Sitting of 19 February 1998

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  The Minister was asked—
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Certified Herd Scheme
    Lorna Fitzsimons: What progress has been made on the adoption of the export certified herd scheme. [28746]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dr. John Cunningham): The Commission presented a proposal for the export certified herd scheme to the Standing Veterinary Committee on 21 January. I expect the committee to vote on the proposal soon. If it is not adopted by the committee, it will be referred to the Agriculture Council for a decision.
    Lorna Fitzsimons: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Like many of my colleagues, he may not know that Rochdale has a substantial interest in the issue. I have been lobbied by farmers—I grew up with several farmers—who are proud to be the providers of some of the finest and safest beef in this country and, indeed, the world. They want to know what support the Europear Commission got for the export certified herd scheme, and what my right hon. Friend expects the Standing Veterinary Committee's view to be. They want to know whether we stand a chance this time of getting enough support from the Commission to ensure that they car export their beef, because it is the best beef.
    Dr. Cunningham: I certainly agree with my hon Friend that British beef is safe to eat. The important aspect of the Commission decision was that the Commission itself accepted implicitly, in unanimously backing the scheme, that British beef is safe. There are no good reasons for the Standing Veterinary Committee not to reach the same conclusion.
    Mr. Walter: To implement the scheme in Great Britain, we need a computerised system. Yesterday in answer to a debate in the House, the Minister of State said that no decisions had yet been taken on charging for the scheme, and that no decisions had been taken or passing on the costs of setting up the scheme—the previous Government made a public spending
    1166
    commitment not to pass on those costs. Can the Minister reassure farmers that, as in Northern Ireland, there will be no charge for the scheme?
    Dr. Cunningham: I can tell the House that I shall be meeting farmers' leaders with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister later today.
    Mrs. Betty Williams: What steps have the Government taken since May 1997 to implement the Florence agreement, and may we be told why the European Union is still refusing to reopen the beef export market?
    Dr. Cunningham: We have fulfilled all the terms and conditions placed on us by the Florence agreement and, I repeat, there is now no good scientific or veterinary reason why British beef should not be allowed back into international markets.

    Farmers (Suicides)
    Mr. Gill: How many farmers have committed suicide in each of the past five years. [28745]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): The high rate of farmers committing suicide is of particular concern to the Government, and we are adopting policies to reduce the rate. MAFF is represented on the rural stress information network, the purpose of which is to alleviate rural stress.
    Mr. Gill: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is there sufficient realisation in his Department of the severe stress and strain that is placed on farmers by all the bureaucracy that has been implemented as a result of the BSE scare and other happenings in the industry? Given that his Ministry has decided to impose a ban on the sale of bone-in beef, which will cost the industry this year £77 million in recurring costs and £20 million in non-recurring costs, what price does he put on the life of a farmer?
    Mr. Morley: Rural stress and suicide rates among farmers are very serious issues. They are connected with many factors—not least isolation. When visiting farmers in Weardale recently, I discussed the support networks that farmers are organising. As I said, the Ministry has been supporting them. I would need to examine the hon. Gentleman's figures on the bone-in beef ban before I could support them, but I should tell him that that ban affects 3 per cent. of the beef market.
    Mr. Gill: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Am I in order in pointing out to the Minister that the figures are—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is in order doing only one thing—which he is not doing at the moment.
    Mr. Edwards: I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that every suicide in the farming community is a great tragedy. He will understand that there is a crisis in British

    1167
    farming. I know of farmers in my constituency who feel some despair. What measures are being taken to introduce an early retirement scheme to help farmers?
    Mr. Morley: We are discussing that issue with farmers' representatives.
    Mr. Tyler: Is the Minister aware of the very considerable number of suicides that appear to be linked to organophosphate poisoning? Is he aware of the work of Dr. Robert Davies, consultant psychiatrist at the Taunton clinic, which demonstrates that the proportion of suicides is completely inexplicable except in terms of the effects of OP poisoning? Is he in a position to give any more information about the Ministry's work in that regard?
    Mr. Morley: We are aware of all the research in that area, and of course take the issues seriously. The Ministry has committed £500,000 to a research programme. It is too early for it to have reached conclusions.
    Dr. Ladyman: One of the things that farmers in my constituency tell me leads them to despair is the fact that they are told by supermarkets that they must produce goods to very high standards, but find that those same supermarkets stock cheap imports which are not produced to the same high standards. Does the Minister get as cheesed off as I do with the Opposition's hypocrisy, since one of their number, the vice-chairman of the Conservative party, through his day job with the Asda supermarket chain, is in a position to do something practical?
    Mr. Morley: There is no doubt that the supermarkets insist on high standards from British producers, and British producers match those high standards. It is therefore not unreasonable to expect big retailers to recognise that there is a responsibility for their meat and food supply.

    Beef Imports
    Mr. Thompson: If he will make a statement on how much beef by tonnage and value has come into the United Kingdom from outside the EU in 1997.[28747]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): Provisional figures for United Kingdom imports of fresh, chilled and frozen beef from non-European Community countries from January to the end of November 1997 indicate that some 53,000 tonnes were imported to the approximate value of £135 million.
    Mr. Thompson: I thank the Minister for his reply. Is there any truth in the rumour that some of the beef is fed to the armed forces? If that is so, will the Minister contact the Minister for the Armed Forces and advise him that British beef should be fed to British forces? Furthermore, will there be a traceability system so that we can trace where the beef goes and from where it came?
    Mr. Rooker: I should imagine that the beef will be covered by the forthcoming beef labelling scheme. Consumption of British beef by the armed forces is much higher under this Government than the previous one.
    Mr. Gareth Thomas: Will my hon. Friend confirm that labelling has a part to play in improving confidence
    1168
    in domestic beef? Will he confirm also that steps will be taken to improve the labelling system so that consumers will be sure that they are consuming quality British beef?
    Mr. Rooker: Yes. From April, the beef labelling scheme will come into force. At present it is voluntary. We have encouraged all producers to become accredited. There must be independent certification before the product can be sold as British beef. In the meantime, farmers, supermarket owners and customers could ask whether the beef that they buy has a hygiene assessment score. The only beef to which that system applies is British beef.
    Mr. Paice: Will the Minister confirm that hygiene assessment scores do not involve any microbiological testing of the product? I hope that he will take that up in response to a question that I have already tabled.
    Will the Minister accept, without bringing in the absurd political points that have been introduced by his hon. Friends, that there are many farmers and consumers who believe that there is much imported meat available in this country that has not been produced to the standards that we require, including standards of hygiene, of microbiology, of abattoir practice and, importantly, of animal welfare? Are not virtually the only checks that are made on entry documentary checks?
    Is it not time that the Minister emphasised and accelerated the Government's ability to make proper checks on imports of meat to ensure that the ever-rising standards of British production are matched for farmer and consumer by the ever-increasing volume of meat that is being imported?
    Mr. Rooker: Last year we imported about 2 per cent. less non-EC beef than was imported during the previous year. Less non-EC beef has been imported under this Government than under the previous Administration. In other words, there has been a decline. At the same time, there has been more activity in making checks at the ports and raising standards.
    No one has ever said that hygiene assessment scores involve testing the meat. It is a process of testing the quality of the abattoir and that of the cutting-plant premises. We are talking of a hygiene score for the premises in which the killing and cutting takes place. It is right that that information is made available to the public.
    Mr. Todd: On the question of non-EU products, will my hon. Friend address the World Trade Organisation at the next round of negotiations to ensure that the same high standards that we insist on for our beef products are also insisted on in other states that are seeking to export into the United Kingdom, especially in the areas of animal welfare and environmental care, along with many of the other quality issues which were referred to by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Sout-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice)?
    Mr. Rooker: The points that my hon. Friend raises are not ignored by the Government. Even from non-EU countries, there must be conformity with the standards that apply within the European Union—a single market of which we are a part of under legislation introduced by the previous Government. Checks are made in third countries to ensure that their products conform with the standards required by the single market.

    Green-top Milk
    Mr. Peter Atkinson: What representations he has received about the future of green top milk; and if he will make a statement.[28748]
    Mr. Rooker: We have received about 800 responses from a wide range of interested parties. I expect to be receiving more before the close of consultation on 24 February.
    Mr. Atkinson: I hope that the Minister will take careful account of all the responses, including those from some of my constituents who have been drinking green-top milk all their lives with no ill effects, and who believe that the decision to drink traditional farm milk should be left to the individual.
    If the Minister does ban green-top milk, is he aware that he will face the same angry reaction as the Government did over their ludicrous decision over beef on the bone?
    Mr. Rooker: As some of my hon. Friends have said, just up the road from the hon. Gentleman's constituency there are citizens who are not allowed to purchase green-top milk. We are consulting on the issue and this is not the appropriate day on which to make an announcement. We will not make a decision until after the consultation process. We are operating on the precautionary principle. The hon. Gentleman may say that hon. Members have admitted that they were brought up on green-top milk, but some of the bugs that have been discovered in raw milk, such as E. coli 0157 and Campylobacter, were not known about 20 years ago.
    Dr. George Turner: Does my hon. Friend share the concern that I felt on reading the documentary evidence that more than half the samples tested had faecal contamination? If less parliamentary language was used to describe the source of the contamination, the public would share my horror that, as some seem to imply, we need to have dead bodies before we act.
    Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend puts it in the same graphic terms that were put to the Government—that we should act only after dead bodies are available. That is not what we normally do, although every hon. Member who has ever campaigned for, say, a zebra crossing to be placed at an accident black spot will have been annoyed at the unwritten message that, until there are five dead bodies and a cartload of limbs, they cannot have a zebra crossing.

    National Minimum Wage
    Mr. Hammond: What representations he has made to the President of the Board of Trade with regard to the minimum wage. [28749]
    Mr. Morley: As is the case with the formulation of Government policies, the national minimum wage has been the subject of internal discussions between Ministers.
    Mr. Hammond: Is the Minister aware of the National Farmers Union estimate that a minimum wage,
    1170
    if introduced at half male median male earnings, would add about £250 million per annum to the costs of agriculture, and that those costs would fall disproportionately on the sectors that employ a large number of casual workers? What studies has he commissioned to assess the impact on agriculture of the minimum wage, and in particular employment in, and survival of, horticultural businesses?
    Mr. Morley: The rate for the minimum wage has not yet been set, so the hon. Gentleman's comments are pure speculation. The NFU sided with the Labour party when the previous Government tried to abolish the only minimum wage board left—the agricultural wages board.
    Mr. Hanson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Labour party, the trade unions and the NFU all supported the retention of the agricultural wages board because they recognised that there needed to be a minimum below which wages would not fall, and that, contrary to the assertions of Opposition Members, that is also the policy of the Government?
    Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The agricultural wages board sets a benchmark that goes far beyond the agriculture sector and is important within the whole rural economy. That is why it was supported by rural interests and the Labour party, and was opposed by the Conservative party.
    Mr. Livsey: From the latest farm management survey figures for Wales I have calculated that, on the basis of a 40-hour week, farmers earn £2.50 an hour? In his discussions with the President of the Board of Trade, will he take that into consideration, as clearly farmers will not be able to afford to employ anybody.
    Mr. Morley: We have already taken into account the pressure on farmers in Wales and, indeed, in other sectors. That is why my hon. Friend the Minister of State recently announced a package of £85 million-worth of extra aid, which is targeted at the most vulnerable groups.

    Quarantine
    Mr. Canavan: What plans he has to amend the law and regulations regarding quarantine. [28750]
    Dr. John Cunningham: The advisory group on quarantine is expected to report by late spring, after which I plan to hold a full public consultation on its report.
    Mr. Canavan: Although I agree that the first priority should be to prevent the importation of rabies, will my right hon. Friend confirm that Professor Kennedy's group is giving serious consideration to the option of vaccination, with appropriate documentation and the insertion of a microchip for identification, so that animals with a pet's passport can be brought into this country without the need to spend months in quarantine?
    Dr. Cunningham: Yes. I can confirm that vaccination is one of the options that will be considered.
    Mr. Soames: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, provided that he and his Department are satisfied with

    1171
    the science referred to by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), and provided that the arrangements are satisfactory in this country for monitoring incoming animals, there is no reason whatever that we should not be able to abandon the quarantine arrangements?
    Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman is persuasive, but I shall not pre-empt the outcome of the scientific risk analysis. I can assure him that I believe that the time is right to re-examine the quarantine laws. That is why I have taken this initiative. There will be a full opportunity to consider all the aspects of the report when it is available.

    Feedstuffs
    Mr. Austin: When he will implement the recommendations of the Lamming committee on animal feedstuffs. [28751]
    Mr. Morley: Most recommendations have been acted on since 1992. The principal one, on the establishment of an advisory committee on animal feedstuffs, is only now being implemented by the Government.
    Mr. Austin: I welcome the announcement that there is to be an independent advisory committee on animal feedstuffs. It is an old adage that we are what we eat. Does not the Minister find it extraordinary that the previous Government did nothing to implement the recommendations of the Lamming committee in 1992? Is it not good news for the consumer that we now have a force for change in agriculture and in British politics?
    Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend is right. It is good news for the consumer and for the producer, as many producers also want to be assured of the quality of their animals' feedstuffs. The committee is a step forward which will be welcome on all sides of the industry.

    Food Standards Agency
    Mr. Timms: How many representations he has received in response to the Food Standards Agency White Paper. [28753]
    Mr. Rooker: Public consultation on the White Paper ends on 16 March. As of yesterday, 52 written formal responses have been made to the Department. My right hon. Friend and I have also met a number of interested organisations to discuss the White Paper.
    Mr. Timms: Are not the Government's proposals good news for all those producers and consumers who suffered so grievously from the series of regulatory failures followed by cover-ups which characterised the stewardship of the Conservative party? What assurances can my hon. Friend give on two specific aspects of the proposals—first, on the independence of the agency and, secondly, on public access to its data and conclusions?
    Mr. Rooker: The independence of the agency will be enshrined in legislation which will be approved by the House. The commissioners who will govern the agency will be appointed under full Nolan principles, they will not be representative of any vested interest groups and
    1172
    they will be appointed for their individual expertise. There can be no greater signal that the agency will be open than that it will publish its advice to Ministers.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister confirm that the Food Standards Agency will negotiate on behalf of the Government in Europe and elsewhere? Will he also confirm that the agency will draft secondary legislation for the Ministry of Agriculture?
    Mr. Rooker: Yes and yes.
    Mr. Sheerman: Does my hon. Friend agree that only an effective Food Standards Agency will put behind us the tragedy for British agriculture that was caused by the former Government, and that the sooner such an effective agency is up and running, the sooner British consumers can be assured of the quality of the food that they eat and producers can be assured of a good market for good produce?
    Mr. Rooker: Yes, but British consumers do not have to wait until the agency is up and running. The Government's policy is to make consumer safety and food safety a top priority. That is where the change of policy started in May last year.
    Mr. Jack: The Minister may recall that he was supposed to have been in Harrogate on Tuesday afternoon to discuss the Food Standards Agency at the Hortex exhibition, which I opened. Can he explain to the House why, at the last minute, he gave a slap in the face to horticulture by cancelling his attendance at that meeting? Can he further explain why no other Minister was put up to speak in his place and why, if that was not possible, an official was not sent? He disappointed and upset many people who wanted to know about the agency, and showed disdain to the horticulture industry.
    Mr. Rooker: I had urgent diary commitments in London.
    Mrs. Humble: I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend refer a moment ago to the importance of consumer safety. Does he agree that one of the key tasks for the new Food Standards Agency is to deal with E. coli poisoning so that other parents do not suffer, as two parents in my constituency have, the sad, sorry, unnecessary premature death of a child?
    Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is right. Maintaining healthy living in this dirty world requires constant vigilance of some of the bugs that are around, especially those that were not around or known in this country two decades ago.

    Farm Incomes
    Mr. Webb: What assessment he has made of trends in farming incomes over the next three years. [28754]
    Mr. Morley: It is difficult to predict the trend in farm incomes because of the many factors involved. I am kept informed by my officials on how specific market developments could impact on farm incomes.
    Mr. Webb: Does the Minister accept that independent forecasts, such as those by Barclays bank, suggest a

    1173
    further significant fall in farming incomes next year? Farmers in my constituency have overdrafts that would make my eyes water. Does he accept that they cannot wait two years for an upturn, and does he agree that the crisis in farming incomes needs to be tackled urgently?
    Mr. Morley: There is no doubt that this is a difficult year for farming incomes, although the hon. Gentleman may have misinterpreted the report slightly: Barclays suggests a downturn in 1998 and an upturn in 1999.
    Mr. Pike: Does my hon. Friend accept that many hill farmers, particularly in the Pennines and similar areas, already farm on a non-viable basis and that, if something does not happen to give them a better return and standard of living, they will get out of farming?
    Mr. Morley: Yes, I accept that. It is one reason why we are discussing the idea of early retirement with farmers' representatives and considering schemes such as hill livestock compensatory allowance. Hill farmers have always been in the lowest quartile of income. Perhaps the time has come to look at the support mechanisms as part of the restructuring of the CAP and the year 2000 proposals.
    Mr. Curry: How much has been taken out of farm incomes by the rise in interest rates since last May, and how much more would be taken out by a further rise, as canvassed by the Governor of the Bank of England?
    Mr. Morley: A rise in interest rates would affect farmers in the same way as any other business.
    Mr. Flynn: The Government are to be congratulated on their courage in dealing with the extremely difficult and painful, albeit inevitable, changes that have taken place in the farming industry. Could farmers hope for a more secure future in the long term if they were to change farming practices and carry out more organic farming, or move into areas for which there will be a secure market in the future, such as the cultivation of flax?
    Mr. Morley: Farmers are certainly going through a period of change, not least because of the pressures on the CAP. There are tremendous premiums for organic products, but nearly 70 per cent. of the organic market is taken by imports. We are doing our best to encourage farmers to convert to organic methods and take the opportunity of that market. We shall announce further proposals in the very near future.
    Mr. Beggs: Does the Minister agree that, as soon as the ban on the export of beef from the United Kingdom comes about, farming incomes will start to increase again? May I take this opportunity to thank the Minister of State for attending the animal health computer presentation by the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture today, and urge other hon. Members to attend the presentation at 4 pm in Room 21 so that their regions can benefit from the facilities that we have in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Morley: The computerised scheme in Northern Ireland is excellent and has helped in terms of the Commission's recommendation that the ban should be lifted in Northern Ireland. We are extending such a
    1174
    scheme, through the cattle passport scheme, throughout the country. It is a great shame that the previous Government did not implement that scheme in 1989 when they were pressed to do so by those on the Labour Front Bench.
    Mr. Jack: The Minister will understand that the agrimonetary regime has a profound effect on farmers' incomes. A document produced by Mr. Lebrecht, a senior official in MAFF, has come into my possession. It waxes lyrical about the stability of the current arrangements and the contribution to farm incomes, and talks about the generous compensation schemes available to farmers in the context of post-euro agrimonetary arrangements.
    If the Minister's officials feel so enthusiastic about the arrangements to help farmers, why does he not feel the same?
    Mr. Morley: It is a shame that the shadow Minister did not see a document that I have seen, which points out that in 1995 the then Conservative Government voted against the agrimonetary scheme—the very scheme that the Conservatives are now pressing us to implement.

    EU Banana Regime
    Ms Abbott: If he will visit the World Trade Organisation in Geneva to discuss the European Union's banana regime; and if he will make a statement.[28755]
    Dr. John Cunningham: Negotiation in the WTO is a matter for the European Commission. I have made clear my determination to secure an outcome that both conforms to WTO rules and honours our long-standing commitments to Caribbean producers.
    Ms Abbott: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the WTO ruling on the banana regime caused consternation and upset throughout the Caribbean? Many eastern Caribbean countries are wholly dependent on banana exports for their foreign exchange. The ruling also has serious social implications, because the banana industry is still a big employer in Jamaica and the eastern Caribbean. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that, during its presidency of the European Union, the United Kingdom will do all that it can to bring about an outcome that will preserve the living standards and social structures of the eastern Caribbean?
    Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Windward Islands, Belize and some other Caribbean islands depend hugely on banana production. Only this week, at the Agriculture Council in Brussels, we discussed progress on a new proposal to replace the one that was ruled out by the WTO decision—which, like my hon. Friend, I found very disappointing. We are determined to secure a new agreement for Caribbean banana producers.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Does the Minister recall that, at the time when Britain signed the treaty of Rome, the most solemn undertakings were given to our friends in the Caribbean—with whom we have historic links stretching over centuries—that their banana exports, on which their

    1175
    whole lives depend, would be protected? Must those undertakings be subordinated to the German wish to eat large numbers of continental American bananas?
    Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We have historic obligations to those tiny Caribbean democracies, and the Government are determined to fulfil our obligations, for all the reasons that he gave. I cannot see for the life of me why the complainants to the WTO made such a fuss. The tiny Caribbean countries produce only about 8 per cent. of the European banana market.

    Beef Ban
    Mr. Loughton: How many prosecutions have taken place with regard to the sale of beef on the bone to the final consumer. [28756]
    Mr. Rooker: None so far, but we are aware that two are pending, and that warnings about non-compliance have been given by local authorities.
    Mr. Loughton: I am sure that the House is glad that the Minister has dragged himself away from the health hazards of the Smoking Room to reply to questions.
    The Minister will know as well as me that beef on the bone is still widely available in this country, given the right nudge or wink. Does he agree that the complete absence of any prosecutions to date demonstrates that the ban is unmanageable, unfair and unenforceable?
    Mr. Rooker: The issue of prosecution is a matter for the independent prosecuting authorities. As hon. Members will have read in today's Evening Standard, someone is to be summoned before the magistrates in Rother, whose district council is run by a coalition between Liberal Democrats and Tories.
    Mr. Martyn Jones: Is it not the case that there would be no need for prosecutions, or for the regulations banning beef on the bone, if the Tories had acted quickly when in government to quell the BSE crisis instead of dragging their feet?
    Mr. Rooker: Yes. It is a matter of public health and of taking precautions. We can say as a Government that we are not allowing BSE infectivity into the food chain, and we will maintain that position.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Will the Minister acknowledge that, in a democratic society, prosecution is always more difficult when there is no basic public consent to enthusiasm for or acceptance of the law itself? In that context, did he see the Teletext poll last weekend, when 94 per cent. of respondents expressed no confidence in or support for the Government's measures?
    If the course of prosecution is so clear, why is it that the first test case in Scotland, in Selkirk sheriff court next month, concerns a beef-on-the-bone case where there was no commercial transaction, the one to which he has just referred concerns a case where there was a commercial transaction, and his recent written answer said that there could be no prosecution against a farmer who slaughters beef on his farm and consumes it? If the element in the
    1176
    ban is risk, surely the ban should be comprehensive and there should not be three different categories in three different parts of the country.
    Mr. Rooker: As most hon. Members appreciate, different rules apply to private kills, but the administration of justice in this country is not conducted by opinion polls.
    Mr. Corbett: May I tell the Minister that I have not had a single complaint about the temporary non-availability of T-bone steaks and oxtails in my constituency, I suspect because of their relatively high price? Does he agree that it is offensive for Opposition Members whose hands are dirty from BSE and CJD to take risks with public health over this temporary ban?
    Mr. Rooker: I agree entirely with the honest, fair and robust way in which my hon. Friend has put his point.
    Mr. Alasdair Morgan: How many prosecutions have taken place or are pending in relation to breaches of the import regulations that were introduced on 1 January?
    Mr. Rooker: I am not able to answer that now without notice.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: Did the Minister hear the item on this morning's "Today" programme, where a butcher who had been selling beef on the bone, when tipped off by the environmental health department that it was about to call on him, and when warned that there could be a fine of anything up to £20,000, decided immediately to stop selling beef on the bone? He was willing to be interviewed to that effect on that programme. Is that not what our local authorities throughout the country should be doing, so that we can guarantee all consumers that all possible steps have been taken to ensure that our beef is the safest in the world?
    Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is right, but I am not surprised that the butcher concerned was willing to be interviewed on the "Today" programme: it is clear that he is a publicity seeker.
    Mr. Gibb: If he will issue guidance to individuals who have beef on the bone in their freezers, bought for their own consumption, before 16 December 1997. [28757]
    Mr. Rooker: Such guidance was included in the question-and-answer material provided on the MAFF internet BSE site immediately after the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee advice on dorsal root ganglia on 3 December 1997.
    Mr. Gibb: Which advice is correct? Is it the advice on the internet that it is up to the consumer to decide whether to consume beef in deep freeze, or is it the advice given on television on Sunday by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that such consumption would represent an unnecessary risk?
    Mr. Rooker: People who already had frozen T-bones or ribs of beef in their freezers at home should, frankly,

    1177
    be treated as adults. [Interruption.] Those citizens owned that beef; it was in their home. We gave them the advice. They already owned that beef. It was not a question of making a commercial transaction—that had already been done.
    Mr. Dawson: Has the Minister ever pondered whether the Opposition parties are really serious about getting the beef ban lifted, as they are obviously not willing to take the vital steps that are necessary to assure the world of the safety and quality of British beef?
    Mr. Rooker: The plain fact is that the Opposition are asking us knowingly to allow, for the first time, BSE infectivity into the food chain. We will not do it now, and we will not do it in future.

    Brogdale Trust
    14. Mr. Rowe: What representations he has received about the future of the Brogdale Trust; and if he will make a statement. [28758]
    Mr. Morley: In recent months, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food officials have had a number of discussions with Brogdale horticultural trust and its representatives about their proposed sale of the Brogdale site. The Ministry's interest is in the national fruit collection at Brogdale, which is located on land that we lease from the trust.
    Mr. Rowe: Does the Minister agree that one of the difficulties facing the trust is MAFF's requirement for a sizeable pay-back if the land is sold? Can he assure the House that that enormously valuable collection will not be put at risk by unreasonable demands by his Department?
    Mr. Morley: The national fruit collection is obviously of national importance and consists of more than 4,000 top fruit trees. Our priority is to ensure its existence and the lease arrangements, to which the hon. Gentleman refers, are part of the guarantee.

    BSE
    Mr. Whittingdale: What progress has been made in eradicating BSE from the United Kingdom herd; and if he will make a statement.[28759]
    Dr. John Cunningham: As a result of the control measures already in place, the BSE epidemic is forecast to be close to extinction by the year 2001. That forecast was reiterated recently by Professor Sir John Pattison, chairman of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, in his address to the annual meeting of the National Farmers Union.
    Mr. Whittingdale: Can the Minister confirm that the requirements that were agreed at Florence for the lifting of the beef export ban have been met? In view of that, and in the light of the evidence that he has just given to the House that the measures are succeeding, what is he doing to get the ban lifted not just from Northern Ireland but from the United Kingdom as a whole?
    Dr. Cunningham: I responded to the House on an earlier occasion on this issue. Two schemes for the lifting
    1178
    of the ban are being considered by the Commission in Brussels. The first of those, which is the export certified herd scheme, was submitted by the previous Administration. That was unanimously approved by the Commission and awaits a decision by the standing veterinary committee. As I said earlier, I cannot see any good reason why that committee should not reach the same conclusion as the Commission on that scheme.
    The date-based export scheme, which will cover all animals, will be universal, and the hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need such a scheme. It was submitted by me in October, and has so far received favourable responses, but is being further considered. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that we are doing everything possible. Literally on a weekly basis, we are making representations in Brussels, as I did again earlier this week, to ensure that progress on both those schemes is as good as it can possibly be.

    ATTORNEY-GENERAL
    The Attorney-Ge.neral was asked—

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Mr. Gareth Thomas: When he expects to receive the Glidewell report on the future of the Crown Prosecution Service.[28775]
    The Attorney-General (Mr. John Morris): I expect to receive the report in March.
    Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that concise response. Does he agree that the move towards a more localised and less bureaucratic system of prosecution is long overdue?
    The Attorney-General: Yes, and that is why we have already decided to reorganise the Crown Prosecution Service into 42 areas. We wish to continue with that and to improve liaison between the police and the CPS. The broad concept is of a localised, national service with as much devolution as practicable to each locality.
    31. Mr. Baker: What progress he is making with his review of the Crown Prosecution Service. [28776]
    The Attorney-General: I refer the hon. Gentleman to my answer a few moments ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr. Thomas).
    Mr. Baker: I recently visited the CPS office in Eastbourne which serves my constituency, and was surprised by the tight financial constraints under which it operates. Is that why a whole class of minor offences such as vandalism and so on are apparently not being pursued for prosecution? My constituents are worried about the fact that minor crimes do not result in prosecutions. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider that in his review?
    The Attorney-General: I am very pleased that the hon. Gentleman visited the Eastbourne office on 8 February. He raised a number of issues and there was a fruitful discussion.

    1179
    The hon. Gentleman asks about minor offences. Sir Iain Glidewell will consider that issue as part of his review of the CPS. I will need to consider the findings of that review and any implications that his recommendations may have for the exercise of prosecutable functions.
    Mr. Cranston: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend about one aspect of the Glidewell inquiry—the role of child witnesses? Is the inquiry addressing that important issue, particularly the way in which the Crown Prosecution Service handles child witnesses?
    The Attorney-General: Before I answer my hon. Friend's question, I must congratulate him on being elevated to a bencher of my own Inn.
    I can only speak for the Crown Prosecution Service. I am pleased to say that the CPS published a review of the subject on 28 January, which considered cases involving child witnesses. It found good-quality advice and review, improved processing times, increased use of transfer proceedings to ensure the swift progression of cases, a good working relationship between agencies and motivated and committed staff. It also identified some areas for improvement and the CPS will work to bring that about.
    I am reasonably confident that that comes well within the purview of the Glidewell review. I am sure that those carrying out the review will share my hon. Friend's concern and the concern that I feel, having appeared in some such cases. My experience is that the system does its best. There may be room for improvement to ensure that vulnerable witnesses are protected.
    Sir Nicholas Lyell: Since the Attorney-General has linked the two questions, would it be fair to assume that he is not making any progress with his review of the Crown Prosecution Service pending delivery of Sir Iain Glidewell's report? Can he tell the House, pending receipt of that report, what the 42 Crown prosecutors that he appointed for each area last May, are doing? On a specific matter, will he bring the House up to date about the steps he is taking to implement the Government's policy on fasttracking for cases of young offenders?
    The Attorney-General: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the decision was taken fairly soon after the Government took office to set up the 42 areas. It had been hoped to make progress with formal appointments by the end of the year. Sir Iain Glidewell indicated during the autumn that, such was the nature of his inquiry, he thought it would be wrong to go ahead with appointments at that stage before his full report had been published. He was most anxious in his interim discussions to ensure that there were persons of the right calibre to carry the kind of local decisions that he regarded as important to devolve from headquarters. That is why that happened. In the meantime, those units are working in close liaison with the police areas. I hope that we will be able to make progress during the year and that there will be further progress after the publication of the Glidewell report.
    Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will the Attorney-General answer the second part of my question about fasttracking for young offenders?
    The Attorney-General: I am sorry about that. There were a number of points in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question.
    1180
    On fasttracking, we have adopted in substance the Narey report and many of the proposals are in the Crime and Disorder Bill, which I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been burning the midnight oil while studying. That will be a major factor in ensuring the speedier appearance before our courts of persons generally and youngsters in particular. There have been innovations in many parts of the country where the time taken to bring young offenders to court has been substantially shortened during the past few months.
    Mr. Sheerman: Will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that, when we have a Crown Prosecution Service that is closer to the community, it will stop prosecuting and criminalising children accused of prostitution? Those under the age of consent are brought before the law and sentenced, giving them a criminal record when they are still children, while the pimps who run them and the punters who hire their services are not prosecuted. When will my right hon. and learned Friend stop the nonsense of prosecuting children and criminalising them when they are not even old enough to give assent to sex?
    The Attorney-General: I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern. Individual decisions on prosecuting must be taken by the Crown Prosecution Service. The responsibility of the CPS is to consider the evidential test—whether the evidence is there—and to examine with great care in each case the public interest test on whether a prosecution should be continued. If my hon. Friend has a particular case to bring to my attention, I shall ensure that the CPS is made aware of it.
    Mr. Burnett: What plans he has to increase the number of lawyers in the Crown Prosecution Service. [28777]
    The Attorney-General: I have asked Sir Iain Glidewell to examine the organisation and structure of the CPS and to make recommendations that take account of the need to operate within existing provision. He will no doubt consider whether a redistribution of resources is necessary.
    Mr. Burnett: In the light of evidence recently given by the Director of Public Prosecutions to the Public Accounts Committee that many barristers return briefs to the CPS at the last minute, at the outset of the trial, causing chaos to the criminal justice system, will the Attorney-General or the DPP review the policy on the appointment of barristers to do Crown work? If so, when will that review be completed and published?
    The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman has rightly alerted the House to a matter that is causing concern to the CPS. Mechanisms were set up in 1996. Since then, because of continued dissatisfaction, there has been an agreement with the Bar that there should be a monitoring service to examine the situation in each set of chambers, month by month. That came into effect on 2 February this year. Every six months there will be discussions between branches and the heads of chambers to see what can be done about the late return of briefs.
    As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the Bar and solicitors are frequently at the mercy of the timetabling of the courts. One cannot anticipate with any precision, to

    1181
    put it mildly, when the case in front will finish. Those are some of the problems. Having said that, no doubt there is considerable room for improvement.
    Mr. Kidney: Before the CPS considers taking on more lawyers, should we not examine how to make best use of the lawyers that it already has? Could we not do that by rationalising the rights of audience? Does my right hon. and learned Friend really support a situation in which briefs go out to private barristers, often to be returned very late, while there are solicitors in the CPS with limited rights of audience in the Crown court and barristers with none?
    The Attorney-General: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. It is essential that the rights of audience be resolved. I remind the House that my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is committed to a full examination of the rights of audience. I hope that there will be some expedition on that.
    Mr. Hawkins: Will the Attorney-General bear in mind the fact that the work load of many Crown Prosecution Service lawyers is already very heavy? Last Friday, I visited the Guildford headquarters of the south-east branch of the CPS and spoke to the chief crown prosecutor there, Christopher Nicholls, who said that, certainly in Surrey, Sussex, Kent and Hampshire, CPS lawyers were already fully committed. I also spoke to several CPS lawyers when they came back from court late that afternoon, and it was clear that their work load was extremely heavy.
    Will the Attorney-General encourage Sir Iain Glidewell to consider their work load in his report and in particular the problem caused by the routing of cases? Will he liaise with his colleagues in the Lord Chancellor's Department to ensure that cases from Surrey are not transferred on a regular basis to the Old Bailey?
    The Attorney-General: I will ensure that the Lord Chancellor is made aware of the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. As for the first part of his question, having been a practitioner up to 1 May, I am conscious of the great pressures on CPS lawyers and of how hard
    1182
    they work. The problem is in ensuring that a distinction can be made between their managerial and their legal functions. It is one matter that Sir Iain Glidewell will be examining closely. It will certainly be within his terms of reference to consider the impression that too much lawyers' time is taken up in management. If lawyers could be freed from that, they would have more time better to do their work in the courts.

    Age of Consent
    Dr. Harris: What guidance he has issued on prosecutions under the age of consent legislation for homosexual males; and if he will make a statement.[28778]
    The Attorney-General: The guidance issued to all Crown prosecutors is that contained in the code for Crown prosecutors issued under section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, which is applied to all cases.
    Dr. Harris: I am grateful to the Attorney-General for that answer. Does he accept that, as indicated by the number of signatories from all parts of the House to early-day motion 717, there is widespread concern about the continuing prosecution of people under the age of consent legislation, domestic legislation which the Government have accepted in the European courts needs to come before Parliament again urgently? In the light of the sentencing tomorrow of the Bolton Seven, will he consider offering specific guidance to the CPS on how we can prevent people's lives being ruined in the interim, until the House has an opportunity to pronounce its view on this outdated legislation?
    The Attorney-General: The matter of the Bolton Seven is sub judice, and it would be wrong for me to comment on it. As for the anticipation of any possible change to the legislation, it is not for me to issue guidance on that. The CPS has to operate within and take account of each case on its merits and according to the usual criteria. It cannot anticipate any change in the legislation. As I understand it, the Government are committed to a free vote on that matter in due course following the Strasbourg decision, but one cannot expect the CPS to operate other than in accordance with the law as it stands today.

Business of the House
3.32 pm
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: May I ask the Leader of the House to make a statement on the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 23 FEBRUARY—Consideration in Committee of the Scotland Bill (Fifth Day).

TUESDAY 24 FEBRUARY—Consideration in Committee of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill (First Day).

WEDNESDAY 25 FEBRUARY—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Consideration in Committee of the Government of Wales Bill (Sixth Day).

THURSDAY 26 FEBRUARY—Consideration in Committee of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill (Second Day).

FRIDAY 27 FEBRUARY—Debate on the Government's priorities for women, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

The provisional business for the following week is as follows:

MONDAY 2 MARCH—Completion of consideration in Committee of the Government of Wales Bill.

TUESDAY 3 MARCH—Opposition day [8th allotted day]. There will be a debate or debates on an Opposition motion—subject or subjects to be announced.

WEDNESDAY 4 MARCH—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Consideration in Committee of the Scotland Bill (Sixth Day).

THURSDAY 5 MARCH—Remaining stages of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill.

FRIDAY 6 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.

Mrs. Shephard: May I thank the Leader of the House for that reply and for continuing to give the House two weeks' business where she can, which is helpful? She will recall that I have asked several times for a debate on the national health service in Government time. I say "Government time" because the only debate on the NHS in the life of this Parliament has been in Opposition time. With today's waiting list figures exposing the Government's pre-election promises on the health service as a deception of the British people, we all see why the Government have refused further exposure of their failure in the House. As the Secretary of State for Health has admitted his embarrassment about the figures, should we not expect a debate in the interests of open government?
Last week, I asked the right hon. Lady whether she would ensure that before the costly launch by the Prime Minister and the Minister for domes of the proposed content of the millennium dome—planned, I think, for next Tuesday—there would be a statement to the House. In reply to a subsequent point of order, Madam Speaker, you gave your view on the need for the House to be informed of policy developments before the media and outside bodies. Those of us who heard you express your
1184
view were left in doubt about it. Will the right hon. Lady reassure the House that there will be such a statement before Tuesday?
Will the right hon. Lady arrange for a full debate on the cost to the taxpayer of the Lord Chancellor? She will have noticed that there is disquiet among Labour Members about the £650,000 that, it has emerged, is to be spent on refurbishing his accommodation. He may, as a spokesman for the Prime Minister said, have given up a very nice house in north London, but that surely should not be advanced as a justification for the taxpayer to give the self-styled Cardinal Wolsey an even nicer one near the river; we might call it Hampton Court.
Before she seeks to dismiss the question as trivial, as all Government spokesmen are programmed to do by pager, I remind the right hon. Lady that the Lord Chancellor's opinion of himself is anything but trivial. It is becoming a serious matter that his actions have made his functions and office into a national joke. I think that both Government and Opposition Members regard that with some concern.
Can the right hon. Lady explain the implications for the passage of the National Lottery Bill of delays to it in the other place? Can she assure us that its Committee stage in this House will not be guillotined? I realise that that may cause her some difficulty because the delay occurred only today. She may not be able to give us an assurance today, but I flag the matter up.
Given the strong encouragement that the Government are giving the Local Government (Experimental Arrangements) Bill, a private Member's Bill in another place, will the right hon. Lady say how they propose to handle it when it gets to this House?
Some weeks ago, the right hon. Lady was able to give an idea of her thinking on the dates of the Easter recess. That was very helpful and welcomed by all hon. Members who wished to be able to plan ahead. I see from this week's notes, the blue pages, in The House Magazine that her early thinking seems to have been firmly translated into a start date for the Easter recess. I understand her difficulties, but I wonder whether The House Magazine knows something that we all should.
Mrs. Taylor: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for acknowledging that we are still able to give two weeks of business. As Bills progress this Session, it may become more difficult to stick to the second week with any certainty because, on some occasions, we anticipate the progress of legislation, and there may be variations. However, we will endeavour to give two weeks whenever possible.
The right hon. Lady asked again about the need for a health debate, and I remind her that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has come to the House on seven occasions for major statements, when he has been questioned on health matters. Of course, it is Health Question Time on Tuesday. My right hon. Friend made it clear when he was first appointed that the Government's most immediate priority was to prevent a winter crisis such as we had last year. The extra money that we have put into the health service has been used to good effect to ensure that, this winter, we have not seen the appalling picture of so many people on hospital trolleys that we saw under the previous Government, who neglected the health service for so long.

1185
The right hon. Lady asked about a statement on the contents of the dome. I cannot guarantee such a statement. However, my hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio intends to ensure that the House is informed first about the announcements to be made next week. He has answered a written question this week, pointing out that he will be guided by the relevant section of the ministerial code.
As for the Lord Chancellor, I really think that Conservative Members should by now have been able to find something more significant to go at than the cost of that refurbishment—an issue for which the House has no responsibility whatsoever. The right hon. Lady said that we are programmed by pagers to give the right answers, but I have noticed an increasing number of pagers on the Opposition side of the House, so Conservative central office must now be programming people by pager to raise exactly the same concern. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor will be touched by her concern for his reputation.
As to progress with the National Lottery Bill, the right hon. Lady is right to say that I cannot answer now, but I will look into that. The Local Government (Experimental Arrangements) Bill to which she referred will be treated the same as any other private Member's Bill. As to the Easter recess, I, too, should read The House Magazine, because, at this stage, I have nothing to add to what I said earlier.
Mrs. Gwyneth Duwoody: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week for a debate on various National Audit Office reports about the cost of the sale of various state assets by the previous Government? It would be useful if the taxpayer could be told exactly how much was wasted in the sale of Army houses and if we were able to explore carefully the cost of the sale of Her Majesty's Stationery Office at way below what it was worth. Finally, what of the contracts that London and Continental Railways entered into, which the taxpayer will have to carry for some considerable time to come? Would it not be helpful for the House to have the total cost of the previous Government spelled out in clear detail?
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend makes a powerful case and gives but three of the long list of examples that she could have given had we been in a position to have a debate and had time been available. I will look into the issue. The Modernisation Committee is considering our problem with discussing such issues. In due course, I hope that we may be able to make some recommendations to the House.
Mr. Paul Tyler: In contrast to the jokes from the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, may I put two serious matters to the Leader of the House? First, on Iraq, the whole House appreciated the opportunity to have a debate on a substantive motion in a full House; it was a good debate as a result. If the situation changes and, in particular, if the Secretary-General of the United Nations comes back from Baghdad with a substantial change in the situation, whether good or bad, can the right hon. Lady undertake that there will not merely be a full statement, but a full debate so that the House can understand the situation that may have developed?
Secondly, the Leader of the House may have witnessed the considerable support on both sides of the House for the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) at Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday about the European Union code of conduct for arms sales.
1186
Hon. Members on both sides are determined that there should not be a repeat of the arms for Iraq scandal. The Government have given some undertakings in that regard. Can we be sure that the draft in circulation, which has been discussed at a European Union meeting this week, will fully meet the concerns of all hon. Members in the light of the Scott report? I hope that the right hon. Lady will recognise that there is all-party concern on this matter. The last thing we want is to find British service people again facing British arms when they are undertaking responsibilities on behalf of this nation.
Mrs. Taylor: On the hon. Gentleman's second question, I am aware of the concerns and the points that have been raised. The Government are still looking at the issue. We may want to consult further, and there may be a White Paper—the House will be kept informed.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the situation in Iraq and what will happen if there are developments that should be reported to the House. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made it clear that he wants to keep the House as fully informed as possible. As the hon. Gentleman said, the debate was important. We shall keep under review the possibility of any future debates, because we are very conscious of the need to keep the House fully informed and to test the opinion of hon. Members.
Mr. Jim Marshall: May I press my right hon. Friend further on Iraq? She knows, as the House knows, that we had a good debate earlier this week, but I hope that she will accept that the Government should not regard that as the final word on the views of the House on further attacks on Iraq. I hope that she will bear in mind the points that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) made. If there is significant change and the situation improves or deteriorates, will she ensure that the Government allow an urgent debate? I do not want Britain to be involved in an attack on Iraq—I am sure that many Labour Members share my view—until the House has made a firm decision.
Mrs. Taylor: I think that we all hope that things will not come to that; we are all watching developments extremely carefully. As I said to the hon. Member for North Cornwall, we are very conscious of our responsibilities to the House. The situation is changing, and we cannot be sure of the time scale of any developments, but the Government have so far shown that they want to keep the House informed and to consult it whenever possible.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Pursuant to a question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), if patients are confronted by a choice between remaining in their own home in pain waiting for an operation of uncertain date, and being in a hospital, albeit on a trolley, where people are trying to help them, does the Leader of the House believe that they would automatically opt for the former?
Mrs. Taylor: I really think that the problems are far more serious than the right hon. Gentleman acknowledges. He should remember the crisis in the

1187
health service last winter; Labour Members certainly do. The steps that we have taken to avoid such a crisis this year have been very important.
Mr. Jim Cousins: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that I have drawn to her attention the fact that the Standing Orders of the House contain provision for a Committee of the English regions? It last met on 16 July 1978, but it is entirely within the Government's power to ask it to meet at any time. Has she considered the matter? Is it under review?
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend has spoken to me about that matter. So far, I have not detected a consensus in the House for a move in that direction.
Mr. John Wilkinson: The Leader of the House will remember that, 10 months ago, Labour spokesmen committed a Labour Government to urgent modernisation of the London underground. Since then, nothing has happened, except that fares have gone up and the situation has worsened to such an extent that, on 27 January, we had a half-day debate on the matter. Will the right hon. Lady ensure that the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions comes to the House to say exactly what Her Majesty Government's plans are, or will the people of London have to wait until 2000, when the Greater London authority is convened and appoints a board of London Transport to do something about the matter?
Mrs. Taylor: My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is actively looking at ways to alleviate the problems caused by the legacy that we inherited from the previous Administration. He will keep the House informed of any proposals he has to make, but I cannot promise a debate in the near future.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that if she decided to arrange a debate or statement on the expenditure on the Lord Chancellor's apartment, it might well be revealed that, as I found out this week, the Committee that is making the decision to spend all the money is in fact a Committee in another place that is dominated by the Tories? I find it odd that the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) comes to the House every Thursday, mouthing about the subject, when it is her friends down the other end who are taking the decision. That leaves me with only one thing to say: let's abolish the Lords.
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend has made some significant points and, as I said earlier, the matter of the refurbishment of the Lord Chancellor's accommodation is not a matter for this House.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the difficulties created by the extended waiting lists? May I particularly draw her attention to the situation of a constituent of mine, who is facing the fourth consecutive monthly delay in vital heart surgery? May I urge her to bring the Secretary
1188
of State for Health to the House to explain not only what has happened, but what is going to happen to put that situation right?
Mrs. Taylor: I have every sympathy with the constituent who has been waiting in that way, but the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that it would have been a serious situation if the record number of emergencies that have had to be treated this winter had been ignored. That would have been far more difficult for him and his constituents. I do not have to bring my right hon. Friend to the House to defend that policy, as he will be answering questions on Tuesday.
Mr. Tom Levitt: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to glance at early-day motion 761?
[That this House notes that a number of boys under 13 years old were recently called to give evidence in court as victims of sexual abuse, that over a year had elapsed between the offences and the court appearances, a time of great distress and trauma for the victims and their families and that during this time normal family relationships were effectively suspended because of the need for adults to be seen to be exerting no influence on the nature or presentation of evidence by their sons; is concerned that in cases like this, especially if they go to appeal, children may be subjected to many days of re-living their abuse in court when what they most need is a period of counselling, rest and recovery; and calls for early reforms in the treatment of young and vulnerable witnesses so as to minimise the trauma of court and avoid the perception that the legal process is more of a punishment for some victims of crime than for some perpetrators.]
Is there a possibility of arranging a debate on the treatment of vulnerable victims? I am particularly concerned about three of my constituents, all boys aged under 12, who waited for 15 months between the time at which they were victims of sexual abuse and the case coming to court. The court sittings were traumatic for them, and their family was denied the possibility of counselling and rebuilding the family during that time. We must bring that situation to an end and give dignity to all victims of crime. Is there a possibility of a debate on that issue in the near future?
Mrs. Taylor: I am sure that the whole House will have sympathy with my hon. Friend's point. We are determined to ensure that children are able to give evidence with the minimum of distress and my hon. Friend may know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is looking at the way in which vulnerable or intimidated witnesses can get assistance. I do not think that a debate is possible at the moment, but perhaps my hon. Friend will make the Home Secretary aware of his concerns. I shall also draw them to my right hon. Friend's attention.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the Leader of the House please consider in whichever Committee is appropriate setting a limit on the length of time granted to Government Departments when they issue holding answers to written questions? Does she agree that it is an impertinence to the House for Departments to abuse holding answers? That is happening far too often, and I hope that she will look into it. Secondly, will she, in the interest of good manners in her Government, ensure that

1189
Ministers sign correspondence between themselves and Members of Parliament writing on behalf of their constituents? Some Ministers are exemplary in doing it, but others are lamentable, and it is only good manners that prevent me from naming the lady who is the worst.
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has raised issues which are important, but which can be abused both by the people who are asking questions and by those who are trying to delay answers. Holding answers play an important role if Members want full answers, but I agree that they should not be abused and that, where possible, the time between a holding answer and a substantive answer should be as short as possible. However, as a former Minister, the hon. Gentleman will know that that is not always possible if full information is to be obtained. I have to say that sometimes the quality of the answer has something to do with the quality of the question asked.
On Ministers signing letters, I believe that the hon. Gentleman knows that the pressure on different Ministers varies. Sometimes, Ministers are not available in London; some Ministers are abroad. I believe that Ministers do, by and large, sign as many letters as possible. It is not a new practice that Ministers' letters are signed on their behalf when they have approved the answer, and I think that hon. Members want replies as quickly as possible.
Mr. Vernon Coaker: In the light of the publication yesterday of Lord Justice Stuart-Smith's report about the Hillsborough disaster, will it be possible for time to be found in the House for hon. Members to discuss that report? My right hon. Friend must be aware of the continuing disquiet, upset, anxiety, worry and concern, and I would ask that time be found so that we may discuss the report.
Mrs. Taylor: I can well understand my hon. Friend's concern. I know that many families, who are still extremely upset by the events, were disappointed with the outcome of the very thorough inquiry and would like to take the matter further. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made a comprehensive statement to the House, and I know that there is a feeling in some quarters that a debate might help.
Regardless of how sympathetic I am to the issue, I think that it would be raising false hopes if I suggested to my hon. Friend that it was likely that we could find Government time for a debate in the very near future. However, there may be other ways in which he or his colleagues can raise the issue.
Mr. Eric Forth: May I reassure the Leader of the House that some Conservative Members are still pager-free, and therefore still able to express the odd personal opinion? [HON. MEMBERS: "Very odd."] I hope that, in my case, they are always odd. I would be letting hon. Members down if they were not.
I congratulate the Lord Chancellor on his openness in giving us details of the amount of public money that has been spent on his residence and in that area, but would the Leader of the House have a word with the Prime Minister, who, to date, has been remarkably secretive, and unwilling to answer similar questions to those answered by the Lord Chancellor about similar expenditures in No. 10 and No. 11 Downing street? Perhaps the Leader
1190
of the House could organise a debate, so that we might explore the difference between the attitude to open government of the Lord Chancellor and the Prime Minister.
Mrs. Taylor: I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is pager-free. I have listened to his odd personal opinions for many years, and I am sure that he will remain pager-free and way off-message, which is probably why he is sitting on the Opposition Back Benches and not the Front Bench. Regarding his comments about the Prime Minister and the amounts of money that have been spent, it might be helpful if I reminded him and the House that, whether we are talking about the refurbishment of Government properties or about Government hospitality, the amounts spent by the present Government are less than those spent by the previous Government.
Mr. Christopher Leslie: May we have a debate next week on the issue of green-field sites in built-up areas, which are very valuable to their local communities, but are threatened with housing development, despite highways and sewerage constraints? I have two such sites in my constituency, at Warren lane in Gilstead and Jenny lane in Baildon. Housing development should not go ahead on those two sites, and I want to be able to raise that matter on the Floor of the House.
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend will know that work is going on to try to ensure that the Government's record of protecting green-field sites will be better than that of the previous Government. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will make a statement in the not too distant future.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: May I remind the right hon. Lady that the Government are due to be involved in some momentous decisions up to 2 May this year, regarding who shall participate in economic and monetary union in Europe? Will she undertake that the House will be given information at least on how the Government intend to vote on who will participate? Better still, and with justice, will she allocate a full day for a debate on the matter? Surely, whether or not we participate in monetary union, this is hugely significant and should be addressed by the House. The Government ought to be answerable to the House on those matters.
Mrs. Taylor: I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said. It is extremely tempting to hold such a debate, not least to expose the divisions among Opposition Members on this issue. I shall bear his point in mind.
Mr. John Hutton: May we have an early opportunity, perhaps in the next fortnight, to discuss Britain's relationships with the Federal Republic of Germany? Would not such a debate provide an excellent opportunity for the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) to apologise to the House for the offensive remarks that he made about Chancellor Kohl yesterday?
Mrs. Taylor: That is also a tempting proposition. The simple explanation may be that the right hon.

1191
Member for Wokingham does not have a pager, either, and that is why he is not on message. There are problems in the Conservative party on Europe, which makes a debate tempting, but I am afraid that I cannot promise one in the next week or two.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Our local papers tell us that the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 continuation order is to come before the House, but there was no mention of it in the announcement of business for the next two weeks. Is it possible for the right hon. Lady to tell us when the order may be taken on the Floor of the House?
Mrs. Taylor: We have a lot of business, which we are trying to work into the programme. The business that I have announced for the week after next is, of course, provisional, although I hope that it will stay as it is fixed. I shall bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's need for early notice of such debates.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: May I press the Leader of the House to reconsider the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton)? Politics is not a kid-gloves affair. We read in the newspapers this morning the revelation that the Leader of the Opposition has been substantially embarrassed on Europe by a member of the shadow Cabinet—a Member who coveted his job. It is reasonable for a Labour Member to ask for a debate so that the Leader of the Opposition can explain his position, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) can apologise or decide to stand firm, and some of us can explore more fully the fact that Conservative Members are raising money in the United Kingdom to influence the outcome of the Denmark referendum.
When the Conservatives cannot command a majority in the House to scupper the Amsterdam treaty, they use the people of Denmark on a surrogate basis, and interfere in their affairs by raising money in the UK. It is time that we exposed the Conservative party's cant and hypocrisy on Europe.
Mrs. Taylor: I am not sure that my hon. Friend needs a debate to do that, as he has been exposing such matters quite well today. Fortunately, I am not responsible for any apologies that the right hon. Member for Wokingham may have to make. I remind the House that the next day for tabling questions to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is Tuesday.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Is the Leader of the House aware that there is growing concern both inside and outside the House over the Government's progress in tackling the year 2000 computer problem? For example, is she aware that the health service does not know either the extent of the problem or the full cost of the programme? In a written answer, the Prime Minister told me that all Departments and agencies have to find the cost of solving the problem out of their existing budgets. As that will run into millions of pounds, the House needs to know where cuts will fall in hospitals, schools, local authorities and even defence.
1192
On 27 November, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster promised the House regular reports. Twelve weeks have passed and there has not been a murmur from him. Will the Leader of the House look on the matter with great urgency, and allow time for a debate or a statement on the subject, which greatly concerns us all?
Mrs. Taylor: It is a bit rich for a member of the previous Government to complain that not enough has been done, when the previous Administration did so little. My right hon. Friend made a comprehensive statement in November. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been keeping a careful watch on progress. The Government have acted as swiftly as is necessary. I do not think that it is appropriate to have a debate in the immediate future.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that today's crisis involving 5,000 people who have had artificial hip implants was entirely predictable and inevitable, and was described in some detail in an Adjournment debate on 14 July 1993, when a plea was made to the previous Government to stop the introduction of literally dozens of new implants that were no better than the existing, available and reliable Charnley replacement? New implants were being manufactured to produce new patents, so as to make a great deal of money for the 60 firms that were producing the implants. They were dangerous then, unreliable and untested.
Is it not important that we have a debate to illustrate the great difference between the two sides of the House? The Conservatives pursued health, through their long years in office, as a way of making money for the market. In contrast, the philosophy of Labour Members is to emphasise quality of treatment, of prostheses, of drugs and of the skills of surgeons—in other words, measuring the quality of the health service, not quantity.
Mrs. Taylor: I am sure that many people who have had hip replacements will be extremely concerned at the prospect of a further operation, and will be angry that warnings given previously were not fully heeded. The Department of Health and my right hon. Friends have acted extremely quickly, given the information that has come to them. Hospitals are contacting all the relevant patients. A minority of those who have had hip replacements are involved, so I do not think that we should alarm too many people. However, it is a serious matter for those who are involved, and the previous Government bear some responsibility for not heeding other warnings that were given.
Mr. Norman Baker: I draw to the attention of the Leader of the House early-day motion 802.
[That this House is concerned that non-human primates transported to United Kingdom research laboratories suffer greatly as a result of the journey from their country of origin; notes that journey times of up to 58 hours from countries such as the Philippines, Indonesia, Mauritius and China are commonplace; further notes that the primates travel packed in small wooden crates in aeroplane holds; considers that such practices cause undue stress and suffering; is aware that it is Home Office policy to take into account adverse effects which may occur to animals during transport to the United Kingdom when deciding whether to allow their use in experiments;

1193
and therefore calls upon the Home Office not to grant licences to experiment on primates when the adverse effects endured by them during transport are too severe to be outweighed by the benefit of research.]
Is it possible for a Home Office Minister to make a statement to the House? Is the right hon. Lady aware that monkeys used for experiments are being transported to this country for up to 58 hours, in crates in which they are unable to stand? The matter is under the control of the Home Office, which is at liberty to refuse licences. Will the right hon. Lady arrange for a Home Office Minister to explain why the process is being allowed to take place?
Mrs. Taylor: Home Office Ministers have taken action on some issues involving animal welfare, and that should be welcomed by the House. I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's points to the attention of my colleagues, but I would point out to him that Home Office questions will be taken a week on Monday.
Mr. John Cryer: May we have a debate on the shortage of speech therapists within the national health service, which is one of the major gaps in the NHS, especially in the area which I represent? The shortage was undoubtedly the responsibility of the Conservative Government.
Mr. Forth: Of course.
Mr. Cryer: May we have a debate, or a statement from the Department of Health, in the near future?
Mrs. Taylor: I am glad that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) recognised the validity of what my hon. Friend was saying in terms of the problem being the responsibility of the previous Administration.
Over the past 20 years, we have seen a diminution in the number of speech therapists and an increase in the problems that exist. I shall bring my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend, but I cannot promise an early debate. My hon. Friend may seek other opportunities to raise the issue. It is clearly a serious matter, because speech therapy can make a great deal of difference, especially to children.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: May I ask the Leader of the House to consider a debate—if not next week, certainly in the near future—about support for school transport, especially transport for denominational schools? Is the right hon. Lady aware that the issue has particular topicality in that Liberal Democrat-controlled Devon county council is threatening to break an arrangement that has existed for more than 50 years— since 1944—by withdrawing denominational schools' transport?
The county council may or may not respond to pressure from parents to make it change its mind. Governments of both complexions—I pay credit to previous Labour
1194
Governments as well as Conservative Administrations— have always made it clear that both national and local government should try to support transport for denominational schools. We need a debate so that we can examine what was done in Devon to try to ensure that, whatever happens in the end—
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: And Norfolk.
Mr. Nicholls: Indeed, Norfolk as well.
We must try to ensure that Liberal Democrat-controlled councils can never cause such heartache again.
Mrs. Taylor: I cannot promise a debate, but we shall have Education Question Time on Thursday.
Mr. Ian Bruce: I have previously raised with the Leader of the House the possibility of a debate on the blind trusts that brought the Prime Minister and various of his Ministers to office. Has she seen the preferment that has been given to the trustees of the blind trust? We can judge whether that is justified, but we still do not know who else gave money to it, or whether the Lord Chancellor or the Paymaster General donated. Surely we should know.
While I am on my feet, will the Leader of the House answer my letters about the time it takes for Ministers to answer letters?
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that he has raised the issue of blind trusts before. I have nothing further to say in response to that.
In respect of the letter that the hon. Gentleman wrote last week, I am looking at all the examples that he gave of where problems have arisen and why.
Mr. Paul Burstow: Can the right hon. Lady find time next week for a statement or debate on the operation of the benefits integrity project? To date, more than 40,000 disabled people receiving disability living allowance have been interviewed or had questionnaires sent to them about their entitlement to benefit. Many have had their benefit stopped or reduced, but have been successful on appeal and had their benefits reinstated. Many others have received questionnaires when they should not have been included in the programme. The programme is clearly in a mess. We need to know what the Government are doing to ensure that the project has integrity. Please may we have a statement or debate?
Mrs. Taylor: We shall have Social Security Question Time on Monday. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be here to pursue the matter. I am also sure that all hon. Members think it right that we should ensure that people claim the right benefit, and that only those who are fully entitled to it get it.

Local Government Finance (Scotland)
4.11 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): I beg to move,
That the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 1998, dated 4th February 1998, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.
We are also discussing the following motions:
That the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1998, dated 4th February 1998, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.
That the Special Grant Report (98/1) (Scotland): Local Taxation Collection Grant Scheme 1997–99 (HC 530), which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.
That the Special Grant Report (98/2) (Scotland): Grant in Aid of Local Authority Revenue Costs and Reinstatement Works at Dunblane Cemetery Resulting from the Dunblane Tragedy (HC 531), which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.
That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Variation Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.
That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.
I am putting before the House a comprehensive package of legislation that sets the framework for local authority funding for the year ahead. It is an important package. I do not pretend that it makes exciting material for debate—the possibility of flashing wit is somewhat limited—but it is the stuff of politics. It is the basis of the framework within which local government must operate, and it deserves thoughtful consideration. I do not know whether there can or should be a wide-ranging debate, but I hope that the debate is relevant and specific to the issues of real substance. Before I briefly introduce each of the orders and reports, I shall say a few words about the general background to the measures.
The prospects for local government next year were bound to be extremely tight given the public expenditure plans that we inherited from the previous Administration. As every hon. Member knows—unless they have cut themselves off completely from political debate over the past nine or 10 months—we committed ourselves, if returned as an Administration, to stick by the inherited totals. I make no apologies for that, as there were obviously good and sound reasons for it. I occasionally meet someone who says, "I know the present Chancellor said it, but I didn't believe he meant it." Well, as they say, they know now. I can assure the House that this is not some conversion to masochism. It is not hair-shirt politics for the sake of it. Because we believe that there are sound, long-term economic reasons for holding hard to the public expenditure figures in the first two years of Administration, we have done so.
It is obviously important that we hold inflation in check and borrowing is a matter for concern. We want to ensure that we have growth in the economy but at a level that can be sustained over a period and be a proper basis for our social and other plans in the future. We do not want, as has too often happened under many Governments in the past, a retreat to boom-and-bust conditions.
Mr. James Wallace: The Secretary of State has made something of sticking by
1196
the previous Government's spending plans. He recall that the previous Government said that they v prepared to commute the housing debt of Shetland Islands council—and that of the Western Isles council Highland council—yet the Government will no longer that. Can the Secretary of State give an explanation that and, in particular, give the housing policy considerations underlying that decision, which v referred to in a letter from his Department to Shell Islands council on 9 December 1997?
Mr. Dewar: This is a subject on which the hon. learned Gentleman is probably well informed. I do remember in detail what the Conservative Government said on the matter, but I am aware of the issue. It is on which, in principle, we have some sympathy with council. The immediate problem was divergence interest rates, which shifted the balance and costs considerably, but that is no doubt something that car discussed again when the circumstances are right I thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman was at to write that down, in which case I might begin to that I had gone too far. But there we are; we all live \ our mistakes.
During Scottish questions, an hon. Gentleman whose name I know—but not his constituency—rose to as question. His opening shot was to ask how I explained fact that there was not more fuss from local government about what the Labour Government are doing. I ha\ lot of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, because he obviously looking at a local government structure an financial system about which he knows little. I understand that, because his constituency is far fi Scotland and I suspect that he was protected simply b rather flimsy brief from the Whips Office. It was a g feed line, because it reminded us just how severe draconian the settlement would have been if Conservative Members had held on to power. It is worth reminding House of that because it is the background against which what is happening now will be judged.
Mr. John Swinney: The Secretary State talks of the lack of fuss about the local government settlement. I might agree with him to some extent on sc aspects of the debate, but the Labour group on Perth Kinross council supported a motion put forward by Scottish National party administration express its dismay and disappointment at the new Lab Government's decision to continue with the for Conservative Government's spending targets for local authorities. Would that constitute a fuss in the right I Gentleman's eyes?
Mr. Dewar: I was quoting a Conservative Member, endorsing what he said. I was making the simple put that we have held the settlement in broad terms, but with the context in which we are operating we have tried to introduce elements of genuine flexibility to help local government. We have tried to understand its priorities preserve them and weight the settlement in favour of them. We have, with the co-operation of local government, been able to produce a well-ordered settlement. I have always recognised that councils face tough decisions, but they are decisions that most councils are addressing sensibly and responsibly against background of a recognition of some of the financial economic reasons why this policy is being followed.

1197
I do not object to the SNP majority on Angus council taking a line hostile to the Government. I would be surprised if it did not, and I suspect that the local Member of Parliament would be even more surprised. I cannot remember what part the wife of the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh) presently plays in local government in Angus, but I am sure that he is well able to put in his tuppenceworth of advice and guidance on the matter. We give those expressions the weight that they deserve.
Mr. Swinney: The right hon. Gentleman may not have heard fully what I said. The motion, which was before Perth and Kinross council, of which the wife of my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh) is not a member, was supported by the Labour group on the council, expressing its concern at the Labour Government's commitment to the previous Administration's spending targets, a point which has concerned many hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Mr. Dewar: I apologise. I misheard the hon. Gentleman. I should have realised that he is not responsible for affairs in Angus. The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh) is ubiquitous on those matters. I shall not be distracted further; let me return to the thrust of this debate.
In the plans set by the previous Administration, central Government grant to local authorities—aggregate external finance—was set to fall in cash terms by more than 1 per cent. and expenditure was to rise by only 0.7 per cent. in cash terms, even taking account of the various and significant new spending pressures facing councils. I am thinking, for example, of care in the community, for which this Government have included £24.5 million in the settlement, and of the impact of the Children Act (Scotland) 1995, for which £11 million has been put into the settlement. Given the threats that were in store, many people will look with realism at what the Government have managed.
Mr. Michael Ancram: The Secretary of State keeps referring to the figures that were put forward by the previous Government. Does he agree that those were the figures in the public expenditure survey for year two, that they were therefore provisional and, given the nature of the public expenditure survey, that they would have been revised when they dropped into the slot where they become year 1 figures?
Mr. Dewar: The diffident way in which that possibility was inserted into the debate was touching. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has ambitions to be classed as a wet, but the suggestion that the figures would have been changed radically is over-optimistic.
Mr. Ancram: Is the Secretary of State saying that year two in Labour's public expenditure survey will be cast in tablets of stone and not open to revision?
Mr. Dewar: I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman's speech will contain, but I have always taken seriously the Conservatives' claims to wish to cut public spending. I do not imagine for a moment that he would
1198
have wanted me to take them less than seriously. Let me take the argument on a little and follow up what I said to the hon. Member Perth and Kinross—
Mr. Swinney: North Tayside.
Mr. Dewar: I am sorry, I meant the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney).
Mr. Swinney: The Secretary of State's geography is terrible.
Mr. Dewar: I know; it is like my counting.
It is important to look at how the settlement has been deployed, which is within comparatively tight parameters. We have tried to ensure that certain areas are given priority—areas that we think are of social importance, which we featured in our general election campaign and which we believe reflect the priorities that people in Scotland voted for. We were able to provide an additional Government grant of more than £90 million for education and to allow local authorities additional spending power of £150 million over and above the inherited plans.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: Will the extra money for education be an on-going or a one-off allocation? When the Local Government Commission meets, will it be allowed also to consider finance, which is important?
Mr. Dewar: I can only point to our priorities, which we intend to reinforce in the coming years. Spending plans are clearly open to adjustment—I concede that much to the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). We are trying to ensure that education is given priority, which is as it should be.
Mr. Welsh: So the allocation is a one-off.
Mr. Dewar: I did not say that it is a one-off allocation; I said that it is a priority that we intend to continue to favour, but how we do that and to what extent, and how we can improve and build on it, we shall have to see as the economy develops.
Not just the £90 million was in the settlement; we have also inherited plans for £3 million for early learning initiatives and for numeracy and literacy. That rose to £7 million. We have a school-building programme of £27 million for next year and additional money—some £9 million—was found to allow local authorities to implement the pledge on nursery places for all four-year-olds whose parents wish to take advantage of them. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recognise, there is a degree of weighting in that sense, which I hope he will feel able to support as a principle.
We have given particular weighting to certain matters that have involved a good deal of controversy. To be fair, that is true of the last Administration as well. I am thinking of, for example, law and order and the police in particular. There has been some controversy over the police allocation, which I have tackled head on. In 1998–99, police grant-aided expenditure will be 3.8 per cent. above the budget for this year. In 1996–97, it was 7.7 per cent. up on the previous year and in 1997–98 it was 9.7 per cent. up on the previous year.

1199
There has been a cumulative effort to ensure that funding is adequate. That is in sharp contrast with what was managed in the overall local government settlement, in which increases in GAE averaged around 2 per cent., or just over 2 per cent. That does not mean that there are not problems. I am merely pointing out that law and order is another issue on which we have delivered on our pledges. We have tried to reflect what I think ordinary citizens in Scotland going about their business consider important.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Dewar: I am not going to deal with every point of information that comes up, although I see that there are some enthusiastic runners. I shall, however, give way to the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) as he is a Front Bencher.
Dr. Liam Fox: The Secretary of State throws percentages around, but the simple fact is that the Scottish chief constables said that the police needed an extra £28 million this year for a standstill budget and they are getting £11 million. How on earth does that square with the Government's manifesto promise to be tough on crime?
Mr. Dewar: I accept that figures must sometimes be looked at carefully, but if the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures he will see that I have represented the position correctly. I think that the base line on which the claims were made was a rather optimistic starting point. If the hon. Gentleman examines what has happened to the budget year on year, I think he will see that I am being very reasonable and that what I am saying has been well borne out.
Sir Robert Smith: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Dewar: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman; then I must push on for a few minutes.
Sir Robert Smith: The Secretary of State might like to look at the history of the funding of the police. The last Government altered the ground rules when they introduced capping on the cash available for the police-specific grant. In the past, it had been possible for local authorities to draw down additional funds for the police by going over the capping level of the GAE. The right hon. Gentleman should compare like with like. What looked like an increase in 1996–97 was artificial: in the case of several authorities, there was no real increase in Government cash for the police, because in the past they had been able to spend over GAE.
Mr. Dewar: All I can say is that provision in the settlement has gone up steadily in comparative terms, as against the settlement as a whole. I would not for a moment deny that there have been problems with police spending. Some authorities, under pressure, have spent significantly below GAE for certain joint police boards. I am merely saying that, if we are looking for priorities, the fire service and the police are among the services that
1200
have been protected to some extent against the hard times with which most departments, and most other areas of council activity, have had to struggle in recent settlements. I will not retreat from that position for a moment.
Aggregate external finance is now set to increase in the coming financial year by over £33 million, or 0.6 per cent., and Government-supported expenditure by £133 million, or 2.2 per cent. The provisional capping principles that I also announced on 3 December allow Scottish local authorities to increase their capped expenditure by more than 3.4 per cent., a total of £191 million. Let me point out for the last time that those who look back at what was planned will see that that is a significant improvement.
I have carefully considered the available capping options and concluded that the fairest approach to all was the tiered regime that allows councils spending closer to GAE a greater general increase than those spending well above GAE. Those capping principles are in every respect more generous than those allowed in the previous year, as I think hon. Members will recognise.
I recognise the tough choices that all local authorities will face in setting their budgets for 1998–99. They will have to focus resources on our agreed priorities and cope with some inescapable pressures, such as the increase in the costs of their pension contributions arising from the abolition of advance corporation tax credits. I recognise that that is a matter of concern to local authorities and that it will put pressure on their budgets.
Mr. Donald Gorrie: The £36 million that is required by councils to pay the advance corporation tax on pensions was not inherited from the Conservatives, so the Government cannot blame them for that. That change in the law has brought in a huge amount of money to the Treasury. Is it not reasonable that the Secretary of State should ask his colleague in the Treasury to give back that sort of amount? It affects only Scottish councils this year—it will affect English councils later—but it is a major issue. There is a simple way of finding what must be a large pot of gold to help pay for this.
Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman makes a point that local government has, understandably, made forcibly. This is a pressure that it will have to cope with. I do not for a moment pretend that there are not substantial pressures. In the coming year, public sector pay will be a pressure, for example, on local government budgets, but it is right that we hold to the policy that we announced.
Of course, in some ways, there have been other unusual factors this year, as the hon. Gentleman, a long-standing and long-serving councillor, will know. For example, the pattern of debt repayment has changed, which means that, this year, getting on for £70 million is available to local government which would not otherwise have been there. That is not new money in the sense that it is additional spending power, but it allows councils to take up any room for expenditure without putting an enormous burden on their council tax payers. That, for example, is an important factor in this year's settlement.
However, I have never hidden the fact—I keep making this point; I will did so for the last time—that difficult and tough decisions must be taken. I have considerable respect for the way in which most councils, at least, are trying to face up to some of the problems.

1201
We have had a helpful dialogue with local authorities, both bilaterally and through the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. At the most recent meeting with the convention, it was made clear to me that local authorities would welcome in particular the flexibility to convert a small amount of their capital spending power into revenue expenditure, to relieve some of the pressures on their revenue budgets next year. That would help, in particular, those councils that were able to set very low council tax increases next year.
Following consideration of those representations, I announced on 13 February that I was prepared to allow all councils the opportunity to increase their budgeted revenue expenditure for next year by up to 0.25 per cent. of base budget, on top of their existing capping limit, provided they keep the increase in their band D council tax below the likely Scottish average.
It is right to try to introduce that element of flexibility. I willingly concede that it is not a major addition to the room for manoeuvre of local government. It is probably worth about £10 million, but it will allow that transfer and a little welcome, I hope, additional flexibility.
Sir Robert Smith rose—
Mr. Dewar: I do not regard it as a major matter and, with respect to the hon. Gentleman, I would like to make a little more progress.
It is worth stressing that the scheme is an example of the close working relationship that we have developed with COSLA. I pay tribute to its efforts. After 18 years, Scottish local government representatives welcomed the opportunity to discuss, in what I hope was a constructive and progressive way, the harsh choices that local government faces over the next few years. There have been substantial benefits to both sides from that dialogue and from that ability to co-operate.
The Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 1998 is the first order before us today. It sets out the amounts of revenue support grant and non-domestic rate income that will be payable to each authority in 1998–99. It also redetermines the amounts of revenue support grant that are payable for 1997–98.
Hon. Members who have studied the papers will be aware of the fact that the order is accompanied by a report that sets out in detail the background to the figures in it. The detailed calculations have been the subject of consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, with which we have had a good working relationship, and they deal with matters of distribution. The distribution formula was reached by agreement between the parties.
I am particularly pleased that this year we have been able to agree with COSLA to introduce a measure of stability into the grant distribution arrangements. They looked as if they might produce some rough weather for some councils as a result of no action by those councils. The stability arrangement limits the extent to which changes in grant distribution can cause hugely uneven pressures on council tax in different parts of the country. To some extent, they arise from the redistribution of the social work GAE figures and the phasing out of the mismatch finance which dealt on a transitional basis with the problems and costs of reorganisation.
1202
If there had not been a co-operative effort by COSLA to spread the load and phase the change, there would have been a dramatic difference. For example, in the City of Glasgow those two items alone would have resulted in an additional £166 on band D council tax. The figure for Dundee would have been more than £86. I am grateful to local government generally and to COSLA for its mediation for enabling us to formulate a sensible scheme that limits the impact arising from the changes to a maximum of £40. That was a genuine contribution to good order in our local government finance system.
The Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1998 is also accompanied by an explanatory report. The order makes what we expect to be the last set of adjustments under the AEF guarantee. No one is allowed to ask me any questions about that. It relates to payments in respect of 1992–93 and is worth, in total and at the limit, £200,000. It is of almost theological interest to experts in my Department, but I am not a true believer. It is obviously an important part of the mechanism, but I do not think that any hon. Member will be interested in pursuing it. If anyone does, I warn him now that I shall write to him later.
I shall now deal with the local taxation collection scheme special grant report. It relates to a special grant of £3 million to councils in the hope that it will go some way towards enabling them to put in place measures to tackle the significant burden of unpaid local taxes on their balance sheets. I appreciate the difficulty of doing that and it may be impossible to recover debts from the poll tax days. However, there is a chance of recovering debts from more recent times if proper steps are taken and this modest sum, if distributed on the basis of the amount of debt outstanding, might assist in bringing returns.
I say to any of my hon. Friends who are concerned about the matter that it is important for people to meet their obligations. If they do not, the burden falls increasingly on those who have and that is inequitable and unsatisfactory. Perhaps the limited funds will be used to improve IT records, issue reminders and engage in general chasing. It is a reasonable investment and I understand that it has been well received by local government.
The Dunblane special grant report enables a payment of only £1 million. It is a small but necessary contribution to Stirling council to help it to deal with the unusual and rather sensitive expenses that followed the tragedy in Dunblane primary school. It relates largely to the costs of counselling and to certain expenditure on education that was required in the aftermath of the tragedy. I do not think that anyone would begrudge or question the wisdom of that.
I shall deal now with the housing support grant orders that are also before the House. The first is the draft variation order. It is normal practice to bring forward a variation order if, during the year, there has been a change in the pool interest rate used in the calculation of the loan charges element of the housing support grant settlement. In the current year there has been a slight increase in the pool interest rate and the variation order provides for a consequent increase in housing support grant payable in 1997–98 from £15.2 million to £15.6 million. It is entirely a reflection of interest rate fluctuations and it is comparatively on the margin.
There is also the Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1998, which provides for a total amount payable in 1998–99 of £12.7 million. That comprises £9.3 million payable to Highland, Shetland Islands and Western Isles

1203
in respect of their mainstream housing costs and £3.4 million payable to 20 authorities as a contribution towards the running costs of their hostels for the homeless.
The grant calculations are based on an assumed rental income of £40.56 per house per week and assumed management and maintenance expenditure of £859 per house per annum, an increase of 3 per cent. over the equivalent figures used last year. I should emphasise that the figures are neither guidelines nor recommendations but are used for the purpose of housing support grant formula only. They are uprated annually. It is a formula calculation that has been accepted and well established for some time.
Housing support grant—there is no need for me to discuss this in detail—has declined greatly over the years. At its height it was running at about £240 million but, as rents have increased, some of that has transferred to the housing benefit totals and, as housing support grant has fallen, they have risen. It goes back to an argument that is as old as me—if that is possible—about whether to subsidise the house or the person. No doubt the Government will wrestle with that as certainly as did the previous Government.
We are dealing now with a comparatively small part of the sweep of housing finance. I remind colleagues that we have managed to find about an additional £50 million for housing in the public sector, £35 million of which is for housing partnerships, which we hope will be a way of levering in private finance to provide accommodation, and £7 million for the empty homes initiative as well as other sums such as £5 million for energy efficiency and so on. I would be the last to suggest that that represented a revolution, but it is at least a first attempt to do something about the acute problems facing the housing sector, particularly the public sector. It may be that people will want to comment on those matters.
Mr. Welsh rose—
Mr. Dewar: I see one person who wants to comment now. Let us hear him.
Mr. Welsh: Will the Secretary of State admit that those figures come against a backcloth of a drop of £484 million in the housing budget over the past two years? Therefore, any increases, although welcome, have to be taken in the context of a rapidly falling commitment to housing by the Government.
Mr. Dewar: I should thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming what has been done in the initiatives I have mentioned. It will be very difficult for any Government, based on any unit within the United Kingdom, to solve the housing problem simply by straight subvention from the public purse. I freely concede that levering in private finance and housing partnerships and so on will be an increasingly important part of the process.
I take the view—I think it is sensible—that I want my constituents and the constituents of the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh) to live in housing that is sound, dry and adequate and which is the type of housing that they want to live in. My job as Secretary of State and the job
1204
of my Department is to use every possible endeavour to achieve that end. I believe that the way in which that burden is shared will alter in the time ahead, but that is a challenge to which we should rise and which we should welcome. I want to leave it at that now. We will have many other opportunities to discuss these matters in the future.
I recognise that there are problems. I recognise some of the frustrations and difficulties, many of which are put to me forcibly by friends and colleagues of many years. I also recognise and give a heartfelt welcome to the realism with which local government is going about its task. I recognise the determination to find a way forward which is represented in the co-operation over best value and the determination to increase efficiency and to make the delivery of services more effective. If we can achieve great things in that way and move forward, and if we can put the public finances on a sound footing, we will be well placed to achieve targets and to meet our priorities in the years ahead.
4.45 pm
Mr. Michael Ancram: It is somewhat nostalgic for me to participate in this debate today. It is 11 years since I was last involved in what was then a debate on rate support grant in the House and I was sitting behind the Government Dispatch Box. I have some sympathy with the Secretary of State. I have wonderful recollections of grant variation orders and pool interest rates. Whenever they arose, I hoped that I could leave it to another Minister to answer the questions later or that I could write to hon. Members.
It is rather sad to think that this is probably one of the last two such debates in the House. After the inception of the Scottish Parliament, presumably these debates will be transferred, at least in their detail, to that Parliament. We will no longer be able to enjoy these wonderful celebrations of clear formulaic thinking on the part of Scottish Office Ministers and officials.
Mr. John McAllion: May I assure the right hon. Gentleman that he is probably alone in the House in thinking that it is sad that these matters will no longer be debated here? I am delighted that, in two years' time, they will be debated in Scotland.
Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman's sense of humour is not in line with mine. If he thinks that these debates will be enjoyed any more in a Scottish Parliament—or be any better attended there—he may be indulging in a little wishful thinking.
These debates are minefields. It is much easier to be speaking for the Opposition than for the Government, because I can ask the questions and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), who is responsible for local government, will have to answer them.
I remember being told that the formulas are very exclusive. They are understood by three people—one is dead, one is mad and one advises the Secretary of State. [Interruption.] I am glad that the Secretary of State seems to be confirming that that is still the situation in the Scottish Office.
On housing, we accept both the formula and the principle behind what is proposed. I have always taken the view that it is better to subsidise people than bricks

1205
and mortar, and I welcome the fact that that is what the Secretary of State is pursuing. His hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) is shaking his head—so whether that will last into a Scottish Parliament is perhaps another matter.
I always enjoy the Secretary of State's performance. Today's was a feat of gentle ingenuity in which he tried to portray the settlement as some sort of triumph. He called it a well-ordered settlement and justified that by saying, that if there is anything wrong with it, it is the fault of those who have gone before, and that if there is anything good about it, that is entirely for him. I thought that that was his argument. It avoids one fundamental political fact, which, after nine months, I am surprised has not impressed itself on the Secretary of State.
The settlement is not down to the last Government but is totally in the hands of his Government. We are talking about a new financial year on the back of a Budget that was struck by the Chancellor last July—I will come back to that—and it will take place after a further Budget from the Chancellor in March. He cannot do other than take full responsibility for what is in the orders. He cannot shelter behind the phrase "inherited plans". One Government do not bind another and he knows that. If he wanted to abandon what he calls the inherited plans, he was entitled to do so. He is adopting a cop-out position that does not fool anyone.
I asked the Secretary of State whether the public expenditure surveys for years two and three were provisional. Although he chided me for asking, he effectively admitted that they were. He said that provisional spending plans are revisited—I think that I am quoting him correctly—as the economic situation develops. That is why the Government have provisional spending plans. They cannot see two or three years ahead, but they have to give some idea of the likely levels of spending. They set provisional spending plans and consider the economic situation when the time arrives.
I am sure that Labour Members appreciate that the economic situation has developed considerably over the past year, not least with the extraordinary windfall—if I may use the word—of tax revenue that allowed the Chancellor to make a £10.4 billion repayment of borrowing two days ago. He could make that record repayment because there was more tax coming in than anyone expected, partly from growth and partly from self-assessment.
The figures that the Secretary of State is dealing with today were put forward on the basis of a different economic situation. They cannot be justified in today's circumstances. It is for the Secretary of State and the Chancellor to decide whether to use that unexpected £10.4 billion windfall to fill a war chest to try to buy the next general election or to look after people who need looking after now.
Given the problems facing local government, I suspect that many people in local authorities throughout Scotland would like some of the extra cash that is available. The Government had the opportunity to give them some of it. The Secretary of State has no credibility sheltering behind historic figures and wringing his hands because the settlement is not as good as he would like. He cannot keep hiding behind the previous Government's figures. He must face up to his own.
1206
Important questions need to be asked about the settlement. On Tuesday, at Scottish Office questions, the Secretary of State said:
"The increase in cash terms is 3.4 per cent."—[Official Report, 17 February 1998; Vol. 306, c. 880.]
That is above the current rate of inflation. He told us today that the settlement is better than it would have been had the previous Government still been in office. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has provided a useful briefing that says:
"Next year's settlement shows a cash standstill on inherited plans."
Taking away some of the specific and exceptional increases, it says that there is not a great increase, but a cash standstill. That does not tally with what the Secretary of State said on Tuesday.
On 30 November last year, the Secretary of State wrote to Councillor Geddes, describing the settlement as
"a real terms reduction in support of local authorities."
That means that the council will be able to buy less this year than last.
We have an enormous number of different sets of weasel words, all of which seem contradictory.
Mr. Dewar: The 3.4 per cent. is the increase in spending limits. The amount that the authorities are able to spend has risen by 3.4 per cent. That is the figure in which people are interested.
Mr. Ancram: I was careful to quote the Secretary of State's comment on Tuesday correctly. He said that it was a 3.4 per cent. increase in cash terms. Perhaps he would like to write to me about that. My understanding of cash terms corresponds with COSLA's statement that there will be a cash standstill on inherited plans. One of those statements is wrong. I should like to know the answer.
Mr. Wallace: I am interested to know where the right hon. Gentleman's argument is going. He rightly says that the Secretary of State has a free hand. During our debates on funding for the Scottish Parliament, most, if not all, Conservative Members have said that Scotland gets too much per head. Is he saying that we are getting too much and the Secretary of State should give us more, or is he saying that we are getting too much and the Secretary of State should give us less?
Mr. Ancram: I am trying to find out what the Secretary of State is saying. He seems to be contradicting what he said in his letter to Councillor Geddes in November and what COSLA has said. Is the settlement, which rests heavily on inherited plans, to be described as "rotten", as Labour Members described last year's settlement, or is it a tight but fair settlement, as the hon. Member for Western Isles has said? It is either rotten or tight but fair. It cannot be both. If it is the latter, it cannot be said to rely on last year's spending plans. The Government must decide why they rest their defence for this year's settlement on the basis that they are dealing with last year's figures, which they so vehemently opposed at the time.
Mr. Dewar: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that I said that we started with those plans and have improved on them. That is the important point. I repeat

1207
that the cap limit is up by an average of 3.4 per cent. That is the amount that local authorities will be allowed to spend. That is a considerable increase. I accept that the right hon. Gentleman may claim that the Conservatives would not have held to their plans. If he wants to say that definitively, that might be of interest to us. Our settlement is a considerable improvement on the plans that we inherited.
I am not sheltering behind the right hon. Gentleman or anyone else. That would be a flimsy shelter. We have said from the beginning that there are good economic arguments for putting the public finances on a sound and stable footing to achieve a sustainable growth rate in the economy. Local authority expenditure must play its part.
Mr. Ancram: That does not answer the question that I asked earlier. Perhaps we shall have an answer in the winding-up speech. I understand that the £10.4 billion windfall was £4 billion more than the Chancellor had predicted in the autumn. The Secretary of State should have considered using some of that money to provide for the problems that he has outlined. He decided not to. In my book, a real-terms reduction is not an improvement and a cash standstill is not an increase. If that is his defence, everyone in local government in Scotland will know it.
In the debate on the Welsh revenue support grant last week, the Secretary of State for Wales made it clear that he would examine capping. It is Government policy to try to remove capping in England. Is that the policy in Scotland? If the cap goes, who will make up the shortfall between what can be provided by central Government and what will have to be raised by council tax? Will there be an increase in the revenue support grant to make up for the removal of capping, or will it be left to council tax payers?
I join the Secretary of State in welcoming the grant in aid orders for Dunblane. We all shared the grief of that community and we share a desire to provide help, even if it is, of necessity, limited. However, there is not much else in the settlement that is welcome. It is a sorry picture for local government and a cruel picture for council tax payers.
Mr. Gorrie: If there is so much wrong with the settlement, will the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends join me and my hon. Friends in the Lobby to vote against it?
Mr. Ancram: I should like to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say before committing myself to supporting him. It would be unwise to give an undertaking on the basis of an argument that I have not yet heard.
Some councils have done better than others in the settlement. I shall not go into the details of that. However, I should like a brief explanation of the formula for the individual distribution of the revenue support grant to councils. In particular, what criteria, if any, have changed in the formula since last year? I remember changes being made in the formula from year to year. I should also like to know whether any of those changes were made on the basis of representations and what those representations were.
I should like to raise some more general points. The Secretary of State was almost apologetic about some of the problems facing local government at the moment. He referred to several extra costs that local authorities face. The reason why I was surprised by his apology, if it
1208
was an apology, was that all these costs have arisen because of a deliberate decision taken by the Labour Government.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) asked about advance corporation tax, or what I prefer to call the pension tax. When it was introduced in July, we were told that we were wrong to suggest that it would have a deleterious effect on councils or individuals. We are now being told, understandably, that it will have a significant effect on councils in Scotland.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West mentioned £36 million, which is the figure that COSLA says in its brief will be the cost to it. That cost arises only because of a decision taken by the Chancellor last year. There is no way that the Secretary of State, as a member of the same Cabinet and bound by collective responsibility, can somehow dissociate himself from that decision. It is a cost that will be borne by Scottish councils because of a deliberate act of the Chancellor—new Labour, higher costs.
Interest rates have risen five times, or 1.25 per cent., since 1 May—new Labour, higher interest rates. People may ask, "What do interest rates matter to local government?" I can tell those not in local government that they matter very much, especially with regard to debts. In 1996–97, the debt stood at £5.6 billion. That is up £377 million on the previous year. I understand that it costs £793 million to service that debt. That is a substantial sum, and we need more information about it because the cost of servicing the debt is four and a half times greater per head than in England—£151 per head in Scotland as opposed to £33 in England.
I have cited the figure for the previous year, but what is the current debt figure? What is the increased cost of servicing that debt, and how much of that this year will be due to the increases in interest rates that have occurred under this Government? The costs caused by the increases in interest rates will be borne by the council tax payer, either through increased council taxes or reductions in services.
We also need to know about the impact of the minimum wage. The trade unions and local authorities in Scotland have agreed a minimum wage of £4 an hour. I understand that that represents an increase of 2.8 per cent., or some £20 million on wage bills. Clearly, it is part of the Government's policy, even if the Government have not yet struck their minimum wage limit. What provision, if any, has been made in the settlement for this increase? Will the money be found through cuts in services, or through increases in the council tax? If the Government are to set a minimum wage in the coming months, what provision has been made for it in the settlement to ensure that it will not adversely affect jobs or council tax payers?
We note that there are some strange reductions. The Secretary of State spoke about police funding. He was asked a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), and his answer was surprising. Was my hon. Friend right to say that the £11 million that is being given this year is less than half what the chief constables asked for? If so, were the chief constables wrong to say that they needed £28 million in order to achieve a standstill? If that is not the case, how can the Secretary of State explain the chief constables' dissatisfaction with the provision that has been made?

1209
I deal now with uncollected taxes. There is nearly £900 million worth of uncollected tax relating to local authorities in Scotland. That is up £150 million on last year. It is surprising that there has been such an enormous jump over the past 12 months. As we know, where there are uncollected taxes, the council tax payers who do pay end up subsidising those who do not.
A grant was made last year, and a grant is being made this year, to enable local authorities to collect the uncollected tax. Given the increase in the sum of uncollected tax this year, what happened to the grant that was given last year? Has there been an audit to see whether the grant is an effective way to proceed? In the light of the deteriorating situation, what proposals do the Government have to improve the rate of collection?
All this means higher council taxes for Scottish council tax payers. Once again, we see that, under a Labour Government, local taxes go up. This year there will be an average increase of 7 per cent. in Scotland, which is double the rate of inflation. Each council tax payer will pay £55 extra, all because of the reasons that I have outlined. The solution lies with the Government. Whatever else it may be, the settlement hardly matches the description given by the hon. Member for Western Isles, who said that it was fair.
The Government cannot duck responsibility. It all comes back to the grant and how it is distributed, and that is a matter for the Government alone. Council tax payers will have to bear the cost, and Labour councils will continue to have to struggle with debts and the difficulties involved in collecting taxes. Against that background, the Labour Government are increasing the costs imposed on local government. In the end, it is a cynical exercise by the Labour Government to make sure that, when the general election comes, they have money with which to buy the support of voters.
The settlement is a blow to Scottish council tax payers:
"once more, Council Tax payers will be paying more for fewer services and possibly facing higher charges."
Those are not my words, but those of the president of COSLA, Councillor Geddes, on 3 December last year. He was right then, and is right now. The settlement is one of which the Secretary of State and his colleagues should be roundly ashamed.
5.5 pm
Mr. Donald Gorrie: In our view, the settlement is deceitful, mean, destructive and unnecessary.
Mr. Welsh: He does not like it.
Mr. Gorrie: No, I do not like it.
Scottish local government is in the position of a school pupil being unjustly belted by a series of head teachers. The Tory teacher used to belt local government and say, "I'm not really belting you. This does not hurt at all, and there is no cut." There has now been a change to a Labour teacher who belts local government while weeping bitterly and saying, "This hurts me more than it hurts you"—but it still hurts. The cuts continue.
Why is the settlement deceitful? The Government are keeping in the settlement the idea that £40 million will be saved by local authorities because of the reorganisation of
1210
a couple of years ago. However, they know that that is not happening. I received an answer from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Chisholm) who has now honourably returned to the Back Benches. When I asked about the Government's estimates, he said:
"The Government do not endorse those assumptions"—
about the £40 million saving—
"but we are committed to live within the existing public expenditure control totals for this year and next."—[Official Report, 23 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 610.]
Therefore, the Government concede that the £40 million is a chimera, a mirage, or one of those things that does not exist, yet they keep it in the figures. What sort of honesty is that?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): We do not keep it in the figures, in the sense that we do not base future grant allocations on those figures. We recognise that they were wrong, but it is not possible to unpick them, go back and re-do them all over again. If we did, some councils would gain, but others would lose.
Mr. Gorrie: I am still not clear whether the £40 million exists or not. I am advised by the director of finance in Edinburgh that his capping limit is based on the idea that Edinburgh's share of the £40 million exists, but it does not exist, so Edinburgh is penalised by having a lower capping limit than it should have.
Mr. Swinney: Would not the £40 million gap in the assumptions be tackled if the Government allocated £40 million to local authorities? They have the power and, as we have heard in the past few days, the money, to do it.
Mr. Gorrie: I agree.
The next issue is the landfill tax, which the Government accept will cost local authorities £18.5 million in the corning year. They allow no money for that; it will have to be found magically. There is nothing in the settlement for the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, which it is accepted will cost £11 million in the coming year. The budget is based on a series of false assumptions whose cost local authorities must bear.
Mr. Macdonald: On the Children (Scotland) Act, the money is perhaps not as much as the authorities were requesting. Their analysis of the cost of implementation differs from ours. We included it in the settlement. We have not included anything for the landfill tax because it is a tax that has to be borne by all sectors of government, as it is by all sectors of the economy.
Mr. Gorrie: I am obliged to the Minister for his explanation. I should rephrase my remark about the Children (Scotland) Act. There is a gap of £11 million between what the Government are allowing and what the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and local authorities think is needed.
The settlement is mean because—as with my previous point—there is money in the budget for care in the community but another £12 million at least is needed to cope properly. The Government seem to be refusing to make any allowance for the £36 million needed to top up

1211
pensions. There must be £36 million in the Treasury for that because councils have paid that money in. It must exist and could easily be used. It is a £36 million penalty on councils.
The Secretary of State declined to say whether the £59 million extra on education will continue. The £30 million for spend to save, buildings and other such things is a one-off, but if councils knew that they would continue to get the £59 million, they could use it sensibly by hiring more teachers. Councils will not take on more teachers if the £59 million will disappear next year, forcing them to sack them all again.
The settlement is mean because, for the fifth year running, the Government are allowing nothing for pay awards. Cumulatively over five years, that has cost councils £450 million. There is a myth that that money can be saved by productivity. There are obviously some areas in which councils could improve performance, and they are trying to do that, but in many cases they cannot. The £450 million cut can only mean more job losses. There have been 11,000 in recent years and there will be thousands more this year.
The settlement is destructive because, if allowance is made for the pension money and the specific educational grants are taken out, the increase is only 0.7 per cent., when inflation is much higher than that. The increase in Government money, despite the extra, is only 0.6 per cent. That means considerable cuts. The Government are forcing up the council tax by an average of 7 per cent. and linking it with severe cuts. I accept that the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) made play of that while the previous Government did exactly the same, deliberately forcing up council tax to gain credit for reducing income tax. That fact that they did a bad thing is no reason for the Labour party to do a bad thing.
It is destroys people's respect for democracy if councils raise council tax well above inflation and have to inflict devastating cuts. The man or woman in the street does not accept that there is not enough money from Government; they just blame the council and think that the whole system is rubbish. The Government are destroying belief in local democracy.
The Government are destroying our housing by not investing enough. There is a £50 million reduction this year, and again next year, in housing capital. Many of our fellow citizens live in intolerable circumstances. The Government are failing to do things that they could do about that.
To take one council in the middle range of the increases, Edinburgh is trying not to make cuts in school education, police and fire services and, as a result, is having to cut 9 per cent. from all other budgets. That means a 9 per cent. cut in grants to voluntary organisations. The Labour Government are presiding over a massacre of voluntary organisations. The changes in urban aid, the ending of it for some organisations and the reduction in grants to others, mean that many important voluntary organisations—many of which help in deprived areas to do exactly the sort of things that the Government are keen on—are disappearing. The Government are destroying large swathes of the voluntary sector.
Mr. Macdonald: The voluntary sector is an important issue. I acknowledge that the money available for the urban
1212
programme has declined in the past few years. The hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the funding available for voluntary sector projects was never designed to be long-term; it was to be phased out after three years. That must be so, or the same voluntary sector projects would always get the money. There has to be a transition between phasing out some projects and new ones coming in. We expect that more new ones will come in over the next year than are being phased out.
Mr. Gorrie: Metaphors about pump priming and seed money should be banned. I know that the Minister did not use them, but that was the thought process involved. The idea is that, if a little money is put into something for a few years, it will pay for itself ever after. That is rubbish, and a major cause of problems in our society. He should address that. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) has a solution, he is welcome to intervene.
Mr. Ian Davidson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, ever since the beginning of the urban aid programme, some projects have lost funding? It has never been the case that every urban aid project is mainlined by local authorities after losing its urban aid funding. It was a recurrent problem throughout the years of the Conservative Government. Urban aid was intended to provide the opportunity for experimentation which would then allow local authorities to determine whether to make projects mainline or to take the lessons and spread them across the service.
Mr. Gorrie: The difference is that in the past councils had enough money to continue many projects that deserved to be continued with. Now they do not, because of the savage cuts imposed by the Labour Government and the previous Tory Government.
The system is destructive of good management in local government. All hon. Members want local government to be as efficient as possible, as do people in local government. Finance and other important officials spend sixth months of the year preparing budgets, seeking cuts and then implementing them. For half the year, they are not making positive management decisions at all. That is harmful to local government and prevents it from improving.
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if some local government officials stopped doing the work that he described and set their minds to gathering some of the debts owed in the great cities of Scotland, there would be less need for cuts?
Mr. Gorrie: I could not disagree more strongly. The hon. Lady's party imposed an uncollectable tax and then moaned that councils found it difficult to collect. Having been involved in local government, I assure her that councils tried hard, and are continuing to try, to collect it.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Which one is that?
Mr. Gorrie: The poll tax and the council tax—two taxes.
Why did people vote Labour at the last general election and why did Labour Members who are genuinely honourable and care about society seek election? I do not

1213
think that they sought election—or that people voted for them—to end hot school meals, to cut library books, home helps and road maintenance, to cause major destruction in our community education, to have fewer local government workers delivering worse services, to widen the gap between the richer and poorer areas, to reduce the opportunities available in deprived areas and to deliver the worst local government services known for 23 years.
If we measure back to the start of the regional and district system that is roughly similar to the present system, we find that the level of services proposed in this budget will be the worst ever. The housing budget will be the worst funded. That is not what people voted for and it is not what the honourable people on the Labour Benches stood for. The Government are persisting in a foolish and unnecessary policy—the self-imposed policy of adopting Tory spending plans. They have chosen to wrap themselves in Tory Treasury rules.
Mr. Macdonald: I must set some of the facts straight. It is not the lowest housing budget. We have provided an additional £50 million for housing for the coming year, which we are spending on priority areas such as the rough sleepers and empty homes initiatives and on the new housing partnerships. We acknowledge that the settlement is tight, but the hon. Gentleman greatly exaggerates the position.
Mr. Gorrie: I cannot remember exactly what I said and the Minister is correct in saying that there is a small increase, but it is after two years of severe decreases. What I intended to say but did not, for which I apologise, is that the Government will preside over housing in Scotland being in a worse state than ever because they are providing inadequate money and housing is getting steadily worse.
Mr. Welsh: The hon. Gentleman should stick to his point, as he is correct. An additional £27 million may have been allocated by the Government, but it is against a backcloth of a £484 million deficit in the past two years. It is a vastly reduced housing budget, quite apart from the disaster caused by the 75 per cent. claw back rule, which has taken hundreds of millions of pounds out of Scotland's housing.
Mr. Gorrie: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his excellent support.
The policies of the Conservative Government have been adopted unnecessarily by the Labour Government, who have stuck to the Treasury rules devised by the Conservatives. For example, local authority self-financed expenditure—LASFE—is counted within the control total. If Edinburgh, Aberdeenshire or any other council should decide to raise its tax by £1 million and spend that money locally, some other organisation somewhere else in the public sector in Scotland would have to spend £1 million less. There is no logic behind that: it is idiotic.
If local people vote to pay a little more in tax to have more teachers, better roads or whatever, they should get those. The Labour party is espousing an anti-democratic system that was foisted on us by the Conservatives.
There is widespread support for changing that rule and for not counting LASFE within the control total. There is also widespread support for taking expenditure on housing,
1214
water and drainage and other capital items of that sort out of the public sector borrowing requirement and using another calculation, such as the general Government financial deficit, which would allow them not to be counted. Therefore, much more investment would be possible without rocking the boat financially. Those systems are used by our continental neighbours and if we used them we would approximate more to their systems should we wish to enter the single currency.
Finally, there has been much talk about what we will achieve in a Scottish Parliament. We want to co-operate, be consensual and do good things together. If Labour policy in a Scottish Parliament is to make such cuts in local government, there is no way in which the Liberal Democrats will co-operate with them in those cuts. We will not support cuts of this sort in local government expenditure.
5.24 pm
Mr. Andrew Welsh: Even the Secretary of State's undoubted mastery of the understatement and his always impressive powers of euphemism cannot hide the attack that this settlement represents on Scotland's local authorities and the daily services that they provide. Clearly, the new Labour Government are continuing the old Tory policy of cutback and closure and for the same reasons. They are giving the people of Scotland a continuing diet of cuts, closures and job losses in local government. The settlements are a double disaster. They will affect services and, in particular, the housing sector.
Next year, there will be a cash standstill on inherited plans. The capping increase is 0.7 per cent., but inflation is 3.3 per cent. and the capping flexibility is very limited indeed. Council tax will rise dramatically. There have been about 11,000 job losses in the past two years, but those will be multiplied by the new Labour settlement.
In addition to increased charges for local government services and hefty council tax increases, housing will be hit even harder. The present year is the lowest point in decades, and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) was right: the first two Labour years have brought about a 35 per cent. cut in resources compared with the previous two Tory years.
Mr. Swayne: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the public sector borrowing requirement has improved significantly—an improvement that the previous Administration did not enjoy but laid the foundations for? It is all very well for him to complain about the continuation of Conservative policy, but the circumstances have changed, as would Tory policies have done, I am sure.
Mr. Welsh: If the hon. Gentleman's wants to justify the misery caused by Tory policies with that explanation, he is welcome to it.
In real terms under the settlement, housing support grant will now be worth 36 times less than it was in 1979. Individuals and families will pay the price for all this in ill health and poor housing—the very things that Labour Members used to argue against when they were in

1215
opposition. In the Scottish Grand Committee, when the Secretary of State announced the importance of
"the Government's policy of maintaining a tight control over public expenditure",—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 3 December 1997; c. 4.]
no one could have predicted the true cost of that pragmatic policy for Scotland's local authorities. They face their most serious financial crisis in memory. Even the most prudent financial authorities are down to the bone and having to consider seriously massive cuts in services. Those will be a direct consequence of central Government policy and will inevitably lead to more cuts in services and jobs and a rise in council taxes.
New Labour is simply continuing to implement Tory spending plans to slash £150 million from Scottish local government services this year—an average cut of 3 per cent. The knock-on effect will be damaging cuts to vital core services. Once again, there will be bad news for council tax payers with an average rise of 7 per cent. to achieve fewer services, because this Government continue to tie the hands of Scotland's local authorities.
The new Labour Government have made no allowance for pay awards, forcing councils to self-finance any pay rise for their employees. For example, a rise of only 2 per cent. will burden local authorities with an additional £75 million without any financial support from central Government. Self-financing public sector pay awards have been a time bomb under local authority services, and that is directly a Tory policy that is being continued by new Labour.
The Government have allowed for a capping increase of only 0.7 per cent. compared with inflation of about 3.3 per cent., which will place a tight limit on local authority budgets. My local council, Angus—a very financially prudent authority by any measurement—has had to face its worst capping restriction. It can spend only 1.12 per cent. above grant-aided expenditure for 1998–99, in comparison with Dundee with 11.48 per cent., Glasgow, 10.88 per cent. and West Dumbartonshire, 10.73 per cent. Does the Minister agree that such wide variations are inequitable and that strenuous efforts should be made to achieve greater flexibility in capping?
The effects of the £300 million cuts can be seen in the devastation of services and the loss of the equivalent of more than 11,000 full-time jobs over the past two years. Already, 760 jobs in Edinburgh and 50 in Stirling have been lost. Aberdeen council is closing residential homes and even considering transferring its housing stock.
Local authorities are dependent on Scottish Office finance, as they have the power to raise only 15 per cent. of their revenue and there is arbitrary capping. Central Government now run local government. Local government does not even control its expanding work load, which is a result of central Government statute. More than 75 per cent. of local authority expenditure is on statutory services that are determined by central Government, who have imposed additional burdens without providing the funds to meet them.
The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has identified some £180 million of new burdens that central Government have imposed through, for example, care in the community, the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The Children
1216
(Scotland) Act is a particularly interesting case study: extra spending of £11 million has been earmarked for next year, but no additional funds have been made available to finance it.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: The hon. Gentleman will notice that the Children (Scotland) Act was enacted in 1995; it has been in operation for some time. I recollect that the Conservative Government would not make available any extra money for local authorities.
The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that no money has been allocated this year for the implementation of measures under the Children (Scotland) Act, although I accept that the full £11 million has not been made available—I am not sure what the exact figure is. As the Minister said, this year, unlike in previous years, some money has been made available.
Mr. Welsh: The point is that there are extra burdens on local authorities, which depend on central Government for finance. If that money is not forthcoming, local authorities will have to cut services or sack people. The same problem arises with self-financing pay awards. Local councillors now face horrendous decisions—I am sure that the hon. Lady, with her vast knowledge of local government, knows exactly what I mean—because central Government have imposed burdens but not the money to pay for them.
Mrs. Fyfe: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way again. He is doing what the Scottish National party always does—it pretends that there is no difference between the Conservative and Labour parties. He heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State make it clear that things will be very different in the near future for local authority services and for housing in particular. He cannot pretend that the Labour Government have the same attitude as the previous Government—that is quite dishonest.
Mr. Welsh: I am not pretending anything; the reality is there for everyone to see. I have given many examples of ways in which the new Labour Government are no different from the old Tory Government. There may be a slight difference in emphasis, but the problems that local authorities face because of under-resourcing are the same.
When people voted massively for new Labour at the general election, they expected something better than what the Government are delivering. The hon. Lady and other Labour Members will be answerable to the electorate for the Government's failure to make a difference. The Government have created a deficit in housing, as their cuts are greater than those in the last two years of the Conservative Government. I regret having to say that, but it is the reality.
Mr. Macdonald: Let me settle this question. The money that we inherited for local authority capital investment in housing this year was £222 million—that includes the grant and the money that local authorities have been able to raise—to which we added an additional £15 million. Next year, we are planning to spend £230 million—again, adding together the grant and local authority money—to which we shall add £50.7 million.

1217
It is simply not correct to say that the Government are spending less money on local authority housing this year than was spent last year.
Mr. Welsh: I had the same problem with the former Conservative Secretary of State, who juggled money between budget headings. The truth is that total expenditure on housing during Labour's first two years in government will be one third less than the Tories spent in their last two years in government. The £27 million that the Government are allocating is negligible against the background of the £484 million that was cut over the past two years. That £484 million could have provided 11,000 new houses or insulated homes for 200,000 families, pensioners and other groups at risk. My view is straightforward: I want more money to be allocated to meet Scotland's needs, as Labour Members argued when they were in opposition.
Dr. Fox: In fairness, there are differences between the Labour Government and the former Conservative Government, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept. For example, the tax on pensions—and the £36 million extra that will have to be raised as a result—is the Labour Government's innovation; it did not exist under the Conservatives.
Mr. Welsh: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, as I was about to make that point myself. The major difference between old Tory and new Labour is that the old Tory party is out of office and new Labour is in office.
Mr. Ernie Ross: Old Tory, old SNP.
Mr. Welsh: As the hon. Gentleman comes from Dundee, which has an atrocious local government record, he should have very little to say on this subject.
In the July Budget statement, the Chancellor announced that pension funds would no longer be able to reclaim advance corporation tax credits attaching to dividend income.
Mr. McAllion: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify what he meant by his disgraceful smear against the local authority in Dundee? Dundee has a tremendous record of fighting Tory cuts, which is more than can be said for Angus. Dundee has direct labour organisations, with workers working directly for the council, whereas Angus local authority privatised the whole lot.
Mr. Welsh: If the hon. Gentleman has not got the message, the electorate certainly have. I invite him to discuss these matters with the people of Monifieth, who were never so glad in their lives to escape Dundee local authority with its high council charges and low-quality services, and be put under the control of Angus, where there are low council charges and high-quality services. I well remember the black propaganda that Labour councillors produced about the boundary changes, all of which has been proven totally false. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will encourage the Dundee Labour council to do its job better and provide better services to its people—that would be a better use of his time.
The Government do not want to discuss advance corporation tax, as their proposals will result in an extra bill for local authorities in 1998–99 of some £36 million. Will the Minister meet the additional costs by increasing
1218
the grant, or does he agree that a capping disregard is essential? I hope that he will give some comfort to local councils by announcing, when he winds up the debate, that the Government will offer some assistance.
I welcome the additional £89 million for education this year. I asked the Secretary of State whether additional money would continue to be granted, but because I did not receive much of an answer, I ask again. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West said, local authorities will be very wary of taking on long-term commitments unless they secure from central Government long-term agreements on funding.
Local government has become merely an enabling administration rather than a service provider. I know that that subject is dear to the Minister's heart. He made a disgraceful speech in which he said, more or less, that he wanted to destroy local government—perhaps he could amplify those remarks. The Conservative Government wanted local government to become an enabling administration, but I want local authorities to be service providers, which can assess and address the needs of their local populations.
We now have local administration rather than local government—the old cliché is now, sadly, true. They have no scope to raise their own finance, either revenue or capital; and 75 per cent. of their services are statutory and imposed by central Government. That is not local government in a flourishing democracy—it is heavy centralisation. Local authorities should be key players in the provision of top-quality, low-cost and democratically accountable local services. We should be playing to the strengths of local expertise, professional skills and the traditions of local government, not destroying them in this fashion.
Nowhere is the problem more acute than in the provision of desperately needed housing. A new Labour Government means no change from the old Tory Government in terms of housing finance or policy—there may be a little tweaking at the edges, but there is no change in fundamental policy. The recent Scottish housing conditions survey confirmed that Scotland has some of the poorest housing conditions, with high levels of dampness and condensation and poor energy efficiency. In addition, homelessness is spiralling: there were almost half a million homeless applicants between 1979 and 1995, but such applications rose 72 per cent. between 1985 and 1995. I see nothing in the Government's plans that will address or provide redress for that problem.
All that is storing up major problems and misery both for homeless individuals and families in the present and for the whole system in the future. The Minister might argue that there is an additional £29 million allocated for housing this year, but that is a drop in the ocean compared with the £484 million that has been cut from the housing budget in the past two years alone. That could have provided all the new houses or additional insulation that I described. It could have been spent on services to meet real need. New Labour has continued the Tory policy of cutting the housing support grant and it is now a mere £12.7 million. If the grant had kept pace with inflation, it would now be worth £457 million—36 times more than Labour's allocation.
New Labour should be ashamed of itself, and I know plenty of Labour councillors and grass-roots Labour supporters who already are. In the last two years of the

1219
Tory Government, the then Secretary of State for Scotland, Michael Forsyth, implemented an increasing clawback of 75 per cent. of the money raised by councils through council house sales. That measure removed an estimated £170 million from housing capital budgets in 1997–98, which represents around 35 per cent. of last year's housing budget.
The irony is that Labour's manifesto committed a Labour Government to a
"review of the newly imposed requirement in relation to the retention of 75 per cent. of housing receipts."
However, the 75 per cent. rule still exists and will continue to deny councils one of the scarce resources available to them to provide capital for investment in housing stock. That is especially worrying given that one in three council houses is still in need of urgent major repair.
That is not scaremongering by the Opposition, but a realistic picture of the current plight facing our local authorities. They will make do with the resources allocated to them, but Scotland's local authorities should not be asked to shoulder the blame for central Government's pursuit of on-going Tory policy. People voted en masse for new Labour last May and they expected a change in policy—a new hope for the future. What they have is new Labour, same old Tories.
Asking more for less is one thing, but asking for the impossible for less is a different matter. The impossible is precisely what local authorities are being asked to do because of the settlement. When will the Labour Government accept that the previous Administration failed to recognise the damage to local government and that that damages the whole Scottish economy? The sooner they realise the potential of local authorities, the better it will be for those who are reliant on services provided by local authorities, which are best placed to assess need and to provide low-cost, high-quality public services in the public good. That is in the finest tradition of local government, but local authorities have to be properly resourced to be able to do it.
We simply cannot wait for the advent of a Scottish Parliament to right all the wrongs of 18 years' mismanagement by the previous Government. The Scottish Parliament offers hope for an improved relationship between central and local government, but we need action now, before the damage becomes permanent and irreversible. Whether the new Parliament will be able to provide extra resources is questionable: the devolved Parliament will suffer as a result of a cut of £1.6 billion from the existing Scottish Office block grant and may well be strapped for cash. The trouble is that the Scottish Parliament will be the paymaster for Scottish local authorities and many of the current problems will persist because of the system of financing whereby both the Scottish Parliament and local authorities will be financed by this Parliament.
New Labour is sowing the seeds of its downfall by sticking to its predecessors' spending plans. Ministers may have faced tough choices, but by saving money for tax cuts and pre-election sweeteners, they are showing their true blue colours and forgetting their roots. What their present boss thinks will suit middle England will not go down well in Scotland and, like their predecessors, this Government's time will come at the ballot box.
1220
New Labour in office means no improvement in the housing-related problems of homelessness, dampness, overcrowding and ill health. Those problems—which, when in opposition, Labour Members talked about and blamed the Tory Government for—still remain and, in some cases, they will worsen under the Labour Government.
Blair's new Government offers nothing new. Their lack of commitment to housing is as great as the Tory failure and their policies are almost indistinguishable from those of the Tories. This year's paltry increase hardly merits the description of window dressing, especially when allied to the continuation of the cuts in the housing support grant. Housing needs exist and are worsening. New Labour should be ashamed of itself, and I know that many of its councillors and grass-roots supports are.
5.46 pm
Mr. Ian Davidson: I rise as one who, in the past, has not been a great enthusiast for links with the Liberals having believed that they have led us down many false roads. However, I was greatly heartened by the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) and his defence of public expenditure and public services. It may well be that, in the Scottish Parliament, the Liberals will find themselves much closer than they expect to the Co-operative party block there.
It would be inappropriate to allow the debate to pass without making it clear that many of us believe that the state of rented housing in Scotland is a disgrace. Far too many of our people live in accommodation that is unsatisfactory, unsanitary and not waterproof or windproof. Concern about this matter is not restricted to Opposition Members; at our surgeries, many Labour Members are inundated by the results of years of underspending. What makes that particularly unpalatable is the way in which, at present, because of the possibility of military action against Iraq, we see all the hi-tech wizardry displayed, while our hi-tech and scientifically advanced society is apparently unable to provide windproof and watertight homes for substantial numbers of our people. Surely there is a mis-spend somewhere?
Why are the problems of so many of our people, who have to live in rented housing, ignored? I believe that it is because few opinion-formers live in rented housing and few of those who live as tenants ever appear in focus groups. The needs of that minority are under-represented in the political dialogue of this country. That is inappropriate and it is up to those of us who represent such people to make sure that their voices are heard on occasions like this.
Today's debate is the first of this sort under the Labour Government and the lack of adverse comment from COSLA and local authorities has been remarked upon. We should not mistake silence for acquiescence—it arises from the gut loyalty felt by Labour local authorities to a Labour Government, after years of Tory Government. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench will not abuse that loyalty and will recognise that something has to be delivered relatively soon to local authorities. Loyalty has to be rewarded by jam tomorrow and the sooner we can make commitments about jam tomorrow, the happier I, the vast majority of Labour Members and our supporters, will be.
5.49 pm
Sir Robert Smith: Following on from the point that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) made about jam tomorrow and the reaction of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, I believe that it is important for the Government to recognise that they should be considering more than the reaction of COSLA. The Government should be considering the reaction of all the parents on school boards; all the parents of children whose schools will be affected by the cuts; all the people in housing suffering from poor repairs; all the people affected by the problems of getting care in the community to work; and all the people facing additional charges for their care in the community. Although COSLA might be co-operating in terms of language, the settlement that the Government are persuading us to accept today will be damaging to individuals.
I repeat what I said in the Scottish Grand Committee. It is welcome to have a Government who at least allow the debate to take place to a certain extent, by recognising that local authorities are in trouble, are facing a financial squeeze and have very tough decisions to take. The real waste of the past two years, after reorganisation, was the farcical situation where central Government tried to pretend that there was no financial problem for local communities to address. If local communities do not know that there is a problem, how can they confront setting priorities and taking decisions within what is a poor or tight settlement? On those points, Liberal Democrat Members have welcomed the Government's more open language.
I tried to intervene on the Secretary of State regarding the capping flexibility announcement. When he replies, will the Minister say how many councils are likely to be able to take advantage of that announcement? There was a sense of deja vu. One felt that, yet again, a Government, on a Friday afternoon, were making an announcement that got one or two headlines about some interesting figures—an announcement which even the Secretary of State did not appear to be interested in debating at any length, and which, when one unteased it, was not of great substance. In any case, it was nearing the time to set budgets again.
I hope that—unless the Minister is planning any great largesse or great change of heart in the Scottish Grand Committee—councils will not be placed in the farcical situation that they were placed in two years ago, when, on the day that they were setting their budget, faxes arrived to say that the Government were changing the capping limit again. Some stability is essential if we are to plan how to spend whatever money is available.
I want to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) and other hon. Members have said about the fact that, although the Government have recognised that reorganisation will not make savings of £40 million, they have not adjusted the figure to take account of that. Although they have recognised that they have introduced a pension tax that imposes a burden of £36 million, they have done nothing to take account of that. Those are the Government's decisions—their recognitions—taken post the previous Government's Budget plans, and the Government must start taking responsibility for them.
I hoped that the Government would have recognised that, although the £40 million is a figure to do with reorganisation, far, far more serious damage than that was
1222
done in the dislocation of services and the confusion and chaos of that reorganisation, affecting sensible budget reduction planning. If local authorities had to cut services and facilities, it would have been far better to have a level playing field in the early years and then warn of the cuts to come. To try to impose cuts on an organisation that is not up and running is not the best way to achieve efficiency savings.
Yesterday, when the Accounts Commission for Scotland held a reception in the House, it conveyed an important message that puts in perspective some of the debates about local authority funding. It emphasised the probity of Scottish local government and the lack of fraud. It is important to remember that, although local government may be a whipping boy in many ways, it is still a major part of the structure of our society, and an important provider of services for our society.
Therefore, it is disappointing that the Government have stuck to the fine print of their manifesto, instead of the principles that were probably more at stake in the electorate's mind at the general election. When the Prime Minister's economic adviser says that there is scope for additional public spending, there is a worry that we are facing damage now that will have to be repaired, instead of surviving this period of the economy in order to expand services later.
The Prime Minister says that we do not want boom-bust economics. Everyone acknowledges the need to inject some stability into our economic finances, but the concept of bust-boom is equally disastrous. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West said, it is pointless for councils to reduce the number of teachers only to have to increase it again. It would be far more efficient and effective if councils could see their way through this period before they build their war chest and take it into the run-up to the next general election.
The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) said that eventually this debate would take place in the Scottish Parliament. However, I hope that we do not have a decision like this or a debate under the same ground rules as this one.
The Government are conducting a review, which is to report to the Scottish Parliament, on the relationship between local government and the Scottish Parliament. It seems depressing that the Minister wants to exclude financial arrangements from that review, because, as we have seen today, at the heart of the problems of local government and the setting of priorities is the fact that decisions are being taken, not by the people in the communities, but in this fairly empty Chamber, without a great amount of debate. Local priorities should not be decided in this place; the local communities should decide.
I hope that the Government will recognise that the Scottish Parliament will not want to sit around and decide the spending plans of every community in the country. The point of local democracy is that local people have a say. We argue that they should have a say through proportional representation, so that they elect a council that reflects their community. If they do so, the community should decide its spending priorities and resourcing priorities. The Government must recognise the need to change the system.

1223
We want to vote against the settlement today because we feel that it is inadequate, and to send a warning shot across the Government's bows to say that this is not the way to run local government. We hope that they do not continue this method of setting priorities into the future Parliament.
5.55 pm
Mr. Alasdair Morgan: I shall be brief, because I understand that hon. Members are experiencing a magnetic attraction to the polar hubs at Heathrow and Euston. I do not want to address the detail of the figures in the settlement. I should like to spend a little time discussing the philosophy underlying the issue of what a local council's task should be.
The Government say that they are committed to the Tory Budget and the Tory spending plans. I do not agree with them on that, but I accept that that is their position. However, do they accept the Conservative philosophy that underlay the budget that these figures comprise? I refer to the speech made by the Minister at the John Wheatley centre. Referring to the duties of a local council, he said:
"it is not the direct provision of services which is fundamental".
He said that councils should become
"strategic planners and enablers, rather than being necessarily direct providers of services."
He said that the
"days are past when it was necessary for councils to deliver services directly".
How far down that road does the Minister wish to travel? Does he wish to apply that approach to the direct labour organisation in Dundee, of which the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) is so proud? Does he envisage it happening to education in Scotland?
The Government appear to have accepted that the privatisation of local social services is here to stay in terms of "externalisation", as it is called, of old folk's homes. The Minister seems to have accepted that philosophy with regard to the provision of local authority housing; hardly a local council in the land can build a new house. Is the Minister prepared to draw a line there? Is he prepared to give a commitment tonight that public education in Scotland will not go the way of public housing or public social services? The logic of the budget path that the Government are taking is that public education will go the same way and will be privatised, and that local authorities will be merely enablers.
Lastly, I want to speak briefly about rural schools. The local authority—Dumfries and Galloway—whose area covers my constituency has outstanding proposals to close six rural schools. Earlier this week, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) said that Argyll and Bute council proposed to close 11 rural schools. Those proposals are a direct consequence of the local authority funding settlements for the past few years.
It is not good enough for the Government to wash their hands of that and say that local authorities must assess their priorities and take their own decisions accordingly. I emphasise to the Minister that rural schools are in a unique position; they are educationally essential, but they are also socially essential for their communities. There is not another school a bus ride down the road. Those local
1224
communities will wither on the vine if their schools are taken away. Is the Minister prepared to make some special commitment or give some special instruction or guidance to local authorities so that they do not have to close even more rural schools than have already been closed over the past 10 to 15 years?
5.59 pm
Dr. Liam Fox: Following the fine example set by the hon. Members for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) and for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan), I shall be relatively brief.
Much of the debate has been underpinned by the idea of the Government's tight financial control and the maintenance of the previous Government's spending limits. Several points should be made at the outset. There is value in repaying public debt and maintaining tight monetary and fiscal control. Over recent decades, remarkably great strides have been made which have resulted in falling unemployment, increased investment and rising living standards in Scotland. There are great benefits to be had from the sort of policies that the Government have been willing to accept as conventional economic wisdom.
The debate has a certain "Alice in Wonderland" context. The Secretary of State could not accept the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) that this is the second year of a three-year cycle. It becomes year one, and all things are reassessed in the light of economic circumstances. I wonder whether the Chancellor is overdoing the hair shirt a little. He may want to sleep on bare floorboards to set the Lord Chancellor an example, but there is a £4 billion windfall excess.
Although the Conservatives have always believed—as we have shown—in tight economic control, there is a point to economic growth in public expenditure terms. Public expenditure is bad when it runs out of control and damages the rest of the economy, but it is not bad in itself. [Interruption.] Growth in health expenditure under the Conservatives was far greater than that ever managed under a Labour Government. Economic growth in the 1980s was largely channelled into such things as the NHS, which saw a huge increase in the amount of money available to it.
I do not have a problem with the Government's economic policies, but I do have a problem with what Labour said before 1 May. There is a credibility gap. I find it strange that the Government say that they want to repay public sector debt, which is laudable, but, at the same time, they say that they want to reduce hospital waiting lists, when they are rising, or want to reduce class sizes, when they are making no difference. The Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office, has said that there is not enough money from the abolition of the assisted places scheme—which is Labour party policy—to reduce class sizes. Presumably, the money must come from somewhere else, yet, the Government are saying that the money cannot come from somewhere else because there must be real-terms reductions in the Scottish block.
I wonder what the actual settlement is. The Secretary of State told the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities that there will be a real-terms reduction, and that he

1225
understands the value of a tight settlement. He told us that the settlement would be neutral in terms of cash growth. Then he told the House:
"The increase in cash terms is 3.4 per cent."—[Official Report, 17 February 1998; Vol. 306, c. 880.]
I know that the Government try to be all things to all men, but there cannot be three different figures for the settlement. Will the Minister tell us exactly what is going on? Is there to be an increase this year, or is the Secretary of State being economical in his terminology? Are we simply seeing an increase in what can be spent, but not an increase in what is available to councils from the Government?
I should like the Minister specifically to turn his attention to two matters. The first is the impact of the pension tax, which has been raised several times in the debate. The Chancellor unveiled in his Budget a £5 billion smash-and-grab raid on pension funds, which has nothing to do with the previous Government. COSLA says that the decision will cost Scottish councils £36 million to maintain the value of pension funds—not to mention the impact on individual taxpayers. In practice, that will cost Edinburgh £3 million extra, putting another £20 on a band D council tax bill.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) referred to Edinburgh's financial management. The Government have made no provision for the impact. It is simply a back-door tax. It cannot be blamed on the previous Government; it is a Labour tax imposed by a Labour Government. I am sad that some Labour Back Benchers, out of a sense of loyalty, sit back and take that.
The second Government-imposed problem will be over wage settlements. Last year, the trade unions and Scottish local authorities agreed to a minimum wage of £4 an hour. The Government said that they would not fund that. Why should they? They were not party to the deal. However, they are about to introduce a minimum wage. We do not yet know its level, but it will impose extra burdens on local government. Will the Government make funds available to local government to compensate for the direct result of their policy? Or will the minimum wage become another tax imposed on both the private sector and local government? The Minister must give us an answer. Simply to say that they have not yet decided the level of the minimum wage will not be good enough in this debate.
I should like to ask the Minister a couple of structural questions. The first refers to Glasgow. Why does Glasgow continue to get such a proportion of the total settlement? We accepted—and accept—that Glasgow faced problems as a result of the disaggregation of the old regions, and transitional relief was provided under the mismatch scheme. That was to give Glasgow time to develop efficient structures, but it has not reformed itself sufficiently. It still has 21 departments when other councils are operating with four or five.
Perhaps the internal warfare in which the Glasgow Labour group is involved has left it too little time to consider the matter. Perhaps the kangaroo courts distract it from what is going on elsewhere. Perhaps the KGB-type actions of the party do not give it time to consider structures. How long will the rest of Scotland have to go on funding Glasgow to the present extent? It is time that its house was put in order.
In reply to my question earlier, the Secretary of State said that the police settlement was not as bad as it looked. No matter how one looks at it, the Government are failing
1226
to provide the police with adequate income. I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not here—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes he is."] Right on cue, as ever. Despite what he said, on the same funding basis, Scottish chief constables are saying that they are not getting enough money—£11 million when they should be getting £28 million for a cash-standstill budget.
Mr. Wallace: Like the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), the hon. Gentleman has voiced a number of criticisms of the motions. Is he prepared to follow his voice with his vote?
Dr. Fox: I shall come later to how we intend to vote. I urge the hon. and learned Gentleman to be patient just for once.
I want the Minister to answer specifically the following question: which Scottish councils have met their side of the 50:50 police funding deal? That is a question of accountability. The public should know, as they should about the scandal of uncollected taxes. There is £897 million outstanding. The problem is that those who will not pay are being subsidised by law-abiding citizens who are paying. It is all very well for hon. Members to say that such taxes are difficult to collect, but that does not explain the massive discrepancy between the worst and the best collectors. A quarter of the uncollected total is due to Glasgow, and a fifth is due to West Dumbartonshire.
I am interested in the relationship between the local taxation collection scheme grant, which the Secretary of State mentioned, and the percentage of outstanding debt. I think that I am correct in saying that the Secretary of State said that there was a direct relationship between the two, yet I see that Fife has the 18th highest outstanding tax revenue, but receives the fifth biggest grant; West Dumbartonshire has the second highest outstanding tax revenue, but receives the eighth biggest grant; and Argyll and Bute has the fifth highest outstanding tax revenue, but receives only the 14th biggest grant. Will the Minister give us a clear idea of how the relationship is worked out?
This is a disappointing settlement from a disappointing Government. Even in their own terms, they have seemingly gone from one set of principles before 1 May to another after 1 May. I do not find their new principles particularly disappointing, but there is a credibility gap, if not a charge of absolute hypocrisy, which can be laid at Labour's door. When many of Labour's supporters consider what they are being delivered in this settlement compared with what they were promised on 1 May, there will be a good deal of disillusionment. It is only time before that leads to contempt, which is very bad for the political process and all of us who seek political stability in Scotland.
6.8 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): The debate has been useful and it has covered a fair amount of ground. I appreciate that time is pressing, but I shall try to cover as many of the points raised in the debate as I can.
I shall begin with one of the final points of the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) about local tax collection. I am pleased to say that it has improved considerably since the abolition of the poll tax.

1227
The hon. Gentleman is incorrect to say that a grant was made available last year to encourage collection of local taxes. We are in the first year of such a grant, and it has been made in a way that is broadly in line with those local authorities and those areas in which the problems have arisen. We shall be monitoring the performance of local authorities in increasing tax collection. It is one of the issues that I raise regularly with the representatives of local authorities who come to see me. I stress the importance of having a good tax collection rate.
Mr. Ancram: The Minister has told us that tax collection is improving. Will he confirm that the amount of uncollected tax has increased by £150 million in the past year?
Mr. Macdonald: I said that collection has improved vastly since the abolition of the poll tax. There are still problems with collection of council tax, and that is why we are introducing the scheme to which I have referred. No such grant was available in previous years. A new scheme has been introduced, and we hope that it will have the effect that we are seeking.
The hon. Member for Woodspring asked what criteria had changed in the distribution formula for revenue support grant from last year. He asked also whether there were changes on the basis of representations. The formula that we used for distribution continues to be, as it has always been, subject to extensive consultation with local authorities through COSLA. It would not be right for the Government to introduce changes by fiat. The distribution formula cannot be based on picking and choosing between councils. There must be a collective approach that is the result of co-operation, and that must involve COSLA. Indeed, that is the way in which we have approached the matter.
The most significant changes for the coming year include the phased implementation of the review of social work GAEs, which began in 1996. That implementation has resulted in some considerable changes. The process has been based on co-operation and consensus.
Another important change is the phasing out of the previous Government's allocation of grant-aided expenditure assessment based on the supposed savings as a result of local government reorganisation. As I have said, to go into back years to try to unpick entirely would result in losers as well as winners. I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. Member for Woodspring will agree that that would not be wise.
We are bringing to an end the mismatch support that was introduced at the time of reorganisation. We have introduced new stability arrangements to ensure that any changes that take place are progressive to enable local authorities to cope with them. Such changes will not be introduced suddenly. As I have said, all the changes to which I have referred are being introduced in co-operation with local authorities on the basis of consultation.
The hon. Member for Woodspring asked specifically about Glasgow's share of GAE. That is determined by the formula that is agreed with COSLA. Again, this is always done on the basis of consultation and co-operation. The formula has been in place for many years. The previous Government, of which the hon. Member was a member, submitted to that formula. I find it odd that he should now raise queries and questions about it.
1228
The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) wanted to know how many councils would be able to take up capping flexibility—the additional flexibility that will be introduced from 13 February. That will depend entirely on the decisions of individual councils. A majority of councils could potentially take up the option, but we believe that not all will do so. To take up the option would have an impact on council tax, and not all councils want to go down that road.
The hon. Member for Woodspring asked about the cost of servicing local authority debt and wanted to know whether the cost has increased. The servicing of debt for the coming year will be a bit lower than in the current year—£728 million as opposed to £793 million. That is the result of a change in the system of debt financing. Again, that has been introduced with the co-operation of local authorities and in response to them. Support for loan charges to pay off this debt servicing is 100 per cent. from central Government.
Comments have been made about increased costs for local authorities. I accept what has been said about landfill tax, which is something that everyone is having to bear. The revenue will go into public projects and towards the public good.
As for the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, social work GAE was increased by £24 million for community care. In addition, an extra £15 million was provided in the social work increase. That can be taken account of in terms of additional costs in implementing the Children Act.
Mrs. Ray Michie: Why has the Minister failed to recognise the cost of delivery of services to the islands in Argyll and Bute? Was it not possible for him to make an interim award pending the review of the special line of needs allowance in what is one of the most fragile economic areas throughout Scotland? Indeed, it has one of the lowest gross domestic products.
Mr. Macdonald: I understand the hon. Lady's concerns. As I have said, I cannot by fiat begin to pick and choose between local authorities in deciding which will get more money and which will have money taken from them. The special line of needs allowance must involve consultation with all affected local authorities as well as with other local authorities that are not directly affected. The money is top-sliced from the total sum that is available to local authorities. The issue is being considered with all local authorities through COSLA.
It is true that there has been a decline in housing support grant since 1979. Only three local authorities now receive the grant. However, the grant has largely been replaced by housing benefit, which has mushroomed enormously in the years since. The two factors are to be seen directly linked.
There have been several questions about the reduction in housing expenditure. I shall quickly put the figures on record. The total amount of capital investment available for housing for the current year was £222 million. For next year, £230 million will be available—there will be an increase. On top of that, we have provided an extra £50 million in the current year for new housing partnerships and the empty homes initiative. Another extra £15 million will be available for the same purposes next year.

1229
I understand that rural schools represent an important concern for many Members. The Government make special adjustments in the GAE for rural primary schools. For example, Argyll and Bute gained about £1 million as a result of the rural adjustment.
It has been an extremely useful debate, and one which has covered many important topics. If I have failed to respond to any particular questions, I shall be happy to return to them as soon as I can. I hope that at the very least—
Mr. Ancram rose—
Mr. Macdonald: It would seem that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene at a late stage in my reply.
Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I intervene because my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring and I asked about policing and whether the chief constables had asked for £28 million. Are they right in saying that, without that, they will not be able to achieve a standstill? I would be grateful for the Minister's reply.
Mr. Macdonald: Bids are always submitted. An extra £15.8 million was made available for policing this year. That represents a 2.3 per cent. increase. We believe that it is possible to meet the aims of police boards and chief constables with that increase in funding.
I hope that hon. Members will agree that although the settlement is difficult it is fair. We shall try to proceed in an honest and open way in partnership with local authorities. I am grateful that local authorities have responded positively to the settlement.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 241, Noes 29.

Division No. 174]

[6.19 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Ainger, Nick

Casale, Roger

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Cawsey, Ian

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Ashton, Joe

Chisholm, Malcolm

Atkins, Charlotte

Church, Ms Judith

Austin, John

Clapham, Michael

Banks, Tony

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Barron, Kevin

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Battle, John

Coaker, Vernon

Bayley, Hugh

Coffey, Ms Ann

Beard, Nigel

Cohen, Harry

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Coleman, Iain

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Colman, Tony

Bermingham, Gerald

Connarty, Michael

Blears, Ms Hazel

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Blunkett, Rt Hon David

Corbett, Robin

Boateng, Paul

Corbyn, Jeremy

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Corston, Ms Jean

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Cranston, Ross

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Browne, Desmond

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Buck, Ms Karen

Darvill, Keith

Burden, Richard

Davidson, Ian

Butler, Mrs Christine

Dean, Mrs Janet

Byers, Stephen

Denham, John

Caborn, Richard

Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

1230

Dismore, Andrew

McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

Dowd, Jim

McDonagh, Siobhain

Drew, David

Macdonald, Calum

Drown, Ms Julia

McDonnell, John

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

McFall, John

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Edwards, Huw

McIsaac, Shona

Ennis, Jeff

Mackinlay, Andrew

Fatchett, Derek

McNulty, Tony

Field, Rt Hon Frank

MacShane, Denis

Fisher, Mark

Mactaggart, Fiona

Fitzpatrick, Jim

McWalter, Tony

Follett, Barbara

McWilliam, John

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Marek, Dr John

Foulkes, George

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Fyfe, Maria

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Gardiner, Barry

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Gerrard, Neil

Martlew, Eric

Gibson, Dr Ian

Maxton, John

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Merron, Gillian

Godman, Norman A

Michael, Alun

Goggins, Paul

Milburn, Alan

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Miller, Andrew

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Mitchell, Austin

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Moffatt, Laura

Grocott, Bruce

Moran, Ms Margaret

Grogan, John

Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

Hain, Peter

Morley, Elliot

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Hanson, David

Mudie, George

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Mullin, Chris

Healey, John

Norris, Dan

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Heppell, John

Olner, Bill

Hesford, Stephen

O'Neill, Martin

Hill, Keith

Palmer, Dr Nick

Hinchliffe, David

Pearson, Ian

Hoon, Geoffrey

Pendry, Tom

Hopkins, Kelvin

Perham, Ms Linda

Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

Pike, Peter L

Howells, Dr Kim

Pollard, Kerry

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Pope, Greg

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Pound, Stephen

Hurst, Alan

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Hutton, John

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Illsley, Eric

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Purchase, Ken

Jenkins, Brian

Radice, Giles

Johnson, Miss Melanie

Rammell, Bill

(Welwyn Hatfield)

Raynsford, Nick

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Jones, Ms Jenny

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

(Wolverh'ton SW)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Rooker, Jeff

Jowell, Ms Tessa

Rooney, Terry

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Kemp, Fraser

Roy, Frank

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Ruddock, Ms Joan

Kilfoyle, Peter

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Ryan, Ms Joan

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Salter, Martin

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Sawford, Phil

Lawrence, Ms Jackie

Sedgemore, Brian

Lepper, David

Sheerman, Barry

Leslie, Christopher

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Levitt, Tom

Shipley, Ms Debra

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Short, Rt Hon Clare

Linton, Martin

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Livingstone, Ken

Skinner, Dennis

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Lock, David

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Love, Andrew

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

McAllion, John

Snape, Peter

McAvoy, Thomas

Soley, Clive

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Spellar, John

1231

Squire, Ms Rachel

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Vaz, Keith

Stevenson, George

Vis, Dr Rudi

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Walley, Ms Joan

Stoate, Dr Howard

Ward, Ms Claire

Stringer, Graham

Wareing, Robert N

Stuart, Ms Gisela

White, Brian

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

Wicks, Malcolm

(Dewsbury)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

(Swansea W)

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Woolas, Phil

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Timms, Stephen

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Tipping, Paddy

Wyatt, Derek

Todd, Mark

Touhig, Don

Tellers for the Ayes:

Trickett, Jon

Mr. Clive Betts and Mr. David Jamieson.

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

NOES

Allan, Richard

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Moore, Michael

Baker, Norman

Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

Ballard, Mrs Jackie

Oaten, Mark

Brake, Tom

Öpik, Lembit

Brand, Dr Peter

Rendel, David

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Burnett, John

Salmond, Alex

Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)

Burstow, Paul

Stunell, Andrew

Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

Swinney, John

Chidgey, David

Wallace, James

Cotter, Brian

Willis, Phil

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Keetch, Paul

Tellers for the Noes:

Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

Mr. Donald Gorrie and Mr. Andrew Welsh.

Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 1998, dated 4th February 1998, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.
Resolved,
That the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1998, dated 4th February 1998, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.
Resolved,
That the Special Grant Report (98/1) (Scotland): Local Taxation Collection Grant Scheme 1997–99 (HC 530), which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.
Resolved,
That the Special Grant Report (98/2) (Scotland): Grant in Aid of Local Authority Revenue Costs and Reinstatement Works at Dunblane Cemetery Resulting from the Dunblane Tragedy (HC 531), which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.—[Mr. Pope.]

Local Government Finance (Scotland)

  HOUSING (SCOTLAND)
  Resolved,
  That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Variation Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.—[Mr. Pope.]
  Mr. Wallace: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will recall that when the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), was replying to the debate, he said that he would say how the official Opposition would vote. In fact, they ignored the usual convention of one's vote following one's voice. Inasmuch as the official Opposition seem incapable of giving such opposition in Scottish debates, would it not be more appropriate if my hon. Friends and I occupied the Opposition Front Bench in future Scottish debates?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): The hon. Gentleman is experienced enough to know that that is not a point of order. Whether or not the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) was asked to do so, to my hearing no such comment was made.

  TRADE AND INDUSTRY COMMITTEE
  6.32 pm
  Mr. John McWilliam: I beg to move,
  That Mr. Alan Johnson be discharged from the Trade and Industry Committee and Mr. Lindsay Hoyle be added to the Committee.
  We can also discuss the motion relating to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
  In view of the late hour, and not wishing to detain the House, I can tell hon. Members that the motions are agreed by all parties on the Committee of Selection.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Alan Johnson be discharged from the Trade and Industry Committee and Mr. Lindsay Hoyle be added to the Committee.

  NORTHERN IRELAND AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That Ms Margaret Moran be discharged from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and Mr. Stephen Hesford be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Mc William, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Thames Riverside Development
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]
6.33 pm
Mr. Tony Colman: I assure the House that I do not intend to speak for the next three and a half hours, as I understand that it would be within the rules of the House to do. However, if the subject for debate were the Queen Mary's hospital, a major issue in my constituency, I should do so. I hope that Madam Speaker will allow an Adjournment debate on that subject at an early date.
This is also not a debate about the millennium dome. I support the development of that dome, the structure and the exhibition—as, I believe, do most UK residents—as it is needed to provide for all of us a clear picture of where we have come from and a vision of the country and the world that we can become. It is that sense of vision that is missing from so much of the riverside development on the River Thames.
I do not intend to cover all 127 miles of the River Thames, but I understand that my hon. Friends the Members for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and for Battersea (Mr. Linton) will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with regard to their constituencies. I shall primarily be talking about my own constituency.
Putney has had two major areas of riverside development under planning applications again—I say "again" because they come again and again—in the past six months. The first is what I call the Putney church area, known for the start of the boat race and covering three different land holdings and three different proposals—Brewhouse street, a hotel, restaurant and luxury flat development, turned down by the council and now on appeal to the Minister; the ICL tower, again proposed for restaurants and luxury flats; and the Castle public house which, surprise, surprise, involves further proposals for hotels, luxury flats and a restaurant. They are all in a tiny area and, if built, will tower above Deodar road and neighbouring streets and Putney church. There is no co-ordinated approach. The council is trying to get the three landowners to work together.
The second area is the Wandle delta, part of which is a Shell site abutting the Thames, the planning application for which was called in by the Minister with an inquiry date next June. Wandsworth council has today published an excellent urban design framework for the Wandle delta, which I hope will ensure that all the land between the Arndale centre and the Thames will be dealt with in a co-ordinated way. It is extraordinary that that vision has come six months after the planners decided that they wished to go ahead with the Shell site. The new document which has come forward has a much more co-ordinated and sustainable vision.
From that vision will come a new riverside quarter for London with a range of activities, including the Renue centre for renewable energy, which was the subject of a successful millennium bid, backed by Wandsworth and Merton councils. The councils also announced that new planning guidance will be coming out for the Putney church area.
Developers obviously try it on. Applications are made for inappropriately high, bulky and ugly buildings. Always there seems to be the same mix of expensive flats, restaurants and hotels built hard up to the river with little or no access for the public.
1234
Both the Putney church area and the Wandle delta area have been the subject of intense lobbying from local amenity groups, to which I have listened. They include the Putney society, the Deodar road residents association, the Wandsworth society and many others. I hope that, after those battles, coherent, sustainable and acceptable plans can be agreed. As the Minister has a significant role in the planning applications, I accept that he may not wish to comment on them in any detail, so I intend to deal with the general need for riverside development on the River Thames.
Why are those battles needed? In February 1997, the previous Government issued RPG 2B—strategic planning guidance for the River Thames. It was welcomed on all sides. Among other objectives for the built environment was the need to
"secure a special quality for all new development on the river and riverside, appropriate"—
that is important—
"to its context and to improve the existing Townscape."
I strongly agree with that.
What has gone wrong? I do not believe that prime responsibility for planning applications should be taken away from local councils—how could I, as a former council leader? Wandsworth council has made strange decisions over the years and I expect that my hon. Friends will point those out. It is for local electors to decide whom they want to take those decisions and, on 7 May, I expect a Labour council to be elected in Wandsworth, which will better understand the needs of local people than the current council has in recent years.
Guidance is needed for the planning framework. Will the Minister therefore respond to the following points? First, may we have a reconstituted Thames working party now, to ensure that the Thames guidance is carried through with all the interests involved? The Greater London Authority, which I very much welcome, will be able to lead on that when it is constituted in 2000, but we cannot wait two years and allow inappropriate development in the meantime. We need to implement the guidance now.
Secondly, can the guidance be addressed to all the key players? At present, it is addressed only to councils, whereas it should be addressed to all the arms of government, the Port of London Authority, private sector interests, the River Thames Society and all the organisations involved with the river, in terms of what happens both on it and on its banks.
Thirdly, can we push for good design? We need a proactive riverside landscape appraisal, particularly from Hammersmith to Tower Bridge, to complement the existing landscape appraisal for the more open area upstream in Richmond. I hear that there are problems upstream, such as the developments proposed by Thames Water for the land opposite Hampton Court.
Fourthly, may we have a commitment to river transport? The guidance promotes that, but it is not in the borough's powers to provide piers or services. The Thames 2000 initiative, led by Judith Mayhew and incorporating London Transport's London River Services Ltd. is excellent, and I commend it to the House. However, the furthest new pier planned upstream is at Millbank, which is excellent for the Government Office for London and, dare I say, for the Labour party, but not

1235
much use for residents upstream. We want piers and services all the way up, specifically at Putney church and the Wandle delta.
Fifthly, as the first London Agenda 21 sub-region, may we have a new unitary development plan based on sustainable development along the River Thames? I strongly commend to the House the new guidance on sustainable development. This would be an excellent area in which to launch it.
In the past 15 years, the Coin street development has shown that it is possible, in the heart of London and on some of the most expensive land in London, to have parks, social housing, workshops, playgrounds and, for those who want it, a Harvey Nichols restaurant at the top of the Oxo tower. However, too much of the Thames waterfront is now planned with a Harvey Nichols clientele in mind. Let us hope that future generations of Londoners will praise us for our foresight in getting it right for all Londoners.
6.42 pm
Mr. Martin Linton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) for raising the issue of development along the River Thames. I endorse everything that he said about the London borough of Wandsworth. As his neighbour, I can provide some even more dramatic examples of strange planning decisions as we move downstream from the Shell site to my constituency of Battersea.
On paper, Wandsworth has some enlightened policies for the riverside. It has height guidelines of six storeys from Wandsworth bridge to Battersea bridge; nine storeys from Battersea bridge to Albert bridge; and seven storeys as far as Vauxhall. The problem is that, in practice, Wandsworth council ignores its own guidelines. It supported an application from Richard Rogers to build a 20-storey block of flats just a few yards from Battersea's beautiful Georgian parish church, St. Mary's. It was called in, and later approved, by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) when he was Secretary of State for the Environment.
Wandsworth council now has an application from Sir Norman Foster to build a 20-storey block between Battersea and Albert bridges, where the guideline height is only nine stories. The developer is Li Ka-shing, who contributed generously to the Conservative party's election war chest. We should be told whether any of that money found its way to the Conservative party in Wandsworth. Wandsworth council is about to receive another application from Sir Norman Foster for a development on Gargoyle wharf—better known as the Guinness site and the site of the famous "Land is Ours" occupation—for a 30-storey block where the guideline height is only six storeys.
I have no objection, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Putney has none, to having two of the best-known architects in Britain engaged in a competition to see who can design the best or the most beautiful building for the Battersea riverside. However, that competition should be limited to the design of the building and should not be a competition to see who can build the highest building. Battersea is not the city centre, so it would be completely out of place to have 20 or 30-storey buildings along our riverside, just as it would be further upstream in Putney.
1236
The architectural press make it sound as though I am against modern architecture for the sake of it. I am making a point not about styles of architecture but about the height of buildings, their density and the type of housing proposed. The stretch of river between the Albert and Battersea bridges is opposite one of the most elegant riversides in London on the Chelsea side, and we should seek a riverside policy that complements rather than dwarfs the other side.
Battersea needs no more landmarks. It already has one of the biggest in the country—Battersea power station—and Wandsworth council has made a big enough mess of that over the years. It has been lying idle for more than 10 years, but building will finally get under way this year.
We need three policies. First, we need a consistent approach to the riverside, all the way from Putney downstream. Secondly, we need a mixture of housing tenure. Many of the sites that are becoming vacant along the riverside are big enough to accommodate both riverside housing and affordable housing behind it. This is an excellent opportunity. The Government are committed to the principle of affordable housing on large sites and Wandsworth council is committed to it on paper. We must ensure that those opportunities are used because Battersea has a pressing need for affordable housing. Many sons and daughters of people who have lived there for generations are being forced to move out because of the lack of affordable housing.
Thirdly, we need public access to the riverside. For 100 years, the people of Battersea and Putney have lived behind an industrial riverside frontage, which used to provide jobs but most of which has now become redundant. It is giving way to residential development, which provides an opportunity, for the first time in many generations, to give the people of Battersea access to their riverside.
The imaginative treatment of those developments can ensure not only that there is good housing along the riverside but that the people who live behind that housing can enjoy the river, not only through riverside walkways but through parks and open spaces, which can complement imaginative housing developments. Coin street is an example of imaginative use of the riverside to help both local residents and the wider public.
On paper, Wandsworth council is committed to all those principles—public access to the riverside, affordable housing, and height and density guidelines—but in practice it does not implement its guidelines. If it fails to implement its guidelines in future, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will do that.
6.48 pm
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) for initiating the debate, and associate myself with what he and my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) said about the preciousness of our River Thames. I hope that, on some occasion during the current Parliament, we will be able to focus on the Thames in more detail, involving all hon. Members with riparian interests—perhaps on a Wednesday morning. The narrow issue raised by the debate, however—the development of the riverside frontage—allows me to make some important comments about my part of the river.

1237
The borough of Thurrock, which I represent along with my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith), has some 30 km of river frontage. Our local authority area has more tidal Thames frontage than any other. I therefore feel that I have a special responsibility for bringing up a couple of issues that are of immediate interest to those of us who represent areas on the eastern stretch of the Thames—the estuary.
Let me say in passing that there are proposals for substantial development on Rainham marshes. I do not want to trespass—in that Rainham marshes are in the constituencies of other hon. Members—but I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to assure me that the Department is fully cognisant of the sensitive nature of that area, which incorporates sites of special scientific interest. I trust that, in respect of the current proposals—which are being discussed—and future proposals, the Department will be extra sensitive and consider calling in any proposals that are pursued. Ultimately, what happens should be determined by the Minister.
I do not oppose any developments; I am merely saying that the matter has a regional significance, on which those of us who are interested in the Thames estuary feel entitled to comment. Moreover, I believe that my borough has one of the largest number of residential planning permissions in the south-east that have yet to be activated. There are numerous opportunities for residential development along and near to the river in Thurrock alone. That should be borne in mind both in strategic planning for the region and in consideration of whether a trespass on to heritage frontage on other parts of the Thames—or, indeed, on to sites of special scientific interest—should take place. There are enormous opportunities for important residential and industrial development in my area alone.
The matter that really prompted me to speak, however, is of vital and immediate importance. Following my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister's announcement about the difficulties of London and Continental—the company charged by Parliament with developing the channel tunnel rail link—a problem has arisen in my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), with whom I am collaborating, about blighted properties along the river frontage.
I want the link to be constructed. It is desperately needed for United Kingdom Ltd and all the regions of England. It will cross the Thames in my constituency. Like a bootlace, it runs under the river to the east of the Queen Elizabeth II bridge. It will go through the piers of the bridge in its westward approach to London, and at West Thurrock and Purfleet it will carve through a number of important small and medium businesses. That problem may be reflected elsewhere on the route, but I want to concentrate on these businesses for the moment.
The owners of the businesses were already undergoing a major crisis before the Deputy Prime Minister's announcement. They had built their businesses up; many hundreds of my constituents are employed in them. Now, there are job losses. Orders are being cancelled and orders that would otherwise have been made are not being made because London and Continental has not fulfilled the spirit—if not the letter—of its obligations to agree a strategy for the vacation of the properties. That should include fair compensation in response to claims, the giving of dates for entry and staged payments to allow parallel working at the time of relocation.
1238
As I said, the problem existed before the Deputy Prime Minister's announcement but, as a consequence, it has been compounded. I have seen managers and owners of companies almost in tears at their plight. I realise that my hon. Friend the Minister cannot respond specifically this evening, but I appeal to him to alert the Deputy Prime Minister to the problem and to tell him that the hon. Member for Ashford and I are writing to ask him for an urgent meeting with representatives of the companies. We want the Department to deal with the matter before the Deputy Prime Minister tells the House of his intentions in regard to the rail link.
My hon. Friend will recall that, during the last Parliament, quite properly, he emphasised to me—and to other hon. Members—the importance of regeneration in connection with the millennium project in and around Greenwich. I hope that he is not offended by my reminding him of that. Let me make it clear to him that I am facing the unemployment of not a handful, but hundreds, along my stretch of the Thames. I cannot overstate the importance of immediate intervention by the Minister.
The Department has been tardy in responding to the problems of some of the firms that have been disadvantaged. I hope that my hon. Friend will have an early opportunity to talk to Mr. P. Lancaster of his Department, who appears to have been unable to reply to some of the letters sent to him by distressed companies in Kent and Thurrock.
I think that we take the precious nature of the Thames for granted—both the nature conservation and scientific aspect, especially in the estuary area, and the rich heritage that lies along its banks in London. My hon. Friends are right to take this opportunity to make it clear that they want to pursue the issue—legitimately—during the forthcoming London borough elections and that there are Members of Parliament who wish to defend the Thames.
One of the pities of this Parliament is the absence of Nigel Spearing, a distinguished former hon. Member who took a particular interest in the Thames. He did not stand at the last general election, but I know that he would have made a major contribution to this evening's debate. We miss him, and I hope that some good people may think that he should be a candidate for any new senate of Parliament, if and when it is established. In the meantime, perhaps he should be elevated to another place.
6.58 pm
Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) on securing this debate. I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), particularly those on my predecessor, Mr. Nigel Spearing. I also support my hon. Friend's comments about the significance of the completion of the channel tunnel rail link. It is important not just to north Kent and Essex, or to London and east London, but to the rest of the United Kingdom. Hon. Members may wish to know that, tomorrow, there is to be a seminar in Birmingham on faster tracks to Europe for the regions of the UK, which supports the campaign for the successful completion of the channel tunnel rail link.
I should like to raise two points: first, river transport, which was one of the subjects of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney and, secondly, riverside

1239
development adjacent to Tower bridge at Hermitage wharf. I wish to bring to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister the role of a constituent of mine, Mr. Peter Wade, who has been associated with the river all his life. He is an ex-docker and a senior employee at Canary wharf. In one capacity or another, he has been involved in every attempt to develop a river bus service over recent years. As we all know, all those attempts have failed.
Mr. Wade is somewhat sceptical about the potential success of the new river bus services that are about to be initiated. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend offered reassurance by way of information on the analysis that has been conducted and on the potential for the new services, particularly with the arrival of the millennium dome, the increase in tourism in east London, the increased capacity and governmental support to ensure that the new services will be a success.
I understand that the only existing service, which runs between London bridge and Canary wharf, is about to close through lack of support but, obviously, we are moving into a new era with the development of tourism, the millennium dome and docklands becoming the new focus for London. With the support that the Government are committing to river services, I hope that, this time, they will not fail.
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney asked about piers in his part of west of London and beyond; perhaps I may ask my hon. Friend Minister to comment on the prospect of additional piers beyond Canary wharf on the north side of the river, particularly at the new Barrier park, which is being constructed on river banks in Newham, close to the Thames barrier.
The second issue that I wish to raise is the campaign that goes under the title Civilians Remembered. I congratulate the main organiser, Miss Marianne Fredericks, a resident of Wapping, Tower Hamlets and my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) on their efforts, building on those of the previous Members of Parliament for the area one of my other predecessors, Ms Mildred Gordon, and the right hon. Peter Shore. They have attempted to create a memorial to the civilian dead of the UK from the second world war.
This is not a backward-looking attempt to view history with some negativism, but an attempt to build on new European relations and European partnerships and to say that we must learn the lessons of history and build for the future. The campaign has been centred on transforming east London's last undeveloped riverside site, close to central London on Hermitage wharf, into a memorial park for future generations to remember the horrors of war and to ensure that we never arrive at that situation again. In Europe, we have, I hope, learnt those lessons and will not be faced with such an horrendous prospect again.
The site was sold to Berkeley Homes for development. Under the previous Administration, there was a public inquiry and the previous Secretary of State for the Environment made an announcement on the subject. It would be wholly unfair for Berkeley Homes to be punished as a result of any changes in Government policy, but it is strongly felt in east London that if the nation can afford to spend some £13 million on the Churchill papers, which, with the greatest respect, very few people will
1240
have the opportunity to see and enjoy, spending between £5 million and £10 million on a piece of land to create a memorial to the 60,000 UK civilians who lost their lives during the second world war—half them in London and half of those in east London—would be a fitting tribute and a lasting memorial. It would be close to tourism centres in east London, benefit future generations of Londoners and add to the capital's attractions in demonstrating the history of recent generations.
I appeal to my hon. Friend to convey to our right hon. and hon. Friends the strength of feeling in east London that time is slipping away. Berkeley Homes is a company that works under normal financial pressures. It is sensitive to the feelings of east Londoners, but it is obviously unable to make a gift of the site to the nation. With the Government demonstrating obligations to east London in attacking poverty, and with the symbolism of docklands and of the dome, £5 million does not seem a great price to pay to demonstrate that we cherish and respect our history and civilians' contribution during the second world war.
7.5 pm
Mr. Richard Ottaway: Perhaps I may start with an apology to the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) for being absent for the first few minutes of his debate; the slightly early Adjournment caught me out when I was over the road.
I share some of Labour Members' more general views about the importance of the river and quality development on it, and the need to use the river as an essential communication link through the heart of the capital. If the proposals for the dome and the planned river improvements to get passengers to it get through, that will go a long way towards achieving that objective, and the aims and ambitions of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) will, to a certain degree, be realised.
I shall comment on two of the developments that have been mentioned. The first is the Coin street development. I remind Labour Members that that was developed under a Conservative Government in the teeth of opposition from the local Labour authority. Although they are right to pray it in aid as a development that should be copied, portraying it as a great socialist achievement would be slightly misleading.
Mr. Colman: The hon. Gentleman has perhaps a slightly narrow view of history. It was the Greater London council, then Labour controlled, which felt strongly that land on the riverside should be available for the sort of mixed development, social housing and parks that I have described as a way of forward. It was the Labour GLC, which was so maligned by Conservative Members, that enabled the Coin street development to go forward.
Mr. Ottaway: I do not quarrel with that. Anyone who spends time talking to Ian Tuckett, the manager of the Coin street development, will realise that. All the GLC gave was the site, and that was in the teeth of opposition. All the development—every planning application that was made—was resisted by Labour authorities and it took Conservative Secretaries of State to push it through. I do not want to make a political point about it, other than to say I think that it is folly to portray the development as something that will help the Labour party's cause.

1241
Battersea power station is something that the Labour party should be proud of. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport was at the launch party for the project. It will create some 8,000 jobs. There will be several residential sites there. It is proceeding without the expenditure of a penny of public money and detailed planning permission will be sought in June. No doubt the Government will have something to say about it.
I have four general observations about the other projects that may have been mentioned in my absence. I have in mind the Brewhouse street development; the Shell site, Point Pleasant; Gargoyle wharf, the former Guinness site; the Montevetro building and Albion wharf. My first observation is on density. They are all high-density developments because of the nature of riverside development, the scale of the river and mixed uses on site. They are also an inevitable consequence of the Government's moves to maximise residential development on brown-field sites.
Mr. Colman: I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman supports the proposed densities. They are two, three and four times the density that is set out in Wandsworth borough council's unitary development plan. How could Wandsworth council's planning committee suddenly decide to approve those plans?
Mr. Ottaway: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not listening. I said that the density is due to the nature of a riverside development and to the objective of maximising brown-field sites. The hon. Gentleman should explain why Labour did not oppose the Montevetro high-density site.
Mr. Linton: The Montevetro application was called in by the previous Secretary of State and was approved with the support of the majority party on Wandsworth council. At the public inquiry, Labour opposed the plans. We said that it would set a bad precedent for future riverside development. That is proving to be the case.
Mr. Ottaway: I am speaking on the basis of advice that was given to me in anticipation of the debate. I understand that the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton), who was very vocal on Albion wharf, made no representations at all about the Montevetro building. I am happy to give way to him if he wishes to correct the record.
Mr. Linton: One of my council colleagues spoke at the public inquiry. At the time I was not a member of the local authority and did not have comparable standing to give evidence.
Mr. Ottaway: The record is now straight: the hon. Gentleman did not object to the development.
Design is a subjective matter. The Putney scheme was thrown out largely because everyone agreed that it was unimaginative. The Battersea schemes by Rogers and Foster give rise to competing claims. In general, the involvement of the big names must be good for the area. The quality of the schemes compares favourably with the nondescript canyon effect that is caused by the new blocks on the Fulham side around Wandsworth bridge. The so-called canyon effect is even worse in the docklands stretch.
1242
My third point relates to social housing. It seems that Labour's enthusiasm for social housing in Wandsworth is rather muted. It is unwilling to risk upsetting neighbours to such developments who will resist new council estates on their doorsteps. The council's position is that it has no need to force developers to put social housing on named individual sites when across the borough some 40 per cent. of all new homes over the past 10 years have been affordable. Putting shackles on developers can lead to blight and to sites remaining undeveloped.
My fourth point relates to vision. It is easy to say that the sites are being developed in isolation, but each will have been the subject of detailed planning briefs that were approved only after extensive local consultation. In each case the developer was working to produce a viable scheme that meets the brief as far as possible. I have tried to make the point that there are two sides to every argument and that, by and large, the people of Wandsworth are going along with the schemes. It ill behoves the Labour party to try to make too much political mileage out of this issue in the run-up to the London borough elections, which I am sure is its objective.
7.13 pm
The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I welcome this timely opportunity to discuss some important issues on development along the Thames. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) on securing the debate and on his prescience in securing it at a time that made it possible for debate to continue beyond the normal 30 minutes. Despite his fairly short time in the House, he obviously has a well-developed sense of the parliamentary timetable.
There were also interesting contributions by my hon. Friends the Members for Battersea (Mr. Linton), for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) and by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway).
Propriety prevents me from commenting specifically on individual planning cases. Some of the proposed developments that have been mentioned are before the Secretary of State for decision or could be called in for his decision or referred to him on appeal. For that reason, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on them. I shall confine my response to matters of general policy and principles.
Nevertheless, I hope that I can reassure hon. Members that each case will be considered on its merits against those principles—in particular the principles that are set down in the Secretary of State's strategic planning guidance for the Thames. It was issued in February last year and sets the planning policy framework against which boroughs are to draw up their unitary development plans and exercise their development control functions.
The fact that it became necessary to issue such guidance and the concerns that generated this debate are in many ways an encouraging sign. All along the Thames, from Brentford and Battersea down to Beckton and Erith, and further down river to Thurrock and beyond, land and buildings that have lain derelict and unused for decades are being brought back into use. London is beginning to rediscover the Thames. A once-neglected asset is now assuming a key role at the heart of the capital's regeneration. People are increasingly showing that they want to live, work and play along the banks of the river, although, not long ago, they turned their backs on it.

1243
The renewed interest in the Thames creates potential conflicts. The river is valued as an open space running through the heart of London and as an important ecological resource. It is a place of recreation—for walking, sight-seeing and quiet enjoyment as well as for some water-based activities. It is also an important and still under-utilised transport artery for goods and people, and it is becoming an increasingly attractive setting for new homes, offices, hotels and places of entertainment. All those uses are important and all have their place, but sometimes, inevitably, they are not mutually compatible. The challenge for the planning system and for those who operate it is to reconcile the conflicts in ways that best meet Londoners' needs and aspirations.
We have heard particular concerns about the scale and quality of some new development proposals, especially for housing. I have in mind the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Putney and for Battersea. I reiterate what the Government's strategic planning guidance for the Thames says on those points. For the Thames policy area, which roughly equates to the whole of the riverside within London, the guidance recognises the particular importance and sensitivity of Thameside locations. A commitment to good design is essential, and achieving a special quality of development should be the aim of all concerned.
The guidance clearly states that the appearance of new development and its relationship to its surroundings are important planning considerations. It requires developers to take careful account of the local context and pay particular attention to quality and urban design, and demonstrate that they have done so—by, among other means, the preparation of design statements. They should consult widely with local communities on both sides of the river, with amenity groups and with expert bodies such as the London Planning Advisory Committee, English Heritage and the Royal Fine Arts Commission. One cannot, of course, be over-prescriptive, especially for a river whose character changes so quickly and so radically from stretch to stretch. That is why so much of the emphasis in the guidance is on context and on the relationship of the buildings and developments to their surroundings.
The guidance lays down some specific guidelines in certain areas. Development should address the river as a frontage and should establish and reflect a relationship with the river itself. Views and access to the river should be opened up. Developments should not be so dense that they close off any opportunity for access to the river for people living behind the immediate river area. Scale, height, density and materials should all be appropriate to the local context, and close attention should be paid to landscaping, open spaces, street furniture and lighting.
The guidance should not become a recipe for blandness or uniformity. It recognises that there is a place for challenging designs and for variations in scale and height. It acknowledges that the emphasis on context may be less appropriate in areas that are recognised as rundown and in need of improvement and where there are plans for the upgrading of the local environment. Dramatic visual statements and landmark buildings may be appropriate in exceptional cases, but should be of the highest quality.
1244
An excellent example of the new emphasis on quality and of the potential for bringing life back to a long-neglected riverside locations is the new millennium village in my constituency of Greenwich. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced yesterday the outcome of the competition for the exciting new urban village to be built on the site, and he unveiled the ambitious and highly innovative proposals from the winning consortium, the Greenwich millennium team. Such schemes are contributing to the renaissance of the Thames, which in turn is an important part of the renaissance of London itself. Developments that make provision for new houses providing for a range of tenures, including affordable housing, new jobs and a high-quality urban environment, will increasingly attract people back to the river and bring people back to the heart of our capital.
In some cases, relatively high densities may be appropriate. Research by my Department has shown that that can be achieved through careful design without the loss of amenity, especially where there is good access to public transport. The re-use of previously developed land in that way can secure the dual benefit of urban regeneration and protection of the countryside. However—I must stress this—it is vital to protect amenity and environmental quality, not only for the sake of local communities but for London's long-term future.
Over-exploitation of the current commercial interest in development along the river would amount to killing the goose that may lay the golden egg. Sustainable development must have regard to environmental quality, to future needs and to the broad range of functions that the river serves for Londoners. It must respect the needs of all sections of the community, including those looking for affordable housing, rather than simply catering for those with high incomes who can afford and are looking for luxury pieds-a-terre.
Restoring vitality to the riverside is a key objective. Uses should contribute to making the riverside an attractive, interesting and safe environment, with public uses predominating on the lower floors. Development that neither contributes to, nor is appropriate for, a riverside location—I am thinking particularly of car parking—is to be discouraged. Public access should be protected and enhanced. The creation of pedestrian routes, including new sections of the river walk, public squares and open spaces should be a feature of all new development wherever possible. New opportunities for water-based transport and recreational facilities should also be created where appropriate, including piers, moorings and access points.
In that connection—at least three of the hon. Members who contributed to the debate mentioned this—I am pleased to note that a number of recent development proposals have incorporated new passenger piers. As hon. Members may be aware, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister launched an initiative aimed at bringing passenger transport back to the Thames by the year 2000.
Capitalising on the opportunities offered by the millennium experience at Greenwich, the aim is to establish a lasting legacy of new piers and river bus services which will realise the potential contribution the Thames can make to taking traffic off London's streets. A new company, London River Services, has been set up by London Transport to take that forward. I hope that we will be in a position to make an announcement on the

1245
detailed arrangements for that in the reasonably near future. I hope also that as many new developments as possible can be linked into the new services through the provision of new or refurbished piers.
Mr. Colman: Will my hon. Friend comment on the need to have piers and services upstream from Millbank? It seems absurd that the idea should exclude the possibility of having piers upstream from Millbank at Battersea and Fulham.
Mr. Raynsford: That is a perfectly valid point, which my hon. Friend made in his speech. I was about to come to that. He is rightly concerned about the river upstream from Westminster and Millbank.
It is our objective to achieve a river bus service that provides the greatest possible coverage, compatible with commercial viability in the long term. Clearly, there are limitations. It would be inappropriate to try to run a service that extended over too large an area and which simply could not meet the costs of maintenance. Equally, a service that is too narrowly restricted to the central areas would fail to achieve the potential for providing a river bus service that genuinely provides opportunities for people from many parts of London to use this grossly under-used artery. We have to take into account those considerations. I am conscious of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney, and we will pay attention to them before reaching decisions.
The Government's strategic planning guidance cannot in itself guarantee appropriate and high quality development along the river. Much of the onus is on the local planning authorities, to which that guidance is addressed, to adopt appropriate policies and to reflect them in their unitary development plans and their everyday planning decisions. Some riparian boroughs are making good progress in adapting their policies to the new guidance and to the increasingly pressing need to balance competing pressures along the river. Others have been slower to do so. I should like to use this opportunity to urge all riparian boroughs that have not yet done so to review their planning policies with respect to the river and, where necessary, bring them into line with the strategic guidance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney asked about enforcement of the guidance. The Secretary of State will be mindful of that when dealing with any matters that come to him on appeal or which might be felt appropriate for call-in. That will be very much in the mind of my right hon. Friend when considering matters of more than local significance in relation to his planning powers.
Post-2000, we expect to have a new strategic authority in place with a mayor and assembly. We would expect the mayor to be taking an important initiative in relation to the overall planning framework that will be operating within the London area. I hope to say more about that when we launch the White Paper setting out the Government's proposals on that matter.
The strategic guidance, which is already in place and to which we wish to see all authorities adhere, asks authorities to prepare detailed appraisals of their stretches of the river, where appropriate in collaboration with neighbouring boroughs, and to produce design briefs for important development sites.
My hon. Friend asked why the guidance was not addressed to other key players. The point is that it is addressed to the planning authorities because it is their
1246
responsibility to translate it into unitary development plans. Every other player who is interested in development has a natural interest in understanding the planning framework. I should make it clear that planning guidance is not narrowly addressed to the local authorities, but is addressed to all those with an interest in the Thames and how it is developed.
The advent of the new Greater London authority will give added impetus to the development of a strategic approach to the Thames. The White Paper that we shall issue next month will set out a role for the new authority in strategic planning in the capital. I am certain that the further development of policies to protect and enhance one of London's most important strategic assets will be high on the list of priorities of any new mayor.
My hon. Friend mentioned sustainable development. As he acknowledged, the Government have recently issued a consultation paper on the principles of sustainable development. We aim to ensure that they underpin planning policies for the Thames and more widely. The new mayor for London will doubtless consider the principles of strategic and sustainable development as part of his remit.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock mentioned the channel tunnel rail link and the properties in his constituency that may be blighted. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made it clear in his recent statement to the House that, during the 30-day period, London and Continental Railways has the option to come forward with alternative proposals to carry forward its scheme. It would be inappropriate to make a statement during that time about any alternative option. I assure my hon. Friend that the Deputy Prime Minister is giving the most urgent attention to that very important issue. I am sure that he will read my hon. Friend's comments with care.
Mr. Mackinlay: I welcome what my hon. Friend has said. I am anxious that he should reassure us that there will be a focus in the Department not just on whether London and Continental can proceed with the scheme or other options should be examined, but on the immediate need—whether LCR, the Government or another company pick up the project—for some alleviation of the crisis that is faced by the companies that have suffered because of LCR's tardy approach before it went to see the Prime Minister. They have almost been teased by London and Continental Railways. It is demonstrably unfair. Some assessment of their problems is necessary, whatever the outcome of the 30-day period.
Mr. Raynsford: Until the 30-day period is over, it would be inappropriate for me or any other Minister to make a specific comment on the London and Continental scheme. However, I stress to my hon. Friend that one of the purposes of the integration of transport with the environment in the new Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is to ensure a wider policy-making framework that takes heed of the issues that he has rightly alluded to—the impact of transport schemes on the environment, on businesses and on the lives of individuals. That is almost always in our minds.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town mentioned the important campaign to honour the civilians from London and other parts of Britain who lost

1247
their lives during the last war, particularly the victims of the blitz. That campaign has aroused extensive sympathy among the people of London and elsewhere in Britain. I am afraid that I cannot comment on specific proposals for the site of a memorial or on the alternative proposal that has been put forward by the developer of the site that my hon. Friend mentioned. That is currently subject to a view from the Department. It would be inappropriate for me to make any additional comment.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South referred to the Coin street site, with which I am familiar. I gave evidence on behalf of the Coin street action group in the early stages of the campaign to ensure that the site was available for community uses rather than simply being allocated for a bland and extensive commercial development, as was originally proposed. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea rightly said that the Greater London council supported the fight. It made the land available for the development and provided material and moral support to enable the campaign to proceed.
Having given evidence at two public inquiries to ensure that the scheme that has emerged should proceed, I am delighted about the successful outcome. I pay tribute to the foresight of the former GLC, the energy of the local community and the many individuals who made up that group, including Ian Tackett, to whom the hon. Member for Croydon, South referred. We can all learn lessons from that example of a community proving that it can achieve its objectives against what
1248
initially appeared to be impossible odds. It is an inspiring case study from which many people will gain encouragement and learn lessons about how to ensure that development responds to the needs of communities and creates an environment of which all sections of the community can feel proud.
The hon. Gentleman made several observations about matters relating to the height and density of developments, design and the importance of social housing. The Government are mindful of those issues and want to ensure that, in our approach to planning decisions relating to the Thames—our capital city's greatest natural asset—we always bear in mind the fact that we are custodians of a long and rich heritage and that the effects of our decisions will last for many generations. It is vital that we get those decisions right. That is why the Government are committed to a planning framework that puts the emphasis on quality, design and accessibility, ensuring that we bring vitality back to the River Thames and the heart of our capital city. We live in exciting times. Those objectives can be achieved.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Putney for giving me the opportunity, in responding to the many points that he and other hon. Members have made, to emphasise the Government's commitment to ensuring that developments along our River Thames create a city of which all of us can feel duly proud in the 21st century.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Eight o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Office Costs Allowance
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the President of the Council how many hon. Members have used up all of their office costs allowance to date. [30307]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To date, no Members have used up all of their Office Costs Allowance.

  Child Care
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the President of the Council what data she has collated concerning child care provision in other parliaments. [29849]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  None.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Waste Management
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he proposes to publish the revised guidance in WMP4; and if he will make a statement on its impact on rural areas. [29547]

  Angela Eagle
  Section 51 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 places a duty on waste disposal authorities (eg County Councils) to arrange for places to be provided at which persons resident in their area may deposit their household waste free of charge. The fulfilment of this duty is a matter for each authority.

  The previous Government initiated a consultation exercise on a proposal to amend the guidance in Waste Management paper No. 4 (WMP4) as it relates to the waste management licensing of sites provided under section 51 of the 1990 Act. These sites are known as "civic amenity sites". The effect of the proposal would be to give the Environment Agency, in England and Wales, and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, in Scotland, discretion to license un-manned civic amenity sites in rural and remote areas in certain circumstances. The representations made in response to the consultation exercise are being considered and our conclusions on the proposal to amend WMP4 will be announced as soon as we are in a position to do so.

  Container Refuse
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to encourage a reduction in the amount of container refuse distributed by fast food outlets. [29701]
  768
  Angela Eagle
  Fast food outlets are likely to incur an obligation to contribute to the cost of disposing of the containers which they sell as a consequence of the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 which came into force in March last year. The regulations place obligations on producers of packaging, from raw materials manufacturers to sellers, to recover and recycle specified tonnages of packaging waste based on the amount of packaging they handle. The targets set by these Regulations, taken from the EC Directive on packaging and packaging waste, will require the UK rate of packaging waste recovery to almost double to 50% by 2001 (it is currently around 27%).

  To be obligated, businesses must have a turnover of more than £5 million and handle more than 50 tonnes of packaging annually. In 2000, the former threshold will go down to £1 million. These Regulations therefore ensure that businesses that place packaging on the market, including fast food outlets, make a substantial contribution to the costs of disposal of these products and this obligation acts as an incentive to minimise the weight of packaging used.

  Drink Driving
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many road deaths were attributable to drink driving in the last year; and in how many of those cases the driver was above the 80 milligram limit by a factor of two or more. [29764]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  It is provisionally estimated that, in 1996, there were 540 deaths in a drink-drive accident, defined as a road accident in which at least one driver failed a breath or blood alcohol test, or refused to provide a test specimen. In drink-drive accidents where the driver was killed and subjected to a blood alcohol test, it is estimated that about half the drivers involved exceeded the 80 milligram limit by a factor of two or more. Information is not available on the extent to which drivers who were involved in fatal accidents but were not themselves killed, and who failed a breath test, exceeded the legal alcohol limit.

  Emergency Tugs
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the cost of providing all year round cover with emergency tugs for the Western approaches to the Pembrokeshire coastline. [29686]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  A table giving the estimate of costs for the provision of Emergency Towing Vessels is included in the Cost Benefit Analysis (paragraph 9), which was undertaken by the Coastguard Agency. A copy was placed in the House Library on 10 February 1998.

  Roads
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of the total land area of the United Kingdom is taken up by roads. [29808]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The land take of roads is estimated to be approximately 1.4 per cent. of the total land area of the United Kingdom.
  769

  Oil Spillages
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he is taking to ensure the continuation of monitoring and research into the long-term effects and impact of oil spillages on the British coastline. [29818]

  Angela Eagle
  The UK Government have recognised the need for a plan to minimise the effects of oil spills since 1967. This National Contingency Plan was developed in consultation with all interested parties and is operated by DETR's Marine Pollution Control Unit.

  In the event of a major spill, the Marine Pollution Control Unit establish, in consultation with the various authorities, whether to initiate sampling of sea water, sediments and flora/fauna over an extended period to determine the long-term fate of the oil and its consequences for the environment. They also recommend if resources need to be made available for longer-term ecological studies (including the shoreline) if appropriate.

  The Government have been alive to the need to develop a comprehensive view of the environmental impacts of major oil spills. Following the wreck of the Braer in 1993, the Government funded the work of the Ecological Steering Group on the oil spill in Shetland and is continuing to monitor and to research into the environmental effects. Following the grounding of the Sea Empress, we funded the work of the Sea Empress Environmental Evaluation Committee (SEEEC). The SEEEC report was published on 11 February.

  The Government are considering SEEEC's recommendation that an Environmental Impact Assessment Group should be established whenever a serious oil spill occurs. We are also considering what further monitoring and research should be set up to establish what the long-term effects of the Sea Empress spill are and what measures may be needed to alleviate any possible consequences.

  My Department continues to fund the Continuous Plankton Recorder operated by the Sir Alister Hardy Foundation. This was started in 1931 and provides a unique insight into the effects of all pollutants on these "indicator" species. More recently, the Department has funded a research contract into the biological fate of dispersed oil which assesses the nature, rate and extent of the biodegradation of oil droplets. The final report of this contract is expected shortly. In addition, monitoring of the long-term effects and impact of oil spillages (and other substances) on the British Coastline is carried out under the auspices of the Marine Pollution Monitoring Management Group.

  Assaults (Trains)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many Prosecutions have been brought and convictions secured for assaults committed on trains in each year since 1990. [29861]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The numbers of Prosecutions for assault on railway property, including trains, for the years 1991 to 1997 are provided in the table. I am unable to 770
  provide the number of convictions as the British Transport Police do not hold the figures in this form.

  Year

  Prosecutions

  1991

  903

  1992

  1,428

  1993

  459

  1994

  599

  1995

  616

  1996

  618

  1997

  543

  Airport Planning
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if his Department will review the appropriateness of the predict and provide approach to airport infrastructure planning and provision. [29931]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Integration between the Government's transport policies, including those on aviation, and the Government's environmental policies will be one of the central themes in the Integrated Transport White Paper.

  Compulsory Purchase Houses
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many houses his Department owns, by county, which were originally subject to compulsory purchase or otherwise acquired to facilitate road-building schemes which(a) have definitely been cancelled and (b) are subject to the present Trunk Roads Review. [30303]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  On 1 February, the Highways Agency owned the following residential properties which have been acquired by compulsory or discretionary purchase to facilitate road building schemes. Properties held for cancelled schemes will generally be sold over a three-year period, to avoid adversely affecting the local housing market and maximise benefits to the taxpayer.

  County

  (a) for schemes already

  (b) for schemes subject to the present trunk roads review

  Avon

  7

  0

  Bath

  1

  0

  Bedfordshire

  1

  65

  Berkshire

  2

  19

  Buckinghamshire

  12

  1

  Cambridgeshire

  4

  9

  Cheshire

  12

  4

  Cornwall

  0

  7

  Cumbria

  1

  0

  Derbyshire

  17

  1

  Devon

  8

  6

  Dorset

  21

  0

  East Sussex

  11

  8

  East Yorkshire

  0

  1

  Essex

  13

  5

  Greater Manchester

  201

  100

  Greater London

  217

  416

  Herefordshire

  0

  4

  Hertfordshire

  195

  21

  Kent

  27

  6

  Kingston-upon-Hull

  0

  5

  771

  County

  (a) for schemes already

  (b) for schemes subject to the present trunk roads review

  Leicestershire

  8

  0

  Lincolnshire

  22

  0

  North Yorkshire

  11

  11

  Northamptonshire

  0

  3

  Nottinghamshire

  28

  17

  Rutland

  3

  0

  Somerset

  1

  1

  Staffordshire

  11

  12

  Surrey

  15

  31

  Tyne and Wear

  0

  5

  Warwickshire

  13

  0

  West Midlands

  48

  23

  West Sussex

  140

  2

  West Yorkshire

  0

  17

  Wiltshire

  6

  3

  Worcestershire

  53

  0

  British Rail Land (Newhaven)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 16 February 1998,Official Report, column 462, if he will take steps to ensure that the British Rail land for sale in Newhaven is sold only to a party with railway interests. [30408]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  No; that would effectively entail a subsidy by the taxpayer. But British Rail would welcome bids from railway interests.

  Departmental Child Care
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what provision his Department makes for child care facilities for staff; what subsidy is provided for(a) nursery places and (b) holiday play schemes; if he will list the organisations used by his Department for child care; and if child care vouchers are made available to staff. [30011]

  Angela Eagle
  Child care provision enables staff to combine their work and domestic responsibilities and helps promote and sustain equal opportunities policies. My Department supports child care facilities in accordance with existing central guidance. Parents are required to make a contribution towards the costs but subsidies up to a maximum of 50 per cent. of the cost of places are provided. Child care vouchers are not currently made available to staff. Current support for places at inter-departmental nurseries is as follows:

  Location

  Number of Places

  Contractor

  Subsidy per week per place

  Westminster

  10 (divided between two nurseries)

  Westminster Children's Society

  £73 or £78 depending on nursery ie 50% subsidy

  Bristol

  3.5

  Acorn

  £38 for under twos ie 35% subsidy and £28 for over twos ie 29% subsidy

  Hastings

  4

  Kinderquest

  £32 ie 33% subsidy

  772
  Inter-departmental holiday play schemes are operated at various locations throughout the country including Westminster, Bristol, Birmingham and Bedford. Apart from the Westminster scheme, full details are not held centrally but subsidies are made available. The Westminster scheme details are as follows:

  Location

  DETR places

  Contractor

  DETR subsidy

  Westminster

  Varies—up to 15 places

  kinderquest

  £8.05 per child per day ie 50%

  Chief Executives are responsible for the implementation of equal opportunities policies in DETR agencies, including child care provision. Details are not held centrally.

  Public Interest Reports
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many district auditors' public interest reports were published last year; and on which local authorities. [30306]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I understand from the Audit Commission that during 1997 district auditors published a total of twenty public interest reports. The local authorities concerned were:

  Allerdale Borough Council

  Bassetlaw District Council

  Bristol City Council

  Bath and North East Somerset Council

  Coggeshall Parish Council

  Denbighshire County Council

  Doncaster MBC

  Hemsworth Town Council

  Hertfordshire County Council

  Lambeth LBC

  Middlesborough Borough Council

  Newark and Sherwood District Council

  Nottinghamshire County Council

  Redbridge LBC

  St. Neots Town Council

  Sheffield City Council

  Walsall MBC

  Waltham Forest LBC

  West Wiltshire District Council

  Whitworth Town Council.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to release the report commissioned by his Department on the cost benefit analysis of reducing lead in drinking water. [30917]

  Mr. Meacher
  This report has now been published and I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library of the House. This is an interesting study which attempts to cost the health and non-health benefits associated with reducing levels of lead in drinking water to the 25 µg/1 and 10 µg/1 levels required by the new EC Drinking Water Directive.
  773
  The report indicates that in some circumstances it is cost-effective to replace lead water pipes, although if the cost of pipe replacement could be reduced the case for action would be clearer. It also concludes that it is cost-effective to introduce water treatment to reduce exposure even when benefits appear to be low.

  The report provides a useful input to the debate about the costs and benefits of reducing lead levels in water. However, this is a difficult area and further work will be necessary on the assumptions and approaches used.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 4 February 1998,Official Report, columns 641–42, if he will make a statement on the ethical and wider public interest considerations which he wishes to be taken into account in the revision of Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms; and if he intends to press for a requirement to show a need for the genetically-modified organism. [29712]

  Mr. Meacher
  The report of the 1997 National Biotechnology Conference published in September last year highlighted that some aspects of the development of biotechnology raise wider issues, including ethical concerns. These included concerns about the spread of genes into wild populations and the effects of the introduction of genetically modified crops into our natural and agricultural environment. Other concerns include whether social need justifies the risk being taken in developing a GMO and whether the technology employed is appropriate and the safest available. The Government are preparing their response to the report of the conference, which should be published shortly. In responding, we shall be considering both how best to address these concerns and the constraints on action and their relevance to the revision of the directive 90/220.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 4 February 1998,Official Report, columns 641–42, if he will list the Government's concerns about the current procedures relating to the marketing and release of genetically modified organisms as laid down in Council Directive 90/220/EEC. [29711]

  Mr. Meacher
  My concern has been partly over comitology and the lack of a timetable and transparency of the decision making process, but also about the failure for wider aspects of the public interest to be taken into account.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Montserrat
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which firms were invited to bid for the provision of pre-fabricated units for Montserrat. [29988]
  774
  Clare Short
  The following firms were invited to bid for the supply of pre-fabricated units for Montserrat:

  1. Davy Hill Modular Housing

  UK

  Conport Structures Ltd.

  Ecometal-Ecohome Ltd.

  Emergency Housing Int'l Ltd.

  Evotec

  ISO Homes

  Kalliope Ltd.

  Kudos 2000 Ltd.

  Landbase International Ltd.

  Multipurpose Int'l Ltd.

  PDQ Emergency Homes Ltd.

  Premier Transline Building Systems Ltd.

  Tilden Industries Ltd.

  US

  Horton Homes Inc.

  H. R. Lubben

  International Building Systems Inc.

  Sun Formula Inc.

  Universal Services Inc.

  Jamaica

  Areocon

  Quality Affordable Homes Ltd.

  West Indies Home Contractors Ltd.

  Canada

  Digigraph Inc.

  Germany

  MAGU Gmbh

  2. Temporary Schools

  UK

  Conport Structures Ltd.

  Ecometal-Ecohome Ltd.

  Evotec

  Kalliope Ltd.

  Kudos 2000 Ltd.

  PDQ Emergency Homes Ltd.

  Stonebridge Facilities

  Tilden Industries Ltd.

  US

  International Building Systems Inc.

  H. R. Lubben

  Horten Homes Inc.

  Sun Formula Inc.

  Universal Services Inc.

  Jamaica

  Quality Affordable Homes Ltd.

  West Indies Home Contractors Ltd.

  Canada

  ATCO Structures Inc.

  3. Government Offices

  UK

  Conport Structures Ltd.

  Denholm Coates and Co. Ltd.

  Ecometal-Ecohome Ltd.

  Elliott Group Ltd.

  Emergency Housing Int'l Ltd.

  775

  Evotec

  Horsfall International Ltd.

  John Reid and Sons Ltd.

  Kalliope Ltd.

  Kudos 2000 Ltd.

  Multipurpose International Ltd.

  PDQ Emergency Homes Ltd.

  Premier Transline Building Systems Ltd.

  Tilden Industries Ltd.

  US

  H. R Lubben

  Horton Homes Inc.

  International Building Systems Inc.

  Universal Services Inc.

  Canada

  ATCO Structures Inc.

  Netherlands

  Transmo Special Products

  4. Emergency Offices

  UK

  Conport Structures

  Kalliope Ltd.

  Tilden Industries

  US

  International Building Systems Inc.

  Austria

  Containex Gmbh

  Canada

  ATCO Structures Inc.

  Russia
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance programmes her Department is currently funding in Russia. [30200]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development's programme of bilateral assistance to Russia is channelled via the Know How Fund. This strategic technical assistance is provided across a variety of sectors. We expect expenditure in the 1997–98 financial year to be approximately £28 million.

  The Department also contributes substantially to the support provided to Russia by the multilateral agencies, in financial terms most conspicuously via the European Union's TAC IS programme.

  Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what consultation she has held with relevant non-governmental organisations in advance of the signing of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. [30229]

  Clare Short
  I met representatives of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in July to discuss the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) and will be doing so again shortly, before the negotiations are concluded in April. My officials have been in contact with NGOs throughout the intervening period. My Department has also consulted with NGOs on our study of the development implications of the MAI.
  776

  Development Assistance
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentage of programme bilateral developmental assistance, excluding emergency assistance, will go to(a) upper middle income groups, (b) lower middle income groups and (c) low income groups in (i) 1997–98 and (ii) 1988–99. [30195]

  Clare Short
  Expenditure for 1997–98 will be reported by the Department in British Aid Statistics around November 1998. Future allocations are currently being considered in the Department's resource allocation round. An objective is to re-direct more of the available resources to poverty elimination.

  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what percentage of bilateral programme development assistance will be devoted to(a) non-project technical co-operation, (b) CDC exchequer advances, (c) emergency aid, (d) mixed credits, (e) financial aid, (f)programme aid and (g)technical co-operation excluding mixed credits in (i) 1997–98 and (ii) 1998–99; [30196]

  (2) what percentage of her Department's budgets for (a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000 will be devoted to (i) bilateral and (ii) multilateral assistance; [30202]

  (3) what percentage of programme developmental assistance will go to (a) Africa, (b) the Pacific, (c) America, (d) Europe and (e) Asia in (i) 1997–98 and (ii) 1998–99; [30197]

  (4) what are her Department's cash plans for (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99 and (iii) 1999–2000 in respect of (a) total DFID resources, (b) planning resources, (c) resource allocations for bilateral country programmes broken down by continent, (d) other bilateral allocations, (e) multilateral allocations, (f) aid administration, (g) running costs, (h) RTA and CDC and Crown Agents borrowing and (i) unallocated contingency reserves. [30203]

  Clare Short
  The Department's estimated outtum in 1997–98 will be published in the Departmental Report in late March. Plans for future years are currently being considered in the Department's resource allocation round.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the engagements she undertook in the United Kingdom in the course of her duties during January indicating in each case which were accessed by(a) car, (b) train, (c) aeroplane and car, (d) aeroplane and train and (e)other means. [28944]

  Clare Short
  I had many engagements within my Department which required no transport. Those outside the Department are listed below.

  Date

  Engagement

  Locality

  Mode of Transport

  12 January

  Hilton Park Conference

  Sussex

  Car

  13 January

  World Aware Business Awards

  London

  Car

  14 January

  BBC Marshall Plan of the Mind

  London

  Car

  777

  Date

  Engagement

  Locality

  Mode of Transport

  20 January

  NGO's UK Presidency Project

  London

  Car

  22 January

  Reception for outgoing President of EBRD

  London

  Car

  28 January

  Lunch with African Development Bank

  London

  Car

  29 January

  Institute of Civil Engineers

  London

  Car

  Anti-corruption Assistance
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development in which states her Department has assisted anti-corruption activities during the current financial year; and what are her plans for 1998–99. [30199]

  Clare Short
  I will write to the right hon. Member.

  Child Care
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what provision her Department makes for child care facilities for staff; what subsidy is provided for(a) nursery places and (b) holiday play schemes; if she will list the organisations used by her Department for child care; and if child care vouchers are made available to staff. [30007]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development operates holiday play schemes at both its locations in East Kilbride and London.

  In East Kilbride, the play scheme is operated by a partnership of DFID, the Inland Revenue and Scottish Nuclear. DFID does not subsidise the scheme, which costs £6.50 per day.

  In London the play scheme is operated by Kinderquest. The scheme costs £16.10 per day. Parents pay 50% of the costs.

  The Department does not provide nursery places nor does it make child care vouchers.

PRIME MINISTER

  Correspondence
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister how long on average it takes his Department to answer letters from hon. Members; what target date his Department sets; what percentage receive replies within the target date; and what assessment he has made of how long it takes to deliver a letter after it has been typed. [27044]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 2 February 1998]: It is not possible for me to deal personally with all of the letters I receive and I must therefore refer most of them to the Minister and Department with responsibility for the policy or matter in question.

  My office aims to acknowledge Members' correspondence within three working days and, where a reply is due from my office, to provide a substantive
  778
  response within 15 days. My office estimates that 98 per cent. receive acknowledgement within target and 45 per cent. receive substantive reply within target.

  We are aiming to improve the performance against the target for a substantive reply. The delays have been caused by the significant increase in the amount of correspondence received by my office. Currently, my office receives an average of some 8,000 letters a week compared with 3,000 before 1 May.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 3 February 1998,Official Report, column 582, for what reasons a record was not kept of the registered letter sent to him on 17 August 1997, and sent by fax that day at 10.52 am by Mr. Graham Horwood of 66 St. Andrews Road, Shoeburyness; and if he will review the procedures for dealing with mail from the general public. [29005]

  The Prime Minister
  My office currently receives some 8,000 letters per week. It is not physically possible to track each and every item once it has been sent to a Department for reply. As I said in my previous answer, on receipt of Mr. Horwood's later letter, further action was initiated and a response sent.

  Helms-Burton Act
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he had with President Clinton regarding the effects of the Helms-Burton Act on United Kingdom citizens and their families. [29291]

  The Prime Minister
  I have raised US extraterritorial legislation with President Clinton on a number of occasions. My colleagues and I continue to take every opportunity to make it clear to the US Administration and Congress that we reject such legislation.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Prime Minister if the year 2000 problem was discussed at the meetings between President Clinton and the Prime Minister; and if he will make a statement. [29504]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 13 February 1998]: I discussed the problem briefly in a private meeting I had with President Clinton. We agreed on the need to raise awareness of this problem and to co-operate internationally on efforts to solve it.

  Social Exclusion Unit
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to publish an annual poverty report to measure the performance of the Social Exclusion Unit. [29822]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government's annual report will include passages on what has been achieved in tackling poverty, and what more needs to be done. I have asked the Social Exclusion Unit to draw up key indicators of social exclusion and recommend how these can be tracked.
  779

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, (1) pursuant to his answer of 21 January 1998,Official Report, column 539, if he will publish the programme of Mrs. Derek Fatchett when she accompanied her husband to Australasia and the Pacific from 12 to 22 September 1997 at public expense; [25817]

  (2) if he will publish the programme of Miss Geraldine Daly when she accompanied the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) to Luxembourg from 25 to 26 October at public expense. [25818]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 27 January 1998]: Mrs. Fatchett undertook a programme which included visits in the fields of healthcare and culture, as well as accompanying Mr. Fatchett to a number of official engagements. Miss Daly took part in the programme organised by the Luxembourg Presidency for partners of Ministers attending, which included cultural and social visits. It is normal practice and a courtesy to the host nation that those accompanying Ministers on visits take part in official programmes organised by the host country or the Embassy. This is in line with the previous Administration's practice.

  Departmental Entertainment
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the oral answer of the Prime Minister of 28 January 1998,Official Report, column 342, what was the expenditure of his Department on entertaining from (a) 1 May 1997 to 1 February 1998 and (b) the equivalent period in 1996–97. [26854]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 2 February 1998]: The cost of official hospitality given by Foreign and Commonwealth Ministers from 1 May 1997 to 1 February 1998 was £157,850: the cost of such hospitality given from 1 May 1996 to 1 February 1997 was £163,474.

  Periodicals
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his estimate of the expenditure of his Department on newspapers and magazines in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98 to date and (d) 1997–98 full year; and if he will list the newspapers and magazines purchased or subscribed to on a regular basis. [26664]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 5 February 1998]: This Department purchases a range of newspapers and magazines. Expenditure on these was as follows:

  1995–96: £102,109

  1996–97: £115,322

  1997–98: £95,934: year to 31 December 1997

  1997–98: £119,000: full year estimate.

  China
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what recent research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated regarding the Chinese judicial system; [30219]
  780
  (2) if he will make it his policy to encourage an independent judicial system in China. [30218]

  Mr. Fatchett
  My Department regularly monitors developments in the judicial system in China, such as the recent revision of criminal laws. Both we and the EU have training and exchange programmes for Chinese lawyers and judges which aim to assist in the development of the judicial system.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to encourage the Chinese Government to implement legislation to allow non-governmental organisations to operate legally without a permit from governmental departments. [30221]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have no such plans. Nonetheless we value and support the work of NGOs in China.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to encourage the Chinese Government to strengthen the powers of the National People's Congress and local government in China. [30220]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We would welcome closer contact between British parliamentarians and the National People's Congress. The EU has agreed a programme of technical assistance which aims to support and develop China's system of village governance.

  Embassies
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure that British embassies present an approachable and accessible profile to individuals and businesses seeking to develop better trade links. [30217]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Providing effective support to British business abroad is one of our key aims. 217 posts provide a global network of commercial services. We issued guidelines in October last year to posts on best practice. These include ideas on how best to provide an accessible service which meets the customer's needs. Our programme of attachments of business people to posts is also helping to create a more business-like culture.

  EU/Tibet Co-ordinator
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to secure during the British Presidency of the EU the appointment of the EU/Tibet co-ordinator proposed in the recent resolution adopted by the European Parliament. [30407]

  Mr. Fatchett
  A delegation of EU Troika Ambassadors and the European Commission will visit Tibet during the UK Presidency in order to make an assessment of the situation. Neither we nor our EU partners could realistically consider the appointment of a co-ordinator ahead of that visit.

  Departmental Child Care
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what provision his Department makes for child care facilities for staff; what subsidy is provided for(a) nursery places and (b) holiday

  781
  play schemes; if he will list the organisations used by his Department for child care; and if child care vouchers are made available to staff. [30015]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  This Department currently subsidises nursery places for 23 children (aged three months to five years) of FCO staff as well as places at a holiday play scheme which are available to all staff.

  The Department subsidies places by 50 per cent. at two nurseries in London run by the Westminster Children's Society. It subsidises places at an in-house nursery in Hanslope Park by 30 per cent. and subsidises places at the Civil Service Westminster Holiday Play Scheme, run by Kinderquest Ltd, by 50 per cent.

  The provision of subsidised child care by this Department is one of a number of family policies designed to promote the retention of staff during their child caring years. The Department does not provide child care vouchers to staff.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Non-career Civil Servants
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many non-career civil servants have been appointed to her Department since 1 May 1997. [25846]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  In the Northern Ireland office and the Northern Ireland Departments, the number of people appointed on fixed-term contracts or as casuals since 1 May 1997 is 1,335.

  Brazilian Mahogany
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what amount of Brazilian mahogany has been(a) acquired and (b) specified by her Department in (i) 1996 and (ii) 1997; and for what purpose. [28389]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information for the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments is as follows:(i) Nil.
  (ii) Two pairs of fire doors and fire extinguisher cover boxes at Hillsborough Castle; sixteen computer workstations finished in mahogany to match existing suites of furniture as part of the Parliament Buildings refurbishment project; the replacement of one mahogany bookcase which was lost in a fire; and a suite of mahogany finished reproduction office furniture.

  All materials used were from sustainable sources.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how long on average it takes her Department to answer letters from hon. Members; what target date her Department sets; what percentage receive replies within the target date; and what assessment she has made of how long it takes to deliver a letter after it has been typed. [27032]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 2 February 1998]: When answering Ministerial Correspondence, a standard 10 day turn around target is set. Of the 2,603 Ministers cases dealt with in 1997, 1,684 were answered within the
  782
  target time which is an average success rate of 65 per cent. The main reasons for missing the target were the time taken for transmitting papers to and from the Minister/Minister not in NI and difficulties in obtaining information from various sources. No information is available regarding delivery times for letters.

  Sheep Dips
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what monitoring of the impact of synthetic pyrethroid sheep dips on(a) the aquatic environment, (b) the soil environment and (c) fisheries (i) has been carried out and (ii) is planned by her Department; and if she will make a statement. [29730]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 16 February 1998]: The level of use of synthetic pyrethroid sheep dips in Northern Ireland has been low and there are no recorded incidents of environmental pollution from that source.

  DOE and DANI officials are aware of the particular risk posed to the environment by inappropriate disposal of synthetic pyrethroid sheep dips and are keeping the situation, particularly regarding levels of usage, under review. If appropriate, specific monitoring of the impact of those sheep dips on the environment will be arranged.

  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what advice her Department gives to farmers on the disposal of synthetic pyrethroid sheep dips. [29729]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 16 February 1998]: The Department of Agriculture of Northern Ireland gives advice to farmers on the handling and disposal of sheep dips, including synthetic pyrethroid sheep dips, through booklets, TV and radio programmes, newspaper articles and farm visits. The current advice covers the circumstances in which used dip may be spread on suitable land at low application rates. As regards synthetic pyrethroid sheep dips, emphasis is given to the need for particular care in handling and disposal in view of the risk which that material poses for the environment.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many civil servants currently on the list of transfer applicants, have indicated Newry as their preferred location for employment. [29034]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 16 February 1998]: 124 non-industrial staff on the Northern Ireland Civil Service Central Transfer List have indicated Newsy as their first preference for relocation.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Fire Service Call-outs
    Mrs. Gorman
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the percentage of fire service call outs which were due to road traffic accidents in each of the last five years. [29548]
    783
    Mr. George Howarth
    The readily available information is given in the table.

    Road traffic and total incidents attended by local authority fire brigades, 1992–96 United Kingdom

    Thousands1

    Type of incident

    1992

    1993

    1994

    1995

    1996 4

    Fires2

    425.8

    451.5

    479.5

    604.1

    532.5

    Fire false alarms

    448.5

    455.8

    488.3

    506.8

    490.4

    Special service incidents3

    159.1

    164.7

    172.1

    199.1

    195.6

    Total

    1,033.5

    1,072.0

    1,139.8

    1,310.1

    1,218.5

    of which:

    Fires resulting from accidental vehicle crashes or collisions2

    1.2

    1.0

    1.1

    1.0

    1.0

    Road traffic accidents (no fire)3

    31.5

    31.5

    31.4

    34.4

    34.9

    Total

    32.7

    32.6

    32.5

    35.4

    35.9

    Percentage

    3%

    3%

    3%

    3%

    3%

    1 Figures are rounded and the components do not necessarily sum to the independently rounded totals.

    2 From 1994 includes "late" call and heat and smoke only incidents.

    3 Special service incidents (for example road traffic accidents and incidents of flooding or spilling of toxic substances) are counted for calendar years up to and including 1992 (England and Wales), 1993 (Scotland) and 1996 (Northern Ireland) and for financial years subsequently.

    4 Provisional.

    Emergency Services
    Mr. Beith
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average response time to emergency calls by the police, per police force covering(a) urban and (b) rural areas, in each of the last four years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [29776]

    Mr. Michael
    The latest complete year for which information is available on the performance of all forces in responding to emergency calls from the public is 1996–97. Details of that year's performance for all forces was published in the annual report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary in October 1997 and in the annual publication of the Audit Commission on local authority performance indicators in January 1998.

    Clearly, it is of great importance to the public that the police respond as promptly as possible to emergency calls, having established that the call is a genuine emergency. That is why I decided to keep it as a key objective for the police in 1998–99 to respond promptly to emergency calls from the public.

    One of the key performance indicators for this objective is the percentage of responses within the local target time to incidents requiring immediate response. Targets are set locally by individual forces to reflect local circumstances, such as traffic conditions. Some forces set separate targets for urban and rural incidents to take account of the different timescales within which it is possible to respond to such incidents.
    784
    Mr. Beith
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) fire officers and (b) retained fire officers were in post in each force, by sex and age group, in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [29814]

    Mr. George Howarth
    Information on the number of wholetime and retained firefighters in each fire brigade for England and Wales is published annually in the reports of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Fire Services, copies of which are held in the Library. The latest report, for 1996–97, Cm 3791, contains on page 12 a table giving the required information as at 1 January 1997. Details in respect of the age groups are not held centrally. Corresponding information for earlier years can be found in the annual reports for 1992 (Cm 2275—page 14), 1993–94 (Cm 2679—page 14), 1994–95 (Cm 2998—page 12) and 1995–96 (Cm 3493—page 14).

    Secure Training Centres
    Mr. Beith
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 4 December 1997,Official Report, column 299, if he will make it his policy to publish the average annual payment which will be paid to each private sector contractor for each child detained in a secure training centre when the contracts are confirmed; if he will list the criteria used to ascertain best value; and if he will make a statement. [29811]

    Mr. Michael
    Consideration will be given to making information available on the contract payments once all of the contracts for secure training centres have been awarded. In assessing best value, bids are evaluated on the basis of the quality, performance and safety of the design and construction and operating proposals; the quality of service relative to price, the adequacy and robustness of financing proposals; the deliverability of the whole project; and the degree of risk transfer.

    Police Manpower
    Mr. Beith
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the number of police officers per head of population in London relative to those in(a) New York and (b) Paris; and if he will make a statement. [29786]

    Mr. Michael
    I have not seen any generally helpful comparisons of the levels of policing between difference capital cities. There are such wide variations in the volume and type of crime and in the roles of police officers, civilians and other bodies that any comparisons have to be made with great caution.

    Money Laundering
    Mr. Beith
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions there have been for offences related to money laundering in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [29789]

    Mr. Michael
    Available information is given in the table.
    785

    Number of offenders convicted of money laundering offences by type of offence, 1987–1996, England and Wales

    Legislation/Offence

    1987

    1988

    1989

    1990

    1991

    1992

    1993

    1994

    1995

    1996

    Drug Money Laundering Offence

    S49 Drug Trafficking Act 1994 (previously S14 Criminal Justice (International Co-operation Act 1990)—Concealing or transferring the proceeds of drug trafficking

    1—

    1—

    1—

    1—

    —

    —

    —

    1

    —

    —

    S50 Drug Trafficking Act 1994 (previously S24 Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986)3—Assisting another person to retain the benefit of drug trafficking

    2—

    2—

    2—

    2—

    2—

    2—

    4

    4

    3

    2

    S51 Drug Trafficking Act 1994 (previously S23A Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 as inserted by S16 Criminal Justice Act 1993)— Acquisition, possession or use of other proceeds of drug trafficking

    1—

    1—

    1—

    1—

    1—

    1—

    1—

    —

    —

    3

    S52 Drug Trafficking Act 1994—Failure to disclose knowledge or suspicion of money laundering

    1—

    1—

    1—

    1—

    1—

    1—

    1—

    —

    —

    —

    S53 Drug Trafficking Act 1994—Disclosure of information likely to prejudice an investigation ("Tipping off")

    1—

    1—

    1—

    1—

    1—

    1—

    1—

    —

    —

    —

    Offence of Laundering Proceeds of other Crime

    S93A Criminal Justice Act 19884 as inserted by S29 Criminal Justice Act 1993—Assisting another to retain the benefit of criminal conduct

    1—

    1—

    1—

    1—

    1—

    1—

    1—

    —

    —

    2

    S93B Criminal Justice Act 19884 as inserted by S30 Criminal Justice Act 1993—Acquisition, possession or use of proceeds of criminal conduct

    1—

    1—

    1—

    1—

    1—

    1—

    1—

    —

    —

    6

    S93C Criminal Justice Act 19884 as inserted by S31 Criminal Justice Act 1993—Concealing or transferring proceeds of criminal conduct

    1—

    1—

    1—

    1—

    1—

    1—

    1—

    —

    —

    —

    S93D Criminal Justice Act 19884as inserted by S32 Criminal Justice Act 1993—Disclosure of information likely to prejudice an investigation ("Tipping off")

    1—

    1—

    1—

    1—

    1—

    1—

    1—

    —

    —

    —

    1 Not applicable.

    2 Not applicable.

    3 Court proceedings data prior to 1993 cannot separately identify offences under S24 Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 (since consolidated and replaced by S50 Drug Trafficking Act 1994) from other drug offences. For the years 1993, 1994 and 1995, a special exercise was undertaken to identify this specific offence. However as a 100 per cent, response from the courts was not achieved 'estimates' for these three years were made.

    4 Sections 93A to 93D Criminal Justice Act 1988 came into force in February 1994.

    Private Finance Initiative
    Mr. Beith
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for which of the private finance initiative contracts entered into by his Department and its agencies there was a public sector comparator; if he will indicate whether the comparator was calculated before or after private sector bids were received; and if he will make a statement. [29788]

    Mr. Straw
    My Department and its Agencies have prepared public sector comparators for the following private finance initiative (PFI) contracts:

    Contract

    Comparator calculated before or after bids received

    Coldingley Prison workshop

    Before

    Prisons

    Bridgend

    After

    Fazakerly

    After

    Lowdham Grange

    Before

    United Kingdom Passport Agency: dealing with applications and printing passports

    After

    786

    Contract

    Comparator calculated before or after bids received

    Immigration and Nationality caseworking project1

    Before

    Secure Training Centre: Cookham Wood1

    After

    1 In both cases, comparison could only be made in respect of part of the contract content, and constituted a test for value for money, but not a full public sector comparator.

    A comparison with the estimated public sector cost of delivering a similar product, taking account of risk transferred in a Private Finance Initiative deal, is made wherever it is realistic to do so. It is used to test whether competitive bids offer value for money.

    Alcohol (Smuggling)
    Mrs. Lait
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many licences have been withdrawn from pubs, hotels, restaurants, cafes and off licences for selling bootlegged or smuggled alcohol in each of the last three years. [30419]

    Mr. George Howarth
    This information is not collected centrally.
    787

    Countryside Rally (Policing)
    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the anticipated cost of policing the Countryside Rally in London on 1 March. [29860]

    Mr. Michael
    The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that the basic policing cost for the Countryside Alliance Protest March on 1 March 1998 is expected to be £187,239. In addition, there may be some overtime and support services costs which cannot be calculated until after the event.

    Animal Procedures Committee
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the occasions on which the Animal Procedures Committee has met groups or individuals opposed to(a) xenotransplantation and (b) vivisection; and if he will make a statement. [30302]

    Mr. George Howarth
    Since May, the Animal Procedures Committee has formally met with representatives of one such group. In January 1998, members of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) made a presentation to the Committee.

    In addition, there is a range of opinion on the Committee concerning the use of animals in scientific procedures, including xenotransplantation.

    Departmental Child Care
    Mr. Barnes
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provision his Department makes for child care facilities for staff; what subsidy is provided for(a) nursery places and (b) holiday play schemes; if he will list the organisations used by his Department for child care; and if child care vouchers are made available to staff. [30010]

    Mr. Straw
    Provision is made for spending £380,000 on subsidised child care in the current financial year for Home Office staff (including the Agencies) at various locations. This makes available 164 nursery day care places for children under 5 years of age and around 170 holiday play scheme places for children aged between 5 to 12 years. These arrangements involve a subsidy of up 50% of the contractual running costs depending on local circumstances. Subsidised child care provision is provided only if it can be justified on value for money grounds.

    The Department uses the following contractors to provide child care: Beehive Nurseries; Buffer Bean Limited; Jancett Group of Day Nurseries; Kids Unlimited; Kinderquest Limited; Nurseryworks Limited; and the Westminster Children's Society.

    The Department does not provide child care vouchers to staff.

    Probation Services (Birmingham Prisons)
    Mr. Burden
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the changes in the level of delivery of probation services in Birmingham prisons in the last two years; and what plans he has for further changes. [29871]
    788
    Ms Quin
    The numbers of probation staff at Birmingham prison in the last two years were:1996–97: 1 Senior Probation Officer and 6 Probation Officers
    1997–98: 1 Senior Probation Officer and 4 Probation Officers (including one funded by the West Midlands Probation Service)

    The level for 1998–99 has not yet been set. The Governor recognises the value and importance of the work done by the Probation Service, while nonetheless having to prioritise other important demands within his overall budget.

    Sex Offenders
    Mr. Burden
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to provide additional funding for sex offenders' treatment programme courses. [29872]

    Ms Quin
    During the financial year 1997–98, an additional £1 million was provided by the Prison Service for accredited offending behaviour programmes, which include the sex offender treatment programme.

    My right hon. Friend has now made available a further £112 million for the Prison Service in addition to its existing budget for 1998–99. Part of these funds will be used for the provision of regime activities, including the sex offender treatment programme.

    Mr. Burden
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the criteria for selection of sex offenders' treatment programmes for prisoners; [29873]

    (2) what account is taken of previous convictions in providing convicted sex offenders with access to sex offenders' treatment programme courses. [29874]

    Ms Quin
    The basic criteria for the selection of prisoners for the sex offender treatment programme are:the prisoner is currently serving a sentence for a sexual offence, or has a previous conviction for a sexual offence and has asked for treatment, or is a life sentence prisoner who may not have been convicted of a sexual offence, but whose criminal behaviour involves a sexual element;
    the prisoner is willing to participate in the programme; and is serving a sentence long enough in which to complete it.

    Life sentence prisoners who have a current or previous conviction for a sexual offence, or whose criminal behaviour involves a sexual element, are required to undertake treatment in order to progress towards release.

    A risk assessment is made on all convicted sex offenders entering prison. Those who are considered to be high risk and who satisfy the other criteria will be given priority for a place. Information about previous convictions will inform the risk assessment made of each sex offender.

    Mr. Burden
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the reoffending rates for prisoners who have previously completed sex offenders' treatment programme courses. [29875]

    Ms Quin
    The long-term effects of the sex offender treatment programme are not yet known, but similar programmes in the United States and Canada have reduced the rate of reoffending by about 25%.
    789

    Over-lenient Sentences
    Mr. Fabricant
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the appeals procedure in respect of over-lenient sentences. [28782]

    Mr. Michael
    We are in discussion with colleagues about the best way to implement our manifesto commitment to extend the Attorney-General's powers to refer cases to the Court of Appeal for review where it appears to him that the sentence is unduly lenient.

    Trials (Juries)
    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he gives to judges on whether a case coming to trial could be heard by a judge without a jury. [28784]

    Mr. Michael
    No such guidance has been issued, since in England and Wales a judge has no power to conduct a criminal trial without a jury. A consultation paper published on 16 February to which I referred in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer), on 16 February 1998,Official Report, column 475, canvasses four alternatives to traditional jury trial in serious and complex fraud cases, one of which is trial by a judge sitting alone, but we have made it clear that we have a genuinely open mind about which option would be best and about whether such a change should go ahead.

    Lotteries (Frequent Draws) Bill
    Mr. Sanders
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a list of the submissions received in response to the publication of the draft Lotteries (Frequent Draws) Bill and place in the Library copies of those submissions that are marked as being for publication. [30305]

    Mr. George Howarth
    When reporting on the outcome of the consultation, we will place in the Library a list of submissions and copies of those submissions whose authors did not object to publication.

    Ashford Remand Centre
    Mr. Wilshire
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the future of the site of the former Ashford (Middlesex) Remand Centre. [30261]

    Facilities

    Subsidy

    Organisation used

    Cabinet Office (OPS)

    The Westminster holiday playscheme

    50%

    Kinderquest Ltd

    Civil Service College

    Nursery places

    Subsidy varies between nil and £35 per week depending upon grade

    Edith Rose Day Nursery Ltd

    Central Office of Information

    The Westminster holiday playscheme

    50%

    Kinderquest Ltd

    Property Advisers to the Civil Estate

    Nursery places for staff in Leeds

    39%

    Peter Bennett Nursery

    The Westminster holiday playscheme

    50%

    Kinderquest

    The Buying Agency

    Holiday playscheme

    100%

    MOD Kidz Club

    790
    Ms Quin
    Prisoner population pressures continue to require the construction of new establishments. The Prison Service owns the site of the former Ashford Remand Centre and has planning consent for the construction of a new prison. Consideration is currently being given as to how this should be taken forward. I will write to the hon. Member when a decision has been made.

  MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

    Millennium Experience
    Mr. Edward Davey
    To ask the Minister without Portfolio how the eight year old consultant on the Millennium Dome was appointed; how many other applicants were considered; and what criteria were used for the appointment. [28027]

    Mr. Mandelson
    I understand that Work, one of the eleven design companies contracted to the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) to develop the content of the Millennium Experience Dome, occasionally ask an eight year old boy to comment on their plans in order to gauge the level of their appeal to young people.

    In the next few months, the NMEC have established its own network of Regional Junior Boards (in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the nine English regions) each comprising about twenty 9–16 year olds nominated by local education establishments and agencies. The intention is that one member of each Regional Junior Board, together with representatives from the major national youth organisations and agencies, will form a National Junior Board. These boards will ensure that advice and the views of young people on the Millennium Experience project are directly and regularly considered.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Departmental Child Care
    Mr. Barnes
    To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what provision his Department makes for child care facilities for staff; what subsidy is provided for(a) nursery places and (b) holiday play schemes; if he will list the organisations used by his Department for child care; and if child care vouchers are made available to staff. [30012]

    Mr. Kilfoyle
    The child care facilities provided in the department, Agencies and other areas which fall to the Cabinet Office Vote are as follows:
    791

    Facilities

    Subsidy

    Organisation used

    Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency

    None

    —

    —

    Security Facilities Executive

    None

    —

    —

    Government Car and Despatch Agency

    None

    —

    —

    Child care vouchers are not available to staff.

    Public Appointments (Ethnic Minorities)
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Taunton (Mrs. Ballard) of 4 February 1998,Official Report, column 703, on public appointments, what progress has been made by the public appointments unit towards increasing the proportion of individuals from ethnic minority backgrounds who are appointed to public bodies. [30174]

    Dr. David Clark
    The Public Appointments Unit is keen to maintain the progress which has already been achieved, with 3.6% of appointments being held by members of the ethnic minorities in 1997 compared with 2% in 1992.

    The Unit actively promotes equal opportunities in public appointments through its various programmes of work, which have included a series of regional seminars to encourage more members of the ethnic minorities to participate in public life.

    The Unit is currently drawing together individual Departmental plans designed to increase the representation of women and members of the ethnic minorities on public bodies. The plans will cover the period 1998–2001 and will be made publicly available.

    Freedom of Information
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what restrictions will be placed on Ministers' powers to withhold information relating to themselves under the terms of the Official Secrets Acts by the forthcoming legislation on freedom of information. [30300]

    Dr. David Clark
    It is not intended that the proposed Freedom of Information Act should amend the provisions of the Official Secrets Act 1989.

  TREASURY

    Inheritance Tax
    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the minimum requirements concerning public access which have to be satisfied before a landowner can be granted conditional exemption from inheritance tax. [27978]

    Dawn Primarolo
    The law requires owners of conditionally exempt assets to provide reasonable public access. Each case is considered on its own merits, and the factors taken into account include the extent and nature of any existing access. The Inland Revenue's booklet, "Capital taxation and the national heritage", IR67 (available in the House of Commons Library), provides general guidance on matters relating to public access.
    792

    Ministerial Transport
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the cost of(a) Ministerial cars and drivers and (b) the Department's bill for taxis in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97, (iii) 1997–98 to date and (iv) 1997–98 full year. [27726]

    Mrs. Liddell
    [holding answer 5 February 1998]: Over these years, expenditure on Ministerial cars and drivers, and on taxis, is as follows:

    £000

    Ministerial cars and drivers

    Taxis

    1995–96

    295

    58

    1996–97

    360

    59

    1997–98 (year to date)

    364

    76

    1998–99 (full year)

    397

    83

    Income Tax
    Mr. Evans
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people are currently paying income tax at(a) the basic rate and (b) higher tax rates in each county of England and Wales. [29480]

    Dawn Primarolo
    The table shows estimates of the number and percentage of basic and higher rate taxpayers by county in England and unitary authority in Wales 1995–96, the latest year for which there is information.

    '000

    Number of basic rate taxpayers

    Number of higher rate taxpayers

    North East

    Cleveland

    170

    10

    Durham

    161

    13

    Northumberland

    107

    12

    Tyne & Wear

    309

    22

    North West & Merseyside

    Cheshire

    310

    39

    Cumbria

    177

    14

    Greater Manchester

    735

    58

    Lancashire

    416

    29

    Merseyside

    361

    29

    Yorkshire & The Humber

    Humberside

    275

    23

    North Yorkshire

    244

    31

    South Yorkshire

    367

    21

    West Yorkshire

    613

    51

    East Midlands

    Derbyshire

    308

    21

    Leicestershire

    306

    33

    Lincolnshire

    199

    13

    Northamptonshire

    204

    24

    Nottinghamshire

    298

    26

    793

    '000

    Number of basic rate taxpayers

    Number of higher rate taxpayers

    West Midlands

    Hereford & Worcester

    255

    30

    Shropshire

    151

    17

    Staffordshire

    354

    34

    Warwickshire

    157

    20

    West Midlands

    755

    58

    Eastern

    Bedfordshire

    194

    19

    Cambridgeshire

    232

    29

    Essex

    480

    79

    Hertfordshire

    335

    77

    Norfolk

    239

    23

    Suffolk

    159

    18

    London

    2,100

    374

    South East

    Berkshire

    260

    58

    Buckinghamshire

    259

    52

    East Sussex

    207

    28

    Hampshire

    551

    83

    Isle of Wight

    44

    1—

    Kent

    501

    60

    Oxfordshire

    203

    37

    Surrey

    341

    95

    West Sussex

    210

    34

    South West

    Avon

    315

    34

    Cornwall

    129

    13

    Devon

    328

    25

    Dorset

    204

    23

    Gloucestershire

    185

    19

    Somerset

    154

    13

    Wiltshire

    201

    23

    Wales

    Aberconwy and Colwyn

    27

    2

    Anglesey

    1—

    1—

    Blaenau Gwent

    1—

    1—

    Bridgend

    58

    1—

    Caernarfonshire and Merionethshire

    31

    1—

    Caerphilly

    39

    1—

    Cardiff

    72

    11

    Cardiganshire

    14

    1—

    Carmarthenshire

    48

    4

    Denbighshire

    19

    1—

    Flintshire

    55

    5

    Merthyr Tydfil

    1—

    1—

    Monmouthshire

    26

    3

    Neath and Port Talbot

    35

    1—

    Newport

    47

    1—

    Pembrokeshire

    31

    1—

    Powys

    46

    1

    Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

    59

    1—

    Swansea

    44

    5

    Torfaen UA

    27

    1—

    Vale of Glamorgan

    31

    5

    Wrexham

    40

    1

    1 Sample size too low to make reasonable estimate.

    Technology Companies
    Mr. Gibb
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total quantity of agreed(a) trading tax losses and (b) capital losses in (i) technology companies and (ii) biotechnology companies, in the last year for which figures are available. [29411]
    794
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
    I regret that the tax records held centrally by the Inland Revenue do not categorise companies to the industries requested.

    Working Families Tax Credit
    Mr. Lilley
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many households currently in receipt of family credit would experience a shift in net income to the principal wage earner if family credit were replaced by a working families tax credit payable through the pay packet to the principal earner. [29187]

    Dawn Primarolo
    [holding answer 12 February 1998]: The current system of Family Credit involves a declaration by the man and the woman in a household. If the Working Family Tax Credit replaced Family Credit, the Government would ensure that the family could elect to whom the tax credit was paid—to the woman or the man in the household.

    Abortions
    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people each week in the United Kingdom contribute to conceptions that are terminated legally and deliberately in the United Kingdom. [29673]

    Mrs. Liddell
    The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange a reply to be given.

    Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Peter Bottomley, dated 19 February 1998:
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me, as Director of the Office for National Statistics, to reply to your recent question on the number of people in the United Kingdom who contribute to conceptions that are terminated legally and deliberately in the United Kingdom.
    Over the period July 1996 to June 1997, the latest 12 months for which information is available, there were an average of 3,460 abortions each week notified as being performed in Great Britain on residents of the United Kingdom.
    The Abortion Act 1967 applies to England, Wales and Scotland. The Act does not apply to Northern Ireland, where less than a hundred legal abortions are performed each year on medical grounds in health service hospitals under case law, as was the legal situation in England and Wales before the 1967 Act.

    Tax Allowances
    Mr. MacShane
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost of revalorising the non-aged personal allowance; and what increase in(a) the non-aged married couple's allowance and (b) the additional personal allowance could be achieved for such a sum. [28986]

    Dawn Primarolo
    [holding answer 13 February 1998]: Indexing the non-aged personal allowance is estimated to cost £850 million in 1998–99. The same amount could be spent on increasing the non-aged married couple's allowance, the additional personal allowance and the widow's bereavement allowance by £590.

    Duty Free Sales
    Mr. Blunt
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the employment consequences in the United Kingdom of the ending of the European duty free trade on 1 January 1999. [29922]
    795
    Dawn Primarolo
    No estimate has been made of the possible consequences of the abolition of intra EU duty free trade. It is due to be abolished on 30 June 1999.

    Departmental Expenditure
    Mr. Swinney
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give a regional breakdown of his Department's expenditure on(a) hospitality, (b) stationery and (c) travel in the last year for which figures are available. [30095]

    Mrs. Liddell
    [holding answer 18 February 1998]: The Treasury's total expenditure on hospitality, stationery and travel in the UK in 1996–97 was £112,000, £289,000 and £217,000, respectively. A regional breakdown of procurement would mean each invoice would have to be examined. This could be carried out only at disproportionate cost.

    Departmental Child Care
    Mr. Barnes
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what provision his Department makes for child care facilities for staff; what subsidy is provided for(a) nursery places and (b) holiday play schemes; if he will list the organisations used by his Department for child care; and if child care vouchers are made available to staff. [30017]

    Mrs. Liddell
    The Treasury participates in the Westminster Holiday Play Scheme which provides child care for children between the ages of five and twelve during school holidays. A 61 per cent. subsidy is provided to staff. The current provider is Kinderquest Ltd. Nursery places are not provided nor are child care vouchers offered.

    Professionals (Income Tax Changes)
    Mr. Bermingham
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the proposed income tax changes for professionals referred to in an Inland Revenue press statement of 22 December 1997 will result in banisters being liable to pay income tax to the Government on fees due to the barrister by the Legal Aid Board before those sums have been received by the barrister from the Legal Aid Board. [30397]

    Dawn Primarolo
    The precise effects of the proposal to withdraw the cash basis practices available to professionals will depend on the individual circumstances and the final detail of the proposal. It has been the subject of a consultation process which ended on 14 February 1998. We are now reviewing the proposal in the light of the comments received. The final shape of the proposed legislation will not be announced in advance of my right hon. Friend's Budget.

    Mr. Bermingham
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the likely acceleration in the income tax and national insurance paid by persons affected by the proposed income tax changes for professionals referred to in an Inland Revenue press statement of 22 December 1997 and of the amount of additional income tax and national insurance which will be so accelerated. [30395]

    Dawn Primarolo
    The purpose of consultation was to enable those affected to voice their concerns. The consultation process ended on 14 February 1998. We are now reviewing the proposal in the light of the comments 796
    received. The final shape of the proposed legislation will not be announced in advance of my right hon. Friend's Budget.

    Mr. Bermingham
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Government plan to require one-off payments to be made in respect of the acceleration in the income tax and national insurance paid by persons affected by the proposed income tax changes for professionals referred to in an Inland Revenue press statement of 22 December 1997. [30396]

    Dawn Primarolo
    The proposal to withdraw the cash basis practices available to professionals has been the subject of a consultation process which ended on 14 February 1998. We are now reviewing the proposal in the light of the comments received. The final shape of the proposed legislation, including the phasing of its implementation, will not be announced in advance of my right hon. Friend's Budget.

    Mr. Bermingham
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans the Government have to introduce relief for professionals affected by the proposed changes parallel to the cash accounting scheme for VAT consequent upon proposed income tax changes for professionals referred to in an Inland Revenue press statement of 22 December 1997. [30398]

    Dawn Primarolo
    The proposal to withdraw the cash basis practices available to professionals is the subject of a consultation process which was started by the issue of an Inland Revenue Press Release on 22 December 1997. Comments were invited by 14 February 1998. Now we are in the process of reviewing the proposal in the light of the comments received. The outcome of that review will not be announced before my right hon. Friend's Budget.

    Mr. Bermingham
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the level of income tax which the Treasury will receive on a professional's profits over the course of a professional's career under the proposed income tax changes for professionals referred to in an Inland Revenue press statement of 22 December 1997 relative to the current procedures. [30401]

    Dawn Primarolo
    The proposal to withdraw the cash basis practices available to professionals does not affect the total amount of income chargeable to income tax, but changes the timing of when it has to be returned for income tax purposes. Estimates of the effect on Treasury receipts from year to year will depend on the final detail of the proposal. It has been the subject of a consultation process which ended on 14 February 1998. We are now reviewing the proposal in the light of the comments received. The final shape of the proposed legislation will not be announced in advance of my right hon. Friend's Budget.

    Customs Information System
    Mr. Timms
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government have designated a competent authority to have direct access to the Customs Information System as referred to in Article 29(2) of EC Regulation 515/97 on mutual administrative assistance. [30915]
    797
    Dawn Primarolo
    I have designated HM Customs and Excise as the competent authority to have direct access to the Customs Information System.

  WALES

    Lost and Stolen Items
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those items valued at more than £25 stolen or lost from his Department since 1 May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [27738]

    Mr. Ron Davies
    [holding answer 5 February 1998]: No items valued at more than £25 have been stolen or lost from the Department since 1 May 1997.

    Welsh Development Agency
    Mr. Wigley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will place in the Library the guidelines and terms of reference issued by his Department to the consultants who assisted with the recruitment of the Chief Executive of the Welsh Development Agency; [28990]

    (2) how many applicants there were for the post of Chief Executive to the Welsh Development Agency when the present incumbent was appointed; how many were interviewed; and how many of those interviewed withdrew their application prior to an appointment being made. [28991]

    Mr. Hain
    The appointment of the present Chief Executive was made by the Board of the Welsh Development Agency with the consent of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I have asked the Chairman of the Agency to write to the right hon. Member, and will arrange for a copy of his reply to be placed in the Library of the House.

    Correspondence
    Mr. Alan Williams
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the normal practice in his Department in relation to consulting the author of a private and confidential letter to his Department about giving copies of it to third parties. [29232]

    Mr. Ron Davies
    My Department's normal practice is to comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, and the advice given in the Guidance on Interpretation, Second Edition (1997).

    Optec DD
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the Optec DD factory at Buckley will close and with how many redundancies; and if he will make a statement. [29435]

    Mr. Hain
    The company have not yet announced the actual date when the factory will close. However, there will be 76 redundancies.

    The Welsh Development Agency is working closely with Flintshire County Council and is exploring a number of options. We are content that everything possible is being done to help the company and its employees.
    798
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives (i) he and (ii) the Welsh Development Agency will take to find a new tenant for the current Optec DD factory at Buckley, Flintshire; and if he will make a statement. [29434]

    Mr. Hain
    The Welsh Development Agency, the TEC and Flintshire County Council are aware of the closure and have discussed the matter fully with the company. Following the discussions it has been agreed that the Council, through its Economic Development Department, will take the lead on giving advice to the company and its employees. The Welsh Development Agency is in regular contact with the local authority and is currently considering a number of options.

    We are happy that everything possible is being done to help the company and its employees.

    Manufacturing Redundancies
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of manufacturing redundancies announced in 1998 to date; and if he will make a statement. [29432]

    Mr. Hain
    No reliable estimates of manufacturing redundancies in Wales are available. Information on redundancies generally is available from the quarterly Labour Force Survey, which estimates the number of people who were made redundant in the three months prior to the survey. However, data for the first quarter of 1998 will not be available until late summer. The Spring 1997 survey estimated that 11,000 people in Wales were made redundant in the three months prior to interview. The Summer 1997 survey gave an estimate below 10,000 (the Labour Force Survey threshold for publication).

    Beef and Lamb Prices
    Mr. Wigley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on the difference between the carcase price for beef and lamb paid to farmers and the price charged by retailers. [29591]

    Mr. Win Griffiths
    This issue has been raised in recent discussions between my right hon. Friend and the farming unions. The Welsh Affairs Committee has also taken an interest in this matter and the Welsh Office provided a memorandum to the Committee on 14 January 1998. I subsequently gave evidence to the Committee on 16 February.

    National Assembly for Wales
    Mr. Wigley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to be able to announce the locations of regional centres within Wales at which there may be held meetings of the regional committees of the National Assembly and occasional full committee meetings or plenary sessions of the National Assembly; and if these centres will be equipped with video conferencing equipment in time to be fully operational by May 1999. [29596]

    Mr. Ron Davies
    I will announce in due course the location of the regional offices where the public will be able to gain access to the National Assembly proceedings. Subject to the relevant technology being available and affordable, I would want these offices to have operational
    799
    video conferencing facilities by May 1999. It will be for the National Assembly members to determine the location of regional centres where they might wish to meet.

    Rural Roads
    Mr. Wigley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what evaluation he has made of the dangers of driving on narrow, winding, rural roads and the possibility of reducing speed limits on such roads. [29593]

    Mr. Hain
    The Department has not undertaken any formal evaluation but, together with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, we have commissioned extensive research on road safety and the particular problems on rural roads. This shows that few drivers exceed the national speed limit in these areas, and that accidents tend to be the result of speed which is inappropriate for road conditions. Local Highway Authorities already have powers to lower speed limits on roads where appropriate.

    Class Sizes
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money released by the abolition of the assisted places scheme will be used to reduce class sizes in infant schools in the next school year. [29803]

    Mr. Hain
    All the savings in 1998–99 from the abolition of the Assisted Places Scheme, which are expected to amount to £1.35 million, are to be used for the reduction of infant class sizes.

    Departmental Child Care
    Mr. Barnes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what provision his Department makes for child care facilities for staff; what subsidy is provided for(a) nursery places and (b) holiday play schemes; if he will list the organisations used by his Department for child care; and if child care vouchers are made available to staff. [30021]

    Mr. Ron Davies
    My Department is a partner in a public sector consortium which provides a 60 place nursery for staff. The Consortium covers the cost of rent, rates and utility charges which currently amounts to approximately £700 per place per annum. An Easter and summer play scheme is supported by a financial contribution of some £100 per place per annum. Parents using these child care schemes are required to make a contribution towards the costs which mainly cover the management costs involved in running and staffing the schemes.

    The Nursery is managed on behalf of the Consortium by Cardiff City Council under contract. The play scheme is an open scheme run by SPICE for Cardiff City Council and the Department contracts for places on the scheme.

    Child care vouchers are not made available to staff.

    My Department considers the provision of child care arrangements as important to the promotion of equality of opportunity for all staff.

    Further Education
    Mr. Dafis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on(a) the (i) recurrent and (ii) capital funding and (b) target student numbers for
    800
    further education in Wales set out in (1) December 1996 and (2) December 1997; and if he will make a statement on the efficiency gains per student in real terms over this period. [30269]

    Mr. Hain
    In December 1996, the further education recurrent provision for the financial year 1997–98 was £162.547 million; capital provision was £14.477 million; and the target full-time equivalent student number was 58,500. In December 1997, recurrent and capital provision for further education was combined giving a total sum available of £172.541 million for the financial year 1998–99, against target full-time equivalent student numbers of 63,000.

    The forecast outtum for 1997–98 is £179.475 million, funding 62,400 full-time equivalent students. Against the resources to be made available in 1998–99 and the student target for that year, the projected efficiency gain per student, in real terms, over this period is 7.3 per cent.

    Mr. Dafis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to alter the level of funding for further education in(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000. [30250]

    Mr. Hain
    I have already announced an increase in funding for further education of £5.4 million over the plans set out by the previous administration. Decisions on the funding to be made available for the sector in 1999–2000 will be taken in the light of the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review.

    Mr. Dafis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many colleges of further education in Wales are categorised as(a) financially unsatisfactory, (b) marginal and (c) satisfactory; and what were the equivalent figures in February 1997. [30249]

    Mr. Hain
    Currently within the further education sector in Wales, eight colleges are categorised by the FEFCW as financially unsatisfactory, eight as marginal and 13 as satisfactory. The corresponding figures in February 1997 were four, seven and 18 respectively.

    Health Service Funding
    Mr. Gareth Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has reached a decision concerning the allocation of resources to health authorities in Wales for 1998–99. [30914]

    Mr. Ron Davies
    I announced on 10 December 1997,Official Report, columns 580–83 that I would be providing an additional £113 million for the NHS in Wales in 1998–99. This will bring total spending to £2,455 million. £1,725 million of this will be used to fund the Hospital, Community and Family Health Services.

    Hospital, Community and Family Health Services will receive an additional £77 million in revenue resources-a cash increase of 4.9 per cent. Within this amount, the five health authorities, GPs and GP fundholders will receive revenue funding of £1,585 million-£71 million, or 4.7 per cent., more than in 1997–98 plans. In real terms, this is an overall increase of 1.9 per cent. Within these resources, I have been able to give health authorities an extra £62 million, which represents a 4.3 per cent. cash increase on discretionary purchasing power, and £4 million to cash limited General Medical Services, which is a 7.8 per cent. cash increase.
    801
    I am expecting health authorities and trusts to continue to generate efficiency savings and in 1998–99 these should amount to at least 2.4 per cent. This will release some £34 million which, together with the new money, will be available to meet inflationary and other pressures, and to increase investment in patient care.

    Health authorities and trusts will also receive £97 million to fund capital development. Included with this is £2.7 million to fund estimated capital costs in the first year of the replacement of the linear accelerators at Velindere NHS Trust, a scheme that will cost £4.4 million over the next three years. In addition, I have made available an extra £3.5 million for Trust minor discretionary capital expenditure to support the maintenance and replacement of equipment and estate. This is an increase of 8.1 per cent. or 5.3 per cent. after taking account of inflation.

    The settlement also provides £5 million for new developments, most notably £2.4 million for the support and expansion of cancer services through the Cancer Service Co-ordinating Group, £0.5 million to tackle prescription fraud and £0.8 million to meet the cost of implementing Calman Specialist Registrars.

    A table of provisional NHS Trust External Financing Limits (EFLs) follows:

    Provisional trust external financing limits 1998–99

    £000

    North Wales

    Clwydian Community

    (68)

    Glan Clwyd

    7,620

    Gwynedd Community

    1,540

    Gwynedd Hospitals

    (946)

    Wrexham Maelor

    (601)

    Dyfed Powys

    Carmarthen and District

    (779)

    Ceredigion and District

    154

    Pembs Derwen

    (358)

    Llanelli/Dinefwr

    (439)

    Powys

    (287)

    Morgannwg

    Bridgend

    (374)

    Glan-Y-mor

    (1,109)

    Morriston

    (1,695)

    Swansea

    (937)

    Bro Taf

    Cardiff Community

    (393)

    East Glamorgan

    18,552

    Llandough

    (1,854)

    North Glamorgan

    (1,376)

    Rhondda

    (346)

    University Dental Hospital

    3,285

    UHW

    13,509

    Velindre

    2,564

    Gwent

    Glan Hafren

    3,174

    Gwent Community

    326

    Nevill Hall

    (613)

    Ambulance

    North Wales

    (535)

    West Wales

    96

    Mid Glamorgan

    383

    SEWAT

    (509)

    Total Trusts

    37,984

    802

    Welsh Development Agency
    Mr. Gareth Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy regarding the appointment of members to the Board of the enhanced Welsh Development Agency; and if he will make a statement. [30918]

    Mr. Ron Davies
    I am today announcing that Mr. David Rowe-Beddoe will be Chairman and Mr. Brian Willott the Chief Executive of the new organisation when it is established in the Autumn of this year, subject to the passage of the Government of Wales Bill.

    I intend to make further appointments to the Board at a later date. The existing Board of the Welsh Development Agency (WDA), the Development Board for Rural Wales (DBRW) and the Land Authority for Wales (LAW) have made a valuable contribution to economic development in Wales and I applaud their achievements. I am, however, keen that the opportunity to serve on the Board of the new Powerhouse agency is canvassed as widely as possible in line with the guidance from the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. I therefore intend to advertise these appointments so that the composition of the Board following the merger will benefit from a blend of new talent as well as the experience of existing members. The terms of office of existing Board members will be extended until the merger.

  CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

    Correspondence
    Mr. Steinberg
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make it his policy that he and his Ministers personally read the letters sent to them by hon. Members on constituency matters. [27667]

    Mr. Chris Smith
    It is already my policy that my fellow departmental Ministers and I read all correspondence from hon. Members.

    Periodicals
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is his estimate of the expenditure of his Department on newspapers and magazines in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98 to date and (d) 1997–98 full year; and if he will list the newspapers and magazines purchased or subscribed to on a regular basis. [26629]

    Mr. Tom Clarke
    [holding answer 5 February 1998]: The Department for Culture, Media and Sport spent £20,033 on newspapers and magazines in 1993–94, £34,806 in 1994–95, £22,000 in 1995–96, and £25,863 in 1996–97. To date, the Department has spent £20,269 in 1997–98 and expects to spend £26,770 in the 1997–98 full year. The Department purchases a range of publications.

    Market Research
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what expenditure has been incurred by his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies(a) in 1996–97 and (b) since 1 May 1997 on (i) opinion polling, (ii) focus groups and

    803
    (iii) other forms of market research; if he will list the surveys commissioned and the purpose of each; and if he will make a statement. [26625]

    Mr. Tom Clarke
    [holding answer 5 February 1998]: The totals of expenditure relating to the Department, its agencies and Non Departmental Public Bodies are in the following table.

    £

    Opinion Polling1

    Focus Groups2

    Other Forms of Market Research3

    Total

    1996–97

    Department

    0

    0

    6,241

    6,241

    Agencies

    0

    15,360

    307,581

    322941

    NDPBs

    247,669

    307,581

    1,719,839

    2,275,089

    From 1.5.97

    Department

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Agencies

    0

    5,000

    69,578

    74,578

    NDPBs

    256,931

    524,673

    1,383,472

    2,165,076

    1 Opinion Polling: This was usually carried out through interviews or surveys carried out by the NDPB or contracted out to an opinion polling organisation.

    2 Focus Groups: This was usually carried out in small groups discussing specific aspects of the NDPB or Agency.

    3 Other Forms of Market Research4: Various types of research— questionaires, interviews detailed studies, etc carried out either in-house or through market research organisations.

    4 Some forms of the market research may use opinion polling and/or focus group techniques.

    I have placed details of the Department, its agencies and NDPBs information on expenditure on the types of surveys requested for the periods specified in the Libraries of the House.

    Public Opinion Research
    Mr. Duncan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many contracts for public opinion research his Department has awarded since 1 May; if he will indicate the(a) purpose, (b) cost, (c) value and (d) duration of each contract; and which companies (i) bid for and (ii) were awarded each contract. [28867]

    Mr. Tom Clarke
    [holding answer 10 February 1998]: The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has let only one contract for public opinion research since 1 May. The details relating to purpose, cost, duration and bidding companies are set out. With regard to the value of the research, its main benefit has been to provide a factual background to address some of the problems of the British Film Industry in the light of the major Film Policy Review.

    Contract purpose

    Contract cost

    Duration

    Bidding companies

    Film Review: Consumer research study to provide data for the Film Policy review

    Commercial in confidence

    2 months

    SRU Ltd.(Sucessful Company) Research Surveys GB L&R Consultancy Hydra Associates Ltd. David Graham Associates HPI Research Group

    804

    Grants
    Mr. Swinney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how many grants of a value greater than £10,000 were made to bodies in(a) London, (b) the South East of England, (c) England, (d) Scotland, (e) Wales and (f) Northern Ireland by his Department in the last year; and what was the total value of such grants in each area; [30062]

    (2) how many institutions in (a) London, (b) the South East of England and (c) England receive funding from his Department; and what is the total level of funding for institutions in each area. [30063]

    Mr. Tom Clarke
    [holding answer 18 February 1998]: The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Details of non-departmental public bodies and other bodies sponsored by my Department are contained in the DNH 1997 Annual Report Cm: 3611.

    Non-governmental Agencies
    Mr. Swinney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the financial support he provides to non-government agencies. [30065]

    Mr. Tom Clarke
    [holding answer 18 February 1998]: My Department has provided support to the following bodies during the current financial year:

    £000

    1997–98

    Royal Geographical Society

    54

    Royal National Institute for the Blind

    200

    National Manuscripts Conservation Trust

    70

    Arts and Entertainment Training Council

    30

    Business in the Arts

    25

    Theatres Trust

    55

    Access for Disabled people to Arts Premises Today

    43

    British Chess Federation

    49

    Churches Conservation Trust

    2,479

    British Screen Finance Ltd.

    2,000

    European Film Co-production

    2,000

    British Film Commission

    850

    Note

    Non-Departmental Public Bodies, Executive Agencies, Public Corporations and bodies sponsored on an ad-hoc basis have been excluded.

    Departmental Expenditure
    Mr. Swinney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will give a regional breakdown of his Department's expenditure on(a) hospitality, (b) stationery and (c) travel in the last year for which figures are available. [30084]

    Mr. Tom Clarke
    [holding answer 18 February 1998]: My Department is based in London. The available information for the financial year 1996–97 is in the following table:

    £

    Hospitality

    41

    Stationery

    87

    Travel and subsistence

    242

    805

    Departmental Buildings
    Mr. Swinney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the location and running costs in the last year for which figures are available of each of his Department's buildings. [30083]

    Mr. Tom Clarke
    [holding answer 18 February 1998]: My Department occupies the four following properties:

    2–4 Cockspur Street

    London SW1Y 5DH;

    Grove House

    2–6 Orange Street

    London WC2H 7ED;

    6th Floor

    Haymarket House

    London SW1Y 4EE;

    Novello House

    2 Sheraton Street

    London W1V 4BH

    The running costs set out in the table cover all the above properties together as the figures cannot easily be broken down.

    Expenditure

    1996–97

    Rent

    1,654,016.06

    Rates (CILOR)

    1,193,966.80

    Service Charges

    165,922.01

    Fuel and Utilities

    37,498.18

    Maintenance

    224,083.07

    Security

    234,517.09

    Central Services

    872,418.70

    Departmental Employees
    Mr. Swinney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the number of his Department's employees by UK region, indicating the wage bill(a) in total and (b) by region in the last year for which figures are available and separately identifying the costs of London allowances and weightings. [30082]

    Mr. Tom Clarke
    [holding answer 18 February 1998]: The total paybill and average number of staff in post within the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and agencies in 1996–97 are shown in the table:

    1996–97 paybill £ million

    Average number of staff in post in1996–97

    DCMS

    10.75

    361

    Historic Royal Palaces

    10.645

    518

    The Royal Parks

    7.324

    257

    Extracting historic information from the Chessington Payroll Centre on London allowances and weightings can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. DCMS consolidated the Inner London Weighting Allowance of £1,776 into basic pay with effect from 1 November 1996. Local Pay Additions continue to be paid as a separate allowance. The Agencies currently continue to pay separate London weighting and allowances.
    806
    The offices of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and agencies are all London based.

    Departmental Child Care
    Mr. Barnes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what provision his Department makes for child care facilities for staff; what subsidy is provided for(a) nursery places and (b) holiday play schemes; if he will list the organisations used by his Department for child care; and if child care vouchers are made available to staff. [30018]

    Mr. Tom Clarke
    As part of an overall Equal Opportunities Policy, the provision of child care facilities within my Department is two-fold: (i) one nursery place for a child aged between 6 months and 5 years at the Stepping Stones Nursery, based at Napier Hall, Pimlico. The Department subsidises the cost of this place by 50 per cent.

    (ii) DCMS staff can also use places at the Westminster Holiday Playscheme which caters for children between 5 and 12 years old and which operates during all the main school holidays at various locations in Whitehall and Victoria. The Department again meets half the cost of any places taken up on this scheme.

    Child care vouchers are currently not available to staff.

  HEALTH

    NHS White Paper
    Mr. Maples
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his White Paper on the NHS if he will make a statement describing the proposed role of local authorities in the NHS structure. [29062]

    Mr. Milburn
    Local authorities are indispensable partners to the National Health Service in the tasks of improving health and delivering high quality services. The White Paper "The New NHS" sets out how health authorities and local authorities will be expected to work together.

    Cannabis and Ecstasy
    Mr. Timms
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has conducted into the effect on health of long-term use of(a) cannabis and (b) ecstasy. [30153]

    Ms Jowell
    The Department has commissioned two reviews of research, one on cannabis and one on ecstasy. No primary research has been commissioned.

    Brain-damaged Children
    Mr. Wigley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from(a) parents and (b) doctors concerning a possible link between vaccinations, antibiotics and brain damage in children. [29259]

    Ms Jowell
    We have not received any representations from doctors about a possible link between vaccinations, antibiotics and brain damage and have recently received correspondence from one parent on this subject. The United Kingdom health departments' memorandum
    807
    "Immunisation against Infectious Disease" states in paragraph 7.6 that treatment with antibiotics is not a contraindication to immunisation.

    We are not aware of any concern among the medical profession about this matter, nor of any scientific evidence about such a link. The incidence of adverse reactions following immunisation have been found to be the same in children with or without the following mild illnesses: upper respiratory tract infection; diarrhoea or otitis media (an ear infection). It seems likely that some of the children in these studies were taking antibiotics around the time of immunisation.

    Departmental Child Care
    Mr. Barnes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision his Department makes for child care facilities for staff; what subsidy is provided for(a) nursery places and (b) holiday play schemes; if he will list the organisations used by his Department for child care; and if child care vouchers are made available to staff. [30006]

    Ms Jowell
    The Department has made provision for subsidised nursery places and an on-site holiday play scheme in London, and an on-site nursery and a holiday play scheme, funded jointly with the Benefits Agency, in Leeds.

    The Department provides subsidies as follows:

    (a) 50 per cent. of the cost of 25 nursery places in London and £30 per place per week for staff using a 30 place on-site nursery in Leeds;

    (b)£10.68 per place per day at a 24 place holiday play scheme in its headquarters building in London;

    around £6 per place per day at a 40 place holiday play scheme jointly funded by the Department of Health and the Benefits Agency in Leeds;
    £6 per place for National Health Service Pensions Agency staff at a holiday play scheme in Fleetwood.

    The following organisations are used by the Department of Health for child care:

    Parents at Work1

    Kinderquest Ltd.

    Nurseryworks Ltd.

    Radius Educational Services Ltd.

    Childcare Partners Ltd.

    Westminster Children's Society

    1 information service.

    Child care vouchers are available to staff in the South and North Thames Regional Offices of the NHS Executive.

    Drug Users
    Mr. Simon Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the NHS expenditure on services to drug users in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [30246]

    Mr. Milburn
    Health authorities purchase drug services from general Hospital and Community Health Service allocations. Funding for drug services is also provided under a special allocation, which is a contribution, not a cash limit. Health authorities can draw 808
    on general allocations for further money if they so decide, and will also fund treatment from other budgets. Health authorities are not required to return records of their total expenditure on drug services and a total figure for annual National Health Service expenditure on drug services is not held centrally.

    In each of the east five years, the special allocation for drug services was as follows:

    Year

    £ million

    1997–98

    37.19

    1996–97

    33.39

    1995–96

    26.75

    1994–95

    25.50

    1993–94

    24.37

    As part of its contribution to the Cross-Departmental Review of Illegal Drugs, the Department is working with the Substance Misuse Advisory Service to commission a survey of health and local authority expenditure on drug services in the financial year 1996–97. The results of the survey will inform the development of the new Anti-Drugs Strategy.

    Nursery Education
    Mr. Paice
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department issues concerning the ratio of staff to pupils expected in(a) private and (b) local authority nursery classes for three to five year-olds. [30432]

    Mr. Boateng
    Early years settings registered with local authority social services departments under the Children Act 1989 to provide day care are expected to comply with the adult to child ratios set out in Guidance and Regulations issued by the Department. These recommend an adult to child ratio of 1:4 for children aged 2–3 years and 1:8 for children aged 3–8 years regardless of whether they are managed by the private sector or the local authority.

    Under the Children Act 1989, where half the staff in these settings are qualified teachers (as recognised by department for Education and Employment) and support is provided by nursery assistants with qualifications in child care and education (and the setting is open during the school term to provide nursery education for 3–5 year olds), nurseries may apply a ratio of 2:26. I understand from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment that the Department of Education Circular 2/73 on nursery education in maintained schools recommends an adult to child ratio of 2:26 for nursery classes attached to primary schools where one adult is a qualified teacher and the other a qualified nursery assistant. It also suggests reception classes should make provision for 4 year olds comparable to that found in nursery classes. There are no recommended adult to child ratios for schools in the independent sector.
    809
    DfEE and the Department of Health will shortly issue a joint consultation document which tackles the current diverse arrangements for the regulation of early education and child care, including the issue of adult to child ratios. We intend to introduce a more uniform system of regulation following this consultation.

    NHS Trusts (Dismissals)
    Mr. Streeter
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the names of the appointees to NHS trusts who have been dismissed in the last three years and the reasons for their dismissals; and if he will make a statement. [30410]

    Mr. Milburn
    No National Health Service trust chairmen or non-executives have been removed from office in the last three years.

    Ministerial Travel
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the engagements he undertook in the United Kingdom in the course of his duties during January indicating in each case which were accessed by(a) car, (b) train, (c) aeroplane and car, (d) aeroplane and train and (e) other means. [28935]

    Mr. Dobson
    [holding answer 10 February 1998]: I undertook seven engagements by car (all within London); four engagements by train; there were no other engagements by any other mode of transport. In addition, I made daily trips to and from my office by car.

    Buildings Refurbishment
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the cost of buildings refurbishment carried out by his Department in(a)1995–96, (b)1996–97, (c) 1997–98 to date and (d) 1997–98 full year; and if he will make a statement. [26603]

    Ms Jowell
    [holding answer 5 February 1998]: Total Departmental expenditure, including agencies, on refurbishment of its buildings, building fabric and building services is £3.63 million (1995–96), £4.73 million (1996–97), £0.93 million (1997–98 to December 1997) and £3.56 million (1997–98 full year estimate). Prior to 1 April 1996, some refurbishment costs were met directly by Property Holdings, Department of Environment. The costs quoted represent the total expenditure on our building services and fabric excluding routine maintenance work and repairs. The expenditure represents many individual projects, some large, some small, spread across the whole Departmental estate rather than a single project in one particular building.

    Periodicals
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the expenditure of his Department on newspapers and magazines in(a) 1995–96,(b)1996–97, (c) 1997–98 to date and (d) 1997–98 full year; and if he will list the newspapers and magazines purchased or subscribed to on a regular basis. [26602]
    810
    Ms Jowell
    [holding answer 5 February 1998]: Estimates for the Department of Health expenditure on newspapers and magazines for the years requested are given in the table:

    Year

    £000

    (a) 1995–96

    354

    (b) 1996–97

    1368

    (c) 1997–98 to date (31/1/98)

    309

    (d) 1997–98 full year

    320

    1 Regional Offices became part of the Department of Health in 1996; their expenditure on newspapers and magazines has been included in the Department's costs for 1996–97 and subsequent years.

    Copies of a list of newspapers and magazines purchased or subscribed to on a regular basis by the Department of Health have been placed in the Library.

    Nurses
    Mr. Paterson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many quqlified nurses are currently registered as unemployed and seeking work(a) in England and (b) North Shropshire. [29970]

    Mrs. Liddell
    I have been asked to reply.

    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. Owen Paterson, dated 18 February 1998:
    I have been asked to reply, as Director of the Office for National Statistics, to your recent question on how many qualified nurses are registered as unemployed and seeking work.
    The information you have requested can only be derived from the monthly claimant count of people claiming unemployment-related benefits (i.e. Jobseekers Allowance or National Insurance credits). Essentially, all people who were claiming these benefits on the count day are counted.
    The information requested is given in the table:

    Number of nurses claiming unemployment benefit by occupation, January 1998

    1Sought

    2Usual

    North Shropshire PC

    0

    0

    England

    1,180

    1,308

    1 Sought occupation: a claimant has to specify the occupation in which they are seeking work.

    2 Usual occupation: a claimant does not have to provide details of usual or previous occupation.

  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Radio Communications Agency
    Mr. Breed
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the promotion criteria within the Radio Communications Agency; what probation term successful candidates have to complete before they are eligible for promotion; what changes in this policy there have been since agency status was established; and what consultations were held with the trade unions on these policies. [29677]
    811
    Mrs. Roche
    In order to secure promotion, a candidate must satisfy the Selection Panel that he/she has the skills and experience required for the post at the higher range/grade and is the best candidate for the post.

    A probation term must be progressing satisfactorily in order that the probationer may be considered for another post. "The Guide" to employment in the DTI provides that a probationer may complete his/her probation period (normally 12 months) in a higher grade where the officer is promoted through normal promotion procedures while on probation.

    Since achieving agency status in 1990. the Agency's promotion procedures have changed three times, on which consultations were held with the trade unions. The position of probationers has arisen only in the last few months and has been the subject of discussions with the trade unions. Revised procedures for the filling of vacancies in the Agency are currently being discussed with the trade Unions.

    Mr. Breed
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many claims for unfair dismissal from the Radio Communications Agency have been taken before industrial tribunals; what were the outcomes; and what compensation has been paid. [29676]

    Mrs. Roche
    One claim for unfair dismissal was taken before an Industrial Tribunal. The case was dismissed and therefore no compensation was paid.

    Export Licences
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many licences have been granted for the export of military, security or police equipment to Kenya in the last two years. [25133]

    Mrs. Roche
    The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated and the results are as follows. Between 1 January 1996 and 12 January 1998, 79 standard individual licences and 37 Open Individual Licences were issued for the export to end users or consignees in Kenya of goods controlled by Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of goods (Control) Order (the so-called "Military List"). The entry in the legislation under which the export of goods is controlled is known as their rating.

    Number of individual licences issued for exports to Kenya covering goods on the Military List

    Rating

    Standard individual export licences

    Open individual export licences

    ML1

    23

    0

    ML2

    2

    0

    ML3

    13

    0

    ML4

    4

    2

    ML5

    2

    3

    ML6

    8

    2

    ML9

    1

    0

    ML10

    7

    12

    ML11

    8

    2

    ML13

    1

    4

    ML15

    2

    0

    ML18

    0

    1

    ML22

    0

    1

    812

    Number of individual licences issued for exports to Kenya covering goods on the Military List

    Rating

    Standard individual export licences

    Open individual export licences

    PL5001

    1

    1

    PL5002

    0

    1

    PL5017

    1

    2

    PL5018

    5

    0

    PL5021

    3

    0

    Individual export licences often cover a range of goods, controlled under several entries in the legislation. Where this is so the licence is included in the Table in the total shown against each of the relevant ratings.

    This information should be considered in light of my answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on 30 October 1997, Official Report, columns 870–71.

    Dr. Tonge
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the countries to which goods covered by Category PL5001 under Export of Goods (Control) orders have been exported since 1 May 1997. [28001]

    Mrs. Roche
    The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated, and the following results were obtained. Between 2 May 1997 and 12 January 1998, individual export licences covering goods controlled under entry PL5001 of the Export of Goods (Control) Order are recorded as having been issued to the following countries: Australia, Canada, Cyprus, France, Germany, Jamaica, Jordan, Malaysia, the Republic of Ireland, Singapore, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Arab Emirates and the United States of America.

    However, this information should be considered in light of the answer I gave on 30 October 1997 to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), Official Report, columns 870–71.

    Mobile Telephones
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received on the cost of the use of mobile telephones. [30190]

    Mrs. Roche
    I have received very few representations on the cost of the use of mobile telephones; these are normally made to the Director General of Telecommunications. In March 1997, following concerns over prices expressed by consumers, OFTEL published a Consultative Document on the Price of Calls to Mobile Phones. This report sought views on the proposal that the price to consumers of calling mobile phones on the Vodaphone and Cellnet networks was too high. OFTEL is considering the responses it received to the consultation and is expected to announce its conclusions shortly.

    Medical Research Council
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade when representatives from her Department last met the Chief Executive of the Medical Research Council. [30473]
    813
    Mr. Battle
    I met Professor Radda, Chief Executive of the Medical Research Council (MRC) at the end of January. The Director General of the Research Councils, Sir John Cadogan, and the Director of the Science and Engineering Base Group attended the February meeting of the MRC Council. Sir John Cadogan also holds regular monthly meetings with the Chief Executives of all seven Research Councils, most recently on 12 February.

    Transco
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade when officials from her Department last met the General Manager of Transco East Midlands. [30187]

    Mr. Battle
    My officials have not met the General Manager of Transco East Midlands, but regularly meet national Transco officials as I did recently.

    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she last met the Chief Executive of Transco. [30186]

    Mr. Battle
    Ministers meet the Chief Executive of BG plc (of which Transco is part) from time to time (as I did recently).

    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the effect of the Monopolies and Mergers' Commission inquiry on the operation of Transco. [30189]

    Mr. Battle
    Assessment of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report into the Transco price control is a matter for the Director General of Gas Supply to whom the report was submitted.

    EU Structural Funds
    Mr. Burns
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the future of the KONVER programme; and what alternative funding the Government will make available to help those made redundant from defence related industries when the KONVER programme ends.[27539]

    Mrs. Roche
    [holding answer 5 February 1998]: The current framework for Structural Fund Community Initiatives is due to expire at the end of 1999. In its communication, "Agenda 2000" published on 16 July 1997, the European Commission outlined its approach to a new regulatory framework for the Structural Funds for the period 2000–06. The Commission has proposed that a new Objective 2 should replace current Community Initiatives that address industrial restructuring, such as KONVER, and it expected to publish the new draft Structural Funds regulations in March or April. In negotiating these regulations, the UK will press for an Objective 2 which allows Member States to target funds effectively at areas of need—such as those which have been subject to industrial restructuring. The Government are currently undertaking regional consultations with interested parties to hear their views on the implications in the UK of Structural Fund reform.

    Consultants
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is her estimate of the expenditure of her(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies on external consultants in (i) 1995–96,
    814
    (ii) 1996–97, (iii) 1997–98 to date and (iv) 1997–98 full year; and if she will also estimate the cost savings resulting from the employment of such consultants for each of the above years. [26593]

    Mrs. Beckett
    [holding answer 5 February 1998]: The value of contracts let centrally to external consultants for 1995–96 was £4.37 million, for 1996–97 was £1.13 million, and for 1997–98 to date is £1.21 million. The estimated forecast for the full year 1997–98 is £4.54 million.

    It is not possible to identify separately any cost savings resulting from the engagement of external consultants, whose work typically contributed to broader consultation exercises.

    Information in respect of expenditure by non-departmental public bodies on external consultants is not kept centrally and could not he compiled without disproportionate cost.

    The above information excludes external consultancies let independently by the Department's Executive Agencies. I have asked Agency Chief Executives to reply separately.

    Letter from Peter Joyce to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 19 February 1998:
    The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your question about the estimated expenditure on external consultants and the estimated cost savings resulting from their employment by the Insolvency Service.
    The costs of external consultants engaged by The Service are as follows:

    £

    1995–96

    1996–97

    1997–98 (to date)

    Forecast 1997–98 (full year)

    Shreeveport Ltd

    460,492

    —

    —

    —

    Bevan Ashford

    35,653

    —

    —

    —

    Bond Pearce

    6,392

    —

    —

    —

    Ernst & Young

    7.284

    —

    —

    —

    Ibbotson Twigg

    84,890

    —

    —

    —

    Bowrings

    2,937

    —

    —

    —

    Impact

    122,311

    —

    —

    —

    Psychological Services

    —

    13,512

    12,128

    16,240

    Birmingham Tec

    —

    —

    2,562

    5,000

    Kathy Beavers

    —

    —

    7,612

    10,200

    Beamans Management Consultants

    —

    23,427

    7,593

    11,353

    TQM International

    —

    —

    2,514

    7,914

    The expenditure in 1995–96 was principally in respect of The Service's contracting out study. Ministers decided that the administrative work of Official Receivers should remain in-house, and in 1996–97 a saving of 8% on the unit cost of case administration, representing some £2 million that year (and subsequently), was achieved.Expenditure in 1995–97 and in the current year principally relates to The Service's commitment to the achievement of IIP accreditation and to the introduction of a new grading and pay system for Service staff.
    Letter from Dr. Seton Bennett to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 19 February 1998:
    The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory to your question about expenditure on external consultants.

    815
    The last consultant employed by this Agency was in 1995/96, at a cost of £3,800. No consultant has been employed by us in the two subsequent years. The 1995/96 consultancy was a rather small exercise and the resultant cost savings cannot readily be estimated.

    Letter from Roger Louth to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 19 February 1998:
    1. Margaret Beckett, President of the Board of Trade, has asked me to reply on behalf of the Radiocommunications Agency to your Parliamentary Question about expenditure on external consultants.
    2. Agency expenditure is as follows:

    £

    Financial year

    Expenditure

    1995/96

    256,000

    1996/97

    860,831

    1997/98 to date

    1,478,698

    1997/98 full year

    2,359,819

    3. All the expenditure involves the provision of strategic advice. Savings resulting from decisions taken in response to such advice will not be quantifiable for some time. When engaging external consultants "value for money" is the Agency's prime consideration.

    Letter from John Holden to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 19 February 1998:
    I have been asked to reply to your recently tabled Parliamentary Question to the President of the Board of Trade on consultancy contracts; the information you require is as follows:

    Expenditure on external consultants

    £000

    Year

    Expenditure

    1995/96

    130

    1996/97

    1,000

    1997/98 to date

    900

    1997/98 full year estimate

    1,200

    (year to date—9 months grossed up)

    Consultants have only been employed—principally in the field of IT—where they represented the most cost-effective, and in some cases the only, solution to deliver a defined business benefit in excess of their cost.

    Letter from P. R. S. Hartnack to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 19 February 1998:
    I am replying for the Patent Office to your Parliamentary Question to the President of the Board of trade about use of external consultants.
    In 1995/6 the Patent Office spent £138,000 on external consultants and in 1996/7 £124,000. So far it has spent £39,000 in 1997/8 and that is likely to be the total spend. There have been reductions in staff and accommodation costs and efficiency gains through streamlined work practices consequent on these consultancy studies. It is difficult to quantify savings in each and every case but reductions in accommodation needs have, for example, led to continuing annual savings of nearly £140,000 from 1995/6.

    Letter from Ian Jones to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 19 February 1998:
    I have been asked by the President of the Board of trade to reply, in respect of the Employment Tribunals Service (ETS), to your question about expenditure on external consultants.
    The ETS did not assume responsibility for letting its own contracts until it gained agency status on 1 April 1997. Expenditure on external consultants in the financial year 1997/98 has so far amounted to £64,250.30. The figures you requested for expenditure in earlier years are covered by replies from the Department for Education and Employment (for the former Employment Department) and the Department of Trade and Industry. Planned expenditure for this financial year in full is estimated at £72,250.30.
    816
    Savings resulting from decisions taken in response to consultancy work will not be quantifiable for some time. When engaging external consultants "value for money" is the Agency's first consideration.
    I hope that this is helpful.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Serious Fraud Office
    Mr. Lock
    To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the steps being taken by the Serious Fraud Office to tackle fraud in the City. [28779]

    The Attorney-General
    The Serious Fraud Office aims to deter fraud and maintain confidence in UK business and financial institutions through effective investigation and Prosecution of serious and complex fraud. Since 5 April 1997, the SFO has prosecuted 36 defendants, of whom 34 have been convicted.

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Attorney-General what is the present position concerning the review of the Crown Preosecution Service; and if he will make a statement. [28780]

    The Attorney-General
    I refer the hon. Member to my oral answer today to the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas).

    Mr. Ian Bruce
    To ask the Attorney-General what has been the trend in the time it takes the Crown Prosecution Service to bring criminal cases before the courts over the last six months; and what steps he is taking to reduce the time taken. [28781]

    The Attorney-General
    Data relating only to the Crown Prosecution Service are not available. However, the Lord Chancellor's Department collects data on the time between offence and completion of magistrates courts proceedings.

    The latest available figures from offence to completion show that, in June 1997, the average time for defendants in indictable cases (including triable either way cases) was 136 days. This is a rise from 133 days in June 1996 and 132 days in June 1995.

    Data collected by the Court Service show that the average time between committal and arraignment or start of the first main hearing in the Crown Court in 1997 was 12 weeks. This is a fall from 13 weeks in 1996 and 16 weeks in 1995.

    The Government are determined to tackle delays in the criminal justice system as a whole. It will achieve this through the measures contained in the Crime and Disorder Bill, which will be reinforced by the extension of the statutory time limits regime.

    Iraq
    Mr. Dalyell
    To ask the Attorney-General what representations from international lawyers he has received as to the legality of a preventive war against Iraq. [28783]
    817
    The Attorney-General
    I have received no such representations. The Government are aware of the requirements of international law.

    Departmental Child Care
    Mr. Barnes
    To ask the Attorney-General what provision his Department makes for child care facilities for staff; what subsidy is provided for(a) nursery places and (b) holiday play schemes; if he will list the organisations used by his Department for child care; and if child care vouchers are made available to staff. [30023]

    The Attorney-General
    The provision made by my Departments is as follows:

    The Treasury Solicitor's Department and the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers
    The Treasury Solicitor's Department makes provision, also open to staff in my own office, for the children of its staff to use the Westminster Holiday Playscheme. This scheme is run on behalf of the Cabinet Office. The Department meet half the daily cost of attendance.
    No subsidy is provided for nursery places nor are child care vouchers made available.

    The Government Properly Lawyers
    The Government Property Lawyers Agency avails itself of similar arrangements. The children of staff are able to use a holiday play scheme organised and run by Crown Departments in Taunton. Child care vouchers are not made available.

    The Serious Fraud Office
    The Serious Fraud Office does not provide child care facilities or subsidies. However, if parents are required to make a temporary change to their normal working routine, for example, if an investigator is required to be away from home overnight or for a more protracted period, the practice is to reimburse them for the additional cost of child care.

    The Crown Prosecution Service
    The Crown Prosecution Service provides no child care facilities or creches at any of its premises. Financial support, through subsidies, is provided to staff who meet certain eligibility criteria towards the cost of:

    (a) child care for infants below school age; and

    (b) school age children attending after-school clubs and holiday play schemes.

    These facilities are provided by numerous organisations throughout the Service's Areas.
    The amount of the subsidy, up to a maximum of 50%, is calculated by reference to the individual's salary and the level of costs incurred. Child care vouchers are not currently provided.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Beef Ban
    Mr. Townend
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will assess the advantages of withdrawing the ban on T-bone steaks and oxtails. [28752]

    Dr. John Cunningham
    The scientific evidence is kept under regular review.

    Beef Consumption
    16. Mr. Hanson
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what initiatives he is supporting to promote the consumption of British beef. [28760]
    818
    Mr. Rooker
    The Government have continued to support various initiatives to help promote consumption and restore consumer confidence in beef. As a result, we have seen significant improvements in the level of beef consumption, indicating the return of consumer confidence.

    Unpasteurised Milk
    Mr. David Heath
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his policy with regard to the sale and consumption of unpasteurised milk and milk products. [28761]

    Mr. Rooker
    We are reviewing policy in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in respect of unpasteurised cows' drinking milk. We are also currently undertaking microbiological surveillance of other unpasteurised milk for drinking, and of certain raw milk products, and will consider the policy implications in the light of the results.

    Livestock Farming
    Mr. Gray
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the elected President of the National Farmers Union to discuss livestock farming. [28762]

    Dr. John Cunningham
    I met the newly elected President of the NFU on 10 February and we discussed a number of issues including livestock farming.

    Arable Area Payments
    Sir Teddy Taylor
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much was paid in area payments in the most recent annual period for which figures are available; and what is the policy objective of making these payments. [28763]

    Mr. Morley
    Payments in the UK under the 1997 Arable Area Payments Scheme are estimated to be £1,216 million. The European Union introduced the Scheme to compensate arable farmers for the reduction in support prices arising from the 1992 reform of the Common Agricultural Policy.

    Pesticides
    Ms Moran
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice his Department gives farmers on the safe use of pesticides. [28764]

    Mr. Rooker
    The statutory Code of Practice for the Safe Use of Pesticides on Farms and Holdings, known as the "Green Code", provides comprehensive guidance to farmers.

    Fisheries
    Mr. Wilkinson
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ensure that vessels of applicant countries for membership of the EU are not allowed to fish within 200 nautical miles of the British coast or within the median line with neighbouring states if closer than this following their entry into the EU. [28765]

    Mr. Morley
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 4 February 1998,Official Report, column 686.
    819

    Farm Assurance Schemes
    Mr. Kidney
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the advantages to farmers of farm assurance schemes. [28767]

    Mr. Morley
    I very much welcome the initiative of the food industry, including farmers, in tackling consumer concerns on food through the creation of farm assurance schemes. To command the confidence of consumers, such schemes must have measurable standards acceptable to all and be subject to independent third party verification to internationally recognised standards. My officials have been advising, and will continue to advise, the industry on these issues.

    Food Standards Agency
    Mr. Lansley
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the role of the Food Standards Agency in advising the public on nutrition. [28768]

    Mr. Rooker
    Our proposals on the Food Standards Agency are set out in the White Paper "The Food Standards Agency: A Force for Change" (Cm 3830) which was published for consultation on 14 January.

    BSE
    Judy Mallaber
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will allow officials in his Department to volunteer their own evidence to Lord Justice Philip's inquiry into BSE. [28769]

    Mr. Rooker
    Certainly. The Permanent Secretary has already informed all members of the Department that they should feel entirely free to make representations directly to the Inquiry.

    Mr. Pike
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his current estimate of the total cost to(a) his Department, (b) the farming industry and (c) the meat processing industry of the BSE crisis. [28771]

    Mr. Rooker
    The estimated cost to the Department of the BSE crisis is £3.7 billion over the period 1996/97 to 1999/2000. The Department has commissioned an independent study with the aim of providing a comprehensive assessment of the economic impact of BSE across the whole UK economy and within particular regions. It is intended for publication soon.

    Common Fisheries Policy
    Mrs. Browning
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the Government's priorities with regard to reform of the common fisheries policy. [28772]

    Mr. Morley
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on 22 January 1998,Official Report, column 675.

    Cattle Traceability Scheme
    Mr. Lock
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the cattle traceability scheme to be operational. [28773]
    820
    Mr. Rooker
    During the summer. This will be well in advance of the EU deadline of 31 December 1999.

    Beef Export Ban
    Mr. Laurence Robertson
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made towards achieving a lifting of the beef export ban. [28774]

    Mr. Rooker
    I refer the hon. Member to the oral answer I gave to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Fitzsimons) earlier today about the Export Certified Herds Scheme.

    We have also submitted proposals to the Commission for a Date Based Export Scheme to permit the export of UK beef from cattle born after 1 August 1996. The Scientific Steering Committee has given a positive response to the principle of this scheme. Following further discussion with the Commission, officials formally responded, on 29 January, to the Scientific Steering Committee's opinion. We await the Commission's response.

    Countryside Access
    Sir David Madel
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultation has taken place with the farming community with regard to the Government's proposed countryside access legislation. [28770]

    Mr. Morley
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) on 22 January 1998,Official Report, column 682.

    Departmental Child Care
    Mr. Barnes
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what provision his Department makes for child care facilities for staff; what subsidy is provided for(a) nursery places and (b) holiday play schemes; if he will list the organisations used by his Department for child care; and if child care vouchers are made available to staff. [30022]

    Mr. Morley
    Staff in the Department, including the Agencies, now have access to 130 nursery places at six sites throughout the country and to holiday play schemes at 11 sites. Subsidies for both nurseries and play schemes vary depending upon local circumstances but are generally in the range 25 to 50 per cent. A proportion of the child care places are in inter-departmental nurseries where the Department is not the lead Department and has not therefore awarded the contract. Organisations with which the Department has its own contracts for nursery provision are Childcare Enterprise Ltd. and Kinderquest Ltd. Child care vouchers are not available to staff.

    Days-at-Sea Allocations
    Mr. Steen
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will institute an appeals system for fishermen dissatisfied with their days at sea allocation. [30428]

    Mr. Morley
    No, such a system would not be relevant to the present situation. In discussions with the fishing industry, the Government have invited Producer Organisations in the beam trawl and pelagic segments to manage their own fishing effort to meet MAGP IV targets.
    821
    Under these arrangements, it will be for Producer Organisations themselves to determine the basis on which this is done. I shall be announcing further details shortly.

    Mr. Steen
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will permit beam trawlers operating in Area 7 to fish for non-pressure stocks when their annual days at sea allocation has been exhausted; and if he will make a statement.[30427]

    Mr. Morley
    No. The effort allocations for the beam trawl segment in 1998, further details of which I shall be announcing shortly, apply to all fishing activity by the vessels concerned.

    Beam Trawler Effort Limitation Scheme
    Mr. Steen
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will meet the hon. Member for Totnes and representatives of the Brixham Beam Trawler Fleet to discuss the Beam Trawler Effort Limitation scheme. [30425]

    Mr. Morley
    I am planning to meet industry representatives, including the Chief Executive of the South Western Fish Producers' Organisation, during my visit to the South West next week. I shall be happy to discuss this or any other matters of current concern with them.

    Mr. Steen
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has had from(a) the Dutch Government, (b) the Spanish Government and (c) the French Government regarding the Beam Trawler Effort Limitation scheme. [30426]

    Mr. Morley
    None. Under Council Decision 97/413/EC, it is for individual Member States to decide, subject to Commission approval, the means by which to achieve their objectives under the fourth Multi-Annual Guidance Programme (MAGP IV).

    Meat Imports
    Mr. Paice
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 13 February 1998,Official Report, column 436, on meat imports, if he will provide a breakdown by country of the imports listed as other. [30459]

    Mr. Rooker
    Overseas Trade Statistics shows that small values of beef, sheep meat, pig meat (including bacon and ham) and poultry meat were dispatched for import into the UK between January and October 1997 from the countries in the table. The values are provisional and subject to amendment. They will be subject to a degree of statistical error. The overall level of errors will be low, but these errors will have a much greater proportional effect on countries with small values of trade. Therefore, great care is needed when interpreting the data in the tables as they will inevitably include a number of errors.

    £000

    Country

    Value

    Beef

    Paraguay

    192

    Uganda

    84

    Romania

    40

    South Africa

    40

    822

    £000

    Country

    Value

    Greece

    22

    Japan

    21

    Malaysia

    21

    Canada

    11

    Belize

    4

    Finland

    2

    Sweden

    2

    Total

    440

    Pig meat

    Argentina

    650

    Hungary

    528

    Finland

    288

    Austria

    260

    Greece

    104

    South Africa

    13

    New Zealand

    1

    Total

    1,843

    Sheep meat

    Iceland

    314

    Brazil

    207

    USA

    147

    Denmark

    96

    South Africa

    55

    Austria

    37

    China

    36

    Singapore

    22

    Finland

    18

    Italy

    9

    Total

    941

    Poultry meat

    Uruguay

    385

    Hungary

    278

    Greece

    83

    USA

    56

    Singapore

    40

    Norway

    25

    Sweden

    8

    Finland

    5

    Portugal

    2

    Hong Kong

    1

    New Zealand

    1

    Total

    884

    Departmental Contracts
    Mr. Salmond
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many contracts of a value greater than £10,000 his Department has with companies in(a) London, (b) South East England, (c) England, (d) Scotland, (e) Wales and (f) Northern Ireland; and what is the total value of such contracts for each area. [30100]

    Mr. Rooker
    [holding answer 18 February 1998]: The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Departmental Employees
    Mr. Salmond
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of his Department's employees by UK region, indicating the wage bill(a) in total and (b) by region in the last year for which figures are available and separately identifying the costs of London allowances and weightings. [30097]
    823
    Mr. Rooker
    [holding answer 18 February 1998]: The tables set out the numbers of staff in the Department and its Agencies by region. Gross salaries (basic salary plus any pay additions and specialist allowances) have been used for the wage bill.

    The Farming and Rural Conservation Agency has not been in existence for a 12 month period so it is not possible to provide salary data on an annual basis. In the month to 31 December 1997, the gross salaries amounted to £1,122,500.

    In core-MAFF and its Agencies, London Weighting and the London Allowance no longer exist as separate allowances. On 1 April 1997, both allowances were consolidated into the basic pay of those staff receiving them.

    Government Office Region

    Total staff

    Gross salaries (£)

    Core MAFF

    Eastern

    449

    6,130,100

    E. Midlands

    358

    4,651,300

    Merseyside

    2

    39,900

    North East

    93

    1,228,500

    North West

    600

    7,180,000

    Scotland

    83

    2,342,900

    London

    1,790

    39,024,000

    South East

    1,099

    18,965,200

    South West

    966

    11,927,200

    Wales

    132

    2,250,500

    W. Midlands

    328

    4,251,500

    Yorks/Humberside

    732

    9,984,600

    Total

    6,632

    107,975,700

    Pesticides Safety Directorate

    Yorks/Humberside

    208

    3,883,300

    Total

    208

    3,883,300

    Veterinary Medicines Directorate

    South East

    110

    2,403,300

    Total

    110

    2,403,300

    Veterinary Laboratories Agency

    Eastern

    33

    574,900

    E. Midlands

    38

    616,700

    North East

    24

    342,900

    North West

    50

    758,100

    Scotland

    24

    470,500

    South East

    768

    11,912,200

    South West

    56

    1,028,000

    Wales

    33

    562,300

    W. Midlands

    67

    1,009,900

    Yorks/Humberside

    30

    458,800

    Total

    1,123

    17,734,300

    Central Science laboratory

    Eastern

    134

    1,894,700

    Yorks/Humberside

    448

    8,806,700

    Total

    582

    10,701,400

    Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science

    Eastern

    313

    5,725,200

    North West

    3

    56,100

    South East

    64

    1,059,300

    South West

    63

    1,032,300

    Wales

    22

    433,600

    Total

    465

    8,306,500

    824

    Region1

    Total staff

    Gross salaries (£)

    North

    275

    6,468,000

    Scotland

    168

    3,871,000

    South and East

    214

    5,323,000

    South West

    180

    4,151,000

    Wales

    149

    3,518,000

    Central

    182

    4,347,000

    Yorks/Humberside

    46

    1,254,000

    Total

    1,214

    28,932,000

    Farming & Rural Conservation Agency

    Eastern

    157

    not known

    Northern

    179

    not known

    Western

    143

    not known

    Wales

    82

    not known

    London

    29

    not known

    Total

    590

    not known

    1 Regional boundaries differ from Government Office Regions.

    Genetically Modified Soya
    Mr. Singh
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the percentage of baby food products sold in the United Kingdom in 1997 which contained unlabelled genetically modified soya. [30417]

    Mr. Rooker
    This information is not recorded. However, the Food Manufacturers Federation, the British Retail Consortium and the Institute of Grocery Distribution announced in November 1997 that their members, which include all the major food manufacturers and retailers, would be labelling products containing genetically modified soya or maize from January this year.

    Slaughterhouses
    Mr. Paice
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what(a) studies and (b) evaluations have been carried out by his Department into (i) the microbiological standards of the finished product from slaughterhouses and cutting plants and (ii) the scores achieved by those plants under his hygiene assessment system. [30214]

    Mr. Rooker
    [holding answer 18 February 1998]: No studies or evaluations have been carried out by the Ministry with the sole objective of measuring the microbiological standards of the finished product from slaughterhouses and cutting plants, against their hygiene Assessment System (HAS) scores. However, as part of a wider MAFF funded research project, Bristol University has published results (Veterinary Record (1996) 139, 587–589, W. R. Hudson, G. C. Mead, M. H. Hinton) of a study which concluded that HAS scores are a useful tool in predicting the ability of an abattoir to produce carcases to sound microbiological status, especially the categories concerned with slaughter and dressing, and personnel and practices.

    Mr. Paice
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what microbiological tests are made during the assessment of slaughterhouses and cutting plants under his hygiene assessment system. [30213]

    Mr. Rooker
    [holding answer 18 February 1998]: Microbiological testing does not form part of the assessment of slaughterhouses and cutting plants under

    825
    the Hygiene Assessment System (HAS) whose scores are a general guide to long-term hygiene performance at meat plants.

    Quarantine
    Mr. Hesford
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he plans to implement changes in the quarantine requirements for animals coming into this country before the end of 1998; and if he will make a statement. [29743]

    Mr. Rooker
    The Advisory Group on Quarantine is expected to report by late Spring, after which we plan to hold a full public consultation. Even if the assessment shows that changes to the current quarantine rules appear justified, it is unlikely that any new arrangements could be in place before the end of 1998. It is also possible that any changes could be introduced by EU, rather than national, legislation.

    Beef Exports
    Mrs. Ballard
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department has conducted into the relationship between the incidence of BSE in foreign countries and(a) the export of meat and bonemeal from Britain for use in animal feed and (b) the use of similar procedures in the production of meat and bonemeal for animal feed in those countries. [29722]

    Mr. Rooker
    The Department is not undertaking any such research as it is up to individual countries to conduct their own research. Alternatively, in the case of BSE in EU Member States, the Commission may carry out research centrally.

    In a report of a Commission Mission to France between 17 and 21 March 1997, the French authorities are quoted as attributing at least 18 of their BSE cases to consumption of meat and bonemeal of UK origin.

    Sheep Dip
    Mr. Charles Kennedy
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence he has assessed of damage to the(a) aquatic and (b) soil environments from synthetic pyrethroid sheep dips; where this damage has occurred; what assessment he has made of its implications for fisheries and wildlife; and if he will make a statement. [29728]

    Angela Eagle
    [holding answer 16 February 1998]: I have been asked to reply.

    The Environment Agency is responsible for monitoring of, and assessing any damage to the environment in England and Wales. The Agency has initiated a monitoring programme to determine whether there is evidence of widespread impact on the aquatic environment from all types of sheep dipping compounds, including synthetic pyrethroids. A full report of the findings will be published by the Agency later this year. There has been no specific assessment of effects on soil.
    826

  DEFENCE

    Iraq
    Mr. Mackinlay
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what support he has received from Poland in respect of the United Kingdom's stance in relation to the crisis with Iraq. [30559]

    Mr. George Robertson
    I took the opportunity to exchange views with Dr. Janusz Onyszkiewicz, the Polish Defence Minister, during his visit to the UK, from 10 to 12 February, on the crisis in Iraq which has been caused by Saddam Hussein's failure to comply with Security Council resolutions and to cooperate with UNSCOM.

    The Government and Poland are clear that the highest priority must be on a diplomatic solution to the crisis. However, the Polish Government support the UK's position that, in the last resort, it may be necessary to consider military action. In that event, the Polish Government have indicated that they would be prepared to make a military contribution, and would be ready to deploy chemical defence specialists to the region.

    Dr. Onyszkiewicz and I issued a joint press statement to this effect on 11 February.

    Poland is one of a growing number of countries which has either deployed forces to the Gulf to operate alongside US and UK forces or is planning to do so. The precise details of national contributions are properly a matter for the countries concerned, but we understand that Australia already has tanker aircraft and an advance party of troops in the Gulf; that warships from Canada, the Netherlands and Belgium are en route; that New Zealand is planning to deploy troops and surveillance aircraft; and that Denmark, Argentina, Romania, Poland and Norway have indicated they would make military contributions to the coalition. This list is expected to grow.

    In addition, many of the Gulf Cooperation Council States and Turkey, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Hungary and the Czech Republic are either providing basing and support for coalition forces or have offered to do so.

    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken to define the objectives of any possible military action against Iraq. [29578]

    Mr. George Robertson
    The objectives of any possible military action against Iraq have been carefully defined and are as presented:Our aim is to prevent Saddam from maintaining or developing a Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) capability that would threaten the region and international order.
    We seek to achieve this by ensuring Saddam's full compliance with UN Security Council Resolutions, including restoration of a fully effective UNSCOM.
    We wish to secure his compliance by diplomatic means if possible; but, if these fail, we should be ready to use armed force.
    The aim of any military action would be to diminish significantly Saddam's military capabilities, including his ability to deploy, conceal and recreate his WMD capability or threaten his neighbours.
    Military action would significantly set back Saddam's WMD programmes, whether or not UNSCOM was immediately reinstated. This would be a better outcome than a "gutted" UNSCOM.
    Saddam would be held at continuing risk of further military action if he attempted again to recreate his WMD capability.
    827

    Polish Minister of Defence
    Mr. Mackinlay
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his discussions with Poland's Minister of Defence. [30558]

    Mr. George Robertson
    I was delighted to be able to welcome my colleague Dr. Janusz Onyszkiewicz to the UK during his visit of 10 to 12 February. I am pleased to say that we enjoyed a frank and open discussion, which touched on a wide range of issues of mutual interest.

    Naturally, wetook the opportunity to exchange views on the crisis in Iraq. Dr. Onyszkiewicz agreed that, while the highest priority must be to find a diplomatic solution, neither the British nor the Polish Government would shrink from the task should it become necessary in the last resort to consider the military option. In that event, Dr. Onyszkiewicz declared Poland's readiness to make a military contribution and that they would be prepared to deploy a team of chemical defence specialists to the region.

    Regarding NATO enlargement, we exchanged views on Poland's preparation's for membership of the Alliance and the future role she might play once she is a member. Britain has been a strong supporter of Poland's NATO candidature and our bilateral defence relationship is excellent. I took the opportunity to reinforce our desire to help Poland integrate into the Alliance as smoothly as possible and to explore new avenues for cooperation between the armed forces of Britain and Poland.

    We spoke also of the rapidly evolving trilateral UK/Poland/Ukraine defence relationship, which continues to gain momentum. Following the great success of last year's airborne exercise "Cossack Steppe" in the Ukraine, involving British, Polish and Ukrainian forces, we hope to repeat the exercise this year in the UK during May. During our talks, I suggested to Dr. Onyszkiewicz that he visit me again during May so that we might view the exercise together with our colleague General Olexsandr Kuzmuk, the Ukrainian Defence Minister.

    Army Messing Contracts
    Mr. Key
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence where NAAFI files and records are currently located which relate to the publicly funded messing contract. [29288]

    Mr. Spellar
    My Department's files on this issue are held by the Naval Bases and Supply Agency at Bath. NAAFI files and records are a matter for that company, but I understand that files relating to their former contract with my Department are held in more than one location.

    Army Medal Office
    Mr. Nicholls
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about the performance of the Army Medal Office; what is the average time for dealing with applications concerning campaign medals; if he will make extra staffing resources available to the Army Medal Office; if he will introduce a fast track procedure for the processing of applications which takes account of the age and health of the applicant; and if he will make a statement. [29785]

    Mr. Spellar
    During the period commemorating the end of the Second World War there was a considerable upsurge in requests to the Army Medal Office (AMO).
    828
    This led to a backlog and a delay of more than 12 months in processing applications. As a consequence my Department received a number of letters from MPs and the public regarding the delay. I have investigated this with the AMO and major efforts are being made to reduce the waiting time which I am pleased to report now stands at 8 months. We are working to ensure a further reduction. My Department has considered, but decided against, employing extra staff to reduce the waiting time as it would take six months to train new staff fully and would divert experienced staff from their primary task of assessing medal entitlements. The Army Medal Office already has a policy in place for processing applications from those ex-Servicemen over the age of 90 or those who are terminally ill. These cases are processed immediately and normally completed within three weeks of receipt.

    Mr. Bernard Grey
    Mr. Keith Simpson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Special Adviser, Mr. Bernard Grey signed the Official Secrets Act. [30257]

    Mr. George Robertson
    The most recent occasion on which Mr. Bernard Grey signed a declaration acknowledging the provisions of the Official Secrets Act was 6 November 1997.

    Drug Smuggling
    Mr. Wilshire
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what procedure has to be followed when a commanding officer of the West Indies guard ship and the United States Coast Guard officers on board wish to obtain permission to board a vessel they suspect of being involved in drug smuggling. [30259]

    Dr. Reid
    Permission must be sought from UK HQ FLEET and the US Coastguard Authority before the West Indies Guard Ship can stop, and her US Law Enforcement Detachment can board and search, a suspect vessel. It is for the US Coastguard Authority to confirm that the flagged state to which the suspect vessel belongs is content for the operation to be undertaken.

    Mr. Wilshire
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) the number of requests to board vessels suspected of being involved in drug smuggling made by the commanding officer, (b) the number of requests agreed to, (c) the number of occasions when evidence of drug smuggling was found and (d) the quantities and types of drugs found in respect of the West Indies guard ship for each of the past three years. [30260]

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

    Collaborative Projects
    Mr. Key
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list defence equipment collaborative projects involving the United Kingdom at 1 April 1997 by country and by projects(a) in production or in service, (b) in the development phase and (c) in the study phase categorised as (i) naval equipment, (ii) land equipment, (iii) missiles, (iv) air systems and (v) other equipment. [29450]
    829
    Mr. Spellar
    [holding answer 16 February 1998]: The information requested is contained in the table, which shows those collaborative projects for which a signed Memorandum of Understanding between the participating nations existed at 1 April 1997. One other co-operative project, which is conducted under the auspices of an MOU, has been omitted under exemption 1 (Defence, security and international relations), of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

    Collaborative Projects Involving the UK at 1 April 1997

    Projects in Production or in Service

    Naval Equipment

    Sea Gnat Decoy System: Denmark/ USA

    NATO Ships Inertial Guidance System: Canada/ Netherlands/Spain

    Barra Sonobouy: Australia

    Land Equipment

    FH 70 Howitzer: Germany/ Italy

    M483A1 Artillery Shell: Netherlands/ Turkey! USA

    Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked): Belgium

    Multiple Launch Rocket System Phase I: France/ Germany/ Italy/ USA

    Multiple Launch Rocket System Phase II: Germany

    M3 Amphibious Bridging System: Germany

    Missiles

    Sidewinder Air-to-Air: Germany! Italy! Norway

    Milan Anti-Tank (including improvements): France/ Germany

    Sea Skua Support: Germany

    Air Systems

    Jaguar: France

    Lynx: France

    Puma: France

    Gazelle: France

    Tornado: Germany/ Italy

    Harrier AV8b/GR5/7: USA

    EH101 Merlin Helicopter: Italy

    RTM322 Helicopter Engine: France

    Joint Tactical Information Distribution System: USA

    Other Equipment
    Naystar Global Positioning System (GPS): Belgium/ Canada/ Denmark/ France/ Germany/ Greece/ Iceland/ Italy! Netherlands/ Norway/ Portugal/ Spain/ Turkey/ USA

    Projects in the Development Phase

    Naval Equipment

    Intercooled Recuperated (ICR) Gas Turbine Engine: USA

    Co-operative Outboard Logistics Update (COBLU): USA

    Land Equipment

    COBRA (Counter Battery Radar): France/ Germany

    Aimed Controlled Effect Anti-Tank Mine: France/ Germany

    Missiles

    Long Range TRIGAT (Third Generation Anti-Tank Guided Weapon): France/ Germany

    Medium Range TRIGAT (Third Generation Anti-Tank Guided Weapon): Belgium/ France/ Germany/ Netherlands

    Air Systems

    Eurofighter: Germany/ Italy/ Spain

    Joint Strike Fighter: USA

    Other Equipment

    Universal MODEM for Satellite Communications: USA

    Allied Data Systems Interoperability Agency—NATO Procedural Interoperability Standards: France/ Germany/ Netherlands! Norway/ Spain/ USA

    830

    Projects in Study Phase

    Naval Equipment

    HORIZON: France/ Italy

    Surface Ship Torpedo Defence System: USA

    NATO Improved Link Eleven: Canada/ France/ Germany/ Italy/ Netherlands/ USA

    NATO Submarine Rescue System (NSRS): France! Italy/ Norway/ USA

    1.25MW Complex Cycle Gas Turbine Generator: Netherlands

    Trimaran Demonstrator: USA

    Land Equipment

    Future Tank Main Armament:

    France/ Germany/ USA

    Very Short Range and Short Range Air Defence System Programme:

    France/ Germany/ Italy/ Netherlands/ Norway/ Turkey/ USA

    Electro Magnetic Launcher: USA

    Missiles

    Principal Anti-Air Missile System: France! Italy

    Air Systems

    Allied Standards Avionics Architecture Initiative:

    France! Germany/ USA

    Active Electronically Scanned Radar for Airborne Multimode Solid-State Actine-Array Radar: France/ Germany

    Advanced Aeroengine Technology: France

    ASRAAM P31: USA

    CONDOR—Covert Night/Day Operation: USA

    Other Equipment

    Next Generation IFF: France! Germany/ Italy! USA

    Communications Systems Network Interoperability: Canada/ France/ Germany/ Italy/ Netherlands! Norway/ Portugal/ Spain/ USA

    Future Military Satellite Telecommunications Systems, TRIMILSATCOM (SKYNET 5): France/ Germany.

    Dockyard Workers
    Mrs. Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what research he has evaluated into the incidence of cancer in nuclear dockyard workers; [29453]

    (2) how many (a) past and (b) present Rosyth Dockyard employees have had a full medical check under the Government's health check scheme; [29439]

    (3) what action he has taken to investigate the health of workers involved in nuclear work at Rosyth dockyards. [29452]

    Mr. Spellar
    [holding answer 16 February 1998]: My Department takes careful account of national and international epidemiological studies concerning radiation workers and of the professional advice of the National Radiological Protection Board. The Ministry of Defence is a major contributor to the National Registry of Radiation Workers, which provides source data for national epidemiological studies.

    The numbers of past and present Rosyth Dockyard employees who have received full medical checks cannot be determined without disproportionate cost. Before 1986, all Classified Radiation Workers at Naval Dockyards were given medical examinations before taking up employment and at least every 14 months thereafter, as the law then required. Since the Ionising Radiation Regulations 1985 came into force, annual health reviews by Appointed

    831
    Doctors have been mandatory for all Classified Radiation Workers; these annual reviews include medical examinations if the Appointed Doctors consider them necessary. Some former and present Rosyth Dockyard radiation workers have sought and received medical counselling, under the scheme available to all Dockyard radiation workers (both classified and unclassified) since 1990 or under the extended scheme which I announced in June 1997.

    Nuclear Dosage Records
    Mrs. Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what actions he has taken to speed up the handling of requests for nuclear dosage records held by his Department; [29454]

    (2) how many nuclear dosage records in his Department are (a) known to be missing and (b) known to be incomplete. [29455]

    Mr. Spellar
    [holding answer 16 February 1998]: The law requires my Department to keep radiation dose records for Classified Radiation workers for 50 years (formerly 30 years). There is no reason to believe that any are incomplete or missing.

    The law requires radiation records for non-classified radiation workers, with annual doses limited to 15 mSv, to be kept for two years only. My Department still holds many, but not all, of their records.

    Classified Radiation Workers' records are maintained by Approved Dosimetry Services at the Atomic Weapons Establishment (Aldermaston) and at DERA Radiation Protection Services (Alverstoke). Most are held in computer formats which can normally be searched rapidly: some are held on microfiche or microfilm which take a little longer to search.

    These Approved Dosimetry Services also hold the records of some non-classified radiation workers. But, many of their records are held locally in paper form. Searching for the local records has been a difficult process up to now. To reduce delays, I have instigated a programme to store digital images of these records and to index them on a computer database. The pilot for this project, involving all the local records for former Chatham Radiation Workers, has been completed. By the end of this financial year, I expect the project to incorporate local records from the other Naval nuclear establishments will be covered as soon as possible thereafter.

    If an investigation into an incident finds that an employee has been significantly exposed to radiation, the law requires it to be entered into his record. Investigation reports relating to the overexposure of individuals are required to be kept for 50 years (formerly 30 years). This has always been MOD's practice. However, it is impossible to be certain that every minor incident was recorded.

    Research Programme
    Mr. Key
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current value of the defence corporate research programme; and if he will list its technology groups and their research objectives and related technical areas, defined in terms of equipment and technology capabilities. [29522]
    832
    Mr. Spellar
    [holding answer 18 February 1998]: Expenditure on the MOD's Corporate Research Programme for the current financial year (1997–98) will be about £150 million. The programme is divided into 12 Technology Groups and beneath that into a number of Research Objectives, the majority of which are as listed:

    (0) Overarching Strategy Studies

    Management

    Strategic Studies

    (1) Acoustics, Magnetics and Hydrodynamics

    Technology Group Management

    Technology Group Plans

    Acoustics

    Magnetics

    Hydrodynamics

    Chemical and Biological Defence and Medical

    Technology Group Management

    Technology Group Strategy

    Hazard Assessment

    Detection

    Tri-service Medical

    (3) Propulsion, Aerodynamics and Guidance

    Technology Group Management

    Technology Group Strategy

    Propulsion

    Aerodynamics

    Control of Fixed and Rotary Wing Aircraft

    Precision Guidance

    Seekers

    System Aspects

    (4) Materials and Structures

    Technology Group Management

    Technology Group Strategy

    Non Metallics

    Metallics and Ceramics

    Functional Materials

    Batteries and Fuel Cells

    Structural and Hazard Assessments

    (5) Human Sciences and Effectiveness

    Technology Group Management

    Technology Group Strategy

    Integration

    Individual Performance and Survivability

    Military Human Resources and Training Effectiveness

    Leadership, Decision Making and Collective Performance

    Systems and Synthetic Environments

    (6) Energetic Materials and Terminal Effects

    Technology Group Management

    Technology Group Strategy

    Synthesis

    Formulation Studies

    Characterisation

    Fundamental Science of Energetic Materials

    Explosives Detection

    Terminal Effects Modelling

    Weapon/Target Applications

    833

    (7) Electronic Device Technology

    Technology Group Management

    Technology Group Strategy

    Electronics Technology for Sensors and Devices

    Electronics Devices for Systems

    Electronics Reliability, Maintainability and Survivability

    (8) Infra-red and Visible Technology

    Technology Group Management

    Technology Group Strategy Sensor Technology

    Systems Applications

    (9) Radio Frequency Technology

    Technology Group Management

    Technology Group Strategy and Special Topics

    Surveillance and Target Acquisition Techniques

    Electronic Warfare Techniques

    Radio Frequency Military Communications Technology

    Radio Frequency Component Technology

    (10) Computing and Information Technology

    Technology Group Management

    Technology Group Strategy

    Signal Processing Technology

    Image Processing and Interpretation Technology

    Information Processing and Fusion Technologies

    Synthetic Environment Technology

    Human-Machine Interaction, Speech and Visual Technologies

    CIS and Decision Support Technology

    (11) Operational Analysis

    Technology Group Management

    Technology Group Strategy

    Methodology/Technique Development.

    There are a large number of detailed technical areas which support these Research Objectives. I am withholding details of these, and of several Research Objectives which do not appear in the above list, under exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information relating to defence, security and international relations.

    Mr. Key
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the companies which through(a) the DERA Pathfinder process and (b) other briefings, have shared in his Department's evaluation of defence technological and research priorities; and if he will list those priorities. [29515]

    Mr. Spellar
    [holding answer 18 February 1998]: The companies who attended the Pathfinder 1997 conference are as follows:

    Advanced Composites Group Ltd

    AEA Technology plc

    Allied Signal Ltd

    Alvis Logistics Ltd

    Alvis Unipower

    Anite Systems Ltd

    Applied Visuals Ltd

    Avimo Ltd

    Avon Technical Products Ltd

    AVPRO

    834

    Babcock Defence Systems

    BAe

    BASYS Marine Ltd

    CAE Invertron

    Cambridge Algorithmica

    Century Dynamics Ltd

    Chelsea Instruments Ltd

    Chemring Group plc

    Cogent Defence Systems

    Corda Ltd

    Crew Services Ltd

    CRL

    Data Sciences (UK) Ltd

    Delta Communications Ltd

    Det Norske Veritas

    Devonport Management Ltd

    Dowty Aerospace

    DSAC

    Earth Observation Science Ltd

    EDS Defence Ltd

    EEV Ltd

    EG&G AEP Division

    Electronics Ind Ltd

    Elettronica (UK) Ltd

    EM Technology

    EPSRC

    ERA Technology Ltd

    ESYS Ltd

    Fairey Hydraulics Ltd

    FEI

    Ferranti Technologies Ltd

    Filtronic Components Ltd

    GEC

    GKN

    GM

    GMCIS

    Graseby Dynamics Ltd

    Hi-Q Systems Ltd

    Human Engineering Ltd

    Hunting Engineering Ltd

    HVR Consulting Services Ltd

    Hymatic Engineering Co Ltd

    Impact Sciences Ltd

    InterAction of Bath Ltd

    Interglossa Ltd

    ITT Defence

    JJB Consultancy Ltd

    John Crane Signature Management

    Kidde-Graviner Ltd

    Laboratory Impex Systems

    Laser-Scan Ltd

    Litton Data Systems

    Lockheed Martin

    Logica UK Ltd

    Lucas Aerospace Ltd

    835

    Mackenzie Tribbeck Associates

    Magnetic Systems Technology Ltd

    Marconi Radar and Control Systems

    Matra BAe Dynamics (UK) Ltd

    Matra Marconi Space UK

    Nangia Aero Research

    NPL

    NNC

    Normalair Garret Ltd

    Nortel plc

    PC201

    Pilkington Optronics

    Power Magnetics and Electrical Systems

    PS Industry Group Ltd

    Quintec Associates Ltd

    Racal

    Raytheon Cossor Electronics

    Redifon Mel Ltd

    Resource Calculations (UK)

    Roke Manor Research Ltd

    Rolls-Royce and Associates

    Rolls-Royce plc

    SEA Ltd

    Safe Training Systems

    Science Systems (Industrial) Ltd

    SERCO Ltd

    Shorts Missile Systems Ltd

    Siemens Plessey Systems

    Signal Computing Ltd

    Silicon Graphics Ltd

    SIRA Ltd

    Slingsby Aviation Ltd

    Slingsby Engineering Ltd

    Smith System Engineering

    Smiths Industrial Aerospace

    Soft System Developments

    Sonardyne International Ltd

    St. Bernard Composites Ltd

    Stirling Dynamics Ltd

    Strachan and Henshaw Ltd

    Systems Consultants Services

    Systems Engineering and Assessment

    Systems Studies Ltd

    TA Consultancy Services Ltd

    TA Group Ltd

    Telcon Ltd

    Tenet Systems Ltd

    The Advance Composites Group

    The Hymatic Engineering Co Ltd

    The Welding Institute

    Thomson

    Thorn Microwave Devices Ltd

    Transtech Parallel Systems

    Trident Data Systems

    TRL Technology Ltd

    Ultra Electronics

    Vickers Defence Systems

    Vosper Thornycroft (UK) Ltd

    836

    W and J Tod

    W. L. Gore and Associates (UK) Ltd

    Wallop Defence Systems

    Westland System Assessment Ltd

    W.S. Atkins

    WSAL.

    As a normal part of Departmental business, there is a wide range of interactions between officials and companies which contribute to the evaluation of defence technological and research priorities. These working level contacts are not recorded centrally.

    Mr. Key
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by (i) subject and (ii) current value the projects supported by his Department's applied research programme in 1997 indicating work(a) let with the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency and (b) work carried out by industry through extramural contracts let by DERA. [29518]

    Mr. Spellar
    [holding answer 18 February 1998]: During 1997, applied research to the gross value of about £420 million, of which over 99.5 per cent. by value was placed with DERA, was authorised to support the following Technology areas:

    Structural Materials and Structural Effects Analysis

    Signature Related Materials and Materials for Smart Structures

    Electronic Materials

    Photonic/Optical Materials and Devices

    Energetic Materials

    Chemical and Biological Materials

    Computing Technologies

    Computer Applications & Information Processing

    Human Sciences

    Operating Environmental Issues

    Lethality & Platform Protection

    Propulsion & Powerplants

    Design Aspects—Platforms and Weapons

    Electronic Warfare

    Signature Control and Signature Reduction

    Sensor Systems

    Guidance and Control Systems

    Simulators, Trainers and Synthetic Environments

    Integration and Other System Issues

    Communications and CIS related Technologies

    Personnel Protection Measures

    Manufacturing Processes/Design Tools/Techniques.

    I am withholding the more detailed information requested under exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information relating to defence, security and international relations.

    Mr. Key
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when the balance and scope of his Department's applied research programme was last received by the Defence Research Council; [29520]

    (2) if he will list the members of the Defence Research Council. [29519]
    837
    Mr. Spellar
    [holding answer 18 February 1998]: The membership of the Defence Research Committee (DRC) is made up of individuals holding the following posts:

    Chief Scientific Adviser: Chairman

    Vice Chief Defence Staff

    Deputy Chief of Defence Staff (Systems)

    Deputy Under Secretary of State (Science and Technology)

    Deputy Chief of Defence Staff (Programmes and Personnel)

    Deputy Under Secretary of State (Resources Programmes and Finance)

    Deputy Chief of Defence Procurement (Operations)

    Deputy Chief of Defence Procurement (Support)

    Director Intelligence Scientific and Technical.

    Representatives from Her Majesty's Treasury, the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency and the Chairman of the Defence Scientific Advisory Council are normally also invited to attend each meeting.

    The DRC meets twice a year to review the totality of the non-nuclear defence research programme, including the applied research programme. The Committee last met on 5 November 1997.

    Mr. Key
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has established a national programme to bring together industry, both civil and defence, the academic community and the DERA on collaborative research projects of common interest; what percentage of project costs are made from Government sources; and what the programme's current budget is. [29513]

    Mr. Spellar
    [holding answer 18 February 1998]: MOD plays a leading part in the Government's Foresight initiative which seeks, inter alia, to bring industry, academia and Government together for their mutual benefit. Specifically, MOD is heavily involved in the Foresight Defence and Aerospace Panel, DASP.

    DASP Technology Working Parties were set up in eight technology areas which MOD, industry and academia jointly regard as high priority. Their task was to consider the best way forward on a national basis in those technologies. Six have reported already and a further two are expected by mid-1998. A common theme to be found in each of the working party reports is the need for some better means of harmonising technology priorities between Government, industry and academia. A proposal has been made that National Advisory Committees be set up to achieve this aim, under DASP oversight. The MOD fully supports this initiative and is working within the DASP to devise a 5 year plan for the appropriate development of these Committees.

    MOD sees considerable value in fostering dialogue and networking, where there are areas of common interest, among those communities within Government, industry and academia that formulate the requirements for, and deliver, research programmes. MOD also makes a small, but significant, contribution to Foresight panels other than the DASP and is supporting the Society of British Aerospace Companies' Foresight Action initiative through programme alignment.

    These activities will also be appropriately aligned with National Defence Industry Council initiatives.
    838
    Mr. Key
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the individuals, with their qualifications, who currently review the defence corporate research programme to identify areas of potential pullthrough into the applied research programme. [29516]

    Mr. Spellar
    [holding answer 18 February 1998]: Pullthrough from the Corporate Research Programme, CRP, to the Applied Research Programme, ARP, and other programmes is actively encouraged at all levels. Pullthrough takes different forms depending on circumstances. For example, where a CRP project becomes sufficiently applied that it is deemed to be suitable for Applied Research funding, an agreed pullthrough plan will be drawn up between the respective CRP and ARP customers. Continuous dialogue between CRP customers, their stakeholders and Operational Requirements military customers and their supporting scientific staffs identify and agree technology areas and timescales for such pullthrough.

    Secondary pullthrough also occurs within the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, where a common research team might typically work on both generic long term CRP projects and shorter term ARP projects. In this instance, technology and knowledge continually feeds directly from the CRP to ARP via the research scientist involved.

    Information on the individuals involved in pullthrough activity, both informally and formally, is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Mr. Key
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for the defence corporate research programme(a) scientists from his Department and academic institutions who are currently involved in peer review and(b) the functions of the customer advisory groups, together with current membership and qualifications. [29517]

    Mr. Spellar
    [holding answer 18 February 1998]: Peer review forms a vital component in the selection of quality and relevant projects forming the Corporate Research Programme. Review occurs at various stages within the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, DERA, where senior scientists select projects from sectors within DERA to form a portfolio of bids. Final peer review typically involves detailed assessment of proposal quality, military relevance, value for money and collaborative opportunities, including wealth creation.

    The peer review teams differ between DERA technology groups but would normally include; two or three eminent academics with a long association with MOD research programmes, often from the Defence Science Advisory Council, MOD representatives from the central scientific, operational requirements and procurement areas; other MOD HQ scientific staff; DERA scientists, and, if applicable, representatives from DTI and industry. Individuals are selected on the basis of their track record and particular knowledge and expertise in the specific subject areas. Information on the very large number of individuals involved is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Customer Advisory Groups exist to provide guidance on the longer-term focus of research, to ensure that the products of the research are in line with the requirements expressed by the stakeholders. As such, their composition

    839
    varies as a function of the specific technology group. Composition would typically comprise staff from central scientific and technical intelligence, operational requirements and procurement areas. Operational Requirements representation would include those with Applied Research Programme customer responsibilities to maximise future pullthrough opportunities.

    Mr. Key
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what(a) national and (b) international collaboration has been achieved under the defence research programme's Beacon fund. [29514]

    Mr. Spellar
    [holding answer 18 February 1998]: The Beacon Fund is aimed at encouraging research collaboration between DERA and industry or academia. It was set up in 1996 as a subset of the Corporate Research Programme, with a £2 million annual budget planned for worthwhile proposals. Such has been the demand that this budget was raised to £4 million in 1997.

    There are currently 23 active Beacon projects spanning nearly all areas of DERA's work. The total committed cost to MOD of these projects is around £12 million; industry and academia are committed to nearly twice as much. About three-quarters of this is from national initiatives, with the remainder from international initiatives.

    Departmental Child Care
    Mr. Barnes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provision his Department makes for child care facilities for staff; what subsidy is provided for(a) nursery places and (b) holiday play schemes; if he will list the organisations used by his Department for child care; and if child care vouchers are made available to staff. [30014]

    Mr. Spellar
    My Department and its agencies currently provide 13 workplace nurseries offering some 500 fulltime places, as well as a number of holiday play schemes. This is in line with Civil Service policy to establish child care support arrangements for staff where there is a business case and value for money justification. This enables us to help many of our staff to combine their working lives with family responsibilities. Child care vouchers are not issued to MOD staff. Parents are required to make a contribution to the running costs of child care facilities. Details of the Department's expenditure on child care support are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Organisations currently providing child care services to the MOD are:

    Busy Bees Nurseries Ltd.

    Childcare Enterprises Ltd.

    Going Solo Ltd.

    Kinderquest Ltd.

    Little Darling Childcare

    Mini Mariner Nursery

    Pixieland Daycare Nurseries

    Yeovilteenies Nursery.

    Defence Technology Strategy
    Mr. Key
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the activities and costs of his Department's defence technology strategy; and if he will make a statement. [29523]
    840
    Mr. Spellar
    [holding answer 18 February 1998]: The Department's technology strategy is carried forward by a programme of research and technology demonstration incorporating, wherever possible, collaborative work with industry, academia or allies.

    The programme consists of three principle elements:
    1. An Applied Research Programme, ARP, valued at about £420 million. This programme aims to provide technical options at quantified cost and risk for the formulation of operational requirements that best meet the needs of UK armed forces. It applies to equipment planned to enter service over the next 20 years.
    2. A Corporate Research Programme, CRP, valued at about £150 million, whose primary purpose is to sustain and develop the defence technology base by building on world-wide science and technology. The research includes technologies needed to underpin the systems-oriented work of the ARP; generic technologies which have wide applications across many environments or users; and innovative research which is speculative in nature aimed at MOD's future capabilities. It also provides the means by which the potential military utility of emerging technologies can be investigated and demonstrated at an early stage.
    3. A Technology Demonstration Programme valued at about £50 million which is primarily intended to reduce areas of high technical risk associated with the known requirements for future equipment, through establishing design options. It is largely driven by procurement pull rather than technology push, and is generally in support of identified equipment or systems applications. It is for the most part let competitively with industry.

    There are, in addition, some small elements valued at about £17 million in total directed towards collaborative work with academia (joint grants scheme) and Europe (European transonic wind tunnel).

    Contracts
    Mr. Swinney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many contracts of a value greater than £10,000 his Department has with companies in(a) London, (b) South East England, (c) England, (d) Scotland, (e)Wales and (f)Northern Ireland; and what is the total value of such contracts for each area. [30073]

    Mr. Spellar
    [holding answer 18 February 1998]: The information requested is not available in precisely the format requested. The number and value of current prime contracts valued in excess of £10,000 in Financial Year 1996–97 in the following locations is listed below:

    Number of contracts

    Value of contracts (£)

    (a) London

    4,122

    3,010,656,875

    (b) the South East of England

    13,337

    24,966,057,325

    (c) England

    44,340

    62,777,373,141

    (d) Scotland

    3,036

    3,191,535,617

    (e) Wales

    1,142

    511,535,442

    (f) Northern Ireland

    342

    564,437,755

    This information should be regarded as indicative as it relates only to current defence prime contracts valued in excess of £10,000 in Financial Year 1996–97. It does not include defence sub-contracts or contracts placed by Trading Fund Defence Agencies as this information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Mr. Swinney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of current research contracts of a value greater than £10,000 sourced at sites in(a) London, (b) the South East of England, (c) England,

    841
    (d) Scotland, (e)Wales, and (f)Northern Ireland; and what is the forecast expenditure on such projects in each area. [30129]

    Mr. Spellar
    [holding answer 18 February 1998]: The information requested is not available in precisely the format requested. The number of current research contracts valued in excess of £10,000 in Financial Year 1996–97 in the following locations are listed:

    Number of contracts

    (a) London

    105

    (b) The South East of England

    330

    (c) England

    844

    (d) Scotland

    36

    (e) Wales

    5

    (f) Northern Ireland

    2

    This information should be regarded as indicative as it relates only to extant defence research prime contracts valued in excess of £10,000 in Financial Year 1996–97. It does not include defence sub-contracts or contracts placed by Trading Fund Defence Agencies, except for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, as this information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Information regarding the forecast expenditure on such research projects in each area is not held centrally. However, the latest figures available from the Defence Analytical Services Agency for the breakdown of defence research and development expenditure by region are contained in Section 1.6 of the UK Defence Statistics 1997, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

    Mr. Swinney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many companies based in(a) London, (b) the South East of England, (c) England, (d) Scotland, Wales and (f)Northern Ireland currently supply his Department with armaments; and what was the value of such supplies in each area in the last year for which figures are available. [30130]

    Mr. Spellar
    [holding answer 18 February 1998]: The information requested is not available precisely in the form requested. The number of defence contractors with current prime contracts in the following locations in Financial Year 1996–97 is as in the table:

    No of contractors

    (a) London

    1,526

    (b) The South East of England

    3,492

    (c) England

    10,518

    (d) Scotland

    1,022

    (e) Wales

    427

    (f) Northern Ireland

    105

    This information should, however, be regarded as indicative as it relates only to extant prime contracts with defence contractors in Financial Year 1996–97. It does not include defence sub-contracts or contracts placed by Trading Fund Defence Agencies as this information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
    842
    The latest figures available for the value of suppliers in each area are for the Financial Year 1995–96 and are contained in Section 1.9 of the UK Defence Statistics 1997, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

    Departmental Employees
    Mr. Swinney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of his Department's employees by UK region, indicating the wage bill(a) in total and (b) by region in the last year for which figures are available and separately identifying the costs of London allowances and weightings. [30070]

    Mr. Spellar
    [holding answer 18 February 1998]: The following is a breakdown of Ministry of Defence Civilian Personnel by region as at 1 January 1998:

    Region

    Number of staff

    London

    10,189

    South East

    24,760

    Eastern

    6,736

    South West

    24,098

    West Midlands

    8,471

    East Midlands

    2,819

    Yorkshire and Humberside

    3,265

    Merseyside

    969

    North West

    1,653

    North East

    600

    Wales

    5,165

    Scotland

    10,203

    Northern Ireland

    3,264

    Other locations1

    7,752

    Total

    109,944

    1 Including UK-based staff overseas and at sea.

    Note:

    The figures include full-time, part-time and casual staff.

    The Department does not hold the information requested on the wage bill by Regions and this could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Figures for civilian staff are available for London and National areas, for the financial year 1996–97 and are as follows:

    £

    Gross salaries

    London element

    London

    371,586,880

    17,735,370

    National

    1,628,929,789

    Nil

    Periodicals
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the expenditure of his Department on newspapers and magazines in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98 to date and (d) 1997–98 full year; and if he will list the newspapers and magazines purchased or subscribed to on a regular basis. [26636]

    Mr. Spellar
    [holding answer 5 February 1998]: There is no central record of expenditure on newspapers and magazines, or of individual titles of commercial publications purchased by the Department and this information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
    843

  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

    Departmental Child Care
    Mr. Barnes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what provision his Department makes for child care facilities for staff; what subsidy is provided for(a) nursery places and (b) holiday play schemes; if he will list the organisations used by his Department for child care; and if child care vouchers are made available to staff. [30009]

    Dr. Howells
    DfEE is committed to promoting equality of opportunity for its staff and supports child care facilities which help staff to balance family and working life.

    The Department currently supports holiday play scheme facilities on all of the Department's four HQ sites. It also provides nursery facilities on its Runcorn and Sheffield sites. Facilities are often shared with other government organisations, in particular with the Employment Service HQ in Sheffield and with the Office of National Statistics in Runcorn.

    The Department meets approximately half of the full cost of nursery provision through making premises available and by a contribution to the provider's management fees. The exact level of subsidy varies according to occupancy and has fluctuated between 45–60 per cent. during the current contract. For play scheme provision, the Department normally meets approximately half the cost.

    The organisations the Department uses for child care are Early Years plc and Kinderquest Ltd.

    The Department does not issue child care vouchers to staff.

    Tuition Fees
    Mr. Paice
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what administrative arrangements he plans to implement for the introduction of contributions towards tuition fees for higher education. [30431]

    Dr. Howells
    From 1998–99, most new entrants to full-time higher education will be eligible for assistance with their contribution to tuition fees if they are from a lower income family. The amount of assistance from public funds will be assessed by the student's local education authority in accordance with regulations which will be laid before Parliament in due course. The assessed amount will be paid direct to the student's institution in due course. Where the applicant is an EU national seeking assistance with fees only, the Department will assist his authority in making the assessment in 1998–99 and from 1999/2000 will be directly responsible for providing assistance in accordance with regulations to be laid in due course.

    The student will pay the balance of the contribution to fees, if any, personally to the institution. It will be for institutions themselves to decide on the arrangements for collecting private contributions from students. I have no doubt that universities and colleges will want to ensure that students are not prevented from taking up a place because they are unable to pay the full fee in a single lump sum; for example, by taking account of individual students' circumstances in allowing the fee to be paid in more than one instalment.
    844

    Student Grants
    Mr. Paice
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he proposes to alter the existing arrangements for the assessment and administration concerned with student grants currently operated by local education authorities. [30430]

    Dr. Howells
    The reform of student support arrangements will require some changes to the existing arrangements for assessment and administration carried out by local education authorities in respect of new entrants to higher education.

    For the academic year 1998–99, new entrants will be liable to contribute to tuition fees. Local education authorities will assess the support from public funds for fees and how much maintenance grant is payable, taking account of the students' own income and that of their parents or spouse. The Mandatory Award Regulations to be laid in due course will set out the relevant conditions. Local education authorities will pay the fee support direct to the higher education institution and will pay any maintenance grant direct to the student in the same way as now. Where the applicant is an EU national seeking assistance with fees only, the Department will assist his authority in making the assessment in 1998–99 and from 1999–2000 will be directly responsible for providing assistance in accordance with regulations to be laid in due course.

    For the academic year 1999–2000, new students and those who started in 1998–99 will receive support for living costs solely through loans which will be partly income-assessed. These arrangements will be administered by a scheme involving local education authorities, the Student Loans company and a central unit within the Department. Local education authorities will have an important role in determining the eligibility of `home' applicants for fees, loans and grants and for carrying out the means test. I am planning to review the current means testing arrangements to allow the system to be simplified wherever possible.

    A detailed review will look at the best way of administering higher education student support in the long term. This review is due to be completed in 2000 once the new system of HE student support has bedded down.

    New Deal (Environmental Placements)
    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 26 January 1998,Official Report, column 89, on environmental placements under the New Deal, if he will publish the guidance relating to those New Deal tenders including an element to cover the cost of materials. [27280]

    Mr. Alan Howarth
    Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

    Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated February 1998:
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked me to reply to your question about the guidance relating to New Deal tenders under the Voluntary and Environment Task Force Option.

    845
    Guidance relating to New Deal tenders, which includes guidance on the cost of materials, has been distributed widely to organisation who have expressed interest in tendering for the Environment Task Force and Voluntary Sector options and a copy has been placed in the Library.
    I hope this is helpful.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Legal Aid
    Jacqui Smith
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals the Government has to(a) review the administration of legal aid in Northern Ireland, with particular reference to the difference between the administration arrangements for legal aid in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland and (b) extend to Northern Ireland reforms of legal aid which are proposed for England and Wales. [30797]

    Mr. Hoon
    The Lord Chancellor and I have instructed my officials in the Northern Ireland Court Service to:(a) undertake a review into arrangements for the administration and provision of legal aid in Northern Ireland, bringing forward recommendations for change where necessary; and
    (b) consider in the Northern Ireland context the proposed reforms to legal aid in England and Wales.

    My Officials will be available to hear views from interested parties on these important matters.

    A Green Paper will be published for full consultation purposes in due course. In the meantime, I would encourage all those with an interest in these matters to meet with my officials and contribute their views at an early stage.

    Periodicals
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is his estimate of the expenditure of his Department on newspapers and magazines(a) in 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, 1997–98 to date and (d) 1997–98 full year; and if he will list the newspapers and magazines purchased or subscribed to on a regular basis. [26671]

    Mr. Hoon
    The Lord Chancellor's Department purchases a range of publications. The estimated expenditure on newspapers and magazines by the Department, including the Court Service, is as follows:

    (a) 1995–96: £57,500

    (b) 1996–97: £59,500

    (c) 1997–98 to date: £58,800

    (d) 1997–98 full year: £60,200.

    Statutory Declaration Fee
    Mr. Boswell
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the £5 fee for making a statutory declaration was last amended; and if he will make a statement. [30308]

    Mr. Hoon
    The fee for making a statutory declaration in the Magistrates' Court was increased to eight pounds on 1 April 1992, by the Magistrates' Courts Fees (Amendment) Order, SI 842/1992. I am considering whether to conduct a major review of all civil fees in the Magistrates' Courts.
    846

    Gibraltar (Records)
    Dr. Marek
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list those Government records of the 1960s relating to Gibraltar that have not been released after 30 years; and if he will indicate the reasons for not releasing them. [30399]

    Mr. Hoon
    Public records of the 1960s relating to Gibraltar are likely to appear, among the records of a number of Departments, including those of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and its predecessor Departments, of the Ministry of Defence and its predecessors, of the Cabinet Office and of the Prime Minister's Office. There is no pre-existent list of records of this period relating to Gibraltar, and currently no automated means of generating one.

    As well, the documentation of withheld records that is maintained by the Public Record Office, and in particular the documentation of withheld extracts from records, is by document reference alone, and not by subject description, so that it is not in a form which would enable a listing of unavailable records of the 1960s relating to Gibraltar to be produced, without disproportionate cost. The catalogues available to the public in the Public Record Office note whole items which are closed or retained, but not the fact of a withheld extract, but because there is no pre-existent list of Gibraltar records, the catalogues could not be used to list closed records on this subject, except at similarly high cost.

    Departmental Child Care
    Mr. Barnes
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what provision his Department makes for child care facilities for staff; what subsidy is provided for(a) nursery places and (b) holiday play schemes; if he will list the organisations used by his Department for child care; and if child care vouchers are made available to staff. [30020]

    Mr. Hoon
    At present, the Department provides subsidised child care places at 13 nurseries and 15 play schemes. The subsidy varies, depending on individual business cases and value for money justification. The child care organisations used by the Department are listed. Child care vouchers are not generally made available to staff, although they have been made available on a temporary basis in exceptional circumstances.

    Nurseries

    Westminster Children's Society (2 nurseries)

    Nurseryworks Ltd.

    Buffer Bear Nurseries Ltd. (6 nurseries)

    Kinderquest Ltd.

    Aston Students' Guild

    Acorns Nurseries

    Crown House Childcare Scheme (Benefits Agency)

    Play schemes

    Kinderquest (Westminster Holiday Playscheme)

    Jancett Group of Day Nurseries (Croydon Playscheme)

    DNS Durham Kids Club

    MOD Holiday Playscheme, Liverpool

    DFEE Holiday Playscheme, Leeds

    DFEE Coventry Holiday Activity Scheme

    DSS Bristol Holiday Playscheme

    847

    Birmingham Holiday Club

    Court Service Peterborough Holiday Playscheme

    Busy Bees (Manchester)

    DFEE Holiday Playscheme, Darlington

    DSS Rascals Holiday Playscheme, Northampton

    DSS Exeter Holiday Playscheme

    Land Registry Plymouth Holiday Playscheme

    Prescription Pricing Agency Holiday Playscheme, Gateshead.

    Market Research
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what expenditure has been incurred by his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies(a) in 1996–97 and (b) since 1 May 1997 on (i) opinion polling, (ii) focus groups and (iii) other forms of market research; if he will list the surveys commissioned and the purpose of each; and if he will make a statement. [26667]

    Mr. Hoon
    The figures are as follows:

    Lord Chancellor's Department and associated offices

    Project

    Cost £

    1996/97

    (i) Opinion polling

    MORI survey of court users to assess extent to which non-professional users would prefer to appear in court either on Saturday morning or on a weekday evening

    19,975

    (ii) Focus groups

    None

    —

    (iii) Other forms of market research

    (1) Research by Professor John Baldwin into the effect of the rise in the Small Claims Limit

    24,788

    (2) Research by De Montfort University into take-up of Magistrates Courts Inspectorate information leaflets

    70

    Since 1 May 1997

    (i) Opinion polling

    None

    —

    (ii) Focus groups

    None

    —

    (iii) Other forms of market research

    (1) Research by Professor John Baldwin into the effect of the rise in the Small Claims Limit

    11,205

    (2) Research by Central Office of Information on ways to create a broader base of applicants to the magistracy

    38,000

    Court Service

    Project

    Cost £

    1996/97

    (i) Opinion polling

    None

    —

    (ii) Focus groups

    None

    —

    (iii) Other forms of market research

    (1) ONS Omnibus Survey into public awareness of the Small Claims procedure

    2,645

    (2) Public attitude Survey for Sheffield Combined Court's pilot user survey

    5,052

    Since 1 May 1997

    (i) Opinion polling

    None

    —

    (ii) Focus groups

    None

    —

    (iii) Other forms of market research

    (1) ONS Omnibus Survey into public awareness of the Court Service

    3,600

    (2) British Market Research Bureau: staff opinion survey into Investors in People

    25,591

    848

    Land Registry

    Project

    Cost£

    1996/97

    (i) Opinion polling

    Customer Service Survey to identify areas for improvement in the delivery of the Registry's services

    3,541

    (ii) Focus groups

    None

    —

    (iii) Other forms of market research

    None

    —

    Since 1 May 1997

    (i) Opinion polling

    (1) Independent Customer Service Survey to provide independent verification of customers' satisfaction with the delivery of services and identify areas for improvement

    13,285

    (2) Consultation Paper on a proposal to restore "Price Paid" to the Land Register

    3,191

    (ii) Focus groups

    Customer Service. Discussions with key customers on areas for improvement in delivery of services

    790

    (iii) Other forms of market research

    Interviews with key customers on specific areas of service improvement

    500

    Northern Ireland Court Service

    Project

    Cost £

    1996/97

    (i) Opinion polling

    Community Attitudes Survey—the public's attitudes to law, order, and security issues

    5,920

    (ii) Focus groups

    None

    —

    (iii) Other forms of market research

    None

    —

    Since 1 May 1997

    (i) Opinion polling

    None

    —

    (ii) Focus groups

    None

    —

    (iii) Other forms of market research

    Contribution towards a survey on Divorce commissioned by the Office of Law Reform

    10,000

    Public Record Office

    Project

    Cost £

    1996/97

    (i) Opinion polling

    None

    —

    (ii) Focus groups

    None

    —

    (iii) Other forms of market research

    —

    Since 1 May 1997

    (i) Opinion polling

    None

    —

    (ii) Focus groups

    None

    —

    (iii) Other forms of market research

    None

    —

    Public Trust Office

    Project

    Cost £

    1996/97

    (i) Opinion polling

    None

    —

    (ii) Focus groups

    None

    —

    (iii) Other forms of market research

    None

    —

    Since 1 May 1997

    (i) Opinion polling

    None

    —

    (ii) Focus groups

    None

    —

    (iii) Other forms of market research

    None

    —

    849

    Legal Aid Board

    Project

    Cost £

    1996/97

    (i) Opinion polling

    MORI poll into public awareness of legal aid in general, and franchising in particular

    7,050

    (ii) Focus groups

    none

    —

    (iii) Other forms of market research

    none

    —

    Since 1 May 1997

    (i) Opinion polling

    MORI poll into public awareness of legal aid in general, and franchising in particular

    7,050

    (ii) Focus groups

    MORI focus groups to review promotional material in support of public awareness of franchising

    2,115

    (iii) Other forms of market research

    None

    —

    Ministerial Travel
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the engagements he undertook in the United Kingdom in the course of his duties during January indicating in each case which were accessed by(a) car, (b) train, (c) aeroplane and car, (d) aeroplane and train and (e) other means. [28937]

    Mr. Hoon
    [holding answer 10 February 1998]: The official engagements I undertook in January 1998, other than routine meetings within Whitehall, together with the mode of transport used to access each, are as follows:

    Wednesday 7 January

    Visit: Relate National, Rugby (Own car)

    Thursday 8 January

    Speaking engagement: Judicial Studies Board Seminar. Cheltenham (Car)

    Wednesday 14 January

    Visit: African Caribbean Family Mediation Service, Brixton (Car)

    Thursday 15 January

    Visit: Leigh Day & Co. Solicitors, London (Car)

    Monday 19 January

    Visit: National Childcare Strategy Conference, London (On foot)

    Thursday 22 January

    Speaking engagement: Conference on the structure and governance of magistrates' courts, Birmingham (Car)

    Visit: 7 Fountain Court chambers, Birmingham (Car)

    Visit: McGrath & Co. solicitors, Birmingham (On foot)

    Monday 26 January

    Reception: Official opening of the Legal Resource Training Centre, London (Car)

    Speaking engagement: Uxbridge Magistrates' Courts, Uxbridge (Car)

    850

    Wednesday 28 January

    Visit: Registry Trust Ltd. London (Car)

    Speaking Engagement: Central and South Middlesex Law Society, Ealing (Car)

    Thursday 29 January

    Visit: Official Opening of Walsall CAB (Car).

    Violent Parents
    Mr. Öpik
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to amend the law relating to the rights of access to their children of violent and abusive parents; and if he will make a statement. [29700]

    Mr. Hoon
    When the courts determine an application for contact, under section 8 of the Children Act 1989, they must treat the child's welfare as their paramount consideration. Among the specific factors they have to consider is"any harm which" the child "has suffered or is at risk of suffering".

    There are no plans to amend the legislation.

    Official Accommodation
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what options were considered in selecting the furniture for the official accommodation. [30232]

    Mr. Redwood
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will provide a breakdown of the costs of the refurbishment of the Lord Chancellor's rooms in the Palace of Westminster. [30460]

    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what is his policy in respect of the use of the Official Secrets Act 1911 to cover contracts for refurbishment work; [30296]

    (2) how many contractors undertaking work on the Lord Chancellor's accommodation have been required to sign a contract which refers to the Official Secrets Act and for what purpose; and when this policy was begun; [30297]

    (3) what were the specifications for (a) the bed, (b) the dining table, (c) the curtains and (d) the carpets ordered for the Lord Chancellor's accommodation in the Palace of Westminster. [30301]

    Mr. Hoon
    All questions affecting the building and internal decoration of the House of Lords are matters for the authorities of the House of Lords, in particular the House of Lords' Offices Committee and its sub-committees on Administration and Works and on Finance and Staff. I refer the right hon. and hon. Members to the answer given in the Other Place by The Noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham on 17 February 1998,Official Report, House of Lords, column 23.
    851

  SCOTLAND

    Police
    Mr. Charles Kennedy
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the cost to public funds of each special constable; what is the average length of service of a special constable; what percentage of special constables are subsequently employed by the police; and if he will make a statement. [29241]

    Mr. McLeish: This information is not held centrally.

  Queen's Counsel
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 9 February 1998,Official Report, column 22, what assessment he has made of the factors underlying the disparity in the proportion of the Scottish Bar who are QCs as against those in (a) the Northern Ireland Bar and (b) the Bar in England and Wales. [29428]

  Mr. McLeish
  No assessment has been made.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prisoners in Scottish prisons are currently studying for(a) a higher education qualification, (b) a further education qualification and (c) higher grade or standard grade examination qualifications. [29027]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 12 February 1998]: The information requested is:

  a. A higher education qualification: 35

  b. A further education qualification: 1,470

  c. A higher or standard grade qualification: 89.

  There is some double counting as a small number of prisoners are studying for a higher or standard grade qualification as well as a further education qualification.

  Dounreay
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will ask the Chairman of COMARE to re-open his inquiry into the causes of leukaemia near Dounreay following the disclosure of a second subterranean shaft containing nuclear waste at Dounreay. [29282]

  Mr. Galbraith
  COMARE is continuing to keep the incidence of leukaemia near Dounreay under review as part of its work programme, including the need for further advice to the Government as additional information becomes available.

  Epilepsy
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many registered epileptics there are in Scotland in each health board area. [29944]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Information on the number of registered epileptics in Scotland is not available centrally.
  852
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what resources his Department makes available for the treatment of epilepsy, broken down by health board area; and if he will express the figures as a percentage of each health board's expenditure. [29948]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Resources are not made available to the NHS in Scotland for specific treatments. It is for individual Health Boards to determine their priorities, in the light of local circumstances, from the resources made available.

  Legal Aid
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of cases granted legal advice and assistance in 1996–97 proceeded to court. [30148]

  Mr. McLeish
  The information is not available.

  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the categories of case in which civil legal aid was(a) refused and (b) refused after offers in 1996–97. [30150]

  Mr. McLeish
  An analysis of full applications where no legal aid was granted at the first instance is published by court on page 22 of the Board's Annual Report for 1996–97. However this information cannot be broken down into case type.

  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in how many cases in 1996–97 in(a) the Sheriff Court and (b) the Court of Session, were all parties in the action funded by the Scottish Legal Aid Board; and if he will break down these cases by type. [30152]

  Mr. McLeish
  This information is not available.

  Prison Officers
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the hours of time off in lieu owed to prison officers for each month of 1997, indicating what percentage of those hours are owed for more than(a) one month, (b) three months and (c) six months; and if he will make a statement. [29940]

  Mr. McLeish
  Information on the hours of time off in lieu (TOIL) owed only to prison officers is not available since the data held by the Scottish Prison Service cover both prison officer and supervisor groups. The table sets out the TOIL owed jointly to these staff groups during 1997, but information on the periods of time for which TOIL hours are owed to members of staff is not held centrally.

  Hours of Time Off In Lieu (TOIL) owed to prison officers and supervisors in 1997

  Hours

  January

  87,031

  February

  89,308

  March

  99,068

  April

  98,406

  May

  102,194

  June

  101,066

  July

  102,753

  August

  108,088

  September

  108,135

  853

  Hours of Time Off In Lieu (TOIL) owed to prison officers and supervisors in 1997

  Hours

  October

  109,143

  November

  115,802

  December

  115,188

  Breast Cancer
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people have suffered radiotherapy injuries after breast cancer in Scotland, by health board area. [29939]

  Mr. Galbraith
  There are no statistics available on the number of people who have suffered radiotherapy injuries after treatment for breast cancer in Scotland.

  Legal Aid Board
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the activities which relate to the term professional fees as it appears in Notes to the Accounts, No. 11 of the Scottish Legal Aid Board Annual Report, 1996–97. [30151]

  Mr. McLeish
  The activities are as noted:

  Legal Fees: £30,127

  judicial review

  instructing counsel, and obtaining opinions from counsel

  fees for hearings and motions

  Non-legal fees: £148,134

  consultancy fees

  translation fees

  EEC-related fees: £700

  VDU eyetests

  Fees relating to quality issues: £19,844

  consultancy fees

  membership and subscription fees

  launching "vision and values" initiative

  Grand Total: £198,805

  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the Scottish Legal Aid Board's expenditure in the year 1996–97 was attributable to judicial reviews of its decisions; and how many such judicial reviews took place. [30149]

  Mr. McLeish
  0.31 per cent. of the Scottish Legal Aid Board's administrative expenditure in year 1996–97 was attributable to judicial review of its decision. Six petitions for judicial review were served on the Board although no judicial reviews by the court actually took place.

  Prison Population
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what projections he has made of the prison population of Scotland in each year to 2003; and if he will indicate the basis on which the projections are made. [29942]
  854
  Mr. McLeish
  The latest projections of the prison population which are being used by the Scottish Prison
  Service for planning purposes are (April to March years):

  1997–1998: 6,200

  1998–1999: 6,350

  1999–2000: 6,500

  2000–2001: 6,600

  The methodology for projecting future prison population is based on an analysis of historical trends (calculated by linear regression) of receptions into custody from courts. The trends are projected forward for future years. The specific variables considered in the analysis are age of offender, main offence type, sentence length and time served in custody. In addition, any policy or legislative changes which may impact on future prisoner numbers are factored in as necessary. The figures are slightly lower than those contained in the Scottish Prison Service's Corporate Plan, published in July 1997.

  0rthoptics
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from(a) Glasgow Caledonian University and (b) others regarding the continuation of the orthoptic degree course at Glasgow Caledonian University. [29971]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The Scottish Office has received a number of letters from staff at Glasgow Caledonian University and from hospital consultants and orthoptic students regarding the continuation of the orthoptic degree course at Glasgow Caledonian University.

  The Scottish Office is currently engaged in an exercise to determine the need for a Scottish University to provide a degree in orthoptics.

  Mental Health Services
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish his spending plans for mental health services in Scotland in the next three years; and if he will make a statement. [29928]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Mental Health is a national priority for the NHS in Scotland. I expect Health Boards to develop their spending plans for mental health services to reflect that priority and to take into account the principles set out in the framework for Mental Health Services in Scotland, published in September 1997, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the budget available to mental health services in Scotland in the(a) current and (b) previous financial year. [29866]

  Mr. Galbraith
  £421 million is available for mental health services in Scotland for 1997–98, with a further £15.3 million provided for the State Hospital service.

  The position for 1996–97 was that £405 million was spent on mental health services and an additional £18.4 million on the State Hospital service (including the last tranche of substantial capital expenditure).

  These resources do not include the additional costs of primary care services provided for this client group, which are not separately identifiable.
  855

  Drug Courts
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to introduce US-style drug courts; and if he will make a statement. [30048]

  Mr. McLeish
  No. Courts can already take account of drug misuse by offenders by, for example, attaching a condition to a Probation Order requiring the offender to address his drug habit. It is also intended that Scottish courts will be able to impose drug treatment and testing orders, provision for which is contained in the Crime and Disorder Bill presently before Parliament. Under these orders serious offenders with drug dependency problems will be placed on specialist treatment programmes aimed at reducing or eliminating their dependency.

  Health (Glasgow)
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to improve health in the City of Glasgow; and if he will make a statement. [29791]

  Mr. Galbraith
  In August 1997 I asked all Health Boards to begin preparing Health Improvement Programmes (HIPs) in collaboration with Trusts and General Practitioners. Greater Glasgow Health Board is close to finalising its HIP. This will set out specific measures to deliver care over the next 5 years effectively and efficiently in a way which puts the interests of patients first. Additionally, the HIP will set out a programme to tackle health inequalities in Glasgow and the causes of poor health in the people of Glasgow.

  The Green Paper "Working Together for a Healthier Scotland" on tackling inequalities in health was published on 5 February with a consultation period that runs until 30 April. Strategies for action will be formulated after the outcome of the consultation is known.

  The Glasgow Regeneration Alliance has been given direct financial support of £500,000 for 1998–99 to help to provide a staff support team to develop and implement a long-term strategy for the regeneration of the city. This strategy will be a comprehensive city-wide plan for the renewal of Glasgow and will involve all the partners in the Alliance.

  School Closures (Glasgow)
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about school closures in the City of Glasgow; and if he will make a statement. [29794]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of letters, principally from School Boards and parents. The provision of schools in Glasgow is a matter for the Council.

  M74 (Glasgow)
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the completion of the M74 in the City of Glasgow; and if he will make a statement. [29795]

  Mr. McLeish
  Since taking office, we have received 13 written representations on this subject, including correspondence from my hon. Friend. In addition, I am aware that, subsequent to the publication of The 856
  Strathclyde Regional Council (M74 West Fullarton, Kingston Bridge to Fullarton Road) Compulsory Purchase Order 1995, 37 Statutory and 4 non-statutory objections were received within the statutory period.

  Although it is not a trunk road scheme, the size and importance of the M74 northern extension is such that it is appropriate to consider the scheme within the current strategic trunk roads review and the joint promoters of the scheme, the City of Glasgow and South Lanarkshire Councils, have agreed to this. Studies of aspects of the scheme, including its design and economic development function, are nearing completion and will inform the trunk roads review. If the scheme were to be taken forward as a trunk road, rather than by the present promoters, a decision on whether or not to go ahead would be informed by the findings of the roads review and would depend on a variety of factors, including the resources available and competing priorities.

  Health Service
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the number of NHS trusts in existence(a) on 1 May 1997 and (b) at present. [29855]

  Mr. Galbraith
  On 1 May 1997 there were 47 NHS Trusts in Scotland. This remains the current position. The recently published White Paper "Designed to Care" sets out our proposals for a reduction in the number of Trusts operating within the NHS in Scotland.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he plans to announce proposals for restructuring health boards and trusts in Scotland. [29951]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The recently published White Paper "Designed to Care" sets out the Government's proposals for restructuring the NHS in Scotland. Detailed proposals for the configuration of NHS Trusts will be the subject of public consultation starting soon in the light of the principles set out in the White Paper.

  Stracathro Hospital
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future status of Stracathro Hospital with particular reference to future service and staff levels. [29952]

  Mr. Galbraith
  There are no current plans to reduce services at Stracathro Hospital. I understand however that Tayside Health Board will be reviewing acute service provision throughout the Health Board area. The outcome of the review may affect the services provided at Stracathro.

  Departmental Child Care
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what provision his Department makes for child care facilities for staff; what subsidy is provided for(a) nursery places and (b) holiday play schemes; if he will list the organisations used by his Department for child care; and if child care vouchers are made available to staff. [30019]

  Mr. Dewar
  The Scottish Office have two work-place nurseries in Edinburgh. The service is provided by Marilyn Morris Nurseries under contract to The Scottish Office. Nursery places are not subsidised although accommodation is provided free by the Office.
  857
  Subsidised places at holiday play schemes are offered to staff in Edinburgh and Glasgow (at a total cost of £968 in 1997–98). These operate during the Easter and summer school holiday periods. The play schemes are run by Customs and Excise in Edinburgh and by Kidcare Ltd. in Glasgow.

  The Scottish Office does not participate in a child care voucher scheme.

  Number of adult and child patients lapsed by health board

  Financial Year 1994–95

  Financial Year 1995–96

  Health board

  Adult

  Child

  Total

  Adult

  Child

  Total

  Ayrshire & Arran

  34,393

  12,226

  47,159

  30,260

  10,591

  40,851

  Borders

  7,253

  1,955

  9,208

  6,572

  1,771

  8,343

  Argyll & Clyde

  39,244

  14,865

  54,109

  36,311

  13,754

  50,065

  Fife

  28,406

  9,410

  37,816

  28,678

  9,500

  38,178

  Greater Glasgow

  93,523

  32,641

  126,164

  89,567

  31,260

  120,827

  Highland

  16,195

  7,239

  23,434

  16,196

  7,240

  23,436

  Lanarkshire

  46,429

  16,158

  62,587

  45,503

  15,836

  61,339

  Grampian

  42,495

  13,560

  56,055

  40,575

  12,947

  53,522

  Orkney

  1,556

  175

  1,731

  818

  92

  910

  Lothian

  65,202

  20,442

  85,644

  64,968

  20,369

  85,337

  Tayside

  33,498

  9,825

  43,323

  33,580

  9,849

  43,429

  Forth Valley

  22,788

  7,678

  30,466

  21,973

  7,404

  29,377

  Western Isles

  2,801

  438

  3,239

  2,359

  369

  2,728

  Dumfries & Galloway

  11,367

  4,819

  16,186

  10,456

  4,434

  14,890

  Shetland

  1,830

  102

  1,932

  1,997

  111

  2,108

  Scotland

  447,520

  151,533

  599,053

  429,814

  145,526

  575,340

  Note

  1. Child data are estimated for all financial years.

  2. The information which forms the reply shows the number of patients whose registration has lapsed under the old registration system and is not directly relevant to what will happen when the new shorter registration period of 15 months begins to affect registration levels.

  Data for the financial years 1992–93 and 1993–94 are not available within the timescales requested.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Households Below Average Income
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will obtain a copy of the Households Below Average Income data of 1961–91, from the Data Archive at Essex. [30304]

  Mr. Field
  A copy of the Households Below Average Income 1961–91 data is currently held by this Department.

  Benefit Integrity Programme
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to allow individuals whose benefits are suspended under the Benefit Integrity Programme to continue to receive payments until an appeal is satisfactorily determined. [30445]

  Mr. Denham
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced last week, it is important that decisions on entitlement should be fair and be seen to be fair. From 9 February, no decision to reduce or remove someone's benefit under the Benefit Integrity Project will be taken solely on the basis of the information provided by the claimant—there will always be additional evidence to support the decision.
  858

  Dental Services
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in each Scottish health board area were removed from NHS dentists' registers as a result of missing a registration period in each year since 1992. [29369]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The information requested is listed in the table for financial years 1994–95 to 1996–97:

  Payments of Disability Living Allowance are made where an adjudication officer has determined that entitlement exists and has awarded benefit at the rate and for the period appropriate to the claimant's circumstances. If an adjudication officer subsequently decides, whether as a result of the Benefit Integrity Project or not, that the person is no longer entitled to the amount of benefit in payment, there is no legal basis for leaving benefit payments unchanged.

  Universal Benefits
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will define a universal benefit; and if her definition covers a benefit which is taxed or means-tested. [30446]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  A "universal benefit" is generally understood to be one payable to all who satisfy specified entitlement conditions, regardless of their level of income or National Insurance Contribution record. Whether such a benefit is taxable or not is irrelevant.

  Benefits Agency Medical Service
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on the outsourcing of the Benefits Agency Medical Service. [31017]
  859
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security announced on 31 July how we would proceed with a number of projects for the use of the private sector which were in the pipeline and which we had inherited from the previous administration.

  As we have previously said:
  "this would be a government of ideas and ideals but not of outdated ideology, what counts is what works;
  it would reject the dogmatic view that services must be privatised to be of high quality, but equally, we see no reason why a service should be delivered directly if more efficient means are available."

  We reviewed the projects against

  our objectives for modernising the Social Security system;

  our commitment to work within the announced spending totals for the first two years of Government;

  our aim of getting best value for public money and of reducing the burden on taxpayers;

  the scope to apply private sector expertise, discipline and economies of scale in procuring public services and the ability to secure increased investment from the private sector;

  the need for continuing flexibility for Government to make future changes to services;

  the opportunities for improving the quality of service for customers; and

  the implications for staff.

  In support of our clear commitment to a quality Social Security service, we have established a minimum quality of service threshold against which we have assessed all bids from the private sector. If a supplier failed to reach this threshold, we would not expect to award them a contract no matter how low their prices.

  We also required greater evaluation and feedback on performance against the new quality standards. We have made clear our commitment to take account of the needs of staff in considering the involvement of the private sector. We have therefore placed greater emphasis on management of people when evaluating the contracts; we have carefully evaluated suppliers' management of past staff transfers.

  I can today announce that all three contracts for BAMS will be awarded to the Sema Group for five years with an option to extend the contracts for two years.

  Their proposals have been carefully considered in the light of our criteria.

  The contracts have been awarded on the basis that Sema will:

  bring enhanced management expertise to BAMS, with investment in new technology,

  will deliver service improvements to customers, ensuring speedier appointments and reducing waiting time,

  will maintain and improve quality of service,

  will provide good value for money for the taxpayer.

  Sema will provide medical advice to support the delivery of incapacity and disability benefits. Payments made to Sema for the service they will provide will not be related in any way to the outcome of individual medical examinations.

  The contract award is not part of the welfare reform programme. The responsibility for the overall service and for the determination of entitlement to benefits remains with the Department. This announcement makes no change to the rules for entitlement to benefits and the
  860
  rights to customers will not be changed in any way. Rigorous procedures will be put in place to ensure that we continue to receive independent, objective medical advice.

  The value of the contracts over five years will be £305 million.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many Child Support Agency clients have applied to the Independent Case Examiner since she began work in April 1997; how many of these cases were accepted as under her jurisdiction; how many cases have been determined; and how many complaints have been upheld. [30123]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Agency is committed to reducing the number of complaints about its handling of cases and improvements in customer service are a high priority.

  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Faith Boardman to Mr. Archy Kirkwood, dated 18 February 1998:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Independent Case Examiner for the Child Support Agency.
  The Office of the Independent Case Examiner commenced work in April 1997.
  Between 1 April 1997 and 31 January 1998, 853 customers of the Child Support Agency made applications to the Independent Case Examiner. Of these, 686 have been accepted with-in the Independent Case Examiners jurisdiction (from a live and assessed caseload of 724,540 at 31 January 1998).
  In the same period the Independent Case Examiner has completed her investigation in 132 cases. Of these, the complaint has been fully upheld in 42 cases, partially upheld in 60 cases and not upheld in 7 cases. A further 23 complaints have been settled by mediation (with the complainant's agreement) and have not therefore been the subjects of full investigations by the Independent Case Examiner.
  The Agency's Business Units adopt a case study approach with cases referred to the Independent Case Examiner whereby the Business Unit Manager and staff involved with the case identify lessons learnt, introduce improvements and good working practices and regularly liaise with the office of the Independent Case Examiner.
  I am very conscious that there are still far too many justified complaints about the standards of basic customer contact and the service we provide, and we recognise that doing things right first time is the key to preventing complaints. It is an Agency priority to improve the way in which complaints are handled; we have revised our training for all staff who deal with complaints and have introduced a new Complaints Guide, which sets out our policy and procedures for swift, effective complaints handling. We are aware that as we further tackle our backlog of cases from the Agency's first two years, there is potential for the volume of complaints to rise in the short term.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of CSA assessments are due to be paid via the CSA; and how many of these accounts relate to parents with care on income support and family credit. [30163]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  One of our key aims for the Child Support Agency is to ensure that more absent parents pay the maintenance they owe. The regular payment of
  861
  maintenance is central to our strategy as recognition of fathers' continuing responsibilities to their children; to help lone mothers move off Income Support into work; and to get more money to children in low income working families.

  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Faith Boardman to Mr. Archy Kirkwood, dated 18 February 1998:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency maintenance assessments.
  Details on payment methods are available through a 5% scan of the Child Support Computer System undertaken by the DSS Analytical Services Division. At 30 November 1997, of the 616,300 full maintenance assessments recorded as the Agency's live and assessed caseload, the appropriate method of payment for the absent parent in 504,600 cases (82%) was payment via the Agency's collection service. These cases include absent parents who are in receipt of Income Support.
  Of the 504,600 cases where the appropriate method of payment was via the Agency collection service 433,340 (86%) were in respect of parents with care in receipt of Income Support, Family Credit or Disability Working Allowance.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the outcome of the research commissioned by her Department on customer satisfaction with the CSA; and when the customer satisfaction target will be re-introduced. [30166]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  One of our key aims for the Child Support Agency is to ensure that more absent parents pay the maintenance they owe. The regular payment of maintenance is central to our strategy as recognition of fathers' continuing responsibilities to their children; to help lone mothers move off income support into work; and to get more money to children in low income working families.

  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Faith Boardman to Mr. Archy Kirkwood, dated 18 February 1998:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about research on customer satisfaction with the Child Support Agency.
  On Departmental advice and in line with other DSS Agencies, the Child Support Agency re-focused its customer research away from large-scale, national surveys of overall satisfaction to more in-depth customer research.
  In-depth research identifies specific, priority improvements required by the customer, enables the Agency to target its efforts and resources to greater effect and therefore provides greater value for money. As the Agency's objective is to provide the service customers need, it will continue with in-depth customer research. It has no plans to re-introduce the national, general survey that is needed to support an overall customer satisfaction target.
  The full report of the independent in-depth customer research commissioned by the Agency in December 1996, will be published in early spring as part of the DSS Research Series.
  The research shows that customers have five priority improvements:
  quicker completion of assessments
  862
  absent parents targeted equally to ensure more regular and reliable payments
  better, more customer-friendly information on the child support process and assessment
  correspondence and complaints dealt with quicker
  easier and more convenient telephone access with a more `one-stop' service.
  The Agency is already working towards these by dealing with more child support applications, collecting more money and by putting more resources into the telephone service and reviewing key Agency literature. Further improvements are included in the Agency's plans for the next four years to achieve a step change in the customer service we provide. These include the setting up of local stakeholder groups in each of the Agency's 6 Business Units (a process which we have started) and continuing to work closely with our established National Stakeholder Group which has representatives from key customer groups.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in how many Child Support Agency cases each quarter (i) since April 1993 an alleged absent parent has disputed paternity of a qualifying child, (ii) the absent parent subsequently admitted to paternity without resorting to court action or DNA testing, (iii) since May 1995 paternity has been established or disproved by a discounted DNA test, (iv) since September 1995 paternity has been established or disproved by a CSA-funded DNA test and (v) paternity remains unresolved. [30164]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mrs. Faith Boardman to Mr. Archy Kirkwood, dated 18 February 1998:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security concerning Child Support Agency paternity cases.
  Details of the cases where an alleged absent parent has disputed the paternity of a qualifying child are shown in table 1 below.
  Separate information on the number of cases where the absent parent admits paternity prior to any court action or DNA testing has only been collected in the current financial year, and this is shown in table 2 below.
  The result of DNA paternity testing is virtually conclusive as the chance that two people have the same pattern is extremely low. A detailed breakdown of DNA tests in 1995/96 is not available, but a total of 1,377 cases were referred for discounted DNA testing between July 1995 and March 1996. Figures for 1996/97 and 1997/98 are shown in table 3 below. In 1996/97, paternity was established in 89% of cases referred for DNA testing. In the current year, to the end of January, the figure is 87%. This represents the overall percentage in establishing paternity; a breakdown into each type is not available. Once paternity has been established the Agency will pursue any arrears of maintenance that have accrued.
  At the end of January 1998, the Agency had 9,141 paternity cases referred for DNA testing awaiting processing, and a further 626 where action had been suspended. Thus, there were 9,767 cases where the question of paternity remained unresolved.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Table 1: Cases of disputed paternity received by the Agency since inception

  Quarter 1

  Quarter 2

  Quarter 3

  Quarter 4

  Total

  1993–94

  160

  756

  995

  995

  2,906

  1994–95

  2,434

  2,589

  2,276

  2,798

  10,097

  1995–96

  6,883

  5,910

  4,734

  5,122

  22,649

  1996–97

  4,251

  4,490

  4,382

  4,884

  18,007

  1997–98

  5,451

  5,082

  5,589

  n/a

  16,122

  863

  Table 2: Cases where the absent parent admitted paternity prior to any court action or DNA testing

  Quarter 1

  Quarter 2

  Quarter 3

  Quarter 4

  Total

  1997–98

  399

  426

  444

  n/a

  1,269

  Table 3: Cases referred for discounted DNA testing

  Quarter 1

  Quarter 2

  Quarter 3

  Quarter 4

  Total

  1996–97

  CSA paid court referral

  541

  412

  373

  318

  1,644

  CSA paid

  645

  694

  796

  1,098

  3,233

  Alleged absent parent paid

  191

  141

  120

  91

  543

  1997–98

  CSA paid court referral

  343

  442

  488

  n/a

  1,273

  CSA paid

  1,098

  1,187

  1,364

  n/a

  3,649

  Alleged absent parent paid

  84

  90

  96

  n/a

  270

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what have been the total arrears attributable to child support maintenance assessments, excluding category A interim maintenance assessments, at each quarter since November 1995. [30121]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Faith Boardman to Mr. Archy Kirkwood, dated 18 February 1998:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about uncollected maintenance assessed by the Child Support Agency.
  The Agency's Financial Management System was enhanced from April 1997 to provide more detailed information on category A interim maintenance assessments and other assessments—prior to April 1997 this information is not available. The cumulative amount of arrears outstanding, excluding category A interim maintenance assessments, as at each quarter end to date during 1997/8 and the position at 31 January 1998 are shown in the table attached.
  Of the £652,870,713 which is attributable to maintenance assessments excluding Category A interim maintenance assessments, approximately £309 million is the subject of agreements for repayment by instalments, which are closely monitored by the Agency. this leaves approximately £344 million of full maintenance assessment debt to be pursued.
  I hope this is helpful.

  £

  Month

  Uncollected maintenance attributable to maintenance assessments excluding Category A interim maintenance assessments

  June 1997

  560,507,426

  September 1997

  596,516,697

  December 1997

  635,522,889

  January 1998

  652,870,713

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for each year since the CSA began operation, how much of the total child support maintenance paid by absent parents has been(a) retained by the Secretary of State in lieu of benefits and (b) if paid to the person with care, has reduced her state benefit. [30168]
  864
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Regular payments of maintenance can transform the lives of lone mothers and their children, providing a stable income that can help them off Income Support and into work.

  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Faith Boardman to Mr. Archy Kirkwood, dated 18 February 1998:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security concerning the effect of child support maintenance on benefits.
  Where maintenance is paid through the Agency collection service and the full Income Support payment continues, money is retained by the Secretary of State to offset the benefit payment. The figures since Agency inception are shown at table 1.
  Where maintenance is paid direct by the absent parent to the parent with care, income support payments are reduced where appropriate, and count towards the benefit savings recorded by the Agency. These savings are known as Net IS Reducers, and include those savings identified from arrangements made before the Agency was launched, as well as from maintenance arranged by the Agency. Details are given in table 2, together with the amounts of maintenance arranged for direct payment by the Agency. (A direct pay figure for the first year of operation is not available.)
  It is also likely that in some direct pay cases there will be reductions in Family Credit/Disability Working Allowance; these benefit savings are calculated from a computer scan which does not differentiate between direct pay and collection service cases. It is not therefore possible to attribute a figure for reduced FamC/DWA to direct pay. The overall FamC/DWA benefit savings are given in table 3.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Table 1—money retained by the Secretary of State to offset the benefit payment

  £ million

  Total collected

  Amount retained by SoS

  1993–94

  12.57

  6.08

  1994–95

  76.40

  50.32

  1995–96

  164.59

  72.44

  1996–97

  246.59

  100.02

  1997–98 (to 31.12.97)

  249.71

  94.66

  Table 2—benefit saviivgs recorded by the Agency—known as Net IS Reducers

  £ million

  Total arranged for direct pay

  Net IS Reducers

  1993–94

  n/a

  177.00

  1994–95

  111.00

  133.28

  1995–96

  136.91

  126.78

  1996–97

  153.29

  112.56

  1997–98 (to 31.12.97)

  149.11

  75.12

  Table 3—benefit savings recorded by the Agency—Family Credit/ Disability Working Allowance

  £ million

  1993–94

  28 00

  1994–95

  12.84

  1995–96

  39.96

  1996–97

  48.07

  1997–98 (to 31.1.98)

  39.68

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

Bullying in Schools
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to tackle bullying in schools.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, the Government attach a high priority to helping prevent and combat bullying. We are planning several initiatives, including an international conference to explore strategies successfully used in various countries to tackle bullying, and further guidance to schools building on my department's anti-bullying pack published in 1994. We will also be taking more active steps to spread information on good practice in combating the problem.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I welcome my noble friend's Answer. However, is she aware that the Government have not gone as far as they could have done before the international conference? Bullying is causing enormous damage to children; it even leads to suicides. Will my noble friend consider a proposal under which an annual report must be presented to the Minister by every school on its anti-bullying policy? Does she agree that there should be a requirement on every school to present to the Minister what has or has not been done? Will she further consider a league table so that everyone knows which are the good and bad schools in relation to bullying? If that is done, we shall have more information about the anti-bullying policies of schools and about those schools which are failing to do anything about the matter.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend when he says that bullying is totally unacceptable. It can certainly scar a child for life and do terrible damage. I am confident that the vast majority of schools have adopted an anti-bullying strategy and do take the matter very seriously. However, where schools are not doing as well as they should in this respect we must do something about it. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State recently lent his support to a number of anti-bullying campaigns. We expect school development policies to reflect proper anti-bullying strategies. To publish statistics in the form of a league table, to use my noble friend's term, would he difficult. Clearly, there are many definitions as to
306
what constitutes bullying. It is therefore very hard to collect statistics. What is important is that we take action.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I normally agree with proposals advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. I do not agree that there is any great value in publishing tables. The only tables we should see would be from schools where bullying is a known and acknowledged problem. Does the Minister agree that the greatest difficulty is discovering where bullying goes on? What can be done to improve discovery and to give children who are bullied the courage to come forward and say it is happening? Should we not give teachers the responsibility of accepting that this practice is going on and of listening carefully to what the bullied child is saying?
Baroness Blackstone: Yes, my Lords, I agree very much with the noble Baroness's comments. It would he difficult to produce either valid or reliable statistics. I can see all sorts of ways in which those schools that had identified bullying would then want to try to underestimate it. And there would be schools which had not discovered it. It is important that we get all schools, their governing bodies and staff to take the problem very seriously and work together with parents to try to root it out. Parents have a big role to play. When they are concerned that their child is being bullied, it is important for them to talk to the child about it and then take the matter up with the teaching staff of the school. In that way we shall make some progress.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it often comes down to a question of leadership and that where head teachers recognise that there is a problem and are prepared to take decisive action it is possible to remove much bullying from schools? The problem arises when head teachers refuse to see the problem and do not listen to parents, thus allowing bullying to become a serious matter in those schools. Does the Minister accept that in the training and development of head teachers there is a need to give a particular focus to the issue of bullying?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, yes. As in all matters where schools are concerned, the leadership of head teachers is central. I accept what my noble friend says. The training of head teachers should include consideration of how to intervene to prevent bullying wherever it occurs. That kind of training should be available, I believe to every classroom teacher as well. It is, after all, the classroom teacher who is most likely to be able to observe bullying and pick it up. Of course, head teachers must do their best to make sure their staff take the matter seriously.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it not the case that bullying is at its least in church schools? Is there not a lesson there?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I was not aware that there was less bullying in church schools than in

307
county schools. If my noble friend can provide evidence of that, we shall look into it and see what we have to learn from church schools.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, following on from that point, does the Minister agree that the important factor is that the whole atmosphere of the school is right and that the hidden curriculum of the school should be one of good relationships, one person to another, and kindness to one another? If bullying can be seen as going against the atmosphere of the school, it is easier to stop it.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, yes, I agree entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. It is a whole-school policy that is required. It is the ethos of the school that is important, so that all children and young people understand that bullying is intolerable and completely unacceptable behaviour.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with the following two propositions? First, studies have shown definitions of bullying: there is no problem about that. Secondly, if we can name and shame schools with regard to school standards, we can name and shame them with regard to bullying, which is an equally serious problem.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I do not entirely agree with my noble friend that definitions of bullying are very easy. Bullying can be psychological as well as physical. It can be difficult to identify until some time after it has begun. Certainly, if we were to discover that serious bullying was going on in particular schools with no effort being made to address the matter we should do something to identify the failure of those schools in that regard.

Jury Research
3.15 p.m.
Lord Borrie Lord Borrie asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposals they have for the repeal of Section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 so as to permit independent and authoritative research into the working of juries in civil and criminal cases.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, my noble friend knows as well as any of your Lordships the controversy that has surrounded this issue in the past. He addressed it in his own work, Law of Contempt, in 1973, which I studied in its first edition at the time and was pleased to see yesterday has now reached its third edition.
Section 8 provides that:
"it is a contempt of court to obtain, disclose or solicit any particulars of statements made, opinions expressed, arguments advanced or votes cast by members of a jury in the course of their deliberations".
That statutory provision was introduced in your Lordships' House by way of amendments. The Government have no plans to repeal Section 8. On
308
the other hand, the Government would listen with care to any proposals for forms of jury research and to representations about the need for amendment to Section 8 to permit the research proposed.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, in thanking my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for that response, perhaps I may ask him whether the present Government have considered the proposal of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice of five years ago which said that such research was desirable because informed debate is better than argument based, as they put it, on surmise and anecdote? Further, bearing in mind the Government's own consultation paper of three days ago on serious fraud trials, in which several of the options put forward by the Government include the elimination or restriction of jury trials, would it not be better to have research into how juries reach their verdicts before the Government reach decisions on such important matters?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we are well aware of what the 1993 Runciman Royal Commission on Criminal Justice had to say about Section 8 and we have noticed that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, the Lord Chief Justice, in his press interview on assuming office in 1996 indicated that he would favour some form of limited jury research. In that, he departed from the views of his two immediate predecessors. We believe that he would support no more than researchers, licensed, say, by the Lord Chancellor, interviewing jurors post-trials to ascertain their level of understanding of the issues in the case on terms that neither the case nor the jurors interviewed would be identified in the research. I see that my noble friend nods his head: I believe that that is the position with which he would associate himself.
I am asked about the consultation paper issued a few days ago on juries in serious fraud trials. That consultation paper recognised the limitations imposed by Section 8. On the other hand, it is perfectly possible that views could be expressed about jury trials in serious fraud cases that would be free-standing and not dependent upon jury research—for example, that the cases are too long and too much for juries, as for example in the Blue Arrow case, or that there is an unfairness to the prosecution in having to divide the total picture of criminality into separate parts so that the whole picture does not come in front of the jury, as perhaps exemplified by the Maxwell case. It would be possible therefore for the view to emerge that the general advantages of juries in serious criminal cases are outweighed by the disadvantages in that class of case, regardless of any research.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, does not the noble and learned Lord agree that it would be embarking upon a dangerous course to follow the suggestion of research into jury judgments? After all, one would be inquiring into their judgment. When a jury retires no notes are taken of its deliberations and it may be out for days. What transpires in its verdict is its general view of the whole case. Has not that been one of the great safeguards of justice within our country? The noble and

309
learned Lord may agree that to embark on a judgment that is described as independent and authoritative would be extremely misleading. Very often, as I am sure the experience of many who practice at the Bar illustrates, jury verdicts—often against the whole tendency of the media—are correct in their eventual judgment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I believe that there is general public confidence in the jury system in serious criminal trials and that the only major contemporary question is whether serious fraud trials should be made an exception. I also feel strongly that jury service is a major civic duty involving the public in deciding questions of fact about guilt or innocence, and that gives the public great confidence in the administration of criminal justice. The Government are also conscious of the main arguments against jury research; namely, that jury service is burdensome enough for members of the public without jurors being interrogated about the ebb and flow of their deliberations in the jury room.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that the system may be brought into disrepute not by what juries say and do, but by what lawyers and judges say and do? To address the problem of fraud trials by withdrawing cases from juries is rather like responding to malpractices in horse-racing by shooting the horse.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I agree that the sins of others in the administration of justice are visible and that juries deliberate in private. That is why some say that jury research is required.

Gas Directive: Combined Heat and Power
3.22 p.m.
Lord Ezraasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the European Union gas directive, as redrafted, contains a discrimination against combined heat and power, and, if so, whether this is in contradiction with declared European Union policy in favour of combined heat and power.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Clinton-Davis): My Lords, the policy of the Energy Council is to support combined heat and power and we will promote it under our presidency as a means of contributing to renewable energy objectives. The proposed gas directive allows member states an option to establish a consumption threshold to determine the eligibility of combined heat and power producers to benefit from gas competition where it is necessary to safeguard the balance of their electricity market. It was not the council's intention to discriminate against combined heat and power or to contradict European Union policy in proposing this provision, but to permit member states a means to prevent distortion of their
310
electricity markets where incentives or preferences are already provided to promote combined heat and power projects.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. However, I should explain that for many years I have been a strong advocate of combined heat and power and at present am connected with a company that operates such schemes. In spite of what the Minister said, does he agree that it is a little unfortunate, coming so soon after the Kyoto Conference, that the EU should appear to be speaking with two voices about one of the most effective means of reducing energy consumption? In that connection, will he confirm that a draft directive is now being considered by the European Parliament? If the parliament was to come forward with revised wording for the directive which would lessen the adverse impact on combined heat and power, can the Minister say whether the Council of Ministers, over which the UK currently presides, would look favourably at such an amendment?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am well aware of the noble Lord's commitment to combined heat and power, a commitment which, as he knows, I have shared for a long time. The Government share that view also. Indeed, only yesterday the fuel efficient CHP generating plant at the British Sugar Plc factory at Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk, was the first to be given government consent while the review of energy sources for power generation is under way. That is encouraging and shows the Government's commitment. I do not accept that the EU is speaking with two voices. It is a matter of interpreting what was said by the council. I am aware that the European Parliament is to deliberate on the matter. I do not want to enter into hypothetical questions in relation to what the eventual conclusion may be, but the presidency and the Commission will take serious account of anything that the European Parliament says.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, given the huge and increasing volume of coal-fired generation on other continents, would it not be sensible for Europe and preferably Britain to ensure that research and development into clean coal combustion in association with combined heat and power would be both nationally and internationally relevant?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, that is a matter for the presidency and the Commission. I have taken strong account and note of what my noble friend said.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, without wishing to provoke an intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, does the Minister agree that that was a somewhat shabby compromise by the Council of Ministers in order to protect the interests of Spain? Would it not have been better for it to have been dealt with by giving Spain a derogation? Can the Minister confirm that the policy of the United Kingdom Government is to use their influence in the European Parliament to ensure that the correct result is arrived at

311
in order to give Spain the protection it needs without at the same time going against the principle of combined heat and power?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I do not accept that it was a shabby compromise. In fact, the agreement that was reached sought to take account of the requirements of various countries. The role of the United Kingdom in the presidency is to advocate that specific arrangement and the role of the EU Parliament will be to investigate the whole process. It will not be of use for me to speculate as to what the outcome will be, save to say, as I indicated, that the presidency and the Commission will take serious note of the European Parliament's view. Of that I have no doubt at all.

London and Continental Railways
3.27 p.m.
Lord Berkeleyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their current contingent liability in respect of debts incurred by London and Continental Railways.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, London and Continental Railways raised some £430 million of debt to fund the development of the CTRL and Eurostar operations for the period up to the main fund-raising for construction. Under the funding agreements with the lending banks, that debt is to be repaid from Eurostar revenues in the event that the development agreement is terminated.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. At the time the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill was passing through your Lordships' House, and the Government were awarding a contract—after competitive tender—to London and Continental Railways, the then Minister of State for Transport, John Watts, issued a memorandum on 8th March which stated that none of the total government finance of £1.8 million would be payable until three-quarters of the way through construction. It also stated that LCR would be responsible for the construction and commercial risks. There was nothing in the document about quantifying contingent liabilities. Can the Minister say whether she agrees that the House was seriously misled by the previous government in being led to believe that all early construction risks had been taken by the private sector?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the development agreement which this Government inherited means that if LCR fails before it raises the funding for the construction of CTRL, the debts accumulated while it was in charge—the majority of which arise from Eurostar losses—revert to the public sector and to the Government.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, did the Minister just say that the Government, in agreement
312
with the private sources of finance and with London and Continental Railways, agreed to underwrite in effect any default in borrowing? If that is the case, surely it must be that Parliament was seriously misled. According to the Financial Times of 12th February, the contingent liability has materialised at around £420 million. That is not peanuts. Why was it that the government of the day did not reveal that contingent liability, which they must have taken into account?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I cannot answer for the previous government as to what they revealed about the development agreement. Paragraph 4(c) of the explanatory memorandum stated that it involved the ability of the government to enter into direct agreements with LCR's financiers. I have just explained the effect of that to the House. The money that was raised by LCR for the design and development of the CTRL and the accumulated losses in operating Eurostar, if they were not refinanced by raising funding for the main project and if the development agreement failed, revert to the public sector.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the capitalisation of LCR was seriously insufficient and that, in taking on this contract, it had no idea that the Eurostar revenues would be less than it had assumed? Have the shareholders of LCR written off all their liabilities or are they prepared to face up to the liabilities that may be consequential on the collapse of LCR?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, as the House will be aware from the Statement of the Deputy Prime Minister in another place, we are in the middle of a 30-day period following LCR coming to the Government and explaining that it had indeed, as my noble friend pointed out, grossly overestimated the profit it would make from operating Eurostar services and that this had undermined the company's financing plans and asking the Government for an extra £1.2 billion to help bridge that gap. The Deputy Prime Minister made it clear that, although the Government were committed to contributing the £1.8 billion, a further £1.2 million was unacceptable. We are now in the 30-day period of seeing whether LCR can come up with another way of fulfilling its obligations under the development agreement.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I am sure the Government share our concern that the failure of LCR could lead either to the non-construction of the Channel Tunnel rail link or to only its partial construction. There is the further disbenefit that if it were not continued as far as St. Pancras, the whole development of that area of London would be under threat, including the contributions from the single regeneration fund and the private sector. Will the Government do everything they possibly can to ensure that the Channel Tunnel rail link is completed, even if that means doing it in sections? We must have at some

313
point a clear indication that the Government are committed to the project and will find a way of carrying it Out.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I note the comments of the noble Baroness. As I said earlier, we are looking very carefully—I know that London and Continental Railways is also looking very carefully—to see whether there is a solution to what is a grave problem. She is right to point out that there are a number of inter-related issues—this is not simply about links between Kent and St. Pancras—surrounding the CTRL, particularly the redevelopment and regeneration projects at Stratford and around Ebbsfleet. These are serious issues. I should make it clear to her, in reply to her question about building only part of the CTRL, that the Act and the development agreement both provide for a railway between St. Pancras and the Channel Tunnel. That is what we are talking about, and the Government are looking to LCR to come up with a proposal.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, following my first supplementary question, has my noble friend noticed the definite and deafening silence of the Opposition on this matter?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, would like to intervene.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I was about to rise to my feet. However, in deference to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, I waited until he had finished his question. I was rising as he rose, but I naturally deferred to a senior Member of the House like the noble Lord. Being, as we are, in the middle of this 30-day period, can she give an assurance that at the end of the period she will make a Statement to the House on the outcome of the negotiations? I can understand that perhaps noble Lords behind her would not welcome such a Statement. Can the noble Baroness also confirm that, of the £1.8 billion of government money that was promised to this project, at least a half of that was to improve the Kent commuter lines'? Therefore, if any alternative plan were put forward which did not improve Kent commuter lines, presumably that figure of £1.8 billion would be up for negotiation if not cancelled altogether?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, when the Deputy Prime Minister made his Statement in another place he undertook to make a further report to Parliament when he had had a chance to consider any proposals that were put to him by LCR during the 30-day period. As the noble Lord will be aware, your Lordships' House had risen at the time that Statement was made and therefore it was not repeated. But we would be anxious that the House have the opportunity to discuss any further proposals.
The noble Lord asked about the Kent commuter lines. It is correct that the project has implications not only for links between Europe and London and indeed other parts of Great Britain; but there are also important
314
advantages in terms of commuting services and the regeneration issues.

London and Continental Railways

  Lord Chancellor (Tenure of Office) (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
  3.36 p.m.
  Lord Alderdice: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make further provision about the law relating to the tenure of the office of Lord Chancellor by persons who are not members of the Church of England. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Alderdice.)
  On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

  Electricity Generation Bill [H.L.]
  Lord Ezra: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to extend the obligation to generate electricity from certain fuel sources. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Ezra.)
  On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

  Data Protection Bill [H.L.]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  Moved, That it be an instruction to the Grand Committee to whom the Data Protection Bill [H.L.] has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

  Clauses 1 to 4,

  Schedules 1 to 4,

  Clauses 5 and 6,

  Schedule 5,

  Clauses 7 to 36,

  Schedule 7,

  Clauses 37 to 46,

  Schedule 6,

  Clauses 47 and 48,

  Schedule 8,

  Clauses 49 and 50,

  Schedule 9,

  Clauses 51 to 63,

  Schedules 10 and 11,

  Clause 64.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

  On Question, Motion agreed to.

Bank of England Bill
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

315
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Grand Committee to whom the Bank of England Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 to 6,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 7 to 13,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 14 to 22,

Schedule 4,

Clause 23,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 24 to 26,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 27 to 37,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 38 to 42,

Schedule 8,

Clause 43,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 44 to 46.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Bank of England Bill

  Teaching and Higher Education Bill [H.L.]
  Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

  Clause 1,

  Schedule 1,

  Clauses 2 to 29,

  Schedules 2 and 3.—(Baroness Blackstone.)

  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Local Government (Experimental Arrangements) Bill [H.L.]
  Read a third time: an amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill
3.40 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reasons be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons reasons be now considered.—(Baroness Hayman.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASONS
[The page and line number refer to Bill (49) as first printed by the Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 1, page 1, line 8, after ("prescribe,") insert ("hut not less that eight weeks after publication of a Bill providing for the establishment of a Greater London Authority and the election of a mayor for Greater London,")
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
1A Because it is not desirable to make the publication of a Bill providing for the establishment of a Greater London Authority a precondition of the holding of the referendum.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 1A. This referendum is about giving the people of London a say in their future and giving them the ability to signal—or to withhold—their consent to proposals for new city-wide government for their capital.
Debate on this Bill has shown that, despite sometimes differing views about the proposals on offer, all sides of the House are united in wanting to ensure that as many Londoners as possible have the opportunity to cast their vote on referendum day. It is for that very reason that the Government have chosen to hold the referendum on 7th May, the same day as local elections. Combining the two will help increase voter turnout for both polls and avoid the possibility of voter fatigue setting in and reducing participation at a later poll.
Combining the polls will also save a not insignificant sum of public money although I accept that effective democratic participation must always weigh more heavily than cost in making a decision of this sort. As I explained in Committee, a requirement to publish a Bill before the referendum would in effect delay the poll by very many months. It could not be held by 7th May. We are working very hard to bring forward the White Paper publication date towards the end of March so that there is time for people to see the proposals in detail and to make up their minds on them. It would not be possible to turn the White Paper's proposals into a Bill in time for the joint poll. That means that we would lose the benefits of a combined poll.
Such a requirement could only be justified if the value of the additional information that would be available to the public as a result of publication of a Bill outweighed the negative impact of delaying the referendum. I do not believe this to be the case. As I have said to the House before we will publish a White Paper well in advance of the referendum. It will set out our proposals in clear and comprehensible terms. In addition, a summary version of the White Paper will be sent free to every London household. The Government's proposals will be fully explained to Londoners. Publication of what will be a complex and lengthy piece of proposed legislation would not add to that process.
This is not an argument about differing principles. We all agree that Londoners should be fully informed of the issues on which they will vote. The amendment is about how we go about ensuring that. There can be no doubt about the Government's commitment to ensuring that

317
people are well informed of the issues to be put to them in the referendum. But to expect and to continue with the amendment that insists on the publication of a Bill before a referendum would wreck the whole timetable for that referendum. I suggest that the disadvantages far outweigh any minimal advantages of having a draft Bill rather than the clearly enunciated proposals set out in the White Paper. Therefore, I urge your Lordships' House not to insist on the amendment.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 1A.—(Baroness Hayman.)
Lord Bowness: My Lords, the Minister's response is disappointing even if predictable. It is unfortunate that in another place the Minister should have described the amendment as a wrecking amendment. Had they been so minded, the Government could have arranged their timetable and business to have allowed sufficient time to have published a Bill. In moving this amendment, we did not ask for there to be an Act. We were promised a White Paper on 23rd March. I am troubled. I hope that the Minister can make clear during the debate on this amendment whether that date has slipped since there was a reference this afternoon to a White Paper by the end of March.
But what is perhaps more to the point is this. Had many of the points made by my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish as regards referenda been heeded, some of these problems would not have arisen. There would have been a clear set of rules and principles about both the procedures and the stage at which proposals were put to the electorate.
I am also concerned that in another place the Minister seemed to he more worried about the nature of the vote in your Lordships' House than answering the real issues which were raised. The more I read the debate and listened to the response to the suggested amendment, the more I was forced to the conclusion that criticisms and suggestions that something should be reconsidered are met with blank refusal. One is led to believe that whoever made the criticism or suggestion, quite irrespective of the make-up of the body or the people making it, it would still have been rejected.
Rejection seems to have been based on what the Minister said in another place; namely,
"The Government have already given clear undertakings that the White Paper will set out in detail and in plain English all the key issues about structures, powers, the method of election and the operation of the Greater London authority that the people of London will need to know about to reach a judgment. Is that not a sensible way to proceed?".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/2/98; col. 434.]
No, it is not. I believe that it is a presumptuous way to proceed. How can any Government claim that all the detail of a White Paper's proposals will pass through the parliamentary process unscathed? Only a Government who start the process determined to listen to no argument at all can make that statement. How can a Government claiming to want to listen say in advance that their paper will contain everything that people need to know? What about what they want to know as regards
318
these proposals? I believe that the Government's approach is unfortunate, but it is not my intention to press the point.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
2 Page 1, line II, leave out ("question") and insert ("questions")
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
2A Because the question asked in the referendum should be in the form set out in the Schedule to the Bill.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 2 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 2A. In moving this Motion, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 3. This is the issue which has been at the heart of the debate on this Bill at all stages in this House and in another place. We have gone from stage to stage into more and more minute detail and analysis of the varying options and the ramifications of the questions that it was suggested were put on the ballot paper.
In trying again to state the Government's position on the referendum question, I should like to step back a little from the detail and come once again to the principles. The flaws in the multiple question formulations proposed by parties opposite, and crystallised in the amendment before us today, have been addressed both here and in another place. I do not propose to dwell on them.
However, I should like to restate the Government's position on the two issues at stake here. The first is the nature of the referendum proposed. It was clear from the earlier remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, that in some ways—the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said this in terms—many people would have preferred to see a post-legislative referendum; failing such a post-legislative referendum, they were seeking a referendum following publication of a Bill. However, this amendment takes us further away from certainty and more into turning the referendum into a consultation exercise as opposed to a test of consent. A pre-legislative test of consent was always what the Government were promising—an opportunity to put to the people of London not only the Government's well thought-out, detailed proposals but also their opinions on how the government of London should be structured. It is important to focus on the issue of consent—the consent to bringing forward legislation to implement the proposals set out in the White Paper.
As well as differences of opinion about whether the referendum should be post-legislative or a much wider, much softer and much more consultative process, there are differences of opinion between the parties about the best form of government for London. It is perfectly understandable and acceptable that such different views exist, but the Government's position has always been that, although such views may exist and although parties are perfectly free to propound them, it is not the Government's duty to put those different views to the people of London in a referendum, raising expectations

319
that the Government would then act in ways which the Government firmly believe would not be in the interests of the people of London.
We were elected on a manifesto promise to establish a Greater London authority consisting of a mayor and an assembly, following a referendum—a referendum on those proposals. This Bill was introduced to provide for that additional expression of consent in accordance with a clear manifesto commitment—nothing more and nothing less.
Accusations of arrogance, of high-handedness, are without foundation. If we are guilty of anything, it is of wishing to put a crystal clear proposition to the people of London, and put it in a way that can deliver a clear mandate to the Government. We have been accused of not being willing to trust the people and of not being willing to risk rejection of our proposals. We are willing to risk the rejection of our proposals if that is what the people of London wish. If they consent to the implementation of our proposals, they will vote yes. If they are opposed to our plans, they are free to vote no. What we are not prepared to do is to raise their expectations or to waste public money on holding a referendum on unclear propositions which could not provide a clear mandate—and on propositions that we believe to be fatally flawed. I refer to separating the question on the elected mayor from that on the elected assembly.
It is interesting that the first amendment was posed on the basis of producing more clarity so that people could better understand what they would be voting for. The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, referred to the use of the phrase "a wrecking amendment". When introducing the Motion, I said that the Lords amendment would wreck the timetable of the Bill. I think that that is true. I also believe that that amendment, taken in conjunction with this amendment, does wreck the Bill because it would be impossible to produce a draft Bill to be published before the referendum covering the possible outcomes of what was essentially a consultative referendum which might result in very different answers with regard to the form of government that should be introduced.
We need to have clarity in the process. It is not a question of the Government saying to the people of London. "Take it or leave it". The Government are fulfilling their responsibility of offering real choice and the prospect of a real outcome following expression of that choice. Anything else opens up a Pandora's box of confusion: a referendum that would lack clarity and lead to a devalued, unclear and worthless mandate.
The proposals that we shall put to the people of London have not been dreamt up on a whim. They are the result of extensive consultation and careful consideration. In the week commencing 23rd March—that is the same formulation that I have used all the way through our debates in this House—the White Paper will be published. As I have expressed it before, that will put
320
the flesh on the bones of the Government's proposals. However, the bones of the Government's proposals are not up for negotiation and I make no bones—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I should say, "I make no apology for that"! We have always said that we would consult on the question of the Greater London authority. We had to make it clear that that authority would comprise two separately elected elements: a mayor to provide the voice and the leadership and an elected assembly to provide the accountability. Together they form one proposition—and that is the proposition that we intend to put to the people of London in a simple yes/no referendum. The detail will be reflected in the White Paper.
In developing and implementing our proposals, we have sought to maximise consultation, democratic participation and inclusion. We have been reaching out to the people of London and they have had their opportunity to have their say on all the questions raised in the Green Paper. Having done that, it is right that the people of London should then be asked to consider that question, and to vote on it on 7th May. They will vote on a single question proposed by the Government. That is the only way to provide them with a clear voice. They will know what their vote will mean. I urge the House not to insist on this amendment.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 2 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 2A.—(Baroness Hayman.)
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the Minister commented on the relationship between these two amendments and the first amendment. However, as we have already disposed of the first amendment, I suggest that it is not necessary to address that point.
The first point to strike me when I read the Commons reason was how inadequate it is as a reason. It does not begin to reflect the Minister's argument, which was a perfectly respectable argument—I am sorry. I hope that that does not sound impertinent. For the Commons to say, "We disagree with the amendment because the question should be in the form in which we first proposed it", is not the highest reasoning of which either House of Parliament is capable.
I congratulate the Minister on presenting the Motion in a somewhat calmer fashion than appeared to prevail in the other place, according to my reading of the Commons Official Report. A sharp distinction can be drawn between presentation there and in this House. I suppose that it is not for Members of this House to comment on the standard of debate in another place, but it did not seem to me to set a gold standard.
There is a difference of view—some may put it more emphatically than others—as to what this exercise should comprise. The Minister has been clear throughout that the Government propose a package. She has said that it is not a consultative exercise in the sense in which we on these Benches would like to see it. She

321
spoke of it being a test of consent. My continuing difficulty is: consent to what? There is to be flesh on the bones but the White Paper will represent this project in its infancy. The completed legislation will be the fully formed adult with both skeleton and no doubt flesh and will be rather more substantial than when the White Paper is published.
We on these Benches believe that if two questions were asked and the outcome was not what the Government favoured, the matter would have to be reconsidered. We have made no bones about that. We have never proposed that the Government should be hound by the outcome of a two-question referendum if they genuinely considered that it would not be possible or practical—the term "pragmatic" was much used in another place in relation to this exercise—for the wish of Londoners expressed in answering the questions to be put into effect. I am disappointed. I regard this as a lost opportunity to achieve a high level of democratic legitimacy for the two constituent parts of the proposed authority. I believe that we shall require a better debate than will be enabled of a subject that so far appears to have been hijacked by discussion of the personalities involved, not the way in which the authority will operate.
Yesterday I attended a discussion held by the King's Fund on the impact of the GLA on health in London. Formerly, health was not proposed to be within the power of the GLA but matters such as pollution and housing very much affect the health of Londoners. What particularly struck me was the almost dangerously high expectations among the very well informed people who discussed this topic without a debate about how the structure would operate, as if we would move from nothing—not even a skeleton—to something that was fully formed. They expected this new organisation to solve so many problems.
I do not believe that the White Paper will produce the level of detail that we seek. Earlier this year I tabled a Written Question relating to the responses to the Green Paper. I asked how many people had expressed themselves to be in favour of an assembly with a separate directly elected mayor, an assembly alone or a mayor alone. The Answer of the Minister was that the details would be in the White Paper to be published in March. I do not believe that the White Paper is likely to provide that kind of detailed analysis. I appreciate that the responses are available for inspection, but it is beyond the scope of members of the public, and, quite honestly, Members of the Opposition, to do the amount of work required to provide an answer. I believe that the Government have an obligation to answer those questions.
However, with a sense of disappointment but also realism, and also a little question in my mind as to whether when presented with the ballot paper on 7th May I shall be tempted to spoil it by writing yes and no—because I do not find the question crystal clear according to the Minister's description of it—we on these Benches accept that this composite question is the question to be asked. I therefore look forward to working on the substantive Bill. That may be the second best approach, but the details of the relationship between
322
the constituent parts of the authority, in particular the checks and balances, are ones to which I hope this House and another place will give all the attention that they deserve.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, this response is almost as regrettable as I found the response to the previous amendment, especially as the Government at an earlier stage in another place virtually invited the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats to produce a proposal for a sensible set of two questions that they could both support. That was done. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I am disappointed by the reasons given for its rejection. It appears that once again the Government are not prepared to listen to the argument or, despite what the Minister said earlier this afternoon, to risk having to listen to the people.
The Government may well want a directly elected mayor and a directly elected assembly. I have no doubt that members of the Government will campaign for it. The Minister says that it is not possible to produce a Bill, or, as it is to be, a White Paper with alternatives, but that is not something for which we have asked and it is not what we say. Were the Government to listen to the essence of this amendment they would produce their White Paper on the basis of their stated policy. But there are two questions. I submit that it would be a better pre-legislative test of consent, if that is what it is, not a consultation, if the two questions were posed.
It is possible to want one proposition but not the other. It is possible that with merely a White Paper people will form views on the details—even those that the Government decide that they need—but not be prepared to endorse one or other element of the proposition. This does not commit the Government to proceeding with one and not the other, but they would need to think again about the rejected element. I find it distressing that the Government will not take that risk. One is inevitably drawn to the conclusion that they are sure about people's willingness to buy the proposal neatly wrapped up as one but rather more nervous about their reaction if it is opened up so that people are allowed to see and comment on the constituent parts. I regret that the Government cannot contemplate the possibility of a second thought either after the referendum or in this House this afternoon.
Lord Rea: My Lords, as one of the few Members on these Benches who supported this amendment initially it is right that I should say a few words this afternoon. I agree with my noble friend that clearly the manifesto promised a referendum on the combined package, but as a member of the Labour Party I do not recall contributing to that decision. Many other Londoners would very much like to have back their elected assembly but a significant number are not convinced that a directly elected mayor is desirable. I remain to be convinced that the benefits of such a new institution in London will outweigh the dangers. As the noble Baroness has said, the Government have been accused of not trusting Londoners. I believe that they would be shown to have greater trust of Londoners by allowing the two-question version to stand.

323
One anxiety expressed by my honourable friend Nick Raynsford in another place was the danger that if we have two questions we might land up with an elected mayor without an assembly. I think that that would be unlikely, but I believe that it is the outcome that some Members of the Opposition Benches would like to see. I agree that that is a danger that we want to avoid. However, that could have been dealt with easily by asking first, "Do you want an elected assembly or not?" and then asking the second question to be answered only if the answer to the first question is, "Yes". But I realise that on this occasion the Government are steam-rollering ahead with this, and that it will be clearly ridiculous to try to get in the way, because this time we will be completely squashed.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend Lady Hamwee said what she did about the Commons Reasons, because they are remarkable:
"Because the question asked in the referendum should be in the form set out in the Schedule to the Bill".
That must say one of two things. Either it says, "This Bill is unamendable, because it is our will", or it says, "We disagree because we disagree because we disagree". Neither of those is particularly persuasive.
I shall have been here 10 years next month. During that time I have noticed the reasons given by another place becoming slowly more perfunctory. It is a sliding process in which last May does not seem to have caused so much as a blip. It is something which causes me some regret. It also raises—this is the serious point that I want to make—the attitude of government to a revising Chamber. I say that without prejudice to any decision on what form such a revising Chamber might ultimately take.
All governments say that they want a revising Chamber, but all governments do not like it when they get it. The trouble with a revising Chamber is that it is no good unless you have it when you do not like it, because if you only have it when you do like it, in effect, you do not have a revising Chamber at all.
Government, it seems to me, is an animal of remarkable political consistency no matter in which party colours it may temporarily be clothed. All governments believe that they have well thought out and carefully considered proposals; all governments believe that altering those will open a Pandora's Box of confusion; and all governments believe, although they are not always as honest about it as the Minister was today—I thank her for that—that the bones of the proposal are not up for consideration. That is an attitude which calls in question the uses of a revising Chamber.
I should like to ask the Minister—I hope that notice of the question has reached her—how many times the Government have had amendments carried against them in this House; how many of those amendments they have accepted; how many they have reversed; and in how many of them they have reached a compromise. I hope that the reply to those questions will not offend against the law of averages.
324
In the previous Parliament Mr. Frank Field—as my memory is not perfect, I believe that I must be paraphrasing—said that, if the Lords should so much as find a grammatical error in an Act of Parliament. a junior Whip would rise to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment". I hope that Mr. Field was wrong.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, it has now become obvious that we shall have just one question for the people of London on the referendum paper, and I accept that, although I believe that the Liberal Benches and the Conservative Benches won the argument even if they lost the vote. Would the Minister be kind enough to confirm that no government money will be spent on a "Yes" campaign, when both opposition parties did not approve of the question to be put to the people of London?
4.15 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, while I agree entirely with my noble friends Lord Russell and Lady Hamwee on the quality of the reasons given by the other place, and that that is an important deficiency in the debate which we are having, I am of course one on these Benches who, from the beginning, was not in favour of the amendment which we are discussing.
For the sake of clarification and to do perhaps a little better than others in other places who are looking for reasons, perhaps I may say once again that my basic motive is a view of what representative government is about. I believe that it is about government taking the initiative, and Parliament debating and deciding at the end of the day. That is a view which does not make me a natural supporter of referendums in general. I still find it difficult to find a sensible place for referendums in the process of representative government.
If there is such a place, it is probably the one which the Government have chosen in this case, because it does not detract from our ability in Parliament to debate whatever legislation comes forward, if indeed the Government conclude that the results of the referendum enable them to go forward with legislation. It is such a motive which has led me to support throughout the notion that the government initiative should go further than just asking open-ended questions; should indicate the direction in which the Government propose to go; and I therefore find it easy to support the line taken by the Minister, and will also find it easy to take an active part in the "Yes" campaign.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I listened with interest to what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said about this being a revising Chamber, and to the noble Lord. Lord Archer, making the point that the argument was won on those Benches, and yet we are moving forward in the way that the Government propose. Let me remind this House that both this House and another place are representative of the British people. The British people took a decision on 1st May last year when a manifesto was presented to them. The Government now propose to act in line with the commitment that they gave the British people, and they were elected to do exactly that.

325
This place must recognise that at the end of the day it is the British people who decide what happens in this country.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, those are bold words, but a moment might come when the Government will begin to learn from the mistakes they have made since 1st May. The people of Scotland are becoming increasingly astonished to find the detailed problems involved in what they voted for in their pre-legislative referendum. Anyone who reads the Scottish press will understand that. Perhaps that is what will happen in London. I do not know. The Government should begin to learn about this type of thing.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I shall, first, respond to the questions that were asked during this short but interesting debate. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, was kind enough to give me notice, but it was such brief notice that I am afraid that I shall have to write to him with the information that he requires in respect of dealing with amendments in another place, if he will forgive me for that.
I can give the noble Lord, Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, the assurance for which he asks. I have made it clear on other occasions that no government money will be spent on a "Yes" campaign. We have always been explicit that we shall be spending money on an information campaign—I believe that that has been welcomed throughout the House—to inform people about the proposals, the nature of the referendum, and the details of what is being put before them. There will be no public funding for either a "Yes" or a "No" campaign.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, spoke about a revising Chamber. He accused me of honesty in saying that the bones of the proposal were not up for consideration. If he reads the Official Report he will see that I intended to say that the bones were not up for consideration in terms of putting the question in the referendum. The referendum is to be on the proposal. The consultation will deal with the detail which will go around the bones. I do not suggest that the bones of any government policy or piece of legislation are not up for consideration and debate within Parliament, because that would be inappropriate. However, as I have said many times, we owe it to the people of London to be explicit and clear about what we are proposing. As suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, we must be responsible.
Comments were made about the Government's response to the two questions. The suggestion was made that that might not be in line with the proposals that we are putting forward because we consider them to be the best form of government for London. I find that suggestion strange. It was said again today that the Government would not be bound by the outcome of the referendum. The outcome might show that 80 per cent. of the people wanted a mayor, but 20 per cent. wanted an assembly; or that 70 per cent. of the people wanted an assembly, but only 45 per cent. wanted a mayor. It was said that although we would have to think about such an outcome we would not be bound by it. It was said that such an outcome "would not commit" the
326
Government. That is not good governance. The people of London need to know what will be the outcome of their vote. The outcome will be the Government taking the proposals forward or dropping them. That is clear.
The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, spoke of the challenge set in the early days of debate in another place about whether two appropriate questions could be formulated. That challenge was set on the basis that the Government were not opposed to the number of questions, but that there were tests. The tests were whether there could be two questions which gave clarity, did not propose unworkable options and were able to provide a clear mandate. Those are the underlying reasons for deciding to have one question. We are not committed to one question rather than two, but we are committed to putting forward only workable options. We do not want to provide a false prospectus for people voting in the referendum. We want to achieve a clear mandate for the Government. I believe that the only way to do that is to return to the original question as proposed in the schedule. I hope that in the debates in your Lordships' House the reasoning behind that has been explained from the Dispatch Box and I urge the House not to insist on its amendments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
3 In the Schedule, page 6, leave out lines 3 to 7 and insert:
("The Government propose the establishment of a Greater London Authority made up of an elected assembly and a separately elected mayor, both to be elected by Londoners.
Question 1: Are you in favour of an elected assembly?
Put a cross (X) in one box:
Yes
No
Question 2: Are you in favour of an elected mayor?
Put a cross (X) in one box:
Yes
No
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
3A Because the question asked in the referendum should be in the form set out in the Schedule to the Bill.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment during the debate on Amendment No. 20. I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 3 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 3A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 3 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 3A.—(Baroness Hayman.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Competition Bill [H.L.]
4.24 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Simon of Highbury): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Simon of Highbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 26 [Powers when conducting investigations]:
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 13, line 14, leave out from ("Director") to end of line 15.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment on the first day of Report. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 13, line 15, at end insert ("which—

(a) identifies the specified document;

(b) specifies the conduct which is being investigated;

(c) specifics the Director's grounds for considering that the specified document relates to a matter which is relevant to that investigation; and

(d) states that a person on whom the notice has been served has the right, and shall be afforded reasonable time, to seek legal advice before complying with the notice.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 85, I shall speak to a number of other amendments, but, in view of the Minister's Amendment No. 86, for which I am grateful, not to Amendment No. 88.
The purpose of this group of amendments is to ensure that those who are to be subject to investigation will be aware, first, of the purpose of the investigation and, secondly, the penalties to which they might be subject if non-compliance follows. That will assist them in establishing whether the documents requested are necessary to the investigation. It will have the added advantage of preventing fishing expeditions by investigating officers.
The requirement in the amendment that the purpose of the investigation should be stated exists in the corresponding powers of the European Commission where it has authority to request information. At EU level, the question of whether a document is necessary to an investigation is subject to review by the European Court. In our view, a similar safeguard should exist in the United Kingdom.
The group of amendments also contains a proposal that persons subject to an investigation should be given an opportunity to obtain legal advice. At first sight, that might not seem necessary. However, I am sure that the Minister appreciates that, under Clause 41, in the event of non-compliance by an individual criminal sanctions might follow. That is a serious matter for individuals who otherwise might have had no contact with the criminal law. We believe that in this complicated area
328
of the law it is desirable that they should at least have the opportunity of taking their own legal advice and of discovering their rights and obligations.
A further amendment proposes that the written authorisation referred to should state the purpose for which the investigation is being made and the penalties for failing to comply with the request. A number of the amendments cover the issue of legal advice, but the broad proposition is that the investigation when it starts is not a criminal investigation. It is an investigation for competition law purposes, which is perfectly reasonable. However, at a later stage of the proceedings an individual might find himself subject to legal sanctions. We believe that the powers in the Bill are insufficient and there are insufficient safeguards for the individual. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I support this series of amendments mainly because it would bring the wording of the Bill more into line with the wording, of EU legislation. The Government state that the main purpose of this legislation is precisely to achieve that. That would apply in this case and therefore I hope that the amendments will be agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that a large number of those amendments which were tabled in Committee to Clauses 25, 26, 27 and 28 have been retabled. They were gone through in great detail in Committee. I trust that the Minister will be relieved to hear that they will not be subject to the same detailed investigation again today, at least not from the Opposition Front Bench.
However, I should like to trespass on the Minister's time to make a general statement about this series of amendments. He will recall that the matter was touched on in the Opposition's winding-up speech on Second Reading and he will know that the context in which the amendments are placed is the procedural regime set up, first, by the European Community and, secondly, by the human rights convention soon to be incorporated into our law if Her Majesty's Government have their way in another place.
Under the Bill, powers given to the OFT are draconian. The Minister responded in only a minor way in the revised Bill which he has produced for Report stage. It is likely that when the OFT exercises those powers, it will be frequently subject not only to appeals to the tribunal but also to actions for judicial review.
It is a debatable point as to whether Clause 58 incorporates into the procedural rules of the Bill the same procedural safeguards which have already been laid down by the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. However, there can be absolutely no doubt whatever that once the Human Rights Bill becomes law in this country the safeguards laid down by that Bill will apply to any action taken by the OFT. In looking at those procedures and in applying the general doctrines of proportionality and fairness, the Minister will find that the standards required by our courts are higher than those which he has inserted into the Bill.

329
Therefore, I trust that the Minister will look very carefully at this and subsequent series of amendments to these clauses, bearing in mind the consequences of falling below that standard.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, observed, this is a large group of amendments and included in it are government amendments, and I should like to try to find a way through all of them. The powers of the Bill are those necessary to ensure a competitive marketplace. I am always careful about the use of the word "draconian". I believe that we must have effective competition in the UK market and in the European marketplace. Our purpose is to achieve that in the most consistent way possible.
The Government have listened carefully to the points made in Committee, and indeed, as has been stated, have come forward with amendments to address some of the concerns expressed. We do not accept all the points raised and I shall endeavour to explain why. First, I take Amendment No. 85. That repeats an amendment tabled in Committee by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, and the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. That was considered at length in Committee (Official Report, 17/12/97; col. 376) and I see nothing new in the circumstances now to cause us to reconsider the matter.
The amendments proposed would place an impossible burden on the investigator; for example, in respect of the requirement to specify the grounds for considering that a specified document relates to the investigation. Such a requirement would clearly only have the effect of frustrating the investigation. Specifying the conduct being investigated is, we believe, better done in the government amendment which we have tabled.
Amendments Nos. 95A, 95B and 109A were also debated and rejected in Committee for similar reasons. They limit the director's power to ask for documents and information held on computer and, effectively, explanations of them in relation to documents and information he has already considered relevant and had required by notice. We see no reason to alter our view on that.
In speaking to Amendment No. 86, I should like to cover also Amendments Nos. 93, 94, 99 and 138. In Committee we considered a number of amendments aimed at requiring information to be given to the undertaking which is under investigation. While certain information would be given during the investigation as a matter of ordinary practice, we undertook to consider amendments to require the undertaking to be given notice of the subject matter and the purpose of the investigation and what are the penalties for non-cooperation with an investigation. Having reflected carefully on the debate, I am satisfied that it is right to amend Clauses 26, 27 and 28 to give legal effect to and to provide for those matters. Undertakings should be told of the nature of the investigation they are facing. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, and the noble Lords, Lord Ezra, Lord Kingsland and Lord Lucas, for the points they raised in that regard. They have been taken into account.
330
These amendments require the relevant information to be given in each instance when investigatory powers are exercised. Therefore, they will cover requirements under Clause 26, when premises are entered without a warrant under Clause 27, and when they are entered with a warrant under Clause 28. Those are along the lines of similar requirements in EC Regulation 17/62 which governs the investigations by the EC Commission into suspected infringements of Articles 85 and 86.
Amendment No. 99 is a technical correction to ensure consistency in the use of the term "investigating officer".
The points in Amendments Nos. 87, 88 and 82 are covered fully in government amendments.
Amendment No. 90 addresses the question of the right of being afforded reasonable time to seek legal advice. We went over that ground fairly extensively in Committee. That is an area in which I do not accept that we should go as far as the amendment suggests. In Committee I explained the regime which would apply under the Bill. I added that the European Court has recognised the right to legal representation as one of the rights of defence but not that an undertaking is entitled to delay unduly the commencement of an investigation while a company is awaiting its legal adviser.
Therefore, I expect the director general to follow Commission practice in conducting his investigations. Clause 58 makes provision for EC jurisprudence generally to be imported into our domestic regime and also for the director general to have regard to Commission statements. Therefore, I believe that we have covered the ground already in our own statements made in Committee and in the amendments which we have tabled.
I do understand the implications that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has put to us about the future development of UK law. I understand that and naturally, as that develops, the jurisprudence will develop in relating the two sets of legal bases. But the fact here is that we have, as I said, within our amendments relating to this Bill attempted to follow the principles of Clause 58 in bringing across the EC jurisprudence on competition matters, and I am satisfied that we have done that according to the structure that we require for competition in the UK market. On that basis, I am not as yet convinced that we need to bring forward further amendments than those we have already tabled to take account of the position debated in Committee.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his full reply on this rather complicated set of amendments. I thank him because I believe that he has, in the main, answered most of the concerns that we expressed. He will no doubt appreciate that it is quite complicated to fit them all into place. I look forward to having an opportunity to read the Bill before Third Reading to ensure that we have covered all that we wish to cover.
I was interested to hear the Minister pray is aid Clause 58 on the question of legal advice. Without in any sense warning him, I have no doubt that we shall have a detailed debate on that clause when we reach that

331
stage. Again, we shall reflect on what the Minister said about legal advice. I believe it still has some attraction to us that there should be some express indication of it. However, as the Minister responsible for the Bill has said at the Dispatch Box that the issue of legal advice is part of the European jurisprudence that he would expect to be followed, that may be sufficient for our purposes. As I said, I shall reflect on that aspect of the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 13, line 15. at end insert—
("(2A) A notice under subsection (2) must indicate—

(a) the subject matter and purpose of the investigation; and

(b) the nature of the offences created by sections 41 to 43.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 87 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 88 to 90 not moved.]
Clause 27 [Power to enter premises without a warrant]:
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 13, line 33, leave out ("(or by an officer acting on his behalf under section 25(2))").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 92 not moved.]
Lord Simon of Highbury Lord Simon of Highbury moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 13, line 37, leave out from ("given") to end of line 38 and insert ("to the occupier of the premises a written notice which—

(a) gives at least two working days' notice of the intended entry;

(b) indicates the subject matter and purpose of the investigation; and

(c) indicates the nature of the offences created by sections 41 to 43.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 93A:
Page 13, line 40, leave out ("a reasonable suspicion") and insert ("reasonable grounds for belief").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I believe that the Minister's amendment meets my concern on this matter, if he agrees with me that a "reasonable suspicion" is to be interpreted as "reasonable grounds for belief"; in other words, the test is an objective test. I beg to move.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, we looked at the implications of the phrase "reasonable grounds to believe" as against "reasonable grounds to suspect" extensively in Committee, especially in the context of the basic trigger for the investigation powers in Clause 25 and in relation to the waiving of notice requirements where there is entry of premises without a warrant.
332
The debate has caused us to look again very carefully at the provisions of the Bill. As a result, I have come to the conclusion that there is an unjustifiable anomaly in Clause 28 which should be corrected. Clause 28(1) of the Bill provides for the circumstances in which a warrant may be obtained for the entry and search of premises in the course of an investigation. Essentially these are as follows: first, where there may be documents on premises, which have been required to be produced but have not been produced; secondly, where there may be documents on premises which, if they were required to be produced, might be concealed, removed, tampered with or destroyed; and, thirdly, where there may be such documents on premises, production of which could have been required and an investigating officer has attempted to enter the premises but has been unable to do so. In my view, the appropriate test in each case should be one of "reasonable suspicion" that these matters are so.
The director general has made representations to us to ask that the test should be "reasonable suspicion". I am also satisfied that an investigation by the director general would be handicapped by leaving the Bill unchanged.
Amendment No. 104 is grouped with this amendment. It is a consequential amendment which conforms the language of Clause 28(1)(b) to that in paragraphs (a) and (c). I believe that the Bill should be corrected and, therefore, will wish to move that amendment at a later stage.
Having explained our view on the appropriate test to be applied in this particular limb of Clause 28(1), it will come as no surprise to the House to hear that we do not favour the consequences of the string of amendments which have been tabled by noble Lords with this amendment. We discussed this at length on Second Reading and in Committee and we believe that the reasons for applying the test of "belief' are compelling. I therefore ask noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, on the assumption that I have understood the noble Lord correctly, I willingly beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 93B:
Page 14, line 2, after ("25(1)(b)") insert ("and the giving of notice in accordance with subsection (1) would be likely to result in that party or undertaking concealing, destroying or tampering with any document specified in a notice under section 26(2)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was moved by the Opposition in Committee. I have not noticed any reaction from Her Majesty's Government in the revised Bill for Report. In my submission, this is an important amendment because the exemption given by Clause 25(1)(a) and (b) for acting without a warrant is a large exemption and ought to be qualified in the way set out in the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, the right to make unannounced visits is an important weapon in the director general's armoury. His powers must be

333
sufficient in the worst cases of covert cartels to enable him to obtain all documents relevant to his investigation into whether there has been an infringement of the prohibitions.
The proposed amendment would increase the threshold to be crossed before the director general has an unannounced right of entry. At present, under the Bill, if he has a reasonable suspicion that a prohibition has been infringed, he could make unannounced visits if the premises in question are occupied by an undertaking whose conduct he is investigating or if he has reasonable suspicion that this is so.
Amendment No. 93B would increase the risk that the giving of notice would enable an undertaking to prepare in advance for the director's investigation and make it more likely that relevant documents would be hidden, tampered with or destroyed. How could the director establish in advance that the giving of notice would be likely to have the result of the documents being tampered with or destroyed? How could he establish that without making an unannounced visit in the first place?
The practical result of the amendment will be to create a high hurdle before unannounced entry. It will be the same as that which exists under Clause 28 for obtaining a warrant. We believe that it is right to give the director the power to make surprise visits where the undertaking concerned is a suspected infringer. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment because we are maintaining the same position, as he rightly observed, that we did when we discussed it at Committee stage.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. However, I cannot resist expressing my disappointment that he has failed to move on the issue. The amendment covers precisely those circumstances that he fears. In my submission, it would not be difficult for the director to pass the test laid down by the amendment, if indeed he moved within the two day period. However, I do not propose to press the amendment. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 14, line 4, at end insert—
("(3A) In a case falling within subsection (3), the power of entry conferred by subsection (1) is to be exercised by the investigating officer on production of—

(a) evidence of his authorisation; and

(b) a document containing the information referred to in subsection (2)(b) and (c).").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we spoke to this amendment when we debated Amendment No. 85. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 95 and 95A not moved.]
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 95B:
Page 14, line 9, leave out ("relates to any matter relevant") and insert ("is necessary").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment simply tightens up the criteria by leaving out,
"relates to any matter relevant",
and inserting,
"is necessary".
It is an amendment made in other parts of the Bill where we think that the discretion given to the director is unnecessarily wide. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, we may be indulging in a significant tightening and untightening of bolts. I seem to be doing most of the untightening.
We considered similar amendments in Committee. We took the clear view (at cols. 396 and 411 of Hansard 17th November) that seeking to impose the objective test that documents should be "necessary" to an investigation in order that they can be required to be produced, would serve to do no more than frustrate the investigation. We remain entirely of that view, and I hope in understanding our position noble Lords are able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the Minister will not be surprised to learn that I am also disappointed in that reply. However, I am rapidly becoming a realist in these matters. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Strabolgi): My Lords, if Amendment No. 95C is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 96 and 96A.
[Amendments Nos. 95C to 97 not moved.]
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 97A:
Page 14, line 12, at end insert—
("provided that the person is afforded sufficient time to seek legal advice before complying with any such requirement").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this matter has already been dealt with by the Minister in another context. Having heard the noble Lord's reply in that context, we know what it will be in response to this amendment. In those circumstances, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No.97A not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 97B and 98 not moved.]
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 14, line 16, leave out ("named") and insert ("investigating").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we spoke to this amendment when we debated Amendment No. 85. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, if Amendment No. 99A is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 99B.
[Amendments Nos. 99A to 101 not moved.]
Clause 28 [Power to enter premises under a warrant]:
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, if Amendment No. 102 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 102A or 102B.
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 14, line 20, leave out from beginning to ("that") in line 21 and insert ("On an application made by the appropriate person to the court in accordance with rules of court, a judge may issue a warrant if he is satisfied").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 102 and speak to government Amendments Nos. 110, 114, 115, 137, 199, 201, 202, 204, 205 and 207 and Amendments Nos. 102A, 102B, 110A, 110B, 114A, 114B, 199A and 202A.
In the Second Reading debate and in Committee we discussed whether the function of issuing warrants authorising the entry of premises should be a matter for a High Court judge rather than for a justice of the peace. Amendments to that effect were tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, and the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. I am grateful to them for having raised this point.
The Government have listened very carefully to the points made and we have concluded that it would indeed be right to make this change. Amendments Nos. 102, 110 and 114 achieve this. The definition of the relevant court for each of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is now to be found in the interpretation section (Clause 57). I might add at this point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser and the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Lucas, yesterday again tabled their original amendments—now numbered 102A, 102B, 110A, 110B, 114A, 114B, 199A, 202A. I can add no more than that the Government's amendments will make the change to a High Court judge as I have indicated. For the reasons I have also previously indicated, we do not think it appropriate that the president of the tribunal should exercise this function.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, perhaps I may genuinely thank the Minister for moving on this issue. If I may say so, it is an extremely wise action. It seemed to us that a justice of the peace somewhere in the United Kingdom might find it extremely difficult to exercise his powers correctly in deciding whether to grant a search warrant. I am grateful that this power has been given exclusively to a senior member of the judiciary in whichever jurisdiction it happens to be.
Perhaps I may refer to the amendment in my name, Amendment No. 111. It has been somewhat aggressively grouped with the primary amendment relating to justices of the peace. I shall be grateful for an explicit response from the Minister.
He will observe that in the second paragraph of the amendment the point is again made about,
"reasonable time to contact their legal representatives before exercising any of the powers conferred by subsection (2)".
If the Government are of the view that such an opportunity should not be given, it would be helpful if
336
we could discover their reasoning. I suspect that we know what it is, but it would be just as well to hear from the Minister.
5 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, yes. Amendment No. 111 is in this grouping. We have already discussed the matters raised by that amendment. In the light of the Government's amendments dealing with entry to empty premises, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be prepared to withdraw that amendment since the matter has been dealt with.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 102A and 102B are pre-empted.
Lord Simon of Highbury Lord Simon of Highbury moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 14, line 22, leave out ("believing") and insert ("suspecting").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we covered this matter earlier in the debate. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 14. line 27, leave out ("it is reasonable to suspect") and insert ("there arc reasonable grounds for suspecting-).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to when we debated Amendment No. 93A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 104A and 104B not moved.]
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 104C:
Page 14, line 38, leave out from ("named") to end of line 40 and insert ("senior officer of the Director who is an appropriately qualified official in the division of the OFT responsible for investigations, and other named senior officers with appropriate qualifications and from the same division to accompany him—").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the course of our debate at Second Reading, a certain amount was said about the director general being in the position of investigator, judge and jury. Here, we have a clause dealing with an official who will have investigatory powers. The expression used in the clause is "a named officer". We have sought in this amendment to be more specific about the category of official who is tasked. The reason is simply this. Up to now the OFT has had a kind of preliminary investigatory role. Now that its powers are to be greatly extended, it seems to us extremely important that effective Chinese walls are built within the organisation so as to give confidence to the entrepreneurial community. It is important for a company being investigated to be sure that those officers in the OFT who conduct investigations do not thereafter arbitrate on questions of, for example, penalties. That is

337
the reason why the kind of officer and the task that he undertakes in the OFT are clearly set out in our amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I am rather surprised that we are returning to this debate since the matter was dealt with thoroughly in Committee. However, I am happy to go over the ground again.
I am aware from the debate in Committee that one of the fears raised about the investigation powers under the Bill was that difficult and sensitive matters involved in an investigation might be handled by junior or inexperienced or untrained personnel in the offices of the director or sectorial regulators. I appreciate that Amendment No. 104C seeks to address that concern by specifying qualifications or rank. However, I do not think that we can sensibly provide for such matters in a statute. How would "senior" be defined? What qualifications would be regarded as "appropriate" to the work of investigating? We have of course already debated on Report the subject of delegation in relation to the amendments to Clause 25.
Amendment No. 104C would additionally require the director and sectoral regulators to separate their organisations internally and create a discrete investigation division. This Bill, like many others, creates functions for the offices concerned. I believe it would be undesirable and impractical to go beyond providing the statutory framework and try to go further and provide for the internal organisation of those offices. As I said in Committee, we have to accept that there needs to be a delegatory capacity in the management sense in organising complex offices in the administrative terms to which we refer. The directors will have statutory functions and duties to perform under the terms of the Bill. They will themselves have to ensure that their staff and organisation are both adequate for those purposes. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, does the Minister agree that an official exercising investigatory powers should also exercise adjudicatory powers in the matter that he is investigating?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, the Office of Fair Trading already has an investigative unit, the Cartels Task Force, which has had some successes within the limitations of the current legislative framework. That would provide the organisational base for the Office of Fair Trading's investigation function in the new Bill. However, we do not believe it right to compartmentalise the Office of Fair Trading in its exercise of the functions in the Bill in respect of investigating and making decisions. That would be wasteful of resources and would require duplication of effort.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the Minister will not be surprised to learn that I find that reply deeply disappointing. I put him on notice now that it is a matter to which we shall wish to return at Third Reading.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is he aware that in a related field within the
338
Office of Fair Trading—under the Consumer Credit Act,—for the past 24 years there have been investigating officers and adjudicating officers. They have been kept separate. But that provision is not written into the legislation. It is to be found only in the administrative arrangements within the office itself.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that piece of information. However, on reflection, he ought to accept that that reinforces the point that I made to the Minister. If that is the practice in that field, why should it not also be the practice in the field of competition law? If the practice has been continued for so long, is it not time that it was enshrined in our own statute law? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kingsland moved Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 104D:
Page 14, line 41, leave out ("such force as") and insert ("no more force than").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is as much about constitutional tone as substance. It may be that the net effect of the expression,
"such force as is … necessary",
is no more severe than the net effect of the expression, "no more force than is necessary". However, in my submission the expression that Her Majesty's Government have chosen to use is foreign to our constitutional tradition. It smacks of an autocratic rather than a constitutional authority. My amendment is not intended to alter the substance of the clause but merely the way in which the powers of the director are expressed. In those circumstances, I should be much obliged if the Minister would reconsider his decision not to move on this matter. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that this subsection refers only to the use of force for the purpose of entering premises and confers no right to use force once the premises have been entered? Perhaps he can tell us what will happen if, having broken down the front-door, those entering the premises find a series of other doors, behind one of which is the evidence they are looking for, or if someone within seeks to oppose their progress down the corridor?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, perhaps I may speak first to the amendment and then see whether I can find the wit to tackle the many doors along the corridor. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, in Committee, we entirely agree with the principle that, on those rare occasions when force is used to enter premises, no one should be authorised to use more force than he reasonably needs to use in order to do so. En passant, I believe that that covers the point about force being used to enter the premises. As I went on to say, that is the effect of the Bill as drafted. While I understand the concern that motivates the noble Lord's amendment, I do not believe that it would change the effect of the Bill. The officer entering the premises will not be entitled to break down the door if those

339
inside are prepared to open it for him. Such force as is reasonably necessary is what is needed to gain access and no more.
I agreed to think carefully about the drafting, the tonal question, which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, raised again. I said:
"I shall think very hard about this, because if this is the right language to use it would be inappropriate for me, as the common man, to question the difference between the two alternatives".—[Official Report, 17/11/97; col. 408.]
As part of my reflections, we searched the statute book. This revealed 62 cases in English law of the words "such force as is reasonably necessary" and none of the words "no more force than is reasonably necessary". On that basis, I guess the vote is on our side in terms of tone and even more so in terms of research.
In reply to the subsidiary question, I confirm that it is only force used for entering which is referred to, as I indicated half-way through the first part of my answer, and that every subsequent door, if closed, could be broken down to enter the premises. Force would not be used against persons.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I am surprised by its substance but delighted to hear that, in moving my amendment, I was suggesting an improvement in our constitution, which I had hitherto always thought perfect. I believe that the additional question addressed to the Minister by my noble friend Lord Elton with regard to force against persons was not addressed in his reply.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I did say that there would be no force used against persons, only against the subsequent doors in the corridor if they were closed.
Lord Elton: My Lords, may I ask where it is provided that the convention is that one can break down a door but not break a person's nose in the process? I realise that the noble Lord will probably wish to reply to this question after the debate by some other means.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, perhaps I may take advice on that point and respond at greater leisure. I suppose it depends how close one stands to the door. But that may not be the appropriate answer.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 104E not moved.]
Lord Simon of Highbury Lord Simon of Highbury moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 14, line 43, leave out ("possession or) and insert ("copies of, or extracts from,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 105 and speak to Amendments Nos. 106, 108, 111A and 112. We listened carefully to the concern expressed in Committee by the noble Lords,
340
Lord Kingsland and Lord Ezra, that the taking of original documents could be extremely inconvenient for a company which is the subject of an investigation. We undertook to reflect upon the points made with a view to making it clear that the taking of originals should be a last resort.
I am grateful to the noble Lords for raising this issue. I am clear that powers of seizure are necessary as a last resort to deal with serious cases of obstruction. It may not always be possible to copy documents. Seizure is a serious matter and it is right to ensure that there are appropriate safeguards in place. Having reflected on the debate in Committee, I agree that there is a case for strengthening the safeguards.
Amendment No. 106 limits the powers of seizure and confines them to circumstances where seizure is necessary to prevent them being destroyed or interfered with or where it is not reasonably practical to take copies of them on the premises concerned. Amendment No. 105 secures the reordering suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, putting the taking of copies first, further emphasising that seizure is a last resort. Amendment No. 108 is a consequential amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment No. 112, which is grouped with Amendment No. 105. The point of the amendment is to ensure that, where original documents have been seized—which can only be for a period of three months—the enterprises concerned can have access to them, if need be, during that period. It seems to me that that is a reasonable additional safeguard.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the noble Lord has spoken to Amendment No. 112, to which I also have my name. We welcome the amendments that the Government have tabled, Amendments Nos. 105 and 106. Having regard to Amendment No. 106 and the proper emphasis which the Government now accord to the desirability of taking copies rather than the original documents, if that can be achieved, it seems to me that what is proposed in Amendment No. 112 ties in with that approach.
As I understand the position, the investigating officer will go in and will be entitled to take copies of documents. That is what he must address his mind to first: "Can I achieve my purposes by taking copies?". If that is the case, he does so. If he cannot do that, he takes the originals. If the documents seized were not capable of being copied, it may be difficult for the individual or the undertaking if there is no access to the documents while they are under investigation.
If the Government recognise the desirability and good sense of people being able to retain the originals and that the originals should be taken away only if they cannot be dealt with in any other fashion, perhaps the amendment is not the most appropriate way to achieve the Government's aim. In such circumstances it would be appropriate for there to be at least access to the documents. No one is asking for their immediate return, just that there should be some access to them while the

341
investigation is taking place. With those few words, and a request for further explanation from the Government, I support the noble Lord, Lord Ezra.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, noble Lords put their finger on an important point; that is, that it would be wrong for the Bill to try to prescribe in great detail what should happen in every conceivable circumstance. The Government have already come forward with amendments to the Bill to ensure that seizure is the last resort. But we must allow reasonable flexibility in the arrangements provided in the Bill.
If documents have been taken in the limited circumstances in which they are now permitted, we should leave it to the director to behave reasonably and to allow access, where that is necessary, to the company concerned. I am confident that the director will behave reasonably in this and other important areas. I am sure that that confidence is shared by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra.
Were we to start from the assumption that the director would always try to behave unreasonably and make provision in the Bill to prevent it, we would end up with an unworkable Bill and an unworkable system.
I therefore invite the noble Lord to put his trust in the good sense of the director.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, if Amendment No. 106 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 106A.
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 14. line 44, leave out from ("(1)") to end of line I on page 15 and insert—
("(bb) to take possession of any documents appearing to be of that kind if—

(i) such action appears to he necessary for preserving the documents or preventing interference with them; or

(ii) it is not reasonably practicable to take copies of the documents on the premises;

(bc) to take any other steps which appear to be necessary for the purpose mentioned in paragraph (bb)(i);").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 106 earlier. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 106A and 107 not moved.]
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 15, line 2, leave out ("such document") and insert ("document appearing to be of a kind mentioned in subsection (1)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 109 and 109A not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, if Amendment No. 110 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 110A.
Lord Haskel moved Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 15. line 10, leave out from second ("the") to first ("that") in line 11 and insert ("judge is satisfied").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 110A to 111A not moved.]
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 112:
Page 15. line 24, at end insert ('provided that such steps which appear to be necessary shall be taken to provide the person from whom such documents have been taken with access to them whilst they are in the possession of the Director.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, said in relation to this amendment. While I am prepared to accept that the director would always act reasonably, nonetheless it seems to be reasonable guidance to give to him. Perhaps therefore the Government will reflect on this minor amendment between now and Third Reading. I shall not now move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 112 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 112A not moved.]
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 15, line 27, leave out from ("behalf-) to end of line 28.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 113 with Amendment No. 84. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 15, line 29, leave out subsection (9).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 114 when we debated Amendment No. 102. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 114A and 114B not moved.]
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 115:
After Clause 28, insert the following new clause—

ENTRY OF PREMISES UNDER WARRANT: SUPPLEMENTARY
(" .—(1) A warrant issued under section 28 must indicate

(a) the subject matter and purpose of the investigation;

(b) the nature of the offences created by sections 41 to 43.

(2) The powers conferred by section 28 are to be exercised on production of a warrant issued under that section.
(3) If there is no one at the premises when the named officer proposes to execute such a warrant he must, before executing it

(a) take such steps as are reasonable in all the circumstances to inform the occupier of the intended entry; and

(b) if the occupier is informed, afford him or his legal or other representative a reasonable opportunity to be present when the warrant is executed.

(4) If the named officer is unable to inform the occupier of the intended entry he must, when executing the warrant, leave a copy of it in a prominent place on the premises.
(5) In this section—
"named officer" means the officer named in the warrant; and
"occupier", in relation to any premises, means a person whom the named officer reasonably believes is the occupier of those premises.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 115 when we debated Amendment No. 102. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 30 [Decisions following an investigation]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 116:
Leave out Clause 30 and insert the following new clause—

NOTICE PRIOR TO MAKING DECISIONS
(" . — (1) Subsection (2) applies if the Director proposes to make—

(a) a decision that the Chapter I prohibition has been infringed; or

(b) a decision that the Chapter II prohibition has been infringed.

(2) Before making a decision under this section, the Director must—

(a) give not less than 28 days written notice to the person (or persons) likely to he affected by the proposed decision;

(b) give that person (or those persons) a reasonable opportunity to make representations to him including, at the request of that person (or persons), oral representations; and

(c) Take account of and comment upon any such representations when making his decision.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I appreciate the desirability of putting together groups of amendments where there is a common theme. I congratulate the noble Lord on this grouping; he excelled himself and it is a volume to get through. However, I am not equal to the task and may indicate to the noble Lord that we will deal with Amendments Nos. 125 and 126 when we come to them in their appropriate place. Perhaps I can speak first to Amendment No. 116.
As the Minister will appreciate, Clause 30 would require those affected by a decision to be given notice of the opportunity to make representations before that decision is made. However, that requirement applies only where the decision relates to investigation conducted by the Director General of Fair Trading under the powers provided by Clause 25 of the Bill and the DGFT is not placed under an express obligation to take account of any representations made to him.
The new clause would change the procedure which the DGFT or the regulator must follow before making a decision that a Chapter I or Chapter II prohibition has been infringed. It would extend the obligation to give notice in any case where the DGFT or the regulator proposes to make a decision that the Chapter I or II prohibition has been infringed and would ensure that the obligation is undertaken properly by requiring him to take account of any representations made.
It would seem to us that that would be in accordance with the rules of natural justice—ensuring that decisions were made on a properly informed basis with due regard being paid to the views of any person affected by them and ensuring that such persons have the right to be heard and make representations, similar to that enjoyed before
344
a court, in all cases where it is proposed to make decisions affecting them. The need for the DGFT to take account of or comment upon any representations received would, in our view, assist the tribunal in the hearing of any subsequent appeal on the decision that has been made.
Perhaps I may turn to Amendments Nos. 117 to 120, which are amendments to Clause 31. Clause 31 gives the director general the power to make directions in respect of infringement of a Chapter I prohibition. These amendments are designed to provide safeguards in relation to the exercise of the powers given to him under that clause. As presently drafted, subsection (1) allows the director general to give a direction to any person he considers appropriate for the purpose of bringing the infringement of the Chapter I prohibition to an end. That would include innocent third parties.
The first amendment we tabled would limit the sweeping power given to the director general so that such directions may be given only to those party to the relevant agreement. The clause provides for any such direction to include a requirement to modify or terminate the relevant agreement, but does not provide for modification in the sense of severing the offending provisions but leaving the remainder of the agreement intact. We had some discussion on the principles of severance on the first day of the Report stage but I shall be interested to hear what the noble Lord has to say about that in this context. The power to give directions is not subject to any requirements to give notice to the persons affected before the direction is made. This prevents those affected from making representations on the need for fairness of the direction and the manner in which it will be implemented.
The third amendment in the group would require the director general to give such notice and to receive and to take account of any representations made. As it is currently drafted, the clause does not make it clear whether directions will come into effect before any right of appeal has been exercised. The fourth amendment, Amendment No. 124, would stay the effect of the direction until the time for making an appeal has expired and until an appeal had been determined or withdrawn or the person concerned had confirmed that no appeal was to be made. I think I have spoken sufficiently to the amendments. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 125 and 126. Clause 33 enables the Director General of Fair Trading or a regulator to apply to the court for an order to enforce a direction to end an infringement of the Chapter I and Chapter II prohibitions given under Clauses 31 or 32 where the undertaking to which that direction is addressed has failed to comply with its terms. In addition to imposing a liability on undertakings to comply with such a court order or risk being in contempt for failing to do so, and to meet the costs of the application for that order, Clause 33 also provides for the order and liability for costs to be directed at the officers of the undertaking personally.

345
The competition law of the European Community is concerned with and directed at undertakings. It does not confuse public and private law issues and therefore does not provide for personal liability of this kind on the part of officers of an undertaking. These amendments would ensure that UK competition law is in line with the corresponding EC law, one of the Government's stated aims in relation to the Bill, by removing the provision which would impose personal liability on the officers of an undertaking.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I have to confess that I am here for nostalgic reasons. In 1984 I was in the position of the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Highbury, and taking the first Data Protection Bill through the House. I am very much aware of the difficulty of balancing the need to he absolutely fair to the person who is subject to the regulation and the need to be certain that that fairness does not diminish the protection given to the person being protected. I intervene merely to say that, if the noble Lord intends to resist the first amendments in the group, I hope it will only be on the grounds that it would expose those who are supposed to be protected to unnecessary risk. But otherwise the balance must be in favour of the person who will be in receipt of the broken door, to which reference was made on the previous amendment.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their consideration in accepting a large grouping. I shall try to do justice to the sequence of amendments that have been tabled. I shall therefore speak, first, to Amendment No. 116. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. Lord Fraser, for drawing to the attention of the House the great importance of procedural safeguards before and indeed after decisions are made by the director. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Elton. said that we must try to ensure that we stray neither too far from or too close to the lines of "unbalancing" judgment.
I agree that the procedural safeguards are important and need to he clearly spelt out. Where I differ from noble Lords opposite is in how this result can best be achieved. We have given careful thought to the structure of the Bill. The Bill itself provides the basic framework for the safeguards. Clause 30 provides that, before making a decision on his own initiative following an investigation, the director must give written notice to parties likely to be affected by the proposed decision and allow those parties to make representations. It is right that such safeguards should be made clear on the face of the Bill. That is the balance we require in the case of own initiative decisions of the director.
The Bill itself does not specify how these basic safeguards are to apply in detail. That is a matter where flexibility in primary legislation is desirable. Accordingly, the Bill provides for procedural matters to be prescribed in rules set under Clause 49 and subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I therefore regard questions such as the length of the notice period to be more suitably dealt with in rules and not on the face of the Bill.
346
The same is true of the procedures for allowing representation, including whether there should be opportunity for oral representation. I therefore see no need to make explicit provision for the director to take account of representations. It is implicit in the existing provision in Clause 30 that the director must take account of the representations he receives in making his decision. Nor do I see a need for an explicit provision requiring him to comment on such representations, given that the director will be producing reasoned decisions.
As for decisions made pursuant to notification, the director general will clearly have the arguments of the parties before him in the shape of the notification. Once again, we have expressly provided in Schedules 5 and 6 for the director to follow the procedures as laid down in Clause 49. The detail of this procedure will be set out in the director's rules under Clause 49. We expect that a first draft of the rules will be available in the spring. Once again, such rules will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. It would be wrong for the detail to be enshrined on the face of the Bill in what we consider to be an inflexible form. Therefore, I shall invite the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, to withdraw the amendment when I reach the end of this rather lengthy response.
I now turn to Amendments Nos. 117 and 121. They seek to limit the range of persons to whom the director may give directions for the purpose of bringing the infringement to an end. At present, Clauses 31 and 32 are widely drawn, and intentionally so. They include such persons or such person as he considers appropriate to bring the infringement to an end. This will include both individuals—natural persons—and bodies corporate. The noble and learned Lord's amendment seeks to limit this, in the case of a Chapter I infringement, to a party to that agreement, and, in respect of a Chapter II infringement, to the person or persons whose conduct infringes that prohibition.
On the face of it that might appear reasonable. However, there is a strong possibility that the undertakings involved in infringements will be part of, or even the whole of, a very complex corporate group structure. The company which is directly a party to an infringing agreement or which is apparently responsible for infringing conduct may not be the actual instigator of that infringement. It may be a subsidiary that is directly involved in this way, but the infringement may well have been brought by the ultimate parent company or other prominent entities within the complicated group structure. As has been stressed before in the context of the investigation and enforcement regime under this Bill, the director must have the ability to get at the real culprit.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 118 and 122. These would limit the powers of the director to require the termination of an infringing agreement or of infringing conduct. As currently drafted, he would be empowered under Clauses 31 and 32 to require by directions the relevant agreement or conduct to be amended or to be terminated. The noble Lords' amendment would make the power to require termination of the agreement or the conduct to be conditional upon there having been a prior

347
attempt by means of similar directions to modify the relevant agreement or conduct so as to bring the infringement to an end. This is unnecessary and undesirable. There will be cases where modifying the agreement or conduct is not sufficient and termination is the only proper remedy. The director should have the power to terminate the agreement or conduct in this way.
Amendments Nos. 119 and 123 seek to add new safeguards before the giving of directions under Clauses 31 and 32. Such new procedure would involve the director, where he had decided that there was an infringement of either of the prohibitions and intended to issue directions, to go through the process of giving written notice of the proposed direction to the person concerned, affording him the opportunity to make representations and to take any such representations into account. Effectively the director would have to repeat the same process he had possibly only just gone through and which he is required to do by Clause 30 before making the decision that there had been an infringement. Again, such duplication would serve no useful purpose and would simply delay the remedial action. I believe that it is right in these circumstances for the safeguards to be prescribed in the director's rules under Clause 49. Schedule 9 explicitly refers to the fact that rules may cover the procedure to be followed when the director takes enforcement action.
Amendments Nos. 120 and 124 in our view are also undesirable. Clause 45 of the Bill provides for appeals to the competition commission against decisions made by the director, and this includes directions made under Clauses 31 and 32 to bring infringements of either of the prohibitions to an end. These amendments would prevent such directions from taking effect until the period of notice of appeal had expired or until any such appeal had been dealt with, except where the persons concerned gave written notice to the director that they did not intend to appeal. One of our concerns about the enforcement of these prohibitions has been to ensure that infringing agreements or conduct are brought to an end as swiftly as possible to minimise the damage they cause. The requirements proposed here would inevitably involve delay and because of this we have made it clear in Clause 45 that, as far as is relevant here, the making of an appeal will not suspend the effect of the direction. We recognise the need for safeguards, however. Schedule 8 to the Bill, in providing further for the appeal process, allows a tribunal to make an interim order and such an order can suspend the effect of a direction. We consider that providing for such suspension on the merits of the case is preferable to deferring the operation of directions almost automatically and across the board, which would be the effect of these amendments.
Finally, I turn to Amendments Nos. 125 and 126, as spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. They seek to ensure that responsible officers of undertakings are not made the subject of orders requiring the remedying of failures to comply with directions. The circumstances contemplated here are that the director has decided that there has been an infringement of one of the
348
prohibitions. He has given directions which involve the officers of an undertaking taking some managerial or administrative action which they have failed, without any reasonable excuse, to do. This provision enables a court to compel the officers to take that action. If there is no power to achieve this end, then the direction will not be complied with and the infringement may go on unchecked. In these circumstances we consider it right that such officers who are wilfully in default may be liable for the costs of obtaining such an order.
I am grateful to noble Lords for their patience while I responded extensively to a number of clauses. I am satisfied that procedural safeguards are adequately provided for in the Bill as it is drafted. Amendments in this group also limit the powers of the director general to take enforcement action and weaken the Bill's effectiveness against anti-competitive conduct, when we know it is having a very stark effect on the competition circumstances that are being investigated.
In response to the point made by the noble Lord. Lord Elton, we have tried to achieve balance between what should be on the face of the Bill and what should be in the guidelines and whatever written directions are given by the director general. Therefore, I am sure that it will come as no great surprise to learn that I ask both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, and the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, whether they are prepared to withdraw their amendments.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as regards the Minister's response to Amendment No. 116, he wholly persuades me. I agree that, on reflection and having listened to what he had to say, the course the Minister has suggested for these procedural matters is a more appropriate one. It may be some small comfort to him. and certainly to his officials, to know that I shall not be returning to the matter at Third Reading.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord for expressing more clearly than I did that Amendments Nos. 117 to 124 are parallel amendments to Clauses 31 and 32. I believe that at one point I inadvertently slipped from one clause to the other. I would like to read what the Minister said as regards the first of the three amendments. I am grateful to him for his full response. But perhaps I may indicate to him that as regards Amendments Nos. 120 and 124, I do not propose to consider them again at the final stage. I very much agree with the argument that the noble Lord has advanced, that given the power to suspend that is to be found in Schedule 8, paragraph 2, that is a more appropriate way to deal with a case where there is a desire to see the decision suspended while an appeal is being heard. With that exposition, and again with my thanks to the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 [Directions in relation to agreements]:
[Amendment No. 117 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 117A:
Page 16, line 15, leave out ("he considers appropriate") and insert ("are requisite").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a small and short amendment but in our view it is not without its importance. The clause, as currently drafted, provides for the director to give,
"such directions as he considers appropriate",
to end an infringement of a Chapter I prohibition. We are concerned that that power is too widely drawn and might permit directions to be given which extend beyond the action needed to bring an infringement to an end. The proposal that we offer is that the phrase as "he considers appropriate" should be replaced by the phrase "are requisite". That would in some measure limit the power to give directions which are no more than is necessary or required in the circumstances to end the infringement.
We have adopted that approach because in our view such a change would ensure that the remedy is proportionate to, and is thus consistent with, EC jurisprudence, as is set out in Clause 58 and of which so much mention has been made. It would also conform to the notion of severability—that only those provisions or features of an agreement or practice which violate Article 85(1) are void. That would be in line with decisions of the European Court of Justice. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I do not believe there is anything to be gained by seeking to amend this test. The director will have considered the case carefully and reached a decision. He is very well placed to make a judgment as to what directions are appropriate to bring the infringement to an end. We would not expect the director to give directions which exceed what is necessary to bring an infringement to an end. If we are not to place some faith in his judgment, we should not be proposing to give him the powers which the Bill proposes to give to him. As it is, the giving of a direction under Clause 31 is, of course, an appealable decision under Clause 45. I do not see the necessity to tighten the wording in this instance and I trust that the noble and learned Lord will not be pressing this amendment.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: No, my Lords, I certainly shall not be pressing the amendment, although it might have been valuable for the Government to accept it. Where the director general has a number of routes to bring an infringement to an end, provisions worded as we have suggested might focus his mind more clearly on the duty incumbent upon him to do so but not in any way that would be unduly onerous for the infringing party. Having expressed that continuing misgiving, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 118 to 120 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 120A:
Page 16, line 22, at end insert—
("() In circumstances where the Director is entitled to exercise functions both under the Fair Trading Act 1973 ("the 1973 Act") and under this Part, he shall exercise his functions under the 1973 Act and not under this Part if it appears to him that any enforcement action which may need to be taken includes the imposition of a structural remedy.
() In this section "structural remedy" means an order made in accordance with Part 11 of Schedule 3 to the 1973 Act.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the Government have indicated that the provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973 relating to scale monopolies are not to be repealed in order to retain flexibility in dealing with structural factors which inhibit competition and because they are necessary to allow for the imposition of structural remedies, reorganisation and divestment. It is claimed that adequate powers to deal with such monopolies will not be conferred by this Bill.
The amendment would require the relevant powers under the Fair Trading Act to be exercised, and not those conferred by the Bill, in relation to any case where a structural remedy may be required. That is to avoid the prospect of action being taken under the powers provided by the Bill and then separate procedures under the 1973 Act being commenced after the need for a structural remedy has been identified.
During the first day of Report stage, the noble Lord, Lord Simon, indicated that an exemption from the Chapter I prohibition would not be granted if it would exempt something that appears to infringe a Chapter II prohibition. He said that at col. 956 of Hansard. We were grateful to him for that because it clearly identified the relationship between the two prohibitions.
However, in contrast, the interaction of the powers under the Bill and those in the 1973 Act are not totally clear. The amendment seeks to ensure that the powers in the 1973 Act to provide a structural remedy are exercised in a manner which avoids any confusion between the two regimes. Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Minister has sought to emphasise the desirability, as he sees it, of there being no risk of such confusion. Even if the noble Lord is not prepared to accept the amendment, I hope that, as he did with regard to the interrelationship between the prohibitions under Chapter I and Chapter II, he will take this opportunity to clarify the position. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I am full of admiration for the noble and learned Lord's ingenuity in responding to my arguments about the scale monopoly provisions during last week's debate. Let me make one thing clear, I hope, from the outset. It is not the Government's intention that the prohibitions and the Fair Trading Act monopoly provisions should be used in parallel on the same matters. There is no question of such double jeopardy. The prohibitions will be the primary weapons against anti-competitive behaviour in the future. If the director suspects that there has been an infringement of the prohibitions, we would expect him to investigate the matter in relation to the prohibitions and not to make a reference under the monopoly

351
provisions. I would expect the Secretary of State to veto a monopoly reference in relation to matters that were the subject of current proceedings under the prohibitions; nor would I expect the director to wish to make such a reference.
There may, however, be circumstances where the prohibitions are not the appropriate means of dealing with competition issues. As we have debated before, the Fair Trading Act complex monopoly provisions may enable the authorities to deal with problems that fall outside the Chapter I and Chapter II prohibitions, particularly where there is parallel behaviour by companies in a market but no actual agreement. In these circumstances the prohibitions would not apply, but the director would have the option of a monopoly investigation if he felt that there were effects adverse to the public interest.
The position in relation to the scale monopoly provisions is rather different. I explained the Government's policy on the use of these powers in Committee (at col. 300 of Hansard). We believe that these powers should be used in the future only in circumstances where there has already been proven abuse under the prohibitions and where the director believes that there is a real prospect of further abuses by the same firm. In these circumstances, as the noble and learned Lord recognised, the more flexible powers to impose structural remedies available under the scale monopoly provisions may be the only effective means of preventing further abuses. I should at this point remind the House that, as I said in Committee, the use of the scale monopoly provisions as regards the regulated utility sectors is being considered separately under the utility review.
It seems to me that the policy I have described is a more significant and, if I may say so, a clearer way to focus the use of the scale monopoly powers than that proposed in the amendment. The amendment would require the director to second-guess the findings that the MMC would come to following its investigation of a reference. It would require the director to second-guess the view that the Secretary of State would take in the light of those findings. It is, of course, quite rightly the responsibility of the Secretary of State, subject to parliamentary control, to decide on the application of the wider powers available under the Fair Trading Act. It would not be right for the director to indicate whether structural remedies were needed.
There is one further important point I wish to make. The amendment seems to suggest that if there is a possibility that structural remedies would be appropriate, these should be tried first. I suspect that this is not actually the noble and learned Lord's view, but it would seem to be the consequence of the amendment. It is our view that the penalties and directions available under the prohibitions will be effective remedies in the vast majority of cases. Wider structural remedies would be contemplated only in circumstances where this does not prove to be the case.
That is the Government's position as established in the Bill and in their policy statements. The amendment however perceptively drafted cuts across that position
352
and would have the highly undesirable consequences that I have mentioned. I suspect that those consequences are ones that the noble and learned Lord would not himself have intended. I hope that my answer clarifies the Government's intention in their last statement. I therefore urge the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.
6 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, this is a probing amendment. I would have been astonished had the noble Lord indicated that it would be accepted. The noble Lord is aware that we would prefer the provisions relating to scale monopoly to be repealed altogether. That remains our position. We still harbour a faint hope that the Government may yet come round to the view that they are unnecessary. If they are to be retained I take it from the Minister's answer that he accepts there should be as little confusion as possible.
I was grateful to the Minister for setting out how he expected the director general to approach these matters. I should like to reflect further on how it would be possible to allow for the retention of a structural remedy (to put it in that shorthand form) without having to subject undertakings to the risks that they would first have to be tapped in this way and a further change made under the Fair Trading Act 1973. That seems to me to be unnecessarily cumbersome. However, I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said. I shall reflect upon it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32 [Directions in relation to conduct]:
[Amendments Nos. 121 to 124 not moved.]
Clause 33 [Enforcement of directions]:
[Amendments Nos. 125 and 126 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Allenby of Megiddo): My Lords, before calling Amendment No. 127, I should draw to your Lordships' attention that if this amendment should be agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 127A to 130A inclusive.
Clause 34 [Interim measures]:
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 17, line 7, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
("(1) This section applies if—

(a) the Director has reasonable grounds for belief that the Chapter I or the Chapter II prohibition has been infringed but has not completed his investigation into the matter, and

(b) it is necessary for the Director to act under this section as a matter of urgency—

(i) on a complaint made in relation to the agreement or conduct under investigation, for the purpose of preventing serious, irreparable damage specified in the complaint to the complainant or a category of persons which includes the complainant, or

(ii) for the purpose of preventing intolerable damage to the public interest,

where the damage is likely to occur in consequence of the agreement or conduct under investigation before the Director is reasonably able to complete that investigation.
(2) The Director may give such directions as are necessary for the purpose of preventing any occurrence of the damage referred to in subsection (1)(b)(i) or (ii) in the period between the giving of the directions and the date when he is reasonably able to complete that investigation.
(2A) The Director shall not take action under this section where subsection (1)(b)(i) applies unless he has first considered whether—

(a) the person (or persons) to whom he proposes to give the direction would be likely to suffer serious irreparable damage if the direction is given and his investigation subsequently establishes that the Chapter I or the Chapter II prohibition has not been infringed and, if so, whether he is satisfied that on balance it is still appropriate to give the direction, and

(b) the complainant should he required to provide, in a form specified by the Director, adequate security to the person (or persons) to whom the Director proposes to give the direction for any costs incurred or damage suffered by that person if the direction is given and his investigation subsequently establishes that the Chapter I or the Chapter II prohibition has not been infringed.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we come to the important subject of interim measures under Clause 34. Quite rightly, the clause allows the director general or the sector regulator to issue interim measures which prevent potential abuse while an issue is being investigated. That is not something to which we can object. However, what is a matter of concern is that the clause does not include any checks or balances as incorporated in European law to ensure that these measures are implemented only in exceptional circumstances. In EU law a prima facie case must be established before interim measures are imposed. I refer to Article 83(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, as supported by European case law.
At present Clause 34(1) allows the director general or sector regulator subjectively to impose such measures merely if he has a reasonable suspicion that Chapter I or Chapter II prohibitions have been infringed. Subsection (1)(a) of the amendment seeks to introduce objectivity comparable with EU law by requiring the director general or the sector regulator to have reasonable grounds for belief before interim measures are imposed. Certainly, interim measures should not exceed what is necessary in the particular situation. The director should be required to weigh the interests of the company alleged to be infringing before deciding whether to grant interim measures; that is, to undertake a balance of convenience test. In addition, in line with EU case law—for example, National Carbonising Co. v. Commission—it must be considered whether the complainant should be required to give a cross-undertaking in damages or a bond guarantee. For all these reasons, I ask the Government seriously to consider Amendment No. 127. I beg to move.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the Opposition also have a number of amendments along these lines, including Amendments Nos. 128, 129, 129A, 130, 130A, 130B, 133A and 133B. Those amendments very much follow the amendment just moved by the noble Lord. Lord Ezra. The European Commission has powers to impose interim measures but the circumstances in which they can be exercised have been strictly constrained by the European Court of Justice. Our amendments seek to introduce into the Bill the same
354
kind of criteria as British courts have developed in interim injunctions. I believe that the language follows quite carefully our own case law.
The only amendments to which I draw particular attention are those on page 17, in line 17, which seek to replace "the public interest" with "competition" and to place before it "preventing serious and irreparable damage to." We were particularly struck by the enormous breadth of the power given to the director general in Clause 32(2)(b) to protect the public interest in circumstances in which presumably he is the only person who determines what is the public interest. That appears to us to be unnecessarily wide. If one accepts that there must be a set of rules in the Bill that narrows the circumstances in which interim measures can be applied by the director general, one must also accept that the expression "public interest" requires very careful examination before it is allowed to become law.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I follow the comments of the noble Lord with an apology to the House if I introduce a minor point into a matter of obvious major principle. The noble Lord who has just sat down referred to "public interest" as important wording that might create a degree of doubt as to whether it was a truly objective test. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, was extremely keen in making clear to the House that objectivity was very much in this mind when he moved his own amendment which he said followed European law. I was somewhat aghast when I read the wording of the amendment so eloquently moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. In paragraph (b)(ii) one reads:
"for the purpose of preventing intolerable damage to the public interest".
I pray that this will never be copied in any Act of Parliament passed by this House or the other place. I draw it to the attention of the noble Lord because to think in terms of objectivity in the context of what should be tolerated and what should not is a little alarming.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, these amendments deal with the important area of the director's powers to take interim measures pending his final decision in a case. It would of course be a truism to say that in this area we need to balance adequate safeguards in respect of the exercise of the powers to order interim measures against enabling the director to act quickly to bring temporary relief to those affected by seriously anti-competitive agreements and behaviour so as to prevent irreparable damage or protect the public interest.
The amendment would shift the balance too far in the direction of making it too difficult for the director to act in cases where we believe that he should properly be able to do so. I recognise, as noble Lords have said, that in some respects their amendments reflect existing Commission law and practice in that area. But this is an area where we believe we can improve on the position at Community level. Interim measures have proved to be a difficult tool for the Commission to use. We are determined that they should provide a way of tackling anti-competitive behaviour quickly, before serious

355
damage has been inflicted, which has been a great failing of the current system. I am talking about our current system and the European system.
However, I believe that I will be able to offer noble Lords some comfort as to the extent to which the director is obliged under the existing clause to take into account the interests of a party who would suffer from interim measures.
I turn now to the specific issues raised by these amendments. Both the noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord Kingsland, seek to raise the threshold of "reasonable suspicion" that either prohibition has been infringed, to the significantly higher threshold of "reasonable grounds for belief. We have of course discussed those wordings in a number of different contexts.
The context here is that this is merely a preliminary threshold. The director must go on to satisfy further conditions before being able to impose interim measures. I do not believe the threshold of "reasonable grounds for believing" there to be an infringement is right where it provides simply the initial hurdle which must be cleared before the director can proceed to examine whether the further conditions for the exercise of the power are satisfied.
The three most important changes that would be made by Amendment No. 127 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, would be to require the director: first, only to take action to prevent—and we have heard the views of my noble friend Lord Mishcon on the words—"intolerable damage to the public interest"; I take note of his experience in these matters; secondly, to take action on receipt of a complaint only and after considering the damage that would be inflicted on the recipient of the direction and balancing the pros and cons; and, thirdly, to consider whether the complainant should be required to provide adequate security for costs incurred and damage suffered should the director in the event conclude that a prohibition has not been infringed.
The first and last of those I recognise as, in essence, the position under Community law and practice. To the first, I must say that with regard to the effect on the public interest, though not required to be intolerable, as is the case under EC law, the matter must be one of urgency before he can act. With regard to the last of the three rubrics, I believe that in only one case in 1976 has the Commission required a bond to be given. In the case of abuse of a dominant position, interim measures would be required to protect small companies which are being damaged. Requiring them to provide a bond would remove a major advantage of asking the director to exercise those powers over their applying to the court for an injunction.
As regards the second point, although it does not appear on the face of the Bill, the director must obviously have some reason to act, which may be a complaint or the result of his own inquiries uncovering an agreement or behaviour that he suspects contravenes the prohibition. I have some sympathy for the point that any damage suffered by the subject of interim measures
356
should not be disproportionately greater than the damage which the complainant is likely to suffer if interim measures are not taken.
However, the director will be required to give notice to the undertaking to be the subject of the measures, and to consider its representations as to the effect the measures will have upon it.
The clause sets out the hurdles the director must clear before he gives directions. That is intended to ensure that he hears the views of the offender, so to speak, and does not act in a way which causes disproportionately greater harm to the offender than the victim.
The director must have a reasonable suspicion that infringement of prohibition has taken place, must consider it necessary for him to act as a matter of urgency for the purpose of preventing serious, irreparable damage to a person or category of person or the protection of the public interest, and the directions must be appropriate for the purpose. Action which causes disproportionately greater damage to one party is unlikely to be appropriate. Moreover, the director, in exercising his powers, would be subject to the principle of proportionality. Any action he takes should not exceed what is necessary to achieve the objective sought; that is to say, the prevention of serious, irreparable damage or the protection of the public interest.
Perhaps I could now turn briefly to a couple of other issues raised by this group of amendments.
Amendment No. 130A appears to be aimed at transferring the responsibility for deciding upon interim measures to, I presume, a tribunal of the competition commission. Certainly I agree that a tribunal has a role to play. We have provided that a decision to impose interim measures will be appealable to a tribunal of the competition commission. We have also provided, in paragraph 13 of Schedule 8, that the tribunal rules may make provision for a tribunal to suspend the effect of an interim measure imposed by the director before taking a final decision on whether the interim measure should be upheld. In those circumstances, I believe that it is right that the power to impose directions should remain with the director, subject to the safeguard of an appeal to a tribunal.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, in his amendment, seeks to substitute
"preventing serious and irreparable damage to competition"
for the public interest test. I think the broader test is preferable. Perhaps I could give one example why "competition" is too narrow. The Chapter II prohibition of the abuse of a dominant position goes wider than just competition. There is clear authority from its European counterpart, Article 86, that it prohibits excessively high prices. High prices are not in themselves anti-competitive—indeed, in so far as they encourage new entrants, they are pro-competitive. So the director would need to bear in mind the need to tackle exploitative behaviour as well as anti-competitive behaviour.
Finally, both the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, have proposed that interim measures should be subject to a three-month limit. I understand the concern that an interim measures order should not remain in place for an undue period of time.

357
However, the three months' limit proposed in which to reach a final decision may not be sufficient where complex and detailed analysis of the economic and legal issues for the final decision is required. Nevertheless, as we said in Committee, we expect to bring into force, when the system has bedded down, the provision in paragraph 7 of Schedules 5 and 6, enabling an application to the court to ensure that there is no undue delay in determining applications for decisions. Behaviour subject to interim measures can of course be notified to take advantage of that procedure.
I hope that with that reflection on the balance that we are trying to achieve in interim powers between swift and effective action, which has not been the strength of our current law base or the Commission's in carrying out the implications of Articles 85 and 86, and the capacity of the tribunal to judge on those matters and the appropriateness of the action, the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for his important intervention and I take careful note of it. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Simon, for his considered reply. He rightly identified the two reasons for the amendment. The first is to bring the clause more into line with European legislation and case law and the second is to avoid causing unreasonable damage to the enterprises concerned during the interim period. I shall take careful note of what he said and reflect upon it.
I am a little concerned about the considerable damage which could be caused to a firm if, after investigation, it were found that it had not infringed the rules. That could he the case. During the apparently unlimited period of the implementation of interim measures great damage could be caused to the firm. We must reflect on that matter between now and Third Reading but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 127A and 127B not moved.]
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 128:
Page 17, line 13, leave out ("considers") and insert (",having applied the same reasoning which a court would apply in determining an application for any interim measure, is satisfied").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I listened with great interest to the Minister's reply on the question of interim measures. It is undesirable that the director should have the ability to apply interim measures on a more generous basis than our own courts. I shall read his comments in Hansard with interest and give notice that the Opposition might wish to return to the matter on Third Reading.
[Amendment No. 128 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 129 to 133A not moved.]
Clause 35 [Penalty for infringing Chapter I or Chapter II prohibition]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 133B:
Page 17, line 38, at end insert—
("() In determining whether to require an undertaking to pay him a penalty in respect of an infringement in accordance with
358
subsection (1) or (2), the Director shall have regard to the gravity and duration of that infringement.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this group of amendments deals with the penalties which might be imposed. Amendment No. 133B would require the director to have regard to the gravity and duration of an infringement in deciding whether to impose such a penalty. The Minister might refer me to Clause 35(4), which in turn refers to Clause 39. Notwithstanding the arrangement in the Bill, we regard it as desirable that the director should be under the clear and express direction to have regard to the gravity and duration of an infringement.
As regards Amendment No. 134, we have considered the issue on at least one occasion. I am grateful to both Ministers for the further explanation that they have provided. It has gone a long way to allay some of the concerns which have been expressed to us. However, I have another concern on which I hope to secure a further degree of reassurance and possibly acceptance of the amendment.
Our contention is that the penalty of up to 10 per cent. of turnover should apply only to turnover in the relevant goods and services in the United Kingdom. If not, some large companies—it is not difficult to think of them—which may have several subsidiaries carrying on wholly unrelated activities independently of each other might be disproportionately penalised. The noble Lord, Lord Simon, stated that the penalty related to UK turnover. On 30th October, he referred to 10 per cent. of the turnover of the offending business. During Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, also made it clear that the provision related to UK turnover. We are not yet clear about whether the provision is restricted to turnover in the relevant goods and services. We have tabled the amendment to secure further clarification.
I am sure that the Minister will have noted that Amendments Nos. 135 and 135A are in part alternatives. We do not expect him to consider allowing both. Clause 37 requires the director to prepare and publish guidance on the appropriate levels of penalties to be imposed for infringement of Part I of the Bill. The amendment would widen the obligation imposed on the director and require guidance on the criteria to be applied in deciding whether to impose the penalty as well as the level of the penalty. In a different formulation, Amendment No. 135A seeks to achieve much the same end. In our view, it would be desirable that that is spelt out. It should be made clear that it refers not only to the amount of the penalty but whether the penalty should be imposed. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 134 and to support the noble and learned Lord. Clarification of the words "the relevant goods or services" is required. It is easy to think of companies operating in the UK. I was involved with a company making building materials. It dealt in a whole range of separate building materials operated by separate subsidiary companies. If one of those operations was suspect, in accordance with the competition rules it would be wrong that the whole of its turnover in

359
different activities, even if carried on in the UK, were to be penalised. It is an important issue which requires clarification.
Lord Monson: My Lords, other than as a small shareholder, I have no connection with any company large enough to be caught by the provisions of the Bill. However, I believe that the amendments are not only well thought out, but some or all are necessary in order to prevent the possible imposition of unjust penalties.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I recognise that Amendments Nos. 133B and 135B derive from requirements placed upon the commission in respect of its fining policy. I am sure that in drawing up guidance under Clause 37 the director will have full regard to these matters. However, I believe that the question of policy on penalties is best left to guidance following detailed consultation with interested parties. We should preserve maximum flexibility. I believe that we may be able to improve on commission practice. For example, I believe that the OFT has an ambition to be more predictable in its fining policy than the commission.
As regards Amendment No. 134, an identical amendment was discussed in Committee by, I believe, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser. However, since I find it difficult to distinguish between the perspicacity and good sense which I hear from members of the Opposition on many amendments, it may have been the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. As my noble friend Lord Haskel—and he I do recognise—said on 17th November (at col. 425 of Hansard), it is the Government's intention that the turnover will be confined to that which arises in the UK. I hope that the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will accept our words on that. I do not believe that that matter should be specified in primary legislation.
The question of confining the turnover to the relevant goods and services is something which merits further consideration. While I can see the argument, and there is also the point that such a limitation might discriminate in favour of large companies with many different divisions, the ECJ has said that in setting the amount of fines, regard must be had to a number of factors which include the volume and value of the goods in respect of which the infringement was committed.
In the Pioneer case the court said that the 10 per cent. limit was an upper limit to prevent fines being disproportionate to the size of the undertaking concerned. The Commission cannot be required to take account of only the turnover on the market where infringements occur.
Therefore, those are not easy matters but they are important. I believe that the department should consult on them with interested parties before drawing up the order. I recognise that that may not be an entirely satisfactory answer to your Lordships, given that the amount of any penalty which may be imposed is an important matter in which noble Lords will rightly wish to take an interest. However, for the very reason that the Bill provides that no order under Clause 35(7) is to be
360
made unless a draft of it has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House, I believe that timely consideration can be given to the matter.
It is important to consult on that matter but I believe also that that important parliamentary safeguard will ensure that your Lordships are content with the results of our consultation.
On Amendment No. 135, I accept the noble and learned Lord's point that the director should issue guidance on the criteria to be applied in deciding whether to impose a penalty as well as on setting the appropriate amount of the penalty. I am assured by the OFT that the guidance under Clause 37 will cover that. No amendment is needed because the appropriate amount of any penalty would include cases where no penalty was appropriate. Therefore, with those assurances and my commitment to see the consultation truly take place, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will withdraw his amendment at this stage.
The Earl of Harrowby: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I should say that I am a businessman like the Minister. I should like him to think again about mentioning on the face of the Bill the United Kingdom as part of the turnover as well as the separate subsidiaries. I should have thought that that was of significance to many companies. Like the noble Lord, I have been a chairman of companies which have subsidiaries all over the world, operating in different activities. Therefore, it is every bit as important to designate that the turnover referred to is United Kingdom or otherwise. It is not a matter which should be left to an understanding.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I note the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Harrowby. However, what I have said is on the record and the matter falls better to the guidance which will be given in order to give ourselves the necessary flexibility within the statements that have already been made in the House on this matter as regards the way in which the director wishes to take that forward.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am concerned about Amendment No. 134. We were told clearly by the Government in earlier discussions that there would be a restriction to the United Kingdom. I am rather concerned that the matter of the geographic confines is now something to which there is no reference in the Bill. I understood from what the Minister said that he has some sympathy for the point raised within Amendment No. 134 that it should he restricted to relevant goods or services. His reference to the European Court of Justice seemed to indicate that a similar restriction is contemplated by the court when such fines or penalties are imposed.
I invite the Minister to reflect further on that matter, especially if he has sympathy for the issue raised. It seems to me desirable to have that reference on the face of the Bill and I am sure that the noble Lord observed that there is sympathy for that view on all sides of the House. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 134 not moved.]
Clause 37 [The appropriate level of a penalty]:
[Amendments Nos. 135 and 135A not moved.]
Lord Simon of Highbury Lord Simon of Highbury moved Amendment No. 135B:
Page 18, line 29, leave out from ("section") to end of line 31 and insert ("he must consult such persons as he considers appropriate.
() If the proposed guidance or alteration relates to a matter in respect of which a regulator exercises concurrent jurisdiction, those consulted must include that regulator.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 135C, 149E, I59B, 164A and 164B. All the amendments but one in the group are in response to points raised in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, on which I agreed to reflect. The noble Lord moved an amendment which would have required the Secretary of State to consult appropriate persons when preparing tribunal rules. Amendment No. 149E places such a requirement on the Secretary of State.
We have also tabled amendments placing a similar requirement on the director general to consult appropriate persons when preparing his rules (under Clause 49); guidelines on the appropriate level of the penalty (under Clause 37); and advice and information (under Clause 50).
Amendment No. 164B places a similar requirement on sectoral regulators to consult when they are preparing their own advice and information. In fact, I am pleased to report that the Director General of Fair Trading wrote to me on 6th February reporting considerable progress in preparing procedural rules and guidelines.
Working closely with the sector regulators, the director general has identified a list of areas to be covered in guidelines. He expects to publish the vast bulk of the guidelines series by September of this year. In doing so, he is working to ensure that the documents are business friendly and aimed at those likely to be affected by the provisions of the Bill rather than legal specialists, although I am sure both will understand them.
His letter also confirms that before issuing guidelines, the sector regulators and the director general expect to consult as widely as possible, including consumer bodies, local authority associations, and, of course, the business community and its advisers. I have placed copies of the director general's letter in the Library of the House.
Also included in this group is Amendment No. 135C. This is a technical amendment which puts right the definition of appropriate court in Clause 37 so as to include the House of Lords. This change is needed because the House of Lords will be the ultimate court to hear appeals on the level of penalty and so should also have regard to the guidance on the level of penalties issued by the director. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 135C:
Page 19, line 3, at end insert—
("(d) the House of Lords.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 39 [Limited immunity in relation to the Chapter II prohibition]:
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 136:
Page 20, line 3, at end insert—
("() Immunity may not be granted under this section to a company which the Director considers has initiated an anti-competitive act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as your Lordships know, Clause 35 deals with infringements of Chapter I and Chapter II prohibitions. It gives draconian powers to the Director General of Fair Trading. It also allows the director general to impose fines of up to 10 per cent. of turnover of the company or group concerned. Again, it gives limited immunity to small agreements in Clause 38, but rightly gives power to the director general to withdraw that immunity in certain circumstances; namely, in Clause 39, subsection (4).
At this stage I, as usual, declare an interest of which many of your Lordships will be aware. For a long time I have taken a special interest in the bus industry and it is the impact that this Bill will have on that industry which I wish to highlight. Some of your Lordships will be aware of the bus "wars" which were a feature of the industry in the late 1980s. Thankfully, those are now a thing of the past. However, the industry is still competitive, and occasionally the Director General of Fair Trading has to intervene. What is not always appreciated is that the anti-competitive actions can be initiated by large and small operators alike.
There is still an element of "cowboy" operations which can cause havoc on established routes and networks, to the disadvantage of passengers. At this point I must stress that the amendment is aimed solely at protecting the public's bus services, not the market position of the current service providers. However, to protect the passenger, we must protect the current service providers from anti-competitive behaviour. It therefore follows that the Government must ensure that any operator, irrespective of size, which flouts the rules is punished.
The established operator providing high quality services, backed up by sustained investment, which merely responds to the behaviour of the "cowboy" must not be penalised. If we are to ensure that passengers will receive the high quality services that they deserve, I believe that we must look closely into the effects that Clause 39, as currently written, will have.
I am aware that the main thrust of the clause is to reduce compliance costs on small businesses, something of which I, for one, am generally in favour. However, the Government have a responsibility, when bringing forward legislation, to underpin this aim to ensure that it does not merely place on the statute hook a law which gives small businesses immunity from fines and, in effect, carte blanche to attack their larger competitors in an anti-competitive fashion. I am sure that that is not the Government's intention, which is why I think that the clause needs closer examination.
In conclusion, I should acknowledge again that there is a mechanism incorporated in the Bill which enables the Director General of Fair Trading to withdraw immunity from fines in certain circumstances. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able to accept the amendment or agree to propose an equivalent on Third Reading. If, however, he is not minded to do either, I hope that he will indicate tonight his support for the Director General of Fair Trading for the principle of the withdrawal of immunity from fines for any company perpetrating anti-competitive behaviour. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. Coming from a large company background myself, it never escaped my notice that very small companies were able to perpetrate very considerable damage. I guess if they were setting their minds to very large abuses, they could also achieve that aim. Therefore, I fully understand the point of proportionality, if I may put it that way, that the noble Lord has put to me.
However, I do not believe that the modest protection conferred by the clause for what I shall, for convenience, call SMEs (small and medium-sized enterprises) should really give rise to the concerns which the noble Lord has expressed. As the noble Lord rightly said, the Government believe there ought to be some recognition of the compliance costs for small and medium-sized enterprises. We have therefore provided in Clauses 38 and 39 that parties to small agreements and persons whose conduct is of minor significance should be immune from penalties for breaches of the Chapter I and Chapter II prohibitions respectively.
Nevertheless, we wholly accept that SMEs may infringe the prohibitions including, as I hinted in my introduction, abusing dominant market positions. Small companies are absolutely capable of doing that. That is exactly why the clauses provide for the director to be able to withdraw the benefit of the immunity. Moreover, the full range of the investigation and enforcement powers, including the power to give directions with a view to bringing to an end the infringement of a prohibition, will be available to the director if he needs to use them.
Therefore, I doubt that the provisions will disadvantage competitors of small and medium-sized enterprises or the public in the way described by the noble Lord. The provisions are not in any sense a licence to SMEs to infringe the prohibitions and, in particular, to abuse a dominant position. Under those circumstances, the director has every power that he requires to act and would be able to withdraw the immunities. In view of those explanations, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I am most grateful for the way in which the Minister responded to my amendment. I shall, of course, read most closely what he said in
364
Hansard tomorrow. At present, I do not envisage returning to the matter. I am indeed most grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 136A:
After Clause 40, insert the following new clause—

DEFENCE IN CASES WHERE INFRINGEMENT OF CHAPTER I OR CHAPTER II PROHIBITION NOT FORESEEN
(" . In any civil proceedings brought under or in connection with this Part, including any Part I proceedings, it shall he a defence for a person to show that, having regard to all the circumstances, he could not reasonably have foreseen that the agreement or conduct to which those proceedings relate would constitute an infringement of the Chapter I or the Chapter II prohibition (as the case may be).").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the problem, as we see it, that might result where someone, or an undertaking. has in fact been found to have acted in such a way that an infringement of the prohibitions has taken place. The amendment takes account of the fact that the actual effect of behaviour may not be known in advance and that a defence based on intent will, therefore, be unworkable.
As the Minister acknowledged during the first day of the Report stage:
"An abuse may be the effect of conduct on the part of a dominant company without being the intended result".—[Official Report. 2/9/98; col. 911]
Our amendment would not provide a defence on the basis of knowledge but on whether the eventual outcome was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the course of action taken by the defendant. I beg to move.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the purpose of the new prohibitions is to catch agreements and behaviour with anti-competitive effects. It is for the courts to determine whether an agreement or conduct breaches the prohibitions with all the consequences that that may have in civil law. It should not be a matter that depends on the parties foreseeing such an infringement. It cannot be a matter dependent on the parties' perceptions as to whether an agreement is void; or as to whether conduct that injures a third party is abusive.
Nevertheless, the notion of what could reasonably have been foreseen to be an infringement of the prohibition will of course be highly relevant in the new prohibition regime. It will no doubt feature in the director's guidance on the appropriate amount of any penalty. We are seeking to provide as much certainty as possible for businesses assessing the application of the new prohibitions. Those taking reasonable precautions will be able to stay the right side of the new regime. The prohibitions are not new concepts. They are modelled on Articles 85 and 86 which British business has lived with for over 20 years. Firms can look to existing Community jurisprudence as a guide. In addition, the director will be issuing guidance on how the prohibition system will operate.
Furthermore, if firms are in any doubt about the application of the prohibitions, they can seek guidance from the director or seek a formal decision. If the

365
director grants an exemption in respect of an agreement, the agreement will be enforceable in the courts assuming the exemption was validly granted. Otherwise, the director's decisions will no doubt be of highly persuasive authority in the courts. Clause 56 also provides as a general rule that director's findings of fact are to be binding in court proceedings.
In view of those arguments, I urge the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I shall read it carefully in Hansard. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 136B:
After Clause 40, insert the following new clause

DECISIONS ON MATTERS SUBJECT TO A COMMISSION INVESTIGATION
(" —(1) The Director shall not make a decision that—

(a) an agreement infringes the Chapter I prohibition; or

(b) conduct infringes the Chapter II prohibition,

if that agreement or conduct is the subject of an investigation by the Commission under a provision of Community law relating to Article 85 or 86.
(2) Nothing in this section shall prevent the Director from conducting in respect of that agreement or conduct

(a) an investigation in accordance with section 25; or

(b) a Director's investigation or Director's special investigation within the meaning of Part II.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this new clause would prohibit the director general from making a decision that the Chapter I or II prohibitions have been infringed in respect of an agreement or conduct which is the subject of an investigation by the European Commission under Article 85 or 86. I emphasise that the new clause would not prevent the director carrying out an investigation under Part I (or at the request of the European Commission) under Part II but would require any decision to be stayed until the question of whether a breach of Article 85 or Article 86 has been committed is determined.
The amendment would relate only to decisions by the director, and therefore an undertaking could not make an unfounded application for clearance to the European Commission to avoid an investigation by the director. The amendment specifically provides that it does not prevent the director from conducting an investigation and is in addition to Clause 40(4) which provides that notification of a matter to the Commission does not stop such an investigation.
The amendment is consistent with the governing principles of Clause 58(3) which requires decisions to take account of relevant decisions of the European Commission. It is also consistent with the regime for parallel exemptions provided by Clause 10. I beg to move.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I must emphasise that the purpose of the Bill is to ensure as far as possible consistency with the EC approach and thereby ease burdens for business.
366
Both the director and the European Commission will be applying substantially the same competition tests and following common jurisprudence where applicable. In practice, therefore, if the Commission is investigating a matter, we think it unlikely that the director will start his own separate investigation and proceed to a decision when the Commission already has the matter in hand.
Clearly it would be a waste of both regulatory resources and precious business time for dual domestic and Community proceedings to take place. The Commission notice on co-operation between itself and national competition authorities deals with and provides some guidance on how the Commission and national competition authorities should handle these cases. This notice and common sense co-operation between the director and the Commission provides the practical safeguard against unnecessary duplication, about which the noble Lord was concerned.
It would be wrong to go further and place legal bars on the face of the Bill preventing the director from taking a decision in respect of matters which are the subject of any form of investigation under Articles 85 and 86.
As I explained in Committee, legal bars in this area can provide dangerous loopholes. What of the agreement notified to the European Commission which raises little or no Community interest and which the Commission has neither the time nor the resources to attend to? Such an agreement may be causing serious harm to the domestic economy, but if the Commission initiates its review of the agreement, the amendment would prevent the director from prohibiting it, even where the Commission does not proceed quickly against it because it is of no Community interest. Surely it would be wrong to prevent the director proceeding to a decision in respect of such an agreement so that its harmful domestic effects can be stopped. The ability of the director to investigate such an agreement is not enough. He must be able to proceed to a decision to stop it. Indeed, the legal bar proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, could encourage spurious notifications or even complaints to Brussels of agreements with mainly domestic effects to thwart effective action by the director.
Of course, where there is active Commission investigation, one can expect the director not to pursue the same matter independently. In view of that explanation, I invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am not entirely persuaded by the logic of the noble Lord's approach. I wish there to be a common sense and practical approach taken by those in the Commission, and by the director general. The amendment comes forward in that context. We do not suggest that some barrier should allow a loophole to be established. If that had been in our minds we would have put forward an amendment which did not even allow the director general to begin an investigation.
The only limit we suggest is that if it is being pursued through Brussels, the director general should not proceed all the way to a decision. We do not seek to

367
establish that because there has been a notification nothing should happen within the domestic context. But we do not want two things going on at the same time indefinitely, and it seemed appropriate for there to be a restriction on the director general taking a decision, not a restriction on him investigating. The noble Lord seems to suggest that some spurious notification may be made to prevent any investigation in the United Kingdom. That is not what the amendment seeks to achieve. We recognise that investigations should be allowed to go forward.
I ask the noble Lord to think further about the matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 41 [Offences]:
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 137:
Page 20. line 39, at end insert—
("() If a person is charged with an offence under subsection (1) in respect of a requirement—

(a) to provide an explanation of a document, or

(b) to state where a document is to be found,

it is a defence for him to show that he had a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the requirement.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 138:
Page 20, line 41, leave out from ("in to end of line 44 and insert ("the person imposing the requirement has failed to act in accordance with that section.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have already spoken to the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 44 [The Competition Commission]:
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, before calling Amendment No. 138A, I should tell your Lordships that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 139.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 138A:
Page 22. line 4, leave out subsections (1) and (2).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 138A, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 139A, 139B, 139C, 144F, 144G, 149D, 152A, 153A, 153B, 153C, 153D, 154A, I54B, 154C, 154D, 154E and 186B. The centre piece of the amendments is Amendment No. 152A. The pattern involves a substantial movement in the adjudicative furniture of the Bill. Amendment No. 152A seeks to replace the competition tribunal by a competition court. The powers of that court are set out in that amendment.
The idea that a branch of the High Court should deal with competition matters is not a novel one. We have the Restrictive Practices Court established in our system. There are three reasons why I believe that a branch of the High Court is better equipped to deal with the tasks of appeal than the appeal tribunal. The first is the new backcloth that competition rules will face under
368
the Human Rights Bill, soon to become the Human Rights Act. As I understand it, the fundamental concept that lies behind that legislation is the concept of rights as entitlements. It is the High Court, and not any subsidiary tribunal, which has the right to make declarations of incompatibility where statutes fall short of the standards laid down in the Human Rights Act.
It is highly likely that a substantial number of the issues that will have to be dealt with by the competition tribunal will be procedural issues, and hence issues that will raise questions about individual entitlements—for example, a right to a fair hearing or a right not to have too onerous a penalty imposed on a company. In those circumstances it seems an unnecessary elaboration of the system to have to route matters through the tribunal which will ultimately end up in the appeal courts anyway.
The second reason why I believe it appropriate to establish a competition court to replace the appeals commission is that many of the issues connected with procedure are just as likely to be raised by applications to the High Court for judicial review as under appeal to the competition tribunal. In those circumstances, in my submission it will lead to confusion to have both the appeals tribunal and the High Court potentially capable of hearing procedural matters but leaving it uncertain as to which of the institutions is the more appropriate.
The third reason why I believe it appropriate to have a competition court is that the end of the procedure pursued by the Director General of Fair Trading under the Bill may be the imposition of a fine or penalty. Those are criminal remedies. In those circumstances it is more appropriate for a court of law than for a tribunal to hear matters arising from their wrongful imposition.
Those are the three main reasons for my proposing a competition court. Most of the other amendments in this line of amendments are consequential, save one. In seeking to replace the competition commission, I have chosen not only to seek to replace the appeals tribunal, but also that part of the commission which deals with many matters which are now the responsibility of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The reason for that is as follows.
As noble Lords are aware, the Opposition Front Bench has tabled amendments to exclude the responsibility for dealing with scale monopolies and structural monopolies from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Consistent with that philosophy, all that would be left to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission would be its merger responsibilities. In our submission it would be more appropriate that those powers, too, should be dealt with by the Director General of Fair Trading. That is the reason why the knock-on effect of having the court is the disappearance of the commission itself. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, perhaps I might comment on the last remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. I am strongly opposed to the substitution of the competition commission by a competition court. Of course it is true to say, as the noble Lord did, that in our

369
own UK competition law there has been since 1956 a court, part of the High Court, known as the Restrictive Practices Court. That court has had a range of business over the past 40 years, and in the early years a considerable amount of substantive business. I would, however, draw attention to the constitution of that court from 1956 to this very day. While the presiding judge has indeed been a judge of the High Court, he has been supported—and my understanding is that the judges concerned have welcomed this—by lay members, people typically experienced in business and so on, who have been appointed to a panel from which they have been drawn for appropriate cases over the years.
The noble Lord is suggesting that, first, the appeal tribunal structure should disappear. There are certain amendments to which we have not yet come in which the noble Lord's unfortunate logic leads him to say that the Lord Chancellor should make the appointments, or the Lord Advocate in the case of appropriate Scottish judges. The amendments would do away with the present, very satisfactory constitution of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which is now to be transmuted into the competition commission, whereby appointments are made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Those are appointments of a mixed range of people working together from a great variety of backgrounds: business, academia, the trade unions, law, accountancy and so on. They are put on panels and appointed to appropriate cases. That is transmuted under this Bill; the competition commission is designed to ensure such an adequate mix and the Bill makes provision for the two functions of the competition commission in future.
The reporting function will apply when there are either scale monopoly or complex monopoly references—as the Minister pointed out several times, such instances will be rare. There will also be merger references under a continuation of the present procedure. The panels will be chosen from an appropriate mix of people and it is appropriate that they are all appointed by the Secretary of State for Trade.
Then there will be the so-called appeal function to constitute the appeal tribunals. It seems to me appropriate that the members should be appointed by the Secretary of State for Trade but, as provided for under the Bill, for the chairman of the appeal tribunal, as one might expect, to be a suitably qualified lawyer. The qualifications are set out in paragraph 26 of Schedule 7, which we shall debate. The appointments, also made by the Secretary of State for Trade, will be made in consultation with the Lord Chancellor or the Lord Advocate, as appropriate.
That scheme—the competition commission, with the reporting function and the tribunal function, which appoints, and so on—seems to me to be excellent. One bears in mind in the background that, if there is a point of law on which someone wishes to appeal later, the Bill provides for the Court of Appeal to deal with the matter.
However, I would emphasise that in both the appeal function and the reporting function of the competition commission it is immensely desirable to continue what has been a very useful experience in the Monopolies and
370
Mergers Commission; namely, the mix of background that I have described. Certainly I believe it would he most undesirable if decisions about matters affecting industry, business and economics, where very often matters of law are relatively minor, were made solely by the people listed in Amendment No. 152A; namely, High Court judges. That seems to me singularly inappropriate, and I trust that the House will not agree to the amendments.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Borrie for his intervention, as he has far more experience of these matters than I. As he said, the Fair Trading Act carefully balances the respective roles of the director, the MMC and the Secretary of State. The approach to dealing with competition issues under the Act is very different to that introduced by the Bill in relation to the prohibitions.
We debated these points at some length in Committee. On that occasion the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, eloquently set out his thesis that the MMC should be abolished and that there should be no new tribunal, and he has repeated that again today. I agree with my noble friend Lord Borrie. We are not seeking, with this Bill, to change substantively the way in which existing functions of the MMC are performed. Under the Bill these functions will transfer to the new competition commission, where they will be performed by the reporting arm of the commission. The purpose of the Bill is to introduce new legislation based on a prohibition approach.
The approach we have chosen also means that cases will be heard by both legal and lay members. My noble friend Lord Borrie explained most eloquently why this is desirable. We believe it is essential that the tribunal panel contains the necessary breadth of experience and expertise to be able to deal effectively and efficiently with the complex commercial, economic and legal issues involved in competition cases. Our approach also means that we can draw on a much wider range of people to chair tribunals, while, of course, recognising that tribunal chairmen will need to be properly legally qualified. Schedule 7 to the Bill sets out the necessary legal qualifications.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, mentioned a number of procedural points. Most of those points will arise from the directors' rules and such points can equally well be raised in a tribunal as in a court.
The basis of our approach is that it is essential for the credibility of the new regime, and in the interests of fairness and transparency, that there are effective and efficient appeal arrangements. We believe that our proposals will achieve that and mesh sensibly and productively with the institutions already in place under the current regime. In view of these arguments, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his not very surprising reply—at least, not very surprising to me. I make one point of clarification. It was not my intention to suggest that the former powers of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission should he transferred to the High Court. It was my intention that

371
such residual powers as may reside in the Monopolies and Mergers Commission should be transferred to the Director General of Fair Trading. I entirely take the point, which I think the Minister picked up from the eloquent intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, that it would not be right for a High Court judge to deal with matters connected with policy on mergers, and so forth. I hope there is no confusion about that. I shall reflect carefully on the Minister's reply and consider whether I should return to the matter at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 139:
Page 22, line 7, at end insert ("and the Commission and each member of that Commission shall, in the performance of those functions, apply their own skill and judgement independently on the evidence before them").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, if we cannot have our first option of a competition court, we should like to ensure that the competition commission is, in the exercise of its functions, as judicial as it possibly can be. For that reason Amendment No. 139 provides that:
"the Commission and each member of that Commission shall, in the performance of those functions, apply their own skill and judgement independently on the evidence before them".
Grouped with that amendment are Amendments Nos. 143 and 144. Amendment No. 143 suggests that a member of the commission appointed in accordance with the sub-paragraph referred to shall not continue to exercise any functions of the commission other than in relation to appeals. In short, we are trying to separate out the individuals, given the fact that the competition commission will have a mix of both executive and judicial functions. It will both exercise the investigative and enforcement powers of the MMC, which it will replace, and act as the body to which appeals from decisions of the director general will be made. It is relatively rare for executive powers of the kind exercised by the MMC to be combined in one body with judicial or quasi-judicial powers. In relation to EC competition matters, it is the European Court, the court of first instance, which has a purely judicial role. This amendment provides for a proper separation of the two.
Amendment No. 144 requires the Secretary of State to provide funding for the competition commission at a level which will enable it to perform its functions in an efficient and effective manner. At present the Bill provides for funding to be determined on a discretionary basis by the Secretary of State, who must pay such sum as he considers appropriate for the performance of these functions. I doubt whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be happy to live with this amendment. But, if the competition commission is to be taken seriously, some expression of an appropriate degree of
372
funding to enable the commission to perform its functions effectively and efficiently is desirable. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: My Lords. I have some sympathy with the last of the three matters raised by the noble and learned Lord. I am always concerned if public officials or bodies are inadequately resourced.
I thought that Amendment No. 139 was mildly insulting, unless the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, has some evidence that members of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, who have been performing functions of this kind for the past 40 years. have in any way not applied their skill and judgment independently on the evidence before them. I am not sure why one needs such a provision.
As to Amendment No. 143, which is in a way more important, I believe the proposal is a bad idea. One of the benefits of the way in which the competition commission is to be structured, according to the present wording of the Bill, with the reporting function and the appeal function, is the cross-fertilisation which will result. It would be an unfortunate waste of talent if members were appointed only to the one function and could not be transferred by the chairman or president from one function to the other when suitable cases arose. With the benefits of the considerable experience which the members will have, it would seem a pity if the structure were so rigid that members were appointed to one slot and could not move to the other.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I presume the comments of my noble friend Lord Borrie—that he finds Amendment No. 139 vaguely insulting—arise from the fact that we expect members of the commission to exercise their functions independently and effectively. As the noble and learned Lord will be aware, anyone exercising a judicial function, as members of the tribunal undoubtedly will be, is required to act precisely in the way described in the amendment and not on the basis of external considerations. That is an established principle.
As is appropriate where public interest tests are concerned, the members' role is advisory. But the ultimate control lies with Parliament because Ministers are accountable for the decisions that are made on the basis of the MMC's advice.
In relation to Amendment No. 143, I agree with my noble friend Lord Borrie that there will be considerable benefits from cross-fertilisation. It will facilitate the transference of expertise. It should also promote a consistent approach to competition questions across the piece, notwithstanding the fact that the nature and procedures of the appeal and reporting arms of the commission will, as I explained, be different. Those are important, practical objectives.
A further practical point is that there is inevitably a finite pool of people who are able and willing to become panel members and who have the necessary skills, expertise and experience. Clearly before an individual could be appointed as a member of both the appeal panel and the reporting or specialist panel, he or she would have to demonstrate that they have the different

373
attributes required. We may or may not get candidates with the necessary breadth of attributes. But if we do, I think it would be wrong to rule out using them both on the appeals and reporting sides of the commission.
Turning to Amendment No. 144, I can well imagine that my right honourable friend the Chancellor would say that there must be some form of budgetary control, which is essential in terms of good administration. The amendment would remove any such controls. The independence of the tribunal is ensured in other ways. Under these provisions dismissal is only possible on grounds of incapacity or misbehaviour.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving me the opportunity to explain our position on these matters, and I hope that with those explanations he will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, or any of those with whom he has worked in the past is upset, let me make it clear that there was no intention on my part to be insulting to anyone who has undertaken work on the Monopolies & Mergers Commission. I am satisfied, in relation to Amendment No. 139, by the declaration of the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, that that is exactly how any member of the commission should act in the future. For my purposes, his statement on behalf of the Government is sufficient.
In relation to Amendment No. 143, a fundamental difference of philosophy occurs. I believe that there is a strong argument for separating out that investigative and judicial or appellate role. Rather curiously, it seems to me that the Government acknowledge that. If we go to Schedule 7, paragraph 2, we do not simply have, "a commission shall be established with a certain number of members to perform these functions". We find that,
"The Commission is to consist of…members appointed by the Secretary of State to form a panel for the purposes of the Commission's functions in relation to appeals".
Then, in an almost separate category of members, we find,
"members appointed by the Secretary of State to form a panel for the purposes of the Commission's general functions".
The third section is,
"maintained under paragraph 22 for the purposes of a newspaper merger reference…members appointed by the Secretary of State under"—
and there follow a number of utility statutes.
If that is the way in which the Secretary of State must direct his mind and people must be appointed with those qualities, that experience and that knowledge, when it comes to the exercise of an appellate jurisdiction, it would be appropriate for those who are going to exercise the appellate jurisdiction to be drawn only from those in paragraph 2(1)(a).
The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, says that cross-fertilisation is desirable. I am bound to say that where there is a confusion of those functions, I would be concerned that those who come before the panel would feel, not that there was a useful cross-fertilisation, but that to some extent people may be somewhat tainted
374
if they performed both responsibilities at the same time. I am sure the Government will acknowledge that it is unusual in our system to have a single body carrying out both an investigative and a judicial function. While we may return to that at a later stage, at the present time I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 139.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 139A to 139C not moved.]
Schedule 7 [The Competition Commission]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 140:
Page 56, line 27, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Lord Chancellor in consultation with the Lord Advocate").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as a result of the eloquent and thorough way in which my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie dealt with the previous amendment, I have little to say in support of Amendment No. 140.
It must follow, from the philosophy that there should be a clear distinction between the appeals panel and the general panel of the competition commission, that somebody other than the person who appoints the general panel should appoint the appeals panel. That is the logic behind replacing the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry with the Lord Chancellor. That seems especially appropriate in the light of the remarks I made in support of my earlier amendments relating to the competition court.
The responsibilities of the appeals tribunal are to apply the law of the land particularly in relation to procedural appeal. It seems therefore appropriate to give those undertakings that might be before the tribunal confidence in its jurisdiction and its jurisprudence that the president and its members are appointed in the way in which High Court judges are appointed. I add, though it is not in the amendment, that the president ought to be somebody who is either a High Court judge or has the equivalent merit and seniority. I beg to move.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Bill provides for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to appoint the members of the appeals tribunal. In the case of persons qualified for appointment to the panel of tribunal chairmen, she is required to do that in consultation with the Lord Chancellor.
By its nature, the tribunal will have to deal with complex economic and commercial issues. Many of the arguments which we discussed in the previous group of amendments apply here. The Government take the view that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will be well placed to identify and select candidates with the necessary blend and breadth of experience to lead such a tribunal. At the same time, it is equally important that the president and chairmen are legally qualified and have the necessary legal experience and standing to do the job. Confidence in the new regime demands nothing less. That is why she is required to consult with the Lord Chancellor.
The Bill does, of course, set out strict requirements for formal legal qualifications. We believe that this is the right balance of responsibilities to ensure that we get

375
the right people for the job, and indeed the Government are very well aware of the crucial importance of doing that.
The quality and standing of the tribunal members, and particularly of the president, are central to confidence in the new appeal regime. The Government fully recognise the importance of finding the right people. We believe that the arrangements we have put in place will enable us to achieve that.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, for explaining his views and for giving me the opportunity to explain ours. Having done so, I hope that he will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, it will not surprise the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, to hear that I am deeply disappointed by his reply. I shall of course reflect on what he said, but we cannot exclude the possibility that this matter will re-emerge at Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 141:
Page 56, line 28, at end insert ("at least one of whom shall have experience in and knowledge of consumer affairs").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has been grouped with Amendments Nos. 142 and 164. We are here dealing with the interests of consumers. I raised this matter in a different manner at the Committee stage. I now come to it with three specific proposals. Although it can be argued that the Bill as a whole deals with safeguarding consumer interests, nevertheless, there is little specific reference to consumers in the document. I wish to remedy that omission.
Amendments Nos. 141 and 142 propose that, in regard to the commission panels dealing with appeals and with general functions, at least one of those appointed by the Secretary of State shall have experience in and knowledge of consumer affairs. We think that is important because the consumer interest could well be lost sight of in pursuing a purely legalistic approach to these matters.
The third proposition, Amendment No. 164, inserts the proposal that the director general should indicate how he intends to assess that consumers have a fair share of the resulting benefit of the decisions he takes under this part. We think that is important. The form of words is reflected in one of the few references to consumers on page 5, line 41, of the Bill. That is the same form of words and I think it is perfectly right that we should reintroduce it. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, in his thoughts on the importance of having someone experienced in and knowledgeable of consumer affairs, whether it be in the reporting function or the appeal function. However, although, like him, I have had a background of considerable involvement in consumer affairs and recognise how unfortunate it would be if people representative of consumer affairs
376
were not involved in key decisions relating to trade and industry, I cannot support his amendments. The logic of the amendment would surely immediately suggest the need to have representatives of small and medium-sized enterprises, the public sector, the utilities and so on. Claims would be made as to how vital it was to have these various important areas of industry and commerce represented and so the particular value of the thoughts behind the amendments would be lost in the rush of others who would make special claims.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, to ensure that consumer interests are properly represented in the reforms we are seeking to put in place. I endorse strongly his views; indeed, we have emphasised, as we have gone through the debates on the Bill, that a better deal for consumers is fundamental as an objective underpinning the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 141 and 142 concern the membership of the appeal and reporting panels of the competition commission. My noble friend Lord Haskel touched on this subject when we were in Committee. He pointed out that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent people being appointed to the appeal tribunal panel and sitting on tribunals to hear appeals on the basis that they have a particular expertise in consumer matters.
Perhaps I may expand a little on this basic point. The Government will expect to appoint to the appeal panel on the basis of merit, according to the Nolan guidelines, and we would expect to draw from a range of backgrounds, including consumer affairs, if candidates with the necessary skills were available. I am not assuming that they will not be. I assure the noble Lord that the Government will give careful consideration to appointing to the appeal panel members with that kind of background. We should like to be able to do so provided the right candidates are available.
As for the reporting panel, we are not seeking to make substantive changes to the arrangements for the existing functions of the MMC. The arrangements for appointments are carried over substantially unchanged into the new competition commission. Currently, members are appointed on merit, according to the Nolan guidelines, and on the basis of transparent criteria. They come from a range of backgrounds, as my noble friend Lord Borrie said, including consumer affairs. We would expect that approach to continue.
The difficulty with the amendments, apart from that pointed out by my noble friend Lord Borrie, is that they as well place an absolute requirement on the Secretary of State to appoint someone with a consumer affairs background. We could not accept that requirement for the simple reason that candidates with the necessary skills may not be available. It would be wrong to appoint people solely on the basis that they had a consumer affairs background if they did not also have the other attributes necessary to serve on the panels. It is really a point of the sine qua non element. We think that there are all the flexibilities here to appoint the right category of consumer representatives, if they are available. I hope the noble Lord will accept that point

377
and, bearing in mind what I have said about our willingness to appoint the kind of people that he has in mind, will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Perhaps I may speak briefly to Amendment No. 164. The assessment that consumers have a fair share of the resulting benefit is an essential element of the criteria for exemption in Clause 9. No doubt the director will address the question of consumer benefit in that part of his advice and information dealing with the exemption decisions. However, it would not be appropriate to require him, as the amendment seems to do, to address consumer benefits across the range of his other decisions. Here he will be following EU jurisprudence, according to the governing principles in Clause 58, and the consumer benefit comes from a more effective protection of competition. not from direct assessment in individual decisions.
In Committee the noble Lord said that it was important that consumer groups should be consulted on the director's advice and information. I am grateful for the points he made in that respect. The director general's letter, which I mentioned earlier, confirms that consumer bodies such as the National Consumer Council and the Consumers' Association as well as the trading standards organisation will be contacted as part of the consultation.
Amendments Nos. 164A and 164B (which we debated earlier), will make consultation on advice and information a requirement. Consumer interests will therefore have an opportunity to comment formally if they do not believe that the advice and information covers all the necessary points.
I believe that I have addressed the three amendments as positively as I can without changing what is on the face of the Bill. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the detailed and sympathetic response that he gave to these amendments. I am leaving them with the impression that in making the appointments to the panels serious consideration will be given to having persons who, no doubt along with other qualities, possess expertise in consumer matters. If I have that right, I shall be prepared to withdraw the amendment. As regards Amendment No. 164, I would like to think again about its implications. I shall certainly not press the matter further tonight, but I may want to return to it again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 142 not moved.]
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 142A:
Page 56, line 31. leave out from ("appointed") to end of line 32 and insert ("(in accordance with paragraph 15(5)) from the panel maintained under paragraph 22;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 142B to 142D; Amendments Nos. 143A and B; Amendments
378
Nos. 144A to E; Amendments Nos. 171D and G: Amendments Nos. 174C and G; Amendments Nos. 210C and D; and Amendments Nos. 222A and 222B.
This group of amendments make various minor and technical amendments to Schedule 7, with consequential amendments to Schedules 10, 12 and 14. My noble friend Lord Simon indicated in Committee that we wished to make a number of amendments to this part of the Bill in order to tidy up various points which we had not had time to deal with before introduction. These amendments meet that purpose. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendments Nos. 142B to 142D:
Page 56, line 36, at end insert—
("(iv) Article 15(9) of the Electricity (Northern Ireland) Order 1992.").
Page 56, line 36, at end insert—
("(1A) A person who is appointed as a member of a kind mentioned in one of paragraphs (a) to (c) of sub-paragraph (1B) may also he appointed as a member of either or both of the other kinds mentioned in those paragraphs.
(1B) The kinds of member are—

(a) an appeal panel member;

(b) a reporting panel member;

(c) a specialist panel member.").

Page 56, line 39, at end insert—
("() The validity of the Commission's proceedings is not affected by a defect in the appointment of a member.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 143 not moved.]
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendments Nos. 143A and 143B:
Page 57, line 2, at end insert—
("() If the chairman is absent or otherwise unable to act, or there is no chairman, any of his functions may be performed—

(a) if there is one deputy chairman, by him,

(b) if there is more than one—

(i) by the deputy chairman designated by the Secretary of State; or

(ii) if no such designation has been made. by the deputy chairman designated by the deputy chairmen;

(c) if there is no deputy chairman able to act—

(i) by the member designated by the Secretary of State; or

(ii) if no such designation has been made, by the member designated by the Commission.").

Page 57, line 33, after ("paragraphs") insert ("3 and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 144 not moved.]
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendments Nos. 144A to 144E:
Page 58, line 27, leave out from first ("of") to ("the") in line 28 and insert ("—

(a) the Secretary of State, as to numbers, and

(b) the Secretary of State and Treasury, as to terms and conditions of service,").

Page 59, leave out lines 4 to 24 and insert—

("(b) prepare a statement of accounts in respect of each of its financial years; and

send copies of the statement to the Secretary of State and to the Comptroller and Auditor General before the end of the month of August next following the financial year to which the statement relates.

(2) The statement of accounts must comply with any directions given by the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury as to—

(a) the information to be contained in it,

the manner in which the information contained in it is to be presented, or

(c) the methods and principles according to which the statement is to be prepared,

and must contain such additional information as the Secretary of State may with the approval of the Treasury require to be provided for informing Parliament.
(3) The Comptroller and Auditor General must—

(a) examine, certify and report on each statement received by him as a result of this paragraph; and

(b) lay copies of each statement and of his report before each House of Parliament.").

Page 59, line 25, leave out ("section") and insert ("paragraph").
Page 59, line 38, leave out from beginning to end of line 14 on page 60 and insert—
("15. —(1) Except where sub-paragraph (7) gives the Chairman power to act on his own, any general function of the Commission must be performed through a group selected for the purpose by the Chairman.
(2) The group must consist of at least three persons one of whom may be the Chairman.
(3) In selecting the members of the group, the Chairman must comply with any requirement as to its constitution imposed by any enactment applying to specialist panel members.
(4) If the functions to be performed through the group relate to a newspaper merger reference, the group must, subject to sub-paragraph (5), consist of such reporting panel members as the Chairman may select.
(5) The Secretary of State may appoint one, two or three persons from the panel maintained under paragraph 22 to be members and, if he does so, the group—

(a) must include that member or those members; and

(b) if there are three such members, may (if the Chairman so decides) consist entirely of those members.

(6) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2) to (5), a group must consist of reporting panel members or specialist panel members selected by the Chairman.
(7) While a group is being constituted to perform a particular general function of the Commission, the Chairman may—

(a) take such steps (falling within that general function) as he considers appropriate to facilitate the work of the group when it has been constituted; or

(b) exercise the power conferred by section 75(5) of the 1973 Act (setting aside references).").

Page 61, leave out lines 23 to 26 and insert—
("22. The Secretary of State must maintain a panel of persons whom he regards as suitable for selection as members of a group constituted in connection with a newspaper merger reference.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
7.45 p.m.
Clause 45 [Appealable decisions]:
[Amendments Nos. 144F to 144H not moved.]:
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 145:
Page 22, leave out line 36.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 145A:
Page 22, line 40, at end insert ("5(1)(c),").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 145B. They add to the list of appealable decisions in Clause 45(3). As my noble friend Lord Simon indicated in Committee, we have been reflecting on whether there are any omissions from this list, given our policy that all substantive decisions should be appealable. We have concluded that the list, as it stands at the moment, does not cover the directors' decisions under Clause 5(1)(c), Clause 4(3)(b) or Clause 4(5). These are respectively decisions to add additional conditions or obligations to individual exemptions where the director has reasonable grounds for believing that, first, there has been a material change in circumstances since he granted an individual exemption; secondly, as regards decisions as to the period that an individual exemption will last; and, thirdly, decisions as to the starting date of individual exemptions. All these decisions have substantive effect. So it is right that they should be appealable. Amendments Nos. 145A and 145B ensure that that is the case. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 145B:
Page 22, line 42, at end insert—
("() as to the period fixed under section 4(3)(b), or
() as to the date fixed under section 4(5),").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 145C to 146C not moved.]
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 147:
Page 23, line 14, at end insert—
("() The existence of a right of appeal against a decision shall not prejudice the right of the person in respect of whose conduct that decision is made from commencing legal proceedings to challenge the lawfulness of that decision.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is concerned with the circumstances in which the existence of a right of appeal against a decision does not prejudice the right of the individual against whom that decision was made to go to the courts to establish the unlawfulness of that decision. I shall assume that the

381
Minister will accept this amendment, but for formality's sake I shall sit back and listen to what he has to say. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, the noble Lord will be extremely relieved to know that he will not have to sit and listen for long because I can confirm to him that we are doing nothing in the Bill to prevent the application of the normal rules of judicial review. Therefore, the lawfulness of decisions may be tested in the courts. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity to make that point clear.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for that reply. In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 46 [Third party appeals]:
[Amendments Nos. 147A to 149D not moved.]
Clause 47 [Appeal tribunals]:
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 149E:
Page 24, line 2, after ("Tribunals") insert ("and such other persons as he considers appropriate").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 150:
Page 24, line 2, after ("rules") insert ("about procedural and other matters").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 151 and 152. Clause 47 gives the Secretary of State the power to make rules for the competition commission appeals tribunal, but provides that the provisions of Schedule 8 shall not be taken to restrict the Secretary of State's powers in respect of such rules. I hope that it reassures the Minister to know that our amendments are intended only to probe the extent of the Secretary of State's power to override the provisions of Schedule 8. I beg to move.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord wishes to probe the extent of the powers. It may be that the noble and learned Lord's concern is to ensure that the power is not used to make rules about substantive legal points. If so, I can assure him that that is not at all our intention. Indeed, in construing the power as a whole it is clear that this is not a power to make rules about substantive competition law and cannot properly be used that way.
It is however important to ensure that content of the rules is not limited by Schedule 8. It would lengthen the Bill unnecessarily to deal with all the matters that may be contained in the rules in that schedule. We have picked out in the schedule various important points to indicate the type of rules we would intend to be able to make, and to make sure that there is a power to make rules on points where it may not otherwise be clear from the Bill that the power existed.
382
Amendment No. 152 relates to the power to include in the tribunal rules provisions about charging fees in relation to the costs of the tribunal. I have considerable sympathy with the spirit of the noble Lord's amendment. Given the commercial nature of the matters covered by this Bill, it is evident that the large majority of parties to appeals is likely to have access to considerable corporate funds. Nevertheless, if fees are to be charged in particular circumstances, we will indeed wish to be satisfied that this will not unreasonably deter proper access to the tribunal. I hope that those explanations satisfy the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, at this stage I am tempted to say to the noble Lord that that reply certainly does not satisfy me and thus to detain him for a great deal longer on a Thursday evening. However, the noble Lord may rest assured that I do not intend to do so. Having had to approach this Bill from the point of view of Opposition for the first time, it is interesting to note that not only probing amendments, but also Pepper amendments are being tabled in order to secure from time to time statements from the Government about what is intended in relation to any particular statutory provision. That is extremely valuable. The noble Lord has discharged that responsibility very adequately and, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 151 to 152A not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Bill [H.L.]
7.54 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Statutory interest]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, leave out from ("interest") to ("in") in line 9.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, it may be for the convenience of the House if we consider also Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 7, 11 and 17.
Our policy has been that interest due under the proposed legislation should be treated for all purposes in the same way as interest due under a term of a contract. It was for that reason that it was decided that the statutory right to interest should have effect as an implied term in contracts. Since there has been some question of whether the Bill as presently drafted ensures identical treatment in all cases, we decided to reflect further on the matter. In moving this amendment, I want

383
to make it quite clear that no distinction is to be drawn between contractual and statutory interest. I hope that noble Lords will find that helpful.
The courts have regarded some statutory interventions in contract law as statutory rather than contractual even where the means adopted by the statute is contractual. That is a good reason for proceeding as we have. I hope that the House will feel that the Government have reacted prudently to the advice that we have received, for which I am most grateful. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, in responding briefly to the noble Lord, first we on this side of the House extend our warm thanks for the way in which he has so positively responded to a number of the concerns expressed in Committee. I hope that his department, and other departments, will recognise that the use of the Moses Room for such Committee stages can yield some real advantages in that we get through the business quickly. If constructive proposals are advanced, the Government then have the opportunity to reflect on them and to bring forward their own amendments. That is a particular advantage with Bills such as this.
As I intend to intervene on only this amendment, I also thank the noble Lord for his letter responding to a number of the points that I raised in relation to Scotland. The noble Lord has been good enough to let me know that a copy of that letter has been placed in the Library. I know that there is a copy in the Library, but it has always been a mystery to me how other noble Lords are meant to discover that—that is, unless one goes along to the Library from time to time and asks, "Has Lord Clinton-Davis written any letters to anybody, and has he placed copies here in the Library?". As I regard the noble Lord's response as extremely helpful, I take this opportunity to put on a rather more public record the fact that he has given me a full reply to my points. Those in Scotland and elsewhere who are concerned about this matter now have due notice of where they can secure a copy of that response. I thank the noble Lord for that.
Perhaps I may now place on the record one point of concern. I accept what the noble Lord says both in relation to this Bill and to that on Scotland, but I have some unease. If a transaction across the Border were to go to court, there might in accordance with principles of legal and commercial certainty—theoretically at least—be three different rates of interest. That is undesirable but, regrettably, it is a necessary consequence both of the constitutional changes proposed and of this Bill. With only that observation, I repeat my gratitude to the noble Lord for the positive and constructive way in which he has responded to my concerns.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I reiterate the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for the way in which the more relaxed atmosphere of the Moses Room was used to such good advantage. I entirely support the amendment that he has just moved. I am also grateful for the individual meetings organised by the noble Lord in which matters could be gone into further. We seem
384
to be thanking the noble Lord before the Bill is passed. Normally, we do that right at the end. Nevertheless, this has been a very successful operation. In saying that I hope that the few amendments which the noble Earl, Lord Home, and I shall move later will he sympathetically considered.
8 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am most grateful for the very courteous and pleasant remarks that have been made about the way in which I have sought to respond to the debates that have taken place in this Chamber. I have also learnt a great deal. I was always under the impression that all those Peers who could be seen in the Library were looking for letters from me. I am equally puzzled. I have been the subject of such response before. I have never found anything in the Library that is remotely relevant to my concerns in relation to such Bills. Nevertheless, I appreciate what has been said. Noble Lords may perhaps begin to feel that flattery will get them anywhere.
As to the Moses Room procedure, this was the first such Bill in which I was involved as a Minister. I have done it before when in Opposition. I believe that it has a purpose. Perhaps one of its disadvantages is that only those who are vitally interested in the Bill will attend, whereas when the House sits like this the Benches are crowded. I believe that it has a positive advantage, and I am glad that both noble Lords have spoken as they have.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendments Nos. 2 and 3:
Page 1, line 9, at end insert—
("(1A) Interest carried under that implied term (in this Act referred to as "statutory interest") shall be treated, for the purposes of any rule of law or enactment (other than this Act) relating to interest on debts, in the same way as interest carried under an express contract term.").
Page 1, line 11, at end insert ("that would otherwise be conferred by virtue of the term implied by subsection (1)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 2 [Contracts to which Act applies]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 21, leave out from first ("agreement") to end of line 22.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4. It will be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendment No. 16. During Committee stage I said that I would consider further whether it was necessary to exclude conditional sale and hire purchase agreements from the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to prevent or deter late payment because it is wrong that a customer should use its suppliers as a source of unauthorised credit. It was never our intention to give a right to claim interest on authorised credit. For that reason conditional sale and hire purchase agreements were excluded, they being essentially a form of authorised credit. It was not therefore appropriate to include them in the Bill.
I reflected further on the matter and was persuaded by the argument that some such agreements might not include provision for a remedy in the event of late payment of an instalment and repossession of the goods might not be a practical or appropriate remedy in many instances. We accepted that such agreements should in principle be subject to the legislation. Where the agreement includes a remedy for late payment Part II will apply, thereby ensuring that statutory interest cannot be claimed on top of that contractual remedy.
I believe that my noble friend Lord Borrie and the noble Earl, Lord Home, referred in Committee to the question of conditional sale agreements which consisted of ROMALPA or retention of title clauses. It was argued that these agreements should not be excluded from the Bill. We looked again at the definition of conditional sale agreements in the Bill which came from the Consumer Credit Act 1974 rather than the Sale of Goods Act 1979. I am advised that such ROMALPA agreements were never excluded from the legislation, but this amendment now clarifies the position beyond doubt. I am glad to respond positively again to the points made by noble Lords. I also thank them for the representations that they made to me before Report stage tonight.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Period for which statutory interest runs]:
Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 32, after ("debt") insert ("(that is, the day on which the debt is to be created by the contract)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 5. It will be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 6, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 19. I seek to honour a commitment that gave at Committee stage to review the excessive credit periods and how the Bill deals with them. The Bill as originally drafted provided a remedy for the circumstance where a debtor insisted upon an unreasonably long period of credit so as to avoid potential claims for interest. I do not intend to reiterate how the Bill achieves that end because that is already on the record. However, I understood the concern that was expressed that legislation should be as clear as possible. I recognised that that reflected the concerns of the wider business community.
This group of amendments seeks to clarify the position. I draw your Lordships' particular attention to Amendment No. 14. The new clause extends the operation of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 for the purposes of this legislation to contract terms that are not contained in the standard written terms of the purchase. The response to the Government's consultation on these amendments has been positive. I believed that it was right to consult upon them, although I concluded that there was a great deal in what had been said. We believe that this group of amendments meets the concerns expressed at Committee stage. I hope that the amendments go a long way towards clarifying how the Bill will combat the setting of excessive credit periods.
The Earl of Home: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for looking again at the wording of this clause.
386
As he rightly says, he seeks to address a point that has been of concern to industry. I know that it is not the intention of the Government to disturb any existing tried and tested methods of trade, and I believe that these amendments go a long way towards proving that. They also reduce the opportunities whereby late payers can escape liability and therefore we support them. In Committee I attempted to link this Bill with the Unfair Contract Terms Act. However, I am the first to admit that the wording of the Minister is considerably more elegant than mine. Therefore, we on these Benches support the amendment.
Lord Meston: My Lords, likewise we on these Benches believe that the amendments meet the concerns expressed at Committee stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendments Nos. 6 and 7:
Page 2, line 32, at end insert ("unless the debt relates to an obligation to make an advance payment").
Page 3, line 5, leave out ("contractual provision") and insert ("contract term").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 5 [Rate of statutory interest]:
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 9, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has been grouped with Amendment No. 9 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Home. It is a small but important amendment which I moved in Committee. It received a sympathetic response from the noble Lord, Lord Haskel. It replaces the word "may" with the word "shall" in line 9 on page 3. The simple reason for it is that if it were not an obligation on the Secretary of State, the whole purpose of the Bill would fall. I am glad that the logic of that argument was accepted. I beg to move.
The Earl of Home: My Lords, we support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. As my amendment is grouped with it, I say merely that I am concerned that the way in which the formula by which the rate of interest is arrived at should be seen to be agreed by that part of government mostly involved with finance; namely, the Treasury. It would make it much easier for suppliers to explain to potential purchasers, particularly overseas purchasers, that it is a formula worked out within government rather than one set by an individual.
The additional words in paragraph (b) of the amendment will also add credibility. I remain unhappy about paragraph (b) because I still do not see how the Secretary of State will publicise changes in the rate at the time of high volatility of interest rates in a form which will enable suppliers to pick up those changes easily. I suspect that my colleagues in another place will continue to press for an answer on that point in due course.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the fact is that the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, could not possibly operate if the Secretary of State did not set the

387
rate of interest. Knowing the Treasury, I just cannot imagine circumstances in which she would do so without its agreement. I cannot remember whether I said this in Committee, but, if I did, it is an old Minister repeating stale jokes—it was Winston Churchill who said that the Treasury was like an inverted Micawber waiting for something to turn down. One has to be careful when dealing with it. I did not say that, did I?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope not!
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, my noble friend who speaks for the Treasury in this House says that he hopes not. I am pleased that both noble Lords have retabled the amendments to Clause 5(1), and, of course, we are happy to accept them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Home The Earl of Home moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 9, after ("order") insert ("made with the consent of the Treasury").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 13, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) Before making such an order the Secretary of State shall, among other things, consider the extent to which it may be desirable to set the rate so as to—

(a) protect suppliers whose financial position makes them particularly vulnerable if their qualifying debts are paid late; and

(b)deter generally the late payment of qualifying debts.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, again, in moving the amendment I am seeking to address the concerns raised by the noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord Meston, and the noble Earl, Lord Home, in connection with the powers of the Secretary of State to prescribe a rate of statutory interest and the factors which she should be obliged to consider in taking that action.
Amendment No. 7 obliges the Secretary of State to consider both factors in Clause 5(2) in reaching any decision to alter the rate of statutory interest. The words "among other things" and "inter alia" amount to the same thing. Apparently the use of a foreign language makes the whole thing illicit and would no doubt cause the whole Bill to collapse. The amendment makes it clear, as we agreed in Committee, that the Secretary of State will be free to consider other factors while deliberating upon changes to the interest rates. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, again, I am grateful to the Minister. The wording proposed in Amendment No. 10 seems to be a great improvement on the Bill in its original form.
The Earl of Home: My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Meston. I am also grateful to the Minister for agreeing to the amendment that I proposed in Committee, albeit in the wrong language. At least he
388
was not insulted. Obviously it is important to look after those who are most likely to be embarrassed financially by late payers, and we support the amendment.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I was intrigued when on an earlier amendment the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, who has now left the Chamber, referred to receiving correspondence from my noble friend the Minister in response to matters he had raised in Committee. I, too, received a letter from my noble friend in relation to this clause. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, I was somewhat concerned over the formula which goes:
"A copy of the letter has been put in the Library of the House".
I wondered how it worked. I went along to the Library today and asked to see a copy of this letter and whether any other letters had been sent by my noble friend in relation to the Bill on other subjects.
I am afraid that after a little search nothing could be found. Unfortunately, because of involvement with the Competition Bill this afternoon, I was unable to go back and make further inquiries. I wished to make a point similar to that made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, and the more specific point that I had a little difficulty in understanding the letter from my noble friend which was concerned with whether the word "deterring" in the clause, which provides:
"deterring the late payment of qualifying debts".
could be interpreted as including the possibility of a penal rate of interest. I was not sure what the response indicated. The Minister's response stated:
"The wording also covers the possibility that the forthcoming Directive might require the rate to he set at a deterrent level".
There my noble friend uses the word "deterrent", but in the consultative document put out earlier by the department, Annex B in relation to Europe states:
"A penal rate of interest may be levied by the Directive".
Page 19 of the consultative document asks the question:
"Should a penal rate of interest apply in order to deter late payment?".
In other words, at various stages in the consideration of this Bill the department seems to have been using the words "deterring" and "penal" as being more or less the same. I am left a little unclear. I am sure that many businesses would like to have the matter cleared up and not just through a letter which may or may not be available in the Library. Of course no one knows that there is a letter in the Library unless they have been so informed. A number of businesses and Members of this House might be interested to clear up the point as to what is permissible under the clause and what are the Government's intentions.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the reason that the letters are missing might be that we described them as "billets doux" and consequently everyone was misled. I do not know. I shall look into the matter, because I was under the impression that the letters had been sent to the Library. Perhaps it was second-class mail, I do not know.

389
There is, of course, as my noble friend will realise, a view that we have taken that rates of interest should not be penal. because that is offensive to the law, or can be construed as offensive to the law.
If there is some inconsistency in the letters that I have written, I shall look into the matter. However, in this context they amount to one and the same thing. In order to deter, the word "deter" is used in the Bill and that is the essential point.
The Green Paper referred to the approach contained in a possible draft directive emerging from the European Commission. We have not yet examined the detail of that. It is still open for a draft directive to be changed and for the word "deter", if there is a conflict, to be used instead. It is our preferred term. I hope that that is helpful to the noble Lord. Provided that no offence is caused in the interpretation of the court, no trouble will be caused.
I am advised that a deterrent level may be required by the director. There is distinction in that a very high rate of interest may be a penalty. A deterrent rate may apply where the rate is greater than that needed to recompense weak businesses. The point is that it is not necessarily punitive.
Lord Meston: My Lords, we have been round the course previously. Is not the fact that needs to be grasped that the word "penal" has a peculiar meaning in English civil law? Conceptually, one must accept that while all penalties are deterrents not all deterrents are penal. The Government are correct in saying that they should be looking at the deterrent rates of interest rather than the penal rates of interest.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. He is a distinguished Silk and I believe he knows what he is talking about.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Purpose of Part II]:
Lord Haskel moved Amendments Nos. 11 and 12:
Page 3, line 37, leave out ("under this Act") and insert ("that would otherwise apply").
Page 3. line 42, leave out from ("term") to end of line 2 on page 4.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 10 [Interpretation of Part II]:
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendments Nos. 13 and 14:
Page 4, line 42, leave out from first ("interest") to end of line and insert ("or any contractual remedy other than interest").
Page 5, leave out lines 10 to 12 and insert ("vary the right to statutory interest is a reference to terms altering in any way the effect of Part I in relation to a qualifying debt (for example by postponing the time at which interest starts to run or by imposing conditions on the right to interest).").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 15:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—

CONTRACT TERMS RELATING TO THE DATE FOR PAYMENT OF THE CONTRACT PRICE
(" . —(1) This section applies to any contract term which purports to have the effect of postponing the time at which a qualifying debt would otherwise be created by a contract to which this Act applies.
(2) Sections 3(2)(b) and 17(1)(b) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (no reliance to be placed on certain contract terms in England and Wales and in Scotland) shall apply in cases where such a contract term is not contained in written standard terms of the purchaser as well as in cases where the term is contained in such standard terms.
(3) In this section "contract term" has the same meaning as in section 10(1).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 [Interpretation]:
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendments Nos. 16 and 17:
Page 6, line 39, leave out from first ("agreement") to ("as") in line 40 and insert ("has the same meaning").
Page 7, line 10, after ("of') insert ("the term implied by").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 16 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
The Earl of Home The Earl of Home moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 7, line 21, after ("force") insert—
("() as respects contracts where the purchaser is a public sector body and the supplier employs more than 50 persons, at the end of the period of three months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed;
() as respects any other contract,").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Bill envisages that, as part of the phasing arrangements, companies employing fewer than 50 people may sue other companies of any size or public sector bodies from day one. However, companies employing more than 50 people may not sue public bodies from day one. That seems rather strange to me.
I tabled a probing amendment in Committee asking that large companies should be able to make claims on other large companies. The Minister kindly said that he assumed that I included the public sector. Indeed, I did. He further said that large businesses are well able to look after their own contractual arrangements. But the public sector is the biggest business of all. Why cannot it look after itself? Why should the public sector need more time to get its act together compared with private sector big business? I do not understand the reasoning behind the noble Lord's submission, unless, for instance, he knows that the public sector owes so much money to so many large companies and is so late with its payments that the Government would be embarrassed if the figures became public knowledge.
Are the Government from day one not prepared to tell their own people to pay up or to stand up in public to be counted? I believe that the Government should set an example through the public sector and thus demonstrate their own commitment to the Bill. If the Government want reciprocity on this, I can see no reason why we should not support a proposal whereby the public sector can make claims on big business from day one. Indeed, the Government have time to introduce an amendment to that effect in the Bill in another place.
However, I am not so much concerned on behalf of very large companies, for it is unlikely that their business with the public sector will be so great that late payment will seriously jeopardise their existence. But the Government's method of dividing companies into big and small means that many companies are deemed under the definition in the Bill to be big but are at best

391
medium sized. Some of those may well rely on public sector contracts for most—in some cases, perhaps, all—of their business and it is invidious that these people should be precluded at the beginning.
I am sure that the Government do not wish the public sector to be able to hide behind the provisions of the Bill or to discriminate against the type of medium sized company that I have described. Furthermore, many such medium sized companies may have contracts with local authorities, which, we must say, do not have a brilliant reputation for prompt payment. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I support the amendment so effectively moved by the noble Earl. As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will know from our private discussions, I believe that we should move faster than is proposed. While I accept that there is a strong case for the phasing to enable small companies to enter at a slower rate and not have claims made against them until some time has elapsed and they have been able to put their affairs in order, there seems to be no reason whatever why the public sector should not subject itself to claims being made under the terms of the Bill.
The local authorities are big users of private sector services, but as I know from experience, some delay in making payment sometimes on grounds which after careful investigation are not sustainable. That leads to a considerable delay in payment being made. I agree with the noble Earl that the Government ought to have the courage of their convictions. We support their convictions in the Bill and believe that the public sector should be included right at the beginning and that claims could be made against any part of it, whether at ministerial level or local authority level. The Government could then set a good example and give the desirable proposition a good momentum.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. They made representations to me and we had an interesting discussion in the office in my department. I know that they feel strongly about the matter.
I believe that, having regard to the consultations which we entered into on the proposals, we ought to wait and see. I remind the House that they received widespread support, with 87 per cent. of business respondents to the Green Paper expressing support for phasing and 85 per cent. supporting the proposed timetable. Those factors are rather compelling. Therefore, we do not intend to extend the initial commencement period of the Bill to include claims by large businesses against other large businesses or the public sector. But I believe that one ought to wait and see. We shall be very flexible about this, but we want to see how the Bill operates in practice. If it becomes clear that there is a demand for a change then the important thing is to respect the purposes of the Bill which I have outlined previously in our debate today. It is all about seeking to improve the payment culture. If we are not succeeding in attaining those objectives, then we shall have to look carefully at ways and means of dealing with the matter. But I am cautious about
392
interfering with what we are seeking to do in the light of those consultations that were extremely profound and which received such substantial support in relation to our proposals.
I take the matter further to deal with local authorities. Local authorities are already required to pay all invoices promptly. The Audit Commission has set a performance indicator for the current year that local authorities in England and Wales must monitor and publish details of the percentage of their bills paid on time.
National payment performance data will he published by the Audit Commission in February of next year and we shall continue to work with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to encourage best practice within local authorities. I know also that my honourable friend Mrs. Barbara Roche, the Minister responsible for small firms, will be attending the Central Local Partnership meeting on 3rd March with the DETR and the Local Government Association, where prompt payment by local authorities figures substantially on the agenda.
We shall also be looking at and monitoring carefully the effect of the legislation, as I have indicated, not least through the Payment Observatory of the Credit Management Research Group at Bradford University, to which I referred in our earlier debates.
Therefore, I reiterate that if it seems sooner rather than later that there is a need to extend the right to large businesses so that they can claim against the public sector, if that appears to be a requirement in the light of experience, we can do so after consulting interested parties again, including the Better Payment Practice Group, under the power conferred by Clause 16(3). I hope that we can agree at present to give the Government's phasing proposals an opportunity to work before we undertake any consideration of changes to them.
It seems to me also that the publication point is met by what is happening. In fact, we had a striking illustration of how exposure could result in rather earlier payment. By opening the matter to public gaze, I understand that one of your Lordships was paid very promptly when there had been a question of late payment. I cannot remember the exact details. Therefore, on the face of it it seems that public exposure counts and that is what I have been talking about in terms of the Audit Commission's report which I hope will have a singularly beneficial effect.
In those circumstances, I cannot accept the amendment which has been moved and spoken to so eloquently. I hope that your Lordships will come to the conclusion that we should give the Bill an opportunity to work having regard to the caveat which I have already mentioned.
8.30 p.m.
The Earl of Home: My Lords, I regard that as a very unsatisfactory answer. I do not quite see how experience will make the situation any clearer. Are 1,000 companies going to write to the Minister to say, "We were going to sue next week but we are not going to because we are not allowed to"? If individual companies

393
within the public sector publish their late payment results, we shall not know whether the companies concerned are small or large. I do not believe that experience will help at all in this regard.
The Government are saying, "Do as I say, not as I do". They are giving carte blanche to the more incompetent parts of the public sector to continue in their bad and slothful ways. The Government are letting down a great many medium-sized businesses which the Minister said on Second Reading were the companies which he wanted to help. I believe that part of industry will be sorely disappointed by the lack of leadership by example which the Government have shown by their reluctance to consider the amendment.
However, the Government still have time to reconsider their position. I beg the Minister to think again in the light of what I have said. As the noble and
394
learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, said, discussions on this Bill have been cordial and, for the most part, very constructive. I echo everything he said in that regard. In the light of what has been said and in the hope that the Minister will reflect on the point with his colleagues, although I feel strongly on the matter, I shall not divide the House on the amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
In the Title:
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 19:
Line 3, at end insert ("; and for connected purposes").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before nine o'clock.

  Bahrain: Detentions
  Lord Avebury
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they have received any information from the British Embassy in Bahrain about the detention, after the end of their sentences, of Majid Milad, Nizar Al-Qarea, Hussain Al-Tattan, Abbas Al-Ardi, Raed Al Khawajah, who were given prison sentences of three years by the State Security Court in early 1995; and whether, in accordance with the Foreign Office Mission Statement, they will make representations to the Government of Bahrain concerning the detention of persons. [HL546]

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)
  Our Embassy in Bahrain have no information about these five detainees but will make enquiries of the Bahraini authorities. In all our contacts with the Bahraini government, we have expressed concern about the high number of detainees in Bahraini prisons and have urged them to either charge or release all those being held. We will continue to do so.

  Ascension Island: Civilian Flights
  Lord Beaumont of Whitley
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  How soon they expect Ascension Island to be open to civilian flights and what civilian flights they expect to use the facility when it opens. [HL554]

  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
  Negotiations to open up Wideawake airfield on Ascension to civilian aircraft are continuing with the United States, which operates the airfield under the Bahamas Agreement of 1956. The next round of negotiations is scheduled to take place in Washington before Easter. We cannot at present estimate when civilian flights might begin. Once Ascension is open to civilian air traffic, we expect charter and cargo flights to be the initial civilian users of the airport.

  Nuclear Weapons: Professor Booth's Report
  Lord Judd
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they have studied Nuclear Weapons: Britain's Role in the Transition from a MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) to a SANE (Security After Nuclear Elimination) World published by the International Security Information Service in 1997; and to what extent they endorse the analysis and conclusion by its author, Professor Ken Booth. [HL548]
  WA 52
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
  I am aware of the International Security Information Service report to which the noble Lord refers.

  Her Majesty's Government wholeheartedly endorses Professor Booth's goal of a nuclear weapons-free world and his acceptance that this cannot be achieved overnight.

  We need to proceed towards our goal in a practical and realistic way, which is why we are examining all aspects of our nuclear policy in the Strategic Defence Review and elsewhere.

  Light Weapons: UN Control
  Lord Judd
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  In the light of the experience in Africa, Central America, former Yugoslavia and elsewhere, what steps they are taking, together with fellow members of the United Nations Security Council, to ensure that the collection and destruction of light weapons are given high priority in peacekeeping and conflict resolution; and what specific lessons have been learned from Mali in 1995–96. [HL550]

  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
  The UN works closely with fellow members of the UN Security Council to ensure that demobilisation and disarmament are included, where appropriate, in the mandate of UN peacekeeping operations authorised by the Security Council, as for example, was recently done in Angola (MONUA) and Guatemala (MINUGUA). The UK has also endorsed the report of the UN panel of experts on small arms, encouraged the recently appointed Under Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs to give a high priority to a reduction in the illicit trade in small arms, and played a leading role in developing an EU project to combat the illegal trafficking of light weapons in Southern Africa.

  The example of Mali shows that a 'security first' approach, based on building the capacity of local police, and strengthening border controls and demobilisation, has an important role to play in establishing a firm foundation for economic growth and development. This approach now forms an integral part of HMG's overall development policy.

  Iraq
  Lord Kennet
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they believe the credibility of the United Nations would be enhanced by an attack on Iraq by one or two of its members without a new Security Council resolution explicitly authorising it; and to what would any United Kingdom/United States attack on Iraq be "proportionate", as the Geneva conventions require. [HL585]

  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
  It would not be sensible at this stage to speculate on the possible circumstances of any military action against Iraq.
  WA 53
  We and other members of the Security Council continue to pursue by diplomatic means the objective of total Iraqi compliance with the Council's demands.

  Northern Ireland Asset Register
  Baroness Denton of Wakefield
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Why the National Asset Register does not contain the assets of the Northern Ireland Civil Service and where these are available. [HL572]

  Lord McIntosh of Haringey
  As the Northern Ireland Civil Service is administered separately from the civil service in Great Britain it was decided that the assets of the Northern Ireland departments should be published by the Northern Ireland Department of Finance and Personnel as a separate document which would complement the National Asset Register published by the Treasury. The Northern Ireland Asset Register was issued on 9 December 1997. Copies can be obtained from the Department of Finance and Personnel, Parliament Buildings, Stormont, Belfast.

  Millennium Experience: Child's Advice
  Baroness Denton of Wakefield
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they approve the choice of a boy to vet the contents of the Millennium Dome. [HL571]

  Lord McIntosh of Haringey
  I understand that Work, one of the 11 design companies contracted to the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) to develop the content of the Millennium Experience Dome, occasionally asks an eight year-old boy to comment on its plans in order to gauge the level of their appeal to young people.

  In the next few months, the NMEC will have established its own network of Regional Junior Boards (in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the nine English regions) each comprising about twenty 9–16 year-olds nominated by local education establishments and agencies. The intention is that one member of each Regional Junior Board, together with representatives from the major national youth organisations and agencies, will form a National Junior Board. These boards will ensure that advice and the views of young people on the Millennium Experience project is directly and regularly considered.

  Tobacco Smuggling
  Lord Hardy of Wath
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether disparity in the rates of duty is a reason for the illegal or improper importation of tobacco; and, if so, what action they will take in this matter. [HL561]
  WA 54
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey
  Rates of duty are reviewed each year before the Budget. In addition the Government have recently completed a review of alcohol and tobacco smuggling and fraud. The findings of the review are also being considered in the run-up to the Budget.

  Farmers' Demonstrations at Welsh Ports
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  How much money they withheld from the December aid package for farmers as a result of the farmer' demonstrations at Stranraer, Fishguard and Holyhead. [HL466]

  The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue)
  None.

  Chinese Family Planning Association: Report
  Lord Braine of Wheatley
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they will place in the Library of the House a copy of the report commissioned by them on the Chinese Family Planning Association. [HL651]

  Lord Whitty
  A copy of the report was placed in the Libraries of the House in November 1996. A further copy is being provided.

  Northern Ireland: Legal Aid Review
  Lord Orme
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they have any proposals: (a) to review the administration of legal aid in Northern Ireland in light of the difference between the administration arrangements in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland; and (b) to extend to Northern Ireland any of the reforms to legal aid which are proposed for England and Wales. [HL697]

  The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg)
  I have instructed my officials in the Northern Ireland Court Service to:

  (a) undertake a review into arrangements for the administration and provision of legal aid in Northern Ireland, bringing forward recommendations for change where necessary; and

  (b) consider in the Northern Ireland context the proposed reforms to legal aid in England and Wales.

  My officials will be available to hear views from interested parties on these important matters.

  A Green Paper will be published for full consultation purposes in due course. In the meantime I would encourage all those with an interest in these matters to meet with my officials and contribute their views at an early stage.

  Mahogany for RN Ships: Source
  Lord Beaumont of Whitley
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they have established that the mahogany purchased to refurbish Royal Navy ships, as reported in the Observer of 1 February, did not come from an illegal source. [HL605]

  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert)
  It is our policy to purchase all the mahogany that we require from sustainably grown sources and we require specific certification to this effect from our contractors. The Brazilian mahogany to which the article in the Observer of 1 February 1998 referred was purchased on this basis and we hold certificates of conformity provided by our contractor from his suppliers assuring us that the timber was from a legal source. We have seen no evidence to substantiate or support the allegations in the Observer article, but, should such evidence come to light, we would take the matter up with the contractor concerned.

  Right to Roam: Urban Areas
  Lord Patten
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether their policies on the right to roam will extend to urban areas. [HL601]

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman)
  The Government plan shortly to issue a consultation paper setting out proposals for increasing access to open countryside. We do not envisage that these proposals will encompass land in urban areas.

  Salisbury Transport Study
  Lord Berkeley
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Further to the Written Answer by the Baroness Hayman on 27 January (WA 20), what are the terms of reference of the Salisbury Transport Study.[HL603]

  Baroness Hayman
  The terms of reference for the Salisbury Transport Study are as set out in a newsletter (Issue No. 1) published by the Government Office for WA 56
  the South West in December 1997, a copy of which will be placed in the Library.

  National Bus Company Pension Fund
  Baroness Turner of Camden
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  When they will reply to a request from the National Bus Company (NBC) Pension Trustees Ltd for funds to commence a legal action on the National Bus pension fund following a decision by the Pensions Ombudsman.

  Baroness Hayman
  After fully considering the legal advice and the relevant background, we have authorised the Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions to reply to NBC Pension Trustees Ltd offering to meet the trustees' costs with respect to a legal action on the National Bus Pension Fund.

  This offer is consistent with our hope that all outstanding legal matters concerning the former National Bus Company pension funds are satisfactorily resolved as soon as possible.

  Lead in Drinking Water
  Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What plans they have to release the report commissioned by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on the cost benefit analysis of reducing lead in drinking water.

  Baroness Hayman
  This report has now been published and we have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library of the House. This is an interesting study which attempts to cost the health and non-health benefits associated with reducing levels of lead in drinking water to the 25 µg/1 and 10 µg/1 levels required by the new EC Drinking Water Directive.

  The report indicates that in some circumstances it is cost effective to replace lead water pipes, although if the cost of pipe replacement could be reduced the case for action would be clearer. It also concludes that it is cost effective to introduce water treatment to reduce exposure even when benefits appear to be low.

  The report provides a useful input to the debate about the costs and benefits of reducing lead levels in water. However, this is a difficult area and further work will be necessary on the assumptions and approaches used.