completions for each local authority area in England, as reported to the Department. This includes all the London boroughs. It shows completions by sector, including activity by local authorities.

  "Local Housing Statistics" issue number 105 shows figures for 1991: number 109 covers 1992; number 110 covers 1993; number 117 covers 1994; and number 118 covers 1995. Figures for 1996 as a whole are not yet available.

  Copies of this publication are in the Library.

  United Nations Environment Programme
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he plans to put forward at the 19th meeting of the United Nations environment programme governing council; and if he will place in the Library copies of the decisions taken at the last five meetings of the UNEP governing council. [12370]

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government's main objective at the governing council will be to secure decisions which help to restore confidence in the United Nations environment programme and hence to reverse the recent decline in financial contributions, particularly from major donors. We believe UNEP needs a governing structure which provides political guidance and a clear direction so that it can concentrate on its core activities of monitoring the state of the global environment, identifying emerging problems and stimulating international action to deal with those problems. We shall be seeking to agree a programme of work for the organisation over the next biennium—1998–99—which focussed on key priorities such as work on chemicals, biosafety and the oceans.

  Copies of the decisions of the 18th governing council in 1995 are being placed in the Library. Those from the four preceding governing councils will follow shortly.

  Water Quality
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what will be the impact of the Government's requirement of cost neutrality for water quality standards in future EU bathing water directives; and if he will compare the standard produced by this formula with that indicated as necessary by his Department's bathing water epidemiological studies. [10864]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government have expressed no requirement for cost neutrality in any revision of the EU bathing water directive but seek to ensure that standards are based on sound science. Departments' bathing water epidemiological studies indicate that the current directive standards give adequate protection to health and do not support the introduction of more stringent standards.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what numerical level of mandatory standard for faecal streptococcus bacteria the Government are prepared to agree to in the revised EU bathing water directive. [10863]

  Mr. Clappison
  In the light of the Government's epidemiological studies, we consider that the standard for faecal streptococci in any revision of the EU bathing water directive should be broadly equivalent in protective effect to the mandatory standards for coliform bacteria in the existing directive. Our current best estimates are that this would be in the region of 1,000 to 1,200 faecal streptococci per 100ml.

  Irish Sea (Research)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his letter of 14 November, if he will make a statement on his Department's co-operation with Irish colleagues to identify appropriate research to be undertaken on nutrient inputs and algae blooms in the Irish sea. [10855]

  Mr. Clappison
  My Department has been working on these issues with Irish colleagues for a number of years. In conjunction with the Environment and Marine Departments of the Irish Republic, the Department of the Environment, together with the Departments for Agriculture and for the Environment in Northern Ireland, funded a three-year project to review research and monitoring in the Irish sea, under an Irish sea science co-ordinator. The third report was published in 1995 and identified priorities for research on the Irish sea, including nutrient inputs and the extent to which algal populations may be affected by human-derived nutrient enrichment. Officials from both countries have met to discuss the co-ordination of work on these topics within their respective research programmes.

  As part of the "Quality Status Report", being prepared by 2000 for the whole of the north-east Atlantic under the auspices of the Oslo and Paris Commission, the Irish Republic and the UK are jointly responsible for the section dealing with the Celtic seas, including the Irish sea. This will comprise a compilation of current knowledge about the area, an evaluation of the information to agreed criteria of environmental quality and a statement on the prevailing conditions of the area, including its marine chemistry and biology. This work will further inform future research programmes in both countries.

  Groundwater
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his letter of 17 September, what assessment he has made of whether United Kingdom arrangements for the protection of groundwater will need to be amended as a result of the EU's groundwater action plan. [10862]

  Mr. Clappison
  The position on the groundwater action programme remains as set out in my letter of 17 September, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. The programme has to be discussed by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament and until its final form is agreed it is not possible to assess whether the arrangements in place in the UK would require amendment.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the percentage increase on the average level of council tax in 1997–98. [11853]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have made no estimate. The level of council taxes will depend on the spending decisions of individual authorities.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the rate support grant capping levels for each(a) inner London borough, (b) shire county and (c) metropolitan district local education authority in 1996–97 and proposed for 1997–98. [12336]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information is available in the Library of the House.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what plans he has to accept new evidence in his consideration of the planning inspector's report on the rock characterisation facility near Sellafield; [12398]

  (2) when he expects to make a decision on the rock characterisation facility proposal at Sellafield; [12205]

  (3) what (a) further information he will be seeking and (b) further consultation he will be conducting before making a decision on the proposed rock characterisation facility at Sellafield. [12204]

  Mr. Gummer
  The planning inspector's report of the inquiry, which I received on 25 November, is currently being considered with a view to the decision being issued as soon as possible.

  If anyone believes that new evidence has come to light which they feel is relevant and should be taken into account when the decision is made, they should submit it to me as soon as possible.

  Requests that the inquiry should be reopened in the light of the information contained in the Nirex internal memorandum are still being considered.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) when Nirex(a) provided him with and (b) published its interpretation of the groundwater dataset for the proposed rock characterisation facility at Sellafield; [12201]
  678
  (2) by what date UK Nirex Ltd. undertook to make the baseline hydrological dataset relating to a nuclear depository at Sellafield available for independent peer review. [12211]

  (3) what evaluation he has made of the "Baseline Conditions Review" report funded by Nirex. [12212]

  Mr. Gummer
  Nirex report SA/96/006, "Rock Characterisation Facility, Longlands Farm, West Cumbria: Report on Baseline Groundwater Pressures and Hydrochemisttry", was published on 2 January 1997. At the same time, the company published a summary of the report, together with the conclusions of a peer review of the report by a group of independent experts, as Nirex report S/96/004, "Rock Characterisation Facility, Longlands Farm, West Cumbria: Report on Baseline Groundwater Pressures and Hydrochemistry, Summary Report".

  A copy of report SA/96/006 was supplied to the environment agency on 6 December 1996 and a copy of report SA/96/004 on 23 December 1996. The agency will shortly be consulting publicly on the terms of an agreement, which it is minded to enter into the Nirex, setting out the basis on which the agency will assess and make public information provided by Nirex in advance of a formal application for authorisation to dispose of radioactive waste at whatever site is selected by Nirex.

  Nirex's undertakings in respect of the timing of availability of this information are a matter for the company.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what representations he has received about Nirex' s two-dimensional model of the groundwater flow regime at Sellafield; [12200]

  (2) when his Department received a three-dimensional model of the groundwater flow regime at Sellafield. [12199]

  Mr. Gummer
  Both two-dimensional and three-dimensional models of the Sellafield potential repository zone are described in Nirex report S/95/012, "Nirex 95: A Preliminary Analysis of the Groundwater Pathway for a Deep Repository at Sellafield", which was published in July 1995.

  Evidence about the modelling of groundwater flow was presented to, and discussed at, the public inquiry held into Nirex's appeal against refusal of planning permission for an underground laboratory at Sellafield. I am currently considering the inspector's report of the inquiry.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when Nirex gave notice to Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution that it would withdraw from the cost recovery programmes under which the HMIP assessment of Nirex proposals was funded. [12213]

  Mr. Gummer
  Nirex gave the required six months' notice of termination on 10 March 1994. The environment agency will shortly be consulting publicly on the terms of a new agreement which it is minded to enter into with Nirex.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee has given him in respect of the rock characterisation facility planned by Nirex at Longlands farm near Sellafield. [12301]
  679
  Mr. Gummer
  Advice was contained in the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee's report, "Review of aspects of the scientific mission and role of the Nirex Rock Characterisation Facility at Sellafield", which was published in September 1995. Copies were placed in the Library of the House.

  UN Commission on Sustainable Development
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make a statement on the progress made in the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development since its establishment; and if he will place in the Library the reports issued by the commission to date; [12396]

  (2) what proposals the United Kingdom plans to put to the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development at its next inter-sessional meeting. [12397]

  Mr. Gummer
  The Commission on Sustainable Development was established following the Earth summit to review progress with the implementation of agenda 21. It has met five times and at its last meeting, in April and May last year, it completed its first programme of work which included a review of each of the chapters of agenda 21. The Secretary-General of the United Nations presents reports to the commission on each of the issues under consideration and the commission has negotiated a series of decisions resulting from these reports. Two of the most significant of the Commission's decisions were the decision in 1995 to establish an inter-governmental panel on forests and the decision in 1996 relating to the global consideration of oceans issues. The United Kingdom Government played a significant part in the framing of both decisions. A copy of the full set of decisions from the 1996 session of the Commission has been placed in the Library. Copies of decisions from the previous sessions will follow shortly.

  The meeting of the Commission in April this year will be devoted to preparations for the United Nations General Assembly special session in June this year which will review progress since the Earth summit. The Government believe that the commission's mandate should be renewed at the special session and are working with their partners in the European Union to ensure the success of the special session and that the future work of the Commission concentrates on the key priorities for future action. The Government have published on 30 December a consultation document which sets out the Government's position on these matters. Comments are invited by 31 January. Copies of the consultation paper were placed in the Library.

  The commission's secretariat has in past years invited Governments to make reports each year on the matters to be covered in the forthcoming session of the commission. Copies of the Government's reports to the commission were placed in the Library.

  Radionuclide Returns
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment his Department has made of Nirex's report of February 1994 on expected radionuclide return times. [12203]
  680
  Mr. Gummer
  None. The Environment Agency will shortly be consulting publicly on the terms of an agreement, which it is minded to enter into with Nirex, setting out the basis on which the agency will assess and make public information provided by Nirex in advance of a formal application for authorisation to dispose of radioactive waste at whatever site is selected by Nirex.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment his Department has made of Nirex's model of radionuclide return routes. [12202]

  Mr. Gummer
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution undertook assessment studies based principally on the "Post-Closure Preliminary Assessment" which Nirex provided in November 1992. Reports of these assessment studies were placed in the Library of the House in November 1995.

  Millennium Exhibition
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements are being made for the purchase of a site for the millennium exhibition. [13022]

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government are committed to the establishment of a national exhibition at Greenwich in 2000 to mark the new millennium and to the regeneration of the Greenwich peninsula. English Partnerships, which will be responsible for the regeneration of the Greenwich peninsula and for providing the site for the exhibition, has agreed terms with British Gas to acquire the site for £20 million. The exhibition site must be delivered to the Millennium Central, the company which will be responsible for delivering the exhibition, by September 1997. It is essential, therefore, that English Partnerships acquires the site immediately in order to commence the works essential to achieving this objective.

  Parliamentary approval of this new expenditure will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the regeneration countryside and wildlife vote (class VI, vote 2). Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £20 million will be met by repayable advances from the contingencies fund.

TRANSPORT

  Northstar Pennine Ltd.
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consult the franchising director in respect of Northstar Pennine Ltd.'s placement of an advertisement in the Official Journal of the European Communities of 8 January inviting tenders for rolling stock for use on the Regional Railways north-east network. [12126]

  Mr. Watts
  No. The franchising director has required all bidders for the Regional Railways north-east franchise to bring forward proposals for the replacement of the existing class 308 rolling stock. Decisions on when to request expressions of interest for rolling stock procurement are a matter for bidders and not the franchising director.

  New Car Assessment Programme
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department has completed its assessment
  681
  of the reliability of the research undertaken as part of the new car assessment programme; what information collated under the new car assessment programme will not be published by his Department; and when the research results for other models of vehicle covered by the new car assessment programme will be published. [12134]

  Mr. Bowis
  We are confident that the tests which we are carrying out give a reliable picture of how cars would perform in real accidents. Consumer information on all the tests and a more detailed Transport Research Laboratory research report will be published. Any information provided in confidence by manufacturers on their own internal test work will not be published.

  The test programme is now being taken forward jointly by an international partnership called Euro NCAP. Apart from the Department of Transport, those involved presently include the Swedish National Road Administration, the Federation Internationale de I'Automobile, Royal Automobile Club, the Automobile Association and International Testing, representing consumer organisations.

  Consumer information on the super-mini phase will be published under the Euro NCAP banner as will subsequent results for family cars this summer, and the Escort/Golf group in spring 1998.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 29 November 1996,Official Report, column 417, how many vehicles have been purchased as part of the research being undertaken as a result of the new car assessment programme; and if he will name the vehicles, indicating how many of each were published and the average amount paid for each vehicle. [12135]

  Mr. Bowis
  To date, my Department has purchased 12 car models in connection with the new car assessment programme. The seven in the super-mini group are the Fiat Punto, Ford Fiesta, Renault Clio, Rover 100, Nissan Micra, Vauxhall Corsa and the VW Polo. The five in the family group are the BMW 318, Citroen Xantia, Peugeot 406, Rover 620 and the Vauxhall Vectra. Two of each model are purchased and the average amount paid for each vehicle is £8,500 for the super-mini group and £15,000 for the family group.

  Additional car models will be funded by other partners in Euro NCAP for the family and subsequent groups.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 29 November 1996,Official Report, column 416, when he expects the information collated under the new car assessment programme to be published. [12136]

  Mr. Bowis
  Consumer information on the front and side impact protection and pedestrian protection offered by the seven super-mini sized cars will be published on 4 February. The technical test results data will be published in a TRL report by the end of February. Copies of both documents will be placed in the Library.

  Connex Rail Ltd.
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the Connex South-Eastern train company. [12368]
  682
  Mr. Watts
  Since Connex Rail Ltd. took over the South-Eastern train company franchise on 13 October 1996, I have received 23 representations about various aspects of its business.

  Rail Transport (Disabled People)
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what plans he has to issue new guidance to train operating companies on the restrictions they can place on electric scooters and batricars being allowed to board trains; [12070]

  (2) what consultations he has had with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee over the refusal of train operating companies to allow individuals to board trains using three-wheeled electric scooters or batricars. [12071]

  Mr. Watts
  The regulations we will be making under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 will ensure that wheelchairs, constructed to international standard dimensions, can be accommodated on new trains. In the meantime, we have begun negotiations with the wheelchair manufacturers with the aim of establishing a marking protocol which would indicate to disabled people the transport compatibility of manual and powered wheelchairs to help them make informed choices.

  The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee has considered the ban on scooters and large powered wheelchairs on a number of occasions. It shares concerns about the stability and manoeuvrability of scooters and it has supported the train operating companies' ban. For the larger powered vehicles which are designed to give local outdoor mobility, the committee recognises that they are simply too large to be accommodated on public transport.

  In the light of advice from the DPTAC, we have no plans to issue guidance to train operating companies about restrictions they can place on disabled people using electric vehicles.

  Road Lighting
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will amend the regulations to ensure that highway lighting for all-purpose trunk roads is treated as secondary category 1 for the purpose of repair. [12425]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Colin B. Pickthall, dated 23 January 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about amending the regulations governing the repair of highway lighting on motorways and all-purpose trunk roads.
  The current Departmental Standard (TD 23/86) controlling the repair of highway lighting for motorways and trunk roads allocates defects to Category (i) and Category (ii) as appropriate. A copy of this Standard is in the Library. We are currently reviewing this Standard in the light of improving technology. However, at the present time I am unable to commit to the adoption of a Secondary Category 1 Classification.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Child Care Facilities
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if Ministers are entitled to use child care facilities supported by his Department. [11594]

  Mr. Streeter
  Ministers of the Crown for this Department are able to make use of the subsidised child care facilities provided by this Department on the same basis as civil servants working for the Department.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the five Acts of Parliament enacted since April 1992 which have generated the greatest number of statutory instruments, indicating the number in each case. [11522]

  Mr. Streeter
  The Acts, with the numbers of statutory instruments registered with the Statutory Publications Office up to and including 7 October 1996, are as follows:

  For one-earner family with two dependent children in east midlands:

  percentage of earnings paid in

  Weekly earnings

  Direct taxes1

  VAT

  Other indirect taxes

  Total tax (East Midlands)

  Total tax (GB)

  1988–89

  £232.65

  19.3

  4.8

  8.0

  32.1

  33.3

  1989–90

  £256.25

  19.5

  4.8

  7.4

  31.8

  32.9

  1990–91

  £281.15

  19.6

  4.7

  7.3

  31.6

  32.7

  1991–92

  £299.35

  19.3

  5.2

  7.5

  32.1

  33.2

  1992–93

  £311.65

  18.6

  5.4

  7.3

  31.3

  32.7

  1993–94

  £321.10

  18.7

  5.3

  7.4

  31.4

  32.8

  1994–95

  £331.60

  20.2

  5.5

  8.1

  33.8

  34.8

  1995–96

  £345.55

  21.0

  5.4

  8.5

  34.8

  35.7

  1996–97

  £358.51

  20.0

  5.6

  8.8

  34.5

  35.3

  1997–98

  £372.85

  19.4

  5.7

  9.2

  34.3

  35.1

  1 Income tax and NICs.

  1. Income tax payments are calculated on the assumption that the households receive no tax reliefs other than the standard allowances and have income only from employment. The earner is assumed to pay class 1 national insurance contributions at the contracted-in rate. Child benefit is deducted from income tax.

  2. Earnings are the average gross weekly earnings of all full-time males in the east midlands on adult rates with pay unaffected by absence. The figures are from the new earnings survey and financial year figures are the average of the two April figures. Estimates of earnings in 1996–97 and 1997–98 are based on earnings growth assumptions for Great Britain of 3¾ per cent. in 1996–97 and 4 per cent. in 1997–98 in line with the illustrative assumptions set out in the Financial Statement and Budget Report 1997–98.

  3. Figures for indirect taxes include estimates of the effects of the main intermediate taxes on households as well as the impact of taxes on final goods and services. Estimates of the impact of taxes on final goods and services assume that these taxes are fully incident on households. Estimates of the impact of intermediate taxes are based on the relation between intermediate production costs and final consumption derived using input-output techniques.

  4. Figures for indirect taxes since 1994–95 are estimated from expenditure patterns in the 1994–95 family expenditure survey uprated to later years using forecasts of aggregate tax receipts. For years before 1994–95, the 1985 family expenditure survey was used. All estimates are based on the illustrative assumption that 10 per cent. of disposable income is saved.

  5. Estimates of indirect taxes are very approximate, even where figures are shown, because spending patterns vary widely between households with the same composition and income. Because of sampling variation, there can be substantial differences between estimates obtained from family expenditure surveys for different years, so reliable comparisons cannot be made between the estimates for different years.

  Child Care Facilities
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Ministers are entitled to use child care facilities supported by his Department. [11584]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Ministers of the Crown are able to make use of the child care facilities provided by the Treasury.
  684

  Number

  The Education Act 1993

  104

  The Local Government (Wales) Act 1994

  56

  The Local Government etc.(s) Act 1994

  49

  The Value Added Tax 1994

  44

  The Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994

  41

TREASURY

  Incomes (Nottinghamshire)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average income for a family of four in Nottinghamshire, or the nearest corresponding region, included in or including Nottinghamshire for which figures are available; and what proportion of that income was spent on tax, including VAT and national insurance in each year since 1988. [10816]

  Mr. Jack
  The information available is given in the table.

  Landfill Tax
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received about the eligibility for exemptions of developments from the landfill tax; and if he will make a statement. [11364]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 20 January 1997]: HM Customs and Excise has received a small number of representations from trade associations questioning the way eligibility for the exemption from landfill tax is determined and from applicants seeking a review of a decision to refuse to issue an exemption certificate.
  685
  Mr. Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it remains his policy that, where a construction site is historically contaminated, all the waste removed to landfill should be exempt from the landfill tax; what guidance has been given by his Department to HM Customs and Excise about eligibility for exemptions from the landfill tax in such circumstances; and if he will make a statement. [11365]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 20 January 1997]: It has never been the policy of the Government that an automatic exemption from landfill tax would apply to wastes removed to landfill from construction sites where the land is contaminated. To qualify for exemption, such wastes would need to arise from a reclamation which facilitates development of the land and removes the potential for the pollutants to cause harm. The removal of the pollutants must be necessary for the development to proceed and any activity that gave rise to the pollutants must have ceased. Where these criteria are met, all wastes (whether polluted or not) arising from the reclamation would qualify for the exemption.

  The care and management of landfill tax is vested in HM Customs and Excise. Accordingly, guidance by HM Treasury concerning eligibility for exemption would not be appropriate.

  Economy (Yorkshire and Humberside)
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the economy in Yorkshire and Humberside. [11964]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Yorkshire and Humberside is sharing fully in the success of the British economy, which is enjoying a combination of low inflation, falling unemployment, low mortgage rates and rising living standards not seen for a generation. The unemployment rate in Yorkshire and Humberside is at its lowest for six years.

DEFENCE

  Insecticides (Falkland Islands)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what stocks of(a) malathion, (b) propoxus and (c) ficam W insecticides have been used by the Royal Army Medical Corps in the Falklands since 1982; and what insecticides are currently (i) in store and (ii) in use by the corps on the islands. [10890]

  Mr. Soames
  The insecticides currently in use by the Falkland Island garrison are Demon WP, Residroid and Reslin. The garrison also has stocks of the following insecticides awaiting disposal: malathion, propoxur, ficam W and insecticide space spray concentrate.

  Information regarding the use of insecticides in the Falkland Islands since 1982 is not available in the form requested, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Nuclear Co-operation
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 13 November 1996,Official Report, column 220, if he will list the (a) dates,
  686
  (b) sites visited and (c) purpose of each of the visits made by (i) Delegation Generale pour l'Armement and (ii) Commisariat a l'Energie Atomique officials to the atomic weapons establishments indicating the department represented by the officials. [11517]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Details of visits are as follows. It is not possible to be more precise since details are not held centrally.

  Date(s)

  Aldermaston

  Burghfield

  Foulness

  November 1992 March 1993

  1

  1

  2

  Financial year 1993–94

  4

  3

  0

  Financial year 1994–95

  3

  1

  1

  Financial year 1995–96

  4

  3

  1

  April 1996—October 1996

  4

  0

  0

  The other four visits referred to in the earlier response were to MOD headquarters. I have decided to withhold the information requested about the visits and those involved, under exemption 1 of the code of practice on access to Government information relating to defence, security and international relations.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of occasions in each of the last five financial years that personnel from the atomic weapons establishments have visited(a) CEA and (b) DGA facilities. [11483]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Details of visits are as follows:

  Commissariat a l'Energie Atomique

  Delegation Generale pour l'Armement

  1991–92

  5

  5

  1992–93

  10

  6

  1993–94

  5

  3

  1994–95

  15

  —

  1995–96

  8

  2

  Trident
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the sums allocated to the Trident programme which are currently(a) committed but unspent and (b) uncommitted. [12416]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  As at the end of September 1996, £550 million had been committed but not yet spent and approximately £860 million remained uncommitted.

  Konver Scheme
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful attempts have been made by his Department in the last four years to obtain funds from the EU's Konver scheme; and what funds have been allocated to the United Kingdom under this scheme. [12417]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My Department has made no bids for Konver funds as it is not eligible to do so. We have, however, supported a number of projects bidding for such
  687
  funds where it was appropriate to do so. Matters relating to the Konver scheme as a whole are for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

  Trident Safety Facility, Devonport
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if(a) the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and (b) the MOD nuclear safety authority have assessed the proposed design of the new Trident safety facility at Devonport to be safe; and if he will make a statement. [12087]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Ships Support Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from R.V. Babington to Mr. Alan Simpson, dated 23 January 1997:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the safety of the proposed design of the Trident facilities at Devonport, as this project falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Ships Support Agency.
  The Preliminary Safety Report for the Trident Facilities Project (D154) at Devonport was submitted by Devonport Management Limited (DML), the Dockyard operator, to both the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) and the MOD Nuclear Safety Authority in September 1994.
  The NII and the MOD Nuclear Safety Authority both responded to DML on the Preliminary Safety Report. A number of technical matters were raised in their responses though these included no substantive issues of nuclear safety from either of the Regulatory Authorities.

  Stabilisation Force
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what estimate he has made of the savings on the cost of flights to and from Italy and former Yugoslavia in support of the stabilisation force operation if such military flights were permitted to fly through Swiss airspace; [12387]

  (2) if the Government of Switzerland have offered transit facilities for stabilisation force military traffic to and from UN-authorised operations in former Yugoslavia. [12386]

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

  Britannia
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the proposed itinerary and engagements to be undertaken by the royal yacht Britannia up to the date set for its decommissioning. [12390]

  Mr. Soames
  On 20 January, HMY Britannia left Portsmouth for a seven-month deployment to the Arabian gulf, the Indian ocean and the far east. In the period up to July, it is hoped that HMY Britannia will conduct the following engagements:
  688

  Date

  Location

  Duty

  27 January

  Malta

  Formal visit for High Commission event

  1 February

  Port Said

  Routine visit

  6 February

  Hodeida

  Formal visit for Embassy event

  7-9 February

  Aden

  Formal visit for Embassy event

  14-15 February

  Dubai

  Commercial events

  16-18 February

  Doha

  Commercial events

  19-22 February

  Kuwait City

  Royal visit by HRH The Prince of Wales

  24 February

  Bahrain

  Royal visit by HRH The Prince of Wales

  25-27 February

  Doha

  Royal visit by HRH The Prince of Wales

  2-7 March

  Karachi

  Commercial events

  9-14 March

  Mumbai

  Commercial events

  19-25 March

  Chennai

  Commercial events

  29 March–3 April

  Phuket

  Informal visit/fuel

  4-9 April

  Penang

  Informal visit/fuel

  10-13 April

  Kiang

  Formal visit for High Commission event

  14-18 April

  Singapore Formal visit for High Commission City

  event

  18 April–6 May

  Sembawang

  Self Maintenance Period

  9-14 May

  Bangkok

  Formal visit for Embassy event

  19-20 May

  Manila

  Formal visit for Embassy event

  26-31 May

  Tokyo

  Commercial events

  1 June

  Nagoya

  Commercial event

  2-6 June

  Kobe

  Commercial events

  8-14 June

  Inchon

  Formal visit for Embassy event

  16-20 June

  Okinawa

  Informal visit/fuel

  23-30 June

  Hong Kong

  Royal visit by HRH The Prince of Wales, to attend the handover ceremonies

  The programme for Britannia between July and her decommissioning in December has not yet been finalised.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many days the royal yacht Britannia was at sea in 1996; what functions were carried out; what was the total cost to his Department of the royal yacht in 1995–96; and what estimate he has made of the costs up to the date of decommissioning. [12391]

  Mr. Soames
  In 1996, Britannia was at sea for 116 days during which she carried out the following duties:

  Date

  Location

  Duty

  27-28 February

  Ponta Delgada

  Routine visit/fuel

  6-9 March

  Bermuda

  Informal visit/fuel

  12-17 March

  Palm Beach

  Royal visit by HRH The Duke of Edinburgh

  18-20 March

  Savannah

  Commercial events

  22-26 March

  Baltimore

  Commercial events

  28 March-8 April

  Boston

  Commercial events and self maintenance period

  15-22 April

  Toronto

  Commercial events

  26-27 April

  Halifax

  Routine visit/fuel

  3 May

  Ponta Delgada

  Routine visit/fuel

  22 June

  Douglas

  Royal visit by HRH The Prince of Wales

  25 June

  Belfast

  Royal visit by HRH The Prince of Wales

  26-27 June

  Londonderry

  Royal visit by HRH The Prince of Wales

  689

  Date

  Location

  Duty

  5 July

  Marchwood

  Royal visit by HM The Queen Mother

  6-7 July

  Falmouth

  Royal visit by HM The Queen Mother

  11-14 July

  Amsterdam

  Royal visit by HRH The Duke of Kent

  31 July–7 August

  Cowes

  HRH The Duke of Edinburgh embarked

  10 August

  Stranraer

  Royal visit by Her Majesty The Queen and HRH The Duke of Edinburgh

  17 August

  Aberdeen

  Royal visit by Her Majesty The Queen and HRH The Duke of Edinburgh

  Britannia's running costs for 1995–96 were £7.3 million. Costs for the period up to the royal yacht's decommissioning at the end of this year will depend on her programme, which has not yet been finalised.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has for a replacement for the royal yacht Britannia; and what proportion of public finance they include. [12392]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

  Royal Air Force
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy for securing value for money in the support of RAF aircraft; and if he will make a statement. [12920]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  In defence procurement generally, our policy is to obtain equipment and services from the supplier providing the best value for money, taking all relevant factors into account. We apply that policy in the support of in-service aircraft. As an example of this, and following two keen competitions, it is our intention to award two contracts which will provide component repair and maintenance support to the RAF's TriStar fleet for the next five years: We intend to award a contract for component repair to Marshall of Cambridge (Holdings) Ltd. and one for aircraft maintenance to the Gulf Aircraft maintenance company, subject to the satisfactory conclusion of contractual negotiations.

  Atomic Weapons Establishment
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress being made to commission the A91 liquid waste treatment plant at AWE Aldermaston. [11831]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The civil engineering contractor is well advanced with his part of the commissioning process. AWE commissioning will then take place. A91 is now expected to be operational in 1998.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans he has to construct a size reduction facility at AWE Aldermaston; when; and at what cost; [11829]

  (2) when the purpose-built store for storing the treated waste from the sludge solidification system at AWE Aldermaston is to be completed; and at what cost; [11832]
  690
  (3) what assessment he has made of the capacity at AWE Aldermaston for new nuclear waste stores for storage of waste planned to be disposed of at the proposed repository beyond 2010; [11828]

  (4) when the new store planned for the plutonium-contaminated material contained within waste stream 7A21 is to be built; and at what cost. [11830]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Plans for the treatment and storage of intermediate level waste generated at AWE are kept under continuous review. Decisions as to the necessity for further ILW storage at AWE will depend on a number of factors, including the availability of facilities such as the deep waste repository to be developed by Nirex.

  A scheme to provide a size reduction facility at AWE Aldermaston is under way. Present plans are for it to be operational early in the next century. The cost is still subject to negotiation and is not therefore available. There are no plans to create a new store for treated waste from the sludge solidification system at AWE. Such material can continue to be stored in existing facilities.

  "Waste Stream 7A21" is a term used by Nirex Ltd. to designate waste contaminated by plutonium or uranium. Nirex Ltd.'s planning for future storage arrangements is proceedings. As far as my Department's responsibilities are concerned, safe and secure interim arrangements are provided, as necessary, at the Atomic Weapons Establishment.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated volume of nuclear waste arising from decommissioning of old plant and facilities at AWE Aldermaston which(a) cannot be disposed of at Drigg and (b) will need to be stored at AWE Aldermaston until 2010. [12121]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Approximately 2100 cu m of low and intermediate level radioactive waste, primarily resulting from the decommissioning of old plant and facilities and which cannot be disposed of at Drigg, will arise at AWE by the end of 2010. This will be safely stored at AWE in purpose—built facilities until the deep waste repository to be developed by Nirex becomes available.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many glove boxes are at present stored at AWE Aldermaston; and what plans he has to dispose of them. [12063]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  At present there are 41 glove boxes stored at Aldermaston. Decommissioned glove boxes are classified as intermediate level waste. It is intended that they will be stored, following size reduction and supercompaction, at the deep waste repository to be developed by Nirex Ltd. Until the DWR is available, safe and secure storage is provided at AWE Aldermaston.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library an unclassified version of AWE Aldermaston's comprehensive decommissioning and waste management plan. [12064]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Plans for decommissioning facilities at AWE and for waste management consist of a number of separate documents. Decommissioning plans contain much detailed information on facilities and their present and intended functions. Such information is highly sensitive and any attempt at an unclassified version would
  691
  render the resultant document meaningless. As to waste management, considerable information is already reported to the relevant regulatory bodies and we have at present no plans to consolidate such material.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the sludge solidification system planned for AWE Aldermaston was completed; if it is operational; and what was its total cost. [12091]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The sludge solidification system is planned to be completed prior to the radioactive waste effluent treatment plant, building A91, becoming operational in 1998. The cost is commercially confidential and I am therefore withholding it under exemption 7 of the code of practice on access to Government information relating to effective management and operations of the public service.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the establishments in the United States visited by employees of the Atomic Weapons Establishment under the aegis of the 1958 mutual defence agreement and the Trident sales agreement, indicating the number of visits to each, in each of the financial years 1990–91 to 1994–95. [12123]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, a significant proportion of the visits would have been to Lawrence Livermore national laboratory, Sandia national laboratories, Los Alamos national laboratory, and various Department of Defence and Department of Energy Government offices.

  Chemical Tests (West Indian Islands)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the implications of the chemical tests carried out by Her Majesty's Government on West Indian islands; and for what reasons the appropriate papers were not made available under the 30-year rule. [11769]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My Department's records indicate that trials using live biological agents took place at sea off the Leeward islands in late 1948 and early 1949 to determine the practicability of conducting biological warfare trials at sea. The authorities in Antigua were consulted at the planning stages and the agreement of the governor was obtained before the trials took place. We are confident that the trials did not result in any infections among the human or animal populations of Antigua. The nature and purpose of the trials was not made public at the time, given the security considerations applying in the cold war era; however, the fact that the trials involved the release of live biological agents has been in the public domain since 1982.

  The United Kingdom has not possessed an offensive biological weapons capability since shortly after the second world war, and, indeed, is a co-depositary of the 1972 biological and toxin weapons convention, playing an active role in the current efforts to strengthen the convention.

  Official records are released in accordance with the terms of the Public Records Act 1958. Certain papers concerning the subject in question were retained in my Department under section 3(S)4 of the Act on grounds of
  692
  national security. Such papers are subject periodically to re-review and the majority of papers on this subject have now been released, their sensitivity having lapsed.

  Royal Naval Auxiliary Service
  Mr Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement regarding the award of construction contracts at RNAS Yeovilton. [12040]

  Mr. Artbuthnot
  A requirement exists at RNAS Yeovilton for living accommodation, hangars, stores and offices to house those moving from HMS Osprey, Portland, Dorset.

  It had been intended to award one design and build contract to cover all the requirements and tenders for this were received in June 1996. Following tender assessment it was concluded that best value for money would not be obtained by the one contract design and build approach. Consequently, a more traditional procurement route, of separate contracts placed following competition, has been adopted. So far two—see note—contracts have been placed:
  Western entrance works: 311,000
  Squadron office block: 2,200,000
  Note: Contracts valued at less than £240,000 are placed by local works services managers. Details of these contracts are not held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Territorial Army
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total cost per year to his Department of each member of(a) the Territorial Army and (b) the volunteer reserves. [12389]

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is as follows:

  £

  Territorial Army1

  2,728

  Royal Naval Reserve

  2,145

  Royal Marines Reserve

  1,911

  Royal Auxiliary Air Force and RAF Volunteer Reserve2

  3,481

  1 Excludes regular and civilian staff at reserve units and non-regular permanent staff.

  2 Figures relate to those personnel who could be called-out to fill an operational role; they do not include RAF volunteer reserve (Civilian Component), RAF volunteer reserve (Training) or RAF volunteer reserve (university air squadron)

  The figures include pay, earnings-related national insurance contributions, bounty and training expenses allowance at 1996–97 prices. Figures for equipment development, fuel, ammunition, accommodation and utilities, food and transport attributable to the reserves could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  National Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of the employed work force is qualified to NVQ level 4 or above in each English region and in Wales. [11250]
  693
  Mr. Paice
  The percentage of the employed work force who were qualified to at least NVQ level 4 or equivalent in each Government office region and Wales is shown in the table:

  Percentage

  England

  24

  South East

  25

  London

  33

  Eastern

  23

  South West

  22

  West Midlands

  21

  East Midlands

  20

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  21

  North West

  23

  Merseyside

  23

  North East

  20

  Wales

  23

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey, Autumn 1995.

  Mr. Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of young people up to age 19 years have achieved level 2 qualifications in each Government office region. [11240]

  Mr. Paice
  The percentage of young people aged 19 to 21 who were qualified to at least NVQ level 2 or equivalent in each Government office region and Wales is shown in the table:

  Percentage

  England

  67

  South East

  69

  London

  71

  Eastern

  69

  South West

  69

  West Midlands

  57

  East Midlands

  69

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  62

  North West

  69

  Merseyside

  70

  North East

  63

  Wales

  62

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey, Autumn 1995.

  Mr. Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of young people up to age 21 years have achieved level 3 qualifications in each Government office region. [11234]

  Mr. Paice
  The percentage of young people aged 21 to 23 who were qualified to at least NVQ level 3 or equivalent in each Government office region and Wales is shown in the table:

  Percentage

  England

  44

  South East

  43

  London

  50

  Eastern

  41

  South West

  45

  West Midlands

  42

  East Midlands

  46

  694

  Percentage

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  41

  North West

  44

  Merseyside

  46

  North East

  42

  Wales

  44

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey, Autumn 1995.

  Mr. Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of the employed work force is qualified to NVQ level 3 or equivalent in each English region and in Wales. [11251]

  Mr. Paice
  The percentage of the employed work force who were qualified to at least NVQ level 3 or equivalent in each Government office region and Wales is shown in the table:

  Percentage

  England

  40

  South East

  42

  London

  48

  Eastern

  40

  South West

  40

  West Midlands

  36

  East Midlands

  37

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  38

  North West

  40

  Merseyside

  39

  North East

  39

  Wales

  39

  Source:

  Labour force Survey, Autumn 1995.

  Menorah Foundation
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she expects to make a decision on the application by Menorah Foundation to become a grant-maintained school. [12127]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  A decision on application will be made as soon as possible.

  Torah Temimah
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she received an application by Torah Teminah to become a grant-maintained school; and when she expects to determine the application. [12128]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The governors of Torah Temimah independent primary school, Brent, published proposals for grant-maintained status on 1 August 1996. The proposals were received in the Department shortly afterwards. They are currently under consideration and we expect to reach a decision soon.

  Education Funding (Kirklees)
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the Government-allocated funding, per pupil, of school children in the Kirklees council area for each year from
  695
  1990–91 to 1997–98 for (a) under five-year-olds, (b) five to 11-year-olds and (c) 11 to 16-year-olds; and if she will make a statement. [11962]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table sets out the education standard spending assessment per pupil in Kirklees for each year from 1990–91 to 1997–98 for(a) under-five-year-olds (b) five to 10-year-olds and (c) 11 to 16-year-olds.

  Education SSAs do not determine the level of school spending or the balance of funding between nursery, primary and secondary education. It is up to local authorities to decide how much they spend on schools and other services within the resources at their disposal.

  Kirklees's education SSAs per pupil 1990–91 to 1997–98

  Under five years £

  Five to 10 years £

  11 to 16 years £

  1990–91

  223

  1,527

  2,171

  1991–92

  263

  1,746

  2,533

  1992–93

  284

  1,853

  2,710

  1993–94

  290

  1,914

  2,779

  1994–95

  281

  1,912

  2,675

  1995–96

  285

  1,900

  2,539

  1996–97

  304

  1,971

  2,637

  1997–981

  2139

  2,066

  2,721

  1 1997–98 figures are provisional.

  2 This figure is lower than in previous years because of the SSA deduction for the nursery voucher scheme.

  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the funding of primary education in the Kirklees area. [11965]

  Mr. Squire
  Kirklees's provisional standard spending assessment (SSA) per primary school pupil in 1997–98 is £2,066. That is a year on year increase of £94 per pupil, or 4.8 per cent.

  Education SSAs do not, however, determine how much local authorities must spend on education. It is up to local education authorities under local management of schools to determine how much to spend on education within the resources at their disposal, including the allocation between primary and secondary schools.

  Teachers (Early Retirement)
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teachers in Kirklees have retired before the age of 60 years for reasons of health and disability during each of the past six years; how many returned subsequently to supply teaching; and what was the extra cost of these early retirements. [11963]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Teachers from the maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special sector in Kirklees LEA, who took retirement on the grounds of ill health from 1990–91 to 1995–96, are shown in the table:

  Financial year

  Number of early retirements due to ill health1

  1990–91

  38

  1991–92

  30

  1992–93

  45

  1993–94

  63

  696

  Financial year

  Number of early retirements due to ill health1

  1994–95

  50

  1995–96 (prov.)

  43

  1 Excludes those last recorded in sixth form colleges. May include a small number retiring at age 60 or over.

  The number of teachers returning to supply teaching is not known. The extra cost of early retirements in Kirklees could only be calculated at disproportionate cost.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many pupils in secondary schools in England were in classes of 40 pupils or more in each of the six most recent years for which figures are available; [12107]

  (2) how many pupils in primary schools in England were in classes of 40 pupils or more in each of the six most recent years for which figures are available. [12108]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The number of pupils in single teacher classes of 40 or more pupils in maintained primary and secondary1 schools in England, is, at January each year

  Primary schools

  Secondary schools

  1991

  15,851

  1,694

  1992

  18,366

  1,374

  1993

  17,358

  2,826

  1994

  14,057

  881

  1995

  17,918

  1,634

  1996

  19,875

  1,016

  1 Excludes sixth form colleges.

  Special Needs Teachers
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action she has taken to ensure that the level of qualifications required by schools for teachers of hearing-impaired children is not reduced. [12424]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Teachers who teach classes of children with hearing impairments must gain an additional approved qualification to do so. The Government have no plans to discontinue this requirement.

  College of Food, Tourism and Creative Studies
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the total of the salary, allowances and other remuneration paid to the principal of the College of Food, Tourism and Creative Studies in Birmingham; and how much this total has changed since the college left the control of the city council in April 1993. [12349]

  Mr. Paice
  The Department does not collect this information. However, as a further education corporation, the Birmingham College of Food, Tourism and Creative Studies is required to publish its audited accounts each year. The college is required to disclose the principal's remuneration in the notes to the accounts.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  European Union Aid
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of European Union development aid has been channelled through non-governmental organisations in each of the last 10 years. [10968]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  In 1993 and 1994, the percentage of European Union external assistance channelled through non-governmental organisations was 22 per cent. and 24 per cent. respectively. To answer the question for the eight previous years would involve disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of European Union development aid that goes through non-governmental organisations goes to British-based organisations; and how this percentage has changed over the past 10 years. [10969]

  Dr. Fox
  In 1993 and 1994, the percentage of the allocations of the non-governmental organisations co-financing budget line (B7-5010) channelled through UK organisations was 15.2 per cent. and 15.5 per cent. respectively. To provide a complete answer to the question would involve disproportionate costs.

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in assessing the regional physical planning programme for transmigration project in Indonesia, what weight his Department attached to(a) concerns about the rights of the people affected by transmigration and the Indonesian Government's attitude to human rights and (b) possible political repercussions. [11647]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  The key consideration underlying our involvement in this World bank project was the developmental benefit to be gained, in the implementation of the transmigration programme, from sound land resource planning as a basis for improved decision making.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the legal and administrative difficulties involved in the wording of the project agreement with the Indonesian authorities in relation to the regional physical planning programme for transmigration in Indonesia; what were regarded as the sensitivities of the project at the time the extension of the project was approved in 1987; and what legal advice was received by his Department in 1987 regarding the extension of the project. [11648]

  Dr. Fox
  The difficulties related to the question of which agency on each side should be the contracting party to the agreement. While the developmental arguments were in favour of our continued involvement, sensitivities noted at the time of the extension were public perceptions of the transmigration programme, the wider relationship with the Indonesian Government and the World bank and the views of British environmental organisations which regarded our involvement as beneficial. Legal advice was not sought.

  World Bank (Environmental Impact Assessments)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) on 11 December,Official Report, column 216, if he will make a statement on the improvements the Government are pressing the World bank to make in its environment policy. [11924]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  The Government believe that the World bank's policy of screening all investment proposals for their potential environmental impact is the right approach. We continue to monitor the bank's performance to ensure that this policy is fully implemented in its environmental impact assessments.

  Tied Aid
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the letter from the Minister for Overseas Development of 28 October, what recommendations resulting from the review of tied aid have been pursued. [10861]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  The report made a number of recommendations. On procedures, to ensure better value for money, the ODA' s procurement procedures have been strengthened; guidelines on local procurement of goods have been revised; a staff training programme is under way; and procedures for local procurement of services are being examined. On the special programme for Africa, we pledged last month up to £250 million of new programme aid. Previous UK pledges have been 75 per cent. untied; we are currently considering the extent of untying this time around. On reporting, improvements to the ODA's management information system are under way to report statistics on aid tying to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development more accurately. We are actively supporting renewed efforts in the OECD to encourage the greater multilateral untying of development assistance programmes.

  Food and Agriculture Organisation
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the letter from the Minister for Overseas Development of 3 December, what action his Department is taking to promote reform of the FAO; and if he will make a statement. [10854]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  The Government are promoting reform in the FAO, primarily by pursuing constructive dialogue with its secretariat, by applying pressure for efficiency savings and better focused activities in negotiation of its programme of work and budget for 1998–99, and by working for co-ordinated action for reform among its membership.

  Montserrat
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people are living in communal shelters in Montserrat; and how many homes are currently being built for them. [12348]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  There are currently some 860 people living in community shelters; 188 people have already been provided with housing and the provision of new homes for a further 293 people will start shortly.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Television Licences (Caravan Sites)
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what plans she has to extend the hotel licence scheme for television licences to cover caravan sites and holiday homes; [11537]

  (2) how many representations she has received from caravan site owners and those letting holiday homes expressing dissatisfaction with the regulations governing television licences for static holiday caravans and holiday homes. [11538]

  Mr. Sproat
  As announced on 18 July last year,Official Report, columns 601-02, the Government intend to bring forward regulations to take account of changes in the use of television in recent years, including use in vehicles and vessels. Since that date, the Government have received over 520 representations on the licensing requirements for second homes and caravans. Our records do not readily identify precisely how many of these were from caravan site owners and people letting holiday homes expressing dissatisfaction with the current regulations; however, we estimate that they make up only a very small proportion.

  Caravan sites and holiday home complexes which provide units of overnight accommodation are already eligible for the special hotel licence. In the near future, the Government will make a detailed announcement on the new licensing requirements, including any that affect static holiday caravans and holiday homes. The new requirements will be incorporated into consolidated television licence fee regulations which will be laid so as to come into affect on 1 April 1997.

  Child Care Facilities
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if Ministers are entitled to use child care facilities supported by her Department. [11583]

  Mr. Sproat
  Ministers of the Crown are entitled to use the child care facilities supported by my Department.

  Digital Broadcasting (Highlands and Islands)
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many representations she has received from highlands and islands residents over the past year expressing their concern about the introduction of the new BBC digital service. [11668]

  Mr. Sproat
  We have received no such representations.

  Arts Funding (South-west)
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to increase the level of funding for the arts in the south-west. [11956]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Government are committed to helping support a lively and accessible artistic tradition by continued public subsidy for the arts. We have continued to offer substantial support for the arts despite overall pressures on public expenditure. In November, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced funding of 700
  £186 million for the Arts Council of England in 1997–98, an increase of £3.2 million over the baseline on which the Arts Council was asked to plan.

  It is for the Arts Council of England to determine the allocation of grant in aid to the 10 regional arts boards, including South West Arts. It takes such decisions independently of Ministers, and in the light of relative needs and priorities. In addition, the south-west continues to benefit from the proceeds of the national lottery. So far, the lottery has provided £27,000,000 towards improving and increasing the availability and quality of the arts in the region.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the total amount allocated from the proceeds of the national lottery to the small grants programme set up by the National Lottery Charities Board; and what proportion of such grants have been made to charities whose main or primary purpose is to assist people affected by flooding, fires or other disasters. [11722]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 22 January 1997]: The National Lottery Charities Board has so far made grants in Wales under its small grants programme worth a total of £511,000. I understand that, under the programme so far, no charities have applied whose main or primary purpose is to assist people affected by disasters such as flooding or fires, so no such grants have been made.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the awards made from the proceeds of the national lottery to organisations involved in relieving the effects of national disasters, giving in each case(a) the name of the organisation and (b) the amount awarded. [11721]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 22 January 1997]: No lottery awards have been made to organisations involved in relieving the effects of national disasters.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers farm organically; and what percentage this constitutes of the total number of farmers in the most recent year for which figures are available. [12092]

  Mr. Boswell
  The number of farmers in the UK—principal farmers and partners, whole time and part time—as at June 1995 was 219,000. At the same date, there were 784 registered organic holding—0.36 per cent. of the number of farmers. These figures are, however, prepared on different bases and are not strictly comparable.

  Storm Surges
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his letter of 1 November 1996, reference 101871, what study he has made of Dixon and Tawn's findings on storm surges; and what action he proposes. [10825]
  701
  Mr. Boswell
  Dixon and Tawn undertook a theoretical statistical analysis.

  Further study using actual data gathered from the national network of tide gauges has confirmed that non-random events, such as astronomic tides, influence water level estimates. Their range, between an overestimate of 250 mm and an underestimate of 100 mm, falls within the current allowance for water level estimates used for the design of sea defences.

  New Zealand Flatworm
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the potential impact on United Kingdom exports of plants to Sweden of the New Zealand flatworm. [12422]

  Mr. Boswell
  Sweden has listed the New Zealand flatworm as an indirect plant pest in its national legislation. We understand that this measure was adopted in order that the Swedish authorities could take action against any consignments which were found to be infested with the New Zealand flatworm. The UK Agriculture Departments, in consultation with the horticulture industry, have drawn up a code of practice to ensure that exported plants are free from the flatworm. The Government are also funding research into the biology of non-indigenous flatworms and methods of controlling their spread.

HEALTH

  Mefloquine
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies have been(a) undertaken and (b) commissioned by his Department into the side effects of the use of mefloquine as an anti-malarial drug. [10896]

  Mr. Malone
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Health has not undertaken or commissioned any formal studies into the side effects of melfloquine. Following grant of marketing authorisation, based on rigorous evaluation of quality, safety and efficacy by the Licensing Authority and its expert advisory bodies, the Medicines Control Agency has continued to monitor the safety of mefloquine. Data became available from spontaneous adverse reaction reports, published literature and ongoing studies in patients. However, the MCA continue to monitor the safety of mefloquine to ensure that its benefits in treating and preventing malaria outweigh the risk of adverse reactions.

  Residential Care Costs
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the savings which would accrue to public funds if local authority residential homes were run at the same cost as equivalent private sector homes. [11533]

  Mr. Burns
  We have made no such estimate. Published statistics show the different costs to local authorities of care in homes for the elderly in different sectors, but these homes may not be equivalent. We believe that purchasing care from the independent sector would be more cost 702
  effective for local authorities. To achieve these savings, local authorities need to see their role as commissioners rather than providers of services.

  Personal Social Services
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the real terms percentage increase in funding for personal social services, indicating the figures on which the calculations are based, for each year since 1979, together with projections for such future years as are available to him. [11534]

  Mr. Burns
  The amount and annual increases in funding for personal social services since 1981–82 are set out in the table; figures prior to 1981–82 are not held by the Department:

  Funding for social services £ million

  Percentage increase in real terms

  1981–82

  1,642.561

  —

  1982–83

  1,943.401

  10.4

  1983–84

  2,084.598

  2.5

  1984–85

  2,204.800

  0.7

  1985–86

  2,366.400

  1.8

  1986–87

  2,552.900

  4.7

  1987–88

  2,756.500

  2.5

  1988–89

  2,912.800

  -1.0

  1989–90

  3,269.300

  4.9

  1990–91

  3,648.000

  n/a

  1991–92

  4,503.000

  16.0

  1992–93

  4,850.000

  3.4

  1993–94

  5,585.400

  11.9

  1994–95

  6,403.200

  12.6

  1995–96

  6,965.900

  6.1

  1996–97

  7,511.000

  5.2

  1997–98

  7,846.030

  2.4

  Figures for years prior to 1990–91 relate to the previous local government finance system and are not comparable with figures for subsequent years. In particular, amounts provided through special and specific grants are excluded prior to 1990–91. The figures above should not be seen as expenditure targets. They are one component of the funding provided for local government services and local authorities may in the event spend more or less than the amounts above.

  Drug Abuse (South Yorkshire)
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions his Department has held with South Yorkshire local health authorities regarding drug abuse; and if he will list the funding that is allocated for this purpose by each authority. [11663]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department has held no discussions with health authorities in South Yorkshire about drug misuse. Information on the total funding allocated by health authorities for combating drug misuse is not available centrally. Funds allocated by the Department to health authorities for this purpose are shown in the tables.
  703
  The table shows the funding for services for drug misusers allocated to each of the health authorities in South Yorkshire for 1996–97 and 1997–98:

  Drug misuse treatment services

  Thousands

  Health authority

  Allocation 1996–97

  Allocation 1997–98

  Barnsley

  144

  163

  Doncaster

  184

  205

  Rotherham

  232

  253

  Sheffield

  392

  442

  In addition, the table shows central funding made available to develop drug action teams and drug reference groups.

  Drug action team and drug reference group development funding

  Thousands

  Health authority

  Allocation 1996–97

  Allocation 1997–98

  Barnsley

  33

  34

  Doncaster

  34

  34

  Rotherham

  33

  34

  Sheffield

  34

  34

  Drugs challenge fund

  Sheffield health authority has also won drugs challenge funding for four projects. The total challenge fund allocation to Sheffield is £27,600.

  Smoking
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the figures for smoking prevalence among 11 to 15-year-olds in those years for which figures are available between 1989 and 1994. [12058]

  Mr. Horam
  The figures in the table are extracted from "Smoking Amongst Secondary Children in 1990, 1992, 1993 and 1994" published by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. Copies of these reports are available in the Library.

  Percentage

  Regular smokers (at least one cigarette a week)

  11 years

  12 years

  13 years

  14 years

  15 years

  Total

  1990

  —

  2

  8

  13

  25

  10

  1992

  1

  2

  7

  15

  23

  10

  1993

  —

  3

  4

  16

  22

  10

  1994

  1

  2

  6

  17

  28

  12

  Life Expectancy
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (i) if he will list the average expectation of life at birth(a) nationally and (b) regionally for (i) men and (ii) women in (y) 1994 and (z) 1995; [12033]

  (2) if he will list the average life expectancy by region for (a) men and (b) women. [12032]
  704
  Mr. Burns
  The average expectation of life at birth, according to the mortality rates experienced in 1992, the latest year for which individual figures are available for the regional health authorities of England and Wales, are shown in the following table. Figures for England and Wales as a whole for 1994 and 1995 are also shown:

  Expectations of life at birth (years)

  Health authority

  1992

  1994

  1995

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  England and Wales

  73.8

  79.2

  74.4

  79.7

  74.3

  79.5

  Northern

  72.4

  77.7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yorkshire

  73.6

  78.8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Trent

  73.6

  78.9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Anglia

  75.4

  80.3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North West Thames

  74.5

  80.1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North East Thames

  73.8

  79.5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South East Thames

  74.0

  79.6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South West Thames

  75.2

  80.3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wessex

  75.0

  80.3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Oxford

  74.9

  79.6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Western

  74.9

  80.3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Midlands

  73.4

  78.7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mersey

  72.9

  78.2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Western

  72.3

  77.6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wales

  73.5

  78.9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those EU countries with greater life expectancy than the United Kingdom. [12034]

  Mr. Horam
  Average life expectancy in the United Kingdom in 1994 was 74.2 years among males and 79.6 years among females. The most recent data from other EU countries that was collected on a comparable basis-though not necessarily in precisely the same year-is shown in the table.

  Average life expectancy at birth in the countries of the European Union for the latest year available for the male population and the female population separately.

  Life expectancy at birth, EU countries, latest year

  Country

  Year

  Male

  Female

  Austria

  1995

  73.67

  80.27

  Belgium

  1991

  72.96

  79.77

  Denmark

  1993

  72.78

  77.95

  Germany

  1994

  73.16

  79.71

  Finland

  1994

  72.95

  80.41

  France

  1994

  74.42

  82.83

  Greece

  1994

  75.34

  80.35

  Ireland

  1992

  72.68

  78.24

  Italy

  1992

  74.20

  80.91

  Luxembourg

  1994

  73.43

  80.51

  Netherlands

  1994

  74.67

  80.53

  Portugal

  1994

  71.66

  78.72

  Spain

  1992

  73.86

  81.36

  Sweden

  1993

  75.63

  81.02

  United

  Kingdom

  1994

  74.18

  79.61

  Source:

  World Health Organisation HFA (provisional).

  Organophosphates
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn)Official Report, 6 December, column 822, if he will place in the Library (a) a list of the dates of the meetings held by the expert committee on organophosphates during the past 10 years, (b) copies of the minutes of daily meeting and (c) copies of all reports and recommendations drawn up by the committee; and what peer reviews of the committee's recommendation have been conducted. [11910]

  Mr. Horam
  The Veterinary Products Committee was established in 1970 under section 4 of the Medicines Act 1968. It meets generally every month except August. During the past 10 years, the committee has considered issues concerning OP veterinary medicinal products on a number of occasions, including the assessment of applications for authorisation for new products. As the committee considers these and other such matters which are commercially confidential, the minutes of its meetings are not published. An annual report for each advisory body established under the Medicines Act 1968, including the VPC, is, however, published in one volume each year and copies of this have been placed in the Library.

  In March 1993, the VPC considered a request from my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for advice as to whether a moratorium on OP sheep dips would be appropriate. The Government's acceptance of the advice then given, and the details of that advice, were announced in reply to the hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir J. Spicer) on 1 April 1993, at columns 328-30. A MAFF news release No. 112/93, gave full details of the advice and a list of all the papers considered by the VPC. Copies of all the published and publicly available papers were placed in the Library at that time.

  At its meeting in October 1993, the VPC again undertook a thorough examination of all the issues surrounding the use of OP sheep dips. The details of the committee's advice and the Government's response were then announced in reply to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Sir Fry) on 1 December 1993, at columns 588-90. MAFF news release No. 424/93 gave full details, including a list of all the papers considered by the committee.

  The Advisory Committee on Pesticides meets regularly—at least five times a year since 1987. Evaluation documents, which detail the findings of the committee on individual active substances, including OPs, are published and copies are placed in the Library. Copies of the ACP's annual reports are also placed in the Library. As the committee considers matters which are commercially confidential, the minutes of its meetings are not published.

  Since the purpose of the VPC and the ACP is to provide scientific advice to Ministers and the committees do not publish papers, peer review of their work would not be appropriate.

  Leukaemia
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will evaluate the article in the British Medical
  706
  Journal of the 11 January relating to leukaemia occurrence to assess its implications for the populations in the vicinity of (a) Sellafield and (b) Dounreay. [11911]

  Mr. Horam
  The Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment—COMARE—has investigated the increase of cancer and leukaemia in young people around Dounreay and Sellafield and concluded that on current knowledge environmental radiation exposure from the sites could not account for the excesses.

  COMARE has made various recommendations for further research, much of which has already been carried out, and further work is under way. COMARE will continue to keep this matter under review and will consider whether there is a need for any further advice. The results of the study, published in the British Medical Journal, "Case-control study of leukaemia in young people near La Hague nuclear reprocessing plant: the environmental hypothesis revisited", together with other evidence as it becomes available, will be considered by the committee.

  Encryption
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his letter of 23 October, what evidence he has evaluated relating to the encryption trials; and when he plans to make an announcement. [10857]

  Mr. Horam
  We will begin to evaluate the results of the encryption pilots when they become available in March. Once this process has been completed, we will then be able to make an announcement.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital beds there were in each health authority in each of the last seven years; and if he will indicate for each authority and year the numbers for(a) acute, (b) geriatric, (c) maternity and (d) mental illness or disability cases. [11625]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not available centrally. Information on the average daily number of available beds for national health service providers in each financial year is continued in "Bed Availability for England", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Hospitals
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) hospitals and (b) hospital trusts there were in operation in (i) 1980, (ii) 1985, (iii) 1990, (iv) 1992, (v) 1994–95 and (vi) 1995–96. [11626]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) on 13 January at column 172. Information is not available centrally to distinguish hospital trusts from other types of trust. The hon. Member may wish to refer to the information on trusts in the "Health and Social Services Yearbook", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital trusts in England contain(a) two and (b) three or more hospitals. [11627]
  707
  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not collected centrally. The hon. Member may wish to refer to the "Health and Social Services Yearbook", copies of which are available in the Library, for information on the facilities in each trust.

  Cancelled Operations
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library figures by(a) district health authority, (b) regional health authority and (c) overall, of the number of operations cancelled on the day of, or the day after, admission to a hospital, and the numbers of those patients not readmitted within a month, for each quarter of 1995–96 and the first two quarters of 1996–97. [11628]

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

  Manchester Ambulance Service
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure that the Greater Manchester ambulance service NHS trust offers a local pay award in addition to the national pay award. [11815]

  Mr. Horam
  National health service trusts need to consider pay in the context of their overall income from contracts and the costs of providing good quality patient services. It is for each employer to decide what to pay in the light of their overall financial position and other service pressures.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average number of(a) adult and (b) child registrations for each NHS dentist. [12399]

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

  General Dental Service: Number of adult and child registrations1 2 for each national Health Service3 4 dentist at 30 September 1996 England

  Average number of registrations

  Adults

  Children

  1,278

  476

  1 Excludes patients registered with salaried dentists.

  2 Child registrations were "rolled-off' on 31 December each year. The figure shown is close to peak time of the year.

  3 Some dentists have a contract with more than one health authority. These dentists have been counted only once in calculating the number of patients registered per dentist.

  3 Some dentists have a contract with more than one health authority. These dentists have been counted only once in calculating the number of patients registered per dentist.

  4 The number of dentists is the number of principals and excludes assistants and vocational trainees. This is because those patients treated by assistants and vocational trainees are allocated to principal dentists.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 20 January, column 489, if he will list by health authority the number of dentists whose NHS gross fee earnings fall within (a) the top and (b) the bottom decile. [12429]
  708
  Mr. Malone
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many qualified dentists were employed by the highest-paid NHS dentist in each of the years 1991–92 to 1995–96. [12337]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 21 January at column 583.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the amount and percentage of the fee income paid to NHS dentists who have been struck off since 1985 which relates to unnecessary work carried out on patients. [12385]

  Mr. Malone
  The General Dental Council, the statutory body which regulates the practice of dentistry, classifies those dentists struck off from its register by broad headings only and therefore the information requested is not available.

  British Association of Psychopharmacology
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he will take to secure representation at the British Association of Psychopharmacology meeting in Oxford street, London on 24 January; and if he will make a statement. [12334]

  Mr. Burns
  The Department aims to keep in touch with all meetings on professional matters of significant concern. Departmental representation at this meeting will depend on the availability of relevant officials.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Armoured Vehicles (Indonesia)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answers of 9 December,Official Report, columns 29-30, if he will list the dates of transfer of (a) the equipment and (b) associated equipment to Indonesia. [10742]

  Mr. Nelson
  All that is required for licensing purposes is a proposed date of shipment. What happens thereafter within the validity of the licence is a matter for the exporter.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answers of 9 December,Official Report, columns 29-30, relating to export licences to Indonesia if (a) the British Government and (b) private British companies have (i) provided or facilitated and (ii) propose to provide operational training in the use or deployment of the Tactica family of internal security vehicles. [10739]

  Mr. Nelson
  I understand that the company provides comprehensive training on how to operate the vehicles.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answers of 9 December,Official Report, columns 29-30, relating to export licences for equipment to Indonesia, what vehicles, in addition to those identified in his answer, are covered by the licence;

  709
  if he will list the associated equipment referred to in his reply; and if the goods referred to are covered by export credit guarantees. [10738]

  Mr. Nelson
  Two Tactica four-seat, two Tactica 10-seat, five Tactica EOD—explosive ordnance disposal—seven Tactica water cannon, eight Tactica command and communication vehicles, two base station communications equipment, 164 Hornet Patroli, 50 Hornet Dalmas, 24 Hornet armoured APC—armoured personnel carriers—12 Hornet armoured EOD carriers, 24 Hornet deterrent vehicles, 12 Hornet armoured command and communications vehicles. The associated equipment comprises spare parts, lists of which run to several pages and are too numerous to list individually.

  There is no Export Credits Guarantee Department cover.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answers of 9 December,Official Report, columns 29-30, relating to export licences to Indonesia, what associated equipment was provided with the Tactica water cannon supplied to the Indonesian police force; what assurances he has received from the Indonesian authorities what the Indonesian police force will not use them (a) for internal repression and (b) in East Timor; what is the maximum pressure in pounds per square inch that the water from the cannon can be fired; and what security or other functions the water cannon are designed to carry out. [10752]

  Mr. Nelson
  I am not in a position to give detailed information on which of the spare parts referred to in the answer to question 818 are specified to the Tactica water cannon.

  The Government have ensured that the Indonesian Government are well aware of our concern that such UK-supplied equipment should not be used indiscriminately or to disperse peaceful demonstrations in violation of the universal rights of freedom of speech, organisation and assembly.

  The maximum pressure at which the water cannon can be fired is 13 bar—190 psi.

  The water cannon are designed to carry out non-lethal riot control, although they can also be used as localised fire engines in public order situations.

  Tactica Internal Security Vehicles
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade under what category of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1989 the first shipment of Tactica internal security vehicles was granted. [10741]

  Mr. Nelson
  All licensable goods fell under group I of Part III of schedule I to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994.

  Offshore Oil and Gas
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade by what date he estimates environmental impact assessments will be required for all offshore oil and gas exploration and production projects. [12096]
  710
  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 21 January 1997]: Holders of petroleum production licences already provide environmental impact assessments for offshore oil and gas production projects within 25 miles of the coast or in other sensitive areas. Similar assessments may be requested for exploration activities, where there are likely to be significant environmental impacts.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on matters relating to the environment contained in the Petroleum (Production) (Seaward Areas ) (Amendment) Regulations. [12100]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 21 January 1997]: The Petroleum (Production)(Seaward Areas)(Amendment) Regulations 1996 came into force on 16 December. They vary the terms and conditions of petroleum licences to reflect the nature of the acreage to be awarded in the 17th round.

  The regulations also set out the information that must be submitted with an application for a production licence. These include a requirement that applicants for a production licence must provide a statement of the general environmental policy of the proposed operator under the licence applied for in respect of licensed activities offshore, and also information concerning his environmental management systems for the application of that policy.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if environmental impact assessments will be required for the 17th offshore oil and gas licensing round. [12099]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 21 January 1997]: Assessments are provided in respect of specific projects in specific locations. Projects carried out under petroleum production licences awarded in the 17th round will be subject to assessment where appropriate.

  Global Ocean Observing System
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his letter of 25 November, if he will make a statement on the work of the global ocean observing system. [10829]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I understand that work is continuing on the design and implementation of GOOS; a number of UK Departments and agencies continue to be involved.

  Intellectual Property
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his letter of 24 September, what was the result of his consultation with United Kingdom interested parties on World Intellectual Property Organisation documents; and if he will make a statement. [10856]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Over 40 written submissions were received from UK copyright interests in response to my Department's consultation on the draft treaty texts for the diplomatic conference, which met in Geneva during December 1996 under the auspices of the World Intellectual Property Organisation. In addition, an open consultation meeting, attended by about 50 organisations, was held at the end of October. The views expressed by interested parties contributed to the positions taken by the
  711
  UK delegation at the diplomatic conference, where consultation continued with non-governmental organisations present as observers.

  The WIPO conference resulted in two new international treaties which will boost worldwide protection against unlawful copying and piracy, and promote the development of new media. Key UK objectives were achieved, notably the inclusion of provisions extending rights in the area of digital communications, and provisions making unlawful both unauthorised circumvention of copy-protection systems and unauthorised interference with electronic rights management systems.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Archway Tower
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what proposals the Property Services Agency has for the future use of Archway tower, 2 Junction road, London N19; [12110]

  (2) what is the cost to the Property Services Agency of security arrangements at Archway tower, 2 Junction Road, London N19. [12111]

  Mr. Freeman
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated, under the terms of its framework document, to the Property Advisers to the Civil Estate under its chief executive, Mr. Neil Borrett. The agency is therefore responding to these questions.

  Letter from N. E. Borrett to Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, dated 22 January 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has asked me to reply to your Questions about Archway Tower.
  You will know from my letter to you of 29 April 1996 that PACE has responsibility for the building and although our marketing agents have been endeavouring to interest both the landlord and third parties in the property their efforts have so far proved unsuccessful.
  There is very little demand for un-refurbished office blocks built in the 1960s and early 1970s, even in the centre of London. In the current state of the office market Archway can be considered only a fringe location and we would need to be convinced that there was the likelihood of potential occupiers before the considerable cost of refurbishment was instigated. The services in the building, which is 25 years only, have come to the end of their economic life.
  The landlord has a secure rental income from Government until the lease expires in 2009 and is not prepared to accept a surrender of the lease on terms which we could accept even bearing in mind the high outgoings on the property. There has been some discussion with the landlord's agent as to conversion of the building to residential use by way of a joint sale and this is being pursued.
  With regard to your second question, because of vandalism security arrangements at Archway Tower have had to be stepped up and currently their costs amount to just over £30,000 per annum.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  "Barbecue in Rostock"
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his answer of 16 October 1996,Official Report, column 963, if the Crown Prosecution Service has reached a view
  712
  about whether or not to prosecute the band "No Remorse" and the producers and distributors of the CD "Barbecue in Rostock"; and if he will make a statement. [11665]

  The Attorney-General: I understand that the Gwent police are continuing their investigation into the production of a compact disc by a band calling themselves. "No Remorse". The police have not yet submitted a file of evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service. It is expected that at the conclusion of the investigation the police will submit a file of evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service for advice as to whether criminal proceedings should be instituted.

WALES

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many hospitals have been closed since 1979. [11674]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Fifty-eight national health service hospitals in Wales have closed for the use of in-patients, and remained closed, since 1 January 1979. During the same period, 16 NHS hospitals have opened. In 1995–96 the NHS in Wales treated 166,000—48 per cent.—more in-patient cases than in 1979.

  St. David's Medical Centre, Cardiff
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 17 December,Official Report column 587, on St. David's medical centre, Cardiff, on what day the date of the hearing was finalised; on what day each of the interested parties were informed of the date; and what representations he received concerning the suitability of the hearing date. [11802]

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to my letter of 20 January 1997, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Local Pay Bargaining
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the use of local pay bargaining in Wales to determine pay awards. [11671]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  We believe that pay, in Wales as in the rest of the United Kingdom, is best determined freely by employers and their employees in the light of their particular local circumstances. This better enables pay settlements to reflect the needs of the local labour market as well as company and employee performance. Businesses are best able to judge what they can afford to pay in order to recruit, retain and motivate suitable staff. Pay increases not justified by improved performance will simply lead to the loss of competitiveness.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of(a) community and (b) district general hospitals indicating the number of beds in each health authority in Wales. [12077]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is given in the following table. Psychiatric hospitals are excluded.
  713

  Community hospitals

  District general hospitals1

  Number2

  Beds2

  Number2

  Beds3

  Bro Taf

  17

  1,253

  5

  2,458

  Dyfed Powys

  22

  1,064

  3

  848

  Gwent

  13

  679

  3

  1,261

  Morgannwg

  9

  379

  5

  1,964

  North Wales

  29

  1,144

  3

  1,606

  1Hospitals classed as teaching hospitals or acute general hospitals group 1.

  2Open at present.

  3Average daily available beds 1995–96 (provisional).

  Average daily available beds

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–961

  Clwyd district health authority

  Acute

  1,212

  1,241

  1,284

  1,278

  1,244

  1,237

  1,216

  Geriatric

  559

  509

  471

  469

  457

  440

  430

  Maternity

  121

  115

  116

  109

  106

  105

  107

  Mental illness/learning disability

  551

  496

  432

  395

  361

  300

  273

  All specialties

  2,443

  2,362

  2,304

  2,252

  2,168

  2,083

  2,026

  Dyfed district health authority

  Acute

  932

  933

  941

  928

  957

  963

  980

  Geriatric

  496

  503

  476

  469

  451

  370

  339

  Maternity

  88

  88

  88

  88

  88

  88

  88

  Mental illness/learning disability

  532

  498

  444

  444

  395

  372

  325

  All specialties

  2,048

  2,022

  1,950

  1,929

  1,891

  1,793

  1,731

  Gwent district health authority

  Acute

  1,385

  1,395

  1,334

  1,335

  1,332

  1,239

  1,116

  Geriatric

  621

  601

  566

  571

  553

  500

  454

  Maternity

  143

  144

  146

  137

  118

  98

  99

  Mental illness/learning disability

  1,059

  980

  842

  735

  627

  584

  540

  All specialties

  3,208

  3,120

  2,889

  2,778

  2,630

  2,421

  2,210

  Gwynedd district health authority

  Acute

  681

  648

  649

  646

  597

  627

  627

  Geriatric

  400

  382

  355

  366

  348

  339

  288

  Maternity

  76

  80

  75

  75

  70

  106

  56

  Mental illness/learning disability

  430

  442

  347

  348

  406

  359

  338

  All specialties

  1,587

  1,552

  1,426

  1,434

  1,420

  1,431

  1,309

  Mid Glamorgan district health authority

  Acute

  1,750

  1,739

  1,606

  1,540

  1,470

  1,464

  1,476

  Geriatric

  724

  709

  805

  783

  768

  700

  633

  Maternity

  209

  192

  193

  179

  174

  159

  145

  Mental illness/learning disability

  1,364

  1,319

  1,221

  1,144

  1,087

  979

  828

  All specialties

  4,047

  3,959

  3,826

  3,646

  3,499

  3,302

  3,081

  Powys district health authority

  Acute

  194

  194

  200

  205

  201

  209

  209

  Geriatric

  203

  193

  195

  199

  187

  192

  193

  Maternity

  36

  35

  33

  32

  32

  32

  Mental illness/learning disability

  475

  475

  419

  419

  395

  340

  317

  All specialties

  908

  896

  848

  854

  815

  773

  750

  South Glamorgan district health authority

  Acute

  1,699

  1,672

  1,613

  1,511

  1,486

  1,505

  1,524

  Geriatric

  447

  443

  439

  428

  432

  430

  394

  Maternity

  136

  137

  137

  132

  113

  96

  91

  Mental illness/learning disability

  989

  951

  922

  870

  803

  777

  704

  All specialties

  3,272

  3,203

  3,110

  2,940

  2,834

  2,808

  2,713

  714
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many hospital beds there were in each health authority in each of the last seven years; and if he will indicate for each authority and year the numbers for(a) acute, (b) geriatric, (c) maternity and (d) mental illness or disability cases. [11621]

  Mr. Jones
  Information for the eight district health authorities which existed until 31 March 1996 is given in the following tables.
  715 716

  Average daily available beds

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–961

  West Glamorgan district health authority

  Acute

  1,285

  1,241

  1,206

  1,215

  1,199

  1,280

  1,286

  Geriatric

  466

  471

  442

  403

  404

  374

  342

  Maternity

  117

  125

  128

  118

  104

  103

  94

  Mental illness/learning disability

  475

  463

  512

  508

  510

  467

  424

  All specialties

  2,343

  2,300

  2,288

  2,244

  2,217

  2,224

  2,146

  Wales

  Acute

  9,139

  9,064

  8,835

  8,659

  8,485

  8,524

  8,433

  Geriatric

  3,915

  3,811

  3,750

  3,687

  3,600

  3,345

  3,073

  Maternity

  927

  916

  916

  869

  806

  788

  711

  mental illness/learning disability

  5,874

  5,623

  5,140

  4,863

  4,584

  4,177

  3,748

  All specialties

  19,855

  19,414

  18,640

  18,078

  17,475

  16,834

  15,964

  1 Provisional.

  In-patients and day cases

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–961

  Clwyd district health authority

  Acute

  60,552

  62,176

  74,711

  81,114

  84,444

  90,311

  89,320

  Geriatric

  5,782

  5,504

  5,899

  6,495

  7,113

  7,352

  7,330

  Maternity

  8,473

  8,806

  8,979

  8,976

  8,662

  8,730

  8,729

  Mental illness/learning disability

  2,191

  2,268

  2,341

  2,374

  2,347

  1,959

  1,871

  All specialties

  76,998

  78,754

  91,930

  98,959

  102,566

  108,352

  107,250

  Dyfed district health authority

  Acute

  48,839

  53,962

  60,636

  67,582

  73,767

  79,215

  82,370

  Geriatric

  5,893

  6,678

  7,419

  7,491

  7,870

  5,972

  6,274

  Maternity

  4,779

  5,346

  5,389

  5,631

  6,094

  5,269

  5,296

  Mental illness/learning disability

  1,975

  2,028

  1,868

  1,854

  2,048

  2,028

  1,862

  All specialties

  61,486

  68,014

  75,312

  82,558

  89,779

  92,484

  95,802

  Gwent district health authority

  Acute

  68,056

  71,917

  76,463

  79,176

  82,174

  83,805

  85,871

  Geriatric

  4,238

  4,781

  5,228

  5,359

  5,590

  5,537

  5,689

  Maternity

  9,763

  10,190

  10,112

  9,977

  9,740

  9,771

  10,052

  Mental illness/learning disability

  2,733

  2,915

  3,204

  3,058

  3,082

  3,071

  3,093

  All specialties

  84,790

  89,803

  95,007

  97,570

  100,568

  102,184

  104,705

  Gwynedd district health authority

  Acute

  33,799

  33,667

  37,213

  38,178

  41,417

  42,862

  46,871

  Geriatric

  5,447

  5,395

  5,726

  6,132

  6,111

  6,422

  4,664

  Maternity

  3,854

  3,951

  3,769

  3,787

  3,790

  3,715

  3,666

  Mental illness/learning disability

  844

  1,076

  1,176

  1,322

  1,469

  1,676

  1,973

  All specialties

  43,944

  44,089

  47,884

  49,419

  52,787

  54,675

  57,174

  Mid Glamorgan district health authority

  Acute

  80,014

  87,431

  94,521

  101,840

  107,649

  118,969

  123,486

  Geriatric

  8,035

  7,486

  10,088

  11,384

  11,971

  11,344

  10,967

  Maternity

  12,244

  12,387

  12,210

  12,623

  12,047

  12,146

  12,581

  Mental illness/learning disability

  2,842

  1,665

  2,694

  2,940

  3,240

  3,870

  3,853

  All specialties

  103,135

  109,969

  119,513

  128,787

  134,907

  146,329

  150,887

  Powys district health authority

  Acute

  5,376

  5,861

  6,357

  6,188

  6,446

  6,911

  7,046

  Geriatric

  1,015

  1,235

  1,518

  1,896

  1,948

  2,266

  2,263

  Maternity

  1,308

  1,356

  1,203

  1,228

  1,183

  1,162

  1,064

  Mental illness/learning disability

  595

  666

  643

  655

  676

  909

  955

  All specialties

  8,294

  9,118

  9,721

  9,967

  10,253

  11,248

  11,328

  South Glamorgan district health authority

  Acute

  87,429

  86,638

  93,053

  96,127

  96,548

  101,220

  106,995

  Geriatric

  6,023

  5,897

  5,550

  5,692

  5,501

  5,406

  4,106

  Maternity

  8,643

  8,248

  8,861

  8,889

  10,962

  9,757

  11,122

  Mental illness/learning disability

  2,681

  2,764

  3,114

  3,077

  2,969

  3,029

  3,154

  All specialties

  104,776

  103,547

  110,578

  113,785

  115,080

  119,412

  125,377

  717

  In-patients and day cases

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–961

  West Glamorgan district health authority

  Acute

  62,628

  63,273

  65,149

  69,364

  86,120

  102,427

  109,264

  Geriatric

  5,076

  5,921

  6,676

  6,612

  6,403

  5,395

  4,835

  Maternity

  8,429

  8,805

  8,883

  8,568

  8,423

  8,408

  8,830

  Mental illness/learning disability

  2,445

  2,371

  2,628

  2,574

  2,661

  2,483

  2,284

  All specialties

  78,578

  80,370

  83,336

  87,118

  103,607

  118,713

  125,213

  Wales

  Acute

  446,693

  464,925

  508,103

  539,569

  578,565

  625,720

  651,223

  Geriatric

  41,509

  42,897

  48,104

  51,061

  52,507

  49,694

  46,128

  Maternity

  57,493

  59,089

  59,406

  59,679

  60,001

  58,958

  61,340

  Mental illness/learning disability

  16,306

  16,753

  17,668

  17,854

  18,492

  19,025

  19,045

  All specialties

  562,001

  583,664

  633,281

  668,163

  709,565

  753,397

  777,736

  Provisional.

  Health Authority Budgets
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the budget of each health authority in Wales for(a) general practitioner services and (b) NHS dentistry. [12085]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The most significant area of spending for both GPs and NHS dentistry relates to payments under part II of the National Health Service Act 1977. These payments are dependent upon fulfilling the conditions set-out in national contracts. There are therefore no budgets set at authority level.

  Hospitals (Dyfed-Powys)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the names and locations of the community hospitals within the Dyfed-Powys health authority area. [12080]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is given in the following table. The list excludes major acute and psychiatric hospitals.

  Hospital

  Location

  Aberaeron Cottage

  Aberaeron

  Amman Valley

  Folland Road, Glanaman

  Boddyfi Community

  Machynlleth

  Breconshire War Memorial

  Cerrigcochion Road, Brecon

  Bronglais Geriatric

  North Road, Aberystwyth

  Bronllys

  Bronllys, Brecon

  Bryntirion

  Swansea Road, Llanelli

  Builth Wells Cottage

  Builth Wells, Brecon

  Cardigan and District Memorial

  Pontyceifion, Cardigan

  Knighton

  Ffrydd Road, Knighton, Radnor

  Llandovery

  Llanfair Road,Llandovery

  Llandrindod Wells

  Temple Street, Radnor

  Llanidloes and District War Memorial

  Llanidloes

  Montgomery County Infirmary

  Llanfair Road, Newtown

  Mynydd Mawr

  Upper Tumble, Llanelli

  Prince Philip

  Llanelli

  Priory Street

  Priory Street, Carmarthen

  South Pembrokeshire

  Fort Road, Pembroke Dock

  Tenby Cottage

  Trafalgar Square, Tenby

  Tregaron

  Dewi Road, Tregaron

  Victoria Memorial

  Salop Road, Welshpool

  Ystradgynlais Community

  Glanrhyd Road, Ystradgynlais

  Health Authorities
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what is(a) the geographic area covered and (b) average population density for each health authority in Wales; [12084]

  (2) what is the population of each health authority area in Wales. [12079]

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

  Health authority

  Population estimate—mid 1995

  Area (sq km)

  Population density (residents per sq km)

  Bro Taf

  726,900

  1,011

  719

  Dyfed Powys

  475,600

  10,976

  43

  Gwent

  556,300

  1,553

  358

  Morgannwg

  500,900

  1,067

  470

  North Wales

  657,100

  6,172

  106

  Wales

  2,916,800

  20,779

  140

  Source:

  Population data-Office for National Statistics.

  Areas based on Ordnance Survey data.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the budget for each health authority area in Wales(a) for 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98. [12081]

  Mr. Jones
  The latest available amounts allocated to each authority, including revenue, capital and GP expenses cash limits, for 1996–97 is as follows:

  Health authority

  Total allocation

  North Wales

  385,467

  Dyfed Powys

  300,088

  Morgannwg

  306,191

  Bro Taf

  448,235

  Gwent

  314,477

  All figures in £ millions.

  The budgets for 1997–98 will be issued shortly.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to reply to parliamentary questions numbers 9758 and 9759, dated 18 December 1996. [12160]
  719
  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on Tuesday 21 January,Official Report, column 575-76.

  Hospitals
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) hospitals and (b) hospital trusts there were in operation in (a) 1980, (b) 1985, (c) 1990, (d) 1992, (e) 1994–95 and (f) 1995–96. [11622]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is given in the following table.

  Number of hospital units1

  Number of NHS Trusts

  1980

  171

  —

  1985

  159

  —

  1990

  152

  —

  1992–93

  143

  1

  1994–95

  139

  24

  1995–96

  141

  28

  1 Open at end of each year. A hospital is a separately administered in-patient unit. Where two hospitals are on the same site, but are now administered by different NHS trusts, they are counted as two hospitals whereas previously they would be included only once.

  Number of patients admitted and treated more than one month after a cancelled operation

  Quarter ending

  NHS Trust

  30 June 1995

  30 September 1995

  31 December 1995

  31 March 1996

  30 June 1996

  30 September 1996

  Bridgend and district

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Carmarthen and district

  —

  —

  —

  6

  20

  10

  Ceredigion and Mid Wales

  4

  2

  3

  —

  1

  1

  East Glamorgan

  11

  —

  19

  12

  5

  2

  Glan Clwyd general hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Glan Hafren

  —

  —

  —

  3

  6

  3

  Glan-y-Mor

  3

  2

  1

  11

  —

  4

  Gwynedd hospitals

  —

  —

  —

  3

  3

  1

  Llandough hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Llanelli Dinefwr

  —

  —

  1

  —

  5

  2

  Morriston hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nevill Hall and district

  1

  1

  4

  —

  —

  —

  North Glamorgan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Pembrokeshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7

  Powys health care

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rhondda health care

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1—

  1—

  Swansea

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  University hospital of Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  healthcare

  46

  25

  12

  21

  3

  3

  Velindre

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wrexham Maelor hospital

  —

  —

  3

  20

  —

  —

  Wales

  65

  30

  43

  76

  43

  34

  1 Operations not performed within Trust.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability Appeal Tribunals
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many medical members of disability appeal tribunals are involved in examining claimants for the purpose of the all-work test. [11087]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Medical members of the disability appeal tribunal are not normally involved in examining claimants for the purpose of the all-work test.

  Source:

  Independent Tribunal Service.
  720
  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many hospital trusts in Wales contain(a) two and (b) three or more hospitals. [11623]

  Mr. Jones
  Of the 26 hospital trusts in Wales, three have two hospitals, 19 have three or more hospitals and the remaining four have one hospital.

  Cancelled Operations
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library figures(a) by district health authority and (b) overall, of the number of operations cancelled on the day of, or the day after, admission to hospital, and the numbers of those patients not readmitted within a month, for each quarter of 1995–96 and the first two quarters of 1996–97. [11624]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on the number of cancelled operations is not available centrally. Information on the number of patients admitted and treated more than one month after a cancelled operation is collected by NHS trusts and is given in the following table. A patient treated in a NHS trust may not necessarily be a resident of the health authority in which the trust is situated.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in receipt of disability living allowance also receive(a) income support, (b) housing benefit, (c) council tax benefits, (d) family credit and (e) disability working allowance. [10212]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies that I gave him on 9 December 1996,Official Report, column 67, and on 16 January 1997, Official Report, column 384.
  721
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Disability working allowance benefit units with disability living allowance

  Number of cases

  May 1995

  4,152

  July 1996

  7,336

  Source:

  Analytical services division; disability working allowance 100 per cent. count of claims.

  1 Exact figures are quoted.

  2 The figures are based on the number of claimants who had disability living allowance as a main qualifying benefit for disability working allowance. They therefore exclude any partners and dependants who are also disability living allowance recipients.

  3 Information is not available on family credit recipients who receive disability living allowance.

  4 The information in the table relates to benefit units and not beneficiaries as provided for the previous parliamentary questions.

  5 It is not possible to identify beneficiaries of disability working allowance with disability living allowance.

  Social Security Appeals
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in how many cases notices were issued by the clerk to the social security appeal tribunal covering the Newport, Gwent, area directing the parties to notify him if they wished an oral hearing to be heard, in each week since 21 October 1996; and how many(a) appellants and (b) adjudication officers requested oral hearings in each of those weeks. [11089]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is set out in the table.

  Week commencing

  Number of notices issued by clerk

  Number of oral requests from adjudication officer

  Number of oral requests from appellant

  21 October 1996

  0

  0

  0

  28 October 1996

  8

  0

  0

  4 November 1996

  14

  0

  0

  11 November 1996

  13

  0

  0

  18 November 1996

  0

  0

  0

  25 November 1996

  1

  3

  3

  2 December 1996

  11

  8

  2

  9 December 1996

  51

  4

  5

  16 December 1996

  2

  0

  12

  23 December 1996

  0

  4

  0

  30 December 1996

  1

  3

  1

  6 January 1997

  47

  0

  2

  13 January 1997

  2

  1

  9

  Benefits Agency Medical Services
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give access to(a) the National Audit Office and (b) the Parliamentary Commissioner on Administration to the operating records of private sector companies contracted to undertake the functions currently carried out by the Benefits Agency medical services. [10993]

  Mr. Burt
  The successful contractor or contractors will have a mandatory contractual requirement to allow National Audit Office appropriate access to their records.
  722
  The jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commission for Administration is unaffected where administrative functions of a Department or agency are carried out by private sector contractors.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the contractors who will be operating the Benefits Agency medical services will be reimbursed by his Department for the payment of claimants' travel expenses to medical centres. [10973]

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 11 November 1996,Official Report, column 88.
  The cost of reimbursement of claimants' travel expenses will be met by the responsible contractor and will form part of the contract price.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many weather stations within the United Kingdom have triggered cold weather payments in each of the last five years. [11857]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is set out in the table:

  Year

  Number of weather stations

  1991–92

  36

  1992–93

  30

  1993–94

  25

  1994–95

  5

  1995–96

  52

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to involve the private sector in helping lone parents into work. [12206]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  Up to 100,000 lone parents on income support will be offered help to get back into work under the parent plus scheme, which will be piloted in 12 Benefits Agency districts over three years starting in April.

  Parent plus will involve both public and private sector teams in competing to find the best ways of helping lone parents to reduce their dependency on benefits.

  In four of the pilot areas the private sector will be invited to tender to provide innovative services to help get lone parents into work. The four areas will be selected from the following:

  North Hampshire

  Preston

  Wirral

  Wiltshire

  Blackburn

  Bradford

  Northamptonshire

  Buckinghamshire

  Central Manchester.

  723
  Contracts will be issued to successful tenderers by the beginning of April and will stipulate that payment will be dependant on how many lone parents are helped into jobs. This will be the first time that private enterprise has been harnessed in this way to help people into work.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Nuclear Co-operation
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the co-ordination of French, British and US nuclear forces within NATO, with particular reference to the role of the French Government. [12124]

  Mr. David Davis
  As the alliance has made clear in its strategic concept, the supreme guarantee of the security of the allies is provided by the strategic nuclear forces of the alliance, particularly those of the United States. The independent nuclear forces of the United Kingdom, which are also assigned to the alliance, and of France contribute to the overall deterrence and security of the allies. NATO's strategy includes a requirement for widespread participation by European allies in collective defence planning in nuclear roles, in peacetime basing of nuclear forces on their territory and in command, control and consultation arrangements. France does not participate in NATO's collective defence planning and has not assigned its nuclear forces to NATO.

  Lake Kojsanovskoe
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government are taking to provide assistance following the EC-funded report on the contamination of Lake Kojsanovskoe. [10827]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We, our EU partners and the European Commission have not yet reached a decision as to what assistance might be made available to counteract contamination of Lake Kojsanovskoe.

  Russia
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, further to his letter of 13 May 1996, if he will list the projects(a) round the Kola peninsula, (b) in the Russian far east and (c) in relation to the Lepse in Murmansk harbour in which the EC and the United Kingdom are taking part; and what progress has been made. [10828]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  The latest available project list—September 1996—records a total of 15 projects concerning radioactive waste management in Russia in which the EU is involved. These are as follows:

  (1) Basis for diagnostics and forecasts on the state of nuclear waste at the bottom of the Barents Sea and the Sea of Japan.

  (2) Conceptual design of a radwaste repository for the Kola region.

  (3) Suitability of Krasnoyarsk rock formations for plutonium-containing waste disposal.

  (4) Measurements, modelling and possible consequences of deep well injection sites at Dimitrovograd.

  (5) Sorting of waste at the Smolensk and Kalinin nuclear power plants.

  724

  (6) Solidification facility for radioactive waste at the Leningrad nuclear power plant.

  (7) Analysis of safety and environmental impact of the storage facility for VVER-1000 spent fuel (Krasnoyarsk).

  (8) Improvement of incineration facility at Kola.

  (9) Feasibility study for St. Petersburg Waste Management Centre.

  (10) Civil plutonium storage facility at Mayak.

  (11) Support for the Moscow Radwaste Specialized Enterprise "RADON".

  (12) Identification of disposal sites in the North-West region.

  (13) Engineering assessment of "Lepse".

  (14) Evaluation of the radiological situation around nuclear reactors holding spent fuel, dumped in the Kara Sea.

  (15) Analysis of the medium and long term environmental and radiological consequences of the migration of radionuclides from the Karachay lake. Identification of countermeasures.

  UK companies are involved in six of these projects, shown above as items 4, 6, 9, 13, 14 and 15. Progress on these projects is as follows:
  Measurements, modelling and possible consequences at deep well injection sites at Dimitrovograd—the project has been completed.
  Solidification facility for radioactive waste at the Leningrad nuclear power plant—The project is currently in the tender phase.
  Feasibility study for St. Petersburg Waste Management Centre—A recently launched project to upgrade the facility for the storage and treatment of radioactive wastes at Sosnovy Bor. A study is under way.
  Engineering assessment of "Lepse"—The Feasibility Study on the removal of nuclear waste from the ship has been completed. An advisory committee has been established, and is now examining the study's recommendations.
  Evaluation of the radiological situation around nuclear reactors holding spent fuel, dumped in the Kara sea—The study was initiated in January 1996, and is expected to be completed as scheduled by May this year.
  Analysis of the medium-and long-term environmental and radiological consequences of the migration of radionuclides from the Karachay lake. Identification of countermeasures—the first of four project phases—has been completed. This involved the translation, analysis and collation of currently available data in respect of the regional climate, geology, hydrogeology and groundwater geochemistry of the area concerned.

  Burma
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to withdraw general system of preferences status from Burma; what action the British Government are taking in conjunction with the EU to withdraw general system of preferences status; and if he will make a statement. [11814]

  Mr. Hanley
  We are currently considering a proposal by the EU Commission to suspend preferences to Burma under the generalised system of preferences.

  Royal Family (Clothing Costs)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 13 January,Official Report, column 28, on costs of clothing for members of the royal family, if he

  725
  will give a breakdown of the figures for (a) the Duke and Duchess of Kent and (b) the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester in 1995–96. [12427]

  Mr. Rifkind
  In 1995–96, the cost to my Department of clothing for official visits overseas by the Duke and Duchess of Kent and those accompanying them, and the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester and those accompanying them were:

  Date

  £

  The Duke and Duchess of Kent visit to Norway

  7-8 May 1995

  £1,500

  The Duchess of Kent visit to Netherlands

  1 June 1995

  £800

  The Duchess of Kent visit to Belgium

  16 June 1995

  £750

  The Duke and Duchess of Kent visit to Germany

  19-21 June 1995

  £1,950

  The Duke of Kent visit to Singapore

  10-12 September 1995

  £300

  The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester visit to Mexico

  20-23 November 1995

  £3,000

  General Affairs Council
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will report on the outcome of the General Affairs Council held in Brussels on 20 January. [12335]

  Mr. David Davis
  The eight A points in document 5282/97, the text of which will be placed in the House as soon as it is available, were approved.

  The Council noted the resolutions adopted by the European Parliament listed in documents 12065/96 and 12629/96. Copies of these documents will also be placed in the House as soon as they are available.

  The Council began with a public debate on the Dutch presidency programme for the first half of 1997. The presidency identified economic and monetary union and the successful conclusion of the intergovernmental conference as their two main priorities. I said that, internally, the main task was job creation, while externally enlargement was the key challenge.

  The outgoing presidency reported on the successful EU-US summit on 16 December 1996 and the Commission and current presidency set out priorities for future work on the EU-US relationship. The Council took note and agreed on the particular importance it attached to the early and successful conclusion of a mutual recognition agreement. The Council also discussed President Clinton's further waiver of title III the Helms-Burton Act which was welcome, but did not yet fully meet the EU's concerns.

  The outgoing presidency also reported on the EU-Canada summit on 17 January. The Council welcomed the joint declaration and action plan that were agreed there.

  The Council, on the basis of a report by the Commission took note with satisfaction of the outcome of the first World Trade Organisation ministerial conference—Singapore, 9 to 13 December 1996. The Council concluded that the Commission should continue to work for the effective implementation of the results of the Singapore conference, placing particular importance
  726
  on the timely completion of negotiations on basic telecommunications services and reiterated the importance it attaches to the integration of the least developed countries in the global trading system.

  The Council noted the presidency's report on the preparation of the EU-Association of South-East Asian Nations ministerial meeting in Singapore on 13 and 14 February 1997 and asked the Committee of Permanent Representatives to continue its work on the Commission's communication on EU-ASEAN relations.

  The Council noted the presidency's report on the preparations for the ASEM—Asia Europe meeting—ministerial meeting in Singapore on 15 February 1997.

  The Council heard a report from the Commission on negotiations on new association agreements with a number of the European Union's Mediterranean partners. The Council reiterated its commitment to the Euro-Mediterranean partnership and its determination to conclude negotiations with Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan before Barcelona II on 15 and 16 April. The Council also welcomed the recent conclusion of negotiations with the Palestine Liberation Organisation on an interim association agreement, and invited the Commission to submit a formal proposal for signature as soon as possible.

  The Council discussed the middle east peace process in the light of a report by special EU envoy Moratinos. It welcomed the recent signing of the protocol on implementation of Israeli redeployment in Hebron as an important step towards full implementation of the interim agreement and the start of the final status negotiations. The Council stated it would continue its active role in promoting and strengthening the peace process.

  On the former Yugoslavia, Council discussion focused mainly on the need to maintain pressure on Belgrade for rapid and firm implementation of the Gonzales report on the November 1996 election results and enter into a dialogue with the opposition on democratisation. The Council expressed concern at the worsening situation in Kosovo and urged a settlement providing for Kosovo to be granted a large degree of autonomy with the former Republic of Yugoslavia. The Council called on the Republika Srpska authorities to co-operate fully with the international war crimes tribunal; and expressed the hope that the UN Security Council would endorse the approach on eastern Slovenia set out in the Croatian Government's letter of intent of 13 January.

  In its conclusions on the Great Lakes, the Council expressed concern at the deterioration in the situation in eastern Zaire, called on all parties to declare and maintain a ceasefire and urged the Government of Zaire to restore citizenship to the Banyamulenge and others entitled to it. The Council welcomed the Zaire authorities' confirmation that elections will be held in July 1997, and agreed on the need for rapid establishment of the EU electoral unit and for the early appointment of the UN special representative for the elections. In light of the worsening humanitarian situation in eastern Zaire, the Council called on all parties to allow rapid and free access of humanitarian aid to refugees and displaced persons. The Council expressed its shock at the killing of three Spanish aid workers in Rwanda and declared its dismay at the sharp deterioration of the political climate in Burundi. The Council called for preparations for an international conference on peace,

  727
  security and stability in the Great Lakes region under the auspices of the United Nations and the Organisation of African Unity to begin without delay.

  The Council agreed the mandate for a fact-finding mission to Belarus. The mission will report back to the General Affairs Council on 24 February 1997.

  Under any other business, I raised the imposition of safeguard measures by the Commission against overseas countries and territories' rice, in particular the effect this has had on British dependent territories, Montserrat and the Turks and Caicos Islands. The following discussion was noted by the Council and the presidency concluded that this issue should be taken forward at working level.

  The ninth ministerial meeting of the intergovernmental conference was held in the afternoon. The meeting was preceded by an exchange of views with the President of the European Parliament. Discussion focused on the subject of flexibility and was based on a note from the presidency—CONF/3802/97—which has been placed in the House Libraries.

  Milk Quotas
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress being made by the(a) Italian and (b) Spanish Governments in respect of the payment of EU penalties arising from the milk quota regime. [11710]

  Mr. Baldry
  I have been asked to reply.

  In line with the agreement reached in the October 1994 Economic and Finance Council meeting, Italy has to date paid about 1.4 becu, about £1 billion at current sterling-ecu exchange rate, and Spain 1.0 becu, about £0.7 billion, in penalties arising from their failure properly to implement the milk quota regime. Italy is due to pay approximately a further 0.5 becu, £0.4 billion, and Spain 0.3 becu, £0.2 billion, by the end of 1998 under the agreement.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Power Station Emissions
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy to require that the Director General of Electricity Supply be consulted about controls on power station emissions. [12015]

  Mr. Moss
  Following a number of representations, I am considering this and other suggestions which have been put to me to meet concerns about the implications for electricity prices in Northern Ireland arising from enactment of the draft Industrial Pollution Control (Northern Ireland) Order. I shall write to the hon. and learned Gentleman when this work has been completed.

  Executive Agencies (Letters)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many letters each of the offices of 728
  the (a) Housing Executive and (b) Planning Service has received in the year ending 31 December 1996, or the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available; and, for each such office, how many of the letters were in (i) English (ii) Irish, and (iii) another language. [11908]

  Mr. Moss
  The information relating to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive is a matter for its chief executive who has advised me that the information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Matters relating to the Planning Service are the responsibility of the chief executive of that agency, Mr. W. Stewart. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from J. E. McConnell to Mr. William Ross, dated 23 January 1997:
  Mr Moss has asked Mr Stewart, Chief Executive of the Planning Service to reply to your question about the number of letters received in each planning office, giving a breakdown, for each office, of the numbers in (i) English (ii) Irish, and (iii) other language. I am replying in Mr Stewart's absence on annual leave.
  The information sought is not readily available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. You will however be interested to know that the Planning Service proposes to introduce a computerised correspondence tracking system which will accurately record the volume of correspondence received.
  I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful on this occasion.

  Police Complaints System
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will publish the report by Dr. Marcus Hayes into the police complaints system in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [12587]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I have received Dr. Maurice Hayes's wide-ranging review of the police complaints system in Northern Ireland and I am publishing it today. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House and in the Vote Office.

  The review is a substantial document containing many recommendations for changing the current police complaints system. The Government will be considering it, in discussion with those most directly affected, before responding formally. I do not, however, expect his process to be protracted.

  Even without the benefit of this in-depth consideration, it is clear that the recommendations are well thought out and convincing. The Government welcome this thorough and important review of a difficult area.

  I should like to record my thanks to Maurice Hayes for undertaking the task and for producing such an excellent document. Thanks too should go to those who advised and assisted him, particularly those in the police, the Independent Commission for Police Complaints and the Police Authority, but there were obviously many others.

  Dr. Hayes has clearly gone to a great deal of effort to consult, and indeed to consult widely, and I would expect his review to be well received in Northern Ireland and further afield.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Border Controls
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the extent to which the European Court of Justice has the power to determine issues relating to national border controls. [10558]

  Mr. Howard
  The firm position of Her Majesty's Government is that the treaty of Rome, and therefore the European Court of Justice, impinge on national border controls only to the extent that they affect the free movement of citizens of the European Union. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have made clear on numerous occasions that we will take whatever steps are necessary to maintain our frontier controls.

  Closed Circuit Television
  Sir Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of CCTV cameras that have been installed in town centres since the Government's CCTV challenge competition in 1996. [10561]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The first two rounds of the closed circuit television challenge competition produced 365 winners. Around 45 of the 259 round 2 winners which were announced in June 1996 are already operational. The systems involve 450 cameras. The remainder, with around 2,800 more cameras, should become operational over the coming months.

  Reoffending (Young People)
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures the Government are taking to reduce the rate of reoffending among young offenders. [10562]

  Mr. Howard
  We have proposed in the Crime (Sentences) Bill that curfew orders with electronic monitoring should be extended to 10 to 15-year-olds, and that the courts be given greater discretion to allow the identification of convicted juveniles. We are introducing a new secure training order for 12 to 14-year-old persistent offenders. High-intensity training regimes have been introduced at Thorn Cross young offender institution and will be extended to a new YOI to be opened at Colchester military corrective training centre within a month. But reducing offending is not the responsibility of the Government alone, and that is why we have strengthened the courts' powers to involve parents when their children offend.

  Category A Prisoners
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the treatment of category A prisoners in Her Majesty's prisons. [10563]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Category A prisoners have the same basic entitlements as all other prisoners and may earn the same privileges. However, the risk to the public 730
  should a category A prisoner escape means that such prisoners must be subject to high security which is aimed at making escape impossible.

  Crime Prevention
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment his Department has made of the crime prevention policies adopted in the United States of America. [10564]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Home Office has looked at a number of recent initiatives in the USA; in many cases, the practices and techniques involved are already in use by police forces in this country.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to encourage further community crime prevention initiatives. [10565]

  Mr. Maclean
  Community involvement in crime prevention is central to our strategy for tackling crime. The Crime Prevention Agency is currently considering ways in which we can build on what has already been achieved.

  Offensive Weapons
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes involving the use of, or carrying of,(a) knives, (b) guns and (c) other offensive weapons were committed in each of the last two years for which statistics are available. [10566]

  Mr. Maclean
  Firearms were used in 12,977 notifiable offences recorded by the police in England and Wales in 1994, and 13,104 in 1995.

  Two hundred and thirty-two homicides in England and Wales were apparently carried out with sharp instruments in 1994, and 251 in 1995. Corresponding figures for homicides involving blunt instruments are 54 and 85.

  There were 5,804 convictions for carrying a knife or offensive weapon in public in 1994, and 5,749 in 1995.

  Police Officers
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of police officers serving in England on 31 March 1997. [10568]

  Mr. Maclean
  It is for chief constables to decide how to allocate their resources. On the basis of initial estimates, chief constables have said that they expect police numbers to increase by around 790 in England in the 12 months ending March 1997. This would mean a total of around 121,000 officers in England.

  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the strength of the police forces in(a) 1979 and (b) 1997. [10569]

  Mr. Maclean
  There were 111,493 police officers in England and Wales in May 1979. By the end of September 1996, the latest date for which figures are
  731
  available, police numbers had increased by almost 16,000 to 127,123.

  Devon and Cornwall Police (A30 Site)
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the need for extra resources for Devon and Cornwall police in regard to the protests over the improvements to the A30 in Devon. [10570]

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand from the chief constable that the cost of policing the A30 site is estimated to be in the region of £2 million. The chief constable is planning to meet these costs from within existing budget by the re-deployment of officers and resources.

  Fire Service (Essex)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received about fire service provisions in Essex. [10571]

  Mr. Sackville
  We have received a number of such representatives, including two from hon. Members.

  Responsibility for the provision of an efficient fire service rests with the local fire authority. My right hon. and learned Friend's approval is required under section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947 when any reduction in the number of fire stations, fire appliances or firefighting posts in a brigade is proposed.

  Remand Prisoners
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received concerning the treatment of remand prisoners. [10572]

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have received no recent representations about the treatment of remand prisoners in general. The main correspondence recently regarding individual cases has been about Ms Roisin McAliskey, who is held at Holloway prison pending extradition proceedings, and about some high-security remand prisoners at Belmarsh prison.

  Visas (Voluntary and Religious Workers)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received concerning visas for voluntary and religious workers in the United Kingdom. [10573]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The hon. Gentleman wrote to me on this subject on 24 September and I replied on 17 October.

  Century Date Change (Computers)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the millennium compliance of the computer systems for which his Department is responsible. [10574]

  Mr. Howard
  My Department is aware of the problem. The Department's main information technology service provider—Sema Group—has completed an audit and other suppliers have been commissioned to assess 732
  necessary changes. The business areas in my Department are devising action plans, taking into account other developments and the likelihood of systems still being in place at the time of the millennium date change. As the plans are developed, detailed cost and resource implications will be assessed.

  Freemasonry
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for which public appointments to bodies dealing with Home Office responsibilities applicants are asked to indicate their membership of the freemasons. [10575]

  Mr. Howard
  The general principles governing the making of public appointments are set out in the guidance on appointments to executive non-departmental public bodies issues by the Commissioner for Public appointments. These do not require applicants to declare their membership of any organisations other than political ones.

  The information sought from applicants by the Home Office when filling particular appointments is decided in each case in the light of the needs of the job and the circumstances at the time. Where appropriate, it may include information about outside interests including freemasonry but there is no list of posts to which such a requirement applies.

  Youth Crime (Wolverhampton)
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the level of youth crime in Wolverhampton. [10576]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not available centrally, but data for court proceedings in relation to young offenders in Wolverhampton are given in the table. Cautioning information is collected by police force area only.

  Number of young offenders aged 10 to under 18 years convicted of all offences at Wolverhampton petty sessional division1 by type of offence 1985, 1990 and 1995

  Type of offence

  1985

  1990

  1995

  Indictable

  697

  324

  347

  Summary non-motoring

  149

  134

  86

  Summary motoring

  142

  71

  56

  All offences

  988

  529

  489

  1 Includes those cases convicted at the Crown Court where the committing Petty Sessional Divisional was Wolverhampton.

  Violent Crime (Inner Cities)
  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the findings of the British crime survey regarding the proportion of adults living in inner-city areas who were victims of violent crime once or more during 1995. [10556]

  Mr. Maclean
  The 1996 British crime survey found that 7.1 per cent. of adults living in inner-city areas, and
  733
  5.2 per cent. of adults overall, were victims of violent crime once or more during 1995. This includes woundings, robberies and common assault.

  Prison Overcrowding
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the prisons in England and Wales which his Department assesses to be overcrowded, indicating in each case the percentage of overcrowding. [10774]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 23 January 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question concerning which prisons in England and Wales are overcrowded and what percentage of overcrowding exists.
  The information requested is given in the attached table. Overcrowding is defined as the number of prisoners above the In Use CNA. The In Use CNA is the certified normal accommodation and represents the uncrowded capacity of each establishment on the 27th December 1996. This measure of overcrowding takes into account all types of accommodation including single and double cells, rooms and dormitories.
  The total number of prisoners held in an establishment is determined by its operational capacity rather than its In Use CNA. Operational capacity is the total number of prisoners which an establishment can hold without serious risk to good order, security and the proper running of the planned regime.

  Prisons in England and Wales that are overcrowded

  Prison name

  Percentage overcrowding

  Ashwell

  1

  Bedford

  12

  Belmarsh

  2

  Birmingham

  37

  Blakenhurst

  10

  Brinsford

  1

  Bristol

  15

  Brixton

  17

  Bullingdon

  4

  Camp Hill

  10

  Canterbury

  47

  Cardiff

  26

  Coldingley

  3

  Cookham Wood

  20

  Doncaster

  15

  Dorchester

  52

  Downview

  2

  Durham

  41

  Elmley

  4

  Everthorpe

  1

  Exeter

  59

  Featherstone

  1

  Feltham

  3

  Garth

  3

  Glen Parva

  19

  Gloucester

  22

  Guys Marsh

  4

  Haverigg

  8

  High Down

  1

  Holloway

  10

  Hull

  21

  Lancaster Farms

  1

  Leeds

  7

  Leicester

  52

  Lincoln

  46

  734

  Prisons in England and Wales that are overcrowded

  Prison name

  Percentage overcrowding

  Liverpool

  9

  Low Newton

  39

  Maidstone

  2

  Manchester

  19

  Moorland

  6

  Mount

  6

  Northallerton

  76

  Norwich

  25

  Parkhurst

  1

  Pentonville

  20

  Preston

  67

  Reading

  9

  Send

  7

  Shepton Mallett

  29

  Shrewsbury

  79

  Stafford

  8

  Stocken

  8

  Styal

  1

  Swaleside

  3

  Swansea

  23

  Usk

  40

  Verne

  4

  Wakefield

  16

  Wandsworth

  6

  Wayland

  3

  Whatton

  2

  Winchester

  25

  Wolds

  10

  Wormwood Scrubs

  15

  Stop and Search Powers
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on proposed revisions to the powers of the police to stop and search persons suspected of carrying knives. [11643]

  Mr. Maclean
  I intend to lay before Parliament soon changes to the code of practice on the exercise by police officers of stop and search powers, issued under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which will clarify that police officers may stop and search people who are identifiable as belonging to a group or gang whose members habitually carry knives. Amendments to police powers in the Knives Bill, which received its Committee stage on Wednesday 22 January, will allow an inspector to authorise police officers to stop and search anyone in a particular locality for up to 24 hours, where he reasonably believes that incidents involving serious violence may taken place or that people are carrying knives in that area. The inspector will be required to inform a superintendent of the authorisation as soon as it is practicable to do so. An extension of the authorisation for a further 24 hours may be given at the direction of a superintendent.

  Mr. Howard
  The information requested is not available.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average length of time taken for his Department to answer ordinary written parliamentary questions in each of the last two Sessions; 1 and if he will make a statement. [12266]

  Mr. Howard
  The information requested is not available.

  Dentists (Assault)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many dentists have been(a) charged and (b) found guilty of assault as a result of extensive and wholly unnecessary treatment since 1979. [12400]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is not available centrally.

  Drugs
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those drugs which are illegal for recreational use but can be prescribed lawfully by a qualified medical practitioner. [12384]

  Mr. Sackville
  All substances which are controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 may be prescribed by a doctor except those listed in schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 1985, as amended.

  Child Sex Offenders
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to answer the written question tabled by the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East on Wednesday, 18 December—10755—concerning the registration of convicted child sex offenders under the Sex Offences Bill. [12300]

  Mr. Maclean
  I answered this question on 21 January,Official Report, column 511.

  Television Licences (Fine Defaulters)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many television licence fine defaulters were imprisoned in 1996. [10567]

  Mr. Maclean
  Three hundred and seventeen television licence fee fine defaulters were imprisoned during the first 11 months of 1996.

  Licensing Hours
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to extend licensing hours at weekends; and if he will make a statement. [12849]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  We have been giving very careful consideration to the result of the public consultation about extending the normal permitted closing times on Friday and Saturday nights, from 11 pm to midnight.

  We received a very large number of responses to the consultation exercise—some 700 responses in all. The views expressed by respondents varied considerably, and there were significant amounts of support for, and opposition to, the Government's proposals.

  The responses to this consultation exercise have also brought into sharper focus some concerns about overlapping aspects of the licensing system, as between licensing justices and local authorities, and their current effectiveness for an industry in which internal boundaries between different types of premises are increasingly blurred.
  736
  Individual aspects of the licensing system are often presented as being self-contained, and proposals for change are commonly put forward on the basis that they can be tackled separately, but the licensing regime is a complex one, and invariably there are implications for other parts of the system.

  We have therefore concluded that it would be right to take forward the consideration of extending normal licensing hours in the broader context of the particular issues which I have set out. I expect this consideration to be concluded during the spring.

  Strip Searches (Video Recording)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) in what circumstances the strip searching of prisoners is video recorded in Her Majesty's prisons; [10912]

  (2) in which prisons the video recording of strip searching has (a) been authorised in the past and (b) is still authorised; [10913]

  (3) how many prisoners have been video recorded while being strip searched; and how many prisoners have refused to be video recorded while being strip searched; [10914]

  (4) how many prisoners have been fined for refusing to be strip searched before a video camera; and how many have had their fines returned. [10915]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answers 17 January 1997]: Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Kevin McNamara, dated 23 January 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Questions about the use of video during the strip searching of prisoners, how many have been video taped, the number fined for refusing and how many have had their fines returned.
  A closed loop video system was introduced at Long Lartin prison for use in the prisoners strip search room during random strip searches following visits. This was to both safeguard prisoners against abuses of procedure and to protect staff in the event of malicious and/or false allegations concerning propriety of a search.
  The closed loop nature of the system meant that strip searches could not be seen by staff. Video tapes were instead securely stored and filed.
  This limited scheme lasted four months, was evaluated and has now ended. There are no plans to repeat the scheme at Long Lartin prison or elsewhere.
  Two hundred and sixteen prisoners were video recorded while being strip searched. Of this number ten refused. Six prisoners had their earnings stopped or deducted on adjudications, following refusal to be strip-searched before a video camera. These adjudications have all been quashed. In each case the stopped or deducted earnings have been returned.

  Dunblane
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out the evidence that underlies the statement made at paragraph 24 of "The Government Response to The Public Inquiry into the Shootings at Dunblane Primary School"
  737
  "that, removal of key components is not a practicable proposition for all types of guns". [11614]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 21 January 1997]: On the basis of advice from the Forensic Science Service, we accept that disabling handguns is possible but that in some cases it is not practical. Lord Cullen himself took this view—paragraph 9.106. Copies of two letters from the Forensic Science Service are in the Library. The Government have made their position clear during the passage of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill. We do not believe that disabling guns provides sufficient safeguards for the protection of the public and there would be no guarantee that a person minded to do so could not keep or obtain illicit spares at home.

  Woodhill Prison
  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to reduce the amount provided for facilities, fixtures and fittings in the budget plans for the top security unit at Woodhill prison, Milton Keynes and implement a regime of minimal facilities; and if he will make a statement. [11189]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 21 January 1997]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. David Porter, dated 23 January 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about facilities at Woodhill prison.
  The costs identified to refurbish the high security unit at Woodhill have been properly quantified to meet the needs of security, the regime and safety of the public, staff and prisoners. The costing exercise has not identified any areas where savings could be made without compromising security and safety.
  The cells in the high security units at Woodhill prison will have integral sanitation, as does every other cell at Woodhill. The rules on volumetric control will apply as elsewhere and there will be no in-cell television or video. Furniture in the cells will be standard prison issue and association areas will have standard furnishing and equipment. Meals will be provided from the kitchen and there will be no facility for prisoners to cook their own meals.
  The high security units at Woodhill will form part of a co-ordinated series of close supervision units each holding a small number of prisoners with varying regimes ranging from the strict through to more structured regimes. When they are ready for use they will provide:

  a structured regime unit with limited association where the behaviour of prisoners can be assessed

  a restricted regime unit with a strict, no association regime for prisoners who continue to be disruptive or dangerous

  a programme intervention unit offering structured therapy programmes and full association for those who would benefit from such an approach.

  It is anticipated that the high security unit at Woodhill will be ready for use at the end of this year.

  Firearms (Amendment) Bill
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he has commissioned into the impact on his budget of the implementation of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill; and when he will publish the findings. [11844]
  738
  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 21 January 1997]: No research has been commissioned on the financial impact of the Bill, although our estimate of the costs that will need to be paid to compensate people who surrender guns and accessories is set out in the financial memorandum to the Bill.

  Maximum Security Prisons
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made on the decision on whether to build a super-max prison; and if he will make a statement. [10782]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 13 January 1997]: The Prison Service carried out a feasibility study of the Learmont recommendations that new prisons should be built to house the most dangerous and difficult to control prisoners in the system. Ministers are considering the study. Any decision will hinge on the assessment of the costs and benefits of concentration. A move towards concentration would represent a fundamental change in penal policy and there will therefore need to be a very careful examination of the options.

SCOTLAND

  Electricity Interconnector
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he received the reply from Scottish Power to his intimation that he was minded to approve the electricity interconnector to Northern Ireland subject to undergrounding of certain sections; what other representations he has received since this intimation; when he expects to make a final decision on the application; and if he will make a statement. [11436]

  Mr. Kynoch
  My right hon. Friend received Scottish Power's comments on 20 December 1996. Comments were also submitted by 22 other interested parties. My right hon. Friend is currently considering all these representations and will announce his final decision in due course.

  Mental Handicap Services
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what arrangements are being made concerning the transfer of funds from mental handicap hospitals that are closed to mental handicap community services; who is responsible for determining these arrangements; and what mechanisms there are to ensure that the funds released continue to be used for mental handicap community services; [11324]

  (2) what steps are being taken to ensure that funds transferred from Gogarburn hospital to alternative services in the community will continue in perpetuity to be used for the benefit of people with a learning disability. [11325]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The size and timing of resource transfers from the NHS to local authorities and others are matters for local determination following joint local needs assessments.
  739
  Where hospital closures are proposed, the agencies involved are charged with ensuring that replacement care and support services appropriate to needs are in place and available before any closure is made.

  Resources transferred from health boards to local authorities continue to be NHS resources for which the councils account to the boards to ensure that the moneys are spent on the level and type of services agreed following local needs assessments.

  My Department monitors individual resource transfers.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current position regarding planned closures of long-stay mental handicap hospitals in Scotland; which hospitals are proposed for closure; on what dates; and what funds will be available for community services as a result of the closures. [11323]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Health boards' plans have been approved for the closure of two long-stay mental handicap hospitals in Scotland: Gogarburn hospital in Lothian and Woodilee hospital in Greater Glasgow, but neither hospital will close until alternative facilities and services are in place and properly resourced.

  Where hospital closures are proposed, the agencies involved are charged with ensuring that replacement care and support services appropriate to needs are in place. The level of funding required for alternative community services is a matter for local determination.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what statistics he collates in respect of inspections relating to control of foodstuffs by food enforcement authorities; and how many inspections there have been in each year since 1993. [11326]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  In compliance with article 14 of the official control of foodstuffs directive 89/397, the Secretary of State for Scotland collates the number of food hygiene and food standards inspections carried out annually by food enforcement authorities in Scotland.

  This information for each calendar year since 1993 is:

  Food hygiene inspections

  Food standards inspections

  1993

  41,398

  14,199

  1994

  41,134

  12,082

  1995

  38,154

  13,382

  1996

  1—

  1 Figures not yet available.

  Unemployment (Glasgow)
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) men, (b) women, (c) young men and (d) young women were unemployed in the city of Glasgow in (i) June 1979 and (ii) June 1996; and how many were long-term unemployed in each category. [11862]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Unemployment statistics for 1979 are not available for the area represented by the Glasgow unitary authority.
  740
  In June 1996, there were 26,890 men and 6,729 women in the city of Glasgow registered as unemployed and claiming benefit.

  Statistics concerning the age and duration of the unemployed are available on a quarterly basis and are not available for June 1996. In July 1996, there were 7,199 males and 3,289 females who were aged 24 and under and registered as unemployed and claiming benefit. There were 16,082 men and 3,175 women in the city of Glasgow who had been registered as unemployed and claiming benefit for over six months.

  Departmental Offices
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the name and location of each of his Department's offices and the number of people employed in each. [11866]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The numbers of people employed in each of the Scottish Office's buildings are shown in the tables.

  Table A: All staff in the Scottish Office and its executive agencies (other than SPS) at 1 January 1997, by building

  Building

  Location

  Total

  Victoria Quay

  Edinburgh

  1,171

  Longmore House and Monumentss1

  Edinburgh and various

  690

  Pentland House

  Edinburgh

  500

  St. Andrews House

  Edinburgh

  452

  Saughton House

  Edinburgh

  385

  Tay House

  Glasgow

  319

  Marine Laboratory

  Aberdeen

  178

  St. Margaret's House

  Edinburgh

  177

  16-17 Waterloo Place

  Edinburgh

  176

  Meridian Court

  Glasgow

  163

  James Craig Wall

  Edinburgh

  142

  Gyleview House

  Edinburgh

  133

  East Craigs

  Edinburgh

  131

  Russell House

  Ayr

  71

  Soafd Vessel

  Greenock

  71

  Grampian Area Office

  Inverurie

  69

  Soafd Vessel

  Leith

  61

  Strategy House

  Edinburgh

  56

  Hayweight House

  Edinburgh

  55

  Robert Stevenson House

  Edinburgh

  51

  Government Buildings

  Inverness

  50

  Franborough House

  Glasgow

  49

  Cotgreen Road

  Tweedbank

  42

  Scottish Police College

  Kincardine on Forth

  39

  Government Buildings

  Dumfries

  36

  Dover House

  London

  33

  N College of Ed Building

  Broughty Ferry

  31

  Corunna House

  Glasgow

  30

  Freshwater Fisheries Laboratory

  Almondbank/Pitlochry

  30

  Cameron House

  Oban

  28

  7 Mill Street

  Perth

  27

  Chambers Street

  Edinburgh

  22

  Government Buildings

  Stirling

  22

  Haymarket House

  Edinburgh

  21

  25 Drumsheugh Gardens

  Edinburgh

  20

  Government Buildings

  Kirkwall

  20

  Governor House

  Edinburgh

  20

  Strathbeg House

  Thurso

  16

  10 Keith Street

  Stornoway

  15

  Fishery Office

  Fraserburgh

  15

  140 Causewayside

  Edinburgh

  14

  Charlotte House

  Lerwick

  14

  Fishery Office

  Dundee

  14

  Mulberry House

  Edinburgh

  13

  I Grosvenor Crescent

  Edinburgh

  12

  741

  Table A: All staff in the Scottish Office and its executive agencies (other than SPS) at 1 January 1997, by building

  Building

  Location

  Total

  Scottish Fire Service Training School

  Gullane

  12

  132 Seagate

  Dundee

  11

  Bonnington Garage

  Edinburgh

  11

  Estates Office

  Portree

  11

  Fishery Office

  Lerwick

  11

  Greyfriars House

  Aberdeen

  11

  Jeanfield House

  Perth

  11

  Balivanich

  Isle of Benbecula

  10

  Fishery Office

  Aberdeen

  10

  Wellgate House

  Dundee

  10

  Cadzow Court

  Hamilton

  9

  22/23 Melville Street

  Edinburgh

  8

  631 Paisley Road West

  Glasgow

  8

  Donaldson House

  Edinburgh

  8

  Fishery Office

  Scrabster

  8

  Parliament House

  Edinburgh

  8

  20 Walker Street

  Edinburgh

  7

  Nel Technical Park

  East Kilbride

  7

  32 Reidhaven Street

  Elgin

  6

  Fishery Office

  Kinlochbervie

  6

  48 Manor Place

  Edinburgh

  5

  Fishery Office

  Lochinver

  5

  Fishery Office

  Buckie

  5

  Fresh Fish Station

  Montrose

  5

  Ord Croft

  Lairg

  5

  Miscellaneous/other1

  335

  Scottish Office total

  6,227

  1 Covers 124 staff in locations with five staff (eg small Fisheries Offices), plus 211 centrally managed staff (eg paid staff on maternity leave, longer term sickness, unposted staff etc.).

  2 Many Historic Scotland staff are based at ancient monuments or historic buildings in very small numbers. In view of the many buildings staffed by Historic Scotland all Historic Scotland staff have been grouped together.

  Table B: All staff in Scottish prisons service headquarters at 1 January 1998

  Building

  Location

  Total

  Calton House1

  Edinburgh

  252

  1 SPS HQ only—excludes staff in prison establishments.

  Marlin Lodge, Newton Mearns
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for the future use of Marlin lodge, Newton Mearns. [11657]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The national roads directorate proposes, subject to planning approval, to use Marlin lodge as a temporary office from which the contractor and the Scottish Office's site representative would manage site operations during the Dumbreck to Malletsheugh's three-year maintenance period. A planning application for a "change of use" for the property has been lodged with East Renfrewshire council.

  When the land required for the adjacent road scheme is identified, it is expected that Marlin lodge and any surplus land will be disposed of in line with the statutory guidelines.

  Employment (Glasgow)
  Mr. Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the number of manufacturing jobs that have been(a) created and (b) lost in the city of Glasgow in each of the last five years. [11865]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Statistical information relating to the creation of new jobs and the loss of existing ones is not available. The 1991 and 1993 censuses of employment and the 1995 annual employment survey identify the total number of employees in employment at specific points of time.

  The table sets out the number of people employed in the manufacturing sector in the last three census of employment years.

  Manufacturing employees in employment: Former city of Glasgow district

  Manufacturing

  Total employees in employment

  1991

  46,700

  336,700

  1993

  37,200

  322,000

  1995

  37,600

  330,600

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics.

  Glasgow Regeneration Alliance
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the work of the Glasgow regeneration alliance since it was established; and if he will make a statement. [11867]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The Glasgow regeneration alliance has an important role to perform in bringing together bodies and interests concerned with regeneration activities in the city. Officials from the Scottish Office attend meetings of the executive officers group of the alliance as observers. No assessment of the alliance's performance has been made. The Scottish Office will be monitoring progress in the individual priority partnership areas and the regeneration programme in Glasgow.

  Mental Illness Specific Grant
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 12 December,Official Report, column 329-30, if he will place in the Library a copy of the report prepared by the Nuffield centre for community care studies, Glasgow university, relating to the mental illness specific grant; and if he will make a statement. [12019]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  When the report is finalised, it will be published and copies placed in the Library.

  Irvine Development Corporation
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much the Scottish Office has received as a capital receipt from(a) the Irvine housing association and (b) the North Ayrshire council, following the disposal of the housing stock of Irvine development corporation; and how many properties were transferred to each landlord. [11916]
  743
  Mr. Kynoch
  Proceeds realised by Irvine development corporation from the disposal of its housing stock and numbers of houses sold are shown in the table. Of the receipts shown, £20.8 million contributed to the total repayment of £52.7 million made by the corporation to my right hon. Friend during wind-up.

  Capital receipt £ million

  Number of properties

  Irvine housing association

  12,541

  1,576

  North Ayrshire council

  20,046

  1,978

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much the Scottish Office has raised from the disposal of the commercial assets of Irvine development corporation. [11917]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Proceeds from the disposal of industrial, office, retail and other commercial property and land owned by Irvine development corporation contributed £31.9 million to the total repayment of £52.7 million made by the corporation to my right hon. Friend during wind-up.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which body had responsibility for setting the housing allocation policy relating to the properties disposed of by Irvine development corporation during the transfer of its housing stock to other landlords; and which body retains the records of housing allocations made during this period. [11919]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Irvine development corporation had responsibility for housing allocation policy prior to the transfers of its stock. Since the transfers, North Ayrshire council and Irvine housing association have this responsibility. The records of housing allocations were passed to the new landlords.

  New Homes
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many new homes were started by(a) local authorities, (b) new towns and (c) housing associations in each year since 1974. [12045]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  New housebuilding starts—Scotland 1974 to 1995

  Period

  Local authority

  New towns

  Scottish Homes1

  Housing associations

  1974

  16,324

  2,600

  2,578

  660

  1975

  12,326

  3,683

  2,612

  592

  1976

  7,572

  2,665

  2,547

  1,362

  1977

  5,829

  1,673

  1,631

  629

  1978

  4,185

  2,202

  1,174

  1,365

  1979

  4,858

  984

  1,046

  963

  1980

  2,770

  1,155

  1,511

  1,261

  1981

  1,929

  733

  223

  1,051

  1982

  2,585

  765

  613

  2,446

  1983

  2,141

  194

  468

  1,068

  1984

  1,755

  126

  493

  1,239

  1985

  1,693

  190

  324

  1,487

  1986

  1,671

  141

  580

  1,414

  1987

  2,145

  374

  453

  1,988

  1988

  1,433

  495

  573

  2,068

  744

  New housebuilding starts—Scotland 1974 to 1995

  Period

  Local authority

  New towns

  Scottish Homes1

  Housing associations

  1989

  871

  680

  175

  2,748

  1990

  886

  720

  27

  2,111

  1991

  864

  134

  37

  3,448

  1992

  429

  395

  —

  3,051

  1993

  503

  429

  —

  5,020

  1994

  568

  208

  —

  4,886

  1995

  308

  160

  —

  5,413

  1 Scottish special housing association prior to 1 April 1989.

  School Boards
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 2 December 1996,Official Report, column 562, when he expects the information requested on number of school boards to be available and if he will arrange for it to be sent to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South. [12133]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Provisional results of the most recent round of school board biennial elections, conducted in 1995–96, were published on Tuesday 21 January by the Government statistical service. I have arranged for the relevant information to be sent to the hon. Member.

  More detailed information on the outcome of the elections, including a breakdown of boards by education authority area, will be published once the results are confirmed. This information will be sent to the hon. Member on publication.

  Sex Offenders
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his letter of 16 October 1996, AAB 03104.106, what assessment he has made of the programmes for sex offenders in prisons cited in his letter. [10826]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A formal evaluation of the sexual offender programme at Peterhead was carried out by the social work research centre at the university of Stirling. It was commissioned to provide insight into the issues associated with establishing an intervention programme within an institutional setting; to assess the impact of establishing the programme on the prisoners and staff of HMP Peterhead; and to explore the feasibility of such programmes in other establishments in the Scottish prison system. The study was not able to consider the programme's impact on reoffending, as an insufficient number of prisoners have so far been released back into the community to allow any meaningful conclusions to be drawn. The report will be published shortly.

  The operation of the programme at Peterhead has also been assessed on two occasions by Professor William Marshall, of Queen's University, Kingston, Canada, who is one of the world's leading authorities on the treatment of sexual offenders.

  Plans are in hand to commission an 18-month evaluation of the programme at Barlinnie. The aim will be to assess the impact of the programme on the attitudes and behaviour of prisoners participating; to examine the links between the prison-based programme and equivalent

  745
  community-based provision for monitoring, supporting and counselling sexual offenders on release back into the community; and to evaluate the effectiveness of the programme in preventing those sexual offenders who have been on the programme from committing further sexual offences. It is expected that the contract to undertake this work will be issued in March or April.

  Game Birds and Raptors
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his letter of 25 September, what information and proposals he has received from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee concerning long-term and strategic solutions to the interaction between game birds and raptors; and if he will make a statement. [10858]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: The raptor working group, co-chaired by the JNCC and the Department of the Environment, is assessing the interaction between game birds and raptors and will provide advice to Government on this complex issue, as it becomes available.

  A74
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what assessment he has made of the way the contract to upgrade the A74 was awarded and carried out; and if he will review the guidelines for the awarding of such contracts; [10859]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the way the contract for the A74 upgrading works has been carried out by the main contractor. [10860]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The contract to upgrade the Eaglesfield to Kirkpatrick Fleming section of the A74 was procured in accordance with the Public Works Contracts Regulations 1991—Public Procurement Procedures. These regulations govern public works

  Number of average available staffed beds for all specialties, acute specialties, geriatric long stay, maternity specialties and mental illness and disability, by health board area as at 31 March

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  All specialties

  Argyle and Clyde

  4,103

  3,976

  3,939

  3,875

  3,685

  3,592

  3,522

  Ayrshire and Arran

  2,925

  2,886

  2,889

  2,806

  2,692

  2,575

  2,408

  Borders

  927

  917

  890

  861

  835

  812

  797

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,439

  1,389

  1,353

  1,316

  1,287

  1,226

  1,183

  Fife

  3,062

  2,987

  2,891

  2,666

  2,577

  2,455

  2,322

  Forth Valley

  2,878

  2,853

  2,758

  2,669

  2,598

  2,504

  2,349

  Grampian

  5,276

  5,155

  5,056

  4,956

  4,633

  4,414

  4,276

  Greater Glasgow

  11,918

  11,482

  10,540

  9,919

  9,213

  8,548

  8,096

  Highland

  1,968

  1,918

  1,875

  1,843

  1,721

  1,674

  1,614

  Lanarkshire

  4,790

  4,773

  4,635

  4,319

  4,065

  3,855

  3,733

  Lothian

  7,578

  7,207

  6,938

  6,703

  6,313

  6,287

  5,998

  Orkney

  131

  144

  159

  152

  152

  150

  150

  Shetland

  162

  151

  146

  143

  142

  137

  136

  Tayside

  4,743

  4,578

  4,458

  4,257

  4,005

  3,857

  3,720

  Western Isles

  220

  224

  211

  246

  266

  265

  250

  Scotland

  52,121

  50,640

  48,738

  46,731

  44,185

  42,351

  40,555

  Acute specialties

  Argyll and Clyde

  1,346

  1,315

  1,286

  1,248

  1,204

  1,188

  1,140

  Ayrshire and Arran

  1,157

  1,138

  1,152

  1,136

  1,107

  1,075

  971

  Borders

  347

  349

  354

  354

  348

  335

  336

  Dumfries and Galloway

  444

  447

  435

  419

  406

  405

  416

  Fife

  876

  863

  851

  800

  791

  774

  754

  Forth Valley

  637

  625

  605

  600

  588

  592

  573

  Grampian

  1,653

  1,618

  1,640

  1,918

  1,885

  1,843

  1,804

  746
  contracts and allow for contractors from EU member states to bid. Under the assessment process, Impresa Castelli and Girola qualified for selection to tender for the scheme and were invited to do so. The selection process centres on the technical and financial capability of applicants. Impresa Castelli and Girola demonstrated sound financial standing and technical capacity and submitted the most competitive bid in a high-quality field.

  In the event, the contractor did not perform well in carrying out the contract, although the standard of the completed works was satisfactory. The contractor was late in completing the works and substantial liquidated damages have been deducted from him for this reason. The contractor has submitted claims for additional payments which are in dispute and are now at arbitration. Several sub-contractors and suppliers have suffered payment problems.

  In the light of experience of this contract, the technical and financial criteria for the assessment of prospective tenderers have been reviewed. The assessment of technical capacity now takes account of a contractor's understanding of the nature of the work to be carried out under the specific contract. It also takes account of the staff required to undertake the contract and the need to ensure that the management structure is adequate to the task.

  Hospital Bids
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many hospital beds there were in each health authority in each of the last seven years; and if he will indicate for each authority and year the number for(a) acute, (b) geriatric, (c) maternity and (d) mental illness or disability cases. [11617]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The information requested is given in the table:
  747 748

  Number of average available staffed beds for all specialties, acute specialties, geriatric long stay, maternity specialties and mental illness and disability, by health board area as at 31 March

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Greater Glasgow

  4,773

  4,615

  4,194

  4,036

  3,899

  3,651

  3,581

  Highland

  734

  736

  740

  743

  729

  724

  796

  Lanarkshire

  1,698

  1,691

  1,665

  1,632

  1,592

  1,550

  1,526

  Lothian

  3,043

  2,855

  2,659

  2,577

  2,455

  2,397

  2,300

  Orkney

  62

  62

  62

  62

  97

  91

  85

  Shetland

  63

  53

  49

  46

  46

  46

  46

  Tayside

  1,878

  1,862

  1,801

  1,748

  1,622

  1,589

  1,540

  Western Isles

  86

  87

  85

  97

  103

  100

  95

  Scotland

  18,798

  18,317

  17,580

  17,414

  16,873

  16,360

  15,963

  Geriatric long stay

  Argyll and Clyde

  746

  687

  687

  688

  657

  618

  601

  Ayrshire and Arran

  610

  623

  616

  541

  490

  467

  427

  Borders

  192

  189

  163

  136

  137

  134

  127

  Dumfries and Galloway

  308

  308

  309

  311

  310

  263

  214

  Fife

  591

  483

  572

  559

  532

  464

  388

  Forth Valley

  515

  526

  486

  481

  505

  506

  466

  Grampian

  1,087

  1,088

  1,094

  794

  780

  747

  721

  Greater Glasgow

  1,599

  1,587

  1,554

  1,477

  1,249

  968

  840

  Highland

  392

  374

  358

  347

  303

  301

  206

  Lanarkshire

  853

  820

  802

  710

  684

  662

  630

  Lothian

  1,087

  1,069

  1,016

  978

  900

  894

  805

  Orkney

  51

  64

  78

  57

  47

  51

  50

  Shetland

  89

  87

  87

  87

  86

  81

  80

  Tayside

  652

  647

  635

  625

  605

  590

  539

  Western Isles

  108

  75

  64

  63

  51

  46

  44

  Scotland

  8,880

  8,727

  8,522

  7,853

  7,337

  6,790

  6,139

  Maternity specialties

  Argyll and Clyde

  192

  172

  179

  172

  153

  137

  138

  Ayrshire and Arran

  156

  164

  157

  145

  123

  109

  105

  Borders

  39

  35

  28

  28

  28

  28

  28

  Dumfries and Galloway

  55

  54

  51

  52

  44

  44

  44

  Fife

  132

  131

  126

  126

  96

  79

  68

  Forth Valley

  110

  107

  102

  102

  94

  95

  80

  Grampian

  219

  217

  216

  210

  204

  202

  194

  Greater Glasgow

  419

  392

  370

  343

  313

  295

  275

  Highland

  116

  103

  98

  95

  93

  82

  80

  Lanarkshire

  166

  162

  164

  148

  134

  124

  123

  Lothian

  271

  260

  237

  220

  197

  200

  195

  Orkney

  8

  8

  8

  8

  8

  8

  8

  Shetland

  11

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  Tayside

  190

  173

  163

  158

  143

  131

  125

  Western Isles

  16

  16

  16

  17

  18

  18

  14

  Scotland

  2,099

  2,006

  1,925

  1,834

  1,658

  1,563

  1,487

  Mental illness and disability

  Argyll and Clyde

  1,557

  1,488

  1,476

  1,464

  1,356

  1,318

  1,302

  Ayrshire and Arran

  898

  856

  857

  869

  835

  792

  739

  Borders

  287

  282

  282

  275

  253

  245

  232

  Dumfries and Galloway

  581

  529

  507

  483

  476

  463

  453

  Fife

  1,345

  1,287

  1,207

  1,042

  1,008

  987

  960

  Forth Valley

  1,480

  1,449

  1,394

  1,303

  1,246

  1,148

  1,059

  Grampian

  2,039

  1,961

  1,835

  1,742

  1,465

  1,322

  1,246

  Greater Glasgow

  4,317

  4,079

  3,615

  3,234

  2,878

  2,658

  2,371

  Highland

  679

  657

  632

  601

  531

  497

  451

  Lanarkshire

  1,855

  1,860

  1,777

  1,590

  1,414

  1,278

  1,213

  Lothian

  2,642

  2,499

  2,445

  2,273

  2,095

  2,091

  2,003

  Orkney

  —

  —

  —

  13

  —

  —

  4

  Shetland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tayside

  1,743

  1,616

  1,579

  1,442

  1,345

  1,258

  1,214

  Western Isles

  3

  27

  25

  39

  52

  51

  48

  Scotland

  19,427

  18,598

  17,631

  16,368

  14,952

  14,106

  13,295

  Hospitals and Hospital Trusts
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) hospitals and (b) hospital trusts there were in operation in (i) 1980, (ii) 1985, (iii) 1990, (iv) 1992, (v) 1994–95 and (vi) 1995–96. [11618]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is set out in the table.

  Hospitals

  NHS hospital trusts

  1980

  338

  —

  1985

  328

  —

  1990

  290

  —

  1992

  284

  2

  1994

  277

  39

  1995

  276

  46

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many hospital trusts in Scotland contain(a) two and (b) three or more hospitals. [11619]

  Cancellations of hospital admission by health board area of treatment: Quarters ending 30 June 1995 to 30 September 1996

  1995–96

  1996–97

  June

  September

  December

  March

  June

  September

  Argyll and Clyde

  42

  43

  63

  71

  89

  146

  Ayrshire and Arran

  56

  34

  34

  45

  57

  64

  Borders

  50

  41

  17

  46

  54

  55

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1

  4

  14

  18

  14

  26

  Fife

  79

  89

  129

  197

  216

  220

  Forth Valley

  20

  19

  30

  29

  19

  35

  Grampian

  232

  306

  259

  194

  311

  305

  Greater Glasgow

  350

  406

  355

  510

  637

  672

  Highland

  149

  191

  134

  245

  243

  181

  Lanarkshire

  40

  57

  61

  86

  57

  85

  Lothian

  280

  383

  335

  623

  607

  589

  Orkney

  1

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Shetland

  6

  4

  —

  —

  8

  9

  Tayside

  91

  146

  132

  267

  123

  125

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  3

  2

  1

  2

  Scotland

  1,397

  1,723

  1,569

  2,333

  2,436

  2,514

  1The figures for 1995–96 cover the 7 key specialties of general surgery, ENT surgery, ophthalmology, orthopaedic surgery, urology, gynaecology and plastic surgery, which comprise around 90 per cent. of admissions from waiting lists.

  2The figures for 1996–97 are provisional and include data for all specialties.

  Staff
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for his Department and each of its executive agencies the number of staff employed in grades 1 to 7. [12180]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The number of staff employed at grade 7 and above is shown in the table:

  All permanent staff at grade 7 and above in the Scottish Office and its executive agencies at 1 April 1996

  Unified grade

  Group

  SCS1

  Grade 6

  Grade 7

  SO Core

  143.7

  162.0

  334.2

  Historic Scotland

  2.7

  5.0

  22.4

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

  1.0

  4.0

  17.0

  Scottish Agricultural Science Agency

  1.0

  2.0

  11.6

  750
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: There are seven NHS trusts in Scotland containing two hospitals and 29 containing three or more hospitals.

  Cancelled Operations
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library figures(a) by district health board and (b) overall, of the number of operations cancelled on the day of, or the day after, admission to hospital, and the number of those patients not readmitted within a month, for each quarter of 1995–96 and the first two quarters of 1996–97, as available. [11620]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on cancellations of operations following admission is not held centrally at the level of detail requested. Total figures for cancellations of planned admissions for in-patient and day case treatment are given in the table. Information on cancellations of hospital admissions is published annually in the NHS in Scotland annual report, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  All permanent staff at grade 7 and above in the Scottish Office and its executive agencies at 1 April 1996

  Unified grade

  Group

  SCS1

  Grade 6

  Grade 7

  Scottish Office Pensions Agency

  —

  1.0

  3.0

  Student Awards Agency for Scotland

  1.0

  —

  —

  Scottish Office total (excluding SPS)

  149.4

  174.0

  388.2

  Scottish Prisons Service2

  7

  —

  3

  1 SCS = Senior Civil Service.

  2 SPS figures available as headcount only.

  Local Partnership Management Boards
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will ensure that hon. Members are represented by right on local partnership management boards set up under the priority partnership areas arrangements. [12428]
  751
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  This is a matter for decision by the board concerned. The hon. Member should make his representation to it.

  Skye Bridge
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the total recorded traffic flow figures over the Skye bridge during those toll-free days during the recent Christmas and new year holidays;752
  if he will provide typical average figures for non-holiday mid-week days during December and January; and if he will make a statement. [12393]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Figures provided by the operators of the Skye bridge show that 567 vehicles crossed the bridge on Christmas days 1996 and 943 on new year's day 1997, including vehicles exempt from paying tolls. The average daily number of vehicles crossing on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays on non-holiday weeks between 3 December 1996 and 16 January 1997 was 1,036, including vehicles exempt from paying tolls.

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

Fishery Licences
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are able to discourage British fishermen from selling their fishery licences, directly or indirectly, to foreign individuals or companies and thereby adding to the numbers of quota-hoppers.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, fishing vessel licences are issued at the discretion of Ministers under the Sea Fish Conservation Act 1967 to the owners of British registered fishing vessels. Under European Community law, Ministers cannot discriminate against nationals from other member states who are entitled to own British registered fishing vessels. In any event, the sale of licence entitlements is a matter for the parties concerned.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer, which confirms my understanding of the position. Did he see the press reports that a prominent member of Save Britain's Fish campaign, the minority fishermen's movement stridently calling for withdrawal from the common fisheries policy, had himself sold quota to a Dutch boat owner while, in contrast, a leader of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, which does not advocate withdrawal, has publicly called on fishermen to help the Government by not selling abroad?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, yes, I have seen those press reports, although I have no knowledge as to whether they are true. Doubtless, if there is truth in them the member of Save Britain's Fish must answer to his own committee. However, I do not see why he should have to answer to this House too as he was within his rights under the law.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, the Government have stated in the past that they disagree with quota hopping. Why, at the Fisheries Council meeting on 20th December, did not the Government try to stop or curtail the practice? It was disturbing to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said about our fishermen selling their licences, their livelihoods. In order to put the matter into proper perspective, may we be told the number of licences which have been sold, from which ports and the total cost of those licences?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I cannot supply the detail for which the noble Lord asked, but I shall write to him. It amounts to about 20 per cent. of the British catch, which is now in the hands of foreign-owned vessels.
794
As regards the other points which the noble Lord raised, clearly, we did prosecute our campaign to end quota-hopping at the recent Fisheries Council meeting. We have made it clear that we will not contemplate any progress in MAGP 4, which is the latest round in reduction in fishing capacity, until the issue of quota-hopping is dealt with. However, we are quite clear that there is no capacity that we can find under existing EC law for quota-hopping to be dealt with. It requires a treaty amendment and we are committed to obtaining that at the conferences in the latter half of this year.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the Minister agree that had we not entered into the common fisheries policy, and by doing so sold our fishing birthright, the issue of quotas, quota-hopping, licences and therefore their sale would not have arisen?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, no, I would not agree with that. However, I would agree with the noble Lord that had we retained total control over our fishing we might have found the issue easier to deal with.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the treaty changes to which he has referred would require the unanimity of all the members of the Community? Can he give your Lordships' House any idea of how hopeful he is of achieving that unanimity?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we are clearly receiving some expressions of support from other members of the Community. We are not the only country which is suffering from quota-hopping. The latest figures I have show that France, Portugal, Belgium, Germany and Ireland all have foreign vessels on their register. Any change to the treaty requires unanimity, but there is nothing special about the one we are asking for.
Lord Carter: My Lords, according to the Minister's Answer, it appears that the Government agree with Mrs. Bonino, the European Fisheries Commissioner, when she says that many of the problems of quota-hopping are the direct result of the British policy and not of European policy. She claims that it was a British decision, not a European decision, to allow the sale of quota rights with the boats. Is that correct?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, a depressing amount of misinformation has been coming out of the Commission on this issue. It is quite clear that there is every right in every country within the EC for foreigners to purchase fishing vessels and fishing licences. It has taken a little while for some countries to bring their laws up to the standard required by the EC. Many are doing so, which is why they are now experiencing quota-hopping. Ours were there first, so we experienced the problem first.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Minister has not answered the question I asked. The issue is not the sale to foreigners; it is the decision to allow the sale of the quota right with the boat. The Minister referred to the

795
Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967, which embodied a British decision to allow the sale of the quota right with the boat. Is that correct?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, it is quite clear that under European law we are not allowed to have any system which will prevent a member of another country within the European Union purchasing the right to fish within British waters off British quota. It is not a question of the particular mechanism we adopted for distributing quota. Whatever method we had adopted, it would still have to allow the Spanish and others to purchase our fishing.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is it not right that, if British fishermen did not sell, foreigners could not buy and without the sales there would not be the hopping?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, yes. Nevertheless, if the noble Lord is suggesting that it will be the party opposite's policy to prevent British fishermen from selling their assets and businesses, I am rather surprised.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is the main problem that fish form a more valuable commodity in continental Europe than here and fetch higher prices there, so that bids for licences from foreigners are likely to be much more attractive, not only to owners and skippers but also to the third parties through whom those licences pass?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I do not think that that is a particular problem because British skippers have every right to land their catch in foreign ports if they wish to do so to take advantage of higher prices, and many do.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I have listened very carefully to the Minister's replies and I wonder whether he can help me. Was it a British Government decision that allowed British fishermen to sell quotas with the boats?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, yes, but that is a policy that we should have had to adopt and other countries in the European Union have been made to adopt it by the Commission because that is what is required by European law.

Hospitals: Single Sex Accommodation
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the pledge made in the Patient's Charter, how many hospitals are now able to offer patients the option of single sex accommodation without penalty.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, this information is not available. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health has
796
asked the chief executive of the National Health Service to take action to ensure that Patient's Charter standards on patient accommodation are being met.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply but I find it very disappointing. Is she aware that it is now two years since those Patient's Charter commitments were made and more than one year since my noble friend Lord Stoddart was assured that a survey on what was happening in individual hospitals would be available very shortly? Is she aware that those of us who visit hospitals regularly, as I do, continue to find a number of very distressed people being offered what one can only describe as Hobson's choice? They can make alternative arrangements for the single sex accommodation they want and wait for their operation or accept the offer of mixed-sex ward accommodation which they certainly do not want.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, yes, I appreciate very much what the noble Baroness says. There are many people who do not want mixed-sex accommodation. But that must be seen in the context of more than 9 million people admitted every year. The National Health Service chief executive is writing to health authorities. He will ensure that they send clear plans and a challenging timetable to enable mixed-sex wards to be phased out.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in circumstances where hospitals suddenly experience grave difficulties which are not necessarily of their making, would they receive complete assistance from the Minister's department when they need such help?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, clearly we try to assist anyone in the health service who requires help from central sources. But in this context there are occasions when there are fires, floods or severe epidemics of 'flu when mixed-sex accommodation must be used because the accommodation has to be used as flexibly as possible in order to keep down waiting times.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble Baroness recall that, on 18th January 1995 when we had a debate on Second Reading of my Bill, she said:
"I have no doubt that we shall fulfil the demands of the Bill even more quickly than the noble Lord expects".—[Official Report, 18/1/95; col. 745.]
The noble Lord mentioned there is myself. Will the noble Baroness take it from me that I had expected action much sooner than this? Will she accept also that promises made have not been kept. I have pursued the matter with the Minister, as she knows. But promises to publish the results of surveys have not been met.
Is the noble Baroness aware also that I nobbled the Secretary of State in the Tea Room of the House of Commons only last week and he is just as concerned and angry about this matter as I am? Are we not now in a position in which nurses, Secretaries of State, Ministers, the Opposition and the whole of Parliament want mixed-sex wards to be phased out but are being

797
frustrated by people on the ground who appear not to understand that patients want dignity and privacy when they are being treated in hospital?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, of course the Government, my right honourable friend and indeed myself share the anxiety and concern expressed by the noble Lord. We expected the review to be published much sooner than it has been. As the noble Lord will be aware, since he received a letter from my right honourable friend on 20th December, the results of the review will be published very soon indeed and will give us more information. In the meantime we are, and shall be, taking action. But there is a trade-off here in relation to clinical expertise. Clearly, there are some wards where the specialty is so esoteric that it is essential that we use clinical skills and equipment to the best advantage. That means that sometimes it will be necessary to have mixed-sex wards, as will be the case as regards emergency admissions and intensive care, where, clearly, accommodation must be used as effectively as possible.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that most young men these days do not wear or own pyjamas? Do hospitals keep spare pyjamas?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness is suggesting that we carry out yet another survey but this time of a different nature. Indeed, I have been prompted to say that we should perhaps start with my noble friend Lord Swinton but I believe that to be an improper suggestion. I really do not know but, clearly, if clothing is needed in any context I am sure that the NHS does its best.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say whether there is anyone who does prefer mixed-sex wards?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords, there are some people who like mixed sex wards, especially, I am told, adolescents, because they are gregarious people who sometimes find that it aids recovery when the opposite sex are in the same area.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, is it not correct that the Government have cynically raised patients' expectations in this area? Is it not true that the majority of patients in beds in hospitals today are admitted as emergency patients and therefore have no rights about a choice of single sex accommodation? Are not the Government guilty of never having properly assessed what the difficulties would be for hospitals with old and ill-designed buildings operating at huge pressures of bed occupancy—as has been the case this winter—and of not actually delivering on the promises that were so rashly made?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I strongly refute the fact that this has been a cynical exercise. The noble Baroness will know that many of those wards are being
798
phased out. However, many trusts are putting considerable investment into refurbishing nightingale wards to divide them into two halves and put sanitary facilities at either end. I am sure that the noble Baroness is trying to do that in her own hospital. Indeed, as the chairman of a trust, she will know about patients' expectations.
However, there is also an issue here about old hospitals. We are replacing them at the most amazing rate. We have a huge capital building programme. It would be ridiculous to put huge investment into refurbishing old wards when they are going to be replaced by new accommodation, new buildings and, indeed, new hospitals.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the Minister referred to the letter written by her right honourable friend the Secretary of State to my noble friend Lord Stoddart. Can the noble Baroness tell us what he meant when he referred to setting health authority chief executives challenging standards on this matter? Surely, that should have been done two years ago. What is the extra challenge now being suggested?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, when the Patient's Charter was first published it was written in fairly general terms. I have told the House today that we share the disappointment that progress has not been made at a quicker rate. Therefore, the chief executive will be setting challenging standards which will be monitored in much greater detail than we initially thought necessary.

Road Safety: Minor Works
3.23 p.m.
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What provision has been made in the 1997-98 local transport settlement for local authorities to fund minor works (such as bus priority schemes, cycle routes, pedestrian crossings, safe routes to schools and traffic calming) which are not package schemes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, the Government allocated £60 million for 1997-98 to local authorities for minor works designed to improve road safety. That may be used for schemes both outside and within areas covered by transport packages. New or improved pedestrian crossings, safe routes to school and traffic calming may qualify for funding as road safety schemes if they are designed to deal with locations where there is a record of accidents.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that detailed reply. Can the noble Viscount confirm that the budget for minor works not included in packages, which in fact encompasses cycle routes, bus priorities, pedestrian crossings, safe routes to schools and traffic calming, has actually been reduced from £44 million last year to zero this year?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, some of the types of schemes which the noble Lord mentioned are classified as "safety schemes". If they come within that classification then money from the allocation of £60 million, which represents an increase of over 10 per cent. on the year before, can be used towards such schemes. It is a matter of deciding priorities. We have decided that safety should be such a priority.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when some of us were in another place we pressed the Government to have a senior civil servant in each region specifically responsible for cycling matters? I am glad to say that they agreed and that it has been very successful. Can the Minister say whether that still operates? Surely the case for cycling—for example, good exercise, non-polluting, and so on—is already made. Can the noble Viscount tell me whether the budgets are being cut and also what is happening in the northern region? If he cannot give specific information on the latter today, perhaps he will write to me in that respect.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I shall be delighted to write with any level of detail that the noble Lord requires. Fundamentally the noble Lord is quite right; the Government do take cycling seriously. Indeed, we now have a cycling strategy and there is a document on the subject, a copy of which I shall be pleased to send to the noble Lord.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, the Minister and I obviously disagree on the breakdown of the budget. I was referring to minor schemes only which are not packages. Will the Minister confirm that at the same time as the £44 million has been cut to zero the local authority budget for road schemes has been increased by £36 million? Further, can the noble Viscount say why the Government have allowed such a major increase for road schemes but have not allowed any increase for London Underground for the Jubilee Line which, after all, is a similar transport project?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord is missing the fact that, as I said, there is a category for minor works concerned with safety. There is also a category for minor works within package bids which, again, we have discussed. The pressure came specifically from existing local authority commitments for major projects. That has reduced the amount available for minor works. Within that reduced total, we feel that safety projects, and those within package schemes with associated environmental benefits, should be the priority.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, from the answers that he has given so far this afternoon, can the Minister confirm that if one adds together the amount spent last year, notwithstanding the increase to which he referred within the £60 million, there is a real terms reduction of over £30 million on road safety schemes, taking packages and minor schemes together?
Viscount Goschen: No, my Lords; I do not believe that that is the case. There is a reduction in the amount available for minor schemes but, as I have sought to explain, there is a specific allocation for road safety schemes. Indeed, that has been increased from £55 million to £60 million.

The Economy: Rise in Consumer Demand
3.26 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are concerned that the continued rise in consumer demand and house prices could overheat the economy.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, the Government do not believe that the rise in consumer demand and house prices will overheat the economy. However, we will continue to take no risks with inflation.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that assurance. Can he say whether he read with care—I am sure he did—the speech which the Governor of the Bank of England gave in Edinburgh two days ago? Is he aware that the strength of sterling, which has been regarded as an anti-inflationary measure, has recently weakened and that the level of inflation is still above the level which the Government are aiming at—namely, 3 per cent. instead of 2.5 per cent.? In all those circumstances, do the Government feel that there ought to be early intervention to curb such developments?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord wants me to say that we will increase interest rates. I am interested to hear that that may be the policy of his party. However, so far as concerns this Government, I should point out that inflation fell in December and, as the Budget forecast shows, is expected to fall back further during 1997. In addition, I do not actually believe that consumer demand—especially in the light of the December figures—illustrates the kind of pressures that necessitate us taking immediate steps to raise interest rates. All the figures that we have seen this week vindicate the view of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that for the moment interest rates can safely remain where they are.
Baroness Piatt of Writtle: My Lords, has my noble friend the Minister seen press reports today detailing the creation of 2,500 jobs and the excellent news regarding the replacement of the Royal Yacht "Britannia"? What a marvellous boost that will give to the shipbuilding industry.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Yes, my Lords; I have seen those reports. Those figures are very important to set alongside all the other figures. I know that the party opposite does not like to hear about increasing

801
employment but today's newspapers show that Shorts in Belfast will be having an extra 600 Aerospace workers, that Parcelforce in Coventry will be creating an extra 700 jobs and that St. Merryn Meat in Merthyr Tydfil in Wales is looking towards another 663 jobs. Along with the excellent news that the successor to the Royal Yacht "Britannia" is to be built in a British shipyard, thus creating another 500 jobs, that makes 2,500 new jobs in a day, which is not bad going.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, does the noble Lord concede the inference contained in the Question that an economy where there are over 3 million unemployed can become overheated? Is he aware that most certainly some hundreds of thousands of people in our country found it difficult during the recent cold snap to get proper heating?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Lord, as always, exaggerates the figures for unemployment. The latest figure of 6.7 per cent. is a good deal short of 3 million, and the number is falling. However, the noble Lord makes a valid point about the original Question. I do not believe the economy is overheating. We have steady and sustained economic growth thanks to the splendid policies of the Government.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, how many people have come out of negative equity? Is my noble friend aware how grateful these people are to see some movement in house prices to help mitigate their position?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not have the figure for the number of people who have come out of negative equity, but clearly a fair number have because according to the Halifax Building Society house prices in December were still 4.9 per cent. below their peak in 1989; but the figures month on month for house prices show that for the whole of 1996 the price increase change on the previous year was 8.4 per cent. While there will still be some people in negative equity as we are not yet back at the peak of 1988, clearly many people will have come out of negative equity during the past year.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that we used to have something called, I believe, the regulator, which enabled the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day to raise or lower excise duties, petrol duty and purchase tax, as it then was, by up to 10 per cent. either way to control consumer demand in the short term? Did that not have a much less adverse effect upon manufacturing production and exports than raising interest rates?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not believe that the economic record of the days when the then Chancellor of the Exchequer used a regulator was particularly encouraging. I rather like to think that over the past four years the mechanisms used by my right honourable friend the Chancellor in his discussions with the Governor of the Bank of England have proved much more successful. As I said, we are seeing steady, sustained economic growth well instanced by the 2,500 jobs to which I have drawn your Lordships' attention.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, following his reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, will the Minister give us some figures regarding how many people were put into negative equity by government policy?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, obviously I do not have those figures to hand. Of course a number of people were put into negative equity when the housing market overheated in the mid-1980s. However, thanks to the recovery I have mentioned, thanks to controlling inflation—which we have done—and controlling government spending, we have seen the position improve greatly. Mortgage rates—the cost of mortgages—are now at their lowest level for 30 years. That has to be set beside the problem of negative equity.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the economic policy of this Government has reduced the rate of inflation? Although there has been a slight rise in consumer demand, does he agree that the increase in the employment figures in this country—that is, the reduction in unemployment—must help the public sector borrowing requirement and public sector expenditure, and consequently shows that this Government can control inflation without any overheating?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend is quite correct. Underlying inflation has been below 4 per cent. for over four years, which is the longest such period for over 50 years. A recent OECD Economic Outlook published on 16th December stated with regard to the United Kingdom:
"The prospects for achieving sustained output growth and low inflation are the best in 30 years".
That is a credible performance by Her Majesty's Government and by this country.
Lord Eat well: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he has displayed the most extraordinary complacency in the face of what was a serious Question from the Liberal Democrat Benches? It is the Government's Red Book that tells us that consumption is expected to grow significantly faster than output as a whole over the next few years. Whenever that has happened in the medium term it has ended in disaster. That is what is happening now. What will the Government do to rebalance the economy?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thought in the past eight minutes I had more than satisfactorily answered the questions put by the noble Lord. I am not complacent. I made it perfectly clear earlier that the Chancellor watches all these matters carefully. Indeed the figures vindicate his view that interest rates should remain where they are. I am equally surprised that the noble Lord did not notice what the OECD said. I shall repeat it for his benefit:
"The prospects for achieving sustained output growth and low inflation are the best in 30 years".

803
The highest independent forecast for 1997 for consumer growth is 4.5 per cent. We, and most commentators, perhaps with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, believe that that will not overheat our economy.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, would the noble Lord care to read the OECD report on the British economy of 1989, where he will find that it said exactly the same at the time when the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, was leading the economy into disaster?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we now know that the noble Lord does not listen to, or believe in, anything that the OECD says. That is interesting. I shall note the next time he quotes the OECD on his side of the argument. As I have stated with regard to the statistics, they all look reasonable. Inflation is low, and is falling, and we are keeping it under control. My right honourable friend the Chancellor put up interest rates just recently to prevent any overheating. We do not believe there is overheating. We are confident that our economic policies under this Government will continue their successful course for many years to come.

Police (Insurance of Voluntary Assistants) Bill [H.L.]
3.35 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to provide for the insurance by police authorities and the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District of persons providing voluntary assistance for police purposes. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Charter Trustees Bill [H.L.]
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to provide for the creation in England of parishes in cities and towns where charter trustees have been constituted. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Sandys.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Home Energy Rating Surveys Bill [H.L.]
Report received.

National Health Service (Primary Care) Bill [H.L.]
3.37 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Pilot schemes]:
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 14, at end insert ("or
(c) services are provided which are not personal medical services or personal dental services but which may be provided under Part I of the National Health Service Act 1977 or (as the case may be) Part I of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 8 and 19 which are related. The purpose of these amendments, as stated at Committee stage, is to allow nurses to propose pilot schemes in their own right, to ensure that health authorities must prepare proposals put forward by nurses, and to allow nurses providing nursing services under pilot schemes to become health service bodies.
The key reasons for bringing these amendments again are that nurses are often best placed to provide certain primary healthcare services for patients and to bring pilot schemes in respect of them. Justice demands that nurses should receive equitable treatment with doctors. Failure to make the change could undermine the success of the legislation.
I do not wish to be tedious or to weary the House in bringing back a group of amendments considered in detail in Committee and, by leave, withdrawn. However, the amendments attracted a considerable amount of support from all parts of the Chamber. I was surprised that the Minister was unable to accept the arguments. Following her very full and generous reply, I indicated that I wished to consider carefully what she had said, to study the White Paper Delivering the Future which had been published that day, and to have the opportunity to return to the issue at another stage.
The interest shown by the Minister in nursing, and in particular in community nursing, over the years has been considerable. The review, Neighbourhood Nursing, for which she chaired the committee, made her a redoubtable champion of community nurses. It must be a cause for particular personal gratification that 10 years on from what the profession calls the Cumberlege Report, and five years after the Nurse Prescribing Act, the roll-out of nurse prescribing was announced in the White Paper Delivering the Future. Nurses everywhere applaud that and the tenacity of the Baroness in keeping the issue on the political agenda.
I am all the more regretful, therefore, to return to these amendments and to the reply given by the Minister at Committee stage. One concern expressed was that nurse-led pilots should not replace general medical services with personal medical services; and that nurses should not provide services in the place of general practitioner services. Nurses would agree with that and with the importance of it. They appreciate their role and do not wish to encroach on medical roles.
However, there are a number of areas of healthcare which are not covered by general practitioners where nurses are best placed to provide services. Examples include services for homeless people or for those not registered with general practitioners, family planning services, midwifery services, health promotion and public health services. A community based programme was devised by the nurses in one deprived area to help families on low incomes eat a healthy diet. In another area, nurse-led community action saw the introduction of traffic calming schemes resulting in a reduction in child mortality and morbidity from road traffic actions on an estate. In inner London an initiative was established to deliver healthcare to the homeless population by nurse practitioners assessing needs and delivering care in hostels and treating conditions such as asthma, chronic lung infection, leg ulcers and foot conditions.
One could continue with many examples. I was impressed with the words of the general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing as she addressed the Conservative Medical Society on Monday this week. She said:
"'When the Government launched Delivering the Future, press reports talked of the birth of 'supernurse'. The white paper maps out the crucial role that nurses will play in the delivery of a primary health-led NHS but for most community nurses the supernurse of the newspaper reports already exists. For years community nurses—district nurses, community midwives and health visitors—have delivered the largest component of primary healthcare. But the roles that nurses have always taken on in the community, are now also part of general practice. The explosion in the number of practice nurses in the UK"—
from, I believe, 1,500 in 1977 to 18,000 now—
"has meant that nurse-led asthma and diabetes clinics, nurse-run outreach projects for the homeless people and well woman clinics run by nurses are commonplace in many GP practices".
The nurse's role in health education is well recognised and research shows the benefits of nursing inputs in reducing costs and saving waiting time for patients. I believe that because of all those factors it is right and proper that nurses should be able to instigate their own pilot schemes.
Principles of justice and equity are involved. In Committee, at col. 1413 of the Official Report of 17th December 1996, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, said:
"I am very clear that nothing should stand in the way of nurses, midwives and health visitors playing a full part in using the flexibility provided in this legislation to develop not only their professional skills but to use opportunities".
But she argued that nurses could exploit those opportunities only through partnerships with general practitioners or through taking a more significant role in a trust.
At col. 1414, the noble Baroness said that the health authority receiving a proposal from a group of nurses would,
"have to be convinced that a pilot scheme which replaces general medical services with personal medical services would satisfactorily cover those areas of care which explicitly have to be provided by doctors".
However, no such requirement is made should a doctor propose a pilot scheme. The onus is simply on the health authority to consider any scheme submitted by a trust, doctor or dentist. Thus, if a nurse in partnership proposed to provide a 24-hour emergency mental health service for a locality and to employ a medical practitioner to undertake specific medical activities where necessary or appropriate, the scheme would not receive automatic consideration by the health authority. Yet if a doctor were to submit the proposal the health authority would be obliged to consider it even though the same services would be provided and the same questions would arise as to the nature of the areas of work covered.
If the crucial issue is that the health authority needs to satisfy itself that the pilot covers particular areas of care, then that should apply to any proposal regardless of its source. The question of equity is at stake. There is no question that nurses wish to usurp the role of doctors. They wish to work collaboratively and in a relationship of equality. However, without the changes embodied in the amendments the role that nurses could and should be playing in primary care—with the importance of the added expertise that their roles now have—will be limited because the widest range of innovative schemes will not be put forward.
It is argued that as the Bill stands, there is nothing that a nurse, midwife or health visitor could not put forward through a doctor or a trust. But there is a considerable difference between initiating a pilot scheme at first hand, directly, and having to do so at one remove. Of course, all pilots must be scrutinised with the needs of patients foremost. But to suggest that the paperwork would become intolerable is to suggest that nurses would be irresponsible in submitting schemes and that their schemes were less important than doctors' or dentists' schemes.
I have worked most of my life in a different setting, in a university. It would be unthinkable in that setting that any one discipline would be treated differently from another in putting forward research proposals or innovative schemes of any kind. It is hurtful to nurses to think that they would be treated differently.
As the Bill stands, it inhibits nurses, midwives and health visitors from being able to play a full part in submitting pilot schemes. In tabling these amendments again, I seek some reassurance that, at least at a later stage of the Bill, these important amendments relating to nurses will receive consideration. I beg to move.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I support the noble Baroness in this group of amendments, to which my name is also attached. As she explained so fully, the Bill as it stands offers unnecessary restrictions which run counter to what we have understood to be the more widespread approach to

807
general practice and primary care in which the Bill seeks to engage and which we have generally supported from these Benches. As the noble Baroness said, it unnecessarily limits the potential for innovation.
In her reply in Committee (at col. 1415 of Hansard), the Minister said that some of these amendments seemed to suggest that the intention was to turn nurses into doctors. As the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, explained, that is clearly not the intention. She gave the House some vivid examples of the ways in which nurses already take a primary role in primary care. I shall mention just one example that is very well known to me, of a senior nurse running a local minor injuries unit who recently became a very successful chief executive of an acute trust. She would find very odd any suggestion that she was incapable of being the lead proposer or organiser of the type of pilot scheme that is proposed in the Bill.
As the noble Baroness said, the White Paper referred to the equally important role of nurses, although at Committee stage the Minister seemed to feel that that could be well achieved within the meaning of the Bill as it now stands. She seemed to develop the argument to which the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, referred that the sifting system of the health authority would enable good schemes by nurses possibly to be included in those forwarded to the Secretary of State.
The point was very well made. If we are to encourage the equal role of the nurse, midwife, health visitor or other professionals mentioned in the noble Baroness's amendments, some positive national lead needs to be given of the type that would be created were the amendments to be accepted. As the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, said, the Minister has a very well-deserved reputation for supporting and improving the role of nurses within the profession and within community care. She could do a good deal to enhance that reputation if she were to accept these amendments. I support them.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I wonder what doctors and the Royal College of General Practitioners think about these amendments. Could it mean that the doctors would opt out of some of their responsibilities?
As matters stand, understanding and training in relation to many disabilities and the attitude of many doctors to disabled patients should be improved. Doctors might try to pass that sort of work in relation to disability on to the nurses, as that would save them time. However, the nurse has different responsibilities and training. The doctors have longer training and should be better at dealing with some of the very complex matters. I should be very interested to know the doctors' opinion on these amendments.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, first, for giving me notice of a number of the amendments tabled, and
808
also for her very generous and fulsome remarks. I am also grateful for the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay.
Any proposals put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, have to be taken with the deepest seriousness. She is one of the country's most distinguished nurses. I believe that she was the first nurse ever to get a chair in nursing at a university.
I have no doubt whatever that nurses are often the very best people to provide primary care services for particular groups of patients. As the noble Baronesses, Lady McFarlane and Lady Jay, said, there are some excellent examples of innovative primary care services which are not only provided by nurses but were inspired by them. I, too, have seen many of them. I can think of specific schemes to help homeless people where nurse practitioners have been providing the service without a GP being involved; those people particularly did not want to see a doctor, but they would accept a nurse. Many other examples given this afternoon are pertinent and inspiring.
Indeed, many other initiatives are happening now. They all fall within Part I of the National Health Service Act 1977, which is the subject of one of the amendments. So there is nothing now to prevent nurses from putting forward proposals like this to their local health authority. Arrangements for the provision of services under Part I are very flexible. There is no need for this Bill to enable such ideas to be taken forward.
The pilots that we propose relate to services currently delivered under Part II of the Act; namely, general medical and dental services. These are the concerns of the Bill. Up to now, the provision of services has been very tightly regulated. That is why we need primary legislation to allow for new opportunities.
The pilots we propose will cover the delivery of general medical and dental services. Those services will need doctors or dentists. Only suitably experienced doctors can legally provide the medical services received in general practice. That point is reiterated in the Bill.
I continue to think it right that where a proposal is put forward not involving doctors, dentists or NHS trusts, the health authority should be able to consider whether it satisfactorily covers those areas of care that have to be provided by doctors or dentists before it is submitted to the Secretary of State. Where a GP is not involved in the proposal, it will need to be clearly set out how GP input will be provided. That seems to me to be an essential screen at local level.
That does not prevent nurses putting forward proposals. Indeed, I hope they will continue to do so. However, I must also emphasise that I certainly look forward to seeing nurses continue to develop their unique roles through pilots with practices and trusts and to seeing them taking forward the proposals that we set out in Primary Care: Delivering the Future.
I wish to make two further points about the amendment. First, in most cases the proposals will be put forward by nurses employed by a trust. Unless

809
those proposing a scheme wish to leave their current employment, it seems right that their proposals should have the support of their employer, who will have to hold the contract with the health authority should the proposal be accepted as a pilot. They are in a very different situation from that of general practitioners and dentists, who are independent contractors.
If a pilot receives such support it will have a direct route to the Secretary of State under the terms of the Bill, because it will be sponsored by the trust that employs the nurses. Secondly, if the nurses are part of an independent organisation then in line with other similar proposals it seems right that the health authority should decide whether or not it should proceed.
I have been through a number of examples given to me by the nursing profession. I have yet to find one that stands up in terms of those other two aspects. I share the aspirations of noble Lords. I wish to see nursing develop and become an even greater profession than it is. However, I really do not think that in the context of the Bill these amendments are pertinent.
To respond to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, I cannot tell her what the Royal College of Practitioners thinks about these particular amendments. However, I assure her that the medical profession very strongly supports the Bill and the concepts behind it. I do not believe that there is any intention that doctors should opt out of their current responsibilities.
I hope that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.
Baroness MacFarlane of Llandaff: My Lords, let me first thank the noble Baroness for her kindness to me personally in what she said. When there is such mutual respect it is all the harder to disagree. I know that her motives are of the highest and that she shows the greatest support for nurses. Nonetheless I believe that the Bill is discriminatory in the way it is drafted and that we should clear that discrimination from the face of the Bill.
At Committee stage there was considerable support from all sides of the House, including from many medical Lords. That encourages me to go forward with these amendments. In the intervening period between Committee and this stage I have sounded out views on the amendments with all the nurses whom I have met. With the exception of one, their view was unanimous that the amendments are necessary if nursing is to play its full role.
Because of the support at Committee stage and the importance of the amendments to the nursing profession, I feel that I should test the opinion of the House.
4.1 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 99; Not-Contents, 130.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Judd, L.

Addington, L.

Kennet, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Kilpatrick of Kincraig, L.

Ashley of Stoke. L.

Kirkhill,L.

Berkeley, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Blease, L.

Lockwood, B.

Borrie, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McNair, L.

Butterfield, L.

McNally, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Calverley, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carlisle, E.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Methuen, L.

Carter, L.

Monkswell, L.

Chapple, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Clancarty, E.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nelson, E.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Nicol, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ogmore, L.

Craigavon, V.

Palmer, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Paul, L.

David, B.

Peston, L.

Donoughue, L.

Plant of Highfield,L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dubs,L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Eatwell, L.

Rea, L.

Exmouth, V.

Richard, L.

Ezra, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Falkland, V.

Sainsbury, L.

Gallacher, L.

Sandwich, E.

Geraint, L.

Serota, B.

Gould of Pottemewton, B. [Teller.]

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. (Teller.)

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Grenfell, L.

Tenby, V.

Halsbury, E.

Tope, L.

Hanworth, V.

Tordoff, L

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Haskel, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hayman, B.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Hayter, L.

Warnock, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Weatherill, L.

Hollis of Heigham,B.

Wharton, B.

Hughes, L.

White, B.

Hylton-Fbster, B.

Wigoder, L.

Ilchester, E.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Williams of Elvel,L.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Winston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Addison, V.

Brentford, V.

Ailsa, M.

Bridgeman, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Brookes, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Byford, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Cadman, L.

Balfour, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Campbell of Croy. L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Beloff, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Birdwood, L.

Carnock, L.

Blake, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Blaker,L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Blatch, B.

Coleraine, L.

Blyth, L.

Coleridge, L.

811

Courtown, E.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Cranbourne, V. (Lord Privy Seal)

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Marlesford, L.

Davidson, V.

Merrivale, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Mersey, V.

Denbigh, E

Miller of Hendon,B.

Denham, L.

Milverton, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Mottistone, L.

Downshire, M.

Mountevans, L.

Dundee, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Eccles, V.

Munster, E

Elibank,L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Newall, L.

Elles, B.

Norfolk, D.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Northesk, E.

Erne, E.

O'Cathain, B.

Ferrers, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Flather, B.

Palumbo, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Gainford, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Goschen, V.

Pender, L.

Hacking, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Quinton, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Reay, L.

Hemphill, L.

Renton, L.

Henley, L.

Holderness, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Richardson, L.

Romney, E.

Rotherwick, L.

Hooper, B.

Saatchi, L.

Howe, E.

St. Davids, V.

Inglewood, L.

Saint Levan, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Seccombe, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Kimball,L.

Skelmersdale, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Strange, B.

Knollys, V.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Lauderdale, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Lindsay, E.

Sudeley, L.

Long, V.

Swansea, L.

Lucas, L.

Swinfen, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Terrington, L.

Lyell, L.

Teviot, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

McConnell, L.

Vivian, L.

Mckay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Wilcox,B.

Mackay of Clashfem, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Wise, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Rea Lord Rea moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 15, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is the same as Amendment No. 3, which I moved at Committee stage. Before I explain what the amendment entails, I should like just to quote the last part of the noble Baroness's reply at Committee stage. She said:
"I can see that Members of the Committee are not satisfied with my reply. Therefore, I shall take the matter away and come back to it after further thought".—[Official Report, 17/12/96; col. 1419.]
The Government have not tabled an amendment
812
embodying those further thoughts and I had no alternative but to move the amendment again. It removes from the Bill the words:
"A pilot scheme may not combine arrangements for the provision of personal medical services with arrangements for the provision of personal dental services".
I said at Committee stage how I personally had benefited from working in a health centre where both dental practitioners and general medical practitioners working for the National Health Service collaborated very beneficially for both the professions and the patients concerned. It seemed to me strange that the two helping, clinical professions could not put forward a scheme together. But the noble Baroness said:
"General practice and dentistry are very distinct services … with very different financial and practical arrangements. The Bill maintains this distinction and avoids the complexities that could arise if the services were covered by the same contract".—[col. 1418.]
To that I replied a little later that although they would be paid from different sources, it would surely be easier to make the arrangements within a pilot scheme than to have two entirely separate pilot schemes. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, expressed the same opinion as myself. That is why the Minister said that she would go away and think about the matter.
I gather that the British Medical Association is slightly more in agreement with the Minister than I am and sees the complexities that she mentioned as very important. Personally, I do not see the matter that way. But I should be grateful if she could say what deliberations she has had between Committee stage and now. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, as the noble Lord said, we discussed this matter at some length at Committee stage. I should like to reassure noble Lords that I support wholeheartedly the objective behind this amendment, that of encouraging better integration of services provided by the different professions. After all, that has been one of our aims in primary care for some time. It remains a priority.
I undertook to consider further the need for Clause 1(2) and to advise your Lordships at Report stage of the outcome. I have done so. But I remain convinced that the provision in the Bill which this amendment seeks to remove will not hinder further progress towards co-operation between the medical and dental professions. There will be nothing to stop doctors and dentists examining local health needs together and co-operating over the preparation of pilot proposals, perhaps sometimes involving joint premises, which was one of the examples given by the noble Lord at Committee stage. Those proposals would then go forward together but be presented as separate schemes.
The Bill certainly will not stand in their way. It simply requires separate contracts for what are already two distinct services with very different financial and practical arrangements. They will need separate consideration locally and probably different evaluation. It will help to ensure that funding for dentistry is spent on dentistry. Failing to maintain the distinction between the two services could produce confusion for little gain.

813
I know that the provision as currently drafted in the Bill has the full support of the General Dental Services Committee. I hope that your Lordships, having heard my explanation and reassurances, will not seek to press the amendment.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I understand the position of the noble Baroness a little better, though I still do not understand why that provision has to be on the face of the Bill. It seems to me that in drawing up pilot schemes, that would automatically have been sorted out. But it is an academic point. So long as the noble Baroness can assure me that there will be schemes in which the two professions can collaborate, I see no point in pressing the amendment further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.15 p.m.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Clause 2 [Proposals for pilot schemes]:
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 37, after ("scheme") insert—
("(aa) satisfy themselves that there is no diminution in the quality or range of services provided in an area which is covered by the pilot scheme.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, my name is to the other amendments in this group. Perhaps I may speak to those and the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane of Llandaff, may wish to follow me. I should certainly like to move Amendments Nos. 9 and 13 which are in this group and to which my name is attached.
The purpose of all the amendments is to deal with the need to ensure that the quality of service is maintained in pilot schemes. That is the particular requirement of Amendment No. 4 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane. Amendments Nos. 9 and 13, standing in my name, are proposals for pilot schemes and subsequently for judging whether those pilot schemes should become part of the permanent local services.
We raised those issues at Committee stage because we feel it is very important that consistent standards and services so far as possible should be offered by all primary care providers, whatever part of the country they are in or on whatever basis that provision is made, however widely the notion of the pilot experimental scheme is drawn. The House will be familiar with the great concern on these Benches that in the past few years what we describe as a fragmented health service is producing a system in what you get depends on where you live and not necessarily on what you need. We fear that the defects of the system may be exacerbated by the deregulation proposed in the Bill without a statutory requirement to establish national criteria for standards.
Therefore, the amendments propose that requirement to adhere to national standards of care and service which would be established by a nationally representative body. That would also avoid the suspicion that local health authorities might promote local schemes on the basis simply of cost and that cost saving might become
814
the determining criterion for successful applications in hard-pressed health authorities. We have used the expression "a nationally representative body" because at Committee stage the Minister and I agreed that it was extremely difficult to establish what one might colloquially call "gold standards" within primary care, or indeed any other part of healthcare for that matter. We also agreed that, particularly within the context of the development of evidence-based practice in the NHS, it was very important to strive to achieve it.
I was encouraged that at Committee stage the Minister said that the Department of Health was establishing "a nationally representative group"—the expression used in these two amendments—to take this matter forward and to discuss criteria governing the approval of pilot schemes. She developed those points in Committee (Hansard, col. 1445).
The noble Baroness also said that the criteria would be established and published before pilots were considered and indeed, of course, the proposals for long-term service change which might arise from those pilots. That is also welcome.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 13 simply seek to give force to those understandings which the Minister expressed at an earlier stage by establishing on the face of the Bill that the national representative group which she said was being established would have statutory authority to set criteria on which the Secretary of State will make decisions about the value of pilot schemes to the communities they are intended to serve. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, these amendments focus on the quality and standards in the pilot schemes. We share those objectives. We believe firmly that we will secure them through the Bill as it stands and through our approach to implementation.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 13 concern the setting up of statutory groups of interested parties to advise on quality and standards and on criteria for evaluation. We are already doing that. As the noble Baroness said, two such groups have already been set up—one for medical services and one for dentistry—with representatives from the professions, patients and other interested parties. They are to help identify the standards and criteria that should apply before pilots are approved and to advise on a framework for evaluation. The first meetings will be held next week. We see those groups as playing an important role but do not see the need to enshrine them in legislation.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, will agree that, while we share her concerns, we have largely met them. We regard an open, consultative approach as the best and probably only way for our initiative to get off the ground and flourish. We see the groups as playing a leading role but do not see the need to enshrine them in legislation.
Since piloted schemes will vary enormously, it is important that the overall standards and values are clearly set out and that individual schemes have clearly defined aims and objectives against which health authorities and others can judge whether they have

815
achieved their initial aims. We will consult widely before the areas to be covered by the Secretary of State's directions to health authorities are drawn up. The kind of issues we will expect authorities to cover and on which we will seek views at the drafting stage will include the intended benefits to patients, how pilot proposals fit in with other local NHS services and ensuring that they are not detrimental to the wider NHS, and how any potential conflicts of interest will be satisfactorily resolved before the pilot scheme begins.
I hope that I have shown that we are committed to a broad national framework of standards and values within which pilots will operate and be evaluated. I hope that I have demonstrated also how serious we are about seeking the advice and views of those with an interest. I trust that the noble Baroness will agree that that meets many of the worries expressed in her amendment and that she will not therefore seek to pursue it.
The approach I outlined also satisfies the aims of Amendment No. 4. I made clear that we do not underestimate the importance of raising the standards and quality of services. It will be one of the key agenda items for our national representative groups. Our initiative is unequivocally about achieving improvements in services. I hope your Lordships will accept my assurances that any pilot proposal that does not set out how it will improve services will not be allowed to proceed and that your Lordships will not press the amendments.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, perhaps I can raise one matter before the noble Baroness sits down. As we do not know what the pilots are to be, is it not better to have the standards emphasised? I support the amendment.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, is right in that we do not know the details of the pilots. But we are trying to achieve criteria which we believe are better drawn up with the professions and with lay representatives. That is what the groups will do. We will therefore have a broad framework against which we can test the pilot schemes. In view of what goes on elsewhere in the NHS and the fact that there are many other such groups whose role is not enshrined in legislation, it would be extraordinary, in regard to these small pilot schemes, to put these two groups on the face of the Bill. We work with many other important consultative bodies whose existence does not have to be enshrined in legislation.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply and pleased to hear that the national consultative groups have been convened and are meeting. We look forward to the outcome of some of those meetings, hopefully before the Bill leaves another place if not your Lordships' House.
I remain concerned in relation to the concept of good will in establishing the national criteria if they are solely dependent on those bodies which are convened by the National Health Service on this kind of voluntary basis. Many times over the past few years we have expressed
816
anxiety about establishing national criteria and national standards for services, whether in regard to discharge procedures from hospitals or the interface between the NHS and social services. We have often been told that the good will and assurances of the Department of Health are all that we need to rely on. Sometimes we have been very disappointed by the outcomes.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of the debate we had recently in your Lordships' House at Question Time regarding the provision of single sex-wards. In that instance we were told that the Government had good aspirations and intentions; that instructions were being given to local health authorities to act in accordance with the Patient's Charter. Yet, as we also heard in your Lordships' House at Question Time, Ministers themselves are disappointed with the outcome of that voluntary attempt to achieve standards which they sought for the National Health Service.
It is important, therefore, when we embark on a widespread piloting scheme which will change the nature of primary care in this country if it succeeds in the way the Government suggest they want it to succeed, according to the White Papers that came with the legislation, that we are given firm guarantees of what the standards may be and a statutory means of carrying them out. Of course, we respect the good intentions of the Minister when she gives them, but this afternoon we had a vivid example of how good intentions, even at ministerial level, may not result in good practice. In those circumstances, I must seek the opinion of the House on Amendments Nos. 9 and 13. First, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 4.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington Baroness Robson of Kiddington moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 46, at end insert—
("The matters mentioned in this subsection shall include provision for the transfer of employment rights, including pension rights.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the House will remember that during Committee stage on 17th December I moved a similar amendment to Amendment No. 5. It coincided with the day on which the Government's White Paper, Primary Care: Delivering the Future, was published. I had but an hour to scan through it on that day but was tremendously cheered when I read that the Government intended to alter the arrangements for nurses to enable them to have the same employment and pension rights if they were working in the community.
The reply that I received from the noble Baroness, the Minister, on that occasion was that it was necessary to discuss the matter with the profession's representatives; that it would be wrong to include the amendment on the face of the Bill without first having those discussions. Has the Minister now been able to discuss this proposition with the professions?
The General Medical Services Committee of the BMA supports the amendment, as does the Royal College of Nursing. They are concerned with one specific problem. They feel that it is necessary to put the amendment on the face of the Bill in order to

817
recognise the developing role of practice nurses in the NHS. However, the amendment is not primarily concerned with practice nurses and further clarification may be necessary. It should include all staff working with GPs or with GP practices.
It concerns me that the Government's current intention is that GPs will become employing authorities under the NHS pension scheme regulations and that they will be able to choose whether they wish their practice staff to become members of the scheme. It seems to me wrong to allow general practitioners to choose whether or not nurses receive pension rights, and it goes against the spirit of the White Paper Primary Care: Delivering the Future. It could create new anomalies when we have just begun to remove one of the anomalies relating to nurses. I wonder whether the Minister can assure me that the discussions she has had with the profession have convinced her that we can now put this amendment on the face of the Bill.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I strongly support the amendment. I remind the noble Baroness that by the time the Bill gets on to the statute book there may well have been a change of government. If this Government are anxious, as they state in the rather grandiosely entitled White Paper, Primary Care: Delivering the Future, that these rights should be granted, then, if they really mean that, these provisions should certainly be in the Bill and not simply in a White Paper for the guidance of the next government.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, for bringing forward the amendment. It would only secure NHS pensions, of course, for those staff who already had them and who transferred their employment in the course of a pilot. But the Government in fact have gone much further. As the noble Baroness said, the White Paper, Delivering the Future, announced that the NHS pension scheme would be open to GP practice staff from 1st September 1997. We are now putting words into action. GPs will become employing authorities for the purpose of the NHS pension scheme regulations, and they will be able to choose whether they wish their practice staff to become members of the scheme. We aim to complete discussions of the details of the new arrangements by the end of February. Providing access to the scheme through this Bill we believe would serve no purpose. The changes are already in train and there is no question of our going back on them. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment. We feel that it is unnecessary.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I am no more happy with that reply than I was with the one at Committee stage. I believe it is quite wrong that it should be in the hands of the GP. It should be as of right for the people who are working in the health service that they are able to make use of the NHS pensions right. It is incomprehensible that it should be governed, perhaps, by a general practitioner who may have a different view.
818
However, I am heartened by the fact that the commitment exists in the White Paper and I trust that the Government will fulfil the promises they have made. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rea, that it is a shame that we do not put it on the face of the Bill so that we can make certain that whoever forms the government, even a Liberal Democrat government, would have to comply with it. For those reasons at this stage of the Bill I cannot press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 3, line 3, leave out from ("enactment)") to end of line 5 and insert—
("(a) consult and take account of the views of representatives of all relevant professions and of patient and consumer organisations (including community health councils) and of relevant local authorities which appear to them to be affected by the pilot scheme; and
(b) comply with any directions given to them by the Secretary of State about the extent and manner of such consultation.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment and Amendment No. 29 with which it is grouped return to the issue of consultation which we debated in Committee over a number of amendments, some of them quite complicated. We come down to these two amendments on two straightforward issues. One is consultation when pilot schemes are being proposed by health authorities; the other concerns the obligations which Amendment No. 29 would put on the Secretary of State to take into account public and professional views before making permanent arrangements after pilot schemes have been implemented.
When we debated these issues at an earlier stage there was general support for the fact that pilot schemes, personal schemes and permanent schemes that were innovative would be more successful if they were understood by, and welcomed by, those who would use them and those whose professional life would be affected by them. Indeed, the Minister said at col. 1424 of the Official Report of 17th December 1996 that she welcomed the objective behind the amendments.
What we seek in the amendments is to will the means as well as the ends of ensuring wide consultation on these issues. Amendment No. 6 puts a responsibility on health authorities to consult and take into account the views of representatives of relevant professions, of patients and of consumer organisations, and of relevant local authorities. That is a very important provision. Unless we provide proper collaboration between local authority services, primarily, but not exclusively, social services and health services, then patients and clients of local authorities will be the people who suffer. It is only sensible and prudent that those local authorities who may well be affected by pilot schemes should be consulted.
The objection raised to the amendments was not an objection in principle; the principle of consultation was accepted. The objection was that we were being over-prescriptive by putting on the face of the Bill the professional and other organisations, the public bodies

819
and the representatives we thought should be part of the consultation process. I do not demur from the original judgment that it is sensible to write those provisions into the Bill. The point made in our earlier debates was that in the vast majority of cases these were exactly the people whom prudent health authorities would, as a matter of course, consult.
I do not believe that the amendments we propose today are in any way over-prescriptive. They would allow good practice to take place. But they would also ensure that good practice takes place. These points were made by my noble friend Lady Jay earlier. The amendments would ensure that nationally we set some standards and some benchmarks for exactly what good practice would be. I believe that the Bill is under-prescriptive, not over-prescriptive, on the issue of consultation and that it is only prudent that all the people whose support is necessary for the schemes to flourish—all of us wish them to succeed—should be consulted and listened to in order to ensure success. The Royal College of Nursing, the representatives of doctors, dentists and pharmacists, the Community Health Council, the local authority associations and the consumer organisations have all expressed the view that they would feel more secure with the consultation written on to the face of the Bill. I do not see that the Government or health authorities have anything to lose in that process. I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I support the amendment very much indeed. It is a national health service. It is a service for the people and therefore they should have as much say in it as anyone else. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendments. They will not cost anything. So why not accept them?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, perhaps I may take up the point just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. Even consultation costs time and energy, and, sometimes, money.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said, we discussed this subject at length in Committee. The Government acknowledged then, as we do now, that changes in primary care matter deeply to local communities. We agree wholeheartedly that local people and others with an interest should be well informed and, where appropriate, consulted on changes. Consultation in the NHS is standard practice and there is no reason why, in considering pilot schemes, health authorities and boards will not continue with this well established approach. But we are also backing custom with statutory safeguards to ensure that patients have a voice.
The Bill gives the Secretary of State new powers to make directions setting out who is to be consulted. I can assure the House that he is committed to exercising these powers. Before he does so, he will take into account the advice of the professions, health service managers and others already involved with us in preparing for the implementation of the Bill. When he considers pilot proposals, the Secretary of State will be looking for clear evidence that consultation has been genuine and comprehensive.
820
We do not believe that the amendment would lead to more or better consultation. Instead, it would give us an inflexible set of rules which could be less than adequate for very major pilot proposals but excessive in the case of very minor ones. Rigid rules often produce a mechanistic exercise. None of us wants that, but we believe that it is what the amendment would create.
I hope I have shown that the arrangements are in place to ensure genuine consultation and that we have a strong and genuine commitment to it. I hope therefore that the House will not support the amendment.
Amendment No. 29 was also discussed in Committee. I wish to re-emphasise the safeguards surrounding the introduction of permanent arrangements which are already included in the legislation. First, the Bill requires the Secretary of State, in permitting permanent arrangements, to have regard to the reviews of pilot schemes which have been conducted and to be satisfied that such a step is in the interests of the health service. That is a clear defence against any attempt to introduce permanent arrangements where there is inadequate evidence that they will work. It could, if necessary, be tested in the courts.
Secondly, permanent schemes can only be set up once the Secretary of State has set out the rules under which they will operate in regulations under Clause 18 of the Bill. It is accepted practice to consult on draft regulations and I can confirm that the Secretary of State is committed to doing so in this case. Such consultation will not be mere form.
Finally, once regulations permit health authorities to set up permanent arrangements, the Secretary of State will also continue to have powers to require health authorities to undertake appropriate consultation on proposals.
I have tried very hard to demonstrate how the principle of consultation is inherent in the way we wish to proceed. The amendments would not add anything to the safeguards already in the Bill and the commitments I have given. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue them.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for what she said. I would not in any way question her personal commitment in these areas—nor that of the Secretary of State—and the assurances she has given us. However, there is an issue of principle here. I do not believe that the amendments are either inflexible or over-rigid. They put the balance of power and responsibility on the face of the Bill rather than let it lie with the Secretary of State.
Over the past years one of the main problems with which the NHS has had to tussle has been the lack of public confidence in decision-making processes. There is a great deal of trust to rebuild in those areas as we change and develop the service for the future. A small measure towards rebuilding that public confidence would be to ensure that on the face of the Bill we set out the areas and the people with whom we believe consultation should take place. In view of that, I should like to test the opinion of the House.
4.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 128.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Lockwood, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Longford, E.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Berkeley, L.

McNair, L.

Borrie, L.

McNally, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L

Calverley, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Chapple, L.

Monkswell, L.

Clancarty, E.

Morris of Castle Morris, L. [Teller]

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Nicol, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Ogmore, L.

David, B.

Palmer, L.

Donoughue, L.

Paul,L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Peston, L.

Dubs, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Eatwell, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Exmouth, V.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Falkland, V.

Rea, L.

Gallacher, L.

Richard, L.

Geraint, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller]

Russell, E.

Grenfell,L.

Sainsbury, L.

Grey, E.

Serota,B.

Halsbury, E.

Stoddart of Swindon L.

Hanwotth, V.

Strabolgi, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Haskel, L.

Tenby, V.

Hayman, B.

Thurlow, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Tordoff, L.

Hughes, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Jeger, B.

White, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Elvel,L.

Judd, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Winston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Byford, B.

Addison, V.

Cadman, L.

Ailsa, M.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Campbell of Croy,L.

Allenby of Megiddo,V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Carnock, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller]

Astor of Hever, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Balfour, E.

Coleridge, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Courtown, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Beloff, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seed.]

Bethell, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Birdwood, L.

Davidson, V.

Blake, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Bowness, L.

Denbigh, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Denham, L.

Brookes, L.

Demon of Wakefield, B.

Butterfield, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

822

Downshire, M.

Merrivale, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Miller of Hendon,B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Milverton, L.

Elibank, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Mottistone, L.

Elles, B.

Mountevans, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Elton, L.

Munster, E.

Erne, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Flather, B.

Norfolk, D.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Northesk, E.

Goschen, V.

O'Cathain, B.

Greenway, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Hailsham of Saint Maiylebone, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Pender, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Pike, B.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Platt of Writtle,B.

Hemphill, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Henley, L.

Quinton, L.

Holderness, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Reay, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Renton, L.

Howe, E.

Renwick, L.

Inglewood, L.

Romney, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

St. Davids, V.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Saint Levan, L.

Knollys, V.

Seccombe, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Selsdon, L

Leigh, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Lindsay, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Liverpool, E.

Strange, B.

Long,V.

Strathcarron, L.

Lucas, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sudeley, L.

Lyell, L.

Swansea, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Swinfen, L.

McConnell, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L

Terrington, L.

Mackay of Clashfem, L. [Lord Chancellor]

Teviot, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Trumpington, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Vivian, L.

Marlesford, L.

Wise, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Rea Lord Rea moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 15, after ("lists)") insert ("and who is actively working in general practice as part of a primary health care team").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to ensure that pilot schemes involve general practitioners who are in active general practice. We believe that the Bill should clarify that only general practitioners currently on medical lists and who are active in the National Health Service should be involved in pilot schemes. The concern of the Royal College of General Practitioners, and of many others, is that doctors who are eligible to work in general practice, but who are not currently involved actively in it, may become involved in pilot schemes; for example, in a trust, or even a private company setting up some kind of pilot scheme which will deliver only parts of the full range of primary care. As the Bill stands, it seems that pilot schemes could be set up without reference to general practitioners. We are concerned that the present system,

823
which is the envy of other countries, should be helped to work better by these schemes and not be fragmented by them.
One of the key roles of general practitioners is to be the advocate of patients and their interests. It is particularly important to ensure that patients have appropriate, necessary and timely access to secondary care services. As an independent contractor within the NHS, a GP has a unique role through the referral system in obtaining access to secondary care for patients. We believe that that may be undermined by general practitioners who may be recruited from outside the present system. They may be salaried and they may have a conflict of interest between the commercial interests of their employers who are setting up the pilot scheme and those of their patients.
These are the anxieties that I have and which have been expressed to me by other general practitioners. I shall be very grateful if the noble Baroness can either accept this amendment or give me some reassurance that the Government will follow at least the principles which it implies. I shall be very interested to hear her reply. Perhaps it will not be necessary to press this amendment if she can give us something to go on. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I shall do my best to reassure the noble Lord. This amendment aims to reinforce the emphasis on a team-based approach in primary care. That is an objective that the Government very strongly share. The White Paper Delivering the Future puts forward specific proposals to this end. We shall expect proposals for pilot schemes to reflect that approach. But putting conditions on GPs who have an automatic right to have their pilot proposals put forward will not necessarily help. On the contrary, it might even hamper desirable proposals from those who wish to use piloting to develop more collaborative ways of working, perhaps through a practice-based contract.
We would also see difficulties emerging over how,
"actively working in general practice as part of a primary health care team",
would be defined in practice. It would be unhelpful if a relatively simple application process were made more complex and subject to argument simply over status.
We believe that the principle of encouraging team-based family health care service teams is better served through the assessment of the quality and suitability of proposals in the approval process. I hope that that gives the noble Lord enough to go on, as he put it, and that he will not press this amendment.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for those words, which we shall read in detail. She certainly reassures me that it is her intention at least that these pilot schemes will improve primary care in this country. I am sure that she means what she says. But we have to look at what the Bill will allow. After we have scrutinised her words and had another look at the Bill, I give notice that we may yet return to this matter at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Approval of pilot schemes]:
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 24, at end insert—
("() The Secretary of State may not approve proposals for a pilot scheme unless he is satisfied that the scheme will satisfy standards and criteria for the quality of services provided to patients determined by a national representative group established by the Secretary of State for this purpose.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
4.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 122.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L

Addington, L.

Lockwood, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Longford, E.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Berkeley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Borne, L.

McNair, L.

Broadbridge, L.

McNally, L.

Bruce of Donington, L

Masham of Ilton, B.

Calverley, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Chapple, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Clancarty, E.

Morris of Castle Morris, L. [Teller.]

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Nicol, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Ogmore, L.

David, B.

Paul, L.

Donoughue, L.

Peston, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dubs, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Eatwell, L.

Rea, L.

Gallacher, L.

Richard, L.

Geraint, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Serota, B.

Grenfell, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Grey, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Hanworth, V.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Thurlow, L.

Haskel, L. [Teller.]

Tordoff, L.

Hayman, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hughes, L.

White, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Whitty, L.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Judd, L.

Winston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Addison, V.

Beloff, L.

Ailsa, M.

Bethell, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Blake, L.

Anelay of St.Johns, B.

Blaker, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Blatch, B.

Balfour, E.

Bowness, L.

825

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Brookes, L.

Macleod of Borve,B.

Butterfield, L.

Marlesford, L.

Byford, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cadman, L.

Merrivale, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mersey, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Milverton, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Dark of Kempston, L.

Mottistone, L.

Coleridge, L.

Mountevans, L.

Courtown, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Munster, E.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Nelson, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Norfolk, D.

Denbigh, E.

Northesk, E.

Denham, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Demon of Wakefield,B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Downshire, M.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Eccles of Moulton,B.

Pender, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Pike, B.

Elibank, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Elles, B.

Platt of Writtle,B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Elton, L.

Quinton, L.

Flather, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Reay, L.

Goschen, V.

Renton, L.

Hacking, L.

Renwick, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Romney, E.

Rotherwick, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Harmsworth, L.

Saint Levan, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Seccombe, B.

Hemphill, L.

Selsdon, L.

Henley, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Holdemess, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Strange, B.

Howe, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Inglewood, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L

King of Wartnaby, L.

Sudeley, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Swansea, L.

Lindsay, E.

Swinfen, L.

Liverpool, E.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Long,V.

Tebbit,L.

Lucas, L.

Terrington, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Teviot, L.

Lyell, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

McColl of Dulwich,L.

Trumpington, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Vivian, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Wise, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.7 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 26, leave out ("participants") and insert ("any participant other than the authority").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 10, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 11, 23, 30, 32, 36, 39, 43, 45, 46, 65, 67, 76 and 78 to 84. These amendments tidy up the drafting of the Bill and aid interpretation by clarifying some of the provisions. Examples include Amendments Nos. 10, 11, 30 and 36 which ensure that, while providers of services such as GPs and dentists will be able to withdraw from taking part in the schemes if they
826
wish to, the health authorities taking part will not. That will protect the provider by ensuring that health authorities will not by themselves be able to decide to terminate a scheme.
Amendment No. 65 provides that where references are made in any legislation to Section 28C or Section 17C arrangements, that should be read as referring to both pilot and permanent schemes. That means that the clauses in the Bill such as those securing the right of patients to choose their doctor and dentist, and the consequential amendments to other legislation contained in Schedule 2, apply to all PMS and PDS schemes. In addition, we shall need to bring forward a number of consequential amendments at Third Reading to ensure that various relevant Acts of Parliament apply to the new system, as they do to the existing one.
We worked hard to table as many government amendments as possible at the end of last week and at the beginning of this week to give noble Lords the maximum time to consider them. We accept, however, that your Lordships may not have had adequate time to consider some of the amendments that were tabled later. We have therefore withdrawn many of those amendments and propose to return to the matters that they cover at Third Reading. Those matters are fundholding, principally providing a return ticket to those fundholders involved in the new arrangements, ensuring that NHS trusts can play their full role in the new arrangements, making a number of minor and consequential changes to the provisions in connection with the sale of medical practices, and making further minor or consequential amendments, including changes to other legislation. I hope that your Lordships will be content to consider those matters at Third Reading. The amendments in this group are technical but important and I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for the length and breadth of her reply, she having listed a number of amendments proposed in this group. We are also grateful for her consideration of whether amendments have been tabled rather late in the day for appropriate consideration at this stage of the proceedings. I hope that it is agreeable to the House—as the Minister has proposed it, I am sure that it will be—to consider at Third Reading some matters which must necessarily, although not in accordance with the previous proceedings of the House as I understand them, raise issues that have not been considered before. But because there has been an understanding about the progress of business today, we on these Benches are happy to accept it.
I should like to raise one issue relating to Amendment No. 65 that has been drawn to my attention. It deals with cross-border pilots. Queries have been raised, particularly by the professional bodies concerned with the organisation of general practice, about who in a cross-border pilot will be the primary authority. For example, which Secretary of State will approve an application? Which health authority or Scottish board will process it? There are also questions about

827
dispensing where the systems in Scotland and England are different. Further, the complaints system which we discussed in connection with another piece of legislation in a previous debate in your Lordships' House is different north and south of the Border. Where in the geographical sense there are cross-border pilots that may be in the interests of the local population, questions may arise as to who is the authority with primary responsibility and whose legislation in some technical but important areas—for example, dispensing and complaints systems—will prevail: how will it be worked out between the two different systems should any conflict arise?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I imagine that for cross-border schemes the same principles will apply to pilots as to current services that are provided by GPs through general medical services. I do not have detailed information with me. I shall be happy to write to the noble Baroness about these matters, in particular the point about dispensing.
Lord Rea: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 change the word "provide" to "perform". That is exactly the opposite of what I proposed in amendments at Committee stage. I suggested that "performing" was not appropriate and "providing" was better. Far from taking my advice, the noble Baroness has gone one better and found two more "provides" and turned providing doctors into performing doctors. I understand that for technical reasons "perform" is the proper word. Although it sounds rather silly, at least the Bill is now consistent.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. We have tried to ensure that providers are the bodies that hold the contract and performers are the people who supply the service. We are grateful to the noble Lord for bringing this matter to our attention. I am sure that in turn he is grateful that we have listened to his comments and tried to incorporate them wherever possible.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 3, line 27, leave out ("they wish") and insert ("he wishes").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Reviews of pilot schemes]:
Baroness Robson of Kiddington Baroness Robson of Kiddington moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 4, line 3, at end insert ("not less than 18 months and not more than three years after the date on which the pilot scheme comes into operation").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to move an amendment that I also moved at Committee stage. It provides that the review process should be at least 18 months and not more than three years from the start of a pilot scheme. At Committee stage the noble Baroness replied that it was likely that the vast majority of pilot schemes would be evaluated within the
828
timescales specified in this amendment but that there might be exceptional cases where they would be inappropriate. She quoted one possibility: as one learnt from experience one should not have to go through the full panoply of a thorough evaluation with every single scheme if it followed the model of one that had already been successful. A pilot scheme that has been successful sets a precedent. I do not believe it is necessary to have the same evaluation as with a brand new scheme. That is only common sense. It does not prevent the majority of new schemes requiring 18 months in order to be thoroughly evaluated.
One further problem is that the Secretary of State may feel that some schemes should go on for longer than three years. But I believe that a three-year period provides adequate time for a scheme to be reviewed and for lessons to be learned. If it goes on for more than three years, the danger is that it will become almost an accepted part of the NHS and it cannot any longer be called a pilot scheme. To set a timescale for pilot schemes to be reviewed under NHS primary healthcare should allow greater emphasis on the speedy evaluation of schemes and the rapid dissemination of the results so that patients may quickly benefit from new and innovative practice. One cannot possibly call something that has gone on for five or six years a pilot scheme. It should be perfectly possible to reach a conclusion on whether a scheme has possibilities within a period of three years. I sincerely hope that the Minister will change her mind as to this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Rea: My Lords, we on these Benches very much support the amendment. As I said at Committee stage, the imposition of time limits on pilot schemes acts as a stimulus and helps to concentrate the minds of those who carry out the evaluation. It means that they must think about it from the very start. They know when it is to finish and when they must have their report ready. This is a useful additional instruction to insert into the Bill.
Lord Harmsworth: My Lords, does the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, acknowledge that when a large number of pilot schemes are up and running, quite a few may fall into the same pattern and each may be able to learn from the other? If that is so, it may be possible to reach a decision before the 18 months are up. I am more attracted to her view that they should not last for longer than three years, but surely a shorter period than 18 months should remain an option.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I said that where a pilot scheme followed the pattern of one that had already been approved, the evaluation period should be reduced or done away with.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, as the noble Baroness has said, this matter was discussed in Committee. Your Lordships are aware that we are committed to an open and thorough process of evaluation. We do not want to evaluate schemes

829
before they are established; nor do we want to run them as pilots for longer than is necessary in order to demonstrate their worth. It is difficult to decide the right timescales for pilot schemes. We do not yet know what those schemes will be. Although it is difficult to make a judgment, I suspect that for the majority of schemes the timescales proposed by the noble Baroness will be about right. However, we believe that there are dangers in setting them in stone.
For example, we should not rule out the possibility that there will be schemes which are only subtly different from current arrangements or draw on ways of working which are already well established in other areas of the health service. As my noble friend Lord Harmsworth said, such arrangements may not require 18 months before they are ready to be evaluated. As the noble Baroness said, it would be most unfortunate if the service benefits that they offer could not be made more widely available more quickly because of the rigid rules on timing as set out in the Bill.
I hope that I have reassured the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that we have every intention of ensuring that pilots run for an appropriate time before being evaluated. However, we believe that timescales in primary legislation would be counterproductive and I hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue the amendment.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I take on board some of the arguments about the period of 18 months in cases where there is little difference. However, I believe that a minimum time should be set. I am most upset that the Minister will not accept three years as the right timescale for evaluating schemes. I am deeply concerned that if there is no set time period many schemes will run for years and will become an accepted part of the NHS without having been properly evaluated.
I shall not press the amendment at this stage, but I shall consider coming back on Third Reading about the three-year period—
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may answer that point because I understand what the noble Baroness is saying about schemes which run on after three years. We do not know the details of schemes and we suspect that as they are running some will change and some will evolve. Therefore, it will be difficult to say exactly whether the evolving scheme is the same as the initial pilot scheme. To set a timescale will be difficult, but I understand what the noble Baroness said and will certainly think about it further.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, as regards an evolving scheme, that can be subject to three years, but there is no reason why another 18 months cannot be added for further evaluation of a scheme that has been slightly changed. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 14:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
ANNUAL REPORT
(". The Secretary of State shall report annually to Parliament with a general survey of developments during the preceding twelve months on the pilot schemes, including references to—

(a) decisions for approval taken under section 3;

(b) the findings of reviews of pilot schemes carried out under section 5; and

(c) decisions taken to terminate pilot schemes under section 6.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment returns to an issue which we discussed in Committee regarding an annual report to Parliament on pilot schemes. I hope that I have taken on board some of the criticisms which were made of the amendment tabled in Committee and that this is a better version. I say that optimistically because I fully admit that its wording is plagiarised. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, brought forward a similar amendment to the Gas Bill in response to similar arguments from my noble friend Lord Peston about the interests of Parliament and the public in having an annual report and overview of developments under these provisions.
The provisions, if successful, will allow a range of interesting and innovative experiments in primary care. There will be lessons to be learnt from those which are successful and those which are not and are withdrawn or which the Secretary of State does not wish to continue. It is important for confidence building that there is an annual report to Parliament and a report giving an overview that is available to the public.
It was suggested that the report which was delineated in the previous amendment would be in the nature of an encyclopaedia—perhaps in these technological days I should say a whole CD-Rom. This report is a more overarching overview of developments. It will be less onerous on the Secretary of State but it will perform the functions which the National Consumer Council and the Consumer Association are keen to see in spreading public and parliamentary information about developments under what will be the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we discussed accountability to Parliament at the Committee stage. I appreciate that there is much interest in this Bill and that noble Lords will wish to keep in touch with the progress of our initiative. However, I believe that a system of annual reports to Parliament would be out of proportion to other scrutiny arrangements. It would be inappropriate and probably unjustified.
The NHS is constantly undergoing service developments in a range of fields. Some are of significant national importance, others of local interest. Piloting will be similar, with some pilots involving major changes in the way primary care is provided, others less so. Yet, in no other area of NHS development are annual reports to Parliament required. I suggest that it would be anomalous to single out this initiative.

831
We have no intention of shying away from giving information about the pilot schemes. We are committed to an open, consultative approach. But there are better, existing ways of ensuring that appropriate information is made available to Parliament.
The information the amendment calls for may well in future be called for by a Select Committee. It can certainly also be called for—in a variety of ways and to varying degrees of detail—in Parliamentary Questions which can target the point specifically of interest. The initiative is also likely to feature in health debates in your Lordships' House and another place. Surely, these established mechanisms are the right way for such information to be put before the House, rather than through an annual report whose format may not satisfy particular needs anyway.
Although we agree with the noble Baroness in the philosophy she is portraying, we believe that it is not practical in these circumstances.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her comments. Perhaps her argument can be interpreted as being that Parliament should have several annual reports on several issues connected with the NHS and not that it should have none.
Developments such as primary care are key areas. The Director General of Ofgas can report on the development of competition policy in gas annually to Parliament; I am not sure that this is a less important area. However, we must consider what has been said and perhaps return to it at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 [Preferential treatment on transferring to medical lists]:
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 5, line 34, leave out from first ("the") to ("must") in line 35 and insert ("Secretary of State approves a pilot scheme, he").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 15 I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 16, 17, 31, 34, 38, 41 and 71. I set out the provisions of Clause 11 on the last occasion that this Bill was before the House. These amendments are improvements which will allow the arrangements for preferential return to apply more widely, underlining the voluntary nature to the arrangements.
Clause 11(1), as set out, requires the Secretary of State to determine, before a pilot scheme is implemented, whether a GP who participates in a pilot will be given preferential treatment on applying to transfer to the medical list. Amendment No. 15 will require the Secretary of State to decide whether a particular GP has a preferential right of transfer to the medical list before he approves the pilot scheme, rather than before the pilot scheme is implemented, which might be any time from approval to when the scheme "goes live". This amendment will strengthen Clause 11 by making sure that before a pilot begins
832
to be implemented, the GPs taking part know whether they have been given a preferential right of transfer.
Amendment No. 16 will require the Secretary of State to make a determination in relation to GPs after the scheme has been approved. This means that where a GP joins a pilot scheme once it is up and running he may also be eligible for a preferential right of transfer back to a medical list. Thus, when one partner retires and a new one takes his place and takes on the commitments that go with partnership, he will know what his position will be should the pilot arrangements end. The provision will also allow changes of status to be taken into account in the Secretary of State's determination; for example, when a salaried GP already in the practice, previously refused a right of transfer, takes over the responsibilities of an outgoing partner.
Amendment No. 17 also makes clear that once the Secretary of State has reached a decision on these matter, he must make it known to the health authority and the GP concerned.
The amendments to Clause 18 refine and clarify the detail as to how the broad regulatory powers within the clause may be carried forward in regulations. They also make more explicit the fact that medical practitioners who perform personal medical services in permanent arrangements should not also provide general medical services except in laid down circumstances—exactly as is the case for pilot schemes.
Finally, Amendment No. 71 is about the NHS Tribunal's power to direct (if it thinks fit) not only that the GP's name be not included in any medical list in England and Wales kept under the 1977 Act, but also that it be not included in any list in Scotland kept under the 1978 Act. I commend these amendments to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendments Nos. 16 and 17: Page 5, line 38, at end insert—
("(1A) Before a pilot scheme is varied so as to permit a new medical practitioner to perform personal medical services under the scheme, the Secretary of State must make a determination under this section in relation to the new practitioner.
(1B) The Secretary of State may at any time make a determination under this section varying a determination about a medical practitioner if he is asked to do so by the practitioner concerned.").
Page 6, line 1, at end insert—
("(3A) The Secretary of State must notify the authority and the medical practitioner or practitioners concerned in writing of any determination made by him under this section.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 13 [NHS contracts]:
The Deputy Speaker (The Viscount of Oxfuird): My Lords, I must advise your Lordships that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 19 due to pre-emption.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 6, line 32, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) In the case of a pilot scheme entered into, or to be entered into, by an authority with a single individual or body corporate, that individual or body may make an application under this section to become a health service body.
(1A) In the case of any other pilot scheme, all of those entering into, or proposing to enter into, arrangements with the authority to provide personal medical services or personal dental services under the scheme may together make an application under this section to become a single health service body.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 18. In doing so I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 20 21, 22, 24, 25 and 26 also. These amendments deal with outstanding points concerning the way in which NHS contracts will work in piloted arrangements. Their aim is to ensure that the benefits of NHS contracts—simplicity and dispute-resolution by the Secretary of State—can play a full part in the new arrangements.
Our original thinking had been that the provisions in the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 which allowed pre-contractual arbitration by the Secretary of State before an NHS contract is drawn up might not always be applicable in the context of the Bill. We therefore reserved the regulatory power to exclude these provisions in prescribed circumstances. Following discussion with representatives of the General Medical Services Committee, we are persuaded that it will provide an important element of reassurance for health service bodies in pilot schemes to be able to seek the Secretary of State's arbitration if difficulties arise over a proposed contract. We believe that such arbitration will arise only exceptionally. But we agree that it should be available, and Amendment No. 24 puts that beyond doubt.
These amendments also clarify who may make an application to become a health service body. Individual GPs or GDPs can already do so under the Bill as it stands. These amendments also make it clearer that applications can be made by various groupings—for example, partnerships of GPs—and ensure that such groupings can comprise a single health service body and share the same NHS contract. They also provide for partnerships to retain their health service body status when individual partners change; for example, on retirement. The provision fits in well with the flexibility in the provision of services which the Bill aims to permit. It will give appropriate groupings of providers access to the full benefits of health service body status. I commend them to the House.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can help us with some explanation of the terminology in Amendment No. 18 with regard to the phrase "or body corporate" which refers to the type of body which could become a health service body for the purposes of application for a pilot scheme.
Your Lordships will remember that in Committee we raised concerns which were expressed in an amendment that we attempted to make to Clause 1
834
dealing with the fact that we were unhappy with the idea that organisations which distributed dividends—that is, were within the common sense meaning of the words "body corporate"—should be excluded from the possibility of being pilot proposers.
This is something which is giving rise to concern within the British Medical Association, which has now formally expressed its opposition to corporate bodies, in the general meaning of the word, becoming involved in pilot schemes. I believe that on a first reading Amendment No. 18 suggests that the Government are giving formal credibility to that understanding. Perhaps the Minister will explain whether that suspicion is correct or whether in the context of Amendment No. 18 "body corporate" has a meaning other than that which it might generally and colloquially seem to mean.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, as I understand it, there has been some discussion with the General Medical Services Committee about that. I thought that it was satisfied with the interpretation that we have put on the word "corporate". Perhaps before Third Reading it may be helpful if I write to the noble Baroness giving her further details about that.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, before Third Reading, perhaps the noble Baroness will also have another conversation with representatives of the BMA and the GMSC, because my conversation with the leader of that group of the BMA this morning suggested that it is still unhappy with that wording.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I shall certainly undertake to do that.
Lord Rea: My Lords, in giving examples of what could constitute a health service body and in illustrating how Amendment No. 18 would work, if I heard the noble Baroness aright, she mentioned doctors who are already providing general medical service and dentists already providing general dental services in the same way as we hoped would be put into the Bill in my Amendment No. 7.
However, reading the new words, it seems to me that quite a wide variety of people could qualify to become health service bodies. Again, my anxiety level is raised a little by that. The Minister reassured me in replying to Amendment No. 7. Perhaps she will say whether my anxiety is justified in this case.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am well aware that your Lordships are unhappy about Amendment No. 18 and, with the agreement of the House, I shall withdraw it and bring it back on Third Reading. However, I do wish to move the other amendments in the group.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendments Nos. 20 to 26:
Page 6, line 44, leave out ("the applicant is") and insert ("—

(a) in the case of an application under subsection (1), the applicant is, and

(b) in the case of an application under subsection (1A), the applicants together are," ).

Page 7, line 4, leave out from ("to") to end of line 8 and insert ("such a health service body ("a pilot scheme health service body"), acting as acquire, as if the functions referred to in subsection (1) of those sections were the provision of piloted services.").
Page 7, line 8, at end insert—
("() Except in such circumstances as may be prescribed, a pilot scheme health service body resulting from an application under subsection (1A) is to be treated, at any time, as consisting of those with whom, at that time, the authority have arrangements under the scheme.").
Page 7, line 9, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
("() A direction as to payment made under section 4(7) of the Act of 1990 or section 17A(8) of the 1978 Act against, or in favour of, a pilot scheme health service body is enforceable—

(a) in England and Wales, in a county court (if the court so orders) as if it were a judgment or order of that court; and

(b) in Scotland, by the sheriff as if it were a judgment or order of the sheriff and whether or not the sheriff could himself have made such a judgment or order.").

Page 7, line 14, leave out subsection (7).
Page 7, line 20, leave out ("person who is a health service body by virtue of this section") and insert ("pilot scheme health service body").
Page 7, line 25, leave out ("those who are health service bodies by virtue of this section") and insert ("pilot scheme health service bodies").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment
No. 27:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—
THE DENTAL PRACTICE BOARDS
(".—(1) Regulations may confer such powers or impose such duties on the Board, in relation to pilot schemes under which personal dental services are provided, as may be prescribed.
(2) The regulations may, in particular, make any of the following kinds of provision.
(3) They may authorise or require the Board—

(a) to perform on behalf of an authority functions of a prescribed description (including functions relating to remuneration) which have been delegated to the Board by the authority in accordance with a power conferred by the regulations;

(b) to conduct or commission surveys or other research;

(c) to carry on such other activities as may be prescribed.

(4) They may provide that functions conferred by the regulations are only to be exercised by the Board in accordance with directions of the Secretary of State.
(5) They may enable the Board to direct a dental practitioner to submit to the Board, in relation to treatment or a description of treatment that he has carried out or contemplates carrying out, such information (including estimates, radiographs, models and other items) as may be prescribed.
(6) In this section "the Board" means—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, the Dental Practice Board; and

(b) in relation to Scotland, the Scottish Dental Practice Board.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the above amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 33, 35, 40 and 42. The amendments in this group give the Secretary of State powers to make regulations to give the Dental Practice Board functions in relation to personal dental services. In practice, this will enable the Secretary of State to extend the role of the DPB so that it can provide a range of support services in respect of dental services provided under pilot and permanent schemes in a similar way to those it currently provides for the general dental service. That will ensure that the skills and experience of the DPB can be used to best effect in the new system.
Among other things, it will allow the extensive experience of the DPB in operating dental payment systems to be applied to the personal dental services. It will also enable us to make use of the DPB's expertise in monitoring treatment provided under the new system and carrying out quality checks through the Dental Reference Service. The aim of these amendments is to provide for cost-effective and high quality support for the new arrangements in dentistry. I very much hope that noble Lords will support them. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment
No. 28:
Before Clause 17, insert the following new clause—
APPROVAL OF THE MEDICAL PRACTICES COMMITTEE
("All agreements made under this Act for the provision of personal medical services shall be submitted by the Health Authority concerned to the Medical Practices Committee, and shall be subject to the approval of the Committee, as if they were applications to provide general medical services under sections 29 and 30 of the 1977 Act").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, while moving the above amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 49. The two amendments are intended to ensure that the important role of the Medical Practices Committee, which, as your Lordships know, now provides a strategic approach to the organisation of primary care, is maintained. We on these Benches feel that this is in the interest of equity in the NHS, about which we are very keenly concerned. I introduced a series of amendments to that effect in Committee. In response the Minister said:
"The Government are committed to fairness in the distribution of services".
but went on to say:
"It would be wrong and potentially damaging to sensible development to pre-empt these discussions"—
that is to say, discussions with the Medical Practices Committee—
"in the way the amendments seek to do".—[Official Report, 17/12/96; col. 1435.]
I am reintroducing these amendments because I understand in conversations with the chairman of the MPC, the most recent of which took place this morning, that at present it sees no movement in the Government's position about its concerns. The MPC still feels that it is being rather politely sidelined as the Bill proceeds.
Perhaps I may briefly reiterate the points that I made in Committee about the necessity of involving the MPC in the pilot schemes proposed by the Bill. I would remind the House that the MPC has the duty (which it has had since the NHS was established in 1948) to assess whether a health authority area is served by an adequate number of general practitioners. It does this by the "negative" power of refusing a GP the opportunity to practice in an area which in its very authoritative view is already adequately covered.
I know that there has been some recent discussion about whether the MPC is adequately fulfilling that task. As noble Lords on these Benches will know and as I mentioned in my introductory remarks, we are concerned about overall equity within the NHS at present. But I am convinced that the MPC is working appropriately to try to ensure a proper distribution of general practitioners across the country. Mary Leigh, the chairman of the MPC, said in a letter to the Health Service Journal which is published today:
"When the current criteria [for establishing the right number of GPs across the country] were introduced in May 1981, there were 400 under-doctored areas out of 1,500 in England and Wales. At 1 January 1997 there were only 15 such areas. The percentage of patients in under-doctored areas, in terms of average list size, has gone down from about 26 per cent. to 1 per cent. in 17 years"—
a record which I believe speaks for itself.
If the MPC is excluded from playing a role in assessing and authorising pilot schemes under the legislation as it now stands, it seems to me that that improvement will almost certainly be reversed. Your Lordships discussed earlier today and in Committee the fears that we on these Benches, and, indeed, the professional bodies led by the BMA, have about the rather unrestrained influence of commercial organisations if the Bill becomes law unamended.
It seems to me that removing the powers of the MPC in approving pilot schemes lends additional credence to those fears. It seems more and more clear that commercial companies will seek to operate primary care pilots. Indeed, your Lordships might have seen recent reports that the PPP (the well-known private insurance firm) has mentioned in public print its intention to become involved. It says that its pilots,
"would be modelled on South Africa's 'medi-clinics' where private hospitals offer on-site primary care, including investigative facilities".
If primary care of that kind falls without the remit of the MPC as it exists at present, it seems to me that those commercial interests will become prominent and that all of our fears about the influence that that may have will come to fruition.
It is also clear, as I said in Committee when speaking to another amendment, that these commercial companies are almost bound to want to work in prosperous areas where they will make a profit. Otherwise, why would they want to do it? If there is no manpower distribution screening on an objective basis as the MPC carries out at present, there is every possibility that there will be a cluster of privately organised primary care services in the better parts of town at the expense of improved services in the more deprived communities.
In response to our amendments on the subject in Committee, the Government said that they felt that they could rely on the health authorities to sift and screen applications which were inappropriate before they went to the Secretary of Sate. But I believe that it is obvious that health authorities must only have the perspective of their own areas to consider as a primary concern and that they do not have the national, overall picture in mind when they make references upward to the Secretary of State. They also do not have the experience for scrutiny of general practitioners and the recommendations to practice which 50 years of the MPC has afforded.
The MPC continues to feel very strongly that its concerns are not being listened to by the Department of Health; that its overall role is essential; and that it cannot be excluded without serious damage to the distribution of general practitioners. The MPC has certainly convinced me of the importance of its role. I hope that the Government will reconsider and at least enter into proper dialogue with the MPC about an appropriate focus that it can have if the Bill goes into statute. I beg to move.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, perhaps I may make a few remarks in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and her well argued case that the MPC should not, so to speak, be swept aside in all the present developments. I hope that the Minister will excuse me standing up for the MPC, but it has been among my "arbiting" arbiters since the NHS began. All of us who had young colleagues who went into general practice have been most impressed by the work that the MPC has performed over the years.
I know that the MPC tends to be thought of as a rather small, and, therefore, uninfluential organisation. It has a budget of about £400,000 plus a year, but, after all, it covers over 104 areas and maintains careful watch over the proper distribution of general practices in those areas. In my view, it is not a very expensive operation to make sure that someone is keeping a careful eye on the distribution of general practitioners in our country. Professor Jarman at St. Mary's thinks highly of the performance of the Medical Practices Committee over the years. We should look at it as the defender of an even distribution of practitioners. I refer to compensation, where necessary, for practices in areas where the local population is deprived, or where people cannot speak English and may need to be provided with a general practitioner who can speak their language.
We should compare the wonderful distribution of practitioners under the NHS with the sad distribution, for example, in the United States of America, where perhaps 35 to 37 million people have not been properly provided for. As I say, I hope this committee will not, so to speak, be swept aside. It has done a wonderful job. We should try to retain its guidance to ensure we maintain a good distribution of general practitioners. I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I wish to comment on wider issues as well as on the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, always tries to

839
be of help to the House, but I think it right to make one or two observations on this and other amendments. We are now coming to the last few weeks of this Parliament. There is no prospect whatever of this Bill going through the House of Commons unless it is agreed. We are talking about a dissolution possibly at the end of March and the early part of April when we shall reach the statutory end of this Parliament. I do not want to waste time discussing what the result of the general election will be, but the reality is that in this period, when an announcement is made, a large number of Bills will die almost immediately. Unless this Bill is agreed in the House of Commons, it will almost certainly die. The department has to recognise the reality of that situation. I hope that when we discuss this Bill this week and next week the Government will recognise that unless they go to some trouble to try to meet the anxieties expressed by the Opposition, the prospects of its ever reaching the statute book in this Parliament are negligible.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, before I discuss the amendments that the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, has just dealt with, I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that my understanding is—I think it is the understanding of noble Lords in this House who have been through the Second Reading and the Committee stages of the Bill—that amendments have been tabled by noble Lords who have sought in some way to improve the Bill. I think that has the general acceptance of everyone. Therefore it is not necessary to go into further detail as regards the noble Lord's comments. He has his opinion but we do not agree with it.
Amendment No. 28 seeks to ensure that any agreements for personal medical services are submitted to the Medical Practices Committee for approval before such arrangements are put in place. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said, the Medical Practices Committee is concerned with the distribution of general medical practitioners throughout England and Wales. Pilots, and any permanent arrangements likely to flow from them, will not necessarily have medical manpower implications. Rather, they are concerned with providing services in different and innovative ways to meet the health needs of the local population. In many cases pilots will have no impact on the number and distribution of medical practitioners in the area. Where they do so, the Medical Practices Committee will be informed to ensure that, in carrying out its function in relation to general medical services, full account can be taken of the numbers of all medical practitioners delivering services within that area. In considering the contractual arrangements to be entered into for the provision of personal medical services, health authorities are best placed to judge local service needs. We find it difficult to see how the Medical Practices Committee—a small committee of some nine people in central London—could effectively second guess judgments taken locally by health authorities about such service issues and effectively have the power of veto over such decisions. Nevertheless, we understand the concerns which the Medical Practices Committee and the profession—and the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and
840
my noble friend Lord Butterfield—have expressed over the implications of pilots and any future arrangements for the even distribution of doctors. We continue to discuss this matter with the profession. I know your Lordships will be pleased to know that the chairman of the Medical Practices Committee and our officials will be taking these discussions forward at a meeting arranged for 28th January. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, was hopeful that that would happen. We shall continue to take a close interest and will let noble Lords know the outcome and the decisions we have made at Third Reading of the Bill.
Our aim in this Bill is to streamline the general practitioner appointment process. Amendment No. 49 put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, instead re-introduces bureaucracy but adds no substance to the clause. We intend that in all cases the Medical Practices Committee will decide whether or not a vacancy exists, but once that decision is made either the health authority or partners within a practice should select a candidate. As now, the health authority will check the qualifications of that candidate. This is all that is necessary and further involvement of the Medical Practices Committee would add nothing but delay to the process. I therefore hope the noble Baroness will not feel it necessary to proceed with these amendments.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. I am also grateful for the interventions of the noble Lords, Lord Butterfield and Lord Harris of Greenwich. I have some sympathy with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. I have felt at certain stages of this Bill, particularly as regards the provisions relating to pilot schemes, which may, if the legislation is completed, come into force in April 1998, that we are dealing in the realms of what I have now come to call "virtual" legislation. I also understand that the timetable of the Bill is such that it will not reach Second Reading in another place until the second week in February. Given the length of our deliberations and the number of government amendments that have been tabled at this late stage, I suspect it will be several weeks in Committee in another place. Therefore I reiterate my view that this is "virtual" legislation.
However, let us proceed on the basis that we are speaking in the realms of reality. I found the point that the noble Baroness made that local needs were more readily met by local health authorities difficult to understand. I, of course, appreciate that that view may be most easily judged on the local patch, as it were, but the whole point of the Medical Practices Committee is that it takes a wider and broader overview of needs and the manpower situation in general practice. If the Government feel, as the noble Baroness suggested, that some eight people (as she described in a slightly pejorative way) sitting in London are inadequate to take an overview, I am surprised the Government have not introduced earlier legislation to abolish that organisation, rather than simply ignoring it in relation to the new development in primary care which we are debating today.

841
As regards her response to Amendment No. 49, we have had our usual discussion, which I believe my noble friend Lady Hayman has already dealt with this afternoon, about whether we are speaking of bureaucracy or, as we would describe it, of safeguards. Once again, we fall heavily into the school of those who felt that safeguards were what we were seeking to achieve. To dress it up in some pejorative way as bureaucracy does not take us much further. I was, of course, pleased to hear the noble Baroness say that the department will meet the Medical Practices Committee again next week. I hope that that will result in the Government laying amendments after that meeting. However, I understand the meeting will take place on Tuesday and therefore we may once again be faced with rather late government amendments. However, if government amendments were to be laid, that would be acceptable. If there are no government amendments, I shall return to this subject at Third Reading. But, at the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 [Provision of personal medical or dental services]:
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
6 p.m.
Clause 18 [Supplementary regulations]:
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 11, line 41, after ("participants") insert ("other than Health Authorities").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendments Nos. 31 to 36:
Page 12, line 12, at end insert—
("(ee) prevent (except in such circumstances and to such extent as may be prescribed) a medical practitioner who performs personal medical services in accordance with section 28C arrangements from providing general medical services;").
Page 12. line 21, leave out from ("for") to end of line 26 and insert ("directions, as to payments, made under section 4(7) of the Act of 1990 (as it has effect as a result of regulations made by virtue of paragraph (g)) to be enforceable in a county court (if the court so orders) as if they were judgments or orders of that court;").
Page 12, line 26, at end insert—
("(hh) confer powers or impose duties on the Dental Practice Board in relation to agreements made by virtue of section 28C(1) under which personal dental services are provided;").
Page 12, line 34, at end insert—
("() Regulations made by virtue of subsection (3)(f) may, in particular, include provision—

(a) requiring (except in prescribed circumstances) Health Authorities to remove from their medical lists persons who are performing personal medical services in accordance with section 28C arrangements;

(b) conferring a right to transfer to a medical list on persons who have ceased to perform such services;

(c) that any provision in relation to medical lists made by or under any enactment is not to apply;

(d) as to conditions to be attached to entries in medical lists;

842

(e) conferring powers of disqualification on the Tribunal constituted under section 46.").

Page 12, line 34, at end insert—
("() The power to make provision under this section of the kind mentioned in subsection (3)(hh) includes power—

(a) to authorise or require the Dental Practice Board to perform on behalf of a Health Authority functions of a prescribed description (including functions relating to remuneration) which have been delegated to the Board by the Health Authority in accordance with a power conferred by the regulations;

(b) to provide that functions conferred by the regulations are only to be exercised by the Board in accordance with directions of the Secretary of State;

(c) to require information for the purpose of performing any functions conferred or imposed on the Board under this section.").

Page 12, line 43, after ("participants") insert ("other than Health Boards").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to the amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 12, line 49, at end insert—
"(c) include the provision of a complaints system for patients which is equivalent to that required of general medical and general dental practitioners").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment provides for the complaints system available for patients receiving personal medical services or personal dental services under pilot schemes or schemes made permanent under the provisions of the Bill.
The arrangements for complaints are not clear on the face of the Bill. The lines of accountability for doctors, dentists, nurses or others providing services under this legislation are in some doubt. At present there are clear lines of complaint and procedures for complaint either against individual general practitioners, general dental practitioners or health service trusts. It is not certain whether the bodies providing personal medical services or personal dental services under pilot schemes under the legislation would be subject to exactly the same procedures.
The purpose of the amendment is to make clear that patients who receive services under these schemes should have access to complaints procedures that are at least equivalent to those available to patients under conventional schemes.
The amendment is straightforward. The Minister may be able to reassure us that those processes are already in place. However, a simple reading of the Bill does not give that reassurance. The Consumers' Association and the National Consumer Council are most anxious that it should be made explicit that people should not be disadvantaged by being patients of doctors or dentists under these schemes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, was right to say that we have attempted to improve this Bill as it proceeds through the House; it is generally welcomed. However, there is a major issue of contention as regards private companies providing those medical

843
services. We shall return to that issue next week in this House. If it is not resolved happily here, it will undoubtedly be dealt with at length and with passion by my honourable and right honourable friends in another place. The passage in another place may not be straightforward given the circumstances that exist. Were personal medical services to be provided by commercial organisations, patients would wish to know whether they should refer complaints to a National Health Service system of procedure or whether they should go to the same person to whom they complained that their chicken was past its sell-by date. It is important to reassure patients that the standard and quality of the complaints procedure available at present will be available under the scheme.
Having had some experience of dealing with complaints, I do not put forward this argument because I wish to encourage a confrontational attitude between patients and providers, but from the knowledge—I know that it is shared by the Minister—that if one deals properly, sensitively and speedily with complaints one avoids litigation and expense for the National Health Service and distress for patients and complainants. It is an important issue. I look forward to hearing from the Minister. I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, in recent years there have been many changes in the various complaints procedures. Therefore I agree that one needs great clarification.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we agree with the noble Baroness that when a patient wishes to complain the procedures must be broadly the same regardless of whether the patient has been treated by, say, a general practitioner working in a pilot scheme or a GP working within the existing system. Patients should feel that they are fully part of the NHS regardless of whether they are treated under the existing or new arrangements.
We intend that the Secretary of State will require standard NHS complaints procedures to be part of the terms of the contracts drawn up between health authorities and boards and providers of services. That way each provider of service, be it general practitioner, general dental practitioner, NHS trust or other body, will have explicitly signed up to the standard complaints arrangements. There may be minor modifications, taking account of the circumstances of each pilot, but overall the arrangements will be on all fours with those which apply now to the family health services and trusts.
Existing NHS complaints procedures do not appear in primary legislation, and nor do we feel that they should do so for pilot arrangements. We are convinced that individual contracts are the appropriate place for stipulating complaints arrangements. We will build on the framework set out by the Bill in discussion with our national consultative groups and, where appropriate, set out more detail in secondary
844
legislation. I hope that I have been able to reassure both noble Baronesses and that the amendment will not need to be pursued.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Her response appears to cover many of our concerns. I wish to study what she said in detail. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendments Nos. 38 to 43:
Page 13, line 13, at end insert—
("(ee) prevent (except in such circumstances and to such extent as may be prescribed) a medical practitioner who performs personal medical services in accordance with section 17C arrangements from providing general medical services;").
Page 13, line 21, leave out from ("for") to end of line 25 and insert ("directions, as to payments, made under section 17A(8) (as it has effect as a result of regulations made by virtue of paragraph (g)) to be enforceable by the sheriff as if they were judgments or orders of the sheriff and whether or not the sheriff could himself have made such judgments or orders;").
Page 13, line 25, at end insert—
("(hh) confer powers or impose duties on the Dental Practice Board in relation to agreements made by virtue of section 17C(1) under which personal dental services are provided;").
Page 13, line 33, at end insert—
("() Regulations made by virtue of subsection (3)(f) may, in particular, include provision—

(a) requiring (except in prescribed circumstances) Health Boards to remove from their medical lists persons who are performing personal medical services in accordance with section 17C arrangements;

(b) conferring a right to transfer to a medical list on persons who have ceased to perform such services;

(c) that any provision in relation to medical lists made by or under any enactment is not to apply;

(d) as to conditions to be attached to entries in medical lists;

(e) conferring powers of disqualification on the Tribunal constituted under section 29.").

Page 13, line 33, at end insert—
("() The power to make provision under this section of the kind mentioned in subsection (3)(hh) includes power—

(a) to authorise or require the Dental Practice Board to perform on behalf of a Health Board functions of a prescribed description (including functions relating to remuneration) which have been delegated to the Dental Practice Board by the Health Board in accordance with a power conferred by the regulations;

(b) to provide that functions conferred by the regulations are only to be exercised by the Dental Practice Board in accordance with directions of the Secretary of State;

(c) to require information for the purpose of performing any functions conferred or imposed on the Dental Practice Board under this section.").

Page 13, line 34, leave out first ("section") and insert ("Act").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 19 [Right to choose medical practitioner]:
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment
No. 44:
Page 13, line 39, leave out ("choose") and insert ("be registered with").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is similar to that moved by my noble friend Lady Hayman regarding complaints. It reflects our concerns about whether the right to choose a general practitioner is the same within the meaning of this legislation as the right to be registered with the general practitioner.
Two aspects need to be more specific on the face of the Bill than at present. The first is the patient's right to know, for example, the type of general practice with which he or she is registered. Secondly, will the GP practising under Part I pilot arrangements have a personal list, or will there be a practice list? There are obvious reasons why it is important for patients to know what type of contractual arrangement the GP has. For example, it would affect the hours of availability. A salaried GP might have an agreement under his pilot scheme to work for certain hours. That would be of obvious relevance to a patient who was concerned to make contact with him or her. It affects the nature of the services offered. After all, a GP may also be an independent contractor or employed by a trust.
Originally we and the professional bodies who look after these issues on behalf of the medical profession had understood that patients would continue to register in a pilot scheme with an individual general practitioner regardless of the type of contractual arrangement which was being undertaken by him in that pilot scheme. We understand from the Minister that there would be practice lists. We need to clarify the implications of a practice list before we move to another stage of the Bill.
The questions that arise come under various headings. For the purposes of this debate I merely list them in this order. Is, for example, the right of a patient to choose a GP the same as the right to be registered with an individual GP; or is it a right to be registered with a practice and to choose a GP in that practice without registering with that GP? If it is with a practice, what happens to patients if the GP in a Part I pilot, or indeed a permanent arrangement that may come out of a pilot, wishes to leave the partnership and return to Part II arrangements in the same area? Earlier government amendments were designed to facilitate that on behalf of the general practitioner. But will there be equal safeguards to allow the patient the right to choose whether to remain with the Part I practice in the pilot scheme or to move with his or her original GP who may be leaving the partnership?
When general practitioners in Part IT arrangements move to Part I, do they have a right to continue to have their own practice list, or will there be a mechanism that
846
will require a practice to register the GPs? I refer to the expression used by the Minister, "a practice list". Is that what "a practice list" will mean? What then happens if general practitioners want to return to being Part II doctors? Do they automatically take their lists back with them?
Those are all significant questions. Earlier we examined government amendments designed to facilitate the rights of GPs to move in and out of pilot schemes. It is extremely important that we have equal clarity in respect of the rights of patients.
There are all kinds of practical arguments and questions. For example, if practice lists are to be created, who would be responsible for patient cover out of surgery hours; and how would patients be made aware of those arrangements? Additional questions were raised in another context by my noble friend Lady Hayman about the responsibility for complaints. In a practice list, who will take the ultimate responsibility for any complaint that is made, however it is administered? These are very important issues on which we need to have clarity. This amendment seeks to put them on the face of the Bill unless the Minister can help us by providing that clarity in her explanation of what lies behind the Government's intentions. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the problem is principally one of language. I believe our intentions are absolutely at one. We believe that the direct relationship between a doctor and a patient on his list is one of the cornerstones of general practice. We certainly do not seek to change that in any way in the Bill.
Clause 19 secures a patient's right to choose a GP and extends the effects of the existing law to cover personal medical services. We believe that the present wording of the clause in the Bill is the best way to confirm a patient's right, subject to GP consent and any limitation on list size, to that personal relationship.
I shall try to answer some of the questions put by the noble Baroness. I believe she asked: is the right of a patient to choose a GP the same as the right to be registered with an individual GP, or is it a right to be registered with a practice and to choose a GP in that practice without registering with that GP? The patient will continue to have the right to choose to be on an individual GP's list and be registered with that GP, subject to the existing provisions about GP consent and list size. The practice could also choose to run a practice list system. The patient may also choose not be registered with an individual GP but with the practice as a whole. It would therefore be possible to have each doctor in a practice with an individual list of patients and a separate list of patients shared between the practice as a whole depending on the choices that patients made.
The noble Baroness also asked what happens if a practice list is in operation and a partner chooses to move out of the practice. What happens then to the patients—do they stay with the practice or do they move with the GP? Where that is a difficulty, a practice may operate a practice list system. When one or more of the partners decides to leave, both the patients on any individual list of the leaving doctors and those on the

847
practice list have to be notified of the change. They will then have the opportunity to decide either to go with the leaving doctor or stay with the practice.
The noble Baroness asked a whole range of other questions. I am very happy to answer them now; however, I am aware that time is going on and there is other business. Especially in the light of the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I am extremely anxious to be conciliatory. Perhaps the noble Lord was not in the Chamber when I withdrew one of the government amendments in just the spirit that he indicated. In addition, I succeeded in speaking with the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, last night, when I gave her an explanation of some of the amendments that we were putting forward, as I did with the noble Baroness, Lady Jay.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I was indeed here when the noble Baroness withdrew that amendment and rejoiced at the time that she had done so. I very much hope that, so far as the remaining stages of the Bill are concerned, the Government will adopt the same position. Without being, as she terms it, conciliatory, the prospect of this legislation getting on to the statute book in this Parliament would be seriously jeopardised.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. As she says, this may be a question of language. However, it is obviously not as clear as many people, including professional organisations, are concerned to have it.
I take the Minister's point about not replying in detail to the questions I raised. However, they were put to me by those with a professional concern about this matter, both from the point of view of the patient and that of the profession. This may be another amendment which it would be sensible for her to discuss further with the department and perhaps even with the British Medical Association, as she intends to do with Amendment No. 18, simply in order not to prolong discussion this evening but to be sure that those understandings about language, if it is simply a question of language, are appreciated and agreed upon by all sides.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I would be very happy to do that.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I thank the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendments Nos. 45 and 46:
Page 14, line 13, leave out ("provides") and insert ("performs").
Page 14, line 45, leave out ("provides") and insert ("performs").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 45 and 46. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Walton of Detchant Lord Walton of Detchant moved Amendment No. 47:
Before Clause 27, insert the following new clause—
GENERAL MEDICAL SERVICES: ADDITIONAL PROVISION BY MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS
("In the 1977 Act, at the end of section 29(2) insert—
"(h) for the circumstances in which a medical practitioner who is not suitably experienced within the meaning of section 31 or who does not have an acquired right prescribed or otherwise provided for by regulations may provide general medical services.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment I must express the hope that my voice will last out. I suspect that I may shortly be seeking primary care. The objective of the amendment is perfectly straightforward, but the practical implications are a little more complex. The 1977 Act to which the amendment refers is the one that required a statutory period of vocational training for all individuals wishing to enter general practice before they could become principals in general practice in the National Health Service.
The amendment would permit the Secretary of State to introduce regulations enabling doctors from outside the European Economic Area—that is not just the European Union, but also doctors from Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein—who are fully qualified in their own countries, to be involved in international exchanges, visiting the UK for short periods to leam from the experiences of working in general practice and possibly contributing to the education of UK undergraduates.
Many doctors from across the world have come to this country; some junior, seeking postgraduate training and experience, but some of them senior—professors and distinguished consultants—spending periods of sabbatical leave learning about medical practice in the United Kingdom and becoming involved in teaching the programmes. Since vocational training was introduced here in 1977 the quality of general practice and the nature of that training have become greatly admired overseas, not least in the United States, which is far behind us in the development of training programmes in primary care.
The General Medical Services Committee has been talking to the Department of Health on this topic. Many of us had thought that the department would be anxious to resolve the issue to enable doctors from overseas to obtain experience in general practice in this country. We believe that this amendment will provide a useful opportunity to give the Secretary of State power to introduce regulations to facilitate international exchange.
The purpose is that doctors from outside the EEA could be issued with time-limited certificates to enable them to work as supervised deputies in a named practice, assisting with the provision of general medical services. Overseas doctors, including professors of primary care and long-established general practitioners from other countries, should be able to visit the UK for that purpose.
Educational visits to general practices in the UK by GPs from abroad had proved of value but ceased in January 1995 following the implementation of Title IV of EC Directive 93/16, which facilitates the free

849
movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualification. Each member state is now required to institute vocational training in general medical practice. I look back to the years I spent on the Advisory Committee on Medical Training in Europe in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when it took a great deal of time and effort to persuade the other countries in the European Community, as it then was, that such a period of training was needed.
The Joint Committee on Postgraduate Training for General Practice in this country does not issue UK certificates to non-EEA doctors unless the individual concerned has completed a period of training in the UK, but my understanding is that that provision applies to individuals who might wish to become principals in general practice. I am subject to correction by the Minister but I do not believe that that should, or indeed could, preclude the issue of time-limited certificates to doctors from overseas wishing to work in a supervised capacity in a named practice.
One hopes that the passage of this amendment will enable regulations to be introduced requiring that a visiting doctor would work under the supervision of a principal on a medical list who had been approved as a supervisor; secondly, that the GP supervising the visitor would be responsible for any breach of terms of service occasioned by the visiting doctor; and, thirdly, that a time-limited visiting certificate could be issued which would not carry with it any right to make application for inclusion on a health authority's medical list and which would require that the doctor could only practice in a named practice or practices. My understanding is that recent draft proposals relating to immigration and employment would allow such doctors to be attached to practices in the UK.
I believe that the problems of registration with the General Medical Council could be overcome. After all, for many years temporary full registration has been offered to visiting professors coming to this country from abroad. There was even a situation some years ago when Japanese doctors coming to look after Japanese nationals working in the UK were allowed to have temporary full registration to enable them to work in that capacity.
The amendment covers only England and Wales. If, as I hope, it is acceptable to the Government, a similar amendment would be necessary to amend the 1978 National Health Service (Scotland) Act. I beg to move.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, on this amendment. The case has been eloquently made by him. It is clearly to everybody's benefit that these doctors from overseas should play a temporary role and have their education enhanced by visiting this country.
Sometimes we on these Benches are accused of undermining the NHS by the concerns which we express about it; let me say that I believe it would be of
850
enormous benefit to any overseas doctor trying to establish or conduct a proper primary care service in his or her own country to observe how well it is done here.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we agree with both the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, that international exchanges of the nature described by the noble Lord are of enormous value. Indeed the Joint Committee for Postgraduate Training in General Practice already has the power to issue certificates allowing overseas doctors to enter general practice in this country as a principal, but only where it considers their experience to be equivalent to that required of domestic GPs.
We do not believe that it would be in the interests of patients to allow exchange doctors entry on the strength of a lesser requirement. That would undermine the single standard of entry to UK and EC general practice necessary to maintain the quality of service to patients. Permanent supervision of the doctors concerned could not be guaranteed, with the result that patients could find themselves being treated by a GP whose qualifications did not meet the required standards.
I can assure the noble Lord that we have put forward to the professions proposals which would enable exchanges to take place within existing primary legislation and which would not fall foul of the principle I have just set out. With that reassurance, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I would only say that there have been occasions in the past when the Joint Committee for Postgraduate Training in General Practice has refused to offer certificates of equivalence or appropriate certificates to doctors of great distinction with extensive experience of general practice overseas solely on the grounds that those individuals have no experience of working in this country within the National Health Service. If the Minister can give me the assurance that discussions with that body and the profession have overcome that difficulty and that it will be possible for such doctors to come here on exchanges and work in general practice, providing the concerns that their experience and qualifications are of an appropriate standard are satisfied, I believe that that should be sufficient reassurance and I will beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 [Medical lists and vacancies: England and Wales.]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 23, line 21, after ("relates") insert ("(whether wholly or in part)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 48 and with it I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 70, 72, 77 and 88. This group of amendments is concerned with some matters of detail relating to our proposals on GP appointments contained in Clauses 27 and 28. Amendment No. 50 will enable a health authority to

851
make a reference to the Medical Practices Committee concerning a possible future practice vacancy, where, for example, it is known that a general practitioner is to retire at some future date. At the moment references can only be made where a vacancy actually exists. This will aid an authority's forward planning. Amendments Nos. 52 and 53 deal with technical matters concerning cross-border vacancies between England and Scotland, and Amendment No. 54 makes it clear that a reference to a health board in this Bill has the same meaning as in the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978. Amendment No. 70 ensures that medical practitioners with preferential rights to return to an authority's medical list can do so in relation to a vacancy which covers only part of that authority's area. Amendments Nos. 72 and 77 are drafting amendments.
I commend these amendments to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to. [Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 24, line 4, after ("is") insert (", or will be,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment
No. 51:
Page 24, line 23, leave out from beginning to ("or") in line 24.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment deals with another concern about the independence of the Medical Practices Committee. Its purpose is to delete the increased power which the Secretary of State seems to be giving to himself to vary or revoke decisions which at the moment are made within the law by the Medical Practices Committee. As we discussed on earlier amendments, we understand that the Government will meet next week with the Medical Practices Committee on this and other concerns.
With that in mind, given the reply that I expect to hear from the noble Baroness—I hope this will be the subject of those discussions—at this point I would simply like to register our concern on this additional matter about the Medical Practices Committee, to which we may have to return at Third Reading. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, Amendment No. 51 is concerned with the appeals process as it relates to the filling of vacancies. We find it rather baffling. Our intention in Clause 27(3)(b) is to provide a regulatory power for decisions taken by health authorities on filling vacancies to be reconsidered by the Secretary of State through an agreed appeals process. The amendment as tabled removes this power and effectively would mean that there would be no right of appeal to the Secretary of State over non-selection by a health authority to a medical
852
practitioner vacancy. We do not think that would be a very fair way to proceed. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I shall certainly withdraw the amendment this afternoon, on the understanding that I had when I moved it. This subject obviously lacks some clarity—certainly, views have been given to me expressing concern about the nature of the wording of this particular part of the Bill and its effect on the independence of the Medical Practices Committee. As I said in moving the amendment, I trust that it will be subject to the discussions which we understand will take place next Tuesday. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendments Nos. 52 to 54:
Page 24, line 25, leave out from ("vacancies") to end of line 26 and insert ("relating to the area of one Health Authority which also relate to the area of another Health Authority or a Health Board,").
Page 24, line 28, at end insert—
("(3A) Regulations which make provision about vacancies which relate partly to the area of a Health Board may, in particular, provide that section 29A(2)(b) is to have effect in prescribed circumstances as if the reference to regulations under this section were a reference to regulations under section 19B of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978.").
Page 24, line 37, at end insert—
(""Health Board" has the same meaning as in the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 28 [Medical lists and vacancies: Scotland]:
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendments Nos. 55 to 59:
Page 25, line 16, after ("relates") insert ("whether wholly or in part)").
Page 25, line 46, after ("is") insert (", or will be,").
Page 26, line 20, leave out from ("vacancies") to end of line 21 and insert ("relating to the area of one Health Board which also relate to the area of another Health Board or a Health Authority,").
Page 26, line 23, at end insert—
("(3A) Regulations which make provision about vacancies which relate partly to the area of a Health Authority may, in particular, provide that section 19A(2)(b) is to have effect in prescribed circumstances as if the reference to regulations under this section were a reference to regulations under section 29B of the National Health Service Act 1977.").
Page 26, line 32, at end insert—
(""Health Authority" has the same meaning as in the National Health Service Act 1977;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to. Clause 29 [Sale of medical practices]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 27, line 11, at beginning insert ("provided or").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 61, 62, 63 and 89. Since the inception of the National Health Service it has been unlawful to sell the goodwill of a medical practice. The Bill extends the prohibition to all those involved in providing and delivering personal medical services. Our aim is simply to ensure that the extension of the prohibition is done in a fair and even-handed way.
Amendments Nos. 60, 61, 62, 63 and 89 that we placed before the House are minor and consequential and are intended to ensure that our aim to extend the goodwill prohibition fairly to those who provide and deliver personal medical services is fully met. I very much hope that your Lordships will support the amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, two of the amendments are in my name. They relate to a question which the noble Baroness has not addressed; namely, the difference in this legislation between the sale of goodwill, to which we understand the provisions are addressed, and the previous legislation in which the words "partial goodwill" were also used. There is some concern that in a sense this may disguise an area about partial sale of assets within a general practice or within any kind of practice set up under the pilot schemes. The words "any part of goodwill" as opposed to "goodwill" in general, would make it more comfortable for those who are concerned about the implications of removing that provision. Perhaps the Minister can help me with that point.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I do not think the amendment will have the intention that the noble Baroness supposed. But we shall take it back and look at it with our officials.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 27, line 23, leave out from ("Authority") to end of line 25 and insert ("by arrangement with whom a person has at any time—

(a) provided general medical services, or

(b) provided or performed personal medical services in accordance with section 28C arrangements, means the area, district or locality of that Council, Committee or Authority (at that time).").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 27, line 36, at beginning insert ("provided or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 28, line 2, leave out from ("Board") to end of line 3 and insert ("by arrangement with whom a person has at any time—

(a) provided general medical services, or

(b) provided or performed personal medical services in accordance with section 17C arrangements, means the area of that Council or Board (at that time).").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 64:
After Clause 30, insert the following new clause—
EXPENDITURE OF HEALTH BOARDS
(".—(1) In section 85 of the 1978 Act (expenses of certain bodies), after subsection (1) insert—
"(1AA) Notwithstanding subsection (2), the amount allotted by the Secretary of State to a Health Board under subsection (1) shall include provision for expenditure of that Board which is attributable to—

(a) remuneration which is paid to persons providing additional pharmaceutical services (in accordance with directions under section 27A), in respect of such of those services as are designated; or

(b) remuneration which is—

(i) paid to persons providing general medical services under Part II;

(ii) determined by the Health Board concerned; and

(iii) of a designated description.

(1AB) In subsection (1AA), "designated" means designated in writing by the Secretary of State for the purposes of that subsection and in relation to the allotment in question.".
(2) In subsection (2) at the beginning insert "Subject to subsection (1AA),".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this new clause permits health boards to make payments from cash limited funds to GPs with whom they agree to develop specific areas of general medical services locally and to persons who undertake to provide certain additional pharmaceutical services. The clause is the Scottish equivalent of the English provisions contained in Clause 30(3A)(c) and (d) of the Bill. I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 33 [Interpretation]:
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 29, line 40, leave out subsections (3) to (6) and insert—
("(3) Except in sections 28C and 28D of the 1977 Act and sections 17C and 17D of the 1978 Act—

(a) references in any enactment (or in any instrument made under any enactment) to arrangements made under section 28C of the 1977 Act or section 17C of the 1978 Act are to be read, except where the context otherwise requires, as including references to pilot schemes; and

(b) references in any enactment (or in any instrument made under any enactment) to services under section 28C of the 1977 Act or section 17C of the 1978 Act, or to services provided in accordance with arrangements made under either of those sections, are to be read, except where the context otherwise requires, as including references to piloted services.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 10. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 34 [Short title, commencement and extent, etc.]:
Lord Rea Lord Rea moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 30, line 11, after ("Primary") insert ("Health").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to introduce the word "Health" into the Short Title of the Bill between the words "Primary" and "Care", so that it becomes the National Health Service (Primary Health Care) Act.
The reason is twofold. First and most important is to emphasise that primary care is a highly appropriate place to offer preventive as well as curative health services. For many years preventive services have been provided by the best primary healthcare teams. They include, for example, ante-natal and post-natal care, immunisation and child health surveillance. More recently, health promotion and preventive care, including screening, have been made available to a wide section of the population through the best primary healthcare teams, aiming to reduce the incidence and severity of many serious disabling conditions, such as asthma, raised blood pressure and obesity, among physical conditions, as well as counselling and care for patients with drug, alcohol and some mental health problems. Including the word "Health" in the Title of the Bill will remind those who are approving pilot schemes of the wider role of primary healthcare.
In the second place, "primary health care"—often now shortened to the initials PHC—is the term by which it is known internationally, especially by the World Health Organization. It is accepted as the description for the wide range in care that is appropriate in frontline community settings. It was the term used at the pioneering international conference in 1978 at Alma-Ata, which gave such a worldwide boost to primary health care as a concept. I do not suggest that "Primary Health Care" should be substituted throughout the Bill but that we should have it in the Title to show the type of activity we hope will be covered by the many schemes the Bill will allow. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the objective behind the amendment is one that we can subscribe to wholeheartedly. Indeed, the recognition that healthcare provision needs the team effort of a range of health and social care professionals has been an important theme in recent years. In the family health services, the idea that everything centres around the general practitioner in his surgery has increasingly given way to a team approach.
We want the new arrangements that the Bill will allow to continue and build on that approach. One significant development is that contracts for personal medical services will not have to be held exclusively by GPs; partnerships made up of, say, nurses, GPs and perhaps other professionals will be able to put forward proposals to provide services. We will also want to continue to encourage an approach to service provision which takes proper account of social factors. The White Paper, Delivering the Future, published on 17th December explicitly encourages that.
The fact that the Short Title of the Bill refers to primary care and not primary health care will not affect that in the least. The Short Title is primarily an indexing tool. It will helpfully identify the services that the Bill deals with as those which people can access directly rather than via a
856
referral. The Short Title will in no way restrict the way such services can develop in future. I hope that the noble Lord will therefore not press the amendment.
Lord Rea: My Lords, naturally I shall not press the amendment, particularly at this stage. However, I am a little disappointed that my advocacy has not had the desired effect. The amendment may well crop up again—not at Third Reading in this House but perhaps in another place. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 30, line 26, at end insert—
("() Orders under subsections (3) and (7) must be made by statutory instrument.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 30, line 27, at beginning insert ("Part I of).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 68 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 69, 85 and 90. The amendments in this group make minor technical changes to clarify ambiguities, tidy up the drafting and remove obsolete provisions in NHS legislation in preparation for a consolidation Bill. These will ensure that the statute book is easier to follow and remove the need to repeat inaccuracies in the consolidation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 30, line 27, at end insert—
("() Part II of Schedule 2 makes amendments to facilitate, or which are otherwise desirable in connection with, the consolidation of certain enactments relating to the health service.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Preferential Treatment on Transferring to Medical Lists]:
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendments Nos. 70 and 71:
Page 31, line 19, after ("relates") insert ("(whether wholly or in part)").
Page 32, line 12, at end insert ("(whether kept under the 1977 Act or the 1978 Act)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall move Amendments Nos. 70 and 71 en bloc. I have spoken to these amendments already. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 33, line 30, leave out ("as to whether there is a vacancy").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 73 to 75 not moved.]
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendments Nos. 76 to 85:
Page 36, line 11, at end insert—
(" In Schedule 12, in paragraph 1 (1)(b), after "drug or medicine" insert "(otherwise than in accordance with section 28C arrangements)".").
Page 36, line 25, leave out ("as to whether there is a vacancy").
Page 36, line 37, at end insert—
("In section 28(2)(b), after "that" insert "(i)", and after "arrangements" insert ", and
(ii) all additional pharmaceutical services provided in accordance with a direction under section 27 A,".").
Page 37, line 13, leave out from ("body"") to end of line 14 and insert ("means a person or body within the meaning of section 17A(2);";").
Page 37, line 18, leave out ("means arrangements made under section 17C"") and insert ("has the same meaning as in section 17D(4)"").
Page 39, line 5, at end insert—
("In Schedule 11, in paragraph 1 (1)(b), after "drug or medicine" insert "(otherwise than in accordance with section 17C arrangements)".").
Page 39, leave out lines 14 to 16 and insert ("or (iii)").
Page 39, line 20, leave out from first ("section") to ("at") in line 21 and insert ("17,").
Page 39, line 24, at end insert ("or section 27A of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978"").
Page 39, line 28, at end insert—
("PART II PRE-CONSOLIDATION AMENDMENTS
The National Health Service Act 1966 (c. 8)
34.—(1) Section 10 of the National Health Service Act 1966 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), omit "Part II of the National Health Service Act 1977 or" and "section 56 of the said Act of 1977 or".
(3) In subsection (2), omit "the Minister or, as the case may be,".
(4) Omit subsection (3).
The National Health Service Act 1977 (c. 49)
35. The 1977 Act is amended in accordance with paragraphs 36 to 43.
36.—(1) Section 29 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), after "regulations" insert "which shall be made for the purpose".
(3) In subsection (2)(a), for "of lists" substitute "by each Health Authority of a list" and after "services" insert "for persons in the Health Authority's area".
(4) Subsection (4) continues to have effect as originally enacted.
37. In section 35(1), after "regulations" insert "which shall be made for the purpose".
38. In section 36(1)(a), for "of lists" substitute "by each Health Authority of a list" and after "services" insert "for persons in the Health Authority's area".
39. In section 38(1), after "with regulations" insert "which shall be made for the purpose".
40. In section 39(a), for "of lists of medical practitioners, and ophthalmic opticians, respectively," substitute "by each Health Authority of a list of medical practitioners and a list of ophthalmic opticians" and after "services" insert "for persons in the Health Authority's area".
41. In section 41, after "with regulations" insert "which shall be made for the purpose".
42. Omit section 43A(3).
43. Omit paragraph 37 of Schedule 15.
Transitional provisions for amendments to 1977 Act
44.—(1) This paragraph applies where an amendment made by this Part of this Schedule to section 29(1), 35(1), 38(1) or 41 of the 1977 Act imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations for certain purposes.
(2) If immediately before the amendment comes into force—
(a) regulations made for the same purposes are in force under the provision concerned or a related provision; and
(b) the regulations would have wholly, or to any extent, discharged the duty if it had been operative when they were made, the regulations shall be deemed to discharge that duty, wholly or (as the case may be) to that extent.
(3) Nothing in this Part of this Schedule shall affect the validity of the regulations mentioned in sub-paragraph (2).
The National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 (c.19)
45. In section 14(6)(g), for "health board" substitute "Health Board".
The Health and Medicines Act 1988 (c. 49)
46. In section 17(1) of the Health and Medicines Act 1988, for "36, 39 or 42" substitute "35, 36, 38, 39, 41 or 42".
The Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 (c. 46)
47. In section 6(5) of the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 for "36,39 or 42" substitute "35, 36,38, 39,41 or 42".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall move Amendments Nos. 76 to 85 en bloc. I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Repeals and Revocations]:
[Amendments Nos. 86 and 87 not moved.]
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendments Nos. 88 to 90:
Page 40, line 38, column 3, leave out (", (3), (4), (6) and (7)") and insert ("to (8)").
Page 40, line 41, column 3, leave out from ("1") to end of line 43 and insert ("paragraphs 19,22(a) and (c) to (g) and 36").
Page 40, line 43, at end insert—
("PART II PRE-CONSOLIDATION REPEALS

Chapter

Short title

Extent of repeal

1966 c. 8.

The National Health Service Act 1966.

In section 10, in subsection (1) the words "Part II of the National Health Service Act 1977 or" and "section 56 of the said Act of 1977 or", in subsection (2) the words "the Minister or, as the case may be," and subsection (3).

1977 c. 49.

The National Health Service Act 1977.

Section 43A(3). In Schedule 15, paragraph 37.")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall move Amendments Nos. 88 to 90 en bloc. I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.

Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Bill [H.L.]
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that Her Majesty and His Royal Highness, having been informed of the purport of the Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Bill, have consented to place their prerogatives and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time.
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—

(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.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, although we have traversed this ground before, there are one or two additional points on which I seek the Minister's response. The new clause deals with the identification of marine environmental high risk areas and the introduction of measures to minimise threats to those areas from shipping.
At Report stage the Minister said that,
"we already have powers to implement the definition of MEHRAs which was proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson".—[Official Report, 13/1/97; col. 23.]
While that is true, would it not be better and more desirable to see active measures to reduce shipping risks within particularly sensitive sites? If, for example, an oil terminal is located within or near to a MEHRA, tug escorts could be identified as being required at the site. If there was a lack of co-operation on the part of terminal operators to co-operate on a voluntary basis, would not the Minister agree that some regulations—perhaps some enabling power in primary legislation—may be required? And if changes in primary legislation were to be required, surely now would be the best time to consider them.
There are a number of other measures that could be considered for MEHRAs on a site-by-site basis. There is the risk that if we let this opportunity pass by or the Minister says that he will give the matter further consideration when the Bill reaches another place, the Minister could be delimiting the range of options that he has to protect those special areas.
The Minister was right when he said, on the same day at col. 25, that measures may only be taken which are consistent with international law or which have been agreed by the IMO in relation to the UK's pollution zone. But that surely does not apply within our own territorial waters where we would be able to utilise tug escorts for laden tankers entering terminals inside MEHRAs without the consent of the IMO.
The Minister referred to PSS As—particularly sensitive sea areas—a concept developed within the IMO. It is a concept he supported, and I support it also on behalf of the Opposition. But it is virtually unused. The only PSSA of which I am aware—he can correct me if I am wrong—is the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. The concept, while self-evidently a good one, has not been particularly well received by other states at the IMO, certainly as far as practical application is concerned. Everybody is always prepared to accept the principle; it is however the practical application that matters.
The Minister said that the amendment we were then considering was premature, and he raised all sorts of arguments relating it to the PSSA, of course, and also to developments within Europe. However, the PSSA concept, while it does exist, is in fact hardly one which has been adopted, as I have already indicated, with any alacrity by anyone. Therefore, to rely on that is to some degree misleading. Indeed, a MEHRA once established could be submitted to the IMO as a candidate for the PSSA. I believe that I am right in saying that. Why should the two concepts be mutually exclusive?
The IMO is unable to endorse any PSSAs until they have been submitted by individual states. The Minister acknowledged that the European Union, as I have already said, has been considering a somewhat similar concept: MESAs—Marine Environmentally Sensitive Areas—but I see no reason why MEHRAs could not be submitted to the European Union, because concrete proposals on MESAs have not yet been produced. If the Minister is concerned at being rapidly overtaken, or quickly overtaken, as he put it, by international measures, perhaps this could be avoided by the United Kingdom taking the lead in the designation and protection of such sites. There is a case for amendment here, and I am sure that if the Minister rejects that view at this stage it will be a point taken by my honourable friends in another place.
I wish to ask the Minister about the discussions that have taken place regarding PSSAs, and I believe that the last major discussions took place at the IMO in July of last year. Can he give some resume of the intervention that was made on behalf of the United Kingdom in the course of those discussions? Can he also state what proposals he is able to put forward to ensure that progress is made with PSSAs at the IMO and also, on a similar basis, what particular proposals he has regarding the introduction and implementation of MESAs through the European Union?
The Minister referred to the radar surveys of various routeing measures in United Kingdom waters. Of course, ship routeing is one of a number of active measures which could be undertaken inside a MEHRA, but it would be helpful if we were able to see a copy of the radar survey results. Some of the surveys were, as I understand it, undertaken something like three years ago. They included Skomer, the Isles of Scilly, Shetland and Fair Isle. Since the results are reputedly representing good news, perhaps the Minister can indicate whether he will put a copy of those results and an interpretation of them into the Library of the House.
I end on this note, that I believe the Minister has certainly made good progress in this field. My ambition is to assist him, not to make a difficulty for him. The purpose of this debate is to discover not only responses to the points I have made but also to give the Minister an opportunity to indicate to the House what progress has been made in relation to the other matters which I have raised. I beg to move.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, mentioned in his opening remarks, we have had a full debate on this issue at earlier stages. That was very helpful in highlighting the areas of concern and giving the House information about this important subject.
At earlier stages of the Bill, I emphasised our support for the sentiment behind this amendment and the similar ones that were moved at earlier stages. I wish to re-emphasise that support today. However, I did at those stages state that there were specific reasons why the Government could not support the amendment at that stage and, indeed, those hold good for why we cannot support the amendment today. However, the noble Lord has asked me some interesting questions, and there are some additional details that I could provide to him.
First, as I have mentioned previously, we already have the powers to do much of what is proposed in the amendment. In general, our powers are the maximum that we are entitled to under international law. When we are considering the subject, it is of course vital that we keep well in mind our international obligations. This amendment would go beyond those powers and therefore could lead to inconsistency with international law. The amendment is also premature, as work on protecting environmentally sensitive areas is being carried forward both within the Government and internationally. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, probed further on the subject of prematurity, and it is worth emphasising the work that is going on within government. I will come on to that in a moment.
Without repeating all the details of the speech that I gave at an earlier stage, I would like to clarify a possible misconception about what a MEHRA is. The term was coined by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, in his report Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas. He proposed that MEHRAs should be,
"comparatively limited areas of high sensitivity which are also at risk from shipping".
The noble and learned Lord also recommended that, in the first instance, we should protect MEHRAs through publicity. He stated:
862
"Providing owners, Masters, shippers and insurers with information on the existence, significance and location of MEHRAs is the vital first step".
If publicity did not achieve sufficient results, the noble and learned Lord proposed that MEHRAs should be protected through a variety of protective routeing measures. These could include protected headlands, protected areas, compulsory areas to be avoided and compulsory routes.
The actual recommendations made in the report for MEHRAs do not require new primary legislation. That is an important point in our consideration of this issue. The agreement of the International Maritime Organisation would be required for mandatory routeing measures. But there is no need for additional provisions in this Bill to implement such routeing measures once IMO agreement has been obtained.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, inquired further about what the Government are doing to take forward the recommendation on the subject. As recommended in the report, we are holding a series of meetings with other government departments and indeed with outside organisations on the criteria that may be applied to define such an area. At the Government's request, the joint nature conservancy councils have been working on possible criteria, following meetings that were held some time ago. I am confident that this is the most appropriate and effective way to take forward this important work.
As I explained at Report, this is a matter on which considerable care is needed because hastily defined MEHRAs could cause more harm than good to the marine environment and other marine interests, especially if the designation does not earn the respect of mariners. The report said that:
"Identifying the key sensitive areas is extraordinarily difficult".
The noble and learned Lord also said:
"The more numerous and the larger the areas highlighted as particularly sensitive, the greater the risk of assumptions that the remainder is of no environmental significance—which cannot be true".
The Government certainly agree with this sentiment. All of our coastline is important. We are therefore seeking to make as rapid progress as possible, taking account of the dangers of acting too hastily.
The amendment would give quite wide powers, which could go beyond the concept of MEHRAs as proposed by the noble and learned Lord. It would give us powers to introduce "necessary measures" to safeguard maritime safety and the environment. The measures allowed under this amendment are undefined and give a very wide scope on the type of the measures which could be introduced. I would like to say a word or two further about that in the light of the speech of the noble Lord.
Following my earlier remarks, the House will be aware that coastal states do not have unlimited discretion on the controls which can be imposed on foreign ships. The wide powers envisaged by the amendment would apply within the territorial sea and within the United Kingdom's pollution zone. However, under the Law of the Sea Convention, measures may

863
only be taken in the pollution zone which are consistent with existing international law or which have been agreed by the International Maritime Organisation. Again, it would not be sufficient just to inform them.
I have already explained that we have powers to implement the concept of MEHRAs as proposed, but there are in addition a number of other measures which can be taken to protect individual sea areas. For example, we are already taking steps to designate special areas around the UK coast under the International Convention on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. These areas would severely restrict the substances which may be discharged from ships into the sea. Again, we do not need additional primary legislation to implement these special areas. We already have powers under Section 128 of the 1995 Act to implement these areas through secondary legislation.
Those arguments address the specific points contained in the amendment. However, the noble Lord went slightly wider in his speech and perhaps I may say a few words about those points. He suggested various other measures which might be taken in a MEHRA or very close to a MEHRA with regard to, for example, an oil institution. He mentioned in particular the question of tug escort. Tug escort into an oil terminal in a MEHRA can be made a condition of port entry under harbour by-laws and regulations. No primary legislation is needed. However, we need to define the criteria for the MEHRA: first, the environmental criteria and also the risk criteria. Harking back to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, actually proposed as the definition of MEHRAs, the use of compulsory tug escorts outside the vicinity of a port could go beyond what is permissible under our international agreement. That is an important point and one on which the noble Lord touched.
The noble Lord referred to particularly sensitive sea areas. I can tell him that proposals for other PSSAs are currently before the IMO. Indeed, one of them may have regard to Cuba.
I hope that the points which the noble Lord raised take our argument on MEHRAs further forward. He raised one additional point concerning the radar surveys. The noble Lord is right. A good deal of good news came out of those in terms of the degree to which merchant shipping was abiding by the routes which we had set. I understand that work is going on to bring together the results of those surveys in a suitable form for publication. When that work is done I shall ensure that copies are placed in the Library of the House.
The amendment is not needed to implement MEHRAs. We are working positively to take forward this concept. The amendment seeks to give wider powers which are in part already provided by international law and in part inconsistent with international law. For those reasons, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
7 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that detailed response. I am very glad that once the radar surveys have been reduced to a position in which they can be made readily available the department will ensure that they will be. I say the "department" advisedly. That is encouraging news. I do not know what timespan the Minister has in mind but I am sure that it will be done as rapidly as possible.
I am glad about the proposal for the PSSA around Cuba. I was thinking of something nearer home than Cuba, but it is important that this concept should be implemented with much greater rapidity than has been the case so far. I garnered from what the Minister said that he shares that view. He did not indicate what specific initiative the United Kingdom Government have taken. However, I shall not press him on that now because it does not arise directly out of what we have been saying. He may wish to drop me a line about that in due course.
I listened carefully to what the Minister had to say about prematurity and about having too many MEHRAs. I shared that view and said so at Second Reading. One could find the situation becoming very confusing if we had a proliferation of MEHRAs. That is therefore something to be avoided. However, I am not looking for that. I am looking for some progress in relation to them. I think the Minister has been characteristically helpful in defining the Government's position. I am not entirely sure about the legalities, but that is a matter which no doubt my honourable friends in another place will want to consider.
I close by saying that the Minister has been very open indeed about these matters. I am grateful for that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Powers of intervention where shipping accident threatens pollution]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 2: Page 4, line 11, leave out ("imminent").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stands in my name and in the names of my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the definition of an accident does not lead to a delay in intervention by being unduly restrictive. I said last time that I took the view that the word "imminent" could be unduly restrictive and that that in consequence could undermine or at least constrain at least the intervention powers which would be available to the Secretary of State when the Bill is enacted.
Perhaps I may give an example of what I mean. If a tanker were to lose its engine power offshore and winds threatened to blow it ashore within a relatively short period of time—say, 36 hours—the master might feel that he was placed under a good deal of pressure to argue that the situation did not constitute an imminent threat of material damage to the ship or to its cargo. This amendment would avoid that possible anomaly because the Secretary of State could avoid situations

865
where masters delayed requests for help in order to avoid being held responsible by the shipowner for incurring rescue costs.
I know the Minister will say that what he is doing is to follow the wording that has been agreed internationally. However, would the word "imminent" undermine the position that already obtains under such agreements? I do not think it would. It would lead to a better definition of the circumstances in which the Secretary of State could intervene. That clarity would be of enormous help. I hope the Minister will feel that my point is worthy of further consideration. I beg to move.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I understand the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is deploying. I see what he is driving at. I believe that I can reassure him. I have looked at the matter again between the various stages of the Bill and I have taken legal advice.
Clearly, in many respects it is in the UK's interest for the intervention powers to be as wide as possible. However, we need to take account—as the noble Lord read my mind—of existing international law. Both the Intervention Convention 1969 and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 allow states to intervene when there is an imminent threat of material damage to a ship or cargo. The amendment would remove the word "imminent" and so make UK legislation inconsistent with international law.
The notion of an imminent threat of damage is also used in the international conventions on compensation for pollution damage caused by ships. Compensation is only available for reasonable measures taken to prevent an imminent threat of damage. The retention of the word "imminent" will therefore strengthen our case when arguing that the cost of our response to an incident should be compensated because the action taken was reasonable in the circumstances.
There is an important argument that we should keep the language of our domestic legislation as close as possible to international law in this area for the reasons I have outlined. The only reason for not doing so would be if we felt that our powers were unduly constrained because of not doing so. I am confident that retaining the word "imminent" would not unduly restrict our powers to intervene at the appropriate moment if we thought it necessary. For those reasons—I do not expect that the noble Lord will totally agree with me—I do not believe that we are being unduly restricted by the word "imminent". I have looked at the matter carefully. Therefore, on consideration, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I readily agree that the argument for maintaining total consistency with international legislation, which is relevant to this issue, is a powerful one. Perhaps the noble Viscount, with the leave of the House, will respond to this point. Obviously, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. I ask the department to maintain a careful watch on the situation to see whether circumstances do arise similar to those which I referred to earlier and where the
866
word "imminent" might operate as a difficult fetter as far as the intervention powers of the Secretary of State are concerned.
I ask the noble Viscount to indicate whether it is his view that it would be an advantage, after appropriate consideration of the implementation of the scheme, to ascertain within, say, a year, or two years at the outside, whether there would be a case for reconsidering the position. If the Minister is right and no constraints are seen to be operating, that will be very comforting. However, if doubts begin to develop it might be appropriate for the matter to be held under close review.
If I am right in the example I have quoted—and there may be others—then serious damage could arise where a delay on the part of a master to make a request for assistance occurred. I cannot ask the Minister to go further than that at the moment. I recognise that it is important because negotiations have taken place, the package has emerged, and it is important to give it a chance to operate. I hope that the debates that we have had will highlight a potential difficulty that may arise. I am sure that the Minister will feel that the debates have been of advantage.
Perhaps he will also indicate whether, if a difficulty were to arise, the Government would feel it appropriate to raise the issue once again in the International Maritime Organisation and the other fora to which he alluded. I recognise that this is speculative. I ask the Minister to intervene once again to answer the specific point as to whether he believes that the department should hold the issue under review to see whether my anxieties were becoming very real in practice. I believe that that is a reasonable request to make, and I hope that the Minister will answer in the affirmative before I withdraw the amendment.
7.15 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, with the leave of the House, it may be helpful if I respond to the specific point that the noble Lord raised. The fact that the word "imminent" occurs in the Bill should be taken in the context that we are already familiar with its terminology in intervention matters. The word "imminent" is known and understood. I am sure that if there had been any feeling within my department or the Coastguard Agency that people are, or would be, unnecessarily fettered by that word it would have been brought to my attention. I have inquired further and that is very definitely the case—that is to say, there is not a feeling that we are unduly fettered by having the word "imminent" in our legislation.
Our policy is to take action and move equipment when it is clear that a threat exists. That is one of the lessons of the "Braer". When we have taken action, for example, escorting the super tanker "Mimosa", with which the noble Lord is familiar, we have passed the test imposed even with the word "imminent" being present. We would not want to have causes for delay. I would certainly like to draw the matter to a conclusion.
I am reluctant to say that all these matters will be kept under review, but I can say this to the noble Lord. During the passage of time and with the experience

867
which I hope we will not have of incidents which require intervention, if we felt that we were unnecessarily hampered with the word "imminent" I would certainly want to take action to ensure that the wording was changed. However, I reinforce the fact that I do not believe that that is likely. I believe that the legislation stands up well and gives us the right powers to intervene quickly in circumstances where danger exists.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, once again I appreciate the Minister's intervention, with the leave of the House. I believe the assertion that he has made about the department maintaining a careful watch on the situation and ensuring that, if my apprehensions were to be fulfilled in any way, then action would be considered. I do not believe that I can ask for anything more. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 4, line 26, leave out ("137(1)") and insert ("137").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving this amendment it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak to Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 at the same time. They are all minor technical amendments. Amendment No. 3 is consequential on earlier amendments to Clause 2 made in your Lordships' House. It broadens subsection (6)(b) of Clause 2 so that it refers to the whole of Section 137 rather than Section 137(1) alone. Subsection (1) is no longer the only subsection amended in Clause 2.
Amendment No. 10 corrects a drafting error in Clause 25. As currently drafted, there is a reference to a section where there should be a reference to a subsection. In order to avoid ambiguity, the amendment will substitute the correct reference.
Amendment No. 11 is a simple correction to the commencement provisions of the Bill. It adds Clause 29, which deals with the extent and application of the Bill, to the clauses which come into force immediately on Royal Assent. I beg to move.
On Question amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Waste reception facilities at harbours]:
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 7, leave out lines 10 and 11 and insert ("The master of a ship shall—").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stands in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. It may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 16.
We have covered many of the issues raised in these amendments at earlier stages, but it is perhaps worth pointing out that Amendment No. 4 seeks to give a departmental officer the power, on the face of the Bill, to require the discharge of waste from ships in ports where that officer has reasonable cause to consider it necessary. Currently, the Bill includes that only as an enabling power.
To some extent, the amendment reflects what the Minister said on Report when considering a similar amendment. The noble Viscount said:
"The powers could be a useful addition to existing powers to enforce pollution regulations … a power to require waste to be discharged would provide only part of the answer".—[Official Report, 13/1/97; col. 46.]
Perhaps I may turn that round the other way and say that the power therefore provides part of the answer. The amendment does not aim to put a universal requirement for mandatory discharge on the face of the Bill because we acknowledge that much more thought and consultation is required before such regulations may be drafted. However—this comment applies to all the amendments to which I am speaking—we are concerned about the exceptional cases. An exceptional case could be that of a vessel which has made an illegal discharge in the past and which is proposing to leave a port with a full waste tank.
In conclusion on Amendment No. 4 and Amendment No. 5, which is consequential upon it, perhaps I should point out that the provisions are also in line with a statement made by the Minister in a recent letter to my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis in which the noble Viscount stated:
"As regards a 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 therefore prevented from trading, until the waste has been discharged".
I turn now to Amendment No. 6, which seeks to delete the reference to arbitration and compensation. That would be replaced by making the power subject to Section 261 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, which includes provision for the detention of the ship by the serving of a prohibition notice, as well as including provisions for arbitration and compensation. Again, I believe that the amendment incorporates comments made by the Minister on Report, particularly on the question of arbitration. The addition of new Section 130C(2) to Schedule 6 makes it explicit that the arbitration and compensation procedures which already apply to other improvement and prohibition notices under Section 261 would also apply to this additional power. It could be argued that that has already been achieved by the Minister's amendment to Schedule 6, adding new Section 130A, but I believe that the specific mention of Section 130C(2) eliminates any uncertainty.
The Minister and others have commented on the desirability of achieving the use of waste reception facilities through persuasion and consultation. I am sure that all noble Lords would agree that that is a desirable objective when dealing with the whole industry, but we must accept that it is unrealistic when dealing with the small number of operators who repeatedly and deliberately commit offences. It is the behaviour of unscrupulous operators—who will probably not be influenced by waste management plans or the introduction of the inclusive fee systems—which we shall be discussing in a moment, on which we must concentrate.
We share the concern that any unilateral increase in pollution control powers which would make British ports less competitive would be undesirable. However,

869
I do not believe that measures such as this would deter responsible ship owners from entering UK ports. I repeat that the provisions are targeted at those whose operations threaten the UK coastline and waters and add to the costs of those such as local authorities who have to deal with the clean-up. I hope that I have summarised the provisions of the amendments. I beg to move.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the package of amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has just spoken has the same intention as a number of amendments which were tabled at Report and on Committee. They would seek to remove the flexibility in the Bill to make regulations on the discharge of waste from ships.
As I explained at Report stage, it is vitally important that we do not act too hastily on this issue. If we impose requirements on ships which are too onerous, there is a danger that some shipowners may be tempted to discharge their waste into the sea in order to avoid disproportionate costs, as the noble Lord acknowledged in his introduction. None of us wants to see that. The Bill therefore provides enabling powers which could be used following full consultation with all interested bodies. The noble Lord quoted back at me my own remarks at an earlier stage—that is always a powerful tool to use—when I said that that was only part of the answer. Yes, it is a part—and it is a part that we can use through the enabling powers. The crucial question is whether it should be an enabling power or whether the flexibility should be removed.
It is important that the provisions on discharge of wastes from ships are considered as elements of an overall strategy. We should not impose any one measure without considering the effect it will have on the others. In particular, we should be careful not to require shipowners to discharge wastes into port reception facilities until we are sure that those facilities are adequate. That is why we intend to take action first on waste management plans. We have had very good debates on that subject at earlier stages.
The concept of requiring ships to discharge wastes is a relatively new one. Although claims have been made about the effectiveness of such a strategy, it is unproven and risks greater damage to the environment. We are determined to proceed prudently and with the benefit of consultation and the experience gained from waste management planning.
The amendments would also 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 noble Lord's amendments would have the effect of exempting mandatory discharge from these provisions.
The noble Lord has proposed that we should delete lines 18 to 25. That would have the effect of removing provisions relating to arbitration and the payment of compensation by the Secretary of State if the arbitrator finds that a direction was unreasonable. While I do not
870
anticipate that there will be many cases which will be referred to arbitration, it is essential for the sake of the shipping industry as a whole that such a system should exist. There would seem to be elements of natural justice in that.
Again, as with so many of our discussions on this Bill, I do not believe that the noble Lord and I are far apart. It is a question of flexibility. If we are to introduce such regulations, I would prefer to do so after we have pursued full consultation and with the additional safeguards that are built into the Bill as it stands. I do not believe that the noble Lord strongly disagrees with those arguments. Although it is a great presumption to anticipate the noble Lord's words, I anticipate that his desire is more a determination to take the measure forward. Our determinations are shown by the Bill as a whole. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I share his view that we have had an interesting debate. We have made progress in discussing the end objectives which I suspect that we are all seeking and the different means by which we might achieve them. As the Minister said, I am not far from him on any of them.
I hope that the various regulations will be brought forward as quickly as possible following full consultation and that that will not happen too late in view of anything that might happen in the future. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.]
7.30 p.m.
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 7, line 29, after ("of) insert ("direct").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 7. I shall not detain the House long. The amendment concerns the comparatively small matter of the provision of waste reception facilities and charging for them. During Report stage the Minister said that the Bill allowed for regulations to prevent direct charges from being levied for the use of waste reception facilities. But subsection (4)(a) makes reference to prohibiting charges and not direct charges. This may be a small and irrelevant point, but it is a matter of slight concern that the regulations may prevent any charges being made at all. I am sure that that is not the intention of the Minister. Completely free waste facilities were not one of the recommendations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. I am sure that the Minister will provide an explanation that puts my mind at rest.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I believe that this amendment is unnecessary and in one way may be counter-productive. It would reduce the flexibility provided by Clause 5. New Section 130C(l) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 provides that regulations may enable harbour authorities to recover the costs of providing waste reception facilities through port dues.

871
New Section 130C(4) allows the regulations to prohibit the imposition of charges at the time that the waste is deposited. This is consistent with the recommendation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson.
As Clause 5 is currently drafted, we would be able to outlaw any charging mechanism which acted as a disincentive to the use of port waste reception facilities. On the one hand, we would be able to outlaw direct charging because "direct" comes within the larger set of charges. However, the amendment of the noble Lord could create a loophole. It could mean that we would be unable to prevent a harbour authority from imposing indirect charges which discouraged the responsible use of port waste reception facilities. I suggest that that would be undesirable.
In conclusion, I do not accept that the noble Lord's qualification of the word "charge" is necessary. There could be circumstances in which a wider definition would be helpful and I believe that I have described those circumstances. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I believe that I understood most of it. But I am not sure that he has fully explained whether the regulations could prevent any charges being made at all. However, I shall not detain the House any longer. I shall study this matter carefully. If I still have concerns I shall pass them on to colleagues in another place. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Increased penalty for causing pollution, etc.]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 9, line 12, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) In section 131(3) of the 1995 Act (fine on summary conviction of offence of discharging oil into certain United Kingdom waters), for "person" there is substituted "master".
(1A) After section 131(3) of the 1995 Act (fine on summary conviction of offence of discharging oil into certain United Kingdom waters) there is inserted—
"(3A) An owner guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £250,000; or

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 8. I return to the issue of differential maximum penalties, which apply only in courts of summary jurisdiction. I do so unashamedly. In no way do I give up hope that I may still at this last moment, at least in this House, persuade the Minister to reflect further on the matter, and even to change his view.
The Minister has extended considerable courtesy to me and other Members of the House in dealing with amendments. I had a meeting with him on this issue. He has written to me. I shall refer to that letter and to the points that he raises in it seriatim in dealing with matters that I believe to be extremely important. Having said that, I disagree with the Minister on a number of issues
872
to which he makes reference in his letter. There are however points on which we are able to agree. Clearly, acts of oil pollution are serious. Where a case is established against a defendant it must be dealt with severely, but the severity must be proportionate. There is no doubt that very serious matters should be referred to the Crown Court, and there is a point of agreement in that regard.
There is also common ground in the following area. I am delighted that the Minister regards some of the penalties imposed thus far in the magistrates' courts as inadequate. I agree with him in that respect. I understand that the Minister's letter was placed in the Library.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the letter was certainly copied to all noble Lords who spoke at any stage of the debate.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I am sure that any noble Lord who is interested in this issue will have the letter before him.
The inadequacy of penalty that both he and I believe has occurred is not a matter in respect of which he can take very firm action. But the Minister has indicated to me that he proposes to write an article in the Magistrate about the Government's campaign on the illegal discharge of waste from ships, presumably once this Bill has been enacted. I welcome that, too. That is the most that the Minister can do. Although I am not very optimistic, I hope that magistrates will treat the situation as seriously as he and I do.
Further common ground is represented by the Minister's assertion on the second page of his letter—this is the second point that he makes under this head—that the Government's general policy is to seek to impose penalties on owners rather than masters. He says that a master will be prosecuted only in certain circumstances, such as where the negligent or deliberate actions of the crew result in an illegal discharge, despite the owner taking all reasonable steps to prevent it. However, action against the master would not mean that a parallel prosecution could not be brought against the owner. So far so good.
In the next paragraph the Minister states correctly that courts have to take account of a defendant's means in determining the fine to be imposed, and that they can distinguish between the responsibilities of owners and masters in fixing the appropriate fine. All of that is fine. But the point of difference lies in the Minister's refusal to offer any differential between the master's responsibility and that of the owner in terms of the maximum fine that can be available in the magistrates' court. I stress that here reference is being made to the magistrates' court. In other cases the Crown Court has much wider discretion as to penalty by way of fine and the possibility of imprisonment.
The Minister goes on to argue the case for giving courts flexibility in imposing effective penalties under Clause 7. I wish to examine that main element of the Minister's case and state why I believe that his reasoning is wrong. He argues that he has some statutory precedent for not enabling any differential to be

873
recognised in the law. He cites the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 and the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967. He says that there is no precedent for a two-tier system. The mere fact that those Acts have not established a precedent does not mean to say that a precedent cannot be established now. In believe that the law requires to be taken seriously. The law has to be realistic and maximum fines have to be realistic too.
It must be remembered—and I know that the Minister concedes the point—that when we were dealing with those particular enactments we were looking at much smaller fines. Now we are considering a maximum fine in the magistrates' court of £250,000, which is a very different animal indeed.
I concede immediately and have never disputed the fact that it is right to increase the maximum fine against the owner. I believe that masters must take their responsibilities seriously and I am sure that the overwhelming number of them do so. But fines even described as maxima must bear some relationship to what is practicable and the Minister's argument here collides with a rock of reality.
If he argues that in a very high profile case, where the consequences of the master's acts were so grave that the courts should consider a far more draconian penalty and therefore there should be the flexibility of increasing that penalty to £250,000 in the magistrates' court, I would submit that the reality is that the prosecution would not seek to have the case tried in the magistrates' court but would elect trial in the Crown Court. Clearly, that would be the preferable course and I do not believe that the Minister's argument stands up.
Perhaps we may take an example of a situation comparable to that of the "Exxon Valdez", a case which the Minister raised with me in our discussions. I shall disclose nothing further about those discussions. Is it conceivable in a case of such high profile the prosecution will say, "We are happy to deal with this in the magistrates' court"? Of course not. Therefore that argument is not sustainable.
Past practical experience of cases in which the maximum fine has been much lower is that the magistrates' courts have nowhere near approached the available maximum penalty of £50,000 in dealing with an aberrant master. Even if the magistrates' courts concur in some way in the suggestion of higher fines, it is remote in the extreme, if not entirely impossible, to conceive of a maximum fine coming close to £50,000. We must look at what has happened in the courts. Even if courts were to be encouraged by the superlative article—as I am sure it will be—in the Magistrate to change their direction hitherto, it will not change the real facts of the situation as regards this issue.
It is not altogether inconceivable that a master's responsibility might be deemed to justify a fine substantially in excess of, say, £10,000. However, I see nothing likely to occur which will change the situation all that materially. A totally different situation pertains to the owner, who is likely to be a person of substance. Therefore, I believe that it is appropriate to increase the penalty to £250,000. I argued previously, and I stand by it, that the unscrupulous owner might put the master
874
under such intense pressure that the owner virtually instructs the master to commit the relevant offence. I believe that that is a material factor which must be taken into account.
In the second paragraph of the final page of the Minister's letter he states in regard to security:
"A further factor which must be borne in mind is the relationship between Sections 131 and 144 of the 1995 Act. Section 144 provides for the detention of a ship on suspicion of an offence under section 131. Subsection (4) provides for the release of the ship on payment of a security. The amount of security is related to the size of the fine which may be imposed on summary conviction under section 131. Any amendment to section 131 could therefore create difficulties as regards the application of section 144(4)".
I do not believe that the argument adduced is sufficiently substantial to defeat the points that I am seeking to make. I understand what the Minister is saying: that the amount of the security is related to the size of the fine when addressing the issue of the release of a ship detained under this section. However, we are dealing with a case which is dealt with summarily. I believe that it is a purely academic point and unreal as regards actual practice. I wish to ask the Minister whether any difficulties have arisen in the past under this provision. Has the question of security been undermined by the fact that we have had a fine of only £50,000? In any event, does it really relate to the responsibility of the master, or is it not the responsibility of the owner?
I do not believe that the Minister's point undermines my arguments. I believe that there is a perfectly reasonable case to be made for a differential approach between the master and the owner. I do not believe that anything in the law prohibits that approach. I should be very surprised if it were unknown to the law at the present time. I believe that it is wrong that signals should be given to the magistrates' courts which are misleading. The magistrates should be guided in the direction of recognising the major difference of responsibilities which are appropriate to a convicted master and to a convicted owner. The availability of a fine following summary trial must bear some relation to reality. I believe that the Bill as drawn does not achieve that very important goal. I beg to move.
7.45 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, at the Report stage I undertook to reconsider this issue. At that stage and again today the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, spoke with great feeling about what he considers to be a problem with the maximum level of fines that we have established in this new Bill. I am not persuaded by the noble Lord's argument. I have gone into considerable detail and carried out research in consultation with other government departments and, indeed, as the noble Lord said, I have had a meeting with him again to see whether we could find more common ground on this issue.
We have no difference at all as regards the fact that we both desire to send out strong signals that the UK is tough on pollution and that we have levels of fines which are appropriate to the severity of the offence. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton Davis, referred to a letter which I wrote to him and copied to other noble Lords.

875
If it is not already there, it should be put in the Library of the House for the benefit of future historians who perhaps may seek to follow our debates and who may be puzzled without sight of that carefully worded document.
Indeed I said both on 19th December in this House and in correspondence that our policy is to seek to impose penalties on owners rather than masters and that we should prosecute masters only in certain circumstances. I gave the example of where negligent or deliberate actions of the crew result in an illegal discharge despite the owner taking all reasonable steps to prevent that.
I went on to refer—and the noble Lord recognised that—to Section 18 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 which places a duty on the courts to take account of the means of the defendant when seeking to impose any fines. That is very important indeed if we are concerned about the two strands of the argument which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, puts forward. The first is the question of potential of unfair or unreasonable fines, if that is the correct terms, on masters. The second thrust of his argument, on which I felt he dwelt more, was the question of the law; that it should appear reasonable; and that we should not wish to do anything to bring the law into disrepute by imposing unreasonable penalties.
That is why we should bear in mind very closely what Section 18 of the 1981 Act says. Therefore, for a comparable offence, we should expect that the courts would generally impose a lower fine on a master than on an owner. Of course, it is for the court to decide on the differential, taking into account the individual details of each case.
The key point here is that we believe that it is important to maintain the flexibility to impose effective penalties for as wide a range of circumstances as is practicable. The current drafting of Clause 7 achieves that.
Perhaps I may raise another point in passing. I should not wish to create a situation where it was in the shipowner's interests to see the master prosecuted in order to reduce the overall exposure to fines. I mean that the master is prosecuted rather than the owner and not that they are both prosecuted.
The noble Lord said that I had raised the question of precedent. There are two points in that regard. First, I have not been able to identify any precedent for a two-tier system, and certainly not in merchant shipping legislation. The second is as regards any precedent which mirrors the approach that we are taking in this Bill. I gave the examples of Sections 3, 5, 98 and 163 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 and Section 11 of the Sea Fisheries (Conservation) Act 1967. Again, we could not find a precedent for such a two-tier system. The sections that I described were for lower total maximum fines than those we are considering in this case.
The noble Lord rehearsed also the argument which I advanced with regard to security. That is not an argument which we can dismiss lightly. It is important and we must bear it in mind closely when considering
876
the question of making sure that we are able and in a position to impose the relevant penalties when the time comes.
For those reasons, I believe that it is important that we impose the same high maximum level of fines for masters and owners. In the course of his remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, was concerned that we might send misleading signals to magistrates. I certainly do not wish to do that and, as the House knows already, I intend to produce an article which the noble Lord is confident will be one of supreme clarity. We shall endeavour to provide satisfaction on that point. That article will provide information to magistrates. Of course, it is for them to take a decision in the final analysis. It will provide also information with regard to the situation where there is an illegal discharge of waste from ships.
The noble Lord's argument is primarily that we should not wish to set an unrealistic level of fines. I have responded by saying that I could envisage circumstances in which this level of fines would be suitable. There is no precedent for such a two-tier system. We are able to cover the perceived down-side which the noble Lord suggests as regards signals to the industry and security.
Having discussed those points and the arguments with the noble Lord previously, I know that he takes a different view. It may well be that we shall have to agree to disagree on this point. But we have covered this ground very thoroughly indeed. I have had consultation with other government departments which have considerable experience as regards the question of fines in the magistrates' courts. For those reasons, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very full expose of his case. I am sorry that we are not able to agree. I noted that some of the documents, the letters that have been written, may well go to the archivist at the request of the Registrar General, who will not be able to keep them under Clause 22. I noted too that the Minister said that the United Kingdom had to be tough on pollution. He forgot the last part of the phrase and that is, "and the causes of pollution".
I hope that nothing that I have said will encourage the Home Secretary, who does not need much encouragement in that respect, to misconstrue my arguments so that he thinks that I am not being tough on crime for electoral purposes in the weeks ahead. I just think that one must be realistic about such matters.
I do not wish to see a master being used as a shield by an unscrupulous owner to protect that owner from prosecution. I just do not believe that that situation is one which would justify the very large fine that can be imposed upon the master, because there is no certainty that the owner will indemnify the master. Is that unscrupulous boat owner going to fork out some £250,000 or some other very large fine? Again, I think that the Minister is not being entirely realistic.

877
As to the question of the precedents which have been established, if a case can be made for change, then change should be made and one should not dwell in the land of saying that it is an unprecedented situation. During our last debate on this matter I had the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I say as a lawyer that I believe that there is nothing to avoid that course being taken if a case for it is made out.
The Minister did not deal with the point I have made on a number of occasions in previous debates and today about the distinction between cases of very high profile, of international besides national significance. I do not know why he did not deal with that point, but he did not. In such instances and where the consequences of the negligent or deliberate action which led to prosecution are so serious, almost inevitably the prosecution would say that because of its seriousness, such a case would have to go for trial. As the Minister himself said, on conviction, the penalties available to the Crown Court are more draconian. Consequently, that is a much more realistic way of looking at the matter.
Your Lordships will be happy to know that I shall not seek to divide the House tonight. Indeed, we have had our victories this week and we must not overdo such things. Nevertheless, I know that I would carry all noble Lords with me, apart from the Minister and the Whip—
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington: Noble Baroness!
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am sorry, my Lords; I should have referred to the noble Baroness. I still cannot get out of the practice that I followed in another place.
Having said that, I am sure that my honourable friends will want to return to the point and press it. I do not know what will happen to the Bill in the course of the next few weeks. Much, of course, depends on the timing of the election. But it is perhaps one of those issues about which the Minister will, perforce, have to think again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8 p.m.
Clause 12 [Preparation of plans under International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 14, line 19, leave out from beginning to ("include") in line 21 and insert ("An order under subsection (1) above in pursuance of paragraph (d) of that subsection may").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment would improve the drafting of Clause 12. On Report, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said that the phrase,
"without prejudice to the generality of"
was unnecessary. On further consideration, I now share that view. The amendment would, therefore, remove those superfluous words from the Bill.
For good measure, and in keeping with the objective of the noble and learned Lord of keeping unnecessary words out of the statute book, the amendment would also delete a further three superfluous words; namely, the phrase "also in particular". I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Viscount and particularly to the draftsperson because, undoubtedly, this is one of those statutory phrases which has got into the draftsman's office computer, and anything that gets into that computer becomes like tablets of stone brought down from the holy mountain of the Medes and the Persians. Great openness of mind and flexibility has been shown in consenting to reconsider the matter.
I have written to the noble Viscount putting the matter on a rather broader basis because my conclusion on looking further was that in only one very remote circumstance were those words necessary in order to preserve the generality when a particular was mentioned. I certainly hope to have the views of the draftsperson on this in due course. In the meantime, I express my gratitude.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I shall certainly be responding in due course to the point that the noble and learned Lord raised in correspondence. I am grateful for his kind words with regard to the change that we have proposed as a result of his earlier intervention.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 25 [Piracy]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 22, line 40, leave out ("section") and insert ("subsection").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when moving Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 30 [Short title, interpretation and commencement]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 24, line 21, leave out ("and 27") and insert ("27 and 29").
On Question, amendment agreed to. Schedule 2 [Funding of maritime services]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 28, line 37, leave out ("so incurred") and insert ("required to be so recovered").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving the above amendment, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 15. We have had considerable discussions on Schedule 2 resulting in extensive amendment to paragraphs 3 and 12 of Schedule 2. The amendments have clarified the circumstances where the operation of the General Lighthouse Fund might be changed and how those changes would operate. The general lighthouse authorities, represented by Trinity House, have written to the department to indicate that they are,
"largely content with the GLF provisions of Schedule 2".
However, the consideration of two additional minor points has been requested. We have agreed in discussion that further minor improvements are possible.
Amendment No. 12 makes it clear that the amounts within paragraph 3 relate only to costs which must be transferred out of the scope of the General Lighthouse Fund as a result of an international agreement. It cannot be used to transfer more than is strictly necessary to fund the transferred services. I have already given assurances to that effect in a response to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, on Report.
Amendments Nos. 13 to 15 ensure that any collecting authority under the schedule has the power to seek information. Amendments at Report stage made provision at paragraph 9(2) and paragraph 13 of Schedule 2 for the GLAs to collect additional charges. These amendments to paragraph 7 will ensure that, for example, in the event of the GLAs collecting additional charges, they would be empowered to seek any necessary information.
I am very pleased that the amendments I have tabled today—if accepted by the House—together with the earlier amendments that I brought forward on Report, have allowed us to reach agreement with the GLAs on this important schedule. With those words, I beg to move.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I can only express my thanks to the Minister for bringing forward these amendments. The noble Viscount has gone a long way towards allaying the fears that the GLAs had regarding certain parts of the Bill. The amendments that the Minister brought forward at the last stage of the Bill went a very long way towards allaying those fears. The fact that he is still bringing forward amendments at this late stage to tidy up those last little niggling fears is a matter of both delight and gratitude. I am most grateful to him.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his kind remarks.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 15:
Page 30, line 13, leave out from ("provide") to ("with") in line 14 and insert ("any collecting authority").
Page 30, line 14, leave out ("he") and insert ("the collecting authority").
Page 30, line 16, after ("paragraph") insert—(""collecting authority" means—

(a) the Secretary of State,

(b) a Departmental officer, and

(c) a general lighthouse authority;").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Viscount Goschen: I beg to move the privilege amendment:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, during the course of the Bill I have objected to two small statutory phrases as being unnecessary. One has been conceded; the other is reference to "the consent of the Treasury". I hope that all your Lordships who are much younger than I will live to see that phrase disappear too. This privilege amendment really falls into the same class as being a drafting nonsense. What it says is quite untrue. It says—I summarise—that nothing in the Bill infringes the prerogative of financial privilege of the other place. There are, of course, frequent provisions in the Bill which do precisely that. We have just dealt with Schedule 2, about which my noble friend Lord Greenway spoke and about which my noble friend Lord Cooke was about to speak, which dealt very much with matters of finance. What is said in this amendment is quite untrue. However, this Bill is not peculiar in that respect because the privilege amendment is only moved in circumstances where what it states is untrue.
I do not expect the noble Viscount to withdraw the amendment on my ipse dixit but I raise the matter in the hope that the Procedure Committee will look to see whether there is not some more economical way of deferring to the privileges of the other place. There is, of course, a message procedure. During the course of this evening a number of messages have gone from the Clerks' Table to the other place. That would be a much more economical way than moving an amendment, printing it in Hansard, printing it in the Third Reading report, putting a black line against it, the other place then taking the amendment out and removing the black line. Is that not a waste of money? I do not ask the noble Viscount to withdraw the amendment. I ask your Lordships to recognise and take note of its absurdity.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for not asking me to withdraw the amendment pending further consideration. I do not feel I am in a position at the moment to offer a comment on the noble and learned Lord's argument but merely to suggest that his "hit" rate has been alarmingly high during the course of the Bill.
On Question, amendment (privilege) agreed to.
8.12 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill now pass. The Bill reinforces our longstanding commitment to the highest standards of maritime safety and vigilance to prevent the pollution of our waters and coast and to increase the safety of life at sea.
As the House is aware, the Bill has presented an opportunity to put in place a number of important measures which reduce the risk of pollution. It implements those recommendations in the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, entitled Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas which required legislative change.

881
We have also taken the opportunity to make a number of other significant changes to merchant shipping legislation. We are taking power to implement a number of international agreements. The Bill also provides the necessary legal framework to implement the package of anti-pollution measures which I announced last year.
One important element of the Bill is the provision in Schedule 2 to implement a user pays policy in the maritime sector. The user pays principle has widespread support but concerns have been expressed about the implications of such a policy if implemented in the UK alone. I wish to take this opportunity briefly to restate our assurances on that point. The Government accept that if user charges were introduced unilaterally this could have adverse implications for the competitiveness not only of UK ports and shipowners but also for our exporters and importers. We take these issues seriously as I stressed at Second Reading and at other stages. I assure the House that the Government would not introduce charges unilaterally without first carrying out a full evaluation of compliance costs for business and of adverse effects on competitiveness. Our preferred approach remains to achieve international agreement, and we are making every effort to achieve that. It is my intention to consult with the industry on services which may be charged for in preparation for international discussions. The Government have said that they do not envisage charging for search and rescue services and I am happy to repeat that assurance now.
The Bill has attracted support from all sides in this House, and indeed outside from the shipping and ports industries, from environmental organisations, unions and others, which reflects a general desire to see these measures put into practice at the earliest opportunity. I am grateful for the support of those organisations and for their contributions to the consultation process.
I suggest that the Bill was an ideal candidate for the Moses Room procedure at Committee stage. A less formal procedure worked well for this uncontroversial Bill. I thank the Opposition in the form of the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis, Lord Berkeley, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for agreeing to that procedure, for welcoming the Bill and for their constructive and helpful interventions on a wide range of issues. The Bill is undoubtedly better for the changes made in Committee and during the subsequent stages. The level of agreement and co-operation from the Opposition Benches and from all sides of the House is appreciated by the Government.
One issue which caused considerable debate concerned the provisions relating to the General Lighthouse Fund in the event of an international agreement. At Second Reading I stated my regret that lack of consultation had caused unnecessary alarm for the general lighthouse authorities. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Greenway and Lord Cooke of Islandreagh, and indeed to my noble friend Lord Cochrane of Cults and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for elucidating their concerns and for their help in determining the satisfactory and agreed solution which we now have in the Bill.
882
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, for his helpful interventions, particularly in the field of drafting and constitutional matters. I must also thank my noble friend Lord Caithness for his help and support during the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House. I know that he is not able to attend the debate this evening but his knowledge and experience have proved invaluable in our debates. I reserve a special word of thanks for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, not only for his contribution to the passage of the Bill in this House, but also for the outstanding work which resulted in the publication of his report, Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas. I know that those sentiments are echoed on all sides of your Lordships' House.
I also wish to thank my team of officials who have worked long and hard on the implementation of the Donaldson recommendations and on the Bill from its inception. In bringing forward the Bill we have taken another significant step towards the implementation of the report's well-founded recommendations. Finally, as the Bill leaves your Lordships' House, I am sure the whole House will join me in hoping that it makes speedy progress in another place and reaches the statute book as soon as possible.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Viscount Goschen.)
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I join in many of the comments the Minister made. This has been an important and a fascinating Bill. It is vitally important in terms of merchant shipping and the protection of life and the maritime environment. As the Minister rightly said, the House and on a wider sphere—nationally and internationally—all of us should be enormously indebted to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, and his committee, on whose recommendations this Bill is so largely based.
It has not been a politically contentious Bill although we have had interesting arguments about certain technical matters. Undoubtedly, the Minister is right in saying that the procedural experiment, as it were—although it was not quite an experiment, it was as regards transport issues—of considering the matter in Committee in the Moses Room was interesting. Of course the Bill was not changed there, but I think the deliberations we had there caused the Minister to introduce some important amendments. While we may have disagreed about some of the solutions to the problems raised, virtually all the issues identified common concern. There was no division between us as to the objectives of the Bill. However, one thing is clear: we shall no doubt go on learning from experience. We must not be complacent. There must be an ability to keep the situation under close review and to introduce changes wherever the necessity for a change is established.
I believe that the scrutiny of the Bill in this House has been useful. It has been impressive. In another place other issues may well arise. I gather that an amendment may be introduced by one of my honourable friends from the Back Benches enabling an injured person or those representing the interests of a deceased person to call for a public inquiry. That follows the case of the

883
"Marchioness". Perhaps I should have deployed that issue in this Chamber; I would not have pursued it to a Division. However, it is a matter that will no doubt come before the Minister.
The Bill has attracted widespread interest on both sides of the shipping industry and from environmental concerns. The Minister has behaved almost impeccably. He would have behaved impeccably if he had accepted Amendment No. 8. However, before and during our debates he showed himself to be flexible. He introduced amendments where he was convinced that the Bill would be improved. We owe him a great debt of appreciation. I have said that before. I have been very impressed indeed—I have quite a lot of experience in this field—by the way that the noble Viscount has handled the Bill. I would not have said that had he been standing for election—it might have been quoted!
Apart from thanking the Minister, I wish, too, to thank a number of people who have given me and my noble friend Lord Berkeley a great deal of assistance. It is invidious to name people, but I shall do so because they deserve special mention. Mr. Adrian Hughes of the Advisory Committee on Protection of the Sea gave us valuable legal help. Mr. Edmund Brookes of the Chamber of Shipping, Mr. Graham Hicks of NUMAST, Daniel Owen and Mary Painter of the RSPB, and Gordon Johnson of the United Kingdom Major Ports Group were all readily available to help us; and there is the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, whom I thank for his constructive assistance. They were able to attend meetings with us and to give us the benefit of their expert opinions. That was invaluable in the course of our debates.
In particular, I wish to thank my noble friend Lord Berkeley who has performed with exceptional ability in the short time that he has taken on the role of assisting me in transport affairs. He performed extremely well on this occasion. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, also gave me the benefit of his help and support, which, I fear, came to nothing in respect of my amendment that we debated today. But I thank him, too. The noble and learned Lord was able to gain useful concessions as well. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, always takes an interest in these matters and long may he continue to do so. I am sure that I have left out certain people. However, before I conclude it would be remiss of me indeed if I were to forget the research office of the Opposition, and Mr. Robert McGeachy in particular, who worked incredibly hard in the course of the Bill.
I look forward to the Bill being enacted as rapidly as possible. It is a good Bill. It is a Bill which enables Britain to exercise, I believe, an important influence in the counsels of world shipping. We are doing something practical to implement the promises on the part of those operating in the counsels of world shipping. That, I believe, is very important.
884
I join with the Minister in everything he said. I hope that the Bill will receive a speedy passage in another place.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Cooke of Islandreagh unfortunately had to rush to catch an aeroplane. However, he asked to be associated with the brief words that I shall say.
I join entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, in thanking the Minister for the courtesy he has shown throughout our proceedings on the Bill, the flexibility that he has shown, and the hard work that both he and his department have undertaken in helping to satisfy the initial concerns of the general lighthouse authorities, to almost everyone's satisfaction.
We all wish to see the Bill on the statute book as soon as possible. I wish it a speedy passage through another place.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have spoken for their kind words, and in particular the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, with regard to the general lighthouse authorities. That gives me an opportunity to recognise and acknowledge the work that they undertook towards the agreement that we now have.
I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for his kind words, in particular in view of the fact that he had previous responsibilities for this area of policy. I commend the Bill.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Broadcasting (Sign Language) Order 1996
8.28 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th December be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order which we are debating today honours the commitment given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State at the Report stage of the Broadcasting Bill in the other place on 1st July last year to introduce a 5 per cent. target for the provision of sign language in digital programme services. This target is to be achieved by every service within 10 years of its commencement.
The Broadcasting Act 1996 makes particular reference to subtitling audio description and sign language in the interests of those with sensory impairments. It sets out on the face of the Act specific minimum targets for subtitling and audio description provision in digital programme services for the benefit of those with sensory impairments.
The statutory targets are that by the 10th anniversary of the introduction of any digital programme service, not less than 50 per cent. of non-exempt programme hours broadcast in any programme service should be subtitled to such technical standards as are specified by

885
the ITC and not less than 10 per cent. of non-exempt programme hours broadcast should be presented with audio description. These percentages can be amended by order. The Act also provides for the ITC to set interim targets.
In view of the early stage of development of the technology associated with on-screen sign language, the Government decided that it would not be appropriate to set a percentage target for signing in the Act itself but that the Act should contain a provision for the Secretary of State to set such a target by order. That is what we are considering this evening and is, as I have already mentioned, representing the commitment given by the Secretary of State in another place that it would be 5 per cent.
The Broadcasting Act 1996 also provides for the ITC, after consultation with those representing interested parties and the broadcasters, to draw up and review from time to time a code on promoting the understanding and enjoyment of programmes by persons with sight or hearing impairment. The code will apply to all digital services, including the simulcast services of the existing analogue broadcasters, which at present are subject only to subtitling requirements. It has to include the targets set out in the Act and in any statutory order, which obviously includes that which is contained in the order that we are considering now.
On 29th October last year the ITC published for public consultation its draft code on subtitling, audio description and signing, inviting comments by 17th December. The draft code sets interim targets for non-excluded programmes and for subtitling and audio description in excluded programmes. The commission has received a number of detailed responses from bodies representing those with sensory impairments. I know that it is now considering very carefully the points raised before publishing its final code.
I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th December be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Inglewood.)
8.30 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I welcome this order on sign language and I am delighted that it is part of the Bill. I want to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Donoughue for his support on this order and on all measures affecting deaf, and indeed all disabled, people. I valued his support during our debates on the Bill.
Unfortunately, I cannot extend the same compliment to the Minister. He opposed all our efforts to bring in the 5 per cent. target for signing. It is not a personal matter; he did it on behalf of the Government. However, he did oppose our attempts to introduce targets for signing and subtitling. That did not reflect very well on the Government during the debates in this House. Fortunately, a change made in the other place means that we now have the 5 per cent. signing provision.
886
Although the noble Lord mentioned subtitling and audio description, this order relates only to signing. I therefore propose to confine my remarks to signing. The order makes a modest start. However, if the ITC does not change its attitude it will be a disastrous start.
As the noble Lord said, Parliament trusted the ITC to ensure that 5 per cent. of digital programmes are signed. It gave the ITC power to decide which programmes are to be excluded and to decide on the interim targets.
However, in its draft code the ITC has shown that it may betray that trust. Incredibly, the draft code specifies that everything should be excluded except news and factual programmes. So the 5 per cent. target relates to a very small proportion of programmes—thanks to the ITC's fatuous interpretation of its draft code.
Was it the will of Parliament that the provision on signing should apply to only 5 per cent. of a tiny proportion of programmes? I refer the House to an exchange in the other place during debate on the Broadcasting Bill. The Secretary of State was asked to elucidate on the 5 per cent. figure. Virginia Bottomley said:
"As I have explained, there is room for exemptions for all the numerical targets, but they will be a minority. Programmers will be set the 5 per cent. target, but they may be allowed some exemptions. As the letter to Sir George Russell makes clear, however, those exemptions must be a minority and dealt with exceptionally".—[Official Report, Commons, 1/7/96; col. 575.]
That is not the language of excluding everything and simply allowing the percentage to apply to news and factual programmes. The Secretary of State referred to, "a minority".
When the Secretary of State was pressed on that figure, she said:
"It is 5 per cent. when the excluded ones have been taken out, but the key is that there must be the strictest interpretation of the exclusions".—[col. 575.]
When pressed again, she said:
"What I made clear was that I expect the exemptions to be an absolute minimum, so I expect broadcasters to achieve their targets as set out on the face of the Bill".—[col. 575.]
That could not be more specific and categorical. The Secretary of State was reflecting the will of Parliament. She was speaking for the Government, and was supported by Members on both sides in the other place. Members on both sides in this House have supported that 5 per cent.
The question now for the noble Lord is this. Does he support the views of the Secretary of State as expressed in another place which I have made clear to him? Because he does his homework as well as any Minister, I am sure that he will have read the remarks himself. Does he accept and support the views of the Secretary of State that the exemptions should be an absolute minimum and the strictest interpretation of the exclusions? If so, I suggest that the noble Lord should make urgent representations to the ITC. The code is so far only in draft. When the ITC publishes the substantive code it will be a scandal if it is allowed to go ahead with only 5 per cent. of a tiny fraction of programmes. It would be an insult to deaf people.

887
The ITC has failed to appreciate the importance of signing to profoundly deaf people who rely on sign language. It has exaggerated the difficulties. The noble Lord spoke a moment ago about the difficulties involved, the problems as regards new technology and all the rest of it. But there is no real problem in relation to signing programmes. There is great exaggeration on the part of the ITC. It is conforming to the letter of the law but denying the spirit of the law. It will make deaf people feel cheated and will incur the opposition, even hostility, of some of us in both Houses of Parliament. I hope that it will reconsider.
On the question of phasing in, the draft code merely provides that 1 per cent. should be signed by the fourth year. Fancy that! It will take four years to sign 1 per cent. of only news and factual programmes. That is incredible. I could not believe it when I read it. That organisation should be renamed the Independent Tortoise Commission. That would be a fair reflection of the way it is behaving in relation to these provisions for deaf people.
Some signing is needed from day one, and there is no reason why that cannot be done. It is up to the ITC. The ITC watches television companies. But we should make it clear that Parliament is watching the ITC—and so are millions of profoundly deaf people. We hope, and expect, that Parliament's decision to have 5 per cent. signing of most programmes will be respected. And we want very much faster progress than the ITC has envisaged.
Lord McNally: My Lords, when Ministers exercise secondary powers it is extremely important that both Houses of Parliament examine how those powers are being carried out. Although this is one of those orders that may appear to go through almost on the nod, the deficiencies pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, show the importance of Parliament keeping a close eye on how these matters are carried forward.
Parliament wills certain things; the regulators are supposed to devise ways of implementing them; and then the companies are supposed to comply. Yet, as the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, pointed out, there seems to be an enormous gap between what Parliament willed in the primary legislation and what is now being put to us.
Here we have big, rich, powerful companies which are being tested on how they will treat the minorities for whom they supply an important service. I do not believe that anyone can underestimate the power of television for the deaf in enlarging their horizons. Yet as the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, said, the draft order seems to narrow the definition of the service as willed by Parliament and indicated by Ministers in another place. Perhaps even more serious, when Parliament asks a regulatory body to carry out its will and an industry to comply, it expects that what is brought forward should reflect a certain seriousness of intent.
I would say to the Minister in all seriousness that the timescale for implementation is frankly absurd when one considers the broadcasting industry. We shall probably have had at least another four broadcasting
888
Acts by the time this is carried though. Can the Minister explain the extraordinarily long time given for implementation? We are not talking here about new technology or difficult proposals that will impose heavy burdens on companies. If there was the will, it would be possible to implement these proposals much more quickly. If that were the case, it would indicate a great deal more seriousness of intent.
For my clarification, if not for those who are more expert on this matter, does the reference to digital programme services apply to all digital programme services, those to be brought in by satellite as well as terrestrial services, or does it refer only to terrestrial services?
We have here a draft statutory instrument which falls far short of the will of Parliament. The regulator should look at the matter again and treat the will of Parliament far more seriously.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for their contributions to this debate.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, talked about the technology involved. It is important that in discussing this we are clear that we are talking about digital terrestrial television, which is something that does not yet exist for most practical purposes. We are in fact talking about new technology.
I accept that some of the technology employed in this new form of transmitting television signals already exists, but it is important that we recognise that what is being done is entirely novel and will be very expensive. That was recognised when we debated this matter both here and in the other place and is an essential element behind the thinking—as I think was agreed on all sides of the House—on the right approach to adopt in considering this matter.
On the one hand, there is the very desirable aspiration to make sure that as many as possible of those with sensory disabilities of one kind and another can benefit from the new technology. On the other hand, if those involved in trying to drive this technology forward to achieve the benefits that it can deliver find that it is so expensive that they cannot do it, the whole process founders.
To answer the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, this refers to digital terrestrial television services. The code relates to that and the specific provisions of Section 20 of the Act relate simply to digital terrestrial services.
One of the characteristics of the approach adopted is that under the provisions of Section 21 of the Act it is open to the Secretary of State to adjust the target figures set on the face of it. That is important bearing in mind the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. As events occur, it is possible for these targets to be changed by reference to the statutory instrument that would have to be taken through both Houses of Parliament. We are not talking about a rigid system; we are talking about a flexible system.

889
Of course I support the remarks of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. It is important that in this context we confine ourselves to focusing on matters relating to signing and bear in mind the important point that it is for the ITC to take the decisions against the backdrop of Parliament's opinion and the law as it stands. I know that the ITC will listen to the comments made by your Lordships in this debate before coming to any final conclusion.
In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, it is up to the ITC. I do not believe that it will not respond to the whole issue. It has consulted widely both those concerned with the interests of people with disabilities and the broadcasting companies in an entirely responsible manner. It is against that background that I commend the order to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Overseas Domestic Workers (Protection) Bill [H.L.]
8.46 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The subject of the Bill goes back to 1980. In that year the Government abolished work permits for incoming domestic workers. Under the old system a domestic could change employers within the same category of work. In place of that system the government of the day arranged a concession outside the Immigration Rules whereby visitors and temporary residents—usually, but not always, from the Middle East—are allowed to bring their existing domestics with them. These workers have no separate immigration or work status. They must go away if their employer leaves this country. They may not change employers and are liable to deportation if they leave their employer.
This concession may be good for trade and our balance of payments; however, it certainly leaves the domestic workers very exposed to exploitation and a whole range of other abuses because they are tied and bonded to a single named employer.
Problems and complaints have arisen over non-payment of wages, extremely low pay, poor food and bad conditions. The list continues with verbal, physical and sexual ill treatment, including rape and assault, not to mention the withholding of passports, lack of holidays and free time and imprisonment on the employer's premises. Many hundreds of cases have been fully documented, largely by the voluntary Commission for Filipino Migrant Workers, without whose dedicated work the London situation would have been far worse. I am sorry to say that new cases continue to arise.
The very unfortunate consequences of government policy have frequently been raised in Parliament. Since 1992 there have been some 24 Questions on this topic in your Lordships' House and I and other noble Lords spoke at Second Reading and moved amendments at all
890
stages of the passage of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. In the other place over a similar period there have been at least 60 Questions and early-day Motions.
I am sorry to say that the Government's response to this parliamentary concern has been slow and gradual, despite delegations and discussions with various Ministers. The only improvements worthy of the name have been the interviewing of domestics, and sometimes also of their employer, prior to departure from the employer's country of origin. Leaflets have also been provided setting out mutual duties and rights. These measures have been only partially effective and have not achieved the full improvement in behaviour that is so much needed.
The Government have refused to set up an interdepartmental committee to consider this matter. They have refused to prescribe maximum hours for domestic work or to publish a code of good employment practice. They were not willing to consult with the International Labour Organisation on preventive measures or inform ambassadors stationed in London of current English rates of pay for domestic work. They have declined, I am sorry to say again, to introduce spot checks on employers.
In view of that truly lamentable record, extending now over some 16 years, I feel fully justified in introducing this Bill. I only regret that it is so modest and so tightly drawn. The scope of the Bill is, in fact, very narrow and the protection it offers is limited to litigants and witnesses in cases before our courts. That is made clear in the Long Title and by the repetition of the words " United Kingdom" in each of three subsections.
Let me now explain the content of the Bill. Subsection (2)(a) enables qualifying domestics to take work while their case is pending or in progress. I hope that the Home Office will not say that that allows them to take any job which may be on offer. In my view, that would be a far-fetched suggestion, since such a person is unlikely to be qualified for anything other than domestic work and in any case the permission to work only lasts while the case is pending or in progress.
Subsection (2)(b) gives protection against deportation. I suggest that that is vitally important, since it is unrealistic to expect poor and possibly unpaid workers to maintain themselves in a third country, while preparing and fighting a case here.
Subsection (3) allows a plaintiff or witness to overstay their leave of entry or not to fulfil their conditions of leave while their case is pending or in progress.
I submit that all three forms of protection are absolutely necessary. They are the bare minimum required to enable overseas domestic workers to bring cases against employers, or indeed against others, and to appear as witnesses in third party cases. The Government have frequently claimed that such domestic workers have access to our courts and to our legal remedies. My Bill will, at long last, if enacted, give reality to that claim.

891
I propose this measure in the interests of justice: justice for people who have been abused and exploited and justice for a minority of employers who should not be allowed to profit from their shameful and criminal behaviour. One of the duties of Parliament is the redress of grievances. Therefore, I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Hylton.)
8.54 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, in Thatcherite Britain, the tradition of Wilberforce and Shaftesbury, of Kingsley and Dickens, is out of fashion. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, will be placed by history squarely in that tradition. I believe too that your Lordships' House is indebted to him for the clarity and moderation of his introduction to this debate. That introduction would render superfluous any lengthy intervention from me. The brevity of what I propose to say is a tribute to that introduction.
I seek to make only one point. There are always good reasons why we should moderate our compassion. There were persuasive reasons why we ought not to have ended the slave trade, limited children's working hours or kept small boys out of chimneys.
There are problems with this Bill. We need to protect the labour market in this country. Heaven knows, there are job seekers enough already being destroyed by the rejection of one application for work after another. So no one complains that anyone seeking to come to this country to find employment should be subject to controls. If the young girls about whom the noble Lord spoke had been told that they would not be admitted to this country, it might have been very difficult to argue against that.
But that is not what the Government have done. The Government have already bound up their lives with Britain. They have made them dependent on the mercy of the British authorities—not on their application nor for their benefit; they have been admitted to this country for the benefit of their employers. They have been brought here not as potential immigrants nor in pursuance of a normal work permit, but as part of the personal luggage of those who brought them, like their mobile telephones and their hair curlers. If we allow that to happen, surely we have incurred an obligation to ensure so far as we can that they are not abused.
Yet, a survey carried out in 1995 by Miss Bridget Anderson, on behalf of Anti-Slavery International and Kalayaan, showed that of the Kalayaan women brought to this country as domestic workers, 34 per cent. have suffered physical abuse, 61 per cent. were regularly denied food, 74 per cent. were not paid what they had been promised and 22 per cent. were imprisoned within their employers' homes.
892
Whenever we raise the question, the Government tell us, "Well, they are protected like everyone else by employment legislation." I have here a parliamentary answer in reply to Miss Maria Fyfe on 19th June 1995:
"The position of overseas domestic workers is no different from that of other employees in this respect. Contractual terms are matters for employers and employees to agree. Once agreed, they are legally binding and, in cases of non-compliance, employees can take action for breach of contract through the civil courts or, in certain circumstances, through industrial tribunals".
Alone, afraid, in a strange country, sometimes not speaking English or having difficulty with the language, the picture of one of those girls walking into a public library, asking for a copy of Butterworth's Employment Law, looking up her rights and proceeding to the industrial tribunal would not even be convincing fiction. What the noble Lord asks for in his Bill is moderate indeed: where there may be a remedy, they should not be precluded from pursuing it.
If I may say so, my heart goes out to the noble Earl, who certainly is not lacking in compassion but is sometimes, I fear, saddled with an unattractive brief. I hope that that is not the case today. If the Home Office is intent on denying even this basic minimum of justice, the Government will be remembered in history with those who opposed Wilberforce and Shaftesbury.
8.58 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, in introducing this Bill the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has once again demonstrated his deep concern for the welfare of those overseas domestic workers who are abused by their employers. I know that no one in this House will doubt the sincerity of his compassion for the victims of such abuse, which has led him to bring these issues before your Lordships this evening. I am equally sure that no one can be anything but appalled by the examples of abuse we have heard of from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, as well as those we have read of in the media.
Perhaps I may begin by explaining the circumstances under which overseas domestic workers are allowed to come to the United Kingdom with their employers. It is a fundamental element of the Government's immigration policy that the number of overseas nationals allowed to come here to work should be very strictly controlled. Only those with a high level of skills which are in short supply here will normally qualify for work permits. But a rigid adherence to this policy would mean that overseas domestic workers—whose skills would not be sufficient to qualify them for work permits—could not accompany their employers here at all. As a result, many of them would simply lose their jobs. It has also to be recognised that many wealthy visitors who contribute significantly to our economy would be deterred from coming here if they could not bring their domestic employees as part of their household.

893
It is for those reasons that the concession exists—outside the Immigration Rules—allowing overseas domestic workers to come here with their employers provided they, and their employers, meet certain criteria.
We insist that the domestic workers are in possession of entry clearance before they come here. That allows a number of checks to be made to establish whether the necessary requirements are met. Those are that the domestic worker must be at least 18 years old; that he or she has worked for the employer for at least 12 months and for at least two years if anything more than a short visit here is intended. The employer must give a written undertaking to provide adequate maintenance and accommodation, including a separate bedroom for the domestic worker. He must also set out in writing the terms and conditions of employment. A copy of that is given to the employee, who must confirm that he or she agrees to them. Interviews with domestic workers for entry clearance are conducted with the employer excluded and the worker is given a leaflet explaining his or her rights in the United Kingdom. As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that will give contact points for assistance from the Home Office, the police, the local law centre, citizens advice bureaux or the Racial Equality Council, as well as the employee's embassy.
As your Lordships will see, this is not a concession which is casually handed out. The aim is to ensure as far as we possibly can that only those domestic workers who are already in an established employment relationship with their employers and who wish, of their own free will, to continue that relationship may benefit. Steps are also taken to ensure that when extensions of stay are applied for, those are only granted to those domestic servants in whose cases satisfactory arrangements continue to apply. I should also say here that under no circumstances do we allow the recruitment of domestic workers directly from overseas by employers already in this country.
That these arrangements generally work in a satisfactory way is evidenced by the fact that the vast majority of domestic workers—around 12,000 every year—come here with their employers and return whence they came without incident. But it is a tragic fact of life that, despite these precautionary measures, a small proportion of employers seriously abuse their domestic workers while in the United Kingdom. As the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, explained, it is the victims of that abuse which the present Bill seeks to protect. It aims to do so by amending the Immigration Act 1971.
The 1971 Act provides, among other things, for the imposition of time and employment restrictions on persons subject to immigration control. The Act further provides that those who do not comply with those restrictions commit an offence and render themselves liable to deportation.
The present Bill would create a special category of overseas domestic workers who are witnesses or plaintiffs in any proceedings before a court or tribunal in the United Kingdom. In their cases, all employment restrictions would be suspended. They could not commit
894
the offence of overstaying or working in breach of their conditions of stay, and they would not be liable to deportation.
In short, those people would be given unrestricted access to the labour market and virtual immunity from prosecution for immigration offences and deportation. Moreover, the Bill would not accord that exemption solely to the victims of abuse but would extend it to those domestic servants who are witnesses in court proceedings completely unconnected with their own personal circumstances. It would therefore create a category of persons uniquely privileged under our immigration laws.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. I fully take the point that he has just made; that is, that if the sole purpose of the Bill were to assist the workers about whom we are talking, it would have to be confined to proceedings in which they are seeking to enforce their rights. But, while we are on that subject, does not a witness always assist a court in ascertaining the facts? Would not there be something to be said, as a matter of public policy, for enabling anybody who has evidence to give in a court, to remain in this country long enough for them to give it?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, poses a number of interesting questions. He is far better informed on some of the more legal aspects of this subject than I am and perhaps therefore I can arrange to write to him.
The Government have no wish to minimise the suffering of the victims of abuse in whatever circumstances it may occur. The leaflet given to domestic workers makes it clear that while they are in the United Kingdom they have the full protection of our criminal and employment laws. But we believe that the privileges that would be accorded to them under this Bill would be against the interests of the resident labour force and of firm but fair immigration controls. The Bill's provisions would also be open to abuse by those whom it was never intended to cover. It is the Government's firm belief that the best way to minimise the risk of abuse is to weed out the bad employer by attaching strict conditions to the grant of entry clearance before domestic workers are allowed to come here. I have outlined the present criteria to your Lordships this evening. But we have always been ready to listen to suggestions for improvements in these procedures and that remains the case. Where abuse has occurred here and domestic workers are required as witnesses in subsequent proceedings, we shall continue to exercise discretion where there are sufficient grounds for exceptional treatment.
In view of my remarks it will not surprise your Lordships to hear that the Government cannot support this Bill, though, in keeping with the traditions of this House, we shall not be opposing it this evening.
9.6 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am grateful for at least the spirit in which the Bill has been received on both sides of the House. At this point I should like to say that I received apologies from the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, who had fully intended to speak in the debate but, owing to the length of earlier business, had to leave and therefore could not speak.
It is not necessary for me to detain your Lordships or to comment on either of the two speeches that we heard. It remains simply for me to ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

RAF Upper Heyford
9.8 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington Baroness Robson of Kiddington asked Her Majesty's Government what are the terms of the partnership between the Ministry of Defence and the North Oxfordshire Consortium for the proposed development of RAF Upper Heyford and its likely impact on the environment.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Members of the House will remember that on 14th June 1996 the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, asked Her Majesty's Government whether they were satisfied that the procedure adopted for the sale of the RAF base at Bentwaters in Suffolk was consistent with their environmental policy. During that debate a number of noble Lords referred to the problems being created by the sale of RAF Upper Heyford in Oxfordshire where many of the same problems encountered at Bentwaters were inevitable.
I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, is taking part in the debate and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have put their names down to speak. My only regret is that the debate is taking place so late on a Thursday night. My debate was originally down for Wednesday evening, and that perhaps would have enabled us to get on to the Floor a little earlier. Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Earl Howe, could not be here yesterday, and we felt it was very important that he should be present for the debate.
There are great similarities between the disposal of Bentwaters and Upper Heyford which are bound to be repeated in other parts of the country as the MoD proceeds with the sale of sites which are no longer needed for defence purposes. It is therefore important, I feel, that we lay down the principles to be followed in any disposal of MoD land. In my view, it is not enough for the Government to insist that the MoD maximises its capital receipts in these transactions. The overall concern should concentrate on the environmental impact of these developments as well as the impact on surrounding areas and villages of any development. This should be our overriding concern. After all, these lands occupied by RAF bases were acquired at a time of emergency and really belong to the nation, not to the MoD.
Upper Heyford has been an airbase since 1918, but it was during the last war that it grew to its present proportions when the US air force moved on to the base. It became one of Europe's largest airbases, employing some 12,000 personnel. In May 1993 the US air force announced that it would be withdrawing from the base by September 1994. As a result, in 1993 a working party was established by Cherwell District Council, the district council covering the majority of the area, with representations from the county council and from the Defence Land Agent. However, a promise which had been made of further consultancy advice, funded by the MoD, failed to materialise. As a result, in September 1994 the MoD announced that it would ask the Defence Land Agent to dispose of the entire site.
Late in 1994 the DLA commissioned Savills to seek expressions of interest in the site from the development industry. There were many responses, some 30 or so, but none was ever made public. It was hoped at that time by the local people that the joint venture partner was to be a consortium comprising companies with a broad spectrum of development experience and skill.
The site at Upper Heyford is by far the largest site where the MoD has contemplated a joint venture partnership. As a result of that joint venture partnership, the local councils and the local community were feeling encouraged and confident that the involvement of the MoD would ensure that the less profitable works of environmental remediation and infrastructure improvement would be delivered at the right time. Locally, we are very disturbed that the consortium chosen by the MoD was a group of house builders: Wimpey, Taylor Woodrow and Westbury Homes calling themselves the North Oxfordshire Consortium. Their proposals were originally for a new town of 7,500 houses, which was reduced to a town of 5,000 houses.
The consortium's proposal was put as an option in the consultation document for the Oxfordshire County Council's structure plan. Having seen the NOC presentation, Oxfordshire County Council's environmental committee, composed of county councillors of all parties and from all areas of the county, unanimously rejected the option of 5,000 houses at Upper Heyford. There was no disagreement.
Cherwell District Council decided at that time, because the base was empty, to allow considerable short-term rentals for the existing buildings on the sites, including two major car distribution and leasing companies. It was hoped that the funds generated by this activity would be used not only to preserve the security of the base but also to provide the facilities for the longer term improvements. Who collects the rents under the partnership agreement? Is it the Ministry of Defence, or is it the North Oxfordshire Consortium? After paying for upkeep and security on the base, there should be a substantial surplus to be used for any local improvements, particularly for further studies to investigate the suitability of the site for housing development. Of these one of most important should be a thorough investigation into the impact of increased traffic generated in the area. The only transport study

897
undertaken was carried out by a wholly-owned subsidiary of Wimpey, which can hardly be called an independent inquiry.
The area surrounding the base, if Members of the House know it, is a peaceful, rural area consisting of many small parishes and villages served by small country roads and lanes. If this development is agreed, large sums of money will have to be invested in road widening schemes, which will destroy some of the essential character of the area. The North Oxfordshire Consortium, when I talked to it, claimed that traffic will be channelled from Heyford through to the A.43 leading to the M.40 and that there will not be an increase in traffic on the country lanes. However, unless you put up an impenetrable fence to stop people moving into the area from any other part, you will not stop the traffic flowing on the completely unsuitable country roads.
The Cherwell Valley is a priceless heritage of rural landscape which must be treated sensitively. There are all too few of these parts of our countryside that remain that have not been spoilt. In addition, only about a mile and a half away, in Lower Heyford, which is almost part of the village of Upper Heyford—they almost run into each other—one of the most important 18th century landscape gardens in England—Rousham Park—is situated. Created by William Kent, it is probably the only one that survives without having been altered. Oxfordshire County Council's transport brief of 10th July 1995 states:
"Development at Upper Heyford is undesirable in traffic sustainability terms".
It has not changed its mind.
The Oxfordshire County Council draft structure plan, which has just been published, envisages 1,000 houses on the site, including the 300 or so houses already there. The plan will come up for public consultation in July this year. In the meantime, Cherwell District Council, with the consent of the North Oxfordshire Consortium, has put in a bid to have the proposed British Academy of Sport at Upper Heyford. The bid has the support of all parties locally. The idea to have the academy of sport there sprang from the chairman of one of the local councils. It is a wonderful opportunity because it would need about 140 acres. It would take up the area which was formerly housing for officers including a hospital, which would be very useful. We all hope that this bid will get going. It has already passed the first shortlisting. We believe that it has a great opportunity to become successful.
I believe that the MoD and the Government should be open about what is happening and what the MoD is doing in its dealings with the North Oxfordshire Consortium. We would like to know the precise terms of the acquisition. I cannot understand why that has been a secret. We also want to know what are the plans for the rest of the site beyond the current structure plan. As I asked before, I want to know what is happening to the rentals that are being collected and who collects them. Is it by the MoD or by the consortium?
Lastly, I plead that no planning permission for houses should be considered prior to the examination in public of the Oxfordshire County Council structure plan which will take place in July this year. I hope that we can get some answers.
9.21 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, for raising this Question this evening. I myself had the pleasure of visiting the site just over a month ago, courtesy of the British Olympic Association which, as the noble Baroness has said, heads the consortium bidding for the proposed British academy of sport. It is fortunate indeed that the ending of the Cold War and the departure of the United States Air Force from Upper Heyford more or less coincided with the Government's decision to have a British academy of sport, because this site is, as the noble Baroness said, so ideal for the purpose. I would like briefly to pay tribute to the United States Air Force for its occupation of the site for the past 50 years or so of my lifetime, which has made me sleep happier at night. But now it is gone.
The bid for the British academy of sport at Heyford has a number of unique features, which more than meet the criteria laid down by the United Kingdom Sports Council and the Department of National Heritage. The bid is ideally sited at the heart of the transport infrastructure for travel by road, rail and air, with links to the existing national sporting centres. It will be developed, as the noble Baroness has said, as part of an evolving new community with 1,000 new homes being built by the North Oxfordshire Consortium on an adjoining section of the former air base. It has the unqualified support of the county council, the district council and the parish councils and features in the draft Oxfordshire Development Plan which has been lodged with the Department of the Environment.
The consortium includes both the University of Oxford and Oxford Brookes University, and Eton College, for the rowing facility. The British Olympic Association brings to the bid an unrivalled expertise in British sport, including coaching, sports science and sports medicine. It also brings the unqualified backing of the 33 national governing bodies who make up the National Olympic Committee together with the British Paralympic Association.
The site is to be donated to the academy by the North Oxfordshire Consortium and is also bringing some £70 million of private sector funding which, together with lottery funding, will result in £175 million of capital investment. The BOA has committed at least £1 million a year for revenue funding to add to the revenue generated by the academy itself.
One of the great advantages of the site is the use that can be made of some 700,000 sq.ft. of existing buildings, some only 10 years old, which were left in excellent condition by the USAF.
Turning briefly to the overall site, it would appear that the proposals fit in well with the Government's policies as set out in the Rural England White Paper of

899
1995. The Government set out a number of principles for meeting the demand for 4.4 million new houses by 2016, prime among which is to:
"Make the best use of land which has already been developed. Before building on green field sites, the full potential of derelict and degraded land should be exploited".
The Government also stated:
"We have set a target for the year 2005 of building half of all new homes on re-used sites. These include redundant developments in the countryside, such as defence bases which are no longer needed as well as inner city sites".
As I have said, the proposals seem to fit in with those words extremely well. As has been said, the initial proposal is for 1,000 new homes, supporting 1,500 new jobs, so commuting will be reduced. The area has excellent transport links and the North Oxfordshire Consortium has proposals to spend some £15 million on removing the old Cold War eyesores from the airfield side of the site.
I return to the proposed academy. The reasons that we need an academy for sport have been well rehearsed. Indeed, we were reminded of the need for such an academy only last summer in Atlanta. I do not need to repeat those reasons. Upper Heyford seems an ideal site for that. Therefore, like the noble Baroness, I was pleased that the bid made the shortlist last month. I do not expect my noble friend to say anything further on that subject tonight because I understand that the final decision is to be announced fairly shortly. I can only hope that this bid is the successful one.
9.27 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, for raising a matter which is of both local and national importance. This particular area of Oxfordshire may not have the obvious tourist draw of the neighbouring Cotswolds, but it is still a very special part of England, with small woodlands, rivers, watermeadows, gentle hills and countryside of a kind that is being swallowed up and choked by traffic particularly in the south of England year by year by year.
I do not live in the area, but I know it quite well. For many years, until 1994, those who lived there were readily identifiable. They spoke only in short sentences. To embark on a long sentence was to run a considerable risk that one would be cut off and rendered inaudible by the deafening roar around the clock of one of the enormous bombers taking off or landing. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, has said that the presence of the United States Air Force there enabled him to sleep better at night, but I suspect that he was not trying to do that near the end of the runway at Upper Heyford.
When silence came in 1994 and the last F-111 left, the sigh of relief from those who lived nearby was shortlived. That relief has been replaced by fear—fear that the Ministry of Defence will now succeed in doing what the United States Air Force did not manage to do, which is to destroy the area irreparably for those who live there and who love it.
900
Of course, we must recognise that an empty air base of this type represents a major problem for the Ministry of Defence, but it could represent an enormous and exciting opportunity for a change of use which, with imagination, could benefit not merely that area but Britain as a whole. It is therefore all the more depressing and worrying, particularly for those who are directly affected, that the Ministry of Defence looks ready to settle for what appears to be the easiest option—and an unsuitable one at that—namely; a new town. The roads in the area simply could not cope with the volume of traffic that that would generate. Although there is clearly scope for some housing, it should not be on the scale proposed.
I intervene briefly in the debate because it seems to me that there are disturbing features in how all this is being handled which I hope that the Minister can go some way to allay when he replies.
I refer first to secrecy. This is not an ordinary commercial transaction. The land was acquired by the Ministry of Defence by compulsory purchase for a specific purpose. It is public land in which we all have an interest, and its disposal is a matter of public concern and should be in the public domain. Surely, that is part of open government. Local councillors and the local community are in effect being kept in the dark while the North Oxfordshire Consortium and the Ministry of Defence do a deal.
As the noble Baroness has already said, the terms of the acquisition of the development rights, the long-term plans for the site, the revenue that is being received from the short-term rents and the use to which that revenue is or will be put for environmental improvements are all matters that should be known. How else can the public be reassured?
The Ministry of Defence is not, and should not try to be, a commercial property developer. It is handling our land for us and should be accountable to us. We need to know the real options, with no secret deals or trade-offs. We need to know that no planning permissions for houses will be considered before public examination of Oxfordshire County Council's structure plan in July of this year. I ask the Minister to give that assurance tonight.
Secondly—and in a sense just as importantly—we need to know that this site is safe in view of the use to which it has been put in the past. To be convinced of that, surely an independent study should be commissioned. Above all, those who live in the 23 parishes which make up Cherwell district need to know that a golden opportunity for a truly imaginative development will not be lost simply because the Ministry of Defence has settled for the easiest option.
It is unfortunate that the only proposal about which we have heard that truly catches the imagination and is worthy of the opportunity that such a site and location offer—that referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon—is for a British academy of sport. That has support from all sides. As I understand it, that proposal did not come from the developers or the Ministry of Defence but from the chairman of Steeple Aston Parish Council. Surely the public deserves better from the

901
Ministry of Defence in handling such sites. I hope that it is not too late to ensure that a truly worthwhile development takes place here over the whole site that will not involve turning this part of rural England into yet another traffic-choked commuter dormitory.
The Minister knows about the countryside and cares a great deal about it. I therefore look forward greatly and with hope to hearing replies that satisfy some of these concerns.
9.33 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, my contribution to this debate is not based upon first hand knowledge of the situation at Upper Heyford but is intended to suggest some conclusions which are beginning to emerge from the methods employed by the Ministry of Defence in selling large redundant military bases. What I have to say draws both on what I have learned from others about Upper Heyford and what I know about the disposal of Bentwaters in Suffolk. I raised that matter in a similar debate earlier this year and recently I was able to discuss it with the noble Earl.
The main question that I wish to raise is the validity of the planning process. We tend to take it for granted and perhaps grumble about its formality and the delays which may ensue. But a degree of restraint in the development of land is surely necessary in this crowded island to take account of the public interest. We may follow the Government's excellent definition of sustainable development in PPG 15. They refer to development that does not sacrifice what future generations will value for the sake of short term and often illusory gains. That can hardly be bettered.
One has only to look at other countries where no such restraint exists to see the consequences. Two examples with which I am familiar are the uncontrolled proliferation of buildings which has desecrated the beautiful shores of the peninsula of Attica near Athens and the rampant urban and industrial growth on the drained Pontine Marshes south of Rome, land which should have been kept for food production and its scarce water resources reserved for agriculture and silviculture.
It is interesting that at both Bentwaters and Upper Heyford the Ministry of Defence began the disposal of the property in the same way by appointing an estate agent who became engaged in a negotiation with a local authority with a view to obtaining permission to build numerous houses. The purpose in both cases was to increase the value of the land before it was sold. Happily, at Bentwaters, our local Member of Parliament, Mr. John Gummer, intervened and persuaded all concerned that prior discussion with the county was necessary so that an informed proposal could be put to an Examination in Public leading to a satisfactory conclusion and modification of the country structure plan.
Sadly, that did not happen, as the statutory consultees—English Nature and the leading NGOs concerned with the environment—were not as fully engaged in the process as they should have been. Although the examination was conducted by an experienced, fully qualified and competent inspector,
902
who produced a balanced report, his conclusions were not readily acceptable to the district council for reasons I do not intend to go into here. But this was surely the correct route to follow. It is the method laid down in our planning law. It gives the leading role to the democratically elected local authorities and it encourages an open, public process, which I regard as essential in decisions of this kind. The system may not be perfect, and is no doubt capable of further refinement, but let us at least recognise that we have a real asset at our disposal, designed for the purpose, and we ought to use it.
Therefore, it concerns me that at Upper Heyford the Government have chosen a joint development partner, the North Oxfordshire Consortium, in advance of the Examination in Public. I echo what was said by the noble Baroness about the need for an assurance that no contract will be let or decisions taken before the examination has occurred. Of course we recognise the need for the closest collaboration and discussion between the Ministry and a local authority in assessing the plans for an important site such as this. But, by choosing a development partner in advance of the Examination in Public, the Ministry gives the impression of wishing in some way to pre-empt the decision at which the inquiry may arrive.
The whole purpose of the Examination in Public is to examine the future needs and possibilities of North Oxfordshire now that this large site and its extensive facilities are unexpectedly available. The inquiry will want to look at the size of the population which can be accommodated and how many can find a place in the local economy, and assess the consequences for transport in the area. These are also issues at Bentwaters, with the added dimension that the latest planning application submitted by the Ministry includes the possible use of the base for civil aviation. Many of us believe that this should not be introduced at such a late stage without some clear understanding of what kind of aviation would be involved and whether any limits should be placed on that kind of development.
As regards Upper Heyford, I believe that it would be wise for the Ministry, as has been suggested, to make before the examination full disclosure of the nature of the partnership, its formal status in law and its financial position. Allegations of secrecy may seem unfair to the Minister, but of course they do not in any way relate to him and it is hardly surprising that they should arise. Openness should be an essential part of the process if public confidence is to be won, and it seems to have been sadly lacking in this case.
I shall conclude with a further reflection arrived at from our problems at Bentwaters. Two preferred buyers in succession have failed to complete their contract negotiations. We are now in the closing stages of a third negotiation. The property is being marketed somewhat aggressively by the MoD's agents. It looks as though a hitherto wholly unknown but allegedly local company, probably specially formed for the purpose, is on the point of completing the purchase. In order to assist the sale, the MoD has submitted its own application to the planning authority, as I said, and that will probably succeed. But it leaves the door wide open to further

903
development proposals which are likely to be strongly resisted. By that time money will have been paid and the new owners may well say that they need further development in order to recoup the purchase price that they have paid and to make a return on their investment.
That is all three-and-a-half years after the base was left empty by the American airforce. It is really very unsatisfactory and causes me to have deep sympathy with the people of North Oxfordshire who are apparently about to undergo a similar experience.
9.40 p.m.
Lord Annaly: My Lords, I too am indebted to the noble Baroness for instigating the debate this evening. I have an interest to declare regarding the proposed development of RAF Upper Heyford, as I live in a village about a mile to the north east of the site. My village is one of a group of 23 parishes around the base which have formed Cherwell Valley Parishes. Cherwell Valley Parishes is worried that the Ministry of Defence has appointed a partner, the North Oxford Consortium, which is over-keen to develop a site in a way which is totally incompatible with the surrounding area.
Cherwell Valley Parishes was formed to resist the idea of the base being used simply as a housing estate on a large scale. It is not possible to cover all the issues in a few moments. Other noble Lords have mentioned some issues and others will cover others. Therefore, I shall try to limit my remarks to areas which have not been dealt with in great detail. I had intended to talk about the information flow and the secrecy which has shrouded the matter to date between the MoD, the North Oxford Consortium and the local councillors and community, but the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, has already covered that and I need say no more. However, there is one matter on which I seek some reassurance from the Minister. The local councillors and community would like confirmation that no planning permission for houses will be considered prior to the public examination of the Oxfordshire County Council's structure plan, which is scheduled to take place this summer. I would be extremely grateful for such an assurance.
The second area on which I shall touch concerns the planning process and the last point which I have just mentioned. Cherwell District Council, with the consent of the North Oxford Consortium, has put in a bid to have the proposed British Academy of Sport at Upper Heyford. That idea for a centre of sporting excellence was conceived within Cherwell Valley Parishes and has the support of all parties concerned.
There is a concern on the part of the district council and the parishes that the North Oxford Consortium is using the competitive bidding situation relating to the British Academy of Sport to pre-empt the structure plan process of Oxfordshire County Council and the Examination in Public which is scheduled to take place in the summer. That is why noble Lords have mentioned it this evening.
Cherwell Valley Parishes, together with other objectors, has lodged its opposition to policy H2 in the deposit draft that allows for 700 houses at Upper
904
Heyford in addition to the 330 which are already there. I draw the Minister's attention to Annex B to Department of the Environment Circular 16/91, sections B5 and B7 on general policy, which concern the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. Those and other paragraphs in the circular set out the circumstances in which certain types of benefit can reasonably be sought in connection with the grant of planning permission. Planning permission for unacceptable development should not be granted because a developer is offering extraneous inducement or benefits. I would argue that the 330 existing houses at Upper Heyford are more than enough to service the British Academy of Sport.
Finally, I wish to mention briefly that the Oxfordshire structure plan clearly states that sustainable development should be achieved, first, by protecting the environmental character and natural resources of the county by limiting the overall level of development; and, secondly, by favouring development in locations which reduce the need to travel, particularly by private car. The structure plan then sets out Banbury, Bicester, Didcot and Witney as preferred locations for new development and states that elsewhere in the county development and consequent expansion of population will be limited.
The plan links development and transport issues fundamentally and is an admirable attempt to reduce the need to travel and the resultant bad effects on the atmosphere and the local environment. The transport infrastructure, the local geography and the existing settlement patterns of the small villages all serve to illustrate conclusively that this is the wrong place for a development of even 1,000 houses, let alone the 5,000 proposed by the North Oxford Consortium.
An independent study produced by the Oxford Brookes University in 1994, before the idea of this new town began, showed conclusively that inhabitants of new estates in Bicester and the M.40 corridor commute further and use private cars more than people living in similar estates elsewhere in the county. The study suggests that high levels of trip making and travel distances by car could be expected of new residents in this location. That would depend on a number of factors in practice, but the convenience of the M.40 and the lack of a range of local facilities nearby reinforce that view.
The Transport Principles Brief of Oxfordshire County Council, dated 10th July 1995, states:
"It may be seductive to believe that Upper Heyford with its potential for both employment and housing development/redevelopment could create a largely self-sufficient community developing low levels of external traffic, but this is likely to be wishful thinking. Unless the development was to be very large indeed there is no possibility that it will be self-sufficient. Indeed, Planning Policy Guidance Note 13—Department of Transport dated March 1994—recommends for this reason that new developments smaller than 10,000 households should be avoided".
That brief goes on to say that, in terms of sustainability and travel reduction objectives, development at Upper Heyford is very undesirable.
Specific transport factors which would need to be considered are: first, connection to the M.40 including the capacity of the new junction 10, which is about to be upgraded with the dual carriageway in the Northampton

905
direction, and the actual capacity of the M.40 itself. I am informed in a letter of 14th March 1995 (addressed to Cherwell District Council) from the Highways Agency that both junction 10 and the motorway are likely to have little spare capacity on existing development levels by the year 2011. The agency also indicated in that letter that it would be likely to resist any application for more than minor traffic generation because of the likely effect on junction 10 and the motorway itself. A figure of 5,000 houses has been mentioned. That would go beyond the junction's capacity.
There is a network of local environmentally sensitive minor roads which I must just mention. They are close to the site, mostly to the west and the south, and pass through quiet villages, some of which are conservation areas. There are also two restricted river/canal crossings at Lower Heyford and Somerton villages and, northwards, the minor road through Somerton and Fritwell provides an alternative local route to the B.4100 and A.43 at Baynards Green which avoid junction 10 of the M.40. Any significant increase of traffic on those roads would be contrary to the council's structure plan policies, which, amongst other things, seeks to restrict increased traffic on minor roads.
9.50 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, last week we had a full-scale debate on housing, and tonight we are getting down to the nitty-gritty of what actually happens. As we heard, last June my noble friend Lord Bridges raised the similar issue of the Bentwaters RAF base in Suffolk. That is a sorry story and it appears, from what he said tonight, that it continues to be a sorry story. The wider planning and landscape considerations were, and continue to be, ignored.
In the debate last June I was one of those who referred to Upper Heyford. However, we were running out of time and the Minister, quite understandably, was unable to deal with the matter. Nevertheless, I hope he will not mind if I go over much the same ground again, although I shall not raise the question of Orford Ness.
We all agree that dealing with the future of redundant bases in a sensitive yet economic manner is difficult. Therefore, the first consideration surely is that the process must be open and thorough. We have heard a good deal of anxiety expressed tonight on that score. I share those concerns, but tonight I want to concentrate on the planning aspects, national and local, on land use, on landscape quality, and on the transport consequences.
We have heard from several noble Lords about the county structure plan. I merely emphasise the point made in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Annaly, that the plan sees Banbury, Bicester, Didcot and Witney as the preferred locations for development, not Upper Heyford. That is not surprising. After all, the consequences, if the base were to be a centre of development, would be to reinforce significantly the trend for a peri-urban corridor from Oxford to Banbury. After all, we already have Oxford and Kidlington merging into each other and Kidlington is only seven miles down the Cherwell from Heyford. Bicester, which
906
is just down the road, now has a population of nearly 25,000—I was surprised to learn that—and Banbury's population is already over 40,000.
Some 5,000 houses at Upper Heyford would mean a population of nearly 15,000 in a highly sensitive area. If ever there was a case for an undeveloped buffer zone it must surely be here. We should remember the wise words of the CPRE in a different connection when it observed, in relation to the housing problem,
"New settlements are unlikely to be a helpful solution since they rarely have advantages over building in or around existing urban areas, urbanise the countryside and generate more traffic".
This, if nothing else, would be sufficient reason for giving pause before we rush in. However, there is a further reason which the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, referred to, and that is Rousham. I know Rousham. As she said, it is the only extant garden of William Kent that has remained unadulterated by—bless his heart!—Capability Brown or by later development. It is lovingly protected, at great personal sacrifice, by the family who have been there for 300 years. If it was a National Trust property we would fight tooth and nail to protect it, and I am sure the family will do the same. This is quintessential middle England countryside with the added bonus of William Kent's unique and historic landscape garden. For those who like labels, it is Grade I listed. For those who like zoning, the area around Lower Heyford is designated as a conservation zone.
It will be said that the developers are reasonable people who are prepared to settle for a mere 5,000 houses, notwithstanding the capacity of the base for 7,000. It is further hinted that they might be content with only 1,000. I suppose the first point here is to ask the Minister whether the MoD, and perhaps more importantly the Treasury, would restrict their demands to this lower level of development? But even if this were the case, which of us would feel able to bank on such an assurance? The noble Earl cannot bind future administrations. Any extra development now would be a hostage to the future. In my submission 1,000 houses would be a Trojan horse.
Leaving that aside, what about the transport implications? If it is zoned to include industrial and commercial development, it will generate traffic. If it is restricted to residential housing, it will also generate commuter traffic to Banbury, Oxford and Bicester. So there will be pressure, as the noble Baroness said, to upgrade the local road network. That is perhaps the most insidious threat of all.
The noble Lord, Lord Annaly, went into the transport implications in great detail. I shall not repeat what he said. I simply observe that the national traffic projections forecast a huge increase—a doubling of traffic—over the next 20 years. Most people agree that the pressure on rural traffic will be even greater. If one adds a housing development or two, one has the possibility of a disaster.
I referred to the proposal to restrict the total number of houses to 1,000 as being a Trojan horse. That is a further 700 extra houses. It certainly is a Trojan horse because there is pressure to give planning permission for that even before the structure plan is publicly

907
examined. That has already been mentioned. No wonder the 23 local parishes are concerned. By all means let us use the existing housing stock. By all means use the existing military facilities; they are already earning a good rent. Let us use that income to remove the worst excrescences on the north side of the base, and let us support the imaginative proposal—a local initiative—for a sports complex. But surely that should be the extent of the development.
Everything I have said is consistent with the Government's White Paper on Rural England. I conclude with three short quotes from the recent update Rural England 1996. Under the heading Local Initiative and Voluntary Action on page 11 it states:
"Local decision making is likely to be more responsive to local circumstances than uniform plans. We [the Government] therefore aim to be sensitive to local concerns and to work in partnership with local people rather than impose top-down solutions".
At page 13 the report states:
"We proposed in Rural England to: Introduce legislation to establish a formal consultative framework between principal authorities and parish and town councils which will strengthen the consultative and representational role of local councils".
The report continues in similar vein about introducing legislation.
Finally, perhaps I may quote a short section at page 43 on defence. The report refers to guidelines that have been agreed between the MoD and the DoE. It states:
"The new arrangements will ensure that decisions on disposal of sites take account of policies for regeneration and land use, including the need"—
I emphasise this—
"to protect the environment, [and] the needs of local communities".
The report continues by referring to,
"the types of uses which will be attractive to developers".
But in primary place it puts the needs of local communities and of the environment.
The noble Earl is being rather battered with DoE circulars, DoE PPGs and quotes from the White Paper. But local considerations, local responsibility, and the need to protect the environment are at the heart of all those references. We can all subscribe to that being what is needed from the noble Earl's department. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to give us the assurance that the MoD will follow that guidance in the case of Upper Heyford.
9.58 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, the hour is late and I shall not detain your Lordships long. However, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, for initiating the debate.
In the Bentwaters debate in June of last year, I ventured to suggest to my noble friend the Minister that because land had been taken in time of grave national emergency at a very cheap price, those same interests were entitled to be offered it in the first place. I received short shrift from the Minister; and I accept that. This is no Crichel Down. But that is not to say that local interests must not be very carefully looked into and looked after in this situation.
908
No fewer than 23 parish councils, referred to by noble Lords earlier, were at one in expressing interest in doing a partnership deal with the MoD. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, told us how they received very little co-operation. I understand that it was a case of too little information, inadequate information, and that it was given too late. There is the feeling locally that they were not given the same level playing field.
I understand that 30 institutions expressed interest in the MoD's proposal. I do not know how many of those went forward to the next stage. Of course the MoD must pay attention to the interests of the taxpayer. But it must also pay attention to what might be referred to as quality of life. That was referred to in detail by many speakers tonight. We do not know whether the bid was the cheapest; or whether, if not the cheapest, it was regarded by the ministry as the best; or simply, as speakers have suggested tonight, it was the easiest way out.
The North Oxfordshire Consortium has impeccable attributes. It is of great resources and reputation. However, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, of the Bentwater bidders, there were two so-called preferred bidders which failed. The Ministry of Defence is not infallible in that respect. The Government have made great play of an open policy in all areas of government. The various charters give effect to that. It must surely be extended to Ministry of Defence bids.
The peace dividend has brought many advantages. But one of the problems that it has brought is the disposal of MoD land. There will be many Bentwaters and many Upper Heyfords to come. So many of those will revolve around housing density. That is where the disputes will lie. In this case there is a huge disparity. There is the original figure of 7,500 dwellings suggested by Cherwell district council; and many people would want fewer than that.
I would mention the British academy of sport, and sound a note of caution. The presence, as we hope, of the British academy of sport in Upper Heyford must not be used as a lever to ask for further houses to service that academy.
I hope that the Government will look very carefully into what can be done at this late stage in the Upper Heyford situation, and that they will also look carefully at their future dealings in regard to MoD disposals.
10.3 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, has just referred to the paramount importance of protecting local communities. He also warned us that there are many—too many—Upper Heyfords and Bentwaters to come. In that context the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, is to be congratulated on having raised an issue of such immense significance to the local population, but one which is also of far wider public policy concern, as was so well brought out by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges.
Inevitably, a number of the issues raised in the debate last June relating to the sale of the RAF base at Bentwaters have re-emerged this evening. As I listened

909
to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, my heart went into my boots to learn—although I am not altogether surprised—that that appalling story of delay and incompetence meanders on, at god knows what cost in stress to the local community. The Ministry of Defence really should do better than that.
While it would not be appropriate in a short debate such as this to reiterate them all, I should like to spell out three of the points that I raised last June, because I believe they lie at the heart of this question and because I am regretfully not convinced that the Government have begun to take them fully on board.
First, there is the importance of developing a consistent policy in the national interest towards the development of the whole defence estate. The current principle above all of sale to the highest bidder, which seemed to apply at Bentwaters and again seems to apply at Upper Heyford, is not necessarily a panacea for everyone's long-term interest.
Secondly, there is the importance of these major developments being consistent with environmental protection and, where necessary, contamination being identified and rendered harmless. It has certainly been put to me that the income from short-term rentals could be utilised to help with that.
Thirdly, there is the importance that these developments of what is, after all, public land should go ahead with a much more open approach and in partnership with local planning authorities as representatives of the local people who will be affected. Here I should like to welcome the call made by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, for the use of a public inquiry to become the norm as a means of approaching the challenges and opportunities for development positively and consensually rather than with hostility and suspicion.
I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to these general comments in terms of the national issue. I do not envy him. I know him to be one of the most civilised Ministers in this administration and I believe that he must be under a good deal of personal stress in having to deal with this situation.
I now turn to underline some of the specific questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, and other noble Lords. These are questions of concern to many of the people of North Oxfordshire with regard to the situation at Upper Heyford. First, what are the exact terms of the lease enjoyed by the North Oxfordshire Consortium? Secondly, why was the lease awarded to this consortium, whose initial plan to build upwards of 5,000 houses was not consistent with the Oxfordshire structure plan and was unanimously rejected, as the noble Baroness reminded us, by councillors of all political persuasions on Oxfordshire County Council's environment committee.
Thirdly, why were the responsible local planning authorities not much more closely consulted over the disposal of such large areas of public land, the development of which will obviously have huge planning implications? I understand that there is considerable local support for the idea of the sports academy, which sounds an imaginative and exciting
910
concept, deserving of the most serious consideration. In that context it is obviously essential to be certain that the site is suitable in terms of transport, access and wider strategic planning. There are those, it seems—their views have been put to me—who suggest that the sports centre is being put forward as a cairot to encourage acceptance of a private development plan. It is a pity that that suspicion should have arisen because I share the enthusiasm expressed by other noble Lords this evening. That makes it all the more important to demonstrate that the sports academy stands up on its own planning merits.
Fourthly, why has this land been offered to a consortium which plans to build houses only for private sale when, as last week's debate on homelessness highlighted, the dire shortfall in homes and the continued high levels of repossession indicate a continued and growing need for rented housing? Should not this public land also be made available for the provision of much needed social housing?
Fifthly, why do the Government now apparently support the latest scaled-down plan for 1,000 houses when their own policy has been to regard 2,000 as the minimum viable basis for a new community? It is significant to note—I say no more than that tonight—that the Government's own chief planning adviser has been acting as planning consultant to the North Oxfordshire Consortium.
Sixthly, are the Government aware of and concerned by the results of the research undertaken by the Oxford Brookes University, to which the noble Lord, Lord Annaly, referred, which show that inhabitants of new developments at Bicester and on the M.40 corridor have been making greater than average use of cars on journeys to and from work? One can indeed imagine that proximity to the M.40 will be a valuable element in the sales promotion for any new private houses which are built. But it will be to the further detriment of the local environment. About that there can be no doubt. I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, also made that point powerfully and the House would be remiss not to take him seriously, with all his distinguished experience until recently as chairman of the National Trust.
Finally, can the Government give a categoric assurance on the safety of the site to which the noble Baroness referred? There is a good deal of circumstantial evidence which gives grounds for concern. There were reports some years ago by fanners in the Banbury area that animals near to the base were dying and animals were being born deformed—a situation then believed to have been caused by the dumping by the US Air Force of fuel oil which had seeped into water supplies. There was the secrecy surrounding attempts by the county council to establish with the Ministry of Defence the levels of contamination and the bland and careful wording of the replies that had been given. There was the unwillingness of the authorities in Washington in the United States, despite the reputation for more open government there, to respond satisfactorily to attempts to establish the results of surveys carried out by the United States authorities.

911
There was the article on pollution on military sites, written in 1993 by Captain Orrell-Jones and quoted last September in the Scottish press, which states:
"The attitude that pollution doesn't matter because we can get away with it is rife in the services … Airfields pose a particular problem with their large bulk fuel installations and use of large quantities of de-icing fluids and anti-freeze … There are many cases where continuous leakage is occurring … the effects can be to pollute the soil and more importantly the groundwater beneath and around these installations".
And, of course, there was the study of pollution on US military sites, commented on in an article in the New Scientist last November, which referred to contamination either from radioactivity, hydrocarbons or munitions, discovered at 22 sites in the United Kingdom.
None of that is a basis for local confidence. It was regrettable that Upper Heyford Parish Council was, last September, refused access by the Ministry of Defence to carry out its own survey. Information about what pollution surveys the ministry may have carried out or may be planning for this site (a letter of 10th September from the Deputy Defence Land Agent to the acting clerk of Upper Heyford Parish Council states that:
"there are environmental assessments and other reports planned for the future"),
and a firmer assurance from the Minister on safety than has so far been forthcoming are, I suggest, all badly needed. There has not even been a convincing explanation of why such an assurance cannot be given.
In conclusion, I should like only to add, in joining those who have already made the point, that here we are dealing with the land that belongs to the people of this nation. The pressures on life, pressures on space and pressures on health from the overcrowding and over-development of the south, and particularly the areas around Oxford in which for many years I myself worked, are not only a current challenge but a nightmare potentially for our children and grandchildren. Here is a chance for the Government, through the Ministry of Defence, to show enlightenment, imagination and vision in the way in which they deal with this site in the interests of the people of the area.
10.14 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, for giving the House occasion to discuss the important development opportunities which exist at Upper Heyford. I listened to the debate and the views expressed with keen interest. I shall try to address as many of the points raised as I can, but to the extent that I fail to reply to questions put to me I shall of course write to noble Lords as soon as possible.
I do not need to remind noble Lords that the ending of the Cold War has dramatically changed the military map of the United Kingdom. Many large, important and strategically located sites have been declared surplus to defence requirements and have thus become available for alternative uses. Few such sites can claim either the
912
central location or the potential for useful development that exists in the case of the former airbase at Upper Heyford.
There we have 505 hectares (1,247 acres) of land in the Cherwell Valley, located only some three miles east of Junction 10 off the M.40. Although the site has been used by the Ministry of Defence since as long ago as 1924, from 1950 to 1994 it was occupied by the United States air force. Following the reduction in their presence in the United Kingdom the base was declared surplus to defence requirements and is now in the process of being sold.
Under the Americans the base was a self-contained settlement supporting approximately 3,000 personnel. The site consists of over three million square feet of accommodation ranging from technical buildings, offices, industrial warehouses, hangars and hardened aircraft shelters to residential and recreational facilities.
When a site such as this becomes surplus to requirements it is our duty to protect the taxpayers' interests in general by disposing of land and property in the most cost-effective way. As part of this process we explore the future redevelopment potential so that we can demonstrate that we have achieved full open market value for the site. In the case of Upper Heyford our consultants identified significant redevelopment potential over the next 20 to 25 years. However, to ensure that best value for money is obtained in the particular circumstances of Upper Heyford we recognised that we would—unusually—have to remain involved as landowner throughout the redevelopment period in order to maximise receipts. An outright sale of the whole site could have transferred a latent value to the purchaser to the detriment of the taxpayer.
The site was advertised in January 1995 and 26 bids from consortia were received, all expressing an interest in the site. Following lengthy and rigorous selection procedures the North Oxfordshire Consortium (NOC), comprising Wimpey plc, Taywood Homes plc and Westbury Homes plc, was selected as our development partner in the following July.
The noble Baroness asked what are the terms of the partnership between the NOC and my department. As noble Lords will recognise, the detailed terms of the development agreement and the lease entered into between the parties is commercial in confidence and it would be quite inappropriate for me to reveal them, not least in order not to undermine our ability to negotiate future agreements. I am, however, happy to discuss the effect of those agreements.
The development agreement imposes on NOC a requirement to promote the site through the statutory planning process to secure planning permission for the most favourable redevelopment achievable. Once planning consent is achieved the land is to be sold and developed in accordance with that consent. In light of the scale of the redevelopment which is possible and the need to develop in sustainable phases a period of 25 years has been allowed for that process to be completed.

913
Because of the scale of redevelopment which is possible and the need to carry out development in sustainable phases, the Ministry of Defence has granted the consortium a 25-year lease of the whole base. The noble Baroness may care to note that that transfers responsibility for managing the existing facilities from my department to NOC, including the collection of rents. There are many businesses already on the base, including car storage and vehicle preparation, which have temporary planning permission to operate until the long-term future of the base is determined. As noble Lords will appreciate those uses prevent vandalism and structural deterioration and generate jobs as well as generating income to finance maintenance of the base, all to the benefit of the public purse.
The question was asked whether funds should not be used to finance studies on housing and so on. The lion's share of the funds from the rental stream are used to maintain the site, the costs of which should not be underestimated, and it is for the North Oxfordshire Consortium to carry out any studies required as part of the planning process.
The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, referred to the planning process. I believe that it would be beneficial for me to remind your Lordships of some of the features of the system. The planning process is, of course, the democratic process by which collective decisions on the suitability of developments are made. In order to secure planning permission NOC has already made representations in the Oxfordshire structure plan review proposing sustainable development of 5,000 homes and 7,500 jobs.
The planning process will of course allow all parties interested in the future of Upper Heyford to make representations. These will naturally be taken into account before Oxfordshire County Council makes any decision as to whether the site should be deemed suitable for redevelopment and as to what level of development might be appropriate during the life of the plan. There will then be a need to promote any redevelopment through the Cherwell district local plan, due for review in 1998, and to submit planning applications for each phase. All these processes do, of course, allow for full public comment and participation.
A number of noble Lords have spoken as though it were the MoD, not the local planning authority, that determines the planning process. It is a basic point, but I feel bound to point out that the MoD, quite rightly, is not judge and jury in its own case. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, asked why we appeared to be pre-empting the examination in public with our own plans. With great respect, we are not pre-empting anything. The planning process invites proposals for development, which the North Oxfordshire Consortium has made on behalf of the MoD, and public participation ensures that all views on proposals are considered before the county council and local council make any decision on future use. More than one speaker has emphasised the importance of ensuring an examination in public of the Oxfordshire County Council structure plan before any planning application for houses is determined. It is perfectly clear
914
that no application for new development would be considered by Cherwell District Council before the examination in public takes place.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, asked what our plans were beyond the current structure plan. A master plan is due to be drawn up over the next six months and current proposals include a country park. Nothing can be decided, however, before the structure plan and local plan processes are complete. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, asked whether the Treasury or indeed my department would restrict their demands to a low level of development. That is not a judgment for the Ministry of Defence, but rather a matter between the North Oxfordshire Consortium and the planning authorities.
At each stage there will be a need to balance the benefits of accommodating the growth and development of an active and expanding county on a brownfield site—which is already a substantial development in its own right—with the impact of redevelopment on the environment, highway work, infrastructure and population of the Cherwell Valley. Indeed, the Cherwell Valley's natural character, which the noble Baroness eloquently referred to, and the proximity of the Upper Heyford site to the historically valuable and environmentally sensitive Rousham Park conservation area will be important factors which need to be taken into account. The noble Baroness, the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and others referred to that.
Comprehensive redevelopment would, of course, allow careful landscape planning and the removal of much of the legacy of the Cold War from the former airfield. For instance, NOC's proposals promote conservation and enhancement of the environment, and include the creation of an extensive country park for future generations to enjoy.
NOC has also promoted part of the Upper Heyford site as a candidate for the location of the proposed British Academy of Sport. I listened with great interest to the remarks of the noble Baroness and in particular those of my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara in that connection. The value of such a facility to Britain is well appreciated. Upper Heyford has infrastructure and communication facilities, together with sufficient land to meet the requirements for such a facility. I understand that the site will be considered by the selection panel along with 12 other similarly suitable sites. I can tell my noble friend that any sale of the land for the sports academy would be considered carefully and sympathetically by my department. But we will need to ensure that such a sale does not detract from the requirements set by the Treasury to obtain the best value possible for the site or interfere unduly with the alternative uses intended for the remainder of the land and buildings.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, asked particularly about the impact of any development on the environment. The local authority, together with the county council, following the policies set by the Department of the Environment, has the responsibility of allowing development only where it can be shown that there is no net detrimental effect on the existing environment. I would say to my noble friend Lord

915
Annaly that that includes traffic. Where the effects of development lead to an increase in traffic, these effects will be remediated under the planning process. I know that the local authority does not take this role lightly. These issues will be fully examined at Upper Heyford. We believe, however, that the site is likely to remain in largely its present form for some years as the planning decisions I have referred to are considered and made.
The noble Baroness also mentioned remediation. It may be helpful if I say a few words on that aspect. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, expressed concern about the state of the land following its use for defence purposes. The Environment Act and Planning Policy Guidance 23—Planning and Pollution Control—issued by the Department of the Environment, have emphasised the need for planning authorities and the Environment Agency to ensure that any harmful contamination in, on or under the land is removed as part of the redevelopment process. Our initial view is that there are no unresolvable contamination problems, but I should say that full land quality assessments are being carried out to ensure that this view is correct. The information provided will form part of the submissions for planning permission to redevelop the land. Any decontamination work required will be carried out in a timely, professional and cost-effective manner in order to comply with the appropriate environmental legislation. Radiological surveys and investigation of unexploded ordnance have also been completed and show the site to be clear.
The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, asked why we could not be more open in selling the site. The process of disposal is a totally open one. It is only the price which is withheld, for reasons which he will understand. That
916
feature of the process is "commercial—in confidence" and its revelation would undermine our ability to meet Treasury guidelines on achieving the best price.
The noble Lord also referred back to our debate on Bentwaters and asked specifically whether, after the Bentwaters sale, Bentwaters Investments Limited will apply for further development of the site. It is of course entirely possible for the developer to apply for further planning permissions but the planning process will regulate that. I would suggest to him that it is not a matter for my department but for the local people and the democratic planning process in the area.
Over recent years my department has gained considerable experience in the disposal of large sites. Many of those have proved complex cases because of the wide range of often very sensitive factors to be considered. These include the location of sites, former ownership, environmental and contamination issues and so on. Of course, there are often differing views on how a site should be reused, and I must acknowledge to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, that we are no strangers to controversy. Although the Ministry of Defence is not a regeneration agency, we liaise closely with those who have such responsibilities. Indeed, it is in our interest to take into account local aspirations if only to achieve a timely and efficient disposal.
Upper Heyford is no different from other sites in any of these respects, although it has, as I said earlier, a number of factors which led to our selection of a disposal method which departs from our normal practice. I am confident that the arrangements put in place, which have been the subject of this stimulating debate, are such that the environmental, economic and social possibilities of the site will be both protected and fully utilised, and that the site will be put to uses of great future benefit to the north Oxfordshire area.
House adjourned at half-past ten o'clock.

  General Affairs Council, 20th January
  General Affairs Council, 20th January
  Shared Embassy Facilities and Services
  Shared Embassy Facilities and Services
  Sudan: Church Councils' Appeal
  Sudan: Church Councils' Appeal
  Burma: Human Rights
  Burma: Human Rights
  Arbil, Iraq: Destruction of Books and MSS
  Arbil, Iraq: Destruction of Books and MSS
  Prisoners Returning from Abroad: Habitual Residence Test
  Prisoners Returning from Abroad: Habitual Residence Test
  Petrol Stations: Sale of Alcohol
  Petrol Stations: Sale of Alcohol
  Charity Lotteries
  Charity Lotteries
  Asylum Seekers Married to UK Citizens
  Asylum Seekers Married to UK Citizens
  Asylum Seekers: Hunger Strikes
  Asylum Seekers: Hunger Strikes
  Message Handling Review
  Message Handling Review
  Agriculture Council, 20th and 21st January
  Agriculture Council, 20th and 21st January
  BSE
  BSE