Sitting of 20 March 1997

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

    Polling Stations (Accessibility)
    Mr. Gerrard: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to improve the accessibility of polling stations to people with disabilities. [19782]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Tom Sackville): We issue advice and guidance to acting returning officers, who are most directly responsible for selecting polling places and polling stations, and provide grant aid towards the costs of purchasing temporary ramps and polling booths specially adapted to the needs of voters who are wheelchair users.
    Mr. Gerrard: Does the Minister recall that a survey conducted at the time of the last general election revealed that 88 per cent. of polling stations had access problems? Does he accept that the vast majority of disabled people want to vote in person? Does he accept also that many of them will not be able to do so at this general election because simple improvements, such as ramps, better lighting or allowing people to vote at a more accessible location, have not been carried out because the Government failed to do what they could, and should, have done in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to ensure that accessibility is not an option, but a legal requirement?
    Mr. Sackville: I am certainly aware of the Spastics Society report to which the hon. Gentleman refers. We want to minimise the number of people who have to vote by proxy or by post because of disablement. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman that, since the last general election, we have paid out £175,000 in grants to local authorities to try to help improve access to polling stations. Many of the buildings concerned are primary schools and libraries at which access arrangements are improving all the time.
    Mr. Butler: Can my hon. Friend confirm that this is another case where the generosity of the Treasury is unlimited, and that the grants available are uncapped? Is he aware that, in common with many colleagues on this side of the House, I wrote to my returning officer some weeks ago asking him to ensure that arrangements for the disabled were in place before the general election?
    Mr. Sackville: My hon. Friend is taking a risk in revealing the fact that the budget is uncapped. It is true
    1058
    that any requests for grants for those purposes are met, so long as they are eligible, and that any local authority may seek grant aid to improve access to polling stations.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: We welcome that information. Do electoral returning officers act upon the guidance that they are given? We are all aware that polling day is a social occasion, and it is tragic if the disabled are prevented from voting when alternative accommodation may be available.
    Mr. Sackville: I assure the House that we have repeatedly reminded electoral returning officers that people have a right to vote, and that the number of those who are unable to vote in person must be kept to an absolute minimum. I assure the hon. Gentleman that improvements are proceeding apace.

    Prisons (Drugs)
    Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the extent of drug taking in prisons. [19783]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe): Provisional figures show that of more than 32,000 prisoners tested between April and October 1996 under the random drug testing programme, between 20 per cent. and 25 per cent. tested positive. The vast majority were for cannabis. Further research is in hand to provide a more detailed picture.
    Dr. Spink: Knowing how assiduously and effectively my right hon. Friend the Minister of State performs her duties, I ask whether she has found time to visit any prisons in the past few months in order to assess for herself the effectiveness of the work undertaken to cut off the supply of drugs to prisoners. Does she agree that we certainly need to do more work to continue to stop drugs reaching prisoners so that prisons may be austere but reforming institutions, rather than the playhouses that Opposition Members would make them?
    Miss Widdecombe: Yes, I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that I have now visited all the prisons in England and Wales. During those visits, I have on each and every occasion discussed the issue of drugs with prison governors. I am pleased to say that I have seen a number of good initiatives, including weekend mandatory drug testing, enhanced use of drug dogs and special initiatives in regard to monitoring visits. All those initiatives demonstrate the clear resolve of prison governors to get on top of the problem, which echoes the Government's own resolve. I fully concur with the sentiment of my hon. Friend—prisons under this Government are decent but austere; that is not what is proposed or has been the experience of prisons under Labour.
    Mr. Alton: I congratulate the Minister on her assiduousness in visiting so many prisons—[HON. MEMBERS: "All of them."]—in visiting all prisons, but does she agree that the level of recidivism among prisoners who continue to be addicted to drugs when they leave prison remains a major factor in fuelling the link between criminality and the taking of drugs? Does she agree that it is a curse on generations of young people

    1059
    that so many people ply drugs on street corners in cities such as Liverpool? Is that not a powerful incentive for crime? Does she further agree that nothing should be done to encourage the taking of drugs—particularly calls for their decriminalisation?
    Miss Widdecombe: I have good news for the hon. Gentleman on the subject of recidivism. He will be pleased to know that the rate of reconviction for those leaving our prisons is now lower than the rate for those serving sentences in the community. That is a tremendous tribute to what our prisons are achieving in rehabilitating the prison population. He is right to say that there is a clear link between drugs and crime and it is imperative that while people are in prison, we should get them off drugs. This is why our efforts are concentrated not only on the supply of drugs and on stopping them getting into prison, but on offering an extensive range of treatment, counselling, therapy and education.
    Mr. Rathbone: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement—and I remind her of the warmth of her welcome at Lewes prison some months ago—but will she remind and reassure the House that in all the prisons where drug testing takes place, sufficient treatment and counselling are in place so that those prisoners who want to come off drugs are given every encouragement to do so?
    Miss Widdecombe: Drug testing now takes place in all our prisons, and has done since April 1996. My hon. Friend is right that it is essential to back up that testing by giving prisoners strategies and alternatives to using drugs and the ability to come off them.
    Mr. George Howarth: Is the Minister aware that Home Office statistics reveal that the use of hard drugs in privatised prisons is 60 per cent. higher than in comparable prisons in the rest of the prison estate? Will she confirm that those private companies that operate private prisons have donated £2.6 million to Conservative party funds? Is it not the case that private prisons are soft on drugs and that this Government are soft on private prisons?
    Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman is totally at odds with a number of independent reports, including that of Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons, who praised Doncaster prison as a model for the rest of the service. He is at odds with Lord Longford, who said on leaving Blakenhurst that but for the fact he does not much like private prisons, he would like every prison to be run like Blakenhurst. He is at odds with the findings on the Wolds, which is now regarded as a model for the service. He does not understand the achievements of private prisons and is about 10 years behind the times. He is driven by Labour ideology and would do well to look at the increase in rehabilitation. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) draws circles in the air. He is describing Labour's policy, which is a circle that goes round and round. The Labour party does not know what direction it is going in and it speaks with two tongues on privatisation. No wonder the hon. Gentleman draws circles in the air—Labour's policy is one big circle.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must send a clear message to people who deal in
    1060
    drugs, whether they are in or out of prison: that we will have zero tolerance of drug dealing? Will she therefore guarantee that, when we are re-elected on 1 May, one of the first things that the Conservative Government will do is reverse the wrecking amendments that the Labour party tabled to the Crime (Sentences) Bill, so that people convicted for a third time of dealing in hard drugs will automatically get seven years in prison? Does not that demonstrate that the Labour party is soft on crime?
    Miss Widdecombe: Yes. I give the House a categorical assurance that we will reverse those amendments when we are returned to power on 1 May. That will be one of the first things that we do, because we are committed to protecting the public; the Labour party is merely committed to making life easy for the criminal. My hon. Friend is absolutely right when he says that we should exhibit zero tolerance of drug dealing. That is why we want seven-year minimum mandatory sentences for people who are convicted for a third time. The Opposition take the issue of drugs so seriously that they appear to regard it as a cause for mirth. I do not think that they will regard it as a cause for mirth when they who have never won an election in 23 years find that they will not win the next one either.

    Metropolitan Police
    Ms Hodge: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on police strength in the Metropolitan police in (a) 1996 and (b) 1992. [19784]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I hope that you, Madam Speaker, will permit me to say how pleased I am sure the whole House is to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) in his place on the Conservative Benches this afternoon.
    In answer to the hon. Lady's question, between March 1992 and March 1996, a like-for-like comparison shows that about 800 extra uniformed constables were made available to Metropolitan police divisions for operational duties—an increase of 6 per cent. On average, uniformed divisional constables now spend some 10 per cent more time on patrol than in 1992.
    Ms Hodge: In the dying moments of the Conservative Government, will the Home Secretary break his right to silence and confess that the figures that are in Hansard of 28 February—column 431—demonstrate that, year on year, police strength in the capital has gone down; confess that, this year, Londoners are paying more for their police service but are getting less; and confess that this is yet another in a long string of broken promises that Londoners have had to bear from a discredited Government?
    Mr. Howard: I have given the hon. Lady the accurate figures and am astonished that she should prattle on in that way when she knows perfectly well that her party's shadow Chancellor has said that not a penny more will be committed to the Metropolitan police. There will be no more money for the police, according to the shadow Chancellor, so the hon. Lady's question is absolutely inexplicable. I should have

    1061
    thought that she would have wanted instead to draw attention to the fact that, in the Dagenham division, which corresponds to her constituency, since 1992, notifiable offences have fallen by 10 per cent., recorded residential burglaries by nearly 30 per cent., recorded sexual offences by nearly 30 per cent., theft of motor vehicles by nearly 25 per cent.; that the clear-up rate for total notifiable offences has risen from 15 per cent. to 22 per cent., for robbery from 12 per cent. to more than 22 per cent. and for domestic burglary from 11.5 per cent. to 29 per cent. That is good news for the hon. Lady's constituents.
    Mr. Jessel: While all sensible people accept that to save lives extra police are needed in central London to combat terrorism and drug trafficking, which may mean slightly fewer police officers in outer London, I remind my right hon. and learned Friend that people in outer London remain very concerned about crime and hope that at some time in future, and before very long, additional police officers can be found for outer London.
    Mr. Howard: I well understand my hon. Friend's concerns on behalf of his constituents. I know how energetic he has been in drawing them to my attention and that of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis who I know will want to do everything he can to respond to my hon. Friend's concerns in the future.

    Children (Criminal Activities)
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans his Department has to take action to discourage children from taking part in criminal activities; and if he will make a statement. [19785]
    Mr. Howard: The Government believe that it is important to identify as early as possible children who may be at risk of offending and to take action to help them stay clear of crime. We have just published a Green Paper, "Preventing Children Offending", which sets out proposals for action to help children before they become offenders and reinforces parents' responsibility for their children's behaviour.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is totally in the interests of society, and children in particular, that they should be taught the difference between right and wrong from an early age, and that therefore Christian or moral education in schools is absolutely crucial, although it is seriously neglected by Labour-controlled authorities right across the land? Is not it totally wrong for vicars, or clergymen of any kind, not to mention the Leader of the Opposition, to condone shoplifting, for example?
    Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The remarks to which he has referred, both by the clergyman concerned and the Leader of the Opposition, were quite disgraceful. The Leader of the Opposition sought to excuse certain kinds of pickpocketing and shoplifting in a most disgraceful remark in a speech that he made a short while ago. We all have a duty to inculcate a sense of right and wrong in our children, and it is particularly regrettable when those in positions of authority fail to contribute to that objective.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Home Secretary explain to the House why it has taken 18 years for the Government
    1062
    to produce a Green Paper on dealing with youth crime, and why he did not even act upon the recommendation of his own Home Office research study 161 which revealed some months ago that even a relatively expensive early intervention against youth crime can save an awful lot of money later because young offenders' institutions are so expensive and ineffective?
    Mr. Howard: A great deal has been done during the past 18 years to deal with youth crime in various ways. The Green Paper draws together best practice to try to encourage that best practice across the country and to make new proposals for parental control orders which will encourage parents to exert greater control over their offspring.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that crime among youngsters is one of the main worries of the Burbage safe neighbourhood action group in my constituency? How will the child crime teams envisaged in his Green Paper work when the Government are re-elected after 1 May?
    Mr. Howard: I hope that child crime teams will be able to bring all the relevant agencies and voluntary bodies, including, for example, Home Start, to bear on those children who experience difficulties and are likely to become career criminals. I hope that everything that can be done will be done to turn them away from a career of crime, and at an early stage. That will be the objective of the child crime teams.
    Mr. Straw: I endorse the Home Secretary's welcome to the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). We are pleased to see him back.
    Does the Home Secretary recognise that nowhere has the Government's failure during the past 18 years been greater than in respect of the youth justice system, with an increase in just the past 10 years of 35 per cent. in the number of youth crimes but a drop of an equivalent amount—35 per cent.—in the number of young criminals being brought to court? Is the Home Secretary particularly aware of the large number of 10 to 13-year-olds who are not taught the difference between right and wrong under the current system and who presently escape any punishment at all for those serious offences? In view of that, why have the Government failed so far to bring forward any proposals to reform the law on doli incapax?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman totally misrepresents the current position. It is perfectly possible for 10 to 13-year-olds to be brought to court, to be accused of their crime and to be convicted if it can be shown, as it usually can in those circumstances, that they knew the difference between right and wrong. The Crown Prosecution Service says that there is no evidence of a real problem arising out of the rule to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The Government are keeping the operation of that rule under review. If there is any evidence that it is causing a problem, we will act to deal with it.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that more than 85 per cent. of young people who get into trouble do not reoffend because of the measures taken by the police and the courts? The number

    1063
    before the courts has reduced, because of the effect of cautioning. Is not the real problem the 15 per cent. who are not deterred from crime by a caution or by getting into trouble once? That is where the growth in juvenile crime lies, and where tough measures are needed. It is no use the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) nodding his head. We need the secure training units that his party refused to support.
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I know that he will be particularly pleased to learn that the first contract for a secure training unit was signed on 3 March this year. We can now implement that policy, which, as my hon. Friend rightly said, was opposed root and branch by the Opposition parties. The unit will provide secure accommodation to deal with persistent young offenders in the way that is most appropriate.

    Jury Trials
    Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning his proposals to restrict the right to jury trial. [19786]
    Mr. Howard: Giving magistrates the right to decide where either-way cases should be tried was one of 33 recommendations in the report of the review of delay in the criminal justice system, which was published on 27 February and is now out for consultation. At this early stage in the consultation period, I have received very few responses.
    Mr. Livingstone: Has the Home Secretary had time to consider the views of his former colleague, Alan Clark, who wrote in the News of the World dismissing those proposals as a last minute idea? He pointed out that the jury trial is the last line of defence for the ordinary citizen.
    Mr. Howard: I always listen very carefully to what Mr. Clark says, because he is perhaps my most distinguished constituent. It is incumbent on me to take his views on all matters extremely seriously. I agree with him on almost everything, but not on that.
    Mr. Ashby: This is definitely my last question in the House. My right hon. and learned Friend knows of my opposition and the opposition of many lawyers to restricting the right to jury trial. In his White Paper, he gave as the grounds for such a change the fact that there is too much delay and that that delay must be addressed. Has he considered that such a measure would reduce the delay in the Crown court and increase the delay in the magistrates court? That is what will happen, so there will still be delays in the system.
    Mr. Howard: I do not accept my hon. Friend's point. The extraordinary truth is that two thirds of those who elect to go for trial in the Crown court then plead guilty, so they do not avail themselves of the option that they have elected to take. We think that it would speed up justice considerably in the Crown court and the magistrates court if the proposals were accepted. We think that they have merit. We want to listen to what people say about them, and we shall announce our decisions in due course.

    Special Constables
    Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in attracting new recruits for the position of special constable. [19787]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): Between 1991 and 1995, the special constabulary increased from 15,000 to 20,000. A total of £10 million of central Government grant has been made available to help police forces to improve their training, equipment and recruitment of special constables.
    Mr. Sheerman: The Minister knows that the Opposition believe that special constables play a special part in bringing law and order to our streets. We want the number of special constables to be increased. In 1992, the Government promised to recruit more special constables. In the past year, they have thrown £4 million at advertising, but have ended up with fewer special constables than they started with.
    Instead of paying for glitzy advertising, is it not time that we put money into people's pockets to give them a reasonable return for being a special constable and working for their community? A better recruitment drive would be to spend less on advertising and to put a bit of money in a special constable's pocket.
    Mr. Maclean: That shows that the hon. Gentleman is not in touch with the special constabulary, whose cause he claims to espouse. Every time we ask special constables whether they want any form of payment, reward or bounty for what they do, the answer is an almost unanimous no. That view was expressed when we carried out an exercise to boost all aspects of the training and recruitment of special constables last year.
    Expenditure on the regular police force is now a record £7.3 billion. The amounts that we have spent on recruiting officers for the specials are modest in comparison. If we had not spent that money, the strength of the special constabulary would have dropped, which is not what we want. Through our advertising campaign, we have managed to maintain numbers in the specials—although 13 per cent. join the regular force each year, which is also good news.
    Mrs. Peacock: Can my right hon. Friend say how much is now available for the recruitment and training of special constables throughout the United Kingdom, and how much has recently been allocated to West Yorkshire?
    Mr. Maclean: I am delighted to say that we have recently made available £10 million specifically to aid recruitment of special constables, and to improve training and equipment. We recognise that those who volunteer for the special constabulary are making one of the greatest potential sacrifices that any volunteer can make in this country. It is a noble calling. The money that we have allocated is improving the special constabulary, and all forces are grateful for it.
    West Yorkshire received nearly £130,000 last year, and last week I was pleased to be able to allocate a further £127,000 to it. That will build on the considerable success that West Yorkshire has had with its specials—along with

    1065
    the increased number of regulars that it has had since 1979—and on its success over the past few years in lowering the level of all kinds of crime in the area, including violent crime.

    Closed-circuit Television
    Mr. Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact of CCTV in Newcastle as operated by Northumbria police. [19788]
    Mr. Sackville: I understand from the Northumbria police that recorded crime in Newcastle city centre has more than halved since the introduction of closed-circuit television in 1992. There were 15,000 incidents in 1991, and fewer than 7,000 in 1996. The neighbourhood CCTV system in the west end of Newcastle also produced a 23 per cent. reduction of crime in 1996.
    Mr. Cousins: Does the Minister recognise that neighbourhood CCTV security schemes were pioneered in Newcastle, by a partnership between the best-led and most effective police force in Britain and people in some of the toughest and least well-off communities and neighbourhoods? Given that record of success, why does the Minister not offer Newcastle more support? Why does he keep refusing it new CCTV schemes, given that it pioneered their development?
    Mr. Sackville: Two hundred schemes were funded in the last round. We reckon that the total programme over four years will lead to the installation of 10,000 more cameras throughout the country.
    CCTV is one of the Government's major law-and-order achievements, and has led to a reduction in crime everywhere. I remind the hon. Gentleman that this year violent crime fell by 9 per cent. in Northumbria, robberies by 11 per cent., burglaries by 19 per cent., theft by 13 per cent., vehicle crime by 12 per cent. and thefts of motor vehicles by 16 per cent. All that leads to a greater feeling of well-being among residents who are protected by CCTV.

    Vandalism
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new initiatives he plans to introduce to combat vandalism against property. [19789]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): The fight against vandalism is part of the Government's overall fight against crime. We recognise that the best initiatives against this particular crime are co-ordinated at local level, and we have made available £50 million for the introduction of closed circuit television systems which, wherever they are installed, can be effective in the detection and reduction of vandalism.
    Mr. Winterton: Is my hon. Friend aware that the majority of incidents of vandalism against property in my constituency are carried out by juveniles? Does he accept that the best way to deal with them is to encourage greater
    1066
    parental responsibility, to bring more secure training centres or units into operation sooner, and to make greater use of closed circuit television? I am pleased to report that Macclesfield has been successful in the third round of bidding for CCTV for the town centre.
    Mr. Kirkhope: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his activity in connection with the successful Macclesfield town centre bid. The Government provided more than £92,000 to assist with 11 cameras, which I am sure will have a strong effect on crime in my hon. Friend's area. We should like to have secure training centres in place as soon as possible. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has said, we have signed the first contract, for Cookham Wood, which should be operational early next year. It would have been helpful if Labour, where it is entrusted with power at local level, had been more supportive of our planning applications for secure training centres. If Labour really wants to attack crime and criminals, why does it not take actions that are consistent with that?
    Mr. Henderson: The local authority in Newcastle upon Tyne has been co-operative, and vandalism has still soared. Is the Minister aware that criminal damage crimes have increased by 197 per cent. since 1979? What does he say to people who have suffered from the damage that soaring vandalism has caused in their communities? Does he admit responsibility?
    Mr. Kirkhope: I say to those people, "Beware of a party which has never supported the Government's attacks on criminals, vandals and all such people." People should beware of that, not of a Government who have done so much to attack crime.

    Prisons (Ministerial Visits)
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Minister responsible for prisons most recently visited a prison, and what was the purpose of the visit. [19790]
    Miss Widdecombe: Earlier this week I visited HM prison ship Weare, and before that I visited Spring Hill prison Buckinghamshire, on 11 March. That completed my tour of all prisons in England and Wales. I visit prisons to see for myself what is happening at individual establishments and to talk to staff, prisoners and members of boards of visitors about matters of concern to them. It is a particularly important part of my role as prisons Minister.
    Lady Olga Maitland: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her commitment to the Prison Service. She is the first Minister to visit all the prisons in England and Wales. Does she agree that, since the Prison Service became an agency, there have been considerable improvements? For example, the degrading exercise of slopping out has been abolished. There is now a much more constructive, but austere, regime. In short, prisons should not be hotels in which prisoners relax.
    Miss Widdecombe: I thank my hon. Friend for her kind remarks. I can confirm that, since achieving agency status, the Prison Service has made remarkable strides.

    1067
    Not only has it achieved that which my hon. Friend has outlined, but there has been a reduction in the escape rate of some 80 per cent., a rise in purposeful activity of some 7 per cent., an increase in education, and elimination of the practice of placing three prisoners in a cell designed for one. Those achievements have been brought about because the Prison Service, its management and staff and the Government have been committed to such improvements despite the endless catalogue of damnation by the Opposition, who do nothing but point to the bad news. They demoralise the service with their constant criticism. They never acknowledge and praise the service for its achievements. I am pleased to do that and I suggest that Opposition Members join me in so doing.
    Mr. Skinner: When the Minister was visiting the prisons in Britain, did she take her handcuffs with her, and how many times did she bump into that well-known recidivist the Home Secretary?
    Miss Widdecombe: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on what I am sure will be his forthcoming retirement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—in keeping with his own policy, and I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary on turning round our attitudes towards public protection, again in the teeth not only of ignorant opposition from Labour Members, but of nothing from them but concern for the criminal and for being soft on those who repeatedly prey on the public. When my right hon. and learned Friend returns on May 2, he will carry on that programme to the shame of Opposition Members and to the great benefit of the people of this country.

    Criminal Justice System
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning delays in the criminal justice system; and if he will make a statement. [19791]
    Mr. Howard: I frequently receive representations about delays in the criminal justice system, which is why my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and I set up the review, the report of which I published on 27 February.
    Mr. Hughes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the speeding up of the criminal justice system that will flow from his review paper will be warmly welcomed by the public, and that they will not be taken in by Opposition Members who side with all the vested interests that simply do not want to speed up criminal justice? Will not people conclude that it is the Home Secretary who is interested in speeding up criminal justice and that Labour wants only to sound as if it wants to speed it up?
    Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The potential benefits of these proposals would lead to almost all defendants being in court the day after they are charged, compared with fewer than 20 per cent. now, about 50 per cent. of defendants being convicted the day after charge, compared with 3 per cent. now, and young offenders appearing in court within days of committing
    1068
    their offence, instead of the present average of 10 weeks. I have yet to hear expressions of support from the Labour party for the measures in that review.
    Mr. Michael: As one who campaigned for an ending of the delays in criminal justice for many years before coming into this place, I am amazed by the Home Secretary's response. After 18 years, why has it taken an imminent general election to get the Home Secretary to admit what we have been telling him for years: that justice delayed is justice denied to victims, to offenders who need to be punished and to ordinary people whose communities have been damaged by crime under the Conservatives? Why have the Conservatives failed to cut the scandalous delays, particularly as proved by the Audit Commission, in the youth justice system?
    Mr. Howard: Here we have it again. The Labour party pays lip service to the objectives, but says nothing about the way in which those objectives can be achieved. Why did the hon. Gentleman not tell us whether his party agreed or disagreed with our proposals? Why did he not tell us whether it would support their implementation? Labour Members are not prepared to tell us what their attitude to these matters is. They simply get up and offer platitude, after platitude, after platitude.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is not the worst delay in the criminal justice system the delay in catching the criminals once they have committed their offences, and before they commit the next offence? Will my right hon. and learned Friend congratulate the Burton upon Trent police, who this year have increased yet again their rate of detection and who have reduced the rate of crime by 20 per cent. in the past three years? Does he agree that the Burton police and every other police force is now better trained, better equipped, better led, better paid and better supported by the law than they have ever been in our history, and will continue to be so only when we are re-elected?
    Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend and I am delighted to join him in congratulating the Burton police on their performance, which mirrors the performance of the police service throughout the country, which has reduced recorded crime in the past four years by the largest amount since records were first kept in 1857.

    Young Offenders
    Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the number of crimes committed by young people. [19792]
    Mr. Maclean: The best indicator we have of youth crime is the number of young people known to have been involved in offending. In 1995, 179,000 persons aged under 18 were either cautioned by the police or convicted by the courts.
    Mrs. Prentice: Does not the Minister realise that young offenders commit some 7 million crimes, yet only 1.3 per cent. of them are ever prosecuted, and that half of those who are prosecuted find that their criminal charges

    1069
    are dropped or that they get absolute or conditional discharges? Does he not realise that, by the time the young offenders reach court, the offence is a distant dream? Does he now accept that our policy of fast-track punishment for young offenders is the only way to solve the problem?
    Mr. Maclean: If the hon. Lady is concerned about juvenile crime, she should welcome our Green Paper. All the Opposition have produced is a ragbag of incoherent soundbites and wish lists and no idea about how to make them work in practice. The Government have a carefully thought out strategic approach which goes to the root of juvenile offending. From what we have heard this afternoon, a party that thinks it can solve juvenile crime by abolishing the rule of doli incapax is not living in the real world. Perhaps the hon. Lady should take up the issue with the shadow spokesman who voted against curfew orders in 1990, voted to cut community sentences from 240 hours, voted to cut the sentence at attendance centres, and said that holding parents responsible for controlling their children's behaviour would only make matters worse. We cannot trust a word Labour says on crime.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. Mr. Mullin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 March. [19812]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Mullin: Will the Prime Minister confirm that he could, if he wished, without any impact on the date of the general election, extend the life of this Parliament by the few days necessary to allow Sir Gordon Downey to publish his report? If so, I suggest that as soon as he leaves here, he nips down to the palace, has a quiet word with Her Majesty and puts an end to this distasteful business once and for all.
    The Prime Minister: There has already been a Privy Council to determine Prorogation, and I have no intention of changing it. Prorogation always follows within days of an election announcement. When I announced the date of the election and Prorogation, the House was not surprised—[Laughter.] There was no surprise about the date of Prorogation, and when I announced it there was no representation then or at any time in the past, publicly or privately, from the Labour party about changing the date—not once. It was not until the unemployment figures were leaked that this became an issue.
    Sir Jim Spicer: During the campaign, I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will be coming to the south of England and, we all hope, to Dorset. When he comes to Dorset, will he pass on to the people there and all those in the area served by Southern Electricity the good news that, as from Tuesday, they will have had an 11 per cent.
    1070
    cut in their electricity bills during the past nine months, which amounts to £40 to £50 off their bills? Is not that proof that privatisation works, and would it have happened if we had had a windfall tax?
    The Prime Minister rose—
    Mr. Skinner: Do not travel by train.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member for Bolsover says that I should not travel by train. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has indicated to his constituents that he may be retiring from the House now that he is 65—we shall miss him. If so, he will have plenty of time to travel by train and the fares will be lower, following privatisation, than they were before—just like water—
    Mr. Prescott: There will be no trains.
    The Prime Minister: The deputy leader of the Labour party says there will be no trains. As he is sponsored by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, he knows a great deal about strikes. I did not notice him offering much condemnation of strikes last summer, when they were threatened. He stands for strikes; that is his whole history. The reality is that customers are benefiting from falling prices and the improved service levels created across the board by privatisation. From memory, I think that it was the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) who once said that, after electricity privatisation, there is no doubt that "prices will rise". Since privatisation, prices have fallen.
    Mr. Blair: May I remind the Prime Minister of his firm and unequivocal promise, made last October, to do all that he could to have the report of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges published? May I suggest to him two ways in which that could be done? The first is to seek a postponement of Prorogation. The second is to agree with the Labour party and other Opposition parties a one paragraph Bill to allow the Committee to sit from now until Dissolution, on 8 April. Will he co-operate and allow us to do that—to fulfil his clear and unequivocal promise to the people of this country?
    The Prime Minister: As ever, the right hon. Gentleman quotes partially, but I shall deal with the substance of what he said. Of course I would have preferred to have had the matter finished. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I said that months ago. I would have liked to have had all the inquiries finished. I would have liked to have had the inquiries into the funding of the Leader of the Opposition's office and the deputy leader's office finished.
    Sir Gordon Downey's report is not finished, and it has not yet gone to the Committee. When it gets to the Committee—as the right hon. Gentleman knows—that will be the start, not the conclusion, of the process. It is obviously a complex report—[Interruption.] It has been made clear that there are thousands of pages of evidence; it is obviously complex, and it will obviously take time to consider. Those hon. Members who may be criticised will obviously wish to make representations and give evidence. The thought that that could be done fairly and properly in a few days is improbable in the extreme. The right hon. Gentleman knows that. He also knows that,

    1071
    based on what has happened on earlier occasions, parts of the substance of the report might leak in a prejudicial way before the matter is fairly concluded. That would not be in the interests of the House or of natural justice. I have no intention of changing the Prorogation date of the House.
    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister says that I quoted partially his comments of last October. Last October, in the "Breakfast with Frost" programme, he said:
    "Well I'll tell you now, I will tell that committee I believe they should publish the report … I want it settled, I want it settled David."
    After Frost asked him whether he hoped it was
    "reported and … published before the next election",
    he said, "Absolutely."
    Mr. David Shaw: £2 million blind funds.
    Mr. Blair: If the objection is based on time, may I suggest to the Prime Minister that he let the Committee sit? If it cannot finish its report for genuine time reasons, so be it. What is surely outrageous is for the Committee—
    Mr. Shaw: £2 million blind funds.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Shaw to order.
    Mr. Blair: The Committee is able to sit, and the Commissioner's report will be ready on Monday. The hon. Members concerned want the report to be published. It is absolutely outrageous not to let the Committee have the time even to try. If the Prime Minister continues to stonewall, people will believe that the reason is not technicalities or can't, but won't.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is still quoting what I said selectively. I made it clear that although I wanted the report to be published speedily, and I did, it was a matter for Gordon Downey and he would have to take the time he needed to deal with the matter properly. Perhaps his task would have been easier if some people had not delayed handing over important evidence—but that was not the Government. The fact of the matter is that this needs to be dealt with impartially, not in an atmosphere in which it could be selectively leaked to damage people who may have nothing whatsoever to hide.
    The right hon. Gentleman had no interest in this on Monday; he had no interest in this on Tuesday; he had an interest only when he had the unemployment figures leaked to him—to try to hide what is actually happening. This is a matter that needs dealing with fairly in the interests of the Members concerned, not in the way the right hon. Gentleman wishes to deal with it. What he wishes is to let a smear stand, not let justice be done in its own time.
    Mr. Blair: Justice demands that this report be published. That is what justice demands. Any members of the public watching that interchange will conclude that the Prime Minister simply does not want it published because he fears its publication. Has not this Parliament ended as it began—[Interruption.] It has ended as it began, with the Government breaking their word. If the Prime Minister fails to have this report published, when
    1072
    everyone knows that he could, it will leave a stain on the character of his Government that will be erased only by a new Government with a fresh mandate, who will restore confidence in our public life for good.
    The Prime Minister: The stain, if stain there will be, is upon a Labour Front Bench that has smeared and smeared and smeared again. The Labour leader has traded in double standards from the moment he took up office. This is the Labour leader who sells policy to the trade unions for cash—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]; who refuses to comply with the code of practice on party funding—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]; who calls for party openness but will not publish the secret funds of his own office—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]; who attacks share options but takes money from millionaires for his own party—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]; who attacks business men and asks them to fund things for him, who flew Concorde and failed to declare it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]; who has a deputy leader who spends a weekend at a five-star hotel and does not declare it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]; and who flies to the other side of the world to do newspaper deals and never admits to them—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] If there are any double standards, they sit there—on the Opposition Benches.
    Mr. David Shaw: Game, set and match.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I would like to hear the next question and the next answer.
    Mr. Churchill: Before taking what I hope is only a temporary leave of the House, may I, on behalf of my Manchester constituents, thank my right hon. Friend and the Government for making the United Kingdom the best functioning economy in all of Europe, with half the levels of unemployment of France or Germany? Is it not precisely because those two countries have not had the benefit of a Thatcher-Major revolution that they are suffering from what, in Labour days, used to be known as the British disease?
    The Prime Minister: Before I respond to my hon. Friend, I should like to say that I noticed when I last sat down that my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) is back in the House following his dreadful accident. My right hon. Friend will be retiring at the end of this Parliament, but he will leave behind him reforms to our procedures that have greatly improved the workings of the House. I am delighted to see him here and I wish him a speedy and full return to complete health.
    I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) about economic conditions. We now have more jobs, better education, improving health and falling crime—that is our achievement. While the Labour party spends its time trying to disown its past, I spend my time improving our country's future.
    Mr. Ashdown rose—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order—both sides.
    Mr. Ashdown: We raised this matter on Tuesday and I am raising it again now. Can I bring the Prime Minister back to the central question? There is clearly both provision and precedent to give the House the opportunity to clear up the cash for questions scandal once and for all next week if the Prime Minister wishes it, but he does not. Sir Gordon Downey regrets that, the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges regrets it, Conservative Members who are still under a suspicion of sleaze regret it and the nation no doubt deeply resents it. Is the Prime Minister to be the only person who will use a technicality to stand in the way of truth? If he does, he should not be surprised that the
    1074
    country will conclude that he enters the election as he conducted his Administration—on a broken promise, on a slippery evasion and with his party mired in accusations of sleaze.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman ends as pious and pompous as he has been throughout this Parliament. If what he said were correct, why did not his member of the Committee ask for what the right hon. Member for Sedgefield asked for—for he did not? Why did not the Labour members of the Committee ask for what the right hon. Member for Sedgefield asked for—for they did not? This has been a political stunt by the right hon. Member for Sedgefield and the leader of the Liberal party and they both know that it has been a political stunt from the moment they learnt what the unemployment figures were.

Electoral Registration
3.31 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members leaving the Chamber should do so quietly and very quickly. We have business to attend to.
Mr. Barnes: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the standing of electoral registration arrangements for the coming general election.
This morning, electoral registration figures for constituencies in England and Wales were placed in the Commons Library. The House now holds electoral registration figures for each constituency in the United Kingdom. The total registration figures are 44.2 million—a marginal increase of less than 0.5 per cent. on last year, which is easily accounted for by the growth in the population of over 18-year-olds. The figures can be added to only by the numbers on the supplementary lists, which close today.
The figures for the 1997 general election are as bad as the figures in recent years. They show a 2 million shortfall against relevant population figures, but that 2 million shortfall should be cut by half a million to accommodate residents from overseas other than Ireland and the Commonwealth. That would mean a 1.5 million shortfall in the registers—if the registers were up to scratch.
Survey work shows that some registers are dated when they are initially published. They include people who have died, names that are just carried over from previous registers, people who have been double-counted by being on more than one register, and many who have moved and will not be able to get hold of their postal vote or use it.
When all those factors are taken into account, we see that 3 million to 4 million people are missing from the registers. They are not a random sample of society; missing names are especially likely among Commonwealth citizens, black people, those in bed-sitter land, young people and city dwellers, especially those in London and particularly inner London. Given that we now have a general election, this matter, confirmed by today's figures, should be debated before we depart for the hustings.
Madam Speaker: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. I have, of course, to give a decision without stating the reasons for it. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and I cannot, therefore, submit the application to the House.

Points of Order
3.36 pm
Sir Peter Emery: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for not having given you greater notice of the matter; I was notified only at 2.27 pm of your provisional selection. I notified your secretary immediately to say that I would try to raise the matter.
There is an amendment on the Order Paper tabled by members of the Procedure Committee of all three parties following a unanimous decision by the Committee on the naming of Standing Committees. It is a simple amendment which suggests that Standing Committees dealing with public Bills should be known as Public Bill Committees so that the name shows the meaning of the Committee.
There is hardly any need for a debate—indeed, it was at the suggestion of the Leader of the House that such an amendment was tabled. Would you, Madam Speaker, between now and the moment when the matter comes before the House, reconsider the issue? Senior Members serve for many months on Committees considering matters of no real benefit to themselves. When they come forward with a unanimous view and that view is not allowed to be tested in the House, it is immensely depressing. Members may be discouraged from serving on Committees in future.
There is no need for a debate on the matter; there is merely a decision to be made. Apparently, the only opposition is emanating from the Chairman of Ways and Means. The House should be allowed to make the decision and I hope that you, Madam Speaker, will allow that when you reconsider the matter.
Madam Speaker: I considered the matter carefully this morning. I do not give reasons for the non-selection of amendments. I appreciate very much the work that the right hon. Gentleman and his Committee have done on procedure; it is very much unsung. He has, however, hit the nail on the head himself. He said that the House should be allowed to decide the matter. Under our procedures this afternoon, the House will not be allowed to debate the matter. When it comes to changes to Standing Orders, it is absolutely right that the House has an opportunity to debate the matter. I have given a reason for my decision; it is right that I should do so because it is an issue that concerns the entire House.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I have your help? I understand that the Minister for Railways and Roads has issued a press statement relating to the widening of the M25. I complain on two counts. First, when the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), was Secretary of State for Transport, he made a statement in the House about the widening of the M25. Subsequently, Ministers reneged on that statement in the House—I do not say that provocatively—when they amended the decision.
Under the cloak of the great sweep of history taking place today, the Minister for Railways and Roads is issuing a statement, although he is not coming to the House to do so, announcing that the widening of the

1077
M25 between junctions 12 and 15 should be increased to 10 and 12 lanes. I also believe that he will announce it by way of an answer to a parliamentary question that I asked.
When I came into the Chamber, there were no replies for me on the board, yet the press and journalists are aware of the announcement. That is wrong on two counts. First, the Minister should tell the House and the people—especially the people of Surrey—about the widening proposals and not try to sweep them through under the smokescreen of today's constitutional events. Secondly, if he is using my parliamentary question to make the announcement, I should have had the courtesy of a reply and the press should not have had it first. To be fair, Madam Speaker, I am not certain about the latter, but I suspect it.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Member should not raise the matter if he is not certain about it. How can I answer a point of order on something about which he is not certain? Of course, I deprecate the fact that any Minister makes a statement by press release before letting the House know, either through an answer to a question, as the hon. Member said, or at the Dispatch Box—it is up to the Minister concerned. I can make no comment on the fact that the hon. Member suspects that the Minister is going to do something.
Mr. Mackinlay: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Yes, it is convoluted. Go on.
Mr. Mackinlay: I did not fully elaborate on the fact that Cabinet rules are operating. The Minister of State, Scottish Office rightly referred to that in the House yesterday, when he said that he could not make any executive decisions because the general election had been called, yet that constitutional principle is being breached by the Minister for Railways and Roads this afternoon.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Am I not correct in assuming and stating to the House that, even after the date of the general election has been announced, it is in order and in accordance with the procedures of the House and Parliament for a Minister to answer parliamentary questions? I believe that that is what has happened.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is correct.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Mr. David Winnick: A final appearance.
Mr. Faulds: Sadly, yes. The House will miss me. May I make as my last contribution, Madam Speaker, after 31 years of the most distinguished service, a valuable contribution to the proceedings of this august Chamber? When I first came here—
Mr. Tony Banks: "Friends, Romans, countrymen".
Mr. Faulds: Shut up, you silly little boy.
1078
When I first came here 31 years ago, the custom was never ever to thank the Speaker for catching someone's eye. Can I implore you in the next Parliament—I do trust and pray that you will be where you are now—to instruct Members not to go through that rather placatory practice of thanking you for simply doing your duty? This is a new development and it really is not a very pleasant practice.
Madam Speaker: I would not dream of agreeing to what the hon. Gentleman says.
Mr. Andrew Miller: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A report was published this morning—not the one that has already given rise to some heated exchanges—by the Select Committee on Science and Technology, on the cloning of animals from adult cells. That report raises a number of important issues and seeks to reassure the public in the context of the fears that have been expressed in the media. Part of that report referred to the funding of the Roslin institute—an important scientific institute—by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. In the report, the actions of MAFF were described as being damaging to British industry and science—
Madam Speaker: Order. Just a moment. I am very tolerant today, but the hon. Gentleman is trying me a little. He must come to his point of order and what I can do about it and not rehearse what is in the report.
Mr. Miller: I appreciate that, Madam Speaker, and sympathise with your difficulties. Given that the report describes MAFF as "cavalier and blinkered" and we have been told that some of its actions—we have been told this only informally—are to be addressed, would not it be appropriate for a Minister to come to the House to tell us what action he intends to take to address those criticisms as a matter of urgency? The public are deeply concerned about the matter.
Madam Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that, regardless of what he thinks is important—no doubt the issue is important—if a Minister had intended to make a statement, it would have said so on the annunciator screen by 1 o'clock. I call Mr. Banks.
Mr. Tony Banks: Thank you, Madam Speaker. We shall all miss the wise counsels of that wonderful old thespian, my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds). Have you received a request for a statement from a Foreign Office Minister about the Portuguese police's disgraceful and brutal treatment of Manchester United supporters in Oporto last night? No one would defend riotous behaviour, but by all accounts, Manchester United supporters were set upon in the most appalling way. All British citizens, regardless of whether they are football supporters travelling abroad, are entitled to protection. Is there any way in which we can get a Minister to the House, so that we know that some form of inquiry and protection for our citizens abroad is being put in place?
Madam Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that Ministers do not request to make a statement;

1079
they tell me that they are going to make a statement. I have not been informed by any Minister that a statement is being made on that matter today.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I rise not to express my disappointment at the fact that Question 2 of Prime Minister's questions, which I tabled, was not reached, but in respect of the debate on Standing Orders. Although I understand the reason why you have not selected the amendment—I am one of the signatories to it—does the way in which the motions are set out on the Order Paper mean that we shall have the opportunity of debating the main points? The Standing Orders that are being amended have not been debated, and a number of motions refer to an order of 19 March.
Madam Speaker: The House agreed yesterday that there should be no debate on those Standing Orders.
Mr. Mike Gapes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that among the Bills on today's Order Paper is the Holocaust Denial Bill, which had its First Reading on 29 January, its Second Reading without opposition on 28 February and went through Committee unamended on 12 March? Given that there has been widespread support on both sides of the House for the Bill, could you persuade the Government, even at this late stage, to ensure that it gets on to the statute book before the end of this Parliament?
Madam Speaker: I should like to think that I have some powers of persuasion, but I fear that, in relation to the Government, I have no persuasive powers at all.
Mr. John Gunnell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you confirm that
1080
you have commented on a matter that was raised today as if it were unresolved? Sir Gordon Downey has written to make it absolutely clear that, as far as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition's office is concerned, there is no question of it being a matter of dispute. He states in his letter, which I think you have already raised in response to the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw):
"I shall be advising the Committee that in my view there is no case to answer."
Surely that should not be linked with Sir Gordon Downey's great regret that his report has not been published and cannot be published during the election campaign, as the report makes clear.
Mr. David Shaw: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. May I point out that I have subsequently written to Sir Gordon Downey, and my understanding is that the investigation into the Leader of the Opposition's office over the £2 million of blind funds is still under way, still an open issue and can be raised during the election campaign as a very valid question about the Leader of the Opposition?
Madam Speaker: It is not a matter for me if the matter has been referred. I note the point made by the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell). I have seen some correspondence in relation to that myself.

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL [MONEY] (No. 2)
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in establishing and maintaining the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Orders of the Day
  Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill
    Clause 1

      IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE ON FURTHER CONVICTION FOR CERTAIN OFFENCES
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 16, leave out from ("opinion") to ("may") in line 19 and insert
      ("that it would be in the interests of justice for it to pass a sentence other than the sentence which that subsection would require it to pass, it")
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
      Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 6 and 31.
      3.49 pm
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: The amendments should not pass unremarked, because they represent a substantial climbdown by the Government from the wholly unreasonable position that they had previously adopted. Had the Government earlier displayed the same flexibility as they have been driven to demonstrate in the past few days, we might have had a much more constructive discussion about the best way to reform the law of Scotland.
      The amendments that were accepted in the House of Lords have substantially restored the discretion of the judiciary on sentences for serious crimes. Perhaps more significantly, the Government have allowed an independent tribunal for Scotland to deal with miscarriages of justice. The Government rejected such a tribunal wholly and completely, notwithstanding the
      1082
      powerful and trenchant terms of the Sutherland report. At the meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee in Ayr last year, the Secretary of State for Scotland suggested dismissively that such a body for Scotland was unnecessary. Proud though we may be of the law in Scotland, we cannot assume its infallibility. In the past, the cases of Patrick Meehan and of Preece, among others, have shown that the legal system has been inadequate to deal with cases in which justice has not been properly done.
      The amendments are a considerable improvement on the Government's original proposals. It is a great pity that they did not approach the matter in the constructive and consensual way that it deserves. I do not know whether the amendments will be described as driving a coach and horses through the Bill, but it is in a better state now than when it was first conceived. The Government could have had it in this condition if they had demonstrated any willingness to co-operate with the Opposition parties.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Phil Gallie: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I draw your attention to Question 306 on today's Order Paper. I believe that a forged question has been put down in my name. I have discussed the matter with the Table Office, and the signature on the question looks like mine, but it is not. The terms of the question are not mine either. I take great exception to that. Perhaps it is an end-of-term prank, but if it is, I do not appreciate the joke. I suggest that we use all the forces of law and order that the Government have introduced recently and submit the question paper to DNA testing, to try to find out with whom the question originated.
      Madam Speaker: I do not approve of end-of-term pranks. I shall do all I can to have investigations made, to see how this came about. You can be assured of that, Mr. Gallie.
      Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 81 agreed to [some with Special Entry].

      Hedgerows
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      That the draft Hedgerows Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 3rd March, be approved.—[Mr. Clappison.]
      3.59 pm
      Ms Joan Ruddock: Unlike the Minister, I shall be taking the time of the House properly to debate these regulations, which are extremely important and do not deserve to be pushed through in this way in the late afternoon. On the importance of hedgerows to our landscape, I can do no better than quote from the briefing provided by the Wildlife Trust:
      "Hedgerows are a living example of our natural heritage—they contribute greatly to the quality of the landscape and are highly valuable for wildlife … Hedges are wildlife corridors sheltering a wealth of plant, insect and animal life. Three quarters of our native lowland mammals and birds and half our butterflies breed in hedges. The threatened dormouse and field vole nestle in their midst; along with nesting birds such as the tree sparrow and yellowhammer. They are also bountiful hunting grounds for stoats and weasels.
      Laden with berries in the autumn, hedges provide rich pickings for both resident and visiting species. Hedge plants can provide nectar for butterflies and are often foodplants for their caterpillars.
      Hedgerows vary regionally in species composition. The common perception of hedges in the UK is that they are generally hawthorn … which was planted as it was quick growing. However, hedges can be surprisingly species rich, with older ones containing more than five species in a 30 m length. A good kilometre of hedge can be home to 10 pairs of nesting birds. Beneath a hedge, the sward may harbour plants typical of ancient woodland and unimproved meadow such as bluebell, wild garlic, early purple orchid and harebell.
      Since the Second World War … hedgerows have been removed at a much faster rate than they have been planted."
      The Government promised as far back as 1990 to protect hedgerows. In 1992, they made it an election manifesto pledge. It is only now—at the eleventh hour of a dying Parliament—that they have fulfilled their promise. But they have done so pathetically.
      The regulations are fundamentally flawed—a weak and timid attempt that will leave almost 80 per cent. of hedgerows unprotected. In the time it has taken this sorry Government to act on their promise, thousands of kilometres of hedgerows have been dug up and lost for ever. More than 10,800 km of hedgerow were removed between 1990 and 1993, and a further 67,500 km were classified as derelict. It is in that context that we must examine the regulations today.
      We in the Labour party, like all wildlife and countryside non-governmental organisations, are amazed at the deficiencies of the regulations. They make no reference to the UK biodiversity action plan, which set targets for hedgerow conservation, as well as for several species dependent on hedgerows, such as the grey partridge and the song thrush.
      Far from complementing the biodiversity action plan—as we would have expected—the regulations completely undermine it. It is an illustration of the gross inadequacy of the regulations that hedges which meet the action plan criteria set by the Government could still legally be removed under the regulations. In light of this, can the Minister—who is not prepared to speak on the regulations—tell us whether he thinks that the habitat action plan for ancient and/or species-rich hedgerows can now carry any credibility whatever in light of the regulations?
      1084
      Nor do the regulations make any reference to the habitats directive, even though article 10 of the directive seeks to encourage the protection and management of linear features such as hedgerows for their value to flora and fauna.
      The original proposal of four weeks for local planning authorities to determine applications for removal was heavily criticised. The Government's response is to offer six weeks, but that is still hopelessly inadequate. Owners can apply to remove a hedge at any time of the year. As the Minister knows, few data are available on the wildlife and biodiversity of most hedgerows.
      Thus it is completely impossible for a local authority to carry out a meaningful wildlife survey of a hedgerow during the winter months if asked to do so. If the owners apply in winter, as they may well do, and the necessary information is not available, local authorities will be unable to make any adequate assessment that takes the biodiversity into account and hedgerows with a significant biodiversity interest will continue to be lost.
      Furthermore, local planning authorities must now take into account the reasons for the removal of a hedge. That requirement was not in the original proposals, and we can conclude that it has been inserted only because the Government have succumbed to some rather heavy lobbying. It is yet another example of their willingness to act in the interests of the few instead of the interests of the majority of ordinary people who value our natural heritage.
      Does the Minister agree that farmers rarely remove hedges other than for economic reasons? How do the Government expect local planning authorities to make objective and consistent judgments on the economic and non-market benefits of hedgerows? Can he define a valid economic reason for removing an environmentally valuable hedgerow?
      A look at the criteria for identifying important hedgerows reveals further fundamental failings. The criteria referred to species lists originating from the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the red data books. As the Minister must know, the Act is now 16 years old. We on the Opposition Benches are extremely puzzled as to why the regulations stipulate that only species lists published before the hedgerows legislation is implemented may be taken into account. That absurdity means that updated records and new sources of information, such as the lists compiled as part of the biodiversity action plan, will not be able to be used in the evaluation process, thus making a farce of that very process.
      The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is particularly concerned that one effect will be the exclusion of many farmland birds, including some species—yet again—that the biodiversity action plan recognises as a high priority for conservation, such as the grey partridge and the song thrush. Surely that ridiculous failing has to be corrected, and would have been if it were not for the fact that the Government are intent on rushing the regulations through this afternoon despite the flaws within them.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Ms Ruddock: Conservative Members are anxious to speak, and rightly so. I just hope that they will share my numerous criticisms.

      1085
      Another glaring hole in the criteria is the omission of landscape value as a separately specified criterion. Although it involves some qualitative judgment, so, of course, do tree preservation orders, landscape assessments and the Department of the Environment's good practice guide to environmental appraisals.
      It is a further failing of the regulations that they require local authorities to consult only parish councils. Of course they should consult parish councils, but many conservation and heritage bodies in Britain have built up great expertise during many years on local hedgerows. Why have the Government decided to exclude such groups? Surely it would be right for such bodies to be made statutory consultees.
      The Minister will be aware that much wider public consultation procedures are required under other planning legislation, including the tree preservation orders, which surely bear some similarity to the regulations. If the planning process is to be truly more democratic, we need to increase the scope for public consultation.
      It is a telling indictment of the low priority that the Government give to hedgerow legislation—
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will my hon. Friend give a clear undertaking that when she is sitting on the Treasury Bench she will bring forward regulations that will really work at the earliest opportunity?
      Ms Ruddock: I am delighted to respond positively to my hon. Friend on that point.
      I was pointing to the low priority that is signalled in the regulations by the maximum fine for illegally removing a hedgerow—just £5,000, compared with £20,000 for breaking tree protection orders.
      The Government have promised to produce guidance on the regulations for local authorities, but they have given hedgerow protection such low priority, and left it so late in the day, that we shall never set eyes on it.
      However, a number of conservation bodies are anxious to see on the record for this afternoon a commitment from whoever forms the next Government to consult environmental interests before producing any such guidance, especially on how local authorities should evaluate the landowner's reason for removing a hedge.
      I am happy to give the House today the commitment that, if Labour forms the next Government, we shall certainly hold those consultations. Will the Minister give such a commitment? Does he accept that only in extreme circumstances should a landowner's private interest be allowed to override a hedgerow protection order made in the wider public interest?
      The regulations are perhaps unique in being roundly criticised by all the major environmental groups in Britain. On Monday this week, the umbrella organisation Wildlife and Countryside Link, representing 11 leading organisations and more that 3.5 million members, wrote to the Secretary of State urging him to withdraw and redraft the regulation.
      The Government have chosen to fly in the face of that expert advice by insisting on squeezing in the regulations even when they are being forced to drop key clauses from their flagship Bills to get them through before the imminent end of this discredited Parliament.
      1086
      I can confirm that, should Labour form the next Government, we shall consult all the interested parties and take urgent steps to strengthen the regulations in the interests of all our people and of our biodiversity and our countryside.
      4.13 pm
      Sir Kenneth Carlisle: I am delighted to have this last opportunity to speak as a Member of Parliament and on the environment and countryside.
      The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) was a little curmudgeonly in her welcome of the measure. After all, this is the first statutory instrument on hedgerows, and it is a fulfilment of our commitment in the Environment Act 1995 to take action to protect hedgerows. This is the first time that any Government of any political persuasion have introduced such a measure.
      The statutory instrument should be seen in the wider context of what we have done for the environment and to promote conservation within the countryside. I am delighted to have joined the countryside stewardship scheme. It was only two or three weeks ago that, under that scheme, I planted 300 m of new hedgerow on my farm. I have a programme to plant about that amount of new hedgerow on our land in Suffolk in each of the next five years. Hundreds of farmers throughout the country have benefited from that scheme to increase hedgerows. Once a hedgerow has been planted, one cannot plough up to it: one undertakes to leave at least 6 m of good tussocky grassland on each side.
      The Government have encouraged the planting of more hedgerows. It is wrong for the hon. Lady to suggest that we have not done that.
      Ms Ruddock: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, despite the good efforts of people like him, who are to be applauded, there are more hedgerows disappearing than there are kilometres of hedgerows being planted?
      Sir Kenneth Carlisle: I do not have the facts to hand, but in the countryside in East Anglia very few hedgerows are pulled up, and I see miles of new hedgerow. Attitudes to the countryside have changed. The Government have introduced this statutory instrument to protect older hedgerows, which are the most valuable, because they recognise that change in mood. This action was promised, and this legislation is a valuable first step. I welcome the measure, and I applaud the Government on their action.
      I ask my hon. Friend the Minister, when he returns to the Front Bench after the general election, to monitor carefully the way in which the statutory instrument develops. Legislation is a learning curve, and new arrangements can be improved upon, so we should monitor carefully what happens. If necessary, we should take pragmatic steps to ensure that this legislation protects the most valuable ancient hedgerows.
      I join the hon. Lady in asking the Minister to consult environmental interests before producing guidance for local authorities. One of the great successes of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been to come on board with those voluntary bodies. He is widely regarded as outstanding, because he consults those bodies widely on matters affecting the countryside, and listens carefully to them.
      Ms Ruddock: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for generously giving way. I acknowledge what he said about

      1087
      the Secretary of State. He should also acknowledge that every major conservation body in this country is opposed to the regulations in this form, and they told the Secretary of State so on Monday.
      Sir Kenneth Carlisle: The important thing is to get the statutory instrument on the statute book before Parliament is dissolved. This is a step forward, because it is the first time that such legislation has been introduced. I am sure that, when my right hon. Friend is again in government as Secretary of State for the Environment, he will carry these measures forward. This is not a one-off: conservation measures have progressed throughout my 18 years in Parliament. They are now more pragmatic and more in tune with the wishes of those of us who have a great regard for the countryside, and who want to secure the environment for future generations.
      4.18 pm
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The hon. Member for Lincoln (Sir K. Carlisle) gave the game away when he said that the important thing was to get the regulations on to the statute book in order to fulfil a promise. It is one of the few promises made by the Conservatives in their 1992 manifesto of which they will be able to say, "Well, we did it"—and people will not discover until after the election that the regulations will not work.
      In fact, it is worse than that. We pass regulations time after time: the Government introduce some 2,500 each year. I see a role for regulations, but only for regulations that work; regulations that do not work create the bureaucracy that so many people dislike. As far as I can see, once the farmers have worked their way through these regulations, 80 per cent. of them will be able to find a way out of them. They will be able to do exactly what they want, unhindered by the regulations. The only hindrance is the fact that, rather than protecting hedgerows, the regulations merely confront the farmers with bureaucracy.
      If the Government had come up with regulations that worked, I would be praising them, but it is surely absurd to construct a hurdle for farmers that will not protect 80 per cent. of hedgerows. Far from fulfilling an election promise, the Government have fudged their way out of it, claiming to be doing something for hedgerows but, in reality, doing very little.
      I shall be interested to hear from the Minister what the regulations do to maintain hedgerows. The vast majority of the hedgerows that are now disappearing are not disappearing because someone is coming along with a bulldozer and pushing them out of the way, although that may have been the case 10 or 15 years ago. The majority are disappearing because of neglect. Farmers no longer prune hedges—I believe that "brush" is the technical term—and very few hedges are laid and maintained other than by voluntary groups and conservation volunteers. In large parts of countryside, traditional hedges are growing out to form a line of straggly hawthorn trees. When that happens, nearly all the biodiversity at the bottom of the hedge disappears. The berries on the trees may be useful to some birds, but many will lose out, especially those that live on the insects in hedgerows.
      1088
      The regulations do not seem to do anything to maintain hedgerows—at least those in my constituency, where some attractive hedges remain along the river valley between Denton and Brinnington. Those that are disappearing are disappearing because of neglect. The Minister should take these regulations away, and return with regulations that will protect at least 90 per cent. of hedgerows. If the Government must produce bureaucracy, they should design it to ensure that farmers do not deliberately destroy hedgerows, rather than presenting a cosmetic proposal that will merely generate bureaucracy and will make very little change to the countryside. They should include in the regulations powers to ensure that neglected hedgerows are protected, as well as hedgerows that people deliberately try to remove.
      I hope that we have seen the back of the present Government, and that I shall soon see my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) at that Dispatch Box, introducing regulations that will protect hedgerows into the next century.
      4.23 pm
      Mr. Peter Atkinson: It is a great privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Sir K. Carlisle), who—like me, and others who are present today—served on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill that became the Environment Act 1997. His knowledge of the countryside and the environment is unsurpassed in the House, and he will be a great loss to it.
      I fear that I must be slightly ruder than my hon. Friend. What we have heard today, in the dying moments of this Parliament, is the true voice of the Labour party, and the reality of their policy on the countryside. I believe that farmers in my Northumberland constituency will have listened carefully to what was said by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock), and will have been warned of what they could face in the unlikely event of a Labour Government.
      The Labour party has not changed. It is still the tool of any pressure group wanting to promote an agenda. Labour will listen to it and promise to implement its proposals. The hon. Member for Deptford has forgotten the important fact that farmers have to make a living. That means that over the years they have had to change the landscape and field structures to meet modern requirements.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln was right when he said that many farmers are planting hedgerows. If the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford looked at the figures properly, instead of merely taking them from the nearest pressure group, she would see that more hedgerows are being planted and that most are lost because of road construction and housing development. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) for his understanding of the matter. I agree that one of the causes of hedgerow loss is lack of maintenance. We are not debating that, but it is a problem that we must address.
      I welcome the regulations, although they will be a burden on farmers who planted the hedgerows in the first place. They will face increasing bureaucracy, and they already suffer enough from that. I do not pretend that I wholeheartedly welcome the regulations, but I accept that they are a sensible compromise between the needs of those who want total protection and those who want to see economic farming from a profitable countryside.

      1089
      I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) who took part in debates on this issue before he joined the silent ones in the Whips Office. He brokered a good deal between the interests of farmers and those of serious conservationists who wanted hedgerow protection. The result is by no means ideal for farmers, but they will accept it and honour its principles.
      Sir Kenneth Carlisle: As my hon. Friend says, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey presented, I think, two private Member's Bills on the subject, and was assiduous in promoting it.
      Mr. Atkinson: I agree that my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey played an important part in formulating the regulations, which I hope will reach the statute book.
      4.26 pm
      Mr. Edward Garnier: I thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for finding time at the end of this Parliament to debate this subject. Perhaps it is partly as a result of my question to him on Thursday, when I asked whether the regulations that were laid on 3 March could be debated before the close of this Parliament.
      The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said that many hedges had been destroyed because of neglect by farmers. I do not accept his argument, but if what he says is true, one of the reasons for neglect is a rural economy in disarray. Because of the way in which the economy has been managed and improved over the past 18 years—progress that would be put at risk by a change of Government—the rural economy has prospered, and that has allowed farmers to take more care of the environment in which they work.
      In my constituency there is ample evidence that farmers look after the countryside. In Leicestershire there are wonderful examples of the art of cutting and laying hedges. I invite the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish to come and see what is happening in a prosperous rural constituency in which farmers pay great attention to the world in which they live and work. Instead of always attacking the rural community and running down farmers, I wish that Labour Members could come to the countryside to see the good work that is going on. My farmers do not neglect their hedges. I see a Labour Member who looks as if he has been through a hedge backwards, as have his policies.
      Mr. Elliot Morley: The hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting that not everyone in the countryside shares the concerns of groups such as the Council for the Protection of Rural England, which feel that, although some farmers have, of course, done some constructive things and indeed have received grants to do so, it is a shame that this measure could not have included some of the points that have been made by very respectable groups. Those groups represent, in some cases, farming and rural interests and rural communities, which want this measure to be properly done, rather than being rushed through with gaps in it, as at present.
      Mr. Garnier: The hon. Gentleman displays yet again, and unfailingly, the Labour party's attitude towards any
      1090
      form of positive improvement of the countryside. I wish that the public would realise precisely what they are in for if they sleep-walk into a Labour Government.
      I reiterate the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Sir K. Carlisle), whose departure from the House is much to be regretted, on the benefits of the countryside stewardship scheme, which has allowed an increasing number of hedges to be planted and to be maintained in the past few years. The countryside is not to be viewed as something in aspic, destined always to remain the same.
      To take another example from East Anglia, in south-west Norfolk, quite near Thetford, the part that I come from, there used not to be a hedge between our house and Ely cathedral 250 years ago. That position has completely changed as a result of farmers' need and desire to plant hedges, so the myth and the lies put about by the Labour party are much to be regretted, and will, I hope, be dealt with roundly.
      I praise the co-operation of the Government with those interested in the countryside environment. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) was unable to understand the need for central and local government to work with parish councils and with the farming community. That is the best way in which to achieve the best results.
      May I ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether farmers will be required to pay a fee to accompany their applications, if they should make one? If so, what is the likely level of those fees?
      That is all I wish to say. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for bringing forward this measure for discussion and I trust that, before 1 June, when it comes into effect, proper and adequate consultations will be held with all interested parties.
      4.31 pm
      Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to catch your eye in this short debate; I will be extremely brief, as I know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House wishes to get on to other business. Before I say anything further, I declare my interest as a farmer and as a member of the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association and other associated countryside bodies.
      I too pay sincere tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) because it was he who promoted a private Member's Bill—
      Mr. Bennett: Who wrecked it?
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: At that time, I was not convinced of the need. I am sorry for the need to bring these regulations before the House because a small minority of farmers acted totally irresponsibly. Having said that, all responsible people in the countryside want hedges to be maintained.
      With the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who is heckling me from a sedentary position, I sat through many hours on the Environment Bill. We have fulfilled our commitment in the Bill to introduce these regulations. Having passed that primary legislation, we are now able to make these order-making

      1091
      powers. Indeed, the Labour party, which has been making such a fuss this afternoon, will now find it much easier to amend the regulations, if it wishes to, if they do not work in practice. I want them to work.
      The Labour party is a single-issue pressure group party. It forgets that these hedgerows would not be there at all if it were not for the responsible farmers and landowners who planted them during the enclosures and afterwards, because they wanted country sports such as hunting and shooting to prosper. It is in hunting and shooting areas that we find the best hedges.
      Mr. Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the vast majority of hedgerows were planted as a result of Acts of Parliament and in relation to getting permission for enclosures, and that Parliament laid down a condition that, if the enclosures were to take place, proper hedges were to be planted and maintained? It may be that bringing prosecutions under those old Acts of Parliament will be more effective than doing so under the regulations, but will he also admit that he was the one who wrecked the Bill of the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), and that it was a little hard on him?
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I do not accept that one iota. I tried to improve the Bill, but it was not possible to improve it to the standard that I thought was necessary. The hon. Gentleman made a good point about the enclosure legislation, and it is true that many Acts of Parliament required the planting of hedgerows. However, considerably more hedgerows have been planted since, and that is what I want to talk about.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Sir K. Carlisle) rightly pointed out that he has an admirable record of planting hedges. I, too, have planted a net gain of over a mile of hedges. I plant at least 100 m of hedges a year and have done so for the past 15 years, almost without exception.
      Responsible landowners want to see hedges maintained. It is my impression that farmers today are planting as much hedgerow as they are removing, and I believe that they are managing them better. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) said, in Leicestershire and Gloucestershire there is far more cutting and laying of hedges today than there was five years ago, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, with the amount of rambling he does, will have seen that.
      I make one plea to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. I hope that he will be able to encourage local authorities, if necessary through guidance notes, to implement the regulations with a sensible light touch. Some local authorities will implement them in a sensible way but, as with tree preservation orders, some local authorities will implement them in an overbearing, burdensome, bureaucratic and misunderstanding manner. I hope that he will be able to control those local authorities which do not implement them in the spirit that has been laid down today.
      I would welcome the inclusion of economic interests. That is an important part of the regulations and is not supposed to drive a coach and horses through them. However, it is sensible that, if there is proper economic
      1092
      consideration, where employment and agricultural businesses are important, that should be able to be taken into account.
      I commend my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, because it is his commitment that has brought this issue before the House today, despite some opposition, and I welcome the regulations.
      4.36 pm
      Mr. Christopher Gill: I, too, declare an interest as a landowner and as one who has planted considerable lengths of new hedgerows and revitalised old hedgerows. Tributes have been paid in the House to the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), and I am sure that they are well deserved. However, I make no secret of the fact that I was the Member of Parliament who objected to my hon. Friend's private Member's Bill. It is worth reminding the House why I did so.
      It was the vogue a year or two ago to draw the Government's attention to the fact that they were over-regulating. That is a feature that has already been mentioned in this short debate. As I was at pains to explain to my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey at the time, I saw his Bill as yet another piece of legislation that would add to the regulations and give more powers to local authorities and their officials, who, unlike farmers and landowners, probably have little or no understanding of the practical difficulties, problems and considerations of the countryside.
      I regret that we are here again introducing regulatory legislation which gives another little rule book to local authority officials. It cuts across the spirit of much that those of us in the countryside want to do.
      The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) was critical of the fact that certain hedgerows were not being maintained. I am sure that that is the case in certain parts of the country and it may be more prevalent in some parts than in others. However, only last weekend, as I was driving in the countryside in the west of my constituency and in Wales, I remarked on the fact that I have scarcely ever seen so many hedges being layered in the traditional method.
      It is important to put these things into perspective and to recognise that, with or without legislation, a great deal of good work is going on in the countryside by those who have traditionally maintained the countryside in the way that it exists now and which is so widely admired and attracts people to it. We cannot get away from the fact that that is being done by the countrymen.
      Mr. Tony Marlow: Time is of the essence in many such matters. Although people want to keep important hedgerows, there will be commercial considerations, such as when someone buys a particular property at a particular time of year. If a local authority does not acknowledge receipt of a farmer's notice within 42 days, the farmer tries again. How will we know whether the notice has been received? The local authority may sit on a notice for a month or so before acknowledging receipt.
      Mr. Gill: I cannot answer that question. However, my hon. Friend makes his own point in his own inimitable

      1093
      way, and I am sure that the Minister will have noted his comments. We hark back to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who said that the matter now depends on how the regulations are imposed. It is to be hoped that they will be imposed with sensible and considerate appreciation of the problems faced by landowners and farmers.
      Although I have conceded that much good work is being done, with hedges being layered and tendered in the traditional manner, in many instances the effect of the impending legislation has been to bulldoze hedgerows out of existence. That would not have occurred had no legislation been considered, and it is regrettable.
      I shall not detain the House any longer, because I sense that Front Benchers are anxious to move on to other business. However, I did not want to miss this opportunity to say that I regard the measure as a retrograde step. It will provide local authority officials with a new Bible, which many of them will interpret in the most draconian manner, against the better instincts and judgment of landowners and farmers.
      4.40 pm
      Mr. Elliot Morley: I should like to take a moment to reiterate some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) on the regulations. We welcome passage of the regulations, and the protection that will be offered for the first time to hedgerows in the United Kingdom—unless one takes into account the case of Filey, an interesting test case of enclosure legislation which is not mentioned in the regulations.
      I should also like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), who has been a great campaigner on hedgerow protection. When I was first elected as a Member of Parliament, in 1987, one of the first issues in which I became involved was to support his—at that time—private Member's Bill to introduce hedgerow protection. The then Prime Minister made some promises, which were broken. Today, it is interesting to see some former wreckers of hedgerow protection on the Conservative Benches. They have suddenly turned into supporters of protection. It is always most pleasing to welcome the sinner repented.
      I am sorry that the regulations could not have been passed with unanimous support—the support not only of landowners and farmers, but of countryside, conservation and green groups. That support has not been won, as the Minister knows. It is a shame that the regulations are being debated in the dying hours of this Parliament, because, like many hon. Members on both sides of the House, I think that some issues have not been addressed.
      One such issue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford said, is biodiversity and the way in which hedgerows are assessed. Apart from hedgerows' conservation value, there must be some sophisticated assessment of such matters as green corridors. Much work is being done, especially on protecting small and endangered mammals, and that work will be undermined unless there are links between different types of habitat.
      Hedgerows are one very important link. Some good habitats may be protected, but they may be surrounded by agricultural land and not linked into other areas that
      1094
      provide feeding grounds and breeding areas. That issue has not been dealt with, and nor has the issue of time. Conservation groups' concerns have not been dealt with.
      Although some groups feel so strongly about the regulations that they believe that we should oppose them, we feel that they are better than nothing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford said, a future Labour Government will revisit the regulations. We will consult all the countryside and conservation groups—including landowners and farmers—to strengthen the regulations and to make them more workable, and we will try to reach the consensus that the Government have failed to achieve.
      4.43 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): I welcome that qualified welcome from the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley).
      I was slightly surprised by the attitude of the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock): she seemed to be disappointed that we have introduced the regulations, although we were recently pressed to do so, not least in an Adjournment debate sponsored by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy). We were pressed to introduce the regulations to prevent some landowners from pre-empting regulations.
      Very recently, we were pressed also by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), an Opposition Environment spokesman, to introduce regulations to safeguard hedgerows. My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Sir K. Carlisle) described the hon. Lady's welcome for the regulations as "curmudgeonly", although I think that that impression has partly been put right.
      I do not want to be unkind, but I think that the hon. Member for Deptford got it wrong when she spoke about biodiversity and suggested that the regulations contain the sum total of our biodiversity action plans. Biodiversity and protection of wildlife are important features of the regulations, but they do not contain the sum total of our plans. She knows the way in which we have fulfilled our commitments under the Rio summit and the biodiversity action plans that we have already introduced. Many, if not all, of the species she mentioned—the grey partridge, the song thrush and the dormouse—are afforded protection within the framework of our biodiversity plans.
      The hon. Member for Deptford was wrong on that point, and she was wrong on other points. Not least, she was wrong when she suggested that we have rushed into the regulations; others have said that we have taken too long. To fulfil our obligation of protecting important hedgerows, detailed analysis and research, and a great deal of consultation, have been required.
      The commitment is to protect important hedgerows, which are hedgerows for which no replanting could be a substitute, and which are vulnerable to being removed. I should like to tell the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who takes an interest in the subject, that protection is not the same as maintenance of hedgerows. Maintaining hedgerows and planting new ones is promoted under the countryside stewardship scheme and by other assistance provided to farmers. The regulations are to protect important hedgerows.
      It is important first to define what is an "important hedgerow", and we took some time and trouble to do so. As the hon. Member for Deptford knows,

      1095
      we commissioned work from the Agricultural Development Advisory Service, which produced a report. Last year, we circulated that report for consultation. We certainly did not rush through the consultation process, during which we received more than 500 responses. We also listened to what we were told during consultation, and made changes to ADAS's proposals. We have, for example, increased from four to six weeks the time afforded to local planning authorities to give or refuse consent to the removal of a hedgerow notified to them. We have also required authorities to consult parish councils. We regard that as important, because, as organs of local democracy, it is important that parish councils should have a say in the matter. That reform also fits in with other reforms that we have made affecting parish councils.
      When possible, we have also tried to simplify the criteria. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, that, although it is necessary to protect the important hedgerows, it is important to keep matters as simple as possible. That is why there may be problems with some of the suggestions of the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe. It is important that the regulations are not so complicated as to be unworkable.
      During the consultation process, we listened to what we were told about landscape. I heard the criticisms by the hon. Member for Deptford in this debate, and she will know that ADAS discovered in its investigation that landscape is a difficult issue. However, we feel that the issue is addressed by our definition of "important hedgerows", and that many hedgerows that qualify as important, particularly under the historic and wildlife interest headings, will contribute to the landscape. After consultation, we also provided a new criterion, which recognises the important contribution to the landscape made by hedgerows along rights of way. That additional criterion will increase the number of hedgerows likely to be protected by regulations.
      In our attempts to protect "important hedgerows"—as we have defined them—it has been necessary to strike a balance between bodies representing environmental and conservation interests and those representing farming and landowning interests. There is an inherent conflict, and some of that tension has been evident in our debate. We think that we have gone a long way towards getting the balance right.
      Having said that, we appreciate that many farmers make a constructive contribution towards the preservation of the countryside, especially through the planting of hedgerows. We heard some excellent examples of that from my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) and in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Sir K. Carlisle), who has made a great contribution to the environment in his time in the House and will no doubt continue to do so, not only through the planting of hedgerows on his land, about which he told the House, but in many other ways. I am sure that everyone wishes him well in his important endeavours in that regard.
      1096
      I am happy to be able to report that the most recent research conducted by the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology shows that, contrary to what the hon. Member for Deptford said, there is a net balance in favour of the planting of hedgerows over their removal, which I am sure the House will welcome. That has no doubt been substantially assisted by the countryside stewardship scheme, another successful scheme launched by the Government to protect the countryside.
      On the issue of punishment, the hon. Member for Deptford needs to study the regulations a little more carefully. Contrary to what she suggested was the maximum fine for transgressing the regulations, it is the maximum only for someone tried in a magistrates court on summary trial. The regulations also include provisions for trial on indictment in the Crown court, where someone who transgressed the regulations and was found guilty of an offence would face an unlimited fine. Far from being weak, that is a strong punishment, which signals our disapproval of people who break the law in this regard.
      In addition, the regulations make provision for the replanting of hedgerows to be required. People who think that they can remove hedgerows and get away with simply paying a fine have another think coming, because they will be required to replant the hedgerows. The punishment is therefore more than adequate.
      The hon. Member for Deptford also mentioned the circumstances in which local authorities could take account of the reasons given for wishing to remove an important hedge and still allow its removal. We were mindful of the fact that the ability to make representations and to have them heard is a central element of the business-friendly enforcement procedure promoted by the Government.
      The wording of the relevant paragraph in the draft regulations is necessarily broad. It is impossible to anticipate and make provision for every eventuality, but the regulations place a requirement on the local planning authority to issue a hedgerow retention notice unless satisfied that the reasons given justify the removal of an important hedgerow. The presumption is therefore in favour of protecting and retaining important hedgerows. As the criteria defining importance have been tightly drawn, strong reasons will be needed to satisfy a local authority that an important hedgerow should be removed.
      Each case will have to be considered on its merits, but I envisage that a local planning authority might consider that the removal of an important hedgerow was justified where there were overriding arguments of public safety—for example, to make way for essential improvements to a local road which was an accident black spot, where there was no other solution to the problem. Utilities might also have strong practical or even environmental grounds for needing to remove a small section of a hedge rather than reroute a cable across an even more sensitive area.
      Cases involving personal financial loss are unlikely of themselves to be sufficient to justify the grubbing out of an important hedgerow. Factors that might, however, weigh with the local authority include the effects of a hedgerow on operational requirements and whether the impact could be mitigated by other means—for example, where a new road has cut through a field, leaving a portion too small to farm. However, there can be little doubt that the impact on a business would have to be extremely serious before a local authority would begin to consider allowing the removal of an important hedgerow.

      1097
      A change of ownership of land and subsequent rationalisation of holdings would certainly not be enough. The register of retention notices held by the local authority would inform potential buyers of any existing restrictions.
      Mr. Morley: I should like the Minister to clarify one point, although it may be difficult at this stage. If there is a dispute between a landowner and the local authority over any economic impact, the landowner presumably has recourse to the courts. If so, will guidelines be issued to give local authorities some idea of the limits to which they can go in their definitions?
      Mr. Clappison: There is a right of appeal under the regulations, and we shall, of course, be giving guidance to local authorities. I hope that I have made clear the background against which we approach the matter and the principles that we think are important.
      Mr. Marlow: What proportion of hedgerows does my hon. Friend estimate can be defined as important? If a farm that has been inefficiently farmed changes hands, it might be good in agricultural terms to remove some hedgerows to make it more efficient. What proportion of hedgerows are potentially blighted by the regulations?
      Mr. Clappison: I hesitate to disagree with my hon. Friend, but I would perhaps take issue with his use of the word "blighted". However, perhaps I can assist him. We have tried to define important hedgerows. The research carried out by ADAS, which necessarily took a broad-brush approach, as it was trying to project the situation across the whole country, found that, according to the criteria in the regulations, about 20 per cent. of hedgerows would be defined as important and thus protected.
      The register of retention notices held by the local authority would inform potential buyers of any existing restrictions; or, if none had been issued, the criteria are
      1098
      so framed as to enable owners to undertake their own evaluations and reach broadly the same conclusion as the experts. It will be a case of caveat emptor, or buyer beware. As I said, the guidance that will be issued to local authorities before the regulations come into effect will provide the opportunity to clarify such points.
      I join those who have already paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), who is in his usual silent mode. The tributes he has received are well deserved as a result of the private Member's Bill that he promoted. I must also pay tribute to the Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton), who takes a great interest in the environment, and is anxious to do what is necessary to protect important hedgerows.
      The regulations deserve a broad welcome.
      Mr. Garnier: I asked my hon. Friend whether there would be a cost to the applicant. If he cannot reply now, will he do so in writing?
      Mr. Clappison: I can tell my hon. and learned Friend that the answer is no—no fees will be payable.
      Opposition Members talked about the priority that they would accord to the protection of hedgerows. I must gently remind them, without being too partisan, that Labour's recent draft manifesto contained no mention of biodiversity, despite all the boasts from Opposition Members about the extent to which it would be a priority—[Interruption.] There was a mention of a free vote on fox hunting, but that is not my idea of biodiversity. When it comes to the crunch, biodiversity does not seem to have been given very great priority in Labour's literature; nor does the environment as a whole. We give priority to the environment, and the regulations are a practical example of our commitment to it.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Resolved,
      That the draft Hedgerows Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 3rd March, be approved.

      Public Entertainment Licences (Drug Misuse) Bill
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I have to acquaint the House that a message has been brought from the Lords as follows. The Lords have agreed to the Public Entertainment Licences (Drug Misuse) Bill with amendments, to which the Lords desire the concurrence of the House. Copies of the Lords amendments are available. Under the Order of the House of 19 March, no debate is possible.
      Motion made, and Question put,
      That the amendments made by the Lords to the Public Entertainment Licences (Drug Misuse) Bill be considered forthwith.—[Mr. Legg.]
      Question agreed to.
      Lords amendments accordingly considered.
      Lords amendments Nos. 1 to 34 agreed to.

      TAX SIMPLIFICATION BILLS
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [19 March],
      That—

      (1) Standing Order (Tax simplification bills) below be made;

      (2) Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of bills) be amended, in line 2, after 'Bill', by inserting 'or a tax simplification bill'; and

      (3) Standing Order No. 64 (Committee of whole House on bill) be amended, in line 7, at the end, by adding 'or unless the committee is discharged in pursuance of paragraph (8) of Standing Order (Tax simplification bills)'.

      TAX SIMPLIFICATION BILLS
      (1) In this order 'a tax simplification bill' means a bill which has been presented, or brought in upon an order of the House, by a Minister of the Crown and which has been ordered to be proceeded with as such a bill.

      (2) A motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business, that a specified bill be so proceeded with, and the question thereon shall be put forthwith.

      1100

      (3) A tax simplification bill shall, upon the making of an order under paragraph (2) above, stand referred to a second reading committee unless the House otherwise orders.

      (4) A motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business, that a tax simplification bill shall no longer stand referred to a second reading committee, and the question thereon shall be put forthwith.

      (5) The provisions of paragraphs (3) to (6) of Standing Order No. 90 (Second reading committees) shall apply to any bill referred to a second reading committee under paragraph (3) above.

      (6) A tax simplification bill shall, upon its being read a second time, stand committed to the Joint Committee on Tax Simplification Bills.

      (7) A bill which has been reported from the said Joint Committee shall stand re-committed to a committee of the whole House unless the House otherwise orders.

      (8) If a motion that the committee of the whole House be discharged from considering a tax simplification bill is made by a Minister of the Crown immediately after the order of the day has been read for the House to resolve itself into a committee on the bill, the motion shall not require notice and the question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided at any hour, though opposed; and if such question is agreed to the bill shall be ordered to be read the third time.—[Mr. Newton.]

      Question agreed to.

      ALL-PARTY AND PARLIAMENTARY GROUPS
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [19 March],
      That this House approves the proposed written undertaking set out in the Annex to the First Report from the Administration Committee of Session 1995–96, on All-Party and Parliamentary Groups (HC 494), with the substitution for paragraph (i) of the following paragraph:
      '(i) the group's membership is open to all Members of the House, and its aim and constitution are parliamentary in character; with the exception of those groups receiving funding from Her Majesty's Government, all groups cease to exist two calendar months after the first meeting of the new Parliament after a General Election unless re-registered within that period.'.—[Mr. Newton.]
      Question agreed to.

      Standing Orders (Revision)
      5 pm
      Sir Peter Emery: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, on the next motion. Before I go into my point of order, I draw the House's attention to the fact that your constituency is disappearing at the next election, and that it is therefore possible that you will not be with us in the next Parliament. I think that all hon. Members will wish to pay tribute to the wise guidance and excellent service that you have given the House. I should like that recorded so that we can all agree, even if it is on a point of order.
      Turning to my point of order. As Deputy Speaker, you will know from Madam Speaker's provisional selection was that she might be minded not to call the amendment in my name and those of leading members of all parties on the Select Committee on Procedure. The argument was that it might be necessary to have a debate on the subject. We are passing the more important aspects of the Select Committee's recommendations without a debate, but not this minor matter, which had unanimous support on the Committee, including the support of a member of the Chairmen's Panel. It is a simple matter of whether a name should be changed.
      As the original selection was only provisional, would you consider, in view of the good nature of the House as we come to the end of this Parliament, that it might be worth allowing a Division on the matter—there can be no debate—so that the House can be seen to be willing to modernise itself and not stay in subfusc, with names that have no relevance to what Committees are doing? If you decided that it would be right to make that alteration to the provisional selection, I should be most grateful.
      Sir Michael Shersby: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should like to convey to you and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) the fact that the members of the Chairmen's Panel were certainly not in favour of the recommendation. I should regret it being debated at this late hour.
      Sir Peter Emery: There cannot be a debate. I asked for a Division.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks about me, which are much appreciated. None the less, I fear that I shall have to disappoint him on his main point. I know the mind of Madam Speaker, who has decided that the amendment shall not be taken. There is no debate, and I have to put the Question forthwith. I have no doubt that there will be further opportunities in another Parliament for the kind of debate that the right hon. Gentleman wants.
      The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I associate myself briefly and warmly with the remarks that have been made about you. I merely observe that, while I regret my right hon. Friend's frustration, I fear
      1102
      that the atmosphere of good will in the House might have disappeared quite rapidly if you had agreed to what he asked, because my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby) and the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) had come here to make trouble if the amendment was debated.
      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should be very remiss, as someone who has enjoyed your friendship for many years, if I did not say that you will be very much missed in the House. It would be wrong if it appeared that only one side of the House would miss you—I know that that is not the case. Nevertheless, I am sorry to have to tell you that the Leader of the House might be right in saying that I came here to cause a certain amount of trouble.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: I can scarcely believe such a thing possible of the hon. Lady.
      Mr. George Howarth: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should like to identify in personal terms and on behalf of the Opposition with the thanks for your sterling service in the Chair. We shall all miss you, but I am sure that this will not be the last that we hear of you.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: I thank all hon. Members who have given me such kind remarks to remember as I come to the end of my period of service in the House, which has been almost 27 years—longer than a life sentence.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [19 March],
      That the repeals of, and Amendments to, the Standing Orders of this House relating to Public Business, and the new Standing Order, recommended by the Select Committee on Procedure in its First Report (HC 95), as set out in Appendices I (Recommendations: Revision) and III (Proposed re-ordering of select committee Standing Orders) thereto, be made, with effect from the first day of the new Parliament, with the following additions namely—

      (a) Standing Order No. 94F (Scottish Grand Committee (delegated legislation)), line 16, leave out 'member of the government' and insert 'Minister of the Crown'; line 20 and line 37, leave out 'notwithstanding the expiration of the time for opposed business' and insert 'at any hour, though opposed'; and

      (b) Standing Order No. 126 (Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration), line 5, leave out 'Commissioner for Administration' and insert 'Ombudsman';

      and subject to the following modifications to the recommendations set out in Appendix I, namely—

      (1) recommendation 23, leave out lines 5 and 6 and insert 'No. 98G (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)) and No. 99H (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings))".';

      (2) recommendation 24(a), line 8, after 'business)),', insert 'Standing Order No. 99A (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (composition and business)),'; and

      (3) recommendation 27, line 5, after 'Crown";', insert 'line16 and'. —[Mr. Newton.]

      Question agreed to.

      DELEGATED LEGISLATION
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

      LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
      That the Special Grant Report (No. 27) (Community Care Special Grants for 1997–98) (HC 360), which was laid before this House on 5th March, be approved.—[Mr. Ottaway.]
      Question agreed to.

      DEREGULATION
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the questions on the deregulation orders.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14A(1) (Consideration of draft deregulation orders),

      PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS
      That the draft Deregulation (Public Health Acts Amendment Act 1907) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 3rd March, be approved.
      CASINOS AND BINGO CLUBS
      That the draft Deregulation (Casinos and Bingo Clubs: Debit Cards) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 3rd March, be approved.
      That the draft Deregulation (Football Pools) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 17th March, be approved.
      BETTING AND BINGO ADVERTISING
      That the draft Deregulation (Betting and Bingo Advertising etc.) Order, which was laid before this House on 11th March, be approved.

      NON-FOSSIL FUEL
      That the draft Deregulation (Non-Fossil Fuel) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 17th March, be approved.—[Mr. Ottaway.]
      Question agreed to.

      EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),

      STRUCTURAL FUNDS AND COHESION POLICY
      That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 1138296 on the structural funds, and 1261496 on cohesion policy; welcomes the Government's continued efforts to simplify and improve the effectiveness of the funds within the United Kingdom and throughout the European Union; and supports the Government's view that the reform of the funds for the period beyond 1999 needs to ensure that the funds are fair, transparent and efficient, and needs to enable the likely enlargement of the European Union in an affordable and durable manner.—[Mr. Ottaway.]
      Question agreed to.

    PETITIONS

      Green Belt Land
      5.5 pm
      Sir Michael Shersby: I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of residents of the constituency of Uxbridge who are opposed to the plans of Hillingdon council to transfer land at the rear of Granville road, Hillingdon from green belt status and to permit development. The petition states:
      Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House refuse any such proposal from the London Borough of Hillingdon to remove the said land from the Metropolitan Green Belt following the public local inquiry which commences on 28 May. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray &c.
      The second petition is signed by more than 15,000 of my constituents, representing the 40 local and national organisations that comprise the Hillingdon House Farm Action Committee. They oppose the proposed development of green belt land at Hillingdon House farm by Warner Brothers, to construct a theme park and film studio complex.
      The petition says:
      Wherefore we your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House do urge the Secretary of State for the Environment to use his powers to prevent the proposed theme park and film studio development on Green Belt land at Hillingdon House Farm, Uxbridge, and to retain the site as open space for the benefit of local people.
      And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
      To lie upon the Table.

      Athletics
      5.7 pm
      Miss Kate Hoey: I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of the Save Athletics at Crystal Palace campaign, which was brought to me and to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) and the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins). It contains 12,000 signatures collected by athletes from all over the United Kingdom who are concerned about the threat to athletics at Crystal Palace. It says:
      Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House support the retention and further development of indoor and outdoor facilities for athletics at Crystal Palace National Sports Centre.
      And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray, &c.
      To lie upon the Table.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: I must inform that House that certain matters still have to be transacted that cannot be transacted at this moment. It is therefore in my mind to suspend the sitting for a short while. Before I do so, I must make it clear that this in no way infringes the rights of the hon. Gentleman who has the Adjournment, or any hon. Member with another petition.
      5.9 pm
      Sitting suspended.
      6 pm
      On resuming—

    PETITION

      Jobseeker's Allowance
      Mr. Jim Cousins: It is my honour to hand in a petition from the citizens of Newcastle upon Tyne concerning the jobseeker's allowance. The petitioners extend to the House the normal courtesies of this occasion and go on to say:
      that the introduction of the jobseekers allowance has been disastrous for the unemployed people of the United Kingdom where one in five households of working age have no work, the worst record of the major economies.
      And wherefore your petitioners pray that the jobseekers allowance should be abolished, and be replaced by a fairer system that recognises that unemployed people have a right to be treated with dignity and not coerced into low paid, temporary or part-time work and your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray etc.
      The petition is signed by Councillor Gerard Nugent, Councillor William Dodds, Councillor Sheila Spencer, Mr. Fred Copley and some other 1,000 citizens of Newcastle upon Tyne.
      To lie upon the Table.

      Child Support Agency
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coe.]
      6.1 pm
      Mr. William O'Brien: This debate is about the Child Support Agency and the manner in which it has provided its services, which inflict massive injustices on families throughout the United Kingdom. It is the last Adjournment debate of this Government and it is appropriate that it deals with an issue that is causing so much trouble for so many families. Hon. Members on both sides are constantly being charged by constituents to take action to help families who are caught up in the inefficient way in which cases are dealt with by the CSA.
      My complaint about the CSA is not new, but it is not without good cause. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it was the Prime Minister who, in 1990, first suggested that an agency dealing with child support should be set up. In April 1993, the CSA began to operate. Many hon. Members have registered their complaints over the past four years about the way in which the CSA has treated many of their constituents. Since 1993, I have had cause to write to Ministers requesting investigations into many cases in my constituency, although assurances have been given that efficiency in dealing with cases will improve.
      The CSA came into operation in April 1993 and there was then uproar throughout the country about its operation. Families were split up and it has been alleged that many people committed suicide because of the severity with which the CSA then operated.
      In November 1993, I presented a petition to the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), who was then the Minister responsible for the CSA, charging him to investigate certain issues that had been raised by constituents about the administration of the CSA. Assurances were given then that the CSA would be as efficient as Parliament intended it to be. During the debates that we had on the Child Support Bill, which introduced the CSA, we demanded efficiency. When I received the Minister's reply saying that the CSA would be as efficient as Parliament intended it to be, I took his words in good faith.
      On 2 December 1993, however, my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) secured an Adjournment debate in which he registered concerns about the work of the CSA. During that debate, assurances were given that the CSA would be more efficient. On 6 December 1993, the Minister told me that no changes were to be made to the powers of the CSA. There was a move away from trying to improve the CSA at that time.
      On 15 December 1994, there was a debate on the CSA in which the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) stated:
      "In some 25 years as a Member of Parliament, I do not think that I have ever before ventured into a debate on social affairs … we have created a monstrous bureaucracy which pours misery on misery and the many unfortunate people who have already gone through the mental, physical and financial trauma of divorce now have to deal with this ghastly organisation as well. As a supporter of the Government, I have never been so ashamed as when I have had to defend the CSA and what it has got up to in the past two years.
      My immediate reaction is that the assessment formula is wrong and unfair. Until, with the wisdom of experience and other countries and the two inquiries by the Select Committee, a more reasonable

      1107
      and equitable and less complex formula can be devised, there will be no substantive improvement in the management or operations of the CSA or its handling of cases."—[Official Report, 15 December 1994; Vol. 251, c. 1096.]
      There we have someone who has been a Member of the House for a considerable time outlining his concern about how the CSA, after two years in operation, was affecting his constituents. I am witnessing problems similar to those expressed by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare.
      In July 1994, there was an Opposition debate calling for improvements in the work of the CSA and an end to the injustices brought about by it. During that debate, assurances were again given by the Minister that the CSA would improve its performance. On 23 December 1994, the Minister sent a letter to Members assuring us that there would be improvements to the CSA. He said:
      "the CSA can and will resume taking on all eligible cases and give them prompt and efficient service."
      I shall demonstrate tonight that there is a lack of efficiency in the CSA.
      On 20 March 1995, we debated on Second Reading the Child Support Bill, which was designed to make changes to the original CSA legislation. Again, the Secretary of State gave assurances that there would be prompt and efficient service. He said:
      "the main purpose of the Bill is to improve the system of child support so that it has greater acceptability and works better, to streamline the operations and to encourage greater compliance. That means that the problems that we have seen which we all acknowledge and regret, will be less frequent in future than they were in the past and will gradually disappear as the situation improves."—[Official Report, 20 March 1995; Vol. 257, c. 22.]
      There has been a history of assurances and promises, but I have not witnessed any change in the number of cases that I have had to pursue in my constituency.
      Many written and oral questions have been tabled to Ministers, by hon. Members on both sides of the House, expressing serious concern about the way in which the CSA is operating. One such case is that of a constituent, Ms B, who has two daughters and whose husband left her in February 1996. She informed the CSA straight away, but has received no response to her application and no answers to her letters. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security for responding to my letter of 17 March, when I sent him details of that case. In his reply, he said:
      "I regret that as yet, no assessment of child support has been made in this case. This is disappointing, in view of the fact that people in"
      Ms B's
      "position are exactly those we introduced the arrangements to help."
      Also, a letter dated 5 March from the agency to me states:
      "The Agency's Belfast Centre tell me that on 28 March 1996 an application for child support maintenance was received from"
      Ms B
      "and on 19 April a maintenance enquiry form was sent to"—
      her partner—
      "Regrettably, no further action was taken on the case until 20 February 1997".
      That means that, for a full 12 months, no action was taken, and that is a recent case.
      I also felt the need to write to the Minister about another constituent, Mr. B, who travels 24 miles per day to his employment. He applied for a travel allowance,
      1108
      but that was denied to him because the CSA claimed that he was travelling only 14 miles to and from work. When I inquired about that, I found that it was because the agency has a broad-brush approach. Any broad-brush approach that changes an actual mileage of 24 to 14 is unfair and is not in the best interests of the people we represent.
      The Minister advised me that my constituent would be contacted, but in view of the exchange of correspondence between the CSA and myself, I should have thought that it would have been courteous of the officer dealing with the case to let me have a response to the point raised with the Minister. My file is not yet complete. I have received assurances from the Minister and been told that the CSA is dealing with the matter, but have received no response from the CSA. I hope that that sort of thing will not be allowed to continue and that I shall receive some notification of the action that has been taken on that case.
      On 5 March, I wrote to the Minister about the case of Mrs. A, who has been pursuing her claim for maintenance through the CSA, which keeps requiring information that she has supplied on more than one occasion. The agency keeps sending the same form, which is frustrating for the claimant and demonstrates that it is either using delaying tactics and is delaying finding out why my constituent is not receiving maintenance, or is requesting the same information over and over again, because it is totally inefficient.
      Those cases are current. I am talking about correspondence of 5 March this year. On 13 February, I had cause to write to the chief executive of the CSA, Miss Chant, requesting information on a constituent who had regularly been making maintenance payments through his bank—through a banker's order—but who received a letter early in February advising him that a deduction from earnings order had been issued to his employer. The payments were being made, but because of the way in which the various offices of the CSA operate, his employer received the order, which was embarrassing for my constituent. The fact that that letter was sent to him when he was making the payments merits investigation. The ombudsman investigates only cases involving compensation, but I think that my constituent should be considered for compensation.
      Another constituent, Mr. F, ceased work because of ill health and is now on a pension. Although he notified the CSA, he is still being charged the same level of maintenance as when he was working. As the maintenance amounts to more than 50 per cent. of his pension, one can understand his concern. That matter has been referred to the ombudsman.
      I could describe numerous cases. These matters should be investigated. I have here a letter dated 14 March—this week—from the CSA stating that Mr. H
      "is concerned that despite making regular payments of child maintenance a deduction-from-earnings order has been served on his employer … On 28 November 1996, the Centre asked"
      Mr. H
      "to contact them to make an agreement to pay regular child maintenance plus an amount towards the arrears which have accrued. This he did … on 4 December".
      On 3 February, Mr. H was advised that he had made no payments. On the following day, the agency wrote to tell him that it had received the payments, but that they had

      1109
      not been credited to his account. That is a recent case—these are not historic matters. I ask that the issue be investigated.
      Finally, The Times today contains an article about the CSA and a report of the Select Committee on Social Security. It says that there has been a problem with the backlog of cases and that
      "the figures in a report by the Social Security Select Committee showed that only about a third of lone parents on income support and family credit had received an assessment."
      It is not creditable if only one out of three people who are looking for assistance are getting it from the CSA. The article continues:
      "The MPs praise the agency for a 'significant improvement' in performance since the agency started work in 1993. The committee has previously described its administrative performance in its first 18 months as 'dire'".
      That is the base from which the report comes—the Committee thought that the CSA would fold and that it was in a dire situation. Although the report may have been creditable at this stage, it shows that the agency has not fulfilled Parliament's expectations on efficiency.
      I draw the attention of the Minister to another report, published on 19 March—48 hours ago—by the parliamentary ombudsman. It says:
      "In his annual report published today the new Parliamentary Commissioner (Ombudsman), Mr. Michael Buckley, said that the number of complaints referred by Members of Parliament in 1996 was 1,920, a rise of 12.5 per cent. from the previous year …
      Almost half of the 1,920 new complaints concerned the Department of Social Security and its agencies and over half of these referred to the Child Support Agency".
      A quarter of all complaints referred to the ombudsman concerned the CSA. The report continued:
      "Despite the measures taken by CSA to improve performance there has been no reduction in the number of complaints against the Agency referred by Members of Parliament … The issue of financial compensation arose in a large number of cases, particularly CSA cases, on which reports were issued in 1996 … The Ombudsman obtained compensation for many of those whose cases he investigated. In his report he stresses the importance of fairness and consistency and says that the principle of redress should apply not only to those whose complaints he investigates but also to the 'vastly larger number of aggrieved who take up their concerns either direct or through their Members of Parliament.'"
      In other words, the ombudsman is saying that when payments have been made, but an attachment of earnings order has been imposed, the persons to whom I referred should be compensated because of the problems generated and the unfairness applied by the CSA.
      I therefore consider that, far from the CSA improving efficiency and bringing forward measures to support claimants, we are witnessing many people suffering because of the CSA's inefficiency. I am totally disillusioned with the CSA. It has had sufficient time to honour all the promises and assurances, but has failed to do so. If that is the CSA's record, I consider it a failure. I suggest that if the Minister—perhaps it is not for the present Under-Secretary, but for a Labour Minister—cannot improve the situation so that people get satisfaction, we should return to letting the courts decide maintenance.
      6.21 pm
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) has given a vivid account of the problems that arise from the Child Support
      1110
      Agency. On this final day of Parliament, he has done a service to the House in securing this Adjournment debate to talk about the problem in general. Such matters arise in Question Time, but in this debate he has been able to refer to the CSA's basic inadequacies—and there are many.
      It would be fair to say that in many constituencies, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, many surgeries concern this one subject. If we had been asked in 1991, when the Child Support Act was introduced, whether that would happen, we would have said that we had never heard such rubbish. We have always been used to dealing with housing and social security matters, which form a great proportion of our postbags—but then came the CSA. We were told that it would resolve the problem; it was better than having the matters dealt with in the courts; and, what is more, it would provide women in particular with money that they had not had before. The fact that stares us in the face—my hon. Friend referred to it happening in his area—is that we are being inundated with complaints.
      It is true that, when Members of Parliament write to the CSA in Belfast, the case might be pushed to the top of the queue temporarily, but it is also true that a hell of a lot of cases never get anywhere near that when people do not approach their Member of Parliament. If, as my hon. Friend said, so many cases concerning the CSA are being referred to the ombudsman, it is time that we asked ourselves: is this Act working well? Initially, many people said that the problems were just teething troubles; there was a big backlog, but everything would be sorted out in two or perhaps three years. My hon. Friend is saying that, after five years, the system is not working.
      I do not agree with the Social Security Committee either. I think that it has glossed over the matter. When the few Members of Parliament who serve on that Committee give the impression that somehow the matter is being resolved, I do not accept it, because I am still having to deal with the same number of cases in my constituency—probably more—as I did when the CSA was set up. We must look at the matter afresh.
      I have never seen so many people lobbying Parliament on one issue over five years as I have on the CSA. A lobby on the CSA came to the House only a few weeks ago. Last year, there were several. I went outside the House of Commons one day and said to the lobbyists, "What are you lobbying for?" I always see whether anybody is lobbying and usually try to join them and help them along the way. Those people said, "We've come to lobby on the CSA." I said, "I met them last week." They said, "But we are 'Police against the CSA'." There were 250 people in a line.
      The idea of the CSA might have sounded good at the beginning—and obviously did—but after five years, it is obviously not working. Over the past two or three years, some of us have called for it to be scrapped. The House has heard the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton. He approached the matter in a reasonable, moderate way, and has come to the conclusion, like me, that it is time to take a fresh look. I shall be with him when the next Labour Government get into power on 2 May, to try to find a better method. He says that we should return to the courts—that might be necessary. Somebody said that the CSA would save the Treasury

      1111
      a lot of money. I would like to know how much, because it has certainly cost a hell of a lot in administration over the past five years.
      The question is not one of a few odd cases in a constituency up in Yorkshire. We are saying that the problem is widespread, that it is pretty clear that Belfast is not getting on top of it and that it is time to take a completely fresh look. We should not leave the Social Security Committee to make a few humdrum remarks. If after five years the Act is not working, it is time that we had a fresh one to replace it.
      6.26 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Andrew Mitchell): I congratulate the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) on securing the last Adjournment debate of the Parliament. It is a particular pleasure for me to make the final speech of the Parliament because on 6 May 1992 I had the somewhat dubious privilege of making the second speech of the new Parliament when I seconded the Loyal Address to Her Majesty. I recognise the concerns that were expressed by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I pay a special tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe), who has taken a great interest in improving the Child Support Agency on behalf of his constituents over the two years that I have been the Minister with responsibility for it, and has brought a number of cases to me which we have together been able to resolve.
      I should like to deal with the three individual cases about which the hon. Member for Normanton expressed concern and on which he was kind enough to advise me before the debate. He also mentioned another case about which I do not have details, but if he would let me have further details, I shall undertake to give him additional information on it. My officials will get back to him tomorrow on any outstanding questions.
      The hon. Member for Normanton has written to me about one of his constituents, Mr. H, who was concerned that the broad-brush allowance in the formula for travel-to-work costs would not meet his needs. We recognise that, although the formula is correct in the vast majority of cases, there will be a small number of cases where limited discretion should be allowed. For those reasons, we introduced the departure scheme, which can cover travel-to-work costs in certain limited circumstances. Mr. H has since made an application for a departure. His application is being dealt with. It is currently at contest stage, and the papers have gone to the parent with care. She has until 27 March to respond.
      In the second case—that of Miss B, who is a parent with care—there has been an inexcusable delay of seven months in assessing her maintenance. That was in part due to the large volume of applications at the CSA centre. We have, as hon. Members will know, addressed problems of high workloads by simplifying the rules governing the scheme, and I intend those changes to ensure that the poor standard of service suffered by Miss B is a thing of the past. When the agency has obtained details of the absent parent's current circumstances, all action required to complete a maintenance settlement will proceed. I have specifically asked the agency to ensure that that, and all other action on Miss B's case, is treated as a priority.
      1112
      The third case that the hon. Member for Normanton raised was the case of Ms A, a parent with care and involving two absent parents. The problems in that case centre around the large amount of information that is required to ensure a fair outcome. One of the absent parents has not been co-operative. That has caused difficulties in enforcing maintenance which were compounded by mistakes made by the agency. The agency has now imposed an interim maintenance assessment on the unco-operative absent parent and enforcement action is being taken, but maintenance has yet to be paid. For the other child in the case, the next step in the application is for the relevant notification to be issued to the Inland Revenue to obtain the absent parent's employment details, if applicable. Following that, the case will be fully investigated with regard to the possible imposition of an interim maintenance assessment or completion of a full maintenance assessment.
      I wish to apologise for the delays in the agency's handling of the cases. They are now being treated as urgent. Obviously, the agency's primary concern is for the children in each case. In the cases mentioned, the agency is working towards fair maintenance assessments and will continue to do so.
      I shall move on from specific cases to the general comments that were made by the hon. Members for Normanton and for Bolsover. Many of their fears are now being addressed and resolved. It is a truism to say that the agency had a difficult start. The Social Security Select Committee described its introduction as the biggest social change for 40 years.The sheer scale of the change was not adequately appreciated on either side of the House.
      At the end of the first year, work was outstanding on 550,000 cases. Only £15 million had been collected or arranged for direct payment in the first year. However, in 1994, the agency's second year, maintenance collected and arranged exceeded £187 million—a more than twelvefold increase. In 1995, that figure almost doubled to £301 million, and in the present year the figure has increased again and looks likely to be almost £400 million. The agency now collects and arranges as much each fortnight as it did in the whole of its first year of operations. Four child support agency centres each collected £4 million in January alone. Within three years, I estimate that the agency will be collecting £800 million a year, three quarters of which will go to the parents with care.
      The House may wish to reflect on the scale of the improvement in the lives of children which will result from the huge increase in the flow of child maintenance, to which they are rightly and fully entitled. The improvements reflect a steadily increasing number of active cases with a maintenance assessment—up to 345,000 in March 1995, and to 460,000 in March 1996. By November 1996, the agency had more than 545,000 live cases.
      As hon. Members will know, the agency has had to deal with a continual backlog. That backlog must be cleared by April 1999, when the new computer system will start operating. I have therefore given instructions that the situation should be closely monitored month by month, over the next 24 months, to ensure that the eradication of the backlog is accomplished. I and the senior management of the CSA have good reason to be confident that the full eradication of the backlog will be achieved in the next 24 months.

      1113
      There has been a similar improvement in the accuracy of assessments. By March 1996, 79 per cent. of assessments checked were correct to the last penny. This year, the agency expects to meet its target of 85 per cent. of assessments being correct. That level of accuracy compares well with benefit assessments—for example, for income support—which are generally less complex. The agency has been effective in combating fraud and containing social security expenditure. It has consistently saved the taxpayer nearly three times as much as it costs, which answers a specific question by the hon. Member for Bolsover. Between April 1993—when the agency was launched—and March 1996, the agency achieved nearly £1.4 billion in benefit savings. Net operating costs for the period were around £500 million. In the current year, through 31 December 1996, savings of more than £354 million have been recorded, against net operating costs of £146 million.
      Mr. William O'Brien: I appreciate the information that the Minister has given. The ombudsman has awarded compensation in more than 80 cases. Will that compensation come out of the savings, or is there another fund from which compensation is paid?
      Mr. Mitchell: I will come to the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised about the ombudsman. I overhauled the system of compensation at the end of last year, and we now have a clearly established new system that relates specifically to the CSA and the cases that the hon. Gentleman mentioned in his speech.
      As well as collecting maintenance that offsets benefit expenditure, the agency discourages abuse of the benefits system. In 1994–95, more than 60,000 parents with care withdrew their benefit claims once the agency began taking action. Overall since the agency started its operation, it is estimated that more than £644 million has been saved by that means alone.
      Other tangible improvements in the performance of the CSA continue. The agency's increased emphasis on maintenance collection entails a strong and increasingly effective commitment to enforcement action when maintenance is not paid. As for payments of maintenance to parents with care, the improvements are clear. Some 98 per cent. of payments were passed on within 10 working days. In cases with difficulties in ensuring regular payments, deductions from earnings orders are now implemented quickly in all appropriate cases. More than 47,000 were issued between April 1996 and the end of January 1997.
      I wish to record my appreciation, and that of all the Ministers in the Department of Social Security, to the Social Security Select Committee for the advice that it has offered on improvements to child support. The Committee has paid close attention to the policy and the operation of the scheme since its introduction, and has produced five helpful reports on the subject since April 1993. I am grateful to the Committee for its constant support for a properly functioning child support system and its determination to identify impediments to the effective operation of the agency. Both the hon. Gentlemen who contributed were somewhat grudging in their support for the Social Security Select Committee.
      Mr. Skinner: It was worse than that.
      Mr. Mitchell: I was being generous. The Select Committee is an all-party Committee, and we value what it says. I fully agree with the Committee's report, which was published yesterday and which states:
      "the Committee was very encouraged that after a poor start, the Child Support Agency was showing a much more acceptable level of service … The figures … indicate that in the past two years there has been a substantial improvement in the Agency's performance. Whereas the Agency was heading for disaster in 1993/94, there is now no danger that this could occur. We are pleased that the Child Support Agency is on a sure footing and expect that the gains in performance will continue."
      That was the judgment of the all-party Social Security Select Committee which underlines the bipartisan approach to child support that now exists between the Government and the official Opposition. I agree with the Select Committee's comments, and I pay tribute to its consistency.
      Many Members of the House, from both sides, have shown great patience and support during the agency's most difficult periods, when inaccuracies and mistakes tried the patience of many hon. Members and their constituents. While inaccuracies have yet to be eliminated, the improvement is there for all to see, as is our commitment further to improve the service for the agency's clients until it is fully acceptable. The emphasis on the continuing need for further improvement in service is clear from the agency's targets for the next financial year, which we announced on Tuesday.
      The agency will be required to collect and arrange £500 million in maintenance, to achieve an accuracy level of 85 per cent. over the whole year and to clear at least 525,000 maintenance assessments while bearing down on work outstanding.
      For all those changes and improvements, the House owes a particular debt of gratitude to Ann Chant, the chief executive, who will depart shortly to work on Business in the Community. She has done a superb job in turning around the fortunes of the Child Support Agency. I am particularly grateful to her for agreeing to stay on as chief executive for longer than she intended originally. She is an outstanding civil servant, and deserves all the praise that has rightly been heaped upon her by the Social Security Select Committee, Ministers and many others who have worked with her during her time as chief executive.
      I turn now to several policy considerations. I appreciate the concern that has been expressed about the complexity of the system: a great deal of information is required in order to assess child maintenance. I acknowledge the fact that simplification of the system has been a key factor in improving the process and getting maintenance flowing. Progress has been made in resolving the difficulties experienced in establishing housing costs and wages. If the agency can continue to simplify and streamline its procedures, and can get it right, the way forward will be easier. Policy changes have also played their part. To this end, we have always made it clear that we shall listen to—and, where possible, act upon—any constructive suggestions for change that come from both sides of the House.
      While I have had the honour of being responsible for the agency, I have made some 140 changes to the way in which it operates. The Child Support Act 1995 and the

      1115
      regulations introduced in April 1995 added to the process of positive change. Those changes were based, in part, on suggestions by the Social Security Select Committee. However, they went further in some respects. The Act was supported by both sides of the House with good reason: it was a careful and prudent balancing act. The Government took into account the interests of the children, their parents and the taxpayer. The interests of the children were central to the proposals for change that were accepted by the House.
      The Government's intention was simple: remain true to the key principles behind child support, but learn the lessons of experience. As a result, four main changes were introduced in 1995 which built upon earlier improvements. First, we introduced the 30 per cent. rule. That meant that no absent parent would be assessed under the formula to pay more than 30 per cent. of his or her net income in current maintenance payments. Even absent parents whose payments are in arrears would usually pay no more than 33 per cent. Secondly, we introduced a degree of flexibility into the formula, and I shall return to that point later.
      Thirdly, the Government recognised that capital or property settlements made before child support was introduced might have been intended to offset regular child maintenance payments. That was not always properly reflected in the child support assessment. We introduced regulations to make allowance for a broad recognition of those property and capital settlements, and made provisions in the Act for more detailed allowances. On the same basis—I refer directly to the first case that the hon. Member for Normanton raised—we also recognised high travel-to-work costs of the minority of parents who travel long distances to work.
      It had become clear that the agency experienced particular problems in collecting maintenance from self-employed absent parents. That is not a new problem: the courts experienced similar difficulties. Some absent parents have sought to exploit that difficulty in a bid to sidestep their legitimate responsibilities towards their children. I am pleased to say that we were able to make important changes that were designed specifically to address problems in that area. We introduced a new power that allows the agency to enter liability orders in the county court register of debt judgments. The threat of such an entry will be an incentive to secure absent parents' compliance—especially in the case of the self-employed, who generally rely on credit to conduct their business. I am pleased to tell the House that those powers are being used in appropriate cases. On Monday, I visited the Hastings Child Support Agency centre, and staff told me that results for the latest quarter show that a substantial proportion of those who are warned that they may face action subsequently comply.
      As I said earlier, a crucial part of the 1995 improvements package was the introduction of a degree of flexibility into the maintenance assessment formula. The Government remain committed to using a formula to determine maintenance. A formula is successful and fair in the majority of cases, and it provides the best means of establishing a fair and consistent maintenance liability. However, experience has shown that a small proportion of cases were not being dealt with fairly by a formula. That is why I have introduced some discretion to "depart"
      1116
      from the basic formula in special circumstances. The change will allow flexibility where fairness demands it. It was successfully piloted in the summer of 1996, and introduced nationally in December. Through the introduction of the departures system, we have addressed one of the biggest criticisms of the child support system. In doing so, we have gone rather further than the changes suggested by the Social Security Select Committee in its report.
      Parents with care and absent parents can apply for a departure from the formula assessment. For example, an absent parent may face genuine hardship if a maintenance assessment fails adequately to reflect special expenses. Such costs include those incurred in maintaining contact with children or in meeting the needs of step-children in a current family. The discretion to "depart" from the formula will help a small but important number of cases in which people might otherwise face hardship. Conversely, a parent with care may have grounds to consider the maintenance assessment to be unrealistically low. It may be that an absent parent appears to be living a life style that is simply not commensurate with his declared income. In that case, the parent with care can apply for a departure order.
      More recently, we have tackled the problem of parents with care who claim benefits but who are unwilling to permit action to recover maintenance from the absent parent. In the light of clear evidence that such reluctance can mean that benefit is being claimed fraudulently, we have increased the level and duration of the benefit penalty that applies when the parent with care has no genuine reason for her failure to co-operate. As well as being an effective way of tackling fraud, this underpins the principle that both parents must honour responsibilities for their children whenever they can afford to do so.
      Those improvements are reflected in a substantial fall in the amount of correspondence that I receive from hon. Members: down by one third in 1996 compared with 1995. While there has been a modest fall in correspondence about individual cases, complaints about the policy have fallen dramatically by more than 50 per cent: from 1,520 in 1995 to only 723 in 1996. Those absent parent groups who campaigned so loudly against the child support scheme can no longer claim legitimate grievance. It is time for the small minority of outside groups who oppose the agency to acknowledge that times have changed. I hope that all hon. Members will acknowledge and reinforce the message that absent parents have a responsibility to support their children when they can afford to do so.
      I am afraid that a small number of men continue to believe that they should not be responsible for supporting their children and can shuffle off their liability on to their neighbour: the taxpayer. Such people cloak in moral indignation what is a simple disinclination to pay up for their kids. Increasingly, society rightly regards such behaviour with deep distaste and contempt. I am sure that the process will continue to grow. Children have a right to be supported by their own parents whenever and wherever that can occur. While the House cannot legislate for the affection and concern that all parents owe their children, it can legislate—and has done so—for proper and fair levels of child support.

      1117
      I thank the hon. Gentleman once again for the opportunity to review the operation of the Child Support Agency and the changes that we have made to improve the operation of the child support scheme. The current system has experienced problems, not all of which will disappear overnight. Recent changes address both the functioning and the fairness of the system. Not all the improvements that I have sought are in place yet, and it will take time for the effect of the changes to feed through.
      Nevertheless, we are continuing to look for ways of making the system function more effectively. The hon. Member for Normanton referred to the ombudsman. Next month, the agency's independent case examiner will begin her work of handling the concerns of clients whose cases have not been handled as well as they expected. The child maintenance bonus scheme—an important back-to-work measure which provides cash help for parents with care returning to work—will begin operation.
      Sir Patrick Cormack: May anyone approach that officer, or can she be approached only via a Member of Parliament?
      Mr. Mitchell: I reassure my hon. Friend that she may be approached by anyone. The Government are committed to seeing parents with care receiving levels of maintenance that adequately reflect both the children's needs and the absent parents' ability to pay. We are at last seeing more maintenance being paid to more parents with care than ever before. I am sure that many hon. Members will agree that that represents a considerable achievement for an agency that many were willing to write off less than two years ago.
      I look forward to returning to this Dispatch Box after the Queen's Speech on 14 May, and after the Conservative party has won the general election. I look forward to continuing the important work in the area of child support when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister forms his next Government on 2 May.
      As the last Minister to speak during this Parliament from the Treasury Bench and from the Dispatch Box, I will follow in the tradition established by the final speaker in the last Parliament in 1992—my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory)—in quoting Suetonius, who accurately reflects the outstanding economic achievements secured by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. He wrote:
      1118
      "Urbem excoluit adeo, ut iure sit gloriatus marmoream se relinquere, quam latericiam accepisset."
      For those Opposition Members who may find it helpful, this translates as:
      "He so improved the city that he justly asserted he had found it brick and left it marble."
      6.50 pm
      Sitting suspended.
      8 pm
      On resuming—
      Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier today I drew Madam Speaker's attention to the fact that there had been an announcement on the widening of the M25. She addressed that point of order. My point of order this evening—I apologise for troubling you—relates to the fact that the Cabinet Secretary has published some Cabinet rules on the conduct of Ministers after the general election has been announced.
      I was bewildered as to how a decision could be announced in a parliamentary answer by the Minister for Railways and Roads, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr. Watts) to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith). I spoke to the permanent secretary at the Department of Transport, who said, "Ah. The decision was taken on 13 March."
      I appeal to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, about this total abuse and flagrant disregard of the rules laid down by the Cabinet Secretary, who is the custodian of the independence of the civil service. The fact that that can be done is nonsense and an outrage. Can you help? The decision was taken today, not on 13 March. Somebody should be brought to account before the House for that abuse.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Thankfully, I am not responsible for anything that the Cabinet Secretary does.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Eight o' clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Child Support (Legal Aid)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what estimate he has made of the costs to the legal aid budget from court cases where the Child Support Agency decision has led parents without care to seek a ruling to establish contact time with their children. [20173]

  Mr. Streeter
  None.

  Payment of Bills
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what percentage of bills to his Department for the financial year 1995 to 1996 were paid(a) in accordance with agreed contractual conditions and (b) within 30 days of receiving goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice where no contractual conditions applied. [21206]

  Mr. Streeter
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 18 July 1996,Official Report, columns 613–14. Any further information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Court Fees (Exemptions)
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what guidance has been issued to court staff on dealing with applications for exemption from court fees; and if he will publish it. [21400]

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

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Keith Hill, dated 20 March 1997:
  The Parliamentary Secretary of the Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question about the guidance issued to court staff on exemptions from court fees. Written guidance on dealing with applications for fee exemption and remission is given to court staff when any fees order includes this issue. The guidance, which is lengthy, is designed for internal use only.

  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on how many occasions an individual in receipt of(a) family credit, (b) disability working allowance and (c) housing benefit has (i) applied for exemption from payment of a court fee and (ii) been granted exemption from payment of a court fee in each of the last five years. [21401]

  Mr. Streeter
  The question concerns a matter which has been assigned to the Court Service under the terms of its framework document. I have therefore asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.
  684
  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Keith Hill, dated 20 March 1997:
  The Parliamentary Secretary of the Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of fee exemptions applied for, and granted, in each of the last five years. Fee exemption is granted automatically to anyone in receipt of Income Support. In family cases, it is also granted to people receiving Family Credit. Information on the number of people to whom it has been granted is not collected centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
  Litigants on family credit in non-family cases, as well as people in receipt of disability working allowance and housing benefit, can apply for fee remission. Information on the number of applications for fee remission is not kept centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. However, the table below shows the total number of court cases in which remission has been granted.

  Year

  Number of cases

  1991–92

  766

  1992–93

  953

  1993–94

  2,261

  1994–95

  4,153

  1995–96

  3,414

  Land Registry
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what are the key performance targets for Her Majesty's Land Registry executive agency for 1997–98. [21623]

  Mr. Streeter
  The following table sets out the key performance targets that the Lord Chancellor has set for Her Majesty's Land Registry for 1997–98.

  HM Land Registry Key performance indicators and targets 1997–98

  Indicator

  Target

  Financial

  Return on average capital employed1

  2 per cent.

  External financing limit

  £0

  Efficiency

  Cost per unit in real terms

  £26.67

  Cost per unit in cash terms2

  £29.94

  Charter Standards Speed

  Percentage of pre-completion applications

  98 per cent.

  handled within two working days and time taken to process all pre-completion applications

  3 working days

  Time taken to process 80 per cent. of all registrations

  25 working days

  Accuracy

  Percentage of registrations handled free from any error

  98.50 per cent

  Percentage of customers responding to the annual survey who perceived the accuracy of registrations to be excellent or good

  Better than 90 percent. (being the result of the 1996 survey)

  Development of Land Registration

  Bringing into force provisions of the Land

  1 January 1998

  Registration Act 1997 introducing new "triggers" for compulsory first registration Number of computerised titles in the Land Register (millions)

  15.10

  Number of computerised title plans (millions)

  1.00

  685

  HM Land Registry Key performance indicators and targets 1997–98

  Indicator

  Target

  Number of scanned filed documents (millions)

  0.60

  Number of account holder using the Direct Access service at the end of the year

  550

  National Land Information Service

  Feasibility study of the National Land Information Service

  Complete initial phases of feasibility study and report to Government by31 December 1997

  Fuller details of the agency's targets are given in its business plan, which is available from Her Majesty's Land Registry.

  1 ROCHE below 6 per cent. reflects agreement with HM Treasury to apply surplus income generated in 1993–95 (when ROCHE exceeded 25 per cent. in each year) fee reductions in 1996–99.

  2 The inflation factor for the cost per unit in cash terms is derived from the GDP indices announced by HM Treasury in December 1996.

  The Court Service
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what are the key performance targets for The Court Service executive agency for 1997–98. [21621]

  Mr. Streeter
  The following table sets out the key performance targets that the Lord Chancellor has set for The Court Service for 1997–98.

  The Court Service Key performance targets 1997–98

  Indicator

  Target

  Quality of service

  1. Average percentage of charter standards achieved

  99 per cent.

  Civil courts

  2. Percentage of Administrative process dealt with within target time

  92 per cent.

  Crown court

  3. Percentage of defendants whose trial commences within target time (16 weeks) or less

  75 per cent.

  Unit costs (civil)

  4. Unit cost of an item of originating process in the civil courts

  £95

  Cost recovery

  5. Percentage of the cost of the civil courts recovered through fees

  91 per cent.

  Unit costs (Crown)

  6. Unit cost of a case in the Crown court

  £1,926

  Public Trust Office
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what are the key performance targets for the Public Trust Office executive agency for 1997–98. [21622]
  686
  Mr. Streeter
  The following table sets out the key performance targets that the Lord Chancellor has set for the Public Trust Office for 1997–98.

  Public Trust Office Key performance indicators and targets 1997–98

  Indicator

  Target

  1. To carry out accounting transactions within target times.

  To bring to account at least 98.5 per cent. of receipts and payments transactions within turnaround targets by volume weighted performance.

  2. To achieve investment targets.

  To pay annually not less than the rate provided by the average of a model set of comparators for special and basic rate at 75 per cent. of special rate; on an annual basis to ensure that 85 per cent. of all measured funds perform in line or better than their model based on stock market indices; on a three year rolling basis to ensure that 80 per cent. of all measured funds perform in line or better than their model based on stock market indices.

  3. To achieve charter standards.

  To achieve 98 per cent. of charter standards.

  4. To achieve unit costs in activity areas.

  The cost per unit to be £195.65.

  5. Percentage of full costs recovered.

  To ensure that 100 per cent. of full costs are recovered.

  Fuller details of the agency's targets are given in its business plan, which is available from the Public Trust Office.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Portcullis House (Jubilee Line Extension)
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee if he will make a statement about the progress of the Portcullis House project and the effect upon it of recent announcements concerning the delay to the Jubilee line extension. [21516]

  Sir Raymond Powell
  I am pleased to be able to report the progress which has been made with the design and procurement of the new parliamentary building, which Madam Speaker has agreed should be called Portcullis House. Contracts for the structure, the external envelope and all the main services have been awarded and off-site manufacture is well under way. The contractors and consultants are successfully overcoming problems which inevitably arise in such a complex building and, with good co-operation, will continue to be able to resolve them. The Committee had the opportunity recently to meet representatives of many of the firms involved. They can have no doubt of the importance that the House attaches to the building being completed on time and within budget. We were pleased to hear of the commitment and skills that they will bring to this demanding project.

  As I advised my right hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) in my earlier reply, Official Report, 12 February 1997, columns 254–56, London Underground's work on the construction of the new Westminster station has not proceeded according to programme so it was not able to give possession of the site on 2 February 1997, the agreed date. Instead, there was to be a phased programme starting with the erection of the first tower crane at the beginning of May and increasing site possession from mid-May until the site was

  687
  to be transferred on 29 July. Although London Underground remains confident that it will achieve the July date, the early handover has been gradually eroded. Thus, our main construction work will start at a slower pace than we had planned and this will increase the pressure on the project team to complete construction of the building in the year 2000. It will require a concerted effort by all the contractors and consultants to achieve this objective.

ENVIRONMENT

  Go-karts
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to establish national guidelines in respect to the guarding of exposed rear drive shafts and disc in-running nips on go-karts; and if he will make a statement. [20538]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  There is no manufacturing standard or type approval for go-karts. A voluntary standard is being discussed by the European standard body CEN, committee TC 152, working group 1.

  The Health and Safety Executive's national interest group for entertainment has met the go-kart manufacturers to discuss manufacturers' and suppliers' responsibilities. Further discussions are due to take place.

  Cetaceans
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received with regard to the protection of whales, dolphins and porpoises in United Kingdom waters; and if he will make a statement. [20519]

  Mr. Clappison
  Concern about the conservation status of cetaceans continues to generate a steady stream of inquiries from the public. However, no significant representations concerning their protection in United Kingdom waters have recently been received.

  The United Kingdom, as a member of the International Whaling Commission and the agreement on the conservation of small cetaceans of the Baltic and North seas, continues to be committed to the conservation of all cetaceans.

  Pollution Abatement Technology
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate(a) the United Kingdom's current share of the world market for pollution abatement technology and (b) the size of that market share during (i) the next five years and (ii) the next 10 years. [20926]

  Mr. Clappison
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to her by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Small Business, Industry and Energy on 11 March 1997,Official Report, column 136.

  Metropolitan Councils (Capital Receipts)
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the total current capital receipts for each of the metropolitan councils; and if he will make a statement. [20730]
  688
  Mr. Curry
  The amounts of accumulated usable capital receipts at 31 March 1996 for each metropolitan council are listed in the table:

  £000

  Barnsley

  0

  Birmingham

  0

  Bolton

  45

  Bradford

  0

  Bury

  41

  Calderdale

  0

  Coventry

  0

  Doncaster

  0

  Dudley

  0

  Gateshead

  39

  Kirklees

  0

  Knowsley

  7,359

  Leeds

  0

  Liverpool

  4,104

  Manchester

  5,066

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  0

  North Tyneside

  1,932

  Oldham

  0

  Rochdale

  2,347

  Rotherham

  1,046

  Salford

  223

  Sandwell

  0

  Sefton

  6,043

  Sheffield

  0

  Solihull

  1,763

  South Tyneside

  0

  St. Helens

  13

  Stockport

  0

  Sunderland

  1,656

  Tameside

  0

  Trafford

  3,587

  Wakefield

  0

  Walsall

  0

  Wigan

  55

  Wirral

  86

  Wolverhampton

  159

  Total

  35,564

  Source:

  1995–96 capital outturn returns.

  Note:

  Figures for the amounts of set aside capital receipts are not available. These form part of the provision for credit liabilities, which also includes amounts set aside from revenue.

  Nirex Ltd.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the advice the Nirex peer reviewers provided to Nirex in report S96–004 appendix 3 concerning the report title used in the document submitted to the review panel for initial review concerning the use of the word hydrogeological. [20996]

  Mr. Clappison
  I understand that the baseline report review group advised Nirex that the use of the word "hydrogeological" in the initial title proposed for the report was too general and therefore gave insufficient guidance as to the content of the report.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his review of the application by UK Nirex Ltd. to build a rock characterisation facility at Longlands farm, Cumbria; and what has been the cost of this review to his Department. [21307]
  689
  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Secretary of State's reasons for dismissing the planning appeal by UK Nirex Ltd. are set out fully in the decision letter which was issued on 17 March. A copy of the letter has been sent to the hon. Member. The specific cost of individual planning appeals is not available.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the names and numbers of the reports prepared by the disposal safety assessment team co-ordinated by Nirex on scientific and technical issues on(a) the disposal of radioactive wastes and (b) the development of the safety analysis of the proposed repository evaluated by (i) his Department, (ii) Nirex and (iii) the UK Atomic Energy Authority. [20997]

  Mr. Gummer
  This information should be requested from UK Nirex Ltd. The report produced by Nirex's disposal safety assessment team on which Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution's review studies were based was Nirex report 337 "Deep Waste Repository: A Preliminary Assessment of Post-closure Performance", D. E. Billington (editor), 1992, four volumes. A number of research reports containing supporting information were also reviewed.

  Local Government Finance (Devon)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much public money was provided to(a) Devon county council, (b) South Hams district council, (c) Teignbridge district council and (d) Torbay Borough Council in each of the past five years. [21346]

  Mr. Curry
  The local authorities have reported the following amounts of central Government grants in the past four years. In 1992–93, under the community charge system, revenue support grant was paid to the lower tier authorities to support the charge payer in respect of spending by all tiers, so comparable figures for the individual authorities are not available.

  £ thousands

  Devon County Council

  South Hams District Council

  Teignbridge District Council

  Torbay Borough Council

  Grants supporting revenue expenditure1

  1993–94

  2378,167

  9,313

  14,310

  30,507

  1994–95

  2385,318

  9,796

  15,690

  33,474

  1995–96

  324,796

  10,550

  16,556

  34,691

  1996–973

  324,495

  10,257

  16,806

  35,260

  Grants supporting capital expenditure4

  1993–94

  7,234

  857

  993

  1,093

  1994–95

  5,101

  1,058

  645

  766

  1995–96

  4,413

  1,387

  806

  993

  1996–975

  3,880

  340

  536

  866

  1 Includes revenue support grant, specific and special grants inside and outside AEF and SSA Reduction Grant.

  2 Before the setting up of separate police authorities in 1995–96, county councils had responsibility for police services, therefore these figures include expenditure funded by police specific grant.

  3 Budget estimates.

  4 Includes grants from central Government and non-departmental public bodies.

  5 Forecasts.

  690

  Irrigation (Water Abstraction)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the use of abstraction licences to control the use of water for trickle irrigation. [21148]

  Mr. Clappison
  No licence is currently required for the abstraction of water for irrigation, except for spray irrigation. We have announced that we shall be conducting a full review of the abstraction licencing system.

  Fur
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to implement European regulation 3254/91. [21328]

  Mr. Clappison
  The regulation can be implemented effectively only through concerted action by all EU member states. The European Commission is negotiating with the major fur producer countries an agreement by which the principles of the regulation can be implemented. The Council of Ministers has requested the Commission to introduce a fur import ban if no satisfactory agreement can be reached.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations have been made to him by other Government Departments during the last three years regarding the implementation of European regulation 3254/91. [21329]

  Mr. Clappison
  There have been regular contacts at both official and ministerial level between all Departments concerned with UK Government policy on this matter.

  Payment of Bills
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of bills to his Department for the financial year 1995 to 1996 were paid(a) in accordance with agreed contractual conditions and (b) within 30 days of receiving goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice where no contractual conditions applied. [21202]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 18 July 1996,Official Report, column 613. Any additional information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was his Department's expenditure on housing associations in Devon in each of the past five years. [21345]

  Mr. Curry
  The Department provides funding to housing associations through grant in aid to the Housing Corporation. Capital expenditure in Devon through the Housing Corporation's approved development programme in each of the past four years was as follows:

  1993–94: £30.2 million

  1994–95: £28.8 million

  1995–96: £18.8 million

  1996–97: £16.9 million (forecast).

  691
  The 1992–93 capital expenditure figure for Devon cannot be separately identified from other approved development programme expenditure.

  Hedgerow Regulations
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the protection afforded to the linnet under the draft hedgerow regulations. [21089]

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what protection the draft hedgerow regulations provide for the song thrush. [21298]

  Mr. Clappison
  The draft Hedgerows Regulations 1997, as laid before Parliament, protect hedgerows which are important in terms of their historic, wildlife or landscape value, as set out in the criteria listed at schedule 1. One of the criteria for determining the wildlife value of the hedgerow is the presence of species of birds, mammals, insects or plants within specified categories, which do not include the linnet or song thrush.

  A costed action plan to halt the decline of the song thrush by the year 2000 was drawn up by the biodiversity steering group. The group is currently preparing an action plan for the linnet.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the average cost of implementing the draft hedgerow regulations for each local authority in England. [21295]

  Mr. Clappison
  Costs of implementing the draft Hedgerows Regulations, as laid in Parliament, together with costs relating to many other individual services, are included within local authorities' "All Other Services" standard spending assessments, but are not separately identified.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has taken to enable the biodiversity value of a hedgerow to be measured within the evaluation period; and if he will make a statement. [21297]

  Mr. Clappison
  Schedule 1 to the draft Hedgerows Regulations, as laid in Parliament, sets out the criteria which local planning authorities must use to determine the importance of a hedgerow notified to them. The criteria include several relating to the value of the hedgerow for wildlife and for biological diversity.

  Zinc
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what his plans are for reducing the input of zinc in sewage sludge which may be spread on the land. [21149]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government have accepted in its response to the report of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution on the sustainable use of soil that there should be continued action to reduce the concentration of zinc and other metals in sewage sludge. We intend to commission a further survey of sewage sludge quality in 1998. This will provide the opportunity to confirm the effect of trade effluent controls in considerably reducing metal concentrations over the last 692
  two decades and will provide a basis for assessing the need for any further steps, taking into account the potential costs and benefits.

  Multi-occupancy Accommodation
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the provisions in the Housing Act 1996 relating to the inspection of multi-occupancy accommodation will come into effect. [21428]

  Mr. Clappison
  Most of the provisions of part II of the Housing Act 1996 relating to houses in multiple occupation came into effect on 3 March 1997. Section 73 of the Act, which imposes a new duty on landlords of HMOs to keep their property fit for the number of occupants will be introduced at a later date. A number of related statutory instruments also took effect from 3 March 1997. These are the Houses in Multiple Occupation (Fees for Registration Schemes) Order 1997, S.I. 1997/229, the Housing (Fire Safety in Houses in Multiple Occupation) Order 1997, S.I. 1997/230, the Housing (Enforcement Procedures for Houses in Multiple Occupation) Order 1997, S.I. 1997/227, and the Housing (Recovery of Expenses for Section 352 Notices) Order 1997, S.I. 1997/228.

  Polychlorinated Biphenyls
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish the United Kingdom action plan for the phasing out and destruction of polychlorinated biphenyls and dangerous polychlorinated biphenyl substitutes. [21562]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I am publishing today the action plan which forms part of our strategy for fulfilling the commitment, made by the United Kingdom at the third North Sea conference at The Hague in 1990, to phase out and destroy identifiable PCBs. It is also the first step towards meeting the requirements of EC directive 96/59/EC, which will be implemented by regulations in due course.

  It has long been recognised that PCBs pose an environmental threat, particularly to marine life. That is why, in 1986, we banned their sale and most uses. There are many organisations, including factories, offices, schools and hospitals, which may have equipment containing PCBs.

  A key element of the action plan is that there should be co-operation between the competent authorities, companies who destroy PCBs and those who may have equipment containing them. Our proposals are designed to ensure an orderly phase-out and the most effective use of destruction capacity, in the interests of industry and the environment.

  A copy of the action plan has been sent to all local authorities, education authorities, health authorities and universities throughout the United Kingdom as well as the relevant trade associations. Copies of the action plan have also been placed in the Library of the House.

  Departmental Annual Report
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make an announcement about the
  693
  spending plans of the Department of the Environment, Ordnance Survey and the Office of Water Services for the years 1997–98 to 1999–2000. [21653]

  Mr. Gummer
  I have today published the Department of the Environment's annual report for 1997, which sets out in detail the outcome of the public expenditure survey as announced in the November 1996 Budget statement, as it affects my areas of responsibility. The report shows how my Department, Ordnance Survey and the Office of Water Services have discharged their functions over the past year. It provides background on each spending programme, and sets out our achievements to date and plans for the future.

  Environment Agency
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy on the award of costs at hearings held in connection with the functions of the Environment Agency or appeals against the agency. [21654]

  Mr. Clappison
  Subsection 250(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 enables the Secretary of State to make an order as to the costs of the parties at an inquiry and as to the parties by whom the costs are to be paid. Subsection 53(2) of the Environment Act 1995 applies subsection 250(5) of the 1972 Act to inquiries and other hearings held in connection with the functions of the Environment Agency or the Secretary of State's functions in relation to the agency. These include appeals over integrated pollution control authorisations and waste management licences under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, waste carrier licences under the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989, and abstraction licences and discharge consents under the Water Resources Act 1991.

  The parties at these hearings are normally expected to meet their own expenses irrespective of the outcome. Costs are awarded only on grounds of "unreasonable" behaviour resulting in unnecessary expense. An award of costs does not therefore follow the event of the decision on merits.

  In considering the award of costs, the Secretary of State will apply by analogy the guidance on award of costs in planning proceedings in DOE circular 8/93 (Welsh Office 23/93). The circular includes a summary of the criteria for unreasonable behaviour and advice on the general principles for awards of costs for unreasonable behaviour, general procedural requirements, and applications for costs.

  Section 53 of the 1995 Act enables costs to be awarded only in cases where a hearing is held. Unlike planning proceedings, costs are not available where a hearing is cancelled due to a party's withdrawal.

  Subsection 250(5) of the 1972 Act does not apply to proceedings in connection with local authority air pollution control decisions under part 1 of the Environment Protection Act 1990. Consideration will be given to seeking such provision in due course.

  Council Tax Capping
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make an announcement on the capping arrangements for 1997–98. [21655]
  694
  Mr. Gummer
  All local authorities have now set their budgets for 1997–98. The next step in council tax capping is for the Secretary of State to announce capping principles for all authorities. However, in view of the announcement of the general election, I consider it more appropriate that decisions on capping should be taken by the next Administration. This is the approach which was adopted in 1992.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to change the 1996–97 cash limits and external financing limits for which he is responsible. [21656]

  Mr. Gummer
  The DOE/HC—Housing Corporation— cash limit will be decreased by £5,916,000 from £1,037,868,000 to £1,031,952,000. This reflects a switch within city challenge expenditure from funding via the Housing Corporation to funding via other single regeneration budget schemes.

  The external financing limit for urban development corporations will be increased by £764,000 from £209,817,000 to £210,581,000. This reflects a transfer of an underspend of £600,000 from city challenge to Tyne and Wear development corporation's grant in aid and a transfer of £600,000 from the city challenge and single regeneration budget challenge fund programmes to the Black Country development corporation's grant in aid, both transfers allowing regeneration projects to be brought forward. The transfers will be offset by a reduction in Plymouth development corporation's grant in aid of £436,000, transferred to the urban programme and the single regeneration budget challenge fund.

  The external financing limit for the urban regeneration agency—English Partnerships—will be increased by £52,883,000 from £158,082,000 to £210,965,000. This reflects a transfer of provision from English Partnerships' derelict land grant of £2,000,000, and also amends the limit to take account of the increases in grant in aid at the winter supplementary estimates of £30,883,000, and at the spring supplementary estimates of £20,000,000.

  The external financing limit for the housing action trusts will be increased by £457,000, from £89,210,000 to £89,667,000, consisting of a reduction of £1,550,000 at the spring supplementary estimates and a subsequent increase of £2,007,000, transferred from estate action, city challenge and the single regeneration budget challenge fund. I draw attention to the figures for the external financing limit for the housing action trusts in my answer of 4 November 1996 to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) Official Report, column 346. This incorrectly showed the limit rising from £878,960,000 to £879,210,000. The correct figures were £88,960,000 rising to £89,210,000.

  The DOE/NT—new towns—non-voted cash limit will be reduced by £4,554,000 from minus £110,000,000 to minus £114,554,000. This reduction reflects an increase in capital receipts to the Commission for New Towns of £1,750,000 and a technical transfer of £2,804,000 to the DOE/OES—other environmental services—non-voted cash limit which is described later.
  695
  The DOE/OES non-voted cash limit will be increased £2,804,000 from £25,289,000 to £28,093,000. This reflects a transfer from the DOE/NT—new towns— non-voted cash limit to provide for supplementary credit approvals to local authorities to cover their capital contributions to the Commission for the New Towns under road cost sharing arrangements.

  The cash limit for class VI, vote 4—local government and planning, England—covering sections A to F of that vote, will be reduced by £1,250,000 from £31,127,007,000 to £31,125,757,000. The decrease is the cumulative result of reductions in the payments made to the Valuation Office Agency, and in the expenses of valuation tribunals in section A—valuation services, in the grant payable to the Local Government Commission in section B—reorganisation of local government; and in the planning and minerals research programme, section D. This amount will be transferred to the DOE/LGR—local government reorganisation—non-voted cash limit for the reasons given later.

  The DOE/LGR—local government reorganisation— non-voted cash limit will be increased by £1,250,000 from £105,669,000 to £106,919,000 to meet a greater than forecast demand for commutation and transitional costs of reorganisation supplementary credit approvals. The increase will be a met by the transfer from class VI vote 4—local government and planning, England—cash limit referred to above.

  Some of the increases will be offset either by savings or transfers; the remainder is allowed for in the 1996–97 control total forecast outturn shown in the "Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses", Cm 3601, published on Thursday 20 March 1997.

  Sellafield (Rock Characterisation Facility)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those organisations which responded to the renewed invitation to make submissions on the plans by Nirex to develop a rock characterisation facility near Sellafield, indicating the documents that each submitted. [21002]

  Mr. Gummer
  Letters received since the close of the inquiry, and the main reports to which they refer, are listed in the annex attached to the decision letter on the appeal, a copy of which has been sent to the hon. Member.

  Wirral, South (Visits)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many times he visited the Wirral, South constituency during(a) 1995, (b) 1996 and (c) 1997. [21217]

  Mr. Gummer
  I have made one visit to Wirral, South in the last three years, which was not on departmental business.

PRIME MINISTER

  Basic Pension Plus
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on basic pension plus proposals. [19816]
  696
  The Prime Minister
  The Government's proposals for basic pension plus will bring about the largest extension of personal ownership since the spread of home ownership and will provide secure pensions for the increasing number of elderly people in the next century.

  Contraceptives (Minors)
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Prime Minister what response he has made to the petition presented to him by Mrs. Jenny Bacon, together with right hon. and hon. Members, on Wednesday 12 March, on the subject of the provision of contraceptives to minors. [21284]

  The Prime Minister
  My office has sent an acknowledgement. The Under-Secretary of State for Health my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), will write to Mr. and Mrs. Bacon about their petition shortly.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Payment of Bills
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Attorney-General what percentage of bills to his Department for the financial year 1995 to 1996 were paid(a) in accordance with agreed contractual conditions and (b) within 30 days of receiving goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice where no contractual conditions applied. [21208]

  The Attorney-General
  I refer to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 18 July 1996,Official Report, columns 613–14. This gives figures of 94.3 per cent. for the Crown Prosecution Service and 92 per cent. for the Serious Fraud Office. In the case of the Treasury Solicitor's Department, 75 per cent. of invoices were paid within 30 days. The Government Property Lawyers paid all bills in accordance with contract.

  Next Steps Principles
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Attorney-General how next steps principles are being applied in the Crown Prosecution Service and Serious Fraud Office. [21514]

  The Attorney-General
  As I announced on 27 October 1995,Official Report, column 797, to the hon. Member, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office are now both operating according to next steps principles. Each Department has agreed a management framework which explains how these principles, which include the introduction of new performance measures and devolution of responsibilities, are being applied in practice. Copies of the management frameworks have been put in the Libraries of the House.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Government Car Service
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what performance targets he has set for the Government car service and interdespatch service; and if he will make a statement. [21643]
  697
  Mr. Freeman
  Following my announcement on 3 December, I have made arrangements for the establishment of a new agency from 1 April. It will comprise the Government car service and the interdespatch service and will be known as Government Car and Despatch Agency. I have set the following performance targets for the financial year 1997–98.

  Financial

  Achieve 100.5 per cent. cost recovery on an accruals basis.

  Operate within a maximum deficit on the Vote of -£270,000 excluding payments for voluntary early retirement or severance.

  Achieve a sales turnover of £10. 3 million.

  Quality

  Achieve a customer satisfaction rating of 92 per cent.

  Maintain ISO 9002 accreditation for the Government car service pool, and extend it to the interdespatch service.

  Efficiency

  Achieve no less than 2 per cent. reduction in running costs in real terms.

  Environment

  Achieve an annual average of 25.5 miles per gallon for GCS and IDS fleets.

  I am placing copies of the framework document for GCDA in the Libraries of the House.

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list those compliance cost assessments published during the latest six month period. [21644]

  Mr. Freeman
  Since April 1993, the Government have required Departments to prepare and publish compliance cost assessments with all proposed legislation presented to Parliament to assess the impact on business costs. This includes a special test of the impact on small businesses. Since January 1996, the responsible Minister has had to certify that he has seen the CCA and is satisfied that the regulatory proposal strikes the appropriate balance between cost and benefit.

  I have presented to Parliament today a Command Paper—Cmd 3593—listing 101 CCAs published between 1 July 1996 and 31 December 1996 plus two CCAs published in June 1996 which were omitted from the previous Command Paper. Copies of the CCAs listed are available in the Libraries of the House. This is the sixth such Command Paper.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he will publish guidance for Crown servants involved in the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offence referred to in his answer of 22 January,Official Report, columns 600–01, summarising the Government's response to the recommendations made by Sir Richard Scott following his inquiry into the export of arms and arms-related equipment to Iraq. [21637]

  Mr. Freeman
  I have today published two guidance booklets—"Giving Evidence or Information about Suspected Crimes: A Guide for Crown Servants" and "Giving Evidence or Information about Suspected Crimes: Guidance for Departments and Investigators".
  698
  The booklets provide advice on the responsibilities of Crown servants who believe that they have official information which may be relevant to the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offence. The booklets also set out comprehensive procedures for handling requests for such information from investigators, prosecutors or the defence. The availability of the booklets is being made known to all Crown servants. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Payment of Bills
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what percentage of bills to his Department for the financial year 1995 to 1996 were paid(a) in accordance with agreed contractual conditions and (b) within 30 days of receiving goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice where no contractual conditions applied. [21196]

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade on 18 July 1996, columns 613–14.

  Bletchley Park
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what recent representations he has received concerning the purchase of Bletchley park by Admiral Sir Hugh Sinclair and its current ownership. [20674]

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

  Letter from N. E. Borrett to Mr. Rupert Allason, dated 19 March 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has asked me to reply to your Question regarding Bletchley Park.
  PACE is responsible for the management and disposal of the part of Bletchley Park owned by the Secretary of State for the Environment.
  PACE has not received any representations concerning the purchase of Bletchley Park by Admiral Sir Hugh Sinclair. We are not aware of any Government Department receiving such a representation.
  The Land Certificate records that the title is registered at the Land Registry and is currently vested in the Secretary of State for the Environment and British Telecommunications Plc.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Football Trust
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps she is taking to ensure that the Football Trust can resume its grant aid programmes for football at all levels of the game. [20992]

  Mr. Sproat
  I have recently met representatives of the Football Trust to discuss its future funding programme. I am hopeful that a solution will be found soon that will enable the trust's grants programme to be resumed. The Government remain committed to delivering on schedule the essential football ground safety improvements agreed following the Taylor report.
  699

  Lottery Awards
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the lottery awards in excess of £100,000 which have been made to charitable bodies. [21177]

  Mr. Sproat
  I have arranged for a list of all awards in excess of £100,000 to charitable bodies—as defined by each distributor—to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the lottery awards in excess of £1 million which have been made for the arts. [21178]

  Mr. Sproat
  To date, there have been 105 awards in excess of £1 million for the Arts. I have arranged for a list to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the lottery awards in excess of £1 million which have been made for sport. [21176]

  Mr. Sproat
  To date, there have been 79 awards in excess of £1 million for sport. I have arranged for a list to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Crystal Palace
  Sir Terence Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement regarding the future provision of athletic facilities at Crystal Palace. [21350]

  Mr. Sproat
  No decisions about the long-term investment in the future of Crystal Palace national sports centre will be taken without prior consultation with the relevant sporting governing bodies. The English Sports Council have decided that the needs of athletics should be included in consideration of plans for developing Crystal Palace. However, should it ultimately be decided after consultation to change or close the athletics facilities there, this would be only after ensuring that additional facilities are provided elsewhere in London.

  North West Tourist Board (Charter)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment she has made of the tourism charter issued by the North West tourist board; and if she will make a statement. [21181]

  Mr. Sproat
  I have seen the North West tourist board's charter for tourism. Tourism makes an invaluable contribution to the economy in the region covered by the board. Some 10.8 million visitors. including 1.2 million from overseas, came to the region in 1995, spending over £1.4 billion. The tourism industry in the region will benefit from the action plan set out in the tourism strategy "Success through Partnership" which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State launched on 5 February.

  The English Tourist Board will help to take forward this plan through its Agenda 2000 consultation. I am sure that the North West tourist board will play a full part in the regional discussions that are being organised by the ETB, and in particular the roadshow for the north-west which is due to take place on 26 March. I have no doubt that the tourism charter will form a sound basis on which discussions can take place.
  700

  Globe Theatre Site
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage for what reason she accepted the advice of English Heritage to cover over for perpetuity the site of the original Globe theatre before archaeologists and academics had the opportunity to pursue the excavations to determine the position and the shape and size of the stage, without further consultation. [21235]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Globe's remains were discovered in 1989 and part of the site was subsequently excavated and fully recorded; the exposed material was protected by a temporary covering. The current development proposals do not involve any disturbance of the Globe's remains. They do, however, provide an opportunity to replace the temporary protection, and it is in respect of that work that scheduled monument consent was applied for and granted last year. In this particular case, it would not have been open to us, even if we had wished, to attach conditions to the statutory consent requiring further excavation. Leaving the Globe's remains buried will keep open the possibility of their being further investigated in the future when this can be done comprehensively and well. This approach to the remains is consistent with Government policy set out in PPG16, "Archaeology and Planning".

  Listed Buildings (Ecclesiastical Exemption)
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to review the ecclesiastical exemption from listed building and conservation area controls. [21611]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In implementing proposals to restrict the ecclesiastical exemption in 1994, the Government undertook that the new arrangements would be formally reviewed after two years.

  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Wales and I have invited Mr. John Newman, reader in the history of art at the Courtauld Institute of Art, university of London, and a former chairman of English Heritage's churches advisory committee, to conduct the review. His terms of reference will be:
  To review the operation of the Ecclesiastical Exemption (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Order 1994; in particular to establish whether there is, within each of the six denominations whose buildings retain the ecclesiastical exemption under the terms of the order, a formal control procedure for proposed works to listed churches and unlisted churches in conservation areas which provides protection for such buildings comparable with what would otherwise apply under secular controls.

  Mr. Newman will start in May and aims to submit a report by September. He will be consulting the six exempt denominations, the principal heritage organisations in England and Wales and representatives of local authorities. He would also welcome comments from other interested bodies and individuals. These may be sent to him c/o Buildings, monuments and sites division, Department of National Heritage, 2–4 Cockspur street, London SW1Y 5DH.

  Payment of Bills
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what percentage of bills to her Department for the financial year 1995 to 1996 were paid(a) in accordance with agreed contractual conditions and

  701
  (b) within 30 days of receiving goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice where no contractual conditions applied. [21207]

  Mr. Sproat
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave on 12 March 1997,Official Report, column 220.

  Works of Art (Acceptance in Lieu of Tax)
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will place in the Library a list of the objects and property accepted in satisfaction of inheritance tax during the financial year ended on 31 March; and if she will specify(a) the amount of tax satisfied in each case, (b) which offers carried conditions as to destination, (c) the date in each case of the recommendations received by her from the Museum and Galleries Commission for the acceptance of objects, (d) the total for the financial year of the tax thus satisfied and (e) how much of this total was covered in the public accounts by means of resort to the reserve in accordance with Government policy as announced on 26 July 1985, Official Report, column 779. [21348]

  Mr. Sproat
  The information requested is as follows:

  Item

  Tax satisfied (£)

  Conditions as to destination

  Date of MGC recommendations

  Four paintings and silverware from Temple Newsam House

  155,400.00

  Conditional

  16 October 1995

  An archive of family papers

  78,140.21

  Wish

  7 March 1996

  Two wings of a 13th-century ivory triptych

  17,500.00

  Wish

  11 January 1996

  A collection of military medals

  16,000.00

  Conditional

  11 January 1996

  Furniture and lamps by Giacometti

  80,500.00

  Wish

  18 October 1995

  10 acres of woodland at Tadworth, Surrey

  4,800.00

  Unconditional

  1n/a

  Two archives of documents relating to estates in Cumbria and Somerset

  9,450.00

  Wish

  25 January 1996

  Les Andelys (painting) by Maurice de Vlaminck

  48,272.69

  Conditional

  15 April 1996

  Three Thomas Girtin watercolours and a portrait by John Opie

  373,000.00

  Wish

  28 March 1996

  A 17th-century pair cased alarm striking clock by Edward East

  14,000.00

  Unconditional

  28 March 1996

  Lower Woods, North Avon

  608,958.00

  Unconditional

  1n/a

  The Old Man and his Grandson (drawing) by Arthur Rackham

  5,600.00

  Conditional

  15 April 1996

  Staffelsee (painting) by Wassily Kandinsky

  125,093.00

  Wish

  14 August 1996

  A Queen Anne year-going longcase clock by Daniel Quare

  70,000.00

  Unconditional

  1 July 1996

  702

  Item

  Tax satisfied (£)

  Conditions as to destination

  Date of MGC recommendations

  Landscape with Lord Coventry on a Blue Roan Horse and Deer, Hounds and Attendants and a Dead Stag (painting) by John Wootton

  126,545.00

  Conditional

  13 July 1996

  1 The Museums and Galleries Commission does not advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on offers of land. Instead, my right hon. Friend seeks advice from bodies such as the Countryside Commission.

  The total expenditure in respect of the AIL scheme to date for the financial year 1996–97 is £1,733,258.90. This includes an additional payment of £78,140.21 for an archive of family papers which were accepted in 1995–96. One offer costing £608,958 was met from a call on the reserve.

  Lottery Funding (Advice)
  Sir Peter Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps she is taking to ensure that groups and organisations who wish to apply for lottery funding know whom to approach for information and advice. [21647]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My Department has published a new lottery information leaflet, produced in conjunction with the national lottery distributing bodies and Camelot. The leaflet has been designed to promote understanding of the purpose and function of the lottery. It tells potential applicants who does what and how to contact them.

  Two million copies of the leaflet have been printed and over one and a half million are being distributed to bodies such as libraries, citizens advice bureaux and local authorities. They will also be sent to members of business organisations such as the Lions, Rotary International, chambers of commerce and round tables. They might be able to assist groups in putting together lottery applications.

  Copies of the leaflet are available from the Libraries of the House and can also be obtained free of charge from my Department, the distributing bodies and Camelot.

  Museums and Galleries (Attendances)
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will place in the Library the attendance figures for the financial year ended 31 March reported by the national museums and galleries for which she is responsible, broken down into the individual institutions, but including their outstations, with figures in each case of the percentage change on the attendance figures for the preceding year. [21338]

  Mr. Sproat
  The following table lists the forecast number of visits to the 12 national museums and galleries in England for the financial year ended 31 March 1997, and the actual figures for the financial year 1995–96. The information is provided by the institutions. More accurate figures for 1996–97 will be available in July.
  703

  Number of visits in 1995–96 (million)

  Forecast number of visits in 1996–97 (million)

  Provisional percentage increase/decrease over the previous year

  British Museum1

  6.1

  6.5

  +7

  Imperial War Museum

  1.31

  1.23

  -6

  National Gallery1

  4.5

  5.0

  +25

  National Maritime Museum

  0.58

  0.44

  -24

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside1

  1.22

  1.21

  -1

  National Portrait Gallery1

  0.82

  0.79

  -4

  Natural History Museum

  1.46

  1.75

  +20

  National Museum of Science and Industry1

  2.7

  2.7

  —

  Tate Gallery1

  3.1

  2.5

  -19

  Victoria and Albert Museum

  1.49

  1.60

  +5

  Wallace Collection1

  0.16

  0.18

  +13

  Royal Armouries at Fort Nelson

  0.02

  0.03

  +34

  Total

  23.5

  23.9

  +2

  1 The number of visits to premises for which admission is not charged are estimated or counted by other means.

  1. It is not possible to accurately identify the number of visits to the Royal Armouries in the Tower of London. The forecast number of visits to the Royal Armouries Museum in Leeds which opened in March 1996 is 455,000.

  Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Return of Historic Objects
  Mr. Legg
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is her policy on the return of historic objects in museums to countries of origin; and if she will make a statement. [21609]

  Mr. Sproat
  Decisions about the possible return of historic objects in museums to countries of origin are primarily matters for the governing bodies of each museum. These decisions raise complex issues of law and of general museum policy. Where there are legal constraints on disposal, the Government have no intention of legislating to remove those constraints. The Museums and Galleries Commission is currently preparing good practice guidelines on the steps that museums should take in response to the requests for the return of objects from abroad. Any director concerned about specific requests for the return of objects may wish to write for advice to the chairman of the Museums and Galleries Commission.

  Library and Information Matters (Report)
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when she will make a report on library and information matters in accordance with her responsibilities under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964. [21610]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have today laid before both Houses a copy of my report for 1995 and 1996.

  English Sports Council
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement about the appointment of ministerial nominees to the English Sports Council in the regions. [21567]

  Mr. Sproat
  Further to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) on 24 July 1996,Official Report, columns 496–97, a paper setting out the remit of the ministerial nominees to the regions of English Sports Council was agreed with the chairman of the council. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. I expect to meet those concerned shortly to discuss this.

  Public Libraries (Information Technology)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when she will report on the terms of reference of the working group on information technology in public libraries which was announced in "Reading: The Future". [21648]

  Mr. Sproat
  I have today placed in the Libraries of the House a copy of the detailed terms of reference which I have given to the Library and Information Commission's working group on information technology in public libraries, which will be chaired by Mr. Matthew Evans.

  Lottery Award Information
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the national lottery awards in excess of £1 million made to heritage projects. [21568]

  Mr. Sproat
  To date there have been 82 awards in excess of £1 million for heritage projects. I have arranged for a list to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when she expects to provide national lottery awards information based on the new parliamentary constituency boundaries. [21569]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have today provided this information to the House of Commons Library.

  Flounder's Folly, Craven Arms
  Sir Julian Critchley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will take steps to ensure that funds from the national lottery are provided to shore up Flounder's folly on Callow hill, Craven Arms, Shropshire. [21372]

  Mr. Sproat
  Decisions on heritage lottery applications are made independently of Government by trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund. The fact that Flounder's folly is privately owned would, at present, rule out lottery funding. However, new powers will be introduced later in the year which will allow the NHMF to fund any worthwhile heritage project which provides public benefit and access, irrespective of ownership. Guidance, taking into account the new powers, will be issued in the autumn.

WALES

  EU Funding
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 12 March,Official Report, column 238, what cost element of each expenditure heading in "Government Expenditure and Revenue, Wales 1994–95" relates to expenditure supported by receipts from European Community institutions; where those receipts are shown in that publication; and if he will make a statement on his Department's accounting methodology for such expenditure. [20820]

  Mr. Hague
  Those receipts from European Community institutions which were administered by the Welsh Office, including those which passed through the Intervention Board, totalled around £220 million in 1994–95. These were applied to the agricultural programme— £167 million—and other environmental services programme—£53 million. Expenditure supported by non-Welsh Office receipts is included in the total of estimated general government expenditure in Wales but is not separately identifiable.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what factors underlie the different treatments of financial contributions of the EU in(a) "Government Expenditure and Revenue, Wales, 1994–95" and (b) "Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis 1996–97", Cm. 3201; and if he will make a statement. [20817]

  Mr. Hague
  No attempt is made in "Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis 1996–97" to make a territorial allocation of the UK's net contribution to the European Communities as this expenditure is non-identifiable. In "Government Expenditure and Revenue, Wales 1994–95", Wales is allocated a share based on Gross domestic product. This amounts to £53 million—4.2 per cent. of the UK's net contribution of £1,267 million.

  Departmental Employees
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) permanent full-time, (b) part-time and (c) temporary employees his Department has; and how many of these in each category are employed in (i) London, (ii) Wales and (iii) elsewhere. [20740]

  Mr. Hague
  The number of permanent full-time, part-time and temporary staff employed by my Department are as follows:

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Temporary

  London

  24

  —

  —

  Wales

  1,875

  278

  226

  Elsewhere

  —

  —

  —

  The figures include staff working in CADW.

  Social Security Expenditure
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what factors underlay the differences in the definition of social security expenditure in(a) table 5 of "General Expenditure and Revenue, Wales, 1994–95", and (b) table 7.7 of "Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis 1996–97", Cm 3201; and if he will make a statement. [20818]
  706
  Mr. Hague
  The figure for non-identified social security expenditure published in table 7.7 of "Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis 1998–97" is incorrect. Her Majesty's Treasury issued an erratum slip in August 1996. The figure in table 5 of "General Expenditure and Revenue, Wales 1994–95" is correct.

  Outturn Expenditure
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the total outturn expenditure by his Department on purchases of goods and services during the 1996–97 financial year and the amount of this spent on goods and services purchased in Wales. [20748]

  Mr. Hague
  The estimated outturn for expenditure by my Department on pay and other current expenditure on goods and services for 1996–97 is £2,583 million. This is consistent with the definition used in table 3.6 of the "Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 1997–98", Cm 3601. Information on the amount which is spent on goods and services purchased in Wales is not available.

  Pharmaceutical, Dental and Ophthalmic Services
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the estimated outturn figures for expenditure in Wales for 1996–97 by the family health services authorities and the Dental Practice Board on(a) pharmaceutical services, (b) general dental services and (c) general ophthalmic services. [21222]

  Mr. Hague
  Forecast gross outturn, based upon health authority financial returns to January 1997—Dental Practice Board to February 1997—is detailed as follows:

  £million

  Pharmaceutical services

  206

  General dental services

  72

  General ophthalmic services

  18

  Health Service Revenue (Charges)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the estimated revenue to the national health and welfare services in Wales for 1996–97, broken down by the charges made to recipients for services in respect of(a) hospitals, (b) pharmaceuticals, (c) general dental treatment and (d) welfare foods. [21221]

  Mr. Hague
  There are no central records kept for hospital charges. The following table details estimated revenue by service to be achieved in this financial year:

  Service

  £ thousand

  Pharmaceutical services

  17,100

  General dental services

  19,300

  Welfare foods

  150

  Glaucoma
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many prescriptions for the treatment of glaucoma were issued in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and what were the net ingredient costs for each year. [21082]
  707
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information is given in the following table. Before 1993–94, figures were not available to a sufficient level of detail to identify specific treatments for glaucoma.

  Number of prescription items prescribed for the treatment of glaucoma in Wales

  Number of items prescribed

  Net ingredients cost (£000)

  1993–94

  242,000

  1,761

  1994–95

  248,000

  1,789

  1995–96

  258,000

  1,868

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many patients received hospital in-patient or day care treatment for glaucoma in each of the last five years. [21083]

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

  Number of in-patients or day cases treated for glaucoma in Wales1

  Number

  1991–92

  1,662

  1992–93

  1,729

  1993–94

  1,770

  1994–95

  1,633

  1995–96

  1,541

  1 Estimates based on the latest available returns submitted by hospitals.

  Health Service Contracts
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many trusts failed to meet the deadline to agree contracts with their purchasers; and how many he expects to go to arbitration. [21086]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Agreement was reached by all trusts and health authorities in the 1996–97 financial year without recourse to arbitration.

  Negotiations for 1997–98 contracting round are on-going.

  Health Service Salaries and Wages
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the NHS salaries and wages costs for(a) administrative, clerical and management staff and (b) nurses and midwives in each financial year from 1989 to 1995 prices. [21085]

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

  General medical practitioners by age and health authority, 29 March 19961

  Number

  Percentage of total GPs

  Age in years

  30 to 39

  40 to 49

  50 to 59

  60 to 69

  30 to 39

  40 to 49

  50 to 59

  60 to 69

  Clwyd

  80

  98

  41

  11

  34

  42

  18

  5

  Dyfed

  113

  74

  34

  5

  50

  32

  15

  2

  Gwent

  74

  82

  65

  21

  30

  33

  26

  8

  Gwynedd

  67

  66

  26

  7

  40

  39

  15

  4

  Mid Glamorgan

  72

  96

  100

  27

  24

  32

  34

  9

  Powys

  25

  41

  15

  2—

  29

  48

  17

  2—

  South Glamorgan

  110

  89

  44

  8

  44

  35

  17

  3

  708

  (a) Administrative, clerical and management £000

  (b) Nurses and midwives £000

  1988–89

  86,869

  438,480

  1989–90

  94,255

  434,736

  1990–91

  103,547

  433,982

  1991–92

  110,285

  450,356

  1992–93

  125,594

  457,093

  1993–94

  147,826

  440,070

  1994–95

  153,156

  444,644

  1995–96

  160,654

  442,604

  Sources:

  Financial returns and annual accounts of district health authorities, NHS trusts, family health services authorities, the Health Promotion Authority for Wales and the Welsh Health Common Services Authority.

  Notes:

  1. Information on salaries and wages costs for family health services authorities are not held centrally, and figures for nurses and midwives cannot be disaggregated from administrative and clerical costs.

  2. These figures exclude the costs of general practitioners' administrative staff as the information was not separately collected.

  3. The latest version of HM Treasury gross domestic product deflators was used to uplift the Figures to 1995 prices.

  Countryside Council for Wales
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to ensure that(a) ecologists and (b) environmental scientists are employed by the Countryside Council for Wales; and if he will make a statement about recent redundancies of (a) and (b) at the Countryside Council for Wales. [21355]

  Mr. Hague
  The Countryside Council for Wales currently employs 176 full-time equivalent scientists— some of them part-timers—all of whom are qualified and/or engaged in ecological and natural science issues. The council will continue to employ suitably qualified staff to carry out its work. There have been no recent redundancies in the council, but eight staff employed on fixed-term contracts for specific work are due to leave in May when their work is completed.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many and what percentage of the current general practitioner work force in each health authority area falls within the age deciles(a) 30 to 39, (b) 40 to 49, (c) 50 to 59 and (d) 60 to 69 years. [21532]

  Mr. Hague
  The information is given in the following table:
  709

  General medical practitioners by age and health authority, 29 March 19961

  Number

  Percentage of total GPs

  Age in years

  30 to 39

  40 to 49

  50 to 59

  60 to 69

  30 to 39

  40 to 49

  50 to 59

  60 to 69

  West Glamorgan

  82

  68

  42

  18

  38

  32

  20

  8

  1 Boundaries as at March 1996.

  2 Number less than 5.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to notify the economic development non-departmental public bodies in Wales of his strategic guidance for 1997–98; and if he will make a statement. [21651]

  Mr. Hague
  I have written to the chairmen of the Welsh Development Agency, the Development Board for Rural Wales, Cardiff Bay development corporation, the Land Authority for Wales and the Wales tourist board, to inform them of many strategic targets and priorities for 1997–98. Copies of the letters have been placed in the Library of the House.

  The targets I have set are demanding but will lead to private sector investment of over £700 million, the creation of over 10,000 jobs and the establishment of a network of strategic sites for further economic development throughout Wales. The majority of jobs to be created will be in those areas of highest unemployment, including the south Wales valleys and the west.

  Derwen and Pembrokeshire Trusts (Merger)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those individuals and organisations who expressed(a) support for, and (b) opposition to, the merger of the Derwen and Pembrokeshire NHS trusts. [20301]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) on Monday 17 March 1997,Official Report, column 442.

  Wentlooge Levels (Flood Defences)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the chairman of the Wales Committee of the Environment Agency concerning the commencement of construction of the improvement of the flood defences on the Wentlooge levels sea wall between Cardiff and Newport. [21330]

  Mr. Hague
  None. Construction works commenced on the first phase of improvements to the Wentlooge sea defences in July of 1996.

  Asthma
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of admissions to Welsh hospitals for asthma broken down by the patient's postcode in each of the last five years. [21288]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is in the table:710

  Number of admissions for asthma in Welsh hospitals by area of residence of patient1

  Postcoded district

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Postcode districts in Wales2

  CF1

  149

  109

  110

  133

  177

  CF2

  225

  164

  175

  186

  217

  CF3

  163

  169

  158

  167

  187

  CF4

  178

  138

  125

  114

  127

  CF5

  180

  203

  185

  184

  177

  CF6

  364

  281

  248

  236

  243

  CF7

  34

  34

  31

  33

  38

  CF8

  178

  179

  175

  182

  151

  CF31

  82

  87

  90

  101

  82

  CF32

  74

  88

  88

  65

  68

  CF33

  44

  40

  38

  18

  28

  CF34

  49

  42

  39

  32

  58

  CF35

  32

  37

  30

  30

  26

  CF36

  28

  28

  29

  22

  24

  CF37

  86

  82

  69

  62

  63

  CF38

  40

  31

  27

  38

  29

  CF39

  56

  59

  68

  60

  49

  CF40

  34

  49

  32

  45

  38

  CF41

  26

  27

  18

  26

  20

  CF42

  23

  34

  22

  46

  31

  CF43

  19

  16

  14

  24

  24

  CF44

  92

  114

  144

  100

  158

  CF45

  26

  29

  37

  27

  31

  CF46

  18

  28

  31

  27

  28

  CF47

  38

  85

  76

  74

  66

  CF48

  78

  99

  118

  103

  116

  CHI to CH43

  13

  10

  15

  9

  17

  CH5

  8

  12

  17

  12

  14

  CH6

  27

  31

  22

  34

  35

  CH7

  77

  62

  79

  63

  60

  CH8

  40

  47

  51

  29

  31

  LD1

  18

  29

  28

  22

  33

  LD2

  8

  9

  10

  8

  5

  LD3

  54

  57

  30

  33

  40

  LD4 to LD83

  6

  4

  2

  13

  9

  LL11

  145

  83

  84

  50

  77

  LL12

  52

  51

  31

  31

  38

  LL13

  53

  73

  93

  56

  47

  LL14

  66

  90

  106

  69

  70

  LL15

  27

  17

  24

  17

  36

  LL16

  38

  17

  20

  16

  33

  LL17

  6

  10

  8

  9

  4

  LL18

  80

  84

  88

  57

  84

  LL19

  51

  46

  58

  41

  59

  LL20

  13

  13

  12

  6

  14

  LL21

  5

  5

  6

  7

  10

  LL22

  36

  33

  32

  40

  41

  LL23 to LL273

  11

  12

  21

  11

  28

  LL28

  11

  11

  17

  5

  15

  LL29

  40

  30

  40

  36

  44

  LL30

  47

  39

  42

  46

  35

  LL31

  10

  12

  18

  13

  16

  LL32

  9

  11

  4

  7

  8

  LL33

  6

  3

  22

  5

  9

  LL34 to LL353

  3

  3

  8

  12

  13

  LL36

  18

  5

  9

  15

  10

  LL37 to LL403

  11

  12

  18

  4

  4

  LL41

  19

  6

  28

  13

  6

  LL42 to LL463

  10

  13

  14

  7

  4

  LL47 to LL523

  17

  7

  17

  10

  11

  LL53

  25

  15

  22

  22

  28

  LL54

  21

  9

  17

  10

  11

  LL55

  33

  23

  52

  28

  57

  LL56 to LL573

  54

  32

  79

  48

  78

  LL58 to LL593

  11

  18

  12

  14

  24

  LL60 to LL613

  10

  5

  22

  32

  14

  711

  Number of admissions for asthma in Welsh hospitals by area of residence of patient1

  Postcoded district

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  LL62 to LL653

  59

  55

  54

  46

  68

  LL67 to LL683

  23

  13

  17

  6

  11

  LL69 toLL7l3

  8

  4

  7

  11

  7

  LL72 to LL753

  17

  12

  4

  9

  8

  LL77 to LL783

  17

  4

  15

  9

  20

  NP1

  131

  142

  155

  173

  157

  NP2

  104

  139

  157

  130

  138

  NP3

  101

  124

  131

  117

  157

  NP4

  102

  98

  67

  62

  101

  NP5

  22

  15

  21

  16

  17

  NP6

  70

  69

  80

  65

  50

  NP7 to NP83

  48

  43

  39

  60

  70

  NP9

  309

  369

  291

  262

  239

  NP44

  91

  88

  115

  124

  110

  SA1

  88

  152

  89

  91

  113

  SA2

  49

  83

  46

  45

  67

  SA3

  33

  60

  30

  33

  36

  SA4

  73

  70

  46

  59

  47

  SA5

  96

  132

  97

  111

  82

  SA6

  51

  64

  65

  58

  31

  SA7

  30

  32

  24

  19

  15

  SA8

  51

  43

  23

  27

  13

  SA9

  24

  27

  24

  22

  17

  SA10

  27

  28

  32

  67

  41

  SA11

  57

  36

  36

  96

  67

  SA12

  72

  38

  46

  64

  76

  SA13

  22

  36

  42

  42

  44

  SA14

  33

  49

  51

  43

  68

  SA15

  54

  57

  65

  79

  99

  SA16

  20

  14

  16

  16

  13

  SA17

  15

  20

  9

  25

  21

  SA18 to SA193

  59

  64

  67

  59

  60

  SA20

  9

  4

  13

  3

  8

  SA31

  28

  47

  55

  38

  38

  SA32

  5

  9

  9

  3

  5

  SA33

  16

  38

  26

  31

  14

  SA34 to SA373

  11

  15

  12

  6

  9

  SA38 to SA393

  19

  12

  14

  23

  10

  SA40 to SA425

  4

  4

  10

  7

  7

  SA43

  18

  32

  23

  10

  7

  SA44 to SA473

  23

  32

  29

  22

  16

  SA48

  5

  15

  24

  12

  10

  SA61

  45

  35

  36

  42

  42

  SA62 to SA643

  39

  38

  42

  26

  41

  SA65 to SA663

  11

  13

  18

  10

  6

  SA67

  7

  7

  13

  15

  7

  SA68 to SA693

  8

  15

  6

  10

  9

  SA70

  10

  20

  36

  22

  22

  SA71

  34

  26

  27

  15

  20

  SA72

  19

  18

  24

  21

  24

  SA73

  53

  54

  51

  45

  64

  SY1 to SY153

  9

  5

  11

  9

  19

  SY16

  16

  21

  16

  12

  6

  SY17toSY193

  13

  6

  14

  16

  8

  SY20 to SY223

  37

  46

  39

  49

  41

  SY23

  51

  53

  71

  59

  59

  SY24

  6

  7

  9

  8

  10

  SY25

  7

  11

  10

  7

  4

  Other districts4

  322

  254

  255

  224

  214

  Total

  6,286

  6,318

  6,309

  5,886

  6,211

  1 Estimates based on latest returns from hospitals.

  2 May include some districts which straddle the Welsh-English border.

  3 Districts merged to protect patient confidentiality.

  4 Outside Wales or not known.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of admissions for asthma to each Welsh district general hospital in each of the last five years. [21289]

  Mr. Jones
  The information requested is in the table:712

  Number of admissions to major acute hospitals in Wales for asthma1

  Hospital

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Bronglais General Hospital

  138

  148

  167

  154

  131

  Cardiff Royal Infirmary

  128

  92

  86

  115

  72

  East Glamorgan General Hospital

  304

  319

  246

  306

  279

  Llandough Hospital

  917

  821

  814

  787

  869

  Morriston Hospital

  221

  208

  134

  141

  n/a

  Neath General Hospital

  206

  133

  163

  260

  226

  Nevill Hall Hospital

  223

  260

  240

  250

  345

  Prince Charles Hospital

  261

  399

  502

  415

  491

  Prince Philip Hospital

  86

  89

  118

  118

  129

  Princess of Wales/Bridgend General

  333

  346

  358

  290

  305

  Royal Gwent/St. Woolos

  722

  814

  746

  706

  648

  Singleton Hospital

  331

  388

  356

  375

  494

  University Hospital of Wales

  313

  263

  236

  265

  297

  West Wales General Hospital

  156

  248

  239

  207

  175

  Withybush General Hospital

  251

  248

  257

  203

  260

  Wrexham Maelor Hospital

  445

  400

  441

  288

  343

  Ysbyty Glan Clwyd

  416

  365

  407

  347

  472

  Ysbyty Gwynedd

  377

  271

  463

  349

  412

  1 Estimates based on latest returns from hospitals.

  Hedgerow Regulations
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what wildlife conservation research skills will be required by local authorities in Wales to apply the proposed hedgerow regulations. [21296]

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will make a statement on the protection afforded to the linnet under the draft hedgerow regulations; [21087]

  (2) what wildlife conservation expertise will be required by local authorities in Wales to apply the draft hedgerow regulations. [21094]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The research undertaken by ADAS to develop hedgerow evaluation criteria took account of the skills and advice currently available to local authorities.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what will be the estimated cost to each local authority in Wales of implementing the draft hedgerow regulations. [21088]

  Mr. Evans
  The costs of implementing the draft regulations as laid in Parliament are included within local authorities' standard spending assessments but are not separately identified.

  Schot Nippon Factory
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he is now in a position to reply to the right hon. Member for Aberavon regarding the Schot Nippon factory and its financing. [21040]

  Mr. Hague
  I have no outstanding correspondence from the right hon. Member on this matter.
  713

  Inward Investment
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new guidelines he has issued to the Welsh Development Agency as regards financial incentives to encourage inward investment to West Glamorgan and other areas. [21041]

  Mr. Hague
  On 19 March I wrote to the chairman of the WDA to inform him of the agency's strategic targets and priorities for 1997–98; a copy has also been placed in the Library of the House.

  The guidance stated that the agency should concentrate on the creation and safeguarding of jobs through inward investment and company development. Moreover, the benefits should be spread throughout Wales, particularly in the remaining areas of higher unemployment in the south Wales valleys and the western areas of Wales; the targets which have been set reflect that and the agency is expected to recognise, within UK and EC limits, the extra costs of locating in areas outside of the eastern M4 and A55 corridors.

  Nursery Vouchers
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what estimate he has made of the number of children who will take up the nursery voucher scheme and the voucher income accruing in each local education authority area; [21075]

  (2) what estimate he has made of (a) the number of children who will take up the nursery voucher scheme in (i) the private sector and (ii) the independent sector and (b) the corresponding voucher income in each local authority area. [21050]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  On the basis of the estimates from local education authorities of the number of voucher-bearing children in their schools in the 1997 summer term, the total annual income for each authority would be:

  Authority

  Estimate of numbers

  £ income

  Anglesey

  650

  715,000

  Blaenau Gwent

  1,100

  1,210,000

  Bridgend

  1,309

  1,439,900

  Caerphilly

  2,148

  2,362,800

  Cardiff

  3,400

  3,740,000

  Carmarthenshire

  2,100

  2,310,000

  Ceredigion

  750

  825,000

  Conwy

  1,066

  1,172,600

  Denbighshire

  900

  990,000

  Flintshire

  1,763

  1,939,300

  Gwynedd

  1,267

  1,393,700

  Merthyr Tydfil

  750

  825,000

  Monmouthshire

  636

  699,600

  Neath Port Talbot

  1,640

  1,804,000

  Newport

  1,850

  2,035,000

  Pembrokeshire

  1,370

  1,507,000

  Powys

  1,552

  1,707,200

  RCT

  2,770

  3,047,000

  Swansea

  2,535

  2,788,500

  Torfaen

  1,081

  1,189,100

  Vale of Glamorgan

  1,512

  1,663,200

  Wrexham

  1,585

  1,743,500

  The number of voucher-bearing children in the private and independent sectors will not be known until those
  714
  vouchers are redeemed. Some 450 schools, nurseries and play groups in private and voluntary sectors are registered to take part in the voucher scheme from April.

  M4 (Baglan Bridge)
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 12 March,Official Report, column 240, if he will take steps to provide facilities to segregate smaller vehicles on the occasions when it is safe for them to use the bridge. [21151]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Due to the preceding interchanges not being suitable for upgrading to provide segregation facilities, and the fact that a suitable adjacent alternative route is available, it is not proposed to provide segregation. Efforts are being concentrated on improving driver information about closure arrangements by the provision of electronic message signing.

  Rivers (Pollution)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many incidents of category 1 and 2 pollution have taken place in Welsh rivers in the first(a) six months and (b) nine months of 1996–97 and in each equivalent period for the pervious five years. [21331]

  Mr. Hague
  Information in the form requested is not held centrally. The Environment Agency, and its predecessor the National Rivers Authority, publishes annual reports on "Water Pollution Incidents in England and Wales", copies of which are available in the Library of the House. I understand that the report for 1996 is to be published shortly.

  Payment of Bills
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of bills to his Department for the financial year 1995 to 1996 were paid(a) in accordance with agreed contractual conditions and (b) within 30 days of receiving goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice where no contractual conditions applied. [21209]

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 18 July 1996,Official Report, columns 613–14. Additional information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many and what percentage of NHS general dental practitioners do not currently provide crowns and bridges. [21336]

  Mr. Hague
  The information is not available centrally in the form requested. However, information on the number of dentists not claiming payment for the provision of crowns and bridges is shown in the table:

  NHS general dental practitioners with an open contract who received a payment schedule in the period 1 October to 31 December 1996

  Number

  Per cent.

  Those not claiming for provision of crowns

  106

  12

  Those not claiming for provision of bridges

  351

  41

  715

  NHS general dental practitioners with an open contract who received a payment schedule in the period 1 October to 31 December 1996

  Number

  Per cent.

  Those not claiming for provision of either crowns or bridges1

  104

  12

  Note:

  1 Dentists not claiming for the provision of either crowns or bridges are also included in the individual totals for crowns and bridges shown in the table.

  Baglan Hospital
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what advertisements have now been issued inviting private finance initiative tenders for the Baglan hospital; and what dates have been fixed or estimated for the next stages in the contractual arrangements. [21116]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Glan-y-Mor NHS trust placed an advertisement in the Official Journal of the European Communities on 20 February 1997. Twenty-eight companies responded and will be given a prospectus and pre-qualification questionnaire by the trust. The trust is to organise a briefing day on 25 March with the intention that completed pre-qualification questionnaires be returned by early April. This will enable a shortlist of six to eight companies to be interviewed.

  Care for the Vulnerable
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he is in a position to reach a decision as to what steps are now to be taken in the matters regarding care for the vulnerable, referred to him by Mr. Michael Power. [21150]

  Mr. Hague
  I am writing to the right hon. Member today about this case.

  Velodrome Cymru Centre
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the implications for the development of cycling in(a) Blaenau Gwent and (b) Wales of the decision of the national lottery panel on sport to turn down an application for funding for the Velodrome Cymru centre in the Ebbw Fach regeneration area. [21279]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many animals were exported by species from the United Kingdom in (i) 1995 and (ii) 1996(a) with a for breeding certificate, (b) with a further fattening certificate, (c) with a for production/breeding certificate, (d) with a for slaughter certificate and (e) in total. [17826]
  716
  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 27 February 1997]: For exports of cattle, sheep and pigs to other member states in 1996, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 24 February 1997, Official Report, column 76–77. It is not possible to provide the additional information in the form requested.

  Table 1 shows the numbers of farm animals certified for export to other member states in 1995. Table 2 gives details of exports of poultry to other member states in 1996. The figures in these two tables are collated from the ANIMO system and remain provisional and subject to amendment.

  Table 1: Numbers of animals certified for export in 1995 with breeding, further fattening/production or slaughter certification

  Breeding

  Further fattening/production

  Slaughter

  Cattle

  550

  335,050

  0

  Sheep

  5,470

  967,010

  89,430

  Pigs

  78,110

  790

  1,150

  Poultry

  112,000,640

  —

  227,860

  1 Comprises poultry certified as breeding and production; and as day-old chicks.

  Table 2: Numbers of poultry certified for export in 1996 with breeding/production or slaughter certification

  Breeding/production

  Slaughter

  Poultry

  18,086,360

  437,500

  1 Comprises poultry certified as breeding and production; and as day-old chicks.

  GB figures only; figures for Northern Ireland not yet available.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what training hauliers must receive in order to be authorised to conduct humane slaughter during a sea crossing. [18997]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 6 March 1997]: I am not aware of any training provided with this specific aim.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 31 January,Official Report, column 406, if (a) a competent stockman is present on every sailing of the MV Cap Afrique from the United Kingdom when it is carrying livestock and (b) when animals are not accompanied by drivers on the MV Cap Afrique there is always a competent stockman on board. [20698]

  Mrs. Browning
  The attention of the operators of the MV Cap Afrique was drawn to the need to comply with the requirement for animals to be accompanied by an attendant.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his policy on the export for slaughter of live farm animals to another EU member state where those animals are to be slaughtered in a manner which is in breach of the Community provisions on the welfare of animals at slaughter. [20514]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 17 March 1997]: There is nothing to add to the statement which was given to the hon. Member on 13 March 1997, Official Report, column 356.
  717
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps his Department takes to ensure that pigs and piglets exported through Dover do not come into contact with any cloven-hoofed animals other than bovine animals or swine for breeding or production. [20621]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 17 March 1997]: A local veterinary inspector certifying pigs for breeding or production for export to another EU member states must receive a declaration from the exporter or transporter confirming that they will not come into contact with other cloven-hoofed animals other than bovine animals or swine which fulfil the conditions laid down for intra-Community trade. Additionally, spot checks, including supervised loading of animals on to livestock vessels, are carried out to ensure compliance with EU rules.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many pigs exported during December 1996 and January 1997 were (i) acquired and (ii) loaded at(a) an EU approved collection centre and (b) a lairage. [20619]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 17 March 1997]: None. All pigs exported in December 1996 and January 1997 were acquired and loaded at their premises of origin.

  Red Meat (Hygiene)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he received the final report from the hygiene advice team on red meat. [19571]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 10 March 1997]: This report was an internal working document for the Meat Hygiene Service which summarised and provided a comprehensive baseline of standards and practices in the fresh meat industry. I received a copy on 6 March 1997, although the range of problems identified had been known to me for some time and were, and continue to be, addressed on a plant by plant and strategic basis by the MHS in accordance with ministerial policy.

  BSE
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what research published after 1990 he has evaluated into the effects of the disposing of BSE infected carcases in landfill sites; [20525]

  BSE-related measures

  £ million

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  (a) OTMS: compensation to farmers

  UK cost

  687

  228

  229

  230

  Net EU contribution

  154

  137

  -4

  40

  (b) OTMS: payments to slaughterhouses

  UK cost

  79

  32

  32

  32

  (c) OTMS: payments to renderers

  UK cost

  53

  39

  39

  39

  (d) OTMS: cost of storage

  UK cost

  34

  5

  2

  2

  (e) OTMS: cost of incineration

  UK cost

  10

  45

  32

  22

  (f) Calf slaughter premium

  UK cost

  54

  62

  61

  60

  Net EU contribution

  28

  -10

  13

  38

  (g) Aid for renderers

  UK cost

  88

  71

  —

  —

  (h) and (i) Aid to abattoirs and cutting industries

  UK cost

  94

  2

  —

  —

  (j) Feed recall scheme

  UK cost

  5

  1

  —

  —

  (k) Departments' administration costs

  UK cost

  71

  71

  70

  69

  (I) Selective cull

  UK costs

  20

  165

  —

  —

  Net EU contribution

  —

  68

  -45

  —

  718
  (2) what discussions he has had with scientific bodies on the disposal of BSE-infected carcases to landfill sites. [20524]

  Mrs. Browning
  In May last year a sub-group of the independent Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, which advises Ministers on BSE, considered the issue of BSE and the environment, including the question of disposal to landfill sites. They considered that, although the spongiform encephalopathy agent was not yet fully characterised, there was good evidence to believe that individual molecules were not infectious and that infectivity was associated with macro-molecular agglomerations indeed possibly with tissue fragments, albeit small ones. On this basis they concluded that"it was unlikely that leachate from landfill sites would present a significant risk and there was certainly no justification for taking heroic measures to excavate sites, even those which had previously been used for material such as BSE-confirmed cattle".

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the estimated cost to Government for each financial year from 1996–97 to 1999–2000 of(a) the compensation arrangements to farmers for cattle over 30 months of age which cannot now enter the food chain, (b) the payments to slaughterhouses for handling cattle over 30 months of age which cannot now enter the food chain, (c) payments to renderers for handling cattle over 30 months of age which cannot now enter the food chain, (d) the cost of storage, prior to incineration, of the rendered remains of cattle over 30 months of age which cannot now enter the food chain, (e) the cost of incineration of the remains of cattle of 30 months of age which cannot now enter the food chain, (f) the calf slaughter premium, (g) the package of aid for the renderers, (h) the package of aid for the abattoirs, (i) the package of aid to the cutting industries, (j) the feed recall scheme, (k) the additional running costs for the agriculture departments and (l) each other item of expenditure resulting from the BSE crisis; and if he will list where applicable the net EU contribution for each measure, taking account of both the United Kingdom's contribution to additional EU spending and the effect of additional receipts on the United Kingdom abatement. [18670]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 6 March 1997]: Details requested are as follows:
  719

  BSE-related measures

  £ million

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  (m) Discretionary intervention

  UK cost

  175

  178

  153

  91

  Net EU contribution

  -33

  -2

  40

  16

  (n) Additional EU compensation agreed at agriculture council

  UK cost

  163

  —

  —

  —

  Net EU contribution

  -41

  67

  -29

  —

  (o) Drop in beef export refunds

  UK cost

  -80

  -74

  -57

  -57

  Net EU contribution

  -80

  -74

  -57

  -57

  (p) Write-off of existing intervention stock

  UK cost

  2

  12

  —

  —

  Net EU contribution

  —

  8

  -6

  —

  (q) Other items

  UK cost

  50

  93

  2

  —

  Total

  UK cost

  1,505

  930

  563

  488

  Net EU contribution

  28

  194

  -88

  37

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the minimum temperature required(a) of the external gases and (b) inside a carcase for the safe disposal of a cattle carcase slaughtered under the over-30-months scheme. [20810]

  Mr. Baldry
  The independent Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, which advises Ministers on BSE has looked at current and proposed methods of dealing with waste material from the slaughter of cattle last May, including incineration. The committee concluded that incineration in plants in which temperatures reached at least 850°c, would be sufficient to ensure that there was no risk either to those exposed to the smoke plume—that is, those living in the neighbourhood or those living downwind of the plant—or in relation to the ash which would be safely disposed of in appropriately licensed landfill sites. A copy of the news release issued by this Department on 7 June 1996 to publicise SEAC's advice is in the Library of the House.

  Chickens
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many chickens have been found to be dead on arrival at United Kingdom poultry slaughterhouses since 25 April 1996. [20714]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 18 March 1997]: The information requested is as follows:

  Total throughput

  Dead on arrival

  Great Britain

  580,897,449

  1,144,814

  to

  Northern Ireland

  53,303,906

  137,677

  28 February 1997

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many broiler chickens slaughtered in the United Kingdom since 24 April 1996 were judged to be unfit for human consumption. [20713]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 18 March 1997]: The information requested is as follows:

  Total throughput

  Unfit for human consumption

  Great Britain

  580,897,449

  6,995,228

  to 28 Feb. 1997

  Northern Ireland

  53,303,906

  538,065

  to 28 Feb. 1997

  720

  Offal Ban
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy on the inclusion of calves' brains in the specified offal ban; and if he will make a statement. [20923]

  Mrs. Browning
  The matter has been reviewed on several occasions by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, which has not recommended that the specified bovine material ban should be extended in this way. This is based on the scientific evidence which shows that brains from experimentally infected calves do not harbour detectable levels of infectivity although infectivity can be detected in parts of the intestine—distal ileum—which were declared SBM as a result.

  Cattle Cull
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cattle were slaughtered under the 30-month scheme(a) up to and including 16 June 1996 and (b) (i) from 17 June 1996 to 25 August 1996, (ii) 26 August 1996 to 31 December 1996 and (iii) 1 January 1997 to the latest available date; how many abattoirs were paid for each period; and what was the total amount paid to abattoirs (1) gross and (2) net of EU contributions for each period. [20986]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested is as follows:

  Slaughterings under the over-30-months scheme

  Animals slaughtered1 (number)

  Abattoirs receiving payment (number)59

  Slaughter fees paid to abattoirs2 (£ million)

  (a) Up to and including 16 June 1996

  136,901

  59

  5.9

  (b) From 17 June 1996 to 25 August 1996

  279,395

  61

  23.7

  (c) From 26 August 1996 to 31 December 1996

  716,401

  66

  26.2

  (d) From 1 January 1997 to 7 March 1997

  168,760

  61

  13.2

  Total

  1,301,457

  —

  69.0

  1 Includes OTMS animals slaughtered on-farm and subsequently incinerated

  2 The slaughter fee is wholly funded by the Exchequer.

  721

  Salmonellosis
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of salmonellosis have been recorded in farm animals categorised by

  Year

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996 (provisional)

  Cattle and cCalves

  940

  1,465

  1,899

  2,052

  1,575

  Sheep

  106

  106

  188

  211

  227

  Pigs

  261

  346

  360

  353

  347

  Fowl

  1,447

  1,295

  744

  841

  950

  Turkeys

  441

  327

  401

  277

  222

  Ducks and geese

  453

  357

  133

  102

  86

  An "incident" refers to an isolation or isolations of salmonella from either an individual animal or from one or more animals in a group on one or more occasions.

  The Department has a major research programme aimed at developing measures for the control and prevention of salmonella in livestock. In consultation with the industry, the Government has issued codes of good practice which offer advice on preventing the introduction and spread of salmonella in animal feedingstuffs and poultry flocks. Further codes are in preparation.

  Apples
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the dangers to human health of the use of pesticides on apples grown in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) the EU and (c) other countries; and if he will make a statement. [21096]

  Mrs. Browning
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) on 17 March 1997,Official Report, columns 372–73.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to promote the farming of apples in the United Kingdom without the use of pesticides; and if he will make a statement. [21097]

  Mr. Boswell
  There are no specific plans to promote the farming of apples without the use of pesticides. However, we are doing much to encourage organic farming which makes limited use of a very restricted range of mainly natural pesticides. There is an aid scheme which provides direct financial support for conversion, a free advice service and a dedicated research and development programme. We also fund the independent United Kingdom register of organic food standards.

  Rendering Industry
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 10 March,Official Report, column 49, if he will list the rendering plants and companies which have received financial assistance under the rendering industry support scheme 1996; and how much was paid to each. [21187]

  Mr. Baldry
  In 1996, 18 rendering companies received support under the rendering industry support scheme 1996, which covers the period 1 April 1996 to 31 March 722
  species in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [21114]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Zoonoses Order 1989 requires that all isolations of salmonella from farm animals and poultry are reported. Incidents reported to this Department over the last five years are:

  1997. Since January 1997, the number of companies in receipt of support has increased by four bringing the total to 22.

  The companies and the locations of the plants concerned are:

  Company

  Location

  A. Hughes & Son (Skellingthorpe) Ltd.

  Skellingthorpe

  A. & W. Chambers Ltd.

  Huddersfield

  Anglo Beef Processors Ltd.

  Newry Shrewsbury

  Canterbury Mills Ltd.

  Canterbury

  Croda Colloids Ltd.

  Market Harborough

  Duncrue Food Processors Ltd.

  Belfast

  Dundas Brothers Ltd.

  Inverurie

  Dundas Chemical Company (Mosspark) Ltd.

  Dumfries

  Fats and Proteins (UK) Ltd.

  Lancaster

  Foyle Meats Ltd.

  Londonderry

  Gilberts Animal By-Products Ltd.

  Cheddleton

  J. F. Rockett & Sons Ltd.

  Huddersfield

  Lisburn Proteins Ltd.

  Lisburn

  Lloyd Maunder Ltd.

  Cullompton

  Mcintosh Donald Ltd.

  Aberdeen

  Mid Ulster Proteins Ltd.

  Craigavon

  P. Waddington & Co. Ltd.

  Bradford

  Prosper de Mulder Ltd.

  Doncaster

  Exeter

  Nuneaton

  Silvertown

  Widnes

  Peninsular Proteins Ltd.

  Torrington

  Smith Brothers (Hyde) Ltd.

  Hyde

  Ulster Farm By-Products Ltd.

  Crumlin

  William Forrest and Son (Paisley) Ltd.

  Motherwell

  Support under the scheme is paid on a four-weekly basis. As at 19 March payments totalling about £82 million had been authorised.

  I am unable to disclose information about support paid to individual renderers for reasons of their commercial confidentiality—exemption 13 in the code of practice on access to Government information.

  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 10 March,Official Report, columns 49–50, if he will list the rendering plants and companies contracted by his Department to render (a) specified bovine material and (b) cattle carcases. [20958]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 18 March 1997]: Of the plants approved to render cattle by-products in Great Britain, the following are currently contracted to the Intervention Board executive agency to process

  723
  over-30-month scheme cattle carcases, including their specified bovine material, in rendering lines licensed under the Specified Bovine Material Order 1996 (as amended):

  Canterbury Mills Ltd., Canterbury

  Dundas Brothers Ltd., Kintore

  Fats and Proteins (UK) Ltd., Lancaster

  Gilberts Animal By-Products, Leek

  Granox Ltd., Widnes

  J. G. Pears (Newark) Ltd.

  J. L. Thomas Ltd., Exeter

  Peninsular Proteins Ltd., Torrington

  William Forrest and Sons (Paisley Ltd.), Motherwell.

  Payment of Bills
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of bills to his Department for the financial year 1995 to 1996 were paid(a) in accordance with agreed contractual conditions and (b) within 30 days of receiving goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice where no contractual conditions applied. [21212]

  Mr. Boswell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) by the President of the Board of Trade on 18 July 1996,Official Report, columns 613–14. Any additional information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Soil Erosion
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress in combating run off and soil erosion from fields sown to maize. [21147]

  Mr. Boswell
  The risk of run-off and soil erosion from fields sown to maize can be significant. In response to this the Maize Growers Association, with assistance from this Department and the Environment Agency, has produced a booklet entitled "Managing Maize", which will be sent to all known maize growers next month. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 17 to 19 March; and if he will make a statement. [21564]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I represented the United Kingdom for part of the Agriculture Council in Brussels on 17–19 March and for the remainder of the period the UK was represented by my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and officials.

  The Council reached unanimous agreement on important proposals on cattle identification and beef labelling on a basis of article 43 of the treaty. The identification proposal requires the establishment of computerised systems for tracing cattle movements throughout their lives, improving cattle tagging, and a system of cattle passports similar to the one introduced in Great Britain last summer. Adoption of this proposal will facilitate the implementation of plans to develop a fully
  724
  computerised database of cattle movements in Great Britain. The arrangements agreed on labelling provide for member states to decide whether or not to require the compulsory labelling of beef from the year 2000; and for the details of what information should be provided on labels under a compulsory system to be decided by the Council in the light of member states' experience between now and 1999. The labelling proposal as adopted met UK concerns to have a flexible, informative and less bureaucratic system than that originally put forward by the Commission, and this was secured in the final outcome.

  The Council also agreed unanimously a proposal from the Commission determining measures and compensation relating to appreciable currency revaluations affecting farm incomes. The United Kingdom had strongly opposed the original proposal on the grounds that it discriminated against United Kingdom fanners faced with significant revaluations of the agricultural conversion rate for sterling. As a result, the proposal was substantially modified in the course of negotiation and the discriminatory elements removed on terms which fully met United Kingdom requirements.

  On BSE, my noble Friend reported to the Council on progress in the United Kingdom on fulfilling the terms of the Florence agreement, and the recent submission to the Commission of a proposal for excluding meat from certified UK herds from the EU export ban. He urged the early submission of this proposal to the appropriate scientific committees, as provided for in the Florence agreement.

  The Council had a first discussion of the Commission's proposals on agricultural prices for 1997–98, which include a long-standing proposal to reduce arable aid and set-aside payments. The United Kingdom endorsed the Commission's intention to achieve budgetary savings, but regretted the absence of moves to reduce agricultural support prices generally, or of proposals for the early reform of sectors such as milk, beef and cereals.

  In a third structured dialogue with the countries of central and eastern Europe, the Council considered with those countries how to assist in the implementations of the EU's veterinary and phytosanitary regulations. There was agreement on the need for a better exchange of information on EU policy and legislation in this area, and for help from the PHARE programme to establish the required control and inspection facilities.

  The Council discussed, at the request of France, the need for changes in the operation of the early marketing scheme for veal and the calf processing scheme. It was agreed that the beef management committee would address these issues as a matter of urgency on 21 March, and would consider inter alia a possible reduction in the rate of calf processing premium in response to a long-standing UK request.

  The Council agreed some changes to the mandate of the European Commission in its negotiations with the USA on a veterinary equivalence agreement; and adopted by qualified majority—Spain, Portugal and Italy voting against—a proposal to open a malting barley quota for the USA in order to fulfil the EU's obligations under the World Trade Organisation.
  725
  The United Kingdom raised in the Council the need for an urgent report and proposals from the Commission on the welfare of battery hens, on which the Commissioner promised early action. The UK also backed a German request for the rapid submission to the Council of proposals on the transport of animals.

  Livestock Cleanliness
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the document defining standards for clean livestock is to be published. [21565]

  Mrs. Browning
  As foreshadowed in the statement which my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made on 12 March 1997,Official Report, columns 372–74, the existing guidance in the Meat Hygiene Service operations manual has been enhanced today to provide a pictorial guide on dirty animals and the appropriate action to take when such animals are presented for slaughter. This will reinforce to all those involved in slaughtering, as well as other sectors of farming and associated industries, what is expected of them and the controls which will apply if they do not meet the appropriate standards. This issue was included in the interim report of the expert group on E. coli being chaired by Professor Pennington.

  Proposals for publicising the potential sources of contamination and how to ensure that contaminated animals do not enter the food chain are being sent to interested organisations today for comment. Once comments have been considered, the Meat Hygiene Service proposes to launch a publicity campaign.

  I have placed in the Library of the House copies of the amendment to the operations manual and draft publicity material sent to interested parties.

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what targets have been set for the Veterinary Medicines Directorate for 1997–98. [21628]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have set the following targets for the Veterinary Medicines Directorate in 1997–98.

  Financial Performance

  1. To recover from industry and Government the full economic cost (calculated according to accruals accounting) of each of its main business activities of:

  licensing and surveillance

  policy work

  residue monitoring.

  2. To operate within the net cash allocation as agreed by the MAFF Management Board.

  Quality of Service

  3. To deliver high quality policy advice to Minister.

  4. To deliver high quality scientific assessment work.

  5. To determine 80 per cent. of new marketing authorisations within 120 clock days;

  95 per cent. within 200 clock days.

  6. To ensure that the first assessment of variations outstanding for more than 75 clock days on 1 April 1997 is completed by 31 October 1997 and that a first assessment of renewals outstanding for more than 90 clock days on 1 April 1997 is completed by 31 December 1997; and to ensure that first assessments for variations and renewals arriving after 1 April 1997 are completed within 75 and 90 clock days respectively.

  726

  7. To meet target timescales for centralised, decentralised and MRL applications under EU procedures.

  Central Science Laboratory
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what targets have been set for the Central Science Laboratory for 1997–98. [21629]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The relocation of the Central Science Laboratory to the new purpose-built laboratory near York, with the subsequent closure of four major sites and several smaller sites, will be completed during the summer of 1997. In view of the major changes taking place within CSL, I have decided that during 1997–98 the baseline should be established which will allow efficiency and productivity improvements to be measured in subsequent years. I have set the following demanding but achievable targets for 1997–98 in relation to other areas:

  Financial

  100 per cent. recovery of full costs after allowing for relocation costs;

  To achieve a net PES allocation agreed by MAFF Finance.

  Efficiency

  1 per cent. improvement in utilisation of productive time.

  Delivery of Science

  At least 90 per cent. of work completed to time and within budget;

  Achieve a mean score of 3 on a scale of 0 to 5 for the assessment of customer satisfaction using the established methodology;

  Proportion of project milestones achieved to be at or greater than 82 per cent. (MAFF commissioned projects).

  Veterinary Laboratories Agency
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what targets have been set for the Veterinary Laboratories Agency for 1997–98. [21630]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have set the Veterinary Laboratories Agency the following strategic performance targets for 1997–98:

  Financial Performance

  full cost for all Veterinary Laboratories Agency services

  management with the Supply Estimates Targets

  Efficiency

  an overall efficiency gain of 3 per cent.

  Service Delivery

  85 per cent. of ROAME R and D milestones achieved

  Service Quality

  achievement of a satisfactory report from a Visiting Group

  achievement of laboratory accreditation for the Tissue Culture Section in Virology Department, the Lasswade laboratory and the Veterinary Investigation Centres.

  Meat Hygiene Service
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what targets have been set for the Meat Hygiene Service for 1997–98. [21631]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales and I have set the following targets for the Meat Hygiene Service in 1997–98.
  727

  Operational

  1. To take all necessary measures to ensure full compliance by the slaughterhouse industry with The Specified Bovine Material Order 1977, The Heads of Sheep and Goats Order 1996, and other related Statutory Instruments.

  Quality and Delivery of Service

  2. To carry out, in collaboration with the State Veterinary Service, a review of the guidance on HAS scoring in abattoirs as set out in the Operations Manual by 30 April 1997.

  3. To ensure that all MHS contract and employed OVS, Meat Hygiene Inspectors and Meat Technicians have completed a formal training programme in hygiene by 31 July 1997.

  4. To ensure that by the end of 1997–98 at least 90 per cent. of abattoirs are achieving HAS scores of more than 65.

  5. To implement strictly the MHS clean livestock strategy included in the Operations Manual as revised in March 1997.

  6. To implement a strict prohibition on carcases showing any faecal contamination being health marked for human consumption.

  Financial Performance

  7. To recover from plant operators the full economic cost (calculated in accordance with the relevant charging legislation and accruals accounting and Industry charges guide) of providing the statutory health inspection and controls at fresh meat premises.

  8. To recover from Government Departments, Agencies and the Intervention Board the full economic cost (calculated in accordance with the relevant charging legislation and accruals accounting) of providing agreed services or other work undertaken on their behalf.

  9. To operate within the net cash allocation as agreed during the year by the MAFF Management Board.

  Meat Disposal Chain
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements are being made for financial support to the meat disposal chain in 1997–98. [21633]

  Mr. Baldry
  Support arrangements for the rendering industry in 1997–98 have now been finalised following consultation with interested parties. These implement the previously announced policy of making up to £59 million support available to the disposal chain as it adjusts to the changed value of animal by-products. They take the form of a non-statutory scheme, the rendering industry support scheme 1997. Copies of the scheme are being placed in the Library of the House.

  The scheme provides for:
  Payments to individual rendering companies for the rendering of 'clean' material (i.e. excluding the products of the Over Thirty Month Scheme);
  Payments to be on a depressive basis phased out over the financial year and based on the actual amount of tallow produced and of meat and bone meal disposed of;
  Tallow and MBM to attract different support rates (relating to average past values), phased out over different time-scales in recognition of future values.

  Individual rendering companies will be free to set charges and prices to their suppliers on the basis of commercial judgment, taking account of support. Support levels will be transparent to suppliers of animal by-products. The Office of Fair Trading will continue to keep the competitive situation within the market under review.

  The scheme will be administered by the Intervention Board.
  728
  In order to inform Ministers' decisions on the design of these support arrangements, Coopers and Lybrand were commissioned to report on the prospects for recovery in the markets for renderers' products. Their report is being published and copies are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Sea Fish Conservation
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to report to Parliament on the implementation of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992, as required by section 10. [21634]

  Mr. Baldry
  The primary purpose of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992 was to make provision for the introduction of restrictions on time spent at sea. Implementing legislation in the form of the Sea Fish Licences (Time at Sea) (Principles) Order 1993 was introduced, but the policy was subsequently suspended following a legal challenge which was referred to the European Court of Justice.

  Despite the European Court's endorsement of the legality of measures adopted by this House, it was decided that it would not be sensible to implement the planned arrangements for the days at sea policy for the reasons set out in my reply to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 25 October 1995, Official Report, columns 711–12.

  In these circumstances there is nothing of substance to report and we do not propose to make any further reports to Parliament on this matter.

  Butchers' Shops (Survey)
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information(a) his Department and (b) the National Meat Hygiene Service provided to the European Commission concerning the survey carried out by environmental health officers in Birmingham of bone-in beef in butchers' shops. [21237]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No information was provided to the European Commission by the Meat Hygiene Service. Information on the audit carried out by Birmingham environmental health department was included in the "Programme to Eradicate BSE in the United Kingdom" which was presented to the Commission at a Council meeting on 3 June 1996. A copy of this document was placed in the library of the House on 4 June 1996.

  The audit was also referred to in the document "BSE in Great Britain, A Progress Report, May 1996" which has been sent to Commissioner Fischler. A copy of this document was placed in the Library of the House on 1 July 1996.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the results of the survey carried out by environmental health officers of butchers' shops in Birmingham. [21236]

  Mr. Hogg
  I understand that the environmental services department of Birmingham city council carried out an audit in May 1996 of all 350 retail butcher outlets in Birmingham to check on compliance with specified bovine material controls. A small number of alleged cases of non-compliance were found.
  729
  Birmingham city council informed the Meat Hygiene Service, which is responsible for enforcing SBM controls in licensed beef slaughterhouses, of its findings. The MHS immediately carried out a full investigation. After examination of the samples provided to the MHS, two of the alleged cases were cleared as not being SBM. The MHS was unable to identify conclusively the nature of the remaining sample tissues in view of their age and deterioration. The MHS decided the most appropriate action was to destroy the material as if it were SBM.

  In view of the council survey results, MHS principal official veterinary surgeons visited all the plants which traditionally supply the Birmingham market and reinforced the importance of full compliance with SBM controls to all MHS and plant staff.

  Pesticides Safety Directorate
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what targets have been set for the Pesticides Safety Directorate for 1997–98. [21627]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have set the following targets for the Pesticide Safety Directorate in 1997–98.

  Financial Performance

  1. To recover from industry the full economic cost, calculated according to accruals accounting, of its services.

  2. To recover from Government the full economic cost (calculated according to accruals accounting) of its services.

  3. To operate within the net cash allocation as agreed by the MAFF management board.

  4. To deliver the throughput of applications and processing times set out in the table below.

  Quality of Service

  5. To deliver high quality policy advice to Ministers.

  6. To deliver high quality scientific work.

  7. To achieve IIP accreditation by October 1977.

  8. To carry out a customer satisfaction survey, covering both MAFF customers and the agrochemical industry, and to achieve a satisfactory result.

  Table 1

  Stream

  Applications completed

  Maximum processing time in working weeks

  Technical Secretariat1,2

  Normal

  300

  43

  Administrative Fast

  400

  4

  Fast

  325

  19

  Experimental Permit Authorisation

  10

  34

  Off Label

  80

  12

  Extrapolated Experimental Authorisation

  15

  16

  Departmental

  15

  52

  Other

  132

  —

  New Substances1,2,3

  Sift (EC and UK)

  17

  23

  Active Substance

  14

  53

  UK Reviews2

  Full

  3

  —

  Other

  8

  —

  730

  Table 1

  Stream

  Applications completed

  Maximum processing time in working weeks

  EC Reviews3

  Non-Rapporteur (Monograph Co-ordination)

  20

  —

  Total

  1,339

  —

  Notes:

  1 90 per cent. of applications received are covered by the processing targets except the EC and UK sifts for new substances where the figure is 100 per cent.

  2 Completed applications (these have no outstanding actions e.g. an approval issued or the application has been refused). These exclude withdrawals before evaluation has started.

  3 For EC applications (reviews or new active substances), completion is when the monograph is received by the Commission.

  Swann Report
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he was notified of disagreements between Mr. Swann and(a) his Department and (b) the Meat Hygiene Service in respect of the contents of his report for the Meat Hygiene Service. [20039]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 13 March 1997]: On 6 March 1997.

  Fur Farms
  Mr. Livingstone
  Toask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many times officials of me State Veterinary Service(a) carried out routine inspections of fur farms over the last 12 months and (b) observed the killing of mink and fox during the last 12 months; and what method of killing was used in each case. [21240]

  Mrs. Browning
  The State Veterinary Service carried out six inspections of mink farms during 1996. Killing was not observed on any of these occasions.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many fox farms there are in England and Wales by county. [21239]

  Mrs. Browning
  There is no requirement to register fox fur farms. However, I am not aware of any in England and Wales.

  Grain Store, York
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the grain store at Clifton, York, was cleared of grain; for how long it remained empty; what is stored there currently, indicating the nature of the material and tonnage stored; what proportion of the total capacity is currently in use; whether the store has been, or is being, considered for storing bovine material resulting from the cattle cull; and how much per annum the store costs his Department to run(a) when empty and (b) currently. [21108]

  Mr. Baldry
  Before the current cereals intervention purchasing period which commenced on 1 November 1996, the store was cleared of barley on 31 January 1996.
  731
  The store remained empty for a period of ten and a half months until mid-December 1996 when 738 tonnes of rye was allocated to the store. This tonnage has now been sold but is still awaiting collection by the purchaser. A further 190 tonnes of rye has been allocated to the store, and should be delivered before the end of March 1997.

  In addition to the rye, two of the eight sheds with a storage capacity of 20,000 tonnes have been sub-let to a private contractor for the storage of sugar beet nuts. The store has a total wheat capacity of 82,350 tonnes, comprising eight sheds totalling 79,500 tonnes and 32 bins totalling 28,250 tonnes.

  The store is not being considered for storing bovine material resulting from the cattle cull.

  The running costs of the store, when empty, is approximately £386,600 per annum, including store management fees, opportunity rent and contribution in lieu of rates. The additional running costs for actual storage are variable depending on time of intake and discharge and volume in store; these costs are calculated on the basis of £0.80 per tonne for intake, £0.70 per tonne for discharge and £0.022 per tonne per day for storage.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food where is the grain store nearest to York which is being used to store bovine material resulting from the cattle cull. [21107]

  Mr. Baldry
  The nearest grain store to York used for bovine material from the cattle cull is the Government-owned store at Hemswell Cliff, Gainsborough, Lincolnshire, converted last year to store frozen product from the over-30-month-scheme.

  Bovine Tissue
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under what circumstances the National Meat Hygiene Service is permitted to destroy samples of bovine tissue provided to it as suspect specified bovine material. [21238]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The procedures which the Meat Hygiene Service would follow, if presented with samples of bovine tissues provided to it as suspect SBM, would depend on whether investigation showed that the samples were indeed SBM. If, following examination, the samples were discovered to be SBM, the MHS would rigorously investigate the circumstances of the case, gathering available evidence. When no longer required as part of the investigation and after appropriate photographs, the tissue would be stained and destroyed as such in accordance with the SBM order. If, following examination, the material is discovered not to be SBM, but is otherwise unfit for human consumption, the tissue would be stained and destroyed as unfit material in accordance with the Animal By-Products Regulations 1995. The MHS would undertake any relevant investigation of the provided material before destruction.

  Newcastle Disease
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what(a) financial and (b) other assistance is available to farm businesses whose supply of point of lay pullets is halted by measures taken to contain Newcastle disease. [21145]
  732
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Animal Health Act 1981 makes no provision for the payment of consequential losses following an outbreak of a notifiable disease, including Newcastle disease and so such payments are made.

  Directive 92/66/EEC, as implemented in Great Britain by the Diseases of Poultry Order 1994 (as amended) requires that controls on the movement of poultry are imposed in an area surrounding each confirmed outbreak of Newcastle disease. Every effort is made to limit disruption to the poultry industry consequent upon the imposition of these controls subject to the overriding need to contain the spread of disease.

  Pigs (Welfare)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he plans to take to ensure compliance with the prohibition in the Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1984 on the routine tail docking of piglets. [21294]

  Mrs. Browning
  The State Veterinary Service enforces all aspects of the Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994. Welfare inspections of pig farms include, where appropriate, checks on compliance with paragraph 3, part IV, schedule 3 of those regulations concerning the tail docking of piglets.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he plans to take to ensure the enforcement of the law in respect of the welfare of pigs on farms and at slaughter. [21293]

  Mrs. Browning
  The State Veterinary Service carries out inspections to check compliance with legislation relating to the welfare of pigs on farm. All complaints are followed up as a matter of urgency. Legislation relating to animal welfare in slaughterhouses is enforced by the Meat Hygiene Service. In both cases, any unsatisfactory conditions or practices which are found are addressed immediately, by advice or by formal enforcement action, including, where necessary, the initiation of prosecution proceedings.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, how he plans to take forward the action plan on meat hygiene which he announced to the House on 12 March. [21632]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Meat Hygiene Service will be instructed to work to the performance targets which are set out in my reply earlier today to the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff). In working to these targets the Meat Hygiene Service will be giving effect to the comprehensive programme of action which I announced on 12 March. Once this range of measures has been implemented, I would anticipate repeating, if possible before April 1998, the thorough audit of hygiene standards in each individual plant which was carried out in 1995–96. For this campaign on hygiene standards to succeed, it will be essential for the industry to give full co-operation both collectively, through the Industry Forum of the Meat Hygiene Service and the Government/Industry Group instituted by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, and in day-to-day operations in individual plants.

SCOTLAND

  Scientists
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many scientists were employed by his Department and each of his Department's agencies on(a) the most recent date available and (b) for each year since 1979 on matters equivalent to those covered by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; and if he will list each agency, service or central laboratory employing scientists on such projects. [18165]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 5 March 1997]: The number of scientists employed in the Scottish Office, including its executive agencies other than the Scottish Prison Service, are shown in the table. This includes details for (a) the most recent date available— 1 March 1997—and (b) a breakdown for each year since 1979.

  The agencies and branches employing staff in the science group are as follows:

  (a) Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department

  Food Safety and Animal Health

  Freshwater Fish Laboratory

  Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries

  Marine Laboratory

  Scientific Advisers Unit.

  (b) Scottish Agricultural Science Agency

  (c) Department of Health

  Public Health Policy Medical Division.

  (d) Education and Industry Department

  Innovation and Support services.

  Number of staff in the Science group within The Scottish Office,1979 to 1997 position as at 1 April (except for 1997 where figuresrelate to 1 March)

  Year

  Number staff (FTE)

  1979

  328.5

  1980

  325.0

  1981

  320.0

  1982

  311.0

  1983

  317.0

  1984

  319.0

  1985

  318.0

  1986

  276.0

  1987

  273.5

  1988

  270.5

  1989

  273.0

  1990

  273.0

  1991

  282.0

  1992

  282.0

  1993

  281.5

  1994

  279.5

  1995

  273.3

  1996

  260.9

  1997

  257.7

  Woodlands
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those areas of Forestry Commission 734
  woodland proposed for sale in the next three financial years in (a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Scotland; indicating for each (i) its area, (ii) its approximate location and (iii) if an agreement is in place to protect public access. [19707]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 12 March 1997]: The subject of the question relates to matters undertaken by Forest Enterprise. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. Gordon Cowie, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Gordon M. Cowie to Mr. Paddy Tipping, dated 20 March 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Scotland has asked me to reply to your Question about the sale of Forestry Commission woodlands.
  The Forestry Commission's current disposals programme will continue until the end of the century, and the selection of properties for sale will accordingly be staged over that period. Advance notification of properties to be placed on the market is given in the Estates Gazette before a firm decision to sell is taken by the Commission. Copies of the Estate Gazette are to be found in the Library.
  We have, therefore, not yet decided which areas we will be selling over the next three years, but I can tell you which forest areas are at present being offered for sale on the Open Market. I have indicated those where a Continued Public Access Agreement has been agreed or is under negotiation. The Commission encourages local authorities to enter into the Access Agreements it offers them but it is, of course, up to the local authorities to decide whether or not they wish to accept the offer.

  Forestry Commission woodlands currently for sale on the open market

  England

  Local authority/name of property

  Location grid reference

  Area (ha)

  Buckinghamshire

  Back Lane Wood

  TL278178

  7.5

  College Wood

  SP791330

  51.0

  Greens

  TL277170

  1.5

  Cornwall

  Wheal Par

  SX053561

  5.0

  County Durham

  Stanley Cottages Wood

  NZ154388

  131.0

  Cumbria

  Foulsyke

  NY140218

  17.0

  Samgarth Woods

  SD133945

  71.0

  Ulpha Park

  SD191912

  129.0

  Whinneyhow

  NY137002

  1.0

  Devon

  Deershill

  SS520172

  11.0

  Knowle Wood

  SX533641

  8.0

  East Yorkshire

  Black Plantation

  SE792368

  14.0

  Seaton Old Wood

  SE787393

  16.5

  Hertfordshire

  Priest Wood

  TL301160

  28.0

  Leicestershire

  Stoke Dry

  SK845979

  40.0

  Lincolnshire

  Half Moon Wood

  SK972158

  2.0

  Larch Plantation

  SK980162

  8.0

  Nettleton Back

  TA091013

  111.0

  Rand Wood

  TF081781

  119.0

  White Lodge

  SK970155

  4.0

  Norfolk

  Great Wood Outliers

  TG150215

  4.0

  735

  Forestry Commission woodlands currently for sale on the open market

  England

  Local authority/name of property

  Location grid reference

  Area (ha)

  North Yorkshire

  Cottage Wood

  SE682518

  4.0

  Dalby Bush

  SE635719

  36.0

  Farm Wood

  SE656715

  6.0

  Mill Wood

  SE644735

  24.0

  Scoreby

  SE697517

  33.0

  Northumberland

  Evistones

  NY825970

  46.0

  South Yorkshire

  Old Park Wood

  SE335015

  141.0

  Suffolk

  Barthorps Folly

  TM348459

  16.0

  Wiltshire

  Stanton Park

  ST895798

  58.0

  1 Indicates CPA Agreement.

  Forestry commission woodlands currently for sale on the open market

  Scotland

  Local authority/name of property

  Location grid reference

  Area (ha)

  Aberdeenshire

  Auchinroath plantation

  NJ276510

  62.0

  Balmakewan (3222M)

  NO672676

  0.6

  Haremoss

  NJ792495

  21.0

  Ryhnagoup wood, lot 1

  NJ110505

  16.0

  Waggle hill

  NJ814476

  1152.0

  Argyll and Bute

  Ardbrecknish

  NN067208

  1119.0

  Scoor wood, lot 5

  NM435205

  360.0

  Borders

  Edgarhope

  NT557485

  143.5

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Cairnhead

  NX700970

  11,361.0

  Enchenhead

  NS680060

  1689.0

  Little clyde

  NS985170

  645.6

  Polskeoch

  NS686023

  1830.0

  Shinnelhead

  NS729991

  1843.0

  Highland

  Achandounie woods

  NH633734

  144.0

  Aline wood

  NB215150

  626.0

  Ardmolich

  NM710715

  192.0

  Carsaig and Kinloch

  NM530260

  1488.0

  Fairy bridge

  NG258505

  92.0

  Glenhinnisdale

  NG405575

  1204.0

  Kirkton

  NG906410

  92.0

  Perth and Kinross

  Warroch

  NO05065

  68.0

  South Ayrshire

  Docherneil

  NX225885

  72.5

  1 Indicates CPA Agreement.

  Forestry Commission Woodlands currently for sale on the Open Market

  Wales

  Unitary authority/name of property

  Location grid reference

  Area (ha)

  Conwy County Borough Council

  Blackthorn Covert

  SH930770

  21.5

  Cefn Mawr

  SH910568

  81.7

  736

  Forestry Commission Woodlands currently for sale on the Open Market

  Wales

  Unitary authority/name of property

  Location grid reference

  Area (ha)

  Cerrigellgwm

  SH861475

  20.0

  Gwrych Castle Woodlands

  SH925775

  49.0

  Blaenau, Gwent

  Craig Yr Arail

  SO210044

  58.0

  Caerphilly County Borough Council

  Hafodrisclawdd

  SO176020

  224.0

  Carmarthenshire

  Allt Du/Cwm Ifor

  SN615306

  29.0

  Penhill Wood

  SN775315

  4.0

  Ceredigion

  Cefn Wig

  SN472612

  19.0

  Gwynedd

  Amnodd Wood

  SH810372

  87.5

  Bronaber

  SH710317

  10.0

  Bryn Hendre

  SH315373

  10.0

  Btryntirion

  SH673192

  118.0

  Cae Rhys

  SH690346

  267.0

  Cefn Glas

  SH810381

  12.0

  Coed Mynydd Mawr

  SH365408

  24.0

  Coed Y Craig

  SH641078

  35.0

  Cwm Prysor

  SH790380

  56.0

  Cymerau

  SH688436

  187.5

  Dolymoch

  SH686422

  122.0

  Frochas 1

  SH325393

  7.5

  Frochas 3

  SH333395

  5.4

  Frochas 4

  SH336396

  7.4

  Garthanghard

  SH661160

  229.0

  Gelli Dywyll

  SH686413

  125.0

  Graianog

  SH464488

  119.0

  Pen Y Gribin

  SH680190

  112.0

  Pengwern

  SH696427

  215.0

  Rhiwbach and Tyddyn Bach

  SH743462

  16.0

  Tan Y Clawdd

  SH436491

  113.0

  Ty Coch North

  SH584691

  7.1

  Ynys Creua

  SH446430

  67.0

  Monmouthshire

  Wern Brake

  ST440928

  8.0

  Neath and Port Talbot

  Graig Ynysgollen

  SN802013

  10.0

  Nant Y Stalwyn

  SN820097

  144.0

  Powys

  Blaen Llia

  SN925163

  1185.0

  Cilgwyn

  SO940797

  22.0

  Coed Y Foel Road Improvement

  SN918798

  1.0

  Freezeland

  S0186138

  111.0

  Llys Coppice and Penllys

  SJ175215

  16.0

  Nant Tidnerth

  SN879817

  23.0

  Rock Wood and Fronfraith Wood

  SO168926

  131.0

  The Smatcher

  SO212602

  136.0

  Tyn Y Rhos

  SN878817

  17.0

  Waun

  SN945775

  35.0

  Y Wern

  SN855131

  1453.0

  1 Indicates CPA Agreement.

  2 Indicates CPA Agreement being negotiated.

  737

  Executive Search Agencies
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the total amount spent by his Department on executive search agencies for appointments to non-departmental public bodies annually since 1992. [20184]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office has incurred no expenditure on executive search services for appointments to non-departmental public bodies in the period stated.

  NHS Trusts (Grants)
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much has been given in start-up grants to NHS trust hospitals since 1990. [20181]

  Health Board 1995–96

  HIV care and treatment

  HIV and aids prevention

  HIV drugs related

  Drug misuse

  Total

  Argyll and Clyde

  90,900

  307,536

  121,764

  136,200

  656,400

  Ayrshire and Arran

  89,800

  166,000

  252,450

  305,780

  814,030

  Borders

  65,000

  88,000

  13,000

  35,000

  201,000

  Dumfries and Galloway

  49,933

  115,495

  36,447

  50,628

  252,503

  Fife

  83,750

  49,894

  157,275

  232,340

  523,259

  Forth Valley

  142,091

  170,589

  140,390

  80,093

  533,163

  Grampian

  582,366

  308,050

  85,850

  503,182

  1,479,448

  Greater Glasgow

  2,324,000

  572,000

  662,000

  2,293,250

  5,851,250

  Highland

  80,497

  266,894

  0

  43,150

  390,541

  Lanark

  197,960

  331,441

  42,723

  133,926

  706,050

  Lothian

  4,308,682

  694,340

  1,100,550

  2,190,654

  8,294,226

  Orkney

  1,000

  29,800

  0

  5,750

  36,550

  Shetland

  6,250

  47,150

  4,500

  6,500

  64,400

  Tayside

  1,251,000

  782,000

  239,000

  834,000

  3,106,000

  Western Isles

  1,000

  36,500

  12,000

  12,000

  61,500

  State Hospital

  0

  27,642

  0

  0

  27,642

  9,274,229

  3,993,331

  2,867,949

  6,862,453

  22,997,962

  1819,000

  23,816,962

  1 This was used to supplement in-year as required in the light of emerging needs.

  Health board 1996–97

  HIV care and treatment

  HIV and aids prevention

  HIV drugs related

  Drug misuse

  Total

  Argyll and Clyde

  92,864

  263,629

  122,964

  150,870

  630,327

  Ayrshire and Arran

  91,252

  162,680

  251,000

  338,303

  843,235

  Borders

  65,165

  100,000

  13,000

  70,200

  248,365

  Dumfries and Galloway

  50,712

  122,585

  55,466

  73,698

  302,461

  Fife

  84,190

  50,783

  153,475

  254,675

  543,123

  Forth Valley

  143,633

  168,188

  259,000

  99,716

  670,537

  Grampian

  594,559

  172,710

  98,350

  634,889

  1,500,508

  Greater Glasgow

  2,355,538

  695,000

  624,000

  2,545,000

  6,219,538

  Highland

  80,889

  261,556

  0

  99,570

  442,015

  Lanark

  201,293

  316,949

  42,723

  192,780

  753,745

  Lothian

  4,356,348

  828,188

  774,358

  2,155,396

  8,114,290

  Orkney

  1,000

  29,615

  0

  32,330

  62,945

  Shetland

  6,250

  32,850

  4,600

  25,860

  69,560

  Tayside

  1,254,578

  650,066

  201,600

  920,160

  3,026,404

  Western Isles

  1,000

  35,500

  12,000

  38,000

  86,500

  State Hospital

  0

  27,000

  0

  0

  27,000

  9,379,271

  3,917,299

  2,612,536

  7,631,447

  23,540,553

  11,142,447

  24,683,000

  1 This is used to supplement in-year as required in the light of emerging needs.

  738
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The total cost of start-up grants to NHS trust hospitals since 1990 is £8,455,000.

  Drug Misuse
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list(a) the HIV and (b) the drug misuse budget for each health board in Scotland in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97 and (iii) 1997–98. [20199]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 20 March 1997]: The resources available to Scottish health boards and the state hospital for HIV/AIDS and drug misuse services in 1995–96 and 1996–97 are set out in the tables. Provision of £25.659 million has been made available for these services in 1997–98, but the individual budgets have not been finalised.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of criminals currently serving time for offences in Scotland were previously convicted of offences when they were aged under 18 years; and if he will make a statement. [21273]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The subject of this question relates to matters undertaken by the Scottish Prison Service. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. E. W. Frizzell to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Mr. Archy Kirkwood, dated 20 March 1997:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your Question about what percentage of criminals currently serving time for offences in Scotland were previously convicted of offences when they were aged under 18 years. The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Local Enterprise Companies
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much in public funds local enterprise companies in Scotland control. [21017]

  Mr. Kynoch
  In 1995–96 local enterprise companies' budgets accounted for £461.4 million—85 per cent.—of the overall budgets for the Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise network. That figure

  Number of crimes recorded in 1985, by police authority

  Police authority

  Housebreaking1

  Serious assault etc.2

  Petty assault

  Other violent crime3

  Theft of motor vehicle

  Borders

  771

  93

  362

  79

  172

  Central

  4,048

  209

  1,773

  378

  869

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,203

  58

  613

  110

  238

  Fife

  4,874

  172

  1,852

  400

  1,343

  Grampian

  5,530

  403

  3,482

  630

  1,243

  Highland

  1,595

  72

  1,085

  163

  521

  Lothian

  14,858

  1,316

  3,475

  1,572

  5,082

  Orkney

  30

  9

  53

  6

  16

  Shetland

  52

  7

  56

  19

  20

  Strathclyde

  61,506

  3,193

  17,367

  6,515

  19,171

  Tayside

  6,184

  481

  1,952

  584

  1,215

  Western Isles

  47

  8

  88

  10

  48

  Scotland

  100,698

  6,021

  32,158

  10,466

  29,938

  1 Includes non-domestic and domestic premises.

  2 Includes murder, attempted murder, culpable homicide and serious assault.

  3 Includes handling offensive weapons, robbery, other non sexual crimes of violence and sexual assault.

  Number of crimes recorded in 1992, by police authority

  Police authority

  Housebreaking1

  Serious assault etc.2

  Petty assault

  Other violent crime3

  Theft of motor vehicle

  Borders

  938

  72

  436

  93

  190

  Central

  3,579

  354

  2,159

  651

  1,152

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,986

  146

  971

  254

  355

  Fife

  9,108

  157

  2,426

  609

  1,650

  Grampian

  7,050

  401

  4,473

  777

  1,841

  Highland

  1,342

  119

  1,440

  285

  357

  740
  includes £43.6 million for adult training allowances paid by Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise on behalf of their local enterprise companies.

  Departmental Equipment (Theft)
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total value of(a) computer equipment, (b) artwork and (c) other items stolen from his Department in each of the past five years. [20447]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is available for the last three years and is set out in the table.

  Computer£

  Artwork

  Other £

  1994–95

  —

  —

  130,208

  1995–96

  10,500

  —

  9,695

  1996–97

  15,000

  —

  2,212

  1 Includes the theft of a vehicle and the loss of items valued at £15,000 as a result of a burglary.

  Crime
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many recorded(a) burglaries, (b) incidents of assault, (c) incidents of car theft and (d) other incidents of violent crime there were for each police authority in Scotland in (i) 1985, (ii) 1992 and (iii) 1996. [21277]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The tables provide the information for 1985, 1992 and 1995, the latest year for which information is available:
  741

  Number of crimes recorded in 1992, by police authority

  Police authority

  Housebreaking1

  Serious assault etc.2

  Petty assault

  Other violent crime3

  Theft of motor vehicle

  Lothian

  15,840

  973

  5,634

  2,364

  5,841

  Orkney

  49

  5

  72

  7

  21

  Shetland

  23

  9

  95

  11

  13

  Strathclyde

  64,494

  5,011

  21,754

  10,973

  33,664

  Tayside

  8,695

  453

  2,892

  1,138

  2,318

  Western Isles

  56

  9

  117

  33

  31

  Scotland

  113,160

  7,709

  42,469

  17,195

  47,433

  1 Includes non-domestic and domestic premises.

  2 Includes murder, attempted murder, culpable homicide and serious assault.

  3 Includes handling offensive weapons, robbery, other non sexual crimes of violence and sexual assault.

  Number of crimes recorded in 1995, by police authority

  Police authority

  Housebreaking1

  Serious assault etc.2

  Petty assault

  Other violent crime3

  Theft of motor vehicle

  Borders

  783

  93

  528

  90

  199

  Central

  2,523

  277

  2,544

  548

  921

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,385

  104

  1,201

  264

  293

  Fife

  4,635

  133

  3,077

  600

  1,344

  Grampian

  7,217

  316

  5,459

  891

  1,628

  Highland

  1,176

  83

  1,679

  349

  492

  Lothian

  10,081

  879

  6,642

  2,297

  4,893

  Orkney

  28

  4

  87

  13

  20

  Shetland

  87

  7

  103

  21

  25

  Strathclyde

  39,180

  4,664

  22,061

  9,650

  25,613

  Tayside

  7,055

  356

  3,094

  1,074

  2,045

  Western Isles

  85

  4

  129

  40

  41

  Scotland

  74,235

  6,920

  46,604

  15,837

  37,514

  1 Includes non-domestic and domestic premises.

  2 Includes murder, attempted murder, culpable homicide and serious assault.

  3 Includes handling offensive weapons, robbery, other non sexual crimes of violence and sexual assault.

  Loch Ewe Several Order
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to announce his decision in respect of the Loch Ewe Several Order application; and if he will make a statement. [21152]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The Loch Ewe Several Order was laid before Parliament on 14 March and is due to come into force on 4 April.

  Glaucoma
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many patients received hospital in-patient or day care treatment for glaucoma in each of the last five years. [21157]

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Number of prescription items

  281,779

  288,217

  296,685

  304,356

  320,680

  Cost of ingredients (£)

  2,060,686

  2,113,062

  2,164,059

  2,221,377

  2,461,542

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many patients suffering from glaucoma were treated by general practitioners during(a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94, (c) 1994–95 and (d) 1995–96. [21158]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not available centrally.
  742
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and place a copy of the letter in the House Library.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prescriptions for the treatment of glaucoma were issued in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and what was the net ingredient cost for each year. [21156]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information for the years 1992 to 1996 is shown in the table.

  The costs shown are based on the value of ingredients before addition of dispensing fees or deduction of discount or patient charges.

  Hospital Trusts (Contracts)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many trusts failed to meet the deadline to agree contracts with the purchasers; and how many he expects to go to arbitration. [21161]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Agreement was reached by all trusts and health boards in Scotland on their contracts in the present financial year without the need
  743
  for arbitration. Negotiations on contracts for 1997–98 are continuing and I do not anticipate any requirement for arbitration.

  Hospital Waiting Times
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the median waiting times of admissions for(a) cataract operations, (b) hip replacements and (c) cardiac surgery (i) at each hospital where this operation was provided, (ii) by health authority and (iii) nationally in (1) 1994–95 and (2) 1995–96. [21160]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and place a copy of the letter in the House Library.

  Highlands and Islands Enterprise
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what (1) provision Highlands and Islands Enterprise has made to run the proposed Cairn Gorm funicular in the event of the failure of the Cairn Gorm Chairlift Company; [21191]

  (2) what financial provision Highlands and Islands Enterprise has made for reinstating the cost and removal of the proposed Cairn Gorm funicular in the event of it ceasing to operate; [21192]

  (3) what limit has been placed on the period within which Highlands and Islands Enterprise must find a new operator of the Cairn Gorm funicular if the Cairn Gorm Chairlift Company fails; [21193]

  (4) if he will list those projects in Scotland which the Highlands and Islands Enterprise (a) has made proposals for and (b) is currently fully underwriting in me event of a failure by the existing operator. [21194]

  Mr. Kynoch
  These are operational matters for Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I will ask the chairman of that organisation to write to the hon. Member.

  Payment of Bills
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of bills to his Department for the financial year 1995 to 1996 were paid(a) in accordance with agreed contractual conditions and (b) within 30 days receiving goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice where no contractual conditions applied. [21198]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 18 July 1996,Official Report, columns 613–14. Any additional information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Prison Secure Unit
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to set up a secure unit in a Scottish prison; and if he will make a statement. [21037]

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  The subject of the question related to matters undertaken by the Scottish Prison Service. I have asked its Chief Executive, Mr. W. E. Frizzell, to arrange for a reply to be given.
  744
  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Mr. George Foulkes, dated 20 March 1997:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your question about whether there are plans to set up a secure unit in a Scottish prison.
  Prisoners in Scotland are held in conditions appropriate to their security classification and there are no plans to set up any "special" secure units of the kind which exist in some other prison jurisdictions. At present there are relatively few security Category A prisoners in Scotland. They are held in a number of different prisons including the small units at Peterhead and Shotts Prisons. The units were set up to manage those prisoners who need for a time to be located out of the mainstream but are suitable for use by Category A prisoners as necessary. Otherwise such prisoners are integrated within the secure prison system.

  Health Service Commissioner
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many full-time equivalent support staff were provided to the health service commissioner for Scotland in each year since 1992. [21055]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The posts of Health Service Commissioner for Scotland, for England and for Wales and the post of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration are all held by the same person. I understand that support services for those posts are provided from a central resource and are not separately allocated.

  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many complaints were made to the health service commissioner for Scotland in each year since 1992. [21053]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The health service commissioner's annual reports show:

  Year

  Complaints received

  1992–93

  119

  1993–94

  133

  1994–95

  144

  1995–96

  146

  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many investigations into complaints were completed by the health service commissioner for Scotland in each year since 1992. [21054]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The health service commissioner's annual reports show:

  Year

  Completed investigations

  1992–93

  9

  1993–94

  11

  1994–95

  6

  1995–96

  7

  Fox and Mink Farms
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many fox and mink farms there are in Scotland by county. [21291]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  There are no fox or mink farms in operation in Scotland.
  745

  Cairn Gorm Funicular Railway
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if Highlands and Islands Enterprise has authorisation to fund removal of the proposed Cairn Gorm funicular in the event of its failure. [21195]

  Mr. Kynoch
  My right hon. Friend has yet to complete his consideration of the request from Highlands and Islands Enterprise for approval of its proposed financial contribution to the cost of the funicular railway project. He is awaiting further information from Highlands and Islands Enterprise on the impact of the recently agreed visitors management regime on the project's financial projections. In considering the request for approval, my right hon. Friend will wish to be satisfied as to the financial viability of the project.

  Trunk Road Projects
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the trunk road projects proposed by his Department which have not yet started in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–00; and if he will indicate the estimated cost of each project in each financial year. [21542]

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

  Estimated expenditure

  Project/proposed construction start

  1997–98 £

  1998–99 £

  1999–2000 £

  1997–98

  M6 DBFO1

  2 million

  2 million

  11 million

  M8 DBFO1

  1 million

  3.5 million

  3.5 million

  A828 Creagan Bridge

  0.6 million

  3.8 million

  2.1 million

  A75 The Glen

  120 thousand

  7 million

  2.6 million

  1998–99

  A1 Haddington-Dunbar

  230 thousand

  14.7 million

  15 million

  1999–2000

  M80 DBFO1

  1.5 million

  1.5 million

  3.5 million

  M77 Floak-Fenwick

  0.5 million

  1.4 million

  17.2 million

  1DBFO—Design, Build, Finance and Operate.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pupils are in classes of 40 or over at(a) primary and (b) secondary level in each Scottish local education authority. [21541]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  There are no classes with 40 or more pupils at either primary or secondary level in Scotland.

  Housing Waiting Lists
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many families in each housing authority area in the constituencies of(a) Roxburgh and Berwickshire and (b) Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale have been on waiting lists for local authority tenancies in each of the years 1979, 1983, 1987, 1991, 1993 and any subsequent years for which figures are available. [21544]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The information requested is not held centrally.
  746

  Health Board Funding
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the public expenditure general allocation uplifts and parity adjustments for all health board areas in Scotland for 1997–98. [21539]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  General allocation uplifts and parity adjustments for 1997–98 are as follows:

  Health Board

  General allocation uplift £000

  Parity adjustment £000

  Argyll and Clyde

  8,994

  -789

  Ayrshire and Arran

  7,584

  3,303

  Borders

  2,318

  -839

  Dumfries and Galloway

  3,255

  -876

  Fife

  6,748

  -1,291

  Forth Valley

  6,090

  -2,481

  Grampian

  9,727

  921

  Greater Glasgow

  21,127

  -5,473

  Highland

  4,364

  1,697

  Lanarkshire

  10,582

  4,865

  Lothian

  14,424

  -663

  Orkney

  434

  253

  Shetland

  508

  473

  Tayside

  8,353

  -2,215

  Western Isles

  784

  -123

  Homelessness
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many households were registered as homeless in the constituencies of Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale and Roxburgh and Berwickshire in(a) 1979, (b) 1983, (c) 1987, (d) 1991, (e) 1993 and (f) each subsequent year for which figures are available. [21528]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The available information relates to local authorities and not to parliamentary constituencies. It is published in the Scottish Office series of housing statistical bulletins— bulletins HSG/1992/3, HSG/1995/7, HSG/1996/4. These are available in the House Library.

  Small Town Initiative
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the extra resources which will be granted to Hawick as a result of inclusion in the first round of Scottish Enterprise's small town initiative. [21547]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The expenditure on projects and programmes to benefit Hawick in the context of the small towns initiative have yet to be finalised. At this stage, it is not possible to determine the extent of any additional resources which may be required.

  Scottish Borders Enterprise
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the budget made available to Scottish Borders Enterprise for the past five years for which figures are available. [21543]
  747
  Mr. Kynoch
  The allocation of budgets to its local enterprise companies is an operational matter for Scottish Enterprise. I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Farm Enterprises
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the total amount of money paid from UK and EU funds to farm enterprises in Roxburgh and Berwickshire and in Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale for the last five years for which figures are available. [21537]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The information required could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  House Building
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of houses built in the constituencies of Roxburgh and Berwickshire and in Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available broken down into different kinds of tenure, and indicating how many were built by(a) local authorities, (b) housing associations and (c) other social rented sector providers. [21540]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The available information, which relates to local authorities and not to parliamentary constituencies, is set out in the table. Information by tenure is not available.

  New dwellings completed, 1986 to 1995

  Berwickshire

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  Roxburgh

  Tweeddale

  (a) by local authorities

  1986

  22

  —

  8

  —

  1987

  17

  —

  4

  6

  1988

  —

  —

  28

  54

  1989

  31

  —

  18

  4

  1990

  —

  —

  —

  8

  1991

  29

  14

  —

  6

  1992

  —

  6

  —

  6

  1993

  19

  4

  —

  —

  1994

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1995

  14

  2

  —

  —

  (b) by housing associations

  1986

  12

  —

  —

  30

  1987

  —

  38

  26

  —

  1988

  9

  —

  15

  33

  1989

  12

  26

  33

  —

  1990

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1991

  6

  4

  66

  32

  1992

  25

  —

  —

  6

  1993

  —

  —

  20

  34

  1994

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1995

  42

  161

  69

  28

  (c) by private builders

  1986

  15

  51

  32

  45

  1987

  40

  67

  56

  93

  1988

  29

  60

  30

  38

  1989

  66

  112

  72

  46

  1990

  69

  203

  131

  124

  1991

  50

  55

  87

  34

  1992

  46

  77

  54

  23

  1993

  22

  75

  48

  23

  1994

  19

  99

  41

  61

  1995

  40

  75

  46

  50

  748

  Local Government Staff Commission Report
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to receive the local government staff commission (Scotland) report; and if he will make a statement. [21606]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The staff commissioners submitted their report to my right hon. Friend on 10 March 1997. I am placing copies in the House Library today.

  Scottish Agricultural Science Agency
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the performance of the Scottish Agricultural Science Agency against its targets for 1996–97; and if he will make a statement on the targets for 1997–98. [21605]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The agency is on course to meet the key performance targets for 1996–97 which I set out in my written answer of 3 April 1996, column 276).

  For 1997–98 I have set the agency the following key performance targets:
  Fulfilment of the Service Level Agreement with SOAEFD within the running costs allocated to SASA for 1997–98;
  Continuation of the programme of consultation with all customers on the quality of the work done by the Agency;
  Completion of 93 per cent. of all scientific tests and analyses within the timescales set by customers;
  Improvement in the unit cost of the scientific work of the Agency (cost per direct scientist hour);
  Publication of a comprehensive review of the scientific work of the Agency 1992–97.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) the minutes of meetings, (d) the agendas of meetings and (e) a register of members' interests; and if this is in each case (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary. [20894]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information required is as follows:(a) Those executive NDPBs which are covered by the Companies Acts are required to publish annual reports and some other bodies are also required by the statute creating them to publish annual reports. These bodies are:

  Hannah Research Institute

  Macaulay land Use Research Institute

  Moredun Research Institute

  Rowett Research Institute

  Scottish Crop Research Institute

  Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board

  Scottish Council for Educational Technology

  Scottish Hospital Endowments Research Trust

  Scottish Seed Potato Development Council

  Scottish Vocational Education Council.

  In a number of other cases the body is required by statute to produce an annual report on the exercise and performance of its functions for the Secretary of State which he is obliged to lay before Parliament. These bodies are:

  749

  Crofters Commission

  Highlands and Islands Enterprise

  National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Scotland

  National Museums of Scotland (required by statute at least every three years, but voluntarily produces an annual report)

  National Galleries of Scotland (required by statute at least every three years)

  Deer Commission for Scotland

  Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh

  Scottish Agricultural Wages Board

  Scottish Enterprise

  Scottish Examination Board

  Scottish Homes

  Scottish Legal Aid Board

  Scottish Natural Heritage

  Scottish Tourist Board

  Scottish Hospital Endowments Research Trust

  Parole Board for Scotland

  Scottish Environment Protection Agency

  Scottish Children's Reporter Administration.

  Some bodies publish reports on a non-statutory basis. They are:

  Accounts Commission for Scotland

  National Library of Scotland

  Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland

  Scottish Arts Council

  Scottish Community Education Council

  Scottish Film Council

  Scottish Further Education Unit

  Scottish Higher Education Funding Council

  Scottish Medical Practices Committee

  Scottish Sports Council.

  (b) Those bodies which are required to publish their annual accounts under the terms of the Companies Acts, the Friendly Societies Acts or other legislation are:

  Hannah Research Institute

  Macaulay Land Research Institute

  Rowett Research Institute

  Scottish Crop Research Institute

  Scottish Council for Educational Technology

  Scottish Hospital Endowments Research Trust

  Scottish Seed Potato Development Council

  Scottish Vocational Education Council.

  Some bodies are required by statute to submit annual accounts to the Secretary of State who is obliged to pass them to the Comptroller and Auditor General. He is then obliged to lay copies of them before Parliament. These bodies are:

  Accounts Commission for Scotland

  Highlands and Islands Enterprise

  National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Scotland

  National Library of Scotland

  National Galleries of Scotland

  National Museums of Scotland

  Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh

  Scottish Enterprise.

  750
  Some other bodies hold registers which are available for inspection at the offices of the body. These are: Highlands and Islands Enterprise—financial decisions relating to registered interests are also published in the annual report, National Museums of Scotland, Scottish Arts Council, Scottish Enterprise—summary is also available at time of annual report and financial transactions involving board members published in annual report and accounts, Scottish Film Council and Scottish Children's Reporter Administration. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency is currently preparing a list of members' interests which will be available to the public on request.

  Scottish Office Quangos
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the(a) total running costs of Scottish Office quangos and (b) the running costs of each such quango in each year since 1992, showing in each case the total (i) salary bill and (ii) expenses paid to members; and what were the salary and expenses paid to each individual in respect of quango membership in the latest year for which figures are available. [19231]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information about payments made to individual board members of executive non-departmental public bodies in Scotland in 1996–97 is given in "Scottish Office Appointments to executive Non-Departmental Public Bodies and NHS Bodies at 1 December 1996", copies of which were placed in the House of Commons Library on 23 December 1996. All NDPBs publish annual reports which are also placed in the House of Commons Library. With one exception, these include such information as is available on running costs, staff salaries and members expenses. The exception is the Crofters Commission, for which the available information is:

  1992–93 £'000

  1993–94 £'000

  1994–95 £'000

  1995–96 £'000

  Running costs

  1,307

  1,397

  1,607

  1,446

  Staff costs

  936

  1,037

  1,046

  1,006

  Board member expenses

  37

  33

  47

  34

  Employment
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) male and female employees were engaged in (i) manufacturing and (ii) agriculture and fishing in the constituencies of (x) Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale and (y) Roxburgh and Berwickshire in the (1) 1979, (2) 1983, (3) 1987, (4) 1991, (5) 1993 and (6) the last year for which figures are available. [21545]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Information for the parliamentary constituency areas requested is available for years since 1984 in which the census of employment has been held, and is shown in the table:
  751

  Employees in employment

  Parliamentary constituency

  1980 Standard industrial classification

  1992 Standard industrial classification

  31984

  1987

  1989

  1991

  21991

  1993

  11995

  Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale

  Male

  Manufacturing

  3,400

  3,100

  2,900

  2,600

  2,400

  2,700

  2,700

  Agriculture and Fisheries

  900

  700

  700

  700

  —

  4—

  4—

  Female

  Manufacturing

  2,200

  2,000

  1,900

  1,600

  1,400

  1,700

  1,400

  Agriculture and Fisheries

  100

  100

  100

  100

  —

  4—

  4—

  Roxburgh and Berwickshire

  Male

  3,900

  3,900

  3,900

  3,800

  3,800

  3,300

  3,500

  Agriculture and Fisheries

  1,500

  1,100

  1,100

  1,000

  —

  4—

  4—

  Female

  Manufacturing

  3,200

  3,200

  3,300

  3,100

  2,900

  2,600

  2,500

  Agriculture and Fisheries

  200

  200

  200

  100

  —

  4—

  4—

  1 The annual employment survey replaced the biennial census of employment in 1995.

  2 Data are available under the 1992 standard industrial classification only from 1991. Some employees previously classified under manufacturing in the 1980 SIC are classified under services in the 1992 SIC. For 1991, both bases are given for manufacturing for comparison.

  3 A census was not held in 1983; 1984 figures are provided.

  4 Confidential under the Statistics of Trade Act 1947.

  Public Relations
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much his Department has spent on public relations(a) in actual terms and (b) in real terms in each year since 1979. [20540]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information is not available in the form requested.

TRANSPORT

  Whitburn Street Relief Road, Bridgnorth
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will review the application for a transport supplementary grant in respect of the Whitburn street relief road in Bridgnorth; and if he will make a statement. [21174]

  Mr. Watts
  Shropshire county council included this scheme in its transport policies and programme bid for resources in the local transport capital settlement for 1997–98. The scheme was part of the council's general minor works programme. It was not possible to meet any bids under that heading. All resources for 1997–98 under the TPP system have been allocated. The county council could bid for additional supplementary credit approval should any surplus SCAs become available for redistribution.

  A46 Dualling
  Sir Kenneth Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will announce the start of construction work on the dualling of the A46 between Lincoln and Newark; and if he will make a statement. [21173]

  Mr. Watts
  I have instructed the Highways Agency to complete the statutory procedures as rapidly as possible. The next stage would be to make the compulsory purchase order. This would enable preparation to begin for the invitation of tenders for building the scheme, with a view to start of works in 1999.
  752

  Westhaven AH190 (Sinking)
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice he plans to issue to fishing vessels working in the same vicinity as that in which the Westhaven AH 190 sank. [20842]

  Mr. Bowis
  [holding answer 19 March 1997]: I have asked the chief executive of the Marine Safety Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. Andrew Welsh, dated 20 March 1997:
  Navigational information is promulgated and regularly updated through Admiralty charts and Notices to Mariners. Information about pipelines, cables and other seabed installations is set out on specialist charts produced for the fishing industry by the Sea Fish Industry Authority.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what date responsibility for the collation and dissemination of information about the emergency position indication radio beacon for the Westhaven AH190 was transferred from the Marine Safety Agency to the Coastguard agency; what were the procedures for that transfer; and in what form the information was expressed. [20844]

  Mr. Bowis
  [holding answer 19 March 1997]: I have asked the chief executive of the Marine Safety Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. Andrew Welsh, dated 20 March 1997:
  Responsibility for collation and dissemination of information about Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons, including that for the 'Westhaven AH 190', was transferred from the Marine Safety Agency (MSA) to the Coastguard Agency (TCA) on the 24 February 1997. Training on registry procedures was given by the MSA to TCA during week commencing 13 January 1997. Both written and verbal instruction on the mechanisms for EPIRB registration was provided during this period.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what(a) co-ordination and (b) staff training took place in the Coastguard service related to the transfer of emergency position indication radio beacon

  753
  administration from the Marine Safety Agency; and what staff and at what grades worked at the Coastguard agency on the date of the transfer. [20845]

  Mr. Bowis
  [holding answer 19 March 1997]: The transfer of the emergency position indicating radio beacon—EPIRB—administration from the MSA to the Coastguard Agency took place on 24 February 1997.

  (a) The co-ordination of the transfer was conducted by the appropriate perations managers of both organisations at a series of meetings and involved:

  (i) conversion of the MSA database to operate under Coastguard software;

  (ii) one month period "double entry" on the MSA and Coastguard databases to ensure consistency in the input process;

  (iii) the familiarisation and training of Coastguard staff on the database system.

  (b) Coastguard staff training related to the transfer covered a five-day period from 13–17 January 1997, and included:

  (i) familiarisation on the background to the EPIRB registration database;

  (ii) the general administration regime of the database;

  (iii) data input training.

  In addition to the "double entry" period during which Coastguard staff improved their familiarity with the database, they also received appropriate software application training on 13 December 1996.

  The Coastguard staff involved with the EPIRB database on 24 February were:
  One coastguard station officer; one administration assistant; one part-time clerk/typist.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when the emergency position indication radio beacon documentation was received from the skipper of the Westhaven AH190; when it was processed; on what dates it was logged; and which authorities dealt with it; [20841]

  (2) what actions his Department intends to take in respect of the loss of the Westhaven AH190; and what is the planned time scale for these actions; [20843]

  (3) at what time and what date the emergency position indication radio beacon of the Westhaven AH190 was activated; [20846]

  (4) what steps he intends to take to implement compulsory registration of emergency position indication radio beacons on fishing vessels. [20847]

  Mr. Bowis
  [holding answer 19 March 1997]: The loss of the fishing vessel Westhaven is the subject of an inspector's inquiry carried out by the marine accident investigation branch. Investigations of this type should be completed within 12 months of the date of the accident. Interim recommendations can, however, be made at any time if there are urgent lessons to be learned emerging from the investigation.

  The registration of the Westhaven's emergency beacon is being examined by the Marine Safety and Coastguard agencies. The results will be passed to the MAIB.
  754

  M25 (Widening)
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will announce his decision on proposals to widen the M25 between junctions 12 and 15. [21515]

  Mr. Watts
  My right hon. Friend has decided that the proposals for widening the M25 between junctions 12 and 15 should go ahead. A copy of the decision letter is being sent to all those who commented on the environmental statement and copies have also today been placed in the Library.

  A36 (Improvements)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the A36 is classified as a strategic route; an what are the current plans for improvements along the A36. [21245]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 20 March 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question about the programme for improvements on and the classification of the A36 route.
  The A36, (together with the A46), is an important strategic trunk road route linking Southampton and Bristol. There are two major schemes in the trunk road programme for the A36-the proposed Salisbury Bypass and the proposed Codford-Heytesbury Improvement. There are also two network enhancement projects in the programme for the A36: Phase 2 of the West Wellow traffic calming scheme and the preparation of the third and final phase of the scheme, to include Whinwhistle Road junction.

  Departmental Management Plans
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out his Department's management plans for the coming financial year. [21641]

  Sir George Young
  I have today published my Department's departmental plan 1997. This outlines how my Department will use its administrative and other resources in 1997–98 and the following two years. Copies of this document are available in the Library. It will be supplemented by the business plans to be published by each of my Department's executive agencies.

  The transport report 1997, presented to Parliament today, sets out expenditure plans for the Department of Transport, the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising and the Office of the Rail Regulator, for the period 1997–98 to 1999–2000. Copies are available in the Library.

  London Underground (Service Objectives)
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has set quality of service objectives for London Underground Ltd. to achieve in 1997–98. [21624]

  Mr. Bowis
  As is customary at this time of year, I have today written to Peter Ford, the chairman of London Transport, setting London Underground's quality of service objective for the year ahead. The table shows those objectives, London Underground's objectives for 1998–99, which were set last year as part of a package of three-year objectives, and its interim targets for this year and its performance to the beginning of January.
  755

  Per cent.

  Measure

  1996–97 to date

  1996–97 target

  1997–98 target

  1998–99 target

  Train service regularity (percentage headways achieved)

  193.0

  95.7

  95.9

  96.2

  Percentage schedule operated

  294.2

  96.5

  96.9

  97.2

  Ticket purchase (percentage queuing under 3 minutes)

  96.0

  98.0

  98.0

  98.0

  Escalator availability

  92.3

  92.0

  93.0

  94.5

  Lift availability

  96.8

  96.0

  96.0

  96.0

  Train service CSR

  76.0

  76.0

  77.0

  78.0

  Train and station information CSR

  74.0

  73.0

  75.0

  76.0

  Customer security and safety CSR

  82.0

  83.0

  83.0

  83.0

  Staff helpfulness and availability CSR

  69.0

  69.0

  70.0

  71.0

  Train and station cleanliness CSR

  68.0

  69.0

  69.0

  71.0

  CSR = customer satisfaction rating.

  1 95.8 per cent. excluding strike days during summer 1996.

  2 96.4 per cent. excluding strike days.

  Performance is to be measured using the mean average of the 13 periods of the year in question.

  London Transport Finance
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changed he has made to London Transport's external finance limits for 1996–97. [21638]

  Mr. Bowis
  The external finance limits for London Transport for 1996–97 has been increased from £939 million to £964 million to reflect arrangements for paying grant in respect of Croydon tramlink. The external finance limit for crossrail has been formally reduced from £14 million to 6 million, reflecting my right hon. Friend's answer of 2 April 1996,Official Report, column 130, about the project.

  Electrically Powered Vehicles
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he proposes to take following the public consultation on measures to extend the concessions for electrically assisted pedal cycles to a wider range of electrically powered vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [21625]

  Mr. Bowis
  None. A significant number of respondents to the consultation exercise were not in favour of amending the existing regulations. After careful consideration of the submissions my Department received and of the implications to road safety should these concessions be extended, I have decided not to amend the present regulations.

  Transport Council
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the Transport Council held in Brussels on 11 March. [21639]

  Sir George Young
  The Transport Council met in Brussels on 11 March. My noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping represented the United Kingdom.

  The Council agreed a common position on a draft directive to continue for another four years the present arrangements harmonising the start and end dates of summer time throughout the Community. The UK asked for a statement to be entered in the Council minutes recording our preference for a recommendation. The Council and Commission agreed a joint declaration on the need for a study of the effects of summer time.
  756
  The Council reached political agreement, by qualified majority, on a draft regulation to continue Community funding for combined transport projects aimed at encouraging the transfer of traffic from road to more environmentally friendly modes of transport. The UK said that it would vote against the text when formally adopted, on the basis that the regulation was not an effective way of achieving this aim. Germany also opposed the measure. This was the only item on which the question of a vote arose.

  The Council also reached political agreement on an amendment to directive 92/14 on aircraft noise. Its main effect is to update the list of aircraft from developing nations exempted until 2002 from the phase-out of some noisier aircraft. A provision allowing noisier aircraft to be banned from two of the three Berlin airports—Tempelhof and Tegel—was agreed.

  The Council agreed terms of reference for a high-level group of officials to consider possible Community involvement in the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation—EUROCONTROL—and in a European aviation safety authority. The group will make a progress report to the June Transport Council.

  The Council held an orientation debate on proposals for the introduction of a new digital tachograph. The issue was remitted to the Committee of Permanent Representatives—COREPER—for further consideration.

  The Council held a further orientation debate on a draft directive on taxation and road user charges for heavy goods vehicles, and received a report from the Commission on proposals aimed at taking forward the Community's negotiations with Switzerland on transport issues. Conclusions were agreed instructing COREPER to pursue discussions on the draft directive, noting that agreement should be reached in conjunction with the conclusion of land transport negotiations with Switzerland.

  The Council agreed a resolution calling on member states introducing new electronic fee collection systems for road pricing to use the technical standards developed by CEN—the European standardisation body.

  The Council was invited to comment on a draft resolution, to be considered further by the ECOFIN Council, calling on the Commission to study the effects on the transport sector of levying a duty on aviation fuel.

  The Commission gave progress reports on transport research, public-private partnerships for trans-European network projects and trans-European rail freight freeways.
  757

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what targets he has set for the executive agencies in his Department. [21640]

  Sir George Young
  The following key targets have been set for the Department of Transport's executive agencies. The targets are set out in the agencies' business plans, which include management objectives, performance indicators and key tasks, where appropriate to the agencies' business. Copies of the business plans are placed in the Library.

  The key targets for the Coastguard agency are to:
  discharge the Secretary of State's responsibility for maritime search and rescue, through its own or dedicated assets by:
  maintaining a 24 hours SAR co-ordinating capability within, and including the coasts and shoreline of the UK search and rescue region;
  arriving on the scene of coastal incidents with 30 minutes of the call, 95 per cent. of the time; and by getting helicopters airborne within 15 minutes of a notification to "scramble" during the daytime and 45 minutes at night;
  maintaining a comprehensive radio reception and transmission coverage of the UKSRR which enables SAR co-ordination action for the duration of incidents without interruption or equipment malfunction;
  testing contingency plans for major maritime SAR incidents, particularly those involving passenger carrying vessels and merchant shipping and the offshore oil and gas industry by undertaking at least five live exercises, and additionally as required by the shipping industry to exercise passenger vessel emergency plans with SAR services; and by conducting 34 SAR awareness seminars;
  maintain a fully operational 24-hours channel navigation information service covering the Dover strait traffic separation scheme, in concert with the appropriate French authorities;
  discharge the Secretary of State's responsibility for dealing with marine pollution by the maintenance of a national contingency plan and in particular:
  activate the plan within 30 minutes of notification of an incident;
  commence action at sea to deal with a spill of dispersible oil within four hours of notification of an incident;
  undertake one national and six local exercises in conjunction with local authorities, oil companies and harbour authorities; and
  review the national contingency plan by 31 March 1998;
  increase the number of prosecutions undertaken for marine pollution offences in conjunction with the Marine Safety Agency;
  complete the installation of a computerised SAR incident recording system by 31 July and to report to the Department by the end of October 1997 on suitable targets for effecting a reduction in the number of incidents.
  To implement phase 2 of the proposed reorganisation of the HM Coastguard operational structure "Focus for Change" by 31 March 1988.

  The key targets for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency are to:
  make an efficiency gain (on the basis of an overall efficiency index) of 2.5 per cent.;
  complete successfully 495,000 vehicle excise duty enforcement cases by imposition of penalties and to recover, through penalties and duty from licensing, at least £2.85 for every £1.00 full cost spent by DVLA on vehicle excise duty enforcement;
  758
  deliver 95 per cent. of ordinary driving licences to customers within 10 workings days, 95 per cent. of vocational driving licences within nine working days, and 95 per cent. of first provisional driving licences within nine working days.
  deliver 95 per cent. of registration documents for new vehicles within 12 days, and 95 per cent. of changes to vehicle registration documents within 13 days;
  deliver answers to 96 per cent. of written inquiries within eight working days, and to answer 90 per cent. of telephone inquiries within 30 seconds;
  ensure that at least 98 per cent. of driving licences, 98 per cent. of registration documents for new vehicles, and 97 per cent. of changes to registration documents are issued without a DVLA induced error.7

  The key targets for the Driving Standards Agency are to:
  achieve an average annual return on capital employed on statutory activities of 6 per cent. of net assets, over the period 1 April 1997 to 31 March 2002;
  increase the weighted average of fees by no more than the increase in prices as measured by the retail price index over the period 1 April 1997 to 31 March 2000, and by no more than the retail price index minus 1 per cent. in both 2000–01 and 2001–02;
  achieve a national average waiting time for car and practical tests of six weeks and make appointments available within 10 weeks at 99 per cent. of permanent test centres;
  aim to keep 99.5 per cent. of all practical test appointments which are in place two days prior to the appointment date;
  answer practical test booking office telephones so that:
  four of five calls will be answered on their first dialling attempt;
  90 per cent. of calls which have been answered by an automatic system will then be answered by a human voice within 30 seconds; and
  an average of no more than 4 per cent. of calls in the queue will be abandoned before being answered;
  achieve a national average waiting time for theory tests of two weeks;
  ensure theory test booking office telephones are answered so that:
  incoming lines will not be engaged for more than 30 seconds in any week; and
  95 per cent. of all calls which have been answered by an automatic system will be answered within 10 seconds by a human voice.

  The key targets for the Highways Agency are to:
  improve performance against the road user's charter targets set out in annexe C of the agency's business plan where achievement levels were below target in 1996–97 and improve systems for monitoring performance;
  implement the six Whitehall standards set out in the citizen's charter fifth anniversary White Paper (As set out in annexe C of the business plan);
  achieve 80 per cent. of the milestones relating to national schemes, design build finance and operate projects and other private finance initiatives listed in annex D of the business plan, or other milestones as may be substituted or added by Ministers;
  complete 85 per cent. of the network enhancement and network control projects listed in annex E of the business plan;
  complete 1,400 lane kilometres of surface renewal, including reconstruction, overlays, resurfacing, inlays and surface dressing (including resin-based surface treatments and re texturing);
  assess the structural capacity of all remaining structures by March 1998 to ensure that from 1 January 1999, all vehicles up to and including the new 40-tonne maximum gross weight

  759
  standard can use all structures supporting trunk roads and other important routes over trunk roads; and complete 4,400 general inspections and 2,150 principal inspections;
  safeguard 126 structures for use by 40-tonne vehicles;
  contribute to the Government's target of reducing road casualties by one third by 2000 (compared to the annual average for 1981–85) by ensuring that accident rates between 1996 and 1998 on the motorway and all-purpose trunk road network do not exceed 21 accidents involving personal injury for every 100 million vehicle kilometres of travel and by completing 180 local safety schemes;
  publish congestion monitoring information, including national road network assessment system maps and TrafficMaster data;
  publish, as part of the agency's annual report, information about and activities covered by the agency's environmental strategy, for new schemes and network management and maintenance activities, demonstrating that the agency has given full weight to environmental issues. The information will quantify specific environmental effects and will detail measures taken to reduce the impact of roads on the environment, as indicated in annex F of the business plan;
  develop revised efficiency indicator(s) by 30 June 1997;
  ensure applications to the national roads scheme committee in 1997–98 to increase the cost of schemes are not to exceed 2 per cent. of the total programme value;
  complete a risk analysis, and obtain client agreement to the risk estimate and referral points for those national schemes listed under the preferred route announcement;
  Order publication, public inquiry and award of contract milestones in Annex D of the business plan.

  The key targets for the Marine Safety Agency are to:
  reduce the accident rate of UK merchant ships on a three-year rolling average;
  reduce the number of deaths of crew and passengers on UK merchant ships on a three-year rolling average;
  reduce the accident rate of UK registered fishing vessels on a three-year rolling average;
  reduce the number of deaths on UK registered fishing vessels on a three-year rolling average;
  ensure that the rate of merchant ship losses in the Red Ensign fleet remains below the world fleet rate on a three-year rolling average;
  reduce the number of Red Ensign registered vessels detailed by other flag states as a percentage of the number inspected under port state control arrangements on a three-year rolling average;
  undertake port state control inspections of 25 to 30 per cent. of foreign-registered ships visiting UK ports;
  increase the number of prosecutions undertaken for Marine Pollution Convention offences, in conjunction with the Coastguard Agency;
  ensure that at least 60 per cent. of available time is spent on core activities.

  The key targets for the Vehicle Certification Agency are to:
  achieve a net unit cost target of £74.96;
  have at least 98 per cent. of approval certificates issued error free;
  ensure that where errors do occur in certificates, corrected documents are issued within three working days in 95 per cent. of cases;
  have at least 98 per cent. of invoices issued error free;
  ensure that where errors do occur in invoices, corrected documents are issued within three working days in 95 per cent. of cases;
  audit at least 50 per cent. of VCA's approved quality procedures.
  760
  receive a satisfactory appraisal report on the agency's technical performance from the Department of Transport's chief mechanical engineer.

  The key targets for the Vehicle Inspectorate are to:
  meet the requirements on levels and types of activity laid down in the memorandum of agreement on each road enforcement transport scheme;
  develop a target for the 1998–99 financial year that will reflect effective provision of a statutory testing service to the industry, taking account of customer survey feedback; for 1997–98, to continue to achieve current test measures, as specified in the business plan;
  meet the quality and general effectiveness levels as specified in the business plan measures;
  devise a comprehensive and qualitative system for assessing customer satisfaction against which the performance of the agency can be judged;
  make an efficiency gain (on the basis on an aggregated cost efficiency index) of 2 per cent;
  break even while achieving an average 6 per cent. rate of return on capital, over the period 1 April 1991 to 31 March 1998;
  improve staff awareness and satisfaction as measured through the annual survey;
  secure the long-term development of the organisation through working for the investors in people award, implementation of an information systems strategy, and commencement of the MOT computerisation project.

  Sefton Eurogateway Regional Challenge
  Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress with the trunk road aspects of the Sefton Eurogateway regional challenge. [21642]

  Sir George Young
  I am pleased to say that the Highways Agency will make its contribution of £770,000 to the Eurogateway project by funding the environmental improvements to the A5036 in 1998–99. This should now enable the project to go forward.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has made with regard to the provision of roads supporting the channel tunnel rail link. [21215]

  Mr. Watts
  I have instructed the Highways Agency to proceed as rapidly as possible with trunk road schemes which support the channel tunnel rail link. A number of key decisions have been taken. These include:Following approval by Royal Assent of the £170 million A2-M2 widening between Cobham and M2 junction 4, work is to proceed on preparation of the contract documentation with the aim to invite tenders for a design and build contract in the spring of 1998 with a view to a start of works in 1999.
  Work is to begin on the next stage of developing the £70 million A2 widening scheme between Bean and Cobham, which will comprise two phases, with the Highways Agency launching the selection process for the design agent(s).
  In association with the Bluewater development, work started last November on widening the eastbound carriageway of A2 between A296, Watling street and A2260 Pepperhill. Tenders have been received for the second stage of those works— adding two replacement slip roads and upgrading the third to the B255 Bean junction—programmed to start later this spring. Both contracts together will cost some £5 million and are being funded almost entirely by the developer.

  761
  Work is to proceed on the next stage of the £34 million A2-A282 Dartford improvement, with the Highways Agency starting the selection process for the Design Agent.
  The Highways Agency has also identified a number of small-scale measures to improve safety, such as improved signing, white lining and merge areas on junctions between Pepperhill and Cobham, which will be introduced in the shorter term at a cost of about £30,000. Work on some of these has already begun.
  The Highways Agency expects to announce the successful design agents for the A2 schemes later this year. This will allow the Agency to continue work on these important schemes which, will remove congestion and traffic delays that can occur, particularly during peak periods and in the summer.

  A49 (Improvements)
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for improvements to the A49 trunk road at its intersection with the A489. [21175]

  Mr. Watts
  I have allocated funds for the Highways Agency to develop plans to improve the layout of the A49–A489 junction by providing a separate lane for traffic turning right off the trunk road. The proposal includes realigning the trunk road carriageway and widening the Stretford bridge over the River Orny south of the junction.

  Recently, advance warning signs have been improved to make the junction more conspicuous and help reduce accidents. The agency is also considering the possibility of improving visibility at the junction without prejudicing the main scheme. The agency expects its design agents, Shropshire county council, to issue a report on this at the end of March.

  London Underground (Northern Line Improvements)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) stations and (b) interchange stations on the Northern line were improved in each of the past three years; and which stations will be improved in 1997–98. [21079]

  Mr. Bowis
  Improvements to London Underground's Northern line stations are an operational matter for London Underground. However, I understand the position to be as follows:(a) NORTHERN LINE STATIONS

  Station improvement projects in the last three years

  1994–95

  Colindale

  Kennington

  1995–96

  Brent Cross

  Burnt Oak

  Chalk Farm

  Clapham North

  Clapham South

  Finchley Central

  Hampstead

  Totteridge and Whetstone

  Tufnell Park

  762

  1996–97

  None

  Station improvements in 1997–98

  Clapham Common

  Mornington Crescent

  Oval

  Tooting Bec

  Tooting Broadway

  (b) INTERCHANGE STATIONS ON THE NORTHERN LINE

  Station improvements in the last three years

  1994–95

  None

  1995–96

  Balham

  King's Cross

  Old Street

  Waterloo

  1996–97

  Kentish Town

  London Bridge

  Station improvements in 1997–98

  Bank/Monument.

  To eliminate double counting, projects spanning more than one financial year have been allocated to the year in which the bulk of the work took place.

  Heathrow Airport Terminal 5 Inquiry
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 17 March,Official Report, column 419, (1) if he will furnish the reply given to the hon. Member for Thurrock in respect of the Heathrow terminal 5 inquiry to the inspector, Mr. Roy Vandermeer; [21226]

  (2) if it is intended to revise the statement of Mr. T. Dockerty of the Department of Transport given to Mr. Roy Vandermeer on 27 February in respect of the Heathrow terminal 5 application; [21225]

  (3) what mandate Mr. Dockerty of the Department of Transport had to give evidence at the inquiry into Heathrow terminal 5. [21230]

  Mr. Watts
  I will arrange to let the inspector of the Heathrow terminal 5 inquiry have a copy of the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Thurrock which appeared in column 419 of the Official Report on 17 March. There is no intention to revise the statement by Mr. Dockerty to the inquiry on 27 February.

  Mr. Dockerty is a project manager in the Highways Agency, which acts for the Secretary of State for Transport at the inquiry. He is charged with representing the Secretary of State on a wide range of surface access matters, including evidence about the draft highways orders.

  A36 (Salisbury Bypass)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will hold a planning conference into the proposed A36 Salisbury bypass. [21247]
  763
  Mr. Watts
  No. Public consultation on three alternative routes for the bypass in 1988 showed overwhelming support for a route to the south of the city. This resulted in the selection of the published route which was the subject of year-long public inquiry held between 20 April 1993 and 27 April 1994. The inspector recommended in favour of the published route with one modification to take it further away from housing at Harnham on the south-west outskirts of the city.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the evidence submitted from the statutory agencies into the environmental impacts of the proposed A36 Salisbury bypass; and if he will announce a timetable for further consultation on this evidence. [21246]

  Mr. Watts
  Written representations by English Nature, English Heritage and the National Rivers Authority were made publicly available during the 1993–94 public inquiry into the proposed bypass. None of these bodies nor the Countryside Commission appeared at the inquiry to object to the proposed bypass. The report on the public inquiry was published on 29 October last year when my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport announced that they were minded to confirm the draft orders to authorise construction of the bypass subject to their further consideration of certain specified matters.

  Since then, English Nature, the Countryside Commission and the Environment Agency have been consulted in the course of reviews of the bypass which my right hon. Friends instructed the Highways Agency to carry out before they made a final decision on the scheme. The Highways Agency report on these reviews was placed in the Library on 17 March. It included the responses to the agency. The agency's report by the bodies they consulted will now be sent to interested parties to allow them an opportunity to comment. These comments will be taken into account in reaching a final decision on the bypass along with other representations received since last October's announcement. Six weeks are to be allowed for comments on the agency's report.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many representations he has received from the Wiltshire area(a) for and (b) against the proposed Salisbury bypass since the start of the public inquiry. [21244]

  Mr. Watts
  The inspector who held the public inquiry reported objections to the bypass from some 300 sources, 20 of which were subsequently withdrawn. In addition, there were 280 pro-forma objections and four petitions of objection. He reported support for the bypass from 40 sources and one petition of support. He also reported that publication of objectors alternative routes attracted support for the published proposals from 75 additional sources.

  Between the close of the inquiry and the announcement on 29 October last year that my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Transport and for the Environment were minded to confirm the draft orders authorising construction of the bypass a further 166 representations were received which included some 120 general objections to the bypass and three letters of support. Since the announcement on 29 October, a further 2,771
  764
  representations have been received of which 2,599 are pro forma postcards and letters. Of these representations, 802 are for the bypass and 1,956 against. The majority of representations are from the Wiltshire area.

  British Rail Passenger Companies
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each former British Rail passenger company(a) the estimated value of the assets, (b) the sale price, (c) the levels of subsidy to be paid for those years for which information is available and (d) the length of the subsidy period. [20981]

  Mr. Watts
  The asset value of the former British Rail train operating companies at the point of sale was a matter for the British Railways Board. The TOCs were each sold at a net asset value of £1—that is assets net of all liabilities. Subsidy levels to be paid for each franchise by franchise year are set out in my answer of 31 October 1996,Official Report, columns 241–42; and my answers to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) on 13 January, Official Report, columns 118–19 and 27 February, Official Report, columns 294–95

  Railfreight Distribution
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the amount of the subsidy paid to English, Welsh and Scottish Railways following the sale of Railfreight Distribution and the length of time this subsidy will be paid; [20917]

  (2) if he will list the estimated value of the assets of Railfreight Distribution; [20918]

  (3) if he will list the income received by the Exchequer following the sale of Railfreight Distribution; [20919]

  (4) if English, Welsh and Scottish Railways Holdings Ltd. will be allowed to operate through the channel tunnel without payment being made by the company; [20920]

  (5) if his Department will be making payments to Eurotunnel as part of the financial arrangements made following the sale of Railfreight Distribution; [20921]

  (6) if English, Welsh and Scottish Railways have been allowed a pensions holiday as part of the financial arrangements following its purchase of Railfreight Distribution; [20914]

  Mr. Watts
  The financial terms of the sale will be made known after sale completion.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the companies which bid to purchase Railfreight Distribution. [20922]

  Mr. Watts
  Bids were received from English, Welsh and Scottish Railway Holdings Ltd. and from a consortium led by Management Consortium Bid Ltd.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what basis the sale of Railfreight Distribution requires the approval of the European Commission. [20911]

  Mr. Watts
  The Commission has been notified of the offer for sale under article 93(3) of the treaty.
  765
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the total cost of advisers, consultants and legal advice of the sale of Railfreight Distribution. [20912]

  Mr. Watts
  The sale of Railfreight Distribution has not yet been completed.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many staff are currently employed by Railfreight Distribution; and at what location. [20913]

  Mr. Watts
  The number of staff currently employed by Railfreight Distribution is 1,182, based principally at Allerton, Birmingham, Crewe, Derby, Dolland's Moor, Mossend, Paddington, Saltley, Tinsley, Trafford Park, Wakefield, Wembley and Willesden.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if English, Welsh and Scottish Railway Holdings Ltd. has applied for a safety case for(a) new locomotives and (b) rolling stock. [20915]

  Mr. Watts
  English, Welsh and Scottish Railway is discussing with Railtrack a prospective route acceptance safety case for its new Class 66 locomotive.

  British Railfreight Companies
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each of the former British Railfreight companies(a) the estimated value of the assets, (b) the sale price, (c) the amount of subsidy to be paid to the purchaser and (d) the length of the subsidy period. [20916]

  Mr. Watts
  The answers are as follows:

  (a) The price for each sale reflects the value to the purchaser of the assets and liabilities of the company.

  (b) The gross proceeds for each of the former BR freight companies were as follows:

  Rail Express Systems Ltd.: £24.2 million;

  Loadhaul Ltd., Mainline Freight Ltd. and Transrail Freight Ltd.: £225.15 million;

  Freightliner (1995) Ltd.: £5.39 million.

  (c) and (d) None of those sales involves subsidy. Freightliner is receiving track access grant of up to £75 million over five years.

  The sale of Railfreight Distribution has yet to be completed.

  Payment of Bills
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of bills to his Department for the financial year 1995 to 1996 were paid(a) in accordance with agreed contractual conditions and (b) within 30 days of receiving goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice where no contractual conditions applied. [21200]

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the President of the Board of Trade on 18 July 766
  1996, Official Report, columns 613–14.Additional information could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  Roads (Expenditure)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was his Department's expenditure on roads in each of the past five years. [21347]

  Mr. Watts
  The information is as follows:

  1991–92: 2,635

  1992–93: 2,859

  1993–94: 3,099

  1994–95: 2,933

  1995–96: 2,703.

  A34
  Sir Patrick Cormack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve the A34 in Great Wyrley in the South Staffordshire constituency; and if he will make a statement. [21189]

  Mr. Watts
  The Highways Agency will start construction on the first phase of the A34 Great Wyrley traffic calming scheme in 1997–98.

  M6
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are his plans for improving the M6 between junctions 11 and 16; and if he will make a statement. [21232]

  Mr. Watts
  We now intend to widen the M6 motorway between junctions 11 and 16 to dual four lanes by adding one lane to each side.

  Seventy per cent. less land will be needed, greatly reducing the impact of adjacent land and the local environment. A high standard of environmental measures will also be provide, including noise mounds and landscaping. Many properties close to the motorway will benefit from reductions in noise and 10 properties will be spared from demolition. Along with these benefits, we have also saved over 40 per cent. of the cost of the original scheme.

  To minimise congestion and diversion during construction and future maintenance, we have devised an innovative method of providing continuous hard shoulders at bridges. This will allow three lanes in each direction to be maintained for 90 per cent. of the time during the works. Most existing bridges will be retained, reducing disruption during construction to local communities.

  Widening will help to keep traffic moving and will encourage use of the motorway instead of less suitable local roads.

  The previous draft orders are being withdrawn.

  London Taxi Fares and Fees
  Mr. Bendall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about London taxi fares and fees. [21463]
  767
  Mr. Bowis
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has made an order increasing London taxi fares by 4 per cent. with effect from Saturday 26 April. The new tariff will be:Initial minimum charge: £1.40—for the first 483 m (528.4 yd) or 108 seconds.
  Then 20p for each additional 241.5 m (264.2 yd) or 54 seconds until the fare exceeds £9.00 fare represents a journey of about 6 miles.
  Once the fare exceeds £9.20p for each 161 m (176.1 yd) or 36 seconds.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has decided that there will be no change in the Public Carriage Office's fees for a London taxi driver's licence—£87 for a three-year licence—or in the annual fee for licensing a London taxi—£78.

  A249 Iwade to Queensborough Improvement
  Sir Roger Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his letter of 14 March to the hon. Member for Faversham, when he confirmed the publication of the draft compulsory purchase order for the A249 Iwade to Queensborough improvement scheme; what is the hoped for start date for the construction of this project; and how this date will be affected if the procedures are foreshortened by the absence of objections. [21153]

  Mr. Watts
  I have instructed the Highways Agency to give this scheme high priority.

  The draft compulsory purchase order has been published today, 20 March. The future progress of the scheme depends upon the satisfactory completion of the remaining statutory procedures, including a public inquiry should one prove necessary. If a public inquiry is required the earliest possible start of works would be in the year 2000. If no objection were received and a public inquiry then became unnecessary, the timescale might reduce by several months.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Ireland (Diplomatic Status)
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Irish participants(a) from the Anglo-Irish secretariat at Maryfield and (b) involved in the talks at Castle buildings have been granted diplomatic status; and what level of immunity from arrest and criminal charges this gives. [21004]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  None in either category. The officials in question have not therefore acquired any level of immunity from arrest and criminal charges as a result of diplomatic status.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will hold discussions with his counterparts in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine to 768
  ascertain if returned asylum seekers facing a charge of desertion from the Army can be tried in a country other than that to which they are returned; [21319]

  (2) if he will hold discussions with his counterparts in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine to ascertain if returned asylum seekers facing a charge of desertion from the Army are entitled to the benefit of civilian legal advice;[21321]

  (3) if he will hold discussions with his counterparts in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine to ascertain if returned asylum seekers facing a charge of desertion from the Army would be tried in open court; [21320]

  (4) if he will hold discussions with his counterparts in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine to obtain their opinions on claims of the forcible abduction of asylum-seekers from Germany while awaiting the opportunity to provide intelligence to NATO officers; [21322]

  (5) if he will hold discussions with his counterparts in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine on the penalties potentially faced by asylum seekers deported by a member of NATO who face charges of desertion from the Army after their return to those countries. [21318]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  I have no plans at present to hold discussions with the Russian, Belarusian or Ukranian Foreign Ministers on these matters.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will hold discussions with his German counterpart on the obligations to asylum seekers who face maltreatment on return to their country of origin and who have provided intelligence information to the benefit of the United Kingdom as a member of NATO; [21317]

  (2) if he will hold discussions with his German counterpart on the deferral of deportation orders against asylum seekers in Germany who face deportation to Russia, Belarus or Ukraine until it can be established whether any of those asylum seekers were given indications of asylum in the course of interrogation by intelligence officers reporting to NATO or members thereof. [21316]

  Mr. David Davis
  Our understanding is that the German authorities have yet to take a decision on the status of the former Soviet Army officers but are considering the issue sympathetically. The British embassy in Bonn has drawn the public interest in this subject to the attention of the German Government. We continue to follow the matter closely. The practice of successive Governments has been not to comment on intelligence matters.

  Russian Prisons
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the conditions prevailing in Russian prisons. [21327]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We have made no separate assessment of the conditions, but follow closely the work
  769
  of the Russian presidential commission on human rights, the Council of Europe, and non-govemmental organisations, in this area.

  On 25 February, Vladimir Kartahkin, head of the presidential commission on human rights launched a report on conditions in Russia's prisons, which found "grave violations… and inhuman conditions". On 3 March, the Prosecutor General, Yuri Skuratov, warned of a "social explosion" unless urgent measures were taken. He highlighted overcrowding and the rising incidence of illness, especially tuberculosis, in prisons and remand centres.

  These assessments are supported by independent human rights NGOs such as Human Rights Watch/Helsinki.

  A programme for reforming the penal system has been adopted, but the lack of funds is a continual brake on progress.

  Foreign Students
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many foreign students have benefited from English language training funded by the British Council in each of the last 10 years; and how much has been spent on such training in each of these years. [21216]

  Mr. Hanley
  The British Council spends a large proportion of its grant-in-aid in supporting teacher training and other projects which aim to improve the quality of English teaching in state education systems overseas. In 1995–96 this amounted to £17,500,000 or 16 per cent. of grant-in-aid. Figures for expenditure in other years are not readily available; neither are numbers for individuals, although in east and central Europe alone approximately 30,000 teachers benefited in the year 1995–96.

  The Council does not teach English in this country. It does administer English language training in the UK for foreign students funded by the Overseas Development Administration's technical co-operation training programme, the FCO's Chevening scholarships programme, multilateral aid agencies and the council's own grant-in-aid. Overall figures for the last three years are as follows:

  1996–97

  395 students: £1,998,000.

  1995–96

  471 students: £2,459,000.

  1994–95

  520 students: £3,114,000.

  These figures include fellowships funded by the Council from its government grant-in-aid as follows:

  1996–97

  17 students: £63,600.

  1995–96

  34 students: £161,000.

  770

  1994–95

  54 students: £247,000.

  Figures for previous years are not readily available.

  During the past three years the British Council has also delivered English courses to 330,000 students in its language teaching centres overseas, which are all self-funding. The total number of students attending these courses over the last 10 years has been 960,000. This has been at no charge to the taxpayer.

  St. Helena
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason the Government of St. Helena has refused to renew the immigration permit of the Swedish national, Mr. Mikael Olsson. [21051]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) on 17 March 1997, column 394.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 17 March,Official Report, column 394, what are the rules which govern the length of stay permitted to a visitor on St. Helena; and what guidance has been issued to the immigration officer on the application of these rules, with particular reference to extensions. [21190]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The Immigration Ordinance 1972 controls immigration into St. Helena. The immigration officer is guided by the St. Helena Government's immigration policy, which came into force on 1 July 1993, and permits that genuine visitors other than those who own homes in St. Helena or arrive there by yacht."will be granted a permit to enter and remain on the Island for a period not exceeding three months. The period may be extended for further periods not exceeding three months up to a total of one year."

  Bahrain
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 11 March,Official Report, column 151 if he will make a further request for British embassy consular access to Mr. Yasser A. Al-Sayegh; and if he will make a statement. [21070]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  Our embassy in Bahrain will not be making a further request for consular access. The Bahraini authorities have stated that they consider Mr. Al-Sayegh to be a Bahraini national. He has family living in Bahrain.

  China
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the value of British exports to China in each of the last five years. [21211]
  771
  Mr. Hanley
  The value of British merchandise exports to China in each of the last five years was:

  1996: £738.5 million

  1995: £824.4 million

  1994: £844.9 million

  1993: £739.5 million

  1992: £429.9 million.

  Mrs. Tasmeen Ahmed
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects a decision will be taken on the application by Mrs. Tasmeen Ahmed, Ref. IMM D7103, to the United Kingdom post in Islamabad to join her husband in the United Kingdom; if all required documents have been received by the post; and if he will make a statement. [21074]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  I have asked our High Commission in Islamabad to provide me with a detailed account of the position. Thereafter I will send the honourable Member a substantive reply as soon as possible.

  Payment of Bills
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of bills to his Department for the financial year 1995 to 1996 were paid(a) in accordance with agreed contractual conditions and (b) within 30 days of receiving goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice where no contractual conditions applied. [21203]

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the President of the Board of Trade on 18 July 1996, c.613–14. Any additional information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Visas
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will grant visas to Miss Enoucha Mohamed Salem and Mr. Salah Moustapha, representatives from the Saharawi Youth Union, Ujsarso, for the period from 21 March to 1 April. [21120]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  Miss Salem and Mr. Moustapha attempted to submit entry clearance applications to our entry clearance section in Algiers. However, it offers a very limited service, because of the local conditions. Miss Salem and Mr. Moustapha have therefore been advised to apply in Tunis, the entry clearance post designated to handle Algerian applications. No decision can be taken until they or their application have been accepted and reviewed.

  Russia
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the proportion of Russian(a) soldiers and (b) officers fleeing the Russian armed forces who are threatened with imprisonment in Russia. [21326]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We have no reliable information on which to base a sound estimate.
  772

  Peto Institute
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the agreement between the United Kingdom and Hungarian Governments concerning the extension and refurbishment of the Peto Institute in Budapest. [21570]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Under an agreement in 1991 with the Hungarian Government, the Government made a contribution of £1.75 million towards the cost of building a new international Peto Institute in Budapest to be brought into operation by 1996. It has not proved possible to use this money for the purpose originally intended. The Government have instead now agreed a proposal from the Hungarians that these funds—approximately £2 million including interest accrued—should be applied to extend and refurbish an existing institute building in return for substantial benefits for UK citizens. These benefits include guaranteed numbers of places for British children receiving conductive education at the institute and for British students receiving professional training; reductions in fees for British children; and access on a cost basis to a guaranteed proportion of new family and student accommodation. The institute will continue to assist with the development of conductive education in the UK. A new intergovernmental agreement incorporating these benefits and appropriate safeguards for the implementation of the project will be signed later this month by the British ambassador in Budapest and a representative of the Hungarian Government.

  Estonia
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the negotiations between Estonia and Russia on the delimitation of their border and on the implications for Estonia's aspirations for integration into the European Union. [21571]

  Mr. Rifkind
  I welcome recent progress in the Estonia/Russia border negotiations; I hope that the positive steps taken by the Estonian Government will lead to early agreement. If for reasons outside Estonia's control there are further delays, I see no reason why they should obstruct Estonia's progress towards membership of the European Union. I raised this with Mr. Primakov when I saw him on 28 February.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to publish the 1996 annual report on Hong Kong. [21572]

  Mr. Hanley
  The report was published today and a copy has been placed in the Libraries of the House. The report includes a foreword written by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. I commend it to the House.

  Arms Embargoes
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the arms embargoes currently implemented by the United Kingdom and their scope; and if he will make a statement. [21573]
  773
  Mr. David Davis
  The United Kingdom currently enforces 17 arms embargoes. Under the United Nations charter, we have a legally binding obligation to enforce arms embargoes imposed by the Security Council under article 41 of the charter. Other embargoes are imposed on a national basis or following agreement within the European Union or the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, formerly the CSCE.

  Under UK law, binding UN embargoes are implemented by prohibiting the export of goods and technology on the military list which forms part III to schedule 1 of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, as amended by the Export of Goods (Control) (Amendment No. 2) Order 1996. In addition, the supply of such items from the UK or supply abroad by UK-registered companies and nationals is prohibited by Orders in Council under the United Nations Act 1946. From time to time, the contents of the military list may change, for example, to reflect technological advances or continuing international efforts to counter the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Orders in Council extend such embargoes to the Crown dependencies and the dependent territories. A licence is required for each export or supply from the UK or abroad by a UK-registered company or national.

  National embargoes and those agreed in the EU and the OSCE prohibit only the export of goods covered by the embargo. With the exception of the embargoes on China and Iran, the UK interprets the scope of all such embargoes to cover goods and technology on the military list as defined above.

  Companies are free to submit applications to export goods to any embargoed destinations. The Department of Trade and Industry, as the licensing authority, normally refuses such applications where the goods come within the scope of the embargo. But in exceptional circumstances the DTI might decide, after consultation with advisory departments, to grant a licence to export such goods to an embargoed destination, for example for humanitarian purposes.

  The UK has an end-use—or catch all—control under which any goods may be brought under control if there is knowledge or grounds for suspicion that they might be used for activities linked to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or missiles for their delivery. But other goods, which are not normally controlled, do not become subject to control solely because they are to be used by the military, whether or not the destination concerned is subject to an embargo.

  There are currently six binding UN arms embargoes:
  Angola1, Iraq2, Liberia3, Libya4, Rwanda5 and Somalia6.

  There are currently seven EU embargoes:
  Afghanistan7, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia8, Burma9, China10, Nigeria11, Sudan12 and Zaire13.

  The UK currently implements two embargoes as a result of decisions by the OSCE:
  Armenia14 and Azerbaijan15.
  774
  There are currently two national embargoes:
  Argentina16 and Iran17.

  I shall keep the House informed of current arms embargoes and their scope on a yearly basis. All new embargoes or any amendments to existing embargoes will be announced at the time. I shall also shortly be laying in the Library of the House a list of all UK policy commitments to control strategic exports, including embargoes. An update version will be laid in the Library annually—or more frequently if policy changes require a revision. This statement will also be used to inform British industry.
  Footnotes:
  1Implemented in the UK on 1 October 1993. Products covered by the scope of the embargo can be supplied to the Government of Angola under licence, as long as they are imported through certain named points of entry into Angola;
  2implemented in the UK on 9 August 1990 as part of comprehensive trade sanctions;
  3Implemented in the UK on 22 July 1993;
  4Implemented in the UK on 15 April 1992 as part of a range of sanctions (following an EU arms embargo imposed on 14 April 1986);
  5Implemented in the UK on 24 June 1994. The embargo does not apply to the sale or supply of arms and related material if under licence to the Government of Rwanda. But it does cover the sale or supply of arms and material to persons in States neighbouring Rwanda (i.e. Burundi, Tanzania, Uganda and Zaire) if that sale or supply is for the purpose of the use of such arms or material with Rwanda;
  6Implemented in the UK on 22 July 1993;
  7lmplemented in the UK on 17 December 1996;
  8Implemented in the UK on 26 February 1996. This embargo does not extend to transfers of equipment needed for demining activities;
  9Implemented in the UK on 29 July 1991;
  10Implemented in the UK on 26 June 1989 (although a national embargo was announced on 6 June 1989). In the absence of agreement amongst EU partners on its scope, interpretation of the embargo was left to national discretion. As announced on 4 April 1995, the UK interprets this embargo to include:

  lethal weapons such as machine guns, large calibre weapons, bombs, torpedoes, rockets and missiles;

  specially designed components of the above, and ammunition;

  military aircraft and helicopters, vessels of war, armoured fighting vehicles and other such weapons platforms;

  any equipment which is likely to be used for internal repression.

  11Implemented in the UK on 20 November 1995 (although a national embargo was announced on 11 November 1995);
  12Implemented in the UK on 15 March 1994;
  13Implemented in the UK on 7 April 1993;
  14Implemented in the UK on 28 February 1992;
  15Implemented in the UK on 28 February 1992;
  16Implemented on 3 April 1982;7
  17Implemented on 1 March 1993. The scope of this embargo also covers items entered in Group O in Annex 1 of European Council Decision 94/942/CFSP on the export of dual-use goods, as amended. There are two exceptions to this embargo:

  goods essential for the safety of civil aircraft and air traffic control systems;

  radioactive material in the form of sources for medical equipment and deuterium labelled compounds for medical use.

  Licences for any equipment (including the exceptions to the complete ban mentioned above) are not approved where there is knowledge or reason to suspect that it would go to a military end-user or be used for military purposes.
  775

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment the Government have made of recent Franco-German proposals in the intergovernmental conference on defence. [21574]

  Mr. David Davis
  Her Majesty's Government are a strong advocate of improved practical co-operation on defence among European countries. The decisions of the Berlin North Atlantic Council in June 1996 to support the development of the European security and Defence identity within NATO provide a sound framework for such co-operation, permitting the creation of militarily coherent and effective forces capable of operating under the political control and strategic direction of the Western European Union using NATO assets and capabilities when appropriate. Her Majesty's Government remain opposed to proposals to change the situation set out in the Maastricht treaty whereby the Western European Union elaborates and implements decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications, and to proposals to subordinate the Western European Union to the European Union and to introduce a commitment to the eventual merger of the Western European Union and the European Union. Her Majesty's Government are firmly committed to the principle that decisions with defence implications taken by the European Union shall be taken by unanimity. It is opposed to flexibility arrangements within the European Union which could lead to a group of countries taking on collective defence commitments within a European Union framework which would undermine collective defence within NATO. Proposals along these lines, such as those put forward by the French and Germans, would undermine the development of the European security and defence identity within NATO.

  Asylum and Immigration Appeals
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action his Department has taken in response to the recommendations made by Dame Elizabeth Anson in her reports as the independent monitor of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. [21645]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs sets great store by Dame Elizabeth's report, and, following annual publication, circulates guidance to all entry clearance posts to ensure that her recommendations are implemented. All entry clearance staff are expected to read the report. My officials in the UK examine Dame Elizabeth's recommendations in detail, and change procedures where necessary.

  The independent monitor rightly considers that improved training will contribute significantly to improvements in our entry clearance operations. Acting in response to her reports, we have significantly broadened the scope of our training of entry clearance staff. Training courses and guidance have been introduced to develop the skills of entry clearance managers, locally engaged entry clearance support staff and interpreters. In her 1996 report Dame Elizabeth expressed her satisfaction with the improvements we have made to the training of our entry clearance managers and officers.
  776
  We have also worked hard to meet the improved administrative standards set by the independent monitor. Increased access to IT is a continuing priority, and improvements we have made are already paying dividends. Administrative systems designed to speed up, and improve the quality of, the entry clearance process, such as the preliminary assessment system and automatic reviews of refusals, have been introduced and improved after recommendations in the independent monitor's report.

  It is inevitable that some recommendations cannot be enacted immediately. This is true of those concerning applications by elderly relatives and couples seeking infertility treatment. However, work is in hand on both, as a result of which guidance to staff will be amended.

  Dame Elizabeth wrote in her 1996 report: "I am satisfied that in the three years I have monitored the standards and performance of the system of granting and refusing temporary visas there has been a general improvement in the whole process of applying and being granted or refused a visa." I know that Dame Elizabeth also is satisfied that entry clearance staff are acting within the law, and in accordance with their obligations under the citizen's charter, in the discharge of their responsibilities. We take heart from these acknowledgments of our efforts, and will strive to meet the independent monitor's recommendations in the future.

  United Nations
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future of the United Nations; and what discussions he had during his recent visit to Washington. [21646]

  Mr. Rifkind
  The United Kingdom is fully committed to a strong and effective United Nations in pursuit of the objectives set out in the charter. The United Nations plays a vital role in helping maintain international peace and security, and in promoting democracy, human rights, international law and economic and social progress around the world. As we approach the 21st century, we shall want to use the United Nations increasingly to help to achieve that partnership for sustainable human development about which I addressed the general assembly last September. The new global challenges such as climate change, loss of biodiversity, and threats to the environment and to natural resources because of population pressures on present patterns of production and consumption, will require the international community to agree policies and to work out practical solutions through international co-operation. The United Nations has some unique advantages for this.

  We welcome the commitment of the new United Nations Secretary General, Kofi Annan, in setting the United Nations on the path of reform, so that it can better measure up to these challenges. When he visited London last month the Prime Minister and I were impressed by his determination to give reform a high priority. We support him in his plans to secure tighter budgeting, greater management efficiency and the elimination of overlap between different UN bodies.
  777
  But to succeed the United Nations needs not only to reform, but to be able to rely on the financial resources which member states have voted to it. I raised with a number of US Congressmen during my visit to Washington on 9 and 10 March our concerns on this score. At the end of 1996 the United States owed the United Nations some US $1.3 billion, which is approximately two thirds of total arrears due. This backlog of unpaid obligatory financial contributions is severely disabling the United Nations from working properly and from carrying out the policies voted by the member states. It also means that countries contributing to UN peacekeeping operations such as India, Bangladesh and the United Kingdom, which is currently owed £40 million, do not get their debts paid. I made it clear in Washington that this failure to honour financial obligations under the UN charter does the cause of UN reform no good and causes resentment among friends and allies. I know that President Clinton is committed to solving this problem. We need a new and fairer system of UN financing based more closely on the principle of capacity to pay and on the assurances that all member states will in future pay in full, unconditionally and on time. Once the problem of arrears has been dealt with, the British Government hope that it will be possible speedily to complete the process of UN reform and thus to relaunch the United Nations on its urgent new agenda.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Defence Equipment (Export Licences)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place in the Library a list of all export licences relating to defence equipment(a) granted and (b) refused in (i) 1991 and (ii) 1992. [19699]

  Mr. Nelson
  Statistics of export licence applications refused during 1992 were included in the annual report of my Department for 1993, copies of which were placed in the Library of the House. It is the intention that statistics of export licences relating to defence equipment issued during 1992 will also be placed in the Library of the House in due course. Information in respect of 1991 is not directly accessible in the same form and at present there are no plans to place that information in the Library of the House.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many tonnes of oxide spent nuclear fuel have been(a) sheared and dissolved and (b) reprocessed in the thermal oxide reprocessing plant since March 1994; what reports on the operational process at THORP are provided to his Department by British Nuclear Fuels; and what restrictions are placed on the disclosure of operational details of THORP at Sellafield. [20455]

  Mr. Page
  BNFL recently stated that since March 1994 approximately 680 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel has been successfully sheared and dissolved and that 778
  by the end of March this year it is expected that the same amount will have been reprocessed. The disclosure of operational details are a matter for BNFL subject to meeting the relevant regulatory requirements. My Department maintains regular contact with the company on a range of issues, including THORP.

  Departmental Legislation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many Bills his Department has sponsored in each of the past 15 years; and how many have been passed by Parliament. [19775]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 18 March 1997]: The information requested is as follows:

  1981–82: 7

  1982–83: 3

  1983–84: 7

  1984–85: 7

  1985–86: 6

  1986–87: 3

  1987–88: 4

  1988–89: 4

  1989–90: 2

  1990–91: 4

  1991–92: 2

  1992–93: 3

  1993–94: 4

  1994–95: 2

  1995–96: 2.

  With one exception, in 1982–83, all the Bills received Royal Assent. Prior to the 1992–93 session the figures include Bills sponsored by the Department of Energy.

  Patent Office European Patents Special Reserve Fund
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what funds are currently held by the Patent Office European patents special reserve fund; and if he will make a statement. [21134]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Patent Office 1995–96 annual report and accounts, laid before the House in July 1996, showed the European patents special reserve fund at 31 March 1996 to be £21.4 million. The Patent Office's 1996 corporate plan, placed in the Library of the House in April 1996 gives further details.

  European Space Agency Conference
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the outcome of the ESA ministerial conference held in Paris on 4 March. [21425]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I attended the meeting at ministerial level of the European Space Agency Council in Paris on 4 March. Important decisions were taken which will reinforce ESA's contribution to the UK's industrial and scientific goals in space. Ministerial colleagues agreed on a new industrial policy and a new system for calculating scales of contribution for mandatory programmes. This should improve the agency's value for money and reinforce the competitiveness of European space industry.
  779
  The changes which have been agreed will end the traditional system of geographical return—juste retour— the system by which member states receive contracts in direct proportion to the levels of their ESA contributions. The level of juste retour has crept up from 80 per cent. when ESA was established to 96 per cent. in 1994–96 and was seriously undermining value for money in procurement and the agency's ability to improve the competitiveness of European space industry. The old system will be replaced with a mixed system of alternatives which offer lower guarantees for the mandatory and optional programmes and which would allow open competition in much preparatory and some technology activity. We also endorsed new measures to ensure fair allocation of activities among all industrial firms, including measures to safeguard the position of SMEs in bidding for ESA contracts. The new system, which will be introduced over the period 1997–99, signals a fundamental change in the agency's traditional practices towards a more competitive and open system of project procurement in which fixed expectation will play a less

  Annual reports

  Annual accounts

  Minutes of meetings

  Agendas of meetings

  Register of members' interests

  Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  British Hallmarking Council

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  Coal Authority

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  Yes (V)

  Commissioner for Protection against Unlawful Industrial Action

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  Gas Consumers' Councils

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Post Office Users' National Council

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Post Office Users' Councils for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  No

  National Consumer Council

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  Design Council

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  Yes (V)

  Monopolies and Mergers Commission

  Yes (V)

  Yes (V)

  No

  No

  No

  Policyholders' Protection Board

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  Research Councils

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  Simpler Trade Procedures Board

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  (S) = Statutory. (V) = Voluntary.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the executive non-department public bodies sponsored by his Department which are subject to(a) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner,(b)scrutiny by the Audit Commission, (c) scrutiny by the National Audit Office, (d) statutory provisions for open government, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens' charter. [20934]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 19 March 1997]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 26 February 1996, Official Report, column 316. The

  £ millions

  Devon

  South Hams

  Total grant offered

  Total grant paid

  Total grant offered

  Total grant paid

  1996–97 to date

  5.267

  5.961

  1.605

  0.749

  1995–96

  3.571

  6.916

  1.020

  0.899

  1994–95

  11.433

  4.654

  1.778

  1.088

  1993–94

  4.586

  4.184

  1.679

  1.784

  1992–93

  1.901

  3.609

  0.364

  1.308

  780
  dominant role than they have in the past. I believe that UK companies are well placed to exploit fully this new system and increase their share of ESA business.

  It was also agreed to introduce a new system of calculation for scales of contributions to mandatory programmes which has resulted in a saving to the UK of about £ million a year. A further formal ministerial meeting was envisaged 1998.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) the minutes of meetings, (d) the agendas of meetings and (e) a register of members' interests; and if this is in each case (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary. [20897]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 19 March 1997]: The information requested by the hon. Member is shown in the table.

  information given then is still current, with the amendment that details of the NAO's access to NDPBs are given in "Public Bodies 1996".

  Business Grants (Devon)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total value of grants given to businesses(a) in Devon and (b) in the South Hams, in each of the last five years. [21341]

  Mr. Nelson
  The total value of grants from my Department to businesses in Devon and in South Hams in each of the last five years is as follows:
  781

  Food Chain (Foresight Investigation)
  Sir Donald Thompson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on how food chain issues are being addressed by Foresight. [21559]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Several Foresight panels have interests in the food chain. In addition, a new Foresight group has been established to explore market and technology opportunities across the food chain. It will be chaired to David Sainsbury, chairman of J. Sainsbury plc. The new group includes industry leaders in food production, processing and retailing.

  In broad terms, the group will be addressing issues which the food chain industries regard as critical to their future competitiveness. It will act in a cross-sectoral capacity, drawing together the interest of the wide range of Foresight panel sectors which impact on food chain businesses, such as food and drink, agriculture, retailing, manufacturing, and marine, for example.

  The members of the Foresight food chain group are:

  Member

  Position

  Company

  David Sainsbury

  Chairman

  J Sainsbury

  Mark Adams

  Deputy Chairman

  Geo Adams

  Gordon Edge

  Executive Chairman

  Generics Ltd

  Iain Ferguson

  Chairman

  Birds Eye Walls

  James Godfrey

  Farmer

  —

  Christopher Greig

  Chairman

  William Grant and Sons

  Guy McCracken

  Managing Director Food Division

  Marks and Spencer

  Sir David Naish

  President

  National Farmers Union

  Gulam Noon

  Chairman and Managing Director

  Noon Products

  John Shropshire

  Managing Director

  G's Marketing

  Companies House
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what targets he has set Companies House executive agency for 1997–98. [21659]

  Mr. Lang
  I have set Companies House the following targets for 1997–98:to make 95 per cent. of statutory documents available for public inspection within a maximum of five working days of receipt in Companies House;
  to achieve, on average, a monthly compliance rate for accounts submitted of 95 per cent.;
  to ensure that a minimum of 93 per cent. of fiche provided to customers are error free;
  to ensure that there is a minimum of 97 per cent. error free work in current processing;
  to answer 90 per cent. of incoming telephone calls within 20 seconds;
  to reduce the real unit costs of registration activity by 3 per cent. compared to the outturn in 1996–97; and
  to achieve, taking one year with another, a 6 per cent. average annual rate of return based on the operating surplus expressed as a percentage of average net assets.

  In addition, I expect the chief executive of the agency to continue to reply within 10 working days to all letters from Members of Parliament delegated to him for reply.
  782
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of Companies House performance in answering the telephone inquiry service within the first six rings; and what impact privatisation of the telephone inquiry service in July 1996 had on the achievement of the target. [21335]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Companies House central enquiry unit and postal search operations were contracted out in July 1996 and new telephone equipment was installed in October 1996. This has led to the number of calls presented to operators increasing by 80 per cent. The contractors are now answering over 13,000 calls per week, 30 per cent. more than before the contract was awarded. Companies House is taking steps to ensure the contractor employs sufficient resources to answer all calls within the target of 90 per cent. of calls within 20 seconds or six rings.

  The performance against the telephone answering target, as for other targets, will be assessed at year end and reported in the annual report and accounts for Companies House for 1996–97.

  Fur Sales
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the number of retail businesses involved in selling fur garments in each of the last five years. [21243]

  Mr. Page
  This information is not available.

  English Regional Development Organisations
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has yet considered the business plans of the English regional development organisations; and what level of financial support he proposes to offer for 1997–98. [21558]

  Mr. Greg Knight
  I have studied the current performance and future plans of the existing eight English regional development organisations. I am pleased to say that they continue to make a significant contribution to the work of my Department's Invest in Britain Bureau, and to the overall success of the United Kingdom in attracting inward investment and in particular to their region's performance. I have also had detailed proposals for the establishment of new regional development organisations in the east and south-east of England. Taking all this into account I have today offered a total of £10,47 million in grants for the inward investment promotion activities of the existing regional development organisations for 1997–98 and to establish the two new ones in the east and south-east who are being offered grants of £505,000 each.

  This represents an 18 per cent. increase in total RDO grants to enable the UK to remain competitive in promoting its locational advantages in the face of increasing competition for mobile inward investment projects. I have allocated the grant aid as follows:

  RDO

  1997–98 grant (£000)

  Northern Development Company (NDC)

  1,665

  INWARD Ltd. (in the North West)

  1,393

  783

  RDO

  1997–98 grant (£000)

  Yorkshire and Humberside Development Agency (YHDA)

  1,415

  West Midlands Development Agency (WMDA)

  1,314

  East Midlands Development Company Ltd. (EMDC)

  984

  Devon and Cornwall Development International (DCDI)

  954

  London First Centre

  1,015

  West of England Development Agency (WEDA)

  600

  East of England Investment Agency

  505

  South East of England Regional Investment Office

  505

  Grant is offered on an annual basis according to past performance, ability to absorb additional funding effectively, and for an agreed programme of future activities, with proper regard to value for money. It is Government policy to encourage direct inward investment to the UK because it contributes significantly to economic growth. Inward investment brings benefits both to the country as a whole and more specifically to the assisted areas. The creation of new regional development organisations in the east and south-east of England completes the coverage of the UK map with such organisations and will greatly assist our efforts to attract inward investment.

  Radio Spectrum
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has for introducing pricing to promote efficient use of the radio spectrum [21517]

  Mr. Lang
  The White Paper, "Spectrum Management into the 21st Century", Cm 3252, announced that national and regional services would be candidates for selective auctions; and that auctions could be used to promote the release of analogue broadcasting spectrum, subject to satisfactory safeguards for existing broadcasters. It also outlined administrative pricing proposals focused on areas and services affected by spectrum congestion. In responses to the White Paper, there was broad support for this package of measures.

  The success of the radio industry depends on timely provision of its raw material, radio spectrum. This finite resource is becoming increasingly congested. We intend to proceed, as soon as parliamentary time is available, with legislation to introduce a package of measures to sustain future growth by encouraging its more efficient use.

  Inward Investment (English Language Training)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the effects of English language training for inward investment to the United Kingdom. [21218]

  Mr. Greg Knight
  None. However studies have shown that the English language is an important factor for many overseas companies when considering an investment location in Europe.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. French
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what targets he has set the Insolvency Service for 1997–98. [21657]
  784
  Mr. Lang
  Against the Insolvency Service's planning assumption that compulsory insolvencies will total 27,500 in the year to 31 March 1998, I have set it the target of completing the same number with no more than 9 per cent. of uncompleted cases being more than 36 months old. I have also set it the target of reducing the unit cost of bankruptcy and compulsory liquidation case administration in 1997–98 by 3 per cent. The service's investigative resources have been maintained at current levels and I would therefore expect it to continue to take proceedings for the disqualification of unfit directors and to report on cases of criminal misconduct the levels achieved in the year 31 March 1997.

  In addition, I have set the service the following quality of service targets for 1997–98:

  to report to creditors on assets and liabilities within eight weeks in at least 90 per cent. of call cases; and within 12 weeks in 98 per cent. of all cases;

  to hold the initial meeting of creditors within 12 weeks in 90 per cent. of all cases and within four months in 98 per cent. of all cases;

  to submit reports within 10 months in at least 90 per cent. of bankruptcy cases and 80 per cent. of company liquidation cases where there is evidence of criminality;

  to submit disqualification reports within 15 months in at least 80 per cent. of cases where there is evidence of unfit conduct by directors; and

  to check and action at least 95 per cent. of Insolvency Services account payment requisitions within five days or by the due date.

  In addition, I expect the service to action 95 per cent. of invoices for payment within 30 days of receipt and the agency chief executive to reply within 10 working days to all letters from Members of Parliament delegated to him for reply.

  Patent Office
  Mr. French
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what targets he has set the Patent Office executive agency for 1997–98. [21663]

  Mr. Lang
  I have set the Patent Office the following targets:

  Efficiency

  To increase output in relation to total staff numbers by 2 per cent.

  To increase output in relation to total staff costs by 2 per cent.

  To increase output in relation to current expenditure by 2 per cent.

  Quality

  To issue 90 per cent. of patent search reports within 12 weeks of receiving a request.

  To issue 90 per cent. of patent examination reports within 18 months of publication.

  To confirm payment of patent renewal fees within six working days of receipt.

  To issue 90 per cent. of initial design search and examination reports within 12 weeks.

  To confirm payment of design renewal fees within six working days of receipt.

  To issue 90 per cent. of trade mark examination reports within two months of data capture in the Patent Office.

  To advertise within seven months of examination trade mark applications which attract no substantive objection at examination stage.

  785

  To register within four months of advertisement 97 per cent. of advertised marks which are not formally opposed.

  In addition, the agency will maintain its target to pay bills within 30 days of receipt of goods and services or of a valid invoice, whichever is the later, and I expect the chief executive of the Patent Office to continue to reply within 10 working days to all letters from Members of Parliament delegated to him for reply.

  Radiocommunications Agency
  Mr. French
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what targets he has set his Department's Radiocommunications Agency for 1997–98. [21658]

  Mr. Lang
  I have set the Radiocommunications Agency the following quality of service targets for 1997–98 in respect of its licensing work and enforcement activities. These are in addition to achieving an overall efficiency improvement of 4 per cent. over 1996–97 and continuing to recover the full costs of its activities from customers.

  Licensing

  Category A: Licences that involve no frequency assignment, site clearance or international co-ordination; 100 per cent. of applications and amendments to be processed and despatched within five working days.

  Category B: Licences that involve frequency assignment but no site clearance or international co-ordination; 90 per cent. of applications and amendments to be processed and despatched within 15 working days; remainder to be processed and despatched within 25 working days or an explanation for any delay provided to the applicant.

  Category C: Licences that require frequency assignment and site clearance and/or international co-ordination; 90 per cent. of applications and amendments to be processed and despatched within 40 working days; remainder to be processed and despatched within 60 working days or an explanation of the delay provided to the applicant.

  Category D: Renewals of all licences in category A to be processed and despatched within five working days; renewals of licences in categories B and C to be processed and despatched within 10 working days.

  Enforcement

  100 per cent. of safety of life services reports of interference to be investigated within 24 hours.

  98 per cent. of business customers reports of interference to be investigated within five working days, the remainder within a further 10 days.

  98 per cent. of domestic customers reports of interference to be investigated within 1 month, the remainder within a further month.

  I also expect the agency's enquiry point to respond to 92 per cent. of calls within 30 seconds, and 95 per cent. of all invoices to be paid within 30 days, or within the timescale agreed with suppliers and the remainder to be dealt with within a further 30 days. In addition, the chief executive will continue to reply within 10 working days to all letters from Members of Parliament delegated to him for reply and to all written complaints addressed to him about the agency's services.

  Mr. French
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the agency review of the Radiocommunications Agency has been completed; and if he will make a statement. [21661]
  786
  Mr. Lang
  A report on the prior options review of the Radiocommunications Agency has been completed. Copies of this document, which completes the agency review process, have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Employment Tribunals Service
  Mr. French
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made towards establishing the Employment Tribunals Service as an executive agency; and if he will make a statement. [21662]

  Mr. Lang
  The Government announced on 9 May last year their decision to establish the Employment Tribunals Service as an executive agency. The agency will be launched on 1 April 1997. I am confident that agency status will extend to the tribunals administration the benefits of improved efficiency and quality of service that we have seen in other DTI agencies. Copies of the ETS framework document have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  I have set the following targets for the ETS for 1997–98:

  Industrial tribunals

  To bring to a first hearing 85 per cent. of single cases within 26 weeks of receipt of application.

  To reduce the disparity in performance between offices in relation to the above target so that all offices achieve at least 65 per cent.

  To issue decisions within one week of signature by the chairman in 90 per cent. of cases.

  To reduce the administrative cost of a completed case by 3 per cent. in real terms.

  At least 80 per cent. of tribunal cases and 85 per cent. of tribunal judiciary to express satisfaction, in surveys, with the service offered by the agency.

  Employment appeals tribunal

  Seventy-five per cent. of appeals registered for full hearing to be ready for listing within six months of receipt.

  Seventy-five per cent. of appeals registered for preliminary hearing to be ready for listing within six weeks of receipt.

  Monopolies and Mergers Commission Cases
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the President the Board of Trade if he will place in the Library the instructions to his officials on the procedure to be followed during the handling of Monopolies and Mergers Commission cases. [211280]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I am arranging for a copy of the guidance to officials on procedures for handling merger cases to be placed in the Library in the House.

  Payment of Bills
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of bills to his Department for the financial year 1995 to 1996 were paid(a) in accordance with agreed contractual conditions and (b) within 30 days of receiving goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice where no contractual conditions applied. [21197]
  787
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) on 18 July 1996,Official Report, columns 613–14.

  Financial Services Industry Employees
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the number of people employed in the financial services industry who have registered against them county court judgments, bankruptcy and Insolvency Act 1986 proceedings. [21309]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  My Department does not maintain information in the form requested.

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what targets he has set his Department's National Weights and Measures Laboratory for 1997–98. [21660]

  Mr. Lang
  I have set the National Weights and Measures Laboratory the following targets for 1997–98:

  to ensure that external fee-earning activities remain self-financing;

  to meet the net vote target;

  to continue work to reduce the real cost of a programme hour by 4 per cent. over the period 1997–2000;

  to complete 85 per cent. of European type approvals within 10 weeks;

  to complete 95 per cent. of all calibration jobs—including preparation of certificates—within 18 working days of acceptance of the work; and

  to meet 60 per cent. of the milestones included in the work programme agreed with my Department's Consumer Affairs and Competition Policy Directorate.

  In addition, I expect the chief executive of NWML to reply within 10 days to all letters from Members of Parliament delegated to him for reply.

TREASURY

  Valuation Office
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what targets will be set for the Valuation Office executive agency for the year 1997–98. [21566]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I have set the following key targets for the Valuation Office in 1997–98:

  Quality of Service

  to provide a substantive reply to 100 per cent. of correspondence within 20 working days of receipt

  to achieve further improvements against the agency's indicators for:

  timeliness—by 1 per cent. to 98 per cent.

  valuation quality—by 1 per cent. to 86 per cent.

  Operational

  to clear 330,000 appeals in aggregate against the 1990 and the 1995 rating lists, including clearance by 31 December 1997 of all those appeals lodged prior to 31 March 1996 which can be settled by agreement

  788

  to clear 97,000 appeals against the council tax valuation lists: with the aim, in co-operation with valuation tribunals, of clearing all those received after 1 April 1997 within six months of receipt

  to undertake 57,000 cases for the Inland Revenue for capital gains tax and inheritance tax purposes, clearing 90 per cent. of valuation cases within 42 days and 87 per cent. of negotiation cases within six months of receipt

  Financial and Cost Efficiency

  to ensure the agency's net operating cost is at least fully covered by receipts

  to break even from year to year within each business segment, after charging for the full cost of chargeable services including notional interest of 6 per cent. on the average working capital

  to achieve efficiency savings of 6.6 per cent. of the agency's gross expenditure

  Further details are set out in the agency's forward plan, copies of which will be placed in the Library of the House on publication.

  Customer Charters
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much his Department and its executive agencies have spent drafting, publishing and circulating each of their customer charters and customer standard documents; and how many copies of each document have been issued. [19390]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Basic Pension Plus
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the five per cent. national insurance contribution rebate which individuals will receive under the Government's basic pension plus proposal will be disregarded for income tax purposes. [20436]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 17 March 1997]: The effect of the change for the 5 per cent. NIC rebate would be that the tax relief which is currently given where NIC rebates go into a personal pension would cease, matching the withdrawal of relief on contributions which an individual makes to a pension scheme; but the pensions in payment would be tax-free.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment the European Commission and the European Monetary Institute have made of the millennium compliance of those computer systems which will be involved in the introduction of the single currency; and if he will make a statement. [20535]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I am not aware of any specific assessment carried out by the European Commission or the European Monetary Institute of the millennium compliance of those computer systems which will be involved in the introduction of the single currency.

  The European Commission is involved in discussions about the practical implications of economic and monetary union with a wide range of organisations, including those in the information technology sector. The Bank of England, which is represented in the European Monetary Institute, publishes a quarterly report entitled

  789
  "Practical Issues Arising from the Introduction of the Euro". The latest edition, published in December 1996, incorporates a checklist of IT implications which includes reference to the millennium problem.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give a breakdown of the figure of £3,108 million for non-identified miscellaneous expenditure set out in table 7.7 of the Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis 1996–97, Cm 3201. [20819]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The figures requested are given in the following table:

  Miscellaneous non-identified expenditure from PESA 1996–97, Cm 3201

  £ million

  Economic and financial administration (including Bank of England)

  3,139

  Net Contributions to the European Community

  1,267

  Parliament and Privy Council

  267

  Other central services

  162

  Allowance for shortfall

  -460

  Total

  5,151

  This total differs from that published in Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 1996–97 Cm 3201 as the net UK contribution to the EC was erroneously split between overseas services and miscellaneous expenditure. The correct figure for overseas services was £3,593 million, not £5,636 million.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the number of people who are economically inactive and wanting to work aged(a) over 40, (b) over 50 and (c) over 55 years, by region. [20341]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 18 March 1997]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Stephen Timms, dated 26 March 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on inactive people aged 40 and over who would like a job, broken down by age and region.
  Estimates available for the Labour Force Survey are shown in the attached table.

  Economically inactive people aged 40 and over who would like a job by age and region—not seasonally adjusted

  Autumn 1996, thousands

  40–49

  50–54

  55 and over

  All aged 40 and over

  United Kingdom

  408

  204

  528

  1,140

  North

  27

  11

  33

  70

  Yorks and Humber

  33

  16

  51

  100

  East Midlands

  27

  12

  30

  69

  East Anglia

  12

  1—

  15

  33

  Greater London

  64

  18

  72

  154

  South East (excluding Greater London)

  55

  36

  95

  186

  790

  Economically inactive people aged 40 and over who would like a job by age and region—not seasonally adjusted

  Autumn 1996, thousands

  40–49

  50–54

  55 and over

  All aged 40 and over

  South West

  25

  22

  38

  84

  West Midlands

  38

  18

  55

  112

  North West

  46

  20

  48

  114

  Wales

  29

  19

  32

  80

  Scotland

  40

  22

  52

  114

  Northern Ireland

  11

  1—

  1—

  24

  Note:

  1 Sample size too small for reliable estimate.

  Source:

  ONS, Labour Force Survey.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were registered as unemployed in(a) May 1979 and (b) currently; and what was the method of calculation of the figures in each case. [21223]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Llew Smith, dated 20 March 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on how many people were registered as unemployed in (a) May 1979 and (b) currently; and what was the method of calculation of the figures in each case.
  The consistent series of seasonally adjusted claimant unemployment figures, based on the current coverage of the count, show that the number of people in the United Kingdom claiming unemployment-related benefits (Unemployment Benefit, Job Seeker's Allowance, Income Support or National Insurance Credits) was 1,086,800 in May 1979 and 1,746,300 in February 1997.
  The seasonally adjusted series is maintained to be consistent with the current coverage of the count and takes into account all relevant changes which, unless adjusted for, would distort comparisons over time. It thereby allows meaningful comparisons with the past.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the outturn figures for the proceeds paid(a) into and (b) out of the national lottery distribution fund that are included as general Government revenue and general Government expenditure for the financial years (i) 1994–95 and (ii) 1995–96; and what are the estimated figures for 1996–97. [20556]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 18 March 1997]: The table provides outturn figures for payments into and out of the national lottery distribution fund in financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96. The Budget forecast is given for 1996–97.

  National lottery distribution fund—income and expenditure

  (all figures £ million)

  Year

  Income

  Expenditure

  1994–95

  299

  5

  1995–96

  1,515

  165

  1996–97

  1,541

  600

  791

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Brian David Jenkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what response he has made to representations from the CBI regarding the economic disadvantages to the United Kingdom of the United Kingdom not entering into European monetary union. [19468]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 19 March 1997]: The Confederation of British Industry makes representations to me about a wide range of issues, including the potential advantages and disadvantages of the UK's possible participation in economic and monetary union. The Government and Parliament have a choice, thanks to protocol No 11 to the EC treaty, on whether the United Kingdom should participate in the single currency. The CBI's own surveys suggest that business leaders in the UK support the need to have this choice. The Government are committed to full involvement in negotiations on EMU, to protect the commercial and other interests of the United Kingdom whether or not we participate.

  Mr. Bernard Jenkin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the oral answer to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South West, (Mr. Legg) of 12 March,Official Report, column 353, under which provisions of the treaty on European Union on the EC would launch the third stage of EMU on a date after 1 January 1999. [20504]

  Mr. Clarke
  [holding answer 17 March 1997]: The timetable for establishing the first stage of EMU is set out in article 109j of the treaty. The European Council has said at Dublin that this will begin on 1 January 1999.

  Personal Pensions (Misselling)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many of those who were missold personal pensions have died before receiving compensation. [21011]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 19 March 1997]: That information is not available.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those companies involved in misselling personal pensions who compensated all those missold personal pensions. [21012]

  Mrs. Knight
  [holding answer 19 March 1997]: It is not possible to compile such a list at this stage since reviews of cases continue.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects that the process to compensate those missold personal pensions will be complete. [21013]

  Mrs. Knight
  [holding answer 19 March 1997]: The financial services regulators are working closely with firms responsible for sales of personal pensions to speed up the progress of reviews for those who have been missold personal pensions. The Government have made it absolutely clear to the pensions industry that rapid progress this year is imperative. Targets will be set once the PIA has concluded its top-level meetings with firms by the end of this month.
  792

  Payment of Bills
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of bills to his Department for the financial year 1995 to 96 were paid(a) in accordance with agreed contractual conditions and (b) within 30 days of receiving goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice where no contractual conditions applied. [21213]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 18 July 1996, (columns 613–14).

  State Earnings-related Pension Scheme
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner) of 25 February,Official Report, column 208, if he will estimate the savings which would accrue in the current year from reduced expenditure on tax relief paid on contributions made to appropriate personal pensions if (a) all and (b) half of those earning under £10,000 per annum who are currently opted out of SERPS into APPs were to rejoin SERPS until retirement. [21076]

  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 25 February to the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner), column 135.

  Earnings
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many and what percentage of employees had total earnings below the lower earnings limit for national insurance contributions; and what proportion of these were part-time workers, in (i) 1970, (ii) 1980, (iii) 1990 and (iv) the most recent available year; [21060]

  (2) if he will update the information in the answer to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) of 17 July 1996, Official Report, column 526, estimating the average hourly earnings of part-time workers working fewer than 16 hours a week; and if he will provide figures for those working fewer than eight hours a week; [21071]

  (3) if he will update the information in the answer to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) of 2 July 1996, Official Report, column 418, estimating the average weekly hours of work of men and women with total earnings below the lower earnings limit for national insurance contributions; [21069]

  (4) if he will update the information in the answer to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) of 17 July 1996, Official Report, column 526, estimating the average hourly earnings of men and women with total earnings below the lower earnings limit for national insurance contributions. [21072]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Gerry Steinberg, dated 20 March 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent questions (21060, 21069, 21071, 21072) on employees earning under the national insurance lower earnings limit.

  793
  The latest figures available are from the Summer 1996 (June-August) Labour Force Survey.
  In summer 1996, 2.73 million or 12.3 percent. of employees had total earnings below the national insurance lower earnings limit in Great Britain; 93.4 per cent. of these were part-time. Labour Force Survey data on earnings for 1970, 1980 and 1990 is not available.
  Average hourly earnings of female part-time workers working less than 16 hours a week were £6.20 per hour. Average hourly earnings of female part-time workers working less than 8 hours a week were £5.78 per hour. Due to small sample sizes no figures are available for male part-time workers.
  The average weekly hours of work for men with earnings below the national insurance lower earnings limit were 18.3 hours in 1996. This compares with an average of 12.1 hours for women.
  Average hourly earnings of men with total earnings below the national insurance lower earnings limit were £2.17 in 1996. This is lower than the average for women which was £3.37.

  Jobs (Plymouth and Torbay)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the total number of jobs created in(a) the Plymouth and (b) the Torbay travel-to-work areas in each of the past five years. [21344]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Anthony Steen, dated 20 March 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on the number of jobs created in the Plymouth and Torbay travel-to-work areas over the last five years.
  The available information is for the levels of employees at 1991, 1993 and 1995. This is provided in the table below.

  Employees: at September (thousands)

  Travel-to-work area

  1991

  1993

  1995

  Plymouth

  117.5

  113.4

  116.0

  Torbay

  39.6

  39.5

  43.7

  Illegitimate Births
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the rate of illegitimate births in

  Table 1: Red book figures

  Estimated capital investment

  1997–98 £ million

  1998–99 £ million

  1999–2000 £ million

  Total £ million

  HM Treasury

  Project:

  Refurbishment of headquarters building

  50

  60

  60

  170

  Inland Revenue (including the VOA)

  Project:

  Manchester/Stockport NOS1

  17

  0

  0

  17

  St. John's House, Bootle

  9

  3

  0

  12

  Edinburgh NOS1

  7

  0

  0

  7

  Glasgow NOS1

  8

  0

  0

  8

  Other NOS

  5

  6

  6

  17

  Unidentified major works

  17

  10

  6

  33

  Telephones exchanges and equipment

  1

  1

  1

  3

  Total

  64

  20

  13

  97

  794
  the latest year for which figures are available in (a) England and Wales, (b) Scotland and (c) Northern Ireland. [21281]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mrs. Ann Winterton, dated 20 March 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question asking for the percentage of live births outside marriage in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland during the latest year for which data are available.
  The figures requested are shown in the below.

  Percentage of live births outside marriage 1995

  Area

  Percentage

  England and Wales

  33.9

  Scotland

  33.7

  Northern Ireland

  23.1

  These figures are published in the annual reference volume "Birth Statistics" Series FM1, copies of which are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Correspondence
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will reply to the letters of 17 November, 22 December and 26 January from the hon. Member regarding Vanlee Transport, Glasgow. [17403]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 24 February 1997]: I did so on 19 February.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide figures for his Departments' PFI projects in the same form as used by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, in his answer to the hon. Member for Darlingon (Mr. Milburn) of 6 March,Official Report, columns 692–93; and if he will list his latest estimates of annual totals for PFI projects, on the same basis as those given in table 5.5 on the Red Book. [20396]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 17 March 1997]: The following tables show the information requested:
  795

  Table 1: Red book figures

  Estimated capital investment

  1997–98 £ million

  1998–99 £ million

  1999–2000 £ million

  Total £ million

  HM Customs and Excise

  Project:

  Southampton accommodation2

  2

  0

  0

  2

  Cutters

  0

  3

  3

  6

  Number plate readers3

  *

  *

  *

  1

  Radios

  5

  4

  4

  13

  IT infrastructure4

  0

  15

  15

  30

  Total

  8

  23

  23

  54

  National Savings

  Project:

  Business Process re-engineering

  6

  9

  0

  15

  Notes:

  1 PFI deals which were due to be signed in 1996–97 with capital profile split between 1996–97 (not shown) and 1997–98.

  2 The projected private sector capital investment is now expected to be incurred in 1997–98.

  3 Figures below £0.5 million indicated by*.

  4 The business case for this project is currently being reviewed and has not been included in the table showing the current revised figures.

  Totals may not add up to sum of parts due to roundings.

  Current revised figures

  Estimated capital investment

  1997–98 £ million

  1998–99 £ million

  1999–2000 £ million

  Total £ million

  HM Treasury

  Project:

  Refurbishment of headquarters buildings1

  5

  15

  80

  100

  Inland Revenue (including the VOA)

  Project:

  Manchester/Stockport NOS2

  35

  0

  0

  35

  St. John's House, Bootle

  12

  0

  0

  12

  Edinburgh NOS2

  9

  0

  0

  9

  Glasgow NOS2

  9

  0

  0

  9

  Other NOS

  0

  8

  9

  17

  Unidentified major works

  17

  10

  6

  33

  Telephone exchanges and equipment

  1

  1

  1

  3

  Total

  83

  19

  16

  118

  HM Customs and Excise

  Project:

  Southampton accommodation3

  14

  0

  0

  14

  Cutters

  5

  5

  0

  11

  Number plate readers4

  *

  2

  0

  2

  Radios

  0

  20

  0

  20

  IT infrastructure5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  20

  27

  0

  47

  National Savings

  Project:

  Business Process6 Re-engineering

  6

  9

  0

  15

  Notes:

  1 Difference from estimate in Red Book figures, is due to re-profiling of expenditure.

  2 PFI deals which were originally due to be signed in 1996–97 but will now be signed in 1997–98 with all capital spending taking place in that year.

  3 The projected private sector capital investment is now expected to be incurred in 1997–98.

  4 Figures below £0.5 million indicated by*.

  5 The business case for this project is currently being reviewed and has not been included in the table showing the current revised figures.

  6 These figures are currently under review.

  Totals may not add up to sum of parts due to roundings.

  Defence Personnel (Taxation)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the annual revenue obtained by the Treasury through taxation paid by military and civilian personnel employed by the Ministry of Defence,796
  broken down into (a) taxation on income associated with their employment and (b) tax revenue arising from VAT and other sales taxes. [20742]

  Mr. Soames
  I have been asked to reply.
  797
  The amount of income tax paid by military and civilian employees, or by my Department on their behalf within the terms of PAYE settlement agreements, was some £1.3 billion in the financial year 1995–96, the latest year for which complete information is available. The amount of VAT and other sales taxes paid by MOD employees is dependent on individual domestic transactions and is thus not available.

HEALTH

  NHS Trusts (Chief Executives)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many chief executives of hospital trusts were women in each year since 1991. [18708]

  Mr. Malone
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Networks
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many separate local area networks and wide area networks are currently in operation within the NHS. [19420]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Medicines Control Agency
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total income of the Medicines Control Agency in each of the last three years broken down by each major source indicating separately(a) the direct and (b) the indirect contributions from pharmaceutical companies. [19688]

  Mr. Malone
  The total income of the Medicines Control Agency in the last three years was as follows:

  £ million

  Total

  Fee income

  Miscellaneous income

  1995–96

  22.4

  22.0

  0.4

  1994–95

  25.6

  25.4

  0.2

  1993–94

  24.2

  23.8

  0.4

  The fee income was all from pharmaceutical companies and was received directly. Miscellaneous income includes some payments from pharmaceutical companies for the purchase of publications, provision of information, or attendance at seminars; it is not practicable to isolate the precise amounts.

  Eating Disorders
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS centres there are for the treatment of eating disorders. [20542]

  Mr. Burns
  The information requested is not collected centrally. A Royal College of Psychiatrists survey in 1992 identified 21 national health service specialist centres for treating eating disorders in Great Britain.

  Blister Packs
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of hospital admissions were due to ailments caused by children ingesting pharmaceutical products which they extracted from blister packs in the last year for which figures are available. [20543]

  Mr. Malone
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Tonsil and Adenoid Removal
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children aged under 16 years in each health authority area were discharged from hospital after removal of tonsils and/or adenoids in the most recent year for which figures are available; and if he will indicate the discharge rate per 10,000 children aged under 16 years in each health authority area. [20864]

  Mr. Horam
  The latest available information on the number of operations on patients under 16 for the removal of tonsils and adenoids, and the rate per 10,000 population, is shown in the table. Information on the number of children discharged from hospital is not available centrally.

  Number of operations for the removal of tonsils and adenoids performed on patients aged 0–15 years, and rate per 10,000 population aged 0–15 years, by the health authority in which the patient is resident

  NHS Hospitals, England, 1994–95

  Health authority of residence

  Number of operations

  Number of operations per 10,000 population

  Northumberland DHA

  398

  64.9

  Sunderland DHA

  491

  75.6

  North Durham DHA

  420

  62.6

  South Durham DHA

  403

  70.2

  Tees DHA

  906

  71.1

  South of Tyne DHA

  352

  48.3

  North Cumbria DHA

  324

  51.4

  Newcastle and North Tyneside DHA

  620

  65.9

  East Riding DHA

  534

  48.9

  Grimsby and Scunthorpe DHA

  641

  82.4

  North Yorkshire DHA

  631

  45.2

  Bradford DHA

  832

  72.7

  West Yorkshire DHA

  1,190

  95.0

  Leeds DHA

  932

  63.7

  Wakefield DHA

  787

  117.3

  North Derbyshire DHA

  280

  39.1

  Southern Derbyshire DHA

  392

  34.8

  Leicestershire DHA

  1,650

  85.1

  Nottingham DHA

  562

  43.5

  Barnsley DHA

  671

  144.1

  Doncaster DHA

  800

  125.9

  Rotherham DHA

  514

  93.7

  Sheffield DHA

  567

  56.6

  North Nottinghamshire DHA

  645

  79.7

  Lincolnshire DHA

  947

  80.8

  Cambridge DHA

  325

  58.0

  North-west Anglia DHA

  749

  88.8

  Huntingdon DHA

  134

  43.3

  Suffolk DHA

  868

  65.0

  East Norfolk DHA

  1,320

  114.9

  Bedfordshire DHA

  115

  9.4

  North-west Hertfordshire DHA

  380

  70.1

  South-west Hertfordshire DHA

  264

  51.1

  Barnet DHA

  308

  49.6

  Hillingdon DHA

  188

  38.0

  799

  Number of operations for the removal of tonsils and adenoids performed on patients aged 0–15 years, and rate per 10,000 population aged 0–15 years, by the health authority in which the patient is resident

  NHS Hospitals, England, 1994–95

  Health authority of residence

  Number of operations

  Number of operations per 10,000 population

  East and North Hertfordshire DHA

  632

  61.9

  Brent and Harrow DHA

  428

  44.0

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow DHA

  799

  61.9

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster DHA

  205

  41.9

  North Essex DHA

  1,375

  78.7

  South Essex DHA

  1,937

  135.6

  Barking and Havering DHA

  1,231

  156.8

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest DHA

  704

  72.6

  East London and the City DHA

  613

  40.8

  New River DHA

  591

  60.5

  Camden and Islington DHA

  352

  54.0

  Bromley DHA

  395

  72.2

  East Sussex DHA

  856

  64.8

  East Kent DHA

  880

  76.6

  West Kent DHA

  1,721

  84.3

  Bexley and Greenwich DHA

  556

  58.8

  South East London DHA

  847

  54.9

  East Surrey DHA

  217

  58.0

  Chichester DHA

  190

  60.2

  Mid Downs DHA

  394

  65.0

  Worthing DHA

  283

  63.6

  Croydon DHA

  385

  55.9

  North-west Surrey DHA

  656

  85.4

  South-west Surrey DHA

  231

  49.3

  Merton Sutton and Wandsworth DHA

  680

  59.7

  Mid Surrey DHA

  250

  59.3

  Kingston and Richmond DHA

  289

  51.9

  Dorset DHA

  622

  51.4

  Portsmouth and South-east Hampshire DHA

  962

  88.3

  Southampton and South-west Hants HC

  535

  61.0

  North and Mid Hampshire DHA

  638

  50.2

  Wiltshire and Bath DHA

  784

  48.7

  Isle of Wight DHA

  136

  59.4

  Berkshire DHA

  899

  54.8

  Buckinghamshire DHA

  808

  55.8

  Northamptonshire DHA

  1,116

  85.9

  Oxfordshire DHA

  676

  55.7

  Bristol and District DHA

  867

  51.6

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly DHA

  598

  64.5

  Exeter and North Devon DHA

  383

  44.2

  Plymouth and Torbay DHA

  807

  71.5

  Gloucestershire DHA

  515

  47.1

  Somerset DHA

  553

  66.5

  Herefordshire DHA

  136

  41.3

  Worcester and District DHA

  303

  59.6

  Shropshire DHA

  703

  81.6

  North Staffordshire DHA

  976

  102.5

  Coventry DHA

  565

  84.9

  Dudley DHA

  380

  60.9

  Sandwell DHA

  505

  79.6

  Solihull DHA

  234

  56.4

  Walsall DHA

  802

  139.7

  Wolverhampton DHA

  433

  81.0

  South Birmingham DHA

  456

  48.2

  North Worcestershire DHA

  232

  39.8

  South Staffordshire DHA

  1,322

  108.6

  Warwickshire DHA

  570

  57.8

  North Birmingham DHA

  1,016

  73.6

  Chester DHA

  330

  87.2

  800

  Number of operations for the removal of tonsils and adenoids performed on patients aged 0–15 years, and rate per 10,000 population aged 0–15 years, by the health authority in which the patient is resident

  NHS Hospitals, England, 1994–95

  Health authority of residence

  Number of operations

  Number of operations per 10,000 population

  South-east Cheshire DHA

  508

  56.7

  North Cheshire DHA

  299

  41.0

  Liverpool DHA

  526

  51.6

  St. Helens and Knowsley DHA

  410

  54.5

  Sefton DHA

  378

  63.6

  Wirral DHA

  458

  61.7

  Bolton DHA

  554

  95.2

  Stockport DHA

  457

  77.7

  Wigan DHA

  761

  115.4

  North-west Lancashire DHA

  799

  89.9

  East Lancashire DHA

  1,396

  119.4

  South Lancashire DHA

  559

  84.6

  Bury and Rochdale DHA

  649

  73.2

  West Pennine DHA

  1,368

  128.8

  Manchester DHA

  1,319

  130.3

  Salford and Trafford DHA

  962

  103.0

  Morecambe Bay DHA

  438

  74.3

  England

  71,717

  71.6

  Notes:

  These statistics are generated by analysing the contents of a complex database. Over time, small numbers of inaccuracies present in the records are discovered and action is taken to correct them. As a result of this action, figures can slightly vary at times and consequently can be considered as "estimates".

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

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics.

  Discharged Patients (Emergency Readmission)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of patients discharged from a medical specialty in each NHS trust in each of the last three years were subsequently readmitted as an emergency admission to that or another NHS trust within 28 days of discharge(a) as a crude percentage and (b) standardised for age and sex. [20862]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children aged under 16 years were discharged from each NHS trust over the last three years following elective removal of tonsils and/or adenoids; and what proportion of the children treated by each trust were readmitted as emergencies between one and 28 days after discharge. [20854]

  Mr. Horam
  Standard information on hospital admissions and discharges by diagnosis and operative procedure is available in the "Hospital Episodes Statistics" publications, copies of which are available in the Library. The additional information is not available in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  801

  Fractured Neck of Femur Patients
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were admitted with fractured neck of femur; what percentage survived beyond 30 days of admission for this condition; and what percentage standardised for age and sex survived beyond 30 days of admission for this condition in each acute NHS trust in each of the last three years. [20867]

  Mr. Horam
  Standard information on hospital admissions by diagnosis is available in the "Hospital Episodes Statistics" publications, copies of which are available in the Library. As to the additional information requested, mortality in hospital after admission for fractured neck of femur is listed in a set of 14 clinical indicators we are preparing to pilot throughout the national health service. It will not be possible to link hospital admissions with deaths in the community after discharge from hospital for the foreseeable future.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were admitted from home as emergencies with a principal diagnosis of fractured neck of femur; what percentage of these patients were discharged home within 56 days; and what percentage standardised for age and sex were discharged home within 56 days in each acute NHS trust in each of the last three years. [20868]

  Mr. Horam
  Standard information on hospital admissions by diagnosis is available in the "Hospital Episodes Statistics" publications, copies of which are in the Library. As to the additional information requested, discharge home after admission for fractured neck of femur is listed in a set of 14 clinical indicators we are preparing to pilot throughout the National Health Service.

  Dilation and Curettage
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many elective admissions for a D and C operation there were; and what percentage of all elective admissions to gynaecology these operations comprised, in each NHS trust in each of the last three years. [20855]

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

  First Births
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many first births there were at each NHS trust in each of the last three years; and what percentage of these births each year were by caesarean section. [20856]

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

  Diabetic Ketoacidosis Patients
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many emergency inpatient admissions with a main condition of diabetic ketoacidosis there were; and what was the admission rate per 100,000 standardised for age and sex from each health authority area in England in each of the last three years. [20865]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.
  802

  Stroke Patients
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were admitted as emergencies from home with a principal diagnosis of stroke over the last three years to each NHS trust; and what proportion of these patients were discharged home within 56 days(a) as a crude percentage and (b) as a percentage standardised for age and sex. [20859]

  Mr. Horam
  Standard information on hospital admissions by diagnosis is available in the "Hospital Episodes Statistics" publications, copies of which are available in the Library. Length of hospital stay of stroke patients, and discharge home are listed in a set of 14 clinical indicators we are preparing to pilot throughout the national health service as part of a commitment given in the White Paper marking the fifth anniversary of the citizens charter.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were admitted as emergencies with a principal diagnosis of stroke as defined by international classification or disease codes 430–34 and 436–38 in the last three years for each NHS trust; and what proportion of these patients(a) survived after 30 days and (b) survived after 30 days after standardisation for age and sex. [20858]

  Mr. Horam
  Standard information on hospitals admissions by diagnosis is available in the "Hospital Episodes Statistics" publications, copies of which are available in the Library. As to the additional information requested, this calls for the linking of hospital admissions with deaths in the community, something that will not be possible in the foreseeable future.

  Neonatal Units
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of babies were admitted to a neonatal unit for a period of(a) 48 hours or less and (b) more than 48 hours in each NHS trust in each of the last three years. [20863]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not collected centrally in the form requested. Data of this kind have been reviewed by the Clinical Standards Advisory Group, which last reported in 1995. Copies of its report "Neonatal Intensive Care: Access to and Availability of Specialist Services" have been placed in the Library.

  Acute Psychiatric Care
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) the number of discharges from acute psychiatric care, (b) the number of such patients dying within one year of discharge, (c) the crude death rate within one year per 1,000 person years at risk for such patients and (d) the same death rate standardised for (i) age and sex and (ii) age, sex and diagnosis for each NHS trust for each of the last five years. [20857]

  Mr. Burns
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Candiac Patients
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were admitted as emergencies with a
  803
  principal diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction; what percentage of these patients survived 30 days after admission; and what proportion standardised for age and sex survived 30 days after admission in each NHS trust in each of the last three years. [20869]

  Mr. Horam
  Standard information on hospital admissions by diagnosis is available in the "Hospital Episodes Statistics" publications, copies of which are available in the Library. The additional information required is not available at present in the form requested. However, we are preparing to pilot a set of indicators within the national health service, one of which is in-hospital mortality for acute myocardial infarction. It will not be possible to link hospital admissions with deaths in the community after discharge from hospital for the foreseeable future.

  Tinnitus Research
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding his Department is providing for research into tinnitus in the present financial year. [20754]

  Mr. Horam
  The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant-in-aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. The MRC is always willing to consider high-quality research proposals.

  Beta Interferon
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what factors led(a) Lambeth, (b) Southwark, (c) Lewisham and (d) Cambridge and Huntingdon health authorities not to purchase beta interferon. [20727]

  Mr. Horam
  Health authorities are responsible, through their purchasing and allocation decisions and the advice and support they give to clinicians, for achieving the best possible health outcomes for their populations within the resources available. We understand that Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham, and Cambridge and Huntingdon health authorities determined their local policies for the purchase of beta-interferon lb on the basis of assessments of the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of the treatment, and of local health needs, priorities and resources.

  Transurethral Prostatectomy Patients
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients aged 55 to 84 years were admitted to each NHS trust over the last three years to undergo transurethral prostatectomy; and what percentage of these patients were readmitted within one year for a further prostatectomy(a) as a crude rate and (b) standardised for age. [20861]

  Mr. Horam
  Standard information on hospital admissions by diagnosis and operative procedure is available in the "Hospital Episodes Statistics" publications, copies of which are available in the Library. Reoperation after prostate surgery is one of a set of 14 clinical indicators which we are preparing to pilot throughout the national health service as part of a commitment given in the White Paper, which marked the fifth anniversary of the citizens charter.
  804

  In-patient Asthma Episodes
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many in-patient asthma episodes of four days or more among children aged under 16 years per 1,000 children aged under 16 years there were for each health authority area in England in each of the last three years. [20866]

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

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of people with relapsing/remitting MS in the area covered by the Cambridge and Huntingdon health authority. [20729]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not collected centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mrs. Margaret Scott, chairman of Cambridge and Huntingdon health authority, for an estimate of the local position.

  Commercial Food Premises (Rat Infestations)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many rat infestations in commercial food premises have been recorded in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [20927]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not held centrally. However, the results of a 1993 survey, the most recent since the mid to late 1970s, showed that there had been a fall in the levels of both mouse and rat infestations in business premises with food-related uses. These results were published in a Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food news release on 6 June 1995.

  Tobacco Products
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements he has put in place to control and monitor additives in tobacco products; and if he will make a statement. [21262]

  Mr. Horam
  A new 10 year voluntary agreement between the Tobacco Manufacturers Association, the Imported Tobacco Products Advisory Council and the Department of Health has been successfully negotiated and will come into force shortly. The new agreement covers the additives which may now be included in tobacco products and arrangements for the approval by the Department of Health of new additives in the future. Manufacturers have undertaken to sign a certificate that their products conform to the terms of the agreement one year from the date it comes into effect. Current arrangements for monitoring the constituents of tobacco products and their smoke by the Laboratory of the Government Chemist remain in place. Copies of the text of the agreement have been placed in the Library.

  Measles, Mumps and Rubella Vaccine
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) of 12 March,Official Report, column 263, if he will list for each of the

  805
  nine measles, mumps and rubella vaccines for which the product licence has been cancelled, the date on which the product licence was granted; whether the licensing of the vaccine was on the advice of the Committee on Safety of Medicines; on what date each cancellation took place; what safety concerns had been identified for each vaccine by the Medicines Control Agency; and under whose direction the licence was withdrawn. [21303]

  Mr. Malone
  With reference to the dates of granting of the nine measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 12 March, at column 263. Information regarding the cancellation of product licences is commercially confidential. The recommendation of the Committee on Safety of Medicines are confidential.

  I refer the hon. Member to the replies given on 6 November 1995, Official Report columns 607–11, which discuss the replacement of the Urabe strain of MMR vaccine with the current strain.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what dates the Medicines Control Agency first raised safety concerns regarding mumps, measles and rubella vaccines containing Urabe strain of mumps vaccine with the manufacturers of Pluserix-MMR and Immravac; and if he will make a statement. [21164]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies given on 6 November 1995 at columns 607–11 which discuss the replacement of the Urabe strain of MMR vaccine with the current strain. Discussions between the Licensing Authority and marketing authorisation holder are confidential.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment of the safety of mumps, measles and rubella vaccine was made by the Joint Committee on Vaccination prior to its 1988 recommendation for a vaccination programme; when the Committee on Safety of Medicines considered that assessment; and if he will make a statement; [21168]

  (2) on what date the Joint Committee on Vaccination advised the introduction of a vaccination programme using combined mumps, measles and rubella vaccines; if he will list the members of the committee on the date on which the recommendation was made; if he will publish the committee's advice; which Ministers instructed that the committee's advice should be implemented; and if he will make a statement; [21267]

  (3) what factors led his Department to announce on 1 September 1988 that a vaccination programme using combined mumps, measles and rubella vaccines would commence in October 1988; and if he will make a statement. [21167]

  Mr. Horam
  The joint committee on vaccination and immunisation decided at its meeting of 7 November 1986 to recommend to Ministers that a combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccine be introduced into the United Kingdom childhood immunisation programme as a replacement for single antigen measles vaccine. This recommendation was made following consideration of the experience of several other countries which had successfully used MMR vaccine for a number of years.
  806
  The JCVI recommended that MMR vaccine be introduced to: provide protection against measles, mumps and rubella; stimulate an increase in the uptake of measles vaccine; and augment the schoolgirl rubella immunisation programme with the aim of eliminating congenital rubella syndrome. The elimination of measles and congenital rubella syndrome were targets set by the WHO European region in its "Health for all by the year 2000" programme.

  Before the introduction of MMR vaccine, the JCVI gave careful consideration to available information from Finland, Sweden and the USA on the safety, efficacy and efficiency of the vaccine and from trials conducted by the Public Health Laboratory Service communicable disease surveillance centre in about 10,000 immunised United Kingdom children. It is not the responsibility of the Committee on the Safety of Medicines to consider assessments made by the JCVI.

  The Government's agreement in principle to this change was announced by Baroness Trumpington on 7 April 1987 and the change was confirmed in an announcement by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on 17 December 1987. Work on the implementation of the recommendation was guided by a working party established by the Department under the chairmanship of Sir John Badenoch, chairman of the JCVI.

  The recommendations of the JCVI, as endorsed by Ministers, are made available in the publication "Immunisation Against Infectious Disease" copies of which are in the Library of the House. A list of the recommendations and statements concerning immunisation against measles, mumps and rubella is included in the answer to the question from the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey at column 265.

  The membership of the joint committee on vaccination and immunisation at April 1988 was as follows: Chairman: Sir John Badenoch. Members: Professor J. E. Banatvala; Dr. M. F. H. Bush; Professor A. G. M. Campbell; Dr. K. M. Citron; Professor J. G. Collee; Professor A. M. Geddes; Dr. D. G. Grahame Smith; Professor P. Grob; Dr. P. F. Grundy; Professor D. Hull; Dr. I. Jones; Professor J. K. Knowelden; Professor H. P. Lambert; Professor R. J. Levinsky; Dr. A. J. McFarlane; Professor D. L. Miller; Dr. J. Noble; Professor C. Peckham; Mrs. D. Roden; Dr. D. Reid; Dr. G. Schild; Dr. J. Selkon; Dr. J. W. G. Smith; Professor R. W. Smithells.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) of 12 March,Official Report, column 263, if the Pluserix MMR vaccine was recommended for approval by the Committee on Safety of Medicines; and if he will make a statement. [21302]

  Mr. Malone
  Marketing authorisations are granted by the Licensing Authority. When appropriate, the advice of the Committee on Safety of Medicines is sought. However, the recommendations of the committee are confidential.
  807
  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the dates on which the Committee on Safety of Medicines and its sub-committees have considered the safety of measles and rubella vaccines since 1 January 1992; and if he will make a statement. [21166]

  Mr. Malone
  The safety of measles and rubella vaccines was considered by either the Committee on Safety of Medicines or its sub-committee on the following dates: 23 September 1992, 2 May 1995, 3 October 1995, 26 October 1995 and 31 October 1995.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessments of the safety of(a) mumps, measles and rubella vaccines and (b) measles and rubella vaccines have been made by the joint committee on vaccination since 1 January 1988; if he will publish those assessments; and if he will make a statement. [21171]

  Mr. Horam
  The joint committee on vaccination and immunisation regularly receives information on reported adverse events, including yellow card reports from the Medicines Control Agency, as well as published papers on safety and other expert advice. When considering the place of any vaccine in the UK immunisation programme very careful consideration is given to the likely risks and benefits of each vaccine. JCVI's recommendations for the United Kingdom programme reflect is assessment of this. The introduction of MMR vaccine in 1988, the measles/rubella campaign in the winter of 1994–95, and the introduction of a second dose of MMR in 1996 were all recommended after looking at the safety of the vaccines concerned. Since January 1988, the committee has considered the matter of MMR vaccine, or its component vaccines, at each of the 18 meetings it has held.

  The recommendations of the committee, as endorsed by Ministers, are made available in the publication "Immunisation Against Infectious Disease", copies of which are in the Library.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when a product licence was granted to Immravax; when the product was withdrawn; on whose authority; and if he will make a statement. [21169]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 12 March 1997 at column 263. Marketing authorisations are granted by the Licensing Authority. Information regarding the withdrawal of a product is commercially confidential.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the products which had a product licence on 2 September 1988 for the prevention of mumps, measles and rubella, and the dates of the granting of those product licences; and if he will make a statement. [21268]

  Mr. Malone
  The available information listing the vaccines for the prevention of mumps, measles and rubella on 2 September 1988 is as follows:

  Product name

  Date of grant

  Pluserix MMR vaccine

  17 June 1988

  M-M-R-II

  17 August 1972

  808

  Hospital Trusts (Contracts)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many trusts failed to meet the deadline to agree contracts with their purchasers; and how many he expects to go to arbitration. [21081]

  Mr. Horam
  Information on the number of trusts which fail to meet the deadline for agreeing contracts is not collected centrally because their services may be bought by a large number of purchasers, including health authorities and general practitioner fundholders. It is too early in the contracting round to be able to assess the number of contracts which will go to arbitration, but the numbers are likely to be small.

  Crohn's Disease
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the(a) incidence and (b) prevalence of Crohn's disease, broken down into age bands, for each of the last 10 years for which data are available; and if he will make a statement. [21270]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the numbers of yellow card reports regarding Crohn's disease in childhood associated with the use of measles vaccine for each of the last five years for which figures are available; what assessment the Medicines Control Agency has made of such data; and if he will make a statement; [21269]

  (2) what assessment the Medicines Control Agency and the Committee on Safety of Medicines have made of the association between the use of measles vaccines and the incidence of Crohn's disease; and if he will make a statement. [21165]

  Mr. Malone
  From 1 January 1992 to 31 December 1996, three reports from the United Kingdom of Crohn's disease as a suspected adverse reaction to vaccines containing the measles component were sent to the Committee on Safety of Medicines.

  A report of a suspected adverse drug reaction does not necessarily mean that it was caused by the vaccine.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State gave on 17 January 1996 at columns 593–94. Together with the Department, the Medicines Control Agency has reviewed all the available evidence and considers that a convincing link between immunisation and Crohn's disease has not been demonstrated.

  NHS (Electricity Supply)
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the savings to the NHS in fuel costs from the liberalisation of electricity supply. [21162]

  Mr. Horam
  It is not possible to distinguish the effect of the liberalisation of electricity supply from other factors affecting fuel costs in the national health service.
  809

  Duo-Japanese Vaccine
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the availability of the duo-Japanese vaccine on the national health service. [21351]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department of Health has no knowledge of duo-Japanese vaccine.

  Glaucoma
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the incidence of glaucoma in ethnic minorities relative to the rest of the population; and if he will make a statement. [21352]

  Mr. Horam
  Studies have indicated that people of African extraction are four times more at risk of Glaucoma than Caucasians. Everyone at special risk of developing the condition, because they are aged over 40 and have a close relative with glaucoma, is automatically entitled to a free national health service sight test.

  Medical Records (Libel)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what safeguards exist under the Access to Medical Records Act 1990 to prevent a patient being libelled by a member of the medical profession; and what redress there is for patients able to demonstrate that a libel has been committed in their medical record. [21353]

  Mr. Horam
  If a patient who has been given access to his or her record under the Access to Health Records Act 1990 feels that inaccurate information is contained in that record there is a legal right to have the information corrected. If the patient and the record holder do not agree that a record is inaccurate the Act requires that a note of the alleged inaccuracy be made on the record.

  Patients who remain dissatisfied can make a complaint under the NHS complaints procedure or an application to the courts.

  These rights are in addition to those rights under the general law, including the law of libel.

  Royal London Hospital
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the differences between the proposals for the new Royal London hospital project announced on(a) 4 April 1995 and (b) 16 April 1996. [21354]

  Mr. Malone
  I am not aware of any proposals announced on 16 April 1996.

  Fluoride
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines his Department issues on the maximum safe daily dosage of fluoride. [21356]

  Mr. Malone
  No guidelines have been issued. The Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy's report on health and social subjects 41 (sixth impression), which was first published by the Department of Health in 1991, gives details of the safe intake of fluoride for infants, children and adults. Copies of the fluoride chapter in the COMA publication will be placed in the Library.

  Edgware General Hospital
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will initiate early discussions with Barnet district health authority and the Wellhouse Trust, to co-ordinate and monitor the provision of comprehensive new casualty facilities at Edgware general hospital, along the lines agreed in his discussions with the hon. Members for Hendon, North (Sir J. Gorst) and Harrow, East. [21395]

  Mr. Horam
  The health authority have agreed arrangements to assess the service being provided, along the lines indicated in the letter my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote on 20 January 1997.

  Disabled People
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken by his Department to ensure that all health authorities meet the mobility needs of disabled people living in NHS care following the removal of the mobility component from the disability living allowance for long-stay NHS patients. [21465]

  Mr. Burns
  The national health service has been and continues to be responsible for meeting the mobility needs of everybody living in its care as part of its day-to-day work. The more effective targeting of the disability living allowance has not affected this responsibility.

  Accident and Emergency Services (Essex)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will rank in order of(a) travel time and (b) road miles the six nearest accident and emergency hospitals available to emergency ambulances when taking patients from incidents in (i) Purfleet, Essex, (ii) Aveley, Essex, (iii) Grays, Essex, (iv) Tilbury, Essex and (v) South Ockendon. [21531]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. David Micklem, chairman of South Essex health authority, for details.

  Stillbirths and Infant Deaths
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were for each of the past five years, the total costs to his Department if (i) the confidential inquiry into stillbirths and deaths in infancy and (ii) the core and project funding for the national perinatal epidemiology unit. [21332]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is as follows:

  £ million

  CESDI

  National perinatal epidemiology unit

  1992–93 (outturn)

  n/a

  0.683

  1993–94 (outturn)

  1.761

  0.738

  1994–95 (outturn)

  2.080

  0.759

  1995–96 (outturn)

  2.068

  0.706

  1996–97 (provision)

  2.039

  0.700

  Expenditure for 1992–93 is not separately available in respect of CESDI.

  811
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 14 February,Official Report, columns 352–53, if he will place in the Library a copy of the report of the evaluation of the confidential inquiry into stillbirths and deaths in infancy which was commissioned from the South East Institute of Public Health. [21278]

  Mr. Horam
  Copies of the report "Evaluation of the Initial Implementation of the Confidential Enquiry of Stillbirth and Death in Infancy" will be placed in the Library shortly.

  £000

  Total expenditure

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Devon FHSA

  126,788

  145,551

  169,379

  193,747

  199,622

  Exeter DHA

  115,624

  120,932

  —

  —

  —

  North Devon DHA

  46,777

  51,216

  —

  —

  —

  Plymouth DHA

  109,753

  115,952

  —

  —

  —

  Torbay DHA

  90,992

  98,125

  —

  —

  —

  Exeter and North Devon DHA

  —

  —

  172,695

  182,155

  186,673

  Plymouth and Torbay DHA

  —

  —

  224,672

  233,778

  241,552

  Note:

  1995–96 figures are provisional.

  Source:

  Health Authority and Family Health Services Authority Annual Accounts.

  Departmental Annual Report
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he plans to publish his Department's annual report and expenditure plans for 1997–98 to 1999–2000; [21333]

  (2) if he will publish a table updating the figures in table 3 of his Department's 1996 annual report, Cm 3212. [21339]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department of Health departmental report was published today. It will include a table which updates the figures in table 3 of Cm 3212.

  Heart Attack Victims
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the proposal for motor cycle ambulances to provide an initial rapid response to heart attack victims in urban areas. [20130]

  Mr. Horam
  Ambulance services are increasingly making use of motor cycles to get paramedics more quickly to the scene of incidents. When ambulance services have adopted call prioritisation systems the arrival of a paramedic on a motor cycle within the target time will count towards the patients charter standard.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to provide paramedics with clot busting drugs for heart attack victims. [20131]

  Mr. Horam
  There are risks connected with the administration of these drugs and there are no plans at present to provide them to paramedics. However, the position is kept under review.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure a rapid response by ambulance services to heart attack victims. [20133]

  Mr. Horam
  On 1 April four ambulance services will be implementing call prioritisation systems which will enable them to assess calls so that the most serious cases.

  Departmental Expenditure (South-West)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of his Department's expenditure in(a) Devon, (b) South Hams and (c) Torbay in each of the past five years. [21342]

  Mr. Horam
  The table sets out total expenditure from 1991–92 to 1995–96:

  get the quickest response. Other ambulance services will adopt these systems on or after 1 October 1997 at a date agreed with their purchasers.

  It is estimated that in the longer term some 3,000 additional lives a year could be saved by these procedures.

  A new patients charter standard has been set that all ambulance services will be expected to reach 75 per cent. of immediately life-threatening calls within eight minutes by the year 2001 with further progress thereafter.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the proportion of heart attack victims who reach hospital or receive adequate medical attention in each health region. [20134]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not available in the form requested. The review of ambulance performance standards published last year, which is available in the Library, suggested that survival rates could be improved and we are taking measures to ensure that this is the case.

  Defibrillators
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions has he had with the Home Secretary regarding the provision of defibrillators in police service vehicles. [20138]

  Mr. Horam
  There have been discussion at official, but not ministerial level. This is a matter for local discussion by chief police officers and ambulance services, and a scheme is under operation in the City of London.

  Salmonellosis
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (l)what assessment he has made of trends in the number of human cases of salmonella typhimurium (DT) 104; and if he will make a statement; [21106]
  813
  (2) how many cases of salmonellosis have been recorded in humans in each of the last five years; how many and what percentage were recorded as the salmonella typhimurium (DT) 104 strain; and if he will make a statement. [21105]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Year

  Total salmonellas

  S. typhimurium DT 104

  S. typhimuriumDT 104 as a percentage of total salmonellas

  1992

  31,355

  789

  3

  1993

  30,650

  1,509

  5

  1994

  30,411

  2,848

  9

  1995

  29,717

  3,698

  12

  19961

  30,272

  4,006

  13

  Note:

  1 Provisional figures.

  Source:

  Public Health Laboratory Service.

  The Government's independent advisory committee on the microbiological safety of food's working group on microbial antibiotic resistance in relation to food safety, which was set up last year and the epidemiology of foodborne infections group, which is chaired by the Department of Health, are giving careful consideration to this organism. Copies of the terms of reference to these groups have been placed in the Library. In addition the Department of Health is funding a study into "factors affecting the survival and heat resistance of Salmonella typhimurium DT104".

  Payment of Bills
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of bills to his Department for the financial year 1995 to 1996 were paid(a) in accordance with agreed contractual conditions and (b) within 30 days of receiving goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice where no contractual conditions applied. [21204]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) on 18 July 1996 at columns 613–14.

  NHS Pension Scheme
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes to the funding arrangements(a) for health authorities in England and (b) for Buckinghamshire health authority he has made as a result of his decision that general practitioner practice staff should be eligible for membership of the NHS pension scheme; and if he will make a statement. [21337]

  Mr. Malone
  An additional £65 million in general medical services cash-limited funds has been allocated to health authorities in 1997–98 to enable them to develop primary care through existing mechanisms and to take advantage of the additional flexibilities and initiatives in the White Paper "Delivering the Future". This includes 814
  the proposal to open up the NHS pension scheme to GP practice staff. All health authorities have received a minimum of 2 per cent. growth moneys.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 13 March,Official Report, column 339, how many expressions of interest in the NHS pension scheme derived from (a) general practitioners and (b) their staff. [21357]

  Mr. Malone
  In England, 1,116 practices and 6,564 practice staff responded to the staff interest survey carried out in 1994. Of those responding, over 80 per cent. of general practitioner practices indicated that they would allow all their staff to join the NHS pension scheme and 77 per cent. of staff indicated an interest in joining.

  A. Simplex Allergy
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department issues to the medical profession in diagnosing and treating A. simplex allergy; and if he will make a statement. [21233]

  Mr. Horam
  The diagnosis and treatment of allergies are matters for the medical profession. There are no reports of this type of allergy in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the link between delays in gutting fish and the increase of A. simplex allergy; and if he will make a statement. [21228]

  Mr. Horam
  Current practices in the United Kingdom fishing industry mean that the parasite A. simplex is unlikely to be present in fish purchased in this country.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have contracted A. simplex allergy from contaminated fish in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [21234]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department issues to those at risk from A. simplex allergy; and if he will make a statement. [21229]

  Mr. Horam
  We are not aware of any reports of this type of allergy in the United Kingdom. Current practices in the UK fishing industry mean that the parasite A. simplex is unlikely to be present in fish purchased in this country.

  Consultants (Suspensions)
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many NHS consultants had a period of suspension during (i) 1994–95 and (ii) 1995–96; and what were the total amounts payable to them during each of those years; [21119]

  (2) how many consultants are currently suspended with full pay by the NHS; and what is the total annual salary of those under suspension. [21118]

  Mr. Malone
  Information on the number of national health service consultants suspended is only held centrally for those cases lasting more than six months and was not collected before 31 March 1995. For the period 31 March
  815
  1995 to 31 December 1996 there were eight reported cases, all of which have been resolved. There are currently no reported cases of consultants under suspension lasting more than six months. Information on the total salary costs of consultants under suspension is not available centrally.

  Antipsychotic Drugs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the link between tardive dyskinesia in mental health patients and the use of antipsychotic drugs; and if he will make a statement. [21227]

  Mr. Burns
  The links between tardive dyskinesia and the use of antipsychotic drugs in mental health patients are very well researched and well known. The information has been widely available for many years.

  Heart Attack (First Aid)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps is he taking to promote public education in respect of the recommended first aid measures against the onset of a heart attack. [20139]

  Mr. Horam
  We have recently produced large quantities of public education materials for use by ambulance services around the country on recognising the early signs of a heart attack and how to perform cardio-pulmonary resuscitation. There are other regional and local campaigns in the same field.

  Factor 8
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations(a) he and (b) the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), have received from the Haemophilia Society in regard to (i) the availability of recombinant factor 8 for children with haemophilia and (ii) the risks for children not receiving recombinant factor 8; what reply he has sent; what action he is taking; and if he will make a statement. [21112]

  Mr. Horam
  Earlier this month the chairman of the Haemophilia Society, Rev. Alan Tanner, wrote both to me and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health about a number of issues relating to recombinant factor 8. I shall be replying shortly.

  Cancer Treatments (Clatterbridge Hospital)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have received cancer treatment at Clatterbridge hospital, Wirral, in each of the last five years. [21219]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested may be found in the publication "Ordinary and day case admissions for England, Financial Year 1995–96", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Worcester District General Hospital
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to work towards the signing of the contract for the new Worcester district general hospital before the dissolution of Parliament. [21186]
  816
  Mr. Horam
  All national health service trusts with private finance initiative schemes, such as for the new Worcester district general hospital, should continue to prepare their full business cases and will be fully supported in this by officials at the NHS executive and Her Majesty's Treasury. However, following the announcement of the general election Ministers and officials can no longer take decisions with financial implications for a future Administration. This means that Ministers will not be able to approve the full business case for the PFI scheme for the new Worcester district general hospital if it is submitted for approval before the general election.

  Contraceptives (Minors)
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement indicating those provisions in his departments circular, "Health Services Management Family Planning Services for Young People", which govern the situation in which contraceptives may be prescribed for minors(a) without parental consent and (b) without first discussing the situation with the child's usual general practitioner; and if he will identify the steps which are taken by his Department to ensure that these provisions are met by those providing contraceptive services. [21283]

  Mr. Horam
  The appendix to the circular sets out in paragraph 3 the criteria to be satisfied in providing contraceptive advice and/or treatment to young people under 16 without parental knowledge or consent. Paragraph 4 states that the doctor must use his clinical judgment to decide if these criteria are satisfied. Paragraph 4 also states that a doctor who is not the young person's GP would be advised, with the young person's agreement, to discuss his action with the GP involved.

  To ensure that these guidelines are fully understood, the British Medical Association in partnership with other medical and voluntary organisations has produced advice for health professionals on this issue. This guidance makes it clear that a young person must be strongly encouraged to involve his or her parents and their reasons for not wishing to do so should be fully explored.

  Mrs. Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of girls aged under 16 who were prescribed contraceptives in the latest year for which figures are available; what estimate he has made of the number of those girls to whom such prescriptions were given without parental knowledge; and if he will make a statement. [21282]

  Mr. Horam
  Details are not held centrally of the number of young women under 16 prescribed contraceptives, or if they were advised or treated without their parents' knowledge or consent as specified in the Department's 1986 guidelines.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will update the table placed in the Library on 29 March 1996,Official Report, column 780, on the practice fund management allowance expenditure by each health authority to include expenditure estimates and revised totals for 1996–97. [16651]
  817
  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 19 February 1997]: The information requested for 1995–96 and 1996–97 has been placed in the Library. I regret that there was an error in the labelling on the table placed in the Library on 29 March 1996 and a revised version of this table has also been provided.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the average(a) management and (b) computer costs for a general practitioner fundholding practice in each health authority in England in each of the past five years. [17470]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 24 February 1997]: The available data have been placed in the Library.

  For 1995–96 and 1996–97, the tables identify allocations to health authorities for practice fund management allowance and computing allocations, and separately identify preparatory year and full fundholders so that a meaningful average can be calculated.

  For 1993–94 and 1994–95, the tables identify the total PFMA expenditure by full and preparatory year fundholders, but divided by full fundholders only.

  The figures for 1995–96 and 1996–97 include both computer purchase costs, shown separately, and computer maintenance costs, included within general PFMA. Both these components are excluded from the 1993–94 and 1994–95 figures, so the figures are not comparable over time.

  Data by Family Health Services Authority are not centrally available for 1992–93.

  NHS Employees
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the Hospital and Community health services nurses who are(a) qualified, (b) unqualified, (c) midwives, (d) learner staff and (e) Project 2000 students, as whole-time equivalents, employed (i) in each region and (ii) overall in each year since 1991. [18773]

  Mr. Horam
  [holding answer 10 March 1997]: The information requested will be placed in the Library.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) of 6 March,Official Report, column 740, if he will provide figures for his Department's PFI projects in the same form as used by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, in his answer to the hon. Member for Darlington of 6 March, Official Report, columns 692–93. [20389]

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects contracts to be signed for the construction of the new Worcester district general hospital. [20805]

  Mr. Horam
  [holding answer 17 March 1997]: This information is not available in the form requested.

  The figures at table 5.5 in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" are an estimate built up from detailed figures for each of the schemes with a capital cost of £10 million and above, testing for PFI as at November 1996, together with an aggregate estimate for smaller
  818
  schemes. Both sets of figures were then adjusted at an aggregate level to arrive at an estimate of the likely spend in each year. The trusts with schemes with a capital cost of £10 million and above are listed:

  PFI schemes

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood Community Healthcare NHS Trusts

  Birmingham Children's Hospital NHS Trust

  Bishop Auckland Hospitals NHS Trust

  Bradford Community NHS Trust

  Bromley Hospitals NHS Trust

  Calderdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  Carlisle Hospitals NHS Trust

  Central Sheffield University Hospitals NHS Trust

  Central Middlesex Hospital NHS Trust

  Chichester Priority Care Services NHS Trust

  Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust

  East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust

  Gloucester Royal NHS Trust Greenwich Healthcare NHS Trust

  Guy's and St. Thomas's NHS Trust

  Hereford Hospitals NHS Trust

  Royal Hull Hospitals NHS Trust

  King's Healthcare NHS Trust

  Leeds Community and Mental Health NHS Trust

  Norfolk and Norwich Healthcare NHS Trust

  North Downs Community Health NHS Trust

  North Durham Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  North Kent Healthcare NHS Trust

  North Staffordshire Combined NHS Trust

  Northern Birmingham Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  Oxleas NHS Trust

  Papworth Hospitals NHS Trust

  Peterborough Hospitals NHS Trust

  Pinderfields Hospitals NHS Trust

  Pontefract Hospitals NHS Trust

  The Radcliffe Infirmary NHS Trust

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton NHS Trust

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  Royal Berkshire and Battle Hospitals NHS Trust

  Royal Victoria Infirmary and Associated Hospitals NHS Trust

  Royal Hospitals NHS Trust

  South Buckinghamshire NHS Trust

  South Tees Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  South Bedfordshire Community NHS Trust

  South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust

  Southampton Community Health Services NHS Trust

  St. James' and Seacroft University Hospitals NHS Trust

  St. George's Hospital NHS Trust

  Swindon and Marlborough NHS Trust

  Trafford Healthcare NHS Trust

  University College London Hospitals NHS Trust

  Walsgrave Hospitals NHS Trust

  Wellhouse NHS Trust

  819

  West Middlesex University Hospitals NHS Trust

  Wiltshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  Worcester Royal Infirmary NHS Trust.

  Residential Care
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current public expenditure cost of supporting retired people in residential care; and what estimate he has made of these costs in(a) 2020 and (b) 2040. [20489]

  Mr. Burns
  [holding answer 17 March 1997]: In 1994–95, the latest year for which this information is available, identified public expenditure on residential care for the elderly included £0.9 billion of local authority expenditure, net of income received, including fees and charges to clients, and £0.5 billion of Department of Social Security preserved rights income support. Information on residential allowance does not separately identify residential and nursing care. For residential and nursing care taken together, total net public expenditure on elderly by local authorities (net) and by DSS by means of preserved rights income support and residential allowance, amounted to about £2.7 billion in 1994–95. Future costs of long-term care discussed in the Health Committee report "Long Term Care: Future Provision and Funding", chapter IV, paragraphs 99 to 121, a copy of which is available in the Library.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Punishment Shootings
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the total cost to public funds arising from so-called punishment shootings in each of the last five years and the current year to date; if he will break down the costs in terms of(a) police costs, (b) medical costs, (c) compensation paid to victims and (d) ongoing cots to the social security budget; and of the latter in how many cases there are likely to be long-term payments. [9219]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

  Road Signs
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the percentage of road signs which need replacement or repair on the United Kingdom primary route network. [8418]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I shall write to the hon. and learned Gentleman as soon as possible.

  Paramilitary Violence
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many people have died as a result of violence committed by(a) republican and (b) loyalist paramilitaries in Belfast, West since April 1992; [16471]

  (2) how many punishment beatings have been attributed to (a) republican and (b) loyalist paramilitary groups in Belfast, West since April 1992; [16469]
  820
  (3) how many acts of terrorism have been attributed to (a) republican and (b) loyalist paramilitaries since April 1992. [16470]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

  Anglo-Irish Secretariat
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what names have been put forward by the Irish side of the Anglo-Irish Secretariat for the proposed Parades Commission. [17702]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I shall write to the hon. and learned Gentleman as soon as possible.

  Properties (Rateable Values)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will list for each council area, (i) the old and the new rateable value of commercial premises, (ii) the rateable value of domestic properties and (iii) the rateable value of other properties; and what was the(a) percentage increase in and (b) sums raised in respect of each category for each area (x) in 1995–96, (y) in 1996–97 and (z) projected for 1997–98 by means of (1) the regional rate and (2) local rates; [18514]

  (2) if he will list the sums in respect of rate relief (a) paid in 1995–96, (b) paid in 1996–97 and (c) projected to be paid in 1997–98 in each council area; and in each case what percentage this is of the total sum raised by each council. [18515]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 4 March 1997]: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

  Computer Theft
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many items of computer equipment were seized or confiscated by the Royal Ulster Constabulary in November and December 1996; how many of these items were seized from(a) community centres, (b) commercial properties and (c) domestic residences; and how many individuals are or have been subject to criminal prosecutions as a result of evidence so obtained. [19943]

  Sir John Wheeler
  As part of an on-going investigation, a number of items of computer equipment were seized from various locations during November and December 1996. Some items are still retained.

  A DPP file is pending and it would therefore not be appropriate to disclose further details at this stage.

  Martin McGartland
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the sums paid out of public funds to Martin McGartland since 1991; by which agencies; and under what powers they were paid. [20749]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I shall write to the hon. and learned Gentleman as soon as possible.

  Magheramorne Quarry, Lorne
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the report of Commissioner Mossop on the
  821
  public inquiry into the proposed landfill site at Magheramorne quarry, Lorne, Co. Antrim was presented to the Planning Appeals Commission and Department of Environment (NI). [21001]

  Mr. Moss
  I am advised by the chief commissioner of the PAC that the report of Commissioner Mossop was completed on 25 October 1996 and that the Commission reached a corporate decision on 2 December 1996. The report was received by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland on 17 December 1966.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of state for Northern Ireland when a copy of Commissioner Mossop's report on the public inquiry into the application for a landfill waste disposal site at Magheramorne quarry, Larne, will be placed in the Library. [21305]

  Mr. Moss
  It is not normal practice to place planning appeals commission reports in the Library, but on this occasion I will arrange to do so immediately following the Department's determination of the application.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy to give equal access to hon. Members in relation to the public appointment process as is given to the Irish Government; and if he will make a statement. [21005]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I shall write to the hon. and learned Gentleman as soon as possible.

  Groomsport Primary School
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the investigation into the fire at Groomsport primary school in 1996 indicating when(a) the site will be cleared and (b) rebuilding will commence. [21007]

  Mr. Ancram
  The Forensic Science Agency's final report on the fire is awaited by the South-Eastern education and library board which is responsible in the first instance for any reinstatement of damaged accommodation at the school. The board is currently considering some capital works to address the school's needs, but this will be subject to the availability of resources.

  Public Sector Pension Schemes
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the actual and accumulated deficits and surpluses over the last five years of the five largest public sector pension schemes in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [21008]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Of the five largest public sector pension schemes in Northern Ireland, the teachers superannuation scheme, the principal civil service pension scheme (NI), the health and personal social services scheme (NI) and the RUC pension scheme are notionally funded/non-funded and therefore, the question of deficits and surpluses does not arise.

  For the Northern Ireland local government officers superannuation scheme the net money available for investment, that is, actual surplus for each of the last five years, is listed.
  822

  Year

  Net money availablefor investment£ (million)

  1991–92

  48,758

  1992–93

  45,921

  1993–94

  34,066

  1994–95

  39,616

  1995–96

  45,993

  It is not possible to provide a meaningful figure for accumulated surpluses over the past five years. However, the actuarial valuation of the fund at 31 March 1992 was £214 million and at 31 March 1995 was £304 million.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what(a) number and (b) percentage of disability living allowance claim decisions were (i) reviewed and (ii) appealed against in the last year for which figures are available; and what percentage and number achieved variations of awards in their favour. [21009]

  Mr. Moss
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Social Security Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Alec Wylie. I have asked him to arrange for a response to be given.

  Letter from Alec Wylie to Mr. Robert McCartney, dated 19 March 1997:
  I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking for statistics on Disability Living Allowance decisions that were reviewed and appealed against in the last year for which figures are available.
  The attached sheet sets out the most up to date information available for a complete year which, in this instance, covers the period from 1 April 1995 to 31 March 1996.
  Disability living allowance statistical information I April 1995 to 31 March 1996
  1. Total number of claims received: 48,633

  2.

  Amount

  Reviews

  Number of reviews received

  22,256

  Number of reviews decided

  21,261

  Number of reviews allowed

  7,849

  Success rate

  37 per cent.

  Appeals

  Number of appeals received

  2,491

  Number of appeals cleared

  3,142

  Number of appeals allowed

  1,320

  Success rate

  42 per cent.

  It should be noted that the number of appeals and reviews received during the period 1 April 1995 to 31 March 1996 do not necessarily relate to the number of claims received during the same period— i.e. some appeals and review applications were made on previous year claims.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) the minutes of meetings,

  823
  (d) the agendas of meetings and (e) a register of members' interests; and if this is in each case (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary. [20898]

  Department of Economic Development

  Name of body

  Publish annual report

  Public annual accounts

  Publish minutes of meetings

  Publish agendas of meetings

  Publish register of members' interests

  Yes

  Construction Industry Training Board

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  Yes (wef 6/97)

  Enterprise Ulster

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  1Yes

  Equal Opportunities Commission

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  1No

  Fair Employment Commission

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  1No

  General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  Yes

  Labour Relations Agency

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  1No

  Local Enterprise Development Unit

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  2Yes (S)

  Northern Ireland Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  Northern Ireland Commissioner for the Protection Against Unlawful Industrial Action

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  Northern Ireland Tourist Board

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  1No

  Ulster Sheltered Employment Ltd.

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  2Yes (S)

  (S) Statutory requirement.

  1 Maintain a Register of Members' interests, voluntarily, which are open for inspection at their offices upon request.

  2 Details regarding alternative directorships forms part of the Annual Return to the Registrar of Companies by all companies. The Annual Returns for LEDU and USEL are available to the public in Companies House.

  Impartment of Health and Social Services

  Name of body

  Publish annual report

  Publish annual accounts

  Publish minutes of meetings

  Publish agendas of meetings

  Publish register of members'interest

  National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for NI

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  Northern Ireland Council for Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Mental Health Commission for Northern Ireland

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  (S) = Statutory requirements. (V) = Voluntary.

  1 - Report is published biannually.

  2 - Report is published biennially.

  Department of the Environment (NI)

  Name of body

  Publish annual report

  Publish annual accounts

  Publish minutes of meetings

  Publish agendas of meetings

  Publish register of members' interest

  Fire Authority for NI

  Yes1 (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  Laganside Corporation

  Yes (V)

  Yes (V)

  No

  No

  No

  NI Housing Executive

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  NI Transport Holding Company

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  NI Local Government Officers' Staff Commission

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  (S) = Statutory requirements (V) = Voluntary

  Department of Finance and Personnel

  The Department does not sponsor any executive non-departmental public bodies.

  Department of Education

  Name of body

  Publish annual report

  Publish annual accounts

  Publish minutes of meetings

  Publish agendas of meetings

  Publish register of members' interest

  Arts Council of Northern Ireland

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  Council for Catholic Maintained Schools

  No

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  Trustees of the Ulster Folk and Transport Museum

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  Trustees of the Ulster Museum

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  Staff Commission for Education and Library Boards

  Yes (V)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  824
  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 19 March 1997]: The information requested is as follows:
  825

  Department of Education

  Name of body

  Publish annual report

  Publish annual accounts

  Publish minutes of meetings

  Publish agendas of meetings

  Publish register of members' interest

  Belfast Education and Library Board

  Yes (V)

  Yes (S)

  Yes (V)

  No

  No

  North-Eastern Education and Library Board

  Yes (V)

  Yes (S)

  Yes (V)

  No

  No

  South-Eastern Education and Library Board

  Yes (V)

  Yes (S)

  Yes (V)

  No

  No

  Southern Education and Library Board

  Yes (V)

  Yes (S)

  Yes (V)

  No

  No

  Western Education and Library Board

  Yes (V)

  Yes (S)

  Yes (V)

  No

  No

  Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum Examinations and Assessment

  No

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  Northern Ireland Museums Council

  Yes (V)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  Sports Council for Northern Ireland

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  Youth Council for Northern Ireland

  Yes (V)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  (S) = Statutory requirements. (V) = Voluntary.

  Department of Agriculture

  Name of body

  Publish annual report

  Publish annual accounts

  Publish minutes of members

  Publish agendas of meetings

  Publish register of members' interest

  Livestock and Meat Commission

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  Agricultural Wages Board

  1Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Agricultural Resource Institute

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  Foyle Fisheries Commission

  Yes (S)

  Yes (V)

  No

  No

  No

  Fishery Harbour Authority

  Yes (V)

  Yes (V)

  No

  No

  No

  Fisheries Conservancy Board

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  (S) = Statutory requirements. (V) = Voluntary.

  1 Report is published biannually.

  Northern Ireland Office

  Name of body

  Publish annual report

  Publish annual accounts

  Publish minutes of meetings

  Publish agendas of meetings

  Publish register of members interest

  Police Authority for Northern Ireland

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  Probation Board for Northern Ireland

  Yes

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  Rathgael and Whiteabbey Training Schools Management Board

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  The Independent Commission for Police Complaints for Northern Ireland

  Yes (S)

  Yes (S)

  No

  No

  No

  (S) = Statutory requirements.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which are subject to(a) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (b) scrutiny by the Audit Commission, (c) scrutiny by the National Audit Office, (d) statutory provisions for open Government, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens' Charter. [20937]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 19 March 1997]: The remit of the Parliamentary Commissioner does not extend to executive non-departmental public bodies in Northern Ireland. The Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland investigates complaints of alleged injustice as a consequence of maladministration by Northern Ireland Departments, including their agencies, while the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints investigates similar complaints against local and public bodies. The current list of executive non-departmental
  826
  public bodies which are subject to the jurisdiction of the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints is as follows:

  Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland

  Arts Council of Northern Ireland

  Council for Catholic Maintained Schools

  Education and Library Boards

  Enterprise Ulster

  Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland

  Fair Employment Commission for Northern Ireland

  Fire Authority for Northern Ireland

  Fisheries Conservatory Board for Northern Ireland

  General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland

  Industrial Training Boards

  Labour Relations Agency

  Lagans ide Corporation

  Livestock and Meat Commission for Northern Ireland

  Local Enterprise Development Unit

  Metal Health Commission for Northern Ireland

  Mental Health Commission for Northern Ireland

  827

  National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Northern Ireland

  Northern Ireland Housing Executive

  Northern Ireland Local Government Officer's Superannuation Committee

  Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment

  Northern Ireland Council for Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education

  Northern Ireland Fishery Harbour Authority

  Northern Ireland Museums Council

  Northern Ireland Tourist Board

  Office of the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Protection Against Unlawful Industrial Action

  Office of the Northern Ireland Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members

  Sports Council for Northern Ireland

  Staff Commission for the Education and Library Boards

  Trustees of the Ulster Folk and Transport Museum

  Trustees of the Ulster Museum

  Ulster Sheltered Employment Limited

  Youth Council for Northern Ireland.

  There are no executive non-departmental public bodies in Northern Ireland which are subject to scrutiny by the Audit Commission.

  The following executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Northern Ireland Office are subject to scrutiny by the National Audit Office.

  Police Authority for Northern Ireland

  Probation Board for Northern Ireland

  Independent Commissioner for Police Complaints

  Training School Management Board Rathgael and Whiteabbey.

  The responsibility of the National Audit Office does not extend to the six Northern Ireland Departments which have their own similarly appointed body—the Northern Ireland Audit Office.

  The following executive non-departmental public bodies are subject to scrutiny by the NIAO.

  Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland

  Agricultural Wages Board for Northern Ireland

  Arts Council of Northern Ireland

  Belfast Education and Library Board

  North Eastern Education and Library Board

  South Eastern Education and Library Board

  Southern Education and Library Board

  Western Education and Library Board

  Council for Catholic Maintained Schools

  Enterprise Ulster

  Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland

  Fair Employment Commission for Northern Ireland

  Fire Authority for Northern Ireland

  General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland

  Labour Relations Agency

  Laganside Corporation

  Local Enterprise Development Unit

  Local Government Staff Commission

  Mental Health Commission for Northern Ireland

  National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Northern Ireland

  828

  Northern Ireland Council for Post Graduate, Medical & Dental Education

  * Northern Ireland Commissioner for Protection Against Unlawful Industrial Action

  * Northern Ireland Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members

  Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum Examination and Assessments

  Northern Ireland Fishery Harbour Authority

  Northern Ireland Housing Executive

  Northern Ireland Museums Council

  Northern Ireland Tourist Board

  Sports Council for Northern Ireland

  Staff Commission for Education & Library Boards

  Ulster Folk and Transport Museum

  Ulster Museum

  Ulster Sheltered Employment Ltd

  Youth Council for Northern Ireland.

  There are no statutory provisions for open government. However, those executive non-departmental public bodies under the jurisdiction of the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints are subject to the code of practice on access to Government information.

  All executive non-departmental public bodies listed in the publication "Public Bodies 1996" are subject to performance indicators and the provisions under the citizen's charter. A copy of "Public Bodies 1996" has been placed in the Library.

  Secondary Schools
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further steps he proposes to take to raise the examination achievement level of boys attending secondary schools. [21304]

  Mr. Ancram
  I have set in place a number of initiatives to tackle low achievement in all Northern Ireland schools, including the raising schools' standards initiative, the "Making a Good Start" initiative, which provides additional classroom assistance in year 1, and targeting social need, which targets resources through local management of schools formulae. These will impact on low achievement wherever it occurs, including on boys' achievements.

  Fox and Mink Farms
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) fox and (b) mink farms there are in Northern Ireland by county. [21314]

  Mr. Ancram
  None.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reasons a licence is required for a fox farm in Northern Ireland. [21242]

  Mr. Ancram
  A licence is required to set up the conditions for the importation and keeping of arctic foxes in terms of preventing their escape.

  Payment of Bills
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of state for Northern Ireland what percentage of bills to his Department for the financial year 1995 to 1996 were paid(a) in accordance

  829
  with agreed contractual conditions and (b) within 30 days of receiving goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice where no contractual conditions applied. [21199]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The percentage of bills paid within 30 days or contract payment terms is not available for the financial year 1995–96; also in 1996 revised sampling criteria were introduced following HMT direction. However, the percentage for the calendar year 1995 was 96.1 per cent. for the seven Northern Ireland Departments.

  Bypasses
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what studies he has carried out of the consequences of bypasses of towns and villages in Northern Ireland with particular reference to the economic impact and changes in the quality of the environment. [21394]

  Mr. Moss
  Responsibility for this subject has been delegated to the Roads Service under its chief executive, Mr. W. J. McCoubrey. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from G. P. Fraser to Mr. William Ross, dated 19 March 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked the Chief Executive to reply to your recently tabled PQ about studies carried out on the consequences arising from the provision of by-passes and towns and villages and in his absence I am replying on his behalf.
  All major by-pass proposals are subjected to a rigorous cost benefit analysis and environmental impact assessment before they are added to the major roadworks programme. The cost benefit analysis takes account of many factors including cost, traffic volumes, journey time savings, road safety, economic benefits and the benefits or otherwise for other parts of the road network, while the environmental impact assessment considers the affect of the scheme on the surrounding environment and the likely reduction in levels of traffic pollution arising from reduced congestion.
  Whilst traffic studies are carried out after completion of projects to check the accuracy of the appraisal projections, the Department has not carried out particular studies in Northern Ireland to measure wider economic or environmental changes to by-passed towns or villages.
  I hope you find this information helpful.

  Land Registers of Northern Ireland
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for the Land Registers of Northern Ireland in 1997–98. [21649]

  Mr. Moss
  For 1997–98, the following performance targets have been set for LRNI:

  Output

  1. To process 16.8 Land Registry registrations per member of staff per month.

  2. To process 262.5 Registry of Deeds registrations per member of staff per month.

  3. To process 48 Statutory Charges Registry registrations per member of staff per month.

  4. To process 90.75 application units per member of staff per month.

  Efficiency

  5. To process regular Land Registry dealings in an average of 20 days.

  830

  6. To process regular Register of Deeds dealings in an average of three days.

  7. To process regular Statutory Charges Registry dealings in an average of 15 days.

  8. To process pre-completion land information applications in an average of eight days.

  9. To achieve a unit cost of £46.24 for registrations.

  10. To achieve a unit cost of £5.64 for land information services.

  11. To achieve a combined weighted unit cost target of £26,68.

  Financial

  12. To cover Agency Costs out of fee income.

  13. To increase overall productivity by at least 3 per cent.

  Quality

  14. To achieve a customer complaint ratio of more than 1.5 per cent.

  15. To achieve a registration accuracy rate of at least 98.5 per cent.

  Accessor for Military Complaints
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make an announcement about the post of independent assessor for military complaints procedures which falls vacant on 31 March. [21650]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I am happy to announce that Mr. Jim McDonald has accepted appointment to the post of independent assessor for military complaints procedures and he will take up the position on 1 April 1997.

  I am grateful to him for accepting the appointment and am confident that he will provide a valuable contribution in what I consider to be an essential element in maintaining public confidence in the Army's complaints procedures.

  I wish to express my appreciation and thanks to his predecessor, Mr. David Hewitt, for all his efforts and to fully acknowledge the contribution which he has made in the important area of Army complaints procedures.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Custodial Costs (Young People)
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current annual cost of keeping a young person in(a) secure accommodation and (b) youth custody. [19793]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The cost of providing secure accommodation for young persons is a matter for individual local authorities. The Prison Service is responsible for meeting the costs incurred by local authorities in detaining juveniles sentenced under section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. The average annual cost of such detention is currently £126,022.

  In 1995–96, the average cost per place in young offender institutions was £17,507 in closed establishments and £16,741 in open establishments.

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of motorists who are escaping prosecution for speeding because the police do not have the resources to maintain the existing speed cameras; and what measures he plans to take to remedy this situation. [19794]

  Mr. Maclean
  I do not consider that any estimate of that kind could be useful or meaningful. The Government have provided substantial and increased resources to the police service and it is for chief officers to decide how to order their priorities.

  Police Recruitment
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Government's target of(a) 5,000 extra police officers nationwide and (b) 1,000 extra police officers in London will be reached. [19795]

  Mr. Howard
  The additional £180 million being allocated over three years from April 1996 is sufficient to allow the police service in England and Wales, including the Metropolitan police, to recruit 5,000 constables by March 1999. Chief constables have estimated that the first 1,000 extra officers will be recruited in the present financial year.

  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of extra police officers to be appointed in(a) England, (b) Wales and (c) the South Wales police authority in 1997–98. [19797]

  Mr. Maclean
  It is for individual chief constables and police authorities to determine the number of officers in each force, having regard to the resources available to them. The additional £40 million we have allocated for extra officers in 1997–98 is sufficient to recruit 1,888 more police constables in England, and 112 in Wales, including 47 in the South Wales constabulary.

  Pastoral Discussions (Confidentiality)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what wording he plans to include in the draft code of practice consequent upon the passing of the Police Bill [Lords] that will ensure confidential protection of pastoral discussions between ministers of religion and members of their flock. [19796]

  Mr. Howard
  Authorisation of surveillance which intrudes on "confidential personal information" will require prior approval by a commissioner except in urgent cases. In addition, the police and customs have given an undertaking not to mount intrusive surveillance operations in circumstances covered by the seal of confession.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the percentage rise in reported crime since 1979. [19798]
  832
  Mr. Maclean
  No central record exists of the number of crimes reported to the police, although for the period in question, the average annual increase in recorded crime was 4 per cent.

  Prison Officers (Drugs)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are taken to ensure that prison officers do not bring drugs into prisons; and if he will make a statement. [19799]

  Miss Widdecombe
  A range of measures are taken to stop staff from smuggling drugs into prison. These include: searching of staff, the use of sniffer dogs and setting up intelligence systems. In addition, any staff who are caught with drugs and pursued through the Prison Service code of discipline, and, if necessary, the courts.

  Prison Service Education Budget
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the present education budget for the Prison Service in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [19800]

  Miss Widdecombe
  There is no central education budget: decisions on the size of education budgets are taken by individual governors. Governors' budgets for education this year totalled £35,297,815.

  Prison Population
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the size of the prison population. [19801]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The prison population on 19 March was 59,529.

  International Terrorism
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new measures he is supporting to combat international terrorism. [19802]

  Mr. Howard
  The Government continue to support measures, at home and in international fora, which will enable international terrorism to be countered more effectively. It is a matter of considerable regret that my hon. Friend's Bill, which would extend the law relating to conspiracy or incitement here to commit terrorist and other offences abroad, has not yet made the progress which the Government hoped it would.

  As I stated in my reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale) on 20 February, Official Report, column 756, the Government intend to bring forward in due course proposals to strengthen existing controls on

  833
  terrorist, including international terrorist, finances. In the European Union and the Group of Seven industrialised countries plus Russia, the United Kingdom has initiated the development of "centres of excellence" directories to enhance counter-terrorist co-operation.

  In the United Nations, we promoted the adoption last December of a new declaration on measures to eliminate international terrorism, and we are playing a constructive role in the preparation of a draft international convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings.

  Deportation (Scotland)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions have taken place with the Scottish Prison Service about the detention of persons awaiting deportation. [19803]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Discussions took place with the Scottish Prison Service last summer about the detention of persons awaiting deportation. These discussions found that due to the relatively low numbers of persons held in Scottish prisons under sole immigration powers, there were no grounds on which to consider a custom built facility solely for Immigration Act detainees.

  Prison Overcrowding
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his Department's latest estimate of overcrowding in prisons in England and Wales. [19804]

  Miss Widdecombe
  As at 19 March the total in-use certified normal accommodation of the Prison Service estate is 54,578. The population as at 19 March is 59,529 and the operational capacity is 60,563.

  Prisons (Ministerial Visits)
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisons the Minister responsible for prisons has visited; and what assessment she has made about the management of those prisons. [19805]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Since becoming Prisons Minister I have visited all 129 Prison Service establishments in England and Wales.

  During my visits, I have seen much to give me cause for encouragement. Against the backdrop of a rising prison population, the Prison Service has maintained an excellent security record, achieved a reduction in assaults and successfully implemented reforms to release on

  Table A:Grants of entry clearance on application, and successful appeals against a refusal of entry clearance, for spouses or financé(e)s, in India and pakistan, 1995

  Persons

  Entry clearancegranted onapplication, asspouse or financé(e)

  Successful appealagainst refusal ofentry clearance asspouse or financé(e)

  Country where application was made

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Pakistan

  1,190

  2,320

  580

  160

  India

  460

  1,880

  110

  90

  All figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  834
  temporary licence, a national system of incentives and earned privileges, and mandatory drugs testing. I congratulate all concerned.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures his Department is taking in respect of young offenders; and if he will make a statement. [19806]

  Mr. Maclean
  We have proposed in the Crime (Sentences) Bill that curfew orders with electronic monitoring should be extended to 10 to 15 year-olds, and that the courts be given greater discretion to allow the identification of convicted juveniles. We will be introducing a new secure training order for 12 to 14-year-old persistent offenders. The Green Paper "Preventing Children Offending", which was published earlier this month, sets out our proposals for action to help children before they become offenders; and action to reinforce parents' responsibility for their children's behaviour.

  Immigration
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimates he has made of the effect on immigration levels of the abolition of the primary purpose rule and the admission of immediate members of the same family already resident in the United Kingdom. [19807]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  If the primary purpose rule were to be abolished it is estimated that currently between 1,200 and 2,200 applicants would be eligible for admission each year. It is not possible to estimate the effect of easier admission for the immediate family members of persons settled in the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women, being (i) Pakistani (ii) Indian, (iii) Australian, (iv) Canadian and (v) Filipino citizens, have sought to enter the United Kingdom as spouses or finances, and have been successful on (1) application and (2) appeal in the most recent year for which figures are available. [21334]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The latest available information on grants of entry clearance and on successful appeals against an initial refusal of entry clearance in India and Pakistan is given in table A. Corresponding information for the other countries is not available centrally. For those countries, information by nationally on those granted leave to enter the United Kingdom as spouses or fiancé(e) s is given in table B.
  835

  Table B: Persons admitted to the Unite financé(e)s, by selected natit Kingdom as spouses or nalities, 1995

  Persons

  Granted leave to enter the United Kingdom as spouse or financé (e)

  Nationality

  Males

  Females

  Australia

  420

  580

  Canada

  140

  160

  Philippines

  70

  430

  Figures rounded to the nearest 10.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis concerning police manpower in south-west London. [19808]

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I regularly meet the commissioner to discuss issues concerning the policing of London.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have been waiting more than five years for a decision on their status; and what plans he has to recruit extra staff to deal with the backlog of cases. [19809]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  About 4,460 applications for asylum made before 1992 are currently awaiting a decision. New arrangements for tackling the backlog of asylum applications made before the Asylum and Immigration Act 1993 are to be introduced in April, with the aim of producing a higher rate of decisions within the staff resources already allocated to this block of work. Generally, the number of asylum caseworkers has increased more than sevenfold since 1988 and the number of undecided asylum applications has fallen from 69,763 in January 1996 to 54,490 at the end of January 1997.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers there were from(a) Poland, (b) the Czech Republic, (c) Hungary, (d) Romania and (e) Malta during each of the past four years. [21052]

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

  Applications1 received for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, selected nationalities, 1993 to 1996

  Principal applicants

  1993

  1994

  1995

  19962

  Hungary

  5

  5

  5

  5

  Malta

  *

  —

  —

  —

  Poland

  155

  360

  1,210

  890

  Romania

  370

  355

  770

  445

  Former Czechoslovakia of which:

  15

  35

  65

  110

  Czech Republic

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  55

  Slovakia

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  55

  1 Figures rounded to 5 with * = to 1 or 2 while n/a = not available.

  2 Provisional figures.

  836

  Prison Accommodation
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in supplying extra accommodation in Her Majesty's prisons. [19810]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Prison Service is taking a number of steps to cope with the rising prison population, including opening new prisons, building new houseblocks and speeding up the refurbishment of existing accommodation. This will result in an additional 6,000 places over the next 18 months, increasing to 8,500 new places by March 2000.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the currently vacant cellular accommodation in prison establishments which is(a) pending refurbishment, (b) currently being refurbished and (c) deemed unfit for rehabilitation. [20692]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 20 March 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about vacant cellular accommodation.
  The attached table provides the information you requested about accommodation which is out of use. There is no cellular accommodation deemed unfit for rehabilitation.

  Number

  Accommodation out of use pending refurbishment

  Wakefield

  202

  Accommodation out of use currently being refurbished

  Bristol

  8

  Brixton

  237

  Camp Hill

  86

  Dartmoor

  28

  Everthorpe

  5

  Ford

  35

  Full Sutton

  220

  Glen Parva

  132

  Hull

  6

  Kingston

  56

  Leeds

  252

  Lewes

  132

  Liverpool

  111

  Long Lartin

  74

  Maidstone

  1

  Nottinghan

  22

  Parkhurst

  133

  Pentonville

  156

  Preston

  156

  Stoke Heath

  60

  Styal

  18

  Wandsworth

  415

  Wormwood Scrubs

  50

  Prison Staff
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to monitor the adequacy of prison staffing levels. [19811]
  837
  Miss Widdecombe
  The adequacy of prison staffing levels is monitored regularly by Prison Service operational line managers.

  Privately Operated Prisons
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the circumstances under which payments, other than the usual monthly contractual payments, are made to privately operated prisons; [18716]

  (2) If he will list the payments which the Prison Service (a) has made and (b) plans to make to each privately operated prisons, other than the usual monthly contractual payments and the reasons for these payments. [18717]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 20 March 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about extra-contractual payments to the operators of privately managed prisons.
  Excluding the regular monthly payments required by contract (which vary from prison to prison), additional sums paid in the last year have included:

  discharge grants

  some probation costs

  improvements to remedy latent defects in the fabric of the prisons (where prison buildings were provided by the Prison Service)

  capital costs introduced throughout the Prison Service (such as electrical work in cells and to accommodate overcrowding)

  changes in the service requirements, such as extra court escort commitments

  additional operational requirements, such as mutual aid between prisons

  These payments are negotiated on a commercial-in-confidence basis.
  These costs, where relevant, have been taken fully into account in the two studies comparing the costs of contracted out prisons with directly managed prisons (by Coopers and Lybrand for 1994–95 and the Home Office Economic Unit for 1995–96). It is not possible to predict when such payments may be necessary in future.

  Blakenhurst Prison
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of replacing the locks at HM prison Blakenhurst; and what factors prompted their replacement. [21000]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 20 March 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the replacement of locks at Blakenhurst prison.
  The decision was taken to re-lock the prison on the basis of intelligence received that the security of the prison may have been compromised. The full cost of the relocking is the subject of negotiations between the Prison Service and the contractor.
  838

  Addicts Index
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for the addicts index. [21046]

  Mr. Sackville
  We propose to bring the addicts index to a close on 31 March. A statutory instrument will shortly be laid before Parliament to revoke the existing provisions which require doctors to notify the Chief Medical Officer at the Home Office of details of patients they believe to be addicted to certain narcotic drugs. This year's notification statistics, due to be published in July, will therefore be the last in the series.

  Reliance for information on the nature of drug misuse will henceforward rest mainly on the Department of Health's regional drug misuse databases and the Scottish drug misuse database. The DMDs are a superior source of information in a number of significant respects:

  they cover all drugs misused, not just the narcotics;

  they cover non-medical as well as doctor sources;

  the anonymity is attractive both to misusers and those treating them;

  the voluntary nature of the system promotes compliance.

  The value of the statistical product of the DMDs is already proven and the system, which has been operating since 1992, is well established. The closure of the addicts index will assist in concentrating efforts on further strategic development of the DMDs; work is already being taken forward in this area. Doctors and others concerned in the treatment and support of drug addicts will also continue to be encouraged to report contacts to the DMDs.

  It is recognised that doctors need to manage addict patients with particular care; this includes guarding against attempts to obtain dual prescriptions. There are guidelines on clinical management of drug misusers, published by the Department of Health, to assist doctors treating such patients. The guidance emphasises the need for a proper clinical assessment of drug dependence, including special measures such as urine analysis.

  The Department of Health have in hand a revision of the guidelines which will further assist in the management of these patients.

  Problems associated with diversion on to the illicit market will continue to be dealt with by the drugs inspectorate which will closely monitor prescribing of controlled drugs to drug addicts.

  Doctors who use the index will shortly be individually informed of the closure. The relevant professional and interested bodies will also be notified.

  Category A Prisoners
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of
  839
  whether the new procedures for examining and checking category A inmates and their family visitors will allow him to grant more open visits; [20369]

  (2) when his Department received recommendations on modifying the requirements for closed visits for families of category A inmates in prison; and what assessment he has made of the advantages of implementing the recommendations. [20368]

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

  Letter from Richard tilt to Mr. Peter Bottomley, dated 20 March 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about closed visits.
  840
  A policy of mandatory closed visits for all exceptional risk category A prisoners held in special secure units (SSUs) was introduced in June 1995. No new procedures for the searching of prisoners and their visitors have been introduced since that time.
  In 1996, the Prison Service asked Sir Donald Acheson to examine what effect the regime in the SSUs at Belmarsh, Full Sutton and Whitemoor might have on the health of prisoners. The report was presented in June 1996 and included the recommendation that prisoners should have access to open visits with members of their immediate family. A copy of the report was recently placed in the Library.
  Sir Donald Acheson's recommendation was considered in the light of the need to maintain the highest levels of security in SSUs and took into account humanitarian concerns. The recommendation was qualified by the assertion that it should be possible for the Prison Service to devise a system of open visits which prevented the passage of unauthorised items. The Prison Service concluded that closed visits are the only guaranteed means of preventing the passage of such items and therefore has not accepted the recommendation.
  841

  Holloway Prison
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average proportion of the population at Her Majesty's prison Holloway(a) unconvicted awaiting trial and (b) convicted awaiting sentencing, in the most recent year for which figures are available. [20700]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 20 March 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the proportions of untried, and convicted unsentenced prisoners at Holloway prison.
  No detailed daily records are kept, and it is therefore impossible to provide an accurate average figure. However, a biannual population monitoring exercise is conducted, and the average of the last three of these (30th June 1995, 31 January 1996 and 30 June 1996) are listed in the attached table.

  Per cent.

  Untried

  Convicted unsentenced

  30 June 1995

  30.7

  12.8

  31 January 1996

  27.9

  12.3

  30 June 1996

  32.5

  12.2

  Average

  30.4

  12.5

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average amount of time spent in custody by those convicted prisoners on remand awaiting sentencing at HMP Holloway who eventually received non-custodial sentences, in the most recent year for which figures are available. [20704]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 20 March 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the average time spent in custody at Holloway prison by convicted prisoners on remand awaiting sentencing who subsequently received non-custodial sentences.
  This information is not held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the average amount of time spent in custody by those unconvicted prisoners on remand at HMP Holloway while awaiting trial who(a) were acquitted and (b) had their charges dropped in the most recent year for which figures are available; [20702]

  (2) what proportion of unconvicted prisoners on remand at HMP Holloway while awaiting trial (a) were acquitted
  842
  and (b) had their charges dropped, in the most recent year for which figures are available; [20701]

  (3) what proportion of convicted prisoners on remand awaiting sentencing at HMP Holloway received non-custodial sentences, in the most recent year for which figures are available. [20703]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 20 March 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about convicted and unconvicted prisoners on remand in Holloway prison.
  The requested information is unavailable and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 17 March,Official Report, columns 403–04, concerning strip searching of prisoners detained at HMP Holloway, when strip searching was introduced on the routine basis described in the reply; since that date, how many items of contraband have been discovered on (a) pregnant women, (b) remand prisoners and (c) convicted prisoners; and if he will make a statement. [21290]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Max Madden, dated 20 March 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about strip searching of prisoners at Holloway prison.
  Strip searching of prisoners is part of our normal security procedures as set out in the Security Manual, a copy of which is in the Library. These procedures have been in use for many years at Holloway.
  The detailed breakdown of figures you asked for are not available. I will write to you later giving those figures which are available.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of asylum seekers in February(a) 1996 and (b) 1997. [21271]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  A total of 2,850 applications for asylum in the United Kingdom were lodged in February 1996. The number in February 1997 was 1,985.

  Prisons (Staffing Levels)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) of 18 February,Official Report, column 531, on prison staff ratios between 1970 and 1996, if he will estimate how much of the change in the ratio is due to (a) the changes to prison officers' overtime arrangements and (b) to other factors, indicating such other factors. [20708]
  843
  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Chris Mullin, dated 20 March 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question seeking further information about Prison Service staff: prisoner ratios.
  As the Director General indicated in his reply to Sir Ivan Lawrence in February, the fall in the staff:prisoner ratio reflects the change in prison officer working practices and the reduction in their hours worked. I regret that it is not possible to estimate how much of the change in the ratio is due to any single factor.

  Hampshire Constabulary
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the establishment of the Basingstoke division of the Hampshire constabulary in 1979; and what it is in the present year. [20689]

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand from the chief constable that comparable figures for the Basingstoke division are available only from 1984. In 1984 there were 128 police officers in Basingstoke compared with 158 at March 1997, an increase of 23 per cent.

  In the whole of the Hampshire constabulary there were 2,955 police officers in May 1979 compared with 3,362 in September 1996, an increase of 407 or 14 per cent.

  Crimes (Hemsworth)
  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many violent crimes were committed in the Hemsworth constituency in(a) 1979 and (b)1996; [20723]

  (2) how many (a) thefts, (b) burglaries and (c)aggravated burglaries were committed in the Hemsworth constituency in (i) 1979 and (ii) 1996. [20724]

  Mr. Maclean
  The recorded crime statistics collected centrally are available only by police force area.

  Departmental Outturn Expenditure
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the outturn expenditure of his Department during the current financial year; how much of these costs he expended in(a) Wales and (b) England; and how many staff are employed by his Department in (i) Wales and (ii) England. [20747]

  Mr. Howard
  The estimated outturn expenditure for 1996–97 is £6,625,588,000, of which it is estimated that £243,215,000 will be spent in Wales and £6,367,108,000 in England. The Home Office employs 1,189 people in Wales and 50,696 people in England.

  War Crimes Unit
  Sir Cyril Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much the Metropolitan police spent on the war crimes unit in the last financial year;844
  how much they plan to spend in the present financial year, and what is the proposed figure for the next financial year. [20813]

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

  £

  1995–96

  877,000

  1996–971

  650,000

  1997–981

  664,000

  1 Estimated costs.

  Prison Escapes
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps have been taken to reduce the number of prison escapes from all establishment types; and if he will make a statement. [20731]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Irvine Patnick, dated 20 March 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about prison escapes.
  The number of escapes, expressed as a proportion of the prison population, is the first of the Prison Service's key performance indicators. The attached table shows that the rate of escapes is now less than one quarter of the level in 1992–93, the last year before the Prison Service became an executive agency.
  The Service has taken a number of steps over this time to reduce escapes and has drawn on recommendations from a number of reports including more recently the Woodcock and Learmont reports written following the escapes of category A prisoners in 1994 and 1995. Measures taken include:

  undertaking regular and rigorous security audits

  use of new technology, such as closed circuit television, x-ray machines, metal detectors

  more intensive searching programmes for prisoners, visitors and the accommodation they occupy

  improvements to perimeter security

  improved security awareness and training

  Our main priority for the future will be to continue to make every effort to prevent escapes by the most dangerous prisoners and we shall also continue to set rigorous targets for an overall decrease in escapes.

  Escapes

  Escapes excluding those previously the responsibility of police1

  Rate (per cent. Of population)

  Number

  Rate (per cent. Of population)

  Number

  1992–93

  0.79

  347

  0.79

  347

  1993–94

  0.65

  296

  0.60

  273

  1994–95

  0.44

  217

  0.41

  202

  1995–96

  0.24

  122

  0.17

  88

  1996–97

  0.24

  123

  0.102

  52

  1 Excludes escapes from court escort and custody services, previously the responsibility of the police.

  2 Annualised rate.

  Foxes
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the number and percentage of foxes(a) which perished in the last year and (b) which were killed by a fox hunt. [20814]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is not available.

  Prisoners (Previous Covictions)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people currently in United Kingdom prisons have served a previous prison sentence for a different offence; and if he will make a statement. [21276]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Archy Kirkwood, dated 20 March 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many people currently in United Kingdom prisons have served a previous prison sentence for a different offence.
  The information requested on current prisoners is not available centrally. The most recent. readily available, information relates to a sample of sentenced prisons in England and Wales at 30 June 1993.
  It is estimated that 48 per cent of this sample had served a prison sentence for a previous "standard list" offence (this includes all indictable offences and some of the more serious summary offences). This figure is based on matching information on prisoners in the sample to records on the Home Office Offenders Index. Further details of the sample and the matching process are given on pages 607 of "Prison Statistics, England and Wales, 1993" (Cm 2893), a copy of which is in the Library.

  Crime (Young People)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what percentage of recorded crimes were carried out in the United Kingdom by people under the age of(a) 25, (b) 21, (c) 18 and (d) 16 years in the last year; and if he will make a statement. [21272]

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not available centrally for England and Wales. However, the readily available information for persons found guilty at all courts or cautioned for indictable offences is contained in table 5.26 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales 1995", copies of which are available in the Library. Information for Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for the respective Secretaries of State.

  Roisin McAliskey
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the arrangements for the forthcoming confinement of Roisin McAliskey within the Holloway prison arrangements. [20982]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  846
  Letter from Hugh Taylor to Mr. Hugh Dykes, dated 20 March 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the arrangements for Roisin McAliskey's confinement.
  Ms McAliskey will be taken to an outside hospital for the birth of her child. She will not be subject to any form of physical restraint (whether by handcuffs or escort chain) when she leaves Holloway prison in order to be admitted to hospital, nor whilst she is at the hospital. This includes the period when she is giving birth. She has asked for two birthing partners to be present, and this has been approved.
  Ms McAliskey will be allowed to keep her baby with her following the birth. Her application to be accepted into Holloway's mother and baby unit was approved on 13 March.

  Burglary (London)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what has been the trend in burglaries in Greater London since the start of Operation Bumblebee; [21047]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of Operation Eagle Eye. [21048]

  Mr. Maclean
  The commissioner's Operation Bumblebee initiative against burglary was launched across London on 1 June 1993. The main aims of the initiative are to reduce the incidence of burglary, convict offenders and to shift the fear of crime from the victim to the burglar. Since June 1993, there has been a fall of 12 per cent. in the number of reported burglaries in the Metropolitan police district and the clear-up rate has increased from 12 per cent. to 21 per cent.

  Operation Eagle Eye, launched in the summer of 1995, targets street crime, one of the crimes that Londoners fear most. Operation Eagle Eye uses the tools of surveillance and intelligence-led policing to target known and suspected offenders in key hotspot areas. The initiative, which is being introduced and monitored in selected divisions, has been effective in stemming the rise in the level of street crime. Between 1992 and 1995, street crime in the Metropolitan police district was rising at an average annual compound rate of over 13 per cent. In 1996, the increase was only 5 per cent. The clear-up rate for street crime has nearly doubled between 1994 and 1996.

  There is no doubt that innovative policing methods such as Operations Bumblebee and Eagle Eye have made a real impact on crime levels in the capital.

  Women Prisoners (Escapes)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each year since 1992, the number of women who(a) escaped from a prison, (b) escaped from an escort to or from prison, (c) attempted to escape from a prison, (d) attempted to escape from an escort to or from prison, (e) absconded from a prison, (f) escaped from custody while in a hospital undergoing medical treatment and (g) attempted to escape from custody while in a hospital undergoing medical treatment; and how many of (f) and (g) were (i) pregnant and (ii) in labour. [16867]
  847
  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 20 March 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking if he will list for each year since 1992, the number of women who (a) escaped from a prison, (b) escaped from an escort

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  (a) (b) (c) (d) Escapes and attempted escapes by female prisoners from establishments and escart

  Establishment

  6

  1

  5

  0

  0

  Escort

  9

  8

  6

  2

  0

  Establishment attempt

  0

  0

  2

  0

  6

  Escort attempt

  4

  2

  6

  1

  1

  (e) Absconds by female prisoners (including absconds from outside hospital)

  Absconds

  84

  99

  144

  103

  91

  (f) (g) Escapes and attempted escapes from hospital by female prisoners

  Hospital escape

  8

  5

  0

  0

  0

  Hospital attempt

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1. Escape figures exclude recaptures within 15 minutes where no further offence has been committed.

  2. Attempt figures include those recaptured within 15 minutes where no further offence has been committed.

  3. All years are financial years—figures for 1996–97 show the position to the end of January 1997.

  4. Escort escape and attempted escape figures include Court Escort Service escapes which would have been the responsibility of the police in previous years.

  5. Improved arrangements for gathering data on absconds were introduced in Septemberr 1995 and a review of past records has altered earlier statistics by eradicating inaccuracies.

  Prison (Travellers)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people, classified as travellers, are held in prisons in Great Britain. [21258]

  (2) how many people classified as travellers are currently being held at Feltham remand centre. [21251]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, dated 20 March 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions asking, how many people, classified as travellers, are held in prisons in Great Britain and at Feltham remand centre.
  The information requested is not available centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Prison Transfers
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of prison transfers in Great Britain in the last 12 months. [21256]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, dated 20 March 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the cost of prison transfers in Great Britain in the last 12 months.
  848
  to or from prison, (c) attempted to escape from a prison,(d) attempted to escape from an escort to or from prison.(e) absconded from a prison, (f) escaped from custody while in a hospital undergoing medical treatment and (g) attempted to escape from custody while in a hospital undergoing medical treatment; and how many of (f) and (g) were (i) pregnant and (ii) in labour.
  The information is contained in the attached table with the exception of answer to (f) (i), (ii) and (g) (i), (ii). This information is not held centrally.
  Information is not held centrally on the cost of transfers to and from prisons in England and Wales, other than the costs of contracted-out escort services which amounted to £47 million in 1995–96.
  Information relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for their Secretaries of State.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners have been transferred from prisons in Great Britain to Northern Ireland since 1 November 1995. [21257]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Since 1 November 1995, 21 prisoners have been transferred, either on a permanent basis or for a temporary period, from prisons in England and Wales to prisons in Northern Ireland. Transfers from Scotland to other jurisdictions are a matter for the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the prison transfers by United Kingdom region in the last three years. [21255]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The number of prisoners transferred, on either a permanent or a temporary basis, between England and Wales and other United Kingdom jurisdictions in the last three years, are given in the tables.

  Prisoner transfers from England and Wales to other Unix Kingdom jurisdictions

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Scotland

  25

  35

  17

  Northern Ireland

  21

  16

  15

  Jersey

  8

  7

  7

  Guernsey

  1

  1

  1

  Isle of Man

  0

  1

  3

  849

  Prisoner transfers to England and Wales from other United Kingdom jurisdictions

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Scotland

  55

  46

  28

  Northern Ireland

  2

  3

  2

  Jersey

  6

  24

  21

  Guernsey

  2

  5

  8

  Isle of Man

  1

  6

  2

  Information on transfers not involving England and Wales is not held centrally and is a matter for the relevant United Kingdom jurisdiction.

  Prisoners (Regional Origin)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a breakdown by regional origin of prisoners held in prisons in Great Britain. [21252]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt, to Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, dated 20 March 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking for a breakdown by regional origin of prisoners held in prisons in Great Britain.
  No information is available centrally regarding the principle address of those committed to custody in England and Wales. The available information on where prisoners originate from is for the court first committing to custody. Such information, for the whole of the current prison population, could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
  Information for Scotland is a matter for the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners currently being held in prisons in Great Britain originate from Northern Ireland. [21254]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, dated 20 March 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many prisoners currently being held in prisons in Great Britain originate from Northern Ireland.
  No information is available centrally regarding the principal address of those committed to custody in England and Wales. The available information on where prisoners originate from is for the court first committing to custody. Provisional information shows that one person was recorded centrally as being received into a prison in England and Wales who had been first committed into custody by a court in Northern Ireland in 1996.
  Information for Scotland is a matter for the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Irish nationals are currently held in prisons in Great Britain. [21253]
  850
  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, dated 20 March 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many Irish nationals are currently in prisons in Great Britain.
  Provisional figures for 28 February 1997 (the latest date for which figures are available) indicate that there were 673 persons in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales claiming to be of Irish nationality. Figures for prisoners in Great Britain (ie: England, Wales and Scotland) are not held centrally.
  Information for Scotland is a matter for the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Paul Hill
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when final compensation will be paid to Paul Hill. [21260]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  As no final claim for compensation has yet been received from Paul Hill, it is too early to speculate about any matters associated with payment of compensation.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the costs of the Government's defence in the case of Paul Hill. [21259]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  At the hearing in the High Court on 19 February 1997 between the chief constable of the Surrey Constabulary—judgement creditor—Paul Michael Hill—judgement debtor—and the Home Office— defendant—costs were reserved. In the light of this, no assessment for costs in this case has yet been made by my right hon. and learned Friend.

  Defibrillators (Poice and Fire Service)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the cost of ensuring all police cars and fire engines carry defibrillators. [20135]

  Mr. Maclean
  Using latest available figures, the estimated cost of equipping all police vehicles and fire service operational pump appliances with defibrillators is £69 million and £6.3 million respectively.

  Animal Experiments (Primates)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many licence applications for experiments on non-human primates have been turned down on the grounds that the adverse effects endured by primates prior to arrival in the United Kingdom are too severe to be outweighed by the benefit of the research. [21249]

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what account is taken under section 5(4) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 of the length of journey time by the Home Office inspectorate in determining whether to grant a project licence for experiments on non-human primates. [21248]
  851
  Mr. Sackville
  The transport arrangements, including travel times, are taken into account when assessing the suitability of overseas sources to supply non-human primates for research use.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his Department's policy on maximum time allowable for journeys of non-human primates to United Kingdom laboratories; and if he will make a statement. [21250]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Home Office does not specify maximum journey times. The welfare of animals in transit is regulated by the exporting countries, the International Airline Transport Association, the European Union and by regulations of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in this country.

  Devon and Cornwall Constabulary
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the expenditure on the Devon and Cornwall constabulary in each of the past five years. [21343]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is set out in the table:

  Devon and Cornwall expenditure

  £ million

  1992–93

  128,271

  1993–94

  136,654

  1994–95

  139,381

  1995–96

  146,556

  1996–97 (estimate)

  153,502

  Prison Barge
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his letter of 12 March, in respect of the purpose-built prison barge, if Crown immunity will apply to the operation of the barge; and if he will make a statement. [21231]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 20 March 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the application of Crown immunity to the purpose-built prison barge.
  The floating prison will not be classed as an offshore facility. The Health and Safety at Work Act (1974) and all relevant health and safety regulations will apply to the floating prison in the same way as other prisons, and Health and Safety Executive inspectors and environmental health officers will have a right of access.

  Payment of Bills
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of bills to his Department for the financial year 1995 to 1996 were paid(a) in accordance with agreed contractual conditions and (b) within 30 days of receiving goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice where no contractual conditions applied. [21205]
  852
  Mr. Howard
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 18 July 1996,Official Report, columns 613–14. The additional information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Al-Fayed Brothers
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the recent statement by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) on the applications for British citizenship by Mohammed and AH Al-Fayed; and if he will make a statement. [21179]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  We do not appear to have received any representations as a result of any recent statement made by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle).

  Polling Stations (Accessibility)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what monitoring his Department has undertaken of changes in access to polling stations for disabled people over the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [21182]

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Stoke on Trent, North (Ms Joan Walley)Official Report column 131.

  Pensions Misselling
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on police investigations into the mis-selling of pensions; and how many people and what sums are estimated to be involved. [21146]

  Mr. Maclean
  I have been informed by the Metropolitan police that one specific allegation has been reported to its fraud department in relation to the mis-selling of pensions. The matter is currently under assessment. There is no investigation at this stage.

  Ballot Papers (Braille Templates)
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to consult organisations representing blind and partially sighted people over the possibility of introducing braille templates in which to insert ballot papers and if he will make a statement. [21462]

  Mr. Sackville
  Officials have been in correspondence with the Royal National Institute for the Blind and are meeting representatives of that organisation next week.

  Buckley Hall Prison
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive the 1996 board of visitors report from HMP Buckley Hall, if he will place a copy in the Library; and if he will make it his policy that all reports from boards of visitors are put in the public domain. [21470]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The 1996 annual report of the board of visitors at Her Majesty's prison Buckley Hall was received on 16 December 1996 and I responded on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend on 28 February
  853
  1997. The board's reports are not public documents and are not placed in the Library as a matter of course. They are made to the Secretary of State who permits the board to publish if it so wishes and boards are encouraged to do so.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many assaults there have been on(a) prisoners and (b) staff at HMP Buckley Hall since 29 October 1996; [21472]

  (2) if he will list the incidents reported to the Prison Service in relation to HMP Buckley Hall since 29 October 1996. [21471]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 20 March 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about incidents at Buckley Hall prison.
  The number of incidents reported to the Prison Service since 29th October 1996 to 19 March 1997 are as follows:

  Number

  Assault

  3

  Concerted Indiscipline

  1

  Drugs

  17

  Fire

  1

  Recapture/Surrender

  2

  Tool Loss

  4

  Temporary Release Failure

  1

  Total

  29

  The breakdown of assaults from this date is 2 on inmates and 1 on a member of staff.

  Religious Preachers
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many religious preachers were given clearance to live and work in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) Leeds and (c) Bradford in each of the last 10 years. [21464]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Information is available only on ministers of religion admitted to the whole of the United Kingdom since 1993 and is given in the table.

  Admissions of ministers of religion1 to the United Kingdom

  Numbers

  1993

  246

  1994

  558

  1995

  662

  1996

  493

  1 Including missionaries and members of religious orders, but excluding Mormon missionaries prior to October 1995.

  Office of the Data Protection Registrar
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will announce the outcome of the second stage of the quinquennial review of the Office of the Data Protection Registrar. [21561]
  854
  Mr. Sackville
  The second stage of the review examined the office's internal organisation and performance. I have placed a copy of the report in the Library. It endorses the registrar's programme of changes to improve efficiency, and suggests some further management improvements. We are inviting the registrar to consider these and prepare an implementation plan. Account will be taken of any relevant changes arising from implementation of the European Community data protection directive.

  Criminal Justice Initiatives
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made in implementing his programme of criminal justice initiatives announced at the 1993 Conservative party conference. [21563]

  Mr. Howard
  All 27 points have been taken forward. In the last three years, recorded crime has fallen by 10 per cent.

  The 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act:
  reformed the right of silence (1). The number of suspects refusing to answer police questions has nearly halved;
  introduced faster court procedures for evicting squatters (2);
  introduced new powers for the police to stop trespassers disrupting lawful activities like country sports (3);
  introduced tougher new powers for the police to stop and search people suspected of terrorist activity (4);
  created a new offence of gathering information for terrorist purposes (5);
  created a new offence of possessing anything that gives reasonable suspicion of being connected to terrorist activities (6);
  gave the police the power to take DNA samples in connection with all recordable crimes (7). Our national DNA database, the first of its kind in the world, now has over 113,000 samples on it. To date 3,400 matches have been made;
  created a new crime of witness intimidation (8). In 1995, 500 people were charged with committing that offence and significantly more in 1996;
  abolished judges' warnings to juries in rape trials about the truthfulness of women (9);
  gave the police the power to arrest for breach of police bail (10);
  banned those on bail from serving on juries (11);
  ended the presumption in favour of bail for anyone accused of offending while on bail (12);
  gave the police the power to attach conditions to bail (13);
  allows the courts to revoke bail if new information comes to light (14);
  introduced automatic custody for anyone convicted of rape, manslaughter or murder who is subsequently accused of the same category of crime (15);
  allowed new prisons to be designed, constructed, managed and financed by the private sector (16);
  gave the Prison Service the power to test prisoners' urine for drugs compulsorily (17). Mandatory drug testing had been introduced throughout the Prison Service by March 1996;
  doubled the maximum sentence in young offender institutions for 15 to 17-year-olds to two years (18);
  gave the courts the powers to order 12 to 14-year-old persistent offenders into secure training centres. These powers will be triggered once that accommodation is available (19). The first contract has just been signed.
  855
  The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 allowed retrials where juries have been nobbled or witnesses intimidated (20); and gave judges the power to prohibit the reporting of unsupported allegations made during a speech in mitigation (21).

  The Criminal Appeal Act 1995 has enabled the Government to establish a criminal cases review commission to look at miscarriages of justice (22).

  There are now 1,900 neighbourhood constables (23).

  The Attorney General's right of appeal for unduly lenient sentenced was extended to all serious violent and sexual offences in March 1994 (24).

  In March 1995, new national standards were published to toughen up community sentences (25).

  In March 1994, new guidelines on cautioning were issued (26).

  In 1993, all 16 recommendations by an internal inquiry to cut police paperwork were accepted (27).

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for contractually managed prisons to hold sentenced young offenders. [21620]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Prison Service intends to hold sentenced young offenders in the new prisons which will be built and managed through the private finance initiative at Bridgend and Fazakerley after these open during the coming financial year. This will give the service greater flexibility in its use of the contractually managed estate and help to meet its requirement for additional young offender places. My right hon. and learned Friend will today lay a statutory instrument before the House which makes the necessary consequential changes to the young offender institution rules.

  Prisons (Drug Testing)
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the present position the availability of information from the Prison Service mandatory drug testing programme. [21670]

  Miss Widdecombe
  As part of the programme of mandatory drug testing in prison establishments the Prison Service collects a range of statistical information, including information about the percentage of prisoners who test positive for drugs in the tests which are carried out at random. Since April 1996 the number of random tests that prove positive, expressed as a percentage of the total number of random tests carried out, has been one of the Prison Service's key performance indicators.

  As a result of internal checking, a number of errors have been found in the information held centrally. The main problems are thought to relate to the recording of results of confirmation tests—carried out where a prisoner pleads not guilty at adjudication in response to an initial positive result—and to cases where an initial positive result should subsequently have been discounted because the prisoner concerned was on a course of prescribed medication.
  856
  The Prison Service has commissioned the national addiction centre to carry out an independent validation of a sample of the available statistical information on mandatory drug testing covering the period April 1996 to June 1996. This involves a detailed scrutiny of the information held in prison establishments and comparison with the information held centrally. The validation exercise, should provide a measure of the extent of the errors, the possible implications for performance against the key indicator and, more generally, of the reliability of data on mandatory drug testing held by the Prison Service. There is no reason to suppose, from the work completed so far, that the statistical information for the period from April 1996 is other than broadly accurate.

  Once the exercise is complete, the Prison Service expects to be in a position to provide reliable information on performance against the key indicator for the period April 1996. However, until such information is available, all previously published figures relating to the percentage of prisoners who test positive for drugs should be regarded as provisional.

  In addition, no firm conclusions, including conclusions on any apparent trends on the use of drugs in prison, should be drawn from data relating to the first phase of the mandatory drugs testing programme—February 1995 to March 1996—since not all establishments were involved and some differences in testing protocols were in place. We are not yet in a position to say whether the use of cannabis has declined since mandatory drug testing was introduced. It remains the case that there is no clear evidence of switching from cannabis to opiates or vice versa.

  This answer should be taken as correcting any inadvertently misleading statements which may have been made in relation to mandatory drug testing statistics.

  Curfew Orders
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to continue the trials of curfew orders with electronic monitoring after March 1997. [21671]

  Mr. Howard
  I have decided to continue the existing trials in Berkshire, Manchester and Norfolk until March 1998.

  Dogs (Tail Docking)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what regulations govern the tail docking of dogs; and if he will make a statement. [20957]

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 18 March 1997]: The Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 was amended in 1991 to remove the right of non-veterinarians to dock dogs' tails. Since July 1993, it has been an offence for a person other than a veterinary surgeon to dock a dog's tail for any reason.

DEFENCE

  Security Vetting
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about defence agency status for personnel security vetting within his Department. [21674]
  857
  Mr. Soames
  On 1 April 1997, the three single service vetting units and part of the Directorate of Headquarters Security will be brought together to form the Defence Vetting Agency. The aim of the agency is to provide an acceptable level of assurance as to the integrity of personnel in the armed forces, the MOD and defence industry who are given authorised access to sensitive Government information or valuable assets. In addition, the agency will undertake vetting work for other Government Departments on a repayment basis.

  The DVA will have a staff of about 350, all civilians, located mainly in Portsmouth, Woolwich, Wiltshire and central London. The assistant under-secretary of state, security and support, will be the owner of the DVA on behalf of the Secretary of State. The owner will set the strategic direction of the DVA and the policy and standards to be followed.

  The DVA chief executive, a member of the senior civil service appointed by open competition, will be responsible for the day-to-day management of the agency. The chief executive has been set the following key targets:

  Quality

  1. By internal validation, to show at least 95 per cent. compliance with quality standards and procedures.

  2. By 31 March 1998, to have developed and agreed the means of externally validating the quality of the agency outputs, and determined and set targets for subsequent improvement.

  Quantity

  3. To meet all in-year requests for vetting, within the quantities represented in the defence vetting programme.

  Timeliness

  4. To complete 85 per cent. of security checks and counter terrorist checks within the six-week time scale set out in departmental instructions.

  5. To complete 95 per cent. of requests for developed vetting clearances within the six month time scale set out in departmental instructions.

  Service delivery

  6. To meet 95 per cent. of target dates for developed vetting clearances agreed with customers.

  Efficiency

  7. To demonstrate a 3 per cent. improvement in efficiency on operating costs in financial year 1997–98.

  Management

  8. To implement the customer group concept as a basis for future financial and management planning, within financial year 1997–98.

  9. To implement an initial agency management information system by 1 October 1997.

  Investors in people

  10. In financial year 1997–98, to commit formally to the Investors in People programme and to complete the necessary in-vear preliminary activities to ensure accreditation by May 1999.

  Planning for the future

  11. By 31 March 1998, to have designed the future vetting processes of the agency, and to have in place the costed plans to reorganise and collocate to implement the re-engineered processes.

  I have arranged for copies of the agency's framework document and corporate plan to be placed in the Library of both Houses.

  Trident
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current estimate of the cost of acquiring the Trident strategic weapon system, and if he will make a statement. [21672]

  Mr. Portillo
  The current estimate of the total acquisition cost of the Trident programme, with all expenditure, including payments already made, brought up to current prices and the exchange rate assumed in the latest long-term costing of the defence programme, is £12,570 million. If payments already made are expressed at the prices and exchange rates actually incurred, with future spend at current economic conditions, the estimate is now £9,955 million. Expenditure on Trident acquisition to 30 September 1996 represented some 86 per cent. of the latter estimate.

  The revised estimate of £12,570 million represents a real cost reduction of £29 million since last year. The figures show a cash increase of £417 million, but inflation since last year adds £377 million and exchange rate charges add £69 million. The new total therefore reflects increased efficiency in delivering the programme. The programme also continues to show an overall reduction in real terms on its original 1982 estimate. This reduction, including the savings resulting from the decision to process missiles at the United States facility at Kings Bay, Georgia now stands at over £3.6 billion.

  The proportion of the estimate for work undertaken in the United Kingdom is around 70 per cent.

  I am pleased to confirm that HMS Vigilant, the third of the four planned Vanguard class submarines, was commissioned on time toward the end of last year and is now engaged in work-up trials. Progress with the fourth submarine, vengeance, also remains satisfactory. I am, as in previous years, sending to the Chairmen of the Public Accounts Committee and of the Select Committee on Defence a more detailed report on the programme. I am also placing a copy of this report in the Library of the House.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to publish the report of the Office for Public Management on ethnic minority employment initiatives in his Department; and if he will make a statement. [21673]

  Mr. Soames
  I have today placed a copy of the Office for Public Management report in the Library of the House. The report covers a six-month review of both service and MOD civilian recruitment practices and makes a number of recommendations which have now been considered within my Department.

  We accept the broad thrust of the report. While there are different messages for the armed forces and the MOD civil service in what the consultants found, there is much common ground, primarily concerning the development of goals in which ethnic diversity is a central theme. It is clear that, while some advances have been made, more can and should be undertaken, if the Department is to see an increase in the numbers of ethnic minority personnel employed in both the armed forces and the civil service in MOD.
  859
  My Department is committed to reflecting more closely the ethnic balance of the United Kingdom. This is an issue which must be met positively and which requires unambiguous leadership from those at the top of the armed forces and the civil service to ensure that, in the armed forces and MOD, all can work and realise their full potential without fear of racial prejudice, discrimination or harassment. All personnel have responsibilities for ensuring that greater efforts are made to remove any unacceptable attitudes and must, individually, play their part in ensuring that the Department and the services are seen by all as organisations in which racial equality is fully embraced.

  RAF Training Group Defence Agency
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the change of the boundary of the RAF Training Group Defence Agency. [21675]

  Mr. Soames
  On 1 April 1997, the boundary of the Royal Air Force Training Group Defence Agency will be enlarged to incorporate all of Royal Air Force personnel and training command assets and functions at Royal Air Force Cranwell, together with the non-operational training policy function previously undertaken by the command's headquarters. The changes better focus the air officer commanding-in-chief' s responsibilities for training policy, delivery of training, recruitment and selection.

  The rebrigading of assets and functions under the chief executive of the Training Group Defence Agency will deliver more coherent management and improved use of resources across a wider range of activities than hitherto. The result of the changes is a single defence agency responsible for the recruitment and selection of all Royal Air Force personnel and the policy and delivery of all Royal Air Force non-operational training.

  The chief executive of the agency has been set the following targets for financial year 1997–98:
  Key Target 1—Quality
  Achievement of customer satisfaction with the quality of graduate trainees as reflected in customer advisory committee reports to the air officer commanding-in-chief. Target for 1997–98–95 per cent.
  Key Target 2—Efficiency
  To deliver the savings that accrue from the efficiencies agreed in long-term costings 1997, together with full cost items. Target for 1997–98—£8.258 million.
  Key Target 3a—Quantity of Output (Flying Training)
  The percentage of trained aircrew delivered against RAF requirements. Target for 1997–98–96 per cent.
  Key Target 3b—Quantity of Output (Ground Training)
  The percentage of trained personnel delivered against RAF requirements. Target for 1997–98–97 per cent.
  Key Target 4—Human Resources
  To implement the investors in people initiative. Target for 1997–98 implement at RAF College Cranwell, No. 1 RS RAF Locking, TDSU RAF Halton.
  Key Target 5—Development of Output Costings and Unit Cost Measures
  To undertake a cost attribution exercise which will contribute to the development of full output costings and associated unit cost and efficiency measures for the agency by financial year 2000–01. Target for 1997–98—completion of cost attribution exercise.
  860

  Low Flying
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the analysis of low-flying activity in the United Kingdom has been completed; and if he will make a statement. [21676]

  Mr. Soames
  The analysis has been completed, from which it is clear that, although close attention has been paid to the need to balance military training demands against the avoidance of undue disturbance to the public, variations in the intensity of such activity across the country still exist. Although this is, in part, unavoidable because of operational and geographic factors such as the location of aircraft operating bases, aircraft range, avoidance areas, controlled airspace and weather conditions, we concluded that, even within these constraints, further efforts should be made to manage the activity as equitably as possible.

  We therefore intend to improve the way in which the overall amount of low-flying activity is managed and the methods by which detailed statistics are recorded. This latter initiative will be a valuable tool in monitoring the effectiveness of the measures to try to redistribute this activity more equitably. In addition, the three services, individually and collectively, will pay greater attention to the areas that they choose in the UK for military exercises in an effort to spread the low-flying training aspects of them as evenly as practicable. Last summer, we announced measures to spread operational low-flying— that beneath 250 ft—more evenly between the three tactical training areas. Efforts will continue to reduce still further the amount of operational low-flying training. The scope for increasing the amount of low-flying training carried out overseas will be actively pursued. A statement on the distribution of military low flying in the UK low-flying systems will be published annually.

  I have today placed in the Library of the House a paper giving a more detailed account of the analysis of the distribution of low-flying activity in the UKLFS. Further copies of the paper can be obtained from the following address:

  Ministry of Defence (Room 8247)

  Main Building

  Whitehall

  London SW1A 2HB

  Animal Welfare Advisory Committee
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answers of 19 November 1996,Official Report, column 503, and 5 December 1996, Official Report, column 730, when the first report of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee will be published. [21677]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Animal Welfare Advisory Committee has now delivered its first report and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Defence Procurement Contracts
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which defence procurement contracts have been awarded to companies in Lancashire since 1992. [13273]
  861
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Data held centrally on the contracts database focus on accountability of financial matters and do not include details of titles or descriptions of individual contracts. Nor is an address held, although a "location of work" code is recorded. There is no location of work code that conveniently covers Lancashire and a search of records which could include Lancashire based companies revealed over 8,000 contracts. To give the information asked for would require each of these records to be researched, which would incur disproportionate costs.

  Royal Yacht
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the European Commission concerning his proposal to have the replacement royal yacht built in a British shipyard; and if his proposal extends to all fixtures and fittings. [13657]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  No discussions have been held with the European Commission. Security considerations will preclude the replacement royal yacht being designed or constructed outside of the United Kingdom. Fixtures and fittings could be procured from outside of the United Kingdom if this were consistent with security considerations and obtaining best value for money.

  Royal Hospital, Halar
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what considerations he is taking into account in his review of laundry services at the Royal hospital, Haslar; and what is the timetable for the further steps in the decision-making process. [19092]

  MoD personnel 1979 to 1997

  Civilian personnel

  Service personnel

  As at

  All personnel

  Total civilians

  UK based1

  Locally engaged civilians

  Total service

  UK regular forces

  Locally entered personnel

  Royal Irish Regiment2>

  1 April 1979

  616,863.0

  285,904.0

  247,700.0

  38,204

  330,959

  314,991

  8,368

  7,600

  1 April 1980

  612,456.0

  276,242.0

  239,800.0

  36,442

  336,214

  320,625

  8,189

  7,400

  1 April 1981

  615,788.0

  264,903.0

  229,600.0

  35,303

  350,885

  333,755

  9,730

  7,400

  1 April 1982

  596,623.0

  251,695.0

  216,900.0

  34,795

  344,928

  327,647

  10,081

  7,200

  1 April 1983

  580,580.0

  242,745.0

  208,900.0

  33,845

  337,835

  320,623

  10,112

  7,100

  1 April 1984

  575,179.0

  232,461.0

  199,100.0

  33,361

  342,718

  325,909

  10,109

  6,700

  1 April 1985

  549,320.0

  206,497.0

  174,077.0

  32,420

  342,823

  326,217

  10,206

  6,400

  1 April 1986

  540,815.5

  201,704.5

  169,462.5

  32,242

  339,111

  322,510

  10,101

  6,500

  1 April 1987

  532,285.5

  196,078.5

  164,002.5

  32,076

  336,207

  319,849

  9,758

  6,600

  1 April 1988

  507,767.5

  175,145.5

  143,394.5

  31,751

  332,622

  316,895

  9,427

  6,300

  1 April 1989

  499,574.0

  172,553.0

  141,317.0

  31,236

  327,021

  311,649

  9,072

  6,300

  1 April 1990

  493,241.5

  172,311.5

  141,372.5

  30,939

  320,930

  305,711

  9,019

  6,200

  1 April 1991

  482,359.0

  169,135.0

  140,199.0

  28,936

  313,224

  298,065

  9,059

  6,100

  1 April 1992

  474,909.0

  166,494.0

  139,454.0

  27,040

  308,415

  293,444

  8,971

  6,000

  1 April 1993

  444,501.5

  155,850.5

  129,225.5

  26,625

  288,651

  274,849

  8,167

  5,635

  1 April 1994

  409,413.0

  142,289.0

  121,558.0

  20,731

  267,124

  254,488

  7,238

  5,398

  1 April 1995

  377,042.0

  133,229.0

  116,140.0

  17,089

  243,813

  233,340

  5,218

  5,255

  1 April 1996

  359,152.0

  126,734.0

  109,858.0

  16,876

  232,418

  222,417

  5,035

  4,966

  1 January 19973

  351,592.0

  126,508.0

  109,632.0

  16,8764

  225,084

  215,326

  4,924

  4,834

  1 Part time UK based civilians counted as 0.5 prior to 1995. Since 1995, they are counted as the proportion of full-time hours worked.

  2 Includes the Ulster Defence Regiment for figures up to 1 April 1992.

  3 January 1997 Army strengths include 95 reservist officers and 1,011 reservist soldiers currently mobilised for service in the former Yugoslavia.

  4 Figure unavailable for January 1997, April 1996 figure used.

  862
  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Secondary Care Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ron Smith to Mr. Peter Viggers dated 20 March 1997:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the future of the laundry services at the Royal Hospital, Haslar as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Secondary Care Agency (DSCA).
  You may recall from my earlier letter that the DSCA has been conducting a review to determine the best long-term means of providing laundry services at the Hospital. We have considered a range of factors, uppermost of which is service quality and cost. During that time we have consulted closely with the Trade Unions in accordance with established procedures. We have now completed a feasibility study and we hope to be able to make a formal announcement in the near future. In the meantime we have written separately to the local Trade Unions.

  Personnel Statistics
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of(a) civilian and (b) military personnel employed by his Department for each year since 1979. [21028]

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the chief executive of Defence Analytical Services Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from P. Altobell to Mr. Frank Field, dated 20 March 1997.
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence regarding the number of (a) civilian and (b) military personnel employed by his Department for each year since 1979, as this falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of Defence Analytical Services Agency.
  The figures are presented in the accompanying table. Please refer to the notes appended to the table.
  I hope you will find this information helpful.
  863
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the numbers of civilian personnel employed by his Department who were permanently attached to each of the British Army bases in the United Kingdom and engaged in their administration for each year since 1979; and if he will publish a breakdown for each base. [21029]

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

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the(a) Royal Navy and (b) Army bases and other establishments in Yorkshire and Humberside in April 1992, indicating for each the number of (i) service and (ii) civilian personnel employed (1) at that date and (2) currently; and if he will list the dates of all subsequent closures of those establishments. [21109]

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is not held centrally in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Such information as is available, based on 1 April 1996 data, is as follows:

  Location

  Service

  Civilian

  Royal Navy sites

  HMS Forestmoor, Harrogate

  Army Sites

  Albion Street, Hull

  Alanbrooke Barracks, Thirsk

  Bailey Barracks, Sheffield

  Borough Road, Middlesborough

  Brambles Farm, Middlesborough

  Catterick Garrison

  Churchill Barracks, Leeds

  Claro Barracks, Rippon

  Coldyhill Lane, Scarborough

  Deverell Barracks, Ripon

  Dishforth, Thirsk

  Fulford Road, York

  Harwewood Barracks, Leeds

  Hildebrand Barracks, Harrogate

  Londesborough Barracks, Hull

  Lumley Barracks, York

  Marne Barracks, Richmond

  Middleton Barracks, Hull

  Mona House, Hull

  Norbury Hall, Sheffield

  Normandy Barracks, Beverley

  Old Carlton Barracks, Leeds

  Queen Elizabeth Barracks, York

  Ridgeway Road, Middlesborough

  Ripon, Lavericks

  Rowlston Road, Hornsea

  Scarbrough Barracks, Doncaster

  Shelley House, York

  Somme Barracks, Sheffield

  Stockton Road, Middlesborough

  Thornbury Barracks, Pudsey

  Trinity Church Square, Richmond

  Wakefield Road, Pontefract

  Wathgill Camp, Richmond

  Wellesley Park, Halifax

  Wenlock Barracks, Hull

  Other Royal Navy and Army sites

  CIO Leeds

  CIO Sheffield

  CIO Hull

  TA Centre Barnsley

  TA Centre Batley

  TA Centre Bradford

  864

  Location

  Service

  Civilian

  TA Centre Doncaster

  TA Centre Pontefract

  TA Centre Rotherham

  TA Centre Scunthorpe

  TA Centre Sheffield

  TA Centre Sheffield

  TA Centre Wakefield

  Total

  8,219

  3,087

  1. MOD Service and civilian numbers exclude contractors personnel.

  2. Recent site closures include: Colburn barracks, Catterick; district workshops, Strensall; Driffield camp, Nr Beverley; Uniacke barracks, Harrogate and Hildebrande barracks, Harrogate.

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when Ministers were first informed of the contents of the briefing note for researchers on "Pesticide Use in the Persian Gulf War" issued by Lieutenant John Graham of the medical services directorate. [19954]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 13 March 1997]: MOD Ministers were first made aware of the existence of the briefing note for researchers No. 3 entitled "Pesticide Use in the Persian Gulf War" on 26 September 1996.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when Ministers were first informed of the evidence of Major Christopher Irven of the extent of the use of organophosphate pesticides during the Gulf war. [19956]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 13 March 1997]: I am not aware that my Department has received any evidence from Major Christopher Irven concerning the use of organophosphate pesticides during the Gulf war.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when Ministers were first informed of the evidence of Major Christine Lloyd on the extent of use of organophosphate pesticides during the Gulf war. [19935]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 13 March 1997]: I am not aware that the Ministry of Defence has received any evidence from Major Christine Lloyd concerning the use of organophosphate pesticides during the Gulf war.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when Ministers were first informed of the evidence of Staff Sergeant Anthony Worthington of the extent of use of organophosphate pesticides during the Gulf war. [19951]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 13 March 1997]: Ministers first became aware of the post-operational report dated March 1991, drawn up by Staff Sergeant Anthony Worthington, on 7 October 1996, following press reports on 6 October 1996.

  Operation Granby
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the Royal Army Medical Corps specialist environmental team served in Operation Granby; and what assessment he has made of the general health of these personnel. [19094]

  Mr. Soames
  A total of 38 Royal Army Medical Corps environmental health personnel were deployed to the Gulf during operation Granby. No specific assessment has been
  865
  made of their subsequent state of health. As with all Gulf veterans, if any of these environmental health personnel believe that they are ill as a result of their service in the Gulf, they are entitled to be examined by the MOD's medical assessment programme.

  Departmental Documents (Vote Office)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many official documents published by his Department, including those published in co-operation with outside organisations, were not made available to hon. Members through the Vote Office in each of the last three years; and for what reasons the document "British Defence Doctrine" was not made available. [19111]

  Mr. Soames
  Details of all such documents are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. It is not therefore possible to give a number not placed in the Vote Office. Copies of "British Defence Doctrine" were placed in the Libraries of both Houses— including some additional copies—and separate copies were sent to those right hon. and hon. Members believed to have a particular interest in the document. A small number of copies was provided to the Vote Office in response to requests from individual hon. Members.

  The normal minimum number of copies of documents provided to the Vote Office is 100. Our decision whether or not to place this number of any document in the Vote Office depends on a number of factors, including the relevance to parliamentary proceedings, the likely level of interest and thus potential waste, and previous practice in relation to similar documents.

  Organophosphates
  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) instances of disciplinary procedure have been initiated and (b) individuals have been informed that they may be subject to disciplinary action in (i) the civil service, (ii) defence or other agencies and (iii) the military as a result of the organophosphate pesticides investigation team report and further investigations. [19357]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 10 March 1997]: I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer of 21 January,Official Report, column 550, if he will place in the Library copies of the documents on organophosphates then requested. [19203]

  Mr. Soames
  No, for the reasons states in my answer of 21 January,Official Report, column 550.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when Ministers were first informed of the contents of Health and Safety Executive guidance note MS 17 on the biological monitoring of workers exposed to organophosphate pesticides. [19955]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 13 March 1997]: I am not aware of any occasion on which the contents of Health and Safety Executive guidance note MS 17, on the biological monitoring of workers exposed to organophosphoros pesticides, have been specifically brought to the attention of Ministry of Defence Ministers.

  British Defence Advisory Team
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which countries were visited by elements of the British defence advisory team in 1991. [20634]

  Mr. Soames
  During 1991, the United Arab Emirates was the only country visited by elements of the British defence advisory team.

  Army Base Storage and Distribution Agency
  Sir Julian Critchley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has to privatise the Army Base Storage and Redistribution Agency; and if he will make a statement. [20998]

  Mr. Soames
  There are no proposals at this present time to privatise ABSDA. However, as the hon. Member will be aware, ABSDA is required to make efficiencies and improve cost-effectiveness. To this end we have launched a programme of market testing under the Government's "Competing for Quality" initiative.

  The CFQ programme embraces the activities of the three functional divisions of ABDSA which deal with vehicles and fuels, ammunition and stores. The programme is currently under way and its findings are as yet unknown but will be reported as soon as they are available.

  Overseas Training and Advice (Costs)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost to his Department in 1991 of providing overseas(a) short-term training teams, (b) advisory visits and (c) service personnel. [20999]

  Mr. Soames
  The costs of many of the short-term training teams and loan service personnel deployed overseas are met by the host countries or by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, while those of defence export advisory visits are met by UK companies on occasions when they specifically request military support. Records of costs are not maintained by calendar year. However, according to available records, in financial year 1991–92, the net cost to the Department of providing short-term training teams was £116,000 and of providing loan service personnel was £2.129 million. In 1991, detailed records of the cost of defence export advisory visits were not maintained. However, on the basis of the information available, costs to the Department are estimated to have been in the region of £146,080. All costs are at historic prices.

  Ministerial Visits (Saudi Arabia)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the official visits to Saudi Arabia made by Ministers in his Department since May 1979, stating in each case the dates and purpose of the visit. [19560]

  Mr. Soames
  For the period April 1993 to February 1996, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement to the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) on 1 March 1996,Official Report, column 767. According to our records, the following visits have since been made to Saudi Arabia:
  Secretary of State Defence (Mr. Portillo) March 1996.

  867
  Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Soames) April 1996.
  Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Soames) October 1996.

  The purpose of these visits was the promotion of our important bilateral relations.

  Records of ministerial visits prior to April 1993 are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Defence Co-operation Accord (United Arab Emirates)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the defence co-operation accord signed in November 1996 with the Government of the United Arab Emirates. [20274]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The defence co-operation accord is confidential between the two Governments. I am therefore withholding the document under exemption 1b of the code of practice on access to government information. However, the scope of the accord was outlined in the Secretary of State for Defence's answer to the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) of 28 November 1996,Official Report, column 388.

  Army Vehicle Depot, Ashchurch
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, (1) if the present number of civilian staff will continue to be employed at the Army vehicle depot at Ashchurch, through to April 1998; [21172]

  (2) how many vehicles are currently at the Army vehicle depot at Ashchurch. [21170]

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Army Base Storage and Distribution Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Foxton to Mr. Paul Murphy, dated 20 March 1997:
  I am replying to the recent questions you tabled to the Secretary of State for Defence as this falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Army Base Storage and Distribution Agency (ABSDA). You asked if the present number of civilian staff will continue to be employed at the Army Vehicle Depot at Ashchurch, through to April 1998. You also asked how many vehicles are currently at the Depot.
  At present 217 people are employed at the Base Vehicle Depot (BVD) Ashchurch. There will be retirements (both forecasted and unforecasted) and there may be small scale efficiency measures which reduce this figure somewhat but, according to the information I have to hand, the Ashchurch staffing level should remain at about its current level until April 1998.
  Lastly, at 18 March 97. there are 6974 vehicles stored in BVD Ashchurch. I trust this has answered your questions satisfactorily.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will assess the extent of intelligence acquired by NATO from asylum seekers currently facing the threat of deportation from Germany to Russia, Belarus and Ukraine; and if he will discuss the value of that intelligence with his German counterpart. [21323]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has no indication that any intelligence reports from asylum seekers were acquired by NATO.
  868
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will request that a search be made of NATO files to establish what promises of asylum were made to asylum seekers in Germany in the course of interrogations by intelligence officers reporting to NATO. [21315]

  Mr. Soames
  I have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the proportion of asylum seekers arriving in a NATO member state from(a) Eastern Europe and (b) elsewhere who are interrogated on behalf of NATO or one of its member states. [21325]

  Mr. Soames
  No such estimate has been made.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many asylum seekers now resident in Germany were interrogated for military information by officers of the British armed forces or officers of British military intelligence. [21324]

  Mr. Soames
  I am withholding this information under exemption 1 of the code of practice on access to government information, in relation to defence security and international relations.

  Hercules Aircraft
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what training exercises in Wiltshire involving Hercules aircraft have been cancelled or postponed this month; and for what reasons. [20132]

  Mr. Soames
  The tactical air landing element of Exercise Lanyard 3, scheduled to take place at Keevil, Wiltshire between 15 and 16 March, was cancelled as a key participating unit of 5 airborne brigade was placed on operational standby. Hercules aircraft from RAF Lyneham are, however, supporting the land element of the exercise with re-supply drops.

  Warrant Officer Ray Bristow
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list each of the vaccinations given to Warrant Officer Ray Bristow, of the Royal Army Medical Corps, during his service in the Gulf conflict in 1991. [21140]

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

  Menwith Hill RAF Station
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the agreements which will cover the United States military occupation of Menwith Hill station after 30 May; and if he will make a statement. [21185]

  Mr. Soames
  RAF Menwith Hill continues to be made available for the use of US visiting forces on the same basis as other RAF sites in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what branches of the United States military will continue to occupy Menwith Hill station after 30 May. [21184]
  869
  Mr. Soames
  Personnel from all four branches of the US armed services—Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps—will continue to be based at RAF Menwith Hill.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what terms the United States army occupation of Menwith Hill station has been terminated. [21220]

  Mr. Soames
  The US army presence at RAF Menwith Hill has not been terminated, nor are there any plans for it to withdraw from the station.

  Careers Information Offices
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the Army careers information office in Micklegate, York to close. [21111]

  Mr. Soames
  The Army careers information office at Micklegate, York was due to close in April 1996. However, the office, together with a number of others, was retained as part of an initiative to increase recruiting. There are currently no plans to close the York office.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the locations of each(a) Royal Navy and (b) Royal Air force careers information office functioning in Yorkshire and Humberside since 1990, indicating the dates on which they were opened and of subsequent closures. [21110]

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is set out in the tables.

  Royal Navy

  Office

  Date opened

  Date closed

  Hull

  8 February 1967

  Still open

  Leeds

  25 March 1958

  1995 (Now opened as a tri-Service AFCO)

  Sheffield

  1964

  Still open

  Royal Air Force

  Office

  Date opened

  Date closed

  Bradford

  2 January 1959

  1 December 1995

  Grimsby

  Pre 1989 (date u/k)

  3 March 1995

  Huddersfield

  23 March 1960

  31 March 1995

  Hull

  8 February 1967

  Still open

  Leeds

  31 March 1950

  1995 (Now opened as a tri-Service AFCO)

  Sheffield

  26 December 1964

  Still open

  York

  30 September 1971

  8 May 1996

  AFCO = Armed Forces Careers Office.

  Navy and Air Force Manpower
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the shortfall at 1 March in the manpower strengths of(a) the Royal Navy and (b) the Royal Air Force. [21144]

  Mr. Soames
  The shortfall in manpower strength of the Royal Air Force on 1 March 1997 was 1,588 trained personnel. Manpower figures for the Royal Navy for 1 March are not yet available. As at 1 February 1997 the naval service, including Royal Marines, had shortages of 1,586 trained personnel.

  NATO Enlargement
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of his study on the costs of NATO enlargement, "Lines to Draw On"; and if he will make a statement. [21349]

  Mr. Soames
  It is not clear to me to which particular document the hon. Member's question refers. The position on the study of the resource implications of NATO enlargement was set out in my answer to the hon. Member of 11 February,Official Report, columns 90–91.

  Tri-service Resettlement Organisation
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total amount paid to consultants for the tri-service resettlement organisation in the last two years; what firms have been employed to provide this consultancy advice; what is this year's budget for the tri-service resettlement organisation; how much of the organisation's New Oxford street headquarters is currently unoccupied; what is the annual rental cost for the New Oxford street site; and if he will make a statement. [21142]

  Mr. Soames
  Some £1.01 million—excluding VAT— has been paid for consultancy advice to the tri-service resettlement organisation in the last two financial years: £0.658 million to Marshall Tanous plc for corporate marketing advice and services aimed at generating awareness of service leavers' potential amongst employers; and £0.353 million to the PA Consulting Group for assistance with the competing for quality initiative to improve the long-term value for money of resettlement services. Figures relating to the TSRO's annual budget are restricted pending the outcome of negotiations in the current tendering exercise associated with the CFQ study. The TSRO HQ, located in St. George's court, New Oxford street, is a building occupied by a number of MOD units. The TSRO currently occupies all its allocated space. The building is in the process of vacation by the Department and the TSRO will shortly be moving to alternative accommodation at St. Giles court. The rental cost of St. George's court is commercial-in-confidence, but is at low historic lease levels.

  Payment of Bills
  Mr. Beits
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of bills to his Department for the financial year 1995 to 1996 were paid(a) in accordance with agreed contractual conditions and (b) within 30 days of receiving goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice where no contractual conditions applied. [21210]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 18 July 1996,Official Report, columns 613–14.

  Contracts (American Companies)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was(a) the total value and (b) the number of defence contracts placed with American companies in each of the last five years. [21143]
  871
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  For the years 1994 and 1995, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 28 February 1996,Official Report, column 559. For the years 1992, 1993 and 1996, the total value and number of contracts placed where the work has been carried out in the USA is as follows:

  Number

  Value (£)

  1992

  241

  136,947,249

  1993

  211

  89,071,488

  1996

  180

  215,408,837

  The figures for 1996 are not yet complete. Additions are made to the database for three months after the end of the year in question.

  Retired Service Personnel
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has to change the level of support available for the after care of people who have retired from the armed services. [21311]

  Mr. Soames
  Those people who have left the armed forces and their dependants are eligible to receive the full range of services provided by the social security system, the national health service and local authorities. In addition, following representation from the ex-service community, the Government are considering a proposal to establish an ex-service affairs unit.

  Skyship 600
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current operational state of his Department's airship, Skyship 600; when this airship was first purchased; what was its original cost; for what reasons the airship ended operational use; and if he will make a statement. [21141]

  Mr. Soames
  The Department's Skyship 600 was purchased in June 1993 at a cost of approximately £2.6 million. An incident, which resulted in rupture of the envelope, occurred during a masting operation at the Defence Test and Evaluation Organisation site at Boscombe Down in May 1995 following a day's trial flying. The envelope has now been replaced and the airship recommenced trials flying in November 1996. It is planned to continue flying against the current programme until July 1997.

  Air-to-air Missile
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning his Department's plans for the future medium range air-to-air missile. [21285]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  No final decision has yet been reached but work is continuing to enable an announcement to be made on the way forward as soon as practicable.

  Domestic Rabbits
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what circumstances domestic rabbits are used in Royal Marines training; and if he will make a statement. [21100]
  872
  Mr. Soames
  The only use made of rabbits is that some 200 per annum, which are not domestic but bought from sources which breed them commercially for meat, are killed in the course of teaching necessary military survival techniques to personnel training at the commando training centre Royal Marines, Lympstone.

  Loan Service Personnel
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will list those countries where loan service personnel were deployed in 1991. [20174]

  Mr. Soames
  According to available records, in 1991, British loan service personnel were deployed in the following countries:

  Antigua

  Australia

  Bahrain

  Bangladesh

  Barbados

  Belize

  Bermuda

  Brunei

  Colombia

  Dominica

  Fiji

  Gambia

  Ghana

  Grenada

  Hong Kong

  Jordan

  Kenya

  Lesotho

  Malaysia

  Mauritius

  Namibia

  New Zealand

  Nigeria

  Oman

  Qatar

  Saudi Arabia

  Singapore

  St. Lucia

  St. Vincent

  Swaziland

  Turks and Caicos Islands

  United Arab Emirates

  Zimbabwe.

  The full records of exercises involving British service personnel in 1991 are not available. According to available records, British service personnel exercised in, or with, forces from the following countries and dependent territories in 1991.

  Ascension Island

  Australia

  Bahamas

  Bahrain

  Belgium

  Belize

  Bermuda

  873

  Botswana

  Brunei

  Canada

  Colombia

  Cyprus

  Denmark

  Dominica

  Falkland Islands

  France

  Germany

  Gibraltar

  Greece

  Hawaii

  Hong Kong

  Italy

  Jamaica

  Jordan

  Kenya

  Kuwait

  Luxembourg

  Malaysia

  Namibia

  United Kingdom

  Netherlands

  Netherlands Antilles

  New Zealand

  Norway

  Oman

  Portugal

  Saudi Arabia

  Singapore

  Spain

  Sweden

  Thailand

  Trinidad and Tobago

  turkey

  UAE

  United States.

  In addition, UK forces exercised with the states of the regional security system and the West Indies guardship, as part of her routine deployment, would have exercised with many of the Caribbean countries and dependent territories.

  Operational Information Systems
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the armed forces future operational information systems; and if he will make a statement. [21664]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Accurate and timely information is crucial to the success of the armed forces in a wide range of operations, from humanitarian aid missions to major conflict. The BOWMAN combat radio system will 874
  provide a significant increase in the capability of all three services to exchange operational information. The airborne stand-off radar system—ASTOR—will provide a substantial enhancement of capability by supplying commanders with near real-time surveillance information.

  Competitive contracts for project definition of BOWMAN were placed in 1993 with two consortia, Crossbow, led by ITT UK Ltd., and Yeoman, led by Siemens Plessey Systems and Racal. PD work is now largely complete and equipment is being tested in field trials, which are due to end in April 1997. Following an evaluation of BOWMAN procurement options, we have decided to issue a request for proposals for initial production and support to Archer, a joint venture company which is being formed by the leaders of Crossbow and Yeoman. This approach will enable us to procure a highly capable system combining the most cost-effective elements of the Crossbow and Yeoman solutions. It will also offer the most timely way of meeting the BOWMAN requirement. Subject to receipt of an acceptable tender from the company and agreement of suitable contractual conditions, we would aim to let a contract by 1999, in order to meet the in-service date of 2002. It is expected that the contract will be worth in excess of £1 billion.

  ASTOR will use highly capable new radar systems installed on fixed wing aircraft to provide both a wide area of coverage and a high degree of resolution. Following successful completion in August last year of a competitive project definition phase, proposals were received from consortia led by Lockheed Martin and Raytheon E-Systems, and including UK sub-contractors. Following a thorough assessment of these proposals and a detailed analysis of a number of other options, we have decided to invite the two consortia to submit best and final offers for the full development, production and in-service support of ASTOR. We aim to place a contract with the winning consortium in 1998. It is estimated that the contract will be worth in the region of £750 million.

  ASTOR and BOWMAN will provide key enhancements to the capability of our armed forces and will provide UK industry with valuable, high technology work.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  A-levels (Derbyshire)
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the total number of students in Derbyshire passing two or more A-levels for each year since 1979. [18212]

  Mrs. Gillan
  [holding answer 27 February 1997]: The information is not readily available in the precise form requested. However, the following figures show the numbers of pupils who achieved two or more GCE A-levels in maintained schools in Derbyshire for each year since 1979. The figures for 1979 to 1991 relate to school leavers of any age in maintained schools and those

  875
  from 1992 onwards related to pupils in maintained schools aged 17 at the start of the academic year.

  year

  Number of school leavers of any age achieving two or more GCE A-levels (Thousands)

  As percentage of school leavers aged 17 and over

  Number of 17 year old pupils in maintained schools achieving two or more GCE A-levels (Thousands)

  As a percentage of 17 year old pupils

  1979

  1.4

  76

  —

  —

  1980

  1.1

  69

  —

  —

  1981

  1.2

  71

  —

  —

  1982

  1.4

  70

  —

  —

  1983

  1.6

  69

  —

  —

  1984

  1.3

  64

  —

  —

  1985

  1.4

  65

  —

  —

  1986

  1.2

  63

  —

  —

  1987

  1.3

  70

  —

  —

  1988

  1.3

  70

  —

  —

  1989

  1.3

  73

  —

  —

  1990

  1.7

  79

  —

  —

  1991

  0.9

  73

  —

  —

  1992

  —

  —

  1.5

  75

  1993

  —

  —

  1.6

  73

  1994

  —

  —

  1.6

  71

  1995

  —

  —

  1.6

  75

  Name of body

  Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration

  Audit Commission

  National Audit Office

  Open Government

  Performance Indicators

  Citizen's Charter1

  Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Construction Industry Training Board

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Education Assets Board

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Engineering Construction Industry Training Board

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Equal Opportunities Commission

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Funding Agency for Schools

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Further Education Funding Council for England

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Higher Education Funding Council for England

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Investors in People UK

  2No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  National Council for Educational Technology

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  National Council for Vocational Qualifications

  2No

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Remploy Ltd.

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  No

  School Curriculum and Assessment Authority

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Student Loans Company

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Teacher Training Agency

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  1 Whilst none of the Department's NDPBs is required to apply for a Charter Mark, the Department does encourage all executive NDPBs which provide a public service to operate according to Citizen's Charter principles.

  2 In previous responses to this question on 22 February 1996 and 25 April 1995, the Department stated that both NCVQ and IIP UK were subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. The Commissioner's Office has taken the view, in particular cases in the past, that these bodies could be considered to be acting "on behalf of the Department which is subject to investigation by the Commissioner and that therefore under section 5 of the 1967 Parliamentary Commissioner Act those actions were subject to investigation by the Commissioner. However, the formal mechanism for bringing bodies within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner is by Order in Council amending schedule 2 to the Act. No such order has been made in respect of NCVQ or IIP UK, so as bodies themselves, they are not formally subject to investigation by the Commissioner. The Government have, however, made a commitment formally to bring all executive NDPBs within the Ombudsman's jurisdiction, unless there are valid reasons, specific to the particular circumstances of the body, for excluding it.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by her Department publish(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) the minutes of meetings, (d) the agendas of

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will commission research into the relationship between the proportion of children in schools eligible for free school meals and the academic achievement of schools. [20486]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  No. There is sufficient analysis of pupil attainment categorised by proportionate eligibility for free school meals, as exemplified by the information published in Her Majesty's Chief Inspector's annual report for 1995–96.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by her Department which are subject to(a) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (b) scrutiny by the Audit Commission, (c) scrutiny by the National Audit Office, (d) statutory provisions for open government, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens' charter. [20945]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 19 March 1997]: The information requested is shown in the following table.

  meetings and (e) a register of members' interests; and ifthis is in each case (i) under a statutory requirement, or (ii) voluntary. [20902]

  Mr. Squire
  [holding answer 19 March 1997]: The information requested is shown in the following table.
  877

  Name of body

  Annual reports

  Annual accounts

  Minutes of meetings

  Agendas of meetings

  Register of interests

  Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research

  Yes

  Yes

  1Yes

  No

  No

  Construction Industry Training board

  2Yes

  2Yes

  No

  No

  Yes

  Education Assets Board

  No

  2Yes

  No

  No

  1Yes

  Engineering Construction Industry Training Board

  2Yes

  2Yes

  No

  No

  No

  Equal Opportunities Commission

  2Yes

  2Yes

  No

  No

  No

  Funding Agency for Schools

  Yes

  2Yes

  No

  No

  1Yes

  Further Education Funding Council for England

  Yes

  2Yes

  No

  No

  1Yes

  Higher Education Funding Council for England

  Yes

  2Yes

  No

  No

  1Yes

  Investors in People UK

  2Yes

  2Yes

  No

  No

  1Yes

  National Council for Educational Technology

  Yes

  2Yes

  No

  No

  1Yes

  National Council for Vocational Qualifications

  2Yes

  2Yes

  No

  No

  No

  Remploy Ltd.

  2Yes

  2Yes

  No

  No

  1Yes

  School Curriculum and Assessment Authority

  Yes

  2Yes

  No

  No

  1Yes

  Student Loans Company

  2Yes

  2Yes

  No

  No

  1Yes

  Teacher Training Agency

  2Yes

  2Yes

  1Yes

  1Yes

  1Yes

  1 Available for inspection at the NDPB's offices.

  2 Statutory.

  Nursery Vouchers
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will, after consultation with the relevant local authority organisations, estimate the additional administrative costs to local education authorities arising from the scheme of vouchers for pre-school education. [21224]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The nursery education voucher scheme has been designed to keep administration costs for local education authorities to a minimum. It is not anticipated, therefore, that such costs will be significant or that information relating to such costs will be collected.

  Training and Enterprise Funding
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what public funds were provided to training and enterprise councils and chambers of commerce, training and enterprise in 1996–97. [21016]

  Mr. Paice
  The public funds made available to training and enterprise councils and chambers of commerce training and enterprise in England by my Department for 1996–97 amounted to £1.484 billion. The Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment also provide TECS/CCTEs with additional Government funding.

  The responsibility for TECs/CCTEs in Wales lies with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Modern Apprenticeships
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people were on(a) YT/youth credits and (b) modern apprenticeships, (i) on average in the last year for which figures are available and (ii) at the last date for which figures are available. [21018]

  Mr. Paice
  On average in 1996, there were 225,000 on youth training youth credits in England and Wales in December 1996, there were 232,000 people on youth training youth credits.

  On average in 1996, there were 41,000 on modern apprenticeships in England and Wales. In December 1996, there were 67,000 people on modern apprenticeships.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many and what percentage of youth training trainees currently have employed status. [21019]

  Mr. Paice
  In December 1996, there were 232,000 on youth training in England and Wales, of which 57 per cent. had employed status.

  Primary Schools
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to allow parents of primary school children increased opportunities to view their child's school work and progress. [21023]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Government's reforms have ensured that parents are better informed about the performance of primary schools, most recently through the publication of performance tables, and about their own child's progress at primary school. All parents must receive a written report on their child at least once a year. This must describe the arrangements for discussing the report with the teachers concerned.

  Education Spending, Barnet
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if she will make a statement on the increase in Barnet's education standard spending assessment in 1997–98; [21078]

  (2) if she will make a statement on the (a) amount and (b) percentage of Barnet local education authority's education budget spent centrally; and what are the average national figures. [21080]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Barnet's 1997–98 education standard spending assessment is £119.1 million which, after adjustments are made to take account of the nursery voucher scheme, represents a year on year increase of some £5.3 million or 4.6 per cent.

  It is up to local authorities to set their education budgets within the resources at their disposal, and capping limits. Barnet's 1996–97 education budget was £126.5 million, which was 8.1 per cent. above its education SSA— £117 million. Nationally, local authorities set their 1996–97 education budgets at an average of 4.0 per cent.

  879
  above their education SSAs. Details of local authorities' final expenditure on education in the current year are not yet available.

  Pupil Costs
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was education spending

  Pre-primary/primary

  Secondary

  Combined

  Year

  Cash terms £

  Real terms £

  Cash terms £

  Real terms £

  Cash terms £

  Real terms £

  1979–80

  429

  1,128

  607

  1,596

  513

  1,348

  1995–961

  1,629

  1,670

  2,286

  2,343

  1,909

  1,957

  1 These figures exclude grant-maintained schools.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the status of the report produced by the steering committee on the special educational needs initiative; what is her Department's policy in respect of each of the recommendations; and what action she(a) has taken to date and (b) proposes to take. [2117]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The SEN initiative is a consortium of local education authoritiess in England and Wales, established by the Society of Education Officers in order to facilitate a national study into the management of LEA budgets for pupils with special educational needs. The first phase report, prepared by Coopers and Lybrand in consultation with a wide range of interests, offers guidance to participating LEAs; the second phase, now under way, is focused on the management of SEN budgets at school level. The Department has contributed £5,000 in 1996 and 1997 towards the costs of the study, and is represented on the steering committee for the initiative. It is for LEAs to consider the implications of the report, but we welcome the way in which the initiative has highlighted important issues for LEAs seeking to maximise the effectiveness of the resources devoted to children with special educational needs.

  National Learning Line
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) which organisations expressed an interest in tendering for the national learning line but were not invited to do so; [21286]

  (2) which organisations were invited to tender for the national learning line. [21287]

  Mr. Paice
  The contract to run the national learning line is being competitively tendered. The commercial best practice adopted by the Government in such circumstances means that we cannot reveal details of the companies involved in the competition.

  Expenditure, Devon
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the expenditure on(a) primary schools, (b) secondary schools and (c) capital projects in Devon in each of the last five years. [21340]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following table shows gross expenditure for LEA-maintained (a) pre-primary, primary and (b) secondary schools by Devon local education 880
  per pupil in (a) 1975 and (b) currently expressed in (i) cash terms and (ii) constant price terms.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following table shows in both cash and terms—1996–97 prices—the net institutional expenditure per pupil in LEA-maintainted schools, in 1979–80 and 1995–96, the latest year for which data are available.

  authority from 1991–92, to 1995–96; and capital expenditure by the LEA over the period 1991–92 to 1994— 95, the latest year for which figures are available. All figures are in cash terms, and have not been adjusted for any change of function.

  £ million

  Pre-primary/primary

  Secondary

  Gross expenditure

  1991–92

  108.246

  121.895

  1992–93

  133.657

  141.874

  1993–94

  123.575

  130.781

  1994–95

  132.111

  135.599

  1995–96

  132.679

  133.933

  Capital expenditure

  1991–92

  19.370

  9.779

  1992–93

  10.296

  12.762

  1993–94

  9.691

  13.499

  1994–95

  12.099

  9.721

  Hunting (Jobs)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will estimate the number of jobs dependent on(a) fox hunting, (d) deer hunting and (c) hare coursing. [21113]

  Mr. Paice
  The sectors involved are very small. For that reason we can make no reliable estimates of the number of jobs dependent on fox hunting, deer hunting and hare coursing. Government statistics do not promote such detailed information. However, the Department of the Environment is a member of the standing conference on countryside sports. A study produced for SCCS estimates around 60,000 full-time jobs are directly dependent on all countryside sports and a further 30,000 indirectly.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the post-tax surplus or deficit for each training and enterprise council for 1995–96. [21310]

  Mr. Paice
  The following table lists the post-tax surpluses or deficits incurred by training and enterprise councils in 1995–96. The figures are those shown in the audited statutory accounts lodged at Companies House.
  881
  TECs are allowed to generate surpluses and create reserves by subcontracting training at a lower unit price than that negotiated with the Department. Surpluses are used by TECs on activities in support of their corporate and business plan objectives which are agreed with Government. Examples of the use of these funds include the provision of additional opportunities within existing DfEE programmes; matching funding for single regeneration budget or European-funded projects; training, enterprise or economic development initiatives agreed with TECs' local communities; and topping up reserves where they are insufficient to meet cash flow and other fluctuations.

  TECs/CCTEs by region Post tax operating surplus/(deficit)

  1995–96 £

  Northern

  County Durham

  (646,364)

  Northumberland

  475,842

  Teesside

  437,000

  Tyneside

  2,101,000

  Sunderland (Wearside)

  1,590,984

  3,958,462

  Merseyside

  CEWTEC

  897,592

  Merseyside

  (2,867,096)

  St. Helens

  (293,520)

  (2,263,024)

  North west

  Bolton/Bury

  (238,453)

  Manchester

  560,301

  METRO

  213,325

  Oldham

  102,240

  Rochdale

  138,448

  South and East Cheshire

  1,322,376

  Stockport and High Peak

  (48,248)

  Cumbria

  422,291

  ELTEC

  (74,614)

  LAWTEC

  (337,754)

  NORMID

  539,256

  2,599,168

  Yorkshire and the Humberside

  Barnsley/Doncaster

  2,552,000

  Bradford

  (436,245)

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  97,846

  Humberside

  419,280

  Leeds

  207,287

  North Yorkshire

  (132,000)

  Rotherham

  1,074,660

  Sheffield

  788,000

  Wakefield

  500,611

  5,071,439

  Eastern

  Bedfordshire

  392,006

  Cambridgeshire

  378,209

  Essex

  2,459,798

  Greater Peterborough

  (75,628)

  Hertfordshire

  520,000

  Norfolk and Waveney

  1,372,000

  Suffolk

  1,158,123

  6,204,508

  East Midlands

  Greater Nottingham

  817,000

  Leicester

  1,252,154

  Lincolnshire

  652,071

  Northamptonshire

  443,441

  882

  TECs/CCTEs by region Post tax operating surplus/(deficit)

  1995–96£

  North Derbyshire

  138,008

  North Nottinghamshire

  280,867

  South Derbyshire

  642,000

  4,225,541

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  1,013,000

  Central England

  255,810

  Coventry/Warwick

  976,966

  Dudley

  (277,643)

  HAWTEC

  309,857

  Sandwell

  385,104

  Shropshire

  497,489

  Staffordshire

  385,000

  Walsall

  563,982

  Wolverhampton

  161,000

  4,270,565

  South West

  Westec

  341,000

  Devon/Cornwall

  (620,000)

  Dorset

  (264,911)

  Gloucester

  980,410

  Somerset

  (48,000)

  Wiltshire

  28,106

  416,605

  London

  AZTEC

  884,679

  CENTEC

  (22,482)

  CILNTEC

  54,123

  LETEC

  2,505,452

  North London

  802,634

  North West London

  1,051,535

  SOLOTEC

  2,575,000

  West London

  1,383,308

  9,234,249

  South East

  Hampshire

  (1,077,933)

  Wight

  140,565

  Kent

  1,385,448

  Milton Keynes North Bucks

  222,758

  Heart of England

  (352,446)

  Surrey

  (56,808)

  Sussex

  (960,000)

  Thames Valley Enterprise

  333,309

  365,107

  Grand total

  33,352,406

  Secondary School Pupils
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list for each English local education authority, the expenditure per secondary school pupil for each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement. [21312]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following table sets out for each LEA in England the net institutional expenditure per pupil in LEA maintained secondary schools for the years 1991–92 to 1995–96, the latest year for which data are available.
  883

  Net Institutional Expenditure per pupil LEA Maintained Secondary Schools

  Cash terms

  1991–92£

  1992–93£

  1993–94£

  1994–95£

  1995–96£

  Corporation of London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Camden

  2,432

  2,726

  2,716

  2,790

  2,888

  Greenwich

  2,296

  2,497

  2,583

  2,772

  2,768

  Hackney

  2,799

  3,014

  2,617

  3,138

  2,963

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  2,739

  3,105

  3,329

  3,316

  3,328

  Islington

  2,938

  4,792

  3,005

  2,657

  2,941

  Kensington and Chelsea

  3,200

  3,061

  3,266

  3,327

  3,602

  Lambeth

  2,978

  2,800

  3,296

  3,782

  3,859

  Lewisham

  2,376

  2,534

  2,614

  2,677

  2,765

  Southwark

  2,460

  2,506

  2,421

  2,681

  2,840

  Tower Hamlets

  2,946

  3,352

  3,157

  3,194

  3,206

  Wandsworth

  3,275

  3,212

  2,795

  3,053

  2,953

  City of Westminster

  2,444

  2,486

  2,739

  2,825

  2,863

  Barking

  2,254

  2,347

  2,355

  2,353

  2,473

  Barnet

  2,326

  2,615

  2,952

  2,415

  2,533

  Bexley

  2,058

  2,121

  2,341

  2,232

  2,291

  Brent

  2,490

  2,425

  1,835

  2,033

  2,418

  Bromley

  2,442

  2,377

  2,280

  2,231

  1,851

  Croydon

  2,373

  2,369

  2,309

  2,165

  2,543

  Ealing

  2,836

  2,026

  2,575

  2,457

  2,477

  Enfield

  2,321

  2,267

  2,531

  2,359

  2,367

  Haringey

  2,650

  2,897

  3,041

  2,986

  3,018

  Harrow

  2,373

  2,614

  2,439

  2,598

  2,660

  Havering

  2,255

  2,364

  2,290

  2,570

  2,622

  Hillingdon

  2,625

  2,686

  2,670

  2,625

  2,624

  Hounslow

  2,161

  2,419

  2,282

  2,582

  2,535

  Kingston upon Thames

  2,473

  2,663

  2,284

  2,518

  2,374

  Merlon

  2,622

  2,679

  2,463

  2,663

  2,593

  Newham

  2,470

  2,629

  2,563

  2,623

  2,546

  Redbridge

  2,308

  2,337

  2,526

  2,553

  2,510

  Richmond upon Thames

  2,114

  2,285

  2,280

  2,373

  2,431

  Sutton

  2,161

  2,036

  1,978

  2,514

  2,480

  Waltham Forest

  2,622

  2,454

  2,526

  2,395

  2,736

  Birmingham

  2,151

  2,341

  2,330

  2,356

  2,555

  Coventry

  2,116

  2,382

  2,469

  2,418

  2,477

  Dudley

  2,126

  2,072

  2,098

  2,205

  2,175

  Sandwell

  2,277

  2,340

  2,349

  2,244

  2,362

  Solihull

  2,126

  2,223

  2,217

  2,225

  2,241

  Walsall

  2,108

  2,216

  2,281

  2,314

  2,158

  Wolverhampton

  2,354

  2,407

  2,300

  2,341

  2,460

  Knowsley

  2,296

  2,298

  2,243

  2,227

  2,259

  Liverpool

  2,356

  2,375

  2,613

  2,603

  2,406

  St. Helens

  2,104

  2,357

  2,315

  2,247

  2,063

  Sefton

  2,017

  2,232

  2,204

  2,227

  2,304

  Wirral

  2,113

  2,418

  2,299

  2,294

  2,323

  Bolton

  2,132

  2,280

  2,119

  2,617

  2,287

  Bury

  1,900

  1,970

  1,979

  2,032

  2,081

  Manchester

  2,285

  2,426

  2,328

  2,435

  2,305

  Oldham

  2,261

  2,474

  2,278

  2,293

  2,294

  Rochdale

  2,134

  2,182

  1,974

  2,225

  2,275

  Salford

  2,192

  2,113

  2,215

  2,151

  2,226

  Stockport

  2,135

  2,288

  2,310

  2,152

  2,225

  Tameside

  2,100

  2,170

  2,095

  2,046

  2,010

  Trafford

  2,107

  2,279

  2,156

  2,319

  2,433

  Wigan

  2,288

  2,286

  2,141

  2,130

  2,307

  Barnsley

  2,043

  2,151

  2,101

  2,102

  2,089

  Doncaster

  1,997

  2,182

  2,022

  2,025

  2,292

  Rotherham

  2,151

  2,285

  2,271

  2,220

  2,211

  Sheffield

  2,181

  2,212

  2,119

  2,110

  2,182

  Bradford

  1,796

  1,822

  1,969

  2,041

  2,030

  Calderdale

  2,010

  2,163

  2,162

  2,104

  2,485

  Kirklees

  2,056

  2,200

  2,207

  2,256

  2,258

  Leeds

  1,979

  2,397

  2,164

  2,223

  2,259

  884

  Net Institutional Expenditure per pupil LEA Maintained Secondary Schools

  Cash terms

  1991–92£

  1992–93£

  1993–94£

  1994–95£

  1995–96£

  Wakefield

  2,113

  2,073

  2,150

  2,046

  2,055

  Gateshead

  2,117

  2,283

  2,252

  2,257

  2,250

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  2,066

  2,133

  2,187

  2,314

  2,346

  North Tyneside

  2,075

  2,219

  1,995

  2,145

  2,201

  South Tyneside

  2,041

  2,197

  1,948

  2,062

  2,096

  Sunderland

  2,047

  2,137

  2,114

  2,142

  2,228

  Isles of Scilly

  4,161

  5,040

  4,415

  4,484

  4,347

  Avon

  2,048

  2,277

  2,288

  2,336

  2,426

  Bedfordshire

  2,036

  2,170

  2,103

  2,231

  2,163

  Berkshire

  2,156

  2,227

  2,214

  2,238

  2,211

  Buckinghamshire

  2,095

  2,118

  2,286

  2,256

  2,288

  Cambridgeshire

  2,023

  2,243

  1,956

  2,160

  2,172

  Cheshire

  2,106

  2,072

  2,106

  2,176

  2,147

  Cleveland

  2,111

  2,515

  2,129

  2,172

  2,139

  Cornwall

  1,957

  2,132

  2,160

  2,202

  2,229

  Cumbria

  2,175

  2,306

  2,216

  2,034

  2,287

  Derbyshire

  2,199

  2,310

  2,214

  2,290

  2,234

  Devon

  2,004

  2,164

  2,157

  2,203

  2,187

  Dorset

  1,922

  2,097

  2,065

  2,061

  2,067

  Durham

  2,020

  2,064

  2,114

  2,122

  2,072

  East Sussex

  2,018

  2,233

  2,270

  2,359

  2,395

  Essex

  2,274

  2,138

  2,286

  2,321

  2,325

  Gloucestershire

  1,757

  2,203

  2,084

  1,937

  2,082

  Hampshire

  2,132

  2,248

  2,180

  2,177

  2,210

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,961

  2,116

  2,038

  2,063

  2,055

  Hertfordshire

  2,237

  2,263

  2,245

  2,264

  2,366

  Humberside

  2,065

  2,228

  2,257

  2,304

  2,313

  Isle of Wight

  1,937

  2,081

  2,027

  2,030

  2,085

  Kent

  2,075

  1,999

  2,079

  2,276

  2,343

  Lancashire

  2,225

  2,320

  2,347

  2,345

  2,268

  Leicestershire

  2,253

  2,219

  2,263

  2,274

  2,269

  Lincolnshire

  2,081

  2,174

  2,322

  2,384

  2,412

  Norfolk

  2,116

  2,177

  2,309

  2,342

  2,319

  North Yorkshire

  2,152

  2,260

  2,187

  2,180

  2,224

  Northamptonshire

  1,970

  2,093

  2,125

  2,265

  2,163

  Northumberland

  1,964

  1,871

  2,083

  1,944

  1,990

  Nottinghamshire

  2,492

  2,346

  2,381

  2,396

  2,333

  Oxfordshire

  2,108

  2,212

  2,191

  2,285

  2,199

  Shropshire

  2,349

  2,509

  2,354

  2,413

  2,384

  Somerset

  1,951

  2,220

  2,138

  2,113

  2,212

  Staffordshire

  2,045

  2,088

  2,078

  2,104

  2,061

  Suffolk

  1,698

  2,393

  2,190

  2,182

  2,165

  Surrey

  2,202

  2,293

  2,215

  2,234

  2,260

  Warwickshire

  2,090

  2,126

  2,420

  2,349

  2,225

  West Sussex

  2,085

  2,125

  2,467

  2,240

  2,239

  Wiltshire

  1,947

  2,268

  2,379

  2,125

  2,251

  Musicians
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the relationship between the number of places for educating musicians in the United Kingdom and the job opportunities for musicians; and what plans she has to review the present position. [21115]

  Mr. Forth
  None. With the exception of a very small number of disciplines, the Government do not plan centrally the output of graduates. It is for individual universities and colleges to determine the allocation of places by subject in the light of demand from suitably qualified applicants, who in turn may be influenced by job opportunities.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he proposes to respond to the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee on the proposed changes to housing benefit regulations. [20954]

  Mr. Lilley
  I have received the Social Security Advisory Committee report. It recommended against proceeding without further research of the effects of existing measures on the housing market. In the event the Government do go ahead, the committee further recommended that the proposals should apply only to new claims and that certain accommodation for tenants who have been referred by the local authority or probation service should be exempt.

  I have considered these recommendations carefully. I have decided not to accept them in the form in which they were presented, but to exempt from the single room rent determination severely disabled people who are entitled to severe disability premium and single claimants who have non-dependants residing with them.

  I have today laid before Parliament the social security advisory committee's report and my response to it. I have also laid the regulations to give effect to the changes.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what projections his Department has made, and over what periods, of future levels of provision of accommodation matching the single room rent definition. [21130]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The rental market is flexible and we believe it will respond to changes in demand arising from the application of the single room rent determinations. To encourage people who have spare rooms in their houses to let them out, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the Budget, an increase to the current rent-a-room threshold of £3,250. From April, rental income of up to £4,250 will be exempt from tax.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the housing benefit costs in respect of the private rented sector in (i) 1995–96 and (ii) 1996–97. [21132]

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

  Estimated rent allowance expenditure

  £ million

  1995–96

  11996–97

  Housing association tenants

  1,600

  2,100

  Other private sector tenants

  3,850

  3,900

  Total rent allowance expenditure

  5,450

  5,900

  Note

  1 Figures are provisional and do not sum due to rounding.

  Source:

  1. Housing benefit management information system.

  2. 1995–96 departmental report.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the(a) financial and (b) other effects of (i) the Housing Benefit
  886
  Regulations, S.I. 1996, No. 965, and (ii) the proposed housing benefit regulations restricting housing benefit for single people aged 25 to 59 years. [21129]

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

  Year

  Estimated savings(£ million)

  Numbers likely to be affected

  (i) Under 25 changes S.I. 1996 No. 965

  1996–97

  13

  40,000

  1997–98

  57

  90,000

  1998–99

  62

  105,000

  (ii) Proposed changes for most single claimants between 25 and 59 years

  1997–98

  6

  72,000

  1998–99

  47

  210,000

  1999– 2000

  69

  265,000

  Pensioners
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the measures which have provided extra financial assistance to pensioners on low incomes since 1990. [18463]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information in relation to income support, housing benefit and council tax and community charge benefits, is as follows:

  April 1991

  The pensioner premium was increased above the normal uprating.

  April 1992

  The higher pensioner premium was increased above the normal uprating.

  October 1992

  All pensioner premiums were increased above the normal uprating.

  April 1993

  The rates of income support personal allowances were not adjusted to reflect the fact that the element previously included in recognition of the 20 per cent. contribution towards community charge liability was no longer needed due to the introduction of council tax.

  April 1994

  Compensation for VAT on fuel above average cost.

  Customer Charters
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much his Department and its executive agencies have spent drafting, publishing and circulating each of their customer charters and customer standard documents; and how many copies of each document have been issued. [19388]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows:

  Benefits Agency

  The Benefits Agency customer charter was last revised and published in December 1993. The cost of publication was £48,106; 250,000 copies were published and distributed to the agency's local offices. In addition, in 1996–97, 86 Benefit Agency units have published local charters at a total cost of £60,200. Each business unit received 2,000 copies of its own

  887
  charter statement. There are no figures available on the number of national and local charters issued to the public, because their distribution is controlled by Benefits Agency local offices and the information could be obtained only at disproportionate costs.

  Contributions Agency

  The employers charter was last revised and published in January 1994; 1,200,000 copies were printed and distributed to employers at a cost of £67,000. A further 250,000 copies were printed, stored and sent to local offices for distribution to customers, at a cost of £10,557; 74,621 remain in stock.

  The contributors charter was last revised and published in April 1995; 1,000,000 copies were printed for distribution with national insurance cards to 16-year-olds at a cost of £64,655; 250,000 copies were printed, stored and sent to local offices for distribution to customers, at a cost of £14,586; 13,355 remain in stock.

  Child Support Agency

  The Child Support Agency customer charter was last revised and published in November 1996. A total of 7,600 copies were printed and distributed at a cost of £9,539. There are none currently in stock.

  War Pensions Agency

  A total of 218,500 copies of the War Pensions Agency charter standard statement were printed at a cost of £14,949; 174,515 remain in stock.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 13 January,Official Report, columns 149–50, if the War Pensions Agency consulted (a) the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment and (b) his Department when it was drawing up the sections on claims arising out of experiments at Porton Down in the 1993 and 1995 versions of the "War Pensions Manual". [19115]

  Mr. Heald
  These are matters for Mr. Kevin Caldwell, chief executive of the War Pensions Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from K. C. Caldwell to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 19 March 1997:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if the War Pensions Agency consulted with the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE), and our own Department, when drawing up the 1993 and 1995 instructions for claims arising out of experiments at Porton Down.

  I can confirm that we did not consult with the CBDE prior to publishing our 1993 version of the War Pensions Manual. We also consulted the CBDE in revising the instructions in 1995.

  The War Pension Agency consults DSS HQ Policy Branch as a matter of course when preparing instructions. Again, I can confirm that we consulted with them on the 1993 and 1995 versions.

  I hope you find my reply helpful.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of claimants for a war pension are currently referred by the War Pensions Agency to(a) an independent specialist and (b) a regional
  888
  consultant; for what reasons claimants are referred to (a) or (b); and what rights claimants have to choose to whom they are referred. [19114]

  Mr. Heald
  These are matters for Mr. Kevin Caldwell, chief executive of the War Pensions Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from K. C. Caldwell to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 19 March 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the percentage of claimants for a War Pension currently referred by the Agency to independent specialists and regional consultants, for what reason, and what rights claimants have to choose to whom they are referred.
  During 1996, the Agency cleared 81,170 claims to War Pension. During the same period, 13,409 appeals were processed and cleared to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal. We requested 9,193 medical Consultant (Specialist) reports and 590 Regional Consultant Reports during 1996. As a percentage of all cases cleared by the Agency in 1996 this equates to Consultant (Specialist)—19.7% and Regional Consultant—0.6%.
  Claimants are referred to Consultants (Specialists) primarily to establish for the Secretary of State the definitive diagnosis of any medical conditions underlying a claimed disablement. Regional Consultant opinion is sought where there is conflict of opinion between Consultants or where the case is medically exceptionally complicated. The Agency holds a list of the Regional Consultants that it uses on a nationwide basis, reflecting the major medical specialities.
  In Individual cases, the appropriate Regional Consultant is chosen by the Agency Medical Advisor dealing with the claim. Agency requests for Consultant (Specialist) reports are directed to the appropriate Benefits Agency Disability Benefits Centre who arrange appointments on our behalf and use local knowledge to request a report from a suitable Consultant in the locality concerned.
  The Secretary of State may award a War Disablement Pension only when a certificate to the effect that disablement is due to service has been provided to him by a medical office or board of medical officers appointed or recognised by him for that purpose. He must be given the opportunity to satisfy himself on that issue. Should, exceptionally, a claimant object to being seen by any individual Consultant/Regional Consultant, or alternatively have in mind a particular Consultant, the Secretary of State will consider representations from a claimant as to the appointment. However, the decision as to appointment is for the Secretary of State to make, and not the claimant.
  Should a claimant have been seen and treated by a particular Consultant, then efforts will be made to obtain any relevant casenotes, or factual reports from the Consultant concerned.
  I hope you find my reply helpful.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many people lost their(a) invalidity benefit and (b) incapacity benefit in the first year of incapacity benefit in Wales; and how many have lost benefit since; [19055]

  (2) how many people have lost their (a) invalidity and (b) incapacity benefit in each benefit district in Wales since the introduction of the incapacity benefit; and what are the estimated savings which have accrued. [19056]

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of incapacity benefit is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.
  889
  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Ted Rowlands, dated 19 March 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking how many people lost their (a) Invalidity Benefit (IVB) and (b) Incapacity Benefit (IB) in the first year of IB in Wales; and how many have lost benefit

  Numbers of people losing their incapacity benefit from April 1995 to January 1997 for each benefits agency district in Wales

  Reason

  Cardiff and Vale

  South Wales Valleys

  Gwent Borders

  South West Wales

  Wrexham and North West Cost

  Gwyneddigion and Maldwyn

  Failed the Own Occupation Test

  45

  125

  20

  170

  60

  55

  Failed to return All Work Test questionnaire without good cause

  175

  395

  145

  700

  245

  100

  Failed to attend examination without good cause

  30

  140

  10

  240

  60

  20

  Found capable of All Work1

  2,190

  6,115

  1,620

  8,490

  2,425

  1,145

  Notes:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 5 cases.

  Credits Only cases that existed prior to April 95 are only included after 25 January 1997 as they were not available prior to this date.

  1 This figure includes a small number of Credits only cases disallowed due to failure to return their All Work Test questionnaire without good cause or failure to attend examination without good cause, no breakdown is available.

  Figures are provisional and subject to change.

  Information on savings is not available.

  Source:

  Incapacity Benefit computer system, figures exclude a small number of cases not held on the system.

  Numbers of people in Wales losing their incapacity benefit

  Reason

  April 1995-March 1996

  April 1996-January 1997

  Failed the Own Occupation Test

  205

  260

  Failed to return All Work Test questionnaire without good cause

  960

  805

  Failed to attend examination without good cause

  160

  340

  Found capable of All Work1

  8,955

  13,030

  Notes:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest five cases.

  Credits Only cases that existed prior to April 1995 are only included in the figures after 25 January 1997 as they were not available prior to this date.

  1 This figure includes a small number of Credits only cases disallowed due to failure to return their All Work Test questionnaire without good cause or failure to attend examination without good cause, no breakdown is available.

  Figures are provisional and subject to change.

  Source:

  Incapacity Benefit computer system, figures exclude a small number of cases not held on the system.

  Child Care Allowance
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the exact budgetary provisions made for the extra child care allowance available for two of the public sector pilots in the parent plus scheme. [19833]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  On a provisional basis, £240,000 has been allocated from the parent plus budget to cover the cost of essential child care costs incurred during activities associated with the scheme. This amount is not cash limited and will be reviewed if necessary. There is no restriction on the number who claim it, or on the number of times an individual lone parent may claim.890
  since and; how many people have lost their (a) IVB and (b) IB in each benefit district in Wales since the introduction of the IB; and
  what are the estimated savings which have accrued.
  Information is not available in the format requested. Statistics are not kept separately for customer's formerly in receipt of IVB and customer's claiming IB. The available information is shown in the attached tables.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  The total amount allocated has been apportioned based on the number of lone parents claiming income support in the two areas concerned: £95,700 has been allocated to north Worcestershire and £144,700 to Warwickshire.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the progress to date of the Child Support Agency in obtaining child support payments from absent parents who were not previously paying maintenance. [19555]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant CB. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Mr. David Nicholson, dated 19 March 1997:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the progress of the Child Support Agency in obtaining child support payments.
  During 1995/96 the Agency was involved in the payment of over £301 million in maintenance arising from child support assessments. This included about £137 million arranged to be paid direct between parents, and over £164 million collected by the Agency. The amount collected was more than double that of 1994/95 (£76 million).
  During the current financial year, the total collected and arranged was over £322 million as at 31st January. Achieving the target set by the Secretary of State of £380 million—£400 million will entail an increase of 27%–33% on the collected/arranged figure required last year, but the Agency is on course to succeed in meeting this challenge.
  The Agency has also become increasingly successful in tracing absent parents. In 1995/96, over 55,000 specialist traces were successfully undertaken by the Agency, the vast majority of which referred to absent parents whose whereabouts were doubtful. In January, 7,361 were successful (the highest ever recorded), bringing the total so far this year to 53,047.

  891
  The Agency has continued to put an increased emphasis on the enforcement of maintenance payments. In 1995/96 53,000 deduction from earnings orders (DEOs) were issued, an increase of 65% on the 1994/95 figure. During the current financial year 47,814 DEOs have been issued as at 31 st January.
  The Agency is increasingly obtaining liability orders through the courts, mainly against non-compliant self employed absent parents. The number of liability orders applied for in this financial year as at the end of January was 1,702, an increase of 58% compared with the same period last year.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of the number of outstanding cases in north Staffordshire currently being processed by the Dudley Child Support Agency office; what is the current waiting time for outstanding cases; and if he will make a statement. [20186]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant CB. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Ms Joan Walley, dated 19 March 1997:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about cases being actioned by the Dudley Child Support Agency Centre (CSAC)
  At the end of February, the Agency was dealing with a total of 418,369 cases in which action had not been fully completed; the Dudley CSAC has responsibility for 65,467 of these cases. Information is not available, however, on the number of these cases which originated from North Staffordshire. this could be obtained only by a special clerical exercise, the cost of which would be disproportionate.
  The Agency measures its performance in relation to waiting times against its Secretary of State target to clear 60% of new maintenance assessments within 26 weeks, and for no more than 10% of cases to be outstanding for more than 52 weeks at 31 March 1997. As of 28 February 1997, 53% of maintenance assessments had been cleared within 26 weeks, and 13% were outstanding for more than 52 weeks.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security under what circumstances the CSA is permitted to pass on confidential information gained from claimants or absent parents to another person or body. [20161]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant CB. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Mr. John McAllion, dated 19 March 1997:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about confidential information within the Child Support Agency.
  This Agency only discloses confidential information to third parties in the following circumstances; with the consent of the person involved, to comply with a court order, or under legislative provision to meet statutory requirements.
  In specific circumstances, the Child Support Act (1991) and associated Regulations, allows the Secretary of State and/or a Child Support Officer to disclose any information held for the purposes of the Act. For example, information may be disclosed to a Court, a Tribunal, an appropriate Authority in connection with Housing Benefit or Council Tax or to another party to the assessment where such information enables that party to understand how decisions, in relation to a maintenance assessment, were reached.
  892
  The Agency is registered with the Office of the Data Protection Registrar, in accordance with the Data Protection Act (1984). Disclosure of personal information held by the Agency will only be made in accordance with our registration except where specific exemptions apply. For example, disclosure to the Police can be made where it is for the purpose of prevention or detection of serious crime or in an emergency where disclosure is required to prevent injury or damage to anyone's health. I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average time taken to process an application for child support up to the point where the absent parent is informed of his or her liability to pay; and what is the average amount of arrears owed by the absent parent at this point. [20163]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant CB. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Mr. John McAllion, dated 19 March 1997:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about applications for child support to the Child Support Agency, but I am afraid I cannot give you precise information in the format you have requested.
  The first part of your question asks for the average time taken to process an application up to the point where the absent parent is notified of their liability to pay. The Agency does not collect general information on average processing times, but measures performance against its Secretary of State target to clear 60% of new maintenance applications within 26 weeks. At the end of February, 53% of new maintenance applications were being cleared within 26 weeks, and 13% of all applications were over 52 weeks old.
  The second part of your question relates to the average amount of arrears which accrue between an application being made and the point at which the absent parent is informed of liability; this is called the initial payment period. Information is not collected by the Agency's financial management system and debt management system on the average amount of arrears which accrue, during this period. There is no business need to do so, and as several major factors are involved a rough average figure at this stage would have little meaning. For example, an absent parent may have responded promptly to our enquiry form and thus qualified to defer the effective date of the claim for 8 weeks. They may also have been making voluntary payments to the parent with care during this period, and when these are reported and verified, the amount of arrears is reduced accordingly. Finally, either or both parents may ask for the assessment to be reviewed at this stage, which can lead to an adjustment in the original amount.
  The Agency has, however, addressed the issue of debt accumulating in the interim pay period by establishing early contact with the absent parent to arrange voluntary payment of maintenance and has also introduced a facility to defer the effective date of a claim if an absent parent quickly returns his or her maintenance enquiry form. Encouraging the absent parent to co operate with the Agency shortens the time between application and assessment, thus minimising the build up of arrears.
  These policies have proved to be effective as, since April 1996. the Agency has recorded over £24m in voluntary payments made during the initial payment period in cases subsequently using the collection service.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the number of child support appeals(a) being processed, (b) outstanding for more than 26 weeks and (c) determined in favour of (i) the Child Support Agency and (ii) the client at the end of each month since April 1994. [21473]
  893
  Mr. Mitchell
  This is a matter for the Independent Tribunal Service.

  Benefits Agency Appellants
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many Benefits Agency appellants have been refused oral hearings at an appeal tribunal(a) nationally, (b) in the West Pennine district and (c) in the Oldham district since the right to automatic oral hearings was restricted in October 1996. [20116]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  This is a matter for the Independent Tribunal Service.

  Family Credit (Fife)
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families were in receipt of family credit in the Fife Benefits Agency office area in each quarter since February 1995. [19942]

  Annex: The number of families in receipt of family credit within the Fife benefits agency office area, at the date indicated, are as follows:

  Date of scan

  Cowdenbeath

  Dunfermline

  Kirkcaldy

  Leven

  Total

  10 February 1995

  596

  1,084

  1,593

  677

  3,950

  13 July 1995

  653

  1,163

  1,704

  738

  4,258

  10 November 1995

  647

  1,188

  1,781

  736

  4,352

  16 February 1996

  643

  1,201

  1,782

  728

  4,354

  12 April 1996

  650

  1,178

  1,760

  755

  4,343

  7 June 1996

  668

  1,226

  1,829

  777

  4,500

  10 October 1996

  699

  1,276

  1,645

  814

  4,434

  3 January 1997

  697

  1,254

  1,802

  799

  4,552

  Social Security and Medical Appeals Tribunals
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what operational problems in the analytical services division of the Independent Tribunal Service prevented figures being given for social security and medical appeals tribunals in 1995. [19296]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The Department's analytical services division is responsible for producing and publishing statistical information regarding social security and medical appeal tribunals. It obtains data relating to social security appeals from the Independent Tribunal Service's computer systems. Due to problems with the computer system serving the Independent Tribunal Service's north-west region, data for the final quarter of 1995 were not available for inclusion in the annual publication "Social Security Statistics 1996". Figures for the final quarter are contained in the "Quarterly Social Security Appeal Tribunal Statistics December 1995", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Data relating to medical appeal tribunals were not affected by the computer problem. However, owing to competing work priorities, the data for the final quarter of 1995 had not been fully processed by analytical services division when "Social Security Statistics 1996" was due for publication. Figures for the final quarter of 1995 are contained in "Quarterly Medical Appeal Tribunal Statistics", a copy of which is available in the Library.
  894
  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administration of family credit is a matter for Peter Mathison, chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Ms Rachel Squire, dated 19 March 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many families were in receipt of Family Credit (FC) in the Fife Benefits Agency office area in each quarter since February 1995.
  The information is not available in the format requested. It may be helpful if I explain that FC is administered centrally by the Family Credit Unit. Statistics are produced on a national basis and provide the number of families in receipt of FC within a particular Benefits Agency (BA) office area at a given date. Such details are not produced on a regular monthly or quarterly basis. The information available only serves as a "snap-shot" of the position at that date and does not provide details of the number of families in receipt of FC over a given period.
  There are 4 benefit offices within the Fife District, these are Cowdenbeath, Dunfermline, Kirkcaldy and Leven. FC statistics relating to each of these offices produced since February 1995 have been provided in the attached annex.
  I hope you find this information useful.

  Personal Pensions
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will calculate the total reduction in future expenditure on the state earnings-related pension scheme, at net present value, arising from membership of appropriate personal pensions, assuming the social discount rate used by his Department. [19949]

  Mr. Heald
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) on 24 February,Official Report, column 90.

  Attendance Allowance (Wandsworth)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people living in the London borough of Wandsworth are waiting for a decision to be made regarding their claim for attendance allowance. [20180]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 19 March 1997>:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about how many people living in the London Borough of Wandsworth are waiting for a decision to be made regarding their claim for Attendance Allowance (AA).
  The information is not available in the format requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Statistics are not kept for the number of people waiting for a decision to be made on a claim

  895
  for AA or for individual regions. I am however able to provide the Secretary of State targets for clearing AA New Claims and the year to date clearance rates for Sutton Disability Benefit Centre (DBC) which covers the Benefits Agency Districts shown in the attached annex.

  The information is set out in the table below:-

  1996–97 Secretary of State targets

  Sutton DBC 1 April 1996 to28 February 1997

  68 per cent. in 30 days

  79.70 per cent. in 30 days

  85 per cent. In 53 days

  95.49 per cent.in 53 days

  Figures are provisional and subject to change. I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Annex: Benefits agency districts covered by Sutton Disability Benefit Centre

  Bankside

  Berkshire

  Canterbury and Thanet

  Channel

  East Sussex

  Hampshire North

  Hounslow and Kingston

  London Central

  North Kent

  North Surrey

  Palace

  Solent and Forest

  South Circular

  South Downs

  South East Hants and Wight

  South West Thames

  Surrey Downs

  Tameside

  West Kent

  West Sussex.

  Reduced Benefits Directions
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a breakdown, by ethnic origin, of parents with care against whom reduced benefits directions were issued in 1994–95. [21022]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information is not available.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of (i) men and (ii) women of working age in each year since 1978–79 had a national insurance contribution record for the year with contributions equivalent to less than 25 times the lower earnings limit; and what proportion of these(a) had a similar contribution record for two or more years running and (b) were in receipt of contribution credits in each year. [21027]
  896
  Mr. Heald
  The information is in the tables:

  Men

  Thousands

  Number with class 1 earnings below25 x LEL

  Number with two or more years

  Proportion with similar record for two years or more(per cent.)

  Number with class 1 earnings below 25 x LEL and credits

  1978–79

  479

  88

  18

  368

  1979–80

  447

  148

  33

  337

  1980–81

  457

  140

  31

  360

  1981–82

  524

  147

  28

  421

  1982–83

  561

  166

  30

  467

  1983–84

  603

  182

  30

  514

  1984–85

  666

  164

  25

  525

  1985–86

  433

  130

  30

  377

  1986–87

  490

  146

  30

  420

  1987–88

  673

  197

  29

  542

  1988–89

  666

  226

  34

  502

  1989–90

  659

  235

  36

  473

  1990–91

  639

  237

  37

  456

  1991–92

  689

  256

  37

  487

  1992–93

  718

  280

  39

  506

  1993–94

  787

  304

  39

  551

  1994–95

  842

  —

  —

  580

  Women

  Thousands

  Number with class 1 earnings below 5 xLEL

  Number with two or more years

  Proportion with similar record for two years or more (per cent.)

  Number with class1 earningsbelow25 x LE Land credits

  1978–79

  651

  165

  25

  340

  1979–80

  691

  298

  43

  342

  1980–81

  745

  337

  45

  356

  1981–82

  831

  378

  45

  394

  1982–83

  909

  437

  48

  427

  1983–84

  1,013

  490

  48

  471

  1984–85

  1,082

  495

  46

  482

  1985–86

  914

  467

  51

  371

  1986–87

  1,023

  506

  49

  423

  1987–88

  1,201

  578

  48

  475

  1988–89

  1,272

  624

  49

  458

  1989–90

  1,246

  621

  50

  416

  1990–91

  1,191

  614

  52

  406

  1991–92

  1,219

  637

  52

  421

  1992–93

  1,220

  653

  53

  413

  1993–94

  1,274

  679

  53

  440

  1994–95

  1,322

  —

  —

  442

  1. Source: 1 per cent. sample of national insurance recording system taken in February 1996.

  2. Figure are United Kingdom.

  3. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  4. Analysis is based on people with Class 1 contributions below 25 times the weekly LEL in the year.

  5. Figures for 1994–95 are provisional.

  6. Figures for the number with two or more consecutive years are not available for 1994–95.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what liability is placed on (i) training providers and (ii) employers providing work placements for young
  897
  people with non-employed status on youth credits/youth training for national insurance payments for young people aged (a) 16 to 17 years and (b) 18 years and over. [21020]

  Mr. Heald
  Neither training providers nor employers providing work placements have any national insurance contribution liability in respect of any young people with non-employed status on youth training.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of Stae for Social Security what credits in respect of national insurance contributions awarded to young people aged 18 years and over who are on youth credits/youth training with non-employed status. [21021]

  Mr. Heald
  Young people aged 18 years and over may be awarded a class 1 national insurance credit for each week in which they attend an approved training course, provided that they had reached age 18 before the beginning of the tax year in which the period of training occurs and that the course, as its outset, is not expected to continue for more than 12 months. If their contribution record for the tax year in which they reached age 18 and for subsequent tax years does not enable them to satisfy the contribution conditions for entitlement to jobseeker's allowance and incapacity benefit, they may also be awarded special credits for those years.

  Class 3 credits for pension purposes are available to all young people for the contribution year in which they reach age 18 and the two preceding years.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what would be the level in 1997–98 of the national insurance lower earnings limit and contribution ceiling if they had been uprated in line with earnings since 1979; [21092]

  (2) if he will estimate the cumulative effect on Government revenues since 1979 of the change in indexation from earnings to prices of (a) the national insurance lower earnings limit and (b) the national insurance contribution ceiling for employees and employers; and if he will provide figures for the net revenues. [21073]

  Mr. Heald
  The lower and upper limits for class 1 national insurance contributions are linked to the level of the basic retirement pension. If the basic retirement pension had been uprated since 1980 in line with the higher of earnings or prices, the lower and upper earnings limits for 1997–98 would be £86 and £645 respectively. The estimated full-year effects of limits set at these levels for 1997–98 are shown in the table. Information for earlier years is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Estimated full-year effects of lower and upper earnings limits for class 1 national insurance contributions set at £86 and £645 perweek respectively in 1997–98

  £ million

  LEL £86

  UEL £645

  Employees

  Gross

  -1,900

  +1,900

  Rebate

  -250

  +200

  Net

  -1,650

  +1,750

  Employers

  Gross

  -150

  0

  Rebate

  -500

  +350

  898

  Estimated full-year effects of lower and upper earnings limits for class I national insurance contributions set at £86 and £645 perweek respectively in 1997–98

  £ million

  LEL £86

  UEL £645

  Net

  +350

  -350

  Total

  Gross

  -2,000

  +1,900

  Rebate

  -700

  +550

  Net

  -1,300

  +1,400

  Notes:

  1. Figures assume no change in the earnings brackets for employers' contributions.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest £50 million; totals may not sum due to rounding.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update the information in his answer to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) of 2 July 1996,Official Report, column 411, on the value of unpaid national insurance contributions. [21057]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  A random survey of employers known to the Contributions Agency estimated that underpayments of class 1 national insurance contributions by employers for 1995–96 were £93 million. The survey was not undertaken for 1994–95 and no figures are available.

  The self-employed pay class 2 and 4 contributions. Class 2 contributions are collected by the Contributions Agency by direct debit payments or in response to the issue of quarterly bills. Estimates of unpaid class 2 could be given only at disproportionate cost.

  Class 4 contributions are collected by the Inland Revenue. The Inland Revenue accounts which were used to provide details in the reply to the hon. member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) of 2 July 1996 have not yet been finalised and no later information is available.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the effect on national insurance revenues of each(a) increase and (b) decrease of £1 up to £10, in the lower earnings limit for national insurance contributions. [21067]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is in the table.

  The table shows the estimated full-year effects of a £10 increase or decrease of the lower earnings limit for class 1 national insurance contributions in 1997–98. The effects of smaller changes would be roughly pro rata.

  Estimated full-year effects of a £10 increase or decrease of the lower earnings limit for class 1 national insurance contributions in 1997–98

  £ million

  LEL increased by £10

  LEL decreased by £10

  Employees

  Gross

  -800

  +850

  Rebate

  -100

  +100

  Net

  -700

  +750

  899

  Estimated full-year effects of a £10 increase or decrease of the lower earnings limit for class 1 national insurance contributions in 1997–98

  £ million

  LEL increased by £10

  LEL decreased by £10

  Employers

  Gross

  -50

  +50

  Rebate

  -200

  +200

  Net

  +150

  -150

  Total

  Gross

  -900

  +900

  Rebate

  -300

  +300

  Net

  -600

  +300

  Notes:

  1. Figures assume no change in the earnings brackets for employers' contributions.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest £50 million; totals may not sum due to rounding.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update the information in his answer to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) of 24 July 1996,Official Report, column 562, concerning the number of people paying voluntary class 3 national insurance contributions. [21090]

  Mr. Heald
  The information remains the most recent available.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update the information in his answer to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury of 9 January 1996,Official Report, column 167, concerning estimated levels of contributions needed to achieve balance in the national insurance fund. [21093]

  Mr. Heald
  The requested information is in the table.

  Estimated level of combined employer and employee contributions necessary to achieve balance in the national insurance fund

  Year

  Contribution level (main rates)3 (per cent.)

  1996–971

  19

  1997–981

  18.4

  20252

  16.9

  20352

  16.7

  Notes:

  1. Based on the estimates underlying the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1997–98".

  2. Based on the national insurance funded long-term financial estimates (Report by the Government Actuary on the third quinquennial review under section 137 of the Social Security Act 1975 (HC160–31 January 1995).

  3. Estimate level (excluding employee and employer national health service allocations of 1.05 per cent. and 0.9 per cent. respectively) for there to be no Treasury grant and for the minimum level of the fund to be maintained at the recommendation one sixth of annual benefit expenditure.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update the information in his answer to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) of 2 July 1996,Official Report, column 411, on the
  900
  number of people in each year in receipt of national insurance credits; and if he will provide such figures for the years from 1979 to 1989. [21056]

  Mr. Heald
  The information in the tables.

  Number of people claiming benefit due to medical incapacity(sickness benefit and incapacity benefit) receiving national insurance credits only (no benefit in payment): Great Britain

  Thousands

  Total claimants

  2 June 19791

  57

  31 May 19801

  66

  30 May 19811

  58

  29 May 19821

  76

  2 April 19831

  69

  31 March 19841

  57

  30 March 19851

  45

  5 April 19861

  59

  4 April 19871

  78

  2 April 19881

  110

  1 April 19891

  157

  31 March 19901

  205

  30 March 19911

  262

  4 April 19921

  320

  3 April 19931

  387

  2 April 19941

  440

  12 April 19951

  512

  29 February 19962

  580

  30 November 19962

  608

  1 Figures taken from a 1 per cent. sample of all claims to sickness benefit in Great Britain.

  2 Figures taken from a 5 per cent. sample of claims for incapacity benefit, excluding a small number of cases not held on the computer.

  Number of unemployed claimants in receipt of national insurance credits only (Great Britain).

  Thousands

  Total claimants

  May 1979

  188

  May 1980

  225

  May 19811

  —

  May 1982

  390

  May 1983

  359

  May 19841

  —

  May 19851

  —

  May 1986

  469

  May 1987

  442

  May 1988

  374

  May 1989

  274

  May 1990

  220

  May 1991

  280

  May 1992

  313

  May 1993

  335

  May 1994

  281

  May 1995

  231

  May 1996

  206

  Sources:

  1. May 1994 and before: 100 per cent. count of unemployed claimants in Great Britain taken on the second Thursday of May.

  2. From May 1995: 5 per cent. sample of unemployed claimants in Great Britain taken on the second Thursday of May.

  Notes:

  1. Figures not available due to industrial action.

  2. Figures include a small number who will not receive credits, but cannot be identified separately.
  901

  Number of people receiving at least one credit in the financial year given; by type of credit—Great Britain

  Thousands

  Financial year

  ICA credits

  Man aged between 60 and 64

  1978–79

  9

  —

  1979–80

  9

  —

  1980–81

  11

  —

  1981–82

  12

  —

  1982–83

  12

  —

  1983–84

  11

  1,437

  1984–85

  62

  1,385

  1985–86

  68

  1,332

  1986–87

  101

  1,310

  1987–88

  118

  1,294

  1988–89

  127

  1,294

  1989–90

  142

  1,301

  1990–91

  165

  1,319

  1991–92

  194

  1,337

  1992–93

  232

  1,360

  1993–94

  275

  1,356

  1994–95

  316

  1,336

  Source:

  One per cent. sample of national insurance recording system taken at February 1996.

  Notes:

  1. National insurance credits for men aged between 60 and 64 were introduced in October 1983.

  2. ICA = invalid care allowance.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update the information in his answer given to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon, of 1 July 1996,Official Report, column 324, on the numbers in receipt of family credit and disability working allowance with earnings below the lower earnings limit for national insurance contributions. [21058]

  Gross Class 1 National Insurance Contributions in Great Britain at 1996–97 prices

  £ billion

  1996–97

  2000–01

  2010–11

  2020–21

  2030–31

  (a) Employers

  Current Structure

  29.0

  36.4

  44.4

  51.7

  57.8

  (i) Extended to all earnings1

  29.1

  36.5

  44.5

  51.8

  57.9

  (ii) Extended to earnings below LEL1

  29.1

  36.5

  44.5

  51.8

  57.9

  (iii) Extended to earnings above UEL2

  29.0

  36.4

  44.4

  51.7

  57.8

  (b) Employees

  Current Structure

  21.9

  26.9

  30.8

  33.2

  33.9

  (i) Extended to all earnings3,4

  25.3

  32.7

  39.7

  46.4

  555.9

  (ii) Extended to earnings below LEL3

  22.0

  27.0

  30.9

  33.3

  533.9

  (iii) Extended to earnings above UEL4

  25.2

  32.6

  39.6

  46.3

  51.9

  Notes:

  1. Assumes the current 3 per cent. contribution rate would apply to earnings below the lower earnings limit.

  2. There is no upper earnings limit on employers' contributions.

  3. Assumes the current 2 per cent. contribution rate would apply to earnings below the lower earnings limit.

  4. Assumes the current 10 per cent. contribution rate would apply to earnings above the upper earnings limit.

  5. The additional yield from contributions on earnings below the lower earnings limit is estimated to be negligible.

  6. The figures for 2000–01 and later years are based on the assumptions contained in the "National Insurance Fund Long Term Financial Estimates" (HC160) published in January 1995. All figures exclude the effects of contracted-out rebates.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.
  902
  Mr. Heald
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon on 25 February,Official Report, column 207.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have received payments under the earnings top up scheme to date; how many of these are employees; and what proportion have had earnings below the level of the lower earnings limit for national insurance contributions. [21068]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  At 28 February 9,000 awards of earnings top up had been made. Some 8,346 awards were to employees and, of these, 27 per cent. were to people with earnings below the lower earnings limit. These figures are provisional and based on a 100 per cent. count of the live cases at 28 February.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the effect on the number of employees who(a) are paying national insurance contributions and (b) have earnings above the contribution ceiling of the change in indexation from earnings to prices of the national insurance contribution limits since 1979. [21091]

  Mr. Heald
  If the level of the basic retirement pension, to which the lower and upper limits for class 1 national insurance contributions are linked, had been uprated since 1980 in line with the higher or earnings or prices, an estimated 1.2 million fewer employees would be liable to pay contributions in 1997–98, and some 2.1 million fewer employees would have earnings above the upper earnings limit.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update the information contained in the answer to the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) of 7 March 1996,Official Report, column 354, on national insurance contributions. [21101]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is in the table.
  903
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update the information in the answer to the hon. Member for Stratford on Avon of 26 June 1996,Official Report, column 176, on the cost of removing employer national insurance contributions below the lower earnings limit. [21059]

  Mr. Heald
  If employers were not required to pay national insurance contributions on the portion of their employees earnings below the lower earnings limit, contribution revenue for 1997–98 would be reduced by about £5.2 billion.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update the information contained in the answer given to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) of 26 March 1996,Official Report, column 559, on the cost of raising the lower earnings limit to the level of the personal tax allowance, giving figures also for employer contributions. [21103]

  Mr. Heald
  The information remains the most recent available and includes the effect on revenue from employers' NICs.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update the information contained in the answer given to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) of 12 March 1996,Official Report, column 592, on national insurance revenues. [21102]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is in the table.

  Year

  Employee national insurance rates1 (percentage)

  Estimated change in2 contribution revenue (£ million)

  1996–97

  2.0

  —

  10.0

  —

  1997–98

  2.0

  —

  10.0

  —

  Notes:

  1 Not contracted-out rates shown.

  2 Figures show the change in revenue for the tax year in which the change in contribution rate was made.

  3 If the employees' contribution structure, rates and level of contracted-out rebates in force in 1979–80 had applied in 1996–97, employees would have paid about £5.5 billion less in national insurance contributions for that year; if they were to apply in 1997–98, employees would pay an estimated £6 billion less in national insurance contributions for that year.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were(a) the amounts of national insurance contributions paid by (i) employers and (ii) employees and (b) any Exchequer supplement, and the proportion of the NI fund accounted for by each, in today's prices for each year since 1979; and what estimate he has made of future revenues. [21062]

  Mr. Heald
  I will write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update the information contained in the answer given to the hon. Member for Gordon of 26 March 1996,Official Report, column 559, on extending
  904
  employer national insurance contributions to taxable benefits in kind; and if he will provide figures for employee contributions. [21104]

  Mr. Heald
  It is estimated that extending employer national insurance contributions to those taxable benefits in kind not already subject to an employer charge would raise £250 million in 1997–98. Extending employee NICs to cover the same benefits in kind would yield a further £300 million a year.

  Source:

  Inland Revenue.

  Departmental Budgets
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of his Department's annual budget was spent in Wales in each of the last five years; and how much that proportion was in(a) 1997 prices and (b) cash terms for each year. [20706]

  Mr. Burt
  The Department does not routinely collect information on expenditure by country.

  However, based on figures published in the "Statistical Supplement to the Financial Statement and Budget Report", previously "The Statistical Supplement to the Autumn Statement", it is estimated that about 6 per cent. of all social security expenditure is in respect of Wales.

  Basic Pension Plus
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated pension fund and weekly pension on retirement of a person on average earnings under basic pension plus using the Government Actuary's assumptions on investment returns. [21476]

  Mr. Heald
  Based on the Government Actuary's prudent assumptions for real investment returns of +4.25 per cent. per annum, it is estimated that people on average earnings for most of their working lives should accumulate a pension fund of some £130,000, equivalent to a pension of £175 a week in today's prices. In practice, funds could do much better than this; over the past 45 years or so, investments in equities have enjoyed returns averaging 7.7 per cent. a year in real terms.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.

  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what assessment he has made of the impact of basic pension plus on charges by pension providers; and if he will make a statement; [21480]

  (2) what steps he is taking to keep down pension charges under basic pension plus. [21481]

  Mr. Heald
  Basic pension plus will apply to everyone and its security is guaranteed, therefore marketing costs will be lower than for existing personal pensions. We are also confident that the pensions industry would respond to the economies of scale by designing low cost products, but we would not hesitate to use legal powers to impose a ceiling on charges, in particular transfer charges, should it prove necessary.

  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the risks of mis-selling under the basic pension plus proposals; and if he will make a statement. [21482]
  905
  Mr. Heald
  Basic pension plus will apply to everyone and its security is guaranteed, so the sort of alleged mis-selling that occurred in the late 1980s is not directly relevant. Moreover, any company that failed to compensate for past mis-selling would not be eligible to manage a basic pension plus fund.

  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to consult on the proposals under basic pension plus; and if he will make a statement. [21520]

  Mr. Heald
  Representatives of the pensions industry and other interested parties will be invited to join a working group to discuss the proposals and how they might be implemented. A Green Paper will then be published inviting views more generally.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has under basic pension plus to ensure the maintenance of full records of contributors' rebates, credits and home responsibilities protection. [21525]

  Mr. Heald
  It is proposed that the Contributions Agency would maintain full records of people's rebates, credits and home responsibilities protection as it does now.

  Mr. Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the rebates under basic pension plus may be paid into occupational pension schemes. [21478]

  Mr. Heald
  Yes.

  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on survivors' benefits under basic pension plus. [21518]

  Mr. Heald
  Funds of those in the new scheme who die before drawing any money purchase benefits' would be inherited in full by the surviving spouse, or the estate where there is no spouse. Some or all of these funds would have to be used by a surviving spouse to purchase an annuity, or income could be withdrawn. The state would also guarantee the basic pension rights of widows. In cases where the individual dies after purchasing an annuity, the surviving spouse would get an annuity equal to 50 per cent. of the annuity in payment to the deceased.

  Note:

  1Under basic pension plus, the £9 per week payments will always provide money purchase benefits. The payments on 5 per cent. of earnings between the lower earnings limit and the upper earnings limit for national insurance contributions purposes will also provide money purchase benefits, except in a contracted-out salary-related scheme—COSR. In the case of a COSR, the scheme will be required to provide a pension to a surviving spouse equal to half of the pension in payment to the member at the time of death. If death occurs before retirement, half the pension accrued by the member at the date of death would be payable to the surviving spouse.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated pension fund and weekly pension on retirement of a person on average earnings under basic pension plus assuming investment returns equivalent to those since 1979. [21523]

  Mr. Heald
  The real return on pension fund investments from 1979 to 1994 was 9.6 per cent. in real terms. Assuming that rate of investment growth, it is estimated a person on average earnings paying in the 906
  minimum contributions over a working lifetime would accumulate a fund worth £553,000 by retirement, paying a pension of £745 a week in today's money.

  Source

  Government Actuary's Department/Bacon and Woodrow pensions pocket book 1996.

  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the cost of state pensions after 2040 assuming the introduction of basic pension plus. [21396]

  Mr. Heald
  It is estimated that, assuming the introduction of basic pension plus, expenditure on state pensions will fall rapidly after 2040, eventually relieving the taxpayer of a cost of some £40 billion a year.

  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he plans to take to ensure that prudent investment principles are adopted by scheme managers under basic pension plus. [21397]

  Mr. Heald
  We would discuss with the pensions industry regulators and others any appropriate restrictions to guard against exploitation of the Government guarantee on the basic pension. We may introduce legislation to require scheme managers to publish, and be liable for adhering to, a statement of investment principles based on the "prudent person" principle; to prescribe rules on the amounts of funds to be allocated to different types of asset, and to require pension providers to disregard the existence of the Government guarantee in investment decisions.

  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will make a statement on the effect on the estimated future income related benefits claimants level of the introduction of basic pension plus; [21398]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the reduction in future income related benefits claimant levels in the event that investment returns on basic pension plus exceed those used by the Government Actuary by (a) 1 per cent. and (b) 2 per cent. [21399]

  Mr. Heald
  It is not possible to provide such estimates given that, under basic pension plus, no-one will retire before 2040 or later.

  However, the number of pensioners reliant on income-related benefits could be lower than under the present scheme, even if there were no increase in the number making voluntary additional provision.

  Mr. Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the impact on the public finances of basic pension plus; and if he will make a statement. [21475]

  Mr. Heald
  Under basic pension plus, the value of the new rebates, less the impact of the proposed tax changes, will grow by a net average amount of about £160 million a year, reaching a peak of about £7 billion or ½ per cent. of GDP around 2040—substantially less than the net costs of rebates from SERPS, which peaked at almost l½ per cent. of GDP.

  The starting cost of the new scheme will depend on the precise age limit chosen. Expenditure on state pensions will fall rapidly after 2040 and savings in public expenditure will build up reaching some £40 billion a year.
  907
  Mr. Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated pension fund and weekly pension on retirement of a person on average earnings under basic pension plus assuming investment returns equivalent to those over the last 50 years. [21477]

  Mr. Heald
  The average annual increase in the ordinary industrial share index in real terms from 1950 to 1995 was 7.7 per cent. Assuming that rate on investment growth, it is estimated that a person on average earnings paying in the minimum contributions over a working lifetime would accumulate a fund worth £320,000 by retirement, paying a pension of £435 a week.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department/Bacon and Woodrow pensions pocket book 1997.

  Note

  Pension amount is rounded to nearest £5.

  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the proposals under basic pension plus affect the accrued rights of existing contributors to the state pension scheme; and if he will make a statement. [21521]

  Mr. Heald
  Basic pension plus will be phased in over a generation. Current pensioners and all but the youngest national insurance contributors, will be unaffected. The rights already built up under the existing state pension scheme by young people covered by the new scheme when it is first established will be respected.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to ensure that the value of the basic pension guarantee and the £9 rebate under basic pension plus rises in line with the basic state pension under the present pay-as-you-go system. [21526]

  Mr. Heald
  Our intention is that the basic pension guarantee would go up in line with basic state pension. Rebates would also be increased to reflect a higher basic pension.

  Mr. Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated pension fund and weekly pension on retirement of a person on average earnings under basic pension plus assuming investment returns(a) 1 per cent. and (b) 2 per cent. higher than those used by the Government Actuary. [21479]

  Mr. Heald
  Estimated pension funds of £166,000 and £216,000 respectively by retirement, paying pensions of £225 and £290 a week respectively.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.

  Note:

  Pension amounts are rounded to the nearest £5.

  Mr. Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for each year from 2020 to 2040 the impact on public expenditure of the equalisation of state pension age at 65 years and the reforms of the state earnings —related pension scheme 1995; and what is the projected revenue forgone as a result of basic pension plus in these years. [21484]

  Mr. Heald
  Information relating to every year from 2020 to 2040 is not available. The measures in the Pensions Act 19951 will produce public expenditure savings of over £6 billion in 2020, over £9 billion in 2030, and over £10 billion in 20402.
  908
  Under basic pension plus, the value of the new rebates less the impact of the proposed tax changes will grow by a net average amount of about £160 million a year, reaching a peak of about £7 billion or 1/2per cent. of GDP around 2040. The starting cost of the new scheme will depend on the precise age limit chosen.

  Note

  1 These measures include equalisation of state pension age, annualisation of SERPS, breaking the links between SERPS and contracting-out, and the introduction of age-related rebates for appropriate personal pensions and contracted-out money purchase schemes. 2The savings in expenditure for the national insurance fund will be £7 billion in 2020, over £10 billion in 2030 and £12 billion in 2040.

  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if an individual's pension fund under the basic pension plus proposals goes to his estate on his death. [21519]

  Mr. Heald
  Yes. If an individual dies before drawing any benefits from his fund and there is no surviving spouse, then the funds built up under the proposals would form part of the estate. Similarly, if the individual dies while withdrawing an income from his fund, but before annuity purchase, then the residual fund would form part of the estate.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the proposals under basic pension plus would retain home responsibilities protection and national insurance contribution credits; and if he will make a statement. [21524]

  Mr. Heald
  The proposals under basic pension plus would retain home responsibilities protection and national insurance contribution credits. They would contribute towards building up entitlement to the guaranteed basic pension, as they do now towards the current basic state pension. For those contributors not in the new scheme, credits and HRP would continue as now.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assumption underlay his forecasts that the £175 pension payable to those on average earnings under his basic pension plus proposal would represent(a) 26 per cent. and (b) 21 per cent. of average earnings. [21099]

  Mr. Heald
  I refer the hon. Member to my letter of 13 March to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), which was copies to the hon. Member and placed in the Library.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated value of the pension payable to the average earner under his basic pension plus proposals assuming 1.5 per cent. per annum real earnings growth. [21098]

  Mr. Heald
  Assuming real-earnings growth of 1.5 per cent. per annum, a person on average earnings paying in the minimum contributions to basic pension plus should, over a working lifetime, accumulate a fund sufficient to pay a pension of £173 a week.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families claimed family credit
  909
  in the constituencies of Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale and of Roxburgh and Berwickshire in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [21529]

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

  Number of family credit claims by Benefits Agency offices

  BA office

  April 1993

  April 1994

  April 1995

  April 1996

  January 1997

  Edinburgh East

  1,298

  1,432

  1,487

  1,599

  1,632

  Edinburgh South

  1,283

  1,493

  1,573

  1,748

  1,860

  Galashiels

  1,127

  1,262

  1,372

  1,511

  1,549

  1. Family credit is a national benefit administered by the family credit unit in Preston. As such statistics are prepared on a national basis.

  2. A periodic scan of the computer system is conducted which identifies the number of families in receipt of FC, at that given date, within the area covered by individual Benefits Agency office areas. Such scans do not produce accurate details with regard to the number of families receiving FC within such an area during any particular year, as each FC award is payable for 26 weeks and the figures serve only as a "snap-shot" of the situation at that particular date.

  3. The above offices service the said constituencies.

  Pensions Act 1995
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what will be the impact to public funds of the measures contained in the Pensions Act 1995. [21483]

  Mr. Heald
  The measures in the Pensions Act 1995 will reduce tax and national insurance revenue by about £0.5 billion in 1997–98, rising gradually to around £1.0 billion in 2050. The effect on expenditure in the first few years will be broadly neutral. The measures will produce expenditure savings of over £6 billion per annum in 2020 and over £10 billion in 2050.

  Habitual Residence Test (Appeals)
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what requests he has received from local authorities for compensatory payments to cover unplanned expenditure under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 to families with children who have failed the habitual residence test and have expressed their intention to appeal to the Independent Social Security Appeals Tribunal against those decisions. [21522]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  None. Expenditure under section 17 of the Childrens Act 1989 is a matter for the Secretary of State for Health.

  Council Tax and Housing Benefits
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many households in the constituencies of Roxburgh and Berwickshire and of Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale claimed(a) council tax benefit and (b) housing benefit for each of the past five years for which figures are available. [21527]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table:910

  Council tax benefit and housing benefit recipients in Scottish Borders

  May 1992

  May 1993

  May 1994

  May 1995

  May 1996

  Council tax benefit

  —

  8,440

  8,840

  8,900

  8,860

  Housing benefit

  7,500

  7,620

  7,540

  7,580

  7,710

  Roxburgh

  3,080

  3,100

  3,050

  3,070

  —

  Berwickshire

  1,330

  1,360

  1,340

  1,360

  —

  Tweeddale

  910

  940

  930

  930

  —

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  2,170

  2,220

  2,210

  2,220

  —

  Source:

  Housing Benefit Management Information System 100 per cent. case load counts at the end of May each year.

  Notes:

  1. Information is by local authority.

  2. Benefit recipients may be a single person or a couple.

  3. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

  4. Following local government reorganisation in April 1996, individual district councils were abolished and incorporated within the new Scottish Borders council.

  5. Council tax benefit, introduced in April 1993, is the responsibility of Scottish Borders council and district figures are not collected centrally.

  Benefit Claimants
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the number of people claiming(a) disability living allowance, (b) attendance allowance and (c) invalid care allowance in the constituencies of Roxburgh and Berwickshire and of Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale for each of the most recent five years for which figures are available. [21533]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  This information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Benefit Fraud Hotline
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many calls have been received by the national benefit fraud hotline. [21617]

  Mr. Heald
  The number of calls to the national benefit fraud hotline up to 20 March 1997 was 195,891.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many calls per day were received by the national benefit fraud hotline in the most recent period for which figures are available. [21618]

  Mr. Heald
  The national benefit fraud hotline receives, on average, 1,512 calls per day.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the estimated savings to date from action arising from calls to the national benefit fraud hotline. [21619]

  Mr. Heald
  The national benefit fraud hotline has achieved savings of £23.2 million up to the end of February 1997. There are also further potential savings of £12.3 million from referrals being currently investigated, which shows a potential overall benefit saving in the region of £35.5 million.
  911

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to provide the independent living fund with greater flexibility in managing their finances. [21608]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The independent living fund trustees have requested that they be given the power to obtain bank overdrafts, should they be required in the future. I am pleased to announce that the ILF trust deeds have therefore been amended to give them power to borrow, subject to the written approval of the Secretary of State for Social Security. It is proposed that a Government guarantee be provided for any loan, and parliamentary approval for the guarantee is sought. Further information is contained in a parliamentary minute, "Class XII, Vote 2 Department of Social Security: Independent Living Funds", Cm 3590, which has been laid before the House today.

  Appeals
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to introduce amending regulations in respect of appeals to the Social Security and Child Support Commissioners. [21604]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I have today laid regulations to make changes in relation to applications for leave to appeal against a tribunal decision. These regulations require any application for leave to appeal to a commissioner against the decision of a tribunal to be accompanied by a copy of the full statement of the tribunal's decision. A notice of appeal must also be accompanied by a copy of this statement. Arrangements will be made to ensure that appellants are aware of the need to request a full statement of the tribunal's decision.

  The regulations also amend the time limit for making an application to the appeal tribunal chairman for leave to appeal to a commissioner so that it begins with the date on which the full statement of the tribunal's decision is given or sent to the appellant. I have consulted the council on tribunals on these proposals and copies of the letter to them and their response have been placed in the Library

  All-work Test
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people who were on invalidity benefit have(a) failed the all-work test for incapacity benefit and (b) appealed against the decision (i) successfully and (ii) unsuccessfully; and how many have subsequently been (1) awarded and (2) refused jobseeker's allowance. [21183]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available.

  Benefit Recipients (Study Hours)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people aged(a) 16 to 17 years and (b) 18 to 24 years have been disqualified from benefit due to the rule forbidding more than 16 hours study in each of the last three years in (i) Scotland, (ii) Wales, (iii) England and (iv) each English region. [21180]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  912

  Payment of Bills
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of bills to his Department for the financial year 1995 to 1996 were paid(a) in accordance with agreed contractual conditions and (b) within 30 days of receiving goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice where no contractual conditions applied. [21201]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows:

  Percentage

  Departmental headquarters

  89

  Benefits agency

  98

  Contributions agency

  96

  Child support agency

  91

  War pensions agency

  98

  Information technology services agency

  99

  Resettlements agency

  92

  Departmental total

  96

  1. It is not possible to disaggregate the information between payments which were subject to contractual agreements and those which were not.

  2. The figure for the Resettlement Agency relates to the period April to October 1995.

  3. Figures for departmental headquarters includes payments made by the Independent Tribunal Service in the period to December 1995 which cannot be separately identified.

  Home Responsibilities Protection
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update the information contained in his answer to the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) of 29 February 1996,Official Report, columns 709–10, relating to home responsibilities protection. [21064]

  Mr. Heald
  The information available is given in the table:

  Thousands

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Total with entitlement1

  2,769

  2,758

  Number ceasing due to increased contributions

  199

  218

  Number ceasing due to retirement pension

  —

  —

  Number ceasing due to other reason

  147

  168

  1. Entitlement—HRP used where earnings or credits are not sufficient for a qualifying year for pension purposes.

  2. Figures are for U.K.

  3. Figures for 1994–95 are not complete as some employers tax returns may not have been received at the time of the extract.

  4. Excludes women with a reduced rate option.

  5. The sample only includes people who have been allocated a national insurance number and excludes some people who did not have a NINO at the time of the child benefit award.

  Source:

  1 per cent. sample of national insurance recording system records taken at February 1996—home responsibilities protection statistics 1994–95.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number and proportion of women with earnings below the lower
  913
  earnings limit in the most recent available year whose circumstances would qualify them for home responsibilities protection. [21061]

  Mr. Heald
  The information required to make such an estimate is not available.

  The national insurance recording system holds details of eligibility for home responsibilities protection for those who meet the relevant criteria. However, it is not possible to identify separately women who are in employment and have earnings below the lower earnings limit for payment of national insurance contributions because neither they nor their employers are required to provide details of such earnings.

  Contributions Agency
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans there are for the feasibility study being conducted by the Contributions Agency into the formation of a national inquiry centre to include consideration of(a) research, (b) policy, (c) other pro-active work and (d) the processing of telephone inquiries; and if he will make a statement. [21188]

  Mr. Heald
  The Contributions Agency is currently examining the work that might be included in an inquiry centre. This includes unsolicited telephone calls and correspondence. No decision has yet been made about the scope of the inquiry centre.

  State Pensions
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list(a) the basic retirement pension and (b) state earnings-related pension scheme for male and female contracted-in employees on average and half average earnings assuming pensions are uprated in line with (1) prices and (2) earnings in (i) 1998–99, (ii) 2025 and (iii) 2035, based on the Government Actuary's assumptions for annual increases in (a) retail prices index, (b) the Rossi index and (c) earnings expressed in current prices and as a percentage of average earnings. [21063]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is in the tables:

  Retirement pension uprated in line with prices Benefit rates at award given in 1996–97 prices rounded to the nearest £0.01

  1998£

  2025 £

  2035 £

  Basic RP

  61.15

  61.15

  61.15

  SERPS on average male earnings

  85.86

  109.95

  117.13

  SERPS on average female earnings

  53.40

  78.25

  92.23

  SERPS on half average male earnings

  35.70

  50.58

  61.82

  SERPS on half average female earnings

  19.47

  29.46

  38.73

  Benefit rates expressed as a percentage of individual's earnings in the tax year state pension age is reached, rounded to the nearest 1 per cent.

  1998

  2025

  2035

  Average male earnings

  Basic RP

  15

  9

  1

  SERPS

  21

  16

  14

  Average female earnings

  Basic RP

  21

  12

  10

  914

  Benefit rates expressed as a percentage of individual's earnings in the tax year state pension age is reached, rounded to the nearest 1 per cent.

  1998

  2025

  2035

  SERPS

  18

  15

  15

  Half average male earnings

  Basic RP

  30

  17

  14

  SERPS

  17

  14

  14

  Half average female earnings

  Basic RP

  41

  24

  20

  SERPS

  13

  12

  13

  Basic retirement pension uprated in line with earnings Benefit rates at award given in 1996–97 prices rounded to the nearest £0.01

  1998 £

  2025 £

  2035 £

  Basic RP

  62.37

  106.46

  129.78

  SERPS on average male earnings

  85.86

  118.13

  137.50

  SERPS on average female earnings

  53.40

  75.90

  91.32

  SERPS on half average male earnings

  35.70

  47.91

  56.36

  SERPS on half average female earnings

  19.47

  26.80

  33.37

  Benefit rates expressed as a percentage of individual's earnings in the tax year state pension age is reached, rounded to the nearest 1 per cent.

  1998

  2025

  2035

  Average male earnings

  Basic RP

  15

  15

  15

  SERPS

  21

  17

  16

  Average female earnings

  Basic RP

  21

  21

  21

  SERPS

  18

  15

  15

  Half average male earnings

  Basic RP

  30

  30

  30

  SERPS

  17

  14

  13

  Half average female earnings

  Basic RP

  42

  42

  42

  SERPS

  12

  11

  11

  1. Actual 1995–96 earnings derived from 1996 new earnings survey (revised) data.

  2. Earnings increases for 1996–97 and 1997–98 are as in the report by the Government Actuary on the drafts of the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1997 and the Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Fund Payments) Order 1997 (CM 3547). Actual earnings revaluation figures have been used up to 1995–96, a provisional 1996–97 earnings revaluation has been used.

  3. Uprating in line with prices (whether RPI or Rossi) is assumed to be at 5 per cent. per annum.

  4. It is assumed that there is real average earnings growth of 2 per cent. per annum and that individuals have constant (non-age specific) earnings in each year of their working life.

  5. Individuals are contracted in throughout their working life.

  6. The actual levels of retirement pension, lower earnings limit, and upper earnings limit, are used up to 1997–98. The links between RP and the LEL and the UEL are maintained.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated value of the SERPS pension that would be earned by a woman on average female earnings throughout her time in work, assuming that she benefited from(a) five, (b) 10, (c) 15 and (d) 20 protected years due to caring responsibilities. [20465]

  Mr. Heald
  [holding answer 17 March 1997]: The information is in the table.
  915

  Home responsibilities protection period

  Weekly additional pension £

  None

  106.10

  5 years, age 25–29

  105.00

  10 years, age 25–34

  103.35

  15 years, age 25–39

  100.85

  20 years, age 25–44

  98.10

  1. Figures are in 1996–97 prices and rounded to the nearest 5p.

  2. It is assumed that the woman retires in 2044–5 aged 65 and she has been contracted in throughout her working life. In each year from age 16, except those years covered by home responsibilities protection, she earns average female adult earnings (£290 per week in 1996–97).

  3. Real average earnings growth of 2 per cent. per annum is assumed.

  Source:

  The Government Actuary's Department.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated value of the SERPS pension that would be earned by a woman on half average female earnings in receipt of maximum family credit, assuming that she benefited from(a) five, (b) 10, (c) 15 and (d) 20 years of SERPS credits for those on family credit. [20466]

  Mr. Heald
  [holding answer 27 March 1997]: The information is in the table.

  Family credit period

  Weekly SERPS(£)

  Of which extra SERPS in respect of family credit (£)

  None

  50.55

  None

  5 years, age 25–29

  51.45

  0.90

  10 years, age 25–34

  52.45

  1.90

  15 years, age 25–39

  53.20

  2.65

  20 years, age 25–44

  53.95

  3.40

  Source:

  The Government Actuary's Department.
  916
  Notes:

  1. Figures are in 1996–97 prices and rounded to the nearest 5p.

  2. Employment and earnings assumptions are as follows:

  — the woman retires in 2044–45 aged 65;

  — half average female adult earnings of £145 per week gross and £126 per week net in 1996–97 earned in each year from age 16;

  — any family credit received is taken into account as earnings in the SERPS calculation;

  — real average gross and net earnings growth of 2 per cent. per annum;

  — the woman is contracted in throughout her working life.

  3. Each hypothetical case assumes that the woman is a lone parent working for at least 30 hours per week throughout her period of FC receipt, with an eldest child born at the start of the FC period, a middle child born at the start of the third year of FC and a youngest child born at the start of the fifty year of FC.

  4. Maximum FC refers to the total amount of any adult and child premiums to which the claimant is entitled where the claimant's earnings are less than the applicable amount and so the taper does not bite. The 1996–97 applicable amount is £75.20, which is less than half average female adult earnings. It has therefore been assumed that each hypothetical case receives the full amount of FC to which it is entitled after the operation of the taper. This amount of FC will vary as children are born and age, thus entitling the claimant to different premiums, but it has been assumed that each of the premiums and the applicable amount remains constant in real terms.

  Discretionary Social Fund
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what gross budget will be set for the discretionary social fund in 1997–98. [21652]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The social fund gross discretionary budget for 1997–98 will be £467.5 million. Some £97 million will be allocated to community care grants, £370 million to loans and the remaining £0.5 million will be set aside as a contingency reserve. The new allocations represents an increase of £27 million over the total gross budget for 1996–97.

  Details of individual district budgets allocations are in the Library.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Ripon): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

Bletchley Park
Viscount Montgomery of Alameinasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that Bletchley Park should become a national monument to wartime achievement.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Government recognise that Bletchley Park is of great historical importance to the nation. We hope that a way can be found to preserve the park as a monument to its wartime activities. I must declare an interest because I worked at Bletchley Park during the war and have been a friend of the trust since its inception.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, I too must declare an interest, albeit a minor one and in no way comparable to the distinguished wartime service rendered by my noble friend during the war when she was a young girl. I am one of a number of honorary patrons of the Bletchley Park Trust.
If the Government appreciate the importance of the achievements of Bletchley in saving lives both on land and at sea and in the creation of the computer industry—it was there at its inception—should not resources be put behind a programme to create a museum which will enable young and old, both now and in the future, also to appreciate what was achieved?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I greatly resented the Daily Telegraph for saying that I joined Bletchley when I was 22; in fact I was 18. In answer to my noble friend, there are already 2,500 museums in the UK. The Government can only provide direct funding for a limited number, such as the country's national museums and galleries.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, in addition to herself working at Bletchley as a teenager, a number of other ladies at the other end of the Palace also worked there? Is it not a fact that some of the outstanding successes of the last war—such as the tracking and sinking of the "Bismarck" and later the "Scharnhorst"—can be laid at the door of ULTRA. While at the time Britain stood alone and was not able to deliver many victories, its use certainly gave enough warning to mitigate the worst of some of the German's successes. It is absolutely right that the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, asks this Question and the
1044
suggestion should be accepted by the Government. If Bletchley is destroyed, there is no record of what those people did.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, without the successes of Bletchley Park this nation could have starved to death. If I may be garrulous for one moment, perhaps I may read a letter I received from a Mrs. Morley. She said that she ended her service in the WRNS taking apart with tweezers and a screwdriver the very machines that helped us to end the war, thereby committing the secret of the bombs to oblivion. She continues,
"I have read books and articles about the Enigma Miracle and the brilliant code breakers but I have seen very little indeed about the contribution made by hundreds of WRENS to this special war effort with eyes straining but devoted commitment to a boring job".
I should like to pay tribute to and honour the Wrens and civilians who did the actual donkey work for the brilliant mathematicians.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I was 23 rather than 18 when I was sent to Bletchley Park. It was a large establishment and to my great regret I did not have the honour of knowing the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, there. However, as it now seems to be generally appreciated that Bletchley Park was crucial, perhaps to a greater extent than those who were working there appreciated at the time, and as it has been vastly seminal from a computer point of view, it would be a great pity if it just became a built-over site on the outskirts of Milton Keynes. No expressions of goodwill can achieve that unless the Government are prepared to take a financial initiative and put some limited but necessary sums of money forward.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, when I went to Bletchley there were 400 people there; when I left there were 6,000. Had the noble Lord and I met then, think how different our lives might have been!
In answer to the noble Lord's Question, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State met representatives of the Bletchley Park Trust on 3rd March to hear their plans for a further lottery application. Their first application was turned down and the Heritage Lottery Fund provided the trust with detailed advice on how to submit a revised application and on how applicants can receive help with preparation of a business plan. It is up to the trust to submit a decent plan. It can then raise money and run the trust.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, Bletchley Park has been so secret that people have not known enough about the amazing work it did. What terms have Her Majesty's Government and BT offered the Bletchley Park Trust for the transfer of the land in question?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the site is currently owned by British Telecom and by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. They have jointly agreed to terms under

1045
which the Bletchley Park Trust can be offered a permanent leasehold interest in the site, allowing the trust to acquire the majority of the museum land free of charge.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, on the eve of what may be a political change, may I, with the permission of the House, say how much I have enjoyed working opposite and with the noble Baroness? Her openness, her warmth and her sense of fun have been a pleasure to us all. I did not know that she was one of the delectable band of maidens of Bletchley Park, assuming they were maidens. Is she aware that we on this side of the House wholly support the proposals that have been put forward? But will she confirm that in fact none of the original technology is still there? In that context, and bearing in mind that the first programmable computer, Colossus, was there, would it not be appropriate if the centre was also a museum for computer technology, which might attract support from private industry?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord is adept at bowling a maiden over. The noble Lord is perfectly correct with regard to the first part of his question. I am given to understand that Churchill for some reason decreed that all the machinery there should be destroyed at the end of the war. The letter I quoted gives the House an example. Some of it, like Colossus, has been rebuilt. Other machines are being rebuilt. But there will be no original machines in the museum. The trustees want to have a history of the computer because the two really major historical events of the 20th century that took place at Bletchley were the development during World War II of the science of cryptology and the first digital electronic computer.

Women Prisoners
3.12 p.m.
Baroness Haymanasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the current management policies within the Prison Service relating to women prisoners.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the Prison Service fully recognises the special needs of women prisoners and keeps the relevant policies under review. That is why in November 1996 the director general announced his intention to set up a new unit to ensure appropriate oversight and co-ordination of the care and treatment of women prisoners. That unit is now operational.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. But does she not accept that there are still concerns about the overview with regard to women prisoners? Will she undertake to give serious consideration to the advice of the Chief Inspector of Prisons that there should be a director of women's prisons at board level within the Prison Service? Given the rising number of women prisoners
1046
and the very special and sensitive issues that relate both to them and their children, would it not be sensible to revert to the practice of the past and have one person with an overview in this area?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is not without its difficulties. At present, Prison Service establishments are for good reasons largely managed on a geographical basis. The chief inspector's proposals would cut across that structure. But the director general recognises the particular needs of women and young offenders and has set up this new unit in the Prison Service headquarters to focus on the management of these prisons and on improving current levels of care and treatment. He is confident that this change will bring significant benefits. But whether a radical change would be appropriate is one of the issues which will be considered by the current review which the director general is undertaking.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, can my noble friend assure the House that women prisoners who are pregnant are taken outside the prison walls to have their babies?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can give my noble friend an absolute assurance that no baby is born inside a prison, barring accidents, of course, where it cannot be avoided. All babies are born in hospitals outside of prisons.
Lord Winston: My Lords, that assurance from the Minister is received with gratitude but it does not go far enough. Can she tell us what provision is made for ante-natal care for women prisoners? These are women whose pregnancies are of a high risk nature. We now know that ante-natal influences can affect paediatric development. Can she tell us what ante-natal paediatric expert help there is in their care and what qualified obstetric care?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord raises an important point. All the needs of the pregnant mother are properly met. There are also facilities post-pregnancy. Some will be met within the prison through prison staff. Some will be met by visiting medical staff; for example, doctors come in each day to give check-ups. Some is external to the prison where the prisoner goes to an external hospital. No medical needs are neglected.
Lord Acton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the 1950s and 1960s there was an assistant prison commissioner with responsibility for women prisoners and borstal girls? Is it the intention of the Government at least to consider restoring that position? I am not clear.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have said that a review is looking at the structure. Given that we have a unit and that there is a head of that unit with specific responsibility for women prisoners, who represent 4.3 per cent. of the prison population, I hope the House will agree with me that what really matters is the service

1047
delivery on the ground at a local level. That is where our efforts must be, and not on some bureaucratic head of a service.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the noble Baroness's review look into the question in particular of Category A prisoners held in Holloway where the conditions are totally unsuitable for them? Is it possible for conditions in Holloway to be modified so that those who need to be kept there because they are on remand can enjoy civilised facilities?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I should like the noble Lord to tell me what particular provision is not being made for Category A prisoners at Holloway or any other prison.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister has given answers which reflect administrative arrangements rather than real care. I am sorry to say that but it seems to be the case. Is it not a fact that the scandals which have been made public in recent years, in particular of the shackling of women prisoners going to hospital and going into and enduring childbirth, have made it clear to the public that something other than the present administrative arrangements is necessary? Would it not be wise to look again at the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Acton, who reminded us that between 1943 and 1959 there was indeed a deputy commissioner of prisons responsible for all women prisoners and for policy in that area? Would it not be desirable to consider returning to that position?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, what I am addressing is almost entirely the opposite. I am not talking about administrative arrangements. I am talking about having sound strategic and policy oversight. But the real executive management ought to be found at a local level. A particular instance was cited by the noble Lord. He will know that that practice was not approved of at a local level. It was very quickly remedied. A policy statement was put out by the Home Secretary on 18th January. No pregnant woman is shackled in hospital either during birth or from the time of her arrival at the hospital.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, as the interests of the child are obviously affected by this, can my noble friend say whether, if a birth occurs by misadventure inside the prison, it can be registered as having occurred outside the prison, following the precedent which is adopted in the case of death in the Palace of Westminster?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I need to check out a technical answer to my noble friend's question. It is the policy that no baby should be born in prison. For the particular reason my noble friend has given, we do not wish the address to be prison. I believe it is administratively possible in the case of any pregnant mother who may have started having the baby in prison for the address to be the hospital at which she would complete the medical treatment for that birth.

ODA: Fundamental Expenditure Review
3.19 p.m.
Lord Juddasked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they have taken following the fundamental expenditure review of the Overseas Development Administration.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, most of the recommendations in the fundamental expenditure review were accepted and have now been implemented.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will the Minister accept—and this is the last opportunity to say so—how much, in view of her own personal commitment, we have all felt for her in the steadily declining priority given by the Government as whole to overseas aid programmes, let alone the sad diversion of resources from poverty and development priorities, as evidenced in episodes like the Pergau Dam? Is it not unfortunate that when months ago the far-reaching fundamental expenditure review stated explicitly that the resources available to ODA were not adequate to cover its commitments and that prioritisation was essential, no considered strategic response by the Government was put before this House? Where do the Government stand on the recommendations for prioritising the 20 poorest countries, reducing commitments in regions like the Caribbean and cutting specific multilateral programmes? What consultations have there been with those adversely affected?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: Oh, my Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, really does not know what is going on! He will have to do a lot better than that because he has not bothered to find out. I have good news for him because today the report on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, including the ODA, which extends to 160 pages, has been published. He will find in the blue section a great deal of information which will help him. I am sure that he will benefit from reading it. Further to that, perhaps I may tell him that we have been concentrating on the poorest countries and that is exactly what the outcome of the FER was. Assistance to the value of £175 million has gone to the 10 poorest countries. Eighty per cent. of Britain's bilateral aid goes to sub-Saharan Africa and to South Asia. We have been concentrating on pumping in that development assistance from which countries can benefit, and will benefit by their own efforts as well as ours, as fast as we possibly can. In addition, we have the second highest combined private and official flows going into the developing world. It is 1.38 per cent. compared with the UN target of one per cent. of GNP. My officers in Scotland, London and across the world have done a fine job. It is beneath the noble Lord, Lord Judd, to criticise them. They have delivered better value for money than ever before. They are targeting it and have the common

1049
sense to make sure that the money is applied where it can do most good in the poorest countries with the poorest populations.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I certainly do not take second place to anybody in my appreciation of what the dedicated staff of the ODA do with their meagre resources. But the Minister cannot have it both ways. If she accepts all the recommendations of the fundamental expenditure review, she accepts that the resources are not adequate for the programme; that prioritisation is essential; and that the 20 poorest countries must be targeted in a way that they were not before. Does the Minister agree that it is no good reading off a lot of ad hoc statistics if she accepts, as she said she does, the recommendations of the fundamental expenditure review?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I was tempted not to respond, but maybe I should. Since the honourable Member in another place, Mr Gordon Brown, said that he would keep to this Government's expenditure programme, and since we are credited by OECD and all the other international organisations with having the best targeted and the best-delivered development programme in the world, I have no reason to apologise for what we have been doing with the resources which have been made available. Of course, we all wish to do more in many different areas of life, but we also know that, unless Britain continues to have a sound economy, as it will have under the next Conservative Government, we will not be able to do as much.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I apologise to the Minister for not having read the 165-page review published this morning. It is obviously a failing that we have on these Benches. Does the Minister foresee that the bilateral budget will be sufficient this year or, because of commitments to the European budget, will there have to be some topping up of the bilateral budget?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as I believe the noble Lord knows, there is an undertaking by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that should the non-discretionary spending exceed the revised forecast, the Exchequer will meet the bill. That is a guarantee that we have never had before and it shows the importance that we attach to development. Any reductions in the baseline were fully attributed to the lower forecast of the UK's commitments to multilateral organisations, largely the European Union. So if the demands of the European Union or of other international bodies increase, the Treasury will have to go to the reserves. We will deliver no less than what we have planned. We have planned with great care and with the full co-operation of the governments we seek to help. I believe that is a good record and my staff can be proud of it.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind that over the period of this Conservative Government, in world terms, the standard of living of this country has dropped from 13th to 18th in the table, and bearing in mind that the per capita income in the Republic of Ireland is now greater than that for the United Kingdom, how many more years of Conservative Government must we have before this country qualifies for ODA assistance under the criterion of giving money to the poorest nations of the world?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: Well, my Lords, we are sinking to a depth which I did not expect to see in your Lordships' House, whatever might happen in other places. I can only say to the noble Lord that I do not believe he has looked at the figures. According to the figures, the average household is a good deal better off in real terms than any of those with whom I deal on a day-to-day basis. I am talking about countries which have fewer than 700 dollars per head per annum. That is a very tiny sum when compared with the average income in this country. Anyone who knows anything about figures will not deny that some people will be poorer than others. The overall movement in this country of income after tax has been up and up, and under a Conservative Government it will continue to be so.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will the Minister accept that it is a final indictment of the Government's approach to overseas development that, at the eleventh hour plus, they produce 160 pages in response to an Opposition Question when in 18 years of government they have never produced a single White Paper on the overseas aid and development programme?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Judd, believes that this document was produced since he put down his Question, he is living in Cloud-cuckoo-land. This annual report was published last year and the year before. It is a regular document which, if he had read it in previous years, he might have learnt something about it. All I can say is that I am very grateful to the people who really know what is going on, and they are the staff of the ODA.

Violent Crime in London
3.28 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the last Question of the present Parliament standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government:
What has been the increase in the level of violent crime in London between 1979 and the present time.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there has been a steady and consistent increase in violent crime in England and Wales since 1946. I understand from the Commissioner

1051
of Police for the Metropolis that violent crime in the Metropolitan Police District has risen from 24,995 incidents in 1979 to 89,861 in 1996.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, does the Minister agree that while the Metropolitan Police have been doing a good job in difficult circumstances, the Government have failed abysmally in dealing with violent crime? Is it not a disaster for the people of London that the violent crime rate increased by 20 per cent. in the past year alone to 90,000? Is not the truth that this Government are weak on violent crime and weak on the causes of violent crime?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, since 1946, crime has risen by 2,305 per cent.; between 1946 and 1979, violent crime rose by 803 per cent. and between 1979 and 1996, it rose by 166 per cent. Noble Lords opposite may wring their hands about crime, and about violent crime in particular, but where were they when I looked for support to crack down on violent crime? We are extremely concerned about the rise in violent crime and we are committed to introducing tough measures to cut down on crime, and particularly on violent and persistent crime as well as crimes such as domestic burglary, drug dealing and repeat violent offences. Noble Lords opposite, however, were found wanting when it came to putting their fine words into action.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister prepared to consider what I regard as a vital issue; namely, the reduction of manpower in the police force in many of our London boroughs? We are all proud of our police officers, who do splendid work. However, in the London Borough of Ealing there has been such a massive reduction in the number of police officers that the Greenford and Northolt areas now have no patrolling policemen whatsoever. Such things are noted by the criminal classes who take full advantage of them.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, since 1979 the Government have increased the funding for the police by 90 per cent. in real terms. I and my ministerial colleagues on these Benches take daily criticism from noble Lords opposite about the level of expenditure on our programmes, but tell that to Mr. Gordon Brown in another place who has pledged to continue that level of expenditure on programmes!
The noble Lord, Lord Molloy, makes an important point because there are now 16,000 more policemen than in 1979. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister pledged to fund another 5,000. The money for that was made available last year and money has been made available this year. The whole 5,000 will be funded by the end of the next financial year. We shall meet our pledge. However, two points arise from that, one with particular regard to London. Sadly, because of the reappearance of the IRA on the streets of London, the Commissioner chose to use the money to pay for extra overtime using experienced policemen. That was what happened to London's money for new policemen. However, the Metropolitan Commissioner has welcomed the extra money for the financial year
1052
that we are about to enter and he will be increasing police numbers to 27,400. The other point is that we now have information and intelligence, including new technology, CCTV and many other innovations, which extend the arm of the police.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords—
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I am in the hands of the House, but I wonder whether the Liberal Chief Whip could come in first.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us have found her answers to these questions puzzling because they appear to relate to the Crime (Sentences) Bill? Is she also aware that if Parliament had been prorogued next week or after Easter many of the Government's legislative problems would not have arisen? Is she further aware that some of us find it very strange that the Government decided to prorogue Parliament in the way that they did?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, is the noble Lord suggesting that if we had met for one more week he would have supported the Government's tough policies on crime?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister—
Noble Lords: Time!
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend. I would have loved to hear him one last time, but the 30 minutes for Questions are up.

Southampton International Boat Show Bill
3.33 p.m.
Bill read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

The Barony of Moynihan: Committee for Privileges Report
The Chairman Of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
In inviting the House to agree to the Report of the Committee for Privileges I should like to pay tribute to the noble and learned Lords, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle and Lord Slynn of Hadley. They felt, I think rightly, that the House would wish to conclude this

1053
long-running matter before the end of the present Parliament and have produced their opinions with the minimum of delay. I am sure that the House will wish me to express our gratitude to them for that. I thank also the noble and learned Lords, Lord Keith of Kinkel and Lord Ackner, for their assistance in the committee. I am grateful also to my fellow lay members of the committee for their help.
Those of your Lordships who have had an opportunity of reading the opinions of the noble and learned Lords will, I am sure, have no doubt that the committee has reached the right conclusion and that neither of the two sons purporting to be the sons of the Third Baron can, in fact, be an heir to the peerage. In the case of the elder, Andrew, the committee was shown overwhelming genetic evidence that he cannot be the son of the late Lord Moynihan; and so far as the younger, Daniel, is concerned, the evidence clearly shows that he is the child of a bigamous marriage and is therefore illegitimate. In those circumstances, it is clear beyond doubt that the petitioner, Colin Moynihan, must be the rightful heir and that his Petitions must succeed.
Moved, That the Report from the Committee for Privileges be agreed to (HL Paper 53).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
ORDERED TO REPORT:
That the Committee have met and have considered the Petition of the Honourable Colin Berkeley Moynihan to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to direct that a Writ of Summons be issued to him as Baron Moynihan, together with Her Majesty's Reference to this House and the report of the Attorney General thereon:
That the Committee have also considered the application of Daniel Patrick Berkeley Moynihan (by his mother and next friend Jinna Sabiaga) praying for leave to be heard in opposition to the said Petition and, leave having been given, the Committee have heard Counsel on behalf of the said Daniel Patrick Berkeley Moynihan; and
That the Committee have also heard the Attorney General on behalf of the Crown and have heard the Petitioner in person, and have come to the following Resolution:
That Daniel Patrick Berkeley Moynihan has not succeeded in his opposition to the Petition and that the Petitioner, the Honourable Colin Berkeley Moynihan, claiming to have succeeded to the Barony of Moynihan has made out his claim to the said Barony.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

House of Lords Offices: Select Committee Report
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move that the Second Report from the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices be agreed to.
Moved, That the Second Report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 66).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to.
1. ENHANCED MESSAGE SERVICE
The Committee approved the first two phases of a message handling project for both Houses. The first phase, lasting until September 1997, will involve a consultation process to determine
1054
the implementation and content of the project. The second phase, lasting from October 1997 to August 1998, will consist of the initial implementation of new message services and will be followed by a fundamental review of the project.
2. COMPUTER TRAINING AND SUPPORT
The Committee agreed new arrangements for computer training and support for Lords to permit more effective use of resources. Peers may go without notice to the Computer Room for training and advice between 11.30 a.m. and 6 p.m. on Mondays to Thursdays, and between 11.30 a.m. and the rising of the House on sitting Fridays. Outside those times and in recesses, Peers are invited to give notice before seeking training and advice from the Computer Room. Emergency calls for support will continue to be met without notice.
3. COMMEMORATION OF 150 YEARS OCCUPATION OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS CHAMBER
The Committee agreed to a proposal from the Chesterfield Canal Society to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the occupation of the House of Lords Chamber in 1847. It is proposed that a cubic foot of stone from the quarry where stone for the Houses of Parliament was extracted will be transported by canal from Derbyshire to Black Rod's steps, and will be used in the restoration programme of the Palace.
4. RECEPTION TO CELEBRATE THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF INDIA AND PAKISTAN
The Committee agreed to share the cost of a reception to be held in the Palace of Westminster by the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker as part of the celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the independence of the countries of the Indian sub-continent.
5. BLACK ROD
The Committee agreed to the extension for a further two years from May 1997 of the appointment of Sir Edward Jones as Black Rod.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships if I am a little more incoherent than usual, but I have only just arrived on the premises to see to my surprise this report on the Order Paper. Perhaps the Chairman of Committees will in due course, after the election, furnish the House with a list of the dates when the committee reported to the House and the dates when Parliament rose. I suggest that this is not the first time that such reports have been put through at the very last minute. Although I am not suggesting any ulterior motive, the practice is unfortunate for those of us who take an interest in these matters.
Paragraph 1 on the "enhanced message" service was the subject of some discussion last time when the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, inquired about the cost of the service. At that time the Chairman of Committees was unable to enlighten the noble Lord, but I can tell the House that the consultancy charge was £144,000. It was done on a daily basis and included the charges of two partners for two days. I believe that the House is being taken for a ride, as is the other place, which shares the expense with us. Therefore, I should like some more information on this because when we discussed it previously it was suggested that there should be wider consultation. Will the Chairman of Committees tell us what opportunity there has been for ordinary Members of your Lordships' House to contribute; and how much notice was given, and how, of the demonstration that was available to members of the committee?
I do not think that the other items in the report are of a sufficiently contentious nature to mention, but the question of the message service is terribly important

1055
because we have recently seen an example in another place of how the use of automatic message services can be grossly abused to devalue the entire traditions and honour of both Houses.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, perhaps I may point out—your Lordships may know this already—that the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices met on Wednesday of this week. It was thought—I strongly supported, and do support, this view—that it would be right to present the report of that committee to your Lordships at the earliest possible moment so that there would be no delay into the next Parliament. That is the first point. As the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, knows, I am always anxious to assist your Lordships as much as possible on such matters, not least the noble Lord himself, because I know that these domestic matters are of interest and are regarded by your Lordships as of importance to the House.
If I may say so, ample notice was given of the demonstration carried out last month for members of the committee. There is to be an extensive consultation process between now and September of this year in which noble Lords will be consulted about their requirements. There will be ample opportunity for noble Lords' views to be put forward before the matter comes back to your Lordships' House.
As the noble Lord has said, mention has already been made of the costs. As far as concerns the consultancies, your Lordships' committee has been assured that the costs are certainly in accordance with normal practice in these matters. They are regarded as being market value, if I may put it in that short way. As the noble Lord has indicated, the costs have been shared with another place, which has also scrutinised them.
I hope that that provides some assistance to the noble Lord. If I am able to provide any further information I shall do so by means of writing to the noble Lord. Any queries on further matters arising out of this report to your Lordships' House can always be dealt with in the new Parliament by means of Questions for Written Answer.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Ministerial Accountability
3.41 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
It may be of assistance to your Lordships if I say a few words about the background to this Resolution and explain why I bring it before the House and commend it to your Lordships.
The Resolution stems from a recommendation by the Public Service Committee of another place in July last year. In its 1996 report on ministerial accountability and responsibility, the committee recommended that Parliament should lay down in the form of a Resolution how it expected Ministers to discharge their duty of accountability to Parliament. In their response, the
1056
Government agreed that there could be value in this, not because Ministers were in any way unsure about what was required of them, but because such a Resolution could set out clearly and unambiguously for all to see what the standards were and the standards against which Ministers were prepared to be judged.
The Prime Minister's document Questions of Procedure for Ministers sets out what he, as head of the Government, expects of his ministerial colleagues in this respect. This Resolution would parallel my right honourable friend's expectations by laying down in similar terms, perhaps even more importantly, what Parliament required. The Government took the view that to have the full authority it deserved, such a Resolution should, so far as possible, be adopted by cross-party agreement, and that both Houses would want to consider it.
To this end, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster initiated discussions with the main opposition parties in another place. I have done likewise with representatives of the main opposition parties and the Convener of the Cross-Benchers in our House. I should like to take this opportunity to thank noble Lords who took part in those discussions for their courteous and constructive participation. Our aim throughout has been to reach a stage where we can lay Resolutions before both Houses to complete this piece of business during this Parliament. This we have now done. Noble Lords may be aware that colleagues in another place last evening adopted a very similar Resolution to the one now before us.
I make just two points about the wording of the Resolution. First, I make a technical but nevertheless important point. The Resolution refers to two documents: the Civil Service Code and the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. These documents have, I believe, attracted widespread support, but they remain government documents rather than parliamentary documents and are therefore capable of subsequent amendment by the Government. I should like to make clear that if these documents were amended, they would not automatically alter the terms of the Resolution itself. For that to happen, the House would be required to take an independent decision on whether the Resolution should be amended to refer to any additions.
Secondly, the Resolution that I commend to your Lordships is not identical in every particular to the one adopted last night by another place. While the principles are identical, the format is slightly different. I am indebted to the learned Clerk of the Parliaments for his advice that technically it would be more appropriate if in a Resolution of this House the two government documents that I have mentioned were referred to in a separate paragraph; that is, paragraph (5) on interpretation. That is the paragraph that we have before us. The advice he gave was that that would be more appropriate rather than that it should be cited within paragraphs (3) and (4). I found that an extremely helpful suggestion, for which I am most grateful. I am more than happy to adopt it.

1057
I hope that is sufficient to explain why I believe that this is a useful addition to the armoury that the House possesses in its manifest duty to render Ministers accountable to Parliament. It is in that spirit that I commend the Resolution to your Lordships.
Moved, That, in the opinion of this House, the following principles should govern the conduct of Ministers of the Crown in relation to Parliament:
(1) Ministers have a duty to Parliament to account, and be held to account, for the policies, decisions and actions of their Departments and Next Steps Agencies;
(2) It is of paramount importance that Ministers should give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister;
(3) Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest;
(4) Ministers should require civil servants who give evidence before Parliamentary Committees on their behalf and under their directions to be as helpful as possible in providing accurate, truthful and full information;
(5) The interpretation of "public interest" in paragraph (3) shall be decided in accordance with statute and the Government's Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (Second Edition, January 1997); and compliance with the duty in paragraph (4) shall be in accordance with the duties and responsibilities of civil servants set out in the Civil Service Code (January 1996).—(Viscount Cranborne.)
Lord Richard: My Lords, we on this side of the House welcome the Resolution. We believe that it is sensible and appropriate. We have waited long enough for it. It is time that Parliament had its say on ministerial responsibility. Is it not extraordinary how the approach of a general election concentrates the Government's mind? Here we are on the very last day of the Parliament and at last we have a sensible Statement on ministerial responsibility. For every sinner that repenteth there is joy on these Benches!
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for his Statement. My noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead was consulted. The noble Viscount will be aware that he is content, as are the rest of us on these Benches.
Lord Renton: My Lords, this is a matter of great constitutional importance. I am grateful to my noble friend the Leader of the House for his lucid explanation of it. It is a matter of great satisfaction that this is agreed between the parties.
For centuries ministerial responsibility has been a matter of convention. Now we have it clearly laid down. I believe that sometimes in the past it went too far.
1058
Ministers were held responsible for the actions of all their civil servants, sometimes several thousands of them, with an ever-widening scope of activity. It was impossible for Ministers to know about everything that was happening in their departments, even within the scope of the policies that they had declared and laid down.
With that in mind, I invite your Lordships' attention to paragraph (1), which says:
"Ministers have a duty to Parliament to account, and he held to account, for the policies, decisions and actions of their Departments and Next Steps agencies".
Let us briefly consider that proposition in the light of what I have said about the vast number of civil servants and the scope of their activities. It is quite clear that Ministers should be responsible for policies and decisions of a major kind, but not all of the minor decisions that must be taken from time to time to implement those policies. It is right that they should be responsible for the actions of the government departments so long as Ministers know in advance what those actions are required to be.
For Ministers to be responsible for every minor incident, which has sometimes led to parliamentary embarrassment and even the resignation of Ministers in unjust circumstances, would be absurd. Therefore I hope that that important paragraph will, in future, always be interpreted in the light of reason.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Lord Privy Seal two questions on the Resolution. In his helpful elucidation he referred to Questions of Procedure for Ministers. In fact the resolution is not about responsibility; it is about accountability. But Questions of Procedure for Ministers deals also with responsibility. Does this resolution take the place of paragraph 27 of Questions of Procedure for Ministers, which hitherto has made it clear that Ministers have not just a duty of accountability but also of responsibility?
Is the Lord Privy Seal reminded of Sir Richard Scott's report which at reference D4.42 stated:
"The answers to Parliamentary Questions in both Houses of Parliament failed to inform Parliament of the current state of Government policy on non-lethal arms sales to Iraq. This failure was deliberate and was the inevitable result of the agreement between the three junior Ministers"?
Does the Lord Privy Seal believe that, if we had had the resolution at the time of the Scott report, the three junior Ministers would have been required to resign because of their deliberate lack of openness to both Houses of Parliament?
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, does the House a service by drawing our attention to principle (1) of the resolution. He dealt with the first part, for which I am grateful. I wish to take the matter a little further. The principle refers to:
"Actions of their Departments and Next Steps Agencies".
The Next Step agencies are meant to be different. Members on the Select Committee of your Lordships' House are finding that there are Next Steps agencies and Next Steps agencies. They are not all the same.
I had an answer from the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, the other day to a Question I asked about the Prisons Agency, for example. The Prisons Agency is very different from other agencies. Are we to take it from the first principle that there is no difference between a department and a Next Steps agency? If that is the case all the talk about the difference there would be in government as a result of the setting up of Next Steps agencies, which are different from normal departments and are within a big department, amounts to nought. Why Next Steps agencies? We are told by the Government that they are different.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I support the Motion that the Leader of the House has put before the House. Perhaps I may ask him a technical question of some importance which, from me, I can assure him, is completely non-controversial as usual. According to paragraph (1) of the Motion, Ministers have various duties in relation to Parliament.
In view of the fact that both Scrutiny Committees of European legislation are to be out of action for about six weeks, how do Her Majesty's Government intend to safeguard the interests of Parliament with regard to the normal cascade of regulations that appears from the European Commission on Parliament's steps? May we have an assurance that those matters will be dealt with promptly, and that all concerned will be duly informed?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, I must apologise for rising twice in the same day. I should like to put a point to my noble friend the Leader of the House on paragraph (3) which states:
"Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest".
We are constantly having cases at Question Time when information is refused on the ground of "commercial confidentiality". I quote that phrase. A case occurred in the House this very week.
It is well known that British industry is secretive compared with American industry; it is well known that government departments are excessively secretive; it is well known that in this country governments of all complexions are excessively secretive. The excuse of commercial confidentiality is usually only a cloak to hide inefficiency, incompetence, and uncompetitive behaviour.
May we have an assurance that, in the interests of the greater efficiency of British industry, Ministers will take great care not to advance the excuse of commercial confidentiality in order to justify a refusal to give the House information only in the most extreme circumstances, and where, in the terms of this resolution:
"Disclosure would not be in the public"—
I stress the word "public"—
"interest?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Harris of Greenwich—I am sorry to find that the noble Lord,
1060
Lord Harris, is not still in his place—for their support. With the indulgence of the House, perhaps I may take the opportunity to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, during the past two and a half years or so during which I have had the privilege of being the Leader of your Lordships' House, and say that, although we may differ politically, I have learned to view him with a mixture of respect and affection, which has been a great pleasure during my time here, and which I hope will continue when we face each other from the same positions from 7th May next. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has always been a great exponent of wishful thinking, and I see that that has not changed.
My noble friend Lord Renton, almost predictably, puts his finger on an extremely important point. It has become almost a truism that, in the days of highly complex government and administration, often involving many civil servants, it is impossible for a Minister to know everything that happens in his department. Nevertheless, those of us who have had the privilege to be departmental Ministers—in my case an extremely junior one—will know that any hard working, conscientious Minister will make it his or her business to know the essentials of what is going on in the department and to be able to make a judgment. The noble Baroness, Lady Symons, may be in a better position to know whether or not what I say is justified as to where, perhaps, the ministerial gimlet eye should alight.
Nevertheless it means that Ministers have an extraordinarily difficult judgment to make, but also—dare I say it?—Parliament has a difficult judgment to make, particularly when Parliament inevitably will have its judgment coloured—I make no complaint about this—by considerations of party politics. There have been, as the House will know perhaps better than any other body, attempts, particularly by my right honourable friends, to try to define, as is only right, where that difficult decision should lie. There have been attempts to differentiate between operational responsibility and ministerial accountability.
In the end, it is a matter of careful judgment. Ministers are only human; they can get things wrong. I dare say that we all do, and that if in a decade or so the party opposite found itself in office it would be faced with similar decisions. My noble friend Lord Cockfield and the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, are right in stressing the importance of paragraph (3) of the Motion before us. There is an absolute obligation for Ministers to be as open as possible with Parliament.
If, like me, your Lordships are fans of that extraordinarily perspicacious programme, "Yes, Minister", you will remember that often both civil servants and Ministers are depicted by Mr. Anthony Jay and his co-writers as saying that the object of Answers to Parliamentary Questions is to reveal as little as possible. It might be for the edification of your Lordships if you allowed me to take a trip down memory lane to when I made what was clearly a joke in very poor taste to the first civil servant who came to brief me on a Parliamentary Question, implying that perhaps that was the object of all

1061
civil servants. I shall never forget the chastening look that I received from the individual concerned; it made it very clear that one does not joke about such matters.
I hope that your Lordships will take at least some comfort from the fact that the best traditions of the Civil Service will try to make sure that even the most tempted of Ministers do not stray from an obligation of this kind. Questions of procedures for Ministers and Parliament insisting on a complementary regulation of this kind will reinforce something that has been called into question in recent years.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, that I do not want to go over the individual paragraphs of the Scott Report. They are paragraphs which, as the noble Baroness will appreciate, I know entirely by heart. I dare say that if I try very hard I can complete the quotation that she gave, but I hope that she will not test my assertion. I do not believe that Ministers would have been required to resign. I believe that if Ministers take their job seriously they will always try to keep Parliament as well informed as possible.
My noble friend Lord Cockfield knows more about commerce than I suspect I ever shall and I bow to his superior wisdom. However, I suspect that, more often than not, government contracts and their terms, particularly in the defence field and in substantial contract terms, are very sensitive. It is a matter of judgment to see how we can reconcile commercial confidentiality with the demands of Parliament. That is a difficult judgment to make but it is one that we attempt.
My noble friend Lord Bruce—perhaps I may be allowed to indulge myself for a moment—knows that during our term of office we have done perhaps more than most to increase the level of parliamentary scrutiny of European matters and that parliamentary reserves apply. I can assure him that when we are returned by the electorate on 1st May any parliamentary scrutiny which has had to go by the board because of the events of the next six weeks will, without question, be put before Parliament as speedily as possible.
Lord Richard: My Lords, lest the House slips into confrontation in its last Session, I thank the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for his kind words. We have had a vigorous relationship over the past two-and-a-half years. Certainly we have not always agreed. Our disagreements have usually been civil, but not invariably. Given the nature of your Lordships' House, of course, the incivility is dressed up in the most extraordinary politeness and charm. Therefore, when the noble Viscount began by saying nice things about me my limited classical education sent me straight back to the quotation which begins "timeo Danaos". I was wrong and I am delighted.
This House cannot function unless the usual channels can function. It is right that before the House goes down I should say that, as regards the noble Viscount and his noble friend the Chief Whip, my noble friend the Opposition Chief Whip and I are grateful for the co-operation in the functioning of the usual channels
1062
that we have received in the past two-and-a-half years. We look forward to that continuing when positions are reversed.
Lord Annan: My Lords, perhaps I may correct the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. Sir Anthony Jay was knighted, presumably for his services to Parliament.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. As always, he knows more about these matters than I do.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Building Societies (Distributions) Bill
4.6 p.m.
Read a third time.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. I wish to take this opportunity to recognise the remarkable achievement of my honourable friend Douglas French, Member of Parliament for Gloucester, in steering two Ten-minute Rule Bills through another place in the lifetime of this Parliament.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Hayhoe.)
On Question, Bill passed.

Police (Health and Safety) Bill
Read a third time.
Lord Luke: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. In doing so, I wish to thank my noble friend and all other noble Lords who have spoken on this matter.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Luke.)
On Question, Bill passed.

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, and read a first time.
Then, Standing Order 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 18th March), Bill read a second time; Committee negatived; Bill read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

National Health Service (Primary Care) Bill [H.L.]
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to Bill (91) as first printed by the
Commons.]
4.9 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.

1063
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 1, page 1, line 23, after ("Part I") insert ("or III").
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 10, 11, 17, 22, 30, 31, 43, 48, 88, 91, 94, 103, 112 and 113.
These amendments tidy up the text of the Bill and bring Scottish provisions in line with those for England and Wales. For example, they detail the manner in which a direction by the Secretary of State as to payment under an NHS contract may be enforced through the courts. They insert a definition of the term "health authority" in the 1978 Act and clarify a reference in Clause 23 to make clear that the provisions relate to GPs providing GMS and not to GPs providing PMS.
I hope that your Lordships will support these technical amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No.1.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
2 Clause 1, page 2, line 19, at end insert—
("() The functions of an NHS trust include power to provide piloted services, and to do so as a member of a qualifying body (within the meaning of section (Provision of personal medical services under a pilot scheme) or (Provision of personal dental services under a pilot scheme)).")
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 3 to 6, 20, 23, 28, 89 and 107.
The whole question of who should be permitted to provide services under the Bill featured prominently in our earlier discussions of the Bill. We have in fact, I believe, always been entirely at one over the objective of the Bill—to enable NHS primary care to be delivered to even higher standards across the country, as part of the NHS. Nonetheless, we listened carefully to the views put to us, both in this House and by the professions, about the possible threat of commercialisation, and we took prompt action to deal comprehensively with that threat.
The amendments now before your Lordships make it explicitly clear that only those whom we have called members of the NHS family will be able to put forward proposals for pilot schemes and make contracts with health authorities for the provision of services under the Bill. The list of those who comprise the NHS family ensures that key groups who work in the NHS—doctors,
1064
dentists, nurses, NHS trusts—are included, but puts beyond doubt the exclusion of commercial organisations from these possibilities.
One important feature of the new provisions is that it ensures that all professional groups encompassed by the definition of the NHS family are treated equally under the Bill. We will look at all proposals which meet the new rules we have set on their merits, regardless of the professional group they come from. However, we will expect all proposals to indicate clearly how they intend to secure the medical or dental involvement that all pilots and permanent arrangements will require.
There has been a lot of concern about the danger of commercialisation resulting from this Bill. This has always been at the periphery of what the Bill is really about. The changes made to the Bill in another place deal fully with those concerns, and I am glad to say that the British Medical Association has endorsed the changes we have made. But the changes also refocus attention on the main thrust of the Bill which is and always has been about new opportunities for the existing primary care workforce. We believe strongly that it is the NHS workforce, with its range of professional skills and expertise and its commitment to NHS principles that will develop NHS primary care and take it into the next century. That is what we want, and that is what these changes help to underpin.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No.2.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, this is the first of a substantive group of amendments which importantly affect the operation and principle of the Bill as it was first debated and considered in detail in your Lordships' House. We certainly do not intend to debate every one of the amendments and on these Benches we accept that the amended Bill as it stands, as it has come hack from the other place, will be a useful tool for an incoming Labour Government.
Nevertheless, at this stage, it is appropriate to repeat the general point which has been made several times in the past 72 hours in your Lordships' House. It would have been more appropriate to the functions of this House if the 117 Commons amendments that are now before us on this important Bill could have been considered in more detail and with less haste than will be possible this afternoon.
That applies particularly to this group of amendments, which goes to the heart of the Bill, and, as the Minister has just explained, it contains the provisions which the Government are now suggesting to deal with the problem of commercialisation which was threatened by the Bill as previously drafted. That was one of the major concerns which we on these Benches have been raising ever since the Second Reading of the Bill. Had the Government been able to accept or redraft some of the amendments which we on these Benches proposed at earlier stages, which dealt precisely with that issue, we should not have needed this rather breathless consideration this afternoon.
We know—and the noble Baroness has referred to it—that one of the important matters in relation to the Bill has been the intervention of the British Medical

1065
Association. We know too that the BMA has made firm representations to the Government that, had they not achieved the terms of the amendment which are now before your Lordships, it was prepared to campaign on this issue during the forthcoming general election campaign. As has been mentioned several times on many other pieces of legislation in your Lordships' House within the past two days, that has greatly focused the mind of the Government. As the noble Baroness said, the amendments now before us deal with the issue of commercialisation and limit those who can propose pilot schemes to those within the NHS family.
As the Minister knows, because she has been kind enough to discuss this with me, we still have doubts as to whether the new clause is sufficiently strong to exclude positively commercial companies. We should have preferred a new clause which made that more specific and explicit. This afternoon the noble Baroness has said that that is done in the terms of the present amendment. But she knows also that there are private companies—for example, Unichem, BUPA and PPP—all of which have been saying very recently and publicly that they regard their plans for proposed pilot schemes as being very much still alive and on the table. I hope that they have now heard the message that the Minister has given clearly.
Finally, I ask the Minister whether she is now able to underline that commitment to the exclusion of commercial companies by correcting her earlier statement when she said:
"We do not want to rule out any sensible opportunities, including a GP being employed by a commercial organisation."—[Official Report, 17/12/96; col. 1403.]
If she were able to correct that statement, that would lay our fears to rest and make the exclusion of the private companies about which we have been concerned since Second Reading much more remote.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I should just like to remind your Lordships of the sequence of events when this Bill came to this House and during its various stages before we parted with it and it went to another place.
During the first stages of the Bill, the BMA gave its general support to what was in the Bill. It was only two days before Third Reading, just before it was leaving us, that it issued a press release—and some of us received a document from the BMA—saying that it was very worried about the possible commercialisation which might result from the Bill. On Third Reading, my noble friend Lady Cumberlege was very sensible in saying that rather than move amendments, the matter should be sorted out in the other place. Therefore, I am glad to note that it has been sorted out in the other place and with the BMA behind the scenes.
On Third Reading, I said that I thought it was wise of the Government to suspend what they were doing until they had had an opportunity to discuss the matter with the BMA and that they had time in the other place
1066
to make other changes or pursue different policies. I am sure that it was right for the Government to work closely with the BMA, the profession.
Only today, I received a document from the BMA indicating that it now appears to be happy with the restrictions on what is called the NHS family. Bearing in mind the atmosphere when the Bill left us to go to the other place, I am glad that those matters now seem to have been sorted out and that these amendments are being put forward.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I too welcome these amendments. This is much too late a stage to start even trying to play around because it is not possible to achieve anything. We may not have 100 per cent. of what we were asking for but it is a tremendous improvement on the Bill as it was drafted and we welcome that.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their support for the principle of the Bill. I understand the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, as to how we managed to clarify, throughout the course of the Bill, some of the fears and misunderstandings which were originally apparent.
At one point during the course of the passage of the Bill, the noble Baroness was concerned about my use of the word "chatter"; that there was a good deal of chatter going on as regards commercialisation. I should like to assure your Lordships that no organisation has approached us to explain how it thinks it might be able to provide services under the new provisions in the Bill. Therefore, I am very happy to put clearly on the record exactly what the provisions mean. We have taken great care to rule in members of the NHS family and to define that and to rule out others. Now the only companies whose proposals may come forward to the Secretary of State and which may make contracts with health authorities to provide services under the Bill are those which fall within the definition of a qualifying body. We have defined a "qualifying body" very carefully; that is,
"a company which is limited by shares all of which are legally and beneficially owned by persons falling within paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (c) of subsection (2)".
I believe that the situation is now crystal clear. As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy said, we believe that we have the support of all the health professionals, including the BMA, and they can rest happily that their initial fears have been resolved.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.—(Baroness Cumberledge.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
3 After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
>PROVISION OF PERSONAL MEDICAL SERVICES UNDER A PILOT SCHEME
(" .—(1) This section applies to any pilot scheme under which personal medical services are provided.
(2) An agreement which constitutes, or is one of the agreements which together constitute, a pilot scheme may be made by an authority only with one or more of the following—

(a) an NHS trust;

(b) a suitably experienced medical practitioner;

(c) an NHS employee or a pilot scheme employee;

(d) a qualifying body;

(e) an individual who is providing personal medical services under that or another pilot scheme.

(3) In this section—
"NHS employee" means an individual who, in connection with the provision of services in the health service, is employed by—

(a) an NHS trust;

(b) a medical practitioner whose name is included in a medical list; or

(c) a medical practitioner who is providing personal medical services in accordance with a pilot scheme;

"pilot scheme employee" means an individual who, in connection with the provision of personal medical services in accordance with a pilot scheme, is employed by an individual providing those services;
"qualifying body" means a company which is limited by shares all of which are legally and beneficially owned by persons falling within paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (e) of subsection (2).
(4) For the purposes of this section, a medical practitioner is suitably experienced if he is suitably experienced for the purposes of section 9 of this Act, section 31 of the 1977 Act or section 21 of the 1978 Act.
(5) In this Part, "medical list" means—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, a list prepared in accordance with regulations made under section 29(2)(a) of the 1977 Act;

(b) in relation to Scotland, a list prepared in accordance with regulations made under section 19(2)(a) of the 1978 Act.").

4 Insert the following new clause—
PROVISION OF PERSONAL DENTAL SERVICES UNDER A PILOT SCHEME
(" .—(1) This section applies to any pilot scheme under which personal dental services are provided.
(2) An agreement which constitutes, or is one of the agreements which together constitute, a pilot scheme may be made by an authority only with one or more of the following—

(a) an NHS trust:

(b) a dental practitioner whose name is included in a dental list;

(c) an NHS employee or a pilot scheme employee;

(d) a qualifying body;

(e) an individual who is providing personal dental services under that or another pilot scheme.

(3) In this section—
"dental list" means—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, a list prepared in accordance with regulations made under section 36(1)(a) of the 1977 Act;

(b) in relation to Scotland, a list prepared in accordance with regulations made under section 25(2)(a) of the 1978 Act;

"NHS employee" means an individual who, in connection with the provision of services in the health service, is employed by—

(a) an NHS trust;

(b) a dental practitioner whose name is included in a dental list; or

(c) a dental practitioner who is providing personal dental services in accordance with a pilot scheme;

"pilot scheme employee" means an individual who, in connection with the provision of personal dental services in accordance with a pilot scheme, is employed by an individual providing those services;
"qualifying body" means—

(a) a body corporate which, in accordance with the provisions of Part IV of the Dentists Act 1984, is entitled to carry on the business of dentistry; or

(b) a company which is limited by shares all of which are legally and beneficially owned by persons falling within paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (e) of subsection (2).").

5 Clause 2, page 2, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 40 and insert—
("(2) An authority must prepare and submit such proposals if they are asked to do so by a person—

(a) who wishes to provide piloted services, and

(b) with whom an agreement which constitutes, or is part of, a pilot scheme may be made;

but otherwise they may not do so.").
6 Page 3, line 11, leave out subsection (7).
Baroness Cumberledge: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in the Amendments Nos. 3 to 6 en bloc. I spoke to these amendments when dealing with Amendment No. 2.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 3 to 6.—(Baroness Cumberledge).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
7 Clause 3, page 3, line 28, at end insert—
("(2A) Subsection (2B) applies if—

(a) the Secretary of State intends to approve proposals for a pilot scheme; and

(b) it appears to him that the effect of implementing the proposals would be to increase or reduce the number of general practitioners in the area of the authority concerned.

(2B) The Secretary of State must have regard to the effect that the proposals, as he intends to approve them, are likely to have on—

(a) the distribution of general practitioners in England, in the case of proposals submitted by an authority in England;

(b) the distribution of general practitioners in Scotland, in the case of proposals submitted by an authority in Scotland;

(c) the distribution of general practitioners in Wales, in the case of proposals submitted by an authority in Wales.

(2C) In carrying out his functions under subsection (2B), the Secretary of State must consult the Medical Practices Committee or (as appropriate) the Scottish Medical Practices Committee.").
Baroness Cumberledge: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7. In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Commons Amendments Nos. 8, 25 and 32.
Your Lordships will recall that the issue of the distribution of GPs and the role of the Medical Practices Committee was subject to continuing discussions with the profession. We have reached an agreement on the new arrangements. In brief, these involve greater scope for local people, who know about local needs, to decide on the distribution of doctors within an authority's area. We shall also ensure that a robust national overview of the GP workforce is drawn together so that we can achieve an equitable distribution of GPs between health authorities. That will draw on the expertise of the MPC and the NHS Executive's national resource allocation group and involve representatives of the profession and of health authorities.
The amendments before the House reflect the agreement that we have struck. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 ensure that the Secretary of State pays due regard to the effect that pilot schemes will have on the distribution of GPs. To enable him to do this, he will be required to consult the Medical Practices Committee when proposals for pilot schemes are put to him which increase or reduce the number of GPs in the area of the authority concerned. In short, the amendments acknowledge the important role of the Medical Practices Committee and ensure that its knowledge and expertise inform decisions on pilots made by the Secretary of State.
I can also assure your Lordships that, before we take forward any regulations on the issue, we will discuss the relevant issues with the MPC. That will provide a further opportunity for us to consider any outstanding concerns that it may have. Amendments Nos. 25 and 32 give legislative effect to proposals that recognise that national distribution of the GP workforce must be kept in view by the Secretary of State in considering permanent schemes. They ensure that any regulations governing the introduction of permanent arrangements are framed with this in mind. I commend the amendment to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7.—(Baroness Cumberledge.)
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I should like briefly to welcome what the Minister said when introducing the amendments. As she will be aware, the crucial role of the MPC—the work that it has carried out thus far in terms of ensuring a proper distribution of GP services—was an area that we discussed at length during the Committee and later stages of the Bill in this House and in another place. While we welcome what has been done so far, there remain concerns about the role of the MPC and whether we are in fact striking the right balance between a national overview and a local input into those areas.
1070
I heard what the Minister said about her feeling that it was the correct balance. However, I know that the MPC, and many others, are concerned that we have pitched the balance too far in putting the responsibility on health authorities in some of those areas. I therefore welcome what the noble Baroness said about looking very carefully into the matter before regulations are introduced to assess whether the balance is right and whether we should perhaps be strengthening the provisions of the Bill through regulations in regard to the role of the MPC. That is something which has been built up over the years and which we should not let go lightly. Certainly the area of the regulations, as regards what the input of the MPC would be when permanent versions of the pilot schemes come into force, is something that we would want to consider very closely in government. However, given the procedural situation that we are in, I believe that we have to say that, thus far, we welcome what has been done. However, we would welcome the opportunity to look more closely at the areas where we believe there is still scope for further action when it comes to regulation.
As regards the issue of local consultation, we would also have to consider an area where the BMA has signified that it is still unhappy; namely, on consultation with local medical committees; indeed, I believe that the BDA has the same anxiety regarding local dental organisations. Some of us feel that the actual nature of the involvement of those working in pilot schemes and on local representative committees is not as strong as it ought to be and that it does not necessarily provide enough robust structures for ensuring that local professional views are fully taken into account at all stages.
Perhaps the Minister could tell the House how she foresees involving those GPs who are working in pilot schemes in the statutory and non-statutory consultation process with local representative committees, which I know the department has said that it is anxious to continue. That is another area where I believe that the Bill has been improved during the course of its passage but where concerns still remain. While we do not have the procedural opportunities at this stage further to improve the Bill, I believe that we should put down markers that these are areas where, had we perhaps had more time and opportunity, we would have wished to go further.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister will not be surprised to know that I am pleased to see both this amendment and those associated with it. More than once during the earlier stages of the Bill I raised the concern of the BMA that the MPCs were apparently being ignored. Clearly that has been sorted out and now I welcome the wording which will be inserted in the Bill.
Of course, I drew attention to the fact that the MPC does not extend to Scotland and therefore the Scottish Medical Practices Committee is also to be included in the new section to be inserted in the Bill. I believe that

1071
meets the main objectives which were raised and that it should help to get an optimum distribution of medical practitioners over the country.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I too welcome the improvement that have been made to the Bill, although in my view it is not quite enough. Together with the noble Baroness, I look forward to seeing the regulations that are due to be introduced whereupon we may be able to make alternative arrangements. There is an enormous difference between the MPC having the right of approval of pilot schemes and, under the new amendment, the right only to consultation. It is not the same thing. Consultation sometimes can be a negative process. For instance, one can ask someone, "You are going to be killed; which way would you like us to do it"? That is sometimes what consultation means. I want to be certain that this Bill will ensure that the MPC has a real input into the distribution of general practitioners over the country. It has done a good job in the past and I believe that the regulations must enable it to continue to do so.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy is right to say that we now have a different approach with these pilot schemes. There is much more flexibility. We believe that the flexibility which the Bill provides will allow different ways of delivering services to be tested.
During various debates your Lordships have referred to the salaried employment of doctors or, in some cases, different roles for different healthcare professionals. That is an important point with regard to the MPC and the powers that it has had. It cannot consider in great depth schemes that involve other health professionals. We know that primary care is about team work. Therefore it is important that the whole team is taken into consideration. We believe there is a call for a different approach to workforce planning. That is why the Secretary of State intends to use a range of expertise which will of course include the MPC but also the resource allocation group because we believe that will ensure an equitable distribution of human and financial resources. We have listened to the concerns of the MPC and of your Lordships. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has said, we believe that the balance is about right.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
8 Clause 3, page 3, line 30, at end insert—
("() In this section "general practitioner" means any medical practitioner who is providing general medical services or performing personal medical services.")
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8. I have already spoken to this amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMEN
9 Clause 5, page 4, line 7, at end insert—
("() Each pilot scheme must be reviewed under this section before the end of the period of three years beginning with the date on which piloted services are first performed under the scheme.")
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9. This delivers on the commitment made originally in this House to impose a three-year time limit on the period of time from the coming into operation of a pilot scheme to its evaluation. I should like to take this opportunity to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, who raised this important point and argued for this change with great conviction and persuasiveness in our earlier deliberations on the Bill.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, the Minister will know that I am delighted that this amendment has appeared. I am particularly delighted that it stands alone; it is as if it is my amendment still. I am grateful to the Minister. At Third Reading she promised that she would raise this matter in the other place. She has fulfilled her promise, as she always does. We receive the amendment with great pleasure.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I, too, welcome this amendment and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, on succeeding in having it accepted. I believe it was the only amendment from this side of the House during the passage of the Bill which has succeeded in reaching this stage of the proceedings. Without wishing in any way to diminish that success as regards the timing of evaluation, I should add that we remain concerned that the nature of the evaluation is not made more specific on the face of the Bill. As noble Lords will remember, at many stages during the passage of the Bill we asked how the pilot schemes were to be evaluated. This amendment has made specific the time period over which they will be evaluated. However, we remain concerned that simply to rely on the evaluation—however, the word "evaluation" is not used—or the review of the Secretary of State of what may be disparate types of schemes undertaken in different parts of the country without any central criteria for judging them against one another may cause great problems in deciding whether one has been more effective in improving services.
I remember from the context of the discussions which we had at earlier stages of the Bill that noble Lords on all sides of the House agreed that there would be considerable difficulty in establishing any formal matrix, as it were, of national criteria by which these pilot schemes could be judged by the Secretary of State, or whoever undertook that task. Nevertheless, there is an issue to which we shall certainly wish to return at a later stage if we have the opportunity to put this Bill into force; namely, considering the ways of integrating

1073
the processes of objective evaluation into the review of pilot schemes. These ways are well developed in other parts of the National Health Service.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I wish to pick up some of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. I understand her feelings about the one amendment that has been passed in your Lordships' House. However, I would not want the noble Baroness to think that all her hard work and that of her colleagues on the Benches opposite has not made an impact in another place.
We take the issue of evaluation seriously. However, as the noble Baroness has said on the Floor of the House it is hard to work out the details. Indeed, we felt it was not appropriate to put that on the face of the Bill. As your Lordships will know, we have set a high priority on working with those in the National Health Service who provide the services.
In the intervening period since your Lordships had the Second Reading of this Bill we have set up national consultative groups. They have a wide-ranging membership which guarantees their representative nature. They are looking at local criteria. They are looking to see the principles which need to be established. When the initial pilot schemes are set up, they will set out detailed requirements for evaluation. They will cover the principles of the wider impact that the pilots may have on local services. That is the important point. They will need to ensure that there is improvement in quality; that there is a wide range and accessibility of services; and that value for money is provided by the pilot. Those will be the principles but clearly every scheme will need to have its much more detailed criteria against which it can be measured.
I am aware that I did not reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on LMCs. We consider that they also have an important role to play in terms of evaluation and consultation. In the new developments health authorities will need to seek their views on the impact of pilots and on existing arrangements before the piloting and during evaluation stages. We very much value LMCs but we felt that it was time for a change in that there will not be a statutory duty for LMCs to be funded specifically relating to contracts. However, we still think that they will have an important part to play. It will be up to GPs to decide whether they want to use the LMCs or seek an alternative in terms of the full consultation necessary.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
10 Clause 8, page 5, line 11, after second ("by") insert ("regulations made or")
11 Page 5, line 12, leave out ("Part I of")
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 en bloc. I have already spoken to these amendments with Amendment No. 1.
1074
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 en bloc.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
12 Clause 9, page 5, line 16. at end insert—
("() Subsection (1) does not prevent the performance of personal medical services by—

(a) a person who is acting in the course of acquiring the experience prescribed by regulations made under section 32 of the 1977 Act or section 22 of the 1978 Act;

(b) a person who is provisionally registered under section 15 or 21 of the Medical Act 1983, acting in the course of his employment in a resident medical capacity in an approved medical practice (within the meaning of section 11(4) of that Act); or

(c) such other category of person as may be prescribed.")

Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12. I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 24, 26, 29, 33, 54, 69 to 73, 81, 101 and 106. At Second Reading in another place cross-party concerns were raised about the limitations in the Medical Act 1983 which prevented pre-registration house officers taking placements in general practice except in health centres. The Government responded to those concerns through Amendments Nos. 54 and 106.
These amendments are designed to enable more young doctors in their final year of basic training—the pre-registration house officer year—to undertake part of that training in general practice. Allowing them to train in general practice fits in well, given that this Bill provides opportunities for more flexible ways of working and providing services. Our proposals are also fully supported by the profession.
Finally, the amendments to Clauses 9 and 20 and to Schedule 2 also extend to the new arrangements the provisions for vocational training which currently exist in the general medical services. They will also enable the Secretary of State to provide for vocational training in the personal dental services.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No.12.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I welcome the amendment. We support the concept of giving junior doctors at an early stage in their career the opportunity to participate in general practice. We have all been concerned with the issues of recruitment and retention in general practice. It is wise to allow those pre-registration house officers to have a taster of general practice. It is to be hoped that they will be encouraged to spend at least a part of their career in that branch of the service. The combination of the training opportunities, together with the possibilities of salaried service—we hope that the pilot schemes will give an opportunity for more flexibility at various stages of people's careers than general practice has allowed for in the past—is

1075
important. Therefore we welcome the amendments as part of the process of rebuilding the general practitioner service.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I, too, welcome the amendment. General practice is under threat at present. There is every need for young doctors to become interested in it. They will see everyday conditions in general practice. When the system was limited only to health centres it was not wide enough. It is a splendid amendment.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the amendments.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in support. I commend the amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
13 Clause 14, page 7, line 14, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

("(1) In the case of a pilot scheme entered into, or to be entered into, by a single individual or body corporate, that individual or body may make an application under this section to become a health service body.

(1A) In the case of any other pilot scheme, all of those providing, or proposing to provide, piloted services under the scheme may together make an application under this section to become a single health service body.").

Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13 and I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 14 to 16 and 18. These amendments deal with additional points which concern the way in which NHS contracts will work in pilot schemes. They will ensure that the benefits of NHS contracts can play a full part in the new arrangements.
Amendments Nos. 13 to 16 clarify who may apply to become a health service body for the purpose of piloting. The provisions of Clause 14, to which the amendments relate, will of course be available only to members of the NHS family. Individual GPs or dentists can already apply to become health service bodies under the Bill. These amendments will enable applications to be made by various groupings from within the NHS family—for example, partnerships of GPs—and ensure that such groupings can comprise a single health service body. The amendments also ensure that each time the membership of a health service body changes after it has been granted health service body status (for example, where one partner in a partnership retires) it does not have to re-apply for such status. The provision fits in well with the flexibilities which the Bill aims to achieve.
Finally, Amendment No. 18 removes a power which is already provided elsewhere in the Bill. I commend these amendments to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister a question on the amendments.
1076
We welcome them in general. As she said, they add to the concepts of flexibility within the pilot schemes, in particular extending the role of the NHS family—as I am glad we all now call it.
I cannot recall the number of the amendment withdrawn at Report stage because concern was expressed by Members on these Benches about the expression "body corporate" as regards the number of people who could be involved in contracts. I wish to be absolutely clear. I come back to the points raised earlier on the group of amendments with Amendment No. 2. Does the expression "body corporate" exclude "bodies corporate"? I believe that we would understand the common sense meaning of that term to include commercial organisations.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Baroness. Those who apply for the pilot schemes have to ensure that all the shares are held by members of the NHS family. The noble Baroness can rest assured that this is not a back-door into privatisation or commercialisation. That is not our intention at all. I commend the Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
14 Clause 14, page 7, line 21, leave out ("("the scheme)").
15 Page 7, line 26, leave out ("the applicant is") and insert ("—

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

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

16 Page 7, line 33, at end insert—
("() Except in such circumstances as may be prescribed, a pilot scheme health service body resulting from an application under subsection (1A) is to be treated, at any time, as consisting of those providing piloted services under the scheme.").
17 Page 7, line 39, leave out from ("Scotland,") to end of line 41 and insert ("in like manner as an extract registered decree arbitral bearing warrant for execution issued by the sheriff court of any sheriffdom in Scotland.").
18 Page 7, line 44, leave out from ("circumstances") to end of line 46.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I have spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 14 to 18.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
19 Clause 19, page 11, line 15, leave out ("and section 28D").
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 19. I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 21, 27, 34 to 42, 55 to 59, 61, 64 to 68, 78, 84 to 87, 96, 102, 104, 105, 111, 114 and 115.

1077
These amendments make minor drafting amendments which help clarify the text of the Bill and repeals. For example, they extend provision enabling the right to choose a medical and dental practitioner to be exercised on behalf of certain individuals by others. This can be used when parents choose practitioners for their children; they also ensure that the powers of the NHS Tribunal in Schedule 1 are brought into line with existing legislation; and they put it beyond doubt that the Secretary of State's direction-making power may be exercised as flexibly as his regulation-making powers.
I commend these important, if technical, amendments to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 19.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
20 Clause 19, page 11, line 23, at end insert—
("Persons with whom agreements may be made.
28CA.—(1) A Health Authority may make an agreement under section 28C only with one or more of the following—

(a) an NHS trust;

(b) in the case of an agreement under which personal medical services are provided—

(i) a qualifying medical practitioner;

(ii) an individual who is providing personal medical services in accordance with section 28C arrangements or section 17C arrangements;

(c) in the case of an agreement under which personal dental services are provided—

(i) a qualifying dental practitioner;

(ii) an individual who is providing personal dental services in accordance with section 28C arrangements or section I7C arrangements;

(d) an NHS employee, a section 28C employee or a section 17C employee;

(e) a qualifying body.

(2) In this section—
"the 1978 Act" means the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978;
"NHS employee" means an individual who, in connection with the provision of services in the health service in England and Wales or Scotland, is employed by—

(a) an NHS trust;

(b) in the case of an agreement under which personal medical services are provided—

(i) a medical practitioner whose name is included in a medical list kept under this Act or in a corresponding list kept under the 1978 Act; or

(ii) a medical practitioner who is providing personal medical services in accordance with section 28C arrangements or section 17C arrangements;

(c) in the case of an agreement under which personal dental services are provided—

(i) a dental practitioner whose name is included in a list prepared in accordance with regulations made under section 36(1)(a) of this Act or section 25(2)(a) of the 1978 Act; or

1078

(ii) a dental practitioner who is providing personal dental services in accordance with section 28C arrangements or section 17C arrangements;

"qualifying body" means—

(a) a company which is limited by shares all of which are legally and beneficially owned by persons falling within paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (1); and also

(b) in the case of an agreement under which personal dental services are provided, a body corporate which, in accordance with the provisions of Part IV of the Dentists Act 1984, is entitled to carry on the business of dentistry;

"qualifying dental practitioner" means a dental practitioner who satisfies the conditions imposed by regulations made under section 28D(2)(b) of this Act or section 17D(2)(b) of the 1978 Act;
"qualifying medical practitioner" means a medical practitioner who satisfies the conditions imposed by regulations made under section 28D(2)(b) of this Act or section 17D(2)(b) of the 1978 Act;
"section 17C arrangements" means arrangements for the provision of services made under section 17C of the 1978 Act;
"section 17C employee" means an individual who, in connection with the provision of services in accordance with section I7C arrangements, is employed by an individual providing those services;
"section 28C arrangements" means arrangements for the provision of services made under section 28C; and
"section 28C employee" means an individual who, in connection with the provision of services in accordance with section 28C arrangements, is employed by an individual providing those services.").
21 Page 12, line 22, leave out ("and section I7D").
22 Page 12, line 22, at end insert—
(""Health Authority" has the same meaning as in the National Health Service Act 1977;").
23 Page 12, line 30, at end insert—
("Persons with whom agreements may be made.
17CA.—(1). A Health Board may make an agreement under section 17C only with one or more of the following—

(a) an NHS trust;

(b) in the case of an agreement under which personal medical services are provided—.

(i) a qualifying medical practitioner;

(ii) an individual who is providing personal medical services in accordance with section 17C arrangements or section 28C arrangements;

(c) in the case of an agreement under which personal dental services are provided—

(i) a qualifying dental practitioner;

(ii) an individual who is providing personal dental services in accordance with section 17C arrangements or section 28C arrangements;

(d) an NHS employee, a section 17C employee or a section 28C employee;

(e) a qualifying body.

(2) In this section—
"the 1977 Act" means the National Health Service Act 1977;
"NHS employee" means an individual who, in connection with the provision of services in the health service in Scotland or England and Wales, is employed by—
(a) an NHS trust;
(b) in the case of an agreement under which personal medical services are provided—

(i) a medical practitioner whose name is included in a medical list kept under this Act or in a corresponding list kept under the 1977 Act; or

(ii) a medical practitioner who is providing personal medical services in accordance with section 17C arrangements or section 28C arrangements;

(c) in the case of an agreement under which personal dental services are provided—

(i) a dental practitioner whose name is included in a list prepared in accordance with regulations made under section 25(2)(a) of this Act or section 36(1)(a) of the 1977 Act; or

(ii) a dental practitioner who is providing personal dental services in accordance with section 17C arrangements or section 28C arrangements;

"qualifying body" means—

(a) a company which is limited by shares all of which are legally and beneficially owned by persons falling within paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (1); and also

(b) in the case of an agreement under which personal dental services are provided, a body corporate which, in accordance with the provisions of Part IV of the Dentists Act 1984, is entitled to carry on the business of dentistry;

"qualifying dental practitioner" means a dental practitioner who satisfies the conditions imposed by regulations made under section 17D(2)(b) of this Act or section 28D(2)(b) of the 1977 Act;
"qualifying medical practitioner" means a medical practitioner who satisfies the conditions imposed by regulations made under section 17D(2)(b) of this Act or section 28D(2)(b) of the 1977 Act;
"section 17C employee" means an individual who, in connection with the provision of services in accordance with section 17C arrangements, is employed by an individual providing those services;
"section 28C arrangements" means arrangements for the provision of services made under section 28C of the 1977 Act; and
"section 28C employee" means an individual who, in connection with the provision of services in accordance with section 28C arrangements, is employed by an individual providing those services.").
24 Clause 20, page 12, line 46, leave out from beginning to end of line 48 and insert—
("medical practitioners performing personal medical services, and dental practitioners performing personal dental services, in accordance with section 28C arrangements.
In paragraph (b) "practitioner" does not include a practitioner who is undergoing training of a prescribed description.").
25 Page 14, line 4, at end insert—
("() The Secretary of State must—

(a) consider whether section 28C arrangements are likely to have an adverse effect on the distribution of medical practitioners providing general medical services or performing personal medical services in England or in Wales;

(b) if he thinks that the arrangements are likely to have that effect, consider whether it is necessary to include in the regulations provisions designed to secure that, so far as is possible, the arrangements do not have that effect; and

(c) if he thinks that it is necessary, include such provisions in the regulations.").

26 Page 14, line 4, at end insert—
("() Regulations which impose conditions on persons performing personal medical services or persons performing personal dental services (whether made by virtue of subsection (2)(b) or otherwise) may, in particular, include provision of a kind that may be made by regulations under section 32.").
27 Page 14, line 11, after ("arrangements") insert ("or corresponding services under section 17C of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978").
28 Page 14, line 36, leave out from beginning to end of line 38.
29 Page 15, line 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 and insert—
("medical practitioners performing personal medical services, and dental practitioners performing personal dental services, in accordance with section 17C arrangements.
In paragraph (b) "practitioner" does not include a practitioner who is undergoing training of a prescribed description.").
30 Page 15, leave out lines 14 to 16 and insert—
("(d) require details of section 17C arrangements to be published.").
31 Page 15, line 34, leave out from ("enforceable") to end of line 37 and insert ("in like manner as extract registered decrees arbitral bearing warrant for execution issued by the sheriff court of any sheriffdom in Scotland.").
32 Page 16, line 12, at end insert—
("() The Secretary of State must—

(a) consider whether section 17C arrangements are likely to have an adverse effect on the distribution of medical practitioners providing general medical services or performing personal medical services in Scotland;

(b) if he thinks that the arrangements are likely to have that effect, consider whether it is necessary to include in the regulations provisions designed to secure that, so far as is possible, the arrangements do not have that effect; and

(c) if he thinks that it is necessary, include such provisions in the regulations.").

33 Page 16, line 12, at end insert—
("() Regulations which impose conditions on persons performing personal medical services or persons performing personal dental services (whether made by virtue of subsection (2)(b) or otherwise) may, in particular, include provision of a kind that may be made by regulations under section 22.").
34 Page 16, line 19, after ("arrangements") insert ("or corresponding services under section 28C of the National Health Service Act 1977").
35 Clause 21, page 17, line 9, at beginning insert ("In particular,").
36 Page 17, line 10, leave out (", in particular,").
37 Page 17, line 27. at end insert—
("() Regulations under this section may also provide that the right to choose a medical practitioner conferred by the regulations shall, in the case of such persons as may be specified in the regulations, be exercised on their behalf by other persons so specified.").
38 Page 17, line 41, at beginning insert ("In particular,").
39 Page 17, line 42, leave out (", in particular,").
40 Page 18, line 12. at end insert—
("() Regulations under this section may also provide that the right to choose a medical practitioner conferred by the regulations shall, in the case of such persons as may he specified in the regulations, be exercised on their behalf by other persons so specified.").
41 Clause 22, page 18, line 24, at end insert—
("() The regulations may, in particular, provide that the right to choose a dental practitioner conferred by the regulations shall, in the case of such persons as may be specified in the regulations, be exercised on their behalf by other persons so specified.").
42 Page 18, line 36, at end insert—
("() The regulations may, in particular, provide that the right to choose a dental practitioner conferred by the regulations shall, in the case of such persons as may be specified in the regulations, be exercised on their behalf by other persons so specified.").
43 Clause 23, page 19, line 31, leave out ("medical") and insert ("Part II").
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 20 to 43 when I spoke to Amendments Nos. 1 to 7, 12 and 19. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 20 to 43.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
44 Clause 26, page 23, line 38, leave out ("63(2)(a)") and insert ("63(2A)(a)").
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 44. I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 45, 47 and 49. These amendments are drafting amendments which ensure that the correct article reference from the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 is used when referring to pharmaceutical lists in Northern Ireland.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No.44.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
45 Clause 26, page 24, line 27, leave out ("63(2)(a)") and insert ("63(2A)(a)").
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendment No. 45. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 45.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
46 Insert the following new clause:
("Ophthalmic services
DUTY OF REGISTERED OPTICIANS TO REFER CERTAIN PERSONS TO REGISTERED MEDICAL PRACTITIONER.
.—(1) Section 31 of the Opticians Act 1989 (matters with respect to which the General Optical Council may make rules) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (5) (power to make rules requiring registered optician to refer persons to registered medical practitioners except in certain circumstances), for the words from "except" to "take the prescribed steps" substitute "except—

(a) in an emergency,

(b) where that person is consulting him for the purpose of being given treatment in accordance with rules under subsection (1)(d) above, or

(c) in such other cases as may be prescribed,

take the prescribed steps".
(3) After subsection (5), insert—
"(5A) Rules made by virtue of subsection (5)(c) may impose conditions which must be satisfied if the exception for which those rules provide is to apply." ").
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in the new clause inserted by Amendment No. 46. This takes account of development in the role of ophthalmic opticians, who I know prefer to be known as optometrists. Thirty years ago they were primarily concerned with the testing of sight and correction of refraction errors through the prescription of glasses. Now, in addition, they undertake a clinical examination of the eye for signs of common eye diseases.
The General Optical Council's present rule requires that, otherwise than in an emergency, the optometrist should refer the patient to a registered medical practitioner. In practice, by local agreement with GPs and hospital ophthalmologists, they use discretion. For example, most elderly people acquire opacities in their lenses, but only a few progress to cataracts. Hence, an optometrist might advise a patient to attend annually for a sight test in the knowledge that he could still refer the patient in time for successful treatment if the opacity started to thicken.
That is accepted good practice but, under the present rules, could leave the optometrist exposed to sanction under the investigative and disciplinary procedures which the GOC is obliged to follow. That would clearly be unreasonable.
The new clause inserted by this amendment would enable the General Optical Council to submit a new rule for consideration by the Privy Council which would give the GOC virtually full discretion in prescribing when an optometrist should refer a patient with a disease or injury of the eye to a registered medical practitioner. I commend the new clause to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No.46.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, we very much welcome this additional amendment in the spirit

1083
of the Bill to make general practice in every area, whether it is general medical services, ophthalmology or the other areas under consideration by the Bill, more flexible. We hope therefore to offer a better service to patients.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
47 Clause 28, page 25, line 31, leave out ("63(2)(a)") and insert ("63(2A)(a)")
48 Page 26, line 2, leave out from second ("body") to end of line 3 and insert ("which is a health service body for the purposes of section 17A")
49 Page 26, line 17, leave out ("63(2)(a)") and insert ("63(2A)(a)")
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 47 to 49 en bloc. I have already spoken to these amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 47 to 49 en bloc.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
50 Clause 29, line 24, leave Out ("or approval")
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 50. Amendments Nos. 50 to 53 were tabled in response to concerns expressed by the profession and have the support of the BMA. They make clear that health authorities will nominate doctors to fill sole practitioner vacancies, and will approve doctors to fill partnership vacancies. This reflects the policy, to be enshrined in regulations, that candidates for appointment to GP partnerships should be selected by the practice. I hope that your Lordships will support the amendments. I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No.50.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we support these amendments. There has been concern in this area over the years. We are moving towards a situation whereby we shall be able to make better appointments and safeguard the quality of service being offered to patients in general practice. We therefore very much welcome these amendments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
51 Clause 29, page 27, line 26, at end insert ("as a sole practitioner:
(f) the approval by a Health Authority of a medical practitioner for appointment to fill a vacancy as a member of a partnership.")
52 Clause 30, page 29, line 28, leave out ("or approval")
53 Page 29, line 30, at end insert ("as a sole practitioner;
(f) the approval by a Health Board of a medical practitioner for appointment to fill a vacancy as a member of a partnership.")
54 After Clause 31, insert the following new clause—
EMPLOYMENT OF PRE-REGISTRATION HOUSE OFFICERS IN MEDICAL PRACTICES
(" .—(1) The Medical Act 1983 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2) of section 10 (experience required for full registration as a medical practitioner), for "approved hospitals or approved institutions," substitute "—

(a) approved hospitals,

(b) approved institutions, or

(c) approved medical practices,".

(3) In subsection (3) of section 11 (construction of section 10, etc), after the first "where" insert "—
(a) in the case of an approved hospital or an approved institution,",
and at the end insert"; or
(b) in the case of an approved medical practice, the person employed satisfies such conditions as to residence as may be prescribed".
(4) In subsection (4) of section 11—
(a) insert in the appropriate place—
""medical practice" means a prescribed description of practice in which one or more medical practitioners—

(i) provide general medical services under Part II of the National Health Service Act 1977, Part II of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 or Part VI of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972; or

(ii) perform personal medical services in accordance with arrangements made under section 28C of the 1977 Act, section 17C of the 1978 Act or the corresponding provisions of the law in force in Northern Ireland,";

(b) in the definition of "prescribed", after "means" insert "—

(a) in subsection (3)(b) and in the definition of "medical practice", prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State; and

(b) in the other provisions of this Part,".

(5) After subsection (4) of section 11 insert—
"(4A) The Education Committee may by regulations provide that the period of employment in a medical practice which may he reckoned towards the completion of any of the periods mentioned in section 10(3)(a) above shall not exceed such period as may be specified in the regulations.
(6) In subsection (5) of section 11, after "under subsection (2) of section 10 above" insert "or under subsection (4A) of this section".
(7) After subsection (6) of section 11 insert—
"(7) Regulations made by the Secretary of State under this section must be made by statutory instrument; and such a statutory instrument shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament." ").
55 Clause 35, Page 33, line 28, after ("under") insert ("or by virtue of')
55 Page 33, line 28, after ("under") insert ("or by virtue or')
56 Page 33, line 31, at end insert—
("() Subsection (2) applies in relation to any power of the Secretary of State under or by virtue of this Act to give directions as it applies in relation to any power of his to make regulations.")
57 Clause 36, page 33. line 38, at end insert—
(""authority" has the meaning given by section 1(7);")
58 Page 33, line 38, at end insert—
(""health service" means the health service in England and Wales and the health service in Scotland;")
59 Page 33, line 38, at end insert—
(""medical list" has the meaning given by section (Provision of personal medical services under a pilot scheme)(5);")
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 51 to 59. I have already spoken to these amendments. I should like to move them en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos, 51 to 59 en bloc.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
60 Clause 37, Page 34, line 18, after ("(9)") insert ("and (12A) and (12B)")
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 60. With it, I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 62, 63, 74 to 77, 79, 80, 82, 83, 90, 92, 93, 95, 97 to 100, and 108 to 110.
The purpose of most of these amendments is to ensure that various existing legislative provisions apply consistently to the general medical and dental services and to the new arrangements. In one or two cases the amendments modify the existing provisions to reflect the different characteristics of the new system.
Amendments Nos. 60, 62 and 63 confer a power on the Secretary of State to make consequential changes to Acts of Parliament passed before or in the same Session as the Bill by order subject to the negative resolution procedure. This will ensure that any purely consequential changes to other primary legislation (such as extending a provision to include personal medical or dental services) which we have not yet identified, can be made without needing further primary legislation. I commend these amendments to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 60.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
61 Clause 37, page 34, line 28, after ("by") insert ("or under")
62 Page 34, line 35, leave out ("and (8)") and insert (", (8) and (12A)")
63 Page 34, line 41, at end insert—
("(12A) The Secretary of State may by order make such amendments or repeals of any enactment passed before, or in the same Session as, this Act as appear to him necessary or expedient in consequence of any provision of this Act.
(12B) An order under subsection (12A)—

(a) may contain such supplemental, incidental, consequential or transitional provisions and savings as the Secretary of State considers appropriate; and

(b) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")

64 Page 34, line 42, leave out subsection (13)
65 Schedule 1, page 36, line 11, after ("fit") insert ("—(i)")
66 Page 36, line 12, at end insert ("; or
(ii) direct that his name is not to be included in any other specified medical list or lists kept under the appropriate Act.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1) "appropriate Act" means—

(a) in a case where the medical list to which sub-paragraph (1)(a) applies is kept under the 1977 Act, that Act; and

(b) in a case where the medical list to which sub-paragraph (1)(a) applies is kept under the 1978 Act, that Act.")

67 Page 36, line 13, for ("(1)(b)") substitute ("(1)(b)(i)")
68 Page 36, line 15, at end insert ("(whether under the 1977 Act or the 1978 Act)")
69 Schedule 2, page 37, line 20, leave out ("Section 59 of")
70 Page 37, line 22, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("section 59")
71 Page 37, line 25, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("section 59")
72 Page 37, line 30, at end insert—
("() After section 63(2)(b) insert—
"(ba) the provision or performance of a service in accordance with arrangements made under section 28C of the 1977 Act or section 17C of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 and an activity involved in or connected with the provision or performance of such a service;".")
73 Page 38, line 1, at end insert—
("() After subsection (1) insert—
"(1ZA) It is the duty of each Health Authority, in accordance with regulations, to perform such functions in relation to section 28C arrangements as may be prescribed.
(1ZB) Regulations under subsection (1ZA) may, in particular—

(a) prescribe functions in relation to training;

(b) provide for appeals to the Secretary of State or a prescribed body in relation to functions prescribed by the regulations."").

74 Page 38, line 21, leave out from ("means") to end of line 25 and insert ("—

(a) in relation to a medical practitioner who practises otherwise than in partnership, an individual who is on that practitioner's list of patients (or, if that practitioner and one or more other medical practitioners together have a single list of patients in connection with section 28C arrangements, an individual who is on that single list);

(b) in relation to a medical practitioner who is one of two or more practitioners who practise in partnership with each other, an individual who is on the list of patients of any of those practitioners (or. if any of those practitioners together have a single list of patients in connection with section 28C arrangements, an individual who is on that single list)." ")

COMMONS AMENDMENT
75 Page 38, line 25, at end insert—
(" .—(1) Section 26 is amended as follows.
(2) For subsection (2) substitute—
"(2) The Secretary of State may supply or make available to persons—

(a) providing general medical services, general dental services, general ophthalmic services or pharmaceutical services, or

(b) providing, in accordance with section 28C arrangements, personal medical services, personal dental services or other services of a kind that may be provided under this Part,
such goods, materials or other facilities as may be prescribed."

(3) In subsection (4), after the words "pharmaceutical services" at the end of paragraph (a) insert—
"(aa) persons performing, in accordance with section 28C arrangements, personal medical services, personal dental services or other services of a kind that may be provided under this Part,".").
76 Page 38, line 25, at end insert—
(" . After section 28G insert—
"Immunisation.
28H. Where the Secretary of State arranges with medical practitioners for the vaccination or immunisation of persons against disease, he shall so far as reasonably practicable give every person providing, and every medical practitioner performing, personal medical services in accordance with section 28C arrangements an opportunity to participate in the arrangements for vaccination or immunisation."").
77 Page 38, line 25, at end insert—
(" . After section 28H insert—
"Use of accommodation.
281. If the Secretary of State considers that any accommodation provided by him by virtue of this Act is suitable for use in connection with the provision of personal medical services or personal dental services in accordance with section 28C arrangements, he may make the accommodation available on such terms as he thinks fit to persons providing those services."").
78 Page 39, line 2, at end insert—
(" . In section 50, after "whom" insert "general ophthalmic".")
79 Page 39, line 18, at end insert—
(" . In section 85(1), references to functions conferred or imposed by or under the 1977 Act are to be construed as including references to functions conferred or imposed in relation to pilot schemes by or under this Act; and references to regulations and directions are accordingly to be construed as including regulations or directions under this Act.")
80 Page 39, line 18, at end insert—
(" . In section 86, the reference to a function conferred by virtue of the 1977 Act is to be construed as including a reference to a function conferred in relation to pilot schemes by virtue of this Act.")
81 Page 39, line 25, at end insert—
(" . In section 102(1)(a)(iii) and (2)(b), after "section 32 above" insert "or by regulations which make provision in relation to section 28C arrangements of a kind that may be made by regulations under section 32 above".")
82 Page 39, line 25, at end insert—
(" . In section 103(1)(a) after "Act" insert "or in accordance with section 28C arrangements".")
83 Page 39, line 25, at end insert—
(" . In section 105(2)(a) after "examined" insert "or as part of his duty to perform personal medical services for that person in accordance with section 28C arrangements".
85 Page 39, leave out line 27
84 Page 39, line 25, at end insert—
(" . In section 126(3), after "under" insert "or by virtue of".")
86 Page 39, line 32, after ("services" ") insert ("(except in section 29)")
87 Page 39, line 33, at end insert—
(" .—(1) In Schedule 9, paragraph 5A is amended as follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph (2), after "sub-paragraph (1)(c) above" insert "as it has effect in relation to the functions mentioned below")
(3) After sub-paragraph (2) insert—
"(2A) In sub-paragraph (1)(c) above as it has effect in relation to functions of the Tribunal conferred by or under any enactment relating to the preferential treatment of medical practitioners on transferring to medical lists, the reference to the person concerned is a reference to the medical practitioner to whom the matter before the Tribunal relates." ").
88 Page 41, line 22, at end insert—
(" . In section 3(1), omit from ", for the purpose of to the end.")
89 Page 41, line 22, at end insert—
(" . In section 12A, after subsection (4) insert—
"(4A) The functions of an NHS trust also include power to provide services in accordance with section 17C arrangements, and to do so as a member of a qualifying body (within the meaning of section 17CA)." ").
90 Page 41, line 22, at end insert—
(" . In section 15(1)(a) —
(a) after "persons" insert "—
(i)"; and
(b) after "Part II" insert "; or
(ii) providing, in accordance with section 17C arrangements, personal medical services, personal dental services or other services of a kind that may be provided under this Part or Part III,".")
91 Page 41, line 22, at end insert—
(" . In section 17A(2), at the end insert "and in this Act "health service body" means any of those persons or bodies".")
92 Page 41, line 22, at end insert—
(" . After section 17G insert—
"Immunisation.
17H. Where the Secretary of State arranges with medical practitioners for the vaccination or immunisation of persons against any disease, he shall so far as reasonably practicable give every person providing, and every medical practitioner performing, personal medical services in accordance with section 17C arrangements an opportunity to participate in the arrangements for vaccination or immunisation."").
93 Page 41, line 22, at end insert—
(" . After section 17H insert—
"Use of accommodation.
171. If the Secretary of State considers that any accommodation provided by him by virtue of this Act is suitable for use in connection with the provision of personal medical services or personal dental services in accordance with section 17C arrangements, he may make the accommodation available on such terms as he thinks fit to persons providing those services."").
94 Page 41, line 39, after ("17C(", insert ("arrangements")
95 Page 41, line 40, leave out from ("means") to end of line 44 and insert ("—

(a) in relation to a medical practitioner who practises otherwise than in partnership, an individual who is on that practitioner's list of

1089
patients (or, if that practitioner and one or more other medical practitioners together have a single list of patients in connection with section 17C arrangements, an individual who is on that single list);

(b) in relation to a medical practitioner who is one of two or more practitioners who practise in partnership with each other, an individual who is on the list of patients of any of those practitioners (or, if any of those practitioners together have a single list of patients in connection with section 17C arrangements, an individual who is on that single list)." ")

96 Page 42, line 22, at end insert—
(". In section 34, after "whom" insert "general ophthalmic".")
97 Page 42, line 38, at end insert—
(". In section 77(1), references to functions conferred or imposed by or under the 1978 Act are to be construed as including references to functions conferred or imposed in relation to pilot schemes by or under this Act; and references to regulations, schemes, proposals and directions are accordingly to be construed as including regulations, schemes, proposals or directions under this Act.")
98 Page 42, line 38, at end insert—
(". In section 78, the reference to a function conferred by or under the 1978 Act is to be construed as including a reference to a function conferred in relation to pilot schemes by or under this Act.")
99 Page 43, line 12, leave out from (""practice patient"") to end of line 16 and insert (", in relation to a recognised fund-holding practice, means an individual who is on the list of patients of any of the members of the practice (or, if any of those members together have a single list of patients in connection with section 17C arrangements, an individual who is on that single list)." ")
100 Page 43, line 16, at end insert—
(" .—(1) Section 87D is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), for "subsection (2)" substitute "subsections (2) and (8)".
(3) In subsection (3)—

(a) in paragraph (a), after "who" insert "is on the medical list of a Health Board and"; and

(b) for paragraph (b) substitute—

"(b) in the case of two or more medical practitioners who practise in partnership with each other, each medical practitioner who is on the medical list of a Health Board;".
(4) After subsection (7) insert—
"(8) This section does not apply in relation to the performance or provision of personal medical services in accordance with section 17C arrangements."").
101 Page 43, line 16, at end insert—
(" . In section 88(1)(d) and (2)(e), after "section 22" insert "or by regulations which make provision in relation to section 17C arrangements of a kind that may he made by regulations under section 22".")
102 Page 43, leave out line 18
103 Page 43, line 19, leave out ("within the meaning or) and insert ("specified in")
104 Page 43, line 23, after ("services" ") insert ("(except in section 19)")
105 Page 43, line 24, at end insert—
(" . —(1) In Schedule 8, paragraph 8 is amended as follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph (2), after "sub-paragraph (1)(c) above" insert "as it has effect in relation to the functions mentioned below")
(3) After sub-paragraph (2) insert—
"(2A) In sub-paragraph (1)(c) above as it has effect in relation to functions of the Tribunal conferred by or under any enactment relating to the preferential treatment of medical practitioners on transferring to medical lists, the reference to the person concerned is a reference to the medical practitioner to whom the matter before the Tribunal relates." ").
106 Page 45, line 8, at end insert—
("The Medical Act 1983 (c.54)
—(1) The Medical Act 1983 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 11(4), in the definition of "approved", for ", in relation to a hospital or institution," substitute "(except in subsection (5))".
(3) In section 13—

(a) in subsection (1), for "approved hospital or approved institution" substitute "approved hospital, approved institution or approved medical practice";

(b) in subsection (2), for "hospital or institution" substitute "hospital, institution or medical practice";

(c) in subsection (3)(a), for "an approved hospital or an approved institution" substitute "an approved hospital, an approved institution or an approved medical practice".

(4) In section 15(3), for "approved hospitals or approved institutions" substitute "approved hospitals, approved institutions or approved medical practices".

(5) In section 21(3), for "approved hospitals or approved institutions" substitute "approved hospitals, approved institutions or approved medical practices".")

107 Page 46, line 3, at end insert—
("() In section 5, after subsection (6) insert—
"(6A) The functions of an NHS trust also include power to provide services in accordance with arrangements made under section 28C of the principal Act, and to do so as a member of a qualifying body (within the meaning of section 28CA of that Act)." ").
108 Page 46, line 24, leave out from (""practice patient"") to end of line 28 and insert (", in relation to a recognised fund-holding practice, means an individual who is on the list of patients of any of the members of the practice (or, if any of those members together have a single list of patients in connection with arrangements made under section 28C of the principal Act, an individual who is on that single list)." ")
109 Page 46, line 28, at end insert—
("() In section 18(1) for "subsection (2)" substitute "subsections (2) and (8)".
() In section 18(3)—

(a) in paragraph (a), after "who" insert "is on the medical list of a Health Authority and"; and

(b) for paragraph (b) substitute—

"(b) in the case of two or more medical practitioners who practise in partnership with each other, each medical practitioner who is on the medical list of a Health Authority;".
() After section 18(7) insert—
"(8) This section does not apply in relation to the performance or provision of personal medical services in accordance with arrangements made under section 28C of the principal Act."").
110 Page 46, line 28, at end insert—
("() In section 62(7), after paragraph (a)(i) in the definition of "services" insert—
"(ia) arrangements made under section 28C of that Act;".")
111 Page 47, line 34, leave out ("1977") and insert ("1978")
112 Page 47, line 37, after ("Service") insert ("(Scotland)")
113 Schedule 3, page 49, line 34, column 3, at beginning insert—

("In section 3(1), the words from ", for the purpose of to the end.")

114 Page 50, line 12, column 3, at beginning insert ("Section 12(1)(c).")
115 Page 50, line 15, column 3, after ("paragraphs") insert ("6(c),")
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 61 to 115 en bloc. I have already spoken to these amendments. I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 61 to 115 en bloc.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
116 In the Title, line 3, leave out ("ophthalmic,")
117 Line 6, after ("Authorities") insert ("and Health Boards; to make provision about ophthalmic services").
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 116 and 117. These amendments change the Long Title of the Bill to reflect two provisions added to the Bill since its original introduction in this House. At Report stage in this House we introduced an amendment to deal with the expenditure of health boards and in another place we added a provision which amended the Opticians Act 1989. These amendments ensure that the Long Title covers both of these and thus correctly reflects the contents of the Bill. I commend the amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 116 and 117.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, we welcome these amendments, which reflect changes made in the Bill. As this is the last group of amendments, I thank the Minister for her kindness in discussing this complicated process with those of us on these Benches in the past few days. Although I said at the beginning of consideration of Commons amendments that we were concerned about the speed with which this had to be done, the Minister did everything that she could to help us consider the amendments. They have improved the Bill and we welcome them.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I join in the congratulations to the Minister. She has, as usual, been always delightful in guiding us in the right direction—and has not been very "lengthy", which I appreciate. I believe that all of us are absolutely certain that the Bill has been improved by these amendments. Many of us feel that what has been said
1092
in this House has to some extent influenced amendments in the other place. We welcome the amendments and wish the Bill a good future.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I shall be very brief. I pay tribute to all noble Lords who have taken part in debates on the Bill. I thank them for their unfailing courtesy and, where necessary, the co-operation of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and her colleagues, and the noble Baroness, Lady Robson. I thank my noble friends for the support that they gave. I also thank my outstanding Whip, who has kept me in order throughout the course of the Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security Administration (Fraud) Bill
4.58 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Baroness Lockwood) in the Chair.]
Clause 12 [Inspectors appointed by authorities):
[Amendment No. 74 not moved.]
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 21, line 18, after second ("benefit") insert ("within the preceding 3 years").
The noble Baroness said: It is not my intention to speak on most of the amendments in my name. However, this is so simple and so straightforward an amendment that I thought I should take the opportunity to present it to the Committee.
The clause that it seeks to amend is the clause that provides for the inspection of private dwelling-houses by an inspector where he or she has cause to believe that trade or businesses are being carried out. It goes on in subsection (6) to define:
"For the purposes of this section—

(a) a benefit claimant is a person who has claimed housing benefit or council tax benefit; and

(b) a benefit recipient is a person to whom housing benefit or council tax benefit has been paid".

It does not define how long one has been a claimant. It is possible, I suppose, to have been a claimant some years ago and still qualify for inspection under the terms of this clause. The intention of Amendments Nos. 75 and 76 is to provide that:

"(a) a benefit claimant is a person who has claimed housing benefit or council tax benefit within the preceding 3 years: and

(b) a benefit recipient is a person to whom housing benefit or council tax benefit has been paid within the preceding 3 years".

It seems to us necessary to define precisely the length of period required to qualify as a benefit claimant under this clause of the Bill. Is the position "once a claimant, always a claimant", as was put to me by one of the organisations that wrote to me about the clause? It seems to me that we must have some sort of qualification, otherwise there is a lack of clarity about what a benefit claimant is and whether that person continues indefinitely to be subject to the inspections provided for in this clause. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: Without more ado, I support this amendment. The Minister may not wish to accept it at this stage of proceedings, but would he consider incorporating the point in guidance?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I shall certainly bear in mind the point that the noble Earl has made, but I hope that, once I have explained Clause 12 and put on record how we see it operating, both the noble Baroness and the noble Earl will feel that that will be sufficient.
Clause 12 provides for an authority administering housing benefit or council tax benefit to appoint inspectors who may enter business premises to make inquiries about any person believed to be a benefit claimant or recipient. This measure is needed because at present local authority investigators have no more power to make investigations than any ordinary citizen. Investigations can be halted by the refusal of a landlord or an employer to co-operate in providing details of their tenants or employees. This clause will provide those appointed as inspectors with the powers that they need to investigate fraud thoroughly.
The powers are broadly comparable with those already available to Department of Social Security staff. Local authority inspectors will have the right to enter a place of business, inspect records, copy records and interview anyone found there. The clause will allow an inspector to seek information or documents from or about anyone who has claimed or received housing benefit or council tax benefit.
The effect of the noble Baroness's amendments would be to limit this provision by allowing details to be sought in relation only to persons who had claimed or received those benefits within the previous three years. It may be argued—and indeed that is what the noble Baroness has done—that there should be a time limit beyond which someone suspected of fraud should be safe from investigation. I believe that that ignores the different types of benefit fraud with which investigators may need to deal. For example, in the case of an individual who years ago obtained small sums by fraud—perhaps by failing to report an increase in wages—it is extremely unlikely that authorities would go back several years with their inquiries.
But what about the large scale fraudster operating on an extensive scale, the crooked landlord whose frauds extend over a large number of properties and who has been operating for years? It may be that suspicion relating to a particular claim only surfaces some considerable time after the event. Possibly in the course
1094
of investigating one fraud, evidence may come to light of other frauds, maybe of a whole series of frauds, which occurred more than three years previously. There is nothing in law to prevent authorities taking such cases to court. I do not think that we would want to restrict the freedom of local authorities and inspectors to investigate such serious cases and allow those involved to escape the consequences of their actions solely because of an arbitrary time limit restricting the ability to gather the necessary evidence.
In the case of big-time fraudsters—possibly landlords, managing agents, collusive employers or even individual claimants who are organised or professional criminals—local authorities may well need to go back as far as is necessary to collect sufficient evidence to ensure that the large-scale cheats do not escape the consequences of their crimes.
I hope that, in the light of that explanation of how we believe the clause will operate when looking back a long time and of why I believe it is needed for the serious cases I referred to—which I know all Members of the Committee treat very seriously indeed—the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw her amendments.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the Minister very much for that explanation. It is quite true that we on this side of the Chamber—and indeed everybody in the Chamber—are very much against protection for crooked landlords. We have done our best during discussion of this Bill to ensure that provisions in relation to that sort of fraud are strengthened rather than weakened and we would not want to do anything that protected such people.
I am also glad of the Minister's assurance, given earlier in his statement, in regard to what one might call the poorer claimant who may have made a mistake many years ago. The Minister does not think that local authorities would go back that far in order to check on that kind of suspected fraud. It is that kind of individual that we most wanted to protect. In the light of what the Minister has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 76 and 77 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 78 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 79:
Before Clause 13, insert the following new clause—
OVERPAYMENTS NOT DUE TO FRAUD
(" . In section 71 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (overpayments), after subsection (1) insert—
"(1A) In a case where the misrepresentation or failure in question referred to in subsection (1) above was not fraudulent, this section shall entitle the Secretary of State to recover only the amount which is referable to the 12 months immediately preceding the determination.".").
Earl Russell: I had given the Minister notice that I intended to withdraw all my amendments from the Marshalled List. Through an administrative oversight,

1095
for which I take sole responsibility, that has not been done. With the leave of the Committee, if no Member objects, and if it is in order, I should like not to move my amendments en bloc.
The Deputy Chairman: Does the noble Earl assure the Committee that he will not wish to move any of his amendments?
Earl Russell: Yes.
[Amendment No. 79 not moved.]
Clause 13 [Offence of dishonest representation for obtaining benefit]:
[Amendments Nos. 80 and 81 not moved.]
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Penalty as alternative to prosecution]:
[Amendments Nos. 82 to 89 not moved.]
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Recovery of overpaid housing benefit]:
[Amendments Nos. 90 to 94 not moved.]
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Reviews initiated by Secretary of State]:
Baroness Gould of Potternewton Baroness Gould of Potternewton moved Amendment No. 95
Page 25, line 5, at beginning insert ("Where there is evidence to raise a question with a view to a review of entitlement under subsections (2) and (5) above.").
The noble Baroness said: I beg leave to move Amendment No. 95 and to speak to Amendments Nos. 96 and 97. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that reviews can only be initiated where the Secretary of State has adequate reasons to question the validity of continuing claims for attendance allowance, disability living allowance and disability working allowance.
At the present time, there are two ways in which a review can be initiated: either by the claimant on the decision of the adjudication officer or by the adjudication officer where there has been ignorance of a material fact, a mistake or a change of circumstance.
There is, however, some confusion—and it is partly because I seek clarification that I move this amendment—on how broadly a Secretary of State, through the adjudication officer, can go in initiating a review. This clause clarifies that position, but the opportunity also seems to have been taken to give the Secretary of State substantial new powers to obtain information prior to instigating review.
Amendment No. 95 would ensure that such investigations are only carried out where there is some evidence which puts the claimant's entitlement in doubt, such as change of circumstance or other reason for review already stated in subsections (2) and (5). It would prevent the Benefits Agency from carrying out random fraud visits to vulnerable people without good reason.
Amendment No. 96 makes it explicit that there would have to be initial information available which throws doubt on the continued validity of the claim. Subsection
1096
(2) is deleted as the Benefits Agency already has the power to review a life award of DLA and AA, either because the person requests it or because the adjudication officer has information that the entitlement should not continue. Perhaps the Minister can indicate why that needs to be changed and what information he believes would be necessary to prompt a review.
I am grateful to both the RNIB and the Disability Alliance for providing me with evidence in support of the amendments. For instance, the RNIB evidence draws on work undertaken for its report, Seeing it our way, carried out to assess the attitudes of fully sighted people on visual impairment. The report reveals that there is substantial public ignorance about visual impairment and the need for aids such as a dog or a white stick. One must not assume that a lack of a visual sign of blindness means that blind and partially sighted people do not need assistance. Given that ignorance, it is possible for someone to ring the fraud hotline and initiate a review because they falsely believe that a visually impaired person is a bogus claimer because he does not have a guide dog.
As we have constantly said, there must be initiatives to tackle fraud, but we must be concerned that spurious allegations do not lead to unwarranted information-gathering exercises, causing considerable worry and distress to claimants whose claims are completely legitimate. These amendments would at least secure that the Secretary of State would have reasonable grounds to doubt the continued validity of the claims before seeking additional information.
In the Committee stage in the other place the Minister stated that disability is not a fraud issue; rather that this Bill is a convenient vehicle to clarify existing legislation. If that is the case one must ask why a Bill aimed at tackling fraud includes two clauses on disability benefits.
It can only relate to a reply given on 12th February to a parliamentary Answer which seems to suggest that, following a review into DLA, the Government perceive a link between claims for DLA and fraud based on an assumed overspend of around £250 million annually. Can the Minister say how he relates that to the Benefits Agency having met its 1995–96 accuracy targets of 96 per cent. for DLA?
I should like an assurance from the Minister that the whole text of the report on DLA and incorrectness is made available and that no decisions are taken on tackling that assumed incorrectness without full consultation with disability organisations. If the review focused on the lower and higher rate mobility components of DLA and the DLA and the "ability to walk", as we understand was the case, can the Minister deny the rumours about changes in interpreting "ability to walk" and give an assurance that no changes are planned which may diminish the right of blind and partially-sighted people to get the lower rate mobility component of DLA.
In conclusion, the Bill as it stands gives wide power to the Secretary of State to gather information which may be maliciously or spuriously activated and result in intrusive and unnecessary information gathering. These

1097
amendments would strike a balance between proper fraud investigation and the harassment of innocent individuals. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I may respond to the noble Baroness and explain why this clause is included in the Bill and the reasons behind it. That may perhaps allay her worries.
Clause 17 is concerned with the Secretary of State's ability to investigate the correctness of existing awards of attendance allowance and disability living allowance and, if appropriate, to refer cases to an adjudication officer for review. The investigation concerns simply the power to obtain evidence. It carries no other implications. Clause 17 is not intended to confer a new power but to clarify an existing one.
It is right and proper that, in order to safeguard the public purse, the Secretary of State may take action to satisfy himself that benefit is being paid to an individual correctly. In DLA and AA, as in most others benefits, decisions and reviews of decisions are made by adjudication officers. Uniquely in the DLA and AA, the adjudication officer cannot initiate a review of the decision off his own bat but must rely on an application for a review being put to him. That position came about as a result of introducing a specific provision allowing the claimant to apply for review. That was intended to be helpful to the claimant, and indeed it is. However, it has had the unforeseen side effect of opening to question the Secretary of State's ability to apply for a review because it is not so specified.
The question concerning the Secretary of State's power to apply for a review has been posed by Mr. Mark Rowland, now Commissioner Rowland, in his book Medical and Disability Appeal Tribunals: the Legislation. It was always intended that the Secretary of State would apply for a review, and the Government have no doubt that the Secretary of State does have those powers. That necessarily includes the ability to investigate cases in order to establish whether a review is necessary, and, if so, why.
Where a question arises about a specific case, whether as a result of information received from a claimant or from a third party, obviously the Secretary of State will want to investigate. That is right and proper. Where a question arises in relation to a specific type of case—for example, as a result of management checks on individual cases or a survey such as the recently published benefit review of DLA—the Secretary of State needs to investigate. To do that he also needs to establish whether the benefit as a whole is being administered properly and, indeed, to identify those areas in which it is weak. That is a normal activity in benefit administration. It is necessary and right and within the Secretary of State's power.
The Secretary of State has a duty to taxpayers and to claimants to ensure that the benefit, which is worth £6.25 billion this year, is going to those who are entitled to it. The benefit review I mentioned, which has been published, identified 27 per cent. of current awards as
1098
being incorrect. The noble Baroness rightly points out that that is considerably above the target that we like to aim for in the Benefits Agency. Obviously, therefore, we are concerned about that situation.
The 27 per cent. of current awards which are incorrect includes some 10 per cent. of claimants who are being underpaid. That seems to arise largely as a result of unreported change. The incorrectness therefore is not just through bad calculations on the part of the Benefits Agency; it is also through unreported change of one kind or another. The important point is that, largely due to unreported change, something like 10 per cent. of claimants were being underpaid.
Amendment No. 95 would restrict the Secretary of State's ability to carry out investigations that would provide him with information about the correct level of benefit. As I outlined, it is unacceptable for that reason. There has been speculation that the department proposes wholesale investigations throughout the entire DLA caseload. The noble Baroness or those advising her seemed to fear that. I can assure her that that is not the intention. Our interest is in ensuring that the awards in payment are correct, which includes increasing them where appropriate, as well as reducing them.
Amendment No. 97 would remove Clause 17(2), which makes it explicit that the Secretary of State's power to investigate and apply for review includes cases where AA or DLA have not been awarded for a fixed period. Let me first make plain what the term "life award" refers to. It relates to awards in which it is expected that the person's condition will remain with him and will not improve throughout the remainder of his life, so removing the need for unnecessary periodic review. It was never intended to mean that such awards were immune from review. Indeed, review is provided for in legislation. For the care component of DLA, Section 72 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 provides that:
"a person shall be entitled to the care component of a disability living allowance for any period throughout which he is so severely disabled physically or mentally that",
and so forth. The legislation then lists the care needs which would entitle him to each of the three rates of the care component. Similarly, in Section 73, the legislation again provides that a person shall be entitled to the mobility component for any period throughout which he meets one of the list of qualifying conditions. The intention is plain. Regardless of the length of the initial award, entitlement exists only as long as the qualifying conditions relating to specified care and mobility needs are met.
The provisions in Section 32(4) of the Social Security Administration Act which relate to the circumstances in which a component awarded for life may be reviewed were designed to remove the need for a review when both components had been awarded but only one was a life award, the other being for a fixed period. That protection for the component awarded for life is unaffected by the amendment, which is itself aimed only at putting the Secretary of State's existing power to apply for review beyond doubt in this particular circumstance as in others.

1099
The amendment before us would prevent the Secretary of State from investigating these awards when it was appropriate to do so, but it would also prevent clarification of the law so far as those awards are concerned. As I think I indicated, we have no intention of going on some wholesale review of DLA. We had always believed, until Commissioner Rowland's book appeared, that the Secretary of State had the power to initiate a review and that it was not just a claimant who had the power to initiate a review.
I appreciate that these allowances go to people who are very often severely disabled and very much in need of help. I very much appreciate that a clause like this at least demands some explanation. I hope I have explained what we are doing. I hope the noble Baroness accepts that what we are doing is entirely above board and does not in any way represent an attack on DLA or the people who receive it.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I thank the Minister for his reply and for his explanation of the power of the Secretary of State and of the incorrectness of levels of benefit. I thank him for his assurance that there will not be a wholesale review of DLA. I am not saying that I am absolutely convinced about the motivation behind introducing the clause. I still believe that adjudication officers can instigate reviews in particular circumstances. Nor am I completely reassured that there are adequate safeguards against these vague powers being abused at a later stage. Unless there are assurances on the face of the Bill a future Secretary of State might interpret them very differently. However, I would sincerely hope not. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 96 and 97 not moved.]
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Medical examinations of persons awarded certain benefits]:
[Amendments Nos. 98 to 103 not moved.]
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Requirement to state national insurance number]:
[Amendments Nos. 104 to 110 not moved.]
Clause 19 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 110A not moved.]
Clause 20 [Return of social security post]:
[Amendment No. 111 not moved.]
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Information about redirection of post]:
[Amendments Nos. 112 to 116 not moved.]
Clause 21 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 18th March), Bill read a third time.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
I just want to say one or two words, not about the Bill itself—I have discussed it in some detail and we have all gone through it—but to thank those who have participated in our debates. I thank the officials who have helped me with the Bill and who have worked so busily behind the scenes. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Gould of Potternewton and Lady Turner of Camden, and the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Whitty, for their contributions to our debates. I thank my noble friends who have supported me in the Division Lobby when it has come to it.
I wish to look wider than the Bill to the two-and-a-half years when I have answered social security questions at this Dispatch Box. I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for his excellent support as my Whip. There have been many occasions, as hour succeeded hour in debate, during which I am sure he must have realised that his official title of Lord in Waiting had more than one interpretation. Not only has he done a good job in looking after me, but I am sure he has impressed us all at the Dispatch Box in dealing with the very difficult issues which have fallen to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the past year or so.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has shown amazing stamina and knowledge and an inexhaustible supply of anecdotes and aphorisms.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: He has not finished yet.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am hoping that he may have finished. His story of the two men taking the barrel of beer to the races to sell it and drinking it themselves on the way, passing the same threepenny bit between them for payment, as an example of the internal market, will always be with me. In some ways he reminds me of the ancestor of my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, whose military campaigns—the noble Earl is perhaps more of an expert on this subject than I am, so I am being cautious—involved him taking his army on long, seemingly impossible marches, often deep into the night—that will not surprise your Lordships—back and forward across the mountains and glens of Scotland, catching the then Earl of Argyll, the ancestor of my noble friend the Duke of Argyll (Campbell of Argyll), unawares on a number of occasions. I believe that Mackay of Ardbrecknish, also of Argyll, has managed a bit better than the ancestor of my noble friend the Duke of Argyll in not being caught unawares quite so often. I shall perhaps admit at this stage that my patience has been tried just a little by the noble Earl; but more often than not I have enjoyed crossing verbal swords with him and I thank him for his unfailing courtesy and good humour.
One of my problems is that I have been able to use only my left hand in order to fend off the noble Earl, keeping my right hand to fend off the noble Baroness,

1101
Lady Hollis of Heigham. I am very sorry that she cannot be here today. I fully understand why she cannot be here and I know that she, too, regrets that. We have debated against each other on six social security Bills and on parts of two others; on many pieces of secondary legislation and on innumerable Questions.
The noble Baroness has carried a formidable workload on the Front Bench opposite—perhaps the largest workload of anybody on that Front Bench. She has always been well briefed and well prepared. She has made good use of her distinctive debating style, her formidable intellect and her feminine charms to try to persuade your Lordships, especially those on the Cross-Benches and some of my noble friends, to unseat me. I believe that I can claim that we have been the lead players in some of the high drama debates of this Parliament. Indeed, on one or two of these occasions she has managed to weave her spell to such good effect that my noble friend the Captain of the Gentlemen of Arms has not carried the result of the Division to the Lord Chairman or to my noble and learned friend and fellow clansman, the Lord Chancellor. These battles and their results are now in the bound editions of Hansard. Your Lordships may be looking at the three of us and wondering, with Shakespeare and "Macbeth", when the three witches say,
"When shall we three meet again
In thunder, lightning, or in rain?".
The answer is there as well—
"When the hurlyburly's done,
When the battle's lost and won".
That battle will be a matter for others to decide, but for this moment suffice it to say that I would not have missed our many trysts around the cauldron in this House for the world.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, in replying to the Minister's remarks, I must first express the regrets of my noble friends Lady Hollis of Heigham and Lord Carter, that they are unable to be present today. My noble friend Lady Hollis has asked me to apologise to the House and to the Minister for her absence. She has been unavoidably called away on a temporary family problem. Lady Hollis and Lord Carter were responsible for presenting to your Lordships' House many amendments to improve the Bill, including amendments to provide adequate safeguards for data protection and that highly sensitive personal information is controlled; to give greater powers to local authorities to tackle organised landlord fraud and for the Bill to be a vehicle for benefit entitlement and not just for the elimination of fraud.
I know that my noble friend Lady Hollis would also wish me to thank on her behalf her colleagues on the Labour Benches, my noble friends Lord Carter, Lady Turner of Camden and Lord Whitty, who made notable contributions to this Bill.
1102
We on this side of the House welcome the overall thrust of this Bill to reduce the level of benefit fraud. Perhaps I may paraphrase the words of my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham at Second Reading. She said that with this Bill the Government have finally accepted the argument that we have consistently put to them, that there is an unacceptably high level of error and fraud of benefit payments. As a consequence, in principle we welcome one of the main planks of the Bill in respect of data matching.
However, the Bill as it stands does not strike the necessary balance between the rights of the individual and the collection of information to check fraud. We were heartened, however, by the undertaking given by the Minister that the Department of Social Security will publish a code of practice on data matching and that data matching exercises under the new powers in the relevant clauses of the Bill will not be conducted until the code has been published. I am personally grateful to the Minister for his sympathetic response on the question of appointees and the procedure by which they are appointed.
We do appreciate the good humour, which we have heard again today, and the courtesy and honesty with which the Minister has responded to the many amendments. I know that my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham will appreciate very much his kind words when she reads them in Hansard tomorrow. I am sure that she will read them with great pleasure. We are grateful, too, for the work of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. We are also grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his erudite and, at times, extremely amusing contributions to the Bill.
We express our thanks to the team of advisers for their able assistance, which has been invaluable to us. In particular, we should like to thank representatives of the ALG, the ADC/AMA, the head of Lambeth's anti-fraud unit and the head of benefits at Westminster, including representatives of the offices of John Denham and Harry Cohen, Members in another place, for all their help with the amendments. We also thank the many organisations which have helped to provide briefings to us. That has been invaluable. Not least, we would like to thank our researcher, Robert McGeachy, who has always been there to give us support, both administratively and with background research and information.
In conclusion, there are a number of aspects of the Bill about which we still have reservations, but we believe that the assurances that we have received from the Minister will be honoured.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister most warmly for that most generous tribute. Whatever may happen in the next Parliament and whenever it may be that we three meet again, I will inevitably think of the Table over there as the cauldron. It is most appropriately provided with water for which I have been most grateful on many occasions. Both the Minister and I have very much enjoyed our numerous engagements. At times they have been inconclusive. I always think of speaking from this side of the House as being a little like bowling. I found the Minister's defence impregnable.

1103
Whatever I have come up with, the Minister's hat always seems to be there. Thinking of new ways of getting round it has been a wonderful challenge. But his defence! Well, I do not see how to get round it.
He knows the story of my dentist who used to bowl to his clansman, the Australian "Slasher" Mackay. He asked him whether there was any way of getting him out. He thought for a long time and replied, "Hand grenades". I do not propose to employ them on the Minister because I have found that not only have we developed that relationship of trust, which is essential for doing any business across the Chamber, but we have also come to look on each other with a good deal of warmth. I very much enjoyed our exchanges and our conversations inside the Chamber and out. He is a person with whom any day I am happy to do business.
I am also extremely sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, is unable to be here today. I offer my sympathy for the reasons why she is not able to be here. I very much enjoyed working side by side with her—speed at one end and spin at the other. It is an ideal bowling combination. I am sure that the two of us have been far more successful than either of us could ever have hoped to be alone. I believe that the contrast of styles has been a very great asset. I have very much enjoyed working not only with the fire and the force with which her arguments are put forward, but also with the weight of academic knowledge and intelligence which is behind them. I have been proud to work beside her.
I too should like to offer thanks to all those who have helped us with this work; to the team behind me in our Whips' Office who have been rushed off their feet with amendments many times; to organisations which have advised us and to all those in the Chamber on both sides of the House and in all quarters of the House, who have enlivened the debates in which we have taken part.
Now a brief word about this Bill: it is not the Crime (Sentences) Bill. This is a Bill which has general agreement as to its object. We all support what it is trying to do. We all believe that this Bill should become law. My concern about it has been with misdemeanours and not with felonies.
As I see it, this is a "tea-break Bill", rather like the old "tea-break car" which is what an unlucky purchaser occasionally acquired. The Bill has been prepared in considerable haste. In my view, it could have done with rather more scrutiny than it has yet received. We all understand about the pressure caused by the unexpectedly early prorogation. Inevitably, there are deals in such circumstances. It takes two to make a deal: there must be give and take. On this Bill, I believe that the Opposition have sold themselves a little cheap in the deal that they have made. The Bill is to become law, but it could have been amended with considerable benefit before becoming law.
The Minister knows that there is great doubt about whether the Bill is legal under the terms of the European Convention on Human Rights. He knows, I believe, we are told that an action will begin immediately the Bill becomes law. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould—in case it falls to her honourable friends
1104
to implement the Bill—is well aware that her party and mine have agreed that the European Convention should be incorporated in British law. I warmly welcome that declaration. So, the Opposition might be wise, if they are in charge of the Bill in future, to make it their fairly urgent business in the next Parliament while the major Bills are being prepared to tidy up this Bill to bring it into line with the European Convention and to ensure that it is legal. I am sorry that we have not done that—amendments to achieve it could have been offered.
The Bill may risk doing damage to people who have been guilty of innocent misrepresentation. I have not moved my amendment that Clause 14 should not stand part of the Bill, but that is a symbolic point about an issue which whoever is in charge of this matter in the next Parliament should think about again. If there is tidying up legislation, I hope that point will be addressed.
The need to pursue fraud is urgent. The need for fairness is also vital. I am not sure that this Bill always achieves that balance. The Bill means well and I welcome it for that reason, but there is still more work to do—and somebody will have to do it. I wish them well with it, whoever they may be.
On Question, Bill passed.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to Bill (88) as first printed by the Commons.]
5.42 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 21, page 9, line 34, leave out from second ("NCIS") to end of line 35.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. In speaking to Amendment No. 1, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 to 6, 103 to 107, 122, 124 and 125. These are minor and technical amendments to tidy up the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad provisions in the Bill.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
2 Clause 23, page 11, line 37, after ("subsection (1)") insert ("or (2)").
3 Page 11, line 39, after ("direct") insert ("the Director General of NCIS,").
4 Page 11, line 41, after ("Constabulary") insert ("or").
5 Page 11, line 42, leave out ("or the Director General of NCIS").
6 Clause 66, page 27, line 38, leave out from second ("Squad") to end of line 39.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 6 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 6—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
7 Leave out Clause 91
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7 to Part III of the Bill. I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 8 to 68 and 108 to 120. These amendments are of more substance.
I do not believe that there is any dispute about the need for the police and Customs to use intrusive surveillance techniques against serious and organised criminals. These techniques must be available to the police and Customs if they are to gain the vital intelligence necessary to disrupt and bring to book our most dangerous criminals.
A great deal has been said about the provisions of Part III of the Bill. Debate in this House confirmed the extent of the concerns evident at the Government's original proposals for chief officer authorisation and independent oversight by a surveillance commissioner. I have to say that some of the concerns were unfounded and I cannot agree with them. But the will of this House was made very apparent with the passing of contradictory amendments. We have therefore taken Part III away and applied detailed consideration to the most effective way of returning the Bill to a workable condition. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced a number of modifications to Part III in advance of Second Reading in another place. These modifications have been discussed and approved. Part III has therefore been effectively rewritten. But I hope these modifications will serve to illustrate to this House our commitment to provide further safeguards to meet the concerns of this House, while ensuring a system which enables the police and Customs to be able to continue to get the benefit of these techniques so necessary to the fight against organised crime into the next millennium.
We could not accept the amendment approved in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers. This would have required all intrusive surveillance to have the prior authorisation of a circuit judge. We could not accept that judges can properly be expected to make these decisions. But there are other difficulties. Accountability would be reduced: judges cannot be called to account in the same way as chief officers. Furthermore, the absence of provisions for urgent cases would seriously inhibit the fight against serious crime. It could even endanger life, and I think particularly of hostage situations in which an immediate response can be vital.
1106
The amendment approved by this House in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, does not present quite the same difficulties. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has responded positively in another place by modifying this amendment to produce a system of authorisation which builds upon existing accountability arrangements, leaves operational decisions to those best qualified to take them and provides for effective independent scrutiny.
Amendment No. 36 builds upon the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and requires that the prior approval of a commissioner be obtained before an operation begins in the most sensitive categories of case. These circumstances will include cases in which there are reasonable grounds for thinking that the operation authorised under Part III could involve intrusion into dwellings, offices or hotel bedrooms or could affect legal privilege, confidential personal information (including spiritual counselling and medical consultations) and confidential journalistic material. The Government have added definitions of legal privilege and the other prescribed categories for the purposes of Part III in Amendments Nos. 37, 38 and 39. These definitions are based on those which exist under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
Prior approval will not be necessary in urgent cases, but the commissioner would have to be notified as soon as reasonably practicable after the authorisation had been given. He will able to quash the authorisation if he is not satisfied with the reasons given for considering the case one of urgency.
Government amendments approved in another place also provide for authorising officers and complainants to appeal to the Chief Commissioner against decisions taken by commissioners. On reflection, we have taken the view that there should be avenues of appeal for authorising officers or complainants to challenge what they consider to be unreasonable decisions taken by commissioners. Amendments Nos. 48, 49 and 50 provide the necessary mechanism for the making and consideration of these appeals which represent a further significant safeguard.
The addition of this appeals mechanism is one of the considerations which requires a clear demarcation to be drawn between the responsibilities of the chief and the other commissioners appointed for the purposes of Part III. Amendments to Clause 98 therefore clarify that the commissioner shall keep under review the performance of functions under Part III. This is a crucial point. The Chief Commissioner will not be responsible for day-to-day approval of authorisations or investigation of complaints. These are functions of the commissioners.
The Government have responded positively in another place to the concerns raised in this House. What has resulted is an effective system for the authorisation of these operations by those best qualified to make these operational decisions, with the addition of a number of effective safeguards. I commend these amendments to this House.

1107
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7.—(Baroness Blotch.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are all grateful to the Minister for the clarity with which she has introduced these complex amendments. As the House will know, they occupied a great deal of time when the Bill was before this House and a considerable amount of time when the Bill was considered in the Commons, and particularly when it was in Committee there.
The Minister was generous enough to acknowledge that it had been necessary to build upon rather than reverse the amendments in my name that had been carried by the House. She is right to point out the complexity of the issues. That is apparent from the complexity of the amendments that have been passed by the Commons. Indeed, when I compare the complexity of these amendments with the relevant simplicity of my own I acknowledge that the drafting of legislation from scratch is not one of my strengths.
There are still areas in which we can take exception to what is being done. Referring to the important Amendment No. 36, I regret that the restriction of the location of intrusive surveillance is as great as it is. I do not believe that it makes very good sense to include in judicial authorisation office premises without including other places of work. Our intention was to have a wider remit for judicial authorisation. I do not believe that the restriction relating to office premises will work very well.
I acknowledge that the amendments now spell out in very much greater detail than we did the enormously important issues of legal privilege, confidential personal information and confidential journalistic information. These are important changes to the Bill that bring it into line with international legislation, which I am still convinced the original Bill would not have achieved. I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, who played such a distinguished part in the deliberations of these amendments, is not in his place. I believe that we should all pay tribute to him for his persistence, clarity and grasp of the fundamental principles of civil liberty which infused his contribution. I believe—I hope he agrees—that they have resulted in a satisfactory outcome.
I turn to the amendments dealing with complaints and appeals. It is necessary that there should be an opportunity for appeals by authorising officers, and they are provided for in Amendments Nos. 48 and 49. I welcome the fact that Amendment No. 50, which introduces a new clause, allows for appeals by complainants on a much wider basis than the very limited judicial review procedures provided in the original Bill. At the time I believed that the least valid complaint about our amendments was that the commissioner who authorised surveillance in the first place would be in difficulty because he would also be responsible for review. I felt that that could be overcome by the provision of a body of commissioners. I tabled amendments comparable with those of the Government to ensure that there would be a body of commissioners,
1108
thus avoiding a potential conflict of interest. By their amendments to Clauses 96 and 98 the Government have ensured that the separation of responsibility between initial authorisation and overall review is secured by distinguishing between the role of the commissioner and that of the Chief Commissioner. That seems to us to be a satisfactory outcome.
All in all, without wanting to appear in any way triumphalist I believe that the concerns of the House, so overwhelmingly expressed on the vote on my amendments, as the Bill was originally before your Lordships have been fairly met by the Government. I thank them and congratulate them on producing a Bill which, in this respect, is a substantially better one than that originally put before us.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, on the eve of Prorogation we on these Benches would have most welcomed amendments that set aside Parts II and III, which we are now discussing, and Part V for further reflection and consultation in the knowledge that, when that had taken place, they could be brought back in a separate Bill before the end of the calendar year. That is not the case. We must therefore turn our minds to the amendments before us.
I too welcome the acceptance by the Government of the principle of judicial authorisation. Although the Government have chosen to substitute the word "approval" for "authorisation", I do not mind such a cosmetic change (which I believe to be semantic) if it enables them to do what this House judges to be right. I welcome the changes that have been made. I am glad that the Government recognised the force of opinion in this House and, more importantly, that the force of opinion reflected what was right.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, referred to one matter of disagreement in terms of the amendments which were carried by this House: the role of the commissioners. I too welcome the change which I understand is embodied in some of the amendments that we are now discussing. But it remains to be seen whether the distinction between the Chief Commissioner and the remaining commissioners is sufficient to ensure that those who approve—which I understand means "authorise"—electronic surveillance will not be those who review it. Time will tell. We welcome the amendment, but that is one matter that we will want to monitor.
Equally, we shall want to watch very closely how Amendment No. 36 works. When the original amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was moved in this House I was concerned about whether the door was being left wide open for the emergence of provisions to enable the Police Service—I make no criticism—to decide to go ahead with electronic surveillance without turning to one of the commissioners or (as I would prefer) a High Court judge. If the amendment closes that gap, we should be delighted; but we shall want to watch very carefully how many of the authorisations go forward without judicial approval in the light of experience. We still believe that approval by a High Court judge is better. We regret that the proposals were not made in the original legislation.

1109
Having said that, we welcome the changes. I too am grateful to the noble Baroness for making the changes so specific and clear to the House this afternoon.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 38, to which the Minister has already spoken. The provision in the Commons amendment, which appears as subsection (2)(b) of the new clause, refers to spiritual counselling or assistance. This has given the Church of England serious cause for concern. I stress that it also affects other Christian churches and religions other than Christianity.
As I understand it, agreement has been reached with the Secretary of State and the police authorities that surveillance under the Bill should not breach the seal of the confessional and that that would be reflected in the code of practice. However, the Church of England and representatives of the Free Churches have pointed out that very much the same considerations apply to other cases where a person is receiving spiritual counselling from a priest or minister, even though that does not amount to the sacrament of confession in the strict sense.
Within the Church of England less use is made of the confessional than within the Roman Catholic Church and spiritual counselling is widely used. The same is true of the Free Churches. The Government were therefore asked to deal with cases of spiritual counselling in the code of practice along similar lines to the seal of the confessional in the narrow sense. We appreciate that the precise wording would need to be considered very carefully. We also appreciate that "spiritual counselling or assistance" is a very broad expression and that some cases which fall within it may qualify for a different degree of protection from surveillance than other cases.
The Minister has already referred to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Under that Act, the police cannot require documentary material about spiritual counselling sessions to be handed over. With regard to the Bill, the Churches are deeply concerned about the possibility of spiritual counselling being subject to surveillance. What has been done in response to that concern, although it was not what the Churches asked for, is to include subsection(2)(b) in the Bill. That does not meet the Churches' concern because it merely requires surveillance which may yield information relating to spiritual counselling or assistance to be approved by a commissioner, unless the case is urgent. The commissioner cannot refuse approval just because the case involves spiritual counselling if the basic requirements for surveillance under the Bill are satisfied.
We are concerned also about the drafting of the provision which has been lifted from a different context in other legislation and which we believe is not appropriate, as it stands, in the Bill. For instance, it refers to information relating to spiritual counselling and not what is actually said during the spiritual counselling session. However, our chief concern is that it could be argued that the provision in the amendment is a clear indication that surveillance affecting matters covered by spiritual counselling can take place under the Bill,
1110
and thus that a provision in the code of practice of the kind that we are seeking would be inconsistent with what is provided in the amendment.
If that is the case, I have to express my opposition to subsection (2)(b). The assurance for which the Churches are looking is that the appearance in the amendment of that provision does not close off the option which we are seeking through the code of practice. I hope that the Minister will be able to give that assurance.
6 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I await my noble friend's reply to that penetrating criticism with interest. I hope that it is as reassuring as I expect. I should like to join in the thanks that have been expressed to my noble friend the Minister not just for her explanation of what is involved here but for the way in which the Government have cleverly arrived at a satisfactory solution to almost all the concerns that have been expressed. In particular, given that individual judges while serving are not the proper source of the authority which is needed for a commissioner, the combination of having them recruited from among those who have held high judicial authority and, if it is not possible to take the appointment completely out of politics, then to restrict the grounds for which dismissal may take place as narrowly as has been done in the Bill, is a welcome and satisfactory solution. The only improvement beyond that for which one could ask would be an extension of an appointment beyond three years. But I, for one, am satisfied with what has been done.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first, I thank all noble Lords for the way in which they have accepted these changes. That was due in large part to the initiating work done by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and my noble friend Lord Elton and my noble friend Lord Can, who is not with us today, and others who spoke so forcefully in this House. Perhaps I may say to the right reverend Prelate that I thank the Church for giving me notice that this question was to be raised on the Floor of the House today. I am happy to confirm that Amendment No. 38 does not preclude fuller discussion of spiritual counselling in the code of practice.
The provision is deliberately drawn widely and protects a range of different circumstances, so I would expect the ensuing discussions to include many examples that were given by my noble friend—of course at this stage without prejudice to the outcome of those discussions.
The draft code of practice refers already to a specific undertaking by the police and Customs not to mount operations which would affect the seal of confession. It may be that other particular forms of spiritual counselling need to be addressed in particular ways, but we do not need to discuss the code in detail this afternoon. It remains a draft. There will be an opportunity for full discussions with interested parties before a revised version is laid before Parliament. It will not come into force unless approved by both Houses. The authorisation of intrusive surveillance operations

1111
under the Bill cannot begin until the code has been approved. There is therefore every opportunity for further discussion of what it should contain.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, perhaps may just express my thanks to the Minister for her reply. I am extremely grateful for what she has said.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
8 After Clause 91, insert the following new clause—
EFFECT OF AUTHORISATION UNDER PART III
(". No entry on or interference with property or with wireless telegraphy shall he unlawful if it is authorised by an authorisation having effect under this Part.")
9 Clause 92, page 34, leave out lines 34 to 36.
10 Page 34, line 37, leave out ("circuit judge") and insert ("officer").
11 Page 35, leave out lines 3 to 12 and insert—
("(3) This subsection applies where the authorising officer believes—

(a) that it is necessary for the action specified to be taken on the ground that it is likely to he of substantial value in the prevention or detection of serious crime, and

(b) that what the action seeks to achieve cannot reasonably be achieved by other means.").

12 Page 35, leave out lines 13 to 34 and insert—
("(4) An authorising officer shall not give an authorisation under this section except on an application made—

(a) if the authorising officer is within subsection (5A)(a) to (e), by a member of his police force,

(b) if the authorising officer is within subsection (5A)(f), by a member of the National Criminal Intelligence Service,

(c) if the authorising officer is within subsection (5A)(g), by a member of the National Crime Squad, or

(d) if the authorising officer is within subsection (5A)(h), by a customs officer.").

13 Page 35, line 43, at end insert (", and, where the authorising officer is within subsection (5A)(h), it relates to an assigned matter within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979.").
14 Page 35, line 43, at end insert—
("(5A) In this section "authorising officer" means—

(a) the chief constable of a police force maintained under section 2 of the Police Act 1996 (maintenance of police forces for areas in England and Wales except London);

(b) the Commissioner, or an Assistant Commissioner, of Police of the Metropolis;

(c) the Commissioner of Police for the City of London;

(d) the chief constable of a police force maintained under or by virtue of section 1 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 (maintenance of police forces for areas in Scotland);

(e) the Chief Constable or a Deputy Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary;

(f) the Director General of the National Criminal Intelligence Service;

(g) the Director General of the National Crime Squad; or

1112

(h) the customs officer designated by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise for the purposes of this paragraph.").

15 Page 35, line 46, leave out ("(6)") and insert ("(5A)").
16 Clause 93, page 36, line 20, leave out ("92(6)") and insert ("92(5A)").
17 Page 36, line 24, leave out ("92(6)") and insert ("92(5A)").
18 Page 36, line 27, leave out ("subsection (2) or).
19 Page 36, line 29, leave out ("(6)") and insert ("(5A)").
20 Page 37, line 12, leave out ("92(6)") and insert ("92(5A)").
21 Page 37, line 17, leave out ("92(6)") and insert ("92(5A)").
22 Page 37, line 20, leave out ("92(6)") and insert ("92(5A)").
23 Clause 94, page 37, line 22, leave out from ("except") to end of line 24 and insert ("that in an urgent case an authorisation (other than one given by virtue of section 93) may be given orally.").
24 Page 37, leave out line 28, and insert ("72 hours beginning with the time when it took effect").
25 Page 37, line 29, leave out ("six") and insert ("three").
26 Page 37, line 30, leave out ("was given") and insert ("took effect").
27 Page 37, line 31, leave out ("the day on which").
28 Page 37, line 35, leave out ("six") and insert ("three").
29 Page 37, line 35, leave out ("that day") and insert ("the day on which it would cease to have effect.").
30 Page 37, leave out lines 40 to 42.
31 Page 37, leave out from beginning of line 44 to end of line 8 on page 38.
32 Page 38, line 10, leave out ("92(6)") and insert ("92(5A)").
33 Page 38, line 15, leave out ("92(6)") and insert ("92(5A)").
34 Page 38, leave out lines 16 and 17.
35 After Clause 94, insert the following new clause—
NOTIFICATION OF AUTHORISATIONS ETC
(".—(1) Where a person gives, renews or cancels an authorisation, he shall, as soon as is reasonably practicable and in accordance with arrangements made by the Chief Commissioner, give notice in writing that he has done so to a Commissioner appointed under section 96(1)(b).
(2) Subject to subsection (3), a notice under this section shall specify such matters as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe.
(3) A notice under this section of the giving or renewal of an authorisation shall specify—

(a) whether section (Authorisations requiring approval) applies to the authorisation or renewal, and

(b) where that section does not apply by virtue of subsection (3) of that section, the grounds on which the case is believed to be one of urgency.

(4) Where a notice is given to a Commissioner under this section, he shall, as soon as is reasonably practicable, scrutinise the notice.
(5) An order under subsection (2) shall be made by statutory instrument.
(6) A statutory instrument which contains an order under subsection (2) shall not he made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.").
36 Insert the following new clause—
("Authorisations requiring approval
AUTHORISATIONS REQUIRING APPROVAL
—(1) An authorisation to which this section applies shall not take effect until—

(a) it has been approved in accordance with this section by a Commissioner appointed under section 96(1)(b), and

(b) the person who gave the authorisation has been notified under subsection (4).

(2) Subject to subsection (3), this section applies to an authorisation if, at the time it is given, the person who gives it believes—
(a) that any of the property specified in the authorisation—

(i) is used wholly or mainly as a dwelling or as a bedroom in a hotel, or

(ii) constitutes office premises, or

(b) that the action authorised by it is likely to result in any person acquiring knowledge of—

(i) matters subject to legal privilege,

(ii) confidential personal information, or

(iii) confidential journalistic material.

(3) This section does not apply to an authorisation where the person who gives it believes that the case is one of urgency.
(4) Where a Commissioner receives a notice under section (Notification of authorisations etc) which specifies that this section applies to the authorisation, he shall as soon as is reasonably practicable—

(a) decide whether to approve the authorisation or refuse approval, and

(b) give written notice of his decision to the person who gave the authorisation.

(5) A Commissioner shall approve an authorisation if, and only if, he is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the matters specified in section 92(3).
(6) Where a Commissioner refuses to approve an authorisation, he shall, as soon as is reasonably practicable, make a report of his findings to the authorising officer who gave it or in whose absence it was given (and paragraph 5 of Schedule 7 shall apply for the purposes of this subsection as it applies for the purposes of that Schedule).
(7) This section shall apply in relation to a renewal of an authorisation as it applies in relation to an authorisation (the references in subsection (2)(a) and (b) to the authorisation being construed as references to the authorisation renewed).
(8) In this section—
"office premises" has the meaning given in section 1(2) of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963;
"hotel" means premises used for the reception of guests who desire to sleep in the premises.").
37 Insert the following new clause—
MATTERS SUBJECT TO LEGAL. PRIVILEGE
(".—(1) Subject to subsection (5) below, in section (Authorisations requiring approval) "matters subject to legal privilege" means matters to which subsection (2), (3) or (4) below applies.
(2) This subsection applies to communications between a professional legal adviser and—

(a) his client, or

(b) any person representing his client,

which are made in connection with the giving of legal advice to the client.
(3) This subsection applies to communications—

(a) between a professional legal adviser and his client or any person representing his client, or

(b) between a professional legal adviser or his client or any such representative and any other person,

which are made in connection with or in contemplation of legal proceedings and for the purposes of such proceedings.
(4) This subsection applies to items enclosed with or referred to in communications of the kind mentioned in subsection (2) or (3) and made—

(a) in connection with the giving of legal advice, or

(b) in connection with or in contemplation of legal proceedings and for the purposes of such proceedings.

(5) For the purposes of section (Authorisations requiring approval)—

(a) communications and items are not matters subject to legal privilege when they are in the possession of a person who is not entitled to possession of them, and

(b) communications and items held, or oral communications made, with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose are not matters subject to legal privilege.").

38 Insert the following new clause—
CONFIDENTIAL PERSONAL INFORMATION
(".—(1) In section (Authorisations requiring approval) "confidential personal information" means—
(a) personal information which a person has acquired or created in the course of any trade, business, profession or other occupation or for the purposes of any paid or unpaid office, and which he holds in confidence, and
(b) communications as a result of which personal information—

(i) is acquired or created as mentioned in paragraph (a), and

(ii) is held in confidence.

(2) For the purposes of this section "personal information" means information concerning an individual (whether living or dead) who can be identified from it and relating—

(a) to his physical or mental health, or

(b) to spiritual counselling or assistance given or to be given to him.

(3) A person holds information in confidence for the purposes of this section if he holds it subject—

(a) to an express or implied undertaking to hold it in confidence, or

(b) to a restriction on disclosure or an obligation of secrecy contained in any enactment (including an enactment contained in an Act passed after this Act).").

39 Insert the following new clause—
CONFIDENTIAL. JOURNALISTIC MATERIAL
("—(1) In section (Authorisations requiring approval) "confidential journalistic material" means—
(a) material acquired or created for the purposes of journalism which—

(i) is in the possession of persons who acquired or created it for those purposes,

(ii) is held subject to an undertaking, restriction or obligation of the kind mentioned in section (Confidential personal information)(3), and

(iii) has been continuously held (by one or more persons) subject to such an undertaking,

1115
restriction or obligation since it was first acquired or created for the purposes of journalism, and

(b) communications as a result of which information is acquired for the purposes of journalism and held as mentioned in paragraph (a)(ii).
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person who receives material, or acquires information, from someone who intends that the recipient shall use it for the purposes of journalism is to be taken to have acquired it for those purposes.").
40 Clause 95, page 38, line 20, leave out ("sections 92 and 94") and insert ("this Part by persons other than Commissioners appointed under section 96").
41 Page 38, leave out lines 30 and 31 and insert—
("(5) A statutory instrument which contains an order under subsection (4) shall not be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.").
42 Page 38, leave out from beginning of line 41 to end of line 5 on page 39 and insert—
("(8) Persons, other than Commissioners appointed under section 96, shall have regard to any code of practice issued under this section in the performance of their functions under this Part.").
43 Page 39, line 6, leave out from ("of') to ("to ") in line 7 and insert ("any person").
44 Page 39, line 10, leave out ("In all criminal and civil proceedings").
45 Page 39, line 11, after ("evidence") insert ("in criminal and civil proceedings").
46 After Clause 95, insert the following new clause—
("Complaints etc.
COMPLAINTS
—(1) Where a complaint is made, in accordance with arrangements made by the Chief Commissioner, to a Commissioner appointed under section 96(1)(b), the Commissioner shall investigate the complaint if and so far as it alleges that anything has been done in relation to any property of the complainant in pursuance of an authorisation under section 92(2)(a) or (b).
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a place where the complainant works or resides shall be treated as property of the complainant.
(3) A Commissioner's duty under this section does not extend to a complaint if he considers that it is frivolous or vexatious.
(4) Schedule 7 makes further provision in relation to the investigation of complaints by a Commissioner.").
47 Insert the following new clause—
QUASHING OF AUTHORISATIONS ETC
(".—(1) Where, at any time, a Commissioner appointed under section 96(1)(b) is satisfied that, at the time an authorisation was given or renewed, there were no reasonable grounds for believing the matters specified in section 92(3), he may quash the authorisation or, as the case may be, renewal.
(2) Where, in the case of an authorisation or renewal to which section (Authorisations requiring approval) does not apply, a Commissioner appointed under section 96(1)(b) is at any time satisfied that, at the time the authorisation was given or, as the case may be, renewed,—

(a) there were reasonable grounds for believing any of the matters specified in subsection (2) of section (Authorisations requiring approval), and

(b) there were no reasonable grounds for believing the
1116
case to be one of urgency for the purposes of subsection (3) of that section,

he may quash the authorisation or, as the case may be, renewal.
(3) Where a Commissioner quashes an authorisation or renewal under subsection (1) or (2), he may order the destruction of any records relating to information obtained by virtue of the authorisation (or, in the case of a renewal, relating wholly or partly to information so obtained after the renewal) other than records required for pending criminal or civil proceedings.
(4) If a Commissioner appointed under section 96(1)(b) is satisfied that, at any time after an authorisation was given or, in the case of an authorisation renewed under section 94, after it was renewed, there were no reasonable grounds for believing the matters specified in section 92(3), he may cancel the authorisation.
(5) Where—

(a) an authorisation has ceased to have effect (otherwise than by virtue of subsection (1) or (2)), and

(b) a Commissioner appointed under section 96(1)(b) is satisfied that, at any time during the period of the authorisation, there were no reasonable grounds for believing the matters specified in section 92(3),

he may order the destruction of any records relating, wholly or partly, to information which was obtained by virtue of the authorisation after that time (other than records required for pending criminal or civil proceedings).
(6) Where a Commissioner exercises his powers under subsection (1), (2) or (4), he shall, if he is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for doing so, order that the authorisation shall be effective, for such period as he shall specify, so far as it authorises the taking of action to retrieve anything left on property in accordance with the authorisation.
(7) Where a Commissioner exercises a power conferred by this section, he shall, as soon as is reasonably practicable, make a report of his findings—

(a) to the authorising officer who gave the authorisation or in whose absence it was given, and

(b) to the Chief Commissioner;

and paragraph 5 of Schedule 7 shall apply for the purposes of this subsection as it applies for the purposes of that Schedule.
(8) Where—

(a) a decision is made under subsection (1) or (2) and an order for the destruction of records is made under subsection (3), or

(b) a decision to order the destruction of records is made under subsection (5),

the order shall not become operative until the period for appealing against the decision has expired and, where an appeal is made, a decision dismissing it has been made by the Chief Commissioner.
(9) A Commissioner may exercise any of the powers conferred by this section notwithstanding any approval given under section (Authorisations requiring approval).").
48 Insert the following new clause—
("Appeals
APPEALS BY AUTHORISING OFFICERS
.—(1) An authorising officer who gives an authorisation, or in whose absence it is given, may, within the prescribed period, appeal to the Chief Commissioner against—

(a) any refusal to approve the authorisation or any renewal of it under section (Authorisations requiring approval);

(b) any decision to quash the authorisation, or any

1117
renewal of it, under subsection (1) of section (Quashing of authorisations etc.);

(c) any decision to quash the authorisation, or any renewal of it, under subsection (2) of that section;

(d) any decision to cancel the authorisation under subsection (4) of that section;

(e) any decision to order the destruction of records under subsection (5) of that section;

(f) any refusal to make an order under subsection (6) of that section;

(g) any determination in favour of a complainant under Schedule 7.

(2) In subsection (1), "the prescribed period" means the period of seven days beginning with the day on which the refusal, decision or, as the case may be, determination appealed against is reported to the authorising officer.
(3) In determining an appeal within subsection (1)(a), the Chief Commissioner shall, if he is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the matters specified in section 92(3), allow the appeal and direct the Commissioner to approve the authorisation or renewal under that section.
(4) In determining—

(a) an appeal within subsection (1)(b), or

(b) an appeal within subsection (1)(g), in a case where paragraph 1 A(2) of Schedule 7 applies,

the Chief Commissioner shall allow the appeal unless he is satisfied that, at the time the authorisation was given or, as the case may be, renewed there were no reasonable grounds for believing the matters specified in section 92(3).
(5) In determining—

(a) an appeal within subsection (1)(c), or

(b) an appeal within subsection (1)(g), in a case where paragraph 1A(3) of Schedule 7 applies,

the Chief Commissioner shall allow the appeal unless he is satisfied as mentioned in section (Quashing of authorisations etc.)(2).
(6) In determining—

(a) an appeal within subsection (1)(d) or (e), or

(b) an appeal within subsection (1)(g), in a case where paragraph 1A(4) of Schedule 7 applies,

the Chief Commissioner shall allow the appeal unless he is satisfied that at the time to which the decision relates there were no reasonable grounds for believing the matters specified in section 92(3).
(7) In determining an appeal within subsection (1)(f) the Chief Commissioner shall allow the appeal and order that the authorisation shall be effective to the extent mentioned in section (Quashing of authorisations etc)(6), for such period as he shall specify, if he is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for making such an order.
(8) Where an appeal is allowed under this section, the Chief Commissioner shall—

(a) in the case of an appeal within subsection (1)(b) or (c), also quash any order made by the Commissioner to destroy records relating to information obtained by virtue of the authorisation concerned, and

(b) in the case of an appeal within subsection (1)(g), also quash any direction to pay compensation to the complainant.").

49 Insert the following new clause—
APPEALS BY AUTHORISING OFFICERS: SUPPLEMENTARY
(".—(1) Where the Chief Commissioner determines an appeal under section (Appeals by authorising officers)—
(a) he shall give notice of his determination—

(i) to the authorising officer concerned,

1118

(ii) to the Commissioner against whose refusal, decision or determination the appeal was made, and

(iii) in the case of an appeal within subsection (1)(g) of that section, to the complainant, and

(b) if he dismisses the appeal, he shall make a report of his findings—

(i) to the authorising officer concerned,

(ii) to the Commissioner against whose refusal, decision or determination the appeal was made, and

(iii) under section 98(1), to the Prime Minister.

(2) Subject to subsection (1)(b), the Chief Commissioner shall not give any reasons for a determination under section (Appeals by authorising officers).
(3) Nothing in section (Appeals by authorising officers) shall prevent a designated deputy from exercising the powers conferred by subsection (1) of that section on an authorising officer within paragraph (a), (c), (d), (f) or (g) of section 92(5A).").
50 Insert the following new clause—
APPEALS BY COMPLAINANTS
(".—(1) Where a complainant is notified under paragraph 2A(2) of Schedule 7 that no determination in his favour has been made on a complaint, he may, within the period of seven days beginning with the day on which he receives the notice, appeal to the Chief Commissioner against the decision.
(2) Where a complainant appeals under this section, the Chief Commissioner shall have—

(a) all the powers and duties conferred by Schedule 7 on a Commissioner appointed under section 91(1) (b) who is required to investigate a complaint, and

(b) where the Chief Commissioner makes a determination in favour of the complainant by virtue of paragraph (a), all the powers and duties conferred by section (Quashing of authorisations etc.)

(3) Where, by virtue of subsection (2), the Chief Commissioner makes an order to destroy records under section (Quashing of authorisations etc.) or directs the payment of compensation under Schedule 7, subsection (8) of that section and paragraph 3(2) of that Schedule shall not apply.
(4) The Chief Commissioner shall make a report of his findings on an appeal under this section—

(a) to the Commissioner who made the decision appealed against, and

(b) where he allows the appeal, to the Prime Minister under section 98(1).").

51 Clause 96, page 39, line 16, at end insert ("for the purposes of this Part").
52 Page 39, leave out line 20.
53 Page 39, line 24, leave out ("Each Commissioner shall hold") and insert ("Subject to subsections (3A) to (3D), each Commissioner shall hold and vacate").
54 Page 39, line 25, at end insert—
("(3A) Each Commissioner shall be appointed for a term of three years.
(3B) A person who ceases to be a Commissioner (otherwise than under subsection (3D)) may be reappointed under this section.
(3C) Subject to subsection (3D), a Commissioner shall not be removed from office before the end of the term for which he is appointed unless a resolution approving his removal has been passed by each House of Parliament.
(3D) A Commissioner may be removed from office by the Prime Minister if after his appointment—

(a) a bankruptcy order is made against him or his estate

1119
is sequestrated or he makes a composition or arrangement with, or grants a trust deed for, his creditors;

(b) a disqualification order under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 or Part II of the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, or an order under section 429(2)(6) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (failure to pay under county court administration order), is made against him; or

(c) he is convicted in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man of an offence and has passed on him a sentence of imprisonment (whether suspended or not).").

55 Page 39, line 30, leave out ("Commissioners think") and insert ("Secretary of State considers").
56 Page 39, line 30, at end insert—
("() The decisions of the Chief Commissioner or, subject to sections (Appeals by authorising officers) and (Appeals by complainants), any other Commissioner (including decisions as to his jurisdiction) shall not be subject to appeal or liable to be questioned in any court.").
57 Page 39, leave out lines 31 to 35.
58 Page 39, transfer Clause 96 to end of line 22 on page 34.
59 Leave out Clause 97
60 Clause 98, page 40, line 35, at beginning insert—
("General
() The Chief Commissioner shall keep under review the performance of functions under this Part.").
61 Page 40, line 36, leave out ("his functions") and insert ("functions under this Part")
62 Page 40, line 37, leave Out ("his discharge of').
63 Page 41, line 1, leave out ("continued").
64 Page 41, leave out lines 7 to 9 and insert—
("(4) Any person having functions under this Part, and any person taking action in relation to which an authorisation was given, shall comply with any request of a Commissioner for documents or information required by him for the purpose of enabling him to discharge his functions.").
65 Clause 99, page 41, line 13, at end insert—
(""authorization" means an authorisation under section 92;").
66 Page 41, line 14, leave out ("92(6)") and insert ("92(5A)").
67 Page 41, line 31, at end insert—
("() Where, under this Part, notice of any matter is required to be given in writing, the notice may be transmitted by electronic means.")
68 Page 41, line 31, at end insert—
("() For the purposes of this Part, an authorisation (or renewal) given—

(a) by the designated deputy of an authorising officer, or

(b) by a person on whom an authorising officer's powers are conferred by section 94,

shall be treated as an authorisation (or renewal) given in the absence of the authorising officer concerned; and references to the authorising officer in whose absence an authorisation (or renewal) was given shall be construed accordingly.").
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 8 to 68 inclusive. I have spoken to Amendments Nos. 8 to 68 with Amendment No. 7.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 8 to 68.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
69 Clause 103, page 43, line 1, leave out ("the prescribed fee") and insert ("any fee that is payable in relation to the application under regulations made by the Secretary of State").
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 69. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 70, 73, 74, 75, 80 and 81.
These amendments replace the provisions for free checks for volunteers which were passed by noble Lords during consideration of this Bill in Committee and provide instead a statutory power which will allow the Secretary of State to exempt certain groups, such as volunteers, from paying any fee.
During previous consideration of this Bill, both here and in another place, we have paid tribute to the enormous amount of good work that is done by volunteers in this country. I would like to do so again today. They selflessly give up their own time to help others and are a credit to their communities. This Government have a long-standing commitment to the voluntary sector which was encapsulated in the Make a Difference commitment. That commitment remains. Despite that commitment, the Government believe that the amendments passed by your Lordships' House for all checks to be provided free for all volunteers went too far.
During discussion of this issue, both within Parliament and outside, there has been much difference of opinion about what free checks for volunteers would actually cost. Many noble Lords have themselves given examples of the high costs which voluntary organisations believe they, or their volunteers, would have to meet. If free checks were to be provided that money would need to be found.
It is difficult to be precise, but available information suggests that between 8 million and 20 million people in this country act as volunteers. If we assume that checks were restricted to new volunteers, and that only those eligible for the higher level of checks—that is to say, enhanced criminal record certificates—were included, the minimum sum likely to be needed would be about £10 million a year.
Although we remain of the view that the provision of free checks for volunteers, or any other group, presents substantial difficulties, the Government recognise that there is a need to be flexible. We do not want entirely to rule out the prospect of free checks, should it prove possible to provide them to deserving groups at some point in the future. This is why we have amended the Bill so as to provide for a power which would allow certain groups, such as volunteers, to be exempted from paying fees for criminal record checks should it be possible at some time in the future.
I fully acknowledge that this is an important and sensitive issue, but I believe that the Government's approach is a sensible one. It balances our very real commitment to the voluntary sector with the realities of keeping down public expenditure.

1121
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, felt particularly strongly and led the fray, as it were, on this issue. I have no doubt that he will wish to respond to the Government's power to extend the possibility of free checks to categories of volunteers. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 69.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, I am naturally sorry that my amendment, which was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has failed and has been overturned in another place. I toyed with the idea of submitting a manuscript amendment this afternoon in same terms as that introduced yesterday in the other place by the right honourable gentleman the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. It failed to find favour by 38 votes to 267. It would therefore be a waste of your Lordships' time if I were to do that today.
I must accept that the Government and the Minister have given a crumb of comfort to volunteering organisations, in essence, by saying that free checks on volunteers and other classes will be introduced when resources become available and that the matter will be kept under review. During many years in the other place, and fewer years here, I have heard those comfortable words on many occasions. I fear that in practice they do not add up to much.
In the meantime, volunteers will have to pay for themselves or, alternatively, the organisations to which they belong will have to pay. I shall not recount all the figures, but as I am so heavily involved with the Scouts and with St. John Ambulance, I must say that they estimate the cost to be in the region of £450,000. They do not believe that the volunteers who support them will pay for themselves.
There are many other organizations which are concerned with old and young people. It will not surprise your Lordships to hear that I am actively involved with Help the Aged—people of my age certainly should help the aged—and with Abbeyfields, the National Trust and the Prince's Trust. All those organisations will be affected.
As the Minister correctly said, there are approximately 8 million to 20 million volunteers in this country on whom we greatly depend. I am the first to agree that those who work with vulnerable people, whether they be young or old, should be properly screened, especially after the tragedy at Dunblane. But did not Lord Cullen state in his report that the costs should be kept within the limits of what organisations can pay? Have not the Government, in their commendable bid to encourage volunteering, introduced the Make a Difference campaign? My concern is that this clause of the Police Bill may well make a difference, but, sadly, an adverse difference. That would be a very great shame.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill. I am sure that the House will agree that he has reached the age of sagacity and has a much better mind than those as young as myself.
1122
I declare an interest because I work for a charity which employs volunteers. I should have liked the Commons not to have rejected the amendment accepted by this House and so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill. I am sure that those who insure voluntary organisations and charities will insist that these checks are carried out, sometimes to enormous cost to charities or to smaller cost to masses of individuals.
The trustees of such organisations will have a legal duty to those who are looked after by the charities and voluntary organisations to have the checks undertaken. The officers of those organisations, for their own protection, will want to see that the checks are carried out. I believe that if something happens to a vulnerable person, no matter of what age, the nearest relation may well be advised to sue the charity, particularly where the check has not been undertaken. Therefore, I fear that there will be considerable cost to all charities as a result of this provision.
As the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, said, Lord Cullen in his report advised, particularly when dealing with cases of children, that the costs should be kept to the minimum for charities and that government funds should be provided to assist. Perhaps in reply my noble friend the Minister can give a ray of hope that the organisations dealing with children, or even certain groups of children, will in the foreseeable future have the costs reduced or abolished entirely.
6.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, noble Lords have been dignified in defeat. It is not a happy situation. The spirit behind the amendments which were carried by the House was that they are of great importance. At the same time, we must recognise their cost implications. I do not wish to appear too responsible; occasionally I enjoy being irresponsible about money, but perhaps this is not one of those occasions.
The balance will have to be struck in due course between the range of certificates which are provided by Part V and the problems which have been addressed by noble Lords in the amendments which we carried. The problem is that the charities to which they refer are covered by what are now Clauses 104 and 105. They are covered by the criminal records certificates rather than by the more general criminal conviction certificate in Clause 103. If there is a possibility of providing extra resources for Clauses 104 and 105, perhaps by delaying the implementation of Clause 103, that might go part of the way to solving the problem.
I note that in the letter which the Home Secretary wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill—the noble Lord has been kind enough to show it to me—he confirms that there is the possibility of providing free checks through an order-making power, which is provided for in an amendment. I recognise that it would be highly desirable when resources permit to use that order-making power. However, these are difficult areas. None of us knows the true cost. For example, none of us knows how many volunteers work for several organisations and therefore would require only a single

1123
certificate. Like the noble Lords, I do not believe that it is realistic to seek to overturn the amendment, but there must be great regret over the additional burdens which will be put on the voluntary movement.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I welcome the half conversion of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, to the merits of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill. I understand that when the amendment was proposed the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was properly concerned about the consequences in terms of costs. I fully understand that and make no criticism. He reminds me that he supported the amendment at that time. I am glad that he did so, despite the reservations that I knew he had about the burden which might fall on the Treasury. The amendment made by your Lordships' House was most worthwhile and, like the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, I am sorry that it has been rejected.
Will the Minister remind your Lordships, because I have forgotten, of the intention with regard to the implementation of the separate parts of Part V? That was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I am not clear whether the Government have committed themselves to early implementation of the provisions in relation to criminal conviction certificates or whether that is to be phased in. That was referred to at the early stages of our debate, but I now cannot recall precisely what was said.
I agree that it is difficult to calculate what will be the cost. I make no criticism of the noble Baroness that she has found it possible on this and other occasions to speak more briefly to your Lordships than have her colleagues in another place. But in the rather fuller remarks made by her colleague, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Mr. Kirkhope, although he sought to describe equity, practicality and cost as the three reasons that the Government were unable to accept the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, in the final resort it amounted to the question of cost; who was to pay; and what the cost would be.
I hope that these provisions do not result in fewer people coming forward to volunteer, the organisations being able to have fewer volunteers, or the facilities provided in the Bill not being used. I should be very unhappy about any of those outcomes. But I believe a future government will have to return to the provisions of the Bill and bring forward amendments. It may well be that experience will show what amendments are acceptable not only to your Lordships' House but also to another place on a future occasion.
Therefore, while I regret the amendments and believe that the gesture made by the Government may well turn out to be cosmetic, there is widespread understanding on all sides of the House of the problem. We want the voluntary organisations to make the best use possible of the Bill but we do not want them to be penalised by the costs which may very well fall on that.
Lord Elton: I have the deepest sympathy for the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, and all those who
1124
supported his amendments. Being active in the voluntary sector, I am fully alive to the penalty which the voluntary sector may have to face in years to come.
However, we must strike a balance in relation to what is desirable. If it is agreed that this is a form of protection for young people which is needed, the question is how it is to be paid for. It is either put onto central taxation or onto the voluntary sector or the volunteer. The Government's response is much better than they have been given credit for. I am not at all sure that the amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, referred will be necessary to bring about the state of affairs which he seeks.
The Secretary of State is empowered to make regulations when he wishes to exempt certain people from payment. That payment will then fall on the general taxpayer. No amendment is needed to bring that about but merely the stroke of a pen of an incoming Secretary of State. Therefore, the matter remains in the political arena and the next government will be able to decide who shall and who shall not have to pay. In doing so by means of regulation, I should point out, because it is not at the end of the Bill where one would expect to find it but in Clause 114, that the regulations will be by statutory instrument through the negative procedure and therefore available for debate by Parliament. That is a better solution than noble Lords have given credit for.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I share the regret that the amendment has not been accepted. The Government have lavished a great deal of praise on your Lordships' House in recent times and, while we are all grateful for praise, that praise does not appear to have been matched by any general readiness to accept your Lordships' amendments. I have occasionally entertained the perhaps uncharitable suspicion that their liking for your Lordships' House is in proportion to the ease with which they are able to reverse its amendments.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is end of term and I am not going to bite too much on the words of the noble Earl. However, a great deal of time and serious consideration have been given to the amendments to the Bill by my right honourable friend—and I refer both to the surveillance amendments and the amendments on this matter. I have come to appreciate that when in government, one must consider some of the points made so eloquently by my noble friend Lord Elton. It is a question of balance and determining who pays. We have that indeterminate number of people out there in the voluntary sector—between 8 million and 20 million people. Therefore, it seems to us responsible to think about how the concern could be addressed while at the same time remembering that some difficult decisions would need to be faced as to who is to pay.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, is disappointed. I accept and understand that. But I think he would be much more disappointed had the debates been cut off at this point. As my noble friend said, the matter is still alive and future parliaments will be able to consider the issue.
Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Swinfen that it is not possible for me to be definitive about priorities at this stage. There is no question that children

1125
are a priority, but the category of people to be exempt will depend very much on the ability of that category to meet the payments and on the particular case that it is able to make. That will all be part of extremely extensive consultation. Therefore, without anticipating the outcome of that debate which would follow by prompting the use of the powers available to a future Secretary of State, I hope that noble Lords will accept that the Government's response was not wholly negative.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, asked when this is to be implemented. The intention would be to phase the criminal conviction certificate after the introduction of the criminal record and enhanced criminal certificate.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
70 Clause 103, page 43, leave out lines 2 to 6
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 70, which I spoke to when I moved Amendment No. 69.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 70.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
71 Clause 103, page 43, line 12, after ("means(", insert ("such")
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 71. In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 72, 76 to 79, 82 to 96, 100, 101, 121, 123, 126 and 127. We have already considered a number of amendments relating to free checks for volunteers. These amendments deal with onward disclosure of criminal record information by regulatory bodies.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 71.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord Elton: My Lords, I rise because I have to leave before proceedings conclude. I wish to express a note of admiration of my noble friend for the astonishing way in which she has conducted not only this Bill but several other Bills simultaneously through this House in the face of reasoned and steady opposition. She has done so with great efficiency and aplomb. As one who has been at the Dispatch Box but never under such withering fire, I should like to give her my sympathy and congratulations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
72 Clause 103, page 43, line 13, at end insert ("as may be prescribed")
73 Clause 104, page 43, line 22, after ("application(", insert ("under this section")
74 Page 43, line 24, leave out ("the prescribed fee") and insert ("any fee that is payable in relation to the application under regulations made by the Secretary of State")
75 Page 43, leave out lines 25 to 28
76 Page 43, line 31, leave out ("asked by that person")
77 Page 43, line 39, after ("means(", insert ("such")
78 Page 43, line 40, at end insert ("as may be prescribed")
79 After Clause 104, insert the following new clause—
CRIMINAL RECORD CERTIFICATES: CROWN EMPLOYMENT
(.—(1) The Secretary of State shall issue a criminal record certificate to any individual who—

(a) makes an application under this section in the prescribed form, and

(b) pays any fee that is payable in relation to the application under regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(2) An application under this section must be accompanied by a statement by a Minister of the Crown that the certificate is required for the purposes of an exempted question asked in the course of considering the applicant's suitability for an appointment by or under the Crown.
(3) Section 104(3) to (5) shall apply in relation to this section with any necessary modifications.")
80 Clause 105, page 44, line 9, leave out ("the prescribed fee") and insert ("any fee that is payable in relation to the application under regulations made by the Secretary of State")
81 Page 44, leave out lines 10 to 13
82 Page 44, line 16, leave out ("by that person")
83 Page 44, line 30, after ("consent(", insert (", or a licence,")
84 Page 44, line 36, at end insert—
("() registration under section 71 of the Children Act 1989 or Article 118 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (child minding and day care).")
85 Page 44, line 36, at end insert—
("() the placing of children with foster parents in accordance with any provision of, or made by virtue of, the Children Act 1989 or the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 or the exercise of any duty under or by virtue of section 67 of that Act or Article 108 of that Order (welfare of privately fostered children);
() the approval of any person as a foster carer by virtue of section 5(2), (3) and (4) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, the exercise by a local authority of their functions under the Foster Children (Scotland) Act 1984 or the placing of children with foster parents by virtue of section 70 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (disposal of referral by children's hearing).")
86 Page 44, line 42, leave out ("(4)") and insert ("(7)")
87 After Clause 105, insert the following new clause—
ENHANCED CRIMINAL RECORD CERTIFICATES: JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS AND CROWN EMPLOYMENT
(".—(1) The Secretary of State shall issue an enhanced criminal record certificate to any individual who—

(a) makes an application under this section in the prescribed form. and

(b) pays any fee that is payable in relation to the application under regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(2) An application under this section must be accompanied by a statement by a Minister of the Crown, or a person nominated by a Minister of the Crown, that the

1127
certificate is required for the purposes of an exempted question asked in the course of considering the applicant's suitability for—

(a) a judicial appointment, or

(b) an appointment by or under the Crown to a position to which subsection (3) or (4) of clause 105 applies.

(3) Section 105(6) to (10) shall apply in relation to this section with any necessary modifications.")
88 Leave out Clause 106
89 Clause 110, page 46, line 30, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) Subject to regulations under subsection (2A), the Secretary of State shall include in the register any person who applies to him in writing to be registered and satisfies the conditions in subsections (3) to (4A).
(2A) The Secretary of State may make regulations about the maintenance of the register; and regulations may, in particular, provide for—

(a) the information to be included in the register,

(b) the removal from the register of persons who are, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, no longer likely to wish to countersign applications under section 104 or 105, and

(c) the payment of fees.")

90 Page 46, line 35, leave out second ("or")
91 Page 46, line 36, at end insert—
(", or
(c) an individual who employs others in the course of a business.")
92 Page 46, line 37, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) A body applying for registration under this section must satisfy the Secretary of State that it—

(a) is likely to ask exempted questions, or

(b) is likely to countersign applications under section 104 or 105 at the request of bodies or individuals asking exempted questions.

(4A) A person, other than a body, applying for registration under this section must satisfy the Secretary of State that he is likely to ask exempted questions.")
93 Clause 111, page 47, line 3, after ("section' insert ("(Criminal record certificates: Crown employment)(2),")
94 Page 47, line 3, at end insert ("(Enhanced criminal record certificates: judicial appointments and Crown employment)(2),")
95 Clause 112, page 47, line 12, leave out ("bodies") and insert ("persons")
96 Page 47, line 15, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) The Secretary of State may refuse to issue a certificate under section 104 or 105 if he believes that the registered person who countersigned the application—

(a) has failed to comply with the code of practice under this section, or

(b) countersigned at the request of a body which, or individual who, has failed to comply with the code of practice.")

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 72 to 96.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 72 to 96.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
97 Clause 113, leave out Clause 113
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 97. At the same time, I should like to speak also to Commons Amendments Nos. 98 and 99.
During our consideration of the Bill on Report, I gave the House notice that the Government intended to bring forward amendments along the lines of these Commons amendments in order to ensure that information now provided to regulatory bodies, and others who need it, can continue to be provided.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 97.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
98 After Clause 113, insert the following new clause—
OFFENCES: FALSIFICATION, &C
(".—(1) A person commits an offence if. with intent to deceive, he—

(a) makes a false certificate under this Part,

(b) alters a certificate under this Part,

(c) uses a certificate under this Part which relates to another person in a way which suggests that it relates to himself, or

(d) allows a certificate under this Part which relates to him to be used by another person in a way which suggests that it relates to that other person.

(2) A person commits an offence if he knowingly makes a false statement for the purpose of obtaining, or enabling another person to obtain, a certificate under this Part.
(3) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.")
99 After Clause 113, insert the following new clause—
OFFENCES: DISCLOSURE
(".—(1) A member, officer or employee of a body registered under section 110 commits an offence if he discloses information provided following an application under section 104 or 105 unless he discloses it, in the course of his duties,—

(a) to another member, officer or employee of the registered body,

(b) to a member, officer or employee of a body at the request of which the registered body countersigned the application, or

(c) to an individual at whose request the registered body countersigned the relevant application.

(2) Where information is provided under section 104 or 105 following an application countersigned at the request of a body which is not registered under section 110, a member, officer or employee of the body commits an offence if he discloses the information unless he discloses it, in the course of his duties, to another member, officer or employee of that body.
(3) Where information is provided under section 104 or 105 following an application countersigned by or at the request of an individual—

(a) the individual commits an offence if he discloses the information unless he discloses it to an

1129
employee of his for the purpose of the employee's duties, and

(b) an employee of the individual commits an offence if he discloses the information unless he discloses it, in the course of his duties, to another employee of the individual.

(4) Where information provided under section 104 or 105 is disclosed to a person and the disclosure—

(a) is an offence under this section, or

(b) would be an offence under this section but for subsection (5) or (6)(a), (d), (e) or (f),

the person to whom the information is disclosed commits an offence (subject to subsections (5) and (6)) if he discloses it to any other person.
(5) Subsections (1) to (4) do not apply to a disclosure of information provided in accordance with section 105(8) which is made with the written consent of the chief officer who provided the information.
(6) Subsections (1) to (4) do not apply to a disclosure of information contained in a certificate under section 104 or 105 which is made—

(a) with the written consent of the applicant for the certificate, or

(b) to a government department, or

(c) to a person appointed to an office by virtue of any enactment, or

(d) in accordance with an obligation to provide information under or by virtue of any enactment, or

(e) for the purposes of answering an exempted question (within the meaning of section 104) of a kind specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State, or

(f) for some other purpose specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(7) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, or to both.")
100 Clause 115, page 48, line 23, at end insert—
(""government department" includes a Northern Ireland department:
"Minister of the Crown" includes a Northern Ireland department;")
101 After Clause 115, insert the following new clause—
SAVING: DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION AND RECORDS
(". Nothing in sections 103 to 109 shall he taken to prejudice any power which exists apart from this Act to disclose information or to make records available.")
Baroness Blatch: My lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 98 to 101 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 98 to 101.—(Baroness Blotch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
102 Clause 117, page 49, line 18, at end insert—
("(aa) in the entry in the first column for "Humberside", there shall be substituted "Humber";")
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I should tell the House that this is an amendment that I did not expect to be speaking to today. Nevertheless, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 102.
This amendment changes the name of the Humberside police area to Humber. Your Lordships will be aware that there was some debate in another place as to whether a change of name was desirable. The Government have no desire to oppose the wishes of the local community if there is widespread support, not just for a change of name, but for what the new name should be. The Government have made their views known on the timing and costs of any change. We envisage a gradual change to the new name. We would certainly not want to see this happen overnight, thereby diverting resources from policing activities. I commend the amendment to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 102.—(Baroness Blotch.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House who is going to pay for the repainting?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the reason I said that I hoped it would be a gradual process is because it will have to be the police authority.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
103 Clause 126, page 53, line 9, leave out subsection (2)
104 Schedule 1, page 57, line 33, at end insert ("who are members of any committee appointed under section 26 of the City of London Police Act 1839")
105 Schedule 2, page 59, line 28, after ("authority") insert ("eligible for appointment under the paragraph concerned")
106 Schedule 6, page 68, line 7, leave out ("and")
107 Page 68, line 9, at end insert (", and
(c) the word "not" shall be omitted.")
108 Schedule 7, page 71, line 10, leave out ("the Chief Commissioner") and insert ("a Commissioner appointed under section 96(1)(b)")
109 Page 71, line 10, leave out ("97(1)(b)") and insert ("(Complaints etc.)")
110 Page 71, leave out lines 14 to 17 and insert—
("1A.—(1) In a case where the Commissioner determines that a relevant authorisation was given he shall, if sub-paragraph (2), (3) or (4) applies, make a determination in favour of the complainant.
(2) This sub-paragraph applies if the Commissioner is satisfied that there were, at the time the relevant authorisation was given or renewed, no reasonable grounds for believing the matters specified in section 92(3).
(3) This sub-paragraph applies where section (Authorisations requiring approval) did not apply to the relevant authorisation or its renewal, but the Commissioner is satisfied as mentioned in section (Quashing of authorisations etc.)(2).
(4) This sub-paragraph applies if the Commissioner is satisfied that anything has been done in relation to any property of the complainant in pursuance of the relevant authorisation (other than by virtue of section (Quashing of authorisations etc.)(6) or section (Appeals by authorising officers)(7)) at a time when there were no reasonable grounds for believing the matters specified in section 92(3).")
111 Page 71, leave out lines 19 to 30 and insert—
("2A.—(1) If the Commissioner makes a determination in favour of the complainant under paragraph 1A, he shall—

(a) give notice to the complainant that he has done so, and

(b) make a report of his findings to the authorising officer who gave the authorisation, or in whose absence it was given, and to the Chief Commissioner.

(2) In any other case, the Commissioner shall give notice to the complainant that no determination in his favour has been made on the complaint.
(3) Subject to sub-paragraph (1)(b), the Commissioner shall not give any reasons for the making of, or any refusal to make, a determination in favour of the complainant.
2B. Where—

(a) the Chief Commissioner receives a report of the Commissioner's findings under paragraph 2A(1)(b), and

(b) no appeal is made against the determination in favour of the complainant,

the Chief Commissioner shall, under section 98(1), make a report of those findings to the Prime Minister.")
112 Page 71, line 32, leave out ("Chief")
113 Page 71, line 34, after ("exercise,") insert ("any of")
114 Page 71, line 34, leave out ("section 97(4)") and insert ("section (Quashing of authorisations etc.)")
115 Page 71, line 36, leave out ("by the Chief Commissioner") and insert ("in the direction")
116 Page 71, line 37, at end insert—
("(2) Where a direction to pay compensation has been made under sub-paragraph (1), it shall not become operative until—

(a) the period for appealing against the determination in favour of the complainant has expired, and

(b) where such an appeal is made, a decision dismissing it has been made by the Chief Commissioner.")

117 Page 71, line 38, leave out ("Chief")
118 Page 71, line 41, leave out ("subsection (6)") and insert ("subsection (5A)")
119 Page 72, line 4, leave out ("92(6)") and insert ("92(5A)")
120 Page 72, line 9, leave out ("92(6)") and insert ("92(5A)")
121 Schedule 9, page 81, line 16, at end insert—
("Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (c. 57)
. In each of sections 51 and 59 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (licensing of drivers of private hire vehicles and hackney carriages), subsection (1A) shall be omitted.")
122 Page 83, line 46, at end insert—
("Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (c.1)
.In section 842A of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, in subsection (1)—

(a) in paragraph (a), after "paragraph" there shall be inserted "or the Service Authority for the National
1132
Criminal Intelligence Service or the Service Authority for the National Crime Squad",

(b) in paragraph (b), after "paragraph" there shall be inserted "or the Service Authority for the National Criminal Intelligence Service", and

(c) in paragraph (c), after "paragraph" there shall be inserted "or the Service Authority for the National Criminal Intelligence Service".")

123 Page 85, line 32, at end insert—
("Road Traffic Act 1991 (c. 40)
.Section 47 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 (applications for licences to drive hackney carriages etc.) shall cease to have effect.")
124 Page 91, line 20, at end insert—
("Justices of the Peace Act 1997 (c.00)
. In section 66 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997, in subsection (7), after paragraph (b) there shall he inserted—

"(ba) the Service Authority for the National Criminal Intelligence Service:

(bb) the Service Authority for the National Crime Squad;".").

125 Schedule 10, page 91, column 3, line 31. at beginning insert—

("In section 146A(1A) the word "not".")

126 Page 91, line 34, at end insert—

("1976 c. 57.

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.

Sections 51(1A) and 59(1A).")

127 Page 91, line 42, at end insert Provisions) Act 1976.—
("1991 c. 40. Road Traffic Act 1991. Section 47.")
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 103 to 127 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 103 to 127.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Sex Offenders Bill
6.31 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: 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.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Lyell) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Sex Offenders subject to notification requirements]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 30, leave out ("7") and insert ("5").
The noble Lord said: In moving the above amendment, I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. Perhaps I may preface my remarks by reminding Members of the Committee, as one or two of them may have forgotten,

1133
that the Bill does not deal solely with paedophilia as normally understood. Now and again that fact has been overlooked.
On Second Reading, differences of opinion were expressed as to whether the notification requirements in Clause 1 constituted punishment. Speaking from the Liberal Democrat Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, suggested that they did, while the Government maintained that they did not. I believe that the truth lies somewhere in between. Whether or not notification/registration is actually meant to be punitive, it is bound to be so in practice to some degree.
As I said on Second Reading, while the information can doubtless be kept secret from the public in a large anonymous conurbation, in closely-knit rural areas the secret is more likely than not to leak out before very long. Even if that does not occur, the police are quite likely to make a habit of stopping the car of the individual on the register more often than they stop other people's cars, or to question him and require him to submit to DNA tests every time any sex crime occurs in the area, even if the sex crime for which the person was convicted is a trivial one.
If it was a matter of no more than a trivial offence, one does worry about the de facto punishment inherent in being placed on any black list being disproportionate to the crime. Let us take the case of an office Christmas party where men, and quite often women, traditionally end up behaving badly. After a few drinks a man—who may not necessarily be the boss but perhaps a relatively junior employee in his early twenties—approaches a 17 year-old typist from behind, puts an arm around her waist, squeezes it and plants an unwanted kiss upon her cheek. Her mother in a similar situation 25 years ago, and her grandmother in a similar situation 50 years ago, would almost certainly have shrugged off the whole thing. But today's 17 year-old may well feel, indignantly, that her "space had been invaded", or whatever transatlantic phrase happens to be in vogue at the time, and complain to the police. The latter would almost certainly feel that they had to charge the young man with indecent assault. If convicted, that young man might be fined no more than £30 or so or, more likely, given a conditional discharge. Nevertheless, under the Bill as it stands, he would remain on the register as a potential sex offender for a full five years. Is that necessary, and is it right?
Incidentally, I know of cases where the roles have been reversed; for example, where an older woman has blatantly made physical passes at a shy young man. Of course, in such a case men are usually too embarrassed to complain to the police. However, if they were to do so and a conviction were to result, I would feel exactly the same way about the woman being placed on the register.
However, let us take a slightly more serious case as reported in today's newspapers. A 35 year-old hospital doctor was used to indulging in horseplay with one or more nurses at the hospital where he worked. He claimed that the nurses normally entered fully into the spirit of the thing. But it appears that one day he misjudged the signals and went too far by placing a hand
1134
where the nurse did not want it placed. She yelled out and he immediately removed it. Nevertheless, the doctor was prosecuted for indecent assault, convicted and sentenced yesterday to three months' imprisonment, possibly jeopardising his future career.
It may be that a three-month sentence would be justified, especially if the lady in question happened to be a 17 year-old student nurse rather than the slightly older registered nurse involved in the case to which I referred. Nevertheless, is it really necessary for that doctor to remain on police files as a potentially dangerous sex maniac for six years and 10 months after he emerges from his token spell in prison? I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: The amendments seek to replace the current notification period with shorter periods for the three categories of offenders at the lower end of the scale. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, proposes to replace seven years with five years for those imprisoned for a term of six months or less or who had been admitted to hospital without being subject to a restriction order.
The noble Lord seeks to reduce the length of the notification requirement provided under the Bill. We take the view that, for registration to be of any value whatever, a minimum period of five years should apply. A period of registration for two years only would not provide the level of protection for children that people require from those who commit the type of offence caught under the provisions of the Bill. It is a well-known fact that paedophiles are cunning, they are deceptive and they can avoid coming to attention for long periods of time. That is why we are providing for a minimum period of notification of five years.
I should point out to the Committee that we are not talking about a particularly onerous requirement. After initial notification of his name and address, an offender is only required to notify any changes to those details. Indeed, I remember during the debates on the Crime (Sentences) Bill that the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, who is not now in his place, raised the question of someone arriving at a police station and being treated in a way that would be unacceptable in terms of what we come to expect from the police when dealing with such people. However, I am assured that this can be a matter of written notification to a police authority and that no more need happen unless there is a change of address. In those circumstances, I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I wish that the Minister would not keep referring to paedophiles. As the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said, the Bill is not restricted to paedophiles. Indeed, we discussed the issue previously and I thought that the Minister agreed with me that the Bill goes wider. It includes consensual sex acts and acts which do not relate to children,because it catches those who are affected by differential ages of consent. It is the

1135
only chance I shall have to say this; namely, that this is not a paedophile Bill. It is a Sex Offenders Bill in a broader sense.
Lord Monson: I agree with the noble Baroness that a minimum five-year registration period would be appropriate for a repeat offence, and it might even be appropriate for a single offence which involved paedophile activities. However, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, kindly confirmed, this Bill does not deal only with paedophilia. None of the examples I gave involved people who could remotely be described as paedophiles. If we had been allocated the correct amount of time in which to deliberate this Bill: the time which it deserved—as so many other Bills did—I suspect that it would have ended up as much less of a blunt instrument than it is at the moment. In my opinion it will go on to the statute book in a defective form. I do not believe that I am alone in that opinion. However, having made my point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 18th March), Bill read a third time.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Blatch.)
6.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I was unable to speak at Second Reading of this Bill because it came up at a time on a Friday when I was engaged in teaching. My overall position on the Bill remains that I stated in the debate on the humble Address; namely, that I am in favour in principle of such a Bill being on the statute book as I think it meets a real need, but that any such Bill must be brought in subject to a good deal of care, first, to make sure that it applies to the right offences, and, secondly, to make sure that the notification which results from it is handled with due caution and on a need to know basis.
Inevitably this Bill has been prepared in haste. It is a Bill on a rather complicated subject which is difficult to get right at any time. I am not quite certain that the Bill is yet in a form where we can leave it in peace. It will require some attention in the next Parliament. My misgivings relate to two distinct themes: one, the type of offences which are covered by the Bill, and, secondly, the use which may be made of the notification which it requires.
In general I think it ought to be the principle of this Bill that it does not apply to consensual offences. Because the age of consent, sadly, does not always command general confidence among people of the age to which it applies, there may be quite a lot of people involved in this. Some consenting offences are in the Bill, some are out of it.
1136
Indecent assault may take place with consent or without it. My argument would be that those cases should be distinguished. In cases where there is, say, a boy of 16 and a girl of 15, the required notification may perhaps sometimes be a little stringent.
For people who are gay, because of the unequal age of consent there will he an unequal impact resulting from the Bill. This is an area in which we owe a great debt of gratitude to the Prime Minister who has opened up discussion of this subject since his meeting with Sir Ian McKellen. The majority in another place against an equal age of consent was a narrow one. It is therefore ironic that this Bill increases the practical effects of that unequal age of consent. That is something which may require attention in a future Parliament.
I also have misgivings about the use that is made of the notification. The Bill has practically nothing to say on that subject. Notification is to be made to the police. What happens to the notification thereafter is left wide open. I do not for a moment express any criticism of the police here. Indeed my views on this subject are extremely close to those of Mr. Butler, the chief constable of Gloucestershire constabulary, who reported on this subject on behalf of the Association of Chief Police Officers. That is an interesting report and well worth thought. The report discussed the possible advantages and disadvantages of a general warning system. It stated:
"Three police forces were not in favour of a warning system at all and without exception all the other forces agreed that it must only be used in extreme circumstances".
It was thought the warning might make the job of the police more difficult. The report further states that if an offender's,
"address and activities arc known the police are aware of his movements whereas displacement may occur making the most devious paedophile determined to achieve anonymity and further opportunity to offend".
The police believe that wide notification could be self-defeating. The report refers to one case where the police disclosed information from a warning list to an education department, which reported it to a school, which passed it to parents by newsletter. That brought in the media and meant that the probation department had to provide accommodation in a new force area. The report argues that,
"a warning scheme, if not used as a means of last resort, could be detrimental to public safety in the long term".
It argues that it could provide a threat to rehabilitation, which is, of course, the ultimate need. The report refers to a case in the West Midlands where revealing the identity of a sex offender led to an arson attack in which a 14 year-old girl—not the offender—died. Therefore there are risks here. Disclosure should be conducted subject to restrictions. I do not see any such restrictions in the Bill. It should be done on a need to know basis and with regard to public safety.
My noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, who spoke at Second Reading, recently received a letter on this subject from someone who in the usual way had been abused as a child, became an abuser as a result and had subsequently sought treatment. His offences are far in his past. He is a respectable citizen but his name reached his

1137
local newspaper, which published it. As a result, a man came after him with a gun and he has had to leave the area and look for another job.
There are risks. I do not think that it is enough to leave the matter to local discretion. The Bill should have sought to restrict the issue. I think that the measure will need attention in the next Parliament.
I expressed my thanks to the Minister on the Crime (Sentences) Bill for her conduct during the Session. In order not to prolong the sitting of the House, perhaps I may ask the Minister to take as read that my sentiments about her conduct are as they were then. I thank her warmly.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was present at the Second Reading, as were a number of noble Lords. Some of us expressed concerns about various aspects of the Bill, including the fact that it would have to be taken rather more rapidly than would be desirable. But I do not think that it is appropriate for a noble Lord who was not present at Second Reading to make a seven-minute Second Reading speech. Some of us who are not able to be present at the proper time deny the House the benefit of our wisdom.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Lord makes me regret that I did not put down the amendments that I have here.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I rise only to reassure the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that the Bill does not apply to a boy of 16 who has sexual relations with a girl of 15, as he will see if he examines Schedule 1 closely.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first, perhaps I may accept the earlier rebuke by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I have used the word paedophilia on more than one occasion. The main reason that I used it was simply that that was where our concern began. Our concern was about sexually abusive behaviour, in particular to children.
However, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is absolutely right. By these measures we seek to discourage sexually abusive behaviour to children and/or adults.
All I can say to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is this. First, I thank him for his complimentary remarks. However, I have looked again at the offences set out in Schedules 1 and 2. We regard them as sufficiently serious for these measures; they justify this Bill. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill passed.

Police and Firemen's Pensions Bill
6.54 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill was introduced in another place in January as part of the Government's commitment to helping public service employees who may have suffered loss as a
1138
result of being mis-sold a personal pension to have that loss made good by the personal pension provider concerned. As the House may know, there has been concern that between mid-1988 and mid-1994 a number of members or potential members of occupational pension schemes may have been incorrectly advised by financial advisers or by personal pension providers to leave or not to join their occupational scheme and to opt instead for a personal pension.
In view of that, the public service pension schemes have agreed to restore current employees to the position they would have been in, had no mis-selling taken place and had they not left their occupational scheme, on receipt of an appropriate payment from those responsible for mis-selling. Unlike the other public service pension schemes, the police and fire pension schemes cannot be amended by means of secondary legislation alone to enable the police and fire authorities to participate in the review at no cost to the public purse or to reinstate pensionable service where mis-selling has taken place.
The Bill, which extends to England and Wales and to Scotland, amends the Police Pensions Act 1976 and the Fire Services Act 1947 to enable the relevant secondary legislation containing the provisions for police and fire pensions to be amended in two ways. First, the Bill enables provision to be made for police and fire authorities to reinstate in their occupational pension schemes police officers and firefighters who have been mis-sold personal pensions. This is to be done by means of Clause 1 of the Bill.
Secondly, the Bill paves the way for police and fire authorities to recover the reasonable administrative costs of dealing with inquiries made by personal pension providers when conducting their review of the pensions they have sold to police officers and firefighters. The Bill also enables police and fire authorities to recover the costs of reinstating a person's occupational pension rights where a personal pension was mis-sold. These measures are contained in Clause 2 in respect of police pensions and in Clause 3 in respect of fire pensions.
I also believe that the Bill will be equally welcomed by the insurance industry, since I know that a good number of personal pension providers are keen to get on with their reviews of the pensions sold to police officers and firefighters and to settle the cases where mis-selling is found to have taken place. This Bill will enable police and fire authorities to play their part in making progress with the review.
The Bill is not a controversial measure. It was welcomed in another place, and I commend it to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is clear that the Bill is necessary. As the Minister indicated, it had support from my friends in the House of Commons. Because it is necessary to put the issue on the statute book indicates that this is the tip of an iceberg. I am slightly surprised that the Minister says that this is welcomed by the insurance industry. The insurance

1139
industry seems to me to have been noticeable in its determination to delay the proper compensation to those who have been the victims of mis-selling of pensions over a very much wider range of occupations. That blame must be laid not only on the insurance industry but on the Government who provoked the industry into that action.
On Question, Bill read a second time: Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 18th March), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  (The page and line refer to Bill 71 as first printed by the Commons]
  6.57 p.m.
  The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
  Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(The Viscount of Falkland.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 1, leave out Clause 1.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. With the permission of the House, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 to 11.
There will be few in your Lordships' House who will not be familiar with the general principles of the original dangerous dogs legislation; and few noble Lords will not remember the powerful speeches made over a number of years in your Lordships' House by the late Lord Houghton of Sowerby. Sadly—I think that it would be a happy day for him—he is not here to see enacted at least part of what he sought to amend in the original legislation.
I do not intend this evening to be critical of that legislation. Many years have now passed. I am perfectly prepared to accept the findings of the Home Affairs Committee, which had a great influence on the noble Baroness's department—I hope that she will support that view—in bringing about the acceptance in principle that some amendment to the Dangerous Dogs Act was required. The amendments introduced by the Government go at least two-thirds of the way to meet the concerns which prompted the introduction of the Bill which I had the honour to present to your Lordships.
The principal changes wrought by the Commons amendments fall into four groups. First, they limit the courts' discretion—we sought that total discretion should be given back to the courts—in relation to destruction to ensure a presumption in favour of destruction unless exceptional circumstances could be
1140
demonstrated. As I said, the Bill as originally drafted gave unlimited discretion. I believe that most noble Lords would agree that that is a fair compromise in the traditions of British parliamentary democracy. I am personally happy with that.
Secondly, the court needs to be satisfied that an owner of a pit bull terrier that was born before 30th November 1991 had good reason for not registering the dog originally. The Bill that I introduced in this House did not include a "good reason" test.
The third major amendment lifts the mandatory destruction provisions contained in Section 5(4) of the 1991 Act. The original Bill that I introduced left the mandatory destruction provision intact.
Finally, Clause 3 also provides for cases where a dog is in custody but no further proceedings are envisaged to be considered by the courts. Those cases could not have been addressed by the Bill as originally drafted.
To go into a little more detail, Clause 1 of the Bill as it now stands provides the courts with a limited discretion in favour of destroying a dog for a Section 1 offence—that is, an offence that involves a pit bull terrier to all intents and purposes—or a Section 3 offence, which involves aggravated attack by any dog, unless the court considers it safe not to order destruction. That reflects the recommendation of the Home Affairs Committee that the court shall order the destruction of the dog unless it is satisfied that in the circumstances it would he safe not to do so. Therefore there is a change of emphasis. However, I do not believe that any of us would quarrel with that change of emphasis.
The Bill requires owners of Section 1 dogs born before November 1991 to show that they had good reason for not complying with the registration scheme. In effect, there would be a judgment before they could be registered. The court would need to be satisfied that the dog would not be a danger to the public. For those dogs born before 30th November 1991 there would be a second test. The court would need to be satisfied that there was a good reason why the owner failed to register the dog in 1991. I should have thought that any court in our land, using its discretion, should be able to establish what was a good reason for an owner failing to register a dog.
Clause 2 is essentially a matter of tidying up the drafting of the original Bill. It addresses two unrelated issues concerning, first, unregistered pit bulls and, secondly, dogs of any type which are out of control. The first part of the clause amends the 1991 Act to allow a court to order that an owner of an unexempted pit bull terrier can register the dog. That is an important change.
At present, the Index of Exempted Dogs, as it is known, is closed, and has been since 30th November 1991. This clause is a consequence of Clause 1. Clause 1 allows a court in certain circumstances not to order the destruction of an unregistered pit bull. It follows, therefore, that if ownership of the dog is to be legitimised, the Index of Exempted Dogs must be re-opened in order to allow the dog to be registered.

1141
Owners will have two months to comply with the requirements of registration. They are: that a dog shall be neutered, tattooed and microchipped; that third party insurance shall be obtained; and that the appropriate fee shall be paid to the Index of Exempted Dogs.
Where an owner fails to comply with a court order to register the dog, the court has the power to order the destruction of the dog or, in its discretion, to extend the period of two months to complete the registration process. The second part of this clause relates to any type or breed of dog, not merely to pit bull terriers.
In cases where a person is convicted of an offence under Section 3 of the 1991 Act, which relates to any dog which is dangerously out of control, the court may specify the measures to be taken by the owner for keeping the dog under proper control, such as muzzling, keeping it on a lead or, in some cases, both. If the owner of the dog fails to keep it under control, the court may in future order the destruction of the dog. There is no change to the substance of proposals in the Bill that I introduced into this House. It is essentially a matter of tidying up the drafting.
Clause 3 amends the Bill to address two quite important issues. First, it lifts the mandatory destruction provisions contained in Section 5(4) of the 1991 Act; and, secondly, it provides an opportunity in certain cases where there is an impasse for dogs to be registered.
On the first point, Section 5(4) of the 1991 Act provides that where a Section 1 dog—perhaps I may remind noble Lords that that is a pit bull terrier to all intents and purposes—is seized by the police and no person has been, or is to be, prosecuted for an offence under the Act, either because he or she cannot be found or for any other reason, the court must order the destruction of the dog. The amendment gives the magistrate limited discretion as to whether to order the destruction of the dog, to be consistent with the proposed discretionary provisions contained elsewhere in the Bill.
The second matter that the clause seeks to address is that of cases where proceedings have been either dismissed or discontinued and the dogs have not been returned to the owners, either because a court has decided that the dog is a pit bull terrier or the police believe it to be an unregistered pit bull terrier. Ownership of such dogs is already an offence under the 1991 Act.
The amended Bill will ensure that where no person has been convicted of an offence under the 1991 Act but the dog cannot be released to the owner because it is in effect an unregistered pit bull terrier, the court can order, subject to certain safeguards regarding public safety, that the dog be registered. In the case of a dog born before 30th November 1991, the owner would also need to satisfy the court that he had good reason for the dog not being registered in 1991.
Clauses 4, 5 and 6 essentially tidy up the original Bill and no changes of substance have been made. Clause 4 relates to providing a power to make regulations in connection with re-opening the register for pit bull terriers.
1142
I am personally very happy, and I hope that my colleagues who have assisted on the Bill are happy, now that we have improved the dangerous dogs legislation to the extent that it will be less onerous, cause less distress to owners and their pets and, quite importantly, result in less money being wasted unnecessarily in keeping pit bull terriers and other dogs in kennels for long periods of time awaiting appeals and other matters. I congratulate the Government on their prompt action after the findings of the Home Affairs Committee. I, at least, at the end of this Parliament end on a high note. I hope that Lord Houghton of Sowerby, although he might have spoken for somewhat longer than I have to your Lordships this evening, would be as satisfied as I am. I commend the amendment to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(The Viscount of Falkland.)
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, I wish to pay tribute to my friend in another place, Mr. Roger Gale, who has persevered with this Bill for a number of years. He has never lost faith. This morning, at 2.15, there he was on his feet pushing through these amendments. On that note, I also thank the Minister for her quiet encouragement and support over time and other noble Lords who have also lent us their support.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I shall be very brief. I merely wish to thank my noble friend Lord Falkland for having persevered with this measure, and for eventually, with Mr. Gale in the House of Commons, having brought it very near to the statute book. That reflects credit on a large number of people, including the Home Office—given the fact that it was faced with the undoubted embarrassment of this excessively foolish Bill, passed in 1991. Belatedly, we now have a significant improvement to the 1991 Act. As I say, that reflects great credit on all concerned.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if noble Lords, like me, believe in the life hereafter, then it is possible to believe that the doughty animal-lover, the late Lord Houghton of Sowerby, will be looking down on our proceedings today.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords—
Baroness Blatch: I know that the noble Lord is not a believer in these matters. I speak personally; I did make that point. He may be looking down on our proceedings, perhaps—if I know him well enough—with a characteristic, impish scowl for me, perhaps even for my noble friends Lord Courtown and Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and for my ministerial colleague, Mr. Timothy Kirkhope, all of whom have represented the Government on this issue over the seven years.

1143
I understand, as a result of a whisper in my ear, that it was in fact my noble friend Lord Ferrers who introduced this Bill in the first place.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the Minister leaves Lord Houghton of Sowerby, it is not my beliefs that matter; Lord Houghton was to his dying day a devoted atheist.
Baroness Blatch: You have spoilt my line, my Lord! He was too saintly to be that. I think something else will have happened since he passed from this House.
Perhaps I could say to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that the Act was passed at that time in rather difficult circumstances with all-party support.
If I may continue my reference to Lord Houghton of Sowerby, I also think that he may be looking down with a rather warmer satisfaction on the Home Affairs Select Committee, on Mr. Roger Gale, of course, and on the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, who have arrived at this happy position.
I should like to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, on all his work in relation to the Bill, which will amend the 1991 Act. He set out clearly what the Bill does. I should confirm that, in amending the Bill in another place, the Government sought to follow the key recommendations of the Select Committee on Home Affairs in giving the courts discretion on the outcome of the proceedings about individual dogs, allowing something other than a destruction order to be made. The discretion will apply only when it is clear that the dog would not give rise to a danger to public safety.
The Government have a responsibility for public safety and to take account of public concern about dangerous dogs and dogs that are out of control. Additionally, the Government introduced an amendment to address those cases where no proceedings are contemplated but the dog has not been returned to its owners under current law. The Bill as amended will allow the courts to consider such cases and to make a decision about whether a dog can be released under certain conditions or whether a destruction order should be made.
Those are the two main areas in which the new Bill before us differs from how it left your Lordships' House. Other changes take account of drafting problems, such as lack of a commencement date. With these amendments, the Bill now has the support of the Government and I hope that your Lordships will agree that the Bill is improved by the changes.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
2 Clause 2, leave out Clause 2.
3 Clause 3, leave out Clause 3.
4 Before Clause 4, insert the following new Clause—
DESTRUCTION ORDERS
(" .—(1) In paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 4 (destruction and disqualification orders) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 ("the 1991 Act"), after the words "committed and" there shall he inserted the words", subject to subsection (1A) below.".
(2) After that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(1A) Nothing in subsection (1)(a) above shall require the court to order the destruction of a dog if the court is satisfied—

(a) that the dog would not constitute a danger to public safety:

and

(b) where the dog was born before 30th November 1991 and is subject to the prohibition in section 1(3) above, that there is a good reason why the dog has not been exempted from that prohibition."

(3) In subsection (2) of that section, the words "then, unless the order is one that the court is required to make" shall cease to have effect.
(4) In subsection (3)(a) of that section, the words ", where the order was not one that the court was required to make" shall cease to have effect.")
5 Before Clause 4, insert the following new Clause—
CONTINGENT DESTRUCTION ORDERS
(". After section 4 of the 1991 Act there shall be inserted the following section
"Contingent destruction orders.
4A.—(1) Where—

(a) a person is convicted of an offence under section 1 above or an aggravated offence under section 3(1) or (3) above;

(b) the court does not order the destruction of the dog under section 4(1)(a) above; and

(c) in the case of an offence under section 1 above, the dog is subject to the prohibition in section 1(3) above,

the court shall order that, unless the dog is exempted from that prohibition within the requisite period, the dog shall be destroyed.
(2) Where an order is made under subsection (1) above in respect of a dog, and the dog is not exempted from the prohibition in section 1(3) above within the requisite period, the court may extend that period.
(3) Subject to subsection (2) above, the requisite period for the purposes of such an order is the period of two months beginning with the date of the order.
(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 3(1) or (3) above, the court may order that, unless the owner of the dog keeps it under proper control, the dog shall be destroyed.
(5) An order under subsection (4) above—

(a) may specify the measures to he taken for keeping the dog under proper control, whether by muzzling, keeping on a lead, excluding it from specified places or otherwise; and

(b) if it appears to the court that the dog is a male and would be less dangerous if neutered, may require it to be neutered.

(6) Subsections (2) to (4) of section 4 above shall apply in relation to an order under subsection (1) or (4) above as they apply in relation to an order under subsection (1)(a) of that section." ")
6 Before Clause 4, insert the following new Clause—
DESTRUCTION ORDERS OTHERWISE THAN ON A CONVICTION
(". —(1) After section 4A of the 1991 Act there shall be inserted the following section—
"Destruction orders otherwise than on a conviction.
4B.—(1) Where a dog is seized under section 5(1) or (2) below and it appears to a justice of the peace, or in Scotland a justice of the peace or sheriff—

(a) that no person has been or is to be

1145
prosecuted for an offence under this Act or an order under section 2 above in respect of that dog (whether because the owner cannot be found or for any other reason); or

(b) the dog cannot be released into the custody or possession of its owner without the owner contravening the prohibition in section 1(3) above,

he may order the destruction of the dog and, subject to subsection (2) below, shall do so if it is one to which section 1 above applies.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1)(b) above shall require the justice or sheriff to order the destruction of a dog if he is satisfied—

(a) that the dog would not constitute a danger to public safety: and

(b) where the dog was born before 30th November 1991 and is subject to the prohibition in section 1(3) above, that there is a good reason why the dog has not been exempted from that prohibition.

(3) Where in a case falling within subsection (1)(b) above the justice or sheriff does not order the destruction of the dog, he shall order that, unless the dog is exempted from the prohibition in section 1(3) above within the requisite period, the dog shall he destroyed.
(4) Subsections (2) to (4) of section 4 above shall apply in relation to an order under subsection (1)(b) or (3) above as they apply in relation to an order under subsection (1)(a) of that section.
(5) Subsections (2) and (3) of section 4A above shall apply in relation to an order under subsection (3) above as they apply in relation to an order under subsection (1) of that section, except that the reference to the court in subsection (2) of that section shall be construed as a reference to the justice or sheriff."
(2) In section 5 of the 1991 Act (seizure, entry of premises and evidence), subsection (4) (which is superseded by this section) shall cease to have effect.")
7 Before Clause 4, insert the following new Clause—
EXTENDED APPLICATION OF 1991 ORDER
(".—(1) Where an order is made under section 4A(1) or 4B(3) of the 1991 Act, Part III of the Dangerous Dogs Compensation and Examption Schemes Order 1991 (exemption scheme) shall have effect as if—

(a) any reference to the appointed day were a reference to the end of the requisite period within the meaning of section 4A or, as the case may be, section 4B of the 1991 Act;

(b) paragraph (a) of Article 4 and Article 6 were omitted; and

(c) the fee payable to the Agency under Article 9 were a fee of such amount as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe.

(2) The power to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall he subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")
8 Clause 4, page 3, line 16, leave out ("passing") and insert ("commencement")
9 Page 3, line 17, leave out ("passing") and insert ("commencement")
10 Page 3, line 22, leave out from first ("shall") to end of line 25 and insert ("cease to have effect and the case shall be remitted to the court for reconsideration.
() Where a case is so remitted, the court may make any order in respect of the dog which it would have power to make if the person in question had been convicted of the offence after the commencement of this Act.")
11 Clause 5, page 3, line 27, at end insert—
("() This Act shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint.")
The Viscount of Falkland: I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 11 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 11.—(The Viscount of Falkland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Road Traffic Reduction Bill
7.14 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: 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.—(Baroness Hamwee.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Burnham) in the Chair.]
Clause 2 [Duty of principal councils to snake reports]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 14, after ("prepare") insert ("following consultation with neighbouring principal councils and the Highways Agency").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 1, I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in my name. These amendments have a common purpose, that of requiring certain controls to be placed on the face of the Bill. It may be that the Committee would prefer it if I make one perhaps longer speech rather than four separate speeches which might, at the end of the day, turn out to be longer.
When we were discussing this matter at Second Reading, the principle of traffic reduction had widespread support in your Lordships' House. The matter before us tonight, however, is whether the Bill, as it now stands, is good legislation and in the best interests of the environment and the economy. The amendments that I have set down will, I believe, improve the Bill by creating clear duties on local authorities to carry out consultation with neighbouring authorities, the Highways Agency and representatives of local business. The amendments will also ensure that any traffic reduction plan is directly related to other land use plans and that, once decisions are made, they are communicated to those who may be affected.
The key issue in this short debate is the obvious tension between what is acceptable as a matter for government guidance and what needs to be included in primary legislation. I believe it is recognised that all the obligations in the Bill could already be covered if

1147
Government issued the relevant guidance through the local authorities' transportation policy and plans (TPP) system.
That begs the question: why do we need primary legislation if guidance is sufficient? The answer, according to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, when we discussed this last is because,
"One … needs to legislate to bring those who are dragging their heels up to the mark of the best".
Placing these amendments on the face of the Bill will avoid confusion and ensure that all the local authorities that concern the noble Baroness have a duty to perform to a consistent level. As the Bill now stands, a local authority can drag its feet over matters of consultation and it will be the road users, businesses and residents who will face the inevitable disruption. Indeed, under Clause 5 of the Bill as it now stands those authorities may in fact do nothing whatsoever.
The amendment creates a duty on local highway authorities to consult with neighbouring authorities and the Highways Agency before preparing their reports to set local traffic reduction targets or curtailment of growth targets. That will ensure that any plans that might be developed take full account of circumstances on all parts of the road network. Decisions that affect traffic in one administrative area may well have implications for traffic conditions, business and economic development or indeed road safety in another administrative area.
At Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith gave the example of the City of London's ring of steel, saying that, while it may have improved conditions for those working in the area, it raised concerns among neighbouring boroughs that their networks were having to cope with the additional diverted traffic.
The other amendments provide for similar duties in other subject areas.
If the Bill is to produce a coherent approach to managing traffic, I suggest that each local plan must be in accord with those being developed around it. The reality for far too many road users is that local authorities have difficulty in ensuring that their road works are adequately co-ordinated. The prospect that area-wide traffic reduction plans could be introduced with little or no consultation is, I suggest to the Committee, far too great a risk to take.
I do not believe that this is a controversial point. I am informed by Friends of the Earth, who have been advising the noble Baroness, that they share this concern and do not disagree with its sentiments or purpose.
The Bill in its various forms has been in existence for around three years. Since the introduction of this Bill, Parliament has spent only a very few hours scrutinising it. While in current circumstances that may not be unusual, I do not believe that it is in the best interests of sound legislation.
I should like to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—with some diffidence but as courteously as I might—that both she and indeed her honourable friend in another place have played in some doubtful
1148
company when they rest on the advice of the Friends of the Earth. Friends of the Earth behaved extraordinarily badly. They wrote to one of my advisers and, with the permission of the Committee, I should like to read what the letter said:
"I would urge you in the strongest possible terms to use whatever influence you have to persuade Lord Lucas to withdraw his amendments. There are quite clearly enormous constitutional issues raised should a Peer frustrate the will of the House of Commons (and the House of Lords) by blocking such an important Bill on the eve of a General Election".
That is a comment which is neither correct in fact, nor complimentary to the manner in which your Lordships undertake their scrutiny role, which is at the heart of our work. However, that is what the letter said. I and others—the Society of Motor Manufacturers & Traders and the Freight Transport Association—contrary to what the Friends of the Earth say, remain concerned that, unamended, this legislation may not function well in practice. These amendments would ensure that the Bill could help to deliver the environmental and economic improvements we all seek. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for the way in which he dealt with this matter. In my view the amendment is uncontentious, calling as it does for consultation by councils in drawing up plans of neighbouring councils, the Highways Agency, local businesses and so forth. I find nothing wrong with the spirit of the amendment.
I can give the noble Lord a clear undertaking that, in the event of the Labour Party coming to office after the election, we shall be happy to enter into consultations with him about his proposals. I cannot go further than that at this stage. It is necessary for a clear and new look to be taken, but I can give him that clear undertaking.
We say that the Bill is wholly consistent with Labour Party policy. We set it out last year in Consensus for Change. We call for an integrated, balanced, transport strategy and set out our commitment to work with local communities and businesses to find effective, equitable and environmentally sustainable solutions to congestion, pollution and traffic growth. As my noble friend Lord Graham said at Second Reading, we have made it clear that we support the principles of the Bill's aims within existing budgets; namely, to set local targets for traffic reduction or constraint on traffic growth; to consult local people, businesses and environmental and other organisations; to encourage cycling, walking, better public transport provision and speed reduction; and to take account of local plans in government assessment and local transport grant bids.
We believe that the Secretary of State for Transport should be involved in monitoring plans, furthering regional co-ordination and reporting to Parliament. The Bill in its present form advocates consultation with businesses and environmental organisations on drawing up local plans. It is therefore clear beyond peradventure that the Labour Party is supportive of the principle of consultation with regional and local bodies affected by the Bill. We are therefore supportive of the amendments proposed by the noble Lord.

1149
I want to make that absolutely plain so that there is no room for any doubt on that point. The detail of the matter is something about which we shall want to consult with the noble Lord and others concerned in the event of our being able to take office following the general election.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I support in principle the amendment moved by my noble friend and in particular Amendment No. 1. Those are precisely the points I raised at Second Reading; that is to say, consultation with neighbouring principal councils and the Highways Agency. In his reply at Second Reading my noble friend the Minister gave me a satisfactory answer in relation to principal councils consultation and has since written to me and given me a satisfactory reply also on the point relating to the Highways Agency. When he replies to this debate I should like him to place that on record, in Hansard.
I am encouraged to hear what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, though that is probably not binding and, any way, is unlikely to happen. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was also sympathetic to my concerns in relation to the consultation with those two specific bodies. Provided that I receive the reply I hope for, I shall be satisfied. I would not therefore support the amendment if it came to a Division.
My noble friend Lord Lucas showed me the letter sent by the Friends of the Earth. I was somewhat horrified that my noble friend was accused of acting unconstitutionally by tabling the amendments. I have heard it suggested in the past—and in this we have all co-operated—that by not pressing an amendment at Committee stage a Bill does not have to go back to the other place and can therefore go through. But to suggest that one should not even table an amendment because it might spoil the progress of a Bill is taking matters a bit far. If one was in another place—I have never been in the other place though some noble Lords have—the author of that letter might well be summoned to the Bar of the House of Commons to account for his actions. I hope that my noble friend the Leader of the House will take note of what is being said and look into the letter.
Having said that, I support the principle of the amendment and hope to receive a satisfactory reply from my noble friend on the point.
Lord Chorley: I too spoke at Second Reading. I do not want to say any more than was said by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon. The amendments are not particularly pernicious though I would have thought guidance was sufficient in these circumstances.
The Earl of Courtown: Perhaps I can begin by making it clear that I fully understand the concerns that lie behind my noble friend's amendment. The Government agree that local traffic authorities will need to consult widely when undertaking reviews of existing and forecast traffic levels in their area and in taking a decision as to whether it would be appropriate to set targets for reducing those levels or rates of growth.
1150
However, we go further than my noble friend in identifying those bodies with which we expect local authorities to consult. We are clear that in addition to principal councils and the Highways Agency, as envisaged by his amendment, we would also expect other tiers of government such as district councils, as well as local residents and businesses to be consulted. Equally, we would expect local authorities to ensure that any targets they set, together with the measures they envisage implementing to achieve them, were compatible with the relevant structure and local plans for their areas.
However, we believe that it would be more appropriate to deal with these matters in subsequent guidance for local authorities to be issued by the Secretary of State rather than on the face of the Bill. As my honourable friend the Minister for Railways, Roads and Local Transport made clear in another place at an earlier stage in this Bill's parliamentary progress, the crucial advantage of dealing with these matters in guidance is that it allows time for us to consider with the Local Authority Associations and other relevant bodies the detailed mechanics of how all this might work. The Government's view is that it would be a mistake to be too prescriptive on the face of the Bill only to discover subsequently that the drafting was defective and that we needed further primary legislation to implement its provision. Having said that, we believe that these matters are best dealt with in guidance.
Our legal advice is that there are several technical deficiencies in the drafting of the amendments. For example, the first amendment refers to the Highways Agency when in fact this agency has no legal existence or identity separate from the Secretary of State for Transport. Neither is it made clear what is meant by "neighbouring principal councils". Reference is also made in the third amendment to "other land use plans" when such plans have not previously been mentioned or defined in the Bill. Finally, the first two amendments, which specify the bodies with which principal councils must consult before preparing their reports, would introduce an unwelcome duplication in so far as subsection (6) of Clause 2 enables the Secretary of State to issue guidance to principal councils in regard to who should be consulted in connection with the preparation of reports.
My noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara referred to the letter I wrote to him—I shall make it available to other noble Lords—concerning the points he raised at Second Reading. The Government agree that such consultation should be undertaken. Any targets and associated measures to achieve them, if not based on the widest possible consultation and broad local consensus, are unlikely to be implemented successfully. Indeed we would go further still and would expect local authorities to consult also with other tiers of local government, including district councils, as well as with local residents and businesses. That will be made absolutely clear in the guidance to be issued to local authorities in due course by the Secretary of State.
We shall, in turn, want to consult extensively with local authorities and with appropriate national organisations in drawing up this guidance. We believe

1151
that the crucial advantage of dealing in guidance with issues such as consultation, as well as the linking of targets to bids for capital funding, is that it will allow us time to consider with the local authority associations and with other interested bodies the detailed mechanics of how this might work. We believe that it would be a mistake at this stage to be too prescriptive on the face of the Bill only to discover subsequently that the drafting was defective and that we needed further primary legislation to implement its provisions.
As I made clear at Second Reading, the Government believe that this is a worthwhile Bill whose principles we support strongly. In turn, the guidance we intend issuing will ensure that local authorities take the views of relevant interested parties and local circumstances fully into account in drawing up their reports and, where appropriate, setting targets. However, we believe that the technical deficiencies which I have identified in the amendments would put the laudable aims behind the Bill, and indeed the Bill itself, at risk. With the greatest respect to my noble friend, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: The amendments seek to provide for full consultation and to provide that the reports of local councils relate to land use plans. These are important matters. I very much agree with the substance of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. It is because I do so that I want to see these provisions in guidance. They will be in guidance, as we have heard this evening, assuming that the Bill reaches the statute book.
I said at Second Reading that I would not be supportive of guidance which did not include those points. The guidance has a place in the Bill in that Clause 2(6) allows for guidance and councils must have regard to that guidance.
With regard to consultation, your Lordships have heard the assurances given this evening. They echo assurances given by the Minister at the Committee stage in another place. At Second Reading I likened the consultation process to that of Local Agenda 21s where local authorities are successfully working with the bodies identified by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, in drawing up those plans. That process should be replicated in connection with these traffic reports.
On consultation with neighbouring authorities, the point is well made that no traffic management can work if it merely shunts a problem across a boundary, whether it is to the next street, to the next ward, to the next borough or to the next county. I know that locally from my own experience extremely well. On consultation with the Highways Agency—in other words, the Department of Transport—one must of course relate to roads which are within departmental control. In London, for instance, the traffic director has to be consulted on certain matters. Wherever the roads are in the hierarchy, they are part of the same network. On consultation with local businesses—for instance, chambers of commerce—I have experience
1152
of the valuable job local chambers of commerce and local businesses individually have done in presenting the concerns of business.
The consultation that has been identified by the noble Lord seems to be part of the growing process of working in partnership, which so many sectors of society are now taking forward very successfully. "Partnership" has become something of a buzzword over the past few years, but partnerships are working well and are growing. I take no issue with the substance of the amendments because the points raised are necessary for the reporting process to work. The organisations and bodies referred to will often have similar aims, although they will sometimes have different priorities. Local business is likely to be concerned with the local economy, local employment and so on. Local councils and businesses are working together to increase regeneration in areas where that is required. They must be consulted, and, as I see it, they will be.
There is also the issue of land use planning. Planning is not about restricting development for the sake of restricting development. There are sometimes arguments about whether a proposed development is appropriate. Those are not necessarily—in fact, not that often—on traffic grounds. There are all kinds of reasons for traffic issues coming into the equation. Local land use plans, to be good plans, refer to environmental considerations, as do transport policies and programmes. Both are part of the responsibility of the same local authority, not of separate departments—again, a holistic approach, if I may put it that way. That is why the reports envisaged must relate to land use plans.
However, as has been said, it is not necessary to put these matters on the face of the Bill. They will be in guidance. If the list of consultees identified in the amendments is to be restricted to those proposed, it will be incomplete, as we have already heard. For instance, there is no reference to local residents or to other tiers of local authority. We have heard about drafting difficulties. I think it is a little tough for the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, to have been bowled that one at this late stage. However, it is an issue which we must take seriously.
Reference has been made to the letter from Friends of the Earth. I have not seen the letter. The noble Lord said it is a letter to his advisers; a letter from what I would describe as one campaigning organisation to—I do not know who the noble Lord's advisers are—possibly another campaigning organisation. Friends of the Earth is a campaigning organisation. I do not share that point with it. But that is not to say that I would in any way deny the valuable work it has done on the substance of this issue. If apology is required I hope the noble Lord will take from me that I mean quite straightforwardly that the amendments put forward and the value of the Bill are for your Lordships to assess. We shall do so.
I said at Second Reading that the Bill is not anti-car. It is about matching the car to the needs of the community. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of

1153
Chilworth, will accept my thanks for raising these important issues. But I hope he will also accept that his amendments are not necessary and, as they are drawn, contain some inherent problems. I hope he will be satisfied with the Government's assurances, which I was glad to hear because they were assurances I wanted too, and that on that basis he will feel able, following this debate and following the placing of all these points on the record, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for his remarks. I am glad that he and all Members of the Committee who have spoken in this short debate tonight have agreed that the amendments are not contentious. I was also glad to hear the noble Lord opposite give an undertaking to consult with me and others should he be in a position so to do. My noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara stole the note that I had written down when the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, spoke. I wrote down,
"I hope I have no reason to take him up on that offer".
He would expect me to say that, would he not?
Perhaps I may address one or two remarks to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, whom, I notice, is extraordinarily well supported on the Benches behind her on this occasion. I wonder why? Had she engaged me in some meaningful consultation, it might not even have been necessary for me to have kept the Committee this late tonight. I am glad that she emphasised the matter of partnership. We seem to be moving in that direction. Sometimes they work and sometimes they do not. I am also glad that she spoke about this Bill not being anti-car. We talk so glibly about being anti-car. It is not only the car, as part of the transport system, that does damage; it is the whole of the system, whether it is the private motor car, a truck, a bus, tram or train. In dealing with the matters in the Bill, we are dealing with the transport system—not just one element of it. I say to the noble Baroness so that all her friends can go home; that I shall not divide the Committee.
I now turn to my noble friend the Minister. I am grateful to him for agreeing that there will be full identification of consultees. I hear what he said about guidance being preferable. I do not agree with him, but there it is. He will not be surprised that I was not surprised that his legal advice was that there are technical deficiencies in the amendments. Were there more time, I would take these amendments and trim them for Report stage. I have had my say and I have heard the answers. I am not convinced. I have the feeling that the Committee is not minded to go through the Division Lobby at this time and in that case I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.
Report received.
1154
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 18th March), Bill read a third time and passed.

Birds (Registration Charges) Bill
7.45 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This is a short Bill and will clarify the powers of the Department of the Environment to charge fees for registered sellers of dead wild birds under Section 6 and for the birds registration scheme under Section 7 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The charge was made on registered sellers and keepers by the department when administering both these schemes. However, following a review some doubts arose about the proper statutory basis for charging these fees. The Bill will simply clarify those powers.
The Bill has three main provisions. First, it will permit future charges to be made for the registration scheme and the registered sellers of the dead wild bird scheme should such a new scheme be reintroduced. Secondly, it will permit the recovery of charges for bird registrations which were made between 21st May 1996, which is the date on which the announcement was made in another place that the requirement for the payment of any fees were suspended, and the date when the Bill comes into force. Thirdly, it will validate all registration charges which have been made under Sections 6 and 7 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
The Bill will affect about 1,000 registered keepers of birds. The Bill is an uncontroversial measure. It will simply restore the situation to that which the department and the bird keepers had previously believed to be the case. It will not remove any rights which they expected it to have. The Bill makes no other changes to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Bill read a second time.
Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 18th March), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Treasure Act 1996 Draft Code of Practice (England and Wales)
7.48 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood) rose to move, That the draft code laid before the House on 13th March be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I would also like to speak to the Treasure Act 1996 (Northern Ireland) Draft Code of Practice. These codes mark the final stage in

1155
the procedure needed before the Treasure Act can be implemented. At this point I would like to pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, who has fought so long and hard to reform the archaic law of treasure trove. I should like to explain that when the Treasure Bill was being debated last year we gave a commitment that the Act would not come into force until these codes of practice had been approved by both Houses.
The codes have three main aims. They describe the requirements of the Act; they provide guidance to finders of treasure; and they set out the guidelines on the payment of rewards. A separate code has been prepared for Northern Ireland to take into account the different legislative regime that exists in the Province. The codes have been revised and improved after extensive public consultation. They were approved by another place on Tuesday after debate and I commend them to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft code laid before the House on 13th March be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Inglewood.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has asked me to apologise to your Lordships for his absence. He was greatly looking forward to being here and to expressing his thanks to those who have worked so hard to complete both codes of practice. He referred particularly to my noble friend Lord Inglewood and to Dr. Roger Bland of the British Museum. I think that we should all pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, who has worked for seven years to get such provisions on to the statute book and to have the code of practice approved. This result is a great and patient achievement on his part.
The noble Earl asked me to make two other points. The first is that the Act and the code of practice combined will be of great value in bringing about a better understanding of our history through archaeology. Secondly, the noble Earl wished to point out that by regularly reporting their finds, metal detectorists have a great contribution to make. It is a contribution to our heritage that they are proud to make. We wish them well in doing so and we have good reason to believe that they will be conscientious.
This is a great moment in the fulfilment of a change in the law which has lasted for too many centuries. We can rejoice that the codes of practice are coming into force and we can be glad that in due course the whole of the Act will be implemented.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Renton succinctly encapsulated the raison d'être for what we are proposing in the combination of the Bill and the codes. I commend the draft code to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Treasure Act 1996 Draft Code of Practice (Northern Ireland)
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I spoke to this when referring to the code of practice for England and Wales. I beg to move.
1156
Moved, That the draft code laid before the House on 17th March be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc.) Act 1996 (Cessation of Section 3) Order 1997
7.52 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th March be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am conscious not only of the late hour of the day—although this is not necessarily an unusually late hour at which to take Northern Ireland business—but also of the fact that this is a late hour in the life of this Parliament. I shall attempt to be brief, but I stress that that does not mean that these are not important issues.
This order would withdraw from effect the statutory provisions that set up last year a forum for discussion of issues relevant to promoting dialogue and understanding within Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State is obliged, subject to parliamentary approval, to make such an order, if it appears to him that the multi-party talks that have been proceeding in Northern Ireland since last June are suspended. At the meeting of the open plenary session of the talks on 5th March there was a general recognition that further progress in the talks was impossible before the election. Accordingly, the plenary agreed to meet next on 3rd June. The Secretary of State has concluded that, in the terms of the Act, this constitutes suspension of the talks.
This order reflects the important principle that the two institutions—talks and forum—are parallel, and that the forum should not continue to meet when the talks are no longer in process. In any event, that accords with the realities: it is unlikely in an atmosphere increasingly dominated by electoral considerations that the forum could go properly about its remit of discussion of issues relevant to promoting dialogue and understanding. The practical difficulties of meeting during an election period have in any event now led the forum to adjourn itself over the period.
The work that the forum has undertaken, chaired with much effort and commitment by Mr. John Gorman, has been valued by some. Others have doubted that it has taken significant steps in the promotion of dialogue and understanding that were seen as the essence of the forum's remit. But evidently the parties at the forum have come to a greater understanding of one another's views. I should say that we firmly believe that the forum would have been a better institution had the Social Democratic and Labour Party continued to attend it rather than withdrawing from it as it did last summer. I hope that its position may be open to reconsideration.
Even without this order, the forum's initial lifespan would in any event have expired at the end of May this year. But the Secretary of State is empowered to revive it,

1157
with parliamentary approval, for a further period, or periods, until the end of May 1998. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said that it would be the intention of a Conservative Government to revive the forum as early as practicable in the life of a new Parliament; and the Opposition have spoken in similar terms of the intentions of a future Labour Government.
The forum should, in conformity with the scheme which your Lordships approved last year, cease to meet because the talks have finished. That is right in principle and is a recognition of the practicalities as we approach a succession of elections. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th March be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
Lord Fitt: My Lords, the Act is entitled the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc.) Act. We know that "etc" can mean many things in Northern Ireland. I recall vividly that when the legislation to establish both the talks and the forum first went through the House, many of us had misgivings about the setting up of the forum and the conditions under which the election to that forum was held. There was the added impetus of a deliberately rigged set of election laws to ensure that certain people would get seats. Although 10 parties were represented, the rules ensured that some of those people who were originally to have a seat at the forum and at the peace talks got only a derisory number of votes in the election. That was the Government's intention.
I expressed reservations about the circumstances surrounding the election to the forum. Indeed, I recall that my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees, a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, expressed similar reservations and said that it would be hard to get those who had been elected to the forum to give up their seats at any given time. I think that our reservations have been proved correct. No sooner had the forum been elected, than the members of the SDLP—the party which I had the honour to bring into being and which I represented for many years—and of Sinn Fein said that, although they had been elected, they were not going to take their seats but would withdraw from the forum. That meant, in effect, that those members who remained in the forum could be charged with representing only one section of the community in Northern Ireland. As such, the forum was not guaranteed any success or longevity.
I bitterly regret the fact that the forum did not have more success. I have never believed in abstention. I believe that if you go to the electorate and receive their mandate in votes, you should use that mandate to take part in whatever institution or whatever forum may exist and that you should put forward your point of view. I do not believe—I have never believed—in abstention, but unfortunately the party which I formed and which I led for many years seems to have changed and, wherever it may not be in a winning position, now seems to absent itself.
I am sorry that the Forum has ceased to exist. I agree with the noble Baroness that John Gorman has proved to be an admirable chairman. He has done everything to
1158
prove that the Forum is an institution that would in time have gained the respect of the whole community in Northern Ireland. I only hope that whatever may be the next Parliament, the Forum will be re-created. I make a heartfelt plea that those who are elected to the Forum should attend it, sometimes in a minority. In a democratic society one cannot have a situation where at all times one's views are paramount. I appeal to the SDLP, if and when the Forum is reconstituted, to attend it. I do not appeal to Sinn Fein because I do not believe that it is amenable to any kind of reason.
The noble Baroness has said that this is the last occasion in this Parliament on which we shall be able to discuss Northern Ireland. As I have said many times before, I believe that she has carried out the functions of all her offices in Northern Ireland with admirable rectitude. She has gained the support and affection of the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland. It is on this issue that I should like to put a specific question. I understand that following a controversy that has arisen over the past few weeks in relation to employment activities within her department an inquiry has been set up into the circumstances.
I do not believe that an inquiry is necessary. I believe that the Northern Ireland Office was wrong to set it up. What is much more disturbing is that the person who is to chair the inquiry is a retired civil servant who has relations with those who are still civil servants in the Northern Ireland Office. I believe that he has been given the task of inquiring into an office which was within the remit of the noble Baroness.
I have heard very disquieting rumours circulating in Northern Ireland to the effect that, having been given this remit, he is to report back to a civil servant who has been central to the whole dispute in Northern Ireland. That appears to me to be a matter of "Ask my brother if I am a liar". I believe that if there is to be an inquiry it should report back, not to a civil servant, but to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It would be disgraceful if that inquiry took place—I do not believe that it should have been set up in the first place—and reported back to an ex-civil servant or anyone within the Civil Service in Northern Ireland who had been central to the whole dispute.
I ask the noble Baroness: with what terms of reference has this inquiry been set up? To whom and when will it report? I believe that it would be totally unconstitutional if the inquiry reported back to a civil servant who had been central to the whole dispute within her office.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, I support all that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has said about labour relations within the noble Baroness's office. It is causing great concern, upset and annoyance. As the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said in a debate last week, this matter has been misreported and misrepresented. It is total nonsense. The noble Baroness has done nothing at all to interfere in any way with good relations in her office. The way that this matter has been taken up is causing great annoyance throughout Northern Ireland. The investigation is quite unnecessary and, I believe, out of order. I also believe that it is out of order that £10,000 compensation has been paid to one complainant. I hope that the noble Baroness can

1159
soon forget about it. In no way is she at fault. I also hope that the Forum will be restored as soon as possible. Even without the SDLP it has performed a valuable function, in that boys and girls with no previous experience of politics have learnt to debate and discuss. I believe that this is the start of the education of young people to get them involved in politics. There has not been such an opportunity in Northern Ireland for 25 years.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I too should like to add my very strong support not only for this Order but for what has just been said by both noble Lords. My noble friend has played and is playing a vital part in the work of bringing inward investment and development to the Province, despite all the uncertainties arising from the end of the ceasefire. She has shown great courage, persistence and address in visiting many parts of the Province despite the dangers. She tirelessly advances the cause of the people of Northern Ireland in the US and elsewhere.
It would be disgraceful if Sinn Fein/IRA and certain others, who have not scrupled to undermine her as far as they can, were able to use an incident in which my noble friend had behaved with absolute propriety and thus deprive Northern Ireland of one of its best assets. I do not like to see assets wasted. I see from the Irish News that Mr. Mitchell McLoughlin intends to try to make capital of all this and continue the campaign of vilification with his friends in Congress when he visits the US. That shows how much Sinn Fein/IRA care about the future prosperity of Northern Ireland that my noble friend has done so much to advance. For us to allow that to happen would be disgraceful; and it would also demonstrate political ineptitude.
I still believe that the talks have a future, but sadly at present my noble friend represents the only area of our future strategy in a troubled land which can be seen to be working well. I know that she has been privately sustained and encouraged by many of her colleagues in Government; but what is needed urgently is strong public support of the kind that Ministers are usually quick to give their colleagues under attack. So far I hear a loud silence and, behind that, the rustlings in the local undergrowth—the unworthy manoeuvrings of certain small animals (perhaps weasels and ferrets) who wish that my noble friend would go away and leave them to run their comfortable sub-culture in their own way. Fortunately, my noble friend is brave as well as committed. I do not believe that she will go away.
Lord McConnell: My Lords, I also support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. The noble Baroness has gained great respect in Northern Ireland. She has worked extremely hard and produced very good results. It is outrageous that she should be attacked in this way. We support her in this House.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their very generous and kind comments. I believe that there are others who share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, about the constitutional implications of the inquiry. I shall ensure that I draw these matters to the attention of my right honourable friend the
1160
Secretary of State. But we come here this evening to discuss the suspension of the Forum. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, was right to say that abstention was not the way to move anything forward. I hope that people will not be elected to Westminster with the avowed intention of not taking their seats. I believe that participation in Westminster and Parliament is a great privilege and one that is not to be ignored.
The noble Lords, Lord Cooke and Lord Fitt, drew attention to the fact that dialogue in Northern Ireland was the way forward. Despite the abstentions, there has been successful dialogue and much understanding of, but not agreement with, alternative views. The committees of the Forum with which I have dealt on specific subject matters have been industrious and demonstrated a commitment that is to be admired.
My noble friend Lady Park shares my concerns that the personal attacks have been used by Sinn Fein in Washington to create hazards in relation to the bringing of jobs to Northern Ireland.
I should like to share with your Lordships the fact that yesterday I was able to announce that there are now more people in work in Northern Ireland than ever before. That is something in which we should take pride. It is something we have achieved. This is merely a suspension. I am pleased to say that with the commitment of both leading contenders in the election the Forum can look forward to doing more good work. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order 1997
8.10 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield Baroness Denton of Wakefield rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th March be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the draft order before your Lordships' House this evening would continue in force for a further 12 months from 16th June the temporary provisions of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996.
Since the first Emergency Provisions Act was passed in 1973 it has been an annual duty falling upon your Lordships' House to consider whether the provisions remain necessary and should be renewed.
Your Lordships are familiar with the issues which underlie this evening's debate. Each year we must consider the Act against the background of the prevailing security situation in Northern Ireland, and against the report of the independent reviewer of the Act, Mr. John Rowe QC.
I shall describe the change in the security situation since the predecessor Act, the 1991 Emergency Provisions Act, was last reviewed in June last year.
At that time we had already experienced the horror of the terrorists' renewed campaign; and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary had introduced,

1161
and Parliament had passed, new powers under the Prevention of Terrorism Act to give the police in England and Wales the same range of responses to terrorism as the police and the Army have under the Emergency Provisions Act in Northern Ireland. There has been no terrorist attack on the mainland since Manchester in June last year. There is no room for complacency, however, and we know that the absence of attacks on the mainland since June has in part been down to security force successes in tracking down the terrorists and their caches of arms, ammunition and explosives.
Tonight, however, we are concerned with Northern Ireland and the use of the Emergency Provisions Act to counter the renewed terrorist threat there.
Such has been the intensification of the Provisional IRA's campaign since the Lisburn bombs in October that, excluding attacks aborted or thwarted by security forces, serious terrorist attacks are currently occurring at the rate of one every three or four days. And it is with great sorrow that we are reminded of the cruel and untimely deaths of Warrant Officer James Bradwell and Lance Bombardier Stephen Restorick. Those brave men have paid the ultimate sacrifice. They are representative of the courage and the dedication of the men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Armed Forces whose professionalism and effectiveness is reflected in the significant catalogue of successes achieved against the terrorists over recent months.
There can be little doubt that such successes have been assisted in some cases by the powers available to the security forces by virtue of the Emergency Provisions Act.
There is no doubt that the powers contained in the Act are still needed. Independent reports have shown that they have been used properly in the past year. Mr. John Rowe recommends the renewal of the powers. I urge your Lordships to renew them for a further year, thus ensuring that the range of measures available to combat terrorism is kept intact. In the meantime, I ask that we all work towards and pray for a peaceful solution. Until that arrives, the Act is important.
Moved, That the draft Order laid before the House on 10th March be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
8.15 p.m.
Lord McConnell: My Lords, I have spoken a few times on this Act, and so I intend to be brief on this occasion. I want merely to say that I still support it, because I believe that the vast majority of decent people in Northern Ireland deserve to be protected from terrorism. As the Minister told us, murder and intimidation continue. There is not just murder and maiming, but the kind of intimidation in which people are told that if they do not get out onto the streets and protest they will be dealt with. That is more insidious even than the straight terrorist attack.
I am pleased that the Minister referred to the Report of Mr. John Rowe QC who strongly recommended that:
"Undoubtedly the powers and provisions of the Act are required for another year. There is continued terrorist activity, and there is a real threat of more of it".
1162
So, as I have said, I support the Act. I congratulate the RUC and the military on the way in which they have stood up for the ordinary people of Northern Ireland.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I wish that I could put my hand on my heart and oppose the order. I was a Member of another place when the Bill was put through. As one who believes in civil liberties, I resisted many of its proposals. But as the years have advanced and my understanding of the events in Northern Ireland has increased, it would be in total contradiction of my own conscience were I to register a vote against the order.
However, I want to put on record, and I am sure that the Minister will not object, that although she said the order was needed in Northern Ireland—she referred to the deaths of the warrant officer and the soldier—intimidation is taking place there from both sides of the community. All the intimidation, murders and mayhem that have taken place are not restricted to the IRA.
Only a few days ago, a father in Northern Ireland who was making up a bottle for his young child was murdered. We suspect it was by those engaged in Loyalist violence. Every effort must be used to try to apprehend the murderous criminals on both sides of the religious and political divide, because many people in Northern Ireland believe that there is too much concentration on the activities of the IRA. There are two murderous elements in Northern Ireland. Both of them should be treated with the same concern.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, I support the order, because under the present conditions with IRA/Sinn Fein making every effort to bomb and murder people, it is absolutely necessary. I wish particularly to acknowledge the debt which all of us in Northern Ireland owe to the security forces, the police and the Armed Forces. Their expertise and devotion to duty in recent months have prevented or interfered with probably three out of four of the attempts of the IRA to kill and maim people.
The police have been greatly helped by the stream of timely information they have received from all quarters, often from people who put themselves at risk in passing the information. That support for the police is a hopeful sign for the future.
We spoke earlier of the Minister's problem in relation to employment, but I have not had an opportunity to acknowledge the remarkable work she has done in Northern Ireland in the past three or four years. She has been the Minister responsible for the economy and for agriculture. That was previously full-time work for two men. She has been responsible for almost all the wealth-creating sectors of the Province. In addition to demolishing a vast mountain of work, she has visited countless factories and farms throughout the Province. She has listened. She has explained. She has commended, and she has been helpful where appropriate. Community barriers have meant nothing to her during her visits. She has boosted morale and helped people to feel that government are not remote, which has generally been the case in recent years. The consistently improving employment figures, which are the lowest ever, show that she has not worked in vain. Whenever the noble Baroness

1163
leaves Northern Ireland—and I hope that it will not be for a very long time—she will be much missed and remembered with affection.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, again, your kindness excels. I believe that I almost heard the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, say that one woman can do the work of two men. That perhaps is not in dispute between my colleagues and I on the Front Bench.
There is no greater product than Northern Ireland to sell to the world. I am delighted that business—after all, government facilitates but business creates employment—has played a magnificent and increasing role during my years there. That has given us all much pleasure.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that killing people is wrong in any community. The death of the father of seven children is much to be condemned. Extreme sympathy is offered to the families. There will be no greater celebration than in your Lordships' House when we do not have to bring this order forward. I hope that one day the intellect of those indulging in violence will suddenly wake up to the fact that it will not work. In the meantime, we must again bring forward the emergency provisions order and I commend it to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Property (Northern Ireland) Order 1997
8.22 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield Baroness Denton of Wakefield rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th February be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I do not disguise the fact that this is a complex order. However, it is aimed at simplifying complex titles to land in Northern Ireland. It can only be to the benefit of the economy. I say simply that if there are questions on the order I undoubtedly would have to write to your Lordships, and I shall be happy to do so.
I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will wish to take this opportunity to put on the record a reassurance to his colleagues in another place who wanted to be convinced that this is not another part of the lawyers' money-making machine, the major beneficiaries of which are lawyers rather than the public. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th February be approved.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
On Question. Motion agreed to.

Public Order (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1997
Baroness Denton of Wakefield Baroness Denton of Wakefield rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th March be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this order is to implement a number of recommendations of the report of the Independent Review of Parades and Marches. As your Lordships know, the Government have undertaken to establish an independent parades commission with an education, mediation and conciliation role. We expect very soon—I emphasis very soon—to announce a chairman and members of that commission. At the same time, the Government are consulting interested parties on wider decision-making and related powers which the report has recommended for a parades commission.
The measures which are being introduced now will implement recommendations which do not hinge on the outcome of the wider consultation. We consider it important that these measures should be in place for this year's main marching season.
The proposed order will make a number of amendments to the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. These include measures relating to the requirements to notify the police of a public procession or parade. The current seven days' notice has been clearly shown to be insufficient time to reach agreement at local level, particularly in respect of contentious marches. We are therefore increasing the period of notice from seven to 21 days in line with the review team's recommendation. Where it is not reasonably practicable for the organiser of a parade to give 21 days' notice—for example, a march arranged in support of an industrial dispute—the organisers will have to explain to the police the reason for the short notice.
The draft order will give the police power to confiscate alcohol where it is being consumed at or in the vicinity of any place along the route of a parade or in the possession of persons travelling to a parade. These measures will therefore apply to those taking part in a parade, to others not directly involved in a parade and to those demonstrating against a parade. The powers are discretionary and implementation of them by the RUC will depend on the situation at the time. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th March be approved.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there is an elegiac tone to our discussions tonight. When the Minister and I were both young, which hardly seems a day ago, the Rolling Stones were in their full prime. I always thought that one of their better offerings was "This could be the last time".
There are familiar friends here tonight, not least the noble Viscount, Lord Long, and the noble Lords, Lord McConnell, Lord Fitt and Lord Cooke of Islandreagh. We have been together on so many occasions discussing Northern Ireland business. We all agree that we have always been dealing with a Minister of very high quality. She has dealt with all the issues with candour and decency. She has the respect of all who deal with her and, rather more rare among political figures, liking and trust. She has another very great virtue. When she speaks of a draft order she pronounces it correctly as draft, and not in that rather effete, southern way of—dare I try it?—dra-aft. It is definitely draft, not dra-aft.

1165
She spoke about an appalling slur which appeared in Hansard in another place. I have to say that it is a corrupt Hansard because when the Member for Lewisham said that he thought it was a money-making scheme for lawyers, what he intended to say was that he was sure it was not a money-making scheme for lawyers. Curiously, the Hansard reporter omitted the word "not".
Noble Lords who spoke earlier mentioned the assertions made about the Minister's conduct. I do not know the ins and outs of those assertions, but I share with the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, the belief that there are ignoble motives here and hidden hands at work. We cannot leave it there. I turn for the support of all noble Lords and the noble Baroness, and, for the purpose of the record, I see that I have the approval of all of them.
A report is being carried out. It would not be right, proper or fair if the Minister's position is not properly and scrupulously protected in the way that she is entitled, if necessary by the provision of legal representation and advice at public expense. That is the very least a Minister of the Crown is entitled to look to. The noble Baroness, Lady Park, spoke of the public support which might have been more vociferous. I note that and respectfully concur.
We cannot expect people to do difficult work if they are subject to what may be an insidious attempt at the assassination of a character which does not justify it. The Minister is entitled to the protection to which anyone else would reasonably look and which we would insist upon. I leave that matter there.
Your Lordships know that on this side of the House we have serious doubts about the speed of progress in relation to North. It is graceless and fruitless to repeat those doubts which I still have. But whatever happens in the election, I wish the Minister well in the future.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams. There is an enormous comfort in being a Member of your Lordships' House. I would like to take the opportunity to say that I have received enormous courtesy from all noble Lords involved with Northern Ireland business over the past three years. I have also welcomed and enjoyed the bipartisan approach to Northern Ireland issues which has been adopted on the basis that a solution is so necessary. I apologise on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, who cannot be here because he could not move the time of the last plane back to the Province, however influential he may now be as a Member of your Lordships' House.
On this side of the House, we have moved on from the Rolling Stones to the Spice Girls, but one's LSE tags always pull one back. In this House I have experienced unfailing concern for Northern Ireland and its future. I have indeed been fortunate in the past three years to work with noble Lords who have questioned, sometimes criticised and frequently expressed amazement at the length of time that legislation has been in coming. But noble Lords have always added much to the debate, and
1166
perhaps I may speak on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland when I say that they are exceedingly grateful. I commend the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice No. 4) Order 1997
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 13th March be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this order will bring into operation a revised code of practice on the exercise of stop and search powers by police officers. The revised code makes a small number of changes to clarify police powers in relation to members of gangs who habitually carry knives. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 13th March be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Blatch).
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, may I have a copy?
Baroness Blatch: Of course.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (Code of Practice) (No. 2) Order 1997
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 3rd March be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this order brings into operation on 1st April the code of practice on criminal investigations which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary laid before Parliament on 27th February. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 3rd March be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Data Protection (Regulation of Financial Services etc.) (Subject Access Exemption) (Amendment) Order 1997
8.33 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th February be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will be aware that the Data Protection Act 1984 gives people a general right to know what information is held about them on computer. I am sure that we can all agree that this openness is very beneficial. There are though

1167
circumstances when it could be damaging, and possibly disastrous. I believe that we need to curb access to this data where it could aid unlawful behaviour. This is especially important when the interests of innocent people are put at risk. That need was recognised in the Data Protection Act. The Act includes, at Section 30, a power which allows the Secretary of State to exempt personal data from this general right of access if it is held for the purposes of discharging statutory functions.
Your Lordships will be aware that a number of regulators have been granted such an exemption to enable them to exercise their duties effectively. The draft order now before your Lordships' House seeks to include the new pensions regulator, called the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority but known for short as OPRA. OPRA was set up by the Pensions Act 1995. It has the prime responsibility for ensuring the security of the £500 billion worth of assets which back the rights of members of occupational pension schemes.
OPRA has been given substantial powers to help it carry out this task effectively. These include a power to fine individuals and organisations acting as trustees of schemes, as well as being able to prohibit unsuitable people from being trustees. So OPRA will acquire a great deal of sensitive information.
Your Lordships will recognise the use that "fraudsters" could make of a situation where OPRA was forced to allow anyone suspected of misusing assets to have full knowledge of the information held about them. This knowledge could be used to frustrate an investigation, either by the destruction of records or by suborning people.
The order now before your Lordships' House is designed to ensure that, from the outset, OPRA is able to protect information from premature and damaging subject access.
Your Lordships will wish to know that the Data Protection Registrar has been consulted about the terms of the order, as is required under Section 40 of the Act. She has pronounced herself satisfied with it.
I believe that this order is essential to enable OPRA to carry out its functions effectively. It forms a small but important part in the overall provisions designed to safeguard the pensions of millions of people. It will thus enable people to invest with confidence in funded pension provision for their retirement. That is something which I hope we can all support. I commend this order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th February be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deregulation (Occasional Permissions) Order 1997
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th February be approved [19th Report from the Deregulation Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this order is to be laid under the powers provided in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. It amends the Licensing (Occasional Permissions) Act 1983 by increasing the number of occasional permissions available to community groups to sell alcohol and relaxing some of the associated restrictions. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th February be approved [19th Report from the Deregulation Committee.]—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deregulation (Casinos and Bingo Clubs: Debit Cards) Order 1997
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd March be approved [19th Report from the Deregulation Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this order amends the Gaming Act 1968 to allow acceptance of debit cards in casinos and bingo clubs. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd March be approved [19th Report from the Deregulation Committee].—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deregulation (Betting and Bingo Advertising etc.) Order 1997
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th March be approved [21st Report from the Deregulation Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this order amends the Gaming Act to remove restrictions on the advertising of bingo. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th March be approved [21st Report from the Deregulation Committee].—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deregulation (Football Pools) Order 1997
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th March be approved [21st Report from the Deregulation Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this order amends the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 to facilitate mid-week football pools competitions. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 11st March be approved [21st Report from the Deregulation Committee].—(Baroness Blatch).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deregulation (Non-Fossil Fuel) Order 1997
Lord Chesham Lord Chesham rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th March be approved [21st Report from the Deregulation Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order will amend Section 33 of the Electricity Act 1989 by means of an order under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. The proposed amendment would enable renewable generators located on islands not connected with the rest of the electricity system on the mainland to be eligible for support from the fossil fuel levy. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th March be approved [21st Report from the Deregulation Committee].—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Hedgerows Regulations 1997
8.40 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 3rd March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, where I come from in Norfolk, in the days when harvesting was done by binder and the last sheaf of corn was thrown onto the trailer, people used to say, "That is the one we have been looking for". As this Parliament draws to a close and as these regulations are the last of all the business to be transacted, not just in this Session but in this Parliament, one could say that, "This is the one we have been looking for".
Some of your Lordships may consider it slightly ironic that the distinction of being the last business of Parliament should fall to the Hedgerows Regulations and the distinction of being the last of all the government business which, over the years, I have had the privilege of presenting to your Lordships should be the Hedgerows Regulations. However, as they say, that is the way that the cookie has crumbled.
I should declare an interest in that I am, in the current departmental jargon a "land manager", which, in normal parlance, means a farmer. I should confess, without any regret, that over the years I have removed some hedges which have resulted in the farm for which I have some responsibility both looking and operating better.
Having made such a confession to your Lordships, I have the remarkable privilege of inviting the Houses to approve the Hedgerows Regulations 1997. In seeking the approval of the House for these draft regulations, I should acknowledge at the outset that there is a certain sensitivity on the subject matter of which I am only too well aware. Hedgerow protection is an issue which provokes strong emotions, and very different reactions. This was evident in the variety of views which we received in response to the public consultation which we carried out. We have considered carefully the views which have been expressed and have adjusted our proposals accordingly.
The changes which we have made do not alter the fundamental notification scheme on which we consulted. We have responded to the views which were expressed, increasing the time which was allowed for local planning authorities to give or to refuse consent to the removal of a hedgerow. Authorities will also be required to consult parish councils before giving consent. Moreover, we are requiring local authorities to take into account the reasons which are given for wishing to remove a hedge.
We have also taken some steps to try to simplify the criteria on which a hedge is considered to be important. That may surprise noble Lords when they look at the regulations; nevertheless, we have done so by removing some of the criteria which were generally considered to have been difficult to work. The regulations recognise the importance of hedgerows alongside public rights of way. We have also made clear that the regulations will be subject to review and that they may be amended in the light of practical experience.
There is clearly a difficult balance to keep between those who wish to see the countryside remain as they know it and those whose life and livelihood depends on the proper tending of the countryside. The countryside cannot be fossilised. It changes; indeed, it always will. It alters—the conditions in which it has to operate change.
The Government think that the draft Hedgerows Regulations now before the House strike a reasonable balance between the wishes of those in favour of widespread protection, and the concerns of those who have regard to some aspects of the tending of the countryside and who consider our proposals to be unnecessarily burdensome.
I shall conclude my introduction to the regulations by reminding your Lordships that among all the brouhaha surrounding hedgerows, some 400 miles more of hedgerows are planted each year than are removed.
Moved, That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 3rd March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, we are grateful that, at long last, some regulations on hedgerows have been produced. This was a manifesto commitment of the Conservative Party back in 1992 and was a topic which we discussed extensively during the proceedings on the Environment Act. At this very late hour in this Parliament the regulations have been produced; but we are deeply disappointed by the content. It is not only my party that is deeply disappointed; English Nature, which is an emanation of the Government, has also expressed its disappointment at the weakness of the regulations. Moreover, the Council for the Protection of Rural England is also deeply disappointed with the content of the regulations and, indeed, has said that it is as bad as having no regulations at all.
One of the great problems about hedgerows—and under these regulations only 10 per cent. will be protected—is the deterioration in their quality. There is no support for farmers to keep hedgerows up and, as they decline, they no longer fall within the definition of

1171
important hedgerows. Similarly, there is no protection for young hedgerows. There is no opportunity for up-to-date research on hedgerows. The regulations only provide that their status at the time when the regulations are passed will count. Therefore, no future research can be allowed. Only four weeks is allowed for local authorities to designate hedges. Almost inevitably farmers will apply for planning permission to have their hedges rooted up during the winter when it is much harder to show the considerable bio- diversity of plants, birds, animals, and so on, which are preserved by hedgerows. As I said, we are deeply disappointed with the regulations. The Labour Party has a long standing commitment to give proper protection to hedgerows. We shall, therefore, bring forward at the earliest possible moment in the new Parliament effective measures to protect hedgerows in future.
Lord Stanley of Alderney: My Lords, I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Ferrers will remember it, but he was the government Minister when, on the 16th January 1974, he had to congratulate me on my maiden speech which dealt with fencing and hedgerows. I do not think that he will do the same this evening. Indeed, I am sorry to say that I cannot recall my noble friend ever congratulating me again since that time. Nevertheless, hope springs eternal.
I hope that I will not embarrass my noble friend and I also hope that he will not be too irate with me but, as your Lordships may realise, this is his last appearance on the Front Bench. After all these years—and, as noble Lords know, I have known him for quite a time—perhaps I may say how much I shall miss him. In fact, more than that, I should stress how much all of us will miss him. Apart from being an excellent Minister who listens, my noble friend has a very strong sense of humour; indeed, I have often cried with laughter at his replies to stupid questions, some of which I fear may have come from me.
I have but three questions to ask my noble friend the Minister before he giggles again. First, will the guidance notes which are to accompany the regulations be consulted on very soon and be in place by 1st June? Secondly, will those who apply to remove a hedgerow have to pay a fee? Thirdly, if a hedgerow becomes an important hedgerow, does it incur a land charge?
As my noble friend said, I know about the struggle that the Government experience when trying to get any form of agreement between the various parties. There is little love lost between certain so-called "countryside organisations", many farmers and landowners—that, of course, includes me. Therefore I congratulate the Government on managing to issue the regulations and for bringing the organisations, farmers and landowners together. I also congratulate them on meeting the guidelines laid down by Parliament in the Environment Act 1995, much as I wish they had not been laid down.
I take the view that we should have the absolute minimum of regulation in the countryside. I also take the view that those who live and work in the countryside should be allowed as free a hand as possible. However, these regulations do the opposite. Sadly the majority do not have the privilege of working in the country. As we
1172
are a democracy, I have to listen and obey the rules laid down by Parliament, although I may find some of them to be stupid. I believe and hope that paragraph 5(b) will enable a reasonable and rational discussion to take place that will allow the economic case for the removal of a hedgerow to be considered. I wish my noble friend well.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will be relieved to know that I have no intention whatsoever of talking about hedgerows as there is no one less qualified than I to do so. However, it is my understanding that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is proposing to retire from the Front Bench, whatever the result of the election. As one who has faced him across the Table from the other Dispatch Box on many occasions, I wish to pay tribute to him for all the work he has done for his party but even more for the House as a whole.
I was going to say that the noble Earl has always been courteous, but he has not actually; he is quite capable of being very rude indeed, and indeed being personally rude on occasion. However, he gets away with it because he has a wonderful aura of authority which he carries around with him and which is the subject of great admiration on all sides of the House. He has been a most distinguished servant of the House and of his party. We wish him well in whatever he chooses to do.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I associate myself totally with everything that has been said about my noble friend, who is also almost my neighbour. However, I wish to say a few words about hedgerows. I declare two interests: one as chairman of the Council for the Protection of Rural England, and, secondly, as a Suffolk fanner.
I suppose in declaring the second interest I should also say one or two things about hedgerows. First, in my early days of farming I behaved in rather a vandalistic way and took out hedgerows. I now much regret having done that. That was 25 years ago. Since that time I have tried to replace them. I have planted a large number of them and they have done extremely well. The only reason for saying that is that I think it shows that sinners can be brought to repentance in these matters.
I know the difficulties which my noble friend and my right honourable friend have had in bringing forward this legislation, which has been controversial. However, I believe that much of the controversy which inhibited my noble friend and our right honourable friend from bringing forward legislation which I should have liked to have been able to welcome wholeheartedly has been the idea that the conflicts between farming and the land-owning interests, on the one side, and the conservation interests, on the other, cannot be reconciled. I think that is a misapprehension. I believe that it is perfectly possible to farm economically, profitably, sensibly and in an environmentally acceptable way. Furthermore, I believe there are increasing numbers of farmers who are farming in that way, so the trend is in the right direction.
In fact most of the damage that has been done to our landscape in the past has not been done by ordinary working farmers. In the early 1970s it became

1173
fashionable for institutional investors to buy land for which they paid absurd prices. They did so because it was fashionable to have land in their portfolios. They would then set targets for a rate of return on the land which meant that the managers they employed to achieve the rate of return massacred the landscape. That was tragic and it is much regretted by all of us.
Of course I welcome the fact that there are some regulations because there is a big difference between having some and having none, but I cannot say that they make an awful lot of sense as they are drafted at the moment. They have some good aspects. I shall mention first the good aspects. The fact that parish councils are to be consulted is a big plus. I hope very much that active parish councils will take a close interest—using this legislation and their right to be consulted—in urging local authorities to scrutinise the applications, which in general there will have to be, for the destruction of hedgerows.
However, as has been pointed out by the noble Baroness opposite, unfortunately only a small proportion of hedgerows are covered by the legislation. It astonishes me that the regulations refer to hedgerows which have existed for 30 years or more. However, young hedgerows are every bit as important and often—as my own newly planted hedgerows have been—have been planted with public money. It seems to me quite wrong to frame regulations for the protection of hedgerows which do not prevent the destruction of hedgerows, for which the taxpayer has helped to pay. That does not make sense to me.
I do not understand the penalties for illegally pulling up hedgerows. The maximum fine for defying a pre-preservation order is £20,000. The maximum fine for illegally and wilfully taking out a hedgerow which is protected is only £5,000. I simply do not understand that. The important point is that hedgerows are a crucial part of the landscape of this country. We cannot afford to make the landscape less attractive for our children and our children's children. Although the intention behind these regulations is moving in the right direction—and I would even go as far as to say that my right honourable friend's heart is in the right place, although I suspect I risk a tremendous reproof for saying that, and perhaps my noble friend's heart is also in the right place—the regulations are disappointing. I hope that whoever wins the election—obviously I hope very much it will be my party—will have another look at these regulations and will ensure that they are made much more satisfactory in terms of achieving the objectives which I believe we all share.
Earl Peel: My Lords, at the outset I had no intention of making any comment on these regulations, which I welcome. However, having heard today that my noble friend Lord Ferrers will no longer speak from the Front Bench, I wish to add to the tribute which has already been paid to him. I describe myself as an ordinary Conservative Back-Bencher who has been involved with environmental matters, and thus I am closely connected with the interests of my noble friend. I wish to pay tribute to the enormous care he has taken in listening to
1174
what those on his Back-Benches have said to him over the years. I am sure he would be the first to agree that he has not always listened as closely as perhaps we would have liked, but he has always shown a great deal of interest in what we have had to say—sometimes that has been fruitful and sometimes it has not. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for the considerable interest that he has shown in the concerns that have been expressed from these Benches.
I suppose I had to look for an excuse to comment on the regulations. My excuse runs something along these lines. Whereas I broadly welcome the regulations, hedgerows in themselves are not necessarily a conduit for wildlife. Hedgerows must be properly managed. I wonder whether there will be guidelines or some sort of encouragement for people to look after hedgerows in a constructive fashion. I hope this question is not a "fast ball" because I would not wish our relationship to end on that note. But what sort of assurances can he give the House that hedgerows will not only exist—I welcome that—but will be managed properly?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am deeply grateful for what your Lordships have said about these regulations, and for the kind remarks by my noble friend Lord Peel and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and I crossed swords periodically on a number of occasions when I had the privilege of being in the Home Office. I always enjoyed those occasions. If I may say so, the noble Lord always treated me totally fairly, straightforwardly and courteously, even if at times it was savagely. I am grateful to him for that. I look forward to seeing him sitting on those Benches again—and having the same problems as he has had recently. I watched the noble Lord deal with my noble friend Lady Blatch. I have never forgotten the courtesy that he displayed to me. I am grateful to him for that and for his kind words.
The noble Lord said that I had an air of authority. I did not know that. One does not know these things. I sometimes think that if one brought a skunk into the room, everyone would know it because a skunk gives off an awful smell; but the skunk does not know that because it is natural to him. All I can say is that I am not aware of all these wonderful things that the noble Lord said. I think that it is a figment of his imagination. I am sure that he would not say it at two o'clock in the afternoon.
Dare I come to the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton? The noble Baroness was deeply disappointed. My goodness, my Lords! She does not realise how lucky she is to have these regulations. They appeared like a whale out of the water yesterday afternoon. No one thought that they would appear. It was thought that they were lost down the pipe as a result of the forthcoming general election. But they have come. And what does the noble Baroness say? She says, "We are deeply disappointed. They only cover 10 per cent". The noble Baroness has not done her homework properly: the regulations will cover 20 per cent. She said, "There is no encouragement for maintaining the hedges". My goodness me, my Lords—what does the noble Baroness want? Does she want to pay people grants to maintain the hedges?

1175
The noble Baroness said that there is no support for young hedgerows. As I explained to her, 400 more miles of hedgerows are planted than are grubbed up. I do not see why we have to encourage that support. Then she said that there are only four weeks for the local authorities to give their views. The noble Baroness is wrong on that: there are six weeks. If she cared to read all 25 pages of the regulations she would understand a little more about them.
My noble friend Lord Stanley did not declare an interest! He is a farmer. I bet that he has grubbed out some hedges in his time; but he did not say anything about that.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, he said that I had congratulated him on his maiden speech. But we all make errors of judgment. The noble Lord has never stopped talking since, and after some of the comments he has made subsequently, I might have been more modest in my congratulations. However, he has been a great and loyal supporter of the Conservative Party and in your Lordships' House that is a good thing. He, too, said some nice words to which I listened with pleasure. He said—I regarded it as a great compliment—that sometimes he had listened to my answers to some of the stupid questions that I was asked and cried with laughter. And then he asked me three stupid questions. He might just as well start crying with laughter now because I shall give him the answers to them.
The noble Lord kindly let me know the questions that he would ask. First, will the guidance notes accompany the regulations and will they be consulted on very soon? The answer is yes, that is the intention. Secondly, will those who apply to remove the hedgerow have to pay a fee? The answer is no. Thirdly, if a hedgerow becomes an important hedgerow does it incur a land charge? The answer to that is no.
My noble friend Lord Peel said that he did not wart to end a relationship on a sour note. But no relationship is ended. Nothing from my noble friend would ever be on a sour note. I have forgotten the question that he asked. All I have written down is "hedgerows". I presume that he asked a question on hedgerows. I shall read Hansard and ensure that he has a reply.
My noble friend Lord Marlesford is sitting there, the chairman of the Council for the Protection of Rural England. I was not quite certain whether he welcomed the regulations. He said that my heart was in the right place. Of course it is in the right place—he should know that. He said that he had made some mistakes when he was young. The only trouble is that he continues to make them and he has no regrets. Then he made an absurd suggestion. He asked why on earth should hedgerows be allowed to be pulled out after having been planted only 30 years because they had been planted with public money. Of course they have not been planted with public money. Farmers who have planted hedgerows have had the benefit of grants, as they have had for a number of things. If my noble friend suggests that any hedge ever planted must stay there sacrosanct, he has much to consider and understand.
1176
But the thing that really distresses me about my noble friend is that there he is, the head of this great institution, badgering on that we must have hedgerow regulations. He has been running around like a headless chicken asking, "When are we going to have these regulations?" Now we have produced them. And what does the Council for the Protection of Rural England say? I shall tell your Lordships. The council issued a press release. And what was the press release headed? It is headed,
"CPRE slates hedgerows S.I.".
I quote the council's own press release. It states:
"CPRE has slammed the statutory instrument … for protecting 'important' hedgerows which the Government laid before Parliament today…Sir Angus Stirling, Chairman of CPRE's Policy Committee said:
'These regulations are almost worse than having no regulations at all'."
Yet my noble friend Lord Marlesford runs around saying, "We must have these regulations". And when we produce them that is all that his council can say. I just wish that his council and his chairman spoke with a single tongue. My noble friend has some odd ideas. He said that he would rather have nuclear reactors in the countryside than wind farms. Whether that represents the views of the CPRE, I do not know. But the CPRE and my noble friend seem to walk out of step with each other. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has gone out of his way to meet the views of the CPRE and others. I think that they might have given him more acclamation than that.
Having said that, my noble friend lives close to me. I know him well. I am delighted to see him smiling away. I hope that he will talk to me after this. But I think he talks a lot of rubbish sometimes and this evening was one such time.
I am grateful for the enthusiastic welcome that your Lordships have given to these hedgerow regulations. I commend the regulations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Adjournment
9.7 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, in moving the adjournment of the House I wish to say the customary word of thanks to all those who have worked so hard to ensure the efficient running of your Lordships' House throughout this Session, and indeed throughout this Parliament. It has been only a few weeks since Christmas and this Session has been shorter than a normal Session. However, I am sure that your Lordships will agree with me that everyone has worked extremely hard, particularly in the past few weeks, to ensure the orderly completion of business in this House.
As always, I do not wish to draw particular attention to any specific individuals or groups of staff since to do so would run the risk of failing to name some key individual or group. My thanks are to all the staff of this House. Seen and unseen, they do so much to make your Lordships' lives as bearable and pleasant as possible in

1177
and around the House. I am sure that the Whole House will join with me in wishing all of the staff a peaceful and happy Prorogation and Dissolution Recess.
I also wish to use this opportunity to thank the other members of the usual channels for the spirit of co-operation which has, almost without exception, been the rule throughout this Session. It is an extraordinary tribute to this House that we can, even under conditions of great political excitement, continue to proceed by way of agreement in arranging our business. The result is that your Lordships' House is able to scrutinise legislation in a calm and efficient atmosphere—and long may that continue!
Perhaps I may say just one word which may break all sorts of conventions and refer to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. The House will have seen that he has announced his retirement at the general election. On behalf of the Government at this Dispatch Box I should like to thank him for the tremendous years of service and for the hours that he has sat on the Woolsack, always patient, always clear in his instructions and always kind and generous to his colleagues on the Front Bench.
Tributes have already been paid to my noble friend Lord Ferrers. However, while I am on my feet and seeing that they are in the Chamber, perhaps I may also mention my noble friends Lady Trumpington and Lord Goschen, who have also announced their retirement at the general election.
As for the Opposition, they have had plenty of practice over the course of the past 18 years to become good at it. I hope that the Whole House agrees that in the course of the past few years they have become extremely good at it. It is my wish that, when we return in May, they shall remain practising that art of Opposition while we remain in government.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of my noble friend the Opposition Chief Whip, it falls to his very inadequate substitute to say that we on these Benches wish to associate ourselves most warmly with all the remarks made by the Government Chief Whip—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Except the last ones!
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: —except the last ones! Like him, I should find it invidious to name any names because I, too, know from bitter experience that, however many individuals are thanked, there is always that one who is inadvertently omitted and who will never, ever forgive the omitter for the rest of his life.
Even though I am a substitute for the Government Chief Whip—
Noble Lords: Opposition Chief Whip!
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I must not anticipate matters!
1178
When I received the order that I should carry out this agreeable task, I did not realise that I was in for one of the greatest comic performances I have ever heard at the Dispatch Box by that master of comic performances, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. I mean this quite sincerely. For a short time in my past I was a professional actor. However, I have never heard anybody time the remarks that he makes better than the noble Earl. I have sat in admiration on many occasions and wished that he could teach me how he does it.
I shall make one small change to what I just said about not mentioning anybody in particular. Perhaps I may thank and pay special tribute to all the attendants in your Lordships' Chamber, the Doorkeepers, who want your notes when you have finished with them and fail to see you waving vital communications when they are looking straight at you, and who rebuke with a terrible severity any noble Lord who trespasses unbeknown on some arcane rule, convention or practice of this House. They can be at times a terrifying group. John Donne, in one of his satires, refers to, "the great eight-foot high iron-bound serving men"—which fits nearly all of them since "Jumper" Collins retired. They all look like and resemble in so many ways regimental sergeant majors in the Brigade of Guards. However, as they get to know you, and if you behave yourself in a proper fashion and do pass their test, you become a sort of "persona grata", rather like the young second lieutenant who is looked on in a grandfatherly way by the regimental sergeant major as a young fellow who might one of these days make something of himself.
I agree with the Government Chief Whip that the usual channels have, fortunately, flowed unblocked in this Parliament. I say nothing of what has passed through those channels—but it has been of great assistance to organic farming and we should have a bumper crop next year!
Finally, and bearing in mind the verbal punch-up which seems to have taken place earlier today in another place and which surprised me, I thank all noble Lords on behalf of all of us on these Benches for the good relationships, good taste and good humour that xas almost always characterised our debates and deliberations.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, briefly, on behalf of these crowded Benches behind me, I wish to associate myself with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. I know nothing about the usual channels, and never have, either in another place or here. They remain a total mystery to me. However, what I do know is that, mysterious as they are, they certainly have wonders to perform, and particularly in this House. We owe a great debt to the usual channels for the way in which on all sides of the House they manage to serve the House so well.
I join also in the tributes to all the servants of the House in every possible capacity.
Perhaps I might also be allowed a personal word of admiration and respect for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I have perhaps some particular personal reasons to value his very high qualities. But

1179
what has impressed me about him is that, as a senior member of the Government, he has managed to steer some major legislation through from the Woolsack—sometimes rather controversial legislation—and has always managed to do it in a serene and calm way. I can only pay him what I always regard as the great Scottish compliment: in all the troubles of the work and the duties he has had to undertake, he has continually maintained a calm sough.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, if my noble friend the Chief Whip can suspect himself of breaking the unwritten rules of your Lordships' House, surely I as a humble Back-Bencher can do the same. I believe that my fellow Deputy Speakers and Deputy Chairmen would, like me, wish to pay a tribute, on this last occasion when it is possible for any of us to speak in this Parliament, to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. Noble Lords will remember that the law is the true embodiment of everything that is excellent. He has embodied the law for a number of years, both in his distinguished position as Lord Chancellor and before that as Lord Advocate, when he will remember that he dug me out of a personal hole on an energy Bill, which I think was the first Bill that I had the honour to put before your Lordships. He has honoured us, the Deputy Speakers and Deputy Chairmen, in an extremely generous way, from whichever party, or none, from which we have emerged, and we are all extremely grateful to him personally.
Baroness Wharton: We on these Benches also wish to be associated with the expressions of gratitude to the staff who look after us so well, not only those whom we see on a daily basis and who are so unfailingly helpful to us, but also those behind the scenes whom we seldom see and without whom the place would probably grind to a halt. On behalf of the Cross-Benchers, we thank them all.
1180
Finally, we should like to say thank you to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his courtesy to us from the Woolsack. We too wish him well in his retirement. We have an added suggestion: perhaps he would like to join us on these Benches!

Crime (Sentences) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
Education Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
Police (Insurance of Voluntary Assistants) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with a privilege amendment; the amendment agreed to.
Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

Public Entertainments Licences (Drugs Misuse) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes past nine o'clock.

  Arms Embargoes
  Arms Embargoes
  Asylum and Immigration Appeals: Independent Monitor's Report
  Asylum and Immigration Appeals: Independent Monitor's Report
  European Defence Co-operation
  European Defence Co-operation
  Estonia/Russia Border Negotiations
  Estonia/Russia Border Negotiations
  Peto Institute, Budapest
  Peto Institute, Budapest
  United Nations Organisation: Future
  United Nations Organisation: Future
  Africa: Aid and Investment
  Africa: Aid and Investment
  Turkey: Detention of Suspects
  Turkey: Detention of Suspects
  Inuit Population, Canada
  Inuit Population, Canada
  NATO Enlargement
  NATO Enlargement
  US Airborne Laser Programme
  US Airborne Laser Programme
  Airspace: Definition and Integrity
  Airspace: Definition and Integrity
  ABM Treaty
  ABM Treaty
  Hong Kong: Annual Report
  Hong Kong: Annual Report
  NATO
  NATO
  Bringing Acts of Parliament into Force
  Bringing Acts of Parliament into Force
  European Central Bank Foreign Reserve Assets: UK Contribution
  European Central Bank Foreign Reserve Assets: UK Contribution
  Ethnic Minority Population of UK
  Ethnic Minority Population of UK
  Court Service, Land Registry and Public Trust Office: Performance Targets
  Court Service, Land Registry and Public Trust Office: Performance Targets
  Legal Aid
  Legal Aid
  Legal Aid
  Legal Aid
  Legal Aid
  Legal Aid
  Dr. Jawad Hashim: Legal Aid
  Dr. Jawad Hashim: Legal Aid
  Equal Pay Code of Practice
  Equal Pay Code of Practice
  Defence Industry Promotional Events on HM Ships
  Defence Industry Promotional Events on HM Ships
  Arrow Anti-ballistic Missile Missiles
  Arrow Anti-ballistic Missile Missiles
  Ballistic Missile Defence
  Ballistic Missile Defence
  Theatre Missile Defence
  Theatre Missile Defence
  SACLANT: Ballistic Missile Defence Plans
  SACLANT: Ballistic Missile Defence Plans
  RAF Menwith Hill
  RAF Menwith Hill
  RAF Feltwell
  RAF Feltwell
  Claim against Iraq: Gulf War Environmental Damage
  Claim against Iraq: Gulf War Environmental Damage
  Low Flying Activity
  Low Flying Activity
  Ethnic Minority Employment in MoD
  Ethnic Minority Employment in MoD
  Meat Hygiene
  Meat Hygiene
  Meat Hygiene Service: Performance Targets
  Meat Hygiene Service: Performance Targets
  Central Science Laboratory: Performance Targets
  Central Science Laboratory: Performance Targets
  Sea Fish Conservation Act: Implementation
  Sea Fish Conservation Act: Implementation
  Rendering Industry: Support
  Rendering Industry: Support
  Agriculture Council, 17–19 March
  Agriculture Council, 17–19 March
  Clean Livestock
  Clean Livestock
  Veterinary Laboratory Agency: Performance Targets
  Veterinary Laboratory Agency: Performance Targets
  Veterinary Medicines Directorate: Performance Targets
  Veterinary Medicines Directorate: Performance Targets
  Pesticides Safety Directorate: Performance Targets
  Pesticides Safety Directorate: Performance Targets
  Tobacco Products: Additives
  Tobacco Products: Additives
  Scottish Agricultural Science Agency: Performance Targets
  Scottish Agricultural Science Agency: Performance Targets
  Scottish Agricultural and Biological Research Institutes
  Scottish Agricultural and Biological Research Institutes
  DoE, Ordnance Survey and Office of Water Services: Spending Programme
  DoE, Ordnance Survey and Office of Water Services: Spending Programme
  North Sea Conference, 13–14 March
  North Sea Conference, 13–14 March
  Planning Applications for Retail Development
  Planning Applications for Retail Development
  Regional Government Offices
  Regional Government Offices
  Polychlorinated Biphenyls
  Polychlorinated Biphenyls
  Electronic Monitoring Trials
  Electronic Monitoring Trials
  General Election Campaigning Expenses: Foreign Donations
  General Election Campaigning Expenses: Foreign Donations
  Asylum Seekers: Detention at Haslar
  Asylum Seekers: Detention at Haslar
  Prisoners: On-line Data
  Prisoners: On-line Data
  Young Offenders: Contractually-managed Prisons
  Young Offenders: Contractually-managed Prisons
  Prison Service Drug Testing Programme Statistics
  Prison Service Drug Testing Programme Statistics
  Data Protection Registrar
  Data Protection Registrar
  Criminal Justice Initiatives
  Criminal Justice Initiatives
  "Pescado" Sinking: Publication of Report
  "Pescado" Sinking: Publication of Report
  St. Pancras Gasholders
  St. Pancras Gasholders
  Roads: Litter Clearance
  Roads: Litter Clearance
  Road Programme
  Road Programme
  Cancelled Road Schemes
  Cancelled Road Schemes
  Planning Consents: Decision Times
  Planning Consents: Decision Times
  Ecclesiastical Exemption from Listed Buildings Control
  Ecclesiastical Exemption from Listed Buildings Control
  Petrol Supplies in Rural Areas
  Petrol Supplies in Rural Areas
  Copyright Protection: British Television Programmes
  Copyright Protection: British Television Programmes
  Electricity Generating Capacity in the EU
  Electricity Generating Capacity in the EU