Sitting of 23 June 1997

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

    Tourism Industry
    Mr. Blunt:To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his Department's assessment of the impact of the European social chapter and the minimum wage on the tourism industry. [3083]
    The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Chris Smith): Tourism, with its potential to generate employment, is one of the priorities that we have set for the Department. The evidence is that most employers and employees in the tourism industry support a minimum wage. Minimum wages and basic standards of employment, by creating a better rewarded and motivated work force, can help to improve business performance.
    Mr. Blunt: In most cases, no one would challenge the statement that one wants a well-motivated work force. It is extraordinary that tourism is responsible for 5 per cent. of our gross domestic product and that 7 per cent. of the nation's employees work in the industry. The industry consists largely of small companies that need labour market flexibility above almost anything else. The Government have signed the social chapter and sold the pass on it, but, before they impose a minimum wage, I hope that the Secretary of State will assure the House that he will consult tourism representatives on its level.
    Mr. Smith: First, I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the House. Before the election, he made an unforgettable contribution to tourism in his Surrey constituency by telling the world:
    "You could put up a donkey as the Conservative candidate for Reigate and it would win."
    I welcome him to his place on the Opposition Benches. Of course I assure him that we will consult closely and carefully with the tourism industry about provisions for a statutory minimum wage. That is the whole point of having a low pay commission, which will draw together both sides of industry, and of consulting wisely so that we set a sensible rate for the minimum wage.
    Mr. Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the reasons for our magnificent majority on 1 May was that these barmy Tories were daft enough to keep
    606
    telling workers that they had to work for peanuts? It has nothing to do with the common market: it is about justice, and it is offensive to keep hearing these well-heeled Tory Members, probably with consultancies up to their ear holes, telling British workers that they cannot get about £5 an hour. That is the rate, isn't it?
    Mr. Smith: I shall, of course, pass on the last part of my hon. Friend's question. He is right in the first part of his question. It is particularly interesting that Conservative Members and Ministers failed to understand the evidence that they commissioned. A Coopers and Lybrand and London business school report prepared for the Conservative Government in December concluded:
    "The tourism and hospitality labour market faces the threat of a self-perpetuating vicious circle that is harmful to profitability and competitiveness"
    as a result of low wages and poor morale in the tourist industry. Opposition Members have to understand that exploitative wages do not result in a well-motivated work force and good service for customers and visitors.
    Mr. Fearn: I support a fair minimum wage, but it must be fair, especially in tourism. The Minister and I both went to the British Resorts Association conference and addressed the meeting. After that meeting, many delegates spoke to me and, I think, to the Minister about the minimum wage. They were quite worried, as are hoteliers in Southport in my area, about the fact that it must be fair. Will the Minister assure us that he will consult not only the tourist boards, but the British Resorts Association?
    Mr. Smith: I assure the hon. Gentleman that, in coming to a conclusion about the level of the minimum wage, we will of course wish the low pay commission to consult widely not just with the tourist boards, but with the industry and the British Resorts Association. Indeed, I noted with interest that, in its 2 January edition, "Caterer and Hotelkeeper" concluded that 84 per cent. of industry staff and 65 per cent. of industry employers supported a statutory minimum wage.
    Mr. MacShane: Is not the real question to ask: why do 14 million British tourists go on holiday in countries, principally in Europe, that pay a minimum wage and train their staff properly? If we had that level of pay and investment in this country, more of those people might stay at home. Is it not sad that the first act of the new Leader of the Opposition is to stuff his Cabinet with anti-Europeans, sending a message that they have learnt none of the lessons of 1 May? Will my right hon. Friend join me in inviting all Conservative Members to take their holidays in Britain this summer so that they will learn what nonsense they are talking?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that this country has a substantial balance of payments deficit in relation to tourism—it totals some £4.5 billion a year. We cannot do much about the weather, but we can at least ensure that when visitors take their holidays in Britain, either coming from abroad or visiting within the country, they can

    607
    have a good quality experience and be treated well and with courtesy. A key of part of ensuring that is a well-motivated staff.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Speaking as someone who does take holidays in Britain and not, like new Labour, in Tuscany, may I remind the right hon. Gentleman that achieving a well-remunerated and motivated work force does not require a statutory minimum wage or joining the European social chapter? I add to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt). The World Travel and Tourism Council estimates that the tourism industry and its associated activities account for as much as 12 per cent. of GDP. Above all, may I urge the right hon. Gentleman to resist the damaging effects of the social chapter and the minimum wage, and to maintain a commitment to deregulation? With that in mind, will he consult at the earliest opportunity my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), whom we welcome to his post, and who has only recently stepped down from chairing the previous Government's deregulation panel, whose advice on this subject will be warmly welcomed?
    Mr. Smith: I am disappointed that, in her first foray on the Back Benches, the right hon. Lady seeks to defend the economics of exploitation—because that is precisely what low poverty wages are all about. I am sure that she has forgotten that a leading figure in the tourism industry, David Wood, chief executive of the Hotel and Catering International Management Association, said:
    "We should accept the principles of a minimum wage and the social chapter because they would reposition the industry on level terms with others."
    I agree.
    Mr. Miller: I hope that, when my right hon. Friend enters into this consultation, he does not consult French Railways Ltd. which is now the owner of British Rail International, which had a role in promoting British tourism. Does he agree that that sale reflected the worst aspects of the previous Government?
    Madam Speaker: Order. The question is about the minimum wage.
    Mr. Maude: The Secretary of State says that the tourism industry supports the introduction of a minimum wage, but at what level does he believe that it supports a minimum wage? Does he accept that it must be set at a level either so low as to yield no benefit, or so high that it destroys jobs, as the chairman of the Low Pay Unit has said? Which of those two does the right hon. Gentleman prefer?
    Mr. Smith: I warmly welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his position on the Opposition Benches. I look forward to many constructive debates and arguments with him, but I am afraid that he has picked the wrong argument in this instance. He points to the need to set a statutory minimum wage at a sensible level—every Labour Member accepts that. Not having statutory wage protection in place, while the rest of Europe and most of the rest of the developed world has, leads to the exploitation of the work force,
    608
    to appallingly low pay and to a much poorer tourism industry. That is not the way forward, and we want to change it

    Film Industry
    Mr. Corbett: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has for encouraging the improvement of training and qualifications in the British film industry. [3084]
    The Minister for Film and Tourism (Mr. Tom Clarke): The skills and talents of our work force are major assets for the resurgent British film industry. Further improving training and qualifications in the film industry, in the context of the Government's commitment to Target 2000, will be high on the agenda for the policy review group which I have recently announced.
    Mr. Corbett: I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. Will he assure the House that the policy review group will concentrate on the development of the skills base of the industry as well as look for opportunities under the Government's welfare-to-work programme?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is entirely correct to focus on the skills base and welfare-to-work scheme which are key Government objectives. One of the pivotal sub-groups of the group that Stewart Till and I will chair will deal exclusively with training. It will be chaired by Dinah Caine, who is greatly respected for her work as director of Skillset. We are determined that young people in the United Kingdom will be given the skills to share in the future of a dynamic British film industry.
    Mr. Whittingdale: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there has recently been a very thorough review of the British film industry carried out under Sir Peter Middleton? Would not it be more sensible to respond to the recommendations in that report before setting up another review?
    Mr. Clarke: No, I do not agree, if only because Middleton dealt only with the issue of finance. Moreover, under the former Government, not only were there 18 film Ministers in 18 years but they ignored the recommendations of Lord Lloyd's report on film and those of the Select Committee on National Heritage chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). The difference between the Tories and us is that we will listen. We have assembled some of the best talents in the British film industry to listen with us, and we will consider and implement their recommendations.

    Tourism Industry
    Mr. Woolas: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the level of income earned by the tourism industry in the United Kingdom. [3085]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Tony Banks): In 1995, the tourism industry contributed £38 billion to the United

    609
    Kingdom's gross domestic product, equivalent to more than 5 per cent. of the total. The industry supports 1.6 million jobs, a number which could grow by up to 1 million in the next decade. We are working with the industry, the tourist boards, local authorities and others to enable the industry's full potential to be realised.
    Mr. Woolas: Is the Minister aware of the potential for tourism in Saddleworth and of the proposed development for the museum there? Will he consider visiting us to see the beautiful culture of Saddleworth?
    Mr. Banks: May I say—[Interruption.] I do know where it is. The friends of Saddleworth museum are legion in the House. During the by-election in 1995, it was one of the most fascinating places—some unkind people would say the only fascinating place—to visit there. If I were to go into Bottomley-speak, I could read out a range of grants that have been made, via the lottery, to my hon. Friend's constituency, but I know exactly what he is talking about—tourism is not only about the favoured sites, often located in places like London, but about all parts of the country with a great heritage which there are many reasons to visit. That applies to my constituency in the east end where the outfall sewer walk is one of the most favoured.
    Mr. Green: Does the Minister accept that the lottery has been a boon to the tourism industry in many constituencies, with or without outfalls? Does he also accept that any attempt, such as those that he has made over the past few weeks, to interfere in the running of the lottery and the way in which grants are given is likely to result in an unacceptable amount of political control over lottery grants, damaging the tourist industry and many others that depend on the lottery?
    Mr. Banks: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Lottery money is the people's money because it is the people's lottery. When we produce our White Paper in the not-too-distant future, we shall consider those issues. We need to examine the distribution of lottery funding across the country, because there has been criticism of the way in which certain areas get what seems to be an unfair or disproportionate share. That is a serious issue. Lottery money is the people's money, and the people are entitled to value for that money.

    Film Industry
    Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what actions he plans to take to promote the British film industry in the next year. [3086]
    Mr. Chris Smith: My Department recently announced the setting up of a film policy review group, whose task will be to formulate an agenda for action for the film industry and for the Government's support to it. The aim of the group will be to double the availability of British films to British audiences and to help the film industry to achieve its full creative and economic potential. This morning, I was at Battersea power station to help launch the renovation project that will put 32 screens and 8,500 seats into a major new entertainment centre for London.
    Mrs. Clwyd: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his speed in setting up the review and on his statement
    610
    about Battersea power station. Does he agree that one of the major problems dogging the British film industry is distribution? France has twice as many cinemas as Britain. Many excellent British films are never seen in our cinemas. Will the review address that?
    Mr. Smith: The review will address precisely that. It was important to establish the working group because the issue has not been addressed before. My hon. Friend is right to point out that we do not have enough screens. It is important to develop the availability of viewing. We must address the key issues on the distribution and exhibition of films, as well as on the stimulation of production. I have already begun discussions with the companies—most of them American—responsible for exhibition and distribution to see what progress can be made.
    Mr. Rowe: During the review, will the Secretary of State do everything that he can to encourage the British film industry to resist the temptation, which appears to have lured film makers in other countries, to believe that the only way to make money from films is to include as much gratuitous violence, sex and other unattractive features of modern life as possible?
    Mr. Smith: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns. The most successful British films of recent years have not gone down that road, but have been good, responsible films, which I am delighted to welcome.

    National Museums
    Ms Ryan: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to abolish admission charges to national museums [3087]
    Caroline Flint: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to abolish admission charges national museums. [3095]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Mark Fisher): The Government believe that all members of the community should be able to enjoy our great national museums and galleries; they should be for the many, not just the few. We are concerned about the growth of charging and are reviewing present arrangements urgently.
    Ms Ryan: I welcome such a review. As a pressing issue, I am sure that the Minister is aware that the British museum is being forced to consider introducing admission charges to help balance its books due to lack of funding from the previous Government. How do the Government plan to discourage that course of action and to ensure that local authority and university museums are not forced to do likewise?
    Mr. Fisher: Of course, my hon. Friend is quite right that the national galleries and museums are in their current position because of the neglect and the hostile policies of the previous Government. She may be aware that the Secretary of State and I met the chairman and the director of the British museum recently. They made it clear on behalf of their trustees that they share the Government's policy of securing the widest possible access to the British

    611
    museum and to national museums generally. I am determined to undertake a review and ensure that our museums are available to the widest possible audience.
    Caroline Flint: Will the Minister consider introducing free days, free passes or differential entry charges for our national museums? I draw his attention to the progressive policy of the Earth center—a major project for the millennium in my constituency of Don Valley—where it is intended to introduce community days and, rather imaginatively, discounts for people who travel to the Earth centre by public transport.
    Mr. Fisher: All the options that my hon. Friend rehearses can play a constructive part in widening access to good projects such as the Earth centre near Doncaster. Our review is examining all such options. I should emphasise, however, that the prime objective of that review is to secure free public access to our great national museums and galleries.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the hon. Gentleman intend to usurp the freedom of trustees? If he intends to give directions to trustees to allow free entry to museums—something that many of us welcome—does he accept that it is absolutely necessary for him to guarantee the funds that the museums will thereby lose?
    Mr. Fisher: Of course the hon. Gentleman is right to say that those are decisions for the trustees. We shall be involving in our discussions trustees and directors of national galleries that are charging and those that are not charging, but the choice of whether to charge remains with the trustees.
    Mr. Evans: While the Minister is carrying out a review to look into scrapping charges to museums, does he agree that we also have very fine theatres? Should not people who cannot afford to go to the theatre also be allowed to have the charges scrapped? Does he plan a review to look into that?
    Mr. Fisher: No. The position of galleries and museums is not comparable with that of theatres. However, the hon. Gentleman will know that many theatres have excellent concessionary schemes. We will encourage that policy and we hope that it can be pursued more widely to ensure that the maximum number of people get into theatres.
    Dr. Tonge: In view of the poor funding for schools and the lack of any substantial promises of more funding for schools, will the Minister give an assurance that school parties will never be charged admission to our museums and art galleries?
    Mr. Fisher: We do not want anyone to be charged entry to national museums and galleries. The hon. Lady is quite right to emphasise the importance of education and schools policies as widening access to museums is not solely a matter of admission charges or the lack of them. We are working with museums on a code of best practice in which policies towards education and new technologies play an important part in truly widening access to museums and galleries.

    Film Industry
    Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the membership and objectives of the body that he has set up to investigate the future of the British film industry. [3088]
    Mr. Tom Clarke: The film policy review group—which my right hon. Friend and I have already mentioned—consisting of leading players in the British film community, will be co-chaired by myself and Stewart Till of Polygram Filmed Entertainment. The group's objective is to encourage the British film industry as a whole to achieve lasting success and to be competitive in the world marketplace.
    Mr. Ross: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response and I welcome him to his responsibility for film, which acknowledges his long commitment to the British film industry. Is he aware of the on-going project in Dundee and Tayside to produce a film for the Indian film industry, and does he agree that the British film industry has the potential for job growth? Can he tell the House on which policy areas the review group will focus?
    Mr. Clarke: The United Kingdom is attractive to film makers for important locations, such as Dundee, and for the talent and even creative genius of British film production. The film policy review group will consider how to make the most of the UK's assets by boosting the audience for British films and by attracting from overseas investment in our talent and facilities. The group will focus on six key areas: the broadening of the audience and the impact of improving access; increasing the market share of British films; developing skills and talents; improving the financial and fiscal framework; promoting exports; and attracting inward investment.
    Mr. Fabricant: May I ask the Minister and the review group not to emulate the system in France, an approach that was mentioned a few moments ago? Is he aware that the reason why there are more screens in France is because French television is so appalling and that French films are allocated time on French screens? If one visits a French cinema, one finds it emptier than the Chamber today.
    Mr. Clarke: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for suggesting that today we are concentrating on the exciting future of the British film industry. If we have not persuaded Opposition Members of the importance of the review group—which has excellent members whose objectives we will fulfil—I refer them, in all modesty, to the views of the Financial Times, which said, the day after I made the announcement:
    "This is the most ambitious Government review on film since the introduction of the Eady Levy in 1950."
    I welcome that opinion.
    Ms Ward: I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments on the British film industry. Leavesden Studios, the largest and fastest growing studio in the United Kingdom, is in my constituency of Watford. The most recent James Bond film was made there and it is now home to the

    613
    Star Wars films. Does my right hon. Friend have any plans to visit Leavesden Studios and witness for himself this exciting new development?
    Mr. Clarke: I believe that my hon. Friend will find confirmation in her mail today that I intend to visit her constituency this week and I look forward to meeting her there. I welcome her positive endorsement of a proper strategy for the future of the British film industry. I am sure that she joins me in rejoicing that, despite the Conservative party's neglect of training, the contribution of the National Film and Television school has meant that Nick Park, concentrating on animation, received three Oscars this year. That shows British genius and skills, and we are determined to build on that foundation.
    Mr. Lansley: Is the Minister aware that the issues of finance for the film industry and the distribution of British films were covered by the Middleton committee? Will the Minister make a decision on the recommendations made as a result of that review before subjecting the film industry to another lengthy and wide-ranging review?
    Mr. Clarke: I did refer earlier to the fact that the Middleton committee report, to which the previous Government paid not one whit of attention, will be considered with other recent reports by the review group. I am not prepared to invite a well-informed group, which will consider what is going in the British film industry, to reach a conclusion even before it has met.
    I can promise the hon. Member that the Government will not delay; we are not reticent in our commitment to the future of the British film industry, culture and appreciation. I know that we have the overwhelming support of the British and European film industries.

    Industrial Heritage
    Mr. Desmond Browne: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what priority he attaches to the role of museums in preserving the industrial heritage. [3089]
    Mr. Fisher: The industrial heritage is of immense importance to the understanding of our past. Museums and conservation agencies have a central role to play in its preservation.
    Mr. Browne: is my hon. Friend aware of plans for an industrial heritage facility in my constituency that will train young people in lacemaking skills using a unique pup lace loom that is part of the collection at the local museum, the Dick institute? Will my hon. Friend encourage such initiatives not only for museums, tourism and education, but for training young people in skills which otherwise might be lost?
    Mr. Fisher: I am particularly pleased to have a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, whose predecessor, William McKelvey, was a well liked and respected Member of this House who stood down at the election because of ill health. The House will be pleased that he is recovering his health and will be grateful if my hon. Friend can convey that message to him.
    614
    I welcome initiatives such as that at the Dick institute, which sounds as if it is a model of good practice in its understanding of the importance of our industrial heritage. We believe that heritage is a living thing of contemporary relevance; by conserving the industrial techniques of the past to provide training for young people for the future, the Dick institute project seems to meet that approach. Museums and other heritage projects have a particular contribution to make to Government projects such as welfare to work and the regeneration work of the regional development agencies. By using industrial skills to provide work for the future, this project demonstrates the potential of that approach.
    Mr. Hawkins: I agree with the Minister that our industrial heritage is extremely important for tourism, but is he aware that great concern has been expressed at the Government's plans to reduce the amount available from the national lottery for such tourism projects as industrial heritage by abandoning the additionality principle, which his party supported in opposition when the lottery was introduced? Are not the Government determined to reduce the amount of lottery money available to heritage and tourism by using it as a substitute for the taxpayers' money that is being taken away from health and education?
    Mr. Fisher: No, that is not the case, and the hon. Gentleman should look at our plans. There is no question of reducing the sums of money that now go to the lottery boards. The lottery review Bill will be concerned with distributing the additional sums of money from the Wednesday lottery and other lottery sources.

    National Lottery
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received calling for changes to the operation of the national lottery; and if he will make a statement. [3091]
    Mr. Chris Smith: I have received eight representations from hon. Members and approximately 200 representations from others calling for changes in the operation of the lottery. An early-day motion on this issue, signed by 65 hon. Members, was put down two weeks ago. I will publish a White Paper next month in which we will set out our proposals for reform of the lottery, including how we intend to seek a competitive and efficient not-for-profit operator at the end of the current licence and how we intend to channel a portion of lottery funds into education and health-related projects, as we promised during the election campaign.
    Mr. O'Brien: I thank my right hon. Friend for that constructive reply and congratulate him on his approach to the massive salary increases that the directors of Camelot awarded themselves. I support his view about finding a non-profit-making operator for the lottery. When considering the White Paper, will my right hon. Friend have regard to the fact that a good number of people throughout the United Kingdom would like the prize money to be distributed more widely to allow more people to have a win on the lottery? On the distribution of money

    615
    for good causes, will he consider helping the many old people's organisations in small communities that are suffering because they have lost their headquarters?
    Mr. Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I can indeed assure him that I am anxious that, increasingly, the money from the various lottery distributors should go to small-scale, grass-roots, neighbourhood community projects to help people in their local communities. That is beginning to happen and I hope that we can build on it
    Mr. Brooke: What is the Secretary of State's current definition of the arm's-length principle?
    Mr. Smith: The definition of the arm's-length principle is that the Government do not make decisions directly about the allocation of individual grants.
    Mr. Barnes: Grants have often been distributed unreasonably—some areas have suffered quite badly as they have not been able to obtain them. One of the characteristics of the grants is that they often go to conurbations rather than other areas. Might there be a case for saying that more money should be available in the National Lottery Charities Board area rather than some of the other areas such as the millennium fund, so that more, smaller bodies can qualify, such as pensioner organisations?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right to identify the valuable work that the National Lottery Charities Board has been doing in recent months to target small-scale grants to small organisations. I very much welcome that. In the next year or two, of course, one question that will fall to be decided is what will happen when the millennium stream of funding comes to an end. We will certainly welcome representations on what should happen after that point is reached, not merely from hon. Members on both sides of the House but from people throughout the country.
    Mr. Maude: The Secretary of State will have seen the independent report, quoted in the papers on 6 June, by TLF publications, which shows that the national lottery gives a greater proportion of its proceeds to good causes and in tax than any other lottery in the world and is, therefore, by the agreed definition, the most efficient. Does he not understand that that factor may be associated with the lottery's being run for profit? Does not his determination to switch in later years to its being run by a not-for-profit organisation mean that he is not remotely interested in how much money is raised for good causes, but is interested simply in removing people's ability to make a profit?
    Mr. Smith: No, I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is not correct. It is precisely because I am interested in maximising the revenue for good causes and ensuring that money is not wasted in any way—be it on unnecessary profit or anything else—that I am anxious to seek a not-for-profit operator. I am sure that it is also
    616
    precisely because of that that Camelot, among others, has already begun to discuss with us how we can best seek a not-for-profit operation of the lottery.
    Liz Blackman: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent discussions he has had with the lottery distribution fund boards. [3093]
    Mr. Banks: My right hon. Friend met the chairman and chief executives of the London-based lottery distribution bodies on 3 June. It was the first in a regular series of meetings that, in the future, will also involve the bodies based in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The main topic for discussion was our plan for reform of the lottery.
    Liz Blackman: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. From what I have heard this afternoon, people in the region in which I live and the constituency I represent will be reassured to hear that the Government are reconsidering lottery fund distribution. On a different but related issue, when the White Paper is drawn up, can we also ensure that we monitor the types of schemes to ensure that they have broad public support and confidence—something which has not always been evident in the past?
    Mr. Banks: I have looked at a list of the grants made in my hon. Friend's constituency: they amount to £468,000. There are some very good schemes indeed, such as Long Eaton United football club. I hope that it is prospering well—as, indeed, are most sportsmen and women under the new regime.
    The east midlands attracts about 3.87 per cent. of the award value, which is definitely to the lower end of the distribution. The White Paper must and will address the concerns about lottery distribution where it has failed. One such concern is the regional discrepancies. Some awards have also been severely criticised, and we must review the reasons for that and deal with the problems. The dome, of course, is now a matter for the Dome Secretary.
    Mr. Hogg: When the Minister has discussions with the fund distributors, will he please emphasise the importance of seeking new ways of channelling money to village halls and playing greens in rural areas?
    Mr. Banks: It is at the smaller end of lottery grants that much benefit is accruing. A lot of attention focuses on the mega-grants, especially on large projects, some of which are in London—I emphasise that before someone behind me does it for me—but the question is a good one, and the distribution bodies should consider precisely the areas to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Judges
    Mr. Lidington: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to change arrangements for the selection and appointment of judges. [3113]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The Government propose to consult later this year on the merits of a judicial appointments commission and whether one should be established.
    Mr. Lidington: Since the Government's proposal to incorporate the European convention on human rights in domestic law will inevitably bring the judiciary into taking decisions that were hitherto regarded as political, will the Minister consider seriously whether senior judicial appointments should be made subject to a parliamentary confirmation process, perhaps involving a Select Committee hearing?
    Mr. Hoon: That suggestion may be usefully received by those responsible for considering the Government's various proposals, but I emphasise that, above all else, the Government are committed to preserving the independence of the judiciary. We must ensure that our appointments system is based on selection on merit.

    Courts
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he has taken to ensure the availability of courts close to local communities. [3114]
    Mr. Hoon: Magistrates courts are locally managed by magistrates courts committees under the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. Decisions concerning the future and number of magistrates courts in each area are for the relevant committee to take. A local authority that contributes financially may appeal to the Lord Chancellor against a proposed closure; the procedure for such appeals is set out in section 56 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. In the absence of an appeal, however, the Lord Chancellor plays no part in the process.
    On the civil and higher criminal courts, the court service must constantly monitor and review the viability of its resources in the light of changing business needs and work load trends. Decisions on any proposals for change will be made by the Lord Chancellor, taking account of all the relevant factors.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: In developing a new approach in his Department, will my hon. Friend consider the implications of Crown court closures in areas such as Huddersfield and Wakefield for court users, the local police and the legal profession? Will he consider proposals in West Yorkshire for amalgamation of the magistrates courts committees, because of the concern that that could lead to magistrates becoming even more remote from the communities that they serve?
    Mr.Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestions, but it is clear that each decision must be taken on its merits. Much will depend on the grounds of any appeal that is lodged, although there are clearly several themes that are common to all appeals: accessibility, of which my hon. Friend rightly emphasised the importance; the provision of modern facilities, such as facilities for the disabled; security arrangements for violent offenders; and separate waiting areas for defendants and witnesses. In addition, the Government are
    618
    particularly concerned to reduce delays. It is important that we have courtrooms best suited to enable cases to be listed in a way that helps to achieve our aim of reducing delays in the criminal justice system.
    Mr. Hogg: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that, if the courts are to be useful to the local community, it is important that the court offices are kept open. In that context, he knows that there is a proposal to close the Sleaford court office. If that decision is finalised and there is then an appeal to the Lord Chancellor's office, I hope that the Minister can confirm that that appeal will be given serious and sympathetic consideration.
    Mr. Hoon: Of course it will be.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Will the Minister look into the case of Essex magistrates courts committee, which is embarking on a review of its courts? Essex Members have not yet been formally consulted. I hope that he agrees that we should be. Will he consider the arbitrary decision, without notice, to move the offices of Thurrock court to Basildon? Many people in Thurrock fear that that heralds a merger of the administration of the courts and of the courts themselves, which would then be based in Basildon. That would be unacceptable to the people of Thurrock.
    Mr. Hoon: I emphasise, in relation to all these questions, that these are local decisions, taken locally and subject only to the rights of appeal prescribed in law. For example, magistrates courthouses are not Crown property but owned or leased by the paying local authority on behalf of the local committee. Only when there is an appeal against the decision of a magistrates court committee by a paying authority does the Lord Chancellor have any power to intervene.
    Mr. Bob Russell: Does the Minister agree that the whole process has more to do with economics and saving money than with the distribution of justice? Does he agree that, particularly from an Essex perspective, the centralisation of courts, magistrates and witnesses means that local magistrates rarely make decisions on local cases? Is not that bad for local justice?
    Mr. Hoon: I do not accept that the process is solely to do with economics. Economics is clearly an important factor in the decisions, but, as I said, we are also anxious to ensure that we have modern facilities. It is vital that we have up-to-date courts that can provide the range of facilities that are expected in the last part of the 20th century. Equally, I said that the Government are particularly concerned about delay. We must have court complexes that allow us to list cases in a way that best deals with the considerable problem of delay, especially in the magistrates courts.

    Victim Support
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to improve the support given by the courts to victims of crime. [3115]
    Mr. Hoon: Several initiatives are already in place. A witness service scheme run by the charity Victim

    619
    Support is in operation at each Crown court centre and offers practical and emotional support for victims and witnesses. On 13 June, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced an additional grant of £1 million to Victim Support. Consideration is also being given to options for establishing similar victim and witness support schemes in magistrates courts. All courts contribute to local service level agreements based on national standards of witness care, agreed by the trials issues group, to improve on the support and care of victims who are called to be witnesses.
    Mr. Bayley: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. I know that he has taken a close interest in the case of Peter Windass, my constituent who was murdered. Does he agree that the anguish suffered by Peter Windass's family was intensified by the insensitivity of the rules governing how the court service operates? For example, the family had to mingle with associates of a murderer in the public area of the court, and courts have no obligation to keep the family of a murder victim informed of progress in the case. Does he agree that if the criminal justice system fails to provide justice for the victims of serious crime, it is failing altogether? Will he undertake to consider the two points that I raised?
    Mr. Hoon: I have read carefully my hon. Friend's speech during a recent Adjournment debate on that particular matter and I congratulate him on his constructive contribution to these important issues.
    The Crown court centres at York and Sheffield, which were involved in supporting the family of Peter Windass, a homicide victim, were the origin of the complaint. The case was eventually heard at Sheffield which, at that time, offered poor public facilities. That may have led to the family's coming into contact with defence witnesses. The court is now housed in a purpose-built building with facilities to keep witnesses and their supporters separate from other court users.
    This is precisely the kind of issue to which I referred a moment ago: it is crucial for the protection of witnesses and victims that we have modern, up-to-date court facilities. I will certainly undertake to look again at the issue if necessary.
    Mr. Hawkins: When the hon. Gentleman is considering changes to the procedures on consultation with victims of crime, will he also undertake to liaise with the Home Secretary about whether those who are involved in the prosecution of a case should be able to consult more fully than they do at present with the families of the victims of crime, and with the victims themselves, before decisions on sentencing, or whether to abandon a prosecution, are taken?
    Mr. Hoon: I shall ensure that that suggestion is passed on.

    Legal System (Accessibility)
    Mr. Baker: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects to bring forward proposals to make the legal system more accessible to potential users. [3117]
    Mr.Hoon: The Lord Chancellor has invited Sir Peter Middleton to review current proposals for reform of the
    620
    civil justice and legal aid systems. He is to produce a preliminary report by September. The Government recognise the challenge in reforming legal aid provision—not only is the cost of legal aid escalating, but the percentage of households eligible for it has fallen. We are determined to create a system that achieves value for money for the taxpayer and high quality advice for the consumer.
    Mr. Baker: Does the Minister agree that the most important purpose of any review must be to ensure that everyone has access to justice in the courts and that people are not prevented from seeking it by how much money they have in their pockets? That must come before any cost-effective review that the Government undertake.
    Will the Minister also take the opportunity to confirm or deny the story on the front page of the Daily Mail today, which claims that legal aid will be abolished? I do not always believe that paper, but that is what it says on its front page. If he is unable to deny that suggestion, will he refute the idea of moves towards state-salaried solicitors, who would obviously not be independent of the Government?
    Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman has asked a number of questions about legal aid, as he did at our previous Question Time, and tabled a number of written questions. I therefore thought that it might be instructive to examine precisely the hon. Gentleman's party's policy contribution on the subject. I have carefully scrutinised the Liberal Democrat manifesto which was issued before 1 May 1997. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that his party made no mention whatever of any kind of policy on legal aid. I hope that it will not be testing his party too much to invite it to develop such a policy, perhaps between now and the middle of September, so that Sir Peter Middleton and his colleagues might have the benefit of its suggestions on how we should tackle the problems associated with civil legal aid.
    Mr. Streeter: Is the Minister aware of the deep disappointment felt by many at the delay in introducing the Woolf reforms, which is due simply to the decision to allow time for yet another Labour review? When, oh when, will this Government stop reviewing and start deciding?
    Mr. Hoon: On the contrary: the Lord Chancellor has made it clear that he supports the spirit of Lord Woolf's recommendations. The Labour party made it clear in its manifesto before the general election that it was necessary to consider the proposals in the Woolf report and those on legal aid together. We did not believe, unlike, apparently, the Conservative party, that it was possible to deal with those issues separately. That is why Sir Peter Middleton will conduct a review of the civil justice reforms and those of legal aid simultaneously.

    Bereavement Payments
    Mr. Dismore: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to review the statutory bereavement payment of £7,500 under the Fatal Accidents Acts. [3120]
    Mr. Hoon: The Law Commission is currently conducting a comprehensive review of the Fatal Accidents

    621
    Act 1976 and plans to issue a consultation paper later this year. I expect that the consultation paper will cover damages for bereavement. That is, of course, additional to compensation that the courts can award to financial dependants of the deceased. Damages for bereavement is an important and sensitive matter. The Government will consider carefully what steps to take in the light of the consultation paper.
    Mr. Dismore: Speaking as a personal injury lawyer, may I tell my hon. Friend that one of the most difficult things that we have to do is to advise the parents of a child killed tragically in an accident—perhaps mown down by a drunken driver—that their child's life is worth practically nothing. It is worth nothing if the child is over 18.
    It will be several years before the Law Commission's project is completed. In the meantime, will the Lord Chancellor consider exercising powers under section 185 of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 to uprate the figure, which has remained the same since 1991, and will he take a leaf out of the new criminal injuries compensation scheme limits, which are higher than at common law?
    Mr. Hoon: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's considerable expertise in these matters. I sincerely hope that it will not be several years before the Law Commission report is published. Although it is important that the figure should be uprated, particularly to take account of inflation, I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that it is equally important for us to await the outcome of a consultation conducted by an independent Law Commission, which is examining the entire issue of fatal accidents claims, rather than simply picking out any one element of the material that the commission is considering. It would be wise to see the final results of the consultation paper before taking any specific decisions about uprating.

  BILLS PRESENTED
    PUBLIC RECORDS (AMENDMENT)
    Mr. Norman Baker, supported by Mrs. Ann Clwyd and Mr. Richard Shepherd, presented a Bill to improve public access to public records, including records relating to the Sovereign and the Sovereign's family; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 30 January, and to be printed [Bill 27].
    POLICE
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay presented a Bill to make provision to regulate the use of the term 'Police' and related terms; to amend the law relating to the powers of certain constables; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 13 February, and to be printed [Bill 28].
Orders of the Day

  Local Government (Contracts) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.31 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I rise once again to move a Second Reading on an important issue, although I confess that it is no simpler than the Local Government Finance (Supplementary Credit Approvals) Bill, whose Second Reading I moved last week.
  I welcome the new members to the Opposition Front Bench. I heard of the appointment of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) as I was driving to the big Methodist meeting in Durham, and it confirmed my belief in the resurrection. We are pleased that he is here, as well as the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), who is resurrected in another manner.
  The Government are committed to promoting the opportunities for public-private partnerships, which offer the opportunity for increased value for money in the provision of the services that national and local government need. They allow public service staff involved in providing core public services, such as health and education, to get on with delivering those services in the most suitable facilities, without being distracted from their main responsibilities by worries about facilities management.
  The purpose of the Bill is to remove private sector concerns about entering into partnership deals with local authorities. Partnerships can help to resolve the conflict between short-term financial pressures and long-term cost-effectiveness. The lowest initial construction cost for a building, road or other facility does not guarantee the lowest total cost over its lifetime for the service that it provides. There can be cost overruns and delays during construction, and false economies at the early stage leading to higher running costs later.
  Partnerships can ensure the best value for money, and prevent under-investment, in the provision of assets and services. At the same time, the whole-life costs and risks of ownership are not borne by the public purse.
  Partnerships can also improve value for money, by maximising the scope for outside revenues. There are often opportunities for the private sector partner to earn additional revenue, by using the facilities that he has helped to provide, without detriment to their availability to the prime user. That is particularly relevant in the case of schools and other local authority buildings that may be used for only part of the day. If a private sector contractor sees scope for obtaining such revenues, he should be ready to bid a lower price to the main user.
  We have done away with the burdensome requirement on central Government and the national health service to test every project for partnership potential. There has not been—and cannot be—any compulsion on local authorities to use private finance, as they are autonomous
  624
  decision-making bodies. The choice will remain with them, and support for direct local authority investment will continue. Nevertheless, we shall give every help and encouragement to authorities that want to use private finance.
  The Government have no set view about the form that partnership schemes might take. I want to encourage all sorts of partnership initiatives for improving the quality and the management of local authority assets and services, while ensuring value for money for local taxpayers. The Government want to see new schools: we want to see the buildings and assets that local authorities need in order to deliver services.
  I hope to see ideas for innovative partnership schemes brought forward as a contribution to the debate on the future of public service delivery. I also want to build on the successful joint venture projects already in place—for example, the Manchester metro and the Kirklees stadium.
  Various partnership schemes have already been identified as pathfinder projects under the sponsorship of the public-private partnerships programme—we know it better as PPPP—which was set up by the local authorities. Experience of those schemes will be fed into consideration of the future of our public services.
  The Government are committed to ensuring that partnerships between the public and private sectors work. We have inherited from the previous Government a private finance initiative process that has caused delay and uncertainty for many projects. Our business manifesto included a 12-point plan for partnership to speed up that process and encourage the development of good public-private partnership projects. One of those 12 points was to enact any new legislation that is needed to ensure that public bodies have the full legal power to enter into contracts. A separate Bill to deal with stalled projects in the national health service is currently before Parliament.
  To turn the 12-point plan into action, my hon. Friend the Paymaster General announced on 8 May that he had asked Malcolm Bates, chairman of the Pearl Group and former member of the private finance panel, to undertake a rapid review of current PFI and public-private partnership arrangements. Malcolm Bates's review was completed on 13 June, and the Paymaster General has today published his conclusions and the action that he intends to take to ensure the delivery of good partnership projects. One of the review's recommendations is to take speedy action to overcome the uncertainty regarding local authority powers to enter into public-private partnership contracts. The Bill before the House aims to achieve that.
  High-profile court cases have led banks to fear that partnership contracts with local authorities may be found unlawful, and thus unenforceable. The banks would then suffer financial losses. In the Allerdale and Waltham Forest cases, contracts entered into by local authorities were found to be null and void because the authority concerned did not have the power to enter into them. Because the contracts were found to be void, the private sector had no recourse to the authorities for compensation and so found itself saddled with bad debts.
  The schemes that led to those court cases had special features and they are unlikely to be replicated. Nevertheless, the cases have created a perception that providing finance for long-term partnership contracts with local authorities is high risk. That is a perception that we must overcome if public-private partnerships are to work

  625
  successfully in local government. We want to act quickly to dispel any doubts that there may be in the minds of potential backers of local authority partnership schemes. The Bill will achieve that. It clarifies local authority powers and protects contractors and banks if things go wrong.
  The Bill does not disturb the fundamentals of existing legislation. It does nothing to alter the scope for contracts to be challenged under public law, by which I mean reviewed by the courts, for the protection of the taxpayer, or by local authorities' external auditors. It does nothing to undermine the long-standing powers of the auditor to question the lawfulness of local authority conduct or expenditure.
  Discussions and consultations have shown that, to reassure contractors, banks and other lenders to contractors, the Bill needs to achieve two aims. First, it needs to make explicit the power of a local authority to enter into contracts of the sort envisaged in public-private partnership schemes. The Bill does that in clause 1, by making it clear that authorities' statutory functions confer power to enter into contracts under which assets or services, or both, are provided for the function in question. The Bill is not extending authorities' powers, but making explicit what was already implicit. It covers contracts directly or indirectly involved in discharging a specific function—for example, a contract that makes available a school building and one that provides IT facilities that are needed for the administration of council tax.
  The Bill does not affect the ability of authorities to act in a manner that is incidental to their functions, as permitted by section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972. The Bill also does not affect authorities' powers to delegate their functions. There is already statutory provision under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 for orders to be made that allow local authorities to contract out functions. One such order is being prepared in connection with highways functions. Contracts in other service areas seem less likely to entail delegation, but departments could consider making analogous orders if necessary.
  Therefore, the Bill clarifies the powers of local authorities to enter into contracts. It then provides a safe harbour, by protecting contractors and lenders if an authority is later found to have entered into an arrangement that is invalid. To achieve that, clauses 2 and 3 introduce a certification procedure for contracts of a description specified in clause 4. In essence, they are contracts for five years or more involving the provision of both assets and services. The issue of a certificate—but not its content—needs the agreement of other parties to the contract, because the legal rights of all parties are affected by the certificate, in ways that I shall now describe.
  The certification procedure is similar in principle to that proposed under the National Health Service (Private Finance) Bill, but is achieved differently. That is because the large number of local authorities makes it impracticable for Ministers to certify contracts individually, as is proposed for the NHS. Also, such intervention by Ministers would weaken local authorities' responsibilities and accountability, and that is not the way in which we as a Government would wish to go.
  The effect of clause 2 is that no one—including the authority, the contractor or any other party to the contract—may argue in private law proceedings that
  626
  the certified contract is unenforceable because the local authority did not have the power to enter into it. However, clause 5 preserves the right of local taxpayers or the authority's external auditor to challenge certified contracts under public law through judicial review and audit-related proceedings. In a judicial review, the court already has the discretion to allow a contract to continue if that is in the public interest. Clause 5(3) gives the court an equivalent discretion in audit-related proceedings.
  To meet the case where the court determines that a contract is to be set aside, the Bill provides for the enforceability of special terms agreed between the parties with that possibility in mind. It would be open to the parties to agree discharge terms that provide, for example, for an asset to be made available for use by the authority. Clause 6 makes clear the authority's power to agree discharge terms, and provides that the enforceability of those terms is unaffected by the setting aside of the main contract.
  If the parties do not agree terms to deal with the possibility that the contract may be set aside, or if the court finds that such terms are themselves unenforceable, clause 7 provides that the local authority shall, nevertheless, compensate the contractor as if it had repudiated the contract. That is the ultimate long stop.
  We have considered whether there should be a more exact parallel with either the "safe harbour" provisions in the Companies Act 1985 or those in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. The latter say that any absence of a power shall not prejudice a person lending money to an authority.
  However, such an approach would leave too many questions unanswered. The matters to be settled in respect of a partnership contract are much more complicated than those relating to a loan agreement. Therefore, we do not believe that the "safe harbour" provisions in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 are sufficient.
  Clause 1(2) confirms that, where a third party funds a contractor, the authority may enter into a separate contract directly with the financier, who could be a direct lender to the contractor or a person involved in other forms of finance, such as bond issues. Such a contract may allow the financier "step-in" rights, by which I mean an arrangement whereby the financier would be able to nominate a replacement contractor if, for example, the original contractor became insolvent. The protection of the certification procedure and discharge terms are extended to a contract with a financier.
  The Bill will apply, in England and Wales, to all bodies covered by part IV of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and to probation committees and the receiver for the Metropolitan police district. It will also apply to Scottish local authorities as defined in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.
  Secondary legislation will be subject to the negative resolution procedure in Parliament, except for regulations that define the type of contract that may have the protection of the Bill. For those regulations, the affirmative procedure is required.
  As a separate matter, clause 9 amends the Justices of the Peace Act 1997, so that revenue grants may be made to local authorities to meet payments under partnership contracts in respect of magistrates courts. For technical reasons, the capital finance rules currently classify such payments as capital expenditure

  627
  The details of the Bill reflect discussions and close working with interested parties, including the Local Government Association, the public-private partnerships programme and lawyers representing banks and contractors. We have now begun further consultations on the coverage of regulations. If those consultations result in proposals for amendments to the Bill, we shall consider carefully whether to bring them before the House. There will be a third round of consultations on the details of the secondary legislation once the broad coverage of the regulations is established.
  Prompt action is needed, because private finance schemes in the local authority sector have been slow in developing. Indeed, no scheme has so far reached the stage at which actual construction work has begun. The present system, for controlling local authority capital finance and the use of privatefinance for capital purposes, is laid down in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and subsequent regulations. It is an ingenious and rigorous system. In its original form, it put big obstacles in the way of local authorities that wished to pursue partnership deals. Such deals would have counted as "credit arrangements", the full capital cost of which would have had to score up front against the authority's capital resources. Pressure on local authorities' capital resources was such that, effectively, partnerships in local government were a non-starter.
  In 1995, the previous Administration began to amend the system to facilitate partnership arrangements. Last October, they made regulations that relaxed the requirement for "credit cover" on deals with the private sector that met a test of adequate risk transfer. Also last October, the then Government announced that revenue support would be available for local authorities' payments towards such partnership schemes. Offering that financial assistance was right, because the system of revenue support grant already helps local authorities to meet the costs to them of conventional borrowing. If they are to procure the use of assets through partnership arrangements, they will incur comparable revenue costs.
  The then Administration announced revenue support for the past financial year to the tune of £50 million of investment costs, none of which was actually spent. They also announced support for £200 million of investment this year. The resources are available; we need to remove any obstacle to their being taken up.
  This is a necessary measure. The previous Administration were committed to the private finance initiative, and I would expect Opposition Members to support the current Bill.
  Mr. Peter Viggers: Opposition Members believe in public-private partnerships. The Minister is seeking to encourage private involvement in Government matters, but how would that work in practice? There is, for instance, a strong suspicion that private sector involvement in English Heritage's imaginative scheme to preserve Stonehenge and make it an exhibition caused it to be turned down by the Secretary of State for National Heritage. It is suspected that some Ministers do not believe in private sector involvement. Can the hon. Lady comment on that?
  Ms Armstrong: I speak on behalf of the whole Government when I say that we do support public-private
  628
  partnerships. The Bill deals with them in local government, and local government already has a proud record of effective public-private partnership deals that have been conducted in a manner different from the way in which, according to the former Government, private finance initiative deals have been conducted in the past.
  The Bill is a specific short measure intended to address the problems that have arisen in the securing of contracts that have the confidence of both the public and the private sectors, and it is on that basis that we wish to act. I am afraid that other issues must be taken up with relevant Secretaries of State, but, as I have said, the Government as a whole are committed to effective public-private partnership arrangements.
  I intend the Bill to be in force by November. Speed is important to minimise any delay in local authority projects where contractors want to hold back from entering into contracts until the Bill is in force, although it contains provisions that will allow it to bite on contracts entered into from the date of its introduction. I commend it to the House
  3.54 pm
  Mr. Christopher Chope: I thank the Minister for her kind remarks. In reincarnated form, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) and I look forward to plenty of enjoyment as the hon. Lady and the Government face the consequences of dashed expectations among their local government supporters.
  Although I have spoken in Committee, this is the first time that I have spoken in the House since my election on 1 May. I begin by paying tribute to the hard work of my predecessor, Mrs. Maddock, for her constituents following her by-election victory in the previous Parliament. She was my councillor when I was the Member for Southampton, Itchen and I now enjoy the responsibility of being her Member of Parliament. Her commitment to local government issues can best be judged by the fact that during the general election campaign, which ran in parallel with Dorset county council elections, many constituents thought, albeit mistakenly, that she was their county councillor.
  When I was first elected as a councillor in 1974, the aldermanic system still operated and the person whom I defeated immediately became an alderman. People in Christchurch await with interest to know whether Mrs. Maddock will be appointed to the parliamentary equivalent of aldermanic status—membership of another place.
  The Opposition support the generality of the Bill. I understand that we probably would have introduced a Bill in not dissimilar terms if we had been in government. The Bill complements the Local Authorities (Capital Finance) Regulations 1997, which were introduced by the outgoing Conservative Government to facilitate partnerships between local government and the private sector.
  We welcome the Government's conversion to the private finance initiative. I am the first to admit that the Minister's conversion goes back many months if not years. In the case of the Secretary of State for Health, we await hard evidence that there has been such a conversion. When he was Labour's spokesman on the environment, he criticised the Conservative Government and

  629
  emphasised the limits of the PFI approach. Old Labour used to regard the PFI as the son of privatisation and, therefore, to be despised. However, it seems that such attitudes have changed and the Opposition welcome that.
  The publication today of the conclusions of the Bates review of the PH is encouraging. One of its conclusions states:
  "The Government should take an early opportunity to make a confirmatory announcement of its commitment to PFI as one method of conducting successful public-private partnerships."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) questioned the Government's commitment to the PFI, and he can draw support from the implication in that conclusion from the Bates review that up to now the Government have not confirmed their absolute commitment to the PFI. The Minister for the Environment is quoted as having said on 16 May in relation to design, build, finance and operate schemes:
  "I do think there are problems with DBFO. One of which is finance. The operator provides the money up front, but the payback period is very considerable and that is a constraint on future public expenditure."
  The Minister was expressing the underlying Government doubts about the PFI. Far from reinvigorating the PFI, the Government have allowed it to drift for many weeks. Seven weeks after peremptorily sacking the chairman of the private finance panel, the Government have still not appointed anyone to take charge and drive the PFI process forward. There will now be yet more delay before a chief executive is appointed to head the new Treasury private finance task force. Only last week, the Minister of Transport announced, not to the House in a statement, which he should have done, but in a written answer, a moratorium on new road building projects, putting DBFO schemes at risk—so much for speeding up the PFI.
  Today's announcement is yet another example of the Labour party behaving in government as if it were still in opposition, rearranging the deckchairs without making any substantive improvements. It beggars belief that the way to inject greater urgency into the PFI should be to give the public sector more control and to put the Treasury in charge.
  Ms Armstrong: Would the hon. Gentleman like to remind the House how many PFI hospital buildings were in the pipeline and how many the previous Government managed to secure? My information is that not a single hospital was agreed, and that means that no building has taken place in the national health service in the past three years.
  Mr. Chope: I am not an expert on all the hospital projects, but I do know this: annexed to today's Government statement is a list of PFI projects that are under way and in process as a result of Conservative Government policies. From recollection, I think that the value of those projects extends beyond £700 million, which is a large investment and a tribute to the previous Government's work.
  We know that there was a hiccup over some of the NHS projects, which was why a special Bill was drafted and brought in by the previous Government—[Interruption.] It was prepared by the previous Government for introduction and it has been adopted by the present Government. I have no complaint about that,
  630
  but let us not rewrite history. Indeed, the list of the PFI deals signed before April 1997, which was released by the Treasury, shows that the PFI was making good progress. All that has happened in the past few weeks is that some PFI projects have been put at risk and others have been put on hold.
  The Minister of State implied that the problem that the Bill addresses is a lack of private sector confidence, and that she wishes to restore it. We should not allow this occasion to pass without reminding ourselves of some of the reasons why that private sector confidence was lost. It was lost because of the behaviour of councils under the control of old Labour. In the late 1980s, Hammersmith and Fulham council engaged in some £6 billion of money-market gambling, speculating with its ratepayers' cash, but that council was acting ultra vires and, as a result, it avoided having to pay back more than £100 million that it owed to banks and financial institutions, after making massive losses in interest rate swaps and option deals. Not surprisingly, having had their fingers burnt in that way, the banks and financial institutions were loth to lend to local authorities just on their say-so. There were other cases involving guarantees by local authorities, which, again, were found to have been entered into ultra vires.
  Will the Minister confirm that the entry into capital market transactions on a speculative basis by local authorities remains, despite the Bill, ultra vires and that such transactions cannot be certified by the procedures as set out in the Bill? Will the Government confirm that the Bill does not alter the fact that local authorities can go bankrupt? Will the Minister confirm that central Government are not and will not be a guarantor of the debts of local authorities?
  The Bill refers to a minimum length of contract to which its procedures will apply. Will there also be a maximum length of contract, because some of the deals that are being contemplated potentially involve fettering the discretion of councils over many decades?
  The Bill does not vest local authorities with powers of general competence, but perhaps the Minister will tell us what the Government's plans are in that respect. Many Labour local authorities have been seeking such powers for a long time, and they will obviously be disappointed that the Bill does not legislate for them.
  What is the scope for local authority guarantees to financiers? On a number of occasions, local authorities have been tempted to give guarantees for the performance of partnership deals to financiers and thereby impose on their taxpayers the contingent liability in respect of those guarantees. We know that the Treasury is reluctant to give—indeed, wholly opposed to giving—such guarantees in relation to general Government expenditure unless those guarantees count against the public sector borrowing requirement, but are the Government minded to provide a relaxation of the capital expenditure rules under section 40 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 in respect of guarantees given by local authorities? At the end of the day, the issue is the extent to which taxpayers will be protected against the actions of their councils when they act ultra vires.
  There are many questions for the Government to answer in this debate or perhaps in more detail in Committee. Will the Bill ensure that there is a mass of new local authority partnership schemes? Certainly,

  631
  we hope that that will be the case. Indeed, that is why provision was made for £50 million in the past financial year and for £200 million this year. We hope that those schemes will be brought forward.
  The Bill will certainly allay the concerns of private sector financiers about local authorities acting ultra vires, but will it remove local authorities' suspicions about the need for risk takers to have a chance to make profits? One of the biggest constraints on partnership deals between local government and the private sector has been the feeling of many local councillors that they can enter into a deal, pass the risk to the private sector and expect the private sector to accept that risk without taking any profit in the event of the deal proving successful. Unless there is a change of attitude about that aspect of partnership deals, I am pessimistic about the overall outcome.
  We support the Bill, however, and wish it a fair wind. We are as keen as the Minister to ensure that it reaches the statute book. We hope that in Committee we shall receive the answers to a few more questions.
  4.7 pm
  Mr. Ross Cranston: I welcome the Bill. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) drifted substantially from the subject matter, and I am afraid that some of his points were tendentious to say the least. It is a technical Bill, but it has very important practical implications. Perhaps I could sketch some of the commercial background.
  There is always a difficulty in commercial transactions when a party deals with an entity. It may be a problem of the authority of those purporting to contract on behalf of the counter-party, but there is also a question of capacity. That problem arises with companies, trusts and co-operative bodies. I hope that the House will at some point revisit the problem that arises when bodies contract with trusts. Trusts are big business, and have an important role in the financial world.
  A number of years ago, the problem with company contracts was dealt with: statute abrogated the ultra vires rule, and the doctrine of constructive notice was modified in relation to corporate contracts. All this was to be welcomed, but, unfortunately, there was and is a problem with the local authorities, and the problem is that of ultra vires.
  My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned several high-profile cases that have occurred since 1991, as did the hon. Member for Christchurch. Those cases concerned transactions involving derivatives and guarantees. The decisions led to a reluctance on the part of financial institutions to deal with local authorities.
  The leading case was that involving Hammersmith and Fulham council. Many were critical of that decision of the House of Lords, sitting in its judicial capacity, believing that it was commercially unrealistic and that the Court of Appeal had adopted a more commercially realistic approach, distinguishing between debt management and speculative transactions.
  The decision had a chilling effect on the transactions entered into by local authorities and the extent to which financial institutions dealt with them. Unfortunately, it led to a fall in the reputation of the City of London. Many
  632
  European banks became disinclined to deal with local authorities. They could not understand why English law, which is generally conducive to commercial transactions, was unfavourable in this case. It was no consolation when, as a result of a series of cases following that decision, the courts decided that money paid over was recoverable on restitutionary principles, and when local authorities gave guarantees to banks.
  The effects of the decision had to be dealt with. Fortunately, that led to the establishment of the Financial Law Panel. I commend the work of that body, established and supported by major financial institutions in the City of London and by major law firms. I have had a small association with its activities. It has done sterling work on clarifying English law to give greater certainty to commercial transactions, thereby enhancing the reputation of the City of London.
  The Financial Law Panel prepared a short report on the problem, as a result of which the Bill emerged. I shall not go through the details of the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Minister explained, it creates a safe harbour, and there is a self-certification process. The Bill does not exclude the possibility of judicial review, permitting the courts to review contracts that have gone through the self-certification procedure.
  It is generally accepted that the Bill will be conducive to financial transactions. The consequences of the swaps decision of 1991, which deterred foreign banks from dealing with local authorities, will be reversed. The idea behind the Bill is good, and has been welcomed by the markets. The Bill will work, and when it is explained to financial institutions, it will provide a boost to their willingness to participate in private finance initiatives and other transactions. I support the Bill.
  4.13 pm
  Mr. David Rendel: It is pleasant to find you still in the Chair, Madam Speaker, and for once to address you and not one of your Deputies.
  At the start of the debate, mention was made of resurrection. It is fair to say that, in a sense, the Bill attempts to give the kiss of life to the private finance initiative. As the Minister said, under the Conservative Government, the PFI had become more than a little moribund. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House welcome an opportunity to ensure that there is still life in the PFI, so that it can continue properly to be of use to local authorities and other government bodies.
  In principle, local authorities should be given the opportunity to use the PFI or to contract out services. Where possible, they should be given the option to go their own way in providing the services their electors require. However, for one particular reason, the PFI is likely to prove rather expensive.
  Inevitably, when risks are moved from the public sector to the private sector, higher borrowing costs are likely to be involved. Therefore, it would not be sensible for any public body to finance its operations privately or through a contractor unless other efficiencies were involved. In some cases, other efficiencies may be involved in contracting out to the private sector.
  In local government terms, however, there is another problem which has been mentioned in the debate, and which is the very cause of the Bill: an extra risk is

  633
  involved because of various ultra vires rulings that have been made in respect of local authorities. That increases the risk, and can serve only to increase the cost of involving the private sector, and in some cases to make it impossible.
  As the Bill attempts to overcome those difficulties, we join the Conservatives in not opposing it. However, perhaps unlike the Conservatives, had they remained in government, we would not have introduced such a Bill had we been the governing party on 1 May, as we believe that an alternative way of overcoming the problems would have been preferable. We support the introduction into local government of a power of general competence, which has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). Such a power would probably make the Bill unnecessary.
  Before the election, the Labour party apparently spoke in favour of a power of general competence for local government. Therefore, it was disappointing that there was no mention of such a power in the Labour manifesto. However, it is contained in the European charter of local self-government. Of all the moves that the Government have made since 1 May, I would commend above all the signing of that charter.
  Article 4.2 states:
  "Local authorities shall, within the limits of the law, have full discretion to exercise their initiative with regard to any matter which is not excluded from their competence nor assigned to any other authority."
  If the Government fulfil their apparent wishes in signing the charter, and introduce a power of general competence for local government in the United Kingdom, the Bill may be short-lived. Were a power of general competence to be introduced, the Bill would rapidly become unnecessary.
  I was delighted, therefore, that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said in another place that the Government intend to introduce a power of general competence in Northern Ireland. That is good news. He was quoted to that effect in the Municipal Journal this week.
  I hope that that legislation will be introduced and will be rapidly followed by similar legislation for this country. A general power of competence would be a much better way to overcome the problems of the PFI, and it would also be beneficial for local government in many other ways. All three parties in local government have pressed for such a power, including the Labour party through the Local Government Association. I hope that the Minister will accept that point, and ensure that the Bill, welcome though it is in the short term, becomes unnecessary in a few months.
  4.19 pm
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton: I ask for the indulgence of the House, as this is the first time that I have had the honour of speaking in the Chamber. As the Member for Leeds, North-East, I follow the Conservative, Timothy Kirkhope, who rose to the rank of junior Minister at the Home Office. He worked hard for his constituents in the 10 years that he represented the constituency. His predecessor was the late Sir Keith Joseph, the distinguished parliamentarian and architect of what became known as Thatcherism. He represented the constituency for 31 years, and held many high offices of state.
  634
  I wish to quote another predecessor this afternoon. The last Labour Member to represent Leeds, North-East was the great Alice Bacon. In the conclusion of her maiden speech on what became the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1946, she said:
  "We must remember that this Bill is to deal with the ill, the crippled, and, probably. the depressed, and that, for these people, an ounce of warm humanity is worth a ton of cold legality."—[Official Report, 10 October 1945; Vol. 414, c. 296.]
  I hope that that sentiment will guide this Parliament.
  I have the great privilege of representing a constituency of diverse places and communities. It stretches from inner-city Chapeltown to the stately home of Harewood house. It encompasses the largest Afro-Caribbean community in West Yorkshire, a large Sikh and Muslim population, the largest Jewish community in Yorkshire, which has been well established since the early 19th century, and representatives of the growing Vietnamese, Chinese, Greek, Polish, Latvian, Gujerati Indian, Iranian and African communities that make up the most ethnically rich of Leeds constituencies.
  I am also fortunate to have in my constituency the magnificent Roundhay park, one of the finest and largest parks in any European city, with its splendid tropical house and butterfly garden. It is a tribute to the work of Leeds city council over many decades, and the largest tourist attraction in England after Hampton court.
  Leeds has one of the fastest growing economies of any city in Great Britain, with more jobs being created than in any other city. One reason for that is the partnership between the Labour-controlled local authority and the business community, which has brought investment by many new firms, many from the financial sector, to the city. I pay tribute to three leaders of Leeds city council, two of whom are now Members of Parliament, for the part they have played in the city's economic regeneration.
  Economic good fortune and prosperity do not necessarily bring investment in public housing or schools. The Local Government Finance (Supplementary Credit Approvals) Bill that we discussed on Tuesday will have important consequences for the city of Leeds, especially Leeds, North-East. Social housing is more than just the local authority provision of low-cost rented property. There is a whole host of different providers in the many small independent housing associations.
  In Leeds, we have Leeds Partnership Homes, which is a collaboration between the local authority and the housing associations. It has worked for the benefit of those citizens who seek quality housing for a reasonable rent. Organisations such as Unity Housing in Chapeltown have provided good quality low-cost homes for the Afro-Caribbean community, and Leeds Jewish Housing Association, with its 1,000 tenants and 415 properties—many of which are sheltered and specialist homes—has served the Jewish community of Moortown very well.
  Leeds has more than £70.4 million in the bank from council house capital receipts, with an estimated £10 million coming in from new sales each year. The release of this sum on a phased basis will do a great deal to refurbish and regenerate old stock, which, according to the housing department of Leeds city council, will need £485 million in the next few years just to bring all properties up to modern standards.

  635
  The previous Government's borrowing approval for capital spending was £9.6 million in 1997–98 for the whole of the city of Leeds. In my constituency, there are more than 6,000 council homes, for which identified necessary improvements will cost about £37.8 million. The extra investment that the Bill will generate will be invaluable to the tenants I represent.
  In addition to the much-needed improvement of the housing stock in my constituency, the spending of capital receipts will inevitably generate much-needed employment. In Chapeltown especially, the level of male unemployment is one of the highest in Yorkshire. I am confident that the many job opportunities that will result directly from the enactment of this short Bill will benefit my constituents.
  In common with those of most local education authorities, Leeds LEA's schools are in great need of building improvements. Leeds is the second largest LEA in England, and has devolved almost 93 per cent. of its budget to schools in the city. That may well be the reason why there are only two grant-maintained schools in Leeds, out of more than 300 schools in total.
  As well as the local management of school budgets, the LEA has devolved some capital spending, a policy which has been very popular among schools and their governing bodies. But even this is not enough to counter the huge backlog in spending on school buildings, many of which are in a poor state of repair. The Bill will enable many more private finance initiative schemes to go ahead in areas where they are much needed.
  Leeds city council has established a policy of working closely with the private sector over a number of years, especially through organisations such as the Leeds Initiative and various sector initiatives. The PFI, if properly carried out, and with safeguards for public and private interests, will allow the rebuilding of such dilapidated school buildings as Cardinal Heenan Roman Catholic high school in my constituency. Other schemes could benefit schools such as Upper Wortley primary school and Wortley high school, which could be redeveloped using surplus land that could not be used for school playing fields, perhaps as a trade-off for part of the construction costs of the new building.
  In the end, it is the welfare and the quality of education for our children which count, and I welcome anything that will improve that education. Used properly, the PH will greatly enhance our schools and buildings, and will assist staff in concentrating on the job of educating, rather than being distracted into site management, as so many senior school staff are currently forced to do.
  The combination of this Bill and the Local Government Finance (Supplementary Credit Approvals) Bill will, I hope, lead to a renaissance in local government, which has been so starved of capital during the past 18 years. I commend the Bill to the House, and I hope that its swift passage will allow the rebuilding of schools in Leeds and all over the country, so that we deliver our priority election pledge, education.
  4.28 pm
  Sir Paul Beresford: I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Hamilton) on his maiden speech. They are always extremely difficult, and making them during a quiet Bill, when antagonism is not anticipated, always helps. I also thank him for his praise for his predecessor, and for his predecessor's predecessor.
  In the same vein, the Minister referred to the resurrection of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) on the Front Bench. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch in particular is experienced in local government. We have shared tables and arenas in the past, and it looks as if this is to continue.
  In a funny way, this is in effect a maiden speech for me. In the last days of the previous Parliament, the boundary commission decided to reduce the number of seats in Croydon from four to three. I lost out, and went looking for another seat. I was delighted to be selected and elected for the seat of Mole Valley.
  My predecessor, Kenneth Baker, is extremely well known and has had a distinguished career. He was particularly effective, well liked and popular in Mole Valley, which he had served since 1983. To us, he is one of the stars of the Thatcher Government. In the limited time available, I shall touch on two areas for which he is particularly remembered. The media remember him more as a Conservative Central Office magician, who managed to pull tremendous successes—sometimes they were displayed as greater than they were, but I must be cautious in saying that—out of a hat when everyone was anticipating defeat. The second area was as Secretary of State for Education. It is now accepted across the board, and, I believe, on both sides of the House, that he laid the foundations for modern education. He introduced the core curriculum and testing, which, in spite of the hoo-hah, nonsense, complaints, screaming and so forth by all and sundry at the time, have been accepted as the right move, and as a basis from which the previous Government and the present Government seem to have moved forward.
  Interestingly, Kenneth Baker had a career in politics, in government and as an author. He also had an extremely successful career—I was going to call it valuable, but that is a difficult word—in business, but last week he was tempted back, and we now have his presence in another place. I am sure that, at least on the Conservative side of the House, his comments and contributions will be recognised and accepted.
  I am delighted and proud to represent the Mole Valley people. The area is superb. It is the epitome of England's green and pleasant land—helped at the moment by the constant April showers in the wrong month. We have two delightful English country towns in Dorking and Leatherhead. Both need careful and sympathetic regeneration—that goes particularly for Leatherhead. I am afraid that one or two small voices in the area see conservation as stagnation. The area has not been assisted by the Liberal councillors, but they are slowly being moved off the scene and replaced with Conservatives.

  637
  One of the key aspects of Mole Valley is that it is green belt, and that is extremely precious to the people there. In spite of that, the area is highly residential. I have mentioned the two main towns, but there are dozens of villages, all of which are exquisite, and some well known. They range in size from Bookham and Ripley to some picturesque small villages—Abinger Hammer is a famous one.
  All the villages have their post office and general store—or almost all—and they will benefit from the previous Government's move on the business rate and rural areas and villages. Like any good English village, they all have at least one pub—probably more. I can recommend just about every single pub in the area to those of us who are prepared to stagger down there when the House releases us and we have a summer recess.
  A large percentage of people in the area are commuters. We have a good rail service through to Dorking, Leatherhead and Effingham Junction, which is showing the benefits of privatisation in spite of a few union difficulties at the moment—I am sure that those will be resolved. In addition, we have a good network of main roads, A roads and motorways, which are both assets and threats to the local people, and are being watched carefully—the same applies to Gatwick airport.
  Due to Surrey county council's long history of Conservative control, the education standard was high. The council has now returned to Conservative control, and we will move back to a high education standard and resulting low unemployment.
  Many of the major contributors to the local economy and local employment in this country are extremely hard working, and potentially quite wealthy, people in the area. There has been a tendency, especially in some newspapers, to sneer at those people, but I believe that they should be encouraged and congratulated, because they stimulate the economy and create employment. I shall wait until 2 July to see whether they will have received that encouragement.
  The Bill is small and necessary, and has come clothed in flag-waving by the Labour party, which has suddenly decided that it accepts the private finance initiative. It has been extremely slow on partnership with the private sector, and had a knee-jerk reaction to competitive tendering. I suspect that, if some Labour Members realised what we were talking about, especially where Labour local authorities are concerned, they would not touch it.
  That explains the difficulty that many firms have had in introducing the PFI in many local authorities. The previous Government changed the ethos and thinking, and adopted and adapted the rules. There have been complaints about the lack of local government finance, and the reality of the tight budgets for local authorities has forced many difficult left-wing authorities and councillors suddenly to realise the benefits of PFI. Without it, many of them would have continued with the same old procedures, thinking that they knew best and not accepting that, quite apart from the financial benefits of PFI and competitive tendering, the innovation of the private sector was a gem.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch spoke of some of the successes. Considerable benefits have come against the background of suspicion and difficulty
  638
  and of a change to a new system that even the private sector was cautious about. We have new prisons, trains and roads, and about £7 billion-worth of PFI schemes in the offing, including hospitals, one of which I understand has already been started.
  The private sector was particularly cautious about local government. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch touched on a few flag-wavings—instances in which local authorities had frightened off the private sector. If I were in local government now, considering the private sector, of if I were in the private sector considering local government and PFI schemes, I would be extremely cautious about schemes with many of the Labour local authorities, as their attitude often belies the face that the Minister put on it in her opening speech.
  Fortunately, the Local Government Association has a dedicated unit. That at least shows that some councillors are accepting the PFI, and moving in the right direction. The Minister was right to say that one case hit confidence extremely hard, and the Bill must be seen in that light.
  I have one or two points of caution, if not of concern, about the Bill, and I hope that Ministers will introduce changes or regulations in Committee. I am concerned about some of the regulations being under negative resolution, and I hope that the Minister will review that. The area of concern is the certificated contract provisions. As the Bill stands, those provisions could be abused.
  Any change in legislation that restricts the power of the courts or the district auditor needs considerable safeguards. Those safeguards are not apparent at this stage, and I seek assurances that they will be put in place and made effective, either in the Bill or in regulations, preferably requiring affirmative resolution.
  As many hon. Members know, and many people outside realise to their discontent, the twisting and turning of some local authorities is legendary, and the Bill as it stands could provide enormous opportunities for that. The district auditor must be able to act prior to the council certifying any contract. That means that the auditor must have a fully disclosed copy of the contract well in advance of the council's decision. I recognise that one could go to the court afterwards, but it would be more appropriate to take the action beforehand and allow the district auditor to react to it.
  It would be a further safeguard if the monitoring officer or the local authority's director of finance were required to confirm the probity of the contract. Furthermore, I assume that certification will apply only to long-term contracts, where the value of the contracts and that of the assets are above a certain considerable minimum. Finally, although this may seem ultra suspicious, experience of the ways of some councils is such that I hope that the Bill will restrict the assets to be provided to those that are reasonably necessary for the service concerned with the contract being considered.
  Such matters will be discussed in Committee, and, in general, I accept the need for the Bill, in spite of the flag-waving that went with it. There must be an opportunity for public services to be provided by the private sector, which has the necessary expertise and lateral thinking. We should recognise the points that have been made and carried through successfully by many Conservative councils, which regard themselves as enablers rather than necessarily as providers. I suspect

  639
  that, under this Government, the tendency will be to roll in the opposite direction until such time as councils progressively return to Conservative control.
  4.40 pm
  Mr. Paul Burstow: On the face of it, the Bill is a technical measure that dots some i's and crosses some t's on contract law and regulations, but I believe that it is more important than that. The Government's approach in some ways bodes ill. It gives us a glimpse of a centralising tendency that I thought had gone when the Conservatives went into opposition on 1 May. Some aspects of the Bill show that centralisation is still alive and kicking in the Government.
  I have several fundamental and practical concerns. No additional powers are granted to local authorities. As I understand it, it takes away the rights of council tax payers in the event of a council acting outside its powers.
  Two weeks ago, the UK ambassador to the Council of Europe signed the declaration of local self-government. I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) in welcoming that important step by the Government to acknowledge the essential role of local government in Britain. However, more than words are necessary. We need action to turn those important statements into something practical on the ground.
  As a local authority member for the past 11 years, I have seen at first hand how the previous Government lost their local government base and then sought to replace local democracy with ministerial regulation, direction and ever-tighter financial controls. The new Government must sound a new note for local government. While some recent ministerial speeches suggest that they desire to create a new relationship between central and local government, we remain to be convinced that that is what will come about. Even in the darkest days of the last Government, local government was innovative, inclusive and able to respond to the needs and aspiration of local communities. Local government does not need more duties imposed on it. The news that Ministers propose to consult their colleagues in local government about the scope of a new duty to promote economic, social and environmental well-being misses the point entirely. Local government needs a power of general competence. Such a power would make the Bill unnecessary. It would help us to rejuvenate local government and give substance to the Government's rhetoric about community leadership, and to the Liberal Democrats' commitment to the idea of local government's role as the leader in the local community.
  Before the general election, a Select Committee in the other place investigated the relationship between central and local government and produced a powerful and persuasive report entitled "Rebuilding Trust". The report must not be allowed to gather dust and its recommendations should form the basis of legislation. It recommended
  "a new statutory power of local competence, enabling an authority to act in the interests of the local community within the limits of financial prudence but without a need to be certain that no other powers are available".
  That seems to me to be the way forward, and it is a shame that the Bill contains no such proposals.
  640
  The Bill targets private finance initiative contracts; it tries to make a bad idea work. If the Government think that the PH is the answer to all their—and local government's—financial difficulties, they must have been asking a strange question. Throughout the 1980s, creative finance in local government—lease-back and deferred purchase arrangements—was pilloried by the Conservative Government. Their reason for such attacks—that they put costs on to future generations for providing today's services—seems odd when we consider what the PFI does. By simply changing the words, it gives credibility to something that was attacked when local government did it in the past.
  The PFI is a way of circumventing strict Treasury rules. The problem is not the Treasury rules but the mindset that regards them as God-given and unchangeable. I hope that something can be done about that. I welcome the Minister's statement about the creation of a task force to examine the PFI. I hope that it will question the basis of the Treasury rules, how they treat capital expenditure and the way in which they confine and restrict unnecessarily.
  I have several practical concerns. My research suggests that there are still anxieties in the City about how the Bill will assist PH contracts coming into being. It may cover situations such as that faced by my local authority a year or so ago with Morgan Grenfell and the Wellesley housing association, but it does not cover contracts such as those that involve the transfer of residential homes, where the contract provides only services, not assets.
  There is also the problem of length of time and the lack of a financial cut-off. I hope that the Minister will respond to this. For example, a large contract that lasted for less than five years could have substantial financial implications, but a contract that runs for a long time, such as social services spot purchase contracts, could have only a small financial implication. As I understand the measure, and I look forward to being corrected if I am wrong, the compulsion to certify such contracts would increase the local authority bureaucracy involved in dealing with the documentation and in the democratic process. Perhaps in Committee we will be further enlightened about that.
  Despite its accompanying explanatory notes, the Bill has practical implications for local authority officers who certify such contracts that need to be clarified. The Minister mentioned the Waltham Forest case, in which individual officers were, I believe, found liable. The officers who may become responsible for certifying contracts are worried about whether they will be caught by the Bill. A monitoring officer expressed concern to me about the increased cost of having constantly to go to counsel for advice on signing such certificates.
  Finally, what checks and balances will apply to the compensation arrangements negotiated between local authorities and businesses set out in clauses 2 and 3? Will the Minister spell out what rights of challenge will be available to enable the reasonableness of arrangements to be tested? If he will not, there will be serious concern that private interests will be protected by the Bill at the expense of public interests. Clause 7, as I understand the explanation of it, means that the taxpayer would always lose out, and that cannot be right.
  I believe that the House should be debating legislation to give local government the power of general competence. Measured against that radical proposal, I have to say that the Bill is a timid mouse of a measure.
  4.49 pm
  Mr. Chope: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): It is most unusual for any hon. Member to speak twice on Second Reading, but, with the leave of the House, I call Mr. Chope.
  Ms Armstrong: They are unusual circumstances.
  Mr. Chope: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the hon. Lady says, there are unusual circumstances today. I am grateful for the indulgence of the House.
  I do not intend to comment on what hon. Members have said in the debate other than to congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Hamilton) on his excellent exemplary maiden speech. On such occasions it is always a good idea to try to find some common ground, and both he and I have the privilege of having a parent who was a circuit judge. I do not know whether his mother was as horrified as my father was when I chose politics as a career; perhaps we will find out in due course.
  The hon. Gentleman paid a fitting tribute to his predecessor, Timothy Kirkhope, whom we miss very much on the Conservative Benches. I had hoped that when I came back to the House he would be among my colleagues. The hon. Gentleman also paid tribute to the great and late Lord Joseph—a tribute which was complemented by that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford). Indeed, it seems that the hon. Gentleman is following a fine tradition of Members for Leeds, North-East. He obviously conducted his research to the full, because he was able to discover that, many, many years ago, there was someone who had represented the Labour party in that constituency just after the war.
  As Parliament progresses, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be too disappointed that the expectations that he raised in his maiden speech have not been realised. I was horrified to hear of the extent of housing dereliction that seems to have arisen in Leeds as a result of the many years during which the city council has been controlled by the Labour party. If the hon. Gentleman wants a good example of partnership schemes that work, he should consider the wholesale voluntary transfer of housing stock to bring in and leverage the support of the building societies and the housing associations. Such schemes have worked extremely effectively. It is a pity that the people who have run Leeds over the years have not had the imagination to pursue that type of scheme.
  If the figures that the hon. Gentleman gave are anywhere near accurate they bear out the impossibility of squaring that amount of dereliction and need for refurbishment with the commitments so far made by the Government to invest in housing and undertake such refurbishment. The hon. Gentleman's interesting speech brought back to me the times when I visited Leeds as a housing Minister a few years ago.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley was extremely kind in his comments about me. My greatest responsibility when I ceased to be the leader of Wandsworth council was to ensure that I had an able successor. He excelled in that position beyond the wildest
  642
  expectations of anyone, and he performed distinguished services as a Minister. Now the people of Mole Valley are the beneficiaries of his custodianship. He is a diligent Member of Parliament. He described the problems of Leatherhead and Dorking, and the fine achievements of his predecessor, and we look forward to his further articulate contributions on behalf of the people of Mole Valley. They are lucky to have him as their new Member of Parliament.
  I was interested to note that my little tease of the Minister about what had happened to the power of general competence was taken up with a vengeance by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel). I hope that when the Under-Secretary replies he will make some reference to what has happened about that, because hon. Members will be awaiting with bated breath the outcome of the relevant deliberations.
  As has been said, the Bill is short and reasonably straightforward. I hope that the Under-Secretary will answer the questions that have been raised in the time that is remaining. I estimate that to be just short of five hours, so that should give him plenty of time to respond.
  4.54 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): At one stage, I anticipated a potentially extremely long response to the debate, but, given the Opposition's decision not to divide the House, I am delighted that we have had a reasonably brief and focused debate on this excellent measure. I am therefore delighted that we will be able to bring our proceedings to an end rather sooner than many had anticipated.
  I listened to the debate with great interest and I welcome the opportunity to respond to the various points that have been raised.
  My hon. Friend the Minister opened the debate by explaining why we had introduced the Bill. I make no apology for briefly returning to those reasons. It is the Government's policy that local authorities should explore the scope for partnership with the private sector to achieve the best value for money in delivering services to the community. Following various high-profile court cases, doubts have arisen in the private sector about the powers of local authorities to enter into contracts for the provision of assets and services. Investors are concerned that they could suffer financially if local authorities are found to have acted ultra vires. The Government seek to end all doubts by clarifying local authorities' powers to enter into partnership contracts and by providing a means of reassurance for contractors through a simple and transparent certification procedure.
  The Bill provides the framework in which authorities and the private sector can work together in confidence. It in no way undermines the rights of local taxpayers and auditors to challenge authorities where they have acted unlawfully.
  The Bill should be seen in the context of the Government's policy to improve and streamline the private finance initiative and public-private partnerships. The Paymaster General, whom we are delighted to see on the Front Bench, has published today a summary and the conclusions of the review of the PFI conducted by Malcolm Bates. It sets out a clear agenda of action across the public sector to get deals delivered.

  643
  I welcome the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) back to the Chamber after a period of absence which is one of those accidents of political life that some of us have experienced. I also welcome him to his Front-Bench position and look forward to debating with him on future occasions. He paid generous tribute to his predecessor, Diana Maddock. Those of us who were involved in housing matters in the previous Parliament found her to be an extremely assiduous and positive contributor to debates. She also displayed such characteristics in her work in her constituency, which the hon. Gentleman acknowledged.
  The hon. Gentleman offered his support for the generality of the Bill, but he slightly spoilt that good effect by claiming, with no justification, that the Government are not whole-heartedly committed to public-private partnerships. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister advocated such partnerships years before the previous Government introduced the PFI model. I, too, argued strongly for new models for local housing companies to achieve private investment in co-operation with local authorities, again long before the previous Government advocated the PFI. I must therefore tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government will take no lessons from the Opposition either about the parentage of the public-private partnership model or about our commitment to achieving such partnerships.
  The difference between the Opposition and the Government is that we are creating that model. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the record of the previous Government was lamentable. Year after year, we heard forecasts of the new deals that would be achieved. We were told again and again that hospital contracts were about to be signed, but, at the end of the day, despite all their pledges and promises, that Government went out of office on 1 May without having signed a single hospital contract. That represented an abject failure to deliver on a policy that had bipartisan support—there was no political obstacle to it. That lack of progress was simply the result of the previous Government's failure and incompetence to drive through a policy which they said that they technically believed in.
  Against that background, I find it hard to take seriously the hon. Gentleman's allegation that the new Government are not moving quickly enough. My hon. Friend the Paymaster General has moved with exemplary speed. His review of the private finance initiative was commissioned within a week of the new Government taking office. The report on it has already been received and has been published, within seven weeks of the new Government coming into office. That is exemplary speed, of which the private sector could justly be proud. It stands in marked contrast to the dilly-dallying and dithering of the previous Government, and their failure to deliver on the project.
  The hon. Gentleman claimed that we had been delaying the appointment of a chief executive. The Government had no intention of anticipating Malcolm Bates's recommendations, because his was an independent review. To have acted in advance of it, in terms of the appointment of a chief executive, would have been quite improper. Now that Bates has announced his findings, which we have fully accepted and published, we are taking extensive soundings to identify the best person for the job. Malcolm Bates himself will be involved in the
  644
  selection process, with senior Treasury officials. That is an indication of the Government's commitment and our speed in responding to the need for a better organised framework for public-private partnership.
  The hon. Gentleman raised a number of detailed questions. He asked whether local authorities could go bankrupt. The Government do not guarantee local authorities. Authorities have substantial assets and revenue streams; therefore they are a good credit risk. That is not a matter which the Government can guarantee.
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Government would make it easier for authorities to guarantee contractors' liabilities. The answer is simple. The capital finance regulations do not allow public-private partnership treatment to contracts that involve such guarantees, as that would involve no risk transfer. We see no reason to change that arrangement.
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether there should be a maximum period for contracts, as well as a minimum period. In order to obtain the minimum lifetime cost of the assets delivered by the contract, it is necessary to ensure that there is an appropriate period for the contract. A period of 20 to 30 years is often needed, but it would be wrong to be too prescriptive and to insist that the maximum period should be 30 years. The matter must be examined properly and scrupulously, in consultation with private sector partners.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Mr. Cranston) on an excellent maiden speech. [Interruption.] I apologise—he has already given his maiden speech, but he is a new Member and spoke extremely effectively and with great knowledge of the legal issues involved in partnership deals. He welcomed the Bill as a practical way of dealing with some of the difficulties, and he referred to the Financial Law Panel. That has been much involved in the thinking behind the Bill, as have other bodies, such as the 4 Ps—the public-private partnerships programme. They view the Bill as a positive step that should be welcomed in the financial markets. We are grateful for their help. I appreciate the contribution of my hon. Friend in an admirable speech.
  The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) described our Bill as breathing the kiss of life into a moribund PFI. I agree with him. We seek to bring life back to a process that has not moved as fast as it should have.
  The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of the power of general competence, which was also mentioned by other speakers. That may be the Liberal party policy, but the Government believe that there should be a different approach, with an emphasis on the power of community initiative—the power of authorities to pursue the economic, social and environmental well-being of their area. There must be limits; there is no question of local authorities having unfettered power to undertake any activity that they choose. That is not feasible in the real world. Although Liberal Members may believe that it is appropriate for local authorities to have their own defence programmes, that is fanciful. It could never be contemplated by any sensible politician.
  Mr. Rendel: I am not sure whether the Minister has yet read the European charter for local self-government. Article 2 refers, in effect, to a power of general competence. Of course, powers of general competence for

  645
  local authorities are restricted by Governments in terms of those areas where there should not be competence for local government. It is clear, however, that there is a huge difference between giving local government power over any matter that is not specifically excluded by statute, and not giving local government powers until they are included by statute. That is what the power of general competence means, as the Minister ought to know.
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman gives it all away when he concedes that there must be a limit on the powers of local authorities. By doing so, he undermines the point that he made in his earlier contribution—that a power of general competence would make the Bill redundant. Of course it would not, because any statutory power is liable to judicial review.
  The financial markets would still look for a safe harbour to protect their investment, even if there were the power of general competence that the hon. Gentleman advocates. He is dealing in an unrealistic assumption about the appropriate framework for the future of local government and of public-private partnerships. We are living in the real world, and we have presented practical proposals to tackle the real problems and to ensure that local authorities and the private sector can work together on a sensible and practical basis.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Hamilton) did make an excellent maiden speech, in which he revealed his detailed understanding of the needs of his community and a genuine commitment to his city. He rightly emphasised the importance of partnership as a vital ingredient in future for local authorities working with the private sector in tackling many problems, not least the one that he highlighted—investment in crumbling schools. He identified Cardinal Heenan school in his constituency, which will benefit as one of the pathfinder projects currently under way.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) on his successful change of constituency. He made the move just in time, because the Labour party now holds Croydon, Central, the seat that broadly approximates to the one that he held in the previous Parliament. His move to a safer place may help to ensure that he continues to make a contribution in the House in the years ahead.
  The hon. Gentleman supported the Bill, but raised specific questions. He asked why so many of the regulations were negative resolutions. The answer is that the regulations amending forms of contract that can be certified are affirmative, because they change specific provisions. For others, a negative resolution is appropriate—for example, for the capital finance regulations.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the role of the auditor and questioned whether the auditor should have an opportunity to get involved before certification. We do not accept that that would be a sensible way forward, as it would fetter the auditor's discretion to take action if there were questions about the validity of the contract. We understand that if the hon. Gentleman serves on the Standing Committee that will consider the Bill, he will raise other detailed questions, to which we will respond appropriately in Committee. We welcome the fact that he broadly supports the principles behind the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) made various criticisms of the Bill. He complained that it did not give new powers for local authorities. However,
  646
  he misunderstands the purpose of the Bill. It is not intended to give new powers to local authorities. It is designed to overcome obstacles to successful public-private partnerships. If it sought to do what the hon. Gentleman wants, that would be way beyond its appropriate remit. We may return to the matter in Committee.
  The hon. Gentleman implied that the Bill might take away the powers of individuals to challenge local authorities. As I have made clear, it does not do so. There will be an open power for individuals and the auditor to challenge a local authority where it appears that the local authority has acted improperly or ultra vires.
  The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam assumed that the Government view the public-private partnership route as the solution to all local government financing requirements. We do not, but it is a useful additional tool for creating opportunities to tackle problems effectively through partnership and to foster the spirit of partnership that is crucial not just to good relations between local authorities and the private sector, but to the regeneration of so many areas of our country that need a partnership approach as well as investment.
  Mr. Burstow: Will the Minister clarify the way in which clause 7 will work in respect of the compensation arrangements in certified contracts? In cases where the courts make an ultra vires ruling, will the public be able to challenge the reasonableness of clauses in such contracts? If they cannot, taxpayers will continue to lose money as local authorities will be obliged to pay under the compensation clauses.
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is getting slightly carried away by the technicalities of the subject. The legislation is designed to ensure that local communities do not have to meet additional costs. It establishes a sensible certification framework that will make sure that proper questions are asked before contracts are entered into. Our objective is to ensure that proper safeguards exist.
  The private sector would not enter into contracts if it did not believe that it could recover the contribution that it expected to receive through the compensation route should a contract be ruled ultra vires. We have achieved the proper balance. We are ensuring that local authorities have the power to enter into contracts and we are establishing a more prudent framework for making contracts in order to safeguard public interest, while providing the equivalent of a safe harbour for the private sector so that it may invest confidently without fearing that it may be left with no way of recovering its investment. That is a sensible and practical way of addressing real, existing problems.
  The hon. Gentleman also questioned the certification process, which he described as bureaucratic. It is not: it is a sensible provision that any sensible local authority will welcome. It will help to concentrate the mind on the process of reaching agreement on the contract. It will also ensure that the proper steps are taken to assess the probity and appropriateness of a contract so that the local authority may enter into it with confidence. That is the correct way to deal with partnership arrangements.
  The Government believe that partnerships between the public and private sectors are the best way of raising the quality of services delivered to the community. On 8 May,

  647
  my hon. Friend the Paymaster General announced an end to universal testing: the rule that all projects had to be tested for private finance potential. On the same day, Malcolm Bates was asked to launch a rapid review of the workings of the private finance initiative. As I have said, that review has been completed and accepted by the Government. The summary and conclusions of Malcolm Bates's review were published this morning, and we have lost no time in ensuring that speedy action is taken to reinvigorate the private finance initiative and establish a framework for successful public-private partnerships.
  The main conclusion of the Bates review was that public sector structures must be simplified and responsibilities made clear. A new Treasury task force will be set up, covering both policy and central input on projects. That will end the confusion over who is responsible for what at the centre, while making the best use of available resources and expertise. There are clear recommendations for removing the barriers that have hindered the progress of many projects to date, including measures to keep down the costs of tendering for projects.
  The Government will consider carefully with the task force and PPPP the implications of developing public-private partnerships in local government and how such projects should be encouraged. The Bill is an essential part of the framework for ensuring that projects can be taken forward successfully under the partnership approach. We do not want uncertainties about local authority powers to curtail an approach that can deliver innovative schemes at best value to local communities. I am pleased to commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND
  That the draft International Monetary Fund (Limit on Lending) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 28th February, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Graham Allen.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  DEFENCE
  That the draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 21st May, be approved.—[Mr. Graham Allen.]
  Question agreed to.

  Building Societies
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Graham Allen.]
  5.14 pm
  Ms Sally Keeble: I am pleased to make my maiden speech on the Adjournment concerning an issue that touches closely the lives of many people not just in my constituency but across the country. The future of building societies affects some of the most important aspects of people's lives: their homes and their family finances.
  However, I shall begin by paying the traditional tributes to my predecessors. Many new women Members of Parliament have said with pride that they are the first women to represent their constituencies in Parliament. I take even greater pride in saying that I am not the first woman Member of Parliament to represent my constituency: the first Member for Northampton, North was Maureen Colquhoun in 1974. Before her, there was only one Northampton seat, which was represented for some years by Margaret Bondfield—a Labour Member of Parliament and the first woman from any political party to achieve Cabinet rank. There may be many women in Parliament now, but we have not been here for very long. Margaret Bondfield was one of the first female Members of Parliament and, during the election campaign, I met a very elderly man who remembered canvassing for her in the early 1920s.
  My immediate predecessor was Tony Marlow. He is a man of very strong views—most of which I disagree with—but I pay tribute to him for two achievements. First, he commanded the loyalty of the people of Northampton, North who returned him faithfully to Parliament for 18 years—an achievement which I would do well to emulate—and, secondly, he gave more grief to his own party than he ever did to mine. If, during my parliamentary career, I can manage to cause as much trouble for the Conservatives as he did, I shall be well pleased. I wish him an enjoyable retirement.
  Northampton, North is an entirely urban constituency, comprising residential suburbs overwhelmingly populated by home owners and people in work who want to get on and who expect to pass on a better life to their children. I am very proud to represent them in this place. However, home ownership is not lightly won in my area. Northampton is a town of quite low wages, and the fragility of family finances was a deciding factor in the general election.
  A large chunk of my constituency lies in the new town development of Northampton. Many of the people in this eastern part of the town came originally from the council estates of the inner cities in search of jobs and a better life. One of the first people I met in Northampton, North was a man who had moved there from London. He had found a job and bought his new town home. He described graphically what it was like moving from a cramped Lambeth council flat to a brand new three-bedroom house situated in the middle of green fields. However, when bad health and a spell out of work put him behind with his mortgage repayments, he lost his home. Like many others, he said that he had voted Tory since 1979. Like them, he bought the Thatcher dream, and its betrayal was a potent factor in the general election result.

  649
  As with home ownership, the quality of life enjoyed by many in Northampton, North is hard won. A bank in one part of my constituency reported that it had turned down a third of all applications for bank accounts because people's incomes were too low. Some people find a solution in self-help, and the Weston Favell credit union in my constituency is one of the oldest in the country.
  Northampton has had to adjust to changing circumstances in the course of its long history. It was once the seat of a roving Parliament—until it passed a poll tax. It was briefly a university town until the students there behaved so badly that King Henry III ordered that Northampton should never again have a university. However, Nene college in my constituency hopes to change all that, and I support strongly its efforts to achieve university status. Northampton became the famous centre of Britain's boot and shoe industry and, since that industry's decline, it has become a major distribution centre and something of a centre for financial services. Quite a few of my constituents work for Barclaycard, which has a new headquarters just outside my constituency. Inside its boundaries lies part of the headquarters of the Nationwide building society, whose links with the town go back to 1848.
  That long history is now in jeopardy, and with it the future of the building society movement. Nationwide is the last of the major national mutual building societies. Five independent and, some would say, maverick candidates are standing for the Nationwide board in this month's elections on a manifesto pledge to get the society to abandon its mutual status, giving a windfall bonus of shares valued at £1,000 to each Nationwide member.
  The Building Societies Association has predicted that, if the five succeed in the Nationwide elections, the remaining 70 mutual building societies—many of them are small, locally based organizations—would probably take steps to turn themselves into plcs rather than be precipitated into the chaos of an unplanned conversion, which would be simply a dash for cash.
  Nationwide branches throughout the country saw 25,000 people a day apply for new accounts until the society pulled down the shutters last week. The Coventry building society—another mutual organization—has seen four times the normal level of new accounts, with most investors depositing the minimum sum possible. The pressure finally became so intense that, last week, the society increased its minimum deposit. That did nothing to dampen enthusiasm, so today it increased the sum again.
  During this weekend, the chaos of the Nationwide board elections descended into farce when the leader of the five mavericks said that he still wanted to see Nationwide members get their windfall, but as a reward for keeping the society's mutual status. That a large, major financial institution, which holds mortgages on 1 million homes, should have its future decided on such whimsy is appalling.
  It is easy, of course, to criticise people for opting for the quick buck, and it is also wrong. The attraction of receiving a lump sum is very real, especially when in some instances it is the first time that such a payment has been received by an individual. The long-term cost of those windfall payments, however, will be substantial.
  First, there is the loss of the cheaper mortgages that building societies have provided. Secondly, there is a loss of access to home ownership for people on lower incomes
  650
  who buy smaller houses than others. Building societies were created to help such people, and traditionally they have catered for them. Even now, building societies provide almost twice as many mortgages as do banks for people in the lowest income groups. Less tangibly, there is the loss of a savings culture, and in its place the encouragement of a credit culture, which has already seen people get themselves into unmanageable levels of debt.
  The arguments about long-term benefits over short-term profits are difficult ones to advance in the immediate post-Tory era. The arguments in favour of the mutual building societies are rational but not immediately as attractive as £1,000 cash in hand.
  Some people have raised the possibility of introducing further legislation to deal with the problems to which I have referred. The sad fact, however, is that the largest of the mutual building societies have already converted, and the fate of the others could be decided within a month. We need to ensure that, if the door is to close on an era of mutual building societies, people will still have real choice in financial services and that those on lower incomes can still have the benefits of services that are provided in the interest of the customer—of the borrower and saver—and not merely those of the shareholder.
  The Government are committed to long-term planning and we are pledged to enable individuals to have their own savings accounts. I ask my hon. Friend the Paymaster General to do three things. The first is to set out Government policy towards the mutual building society and, in particular, Government attitudes towards the long-term benefits that they offer. Strong support and encouragement should be given for those who believe in the benefits of mutual building societies.
  Secondly, I ask that the Government look in the longer term at the effects that conversion has had on the customer—on home ownership and savings, especially for people in lower income groups. Thirdly, I ask my hon. Friend the Paymaster General to say whether the Government, in carrying out their pledges on individual savings accounts, will consider ways of encouraging schemes that embody the mutual principles.
  Financial services should be run in the interests of borrowers and savers and not for shareholders. Services should be accessible to those with low incomes, with saving schemes that demand only small initial deposits and provide checking facilities that enable people to manage their money more effectively. There should be real choice and diversity, with different types of services with different interest rates and benefits. I am not talking merely of bank accounts provided in different places.
  It took 200 years for building societies to build up £290 billion of assets, assets which are held by millions of building society members. It could take only another year to fritter away that legacy.
  Shortly before the general election, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), who is now the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, came to Northampton, North to examine the problem of repossessed homes. He saw rows of homes that had been boarded up and were for sale because people had run into financial problems. Behind each boarded-up front door was a tale of real hardship—broken families and disappointed hopes and dreams.

  651
  People who have survived the 18 years of Tory boom and bust are looking to the Government for a more certain and stable future that will enable them to plan their finances and to feel that their homes really are as safe as houses. The Government would do the people of my constituency and others beyond a great service by ensuring that the benefits provided by our mutual building societies remain for future generations.
  5.26 pm
  Ms Julia Drown: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) on an excellent maiden speech and on raising an important issue which will have an effect on millions of people in future. I thank her for allowing me to take part in the debate.
  The main part of the headquarters of the Nationwide building society is in my constituency. The society employs more than 2,000 people in Swindon. I speak for those and for home owners and savers who rely on the Nationwide and other building societies. Those people will be affected if the mutual status of building societies is threatened.
  There is little doubt that the future of building societies has reached an important crossroads. My hon. Friend has referred to the campaign to try to convert the Nationwide building society into a bank. The pressure for short-term results from short—term thinkers who hope to cash in on windfall handouts has thrown the spotlight on building societies and raises serious questions for their future. As the last building society with a strong national presence—it is the fourth largest mortgage lender—the future of building societies is linked very much to the future of Nationwide.
  I support my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North in urging my hon. Friend the Paymaster General to give a lead to the many members of building societies, so that they might value what they have in mutual building societies and hope to retain them. That links in very much with Labour's plans. Labour was elected because it gave a strong message that a Labour Government would look after the country's interests in the long term, for long-term stability and prosperity. The basis for that lies with sensible competition in the marketplace, not with people running round for short-term fast bucks.
  The threat to building societies is a significant one. In 1995, it was estimated that two thirds of mortgages and over one half of savings were with building societies. It is estimated that, by the end of 1997, if no action is taken to remove the pressure on building societies to convert, those figures will have fallen to one quarter and one fifth respectively. That is likely to lead to poorer value for both savers and borrowers.
  Unlike banks, which need to maximise profits to pay dividends to shareholders, building societies can keep the interest margin between savings and lending relatively narrow, to the benefit of their customers. Any profit that is made can be repaid to their customers, and in that way they provide home owners and savers with long-term benefits. The interest rate margin—the difference between the cost at which an institution borrows and lends money—gives an idea of the profits that it makes. Nationwide's margin is currently 1.8 per cent., and that
  652
  of the building societies that have already converted to banks is 2.1 per cent. to 2.8 per cent. That shows the value of supporting building societies to ensure diversity and strong competition in the marketplace.
  Even the threat of conversion has a detrimental effect on the genuine small saver. It creates a huge increase in activity: thousands of people open speculative accounts with as little as £100. Many societies have to react by increasing that minimum opening amount, thus reducing opportunities for the smaller savers of the future. The result is destabilisation across the financial sector, with money circulating between institutions for entirely inappropriate reasons. That has a knock-on effect on the levels of service that genuine customers receive.
  I urge the Minister to take a lead so as to prevent hostile takeovers and hostile conversions into banks. As building societies are accountable to their members, in the short term the trust lies in their hands. As Members of Parliament and as Ministers, we can plan for the longer term, and we can make those individual members aware of the decisions before them. Many people do not realise what an important role building societies play. They ensure that home owners and savers get a good deal.
  Building societies and mutuality are a good thing for today and for the longer term. I hope that the Minister will do all he can to ensure that the future of mutual building societies is made secure.
  5.31 pm
  The Paymaster General (Mr. Geoffrey Robinson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) on an outstanding maiden speech. Her seriousness of approach and the tone and subject of her speech stand in marked contradistinction to those of her predecessor, whose sartorial colour exceeded his sense and whose verbal noise at times exceeded his wisdom. She has already shown herself to be a different proposition, and we are reassured that she intends to train her guns on the Opposition and not on her own troops. We remember how effective her campaign for Guy's hospital was, and hope that she will continue in that constructive vein.
  I also welcome to the debate my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown), in whose constituency the headquarters of Nationwide building society are situated. As she rightly said, Nationwide is the subject of considerable speculation. I read in one of the Sunday newspapers about some eccentric proposals from Mr. Michael Harden.
  Before I reply to the questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North, I must say to both my hon. Friends that, under present legislation, it is up to the members of the society to decide their own future, and there is no immediate or realistic prospect of changing that. I hope that those members who are listening or who read the proceedings of this most appropriately initiated Adjournment debate will take careful note of what my hon. Friends have said about how societies should conduct their affairs. But for the moment it is down to the members and likely to remain so.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North asked three questions. She asked me to consider the long-term effects of conversions on customers, on home ownership and on savings, especially for people on lower incomes. We shall certainly examine that, but she should

  653
  be reassured that the experience to date has not been discouraging. Abbey National, which was the first mutual society to convert, has largely maintained its customer profile. If one thinks about it, it would be strange if it did not, because that is where its expertise lies and where its customer base is, and unless, for some unknown and perverse reason, it is intent on cutting off its nose to spite its face, it is where the base of its business will continue to lie. Therefore, the experience to date is good.
  I am also pleased to say that the Halifax and Woolwich, which are in the process of converting, have said that they intend to follow that example and will not depart from the principles and practice of business that have served them so well in the past. We shall certainly keep the matter under review, but the evidence to date is encouraging.
  My hon. Friend asked me to examine individual savings accounts. Our manifesto referred to ways of encouraging saving schemes that embody the mutual principles. My hon. Friend said that we should ensure that individual savings accounts are accessible to low-income earners in particular. That is of the essence when one thinks of the mutual principles, and is very much at the heart of our thinking. The whole idea is to encourage saving among those who do not have most to save and who are not most naturally inclined to do so. That is an essential element of the proposals for individual savings accounts, which I am sure we shall introduce in the not-too-distant future.
  My hon. Friend's third question was whether we would commit ourselves to—or review our attitude towards—the long-term benefits that building societies offer. We are only too well aware of the advantages that societies provide. They no longer dominate the mortgage and savings markets as they once did, but they provide a crucial element of competition. Week after week, societies continue to feature strongly among the best buys in the personal finance sections of the press for borrowers and savers. That is why, when we were in opposition, we participated fully in the all-party agreement to get the Building Societies Act 1997 on the statute book. We cannot prevent conversions, but we can push in a certain direction, and that legislation enables building societies to have greater operational flexibility while remaining mutual. By encouraging best practice, we can meet the objectives that my hon. Friends are anxious we should achieve.
  Ms Drown: The Minister referred to the way in which converted building societies retain their value for their customers. In the press this weekend, I noted some surveys of staff who were employed in building societies that had converted to banks. The staff thought that the culture had changed and that the customer is no longer the pivotal focus of the institutions' concerns. That is quite worrying. We support building societies because we feel that the customer should be retained as the focus of the institution.
  Mr. Robinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to those surveys. I am sure that, in turn, we can draw her remarks to the attention of the managements of the mutual societies that are in the process of conversion and of Abbey National, which has already converted. The purpose of the debate is to air those issues and to stress how important it is for the inherent advantages and principles of mutual societies to be continued even after conversion.
  654
  Building societies of the future will be the safe homes for savings and the trusted providers of mortgages that they have always been. However, the 1997 Act will enable them to indulge in a wider range of financial and other services. There are certain restrictions, such as derivatives, but, given the Barings experience, it is probably just as well to keep out of that. Even with those restrictions, societies could do a great deal more while remaining mutual and retaining the benefits that mutual status implies. Arrangements in the 1997 Act should ensure that the essential focus does not change. Institutions will be concerned predominantly with residential mortgage lending, which, in the future as in the past, will be funded in part by the savings of their members. They will remain committed to the home loans market at all times.
  One of the other principal objectives of the legislation that was introduced earlier in the year, when we were in opposition, was to ensure that building societies did not drift in and out as economic conditions changed, as other banks do, but would remain committed to residential mortgage lending, financed, at least in part, by the savings of their members.
  I hope that both my hon. Friends will be pleased to hear that the Act has done nothing to remove the substantial hurdles that must be overcome by those who choose to leave the sector. The five-year protection from takeover will disappear if building societies, having converted from mutual status, mount hostile takeovers of companies that wish to remain mutual societies. Although neither of my hon. Friends raised that point, it is very much in the mind of Nationwide, whose headquarters are in Swindon and which has a subsidiary headquarters in Northampton.
  As every building society will say, building societies are in business for the good of their members. As mutuals, they can have no other aim. Over the years, they have prided themselves on providing high levels of service, innovative products and attractive and competitive rates. Many have grown from small local organisations serving a few hundred people to regional and, in some cases, national operations with millions of members. It is not possible to do that without meeting a real public need, and meeting it in an effective and efficient way.
  There is no reason why societies should not continue to build on their past success. The markets in which they operate are as vital as they ever were, and the legislation that the House passed only a few months ago means that they can respond to new challenges with a freedom and flexibility that they have never enjoyed before.
  I hope that, following the debate, societies that wish to remain mutual will consider their future to have been enhanced. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North on raising the matter, and also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon on her speech. The immediate future of building societies must, however, be in their own hands. The House has given them a new and unprecedented opportunity, and I am sure that we all wish them well.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Six o'clock.

TREASURY

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Townend
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the Government's long-term targets for the percentage of Gross Domestic Product which public expenditure constitutes. [3355]

  Mr. Darling
  The Government is currently undertaking a comprehensive review of public expenditure and will determine its plans in the light of the findings and the prospects for the economy generally.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to change the convention which governs what capital spending by local authorities is included in the public spending total. [3251]

  Mr. Darling
  I have no plans to change the definition of local authority capital spending in General Government Expenditure. The definition is consistent with international statistical conventions as laid down in the European System of accounts (ESA).

  Tax Bands
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current starting rate of income tax and the width of the lowest tax band in each member state of the European Union. [3452]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information is given in the table. It is based on OECD information for 1995 or 1995–96 tax years, the latest for which comprehensive information is available. The income figures relate to earned income of single taxpayers and have been converted to £ sterling using 1995 OECD purchasing power parity figures.

  Starting rate of central government income tax %

  Income band for starting rate £

  Tax threshold for single person £

  Austria

  10

  0–2,380

  6,980

  Belgium1

  25

  0–4,500

  4,830

  Denmark2

  13

  2,300–10,160

  2,780

  Finland3

  7

  4,680–6,470

  5,140

  France

  12

  2,290–5,000

  3,910

  Germany4

  19

  1,820–2,640

  3,800

  Greece

  5

  3,220–8,050

  3,830

  Ireland

  27

  2,580–9,170

  3,810

  Italy

  10

  0–2,860

  3,460

  Luxembourg

  10

  4,100–5,890

  6,010

  Netherlands

  6.15

  1,960–14,290

  1,980

  Portugal

  15

  0–5,330

  3,340

  Spain

  20

  2,220–3,320

  4,630

  Sweden5

  see note

  0–13,700

  0

  344

  Starting rate of central government income tax %

  Income band for starting rate £

  Tax threshold for single person £

  United Kingdom

  20

  3,525–6,725

  3,525

  Notes:

  1Central income tax subject to surcharge of 3 per cent. in 1995. Local income taxes, averaging 7 per cent. of central tax (before surcharge) are also charged.

  2Local income tax at average rate of 30.6 per cent. is charged in addition to 13 per cent. central rate.

  3Local and church taxes at average rate of 18.8 per cent. are also charged and operate at a lower tax threshold than central tax.

  4Excludes solidarity surcharge (7.5 per cent. of tax) and church tax (9 per cent. of tax).

  5All taxpayers with any employment income pay tax at a flat rate of about £7 a year. Apart from this, central government tax is only charged on incomes above £13,700 at a rate of 25 per cent. However, local income tax, at an average rate of 31.5 per cent., is charged on all incomes above £610.

  Computers (Millennium Date Change)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost(a) to the Treasury and (b) to public expenditure throughout Government of making the adaptations to computer programmes required by the change to the year 2000. [3540]

  Mr. Darling
  The Treasury and other Government departments are producing, by October 1997, fully costed plans for undertaking the work needed.

  The cost of the work will be met from within the published departmental expenditure plans for 1997–98 and 1998–99.

  Capital Gains
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he defines short-term capital gains. [3364]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 3 June, column 152.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will report the Government's response to Mr. Malcolm Bates's review of the Private Finance Initiative; and if he will make a statement. [5392]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  I am today placing in the Members' Library a summary of the Bates review and a list of all its recommendations. It is a thorough piece of work for which the Government is most grateful. It builds upon the 12 Point Plan for Partnership originally published in the Labour Policy's Business Manifesto.

  The Government promised to re-invigorate the PFI and that is what we have done. Malcolm Bates has applied a businessman's mind to this policy and produced specific recommendations which we accept in full as an agenda for action.

  The review says that the PFI can secure improved value for money when handled well. But the public sector structure must be simplified and responsibilities made entirely clear.
  345
  Departments and agencies must be accountable for their own procurement decisions. However, it identifies a temporary need for a strong central input to help ensure delivery of quality transactions that provide a sound basis for future business.

  To meet this need, we will, as recommended, create a new Treasury Private Finance Taskforce—combining central project and policy expertise. Its Chief Executive on the projects side will report direct to me. We will make an appointment in due course.

  This individual will focus on the quality of PFI transactions. He will be supported by 6–8 Executives from the private sector with direct project management experience and financial skills. Until now, the Treasury has been involved too late in the process, leading to frustration and increased costs. The Taskforce will help central government departments and agencies road-test significant projects for their commercial viability before procurement begins.

  The Taskforce's policy side will also have its hands full. The review includes specific recommendations to produce rapidly more standardised documentation for key stages of the procurement process. The Government wants greater certainty wherever it can be provided to help reduce bidding costs.

  The Private Finance Panel will be stood down. I have written to all members today thanking them for their past contribution. The review acknowledges the immense value that high calibre members made in freely giving their time to meet key players, speak at conferences, write articles and support a growing band of Executives. However, it concluded that their on-going role was unclear and that there was a need to simplify organisational structures.

  The recommendation to strengthen departmental Private Finance Units alongside the new Treasury Taskforce also takes away the need for the Private Finance Panel Executive. The Government accepts the Review recommendation that it should be disbanded by the end of September. Opportunities will, of course, exist within the new structure for those individuals currently with the Executive who have the skills and experience now required.

  The agenda for action is detailed, practical and full of common sense. It will be welcomed as long overdue by companies and departments who have struggled for two long under previous management.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Arms Exports
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions were held between the British and German Governments prior to granting a license allowing the export of Henckler Koch MP5 sub-machine guns to Indonesia in 1995. [2776]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I am not aware of any such discussions.

  COPEX Exhibition, Farnborough
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will identify by name,346
  rank and unit, the Indonesian (i) military, (ii) security, (iii) police, (iv) paramilitary or (v) special forces personnel invited by the British Government to attend the forthcoming COPEX Exhibition at Farnborough in September 1997. [3585]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence on 18 June, column 217.

  Defence Equipment Exhibition, Farnborough
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the visas granted to Indonesian(a) military, (b) security, (c) police, (d) paramilitary and (e) special forces personnel invited by the British Government or private companies to attend the forthcoming Royal Navy and British Army Equipment Exhibition at Farnborough in September. [3588]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have not been asked to issue visas specifically for Indonesians attending the RNBAEE 97 at Farnborough.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will identify by name, rank and unit, such Indonesian(a) military, (b) security, (c) police, (d) paramilitary and (e) special forces personnel invited by the British Government to attend the forthcoming Royal Navy and British Army Equipment Exhibition at Farnborough in September 1997. [3584]

  Mr. Spellar
  The following Indonesian personnel have been invited to attend this year's Royal Navy and British Army Equipment Exhibition:

  General Tanjung (Commander In Chief Indonesian Armed Forces);

  General Wiranto (Chief of Staff Army);

  Admiral Kushariadi (Chief of Staff Navy).

  BBC World Service
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received on the jamming of BBC World Service broadcasts; and if he will make a statement. [4165]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  None recently. We deplore all attempts to jam World Service broadcasts and make representations to the Governments concerned.

  Departmental Wages
  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time persons employed by his Department and its agencies are paid (i) less than £4 an hour, (ii) less than £3.50 an hour and (iii) less than £3 an hour. [4191]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Full Time Staff: Two persons are employed earning less than £4 per hour. Four persons are employed earning less than £3.50 per hour. One person is employed by this Department's Executive Agency (Wilton Park) earning less than £3.50 per hour.
  347
  Part Time Staff: One person is employed earning less than £3.50 per hour. No staff earn less than £3 per hour. Earnings quoted take account of 1997 pay award. In all these cases, staff are employed outside London are not eligible for Recruitment and Retention Allowance.

  Disability Discrimination (European Union)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is he will introduce proposals to revise the treaty on European Union so as to(a) introduce a general power at a European level to outlaw discrimination against disabled people in policy areas where the European Union has competence under the treaty and (b) introduce a change to article 100a of the treaty on European Union so that all proposals put forward to regulate the internal market take into account the needs of disabled people. [3617]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 18 June 1997]: At the Amsterdam European Council, we supported Article 6a allowing the Community to combat discrimination on grounds of disability. We also tabled a Declaration attached to Article 100a, calling on the institutions of the Community to take the needs of the disabled into account when framing internal market legislation. Both measures were adopted.

  Polygraphs
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what use his Department makes of polygraphs; and if he will make a statement. [4584]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  This Department does not make use of polygraphs and has no plans to do so.

  Kenya
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans next to visit Kenya. [4874]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has no immediate plans to visit Kenya. I will pay an official visit there from 25 to 27 June 1997.

  Nuclear Arms
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken to promote nuclear disarmament; and if he will make a statement. [4406]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We have made clear our commitment to the goal of the global elimination of nuclear weapons and determination to press for multilateral negotiations towards mutual, balanced and verifiable reductions in such weapons. We will be considering how best to implement these commitments, particularly in the context of the Strategic Defence Review.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact of the International Court of Justice ruling on nuclear arms on United Kingdom policy; and if he will make a statement. [4758]
  348
  Mr. Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave on 22 May to the honourable Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) column 135–36.

  Antarctic Treaty Secretariat
  Mr. Corybn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made on the siting of a secretariat for the Antarctic treaty; and if he will make a statement. [4413]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  There is as yet no consensus amongst the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties on the location of the Treaty Secretariat. We are reviewing our policy in the light of developments at the recent Antarctic Treaty meeting in Christchurch.

  Rockall
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out the legal basis for his Department's assertion that Rockkall is part of the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [4414]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  British sovereignty over Rockall was proclaimed in 1955. It was confirmed by the subsequent passing of the Island of Rockall Act 1972 which made Rockall part of Scotland.

  NATO Expansion
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his estimate of the costs of NATO expansion to include Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic on the defence budgets of those countries and no other NATO members separately identifying the costs to the United Kingdom. [4403]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Twelve countries have applied to join NATO.

  No decision has been taken on which countries will accede to NATO membership. The costs of enlargement, which fall both on the countries which join and on existing members of the Alliance and which will be incurred over a long period, will depend on that decision. Subject to that caveat, we expect the costs of enlargement to be manageable.

  The US Government report to Congress in February 1997 gives an estimate of the direct additional costs of NATO enlargement of between $9 billion to £2 billion.

  Qualified Majority Voting
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the various areas of extension of qualified majority voting under the Amsterdam treaty. [5026]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Presidency text on the extension of qualified majority voting (QMV) agreed at Amsterdam is below.

  There will also be QMV for implementing decisions under the Common Foreign and Security Policy as provided for by Article J13. However a Member State may prevent a vote from being taken for important and stated reasons of national interest, whereupon the decision may be referred to the European Council for decision by unanimity.
  349
  The flexibility provisions in Articles 5a and K12 are also subject to qualified majority voting. However a similar national veto mechanism applies. The new Articles B (2) (b) (i) and (iii) in the new chapter on free movement of persons, asylum and immigration shall also be subject to QMV. The UK will not be obliged to take part in cooperation under this chapter.

  Qualified majority voting

  Area

  New Treaty provisions

  Article 4, new Title on Employment

  Employment guidelines

  Article 5, new Title on Employment

  Incentive measures

  Article 118(2)

  Social exclusion

  Article 119(3)

  Equality of opportunity and treatment of men and women

  Article 129(4)

  Public health

  Article 191a

  Transparency

  Article 209a

  Countering fraud

  Article 213a

  Statistics

  Article 213b

  Establishment of independent advisory authority on data protection

  Article 227(2)

  Outermost regions

  New Article

  Customs cooperation

  Existing Treaty provisions

  Article 45(3)

  Compensatory aid for imports of raw materials

  Article 56(2)

  Coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action for special treatment for foreign nationals (right of establishment)

  Article 130i(1)

  Adoption of the research framework programme

  Article 130i(2)

  Adapting or supplementing the research framework programme

  Article 130o

  Setting up of joint undertakings in R&T development

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  BSE-infected Material (Disposal)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the arrangements for the future disposal of BSE-infected carcases. [2825]

  Mr. Rooker
  It will continue to be the Ministry's practice to use incineration wherever feasible to dispose of cattle suspected of having BSE.

  Abattoirs (Licences)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the criteria by which abattoirs are licensed by the Intervention Board to slaughter cattle under the 30 month scheme. [3933]

  Mr. Rooker
  Abattoirs wishing to slaughter cattle qualifying for the Over Thirty Month Slaughter Scheme are currently being selected by competitive tender. The evaluation criteria are set out in the invitation to tender. They include compliance with statutory requirements, quality of service, geographical location and price.

  BSE
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if it is his policy that all cows born in a given BSE-infected cohort within a given herd, regardless of the location of subsequent rearing, should be culled in any case where one or more cows in such a cohort are culled under the selective cull scheme. [3916]

  Mr. Rooker
  The scientific basis of the cull is that animals which ate the same feed as BSE cases in the first six months of their lives are likely to be at risk of exposure to infection through that feed. Any such exposed animals which have been sold from the natal herd will be traced as far as possible. Those animals found alive will be restricted and slaughtered.

  We intend also to include animals which were reared together in their first six months of life, irrespective of where they were born, provided we can be reasonably sure that it was there, rather than in the natal herd, that exposure to infection took place. We are currently seeking agreement from the European Commission that to do so would be in line with the relevant EC legislation.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when his Department first contacted other member states of the EU advising them that BSE-contaminated feed should be removed from farms. [4282]

  Mr. Rooker
  The measures which Member States should take in order to avoid the feeding of BSE contaminated feed were discussed with representatives of the Commission and the other Member Stases in the Standing Veterinary Committee of 18–19 July 1989.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the dates on which farmers were advised by their national authorities to dispose of BSE-contaminated feed, in respect of each member state in the EU which imported such feed from the UK. [4285]

  Mr. Rooker
  Advice given by the authorities of the other Member States to their farmers is a matter of national competence and we do not have records of such advice.

  Swine Fever
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to ensure that the United Kingdom's EU partners take steps to eradicate classical swine fever; and if he will make a statement on the extent of classical swine fever in other EU countries. [3920]

  Mr. Rooker
  European Community legislation lays down requirements for the control and eradication of classical swine fever within the territory of a Member State and to prevent the spread of the disease from one Member State to another. Classical swine fever is currently present in Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and Spain. The situation is being kept under continuous review by the EC Standing Veterinary Committee (SVC), on which the UK is represented. The SVC may adopt additional ad hoc safeguard measures which they believe are necessary to consolidate existing control and eradication measures.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what notification his Department has received from British Nuclear Fuels in respect of increases in the discharge of radioactive waste materials from Sellafield. [3820]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department receives routine discharge data from BNFL at Sellafield within three months of the end of the appropriate accounting period. In circumstances where a unusually high discharge occurs, the information is passed rapidly, as soon as it is available. Routine discharges are authorised by the Environment Agency. There are statutory powers to protect the safety of food, should it in any way be compromised.

  Beef Imports
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice he has received on the legality, under EU law, of a unilateral ban on imports of European beef into the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [3793]

  Mr. Rooker
  We have not sought advice on the legality of a unilateral ban on imports of European beef since we are not proposing to introduce such a ban. The announcement made on 5 June by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food,Official Report, columns 227–8, related to a proposal to apply current UK controls on specified bovine material to imported as well as home produced beef.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what mechanisms for monitoring standards in overseas slaughterhouses his Department has evaluated in connection with its consideration of an import ban on beef from slaughterhouses not meeting United Kingdom standards; and what conclusions have been reached. [4137]

  Mr. Rooker
  No import ban on beef from slaughterhouses not meeting UK standards is under consideration.

  All fresh meat imported into the UK, whether from other Member States or third countries, must have been produced in accordance with harmonised Community rules laid down in Council Directive 64/433/EEC as amended, on health conditions for the production and marketing of fresh meat.

  These rules require that, amongst other things, all fresh meat which is intended for human consumption fulfils the required public health standards. As far as slaughterhouses are concerned, they must be approved as meeting the requirements of the Directive and all meat leaving the slaughterhouse must bear a health mark. The inspection, approval and monitoring of slaughterhouses in third countries is the respnsibility of the European Commission. The inspection, approval and monitoring of slaughterhouses in Member States is the responsibility of the competent authority of the Member State concerned, although the Commission make on-site checks to ensure uniform application of the Directive.
  352
  Following advice from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, however, and in the absence of EU wide rules on the removal and disposal of specified bovine material (SBM), we are now consulting on proposals which would mean that our requirement to remove and dispose of SBM would apply not only to cattle which have died or been slaughtered in the UK, but also to bovine material which has been imported into this country. This is not an import ban.

  Hunt Kennels
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those hunt kennels which the State Veterinary Service has assessed to be unsatisfactory under the BSE enforcement programme, since 1 January. [3826]

  Mr. Rooker
  The State Veterinary Service (SVS) makes monthly unannounced visits to hunt kennels handling specified bovine material to audit the controls under the Specified Bovine Material Order 1997. Those premises at which failings were found during such visits since 1 January 1997 are listed below. The fact that failures have occurred does not necessarily mean that there is a risk to public health. Visits may be recorded as unsatisfactory for a variety of reasons, including minor, technical and short-lived problems. Following an unsatisfactory visit the operator of the premises is required to take immediate remedial action. A further unannounced visit is made shortly afterwards to check that this has been carried out.

  List of hunt kennels that the SVS has assessed to be unsatisfactory since 1 January 1997

  Sandhurst and Aldershot Beagles

  Wishton Cottage

  RMA Sandhurst

  Camberley

  Surrey

  Belvoir Hunt Kennels

  Woolsthorpe by Belvoir

  Grantham

  Lincolnshire

  NG31 6QG

  Puckeridge Hunt

  Brent Pelham Hall

  Buntingford

  Hertfordshire

  Holderness Hunt Kennels

  Main Street

  Etton

  Beverley

  North Humberside

  HU17 7PG

  The Chiddingfold Leconfield and Cowdray Foxhounds

  The Hunt Kennels

  Petworth

  West Sussex

  Bramham Moor Hunt Kennels

  Hope Hall

  Bramham Moor

  Bramham

  Boston Spa

  West Yorkshire

  353

  Pennine Foxhounds

  Upper Snape Farm

  Harder Mill Road

  Meltham

  Huddersfield

  West Yorkshire

  Llangibby Foxhounds

  Hunt Kennels

  Llangibby

  Usk

  Gwent

  Devon and Somerset Stag Hounds

  The Kennels

  Exford

  Minehead

  Somerset

  The Kennels

  Brocklsby park

  Habrough

  South Humberside

  DN37 8PJ

  Zetland Hunt Kennels

  The Kennels

  Aldborough St. John

  Richmond

  Surrey

  Tedworth Foxhounds

  The Kennels

  Westcourt

  Burbage

  Marlborough

  Wiltshire

  SN8 3BW

  Number of staff less than £4/hour

  Full-time Number of staff less than £3.50/hour

  Number of staff less than £3/hour

  Number of staff less than £4/hour

  Part-time Number of staff less than £3.50/hour

  Number of staff less than £3/hour

  Core MAFF

  606

  55

  0

  33

  0

  0

  CEFAS

  13

  2

  0

  0

  4

  0

  PSD

  8

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  VMD

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  FRCA

  8

  5

  0

  2

  1

  0

  VLA

  27

  0

  0

  7

  0

  0

  MHS

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  CSL

  2

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Total

  669

  67

  0

  43

  5

  0

  The figures in the left-hand columns do not incorporate the totals from the other columns.

  The above figures reflect 1996–97 salaries as the 1997 pay reviews have not yet been implemented.

  Genetically Modified Food
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which countries require the labelling as such of genetically modified food. [4283]

  Mr. Rooker
  There are currently no internationally harmonised rules for labelling genetically modified (GM) foods. The main producers of these, the United States, Canada and Japan, do not require them to be labelled as such. In Europe, Germany, Austria, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands and ourselves have all operated rules or guidelines governing the labelling of these materials for
  354

  Stevenstone Foxhounds

  The Old Kennels

  Torrington Station

  Torrington

  Devon

  Pentyrch Hunt Kennels

  The Kennels

  Twyncoed Road

  Pentyrch

  Cardiff

  Mid Glamorgan

  Modbury Harriers

  The Kennels Flete

  Ermington

  Ivybridge

  Devon

  South Shropshire Hunt

  Annscroft

  Shrewsbury

  Shropshire

  SY5 8AA

  Departmental Wages
  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many,(a) full-time and (b) part-time persons employed by his Department and its agencies are paid (i) less than £4 an hour, (ii) less than £3.50 an hour and (ii) less than £3 an hour. [4189]

  Mr. Morley
  Staff in the Department are salaried and are not paid by the hour. However, I am able to provide a breakdown based on salary levels divided by normal full-time working hours of 36 hours per week in London or 37 hours elsewhere. This is set out in the table below.

  some time. As from 15 May, these were superseded by the labelling requirements of the EC Novel Foods Regulation (258/97) and we shall be pressing to ensure that the application of these leads to all foods being labelled if they contain GM material regardless of whether or not they have been segregated from conventional materials at an earlier stage in the food chain.

  Beef Farmers
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will raise the 30 month cull limit to 36 months, with special reference to beef farmers using traditional, extensive grass-based systems. [3051]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer given on 19 June 1997]: No. The Beef Assurance Scheme already provides for eligible animals aged to and including 42 months to be sold for human consumption. Eligible animals are those

  355
  from specialist, mainly grass reared beef herds in which no case of BSE has ever occurred and in which the risk of BSE occurring in the future is considered very low.

  Cod Liver Oil (Toxin Levels)
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the results of the official survey of the toxin levels in code liver oil supplements. [4992]

  Mr. Rooker
  The results of the MAFF survey for dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in fish oil dietary supplements and licensed medicines were announced on 14 May 1997 by the Chief Medical Officer, Sir Kenneth Calman. Further details are available from MAFF on request and are also on the Internet.

  Rabies
  Mr. Malin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if his officials have completed the review of rabies policy options begun in October 1996; and when he expects to publish the report; [5027]

  (2) when he expects to publish the Green Paper on Rabies policy reform. [5028]

  Mr. Rooker
  The review referred to by the hon. Member was a matter for the previous Government. However, we are reviewing whether alternatives to quarantine might give equal or better protection against rabies. We would expect to consult at some point on this, but decisions on when and how to do so have yet to be taken.

DEFENCE

  Army (Buy-outs)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers bought themselves out of the Army in each year since 1992. [4861]

  Dr. Reid
  The number of soldiers who have bought themselves out of the Army in each year since 1992 is as follows:

  Financial year

  Trained soldiers outflow (premature voluntary release by purchase)

  Outflow of recruits (on payment)

  Total soldier outflow (on payment)

  1991–92

  2,465

  1,118

  3,583

  1992–93

  2,130

  1,038

  3,168

  1993–94

  1,727

  797

  2,524

  1994–95

  1,603

  869

  2,472

  1995–96

  1,410

  815

  2,225

  1996–97

  821

  1,219

  2,040

  Total

  10,156

  5,856

  16,012

  Polygraph
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what use his Department makes of the polygraph; and if he will make a statement. [4582]

  Dr. Reid
  My Department does not use the polygraph and has no plans to do so.

  Pay and Personnel Agency
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what performance targets have been set for the Pay and Personnel Agency for 1997–98. [4917]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Chief Executive of the Pay and Personnel Agency (PPA) is responsible for providing pay and personnel services for the Ministry of Defence as defined in the Agency Framework Document. During 1997-98, the PPA will be set the following challenging key performance targets:

  1.

  (a) While making 100 per cent. of payments of pay by the due date, the number of errors not to exceed 12 per 1,000 payments of weekly industrial pay.

  (b) While making 100 per cent. of payments of pay by the due date, the number of errors not to exceed six per 1,000 payments of monthly non-industrial pay.

  (c) While authorising 100 per cent. of awards of pensions by the due date, the number of errors not to exceed 20 per 1,000 awards.

  (d) While making 100 per cent. of payments of expenses within 10 working days of receipts, the number of errors not to exceed 15 per 1,000 payments.

  (e) To pay 100 per cent. of claims for fees and personal payments within nine working days of receipt.

  2. By 31 August 1997 to introduce methods of measuring how well its services meet the customers' needs, building on the findings of the customer satisfaction study report completed in December 1996.

  3. By 31 March 1998 to achieve efficiency savings to meet at least the Departmental target of 2 per cent. efficiency savings of annual operating costs.

  4. To publish by 31 March 1998 a business case setting out the options available from potential private sector partners, in comparison with the cost of providing services from agency resources.

  5. By 31 March 1998 to introduce a new personnel information system.

  Prince Consort Library, Aldershot
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Prince Consort Library in the Aldershot Garrison and its contents. [4616]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding reply Friday 20 June 1997]: My Department is currently considering a number of options for the co-location within the United Kingdom of the Army Command Libraries, including the Prince Consort's Library at Aldershot. No decision has yet been taken.

  US Nuclear Bases
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the costs to public funds of cleaning up the former United States nuclear bases; what is his estimate of the costs to the US authorities of thee operations; and if he will make a statement. [4407]
  357
  Mr. Spellar
  Remediation will normally be undertaken on MoD land if there is a significant risk to health and safety or the environment, for instance where contamination poses a threat to individuals, water courses or neighbouring property. No special arrangements apply to bases formerly occupied by US forces. No significant costs incurred to date on their remediation have been identified. The Environment Act 1995 may impose additional remediation responsibilities on landowners and new enforcement arrangements, but the full implications for MoD land, including any formerly occupied by US forces, cannot yet be assessed.

  Training Land
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) the number of landowners making their land available for training on private land and (b) the number of hectares they make available, adjacent to (i) Salisbury Plain training area, (ii) Otterburn training area and (iii) Sennybridge training area; and by what percentage training land is extended by the availability of training on private land in each of the three areas. [4750]

  Mr. Spellar
  The type of training undertaken on private land will usually differ from that conducted on MoD training areas: for example, training on Salisbury Plain training area is primarily armoured training whereas that on adjacent private land will not involve armoured vehicles. Training on private land cannot therefore be regarded as a simple extension of training on adjacent MoD land. The quantity and locations of training on private land will also vary from year to year. Subject to these qualifications, in the past 12 months, the figures requested have been as follows:

  a. Number of landowners making their land available:

  (i) Areas adjacent to Salisbury Plain training area (SPTA): 77

  (ii) Areas adjacent to Otterburn training area (OTA): 21

  (iii) Areas adjacent to Sennybridge training area (SENTA): 2

  b. Numbers of hectares made available:

  (i) Areas adjacent to Salisbury Plain training areas (SPTA): 10,000ha approximately

  (ii) Areas adjacent to Otterburn training areas (OTA): 675ha approximately

  (iii) Areas adjacent to Sennybridge training area (SENTA): 3ha approximately

  c. Private land made available as a percentage of adjacent MoD training land:

  (i) Areas adjacent to Salisbury Plain training areas (SPTA): 25 per cent. of SPTA

  (ii) Areas adjacent to Otterburn training area (OTA): 2.9 per cent. of OTA

  (iii) Areas adjacent to Sennybridge training area (SENTA): less than 0.1 per cent. of SENTA

  Note: Private land adjacent to SENTA has been used for access only rather than manoeuvres.

  Diversification Agency
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action his Department is taking to establish a defence diversification agency; and if he will make a statement. [4754]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon),Official Report, 16 June, col. 11.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to publish the estimates for defence expenditure; and if he will make a statement. [4756]

  Dr. Reid
  Estimates of defence expenditure in the current financial year are contained in "Supply Estimates 1997–98: Main Estimates", which were published in March this year. As I explained in my written reply to the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife, (Mr. Campbell) on 3 June,Official Report, column 121), we do not intend this year to publish a forward looking statement of policy in the form of a Statement on the Defence Estimates (SDE). Factual material on the activities of my Department and the Armed Forces in the last year, which is usually contained in the SDE, will however, appear in an expanded MOD Performance Report which the Department plans to publish in the Autumn.

  European Fighter Aircraft
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the total cost of the European fighter aircraft project; and what proportion of these costs will be borne by the United Kingdom. [4405]

  Mr. Spellar
  The estimated procurement cost of the Eurofighter projet is £41.6 billion. As I told my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) on 2 June,Official Report, column 14, up to 31 March 1997 the UK's expenditure on the Eurofighter programme totalled £2.7 billion. Future UK procurement expenditure is currently estimated at £12.7 billion. Figures are at average 1996–97 prices.

  Trident
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 16 June,Official Report, column 3, if he will give a breakdown of the annual operating cost of Trident; and if he will estimate future capital expenditure on the project. [4759]

  Dr. Reid
  It is too early in the life of the Trident programme accurately to assess operating costs but we estimate them to be in the order of £200 million per annum over a 30 year in-service life. This estimate encompasses manpower and related costs, refits of the submarines, stores and transport costs, a share of the running costs of shore facilities, an element of the costs of the Atomic Weapons Establishment, in-service support of the submarines and their weapon systems and decommissioning and disposal costs. Estimated future capital expenditure on the project is as stated by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Defence in his answer of 16 June,Official Report, column 3.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the operational purpose of the Trident nuclear missile system. [4416]

  Dr. Reid
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 16 June 1997 to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones),Official Report, column 81.
  359
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost of keeping the Trident fleet(a) on 24 hour patrol and (b) on stand by. [4757]

  Dr. Reid
  Figures are not available in the form requested.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the ordering of a fifth Trident submarine. [4417]

  Mr. Spellar
  We have no such plans.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the report from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament concerning the costs of Trident, a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement. [5025]

  Dr. Reid
  We are not aware of a recent report from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament concerning the costs of Trident. We have, however, recently received a number of letters and postcards on this subject. Our latest estimate of the total acquisition cost of the Trident programme is £12.57 billion at 1996–97 economic conditions, over £3.6 billion less in real terms than the original 1982 estimate. Operating costs are estimated to be some £200 million per annum over a 30 year in-service life.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for a nuclear weapons system to replace Trident; and if he will make a statement. [4408]

  Mr. Spellar
  Decisions on a successor to Trident would not be needed for a number of years. They could be taken in the light of progress towards our goal of verifiable global nuclear disarmament.

  Beef
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what volume of beef and beef products was purchased by his Department in 1996 and what percentage originated(a) in the United Kingdom, (b) in Germany, (c) in other European Union countries and (d) in non-European Union countries. [4654]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 20 June 1997]: Approximately 1.25 million kilograms of beef is purchased annually by my Department. This figure excludes beef in finished products for which figures are not readily available. Purchase records are not kept in sufficient detail to allow the identification of the percentage of beef originating from the particular trading areas requested, but the majority is known to come from non-European countries.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  WPC Yvonne Fletcher
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 10 June,Official Report, column 388, on WPC Yvonne Fletcher, what is the result of the review of the contents of the programme by the Metropolitan police. [3782]
  360
  Mr. Straw
  The Metropolitan Police are continuing their review. This involves a good deal of detailed analysis of the extensive documentation already generated by their investigation. They expect to have completed their analysis by the end of September 1997.

  Immigration (Detention Policy)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the scope of the general review of the Government's immigration detention policy; what the time scale is for the review; and whether external organisations will be consulted. [3939]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The review is being conducted internally in the Home Office. Its scope is wide ranging to cover all aspects of immigration detention policy. We expect the results to be available later in the summer. External organisations have been informed that the review is taking place.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time persons employed by his Department and its agencies are paid (i) less than £4 an hour, (ii) less than £3.50 an hour and (iii) less than £3 an hour. [4196]

  Mr. Straw
  The information for the core Home Office and its Agencies, based on gross hours and on basic pay, is as follows:Full-time

  (i) less than £4 per hour = 828

  (ii) less than £3.50 per hour = 459

  (iii) less than £3 per hour = nil

  Part-time

  (i) less than £4 per hour = 329

  (ii) less than £3.50 per hour = 12

  (iii) less than £3 per hour = nil

  Allowances in regular payment (for example, London Weighting) reduce these totals as follows:
  Full-time

  (i) less than £4 per hour = 449

  (ii) less than £3.50 per hour = 304

  (iii) less than £3 per hour = nil

  Part-time

  (i) less than £4 per hour = 6

  (ii) less than £3.50 per hour = 8

  (iii) less than £3 per hour = nil

  Land Development (Wandsworth)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans his Department has to develop land adjacent to Wandsworth Prison; if Wandsworth Council has been fully informed of these proposals; and if he will make a statement. [4439]

  Ms Joyce Quin
  It is proposed to provide a stores building, a pre-release hostel, a visitors' centre and a 125-place car park on the land adjacent to Wandsworth prison. These proposals were discussed at a meeting with Wandsworth Council prior to an application for outline planning permission being submitted on 1 May.

  Sexual Offences
  Mr. Kemp
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the ratio of reported sexual attacks and offences to population in(a) designated new towns and (b) other towns of similar size. [4467]

  Mr. Michael
  Information on recorded crime in England and Wales is collated centrally only on the basis of police force areas. Individual police forces do collate more localised data but this would not necessarily equate to new town boundaries.

  Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act 1997
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made in preparing the necessary statutory instruments for the Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act 1997. [4865]

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to implement the Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act 1997. [4604]

  Deaths (Proscribed Drugs)
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many deaths arising from overdoses of a proscribed drug there were in each of the last five years for which figures are available by type of drug. [4840]

  Mr. Michael
  Summary statistics of deaths involving controlled drugs are given in the table. It is not possible to determine accurately which of these were caused by drug overdoses. Fuller details, including the type of drug involved, are contained in tables 17, 18 and 19 of the following Home Office Statistical Bulletins—issue 6/92, "Statistics of drug addicts notified to the Home Office, United Kingdom, 1991"; issue 15/93, "Statistics of drug addicts notified to the Home Office, United Kingdom, 1992"; issue 10/94, "Statistics of drug addicts notified to the Home Office, United Kingdom, 1993"; issue 15/95, "Statistics of drug addicts notified to the Home Office, United Kingdom, 1995". Copies of these publications are in the Library.

  United Kingdom

  Number of deaths

  Underlying cause of death

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Drug dependence and non-dependent abuse of drugs1

  294

  307

  345

  322

  489

  Deaths from poisoning where a controlled drug was mentioned2 Accidental

  233

  255

  327

  358

  442

  Suicide

  440

  433

  400

  340

  334

  Undetermined

  262

  295

  274

  252

  243

  AIDS

  55

  79

  82

  107

  112

  Total

  1,284

  1,369

  1,428

  1,379

  1,620

  1Includes solvents and other non-controlled drugs such as alcohol.

  2Excludes Northern Ireland.

  Treason and Piracy (Maximum Sentences)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to abolish the death penalty for the offences of(a) treason and (b) piracy; and if he will make a statement. [4646]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 20 June 1997]: The Government have no such plans at present.

  Fire Safety
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce legislation on fire safety analogous to the Fire Safety Bill introduced in the last Parliament. [5015]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Government strongly support the aims of the Fire Safety Bill and will be looking for appropriate opportunities to achieve those aims. I have asked my officials, as a priority, to provide me with an outline of the options that are available. As part of that process, officials are in the middle of a series of discussions with some of the key stakeholders to hear their views on the best way to proceed. Discussion of the Fire Safety Bill will then be at the top of the agenda for discussion by the Joint Fire Safety Committee of the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council at its next meeting on 8 July.

  Sport (Crowd Control)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact of measures to deal with soccer-related crowd problems on other major spectator team sports. [3103]

  Mr. Michael
  The measures taken to deal with crowd disorder in football have been specific to football. These include controls on the sale and possession of alcohol under the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act 1985; the exclusion order scheme under Part IV of the Public Order Act 1986; the restriction order scheme under Part II of the Football Spectators Act 1989; and the creation of four football specific offences under the Football (Offences) Act 1991 and section 166 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

  The police have other powers which apply at all sports. In particular, the 1986 Public Order Act enables the police to take action against a broad range of disorderly behaviour. There are also powers to deal with vandalism, damage to property and assault.

  If there is evidence from the police that the problem of crowd disorder has become more widespread and is having a significant impact on other sports, we will review the need for further measures.

  Representation of the People Act 1983
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will undertake a review of the law as it applies to the Representation of the People Act 1983. [3116]

  Mr. George Howarth
  We have no plans to do so at present.

  Coroners
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the role and functions of coroners. [3119]

  Mr. George Howarth
  We have no plans to do so. but arrangements are kept under review.

  Fines (Motorists)
  Professor Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to allow(a) local authorities and (b) police forces to retain some of the proceeds from fines levied upon speeding motorists caught by speed cameras. [4415]

  Mr. Michael
  None. Hypothecating the revenue from speeding fines would result in expenditure on traffic enforcement being determined by the income generated, rather than the relative priority of the activity.

  In the light of the Home Office's study of the cost-benefit analysis of traffic light and speed cameras, we have decided to examine the funding arrangements for the cameras and consider what more might be done.

  Entry Visas
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reduce the cost of entry visas to the United Kingdom. [4015]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  We continually look at ways to make efficiency savings to enable us to reduce entry clearance fees. Fees, which are set to recover the cost of processing an application world wide to minimise the burden on the taxpayer, are reviewed annually. The standard single entry fee has not been increased since January 1995. The current fees, introduced on 10 June 1997, include a reduction in the cost for a five year multiple entry visa.

SCOTLAND

  Private Finance Initiative (Health Service)
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to conclude his review of PFI projects in the health service in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [4201]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Alongside the review being undertaken by the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) I have been undertaking a similar review of Health PFI schemes 364
  in Scotland. I have today written to all Scottish MPs, giving full details of the conclusions I have reached.

  I am committed to delivering PFI-led service improvements in the Scottish Health Service. A number of high quality PFI projects, such as those at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh and the hospitals at Law and Hairmyres, which will deliver clear health care benefits, are well placed to proceed to financial close. I wish to see those benefits on the ground as quickly as possible and have asked my officials to push forward with these.

  However it has become clear that other projects are not appropriate for the PFI process. Last week (Monday 16 June) I announced that, in view of the urgent nature of the maternity and theatre proposals at Glasgow Royal Infirmary, we would push these aspects of the project forward through £36 million of public funding. Other aspects of the original project, such as catering and the car park facilities, will continue to be pursued under PFI.

  After consideration, I have concluded that the PFI process at the Western General in Edinburgh should also be halted. The PFI project for the Western is complicated by the fact that it is an existing NHS site with a large number of buildings of varying ages, functions and conditions. My view is that in the case of the Western General, PFI is not the right route. Instead the Government intend to provide around £40 million to fund a new ward and theatre block which is so clearly needed. Our proposals will also enable the go-ahead of the midwife-led maternity unit.

  I think it only right that further major PFI projects such as the Western Infirmary should be taken forward only once the overall review of the PFI process in Health has been completed. However there are numerous other relatively smaller Scottish Health projects exploring PFI. I want Trusts and Boards to continue to pursue these projects and to come forward with new proposals. There will be rigorous scrutiny of these projects at every stage of their development. A project must be proven to be affordable, value for money and, most importantly, offer real health care improvements for Scotland.

  I will be working closely with my hon. colleague, the Minister of State, Department of Health, over the coming months at improving the PFI product and will also be exploring the possibility of developing other models of structured private finance schemes in the longer term.

  Illegal Weapons
  Mr. Willian Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by police force the number of persons shot with illegal weapons in each of the last three years and the current year, indicating(a) how many persons were (i) killed and (ii) injured, (b) the type of firearm used, (c) the calibre of firearms used, (d) the number of persons made answerable to the courts in respect of such crimes and (e) the number of occasions the police have sent an armed response team to an incident. [4052]

  Mr. McLeish
  The following tables detail the number of persons (i) killed and (ii) injured with illegal weapons
  365
  in the years 1992–95 in Scotland. The figures relate only to cases in which both the accused and the weapon were identified; in other cases, it is not possible to say whether or not the weapon was legally certificated.

  Since January 1994, Scottish police forces have despatched armed police officers to over 2,000 incidents where a firearm was reported or suspected. The number of these incidents where an illegal firearm was actually involved is not recorded. The remaining information is not collect centrally.

  Number of persons killed by type of weapon, 1992 to 1995

  Shotgun

  Rifle

  Pistol/revolver

  Total

  1992

  Grampian

  2

  —

  —

  2

  Strathclyde

  3

  —

  —

  3

  Total

  5

  —

  —

  5

  1993

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Strathclyde

  1

  —

  2

  3

  Total

  1

  —

  3

  4

  1994

  Northern

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Lothian and Borders

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Strathclyde

  1

  1

  1

  3

  Total

  1

  2

  2

  5

  1995

  Tayside

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Total

  1

  —

  —

  1

  In addition, there were a number of fatalities in which the weapon was unidentified and therefore it could not be determined whether or not it was legally held or not. There were two such cases in 1994 and six in 1995.

  Number of persons injured by type of weapon, 1992 to 1995

  Shotgun

  Rifle

  Pistol revolver

  Total

  1992

  Central

  2

  —

  —

  2

  Lothian and Borders

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Strathclyde

  9

  —

  2

  11

  Tayside

  2

  3

  —

  5

  Total

  14

  3

  2

  19

  1993

  Central

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  —

  3

  3

  Strathclyde

  10

  —

  2

  12

  Tayside

  4

  —

  —

  4

  Total

  15

  —

  5

  20

  1994

  Central

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Fife

  3

  —

  —

  3

  Lothian and Borders

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Strathclyde

  4

  —

  1

  5

  Total

  7

  —

  4

  11

  366

  Number of persons injured by type of weapon, 1992 to 1995

  Shotgun

  Rifle

  Pistol revolver

  Total

  1995

  Fife

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Lothian and Borders

  1

  —

  2

  3

  Strathclyde

  4

  —

  —

  4

  Total

  5

  —

  4

  9

  In addition, there were a number of injuries in which a weapon was fired but unidentified and it was not therefore possible to determine whether the weapon was legally held or not. There was one such case in 1993, 11 in 1994 and 15 in 1995.

  Low Pay
  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time employees or his Department and its agencies are paid (i) less than £4 an hour, (ii) less than £3.50 an hour and (iii) less than £3 an hour. [4193]

  Mr. Dewar
  Of those employed in my Department and its Executive Agencies in April 1997, 383 full-time employees have basic salaries below £4/hour; 3 adults and 25 staff aged under 18 have basic salaries below £3.50/hour; with a further 17 staff all aged under 18 below £3/hour. Among part-time staff, 27 have basic salaries below £4/hour with no-one under £3.50/hour.

  Radioactive Discharges
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency's regulation of radioactive discharges in Scotland will fall within the responsibilities of the proposed Scottish Parliament. [4223]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 19 June 1997]: The Government's proposals for a Scottish Parliament will be set out in a White Paper which my right hon. Friend expects to publish before the House rises for its summer recess.

  Environment Protection Agency
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will indicate for each of the organisations replaced by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency in 1996; and whether they operated under an exemption in terms of the Value Added Tax Act 1994, section 33. [4220]

  Mr. Chisholm
  [holding answer 19 June 1997]: The predecessor bodies of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency were River Purification Boards, District and Islands Councils, Her Majesty's Industrial Pollution Inspectorate (HMIPI) and the Hazardous Waste Inspectorate (HWI). With the exception of HMIPI and HWI, both formerly parts of The Scottish Office, all those bodies had the right to precept on local taxation and thus were entitled to claim refunds of VAT under the terms of Section 33 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994.

  SEPA does not have the power to precept on local taxation and is therefore not eligible to claim refunds of VAT in this way.
  367
  Ms Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the responsibilities of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. [4221]

  Mr. Chisholm
  [holding answer 19 June 1997]: The principal responsibilities of SEPA are:-
  consenting of discharges to the water environment (surface, tidal and ground waters);
  conserving water resources as far as practicable and promoting the conversation and enhancement of the natural beauty and amenity of controlled waters;
  providing flood warning systems, assessing the risk of flooding
  on any area and advising planning authorities on flood risk;
  granting abstraction licences for irrigation where a control order is in force;
  issuing authorisations to prevent, minimise or render harmless the release of substances into the environment from prescribed processes;
  authorising the handling and disposal of radioactive materials and registering persons holding or using such materials;
  licensing of waste management activities;
  registering waste carriers and brokers and regulating the transfrontier shipment of waste;
  taking enforcement action against persons breaching licence conditions or illegally polluting the environment;
  carrying out assessments of the general state of the environment (if required by the Secretary of State);
  keeping up-to-date on pollution control technology, with powers to undertake relevant research and development;
  creating smoke control areas;
  ensuring compliance with the "producer responsibility" regulations as directed by the Secretary of State.

  In carrying out these specific responsibilities, SEPA is required to:-
  have regard both to the desirability of conserving and enhancing the natural and man-made environment and to the social and economic needs of any area; and
  take into account the likely costs and benefits of exercising its powers.

  Ms Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding the refusal to grant the Scottish Environment Protection Agency an exemption in terms of the Value Added Tax Act 1994, section 33; and if he will make a statement. [4222]

  Mr. Chisholm
  [holding answer 19 June 1997]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland regularly discusses various issues with colleagues, including my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Forestry
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate for each of the past five years for (i) England, (ii) Scotland and (iii) Wales the total(a) broadleaf tree cover, (b) evergreen tree cover, (c) area felled and (d) area planted; and if he will make a statement. [4409]
  368
  Mr. Chisholm
  The information is set out in the tables below.

  All areas in thousands of hectares

  Year ending 31 March

  Area of broadleaved woodland1

  Area of conifer woodland1

  Area approved for felling2

  Area planted3

  ENGLAND

  1993

  574

  393

  11

  12

  1994

  581

  392

  11

  13

  1995

  587

  390

  8

  10

  1996

  591

  390

  8

  9

  1997

  596

  389

  7

  9

  SCOTLAND

  1993

  171

  976

  8

  20

  1994

  181

  975

  9

  18

  1995

  188

  979

  10

  20

  1996

  192

  984

  11

  17

  1997

  197

  990

  10

  19

  WALES

  1993

  77

  171

  4

  3

  1994

  79

  169

  3

  3

  1995

  80

  167

  4

  3

  1996

  81

  167

  4

  3

  1997

  82

  166

  4

  3

  1The areas of broadleaved and comfier woodland are based on the 1980 Census of Woodlands. They have been updated by including the estimated changes since then.

  2The Forestry Commission does not record the areas felled by private woodland owners, but it does record the areas approved for felling. However, approvals are valid for a five year period, and large areas which are approved for felling are never felled.

  3The areas planted include both the areas of felled woodland which are replanted and the areas of new woodlands which are created.

  Transport Policy
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how he proposes to provide an effective and integrated transport policy; and what plans he has to carry out a strategic review of the roads programme in Scotland.[5142]

  Mr. Dewar
  My noble Friend, the Minister with responsibility for agriculture, the environment and fisheries announced on Thursday—Official Report, House of Lords, column 136—our intention to publish a White Paper early next year which will set out our proposals for a workable, effective and integrated transport policy appropriate to the needs of Scotland. Our development of that will operate in parallel with the development of the planned White Paper on integrated transport policy announced by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 5 June, column 226.

  One key strand of developing an integrated transport strategy is the strategic review of the trunk roads programme promised in the Manifesto. We believe that we need a thorough examination of our rationale for new roads construction. Possible new roads projects must be properly examined in the context of their local and wider economic and environmental impacts and with the possible provision of alternative modes of transport properly considered in parallel. Our eventual decisions must meet our commitment to sustainable development.

  This review will consider the full range of factors, including traffic growth, which will give rise to pressure for further major improvements across the trunk road

  369
  network over the next decade. In parallel with the review, as part of the work leading to the White Paper, we shall examine means of restraining growth, including consideration of the opportunities for doing so on the trunk road network. We will also consider the role which new technology and improved information systems can play.

  The review will examine the criteria (including accessibility, safety, economy and environmental impact) for setting priorities within the trunk road programme. It will also review the scope for improved value for money for expenditure on maintenance, structural repairs and minor schemes.

  The review is being conducted against the background of our clear commitment to control public expenditure overall and fundamentally to review expenditure priorities through the comprehensive spending review. Given this, no further procedural work on major schemes will be undertaken before the reviews are concluded. However, schemes under construction will continue; and the schemes for the A828 (Creagan Bridge) and the A75 (The Glen), which are both close to commencement, will also continue. Tenders are expected in July for a privately financed design, build, finance and operate contract on the M8 (Baillieston to Shotts) and a decision on that will be announced after the evaluation of tenders, in the light of the information provided by the tenders and other relevant factors. The review will reach conclusions on options for the Kincardine Bridge in advance of those on other projects because of the uncertainties attaching to the operational condition of the bridge and the need to progress contingency plans.

  The Scottish Office will continue to invest in the maintenance and structural repairs of the existing network and take forward small schemes, costing less than £3 million, where route action and accident plans have identified measures to alleviate congestion and improve safety.

  There has been extensive comments about the previous Government's Green paper "Keeping Scotland Moving" and these, where appropriate, will be considered as part of both the development of our White Paper and the review of the trunk roads programme. We intend to consult about the options and the findings emerging from the review, with the objective of concluding the review by the Summer of 1998.

  Home Energy Efficiency Grants
  Mrs. Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to amend the home energy efficiency scheme to encourage applications from the Scottish islands and remote areas. [3797]

  Angela Eagle
  I have been asked to reply.

  Major revisions to this scheme, which were made by the previous administration, come into force on 1 July. From that date the scheme will include cavity wall insulation, loft insulation, heating control system upgrades, draughtproofing, energy efficient lamps, hot water tank insulation and personal advice. Installers have been appointed throughout Great Britain and they will undertake local marketing throughout their areas to bring the scheme to the attention of eligible householders. Every
  370
  local authority will shortly receive guidance, issued jointly with the Scottish Office, about the scheme and the part they can play in promoting it.

  We shall be taking an early opportunity to review the scheme to check whether the changes are meeting the needs of customers.

CABINET OFFICE

  Cabinet Committees
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if he will make a statement on his role in respect of each Cabinet committee on which he sits. [4661]

  Mr. Mandelson
  Like my colleagues on these committees, I contribute to collective consideration of the issues under discussion.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Government Car Service
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if the Government car service will assess the advantages of using Triumph motorcycles for its dispatch riders. [4316]

  Dr. David Clark
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated under the terms of the Framework Document to the Government Car and Despatch Agency. I have asked its Chief Executive, Mr. Nick Matheson, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Nick Matheson to Mr. Peter Bottomley, dated 20 June 1997:
  I have been asked by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to reply to your Parliamentary Question on using Triumph motorcycles for the InterDespatch Service's courier despatch service. I am the Chief Executive of the Agency with operational responsibility for the InterDespatch Service.
  The current fleet of six motorcycles was purchased in April 1996 following a technical and operational evaluation of suitability for courier work. This included research with existing users, particularly in assessing load carrying capacity.
  The motorcycle fleet is due for replacement in approximately two years, and I will be carrying out a new assessment towards the end of this year. That assessment will include machines produced by Triumph.

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if the rules relating to the deposit of compliance cost assessments in the Library prior to the publication of Bills in force in Session 1996–97 continue to apply; and if he will list those Bills for which compliance cost assessments have not been duly deposited in the current session. [4747]

  Dr. David Clark
  We intend to develop a more succinct, open and relevant system for assessing the costs and benefits of new legislative proposals. In the meantime, the existing rules for publishing a compliance cost assessment alongside bills presented to Parliament
  371
  continue to apply. The responsibility for the preparation of individual compliance cost assessments rests with the relevant Minister.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Departmental Advisers
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the special advisers in his Department, the Minister to whom each is responsible, the subjects on which they advise and the number of advisers in his Department in the year up to 1 May. [5347]

  The Attorney-General
  No special advisers are, or have been, employed in my Department.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Tourism Industry
  Mrs. McGuire
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has for encouraging the improvement of training and qualifications in the tourism industry. [3090]

  Ms Jenny Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has for encouraging the improvement of training and qualifications in the tourist industry. [3102]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  Training and investment in people is one of our key policy aims for the tourism and hospitality industries. We will pursue this aim in partnership with those industries, tourist boards, local authorities and others, together with colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment.

  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to increase the United Kingdom income from tourism. [3101]

  Mr. Clarke
  The Government is working with the industry, the tourist boards, local authorities and others to ensure that tourism is making its full contribution to the UK economy. In 1995, the industry was worth £38 billion, equivalent to over 5 per cent. of the UK's GDP, and it has great potential for growth.

  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what work opportunities the tourism industry will provide to the welfare-to-work programme. [3111]

  Mr. Clarke
  The tourism industry is well placed to play a key role in the welfare-to-work initiative. The industry has enormous potential for employment

  National lottery awards to 31 March 1997

  Population

  Total number of awards

  Total award amount £

  Amount per capita £

  England

  London: Total

  6,933,000

  1,664

  774,055,059

  111.65

  London (National Institutions)

  —

  39

  478,007,408

  68.95

  London (Other)

  —

  1,625

  296,047,651

  242.70

  North-west

  5,478,725

  1,008

  300,729,369

  54.89

  372
  generation. It already supports some 1.6 million jobs, a number which could grow up to one million in the next decade. We shall be looking to leading employers within the industry to support the Government's initiative.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to ensure a fairer distribution of lottery proceeds across the regions. [3094]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  It is clear that some areas of the country have benefited a great dal more from the lottery than others. We will be looking at the reasons for this as part of our review of lottery distribution. We will publish a White Paper containing our proposals in July.

  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to change the terms of the operation of the national lottery. [3099]

  Mr. Banks
  My Department does not have the power to change the terms of operation for the current licence holder. We will seek an efficient and competitive not-for-profit operator when the existing licence expires in 2001.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make it his policy to allow the national lottery to operate overseas; and if he will make a statement. [3105]

  Mr. Smith
  The operator of the national lottery may under the terms of its licence sell tickets in other member states of the European Community and the European Economic Area provided such sales are not prevented by the state's domestic legislation. Ticket sales outside this permitted area are not allowed under the licence. Any change to the licence would require the Director General's consent.

  Mr. Desmond Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to review the terms of the lottery operator's licence. [3107]

  Mr. Smith
  I have announced our intention to seek an efficient not-for-profit operator when the current licence expires. I do not have the power to change the terms of operation for the current licence holder.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the(a) grants of and (b) expenditure of lottery moneys by economic region up until 1 April 1997 (i) in total and (ii) expressed in terms of expenditure per capita in the region. [3185]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 16 June 1997]: A full list of awards is available from the Library of the House. The table sets out the summary of the total number and value of awards by region and country, including a per capita breakdown:
  373

  National lottery awards to 31 March 1997

  Population

  Total number of awards

  Total award amount £

  Amount per capita £

  North-east

  2,607,991

  499

  125,497,849

  48.12

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  5,035,194

  929

  200,307,425

  39.78

  Eastern

  5,259,958

  969

  142,183,266

  27.03

  East Midlands

  4,114,069

  820

  120,472,373

  29.28

  West Midlands

  5,311,676

  1,121

  252,515,234

  47.54

  South-west

  4,816,084

  1,143

  198,923,974

  41.30

  South-east

  7,813,949

  1,282

  255,618,101

  32.71

  Merseyside

  1,441,000

  313

  71,045,017

  49.30

  Total

  48,811,646

  9,748

  2,441,347,667

  50.02

  Scotland

  5,120,200

  1,681

  366,992,062

  71.68

  Wales

  2,906,500

  1,555

  180,000,285

  61.93

  Northern Ireland

  1,632,000

  941

  74,058,147

  45.38

  Total

  9,658,700

  4,177

  621,050,494

  64.30

  UK wide

  58,470,346

  5,580

  83,182,384

  1.42

  Grand total

  58,470,346

  19,505

  3,145,580,545

  53.80

  1Population figures are drawn from the Registrar Generals' population projection for 1994 based on the estimated resident population at mid-1991, for County Councils and the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys 1993, for Metropolitan areas.

  2London figures indicates amount per capita once awards to National institutions are discounted.

  Film Industry
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what measures he proposes to encourage Britain's creative industries with particular reference to film. [3096]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My Department recently announced the setting up of a Film Policy Review Group whose task will be to formulate an agenda for action for the film industry and for the Government's support to it. It will be the aim of the group to double the audience for British films and to help the film industry to achieve its full creative and economic potential.

  More broadly, the Government will take action to help the creative industries to flourish, thereby creating new jobs and new opportunities in the domestic market, boosting exports, and encouraging tourism and inward investment.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to assist the British film industry. [3109]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  My Department recently announced the setting up of a Film Policy Review Group whose task will be to formulate an agenda for action for the film industry and for the Government's support to it. It will be the aim of the group to double the audience for British films and to help the film industry to achieve its full creative and economic potential.

  The Group will be co-chaired by myself and Stewart Till of PolyGram Filmed Entertainment. The members all have a real working knowledge of what it takes to achieve artistic and commercial success, both in Britain and abroad.

  Regional Orchestras
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement concerning his policy on regional orchestras. [3097]
  374
  Mr. Fisher
  The Government has placed access at the heart of its arts policies. I have the highest regard for the excellence of our regional orchestras and for the opportunities they create for more people to enjoy music. The regional orchestras, including the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic, in which I know my hon. Friend takes a particularly keen interest, are bringing music of the highest standards to audiences across the country and, indeed, abroad.

  Public Library Services
  Dr. Lynda Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to increase the availability of public library services. [3098]

  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to increase the availability of public library services. [3112]

  Mr. Fisher
  The Government is committed to developing the public library service as an essential part of an informed and educated society. The harnessing of new technology will play a vital part in this. I have therefore asked the Library and Information Commission to report on how public libraries can respond effectively to the challenge of new information and communication technology. Its report is due at the end of July.

  Millennium Exhibition
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what are his Department's proposals for the millennium exhibition. [3100]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Last week my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister confirmed our full backing for the millennium exhibition. We took this decision on the basis of five clear commitments to the British people: the exhibition will have a durable legacy; it will have
  375
  nationwide relevance and links; it will have a content that reflects technological progress and provides a window to the future; it will cost no more public money, other than that required for site clearance; and it will have an enhanced creative team.

  Arts (Public Access)
  Mrs. Ann Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the National Heritage what plans he has to enable greater access by the public to the arts. [3104]

  Mr. Fisher
  Access is at the heart of my Department's policies. We believe strongly that the public has a right to better access in return for the public funding which goes into the arts. We have made a number of specific proposals aimed at, increasing access to the arts. These include plans to pilot open theatre nights and an Artscard scheme for young people and to review the case for admission charges to core collections in our national museums and galleries.

  Land (National Heritage Memorial Fund)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will review the provisions relating to the purchase of land in the national interest through the national heritage memorial fund.[3106]

  Mr. Banks
  The Government is reviewing the distribution of lottery proceeds generally. We will be considering the funding strategies of all the distributing bodies as part of that review. But we see no immediate need to amend the statutory powers of the National Heritage Memorial Fund in relation to land acquisition projects.

  Royal Naval College, Greenwich
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will discuss with the Secretary of State for Defence the future of the Royal Naval College, Greenwich. [3110]

  Mr. Banks
  Officials in my Department are working closely with officials in the Ministry of Defence, the Greenwich Foundation for the Royal Naval College, (the new trust), and Greenwich Hospital in working up proposals for the future of this historic site, following the Royal Navy's departure.

  Guest Houses and Hotels
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to introduce a national scheme for the grading of guest houses and hotels. [3163]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  The AA, RAC and ETB announced in February plans for a new harmonised scheme which for the first time would give a single rating for hotels according to both the quality of their service and the facilities they offer. They will be consulting the industry on the details of this and on a scheme covering non-hotel serviced accommodation, such as guest-houses, B&Bs, farmhouses and inns.

  Broadcasting
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he is taking to increase the provision of local broadcasting by(a) radio and (b) television. [4739]

  Mr. Fisher
  The existing regulatory framework already allows for increased local provision.

  The Radio Authority is required to secure a range and diversity of local services. Since its creation, the number of commercial local radio services has increased from 130 in 1991 to 177 in 1996. The Authority has also recently introduced small-scale alternative location licencees, and the number of short-term Restricted Service Licences continues to increase. These mechanisms provide a flexible structure within which more modest local operations can flourish.

  The Independent Television Commission has recently published guidance on how it intends to implement the provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1996 which introduced a new category of licence for local services and special events—the Restricted Service Licence. Subject to spectrum availability, this new licence category will enable the ITC to oversee the expansion of local television services.

  We aim to secure a wide diversity of broadcasting services, and local services are an important element of that diversity. The Government will monitor the effectiveness of the existing and recently enhanced licensing arrangements in providing more local services.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he will next meet the Director General of(a) the Radio Authority and (b) the Independent Television Commission to discuss the conditions of ownership of local radio stations. [4740]

  Mr. Fisher
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State meets the Chairmen and Chief Executives of the Radio Authority and the Independent Television Commission from time to time to discuss a variety of broadcasting issues. The conditions of ownership of radio stations are laid down in the Broadcasting Acts 1990 and 1996 and the use of powers under that legislation is solely a matter for the Radio Authority.

  School Sport
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans the Government have for encouraging sport in schools. [3188]

  Mr. Banks
  We are working to extend the opportunities for sport and physical recreation for all people by widening access and encouraging participation. Promoting physical education and sport in schools will be a key element of our strategy. A number of initiatives aimed at promoting sport in schools are already being taken forward by the English Sports Council, and we will shortly be meeting the Department for Education and Employment to consider further action.

  National Academy for Sport
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when the decision on the location of the National Academy for Sport is to be made. [3190]
  377
  Mr. Banks
  I have visited the three short-listed sites
  and am now examining the bids in light of the visits. We will make an announcement of how we intend to proceed in due course.

  Seaside Resorts
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to visit(a) Southport and (b) other north-west England seaside resorts. [3310]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  I shall be visiting Southport on Wednesday 25 June to address the National Conference of the Institute of Leisure and Amenity Management. I will be visiting north-west England again later in the year.

  Coastal resorts are an important part of our heritage and account for some 44 per cent. of holiday spending in the United Kingdom. I am keen to see them build on this in the future so that local communities and businesses can share fully in the economic benefits of tourism.

  Football
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will assess the advantages of permitting restricted standing room areas in new football grounds. [3809]

  Mr. Banks
  I believe we are striking the right balance in providing some of the most modern all-seater facilities in the world at our top clubs and allowing some standing accommodation at lower division grounds subject to stringent safety requirements. The Government is committed to delivering essential football ground safety improvements following the Taylor Report on the Hillsborough disaster. The £55 million funding package announced recently to assist the Football Trust with Taylor-related safety work demonstrates our commitment to this.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many letters have been received by his Department concerning concessionary television licences since 2 May; and what response he has given to such letters. [5070]

  Mr. Fisher
  Since 2 May, the Department of National Heritage has received 49 letters from hon. Members and 71 letters from members of the public about reduced-fee television licences. The Government accepts that the current concessionary scheme can give rise to anomalies and is not wholly satisfactory, and will continue to examine ways in which it might be improved, but has no plans at present to introduce any changes.

  Tourism (Social Chapter)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the impact on the tourism industry of the United Kingdom adopting the social chapter. [3108]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  Basic standards of employment, by creating a better rewarded and motivated work force, can help to improve business performance. Basic minimum standards will help improve competitiveness.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Water Charges
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will make a statement on the use of council tax banding as the basis for water charges; [3844]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on water metering; [3842]

  (3) what plans he has for legislation to enable water companies to continue to base their charges on the rateable value of properties; and if he will make a statement. [3843]

  Angela Eagle
  Under Section 145 of the Water Industry Act 1991, water companies must not base their charges on the rateable value of property after 31 March 2000. The Deputy Prime Minister announced at the recent Water Summit that the Government is to review the system of charging for water. Among other issues this review will consider alternative bases of charging, including the future use of rateable values, the use of council tax bands and metering policy. We shall be looking at the way in which metering works at present, taking special account of the effect on low-income households. We have made clear our opposition to compulsory metering for essential household use.

  Technetium 99 Contamination (West Cumbrian Coast)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of recent British Nuclear Fuels monitoring figures in respect of the level of technetium 99 in crustaceans off the west Cumbrian coast; and what action he plans to take to eradicate the contamination. [4263]

  Angela Eagle
  Assessments of monitoring data of the levels of technetium 99 in crustaceans off the west Cumbrian coast are, in the first instance, matters for the Environment Agency and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. British Nuclear Fuels plc has applied to the Environment Agency for variations to the certificates of authorisation under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 for the Sellafield site. These include a proposed reduction in the discharge limit for technetium 99. The Environment Agency is currently considering the applications and will shortly issue for public consultation the changes to the authorisations that it is minded to grant.

  Housing (Improvements)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many properties underwent works through home improvement agencies in each of the last three years. [4292]
  379
  Mr. Raynsford
  The table shows the number of jobs completed in the last three years by home improvement agencies in England funded by my Department:

  Year

  Number of jobs

  1994–95

  21,735

  1995–96

  24,129

  1996–97

  27,137

  Some properties benefited from more than one job but information about the number of properties receiving works is not kept.

  Playing Fields
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will take steps to prevent the disposal for development of playing fields owned by(a) local authorities, (b) companies and (c) other bodies. [4478]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Under current legislation local authorities only need the consent of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to a disposal of land at less than open market value. However, the Government intends to ensure that those playing fields which schools and their communities need are not sold in future. My right hon. Friends, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and the Secretary of State for National Heritage are discussing this as a matter of urgency, looking at a wide range of options.

  Green Ministers
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the Green Ministers appointed to date in other Government departments; and what guidance has been produced by his Department on the role to be played by Green Ministers. [4305]

  Angela Eagle
  The Ministerial Committee on the Environment has been set up to consider environmental policy issues with the following membership:

  Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Chairman)

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

  Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Health

  President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Secretary of State for International Development

  Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Lords

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Minister of Transport

  380

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Minister of State, Department of the Environment and Transport

  Minister without Portfolio.

  The Secretary of State for Social Security also receives the papers. She and other Ministers are invited to attend as necessary.

  We are still in the process of appointing Green Ministers and a further announcement will be made once they have been established.

  English Partnerships
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment. Transport and the Regions if he will list for each region the amount of money spent by English Partnerships in each of the last three financial years. [4608]

  Angela Eagle
  English Partnerships' expenditure by region on its development programme, excluding expenditure on the Greenwich Peninsula, in the last three financial years is as follows:

  £million

  Region

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  North-east

  47.7

  34.3

  31.8

  North-west

  52.9

  52.0

  50.4

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  43.8

  55.0

  40.5

  Midlands

  63.4

  58.0

  67.8

  South-east

  10.3

  25.6

  36.0

  South-west

  7.3

  11.8

  8.5

  Total

  225.4

  236.7

  235.0

  Natterjack Toad
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the sites designated as the natural habitat of the natterjack toad. [4593]

  Ms Angela Eagle
  Fifty sites have been designated for the natterjack toad in Great Britain, A list giving details of these has been placed in the Library.

  Leasehold Land
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the advantages of increasing protection for home owners in flats whose property lies on leasehold land. [3126]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We are committed to simplifying the current rules restricting the purchase of freeholds by leaseholders when a suitable legislative opportunity arises. We will consult on our proposals in due course. Meanwhile, we will lay before the House shortly Orders to implement the provisions of the Housing Act 1996 which will transfer jurisdiction for determining disputes over service charges to Leasehold Valuation Tribunals.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will provide a Keeling schedule in respect of the relevant sections of
  381
  (a) the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and (b) other Acts amended by the Local Government Finance (Supplementary Credit approvals) Bill. [5123]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We do not propose to add such a schedule to the Local Government Finance (Supplementary Credit Approvals) Bill. However, the following sets out the text of section 55(3) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 as it would be if amended by Clause 1 of the Bill, and the text of section 54(5) of that Act as it would be if amended by Clause 2 of the Bill:Section 55
  (3) In determining the amount of a basic credit approval, the Secretary of State shall not take account of capital receipts to the extent that the authority concerned are required to set aside the receipts as provision for credit liabilities; and in determining the amount of a basic credit approval or a supplementary credit approval, the Secretary of State or other Minister shall not take account of capital receipts to the extent that they are applied or paid as mentioned in subsections (7) to (9) of section 59 below.
  Section 54
  (5) In the case of a supplementary credit approval issued in respect of expenditure which is treated by the authority concerned as expenditure for capital purposes by virtue only of direction sunder section 40(6) above, the approval may specify an amortisation period.

  Departmental Land
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action his Department is taking to monitor the disposal of land by other Government Departments for compliance with the terms of local development plans, with particular reference to the National Physical Laboratory site at Teddington. [4587]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Any Crown body wishing to secure planning permission for land prior to its disposal must apply for permission under section 299 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. As with applications for planning permission from non-Crown bodies, it is for the local planning authority to determine the application. Such determination shall be in accordance with the development plan for the area, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Other than where the matter is expressly referred to the Secretary of State—e.g. under the Town and Country Planning (Development Plans and Consultation) Directions 1992, or on appeal—my Department is not concerned with the specific proposals of other Government Departments to dispose of their land, nor the proposed use of any such land. The National Physical Laboratory is within the London Borough of Richmond, and the Unitary Development Plan policy for the site is for employment uses. We understand that no planning application has been made to the planning authority in respect of the site.

  Airports
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the cost of constructing a 1,400 metre runway in the south-east of England; and what costs would be incurred by the construction of a 2,000 metre runway. [4471]
  382
  Ms Jackson
  No assessment has been made of the costs of runway construction, which would vary greatly depending on the site chosen.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the time required to(a) construct and (b) bring into operation a new runway in south-east England. [4474]

  Ms Jackson
  The time required for constructing a new runway and bringing it into operation would depend on the nature of the particular proposal and on the planning procedures followed.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will reintroduce traffic distribution rules; and what plans he has to direct charter services to specific airports in the London area. [4473]

  Ms Jackson
  Traffic distribution rules remain in place at Heathrow and Gatwick which prevent all-cargo services and general aviation from using the airport at peak periods. There are no plans to reintroduce them for scheduled and charter services. In any case, powers do not exist to direct services to an airport—only to exclude them.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to address problems relating to runway capacity in the south-east of England. [4539]

  Ms Jackson
  Work has been under way since February 1995 to assess the implications of runway capacity enhancement at Heathrow and the feasibility of a close parallel runway at Gatwick. When completed, these studies will help to inform the assessment by Ministers of all available options.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the extra slots made available at Heathrow by the proposed BA/AA alliance will be allocated to services to regional airports. [4401]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  I have been asked to reply.

  The previous President of the Board of Trade announced on 6 December 1996 that he intended to refer the proposed alliance between British Airways and American Airlines to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, unless suitable undertakings were given by the parties to the alliance. He took the view that, without such undertakings, the alliance would be likely to lead to a significant loss of actual and potential competition on air routes between the UK and the US. He asked the Director General of Fair Trading to seek appropriate undertakings from the parties, and also to consider views from all interested third parties on the undertakings and other conditions which he proposed. The proposed undertakings and conditions included the release by the alliance of up to 168 take-off and landing slots at Heathrow. These slots were to be made available for use by competitor airlines only on transatlantic services, in order to ensure that the slot release addressed the competition concerns raised by the alliance.
  383
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has not yet made a decision on the proposed alliance. The Office of Fair Trading and the Department of Trade and Industry are still considering the case in consultation with the European Commission.

  Red Routes (London)
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his plans for red routes in London. [4720]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The red route programme delivers improved conditions for all road users by making effective use of the road space while taking into account the needs of those who live and work along the route. I have no plans to vary the red route network although I shall naturally consider individual representations on their merits. I intend to look at how these improvements can be further enhanced, giving particular attention to what can be done to assist buses, cyclists and pedestrians. The timetable for completion of the network will be reviewed, along with all other expenditure programmes, as part of our Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Footpaths and Bridleways
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reasons notice was not given to the statutory consultees under the Transport and Works Act about the proposed closure of footpaths and bridleways for the proposed Welsh Highland Railway Order; and if he will place a copy of his reply to the Ramblers Association concerning these issues in the Library. [4590]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The promoters of the proposed Order, the Ffestiniog Railway Company, consider that the Transport and Works Act applications rules were complied with in respect of the placing of notices and serving of documents on statutory consultees. However, in the light of representations made by the Ramblers Association and others, they have agreed to put up notices and serve documents in respect of all footpaths affected by the Order as if they were public rights of way for the purposes of the rules. Persons who wish to object to the proposals relating to footpaths will have a further six weeks in which to lodge such objection in writing with the Secretary of State. A copy of the Department's reply to the Ramblers Association will be placed in the Library.

  Radioactive Materials (Transportation)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to improve safety standards for the transportation of (i) nuclear waste and (ii) spent nuclear fuel. [4639]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 20 June]: The safety standards for the transport of nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel are already extremely high. They are based upon the recommendations of the International Atomic Energy Agency and are reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that the excellent safety record is maintained. The Government is active in and will continue to support the work of the international Atomic Energy Authority and the other international bodies that regulate the carriage of radioactive material, such as the International Maritime Organisation, the International
  384
  Civil Aviation Organisation, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (for road transport) and the Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail.

  South West Trains (Bicycles)
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will seek to ensure that South West Trains retain space for the carriage of bicycles when renewing their rolling stock. [5088]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Whitehead) on 16 June,Official Report, column 41.

  Pilotage (Thames River)
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what consultations he has had with the Port of London Authority over their proposals to relax pilotage regulations along the Thames. [5008]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Port of London Authority has informed my Department that it is reviewing its pilotage directions. There is no requirement for harbour authorities to consult the Secretary of State before issuing new directions but they have a duty to consult those operating in their harbour. I understand that the Port of London Authority intends to do this once its proposals are finalised.

  Railways (Ticket Machines)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will ensure that automatic train ticket machines have facilities for accepting railcards held by disabled people; and what progress his Department has made in pursuing this matter with the office of the Rail Regulator in relation to its code of practice. [4087]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We will be looking at this in the context of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. We will also ask the Rail Regulator to consider expanding the advice in his Code of Practice, which already includes design guidance on ticket machines, to address this point.

  Ports
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment. Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from smaller trust ports on the anti-competitive action of larger ports; what response he has made; and if he will make a statement. [4662]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  No such representations have been received.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to encourage the remaining trust ports to become private companies. [4663]

  Ms Jackson
  We will consider on their merits any privatisation schemes put forward by trust port authorities. Where a scheme is approved in principle, our officials
  385
  will provide advice to the authority on carrying out the privatisation in accordance with the provisions of the Ports Act 1991.

PRIME MINISTER

  Earth Summit 2
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Earth summit 2 conference. [4800]

  The Prime Minister
  I will make a statement on my return.

  Polygraphs
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Prime Minister what use the security services make of the polygraph; and if he will make a statement. [4586]

  The Prime Minister
  The Security and Intelligence Services make no use of the polygraph and have no plans to do so.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Prime Minister which Government departments and agencies are involved in the examination of E. coli. [3607]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 17 June 1997]: The following Government departments and agencies are involved in the examination of E. coli:
  Departments

  Department of Health

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Department for the Environment and Transport

  Department of Health and Social Services—Northern Ireland

  Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland

  Welsh Office

  Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department

  Scottish Office Department of Health

  Agencies

  Veterinary Laboratories Agency

  Central Science Laboratory

  Public Health Laboratory (Northern Ireland)

  Public Health Laboratory Service (England and Wales)

  The Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental Health Environment Agency

  Drinking Water Inspectorate.

  Ministerial Residences
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Prime Minister how much public money is budgeted for expenditure on refurbishing official residences occupied by Ministers. [3710]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 16 June 1997]: This is a matter for individual Boards of Trustees or Departments.

  Devolution (Referendums)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Prime Minister how many requests he has received from current residents of Colchester, born in Scotland or Wales, who want to vote in the Scottish and Welsh devolution referendums. [4035]

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a number of representatives on this issue. It is not possible to identify the information as requested.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Uranium Fuel
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what tonnage of spent uranium fuel elements was discharged in each of the past 10 years from (1) magnox reactors, (2) advanced gas-cooled reactors, (3) pressurised water reactors and (4) fast reactors; and what in each case were the(a) initial uranium enrichment, (b) initial plutonium content, (c) initial fissile plutonium content and (d) the spent fuel burn-up rate. [1843]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 2 June 1997]: Information relating to the majority of tonnage of spent nuclear fuel discharged from various reactors during the last 10 years is kept by the private sector operator (British Energy). Information as far as the public sector is concerned, in respect of Magnox Electric reactors, Calder Hall and Chapelcross (operated by BNFL) and Dounreay (operated by UKAEA), in each of the last 10 years, is not readily available in the format required and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Low Pay
  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time employees of her Department and its agencies are paid (i) less than £4 an hour, (ii) less than £3.50 an hour and (iii) less than £3 an hour. [4192]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  The Department employs no staff with an hourly rate of pay less than £3.50. It employs a total of 100 staff paid at less than £4 an hour. Of these 12 work part-time. Part-time staff are paid at the same annual rate of pay as full-time staff.

  Retail Petrol Industry
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) for what reasons the Director General of Fair Trading did not meet the undertaking given to the Trade and Industry Committee in 1996 that the quadrennial review of the retail petrol industry would be brought forward to early 1997; [3838]

  (2) what are the terms of reference for the quadrennial review of the retail petrol industry to be undertaken by the Director General of Fair Trading; and if she will make a statement. [3839]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  I am informed that, following the Trade and Industry Select Committee hearing on 16 December 1996, the Office of Fair Trading did in fact start preliminary work on the review in January. They commenced the review itself in April, as the Director General of Fair Trading stated in his recent press notice.
  387
  The review is focusing on the key indicators identified by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in their 1990 report on the supply of petrol: market structure, profitability and prices. It is also looking at the longer-term market trends to see whether it is possible to draw any conclusions about the future competitiveness of the market and whether it will continue to operate to the benefit of consumers.

  Oil Exploration Licences
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade under what circumstances she has the power to suspend oil exploration licences issued in the 17th round; and what would be the impact on public funds of such action. [3849]

  Mr. Battle
  There is no provision in the United Kingdom's petroleum licensing legislation for the suspension of production licences such as those awarded in the 17th Seaward Round. The circumstances in which 17th Round licences can be revoked are set out in Schedule 4 to the Petroleum (Production) (Seaward Areas) Regulations 1988 as amended.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will provide increased support for(a) solar energy and (b) other renewable energy technologies. [3018]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 16 June 1997]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke on Trent, North (Ms Walley) on 10 June 1997, Official Report, column 417.

  Wind Power
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many wind power generating farms there are in the United Kingdom; how many machines they contain; and how many of the blades she estimates have been broken in each of the last 10 years. [4049]

  Mr. Battle
  At 18 June 1997, there were 43 windfarms, each comprising three or more turbines, operating in the UK, totalling 740 turbines in all. My Department does not maintain records of broken wind turbine blades.

  Dounreay (Contamination)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what notification she has received from the Atomic Energy Authority management at Dounreay in respect of their plans to clean up radioactive particles from the beaches close to the plant; and if she will consult the National Radiological Project Board on its recent radiological assessment of beaches near to Dounreay. [3819]

  Mr. Battle
  The UKAEA has kept my Department fully informed of their plans for dealing with the Dounreay beach particles. The UKAEA is conducting an extensive search to find the source of these particles. Meanwhile it continues to monitor local beaches removing any particles it finds.

  The Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), the independent environmental regulator, recently commissioned the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) to undertake a survey of the beach at Sandside
  388
  Bay near Dounreay following discovery of a particle there by UKAEA during routine monitoring. No further particles were detected.

  Patenting of Animals
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received concerning the patenting of animals; and if she will make a statement. [3227]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 17 June 1997]: I am replying because my department has overall responsibility for intellectual property policy. My department has received one representation from Compassion in World Farming concerning a proposal from the European Commission on the patenting of biotechnological inventions. I understand that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has also received a representation from Compassion in World Farming concerning the patenting of animals.

  Solar Power
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what factors underlie the allocation of funding by her Department to the promotion of(a) the oil and gas industry and (b) the deployment of solar power in Britain. [4443]

  Mr. John Battle
  (a) The DTI sponsors the UK companies which supply goods and services to the oil, gas and petrochemicals industry in the UK and abroad. Funds are directed at actions to increase the technological capability and international competitiveness of these supplier companies and to promote exports.

  (b) The DTI sponsors the new and renewable energy industry, which encompasses solar energy. In line with our manifesto commitment to undertake a new and strong drive to develop renewable energy sources, I recently announced a review of policy including considerations of what would be necessary and practicable to achieve 10 per cent. of UK's electricity needs by the year 2010, and how renewables, including solar, can make an effective contribution to meeting requirements for future greenhouse gas reduction commitments. In the meantime, the Government's new and renewable energy programme, currently under way, will continue.

  The Government will be considering the balance of activities within the spending plans it inherited to ensure that they reflect the Government's priorities, through the Comprehensive Spending Review, announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 11 June 1997.

  Mr. Cook
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the number of jobs which could result from the development and widespread use of solar power in Britain. [4441]

  Mr. Battle
  My Department has not yet made any assessment of this kind. The current estimate of the number of people working directly on photovoltaics in the UK is around 250 and on active solar heating it is 160.

  Mr. Cook
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures her Department is undertaking to ensure that(a) its own and (b) other suitable Government buildings are fitted with solar photovoltaic panels. [4386]
  389
  Mr. Battle
  Continuing energy savings targets require that departments consider and implement means of reducing energy consumption. The use of photovoltaic cells is one method that departments and their professional advisers consider in seeking to reduce the amount of electricity supplied from the grid to buildings they are responsible for.

  At the time of the refurbishment of the DTI Headquarter's Building at 1 Victoria Street and the designing of the Department of Environment's new Headquarter's building Eland House, thorough cost-benefit analyses of the potential for utilising PV were carried out. In the light of those analyses, it was decided that it would not be cost-effective to install PV modules in either building. Cost-benefit analyses typically consider the life cycle costings and total energy consumption for an installation.

  Mr. Cook
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade pursuant to her recent speech, (1) what measures her Department is undertaking to promote the use of solar power; [4385]

  (2) what measures apart from the Scholar Programme her Department is undertaking to increase the use of solar electric power in (a) homes and (b) offices; [4440]

  (3) what measures her Department is undertaking to create a market in Britain for the British solar photovoltaic industry. [4442]

  Mr. Battle
  I announced on 6 June,Official Report column 273, a review of Government policy on new and renewable energy including looking at all aspects of its support for solar energy. In the meantime my Department's New and Renewable Energy Programme, which includes work on solar energy, will continue.

  Also, in addition to the SCOLAR programme under the Technology Foresight initiative, the Office of Science and Technology funds a programme of basic and applied research into solar energy, including photovoltaics, through the Engineering and Physical Science Research Council.

  Transco (Price Controls)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Presidents of the Board of Trade when she expects to make a decision on the Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry into price controls on Transco. [4392]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  The Director General of Gas Supply published the MMC report on 18 June. Under the provisions of the Gas Act 1986, it is her responsibility to respond to the MMC's conclusions.

  Airlines (Alliance)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she expects to make a decision on the proposed alliance between British Airways and American Airlines. [4387]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  The UK competition authorities are currently considering the proposed alliance between British Airways and American Airlines, in consultation with the European Commission. It is not the practice of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade 390
  to comment publicly on the timing or substance of competition cases in which she will be responsible for making a decision.

  Travel Industry
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she expects to receive the report from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on vertical integration in the travel trade. [4390]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  The Monopolies and Mergers Commission (MMC) report on foreign package holidays is due to be delivered to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 6 November 1997.

  Beer Companies (Merger)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she expects to make a decision on the proposed merger between Bass and Carlsberg Tetley. [4389]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  The Monopolies and Mergers Commission (MMC) report on the proposed merger between Bass and Carlsberg-Tetley will be published as quickly as is practicable. I cannot comment on the likely publication date of the MMC report or its contents, since this information is market sensitive. Copies of the report will be laid before Parliament at the same time as it is published.

  Electrical Goods
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she expects to make a decision on the inquiry into the alleged price fixing of electrical goods. [4391]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  The Monopolies and Mergers Commission (MMC) report on domestic electrical goods will be published as quickly as is practicable. I cannot comment on the likely publication date of the MMC report or its contents, since this information is market sensitive. Copies of the report will be laid before Parliament at the same time as it is published.

  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will include an assessment of public opinion on the operation of manufacturers' recommended retail prices in her consideration of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report into the electrical goods industry. [4602]

  Mr. Griffiths
  The report remains confidential until publication. I am not able to comment until then.

  Electricity Industry (Competition)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions she has had with the Director General of Offer over the timetable for the introduction of competition in the domestic electricity market. [4396]

  Mr. Battle
  I have had discussions with the Director General on many of the strategic issues on the 1998 electricity supply market liberalisation. At my request, he made a report on the current status of the programme of work, and his proposals for future progress to a timely and successful conclusion. PA Consulting, the Overall Programme Managers for the electricity market liberalisation, also produced a report. Both of these reports were published on 29 May. Recently, the Director
  391
  General and I met the Chief Executives of the Public Electricity Suppliers and the Electricity Pool to discuss the practical implementation of the proposals. It was agreed that the Director General's proposals should be accepted as the basis to take the programme forward.

  Recommended Retail Price Scheme
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what public consultations she has held in respect of the future of the recommended retail price scheme; and if she will make a statement. [4601]

  Mr. Griffiths
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has held no public consultations in respect of the future of the recommended retail price scheme.

  The Government plans, as part of its reform of competition law, to replace the Resale Prices Act 1976 with a tough prohibition approach to deal with anti-competitive agreements, practices and behaviour. There will be a consultation process over the summer before a Competition Bill is introduced in the autumn.

  Pembroke Power Station (Orimulsion)
  Mr. Page
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she expects to announce her decision on the National Power application to convert the Pembroke power station to orimulsion. [4592]

  Mr. Battle
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has called for a public inquiry to be held into the application.

  Arrangements for the inquiry are currently in hand and the date, time, venue and the statement of matters which she considers relevant to her consideration of the application will be announced in due course.

  ISDN Telephone Lines
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she will next have discussions with the Director General of Oftel regarding the cost of installing ISDN telephone lines; and if she will evaluate the costs of installing lines in the United Kingdom relative to those in Europe. [4733]

  Mr. Battle
  The pricing of ISDN is a matter for Oftel. Oftel reviewed ISDN prices in 1996 and as a result BT provided more flexible connection pricing arrangements in October of that year for basic rate ISDN (ISDN 2). Although BT's connection charges are high compared with our European neighbours, recent benchmarking studies have shown that the monthly rental and call charges are both very competitive, which means that the overall annual cost of using ISDN in the UK is one of the most competitive in the world.

  Nuclear Material
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the volumes of(a) low-level nuclear material, (b) medium-level nuclear material and (c) high-level nuclear material which were (i) imported into and (ii) exported from Great Britain for each year from 1980 to 1996. [4648]
  392
  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 20 June 1997]: Approximately 3,507 tonnes of spent fuel, which is categorised as high-level nuclear material, from overseas is currently held in the UK, after which the majority of the nuclear material will be reprocessed and exported to the country of origin.

  The volumes of nuclear material for the whole of the UK cover many thousands of import and export transactions every year, and involve other nuclear materials such as isotopes for hospitals, industry, and academic institutions. The data requested, in respect of all these transactions covering each year from 1980 to 1996, could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the countries in 1996 (i) from which Britain imported(a) nuclear fuel, (b) spent nuclear fuel and (c) nuclear waste and (ii) to which Britain exported (1) nuclear fuel, (2) spent nuclear fuel and (3) nuclear waste. [4649]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 20 June 1997]: In 1996, (i) Britain imported (a) nuclear fuel from Germany, France and Belgium (b) spent fuel from Japan, Germany, Switzerland, Netherlands and Australia (c) no nuclear waste and (ii) exported (1) nuclear fuel to Indonesia, Netherlands, France, Germany, Canada, Australia (2) spent nuclear fuel to France, and (3) no nuclear waste.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what the estimated volume is of(a) high-level nuclear material, (b) medium-level nuclear material and (c) low-level nuclear material currently in Great Britain. [4645]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 20 June 1997]: The volumes of undisposed radioactive waste in stock and predicted to arise in the UK are routinely reported in the UK Radioactive Waste Inventory, published by Nirex Limited, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. Based on the latest update, provided by Nirex, together in the 1994 Inventory, and assuming uniform rates of future arisings the estimated volumes of waste in stock on 1 April 1997 are:

  (i) high-level: 2,000m3

  (ii) intermediate-level: 74,000m3

  (iii) low-level: 18,000m3

  1Low-level waste is routinely disposed of to Drigg and hence it has been assumed that the vast majority of arisings, between 1994 and 1997, have been disposed of.

  Calculating the total of all nuclear materials currently in the UK, which would include industry, hospitals and academic institutions, could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Nuclear Industry (US Representations)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations the Government have received, since 1 May, from the United States Government concerning the nuclear industry; and what discussions between representatives of the two Governments have taken place on this issue. [4644]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 20 June 1997]: My Department has received no specific representations from the US Government on nuclear issues since 1 May 1997.

  393
  My officials have had discussions with representatives of the US Government with whom they maintain regular contact on both a bilateral and multilateral basis. These discussions have covered a range of issues of continuing mutual interest, including disposition of surplus US and Russian fissile materials; verification of nuclear materials; management of decommissioning; nuclear transport; the international liability regime; fusion research; and nuclear safety in Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union including preparations for the discussions on these issues at the Summit of the Eight at Denver on 20–22 June.

  Dixons
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will investigate the timing of sales of shares in Dixons. [5109]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  It is the Department's longstanding policy not to discuss the affairs of individual companies.

  My Department takes seriously its role in the investigation of any misconduct, and is always keen to receive any information which might assist in deciding if enquiries are needed.

  If the hon. Member has any information which he feels ought to be brought to my attention, he should do so as soon as possible.

  Gas Industry (Competition)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussion she has had with the Director General of Ofgas over the establishment of criteria for effective competition in the domestic gas market; and if she will make a statement. [4394]

  Mr. Battle
  The Government consider that the extension of competition on as wide a basis as possible is in the, interests of gas consumers. The securing of effective competition is a part of the Director General's statutory duties, and it is for her as an independent regulator to decide how to interpret and achieve that duty.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she expects Ofgas to announce the next phases of gas competition. [4393]

  Mr. Battle
  I understand that the Director General of Gas Supply intends to issue proposals for consultation shortly.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Adult Education (Funding)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement about the future funding of adult education. [3276]

  Dr. Howells
  Under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, statutory responsibility for securing the adequate provision of adult further education is divided between local education authorities—which are responsible for the more informal adult further education courses in their areas—and the Further Education Funding Council—which is responsible for those courses described in the Act under schedule 2 as having national 394
  significance, such as basic skills course, access courses and those which lead to academic or vocational qualifications.

  My right hon. Friend recently announced that Professor Bob Fryer will chair a national advisory group on adult learning to advise on all issues relating to adult learning.

  Welfare-to-work Programme
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what employment or training initiatives the Government plans to introduce under the welfare-to-work programme for those who have been unemployed for less than six months. [4376]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Our current priority is the introduction of the New Deal for young people out of work for six months or more. Help will continue to be available immediately to all those who become unemployed.

  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the proposed locations of the Government's welfare-to-work projects; and what criteria govern these decisions. [4579]

  Mr. Howarth
  Our New Deal for young and long-term unemployed people will operate throughout the United Kingdom. All unemployed people who are eligible will have a chance to participate in this initiative, which is designed to help them from welfare into sustained employment as quickly as possible.

  Drugs
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the total amount(a) spent and (b) allocated by his Department on tackling problems relating to drugs in respect of (i) developing prevention publicity, education and community action and (ii) improving treatment and rehabilitation, for (1) 1994, (2) 1995, (3) 1996 and (4) 1997. [4797]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Information on total Government and individual Departments' expenditure on tackling drug misuse is not recorded on an annual basis. The most recently available estimates were published in the White Paper "Tackling Drugs Together" in May 1995. They show that at least £526 million of expenditure in 1993–94 could be directly attributable to drug programmes and activities across the UK.

  The Government will be appointing a "drug czar" to co-ordinate action against drugs, working to the President of the Council as Chair of the Cabinet's co-ordinating committee on drug misuse. One of his/her first tasks will be to review urgently the existing drugs strategy, and to put forward proposals for tackling the problem with renewed vigour. This review will include current Government expenditure.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what research has been commissioned by his Department to identify the level of drug abuse at each level of the education system. [5089]
  395
  Ms Morris
  A good deal of research is available on levels of drug abuse which, while not necessarily commissioned by my Department, is taken into account when planning initiatives to support drug education in schools.

  My Department did provide funding for an evaluation of The Advisory Council for Alcohol and Drug Education's—TACADE's—"Skills for Life" PSE programme for secondary schools, which had a particular emphasis on drug education. This included research into students' experience of drugs and the level of reported drug taking by students in a small sample of schools, as well as an in-depth study of how those schools were implementing the programme. A report will be published shortly. In addition, my Department has recently produced a booklet outlining the results of the independent evaluation reports of a number of LEA innovative drug education projects supported by our Grants for Education Support and Training—GEST—programme in 1995–96. These projects researched and trailled a range of different approaches to drug education work. A copy is in the Library.

  Early Excellence Centres
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment where he proposes to site the 25 early excellence centres; and on what criteria his judgment as to their location will be based. [4578]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We shall invite proposals for a national pilot programme of early excellence centres. We are considering the criteria for centres, and will make an announcement soon.

  Assisted Places
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received about primary aged children in receipt of an assisted place who will lose assisted status at the age of 11 years. [4744]

  Mr. Byers
  I have received correspondence from bodies representing schools offering assisted places to primary age children, and from others, about the phasing out of the assisted places scheme.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many pupils residing in the Colchester parliamentary constituency benefit from an assisted place. [5005]

  Mr. Byers
  Information about the constituency area from which assisted pupils originate is not collected centrally. There are no schools participating in the assisted places scheme in the Colchester constituency.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the average class size in state sector education in(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland, (d) Northern Ireland and (e) the United Kingdom for the most recent year for which he has figures. [4589]
  396
  Mr. Byers
  The available information on average class sizes is shown in the table.

  Average class sizes1,2: 1995–96

  One teacher classes

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  All classes3 Secondary

  United Kingdom

  4—

  4—

  27.0

  521.6

  England

  27.3

  21.7

  27.5

  21.9

  Wales

  4—

  4—

  25.9

  20.2

  Scotland

  4—

  4—

  24.8

  19.5

  Northern Ireland

  24.1

  4—

  24.1

  —

  1Data on class sizes was collected at different times of the academic year in the different countries: January 1996 for England and Wales, September 1995 for Scotland and October 1995 for Northern Ireland.

  2In Northern Ireland, for data collection purposes, a class is defined as a group of pupils normally in the charge of one teacher.

  3"All classes" figures include classes where more than one teacher may be present.

  4Not available.

  5Great Britain only.

  Passive Smoking
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to raise awareness in schools of the dangers of passive smoking. [5084]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Education about the harmful effects of smoking remains a statutory requirement as part of National Curriculum science. The Department has issued guidance to schools on their contribution towards ensuring that pupils are made aware of all the health risks associated with smoking, including passive smoking; and to teachers on addressing smoking within the school curriculum and on appropriate smoking education materials.

  Teacher Education
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on his plans to improve initial teacher education. [5072]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I hope to be announcing new requirements for courses of initial teacher training later this week.

  White Paper
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will publish an Education White Paper. [4891]

  Mr. Byers
  A White Paper setting out the Government's agenda for raising standards in schools will be published in early July.

  Specialist Schools
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the criteria will be for the next round of applications for specialist schools. [4892]
  397
  Ms Estelle Morris
  The new criteria will retain the benefits of the existing arrangements but will include an emphasis on collaboration with other schools and the wider community. We expect that revised criteria will be available to schools during July.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what resources he plans to provide to ensure that sports specialist schools in the state education system develop into a network. [4893]

  Ms Morris
  The resources for specialist sports colleges, as with all programmes, will be considered as part of the Department's review of its spending plans.

  State Schools
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the total value of balances held by state schools in England. [5066]

  Mr. Byers
  Balances carried forward at the end of the financial year 1995–96 by county, voluntary and special schools maintained by LEAs in England are provisionally estimated by the Department to have amounted in total to about £580 million. These figures are derived from the LMS outturn statements published by LEAs under section 122 of the Education Act 1996—formerly section 42 of the Education Reform Act 1988£and represent surpluses net of any deficits.

  The financial monitoring of schools in the grant-maintained sector is the responsibility of the Funding Agency for Schools, and I have asked the Chairman of the Funding Agency to arrange for a reply to be sent to the hon. Member in respect of the sector.

HEALTH

  Brachial Plexus Injuries
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if all health authorities record the incidence of brachial plexus injuries. [4047]

  Ms Jowell
  Information is collected on the number of babies admitted to hospital with a primary diagnosis of brachial plexus injuries. The number of babies with brachial plexus injuries diagnosed at birth who are not readmitted to hospital is not known.

  Smoking
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the 1996 smoking prevalence data. [4507]

  Ms Jowell
  It is planned to publish as follows:

  (i)preliminary results from the 1996–97 General Household Survey including smoking prevalence for adults, during autumn 1997;

  (ii)"Smoking Among Secondary Schoolchildren in 1996", later this year.

  Dental Services (Wiltshire)
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the money allocated to the Wiltshire health authority from the general dental service access fund 1996–97 has been 398
  allocated to dental practices in the health authority region; how it has been distributed; and to what extent this funding has satisfied the criteria set out in the bid. [4790]

  Mr. Milburn
  Yes. The funding is being used to meet the aims identified in the health authority's bid.

  Private Medical Insurance (Tax Relief)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the impact on NHS(a) costs and (b) receipts from private medical insurers if tax relief on private medical insurance for the over-60s were removed; [5081]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the potential impact on NHS waiting lists as a result of increased demand if tax relief on private medical insurance for the over 60s were removed. [5108]

  Mr. Milburn
  None.

  Funding Formula
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the market forces factor in the NHS funding allocation formula; and what weight he will attach to representations submitted to his Department by(a) Leeds Community Health Council and (b) others. [52911

  Mr. Milburn
  We will look at how resources are distributed across both secondary and primary care, to ensure that these fully reflect local population needs and operate as fairly as possible.

  We will consider all representations received.

  Accident and Emergency Departments
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the average waiting times at accident and emergency departments at the Royal Free Hospital, Whittington, Homerton, Royal London and the North Middlesex; and if he will make a statement. [4410]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Department does not currently collect information on average waiting times in accident and emergency departments.

  Information is collected on the Patient's Charter standards for immediate assessment in accident and emergency, which is published annually in the NHS Performance Tables; and admission to a hospital bed through accident and emergency by health authority.

  We understand from the health authorities concerned that the percentages of patients needing hospital admission through accident and emergency who were admitted within two hours and four hours for the three months to 31 March 1997 were as set out in the table.

  Hospital

  Percentage of patients admitted within two hours

  Percentage of patients admitted within four hours

  The Royal Free Hospital

  56.8

  83.9

  Whittington

  32.0

  69.0

  Homerton

  77.5

  95.0

  Royal London

  87.2

  98.5

  North Middlesex

  79.0

  100.0

  Source:

  Health authorities' unpublished information.

  Northwick Park and St. Mark's Hospital Trust
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what specific proposals have been put forward by the Northwick Park and St. Mark's Hospital Trust to recover from its deficit; what targets his Department has set; and what progress has been made towards them. [4619]

  Mr. Milburn
  The trust has in place a recovery plan, jointly agreed with Brent and Harrow Health Authority and the NHS Executive, which includes a variety of measures to ensure that it achieves financial balance within a 2-year time scale. Progress has been made on this with the trust having identified just under £6 million savings for this year, predominately from non-clinical budgets. The NHS Executive will continue to monitor the situation.

  Drugs and Medicines Spending
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent in real terms on drugs and medicines by the NHS in each of the last 10 years. [5076]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Total NHS spending on drugs

  £ million

  Year

  Family Health Services drugs

  Hospital and Community Health service drugs

  Total (Cash)

  Total (Real)

  1986–87

  1,378

  318

  1,696

  2,619

  1987–88

  1,536

  352

  1,888

  2,768

  1988–89

  1,744

  380

  2,124

  2,919

  1989–90

  1,942

  414

  2,356

  3,026

  1990–91

  2,080

  460

  2,540

  3,021

  1991–92

  2,317

  591

  2,908

  3,251

  1992–93

  2,641

  643

  3,284

  3,523

  1993–94

  2,951

  710

  3,661

  3,817

  1994–95

  3,230

  764

  3,994

  4,091

  1995–96

  3,498

  874

  4,372

  4,372

  Please note that the real figures are given to a 1995–96 baseline.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Profession (Recruitment)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is his Department's policy concerning the recruitment of people to the legal profession from a wider variety of social backgrounds; and if he will make a statement. [3121]

  Mr. Hoon
  Recruitment to the legal profession is primarily a matter for the profession itself. Both the Bar Council and the Law Society have adopted policies designed to ensure that entrance to the profession is based on merit alone. The Government believes that opportunities in the legal profession should be open to those from the widest possible variety of social backgrounds.

  Civil Aid Certificates
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what are the current rights of a non-assisted third party to challenge the issue of a civil aid certificate to a party in a proceeding; and if he will make a statement. [3122]

  Mr. Hoon
  It is open to anyone to make representations to the Legal Aid Board about the issue of a legal aid certificate in civil proceedings, in relation either the merits of the case or the financial eligibility of the applicant.

  Crown Courts
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the administration of the Crown courts. [3123]

  Mr. Hoon
  Since April 1995, the administration of the Crown courts has been the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Court Service under the terms of the Framework Document for the Agency.

  Magistracy
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals he has to ensure that the magistracy is representative of political opinions and ethnic balance. [3124]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor requires his Advisory Committees to draw candidates for the lay magistracy from a broad a spectrum of the community so as to ensure, as far as is possible, that those recommended for appointment broadly reflect the communities which they will serve. Both political affiliation and ethnic origin are taken into account.

  Monmouth and Chepstow Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the future of Chepstow and Monmouth court house. [3125]

  Mr. Hoon
  1 would refer my Hon. Friend to the written answer I gave to his question, on 12 June this year,Official Report, 12 June 1997, column 548.

  Magistrates Courts Committees
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department by what mechanism local magistrates courts committees consult(a) local authorities and (b) local hon. Members on proposals to merge benches of magistrates. [3127]

  Mr. Hoon
  Section 33 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 provides that a magistrates courts committee may submit to the Lord Chancellor a draft order proposing changes to the petty sessional divisions, or PSDs, in its area. Section 34 of the Act requires a magistrates courts committee to consult all the magistrates of the affected benches and the relevant paying authority, before the Lord Chancellor may consider any application for change under section 33.
  401
  MCCs are not required to consult Members direct, although section 34 also requires that notices be placed in local newspapers and the local courthouses. In practice the vast majority of MCCs consult more extensively than the Act stipulates.

  Marriage Support
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what evaluation he plans to make of the current pilot programme of marriage support projects. [4075]

  Mr. Hoon
  The main aim of the pilot programme is to identify the types of service which support marriage most effectively. All the projects include an element of monitoring and evaluation, and organisations are required to provide an interim report on progress to the end of the calendar year 1997, followed by a full evaluation on completion of the project.

  The Department will assess the effectiveness of the pilot projects in terms of their achievement of specific aims and objectives, and their cost-effectiveness.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what support he proposes to give to enable successful marriage support projects to continue once the current pilot programme has been completed. [4074]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Department's programme of marriage support projects started on 1 April 1997. The programme will run for a year, and it is too early yet to identify the successful projects. The results of the pilot programme will be one of the factors taken into account by my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor in deciding on the future funding of marriage support projects.

  Magistrates
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if records are kept which show in relation to lay justices and stipendiary magistrates(a) the average length of trials before them, (b) the average fines imposed by them and (c) the number of successful appeals from them. [5031]

  Mr. Hoon
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what criteria exist to enable comparisons between the performance of lay magistrates and stipendiary magistrates. [5033]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor's Department does not attempt to draw comparisons between the performance of judicial officers.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to require stipendiary magistrates to sit with lay justices. [5034]

  Mr. Hoon
  There are some situations, for example in the youth court and the family court, where either law or practice requires stipendiary magistrates to sit with lay justices. There are no current plans to add to these categories.
  402
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the savings in cost and time from appointing a higher proportion of stipendiary magistrates. [5035]

  Mr. Hoon
  No formal assessment has been made of the savings in cost and time which might result from appointing a higher proportion of stipendiary magistrates. The Study of Delay in the Criminal Justice System (the Narey Report), contained no specific cost-benefit analysis.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many of the justices of the peace in England are qualified barristers or solicitors. [5036]

  Mr. Hoon
  No records are kept of the numbers of justices of the peace who are qualified barristers or solicitors.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what percentage of the magistrates courts in England and Wales are equipped to cater for magistrates who are registered disabled. [5038]

  Mr. Hoon
  As magistrates court buildings are the responsibility of the local authorities this information is not centrally held. The design standards set down for magistrates courts since 1991 require the magistrates' entry into the courthouse and access to a proportion of the courtrooms to be suitable for wheelchairs. Provision is also made for loop induction systems to be provided for those with hearing impairments. Disabled toilet facilities are also provided within the magistrates' circulation area. Applications by local authorities for grant aid to adapt older magistrates courts to provide improved facilities for disabled users including magistrates are treated as high priority bids when allocating capital grant.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what percentage of magistrates in England and Wales are registered disabled. [5040]

  Mr. Hoon
  No records are kept for the percentage of magistrates in England and Wales who are registered disabled.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what percentage of(a) lay magistrates and (b) stipendiary magistrates are from an ethnic minority background. [5041]

  Mr. Hoon
  (a) a survey of the ethnic origin of lay magistrates was begun in February 1997 and the results are expected to be available in early October.

  (b) 2 per cent. of stipendiary magistrates are from an ethnic minority background.

  Mr. Malone
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will establish a working group to report on the quality of justice and the relative case disposal rate of lay justices and stipendiary magistrates. [5030]

  Mr. Hoon
  The working party on the role of the stipendiary magistracy reported in February 1996. There are no current plans to commission a further study.

  Court Costs
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the average cost per day
  403
  to the Exchequer of (a) a Crown court, (b) a magistrates court with lay justices sitting and (c) a magistrates court with a stipendiary magistrate sitting. [5032]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Home Office "Model of Flows and Costs in the Criminal Justice Process" for 1995–96 shows the total cost excluding capital expenditure in the Crown Court was £202,544,937 and in the magistrates' courts for criminal matters was £257,885,498. The number of days sat in the Crown Court in 1996 was 90,956. The number of hours sat in the magistrates' courts in 1996 was 1,173,071. It is not possible to break this information down between lay and stipendiary magistrates.

  Judicial Training
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to improve the(a) race and (b) gender awareness of (i) judges, (ii) stipendiary magistrates and (iii) lay justices. [5042]

  Mr. Hoon
  Judicial training is the responsibility of the Judicial Studies Board (JSB), which is a non-departmental governmental body. Following a major programme of seminars in ethnic minority awareness between 1994 and 1996 for circuit judges, recorders, assistant recorders, district judges and stipendiary magistrates, the JSB continues to include such training as part of induction training for newly appointed assistant recorders and deputy district judges. It has also held a number of sessions in both induction and continuation training on equal treatment, including gender awareness, and is considering how training in this area might be developed.

  Lay magistrate training is delivered by magistrates courts committees but the JSB has a role in setting the syllabus. Lay magistrates already address the issue of equal treatment for all in the light of their judicial oath and the JSB has recently begun a study to identify the skills and knowledge required by lay magistrates to ensure equality of treatment for all who appear in their courts.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what percentage of persons charged with serious criminal offences in(a) 1994, (b) 1995 and (c) 1996 were legally aided. [5044]

  Mr. Hoon
  96.6 per cent of those dealt with on indictment in the Crown Court in 1994 were legally aided. The figures for 1995 and 1996 were 96.0 per cent. and 95.3 per cent. respectively.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what percentage of legally aided persons in all criminal proceedings in(a) 1994, (b) 1995 and (c) 1996 received custodial sentences. [5045]

  Mr. Hoon
  This information is not held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Justices Clerks
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many clerks and deputy clerks to justices there are in England and Wales; and how many of these are qualified solicitors or banisters. [5037]
  404
  Mr. Hoon
  According to records held by the Justices Clerk Society there are 204 justices clerks in England and Wales. All are qualified banisters or solicitors. There are around 230 people who are designated as deputies for justices clerks. Of these some 30 are neither banisters nor solicitors.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if it is his practice to ensure that lay magistrates always sit with clerks who are qualified as solicitors or barristers. [5039]

  Mr. Hoon
  Under the provisions of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997, magistrates courts are local managed. Decisions on which clerk advises which bench are therefore taken locally. The qualifications required of clerks in magistrates courts are set out in the Justices' Clerks (Qualification of Assistants) Rules 1979.

  Chief Stipendiary Magistrates
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the future of the office of chief stipendiary magistrate. [5043]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor hopes shortly to designate one of the metropolitan stipendiary magistrates to be chief metropolitan stipendiary magistrate in succession to Mr. Peter Badge.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if it is his policy to appoint future chief stipendiary magistrates from among existing stipendiary magistrates. [5029]

  Mr. Hoon
  Section 16(3) of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 requires the Lord Chancellor to designate one of the metropolitan stipendiary magistrates to be the chief metropolitan stipendiary magistrate.

  Judicial Appointments
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to review the system for appointing judges. [3118]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Government proposes to consult later this year on the merits of a Judicial Appointments Commission and whether it should be established.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Integrated Schools
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will ensure that when an integrated school is established in an area, funds are not reduced for other local schools. [3342]

  Mr. Worthington
  A key principle of the local management of schools arrangements is that a large part of a school's budget is determined largely by the enrolment. If the take-up of places in new grant-maintained schools affect the enrolments in other schools, it could also have implications for the budgets of those schools which will, of course, then have lower running costs.
  405
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will provide additional funding in the next financial year to encourage the establishment of integrated schools. [3343]

  Mr. Worthington
  In the coming months I intend to review, in consultation with relevant interests, the present approach to the establishment of integrated schools to determine how best to encourage the development of this sector. It is too early to say how much, if any, additional funding will be made available next year.

  Bed Blocking
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many hospital patients(a) in Northern Ireland and (b) in the Ulster, North Down and Ards Trust, assessed as ready for institutional care in the community, are currently bed blocking; and if she will make a statement on the factors underlying the bed blocking. [3830]

  Mr. Worthington
  This information is not collected on a routine basis. However, recent surveys carried out be the four health and social services boards indicated that there were some 127 hospital patients who had been assessed as needing either residential or nursing home care and who had been waiting more than two weeks while arrangements were being made for that care. Of these patients 29 were in the Ulster North Down and Ards Trust. A survey of discharge delays carried out by the Eastern Health and Social Services Board found that there were a number of reasons for such delays. While pressure on community care budgets was a contributory cause in more than half the cases,"patient or relative disagreement with the assessment outcome",
  and
  "patient choice of accommodation not being available"
  were causes in nearly 20 per cent. of cases. The remaining were due to other reasons such as "housing preparation", "changes in medical condition" and "unavailability of specialist equipment."

  Hunt Kennels
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list those hunt kennels which the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland Veterinary Service assessed to be unsatisfactory under the BSE enforcement programme, since 1 January. [3825]

  Mr. Murphy
  The following list details the hunt kennels which the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland Veterinary Service assessed to be unsatisfactory under the BSE enforcement programme, since 1 January:

  Killultagh Hunt Kennels

  Newry Harriers

  East Antrim Hounds.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many disability living allowance reviews and appeals took place last year; what percentage were successful; what is the average cost of each such procedure; and if she will make a statement on the impact on the work of her Department of the total number of decisions which were overturned. [3828]
  406
  Mr. Worthington
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Social Security Agency under its Chief Executive, Mr. Alec Wylie, and I have asked him to arrange for a response to be given.

  Letter from Alec Wylie to Mr. Robert McCartney, dated 17 June 1997:
  I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about Disability Living Allowance reviews and appeals.
  The information you requested on the number of reviews and appeals is set out in the attached tables.
  I regret that information on the cost of review and appeal procedures is not maintained separately and to provide this would require a major clerical exercise generating disproportionate costs.
  As many customers provide additional evidence throughout the adjudication process, it is inevitable that some of the original decisions will be overturned at the review and appeal stages. Experience also shows that most customers routinely ask for a review or appeal where the higher rates of Disability Living Allowance have not been awarded. In most cases, arrears of benefit arising from overturned decisions are calculated and paid by computer which means that the impact of this work on the Social Security Agency is minimal.
  I hope this explains the position for you but I would be happy to provide any further information you require.

  Table No. 1: Review decisions implemented during 1996

  Year

  Number of review decisions

  Success rate

  1996 (January to December)

  22,253

  33.7 per cent. (7,497)

  Table No. 2: Tribunal decisions implemented during 1996

  Year

  Decisions of appeal tribunal implemented

  Success rate

  1996 (January to December)

  3,358

  36.6 per cent. (1,230)

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will permit housing benefit to be made available in the form of loans for deposits and first month's advance rental on private sector accommodation. [3831]

  Mr. Worthington
  No. There is no provision within the housing benefit legislation for the award of loans and there are no plans to change this policy.

  The Northern Ireland Housing Executive is supporting a rent guarantee scheme, which avoids the requirement for an advance or deposit, operated by the Simon Community (NI), a voluntary organisation working with the homeless. The scheme is currently operating as a pilot exercise in the Belfast area and, if successful, is likely to be extended in its scope.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will ensure that the Child Support Agency distinguishes in correspondence to parents between basic payment amounts and arrears amounts; and if she will make a statement. [3827]
  407
  Mr. Worthington
  Responsibility for this subject has been delegated to the Northern Ireland Child Support Agency under its Chief Executive, Mr. Patrick Devlin, and I have asked him to arrange for a response to be given.

  Letter from P. Devlin to Mr. Robert McCartney, dated 19 June 1997:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question about distinguishing between basic payment amounts and arrears amounts in correspondence to parents.
  When a child maintenance assessment is calculated notifications are issued to both the absent parent and parent with care informing them of the amount and the effective date of the weekly liability. At this stage accounts are set up and further notifications setting out the method, frequency, amount and date of the first regular payment are sent to both parents. They are also advised of the amount of maintenance due for the initial payment period. The absent parent is advised that if he has paid any maintenance during this time for any of the children named the amount of the initial payment may be reduced to take account of monies already paid.
  If an absent parent fails to make payment on the due date he is advised that child maintenance payments are in arrears. The notification sets out the due date, amount due, amount paid/adjusted and arrears. He is also asked to pay the arrears in full or if he is unable to do so to contact the Agency immediately to discuss an agreement to pay them. The notification also advises that if an agreement to pay the arrears is reached then payments of regular maintenance must be maintained.
  I hope you find this information useful.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will estimate the cost of providing public sector dwellings for all homeless cases. [3833]

  Mr. Murphy
  It is not possible to provide an accurate estimate, since those classified as homeless by the Housing Executive are considered for allocations from the existing housing stock or from newly constructed dwellings. They may also be temporarily housed at present in hostels or bed and breakfast accommodation. The national cost of providing new dwellings for the estimated 4,000 currently classified as homeless would be £140 million.

  Right to Buy
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will amend the rules of the Housing Executive preventing sales of ground floor dwellings to those becoming tenants after the age of 60 years so as to permit house sales in certain circumstances. [3829]

  Mr. Murphy
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and its Chief Executive has advised me that in August 1996 the Housing Executive Board reviewed this aspect of its house sales policy. It decided not to change the scheme because the present policy achieved the necessary balance between the competing needs of tenants who require an adequate supply of such accommodation and potential purchasers who wish to buy their homes.

  Rateable Values
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list for each council area the 408
  rateable value of (a) domestic and (b) other hereditaments, indicating the sums she expects to raise for each sector this year; and what were the sums raised in each of the last three years. [4071]

  Mr. Murphy
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Rate Collection Agency under its Chief Executive, Mr. D. W. Gallagher. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from D. W. Gallagher to Mr. William Ross, dated 18 June 1997:
  I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question on rateable values, the total rates to be collected in the 1997/98 rating year and the total rates collected in each of the past three years.
  I attach as Annexes 1' to '3' tables showing by District Council the Domestic and Non-Domestic Net Annual Values, the Gross Collectable Rate for these sectors for this rating year and the amount collected by the Rate Collection Agency from 1993/94. You will note that the Annexes have included comments where necessary to clarify the tables.
  I hope that this information is of use to you but should you require further explanation please do not hesitate to contact me.

  Annex 1

  £000s

  District council

  Domestic net annual values 1997–98

  Non-domestic net annual values 1997–98

  Antrim

  2,851

  26,885

  Ards

  5,036

  23,542

  Armagh

  3,010

  16,115

  Ballymena

  3,962

  29,250

  Ballymoney

  1,498

  7,145

  Banbridge

  2,544

  11,365

  Belfast

  17,348

  265,220

  Carrickfergus

  2,577

  12,483

  Castlereagh

  4,911

  23,855

  Coleraine

  4,342

  23,651

  Cookstown

  1,657

  11,654

  Craigavon

  4,882

  35,543

  Derry

  5,678

  53,696

  Down

  3,827

  18,822

  Dungannon

  2,375

  19,834

  Fermanagh

  3,065

  23,648

  Larne

  1,993

  16,493

  Limavady

  1,645

  9,767

  Lisburn

  7,313

  49,046

  Magherafelt

  2,022

  12,362

  Moyle

  1,006

  3,733

  Newly and Mourne

  4,571

  28,259

  Newtownabbey

  5,367

  36,988

  North Down

  6,356

  31,157

  Omagh

  2,443

  19,025

  Strabane

  1,806

  11,384

  Northern Ireland

  104,085

  820,922

  Notes:

  1. Net annual value is the yearly rent which a property could be let for assuming it was vacant and that the tenant agreed to pay the rates, keep the property in repair and be responsible for its insurance.

  2. Rateable value is the value by reference to which rates are assessed and is either the NAV or a figure derived from it taking into account any relief or exemption.

  Source:

  Valuation and Lands Agency.
  409

  Annex 2

  £000s

  District council

  Gross collectable rates—domestic 1997–98

  Gross collectable rates—non domestic 1997–98

  Antrim

  4,059

  10,639

  Ards

  8,086

  8,909

  Armagh

  4,909

  6,346

  Ballymena

  5,675

  10,376

  Ballymoney

  2,267

  2,863

  Banbridge

  3,877

  4,477

  Belfast

  28,499

  107,750

  Carrickfergus

  4,282

  5,353

  Castlereagh

  7,115

  8,359

  Coleraine

  6,588

  9,770

  Cookstown

  2,504

  3,627

  Craigavon

  7,708

  13,215

  Derry

  9,018

  24,000

  Down

  6,567

  7,983

  Dungannon

  3,486

  5,523

  Fermanagh

  4,584

  8,114

  Larne

  3,300

  6,248

  Limavady

  2,405

  3,710

  Lisburn

  10,382

  17,740

  Magherafelt

  3,097

  4,084

  Moyle

  1,584

  1,687

  Newly and Mourne

  7,624

  11,660

  Newtownabbey

  8,894

  15,693

  North Down

  12,176

  12,198

  Omagh

  3,953

  6,973

  Strabane

  2,552

  4,410

  Northern Ireland

  165,191

  321,707

  percentage to collect

  97

  98.55

  Notes:

  1. From 1 April 1997 all non-domestic NAV's and subsequently gross collectable rates for that sector require to be identified separately from domestic NAV's and rates.

  2. Non-domestic NAV's etc are in line with the Fourth General Revaluation List operative from 1 April 1997 while Domestic NAV's reflect still the values at 1 April 1976.

  Source:

  Rate Collection Agency.

  Annex 3

  £000s

  District rate

  1993–94 collected

  1994–95 collected

  1995–96 collected

  1996–97 collected

  Antrim

  10,904

  12,539

  13,326

  14,509

  Ards

  12,678

  13,553

  14,342

  15,531

  Armagh

  7,836

  8,626

  9,330

  10,205

  Ballymena

  11,753

  12,839

  13,899

  14,883

  Ballymoney

  3,789

  4,052

  4,307

  4,692

  Banbridge

  5,961

  6,706

  7,450

  8,018

  Belfast

  110,040

  116,975

  121,942

  127,304

  Carrickfergus

  8,007

  8,404

  9,072

  9,451

  Castlereagh

  10,967

  11,912

  13,215

  14,934

  Coleraine

  11,695

  12,790

  13,852

  15,387

  Cookstown

  4,307

  4,553

  4,912

  5,338

  Craigavon

  15,891

  17,034

  18,183

  20,051

  Derry

  22,589

  25,439

  28,665

  31,712

  Down

  10,033

  11,000

  12,216

  13,443

  Dungannon

  6,304

  6,828

  7,531

  8,152

  Fermanagh

  8,680

  9,334

  10,562

  11,123

  Larne

  7,149

  7,010

  7,180

  7,696

  Limavady

  4,466

  4,888

  5,405

  5,847

  Lisburn

  19,634

  21,645

  22,805

  25,053

  Magherafelt

  4,827

  5,408

  5,883

  6,425

  Moyle

  2,520

  2,700

  2,928

  3,085

  Newry and Mourne

  12,700

  14,052

  15,312

  17,569

  Newtownabbey

  18,071

  19,505

  21,128

  22,233

  410

  Annex 3

  £000s

  District rate

  1993–94 collected

  1994–95 collected

  1995–96 collected

  1996–97 collected

  North Down

  15,959

  18,019

  19,867

  21,585

  Omagh

  7,768

  8,312

  9,160

  10,166

  Strabane

  5,088

  5,425

  5,856

  6,098

  Northern Ireland

  359,414

  389,453

  417,518

  450,490

  Percentage collected

  98.23

  97.92

  98.01

  98.05

  Notes:

  1. Prior to 1 April 1997 Agency collected of rates did not differentiate between domestic and non-domestic Sectors.

  2. Rates collected includes discharges such as vacant property etc.

  Source:

  Rate Collection Agency.

  Motor Sports Events
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultation motor clubs are required to undertake with residents in respect of the closing of public roads for the purpose of motor sports events. [4025]

  Mr. Murphy
  None. However the promoter of a motor race for which the Department of the Environment is making a road closing order is required by the Road Races (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (SI 1986/1887 [NI 17]) to give adequate notice of the event. The order also requires the Department to ensure that public notice of the provisions of any road closing order are brought to the attention of the public.

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many times public roads in Northern Ireland have been closed in each of the last five years for the purpose of staging motor sports events. [4026]

  Mr. Murphy
  The number of road closing orders made by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland was:

  Year

  Road races

  Hill-climbs

  Kart races

  Total

  1992

  10

  9

  4

  23

  1993

  10

  8

  4

  22

  1994

  10

  8

  4

  22

  1995

  10

  8

  3

  21

  1996

  10

  7

  3

  20

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultation is required between the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Ulster Automobile Club with regard to the closing of roads in Northern Ireland for the circuit of Ireland rally. [4024]

  Mr. Murphy
  The Road Races (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (SI 1986–87 [NI 17]) requires the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland to consult the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary before making any road closing order in respect of a motor racing event. The Department is not required to consult the Ulster Automobile Club which is the promoter of the Circuit or Ireland Rally.

  Business Rates
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is her estimate of the rates paid as a percentage of the turnover of retail business. [4069]

  Mr. Murphy
  The information is not available because there is no estimate for Northern Ireland retail turnover separate from that of the United Kingdom.

  Electricity Prices
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland by how much the price of a unit of electric power has increased in cash and percentage terms in each of the last five years; and what factors have contributed to this increase, separately identifying those relating to the non-fossil fuels obligation. [4072]

  Mr. Ingram
  The prices charged under Northern Ireland's tariff in each of the last five years, and the year by year increases are given in the following table:

  Northern Ireland electricity tariff charges

  Year

  p/kWh1

  Percentage increase/decrease

  Percentage of which due to NFFO

  1992–93

  6.827

  —

  —

  1993–94

  7.238

  +6.02

  —

  1994–95

  7.050

  -2.60

  +0.13

  Wind

  Hydro

  Year

  GWh

  p/Kwh1

  GWh

  p/kWh1

  Other non-fossil fuel sources GWh

  p/kWh1

  Total GWh

  1992–93

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1993–94

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1994–95

  13.496

  6.507

  0.139

  7.098

  —

  —

  13.635

  1995–96

  65.252

  6.546

  0.662

  7.036

  —

  —

  65.914

  1996–97

  80.815

  6.553

  2.322

  6.851

  —

  —

  83.137

  1Average unit price.

  The total paid by Northern Ireland Electricity for non-fossil fuel energy from each source in each of the last five years is given in the following table:

  Year

  Wind £

  Hydro £

  Other non-fossil fuel sources

  Total £

  1992–93

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1993–94

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1994–95

  878,214

  9,859

  —

  880,073

  1995–96

  4,271,420

  46,592

  —

  4,318,012

  1996–97

  5,295,819

  159,049

  —

  5,454,868

  All the electrical energy generated by the renewable energy sources shown above was transmitted to customers via the electricity grid.

  Mr. Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will publish the formula used to determine the price paid for electrical power under the non-fossil fuel obligation contracts awarded under each tranche of contracts indicating the figures used in the calculations. [4067]

  Mr. Ingram
  Non-fossil fuel obligaton contracts are awarded to developers after an open competition on the basis of lowest priced bids within each renewable
  412

  Northern Ireland electricity tariff charges

  Year

  p/kWh1

  Percentage increase/decrease

  Percentage of which due to NFFO

  1995–96

  7.370

  +4.54

  +0.61

  1996–97

  7.517

  +1.99

  +0.74

  1Average unit cost based on sales.

  There were a number of factors which contributed to these increases, including the cost of coal and fuel oil on the international markets, the effects of general inflationary pressures and, to a less significant degree, the increase in the level of renewable energy production.

  Mr. Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much electrical power has been generated by(a) wind, (b) water and (c) other non-fossil fuel sources in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years for which figures are available; what was the price (i) per unit and (ii) in total paid by Northern Ireland Electricity for such energy from each source in each of these years; and how much of the electrical power generated by each source in each year was transmitted to customers via the electricity grid. [4070]

  Mr. Ingram
  The amount of electrical power which has been generated by non-fossil fuel sources in Northern Ireland during the last five years and the price paid per unit by Northern Ireland Electricity is given in the following table.

  technology band. Bid prices are expected to reduce in each succeeding NFFO competition towards the prices prices paid to fossil fuel generators.

  Retail Petrol Industry
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to keep under review the retail petrol industry in Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement. [3840]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  The Director General of Fair Trading recently announced a review of the wholesale and retail petrol market in the United Kingdom. The review will cover Northern Ireland.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  State Retirement Pensions (Overseas Residents)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will implement the recommendation of the Social Security Committee in its third report, "Uprating of State Retirement Pensions Payable to People Resident Abroad" (HC 143, 1996–97) relating to the granting of a
  413
  free vote to hon. Members on the payment of upratings to pensioners living in countries where uprating are not paid at present; and if she will make a statement. [604]

  Mr. Denham
  We recognise the strong feelings regarding this long-standing policy among UK pensioners who live in those countries where pensions are not uprated.

  However, there are competing demands and constraints on social security spending. In these circumstances, the Government believes that it would be wrong to raise expectations that an uprating of these pensions would be likely to attract priority.

  Poverty
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment her Department has made of the report prepared by the European Commission's Eurostat secretariat on the comparative levels of poverty in EU member states. [863]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Government has considered the report. We are determined to tackle unjustifiable social and economic inequality through a range of initiatives.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will estimate the number and proportion of United Kingdom households living under the Council of Europe poverty threshold; and if she will publish this information monthly. [4404]

  Mr. Bradley
  The Council of Europe decency threshold relates to individual earnings. It is therefore not meaningful to compare this with total disposable income of households. Information on the numbers and proportions of individuals, whose household income is below various levels, is published annually in the DSS statistical series "Households Below Average Income," a copy of which is in the Library. The estimates are drawn from household surveys, whose sample sizes would not allow any valid estimates to be made on a monthly basis.

  Incomes
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many households to date are currently in receipt of below average income(a) nationally and (b) by regions. [866]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Reforming the welfare state will be one of our key priorities. We will modernise the welfare system to reduce poverty and social division.

  The DSS series "Households Below Average Income" reports the numbers of individuals in households below average income rather than the numbers of households.

  The information in the table shows the numbers of individuals living in households with below national average income. Figures are provided both on income before housing costs are deducted (BHC) and on income after housing costs are deducted (AHC), in line with DSS conventions on income statistics.

  The latest estimates for the United Kingdom are for 1993–94 and 1994–95 financial years combined—shown in the table as "1993–94"—and are based on data from the Family Expenditure Survey (FES). The FES sample is not sufficiently large to allow regional analysis but
  414
  regional estimates are available from the Family Resources Survey (FRS) for 1994–95. The FRS has a very much larger sample but does not include Northern Ireland.

  No allowance has been made for any regional variations in the cost of living.

  Numbers of individuals living in households with below average income (millions)

  Numbers—BHC

  Numbers—AHC

  1993–94

  United Kingdom

  36.0

  35.5

  Great Britain (FES)

  35.0

  34.5

  1994–95

  Great Britain (FRS)

  34.8

  34.4

  England

  29.8

  29.5

  Wales

  1.9

  1.8

  Scotland

  3.1

  3.0

  Government Office region

  North-east

  1.9

  1.9

  North-west

  3.9

  3.7

  Merseyside

  0.7

  0.7

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  3.5

  3.4

  East Midlands

  2.7

  2.6

  West Midlands

  3.4

  3.4

  Eastern

  3.0

  3.1

  London

  3.8

  3.9

  South-east

  3.8

  3.9

  South-west

  3.0

  3.0

  Note:

  Numbers may not add to national totals because of rounding.

  Source:

  DSS 'Households Below Average Income' (HBAI) datasets, from Family Expenditure Survey and Family Resources Survey.

  Housing Benefit (Winchester)
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are currently claiming housing benefit in Winchester(a) under the age of 25 years and (b) in total; and if she will make a statement. [1288]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table:

  Housing benefit recipients

  May 1995

  November 1996

  All ages: Winchester City Council area1

  5,300

  5,100

  All ages: Rest of South-east region (excludes Greater London but includes Winchester)1

  650,000

  647,400

  Aged under 25 years: Rest of South-east region (excludes Greater London but includes Winchester)2

  67,000

  Not available

  Source:

  Housing Benefit Management Information System.

  1100 per cent. quarterly caseload counts-these do not provide age breakdown of Housing Benefit recipients.

  2The annual 1 per cent. caseload sample-last available date from May 1995 (May 1996 date not yet available).

  Notes:

  1. Reliable estimates of the number of recipients aged under 25 are not available below regional level.

  2. Recipients may be a single person or a couple.

  Widowers (Child Care)
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to provide widowers looking after children with the same benefits as widows. [2382]

  Mr. Denham
  Modernising the Social Security system is a key priority of the Government. In our examination of the current Social Security structure, we will take account of the needs and responsibilities of the bereaved in pursuit of our aim of reducing poverty and welfare dependency, promoting work incentives and providing better, simpler more efficient services to clients.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will restore an element of local discretion on decisions relating to the award of incapacity benefits. [2173]

  Mr. Denham
  Modernising the Social Security system is a key priority of the Government. Our objective is to reduce poverty and welfare dependency and to promote work incentives. We will develop a system that supports work, savings and honesty. We will streamline services to provide better, simpler, more efficient services to clients.

  As part of this aim we will be seeking to ensure that decisions relating to the award of incapacity benefits provide a fair assessment of a person's incapacity for work for benefit purposes.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants appealed against refusal by the Benefits Agency to allow incapacity benefit in 1996–97; what was that number as a percentage of the total number of claims refused; and what percentage of appeals were successful. [3759]

  Mr. Denham
  One of the Government's first priorities for social security is to modernise both the appeals system and the decision making process. We intend to bring forward measures early to streamline and simplify the system to make it easier to understand and more cost effective.

  The specific information requested on incapacity benefit appeals is in the table:

  Period

  Number of incapacity benefit appeals against disallowance

  Appeals as a proportion of claims disallowed

  Percentage of appeals heard and decided in the claimant's favour

  April 1996 to March 1997

  100,703

  50 per cent.

  44

  Source:

  Benefits Agency and Independent Tribunal Service.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what reforms she plans to the Child Support Agency; and if she will make a statement. [2474]
  416
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  We will be looking closely at all areas of the Child Support Agency's operations over the coming months to ensure it provides an efficient and effective service to assess and collect maintenance that is due.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is her estimate of revenue expenditure and savings, broken down by (i) income tax, (ii) national insurance and (iii) means tested benefits, arising from the introduction of a national minimum wage at(a) £3.50 per hour and (b) £4.20 per hour, accompanied by a reduction in housing benefit and family credit tapers to 50 per cent. and replacing the current 20 tax band with 10p. [2969]

  Mr. Field
  We will ask the independent Low Pay Commission, before it reaches a recommendation on the level at which the national minimum wage might be set, to take into account all the economic circumstances, including its likely impact. We will not speculate about the possible effects of hypothetical levels before the Commission has had a chance to consider the issues.

  Benefits (Immigrants)
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of spouses of British citizens admitted under the Immigration Rules obtained social security benefits in each of the three most recent years for which figures are available; and what was the cost of such benefits in each year. [2867]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Spouses of British citizens admitted to the United Kingdom under the Immigration Rules are required to demonstrate they can be supported and accommodated without claiming public funds.

  Carers (Earnings Limited)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to make the earnings limit for carers on income support equivalent to the earnings limit for invalid care allowance; and if she will make a statement. [2868]

  Mr. Denham
  There is no fixed limit to the amount a carer can earn and continue to receive income support. Carers are exempt from the normal income support remunerative work rule. This means that they can continue to receive income support to top-up their earnings even if they work more than 16 hours each week. The first £15 of a carer's earnings is disregarded in the income support calculation. Most other groups can earn only £5 before their benefit is affected.

  The invalid care allowance (ICA) earnings limit is fixed at £50 per week, after the deduction of certain expenses. It is intended to help carers keep contact with employment. However, unlike income support, ICA is not an income-related benefit. People with earnings below the earnings limit can get ICA in full but people whose earnings are above the limit cannot get ICA at all.

  We have no plans to change these limits at present but are keeping the position of carers under review.

  Lone Parents
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many lone parents there are in the constituency of Bolton, West; and of these how many are not in work or training. [3056]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  There are no reliable estimates of the number of lone parents by constituency. As a broad indication of the number of lone parents not in work it is estimated that, in November 1995, there were 5,000 lone parents claiming income support in the metropolitan district of Bolton, which encompasses a larger area than Bolton, West.

  Our welfare-to-work programme will help get young unemployed people, long-term unemployed people and lone mothers off benefit and into work.
  Notes:

  1. Caseload figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. Income Support figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling error.

  Source:
  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, November 1995 (5 per cent. sample).

  Pensions
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to review the additional 25 pence a week paid to pensioners over 80 years of age. [3147]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer), on 10 June,Official Report, column 431.

  Benefits (Take-up)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what targets she has set the Benefits Agency to increase the level of take-up of benefits to which claimants are entitled for each type of benefit administered.[3217]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Our priority is to get help to around 1 million pensioners not taking up their income support entitlement. We are determined to address this issue, and we are currently commissioning research to establish why they do not claim the benefit which is their due.

  Means-tested Benefits
  Professor Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many individuals lived in benefit units receiving at least one means-tested benefit(a) in 1978–79 and (b) in the latest year for which figures are available; and if she will break down this total according to the combinations of benefits received.[4306]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  We are committed to looking closely at all aspects of the welfare state to reduce the levels of poverty and welfare dependency.

  Information for 1993–94 and for 1979 has been published in table B4 of Households Below Average Income (HBAI): 1979 to 1993–94, a copy of which is in the Library. No information is available for 1978. Information for 1979 is restricted to that published in HBAI.
  418
  An indication of the numbers of beneficiaries of the main combinations of benefits at May 1995 is given in the table.

  Beneficiaries of means-tested benefits for may 1995 by combinations of benefits received

  Combination of benefit

  Total beneficiaries

  Family credit or disability working allowance only

  1,230,000

  Income support only

  2,370,000

  Family credit or disability working allowance and income support

  20,000

  Housing benefit and/or council tax benefit only

  3,190,000

  Housing benefit and/or council tax benefit, and family credit or disability working allowance

  780,000

  Housing benefit and/or council tax benefit, and income support

  7,230,000

  Housing benefit and/or council tax benefit and family credit or disability working allowance and income support

  80,000

  All beneficiaries of means tested benefits

  14,900,000

  Notes:

  1. Mean tested benefits are defined as income support, housing benefit, council tax benefit, family credit and disability working allowance.

  2. Beneficiaries are defined as the recipient, their partner and their dependants.

  3. Figures are rounded to the nearest ten thousand.

  4. Income support figures include people in residential care/nursing homes.

  Sources:

  1. Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry May 1995.

  2. Family credit 5 per cent. sample of awards.

  3. Disability working allowance 100 per cent. count of claims.

  4. Housing benefit management information system, annual 1 per cent. sample enquiries, with and without income support taken at the end of May 1995.

  Benefits Statistics
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if she will list the estimated unclaimed benefit in each of the 13 area directorates of the Benefits Agency for each of the last five years for which figures are available(a) as amounts of benefit unclaimed and (b) as a percentage of total payments made for each type of benefit administered; [3215]

  (2) if she will make it a requirement for the Benefits Agency to collect and publish annual statistics estimating the level of unclaimed benefit each year for each type of benefit administered by the Agency. [3216]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The regional figures requested are not collected. The latest estimates of national take-up of Income Related Benefits were published in "Income Related Benefits: Estimates of Take-up 1994–95", a copy of which is in the Library. These are the benefits of last resort and it is right that we pay particular attention to their take-up.

  We will examine means of delivering more automatic help to the poorest pensioners—one million of whom do not even receive the income support which is their present entitlement. We are commissioning research to establish why they do not claim the benefit which is their due.

  Adapt Programme
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to review the Adapt programme. [4915]

  Mr. Field
  The Department is engaged in a range of private sector initiatives, one of which is Adapt. We will review all proposals in the light of our objectives for modernising the delivery of the welfare system; the implications for customer service, staff and the taxpayer; our commitment to work within the announced spending totals for the first two years of Government; our aim of getting best value for public money; the scope to apply the private sector's expertise, discipline and economies of 420
  scale in procuring pubic services and securing investment; and the flexibility for government to make changes at a later date. Announcements will be made in due course.

  Green Paper
  Mr. Leslie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will publish the analysis of responses to the Green Paper, "Improving Decision-Making and Appeals in Social Security." [5181]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  We have today published the analysis of responses to the Green Paper carried out by the Social Policy Research Unit at the University of York and arranged for copies to be placed in the Library.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Oxford.
Several Lords—Took the Oath or Affirmed.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, before the commencement of business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to undertake an important departmental visit on Thursday 26th June 1997. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Burma: Human Rights
2.42 p.m.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they consider taking to prevail upon the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) regime in Burma to respect fundamental human rights of all its citizens, with especial reference to the Karen and Karenni ethnic minorities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, we take every opportunity to make clear to the ruling State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) our abhorrence of its disregard for human rights both through our Ambassador in Rangoon and elsewhere. Most recently my honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Derek Fatchett, raised our concerns, including the plight of the ethnic minorities, with the Burmese Ambassador on 23rd May. He also announced in another place on 19th June a change in the UK's approach to trade promotion activities in Burma.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her response. I welcome the Statement made in another place and the commitment to human rights that has been endorsed by the Government. Is the Minister aware that I have recently visited the Karen and the Karenni and found first-hand evidence of appalling suffering at the hands of the SLORC regime, with arbitrary arrests, slave labour, torture, rape and military offences against civilians? Will the Government press the SLORC regime even harder, in particular to allow human rights monitors and humanitarian aid organisations access to all parts of Burma to try to end these atrocities and bring aid to those who are suffering and dying?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am aware of the visit of the noble Baroness to the
1422
Thai-Burma border last December. I am very grateful for her detailed report, which FCO officials have found most valuable. We continue to monitor the border situation closely and value the helpful input from the NGOs. Staff at our embassy in Bangkok have also visited refugee camps on the border. So far as concerns monitoring, the noble Baroness will be aware that this is a difficult issue. SLORC has severely restricted NGO activity in Burma, particularly in militarily sensitive areas. We have already raised this issue with SLORC. An EU démarche on 7th April called on SLORC to allow international monitoring organisations to have access to the border area. We shall continue to press SLORC to grant access to these bodies and allow aid agencies to provide humanitarian assistance to those in Burma who are in greatest need.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the widespread approval among human rights campaigners for the Statement to which she has referred? Can she confirm that the Burmese Government will not be welcome at the ASEAN-EU summit meeting that will take place in London next year?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for his support. Membership of ASEAN does not automatically mean participation in the meeting to which he has referred. ASEAN accepts this. No ASEAN member has been approached to suggest that Burma should participate in the meeting.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can the Minister inform the House whether the trade pressures to which she has referred will be maintained and, if necessary, intensified?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the announcement on 19th June explained that HMG would not provide financial support to companies for trade missions or trade promotion activities in Burma. Her Majesty's Government are considering the full range of measures at their disposal in order to put further pressure on SLORC.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that everybody in the House welcomes her indication that the regime in Burma is not regarded as a legitimate government? Does she agree with me, in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for raising this matter again, that the Government should keep up the pressure until this regime is replaced by a legitimate government that is already in waiting?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am very happy to join with my noble friend in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for raising this matter again. The reports of the special rapporteur contain a catalogue of truly appalling human rights violations, including summary executions, deaths in custody, absence of due process of law, forced labour and child labour. I assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will continue to put pressure on the Burmese Government to remedy these matters.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, do the Government believe that economic sanctions will have a greater effect than a policy of critical dialogue in persuading the SLORC to implement democratic reform and full respect for human rights? If so, do the Government intend to impose sanctions such as those imposed by the United States?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Government believe that existing EU measures, including an embargo on arms sales and non-humanitarian aid, suspension of defence links and bans on visas for members of SLORC and senior military and security officials are important. As to further economic sanctions, we have not ruled out the possibility of further measures, including economic sanctions.
Lord Avebury: My Lords—
Baroness Warnock: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, I think that there is just time for two questions. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has been up and down quite a lot, and he should perhaps come first.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Minister said that the Government would consider a number of measures. Will they look into an embargo on further investment such as the Americans have introduced? Is she aware that the military operations that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, observed are largely in connection with the Yadana pipeline which is being constructed by Unical and Total, and that, whereas the Americans are taking action in the courts against Unica], no equivalent action has been taken against Total by the EU? Will that matter be looked at by us together with our partners in the EU?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I have assured the House that we are considering the full range of measures at our disposal. We are of course aware of considerable legal difficulties involved in imposing unilateral or EU economic sanctions without the cover of a UN Security Council resolution. It is also difficult to enact legislation banning new investment. Where possible, we shall make potential investors aware of the statements by Aung San Suu Kyi and other pro-democracy leaders discouraging investment in Burma.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, apart from the violation of human rights to which the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, drew attention, the democratic leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, is still virtually under house arrest and may not be visited by her husband and sons? Is there any plan to put pressure on the SLORC to allow her husband, Michael Arris, who is a British citizen, to visit her in Burma?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am aware of the restrictions imposed upon Aung San Suu Kyi. I met Mr. Arris only this past weekend. The
1424
restrictions on her movements are clearly unacceptable. The Government have repeatedly called upon the SLORC to remove the roadblocks outside her home and to allow her full freedom of movement.

Closed Circuit Television Systems
2.46 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will introduce legislation to control the storage and publication of films recorded on security cameras.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, most public space closed circuit television (CCTV) systems are already regulated by codes of practice which cover the storage and publication of images, as are all systems which receive financial assistance from the Home Office. We wish to encourage best practice and will be prepared to consider the arguments on the principle and practicalities of statutory regulation of CCTV to underpin the existing codes of practice.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that general endorsement. Has he had an opportunity to read the accounts which I sent him of Mr. Peck, whose suicide attempt was, by chance, captured on security camera, who then discovered that the whole sequence had been released to the news media, that it appeared on local television, and it was then broadcast on the BBC's "Crimebeat"? Was not that heartless and irresponsible? Does it not justify the call by Liberty for protection for innocent people who appear on security cameras?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am aware of the case to which my noble and learned friend referred. I am most grateful to him for his courtesy in informing me of the general background. The Government deprecate any use of CCTV for purposes of public entertainment. I cannot comment in any detail on the case of Mr. Peck at present as it remains the subject of court proceedings.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, will the Minister inform the House whether the Government intend, or have under consideration, the introduction of legislation to protect rights of privacy? Are the Government aware that in a recent criminal justice Bill, I sought to introduce certain amendments which had been outlined by Sir David Calcutt in one of his reports and was told that the then government had the matter under consideration and were going to publish a White Paper? That has not been done. Are the Government prepared to issue such a paper?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am aware of that, having been present on the occasions in question when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has adverted to that topic. I am equally aware of the promise given by the previous government that a White Paper to

1425
deal with privacy and related matters would be published. The present situation is that the Government are committed to the incorporation into our law of the European Convention on Human Rights. All questions within the ambit of that convention are presently being considered, and in due time a White Paper will be published.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of a police committee involved in the use of closed-circuit television. Does the noble Lord agree that, while a misuse of tape in the way described cannot be supported, it is perfectly simple to ensure that it does not happen; that it should not happen and that the benefits in terms of the control of terrorism and serious organised crime are very great indeed?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am happy to endorse absolutely what the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said. CCTV can deter criminals and it does prevent crime. It is surprisingly popular with most members of the public. It is a useful tool from the point of view of the police. The police operate proper controls over the destination of CCTV material. I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said. One must weigh the benefits against the occasional abuse.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, while no one would complain about the use of security cameras—in fact everyone would approve of them—as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said, it is not difficult to make proper use of them while at the same time ensuring that the recordings are not abused?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I agree entirely and that is why, as I said earlier in my first Answer to my noble and learned friend, we are entirely willing to listen to arguments in favour of statutory regulation. If we are convinced by those arguments, we shall act.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we agree absolutely that any abuse of the system is to be abhorred. Does the noble Lord agree however that that is a very rare occurrence? Most CCTV schemes throughout the country are implemented according to the codes of practice. We should wish to encourage that. In view of the great benefits that CCTV has brought to many communities, the way in which it is helping to reduce crime and the way in which it means that people may walk more safely on the streets going about their ordinary everyday business, are the Government committed to continuing to work in partnership with local authorities, local businesses and communities by giving grants at a national level to increase the number of schemes throughout the country?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful for the support which the noble Baroness has given to my general response. Of course, abuse must be put into perspective. Our judgment is the same as that of the noble Baroness: namely, that public benefit is significantly greater than the occasional abuse for
1426
private profit, which we utterly deprecate. We are determined to continue a fruitful partnership between the government and local authorities and all other bodies or institutions which are able to assist us in the unremitting fight against crime.

Bull Bars
2.53 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull The Earl of Kinnoull asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress is being made in controlling the use of bull bars on vehicles.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, we are currently reviewing, as a matter of urgency, the available options in order to ensure that we tackle the bull bar issue as effectively as possible.
Progress in Europe to amend the external projections directive to address aggressive bull bars has, we regret, been slow, with some member states opposing the Commission's proposal. The Dutch have recently suggested an alternative proposal intended to overcome these objections, although it has not yet been tabled by the Commission.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that encouraging reply. Is she aware that the campaign to ban bull bars in Britain has now been in existence for more than two years? We have been waiting patiently for the Commission to produce a directive. Is it not time that we lost our patience and took a national stand on the issue to prevent the injury and damage caused by bull bars?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Earl's long-standing interest in the subject. We share his desire to make rapid progress on the issue. We still believe that the best mechanism is through extending and amending the external projections directive, but if that is not possible we shall consider what national action could be effective if progress is not forthcoming. It is important in reviewing the available options, including national action, that the action should be practicable and not leave us open to legal challenge.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that one might expect motorcycling groups to be extremely concerned about bull bars? However, I can say, as secretary of the all-party motorcycling group, that there is very little evidence that motorcyclists particularly fear injury from collision with vehicles which have bull bars. But we place those cars high on the list of vehicles that we must treat with extreme caution; for example, any car with a miniature football shirt in the back or any vehicle with a ladder on the top.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am tempted to respond about the responsibilities of drivers who support football teams but I shall not do so. I am interested in

1427
the noble Viscount's comments about motorcyclists and bull bars. However, I am certain that a great many pedestrians are extremely concerned about the dangers posed to them, and in particular to child pedestrians, by an unnecessary and aggressive addition to many cars.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, will the Minister tell me what is the difference between being hit by a 4 × 4 with a bull bar and a 4 × 4 without a bull bar at, for example, 30 miles per hour?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the Transport Research Laboratory assessed that the increased risk of severe injury with a car that had bull bars was 21 per cent.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, given the Labour Party's appetite for banning perfectly legal and respectable activities, is it not ironic that when faced with a genuine menace, the Minister is unable to offer any solution other than to wait for an EU directive?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I cannot believe that the noble Earl speaking from the Opposition Front Bench has been listening carefully to what I tried to say this afternoon. Our position is quite clear. It would be most satisfactory if we could achieve concerted action through European measures. If we cannot, the Government are looking seriously at what we can do at a national level.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the party opposite had two years of representation in which to put the matter right and that perhaps it is a great shame that they did not do so? Has she any figures for the number of people who have been killed or injured who would not otherwise have been killed or injured had bull bars not been in use? If there have been such fatalities and other accidents, should we not now act nationally, immediately, irrespective of what comes forth from the European Union?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I do not believe that we should act unilaterally irrespective of what comes forth from the European Union if that were to produce more protection for our pedestrians than limited national action. That is why the Government's view is that we should give the Dutch proposal a fair wind; see if it is accepted; and only if it is not should we take national action. Estimates have been made about the number of injuries. Transport Research Laboratory research undertaken recently estimated that 84 serious injuries and, I believe, between two and three additional deaths were due to bull bars.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, where are bull bars made? Are they made in those countries which are opposing the extension to the directive?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am afraid that I am not able to give an immediate response as to where those accoutrements are manufactured but I shall undertake to
1428
write to the noble Lord about that. Different countries take different attitudes towards bull bars on broader grounds than where they are manufactured.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, the Minister indicated that the Government are prepared to give a fair wind to action at a European level. For how long will that fair wind be allowed to blow before national action is contemplated and put into effect?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, it would be sensible to give a reasonable but not extended period of time. As has been pointed out, this issue has been under consideration for two years and I do not believe that it should go on for that long.

Operation Granby: Organophosphate Exposure
3 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures are being taken to ensure that members of the public and members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces are not exposed to clothing and equipment which may have been contaminated with organophosphates during Operation Granby.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert): My Lords, I must begin by apologising for the length of the Answer that I find it necessary to give on this important matter.
What is now known about the use of organophosphate pesticides during the Gulf War was described in the Organophosphate Pesticides Investigation Team report which was published last December. Some of the tents used by British troops were sprayed while in theatre with organophosphate-based residual insecticide which was applied to the outside surfaces. The investigation found no evidence that any clothing was treated with orgnanophosphate-based products, although there exists the possibility that some clothing was contaminated while being worn by those using such products for other purposes.
Many of the tents used by British troops during the Gulf War were subsequently burned or buried in theatre because it was generally thought not to be cost-effective to ship such material back to the UK or Germany. It is not now possible to identify those tents which were brought back from the Gulf; some of them are likely to have been retained by units or at depots, while some others will probably have since been sold as surplus stock.
The amount of OP pesticide remaining on a treated surface reduces over time, which is why regular re-application is normally necessary to maintain its effectiveness. Beyond this initial period of effectiveness, those traces of OP pesticide that remain break down naturally through exposure to air and water and normally disappear completely over a period of years. This break down process may be delayed if the

1429
compounds are used on material that has been treated with a wax finish, as was the case for tents which were used in the Gulf. However, any traces of OP pesticide that remain on a surface after the initial period of effectiveness would be in small and ever decreasing quantities, which would be unlikely to cause a risk to human health.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that full Answer. He has seen the correspondence which prompted me to ask the Question. Is he aware that after a site visit to Aston Down in Gloucester reports relating to the risk to public safety were generated to the directorates of defence, health and safety? Those reports related in particular to materials, including tents and sleeping bags, where all traceability of goods back to the ministry had been lost. First, what is being done to ensure that such goods can always be traced back to the MoD if they are sold by the MoD? Secondly, in view of the fact that the tents have been bought by scout masters for use by scouts—and there is evidence that organophosphates are far more potent in young people than in adults—what will the Minister do about problems which may arise among scouts if the tents cannot be legally traced back to the MoD?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, the noble Countess has put her finger on one of the problems: that at this time, six years after the Gulf War, it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to identify any tents which are now in the hands of the general public and which at one time were in the hands of troops in the Gulf. However, if anyone feels unwell and believes that that might be connected to being in one of the tents he should consult his medical practitioner as soon as possible.
Earl Howe: My Lords, in view of the obvious concern which will arise from the noble Countess's Question, is not the proper course for those who are ill to be diagnosed straight away? If it is found that there is a risk of a link between the symptoms they are suffering and equipment used in the Gulf, should not the MoD issue a public warning for the benefit of those who might have bought such equipment?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I understand the thrust of the noble Earl's question. However, I must say to him—and I know that he is aware of it—that so far there is no evidence whatever that low level exposure to these pesticides can cause adverse health effects.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, there is ample evidence to show that organophosphates at low levels cause adverse health effects. If no one looks at the evidence they will not find it. Can the Minister comment on the fact that each month more than 100 papers are published on the effect of low level exposure to organophosphates, but for some reason Her Majesty's Government are refusing to look at them?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am afraid that I must take issue with the noble Countess in that respect. Already research is under way which is being funded jointly by
1430
the Department of Health, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Health and Safety Executive, which is addressing precisely those issues, particularly in the context of the health concerns of farm workers.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, can the Minister assure us that when the report that is being prepared on the Gulf War illness comes before the Defence Committee the issue will be covered and a full statement will be made on what was known inside the Ministry about the points raised by the noble Countess?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, as the noble Baroness will know, my honourable friend Dr. Reid, Minister for the Armed Forces, is conducting an accelerated investigation into these matters. There is no wish whatever to keep them private. We recognise public concern and I can assure the noble Baroness that the matters will be made public.

Special Immigration Appeals Commission Bill [H.L.]
3.5 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
("Determination of appeals
DETERMINATION OF APPEALS
.—(1) The Special Immigration Appeals Commission on an appeal to it under this Act—
(a) shall allow the appeal if it considers—

(i) that the decision or action against which the appeal is brought was not in accordance with the law or with any immigration rules applicable to the case, or

(ii) where the decision or action involved the exercise of a discretion by the Secretary of State or an officer, that the discretion should have been exercised differently, and

(b) in any other case, shall dismiss the appeal.
(2) Where an appeal is allowed, the Commission shall give such directions for giving effect to the determination as it thinks requisite, and may also make recommendations with respect to any other action which it considers should be taken in the case under the Immigration Act 1971; and it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State and of any officer to whom directions are given under this subsection to comply with them.
(3) In this section, "immigration rules" has the same meaning as in the Immigration Act 1971.").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 1, it may be convenient if I speak at the same time to Amendment No. 7. I expect that these amendments will be welcome to the House as they follow from our helpful debate during Second Reading.
During the debate the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, and others suggested that it was not clear on the face of the Bill whether or not the commission would be in a position to make decisions which would be binding on the Home Secretary. I am grateful for the great care which the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, took and in particular the fact that he wrote to me to thank officials in the Home Office for the great care that was taken. It is not often that officials receive their true reward—at least, not in this world—and it was received with gratitude.
As I explained in winding up our debate on that occasion, it has always been the Government's intention that the decisions of the commission should be binding on the Home Secretary. Indeed, this is a necessary part of complying with the judgment in Chahal. I promised then that I would consider whether a clarifying amendment would be appropriate. On reflection, I came to the conclusion that it was right that I should table such an amendment given the importance of the point.
Amendment No. 1 therefore introduces a new clause into the Bill which reproduces, with necessary amendments, the main provisions contained in Section 19 of the Immigration Act 1971. Those provisions set out a proper basis for the determination of appeals by the commission and ensure that its determinations will be binding.
At the same time, I have also brought forward an amendment to Schedule 2 which incorporates another practical aspect of the 1971 Act framework into the appeals to be heard by the commission. Amendment No. 7 simply provides that Section 18 of the Immigration Act 1971 will apply in respect of appeals brought under Clause 2. That section provides for the giving of notice of rights of appeal. While there is no question but that notice would have been given to those who will have rights of appeal under this Bill, this is another matter about which I accept that there should be no doubt.
As there will be no clause-stand-part debates today, it might be helpful to comment on a particular concern of the noble Lord. Lord Lester of Herne Hill. Of course, I cannot pre-empt final decisions about the form which incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights will take. However, I can say that those who believe that their rights under Article 3 have been or would be violated will be able to rely on Article 3 in domestic proceedings once incorporation has been achieved. That will be the case in respect of any alleged violation and I hope that that is of reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: It gives me great pleasure to say what I am about to say. I should like to repeat what I have already mentioned in correspondence with the Minister; namely, the gratitude that I believe we should all feel not only towards the noble Lord and
1432
his colleagues but also to the Home Office advisers, both legal and otherwise, for the way in which they have dealt with the problems which emerged with regard to the Bill. So far as I am concerned, the matter has been dealt with in a completely satisfactory way. As the Minister indicated, the amendment makes clear that the decision of the commission will be binding in law. That is important. It is also important because it makes clear that the substance of the appeal will be a merits review. Therefore, where the commission reaches a different decision about the exercise of discretion, it will be able to allow an appeal on the merits of the case as I believe is required under the convention.
It is also very satisfactory to know that the Government entirely take on board the need for Article 3 of the European human rights convention regarding the prohibition on torture and inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment, and the need for that guarantee to be respected not only by the commission in its jurisdiction and by the Minister, but also by any courts or tribunals in the area or, I daresay, any other relevant area.
I should like to make two points. First, until Parliament decides to incorporate the European convention into UK law, there will be a hiatus, which will arise not just in this Bill but also with regard to criminal courts or special immigration adjudicators, in those rare cases where an individual claims that return, expulsion or extradition to another country would expose him to a well-founded risk—not a risk of political persecution in terms of the refugee convention, but a risk as regards a breach of Article 3 of the convention.
Can the Minister say whether I am right in supposing that what the Government have in mind is that the Secretary of State and his colleagues will do their best to ensure that where such cases arise they will be exercising their discretion so as to secure full compliance with Article 3? Our courts will be powerless to do anything if they do not do so. Until the convention has been incorporated, they will, as at present, have to go to the European Commission and the European Court of Human Rights if there is a breach. However, I do not anticipate that that will arise. I just thought that I should mention that hiatus problem.
Secondly, although no one is a keener supporter of the incorporation of the convention than me, I am a little troubled by legal certainty. Even if the incorporating statute makes it quite clear what the courts and the tribunals are to do in giving effect to convention rights—as I am sure it will—the ordinary citizen will not be able to tell by looking at the Bill when enacted, or indeed the three immigration Acts which are already on the statute book, that special adjudicators, criminal courts and this commission will have jurisdiction to interpret and apply Article 3. The only way that they will be able to tell that is by reading all of the material, together with the incorporating statute. Provided that the incorporating statute is clear, then, if one studies all the material, one will know what the law of the land is.
My own preference in terms of legal certainty would be for specific amending legislation in due course of the immigration codes and, ultimately, a consolidating

1433
measure, a single immigration Act, covering the entire field so that those who are affected in the area can understand what the law is by reading a single document. Of course, that goes well beyond anything that can be accomplished by this Bill. It is not in any way an expression of discontent with the Minister's introduction, but I thought it right to raise the matter because I believe it is an object of good government that the law of the land should be accessible to ordinary people, not only to specialist lawyers and, I dare say, only a few of them.
Although I perfectly understand that what is contemplated is future legislation that will domesticate Article 3 of the convention with the other provisions, I hope in the long run that the Home Office might see its way to putting our specific statutory code into a single consolidating measure which would reflect the convention to the extent that is necessary. I am an enthusiastic supporter of the amendment and indeed of the second amendment to which the Minister spoke.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: The cases subject to the provisions of the Bill will, by their very nature, be highly sensitive. My concern is to protect the national security interest which should not in any way be subordinated to the interests of any one individual. For that reason I have some anxieties about Amendment No. 1.
First, given that the decision of the commission is to be binding on the Home Secretary and given the seriousness of the issue—namely, that the Home Secretary of the day is being challenged for having taken the view that national security interests must be protected—it seems reasonable that he should be given a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal. Not only is the decision binding on the Home Secretary, but the wording of the amendment is very open-ended. Indeed, subsection (2) of the amendment refers to the commission making the decision and mentions the,
"directions for giving effect to the determination".
It also appears to give a right to make recommendations without limitation. There is no description of the scope for such recommendations regarding what they could or should be; for example, what scope is there for subjectivity? What scope is there for the Home Secretary of the day to have the case that the commission puts disregarded by the use of recommendations with respect to any action that must follow the decision? Further, do the last two lines in subsection (2) also require the Home Secretary to comply with the recommendations? The wording would certainly appear to convey that fact.
A duty of the Home Secretary is to protect the national interest and national security. Therefore, I believe that we should tread very cautiously when handing the final word to a commission. I have read the draft rules—and I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to see a copy of them—and I am not sure that they are entirely inclusive. They are very procedural, which they need to be; but what criteria will be adopted to guide the work of the commission? For example, what is the commission discussing? The noble
1434
Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, referred to the fact that it would be a merit review. However, that is not clear from the wording of the amendment. It simply says that,
"the discretion [of the Home Secretary] should have been exercised differently".
There is no real guidance in the wording as to what the criteria would be.
Therefore, it is not clear whether the commission, which may regard the plight of the individual appellant more favourably than the damage that may be done to the country's interests as a whole, would be free to subordinate the national interest to the interests of the appellant. I do not believe that the amendment would allow a Home Secretary to seek a second opinion. Therefore, the final word would rest with the commission. Can the Minister say what guidance is to be given to the commission regarding the criteria by which it will decide that the Home Secretary—who, after all, is protecting the national security and interest—should have exercised his discretion differently? How should he have exercised his discretion differently, and on what basis? After having considered the information and evidence given by the Home Secretary, or given on his behalf, what criteria would the commission use? Is it free, for example, to give greater weight to the evidence of the appellant and to disregard the evidence of the Home Secretary?
I have said that I was grateful to the Minister for giving me a copy of the rules. That was accompanied by a letter which promises possibly more amendments on Report. It appears that consideration will be given to whether there may be a need to provide a right of appeal in certain limited circumstances against a refusal of entry clearance on national security grounds in order to ensure that there is no risk of breach of Article 8 of the convention. To whom and on behalf of whom would the appeals be made? What would be the grounds for extending the provisions of this Bill?
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Before the noble Baroness sits down, I hope she will indicate whether she agrees that the duty of Ministers, including the Home Secretary, is not only the paramount duty to secure national security in the interest of the nation as a whole, but also full compliance with our international treaty obligations under the convention and full compliance with the European rule of law, including the absolute prohibition on exposing individuals to torture, whether in this country or in other countries.
Baroness Blatch: I absolutely agree without equivocation that we have a national and an international obligation to abide by the European convention. During my time at the Home Office I have not found that the Home Secretary of the day, or the officials advising him, ever overtly came to any decision that they believed was in breach of our obligations under the European convention, or the United Nations conventions for that matter. We are dealing here with a number of matters. We are discussing a special measure for special circumstances. The particular scenario is the national security interest of the country as a whole. We need to have balanced judgments; we are discussing the

1435
judgments of Solomon and in those cases it is difficult sometimes for that balance to be struck. The plight of the appellant may be serious and may well need to be met under the convention. However, there are other solutions than necessarily providing accommodation and succour in this country if meeting the needs of an individual compromises the national interest as a whole. In such cases it is possible to seek other solutions.
After having studied all the evidence and information in relation to a particular case that is placed before him, a Home Secretary may have reached a view that the national security would be compromised if he makes a particular judgment. There is only one hearing and one final judgment by the commission. If after having been advised by officials, the Home Secretary has reached the view that the national security of this country would be compromised if he reaches a certain decision, I suggest that one hearing on behalf of the appellant is not enough. I make a plea that if this decision is to be binding, the Home Secretary ought to have a right of appeal at least to seek a second opinion as regards whether the interests of the country are not being compromised following a particular decision. I believe that the security of the country is just too important for that not to be the case.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: There is no question of a tribunal of this quality doing as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, indicated; namely, disregarding the evidence of the Home Secretary. That is quite inconceivable. This is not a mechanism set up on behalf of the appellant alone; it is a mechanism of an independent body of high quality. We must bear in mind the fact that the judicial member will at the lowest level be a member of the High Court bench; in other words, someone who has held or is holding high judicial office.
It is true, of course, that one of the important duties of any Home Secretary, or any government generally, is to safeguard national security. However, that is not the only duty. The relevant consideration is whether we are to be ruled by men or ruled by laws. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the decisions of this independent body will be binding. There is no appeal either for the appellant or the Home Secretary. We have absolute confidence in the independent review. The judicial member will be as I have specified. No one lower than the chief immigration adjudicator will sit as the second member. The mechanisms are in place to fulfil our international obligations, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, said.
I turn to the observations that he made. I am pleased that he is back in robust health. He spoke of legal certainty in a rather different context. There is certainly one legal certainty; namely, that he will never give up his fight for what he believes to be human rights as regards this jurisdiction. He is a doughty proponent and, judging from his questions this afternoon, a diligent and experienced fly fisherman. He knows that he will not be able to draw me on the precise final form of incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights because he is a most valued participant in the continuing discussions that are being held. We think that
1436
we have the balance right. We have responded to precise observations, questions and criticisms which we thought were of virtue and value. We have dealt openly, and, I hope, responsively and responsibly with the problems that were mentioned on the previous occasion. I am grateful that those were pointed out.
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Lord sits down, I wish to point out that if I gave the impression—it is possible that I said it—that the commission could disregard the evidence of the Home Secretary, that was not what I intended to say. What worries me is that having had regard to the evidence of the Home Secretary, greater weight could be given to the views of the appellant. I take note of what the Minister has said; namely, that we are ruled by laws and not by men. However, we are ruled by men who administer the law. Therefore it is a matter of human beings at the end of the day. It is not unknown for eminent, highly qualified people sitting in judgment to reach a view that is different from a view that is reached subsequently by another group of highly eminent people. One is not saying that a judgment is wrong, but sometimes two or three sets of highly eminent people can reach different conclusions. The security and interests of this country are crucial to the country as a whole. Therefore I believe there should not be just one judgment; there should be a right of appeal. After all, the appellant has the right of appeal. He has already been judged by the Home Secretary of the day and may then have taken the case to appeal. It seems to me only fair that the Home Secretary of the day should have a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal in the interests of the country as a whole.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Baroness referred to disregarding evidence. The tribunal will have to balance different views and opposing judgments. Of course laws are administered by men and sometimes by women. What one has to decide is whether a political executive appointee—that is, any government Minister—is to reach a definitive conclusion in areas as grave as the ones we are discussing. We have an international obligation—Chahal has affirmed that. We therefore propose to establish and honour that obligation in our law in the way that I have specified.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Procedure]:
3.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, leave out lines 15 to 18 and insert—
("(c) make provision about the functions in proceedings before the Commission of persons appointed under section (Appointment of person to represent the appellant's interests) below, and").
The noble Lord said: I hope it may be convenient if in moving Amendment No. 2 I speak also to Amendment No. 3. They concern the role and appointment of the special advocate. As I explained at Second Reading—I think to the general agreement of the Chamber—national security considerations will necessarily place certain restrictions on proceedings that

1437
take place before the commission. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and I have discussed this matter. We disagreed on emphasis rather than the fundamental principle that sometimes national security considerations will involve certain restrictions. One of the restrictions is that the proceedings may have to take place in the absence of the appellant and his or her legal representative.
At Second Reading I drew noble Lords' attention to the fact that the commission would be able to appoint a person to help it in its examination of the security evidence, and in particular to look at that evidence as though on behalf of the appellant. I believe that that was generally welcomed by this Chamber.
We considered further the role of that person and the mechanics of appointment. We reached the conclusion that certain amendments to the Bill are needed. We concluded in particular that to ensure the independence of a special advocate it would be more appropriate if the person were to be appointed by the Attorney-General or his or her equivalent. We also take the view that the role of the special advocate should be to represent the interests of the appellant in those parts of the proceedings from which he and his legal representative are excluded. That will probably mean that he or she will need to be present throughout the proceedings.
Finally—it was a distinct point raised on the last occasion in this Chamber—we believe it important to make it clear that the special advocate will not have a client relationship with the appellant. We do not judge the situation to be workable on any other basis.
The new clause, and the amendment to Clause 4 make, I hope, the necessary clarifications. I commend them to the Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I have one question for the Minister. What is the expected status and legal experience of that person? Does the Minister or the Home Office have any views on that?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: It will ultimately be a matter for the independent professional determination of the Attorney-General. We discussed this issue on the last occasion. Bearing in mind that there are likely to be relatively few appeals per year, the probability is—I say that without in any way attempting to interfere with or bind the discretion of the Attorney-General; such would be improper—that it would be the same sort of vetted person as one who prosecutes for the Treasury in important, delicate, sensitive national security matters. Again, I hope that the noble Baroness will consider that that is a device of practical utility.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: The Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee drew attention to the potential width and importance of the rules under Clause 4 and expressed the view that it was admirable and essential that the Minister undertook at Second Reading to make a draft of the rules available to the House, to assist the detailed consideration of the Bill in Committee. I am glad that it expressed that view. I am even more glad that the Minister indicated at Second Reading that that would be done. I have gone carefully through the draft
1438
rules. They seem to be an extremely well designed set of rules that seek to be fair without incorporating the full panoply of natural justice as though we were concerned with a criminal trial. I respectfully did not agree with the views expressed by my noble friend Lord Thomas in winding up when he spoke as though we were concerned with a normal criminal trial, and appeared to criticise what was contemplated.
I believe that where national security is at stake, one needs to do the best one can for the individual appellant without sacrificing the overriding interests of national security. One of the reasons that I am so complimentary to Ministers and officials is that they have looked carefully at the Canadian immigration law and practice and procedure which was commended by the European Court of Human Rights. I do not go into much detail, but they have produced a solution which improves upon the Canadian position. It would not satisfy a purist. It would not satisfy someone who believed that nothing less than a full trial with full natural justice would suffice.
However, I believe that the amendment is a fair compromise. I welcome the fact that the amendment makes clear that the law officer will appoint counsel. It makes clear that counsel's job is to represent the interests of the appellant but that the appellant is not to be his or her client. That is important. I believe it inevitable that under the rules some evidence will be produced in the absence of the appellant and that the appellant will not receive full reasons in all circumstances.
I see that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, is in his place. Many years ago, I think in 1970, he adjudicated in the Crockfords Gaming Board case in which the puzzle was rather similar: how much information could one give to someone suspected of having undesirable associations in the world of gambling and the mafia? How much natural justice could be provided? The Court of Appeal of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, made it clear that there had to be fairness but not full natural justice in the traditional sense of a full trial.
I believe that the amendment is entirely appropriate. The draft rules accompanying the amendment will be subject to further debate when they come before the House in their final form for the affirmative procedure. I believe that the amendment is well designed and should have the support of the whole Committee.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful to the noble Lord. At Second Reading, I promised to make a first draft of the rules available for our discussion today. I am pleased that we were able to deliver on that promise.
Perhaps I may say how grateful we in the Home Office are to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and his staff for their work in preparing the first draft so quickly and, as the noble Lord said, so conscientiously.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
APPOINTMENT OF PERSON TO REPRESENT THE APPELLANT'S INTERESTS
(".—(1) The relevant law officer may appoint a person to represent the interests of an appellant in any proceedings before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission from which the appellant and any legal representative of his are excluded.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, the relevant law officer is—

(a) in relation to proceedings before the Commission in England and Wales, the Attorney General,

(b) in relation to proceedings before the Commission in Scotland, the Lord Advocate, and

(c) in relation to proceedings before the Commission in Northern Ireland, the Attorney General for Northern Ireland.

(3) A person appointed under subsection (1) above—

(a) if appointed for the purposes of proceedings in England and Wales, shall have a general qualification for the purposes of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990,

(b) if appointed for the purposes of proceedings in Scotland, shall be—

(i) an advocate, or

(ii) a solicitor who has by virtue of section 25A of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 rights of audience in the Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary, and

(c) if appointed for the purposes of proceedings in Northern Ireland, shall be a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland.

(4) A person appointed under subsection (1) above shall not be responsible to the person whose interests he is appointed to represent.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The Commission]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 5, line 33, at end insert—
("( ) appointed as chief adjudicator under paragraph 1 of Schedule 5 to the Immigration Act 1971, or").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 4, I speak to Amendments Nos. 5 and 6. They accumulatively make a minor change to Schedule 1 to the Bill. As introduced, the Bill provided that the second member of a commission can be or have been a legally qualified member of the Immigration Appeals Tribunal or a special adjudicator; that is, an adjudicator designated to deal with asylum appeals under the 1993 Act. It again reflects a concern raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. We have had discussions with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and have established in practice that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor would only deem it appropriate to appoint the chief immigration adjudicator to sit on the commission. In those circumstances, I believe that it is preferable if the Bill reflects that rather than implying a selection from a rather wider range of people. The amendments are designed to achieve that aim. I hope that they are acceptable to the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 5 and 6:
Page 5, line 35, after ("of') insert ("that").
Page 5, line 35, leave out from ("Schedule") to end of line 37.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Appeals: Supplementary]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 7, line 2, at end insert—
("Notice of appealable decisions and statement of appeal rights etc
.Section 18 of the Immigration Act 1971 shall have effect as if section 2 above were contained in Part II of that Act.").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

NATO and the Russian Federation
3.40 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is the status in international law of the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Co-operation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation, signed on 27th May.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I begin by welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, back from her—apparently very recently completed—journey to the Caribbean. I hope that it was a great success.
Since the election we have had a good discussion on the European Union. Now we have to pick up European military affairs again. They do not get any simpler or more sensible.
The Government did excellently last week at Amsterdam, particularly over fish. But the military realities of Europe in the big world remain largely ungrasped in this country. They are not nice to think about, and few people do—least of all in the recent election campaign.
Ministers have not yet had time to get their minds round the confusion within NATO, and indeed within the whole European security landscape. Whitehall therefore, presumably, is carrying on carrying on until it is clearly instructed to do something different. The Defence Review conducted by the Government should help clarify minds in relation to NATO, as well as much else; but it will not be concluded before the end of the year. I was glad to see that NATO is to re-examine its strategic concept. That is good. But there is a great deal more to re-examine than that.
The Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Co-operation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation is an oddity in the diplomatic history of Europe: an epoch-making international document in which nobody agrees to anything. It is also an emblem or symptom

1441
of a certain self-important and self-ignorant culture of violence and compulsion from which we have to save our grandchildren. And yet, it is also an ugly duckling which might perhaps—just perhaps, given skill and care—turn into a swan of peace and harmony. For that to happen, we shall have to drop goading the Russians and ever-increasing military spending from NATO's agenda.
NATO expansion started badly. I need not remind the House that it is the fruit of internal American politics, not of reflection, and that free and informed opinion in this country was virtually unanimous against it. But here we are: the document is there, and Mr. Yeltsin has signed it. My Question asks what is the position of the foundation Act in law, and I await the answer with interest.
It is certainly not a treaty or agreement: no one agrees with anyone to do, or refrain from, anything at all. The text contains the by now sickeningly familiar language about how NATO has no intention, no plan and no reason to deploy nuclear weapons in the countries which may join it. This is the very same language which Mr. Major as Foreign Secretary and Mr. James Baker as US Secretary of State used to Gorbachev about expanding NATO in the first place, and by which they induced the Russians to withdraw from East Germany and Poland. Those commitments did not count, because they had not been written down, you see. The Russians have not forgotten that betrayal. An honest to God treaty would not now have spoken of absence of plans or intentions, but would have simply undertaken not to do the deed in question. That is what Russia asked for, and was refused.
The Russians have withdrawn all their nuclear weapons within their own frontiers. The United States has never for a moment even considered doing that, and we have apparently not suggested it. So it is not unnatural that the Russians should in return have declared that the whole Act collapses if the West's non-binding statements are changed in word or deed, and also if NATO tries to take in any of the ex-Soviet republics. What they will make of the bilateral "Security Charter" the US is now offering the Baltic States, God knows. We do know what they think about the idiotic US-funded exercise, "Sea Breeze", planned for August.
The first part of the Act is largely devoted to setting up the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council, and attempting to relate it to the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council and to the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. I tried to table a Question to ask the Government to list all the defence-related organisations in Europe—there are many others—but the Minute Room said it would be unfair to ask for such a long Answer. So I have asked the Library. God help them!
This is a great deal of Euro-spaghetti, the effect of which at the end guarantees that the Russians can raise in NATO any question they like about anything. Yeltsin now claims that Russia will be taking part, as a decision-maker, in any interest of "mutual concern", to use his words. "NATO will not be the only one setting the agenda", he says. And of course, Russia has a veto
1442
in both OSCE and the UN Security Council, which alone can now legitimate NATO activity outside its borders.
There is also the matter of transparency, and what that may mean, and to whom. The text establishes as a "principle",
"mutual transparency in creating and implementing defence policy and military doctrines".
I put down a number of Questions the other day about certain new implementations of defence policies within Europe and the continued arming of our continent; and to my surprise the Government said that all this is "a matter for the individual countries concerned". The United States has just signed a "Status of Forces" agreement with Hungary, which is, the Hungarians make clear, nothing to do with US NATO forces. Does not "mutual transparency" require some interest in, and explanation of, the presence of non-NATO US forces in a country expected to join NATO? And should not transparency begin at home?
Now as to costs. Since I first spoke about NATO expansion in this House last October, the American estimates for the entire cost of taking in the first three countries have become no more sensible. General Shalikashvili, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, has vouchsafed that taking in the three first applicant countries might cost altogether between 27 and 35 billion dollars over 10 years, and that the US might pay a sum equivalent to about 3 per cent. of that.
The Congressional Budget Office on the other hand—I quoted from it last year—estimates 125 billion dollars. That is about four times as much, and would put the US contribution at, say, 0.75 per cent.—three-quarters of 1 per cent.—of the total cost of enlargement. Those glaring discrepancies suggest that President Yeltsin's spokesman had a point three weeks ago when he said that the price of expansion is "being intensively kept silent about". Indeed.
So who pays the rest? This country? Portugal? Greece? Our Ministry of Defence just makes hopeful noises: "We expect the costs of enlargement to be manageable". Is that really the Chancellor of the Exchequer's view? It will all presumably have to come from the defence budget, already encumbered with post-dated Tory cheques.
If European NATO is not to pay, then are Poland and the other applicants themselves? That notion is laughable. Poland, as my noble friend Lord Eatwell recently reminded us, would, if its economy continued to grow at 5 per cent. per year, reach the present economic level of Greece in 20 years from now. Greece is, of course, the poorest of the present members of the European Union. The Polish armed forces are fairly well forward in bringing their communications and their general inter-operability within NATO up to what membership requires, but their actual arms are another story. Most of their tanks, planes, warships and so on have only another year or two's life left. Polish plans to replace them with modern weapons, to be bought mainly from the US, hope to rely on a system of offset sales which does not yet seem to be very clearly thought out,

1443
let alone accepted by the other side. What would Boeing-McDonnell-Douglas-Lockheed, etc. do with several hundred million dollars-worth of Polish exports?
This unthought-out spawning of yet more security organisations comes from the great failure of our generation; the failure to shake off Europe's redundant military structures altogether. Twice this century the US has intervened in Europe, largely at the invitation of this country, to end wars that Europe could not end for itself. Our gratitude remains, and must remain for ever. After the Second World War the tyrant of the Russian Empire, Stalin, advanced and advanced until we had to set up NATO and the American armies had to decide to stay on indefinitely. Stalin, carefully waiting until the day after, then set up the Warsaw Pact.
But in time reason and tolerance prevailed in Russia and the Russian people got rid of communism. We must remember that: we, the West, did not get rid of Soviet communism; the Russians themselves did, led principally by the great peacemaker, Gorbachev. He fell, as peacemakers do, and, because we managed to force the pace at which the Soviet Union and the Russian state itself were dismantled, penury and chaos ensued and have continued.
Who threatened NATO then, and what with? Scrabbling through the waste-paper baskets of the implausible, various think-tanks and lobbies and military industries concluded that it could be argued that various Asian countries with strict Muslim regimes might, if goaded enough, threaten it. Certainly some of those demonised states—not all—used provocative language towards us and certainly some—once, twice, even three times over many years—have committed acts of terrorism in NATO countries. Not big ones: it is notable that neither Oklahoma City nor Tokyo was foreign terrorism, and Lockerbie has yet to come to trial.
How do we protect ourselves against this mini-terrorism? We do so with long-range thermo-nuclear missiles to be launched from land, sea and air, with hundreds of submarines, tanks and bombers and thousands of fighter aircraft and aircraft carriers—in short, with everything we happen to have thought necessary in the Cold War, with everything we have in case we had to fight a third world war in the usual place.
Now we have to face the US revolution in military affairs as well, the better to re-fight the Gulf War, the Seven Days' War, a war against North Korea, a war in outer space or a war against all those rogue hackers who already penetrate the Pentagon's best-kept computers, leaving only a smiley face or, worse, nothing at all.
What we Europeans should have done when the Cold War ran down was to look at Russia's real military capacity and then agree, within the all-embracing security architecture implicit in OSCE, to come down to some equivalent level. Is there any hope that we could still have time to do that before the promised Russian rearmament in response to NATO enlargement has gone too far? If so, we should do it; and, while we are doing it, we should at last find time to analyse the real causes
1444
of terrorism, which, except for Israeli terrorism, most obviously begin with fear of the West, and particularly of the US and its unruly CIA.
To say that enlargement is a mistake is not to dismiss the natural ardour with which the applicant governments desire it. Their peoples have all suffered from hostile military occupation by, first, Germany and then Russia for half a century. If you have suffered that, you do not go for half measures in protecting yourself from a recurrence. But Western governments have duties not only to the Polish, Czech and Hungarian peoples, whom we so much admire and like—yes, liking and disliking do come into world affairs—but also to their own peoples, for whom they are immediately responsible; to the Russian people, whom we also admire and like; and to peace in the world.
I spoke of a culture of violence and compulsion. This it is, combined with the vast and growing arms production in many countries—and ours the second exporter in the world—which underlies so much of the tension between the West and Asia, including Eurasian Russia.
We now have to make the best of this ill thought-out initiative and that means turning to good account certain aspects of the text which I have not yet mentioned. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said in an article a week ago:
"Our long-term commitment to Europe means that it is essential that we … play a leading role in shaping Europe's future".
That future cannot but include the Founding Act we are debating today, the
"new European security architecture in which Russia finds its due place",
as last week's presidential conclusions from the Amsterdam Council put it. But this must explicitly be Europe's own future, not what President Clinton calls the
"new Europe [which] is central to the [United States'] larger security strategy"
and which last month he told young officers at Westpoint they would be called upon to implement and enforce.
We are not inclined, I believe, any of us Europeans, to act out the new US "full-spectrum dominance" doctrine nor to become part of its larger security strategy. With much of that strategy we quite explicitly do not agree. Even within Europe we do not approve, for instance, of the United States arming and training one of the parties in Bosnia or of pulling out before the job there is done. Outside Europe our disagreements stretch from Cuba to Iran and from China to Israel.
Perhaps above all we have to ask ourselves how long the US Congress will be content to put up with any European independence of view in NATO or with our belief in the United Nations or the rule of international law. Neither Senator Helms nor Senator Lott has much time for Europeans with ideas of their own about Cuba, mines or global warming. Those are heavy questions, but it is our business to ask them. The previous government, for the most part, ignored their existence.
Well, there we are. We have a provisional resting place in Europe, though the task of bringing back a civilian culture to Russia has not yet begun. Perhaps we should begin with transparencies. Yeltsin has submitted this Act to the Duma and expects it to be accepted. Clinton will not be submitting it to Congress—that is one reason why it has not been made a proper treaty—but the enlargement itself will require ratification in the American Senate, where its future is perhaps uncertain. This House will remember, of course, that the British Parliament is the only one in Europe which does not have the right to ratify treaties reached by its government.
The Founding Act is not a treaty, as I have emphasised, and therefore it does not need ratification. It is thus all the more interesting that it is the same kind of presidential Executive Act as Roosevelt signed up to with Churchill about co-operation on nuclear weapons after World War II, and that Truman later reneged on, thus persuading Clement Attlee and Ernie Bevin that we had better develop our own.
In conclusion, I urge the Government to make time for a full debate on NATO in both Houses.
3.59 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, according to Yevgeniy Primakov, the Russian Foreign Minister, speaking on 26th May of this Founding Act, the document itself states that it will be legally binding. It contains a number of commitments which are so germane to the Defence Review in the context of our future national commitments that, like the previous speaker, I most strongly urge the need for a full debate on the implications of what does amount to a treaty well before we come to debate the Defence Review itself.
Let me give a few examples. Under Section IV, (politico-military matters) NATO,
"reiterates … that the Alliance will carry out its collective defence and other missions by ensuring the necessary interoperability, integration and capability for reinforcement rather than by additional stationing of substantial combat forces. Accordingly it will have to rely on adequate infrastructure commensurate with the above tasks".
That refers to all forces, not just to nuclear forces and nuclear infrastructure, which is dealt with elsewhere. Primakov stressed with some satisfaction that the NATO commitment not to deploy on a permanent basis any strike forces or combat forces on the territory of its members concerns both existing and new members.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness will allow me to question her wording. Could she read out that commitment? I did not read it as being a commitment but a statement that there was no present intention to do so.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I was using Mr. Primakov's own word "commitment". That is how he sees it. I may add that a month after this was agreed, the Secretary of the Russian Security Council, Ivan Rybkin, was in Kaliningrad pledging to strengthen
1446
Russia's Baltic region and its defence capability. The charm of President Yeltsin's bland announcement immediately after signing the Act that,
"all nuclear warheads targeted against NATO countries have been stood down as of today",
was perhaps enhanced by a Russian delegate's statement later that the decision did not mean that they would be dismantled.
The text of the Founding Act abounds in bland statements of principle, such as:
"the inherent right of all states to choose the means to ensure their own security".
Russia clearly does not see that as applicable to the countries seeking entry to NATO. But the truly worrying things are rather cryptically expressed. There is to be:
"exchange of information and consultation on strategy, defence policy, the military doctrines of NATO and Russia, and the budgets and infrastructure development programmes; increasing transparency … regarding the size and roles of the conventional forces of member states of NATO and Russia; association of Russia with NATO's Conference of National Armaments Directors; conversion of defence industries; possible cooperation on theatre missile defence and on air defence".
It is perhaps relevant to remember that Russia's arms exports were worth 3.1 billion dollars last year; that it is the main supplier for India, has greatly increased its trade with China and the Middle East and is still happy to deal with North Korea and Iran; that it has benefited mightily from the lifting of the COCON restriction; and that the conversion programme in Russia was little more than a means of extracting money from the West.
I have never been able to see an alternative to enlargement, because not to have allowed Poland and the others the right to choose what would make them feel safe after the long years of brutal Soviet occupation seemed unthinkable. However, I have to say that the Russians are already on the way to making it, through this apparently high-minded and peace-loving act, a hollow mockery. The Russian white ants will eat away at the whole edifice of NATO, which they are determined to turn into yet another political talking shop like the OSCE and the UN, while acquiring at the same time in the sacred name of transparency the greatest possible knowledge of our military strength, intentions and capacity and using their presence inside NATO to render it no more than an expensive collection of bureaucrats in uniform, busy servicing the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council.
More and more NATO member governments may gratefully agree that having even conventional forces is unnecessary, provocative or both. Many may well say, "Why not? Russia is no longer a threat". Russia will only not be a threat for so long as it sees in NATO a power to deter. Russia wants the CFE treaty, which it has not yet ratified, amended yet further. Russia has not yet ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention or destroyed its chemical weapons. It says that it will do so by the autumn, given the creation of necessary conditions, which turns out to mean extending the time for liquidating the stockpile of 40,000 tonnes and

1447
someone else paying for it, while letting Russia join the convention before it ratifies so that it can take part in decision-making.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Baroness once again. She has been very patient. Could she balance that statement about Russia and the Chemical Weapons Convention by reminding the House of the state of American policy as regards that convention?
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I prefer to leave that to the noble Lord.
Lord Kennet: Could she take the opportunity of stating it? They have not ratified.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I recognise that the noble Lord has a different point of view from mine, which he has already made quite extensively clear.
It is the Council of Europe story all over again. Russia was allowed to join and promptly reneged on its human rights commitments.
Russia's agenda is to turn NATO into an emasculated political entity, while using it to exert influence on any and every decision the NATO powers may wish to make, including the future of Milosevic's Yugoslavia, the future of the Baltic states and many other such issues. Its eventual objective is the dissolution of NATO and the advancement of that toothless creature the OSCE.
Some may say that it is wrong to raise such misgivings, that it is a bold and trustful move to bring Russia inside NATO and to go so much further than half-way. But NATO is not primarily a political body. The European Union is that; the OSCE is that; the UN is that; the Council of Europe is that. Let us make our political gestures there. NATO is a defensive military organisation whose purpose is to keep the peace through deterrence. It cannot keep the peace without power to deter. We should not allow the Russians to prevent that and to manipulate us, as they so well know how to do, into making us feel vaguely guilty that we have an effective, peaceful, non-aggressive engine of peace, whose purpose has never been anything but defensive. We should not negotiate away our strength and we should think most carefully before we throw away our power.
When I speak about Russia, I am not speaking about the many thoroughly nice Russians whom we all know but about a nomenklatura whose methods have changed very little and whose objectives are clear. Of course it is right and useful to work with the Russians on peacekeeping, but that should not be allowed to turn into effective Russian penetration and emasculation of NATO as a vital defence asset. The Russians will respect us if we robustly protect our own interests. Our interests, incidentally, are the interests of the Russian people too, because we all need to keep the peace.
Let me say one last word. I recognise the difficulties of bringing in the Baltic states but I do not think that we should accept the Russian view that they are Soviet
1448
Republics. They were incorporated by force and are now free. The power to deter is needed not only to prevent a fighting war; it is needed to ensure that threats are empty. Those threats are still being made today.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, this is an important debate in a thin House on a document which ought to have received a good deal more attention in the western press. Reading both this document and the Treaty of Amsterdam in the past two days, I have to admit that I was not clear which was the more obscure of the two. One has to get into the codes of the language in order to understand rather more clearly what is indicated. This is a founding charter, a declaration and not a treaty. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said, they do not want to have to take it through the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Therefore, it is not entirely clear what it offers.
It represents a further stage in what has been a drift of policy towards what the document describes in its fourth paragraph as "a historic transformation of NATO"—a historic transformation of NATO which is likely to continue as this charter goes into effect and which will take NATO towards something which Henry Kissinger, in a rather strong article in the Washington Post the other weekend, said will no longer be an alliance but will become in effect a collective security organisation. I think that that is rather a good thing; he thinks that it is rather a bad thing; the noble Baroness, Lady Park, obviously also thinks it is rather a bad thing. Since I am informed that the nomenklatura inside Russia has considerably broken up in the past four or five years and been replaced by a number of other private organisations, mafias and the like, I am not sure that I share the same view of a monolithic Russia that she still retains. It does not mean that I do not believe that there are many dangerous things within Russia. Some of those things are dangerous when one walks along the street in Moscow. But it is a different Russia from what we had before and we need a different response.
We have a transformation under way in the structure of European security and European order as such. I bitterly regret that the last British Government did not explain it to their people. This charter marks a further stage. In a few days' time the next NATO Council in Madrid will announce an enlargement of NATO to three, four or five countries which is also a further stage in the transformation of the whole architecture, as some people call it, of European security.
I welcome that change. I wish the last Government had explained it rather more to the British public. I hope that the new Government will understand that it needs a great deal of explanation to the British people. I also bitterly regret the unilateralism with which the United States has been leading us along the way. There have been battles within Washington between the Polish lobby and the "Russia firsters", which have pushed for enlargement to Poland at the same time as offering something to the Russians. It was the desire was to satisfy the Polish lobby on NATO enlargement, but at

1449
the same time to give something in return to the Russians, which started the US Administration on this process.
Time and again we have seen leading members of the American administration making unilateral gestures to the Russians of which they have not informed their NATO members. I remember the NATO council in Bergen a year ago in which Bill Perry told the Baltic states on behalf of NATO members that they were not going to join NATO for the time being. I remember vividly the occasion in Brussels when Madeleine Albright announced with the SACEUR standing next to her that there was to be a NATO Russia brigade about which the American General SACEUR had not been informed. That is not a good way to run an alliance. I recall our friends in this House, who take a sceptical view of the European Union, insisting that NATO worked better because it worked on consensus. That is an odd kind of consensus.
We have been pulled along by American politics and by an American view of how Europe should be restructured, which I am not sure we entirely share. The last British Government were loyal to the United States and went out of their way to defend what they saw as the developments within American policy. Malcolm Rifkind famously made his last major speech before the election in Washington telling the Americans that they had to accept NATO enlargement. He did not make such a speech over here. I hope that this Government will not be so subservient to American interests and will take more clearly a further statement in paragraph 4, which interestingly comes out in the Founding Act on Mutual Relations Co-operation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation and says,
"NATO is in the process of developing the European Security and Defence Identity within the Alliance".
I have asked a number of people in London and elsewhere exactly what European security and defence is. The French tell me that they are in favour of it but cannot define it; British officials say that we are against it but cannot define it. It is interesting to know that, nevertheless, it appears in the founding charter.
A transformation of NATO is taking place, opening up half membership for Russia. The charter talks in paragraph 1.6 of,
"common and comprehensive security based on the allegiance to shared values, commitments and norms of behaviour".
If it comes into effect with all the gestures we have so far made, those shared values must include Russia; they are not shared values of the west against the east as we were all brought up to believe. In paragraph 2.14 the charter says that there are shared objectives
"to identify and pursue as many opportunities for joint action as possible".
It expands on that to talk of joint operations, including peacekeeping operations. Can the Minister say whether that envisages peacekeeping operations within the CIS? So far peacekeeping operations within the CIS have been left to the Russians. If NATO troops are to participate in peacekeeping operations in, for example, Georgia and Tadjikistan, that too raises large questions about our future defence obligations. There is to be a
1450
permanent joint council which is to meet regularly; there is to be a permanent Russian mission in SHAPE which I am told will be physically closer to the Secretary-General's office than the permanent missions of the majority of current NATO members. And there is to be a possible NATO mission in Moscow.
Those are major developments in the movement from an alliance to a collective security organisation. I find it interesting that in the NATO-Russia agreement there is reference to a need to further adjust NATO's strategic concept; to further changes in the treaty on conventional forces in Europe; and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Park, mentioned, to the questions in relation to nuclear weapons.
The links between this Act and other developments also seem to me to be important. I asked the Library if it was possible to obtain a copy of the agreement between NATO and the Ukraine. I am told that that had been agreed but had not been signed and is not yet available. I hope that the Minister will tell us what comparability there is between NATO's agreement with the Ukraine and that with Russia. The Ukraine is an important country to us. It matters to us that it remains independent as a part of a new European balance.
How do we see the Baltic states developing? How far have we now accepted that the Baltic states will not join NATO? Or is part of the purpose of this agreement with Russia to open the door to the Baltic states becoming at least associated with NATO to the same extent as Russia and perhaps in time to be full members?
What about south-eastern Europe? At Madrid the Americans will tell us who is to be allowed to join NATO in the next one-and-a-half years. Indeed, the Americans have now decided that they can only get three countries through Congress without arousing too much opposition, so Romania and Slovenia will not be allowed to join. What proposals do we wish to make for those other countries of south-eastern Europe which represent the most insecure parts of Europe today, to improve their security if NATO enlargement or founding acts of this sort are not going to take care of them in the near future?
Finally, what do we see as the role of OSCE in this developing process? There are many references to OSCE within the text but it seems to me that we are moving towards NATO replacing the OSCE for many purposes, with Russia as a half-member and with the Ukraine as an associate. NATO is going to become the major collective security organisation for Europe with an integrated military organisation at its core and therefore rather stronger than the OSCE but, as Kissinger argued, fundamentally different from the alliance we knew.
This debate is taking place largely within Washington. I regret that. European allies have largely been spectators to this American-Russian dialogue. The Americans are now actively moving towards obtaining ratification through Congress. Two weeks ago in Washington I met a state department official who is working full time on relations with Congress to try to ensure that the Senate will ratify. I am glad to know that they treat their legislature in such an active and positive

1451
way. I hope that our Government will now tell us—not necessarily at the end of the debate but over the next few months—how they see the process of the gradual transformation of our European order affecting the context in which British defence policy, British foreign policy, British involvement in closer European co-operation and in continuing transatlantic relations will affect the roots of British foreign policy.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, there is consensus between the two Front Benches in this House and in another place that no issue has a higher priority in Britain's foreign policy than the future of NATO. It is not news to your Lordships that it is a real but most regrettable fact that peace in post-Cold War Europe cannot be taken for granted. The history of Europe has left behind many animosities and tensions, particularly in the East. Bosnia stands as a stark and devastating testament to that fact.
It is not an overstatement to say that NATO is the most successful defence alliance the world has ever seen. Its unique military capabilities and its politically stabilising framework have given its members unprecedented peace since its foundation in 1949. As we approach the 50th anniversary of its foundation, it is appropriate that we should be able to begin the lead-up to those celebrations with another milestone in the form of the Founding Act.
The signing of the Founding Act last month in Paris was an historic occasion. In this Act the heads of government of the 16 NATO member countries and of Russia have paved the way for a new relationship between NATO and Russia. This is a partnership built on consensus and co-operation, on consultation and co-ordination rather than on an adversarial approach and enmity.
This pact of permanent partnership and strategic co-operation has concluded the process that began in Lancaster House seven years ago when NATO first stretched out the hand of friendship to its former Warsaw Pact adversary in the dying days of the Cold War. It creates the real possibility, unthinkable a decade ago, that the security pact may one day span the nations of the northern hemisphere from Vladivostok to Vancouver without a break.
The Founding Act, whereby NATO and Russia no longer consider themselves adversaries, is the fruit of seven years of hard bargaining, of mutual concession and compromise. It is a milestone on the road to underpinning security and stability in the whole of Europe. The Act acknowledges the future enlargement of NATO, thereby greatly minimising press speculation that such expansion will—I quote—"Bait the Russian bear". In return, it assuages the preconception in Russia that NATO is a threat to the Russian people. Neither NATO nor Russia has a right of veto over the actions of the other, nor does it restrict independent decision-making and action.
The newly created NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council will provide the principal mechanism for routine consultation and co-ordination on security issues
1452
of concern to either side and will oversee deep and systematic military and practical co-operation, including, where possible, joint planning, training, exercises and operations.
The noble Lord, in raising this debate, which is greatly welcomed, has concentrated rightly on the status of the Founding Act in international law. It is politically binding but, as the noble Lord rightly pointed out, it is not a legally binding treaty and needs no ratification as such, as the Russians had originally requested. However, the important status of the Founding Act should not be underestimated. The 17 co-signatories have all agreed to be bound by its terms. It is therefore to all intents and purposes a binding document.
The summit in Madrid next month is the next milestone on the road to NATO's fourth expansion, when the alliance's 16 existing members will meet to decide which of the 12 applicant countries will be invited to begin accession negotiations. I thought that the contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, was extremely pertinent in this context.
Again, there is consensus on the Front Benches of your Lordships' House and in another place as to the benefits of NATO enlargement to Britain, to Europe and to the world. Enlarging our institutions is the key to future European and global success. NATO is the best assurance for prosperity, security and confidence in the nations of central Europe, just as it was for the nations of western Europe from its foundation 50 years ago. It is right that NATO's guarantees of a real and credible common defence should be extended to the new democracies of central and eastern Europe who have thrown off the yoke of communism. Already great efforts are being made in the aspirant countries to establish democracy, the rule of law and individual liberty, as well as to resolve border disputes and organise defence planning in a democratic way.
I would like to take this opportunity to wish the Government success in the discussions at the Madrid summit next month, and I am sure they will take a measured and considered approach to the important decisions facing the UK and our NATO allies. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, put his finger on the issue. It is no secret that there will be dissent and disagreement between the American-led model of limited enlargement and the French-led model—which he rightly supported and for which I have a great deal of sympathy—of a wider "southern enlargement" which would include Romania and Slovenia and would focus expansion on the Mediterranean as well as eastern Europe. Diplomacy and determination will be required to broker a decision acceptable to all and agreed by all, with no lingering resentment of a diktat on any side.
I hope that this decision will take into account the fact that NATO cannot be a one-way street. New countries must be able to play a full role in all NATO operations. They will have to increase defence expenditure where necessary; they must bring their armed forces up to the level of NATO armed forces and ensure interoperability.
I hope it will take into account the effect of enlargement on the internal structure of NATO. Too many new members would prove counterproductive,

1453
placing a strain on NATO, weakening its important military and political cohesion and reducing the credibility of its pledge of continued openness, increasing Russian concerns and diluting its effectiveness in guaranteeing the defence of new members.
I hope it will be clear that NATO expansion will be an evolving and fluid process which will enhance the security of all. There is no reason why this fourth enlargement should be the last. The door must remain open for those willing and able to further NATO's goals. Nor should any country feel left out in the cold. On this note, the designs for the architecture of European security have been drafted.
I hope the Government will make sure that the security alliances which have been referred to and which overlap NATO—OCSE, WEU and the Council of Baltic Sea States—are built on and developed so that the plans for the architecture of European security become reality and the old iron dividing line between west and east is blurred and eventually erased. An enlarged NATO should be one of the foundation cornerstones in a network of security alliances that criss-cross and bind Europe in peace and stability. I believe that this is an opportunity for the Government to demonstrate leadership, and I very much hope that they will rise to the occasion.
The Founding Act opens the door for discussion between NATO and Russia, but there will still be significant diplomatic hurdles ahead. The Founding Act provides the basis for the continued expansion of the alliance by declaring that there can be no new dividing lines or spheres of influence limiting the sovereignty of any states and by stressing the inherent right to choose the means to ensure their own security. This keeps the NATO door open for the accession of the Baltic States and even the Ukraine. Russia has already issued a warning that the failure of NATO to rule out the Baltics and the former Soviet republics could undermine and damage NATO's relations with Russia.
I take this opportunity to wish the Prime Minister success in his proposed trip to Moscow in the autumn, when I am sure that some of these issues will be on the agenda.
Perhaps I may pick up on one point that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, raised. There is an additional and important dimension to our debate today which should focus on Russia's relationship with the republics of the former Soviet Union. This weekend, in my capacity as Managing Director of the Independent Power Corporation, I met Prime Minister Akezhan Kazhegeldin in Kazakhstan. In addition to the bold and radical economic reforms being implemented in the interests of all the people in the country by the Prime Minister and the President, Nursultan Nazarbayev, it is also a country which exemplifies the attempt to establish practical working relations with both Russia and NATO in defence policy.
The key relevance to this debate is the series of important tensions which remain to be resolved within the former Soviet Union countries. For example, Kazakhstan used to serve as the main nuclear testing
1454
ground for the Soviet Union. The poisonous testimony of those years serves as an environmental legacy to the Kazak people today. The Republic of Kazakhstan made a very bold step by unilaterally surrendering its nuclear arsenal.
Now, with joint military manoeuvres, NATO addresses more than a traditional Russian stand-off. NATO is rightly but potentially precariously being woven into a patchwork quilt, a complicated web of foreign policy and defence initiatives to which it must respond sensitively and positively.
In the case of Kazakhstan NATO has responded well. The fact that NATO needs to do more to help Kazakhstan is incontrovertible, particularly in providing assistance to the Kazak army, epitomised, for example, by the challenge posed by the Kaliban movement in Afghanistan at a time when Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, with the assistance of the outstanding British ambassador, Barbara Hay, Kyrgistan and Turkmenistan face the rising tide of Islam. What this represents is an example of one of a series of internal tensions between Russia and the Baltics, where Russia is still perceived as a threat, Russia and the Ukraine, over the Black Sea division, and Russia and Chechnya, where the word "oil" predominates and the Caspian Sea policy, Azerbaijan and issues regarding the pipeline are important.
We needed in the past a strong NATO because Russia was strong. We need an even stronger alliance now because the fledgling Russian democracy is weak. We have no reason to mistrust President Yeltsin and his team. Moreover, we have every reason to believe their good political intentions. But at the same time we can legitimately ask: how much control does the president and his team exercise over their military; and how much control, after we saw the example of Admiral Khmelnev selling submarines and weapons for personal gain, do the Russian generals themselves have over an ageing and increasingly volatile nuclear arsenal? Whatever the legal status of the Founding Act, we ought to establish proper and foolproof systems of verification and control. The Russian people, above all, need our help in that matter.
In conclusion, I should like an assurance from the Minster that the strategic defence review will preserve our sense of responsibility to our allies in NATO, which includes our outstanding contribution to NATO's high command Rapid Reaction Corps, which is led by a British officer. I should like, in the context of the defence of NATO and this debate, to ask four questions. There are military cost implications for the future of the NATO alliance. I should like to know how these will be taken into account and what the involvement of the Treasury will be in this foreign policy led defence review. If NATO is indeed to remain the bedrock of our security, and fundamental questions on the future shape of the alliance and the contribution of its members will remain unanswered in the immediate future, what timescale do the Government envisage before they are able to reach definitive conclusions about the UK defence needs, and how will those defence needs be evaluated to take into account NATO enlargement and the matters before the House today?

1455
Britain plays a unique and leading role in the world. It is the only country to be a member of NATO, the European Union, the WEU, the Commonwealth, what is now the G8 most powerful industrial nations and a permanent member of the UN Security Council. I hope the whole House agrees that the United Kingdom carries out its responsibilities throughout the world with honour and respect: providing troops, planes and ships for the Gulf War, the delivery of aid and the supervising of the ceasefire in Bosnia, help to war-torn Rwanda, support for the United Nations around the world, as well as fighting international crime and terrorism. We are very proud of the role we played in staunchly defending freedom in the 1980s in the face of the Soviet threat, which helped to bring about the collapse of Communism and the emergence of democracy in central and Eastern Europe. We have now come full circle. Fifty years after the rejection of the Marshall Plan by Stalin, which led to the isolation of the Soviet Union and the division of Europe, the Founding Act marks the making of a more constructive, secure future for all of Europe. I urge the Government to take no action to hinder Britain's continued lead in shaping this future.
4.34 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Kennet for initiating this debate today as I welcome the interest shown by other noble Lords in the NATO/Russia Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Co-operation and Security, and in NATO generally. The alliance is of vital importance to our defence and the security and stability of Europe, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, pointed out.
The signature of the Founding Act on 27th May, by NATO heads of state and government, the NATO Secretary-General, and President Yeltsin is an historic breakthrough in relations between Russia and the West. One of the main provisions of the Founding Act is the establishment of a Permanent Joint Council which will consult regularly on a wide range of security issues and will provide a mechanism for building greater trust and co-operation between Russia and NATO.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked about the status in international law of the Founding Act. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, said, it is not a treaty. If it had been a legally binding document the constitutions of many NATO member states would have required them to go through a process of ratification, and that would have delayed matters considerably. During the course of the negotiations between NATO and Russia the two sides agreed that it should take the form of a solemn commitment, made at the highest level. In this respect, the Founding Act is similar to the Helsinki Final Act. The fact that the Founding Act is not legally binding does not, of course, mean that it was entered into lightly. It was signed at the level of heads of state and government. I assure noble Lords that the British Government will scrupulously honour the political commitments it contains and expect that all other NATO member states and Russia will do likewise.
1456
The signature of the Founding Act underlines that the Cold War is now firmly consigned to history. Its second paragraph reminds us that the two sides are no longer adversaries. NATO's own transformation in the 1990s underlines this fact. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, pointed out, it is no longer an organisation designed to deter or defend against a massive attack from the East. Its priorities are now much more diverse. It has expanded its political functions and taken on new missions of peacekeeping and crisis management. In Bosnia, NATO has been working side by side with Russia to restore peace.
We welcome signs that Russian public opinion is increasingly taking a more realistic view of NATO and overcoming misconceptions of the alliance created under the former Soviet Union. That is not to say that there are not still anxieties in Russia about NATO, but these are based on a profound misunderstanding of the character and intentions of the alliance, which are strictly defensive.
The best way to achieve a thoroughgoing and lasting change in perception is to develop the relationship between NATO and Russia and find a way of involving Russia in discussion of European security issues that corresponds to her legitimate security interests. The signature of the Founding Act responds to these needs by offering a real partnership with NATO, with a framework for increasing levels of practical co-operation, and by giving Russia a chance to make her voice clearly heard on matters of security concern to her. Co-operation in the new Permanent Joint Council will be based on the principles of transparency and reciprocity.
The Founding Act contains no provisions that restrict the rights or responsibilities of new members of NATO. The candidates for NATO membership have recognised this, and have welcomed the Founding Act. It contains a section on military issues which underlines clearly that NATO, whether now or after taking in new members, will pose no military threat to Russia. It contains, for example, references to earlier unilateral statements by NATO that the alliance has no intention, plan or reason to station nuclear weapons on the territory of new members and that it will carry out its collective defence and other missions by ensuring the ability of forces to work with each other rather than by additional permanent stationing of substantial combat forces. It also sets out an approach agreed by Russia and NATO to the adaptation of the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe to the new circumstances of Europe. The Founding Act also contains provisions for more co-operation between military establishments.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked about this element of transparency. The text of the Founding Act is available for debate, as indeed we are debating today. As for the conduct of NATO/Russia discussions, there will be no deals at the expense of third parties. The proceedings of NATO/Russia bodies will be as open as possible.
A number of noble Lords raised the perhaps related issue of NATO enlargement. The fact is that the Founding Act contains no provisions on NATO

1457
enlargement, which is a matter only for NATO and candidate countries and not for any third country. There is no understanding, secret or otherwise, between NATO and Russia about the question of NATO's future enlargement. The negotiations between NATO and Russia were about NATO-Russian relations, not about enlargement.
Noble Lords have also asked why NATO should be enlarged. NATO membership brings considerable benefits to members, not only militarily in collective defence guarantees but also political benefits. It would not be right to deny those benefits to countries that wished to join and share the values and principles on which NATO was founded and whose accession to NATO would add to our common security. As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has pointed out, the process of enlargement has already brought substantial benefits to European security as candidates for membership have sought to prepare themselves by pursuing important reforms, such as the introduction of proper democratic control over their militaries and a peaceful approach to the resolution of long-standing issues. A more secure and stable central and eastern Europe where two world wars have started this century should be in the interests not only of the West but also of Russia.
Several noble Lords raised the question of the costs of enlargement. Pending NATO's decisions on who should be invited to join, it is not possible to make precise estimates of the cost of enlargement, including the cost to the United Kingdom, but NATO's preliminary work on cost suggests that it will be manageable. Costs will be shared equitably between existing and new members. A US Government report to Congress in February 1997 estimated that the direct cost of enlargement to existing and new members over a 13-year period would be no more than 9 to 12 billion US dollars. This is far less than some of the earlier estimates that failed to take into account the change in the military threat since the end of the cold war and the modernisation measures that allies would need to take irrespective of enlargement.
Noble Lords will be aware that 12 countries have asked to join: Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Albania and Macedonia. The UK has not yet decided who should join. As noble Lords have observed, the US has already declared for three: Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic. The US voice in NATO is obviously influential, but the final decision will be taken collectively by the allies at the Madrid Summit on the 8th or 9th July.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, asked about those countries that had not been invited to join. NATO is determined that the admission of new members must not mean less security for those not invited at this stage or the creation of a new dividing line in Europe. At the Madrid Summit NATO will repeat its pledge that the door remains open to the possibility of further enlargement, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, indicated.
1458
The noble Baroness, Lady Park, asked about arms control. Perhaps I may reiterate that no Russian missiles have been targeted at the UK and no UK missiles have been targeted at Russia since 30th May 1994. The US also has a de-targeting agreement with Russia. The UK does not target Russia or any other country with nuclear missiles. By the end of 1998 the UK will have only one system, that is, Trident. Therefore, it would not be possible to detach the warheads, of which so many have spoken, and maintain a credible deterrent. The noble Baroness also raised a number of questions about possible co-operation in the theatre of missile defence. I can confirm that the TMD is one of the areas for possible co-operation between NATO and Russia.
The noble Baroness also asked about Russian attitudes to NATO. The Founding Act gives neither side a veto over the actions of the other. Both sides maintain their right to act independently. The new NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council will not be superior or, for that matter, subordinate to the alliance's supreme body, the North Atlantic Council. It is a separate structure. To the extent that Russia uses the new forum constructively, NATO will wish to take greater account of her voice and the opportunities for joint initiatives and decisions by the Permanent Joint Council will naturally increase. An increasingly democratic and outward-looking Russia will deserve greater influence and full recognition of her legitimate security interests.
The noble Baroness also referred to the Baltic states. We recognise the aspirations of those states to join both NATO and the EU. Decisions on NATO membership will be announced at Madrid. But we are particularly aware of the security concerns of the Baltic states. We are willing to participate in international initiatives to enhance their security. We shall continue our programme of bilateral defence assistance to the Baltic states including their joint peace-keeping battalion BalTBat.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, raised the question of NATO and the Ukraine. The relationship between NATO and the Ukraine is very important. The Ukraine's sovereignty and security are important to the security of Europe. The Ukraine has a special role to play in building the new European security architecture. Her de-nuclearisation is a commendable contribution to security in Europe. We welcome the initialling of the NATO/Ukraine Charter on the 29th May at Sintra. We expect it to be signed at a meeting between NATO heads of state and government and President Kuchma in Madrid on the 8th or 9th July. This forms a sound foundation for further future developments of the distinctive relationship between NATO and the Ukraine which recognises the latter's particular role in European security.
NATO wants the Permanent Joint Council to work as does President Yeltsin. Her Majesty's Government believe that this is a unique opportunity to promote constructive dialogue in the area of European security. Russia's voice will be heard more clearly. Inevitably, NATO will take notice of Russian views and sensibilities. It is right that in future NATO should take into account the concerns of a democratic Russia and

1459
engage her in building European security. The United Kingdom is committed to the success of this process. I am happy to be able to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that the Government believe that the signing of the Founding Act is one of the most significant steps on the road to European peace and security since the end of the Second World War. It should be recognised as such by Parliament and the public. I assure the noble Lord that we shall, in the context of the strategic defence review, make the consequences of the Act more widely appreciated. But the signing of the document is only the beginning. We must now capitalise on the opportunity that it creates by building co-operation and consultation in the new Permanent Joint Council to new levels. This will require determination and creativity on the part of both NATO
1460
and Russia. We shall work within the alliance and with our Russian partners to fulfil the promise of a lasting transformation in relations between Russia and the West.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may press her on the question of joint peace-keeping operations within the former CIS. This seems to me to be a very important point that hangs within the founding charter in which the interests of this country are engaged.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I understand it, there is no reason why, if we agree with Russia, we should not be part of such a peace-keeping force.
House adjourned at twelve minutes before five o'clock.

  Diplomatic Service Allowances
  Diplomatic Service Allowances
  Judicial Appointments
  Judicial Appointments
  City Technology Colleges
  City Technology Colleges
  Funding Agency for Schools
  Funding Agency for Schools
  Nursery Education: Certificates of Eligibility
  Nursery Education: Certificates of Eligibility
  Education: Capital Spending on Buildings
  Education: Capital Spending on Buildings
  Schools: Allocation of Funds
  Schools: Allocation of Funds
  Sixteen Year-olds: Education Costs
  Sixteen Year-olds: Education Costs
  University for Industry
  University for Industry
  Education and Skills Training
  Education and Skills Training
  Work Opportunities
  Work Opportunities
  Bank of England: Monetary Policy Committee Meetings
  Bank of England: Monetary Policy Committee Meetings
  Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee Decisions, 6 June
  Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee Decisions, 6 June
  Lloyd's Former Members: Regulatory Requirements
  Lloyd's Former Members: Regulatory Requirements
  Probation Officers in Prisons
  Probation Officers in Prisons
  "Refugees and Criminal Justice"
  "Refugees and Criminal Justice"
  Tobacco: Advice on Alternative Crops
  Tobacco: Advice on Alternative Crops
  Poultry Production Controls
  Poultry Production Controls
  Rodent Traps
  Rodent Traps
  Wild Boar
  Wild Boar
  Chemical Effects on Human Health
  Chemical Effects on Human Health
  Motorail
  Motorail
  Channel Tunnel: EC Open Access Directive
  Channel Tunnel: EC Open Access Directive
  Rail Regulator
  Rail Regulator
  Roadside Emission Testing: Penalty Charging
  Roadside Emission Testing: Penalty Charging
  "Highway Code": Advice on Roller Skates, etc.
  "Highway Code": Advice on Roller Skates, etc.
  Driving Assessments and Information to Insurers
  Driving Assessments and Information to Insurers
  Uninsured Drivers
  Uninsured Drivers
  Drinking and Driving: Legal Limit
  Drinking and Driving: Legal Limit
  Secure Car Parks: Planning Guidance
  Secure Car Parks: Planning Guidance
  DVLA: Accuracy of Vehicle Record
  DVLA: Accuracy of Vehicle Record
  ISOFIX Child Restraint System
  ISOFIX Child Restraint System
  Speed Limit Repeater Signs
  Speed Limit Repeater Signs
  Health Spending: G7 Countries
  Health Spending: G7 Countries