Sitting of 19 March 1999

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Orders of the Day

  Referendums Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  9.34 am
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I went to Brussels on 3 December to visit the European Commission. Hon. Members will pleased to know that I shall not make a speech about the current problems of the Commission. Nor shall I speak about the single currency. However, not knowing that there was a private Member's Bill ballot, and not knowing its result, I was surprised, on reaching my office the following day, to find a large number of messages from people who wanted me to call them. Anyone who comes high in the ballot quickly discovers that he has friends he did not know about—or indeed, has never met.
  One is inundated with suggestions for the topic of a Bill. In some ways, that is somewhat insulting—it suggests that one has little imagination and that there are no issues on which one feels strongly. Perhaps most extraordinary were the hundreds of letters I received from supporters of Friends of the Earth. I have been a paid-up member of Friends of the Earth for many years and I know a great deal about the issues on which people wrote to me from all corners of the kingdom. I wonder whether any Member of the House is so feeble that he or she would choose the topic of a private Member's Bill solely on the number of letters received.
  Some sensible suggestions were made by serious organisations, and I was tempted by several of them. I was tempted, too, by my own hobby horses and by issues in which I strongly believe. However, one suggestion seemed justified beyond all others. I trust that no one will suggest that my choice has shown a weakness in my character. I have taken up the issue because of the merits of the case, and I was put under no pressure of any description to pursue it.
  I cannot pretend to believe that referendums are the best way of governing in a parliamentary democracy. Nevertheless, I accept that the decision on some fundamental constitutional issues is so important that every
  1384
  voter should have the opportunity to register his or her opinion and to decide the matter. In holding that opinion, I agree—rather unusually—with the Prime Minister, who said on 24 July 1994:
  "Although there are cases for having referendums on certain issues and indeed we have said we will have one on the electoral system, I am actually not a great exponent of government by referendum."
  Curiously, the Prime Minister seems to have changed his mind a little. The people of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London have all had the opportunity to vote in referendums over the past 18 months. Referendums, therefore, have—for good or ill—become part of the government of the United Kingdom, and part of the political process.
  Other referendums proposed for the future might have an even more fundamental impact than those already held. Both main parties fought the general election on a pledge to hold a referendum before joining the single currency, and the Liberal Democrats may have pledged that too. The Government have made it plain that they will stand by their pledge.
  Proportional representation might be the subject of a referendum, although, as the Labour party is split straight down the middle on the matter, that seems marginally less likely at the moment. If proportional representation were to be introduced following a referendum, it would change the face of government in the UK.
  Regional assemblies may be introduced following regional referendums, and that could lead to a fundamental shift of authority from both national and local government. We have even heard some pretty strange ideas about holding referendums by county or district on whether fox hunting should take place in a particular locality.
  I have introduced the Bill, therefore, because referendums are here to stay—at least in the short term.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Does my hon. Friend think that there has been a curious omission from the Labour Administration's referendum mania? No one is proposing a referendum for English people about whether they would like their own Parliament.
  Mr. Robathan: My hon. Friend takes her individual position on that matter, but I have never met anyone in England who really wants a Parliament. I do not think that many people in Wales want a National Assembly, but that is another matter.
  Referendums are here to stay—at least in the short term. I am a democrat and I believe that the democratic process must be fair, and must be seen to be fair. That idea is neither unique nor original to me; I am delighted to say that the realisation that referendums need fair rules has been growing for a number of years. It is to the benefit of a referendum if people can concentrate on the issues rather than on technical questions about the mechanics of referendums and whether they are equitable and fair. If they are not, people will argue about the result after it has happened.
  Fair rules should facilitate a result that is beyond question, and that can be accepted by all as a true and fair account of the wishes of a well-informed electorate. In November 1996, the joint Electoral Reform Society

  1385
  and constitution unit commission on the conduct of referendums, under Sir Patrick Nairne, concluded:
  "There are no established rules, accepted by the main political parties, for the efficient and fair conduct of referendums. If referendums are to be held in the future and their results accepted, they should be conducted efficiently and ensure the fair presentation of competing views."
  I do not always pray in aid the Electoral Reform Society, but that organisation generally wishes to see a fair and democratic process. For instance, on proportional representation we would disagree, but we would agree about the need for a fair referendum on that matter. Indeed, the aims of the Bill have widespread support across the political spectrum and from many organisations that may disagree on issues but agree on democracy. As well as the Electoral Reform Society, Charter 88, the Institute for Constitutional Research and the Jenkins commission have all identified and supported the need for fair rules.
  The referendums campaign, which was largely organised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), attracted a large number of signatories with all sorts of backgrounds. Certainly, many Conservatives signed up, but there were also a large number of Liberal Democrats from both Houses, Labour peers, at least eight Labour Members who stuck their heads above the parapet, Law Lords, bishops and academics, again from all parts of the political spectrum.
  I stress that that was not a concerted or a sustained campaign. Together with other Members of both Houses I received one letter, which might just as easily have gone in the waste paper bin with all the junk that we get, including innumerable pleas to sign early-day motions on some obscure subject. Given the low-key nature of the campaign, the support that it has engendered is remarkable. That is because those people who concern themselves with democracy are concerned to establish a fair method of organising referendums.
  My Bill has 11 sponsors. Deliberately, there are three Labour Members, three Liberal Democrats and three Conservatives including me. We also have the invaluable support of the only Independent in the House, the hon. Member for Tatton, who is in Kosovo and so could not be here, together with one representative of the smaller parties. All four parts of the United Kingdom are represented. The House will appreciate that all the Conservatives come from England. Also, those four places that have had referendums are represented. Therefore, the sponsors represent a genuine cross-section of the House and, indeed, the country.
  The real genesis and spur for the Bill was the Neill committee report, "Standards in Public Life", on the funding of political parties in the United Kingdom, which was published last October. It made some sensible and important recommendations on the future conduct of referendums, but the first recommendation on referendums—the 83rd recommendation of the report—encapsulates all the others:
  "In any referendum campaign there must be a fair opportunity for each side of the argument to be properly put to the voters."
  1386
  The report quotes evidence given by Peter Riddell of The Times. I do not always agree with him—he is rather new Labour for me—but he gives reasoned evidence when he speaks of the
  "implications…for the way in which the political process operates, for fairness in funding and indeed for fairness in operation. Some things have happened which are already worrying…There should be clear rules over the funding of referendum campaigns, the current procedures are chaotic and unfair, especially when the Government is itself a participant."
  The report also comments on how political expediency can play a large part in determining how a referendum is organised at present. The report recommends that the Government of the day should remain neutral. One piece of evidence quoted in the report states that the Government, being on one side of the referendum in Scotland, was also able to
  "write the rules and an information leaflet and send it to every house."
  Neill agrees that the Government's being a player and writing the rules is fundamentally wrong.
  The Neill committee report also recommends that free mailing should be available to each side in the referendum, as takes place for general elections and as took place in 1975, which seems sensible.
  Mr. Andrew Dismore: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us where his Bill provides for free mailings and deals with the issue that he identified in the previous reference to the Neill report about the involvement of the Government in referendum campaigns.
  Mr. Robathan: If the hon. Gentleman will be a little less enthusiastic, he will discover that I am about to come to that. My Bill will only enact the key recommendations of Lord Neill and his committee. Many of the details would be left to a referendums commission. I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that in clause 1.
  I will now deal with the details of the Bill. It is a simple Bill of a mere six clauses.
  Sir Michael Spicer: Before my hon. Friend moves on, will he say why he thinks that the Government have been so longwinded and tardy in responding to the Neill report, which came out in October, as he said? Is not one of the most important aspects of this excellent debate, which he has initiated, the fact that we must get the Minister to tell us when they will respond to the report?
  Mr. Robathan: Of course I will let the Government answer for themselves. I am sure that the Minister will do so. If the inquiries that Governments set up to produce reports are genuinely independent, Governments sometimes get replies that they do not like—that applies to all Governments. I fear that the Government did not like the report as much as they had hoped to when they set up the inquiry into political funds. The Minister will have the opportunity to respond and I look forward to hearing his reply.
  The first clause sets up the referendums commission, which would enact Neill's central conclusion that there must be an election commission. Since the Bill is

  1387
  concerned with the more narrow issue of referendums, we have called it the referendum commission. Its role also relates to Neill's recommendation 93.
  The commission must be independent. In my view, the most suitable committee already exists—the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The numbers would have to be somewhat smaller, but it or a similar committee are what is envisaged in the Bill. It would be an independent, non-partisan committee headed by a High Court judge. The Bill would give the commission great powers to advise the Secretary of State and produce reports on referendums, which would have to be laid before the House and published.
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I am glad to hear that my hon. Friend wants an independent commission, but a commission is only as independent as the people who appoint the commissioners. Does he have any suggestions as to who should do the appointing?
  Mr. Robathan: My hon. Friend may be surprised to hear that I have some faith in this Government to observe some impartiality and the democratic process. Just in case anyone does not entirely trust the Government, not only will the Secretary of State make the appointments but the Speaker will have to approve them. We have greater faith in the Speaker, perhaps, than we have—occasionally—in one or two Ministers and possibly others in the Government.
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman referred to recommendation 93 of the Neill committee report, which says that the election commission should have as part of its remit reviewing referendums and referendum campaigns. Why does he think that a referendums commission is needed when that committee suggested an elections commission?
  Mr. Robathan: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would listen—I have been talking for only 10 minutes. The point is that the Neill committee suggested setting up an elections commission, but the Bill is more narrow and concerns referendums, so in the Bill it is called the referendums commission. However, it would play the same part as that envisaged for the elections commission and if the latter were ever set up, it would take over from the referendums commission. That will be made clear later in my speech.
  The Bill mentions that the commission could make recommendations on the wording of any question. In February 1975, NOP ran a poll asking a series of questions about a referendum on the Common Market. I do not always believe in opinion polls—sadly, as May 1997 showed, they tend to be right—but the 1975 poll was illustrative in that it managed to get a majority, on one factually incorrect question, for leaving the Common Market. It also managed to get an 18 per cent. majority in favour of staying in the Common Market on a different question. The result of the referendum was approximately two to one in favour of staying in. That illustrates what we all know: that the wording of the question can dictate the result of the referendum in favour of the person who has set the question.
  Significant recommendations could be made by the commission on other issues. The threshold of votes is important. Hon. Members will remember that that notion
  1388
  was included in the referendum in Scotland in 1979. For example, the Welsh Assembly has been set up on a vote of approval of only one quarter of the Welsh electorate. Another quarter, approximately, opposed setting up the Assembly and half the electorate did not care one way or the other. It is not the business of the Bill to determine what recommendations the commission might make, but that could be one area for examination. Another issue to be considered would be the timing of separate related referendums.
  The aim of the commission is to take political expediency out of the calculation of a referendum. The Welsh referendum was held exactly a week after the Scottish one—a case in point. The Government alleged that they were held on different days to avoid confusion. Most people in all parties would agree that the idea was that the Scottish vote, which was, rightly, expected to be heavily in favour, would influence the Welsh vote. The House might note that there does not seem to be any confusion about having separate elections to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and local authorities on the same day
  Mr. Gareth Thomas: The hon. Gentleman does not represent Wales or have the benefit of parliamentary colleagues who could advise him on the situation that prevailed in Wales before the election. If he had, he would realise that there is a media deficit in Wales, which does not have a national printed press such as the Scots enjoy. There was therefore a need for objective information sponsored by the Government on the implications of Welsh devolution. Does he accept that there are distinctions to be drawn between the Welsh and Scottish experiences of devolution?
  Mr. Robathan: With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, that was an unwise intervention. It is kind of him to make my case. The point about the Neill recommendations is that the Government should not determine what people think. The Government are bound to take a line, but, with all the paraphernalia of the civil service, they should not tell people which way to vote. The hon. Gentleman should read the Neill report with particular reference to its comments on the Welsh referendum.
  Mr. John Bercow: I am sorry further to trouble my hon. Friend on the composition of the referendums commission, a point that was ably raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), but does he agree that it is crucial that its composition should be scrupulously politically impartial? It is therefore essential to ensure either that it contains people of different political faiths or people of no known political convictions. Does he agree that it would be supremely inappropriate for someone such as Lord Jenkins to serve on it unless he were counterbalanced by someone of known contrary opinions on the matters in hand?
  Mr. Robathan: I accept that, but I think that the Home Secretary, who would appoint the commission, would be impartial. It is difficult to lay down too much in a private Member's Bill, though there may be scope for amendment. The Speaker's Office takes a pretty independent line. Madam Speaker would not allow a commission of such weight to be rigged.

  1389
  Clause 2 deals with the designation of referendum campaigns and requires a brief explanation. It relates to comments in the Neill report. It is intended that the referendums commission hear from all those who wish to be the designated campaign for a particular outcome. I hope that that would allow—indeed, encourage—groups pursuing the same end to come together in an umbrella group. The Neill committee's comments seem to have been influenced by the fact that both groups in the 1975 Common Market referendum were described as
  "entirely self-appointed federations of activists".
  I hope that broad-based, inclusive campaigns will be designated by the commission. That relates to recommendation 85 of the report.
  Clause 3(1) enacts recommendation 84, which states:
  "each side should be given equal access to an amount of core funding sufficient to enable it to mount at least a minimal campaign and to make its views widely known."
  Other recommendations on accounting are covered by clause 3.
  Judy Mallaber: I sympathise with the principles of the Bill, but, like others, I find its mechanics difficult to work out. Has the hon. Gentleman considered how designating referendum campaigns would work in extreme situations, such as the referendum on the Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland? Groups from opposite extremes supported the agreement while equally extremely opposed groups campaigned against it. Perhaps no proposal could cover that. Similarly, in the Scottish referendum, different political parties supported devolution but were not prepared to work together. I realise that the point is general and does not relate only to the Bill. It is a difficult issue affecting a general principle that I largely support.
  Mr. Robathan: The hon. Lady makes a sensible point, unlike one or two others. Clause 2(2) allows the commission to consider the ability of a group to conduct an effective campaign and the views of political parties. In Northern Ireland, it could have considered whether political parties were prepared to coalesce on the issue. It can consider the degree of public support and
  "such other matters as the Commission considers relevant."
  We must not be too prescriptive because that would take us away from the independent judgment of what happens in referendums that I want. It should not be for me to lay down that this or that group, generally or specifically, should be designated as a campaigner. The commission should consider such matters.
  To take Europe: many from all parts of the political spectrum wish to go into a single currency. Many, many groups wish to oppose it, from, dare one say it, the Conservative party, right the way across the spectrum to trade unions. It is up to those groups to get together and present themselves as a designated campaign or forgo core funding. That puts the onus on the groups involved, rather than on the Bill. It is left to the referendums commission to decide what to do.
  Judy Mallaber: The Bill is a useful opportunity to discuss difficult issues, and, even if it does not pass, we
  1390
  will return to them in a subsequent one. Would it be feasible to have two different designated campaign bodies on the same side of the argument? Unless it is a simple issue, there will be a great variety of interests that may not be prepared to coalesce but had equal claim to some of the money to argue their particular position.
  Mr. Robathan: I wish that I shared the hon. Lady's confidence that, if the Bill does not get through, the same measures will be pursued by the Government. I do not think that such designation would be reasonable. Lord Neill's report says that there should be one designated campaigner. It is a complicated report, so I shall not quote it in its entirety. People should come together. If they are not willing to, they can campaign on whatever they like. I am glad that this remains a free country. In 1979, the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell), when she was, I think, general secretary of the Scottish Labour party, said that she was not prepared to enter a loose umbrella group.
  Mr. Bercow: Soil her hands.
  Mr. Robathan: I think that that was the quote. That was up to her. It is up to any group to campaign as it wishes, but if people want public money—the dosh—they must come together in an umbrella group. Some people may not need the dosh.
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: Does my hon. Friend recall that part of the answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) is that this feature of the Bill was suggested by none other than the Government themselves?
  Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that assistance.
  Mr. William Cash: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Robathan: I will, and then I must make some progress.
  Mr. Cash: The question arises whether we would exclude money coming from certain quarters, not least the European Commission and the panoply of bodies in the European Union, because they have a vested interest in a yes vote. Another question is whether limits should be imposed on the amount of expenditure on either side of the argument. I am sure that those matters could be dealt with in Committee.
  Mr. Robathan: Those are extremely important points. The question of limits is raised in the Neill committee report. I have judged it best to leave the matter to the independent referendums commission. As for money from the European Commission, it seems to me that that would count as taxpayers' money—it certainly does not come from trees—and should be joined with the other stuff, but that would be up to the referendums commission.
  Mr. Peter Brooke: To return to what my hon. Friend said a moment ago about the Government's attitude to the issue that he raises, does he recall the Government's reaction to

  1391
  the Neill committee? They said that they agreed with the main thrust of its recommendations. Can my hon. Friend conceive of any circumstances in which the issue could not be said to fall within the main thrust of the recommendations?
  Mr. Robathan: Of course, no. It is entirely within the main thrust of the recommendations. The clause is designed solely to implement one of the Neill committee's recommendations.
  Mr. Dismore: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Robathan: I will, but I should make progress to give others who sit here waiting a chance to contribute.
  Mr. Dismore: I wish to pursue a different aspect of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber). Clause 2 says that the commission shall certify a body in relation to each of the possible outcomes of a referendum campaign. In the London referendum, mercifully, we had only two possible outcomes—for or against. If the Government had given the Opposition their way, we would have had an additional question on whether we should have a mayor or an assembly, and, if they had given the Liberal Democrats their way, there would have been a question on whether the assembly should have tax-raising powers. If all those questions had been incorporated, there would have been seven possible outcomes. Would the Bill allow for an individual or body to represent each of the seven different outcomes? As I read the Bill, it would.
  Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman is right to read the Bill in that way, but the point is that the referendums commission would determine what was fair in discussions with the Government as the Bill went through Parliament. The amount of money would not be enormous. I put a question to the hon. Gentleman for him to mull over quietly—I do not intend to give way to him again in the near future. Is the purpose of a referendum to discover what the electorate think on a particular issue? The answer may not be yes or no. It may be yes, no, yes, yes, perhaps this way or perhaps that way. If there is to be a referendum, it has to be fair. It is no good simply saying, "Back me, we are the Government. Trust Tony"—or whoever it might be.
  Clause 3(2) gives equal access to the broadcast media to both sides in a campaign. It relates to the general thrust of Neill about the
  "fair opportunity for each side of the argument to be properly put to the voters",
  in recommendation 83. It also reflects the comments that Neill makes on broadcasting:
  "The broadcasters fully recognise their obligation to be fair to the various parties participating in referendum campaigns and to be neutral between them".
  He concludes:
  "The broadcasters should consider allocating free airtime to the two umbrella organisations on each side of a referendum, if two such umbrella organisations exist. There seems no reason on the face of it why the broadcasters should not follow the lead of the election commission in this matter".
  1392
  Clause 4 deals with reports and relates to recommendation 93 of the Neill report. It puts the referendums commission in its context relating to the progress of legislation on a referendum through the Houses of Parliament.
  Judy Mallaber: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Robathan: I think not, for the moment.
  Clause 5 provides for money for expenses relating to the referendums commission and to the Bill, and clause 6 cites the measure as the Referendums Act 1999.
  This is a short and simple Bill. One might have thought that it was so simple that I could sit down now. Do I hear cries of "hear, hear"? No. One would have expected that the Government, who instituted the Neill committee in November 1997, would welcome any legislation that enacted the committee's recommendations as speedily as possible. It will certainly be a year between publication of the report and the time when the Bill comes back for Report and Third Reading.
  At my first meeting at the Home Office, I was pleasantly surprised by the sympathetic hearing that I received. However, sadly—the Minister is a decent chap—and unbelievably the Government now seem unwilling to accept the recommendations of the report that they instituted. I fear that the Government intend to block this cross-party measure, which all democrats support.
  Contrary to appearances, I am not entirely naive. My initial reaction was that I would meet some Government opposition. I have had a bet with a colleague that the Government would not give the Bill a fair wind—a bet that I have already won. The previous Government also had a great suspicion of private Member's measures, but I have gone to great lengths to allay the suspicions of this Government. There is no hidden agenda. This is just a very simple Bill to enact recommendations of which the Government appear to approve. There are some decent Government Members who, I hope, are as disappointed as I am that the Government may seem to obstruct the measure.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), has, I fear, been told to write to me to state that
  "it would not be sensible"
  to legislate at the moment. Weasel words. If this is genuinely a question of timing, I offer to withdraw the Bill now. I will withdraw it if the Home Secretary will come to the House and guarantee that the provisions of the Bill and all the recommendations of the Neill Committee on referendums will be placed on the statute book before any other referendum takes place in the United Kingdom. I think it unlikely that I shall be withdrawing the Bill.
  The Government's position is as follows:
  "The Home Secretary has made it clear that we will publish a draft Bill before the Summer Recess".
  Shall I list those White Papers, stated intentions and draft Bills that have been published and never seen the light of day? I have a list of draft Bills here. They have all been waiting more than a year and they include the Environment Agencies Bill, published in 1984, the Commonhold Bill, published in 1996, the Lotteries

  1393
  (Frequent Draw) Bill, published with a consultation letter in January 1998, and the Offences Against the Person Bill, published in February 1998. I wonder how much longer we will have to wait for all those Bills.
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Robathan: No.
  Draft Bills and White Papers have a habit of being kicked into the proverbial long grass. If a Bill containing the clauses in my Bill is promised for the next legislative Session, with the conditions that I have made already, I will withdraw my Bill, but the Minister tells me that such promise can be given, because
  "the Government's legislative programme for a Session is not announced in advance of the Queen's Speech."
  As a general rule, that may have some validity, but we all know that it is not true. It is quite one of the lamest excuses that I have ever seen given by a Minister or by his civil servants.
  In his courteous and friendly letter, the Minister states:
  "We intend to legislate on the main findings of the Neill report as a package."
  The letter points out that the report contains 100 detailed recommendations, but it does not say that all the recommendations, particularly those relating to referendums, will be enacted. The Government will argue that there is some logic in proceeding steadily and sensibly with the Neill package.
  I would accept that logic if the guarantee for which I have asked were given. But how can one accept the logic that may obstruct the Bill, when the Bill does not entail any great costs or cause any great problems for the legislative process, or for the civil service? It is a simple question of passing the recommendations into legislation. If it is never used because it is superseded by a Government Bill which incorporates its provisions, I shall be very content. My Bill could be passed, and members of the Neill committee could be provisionally appointed as the referendums commission but put on hold pending the Government's Bill, which could contain a clause saying that my Bill was repealed because all the provisions were now incorporated in the new package Government Bill. I would be very happy with that.
  My Bill might have deficiencies—I have never claimed to be a brilliant parliamentary draftsman, although I have received great assistance from the Public Bill Office, to whose staff I pay tribute. I should be happy to change its name to "The Referenda Bill" if its current title offends Latin scholars. I do not suffer from such a high degree of amour propre that I should mind in the least if the Government were to take over the Bill. However, what I, all hon. Members on both sides of the House and all democrats both inside and outside the House care about is that any future referendum in this country should be conducted according to fair rules. Past referendums have not allowed sufficient voter awareness. If referendums are to be part of our political process, voters must know both or all sides of the argument and be aware of how their vote will influence their life. If the Government obstruct the Bill, as I believe that they intend to do, I shall be
  1394
  hugely disappointed, not because of some misplaced pride or personal vanity, but because the Government will be obstructing the process of democracy.
  The Government's true position was given by the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) on 18 October, on "Breakfast with Frost"; I commend a tape or a transcript of that programme to hon. Members. When asked whether the Government were obliged to accept the Neill recommendations, the right hon. Gentleman replied:
  "We don't have to but we need to be mindful of the analysis that he is offering."
  The right hon. Gentleman is not present, and I apologise for not having mentioned to him that I would be quoting his words, but I am not criticising him. Even if his position is now more humble than it was then, he remains a force to be reckoned with in Government thinking.
  During the debate on the Neill report on 9 November, the Home Secretary was equally equivocal, especially about the position of the Government in a referendum. Let the Minister now present put all that equivocation behind him and say where the Government stand on all the recommendations of the Neill committee. Yesterday, I gave the Leader of the House, with the Home Secretary sitting next to her, an opportunity to state the Government's case, but the right hon. Lady failed to do so.
  Perhaps in all this can be seen the hand of Alastair Campbell: a man who defended the actions of Robert Maxwell through the pages of The Mirror and who was described by a High Court judge—perhaps the same judge as I would have to lead the referendums commission—as:
  "A witness in whom one can have no confidence".
  Sadly, however, he is a man whose influence on decisions made by the Labour Government is all-pervasive.
  The Government spend a lot of time calling themselves "the people's Government", and almost every policy is the people's this or the people's that. It is not a cheap jibe to point out that everyone in the House knows the contempt that the Government have shown, and continue to show, for Parliament. However, if they obstruct this valuable and small constitutional measure—a measure that will assist the people when voting in referendums—this arrogant Government will have shown that they have a contempt for the people that I thought even they would never dare to show. I commend the Bill to the House.
  10.13 am
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: I am glad to have an opportunity to speak on the Bill, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on having introduced it. I shall not support the Bill, but it gives us an opportunity to discuss the important issues surrounding referendums.
  Like the hon. Gentleman, I am not greatly enthusiastic about holding referendums, although I believe that, on certain important and crucial issues, it is right to give the people of this country their say through a referendum. The Government of the day were right to hold the 1975 referendum, because it gave the people an opportunity to make a decision on what was then the Common Market and is now the European Union. Similarly, it was right of the new Labour Government to follow the example set by the Labour Government in 1978–79 and hold referendums on whether to establish a Parliament in Scotland and an Assembly in Wales. Those referendums gave the people

  1395
  of Scotland and Wales the right to grant legitimacy to that form of devolution by showing that they wanted it. The results of those two referendums fully endorsed the commitment given during the 1997 general election and gave legitimacy to the bodies that are to be established after the May elections in Scotland and Wales.
  The hon. Member for Blaby referred to the London referendum. Again, it was right to hold a referendum on the subject of whether to have a mayor and assembly for London. This time, having reorganised London government, we do not want it to be undone as soon as there is a change of Government; the people have shown that that is what they want and that they do not want it to be changed subsequently. I well recall the Herbert commission in the 1960s recommending that changes be made to the system of local government. The year after the 1963 election, the new Greater London council took full effect, followed 10 years later by changes to the metropolitan counties. Those changes—reorganisation in London and in the rest of the country—were introduced by Conservative Governments, but were then undone by the Thatcher Government because the bodies concerned would not do exactly what she wanted them to do. This time, the people of London have expressed a clear view on what they want.
  There are two crucial future referendums. First, there is to be the referendum on whether to join the single currency. As a strong supporter of the euro, I believe the sooner that referendum is held, the better. Manufacturing industries in my constituency believe that it is crucial that Britain should be involved in the euro, and in the decision-making processes at an early stage, rather than trying to join it at a late stage. If we had been in Europe right at the start, we would have been in on the formulation of the common agricultural policy; as it is, we joined late and then tried to make changes.
  The second referendum to which we are committed is on the Jenkins proposals. I realise that I am standing behind some of my hon. Friends who hold a different view from mine on the question of proportional representation versus first past the post, but I am firmly committed to campaigning in favour of first past the post. However, it is right that the people of this country should be given a chance to determine whether any change should be made, because those are extremely important issues.
  New Zealand held a referendum on the same issues and, on the basis of an extremely low poll, eliminated first past the post from its system, with the result that, in the second-stage referendum, first past the post could not be considered. Even though the poll was far higher and people had changed their minds by the time the second referendum was held, they were not able to choose to stay as they had been, but had to vote for some alternative. It is therefore absolutely crucial that we get the question absolutely right when we hold our referendum on the same subject. The form of the question is an issue covered by the Bill. We have to ensure that the question is put correctly, so as to give people the proper choice.
  In connection with the issues of publicity and how opposing campaigns are run, we need to consider the only nationwide referendum held in this country: the 1975 referendum on the Common Market.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: Would the hon. Gentleman concede that the 1975 referendum was held
  1396
  simply to cover up the splits in the Labour party? The then Labour Government could not take a firm decision themselves, so they subcontracted the decision to the people of this country. They held a referendum to cover up the splits that the issue had caused in their own party.
  Mr. Pike: The hon. Gentleman might be partially correct, but it does not really matter; if he had been listening to what I was saying, he might not have intervened.
  I accept that, at that time, the Labour Government were divided, but they made a clear decision, right at the start, that all members of the party, both inside and outside Parliament, should be able to campaign whichever way they wanted during the referendum. We gave the people the opportunity at an early stage—we had been members of the Common Market for only a short time—to decide whether our future lay within the Common Market. The decision taken at that time underpins the way in which we have proceeded in the many years since then, through the single market, the Maastricht treaty, and so on.
  It is true to say that about two thirds—a majority—of Labour Members at that time supported the view of the then Prime Minister Harold Wilson that our future lay in Europe. Outside the parliamentary Labour party, about two thirds of Labour supporters rejected that view and only one third were in favour. I make no apologies for the fact that I campaigned vigorously for a yes vote. That did not help my immediate progress within my party, although it did not prevent my selection as the Labour candidate in 1981 to contest the seat of Burnley in the 1983 general election.
  Mr. Gareth Thomas: I share my hon. Friend's scepticism about the role of referendums and his fear that they will undermine the strength of Parliament. Although the Government were divided in 1975, that is no reason to argue against referendums—indeed, we could argue that a referendum should be held when a major constitutional issue must be determined and none of the political parties can reach a consensus about it.
  Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It may be that this country will further strengthen its links with Europe over the next 20-odd years.
  I referred to the events in 1975 because a clause in this Bill mentions the media. We must look back to 1975 and ensure that we do not make the same mistakes. Although I campaigned for a yes vote in 1975, I believe there was overwhelming pressure on the public to vote yes—despite the steps that were taken to try to ensure that both cases were represented fairly. The broadcasting media was not the only culprit: the overwhelming majority of the press campaigned for a yes vote. This Bill refers to controls on, and access to, the broadcast media, but it does not mention any other ares of the media. It is the same with general elections: we often talk about balance and access with regard to the broadcasting media, but we do not always insist that the same rules apply across the board.
  Mr. Philip Hammond: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's comments about the 1975 referendum. Does he accept that there is a distinction between a genuine referendum, when the Government remain neutral and there are real

  1397
  divisions across the board, and a bogus referendum, when the Government adopt a clear position but are unwilling to take the risk of testing it by going to the country in a general election?
  Mr. Pike: No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I hope that the Government will state clearly that they want the people of this country to vote yes overwhelmingly in a referendum on the euro. That was our position at the last election. We also said in our election manifesto that we would hold a referendum on the voting system. So we have a mandate to hold those referendums. Furthermore, we declared our intention to hold referendums on self-government for Scotland, Wales and London. I do not believe that a choice must be made between holding a referendum or going to a general election.
  Judy Mallaber: I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend's remarks. When canvassing during the election campaign specifically on the issue of the euro and whether a referendum could be useful in resolving that question, I met strong Labour supporters who were unhappy about the euro and, similarly, Conservative supporters—although not very many—who were in favour of the euro and unhappy about their party's policy in that regard.
  Does my hon. Friend agree that, when views differ within the political parties—although the Government might wish to advance a particular view strongly—it may be helpful to hold a referendum so that the electors do not have to sign up to an entire policy platform? That is particularly important when it comes to major constitutional issues, as I may wish to disagree with my party in a referendum.
  Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct; that is a key point. I have strong views about the voting system and the euro. At the end of the day, I hope that the Government will reach the same conclusions on first past the post—although they may not. It is clear that we should hold referendums to decide such questions. Through his Bill, the hon. Member for Blaby seeks to ensure—as did the Neill report—that people have a genuine opportunity to consider fairly both sides of the argument. I accept the legitimacy of that point.
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: My hon. Friend points out correctly that the Neill committee called for fair rules in referendums. Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem with this Bill is that it lacks a series of controls recommended by the Neill committee, such as the requirement to register any campaigning group or individual intending to incur expenditure of more than £25,000? It also lacks any provision to ban donations from foreign sources.
  Mr. Pike: I thank my hon. Friend—that is my next point. On the question of publicity, I believe we must regulate the whole of the media, not simply the broadcasting area, if we genuinely wish to ensure that a referendum campaign represents both sides fairly.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) is correct to say that the Neill committee cites certain figures and contains recommendations
  1398
  regarding donations by organisations and so on. The Bill's failure to address those points is a serious omission. The Bill also fails to address the question of free mailing and the free use of public rooms. That is not an issue in parliamentary and other elections in this country, and I believe that the same rules should apply to referendums.
  I agree with the principle of the Bill. Its introduction provides an opportunity to discuss the issues, but I do not think it goes far enough. I hope that the Bill will not make progress today and, if it does, I hope that it will be much amended in Committee. I look forward to the Government's introducing legislation that addresses all the Neill committee's recommendations, rather than one specific point. The hon. Member for Blaby recited a rather nonsense list of draft Bills, the majority of which were introduced by the previous Government but fell when the general election was called. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's arguments. The Government are fully committed to acting on the Neill committee's recommendations sensibly and positively. They will legislate on the conduct of all elections and referendums.
  I had meant to be brief, but interventions have extended my speech. I realise that many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. I reiterate that I reject the Bill and I am sure that the Government will deal positively with these issues. We will ensure that future referendums are controlled openly and sensibly so that people can exercise their vote on the basis of full and accurate information.
  10.30 am
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: I strongly welcome the initiative and success of the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) in introducing the Bill. It is an important opportunity for the House to express its concern to ensure that referendums, which are becoming a regular feature of our constitutional development, are conducted fairly and command complete support—not only while they are being conducted, but afterwards.
  In the past 18 months, we have had more referendums than we had in the previous 18 years—perhaps because there was a period of constitutional stasis prior to the last general election—and that has underlined the importance of making rapid progress on the matter. At least two referendums were promised by the Government in their manifesto before the election. The first relates to the possibility of an alternative electoral system for Westminster and the other to the adoption of the euro.
  Those are major issues for the country and the setting up of referendums on those questions should be subject to regulation that has been determined prior to the enactment of the necessary Bills to enable the referendums to be held. We need what the constitution unit has called generic referendum legislation. I am encouraged by the fact that the Government are committed to publishing—this summer, I believe—a Bill setting out their conclusions on the Neill committee's recommendations, particularly on an electoral commission.
  It is desirable that the work of regulating elections and referendums should be in the charge of a body that is seen to be independent of the Government. The current arrangements are far from satisfactory. The hon. Member for Blaby was right to draw attention to our particular experiences. It was not satisfactory that the Government

  1399
  decided to put a two-question referendum to the Scots without any prior cross-party discussion. That was bounced on the Scots. The outcome was not unfortunate, and I dare say that the Government's political judgment could not be faulted in that case. However, the referendum should have been processed by agreement.
  Similarly, the single referendum question put to the people of London about the proposed reform to establish a mayor and an Assembly did not allow for the expression of diverse opinions that might have been more redolent of exactly what the people favoured. Once again, there was a question about the question.
  Those two experiences point to the appropriateness of what the hon. Member for Blaby advocates in his Bill: the commission should be able to proffer advice on the referendum question to the Government and Parliament when the arrangements for particular referendums are being contemplated.
  The genesis of the hon. Gentleman's proposals goes back a long way. There has long been an awareness of the need for fairness in referendums. I draw attention to a Labour party policy paper, published in 1996, "A New Voice for England's Regions", which says that the Labour party would establish a body that would be
  "directly and solely responsible for all aspects of electoral administration and for ensuring freedom and fairness in all aspects of our electoral system."
  There have been calls from the House for an electoral commission to regulate referendums and elections, notably in the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs of September 1998, HC 768.
  The hon. Member for Blaby properly referred to the important recommendations of the commission on the conduct of referendums, established in 1996 by the Electoral Reform Society and the constitution unit at University college, and chaired by Sir Patrick Nairne. That commission concluded:
  "The conduct of referendums should be entrusted to a statutory independent body, accountable to Parliament, in order to ensure maximum confidence in the legitimacy of the results."
  Extensive reference has been made in the speeches of the hon. Members for Blaby and for Burnley (Mr. Pike) to the recommendations of the Neill report published in October 1998. I have no doubt that the overwhelming majority of hon. Members broadly agree with those recommendations and want them to be enacted as soon as possible.
  The House will have to come to grips with certain of the Neill report's recommendations, for example, on the making of the Government's case. I said when the report was published, and still believe, that the mere decision to hold a referendum should not make it more difficult for the Government freely to express their side of the argument. That is almost certainly not the intention of the Neill committee, but some of the language in the report gave support to the view that the Government should drop out during a referendum and leave the advocacy of their case to an umbrella body. That would be artificial and unsatisfactory.
  Mr. Martin Linton: I was interested to find out whether the right hon. Gentleman would repeat the comments that he made during last year's debate on referendums. He remarked on the Government's role in fighting in a referendum and he now repeats that it would
  1400
  be artificial for them to have to contract the expression of their case to an outside body over which they would have no control. Does he agree that the Bill would force a Government into that position and that they would not be able to spend money to support their own case?
  Mr. Maclennan: The Bill contains a risk of that happening, but it could possibly be amended in Committee to take account of the problem. The clear objective of the Neill committee, the Bill, myself and, no doubt, the hon. Gentleman is that there should be fairness as well as clarity on both sides. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. A number of private conversations are breaking out. Hon. Members ought to listen to the right hon. Gentleman, who is addressing the House.
  Mr. Maclennan: As referendums are, of their nature, held on questions of Government policy, it is clearly right that the advocacy of the Government's case should not be subcontracted to any other body and the Government should be the spokesmen on the issue.
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman said that, in a couple of instances, the Neill report had arrived at the wrong conclusion. I would suggest that it also arrived at the wrong conclusion about the spending limits for referendums. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that one of the criticisms of, and concerns about, the 1975 referendum was the wide disparity in the funding of the two campaigns, and that spending limits should be imposed in referendums?
  Mr. Maclennan: It is unquestionably true that there was great disparity in the 1975 campaign and that it may have had an untoward effect on perceptions about its fairness. Again, we have to avoid artificiality. A Minister appearing on a broadcast, saying what the Government's view is, might cost almost nothing but have an immense impact. Somehow we have to maintain a balance.
  I am not entirely happy about the Bill's mechanistic proposals on broadcasting. Broadcasters might give less attention than they should to both sides of the case if we constrain them too much by the proposed rules of balance. However, the reason behind the proposals is extremely important—there should be fairness, and broadcasters should seek to ensure that there is. This is precisely the type of matter on which the House would value not so much the regulations in the Bill, as the advice of a truly independent referendums election commission, which would no doubt carry great weight with broadcasters.
  The Bill has great merit, especially in that it focuses on the urgency of the situation. It was quite right to introduce the Bill. I have no complaints about that, even in the knowledge that the Government intend to introduce an election commission Bill at some stage. It is right for the House to know that referendums are coming down the pipe. We want to make sure well in advance that we are not bounced into passing a referendum Bill to establish a poll on the euro, without having a well-established framework that is accepted by all parties and understood throughout the country. It would lend great weight to the outcome of such a referendum if such a framework were established soon.

  1401
  I hope that, as a result of this debate, we might hear a little more from the Government about their intention to introduce a Bill and whether they would like it to be enacted in the next Session of Parliament. I heard the Minister saying that Governments do not divulge what will be in the Queen's Speech. That rule is becoming more honoured in the breach than in the observance, although I do not expect the Minister to give a definitive response today.
  There is widespread support for the introduction of a draft Bill this Session. Indeed, I and my right hon. and hon. Friends have suggested that it would be possible to introduce a draft Bill in this Session of Parliament and carry it through into the next, a procedure that the Government have already adopted in respect of an electronic commerce Bill and a financial services Bill. There is much merit in getting matters into the open as soon as possible to get comment and support from all sides so that we can ensure that we reach our common ends in good time.
  10.44 am
  Mr. Andrew Dismore: I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on introducing the Bill. As has just been said, there is recognition of the need for reform. The question that we have to ask today is whether the Bill deals with that need in the way that it should. As the hon. Gentleman may have gathered from my interventions, my main concern is that many of the issues that need to be addressed have been left out of the Bill. They include, for example, the registration of campaigners, funding rules—including those in relation to donations—and the role of the Government in referendums, something that the hon. Gentleman touched on in response to me. I shall return to those issues later.
  Mr. Letwin: I do not want to detain the hon. Gentleman for long, but would it be of interest to him to know that the suggestion to remove the registration of campaigners derives from his Government?
  Mr. Dismore: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be patient and wait for me to get to that point.
  Any reform should be comprehensive. In response to a motion for the Adjournment of the House on 9 November 1998, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made it clear that the Government were going to consider the issue in the round. He said:
  "The next step is to turn the report"—
  the report into the funding of political parties—
  "into legislation. We are setting about that straight away. It will not be possible to introduce and carry through a measure of such scope with due attention to getting the framework and the detail right in the next Session of Parliament, but we intend to introduce a draft Bill before the next summer recess and to bring forward legislation so that new rules can be in place before the next general election."—[Official Report, 9 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 53.]
  There has been a great deal of argument about the Government's intention, but the Home Secretary's remarks were given particular force and emphasised by the Lord Chancellor when he spoke at the annual
  1402
  constitution unit lecture on 8 December 1998. The Lord Chancellor stressed the importance that the Government attach to the issue and said:
  "As the Home Secretary has made clear, we shall be giving careful consideration to all the Neill Committee's recommendations on the conduct of referendums and we will examine how best to take them forward in the context of the draft Bill which we will be publishing by next year's summer recess."
  I understand the impatience of the hon. Member for Blaby that progress be made in respect of the Neill committee's recommendations, but he is jumping the gun because the Government have said that their Bill will be published by the summer and that we shall be able to consult more widely on much of the detail.
  Judy Mallaber: Does my hon. Friend agree that referendums and the broader matters raised by the Neill committee's recommendations are complex? I have not looked at them in great detail, but I am finding it hard to work out exactly how the proposals should be implemented. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's Bill would benefit from pre-legislative scrutiny by a Committee of the House? Might not that assist us in making sure that the Bill is not only properly formulated but has support from all parts of the House? We have to get it right, otherwise we shall lose the legitimacy of the democratic and political process.
  Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. When I was researching my speech for tonight—[HON. MEMBERS: "Tonight?"] I spent a happy hour or two in the Library the other night. The more I read up on this matter—I read the Neill report, the Jenkins commission's report, the Library brief, Hansard and all the other documentation available—the more that I became increasingly concerned that the detailed issues, some of which have already begun to be elucidated, were much more complex than might appear at first blush. I therefore welcome my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's announcement about the draft Bill. The suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) that there should be pre-legislative scrutiny of that Bill would be an excellent way to proceed. In longer discussions we could flush out the important issues that are already starting to emerge at this early stage.
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: My hon. Friend has obviously conducted wide research for his speech. Was he able to look at the Home Affairs Committee report on electoral law and administration? If he has seen it, would he comment on the evidence presented by Dr Butler and Professor Blackburn, who expressed concern at the large number of bodies with a role in the electoral process? One of their arguments in favour of an electoral commission with responsibility for the rules governing referendums, was that that would allow a much more coherent view of those matters to be taken.
  Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I admit that that is one of the reports that I have not read; perhaps my hon. Friend will lend me his copy afterwards so that I may read up on what the Home Affairs Committee said. There is much in what my hon. Friend says; in fact, that would have been my next point.
  One of my main anxieties about the Bill is the fact that the hon. Member for Blaby regards the Bill as a referendum Bill, and therefore he proposes a referendum

  1403
  commission, which might, in due course, be subsumed into an elections commission. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) makes an extremely important point when he says that we risk a plethora of different bodies advancing a variety of ideas and suggestions, some of which may be mutually contradictory.
  Later, if there is time, I hope to point out some of the contradictions that exist between, for example, the Jenkins report and the Neill report on one or two of those important issues. In that context, I believe that it is extremely important that one body oversees all these issues—a Neill committee recommendation that the hon. Gentleman does not seem to have taken into account when drafting the Bill.
  Mr. Cash: Surely the Government would understand that there is a distinction between a referendum and an election. I strongly support the proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), irrespective of the Neill committee report, for precisely that reason. There are rules relating to broadcasting and to expenditure which are, and should be, specifically geared to the question of the issues that arise in a referendum, which is quite different from an election. The electorate vote in both elections and referendums, but in one case one is asking for support for a Government, and in the other for support for a yes or a no to a question.
  Mr. Dismore: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting intervention, but I am not sure that the distinction that he draws is as clear cut as he suggests. In the end, many of the issues that a referendum commission would address—precisely the points that the hon. Gentleman raises about party funding or campaign funding—need to be looked at in the round. It would be bizarre if, for example, the ceiling on funding for a referendum campaign was totally out of kilter with the ceiling on party election funding for a general or local election. Those issues need to be considered comprehensively, in the round, as the Neill committee recommended.
  Sir Michael Spicer: It was the Neill committee that drew the distinction between endorsement of policy and consultation about policy, which is what a referendum is all about. That was a fundamental point within the Neill committee, and much flows from that.
  Mr. Dismore: I do not believe that that greatly affects my argument. I believe that a single body should oversee all the aspects of involving the electorate in the decision-making process, whether it be through elections or referendums, to ensure that we have a comprehensive way of supervising those things that knits together and does not produce contradictory and conflicting ideas.
  Mr. Linton: Does my hon. Friend agree with the evidence that the Labour party submitted to the Neill committee—but that, sadly, does not appear in its report and is not incorporated into the Bill—that there should be a limit of £5 million on what a party spends in a referendum campaign, and of £500,000 on what any outside organisation spends, to prevent the huge spending that has been mentioned? At one stage, Paul Sykes said that he might give £20 million to the no side in a
  1404
  referendum campaign. Whatever one's view on that, such huge donations risk distorting a campaign. The Bill would benefit from a limit on spending.
  Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I know that he has done a great deal of work on all the issues relating to elections and referendums. He makes a valid point and I hope to return to it. Whatever emerges from the decision-making process, there must be a level playing field and, inevitably, that must include caps on spending during an electoral or referendum campaign.
  In that context, we need to consider the issue of donations made by individuals to campaigns, to ensure that those are properly supervised and above board. That is another issue that the Bill does not address, and to which I hope to return shortly.
  I shall now consider some of the detail of the Bill. My first concern is that, although the Bill is called the Referendums Bill, nowhere in it do we find a definition of "referendum". There could be a very grey area about whether something was a referendum.
  Perhaps I may start my development of this argument by questioning the hon. Member for Blaby about whether a ballot on the future of an individual grammar school would be a referendum in the context of the Bill. As I read the Bill, I believe that a grammar school ballot would fall within the definition, because that ballot would be held under an enactment, which is the criterion that the hon. Gentleman sets for control of the referendum by his proposed referendum commission.
  Mr. Robathan: I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman's wise and wonderful words with great interest for the past 13 minutes. I note, though, that his interest in referendums must be quite new, as he has only recently realised what a referendum means. I trust that he has consulted a dictionary. Could it possibly be that he has been asked—I should like him to state categorically whether this is the case—by a member of the Government to make as long and boring a speech as possible? If he is one of those supine and feeble members of Government parties who do such things, may I assure him, from my greater experience in the House, that it never leads to advancement and always elicits the scorn of his fellows?
  Mr. Dismore: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman finds my speech boring. The interventions that I have had from both sides of the House may show that it is not as boring as he says. Perhaps I may return the compliment and say that I found his recitation a little turgid.
  The hon. Gentleman questions whether I know what a referendum is. I actually asked that question of him. Perhaps it is my legal training, but, as a lawyer, if I were to take a case—which of course I would not, because I am not taking cases while a Member of Parliament—I might well be asked to construe the Bill. I was going to give one or two examples later of how the legal profession might make a large amount of money out of the Bill. That might be done by taking advantage of the lack of a definition of "referendum".
  When the hon. Gentleman intervened, I was giving the example of grammar school ballots. I believe that, as the Bill stands, a referendum commission would look at grammar school ballots, because those ballots are

  1405
  conducted under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 and the Education (Grammar School Ballots) Regulations 1998. The Library brief says that categorically.
  Judy Mallaber: I am slightly surprised, as a non-lawyer, that my hon. Friend is suggesting that the Bill might apply to referendums on the future of grammar schools—an issue in which I am greatly interested. Will he give me some advice as a lawyer? I do not like to be rude about lawyers, but they are all able to go on at inordinate length about the most nit-picking matters. I believe that it comes naturally to them; they never need to be asked to do so.
  Can my hon. Friend give me guidance on clause 2(1)? It appears to me that, when the Bill says that the referendum would apply to
  "any bill which provides for the holding of a referendum",
  it means that it would apply only to a referendum campaign in respect of that referendum—that is, that referendum would have to have been specifically mentioned in the Bill and therefore, on my reading of it—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must sit down when I am speaking. The hon. Lady's interventions are getting longer and longer. I think that she has said enough in this intervention.
  Mr. Dismore: I think that I have the thrust of my hon. Friend's point.
  It being Eleven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 11 (Friday Sittings).

Education Directorate (Hackney)
11 am
Ms Diane Abbott(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the proposed privatisation of the education directorate in Hackney.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt): The Secretary of State is not proposing to privatise the education directorate in Hackney. He has today written to the leaders of the three political parties in Hackney to say that, having considered the findings of the Office for Standards in Education inspection report on Hackney local education authority, which is published today, he is of the opinion that the LEA is failing to perform a number of functions to an adequate standard, and that he is minded to direct the director of education of Hackney LEA to contract out several functions. Contractors could include public sector or private sector bodies or consortiums. The LEA has been given until 13 April to comment on the proposal. We are determined to ensure that every child in Hackney receives a good education. That is why the Secretary of State is taking this course of action.
Ms Abbott: I begin by thanking Education Ministers for briefing me on this subject yesterday and saying that I did not break the embargo on the information.
I regret very much that no Education Minister felt able to respond to my private notice question. I think that it is unprecedented for a Member to table a private notice question and for it to be accepted by Madam Speaker, but for no Minister from the Department concerned to make themselves available to respond. That shows a rather derisory attitude to the House. [Interruption.] I am afraid I do think that. Indeed, I shall go further.
It was a very bad practice of the previous Government to make announcements at press conferences that should properly have been made on the Floor of the House. I very much regret that my Government have followed that practice. It cannot be right that Ministers are engaged in a press conference instead of reporting to the House on a step of national significance. Ministers clearly believe that today's announcement is of national significance because they were on the "Today" programme this morning, and are holding a major press conference as we speak. [HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful".] That is why they are not here, and a Treasury Minister is here instead.
I tabled a private notice question because I felt that the matter was of significance far beyond Hackney. Today, Ministers will be taking the first step towards taking control of a key aspect of education away from local democratic control. Local democratic control of education is one of the most important pillars of local democracy, and it should not be undermined lightly. There can be no doubt that the decision on which Ministers are, as we speak, making a statement to the press will take away significant local control over some of the most important areas of education policy.
There has been absolutely no local consultation about this step. It will not do for Ministers to say that they are taking it on behalf of Hackney parents and children, because they have not visited Hackney or consulted

1407
local people. They have certainly not consulted Members of Parliament who represent the area on whether we want any aspects of the education directorate's work put out to tender. I take very seriously that lack of consultation on this unprecedented step.
Putting the most important aspects of the education directorate's work out to tender is an experiment. We have no knowledge of whether it will improve Hackney schools. Ministers should not be experimenting in Hackney if they have no knowledge of whether contracting out the inspectorate and other education directorate functions will improve matters. Precisely because of the borough's problems, Ministers should not be experimenting in Hackney.
I understand that Ministers' proposals will not involve privatising all the LEA's functions, but in a way, that makes matters worse. What is a cannibalised LEA supposed to do? Some functions will be taken away; some will be left to the LEA. Ministers have not explained—either yesterday, or in today's brief and rather cursory statement—how they imagine that an LEA can remain viable following the removal of its key strategic functions.
Mr. David Maclean: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been listening carefully to the hon. Lady, who has been making an interesting point—but she has been asking questions further to her private notice question for six minutes during time that has been allocated to private Members Bills.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): There is some justification in the right hon. Gentleman's point of order. I trust that the hon. Lady will remember that this is not a debate and will fairly quickly come to the end of her remarks.
Ms Abbott: I take that point of order in good part, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Why did not Ministers feel it appropriate to consult locally before taking this step? Are they confident that a cannibalised LEA will be viable? What will be the role of the education officer? It seems that the education officer will have no control, and be reduced to a monitoring officer. How much will the consultants who are brought in to advise on the contract cost? What proportion of the total contract do Ministers anticipate outside contractors will receive as the management fee for running the LEA?
Will Ministers assure me that, before the contract is finalised and put out to tender, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) and I will have the opportunity, on behalf of local people, to see it and comment on it? Do Ministers understand that this step is viewed by people in Hackney with the utmost concern? The lack of consultation and the piecemeal nature of the steps proposed give rise to local concern. I hope that the Economic Secretary will be able to answer my questions.
Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is wrong on the question of the press conference. My right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department for Education and Employment are not holding a press conference on Hackney: they are all out of London on departmental business, and that is why I am answering the private notice question. I am not sure
1408
whether my hon. Friend raised the form of the announcement with Education Ministers when she met them yesterday, but I think the matter might appropriately be pursued with them.
Ms Abbott: Will the Minister give way?
Ms Hewitt: Perhaps I may make a little progress in answering the very large number of questions that my hon. Friend has put to me.
On the issue of democratic control of education in Hackney, elected members in Hackney and their electors will receive better advice and a better service from efficient contractors on a number of extremely important functions relating to Hackney schools than they have been receiving from inefficient officers. Elected members will continue to have responsibilities, and to be accountable to the electorate, but they will not be able to intervene in professional matters which are properly the preserve of officers.
On the issue of the experiment to which my hon. Friend referred, let me make it quite clear that this course of action is based on overwhelming evidence of the failure, despite recent improvements, of Hackney council to provide a proper education to Hackney children. There have been two inspections of Hackney LEA—the first in 1997—and a Government-funded improvement team worked with the authority for some time. It is clear that some progress, which we welcome, has been made but it is also clear that, in other respects, the progress has been quite unsatisfactory. Taken as a whole, the Ofsted report on the LEA that is published today is damning. Hackney LEA itself has accepted that it is a fair report. Our intention is not to experiment with the education of Hackney children, but to ensure that they get a decent education.
Ms Abbott rose—
Ms Hewitt: I give way.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister must complete her remarks. She cannot give way.
Ms Hewitt: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
On the question of the cost of the consultants, the Department will bear that cost. The consultants are simply being used to ensure that the contracting-out specifications are drawn up in the most efficient way.
With regard to the involvement of local Members of Parliament, I very much hope that my hon. Friend, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) will work with Ministers in ensuring that, in future, Hackney children get a first-class education.
Mr. David Willetts: I sympathise with the Minister's plight. It is extraordinary that a Treasury Minister is responding to a private notice question that should be answered by an Education Minister. Ministers at the Department for Education and Employment have been active in briefing the media. They have been active on the airwaves. We know that there have been two significant education announcements today, on A-levels

1409
and on Hackney. For no Education Minister, apparently, to be in London this morning is extraordinary. That is an insult to the House.
Of course, one reason why no Education Ministers are present is that at least one Education Minister was a councillor in Hackney. The head of the schools standards branch of the Department was also a councillor in Hackney. Perhaps Ministers are not present because they would be embarrassed to show their faces, given what we know about the record of Hackney council.
Does the Minister agree that the problems in Hackney are part of a wider problem identified in the Audit Commission report published last week on the performance of local education authorities? That showed that, of the 15 worst-performing LEAs, including Hackney, 13 are Labour-controlled—none are Conservative—and Conservative LEAs make up a quarter of the best-performing LEAs. The problems in Hackney are part of the wider problem of the failure of Labour in local government.
Now we are told that, because Labour politicians have failed in local government, another bunch of Labour politicians in central Government will come in and solve the problem. However, the problem can be solved only by giving freedom to the schools. Instead, as the Ofsted press notice states:
"Hackney's schools have shown remarkable forbearance and loyalty to the LEA despite the long-term chaos they have experienced. But they are sceptical about the possibility of rapid and sustained improvement. That scepticism is justified."
The Minister admitted that the powers of the LEA are unchanged, the role of the councillors is unchanged, and the new consultants will be employees of the council. The one thing that there will not be is more freedom for the schools. There will be just the opposite: more centralisation and more control.
Does the Minister agree that we have been here before? I remember the previous Minister for School Standards, now the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, boldly announcing towards the end of 1997 that he would send in a hit squad to sort out Hackney. As always, the rhetoric was overheated and the reality was disappointing. We will judge the results of the exercise announced today not on the rhetoric surrounding it, but on what happens in Hackney schools.
Ms Hewitt: First, I have already made it clear that my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department for Education and Employment are fully occupied on Government business, and that they are continuing to carry out their extremely energetic programme to raise standards in our schools from the lamentable level reached under the previous Government.
Secondly, on local education authorities, it is hardly surprising that most LEAs are run by Labour councillors. They have been elected overwhelmingly by people across the country, just as the Government were elected by an overwhelming majority. Very few local voters want Conservatives to be in charge of their LEA, and I am not at all surprised.
Thirdly, on the issue of solving the problem by giving more freedom to schools, I stress that the functions that we are proposing to direct the director of education in
1410
Hackney to contract out are planning for school improvements, intervention in schools causing concern, advice on curriculum and professional development, support for secondary schools and improving literacy and language teaching.
Handing over those responsibilities to individual schools which, by definition, have been unable to achieve the desired standards on their own and which have not been getting adequate support from the LEA would not be satisfactory. The answer to the problem is not to withdraw support and leave the schools without adequate support. The answer is to give them proper support.
On the specific question about the contractors, the staff of the private or public sector bodies or consortiums who come in to perform those functions will not be employed by the LEA. They will be employed by the council—I mean the contractor.
There are deep-seated problems in Hackney schools and in the local education authority. We understand the reasons for those problems. We have been working with the council and the LEA to solve them. The decisive action that my right hon. Friend has announced today is further evidence of our determination to ensure that Hackney children get a first-class education in future.
Ms Bridget Prentice: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her comprehensive response to the question, and on being the first person during the 16 minutes of discussion to speak about the importance of providing a decent education to Hackney children, which is presumably what we are here for.
It comes painfully from the Conservative Opposition to speak of overheated rhetoric, when they had 18 years to sort out what was going on in education in Hackney and did nothing about it.
Although I welcome the statement, can my hon. Friend tell the House whether only those functions mentioned in it will be contracted out, or whether it is possible that other functions may be contracted out, if that improves the outcome? The end result must be a better standard of education for Hackney children. The vacuum that has existed over the past few years will now, thank heavens, be filled.
Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I welcome her commitment to the better education of children in Hackney.
On the question whether other functions might be contracted out, we will ask the consultants to examine the case for contracting out finance, personnel, and information and communications technology services, because those are also unsatisfactory. We will ask the consultants whether it would make sense, in the interests of an orderly and cost-effective discharge of the LEA's functions as a whole, for other functions also to be contracted out, and if necessary, to prepared a specification for that purpose.
Mr. Simon Hughes: The one thing that will unite all hon. Members is the proposition that we must serve the interests of the young people of Hackney and their families. The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) has done the House a service by asking the question.

1411
The Department for Education and Employment, as one of the great Departments of State, has done the nation a disservice by not making a Minister available on a parliamentary working day. The Department arranged today as the date of the publication of the Ofsted report. The Department managed the publication and was prepared for it. The rest of us were not formally notified. That is why our party is represented by the London spokesman, not the education spokesman. The Department has no excuse, and the House should receive an apology at the earliest opportunity.
I hope that the Minister realises that her colleagues have landed her and the Government in a position that is difficult or impossible to defend. Hackney does not have the worst-performing schools in Britain. The Ofsted report shows that schools have improved recently, not got worse. For the Government to announce their proposals without first consulting the democratically elected members of the local education authority, of whatever party and of all parties, and without consulting colleagues in Parliament undermines the principle of education being run by democratic local government.
The Government have made two bad mistakes—first, by not coming to the House to announce their intentions properly and, secondly, by putting forward proposals to contract out services without even talking first to those elected to run them. I ask that they now seek to unwind their mistakes—that they come to councillors in Hackney before making any further decisions, and to Members of this place before breaking the barrier between what should be run by central Government and what should be run by local government, supported rather than undermined by central Government.
Ms Hewitt: The Department talked to the leaders of the three political parties in Hackney yesterday, as well as to the officers and the chair of the education committee. Those contacts were merely part of a long process of discussion that has been taking place since the Government were elected, to try to improve the situation in Hackney. Furthermore, the publication of the Ofsted report and the letter sent by my right hon. Friend today are simply steps in a long process. It is a "minded to direct" letter; it is not a final decision on contracting out. The LEA has a chance to comment on it, and has been given until 13 April to do so. The director of education will continue to have a key role. As I said in an earlier response, the elected councillors of the LEA will continue also to have a key role. I think that the rather over-blown rhetoric used by the hon. Gentleman is not justified by the facts.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) has raised this issue. I am pleased also to hear my hon. Friend the Minister say that the decision on contracting out is not final and that it is out for comment. Surely it represents a huge change in policy, and not only the House but the Labour party should discuss it in some detail.
I have an interest because Calderdale was the first LEA to be "Ofsteded" in the light of a great deal of extraordinary publicity about the Ridings school. The Conservative Government tried to pretend that we had the worst school in the country, which was nonsensical, as events have proved. Since the Labour Government took office, we have had much help to put things right on that.
1412
In Calderdale, it is clear to anybody that the selective system is the problem. While we have two grammar schools and four opted-out schools, we are left with schools that are secondary moderns. Only a fool would argue against that.
We must have a debate on the whole issue. I am deeply concerned that I heard about it only on the "Today" programme. Like me, my hon. Friend has spent the past 18 years fighting privatisation. My understanding of privatisation was that it involved selling off assets and contracting out. When did that definition change?
Ms Hewitt: I am well aware of, and appreciate, my hon. Friend's concern for the education received by the children in her constituency. I welcome the fact that she has been so active in seeking to improve that situation.
I wish to stress that the action taken and the Ofsted report that has been published today do not represent a criticism of the schools or the teachers in those schools. As my right hon. Friend made clear in his letter to the councillors, he welcomes—as we all do—the improvement that has been shown in several respects. However, the report, despite that improvement in some areas, is a damning criticism of the Hackney LEA, and the situation has to be put right.
My concern, and that of the Government, is not to approach this matter from the standpoint of ideological dogma, but to ensure that the services that must be provided by an LEA to ensure that schools and their head teachers and teachers can carry out their responsibility to give children an excellent education are properly provided. It is a question of what works. What is being provided by Hackney LEA in respect of the functions that we are discussing is not working, and we shall change that situation. I will certainly draw my right hon. and hon. Friends' attention to my hon. Friend's request for a debate.
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Will the Minister clarify for the House the annual administrative running costs of Hackney LEA and what proportion of them is accounted for by the services that are to be contracted out? Will those costs be so great that the tendering process will be subject to European Union regulations? If so, how do the Government propose to deal with the hiatus in the running of services during the passage of the tendering process?
Ms Hewitt: I do not have the detailed figures that the hon. Gentleman requests but I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend writes to him on that point. I stress that the process of contracting out some or all of the functions referred to by my right hon. Friend will offer better value for money than wasting public money on an inadequate service. As education is the largest local authority service, we expect it to be possible to have efficiency within the LEA budget. That will be considered in further detail by my right hon. Friend and by the consultants when we come to draw up the specification for the contracts. Of course the tender for the contracts will comply with all the necessary procedures.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I hope that my hon. Friend will give me some reassurance by saying that she will not have any truck with any of the

1413
sanctimonious claptrap that we have heard from Opposition spokespersons about why she is at the Government Dispatch Box today.
My hon. Friend is entirely right to focus on the quality of the advice offered by the LEA. I ask her to contrast the record in Hackney with that in Harrow, where a new Labour administration is delivering high-quality, effective support and advice to schools. I invite her to praise Pinner Wood middle school in my constituency, which has just received an excellent report, partly because of the quality of advice that has been given to it by the LEA.
Ms Hewitt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's point. I am happy to congratulate not only the school in his constituency, which has received an excellent report, but all the schools in the country that have been making dramatic progress in raising standards, with the help of their LEAs and the Department for Education and Employment under the Government's leadership.

Referendums Bill
Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
11.28 am
Mrs. Gorman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) continues, will you give your view on the scope of the Bill and, therefore, the limits of our discussion? As I read it, it is tightly worded on the mechanics of holding a referendum when the Government of the day have proposed that a specific issue should be dealt with in that way, and therefore would exclude discussions of matters such as referendums among parents should a school decide to consider becoming grant maintained, and other diversions which have been introduced by the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber), who seems to be more interested in filibustering this Bill than in dealing with the important issues that it raises.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): The Second Reading of a Bill gives quite wide scope for discussion and debate on the principles of the Bill, and so far this morning that is precisely what we have had.
Mr. Dismore: I think that, before the private notice question I had just taken an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley in the context of grammar school ballots. My hon. Friend's forensic skills are excellent because I think that she has highlighted a contradiction within the Bill. She drew my attention to clause 2(1), which refers to the holding of a referendum campaign and the designation of that campaign
"soon…after the introduction to Parliament"
of a Bill. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to clause 4(1), to which I referred in the context of grammar school ballots. It states:
"The Commission shall make a report to the Secretary of State on the conduct of any referendum conducted under any enactment."
The grammar school ballots are being conducted under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 and the Grammar School (Ballots) Regulations 1998. The Bill would inevitably cover grammar school ballots and the importance of that will become apparent as I proceed with my remarks.
Local referendums are being used increasingly throughout local government. The Government are encouraging that through the White Paper "Modern Local Government, In Touch With the People". Paragraph 3.30 on page 32, which has the heading
"support for a directly elected mayor",
refers, first, to the Greater London authority ballot. It states that
"before a council could adopt arrangements which include a directly elected mayor, it should be required to conduct a referendum on its proposals giving local people the opportunity to have their say."
I assume from the Bill's wording that it would apply to a referendum on the election of a mayor for a local authority.

1415
In paragraph 4.8 on page 39 of the White Paper, the Government again stress the importance of referendums in the local government context:
"The Government believes that councils should see and use referendums as an important tool to give local people a bigger say. The Government will therefore introduce legislation to confirm the power of councils to hold referendums."
The White Paper says that referendums may or may not be binding
"except in the particular circumstances described"
and adds:
"Councils might wish to use referendums to consult their local people on such issues as major local developments or matters of particular local controversy."
I assume, therefore, that the Bill would apply to such ballots as well. Page 45 of the House of Commons Library briefing helpfully refers to recent precedent. It says that Milton Keynes council conducted a referendum, in February 1999, seeking
"the views of the electorate on three options for increasing council tax levels for 1999/2000."
Returning to a point that I have already made during an intervention, let me point out that that referendum gave three options for increasing council tax levels. Bearing in mind the point that I made about clause 2(2), there could be at least three different outcomes and three different campaigns on that proposition. There could have been a fourth and a fifth option.
My local authority in Barnet has taken the Government's point of view to heart and has started to consult widely. There was wide consultation with the population on the council's draft budget. I am not sure whether that would count as a referendum, but my local authority is also experimenting with the use of electronic voting machines, citizens' juries and citizens' panels as part of that consultation process. I know from my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman), who gave me a full briefing on those issues last night, that similar proposals are being discussed in Hammersmith.
My principal point is that the Bill lacks a definition of a referendum, and that is a problem. As things stand, clause 4(1) provides such a broad interpretation that all the possibilities to which I have referred could be taken into account by the Bill and local referendums could come under the influence of the proposed referendum commission, but is that a development that we should welcome?
Although we may want guidelines on the conduct of referendums in general to be laid down, I am concerned about the wide powers proposed by the Bill for the referendums commission to interfere in the conduct of referendums. I question whether it would be appropriate for a national body to get involved in the decision-making processes of a local referendum—for example, the setting of a question. I do not know how a national body could take on board all the relevant local factors; there may need to be sub-divisions or local referendum commissions if the national body is to have such wide scope.
In the context of grammar school ballots and local mayoral referendums, that issue also raises the question of fairness in the trigger arrangements, such as the petitions that could set off a grammar school ballot. I know from discussions with parents in my constituency that they are extremely concerned about the fairness of
1416
the arrangements for the trigger mechanism in respect of a ballot on grammar schools in Barnet. They think that those mechanisms are, to some extent, rigged against people who want grammar schools to be abolished, bearing in mind that substantial thresholds must be achieved to trigger a ballot. I question the Bill's current drafting. If it is to proceed, it should be redrafted to make it absolutely clear that it deals only with national referendums and that local referendums should not come into its scope.
My next concern relates to the powers proposed for the referendum commission under clause 1(5)(a), which refers to
"the wording of any question to be put".
The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) raised his concerns about the fairness of the questions for the London referendum. I shall return to that point in detail, and I am sure that hon. Members will be pleased to hear that. The right hon. Gentleman questioned whether the commission should have the power to be involved in the setting of the question.
Hon. Members will remember that there was extensive debate in the House on what the questions for the London referendum should be. The House came to a conclusion and voted on it. That conclusion formed part of the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Act 1998. The House decided what the question should be, so I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman was suggesting that the referendum commission should be in a position to overrule the Act of Parliament that set the question and impose a different question of its own, a series of questions or variations on the questions.
That serious point is not properly addressed by clause 1(5)(a) and comes into even sharper focus when we consider the possibility of a referendum of electoral reform. The Government have said that the referendum will have the first-past-the-post system as one option and a proportional representation system as the other. I remain an avid supporter of the first-past-the-post system and have yet to hear anything that would convince me otherwise. We know from the extensive public debate on PR and the full report produced by the Jenkins commission that there are a plethora of different solutions for electoral reform.
Let us suppose that the Government decided to propose a particular option for electoral reform as part of the process relating to the wording of the question and that the referendum commission decided that it preferred a different option. Would it be open to the referendum commission to interfere with the Government's suggested option and to suggest a different option?
Indeed, could the referendum commission second-guess the Government's position and allow the referendum to have not only the first-past-the-post system and one other option, but a series of options? In respect of clause 2(2), that opens the question of how many different campaigns could be undertaken. There could be a whole series of different campaigns and different outcomes. Presumably, all would qualify for public funds—an issue that the Bill fails to address.
I have another concern about clause 2(1). My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley was concerned

1417
about the timing of the referendum. I question the wording, which says that it would come into operation
"As soon as possible after the introduction to Parliament of any bill".
Opposition Members have made their position clear: they wold like to see the referendum campaign conducted fairly, above board and with no one feeling left out. The wording of clause 2(1) could lead to a premature decision about which campaign would be the favoured campaign. It very much favours the establishment.
We know that in the European campaign the sides are already lining up. Page 34 of the Library brief says:
"The pro and anti organisations have begun to mobilise. The Britain in Europe campaign, led by prominent business people, looks likely to be the main umbrella organisation for a Yes vote, while David Owen has agreed to lead the organisations likely to oppose a single currency, known as New Europe. This may not encompass all the views of those opposed to a single currency."
That is precisely my point. We have two relatively established campaigns on the European issue, but, as the public debate develops, and should a referendum Bill be introduced, other campaigns may be created. Those would have an equal right to be considered as the official campaign. Under the Bill, they would become disfranchised and the two establishment campaigns—not the Government campaign—would be left to slug it out among themselves. That would disfranchise people who are interested in single issues and who, to a large extent, feel excluded from the parliamentary process. I should be extremely concerned, therefore, if the wording of clause 2 were to stay as it is, as it suggests that the referendum campaign process should start as soon as possible after the enactment of the Bill, before the public debate on those issues had begun.
I am also concerned about clause 2(2), which lists as the criteria that should be taken into account
"the ability to conduct an effective campaign; the views of political parties; the degree of public support; and such other matters as the Commission considers relevant"—
which is an open question. However, the clause gives no indication of the weighting to be given to each of those criteria. That is an important factor to take into account when deciding which body should be certified to run the campaign.
We heard earlier this morning about the problems that can arise when different parties within a campaign are dealing with other issues. The Europe campaign is a prime example. May I pray in aid the comments of the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), who is in the Chamber, during the debate on political parties funding on 9 November 1998? I find myself in a difficult position because, for the second time in three weeks, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The previous occasion was on the Fur Fanning (Prohibition) Bill. That is a strange position for me to be in and he may find it strange to have me on his side on this issue. He said:
"It is unnecessary and undesirable to require opponents to operate under one political umbrella, even if they support the same side on a political question. There are quite different ideological routes that might lead to the same case. That is obviously clear with the campaign that would emerge against the single European currency. It comprises a host of very different groups reflecting different ideological backgrounds. I believe that it would be a restraint on free speech to impose any sort of financial limit on those groups collectively."
Those groups would be handicapped if one side or the other within that debate were made the official campaign. In the same debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) made a similar point:
1418
"I expect different people to have different points of view. In case the Whips are listening I point out that I declared in my general election manifesto: 'I shall vote against a single currency.'"— [Official Report, 9 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 104–07.]
My hon. Friend came to that conclusion by a different route from some Conservative Members on the Euro-sceptic wing of their party. If we have the referendum campaign that has been promised if the Government decide that it would be wise to join the single currency, my hon. Friend may join the no campaign, but he will do so for different reasons and will put forward his views in different ways. If there is only one official campaign, it will be extremely difficult for both sides to express their views fully and fairly.
In a helpful intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley raised the issue of Northern Ireland. That is well highlighted in the Library brief that we have been given for this debate, which says:
"By contrast, in the referendum campaign the reasons for voting Yes or No may be exceedingly large in number, extremely disparate and possibly even contradictory. The Yes campaign in Northern Ireland, with the Ulster Unionists, the SDLP and Sinn Fein all on one side, and Republican splinter groups and the DUP on the other, provides a vivid illustration. Future referendum campaigns on electoral reform or on joining the European Economic Monetary Union could easily take the same form … Given this possibility, we believe that speaking to impose spending limits in referendums would not only be administratively impracticable but would, or at least might, impose an unwarranted restriction on freedom of speech."
Thus, the point is made in a number of different ways that various groups could be disfranchised under the Bill.
Similarly, the problem could arise if there are a number of different options. Earlier, I mentioned the London debate. Had the Opposition parties had their way, we would have had a complicated ballot paper and a series of different possible outcomes: there could have been one campaign against everything; one for a mayor only and no tax-raising powers; one for a mayor and tax-raising powers; one for an assembly only and no tax-raising powers; one for an assembly and tax-raising powers; one for an assembly, a mayor and tax-raising powers; and one for an assembly, a mayor and no tax-raising powers. That is seven possible outcomes and, under clause 2(2), seven possible campaigns. I question whether that would lead to a fair outcome. It would mean six parties working within the referendum supporting London government and only one campaign opposing all those options.
Therefore, the Bill would achieve exactly the opposite of what it is trying to achieve—equity and balance between the different sides in a referendum—because six different campaigns would be competing in favour of London government of some sort and only one would be opposed. The hon. Member for Blaby would say that that could not possibly happen. Looking at the Bill as a lawyer, I believe that, if I were representing one of those six options and found that my campaign would not be certified under clause 2(2), I would rush off to the law courts for a judicial review demanding my share of the action. We may find people with different viewpoints wishing to challenge the referendum commission by way of judicial review. People who get involved in referendums can be quite litigious and forceful in their views. They may wish to challenge the decision about which campaign should be supported.

1419
Clause 3(1) brings into play the issue of funding and clause 3(2) that of broadcasting. My remarks on London very much bring that home.
Mr. Letwin: I shall not intervene for more than five seconds. As the hon. Gentleman is determined to speak for another 20 minutes, it would be helpful if he explained why he is bothering to filibuster the Bill rather than just continuing to witter endlessly to no purpose.
Mr. Dismore: I am not attempting to filibuster the Bill. When I began to read up on it, I became increasingly concerned about its wording. Sooner or later, if the Bill were to proceed, lawyers would come to construe it, and I see a minefield of detail from which my professional colleagues could make a huge amount of money. I am highlighting my concerns about the wording of the Bill and the enormous loopholes that it contains.
Mr. Robathan: I have listened attentively to the hon. Gentleman's absolutely fascinating comments. Has he been asked by any member of the Government to make as lengthy a speech as possible? I guarantee to ensure that he is on the Committee for the Bill, where he can make all his points at as much turgid length as he wants. Let me repeat my earlier warning to him that those who do the bidding of the Whips in a supine and feeble manner never achieve the respect of their peers, nor that of the Whips. Nor do they gain advancement.
Mr. Dismore: I am not making my speech with any view to advancement. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman now finds my remarks fascinating, having previously suggested that he found them boring. I must be winning him round with my cogent points.
Mr. Gareth Thomas: Does my hon. Friend accept that many of us are listening to his speech with great interest? Many who support the general principle of a level playing field and more openness in the conduct of referendums also feel that the cumulative effect of the various defects and lacunae of the Bill mean that it should not be given a First Reading—[HON. MEMBERS: "Second Reading."] I apologise; I meant a Second Reading.
Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend succinctly makes the point that is the main thrust of my speech. I do not believe that we should not legislate on this matter: we should. However, we should do so comprehensively and in a thought-through way after having had the benefit of substantial public debate. We might, perhaps, take up the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley that we could have pre-scrutiny of a properly drafted Government Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) is quite right to say that the Bill is so full of holes that it will not hold water.
Mr. Robathan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dismore: I need to make some progress.
Mr. Robathan: Come off it.
Mr. Dismore: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would want me to make some progress. I have given way to him several times already.
Mrs. Gorman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have long experience of the way in which
1420
the House conducts itself. The hon. Gentleman has been on his feet for more than 40 minutes, and many of us wish to contribute our views on the Bill. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not know that the civilised behaviour of the House requires that hon. Members should not abuse their opportunity to speak by keeping debate going longer than is necessary on issues that are not relevant to the Bill.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: All the remarks made0 by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) have been entirely in order.
Mr. Dismore: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Should I stray from the terms of the Bill, I am sure that you will quickly call me to order.
I was discussing funding before that batch of interventions. I was making a point about the severe distorting effect that a plethora of campaigns could have on funding if the Bill were enacted.
Clause 3(2) relates to broadcasting, and the same problem of possible disproportionality emerges there. There is also a risk of giving credibility to one or two dotty causes. During general election campaigns, broadcasts are awarded in proportion to the number of candidates standing for each party. That is right and proper, as it provides a rough reflection of possible support for the party in question.
I am concerned, however, that the Bill's reference to equivalent coverage may prove anti-democratic. It might give great credibility to an idea, perspective or point of view that frankly deserves little consideration. I share the objective of trying to achieve fairness, but fairness does not necessarily amount to equivalence. Fairness must reflect the broad terms of the debate, and, as I have already said about the European debate, equivalence of coverage for official campaigns—perhaps on Europe, perhaps on proportional representation—would create a strong chance that a disparate range of views could be disfranchised in the referendum process. People might not be able to put their point of view or say how and why they had come to it. They would not be able, perhaps, to influence people of similar views to vote in a particular way in a given referendum.
I should be very concerned if the broadcasting provisions in the Bill were to be enacted as phrased. They could have an effect opposite to that intended.
Mr. Stephen Twigg: When I read the Bill in preparation for the debate, it struck me that the second part of clause 3 is not only counterproductive, but unnecessary. It adds nothing to the existing requirement for balance and impartiality in current broadcasting legislation. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is so, and that it would be foolhardy of the House to add unnecessarily to legislation in this area when the existing framework is sufficient?
Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend, who has studied these issues carefully and written widely on electoral reform, makes a valid point. I am concerned about clause 3(2) because I believe it could have the opposite effect to that sought by the Bill's supporters. I return to what I said at the beginning of my speech: we need an election commission that can consider all the issues in the round and ensure that we have a consistent national policy for

1421
referendums and elections. That would provide a balanced approach, with nothing to suggest that anything was out of kilter.
The final part of my speech is perhaps the most important. It relates to my earlier interventions on the hon. Member for Blaby about what the Bill does not deal with and what it misses out. My starting point was the recommendations of the Neill committee, and funding in particular. The Bill deals in a fashion with public funding to provide core support for referendum campaigns, which would perhaps be uprated by comparison with that for the 1975 referendum on Europe, although I suspect that the uprated figures would in fact bear little relationship to the amounts that would be needed. The Bill is totally silent on some key recommendations of the Neill report—in particular recommendations 90, 91 and 92. Recommendation 90 states:
"Donations to campaigning individuals and organisations in referendums from one source which total £5,000 or more should be publicly disclosed in audited accounts which should be delivered to the Election Commission within three months of the holding of the referendum".
The Bill contains nothing about donations having to be declared.
Recommendation 91 is:
"Campaigning individuals and organisations other than political parties that wish to incur 'referendum expenses' of £25,000 or more, should register, like a political party, with the Election Commission. No individual or organisation not so registered may incur expenses in connection with a referendum in excess of £25,000".
Again, there is no mention of that in the Bill.
Recommendation 92 is:
"Campaigning individuals and organisations taking part in referendum campaigns should be restricted to the receipt of donations only from a 'permissible source'."
The report goes into detail on what permissible sources are. I do not propose to go into those, given the time constraints under which I am operating but, as has been pointed out, page 20 of the Library briefing, on the European campaign, states:
"There may be disparities of expenditure in the campaign on the single European currency, especially as the business man Paul Sykes has reportedly promised £20 million to the anti-euro campaign.
For a Bill on the supervision of referendums not to deal with that crucial issue of funding is a woeful omission. That issue goes to the heart of the democratic process. If Mr. Sykes is going to commit £20 million of his own money to that campaign without any restriction—without fear or favour—or control from the Bill, it will have a distorting effect on the process.
Mrs. Gorman: Surely the logic of the hon. Gentleman's remarks is that, if the Bill became part of the law of the land, people such as Mr. Sykes would not need to put up their hard-earned cash to ensure a fair campaign. Massive contributions of that sort could be excluded and I should think that Mr. Sykes and anyone with similar amounts of money would be delighted to keep that money.
Mr. Dismore: That is an interesting point. The limits on central Government support from public funds for the different campaigns are significantly lower than the sort
1422
of money that Mr. Sykes is talking about. The figures being bandied around are in the region of £600,000. I do not think one could mount much of a national campaign on an issue as important as the European referendum or the voting system for this place with such a sum. My argument is that it is not merely a question of core funding, with which the Bill deals to an extent, but of all the other party-funding issues raised by the Neill committee, which are transferred within the three recommendations from the Neill report to the context of referendums.
If we do not have open declarations of election funding and proper registration, we will be open to being hijacked by millionaires who want to promote their own political point of view. We saw the extent to which the late Sir James Goldsmith tried to influence the general election by setting up the Referendum party. He threw huge amounts of cash into the campaign to try to create a political process and, to an extent, influenced the election—the issue certainly came up on the doorstep far more than it might otherwise have done.
Unless we have restrictions of some sort on individual campaign donations I can see Mr. Sykes thinking, "With my business, I have a lot at stake as well as the country," and being more than happy to put up £20 million of his money because he can afford it to influence the outcome of that campaign. That crucial issue is not dealt with in the Bill in any way.
Finally, I shall deal with the Neill report and, most importantly, the role of Government, I am sure that you will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I asked the hon. Member for Blaby during his opening speech why the Bill was silent on that matter. He said that it was a matter for the referendum commission to consider. Frankly, that is not good enough. We have wide and diverse views on that issue. The hon. Gentleman suggests in promoting the Bill that the Neill committee would be the transitional referendum commission, unless and until something better happened along. Recommendation 89 of the Neill committee dealt with that point, stating:
"The government of the day in future referendums should, as a government, remain neutral and should not distribute at public expense literature, even purportedly 'factual' literature, setting out or otherwise promoting its case".
That is a fascinating comment. It is entirely at odds with the conclusions of the Jenkins commission on electoral reform—the independent commission on the voting system. Indeed, the Jenkins report came to the opposite conclusion. Paragraph 166 states:
"The representations have without exception placed strong emphasis on the need for a publicly-funded (and therefore impartially informative rather than partisan) civic education programme to prepare the general public for the decision they would be asked to make on the voting system which should follow this report."
Paragraph 168 seems to pray in aid the Neill committee, but perhaps does not help it, by calling for
"an independent body to oversee the conduct of referendums, although we think that the Government should be entitled to express its own view in any such referendum. It seems to us that an Electoral Commission would be best placed to discharge this role in relation to the referendum on the voting system."
Two eminent committees reached opposite conclusions on this crucial issue. The hon. Member for Blaby ducked that question, which is fundamental. A leading complaint of Opposition parties has concerned the extent to which

1423
the Government should be entitled to participate in referendum campaigns. The Bill's supporters rightly want to ensure that the debate is fair and above board. That demands a proper public information campaign. Electoral matters are complex. I have read about them and my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) has written a book on the subject. How are we to expect the public to form a view without explanations beyond the partisan?
Those of us who support first past the post argue our position vigorously, as do those who support electoral reform. Where is the point of view that puts the middle ground? Of all issues, the election of this Chamber demands a public information campaign, as recommended by Jenkins but apparently dismissed by Neill. The same applies to our possible entry to the euro. There are two diametrically opposed views with a plethora of different opinions within them. How are the public to sort the wood from the trees without a clear lead from the Government on the fundamental issues?
Since the general election, I have spent most weekends in my constituency knocking on people's doors and talking to them about the issues of the day, as I did before the election. Time and again, Europe comes up but it is not raised in an informed way. It tends to be, "We don't want the Germans, French or Italians telling us what to do," rather than detailed analysis of the crucial issues facing the British economy. It is incumbent on the Government to advance them.
Page 18 of the Library brief refers to the Good Friday agreement referendum in Northern Ireland, which was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. The document states:
"The referendum on the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland affords a different kind of example. The Government sent copies of the whole agreement to every household, but then, as a Government, confined itself to urging people to turn out to vote. Despite that, the Government made its position perfectly clear. Mr. Denis Murray, the BBC's Ireland correspondent, said in his oral evidence:
Mo Mowlam got the tone for the Government absolutely right. Somebody asked her, 'Are you biased in this?' She replied, 'I didn't spend five years on this and a year at Stormont, hammering it out, not to say I'm going to back this agreement.' She got the public mood exactly right. People said, 'Yes, that's fair enough.'"
It is wrong not to anticipate that the Government would have a point of view in advancing a referendum. It is important that the public has before it the facts, presented in a non-partisan way. If the only people entitled to campaign are those with a partisan view, the public cannot get that. I am amazed that the hon. Member for Blaby has ducked that fundamental question. It is not an easy question to answer. That is why two high-powered committees have different perspectives on it. I again pray in aid the helpful intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley. She suggested that there could be pre-legislative scrutiny of a draft Bill on the subject. The issue could be explored in depth so that much stronger and better legislation came out at the other end of the process.
Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman has attempted to demolish the Bill, but it will be helpful to the House if we hear from him whether he takes the view not only that the issues are important—something that he has made clear—but that it is urgent that they be dealt with.
Mr. Dismore: I do regard the issues as important. That is why I have spent some time analysing them in detail.
1424
I believe that the Bill is fatally flawed, for the reasons that I have given. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we need to get on with the matter. That is why I welcome the statement by the Home Secretary, which was emphasised by the Lord Chancellor in my quotation, that the Government propose to produce their draft Bill in the summer. That will enable time for pre-legislative scrutiny, perhaps through the autumn.
I should very much like to see a Bill introduced in the next Session of Parliament, but I shall not press my hon. Friend the Minister on that, because it is not for him to say what will or will not be in the Queen's Speech. I should like to see a Bill not only on referendums but on a series of other issues. If I had the difficult job of ranking Bills that the Cabinet faces, I am not sure that I would know which should come this year and which should come next year.
I certainly agree with the basic point that this is an urgent matter. I should like to see some progress on it, but I regret to say that the Bill does not provide the answers to some of the difficult points raised by the Neill committee and the Jenkins commission.
12.12 pm
Mr. John MacGregor: The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) has given the game away, and in a very unsubtle manner. About 30 minutes ago, I was going to commend him on one thing only, and that was on his industry, and say that that would no doubt earn him brownie points from the Government Whips Office. He has gone about his speech in such a cack-handed manner that he has now exposed exactly what the operation is, and I do not think that he will get any brownie points. He has led us even to become suspicious of the Government's intentions. If this is how the Government tackle a debate such as today's, will they delay the legislation on referendums in exactly the same way? I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that a reputation for filibustering is not a good criterion for office.
The House knows that I was a member of the Neill committee, and still am, and was a member of the committee that drew up the report on political funding. I shall be very brief in my remarks because I have little time. I shall draw heavily on the Neill committee, but I also want to speak as a Member of Parliament. The first question is why the committee included a big chapter on referendums in the report. The issues and questions document on political funding that we originally issued did not treat referendums as a central issue. It was the almost universal evidence that we received from day one that led us to the view that referendums were a crucial matter and that committee had to address it.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on introducing the Bill, which he did in an admirable manner. He drew attention to what Peter Riddell said on day 1 of our evidence. It is worth quoting it again. He said that referendums had:
"massive implications, I think, for your exercise, for the way in which the political process operates, for fairness in funding and indeed for fairness in operation."
That comment was mirrored time and again subsequently, and it became clear that we had to address the issue.
It became clear as we went round the country, especially in Wales and Scotland, that the system used in recent referendums by the Government was seriously

1425
deficient and dangerously so. That was overwhelmingly evident. Almost everyone who gave evidence to us in Cardiff said that the way in which the Wales referendum was conducted was seriously deficient. There would not have been a no campaign if one member of the Labour party, Mrs. Carys Pugh, had not decided to go to her bank manager and ask for an overdraft of £4,000. She made that clear in her evidence to us.
Robert Hodge was so impressed by that that he gave a much larger sum—about £80,00—to the campaign. Overall, the no campaign had about £100,000, but the point is that nothing would have happened unless Mrs. Pugh had gone to a bank manager, whereas the yes campaign was backed by massive Government funding, far greater than anything that the no campaign could raise. No one can be certain whether that made a difference to the final result, but we know that the result was extremely close, so one wonders what the outcome would have been had there been fair funding. All of us on the committee were enormously impressed by the evidence that we received from everyone who contributed.
Dr. Alan Whitehead: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that occasionally it might be necessary artificially to create a campaign, so as to ensure that there are two sides in a referendum on any issue?
Mr. MacGregor: Of course I am not saying that. My point is that there must be a reasonable element of core funding for both sides. It is expensive to run a campaign and it was only Mrs. Pugh's courage in going to a bank manager that got the no campaign's funding off the ground. I cannot stress sufficiently strongly my belief that, for the sake of democracy and of giving a fair hearing to both sides in future campaigns, the implementation of proposals along the lines set out in the Bill and by the Neill committee is absolutely essential.
Because of the long filibuster that we have just heard, I shall confine myself to only a few points of detail. First, there is the referendums commission—or what members of the Neill committee would regard as the election commission detailed in our report. I fully understand why my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby has had to make that limited recommendation. He made it perfectly clear that he assumes that the referendums commission would be subsumed in the election commission set up when the full Bill on party political funding is finally produced and implemented. However, the reason for his having to propose a referendums commission in a Bill entirely dedicated to that subject is his concern, shared by many of us, that the Government will procrastinate on the issue. Clause 1(5) sets out a role for the referendums commission that is exactly like the role the Neill committee envisaged for the election commission. No doubt, it could be developed, but that can be done in Committee.
My second point relates to the crucial issue of core funding. I have already spoken about what happened in Wales, which is at the heart of my case. The Neill committee suggested a minimum of £600,000, but that was simply a figure derived from indexing what was spent on both sides during the 1975 campaign, and whether it is sufficient is a matter of argument. I think that that should be the minimum sum, and a reasonable argument could be made that it should be slightly more.
1426
One or two people argued—I think the argument was made in the official evidence of the Labour party to the Neill committee—that political parties form the basis of campaigning in referendums. I do not agree, because it is fairly clear—it will be extremely clear in the two forthcoming referendums—that the issues cross parties. Therefore, it is essential to have national organisations that are recognised and registered by the election commission—or the referendums commission—as the organised bodies to which core funding should be paid. The one point on which I wholly agreed with the hon. Member for Hendon was in respect of first past the post; I just hope that he does not speak in any debate on first past the post, because he will absolutely ruin the case for it.
Core funding lies at the heart of the matter. I believe that the Bill could go further, because it does not positively state that core funding from taxpayers' resources will be made, but merely sets outs the conditions for such payments. It is essential that the Bill should state that that core funding will actually happen.
My next point goes beyond core funding, to other important issues. As in general election campaigns for election addresses, there should be compulsory free mailing for both sides in a referendum campaign. That should not extend only to a single document, as was done in 1975, if memory serves; it is right that both sides should be able to put out separate and individual free mailing. That is important because the cost of free mailing in general election campaigns is quite high. It is also important that correspondence is sent to every household in the country. I also believe that election broadcasts by both sides should be part of the process so that there may be communication through television.
Related to core funding is the question of disclosure and foreign donations. It would be sensible if the same principles governing party political funding in general elections were to apply to referendums. I foresee no difficulty in that regard.
The Home Secretary's views about the Government's role differ from those of the Neill committee. In previous debates, the Home Secretary has used that as an excuse for offering qualifications and for expressing reservations about the Neill recommendations.
Mr. Linton rose—
Mr. MacGregor: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman because he follows these matters carefully.
Mr. Linton: I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman was about to move on to the question of funding limits. His convincing arguments about fairness in referendum campaigns—involving core funding, free mail and disclosure of donations—should lead to calls for funding limitations. It is possible for a referendum campaign to be unfair because one side is completely unfunded and must apply to the bank for a loan to set up the campaign. However, it is equally possible for a referendum campaign to be skewed unfairly because one side is funded disproportionately. There were spending ratios of 10:1 in the New Zealand campaign and 20:1 in the 1975 referendum campaign. The next referendum campaign on

1427
the single currency could be skewed the other way because donations have already been promised. Why did the Neill committee—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Gentleman has made his point.
Mr. MacGregor: That was almost a speech. I did not intend to address that issue today as I am conscious that other hon. Members wish to contribute.
The Neill committee came to a conclusion about expenditure limits in referendums in paragraph 12.47 of the report, which states:
"Given this possibility,"—
we sought to differentiate between referendum and general election campaigns—
"we believe that seeking to impose spending limits in referendums would not only be administratively impracticable but would, or at least might, impose an unwarranted restriction on freedom of speech."
I agreed with that conclusion, which is why I offered a minority recommendation against expenditure limits in general election campaigns. Those are the sorts of arguments that the committee worked through, and I tend to agree with them. Real abuse occurs when a lot of Government funding goes to one side of the campaign and no public funding is available to the other side. That is why core funding is so important.
I return to the Home Secretary's comments about the role of Government, where I think there has been some misunderstanding in the past. In the debate on the Neill report, I pointed out that the wording of that report could have been better and more precise. I think Lord Neill also expressed that view in a letter to the Home Secretary.
The committee sought to avoid double funding by taxpayers of one side of the campaign. For example, if the majority of the Government were in favour of a yes vote in a particular campaign, we thought that it would be unfair if that case were to receive core as well as Government funding. We would never allow that to occur in a general election, and our recommendation addresses that anomaly.
Of course, Ministers should be free to campaign for a yes or no result, as they wish. That is made clear in the report, which says:
"We believe it is perfectly appropriate for the government of the day to state its views and for members of the Government to campaign vigorously during referendum campaigns".
It is important to emphasise that Ministers are perfectly entitled to campaign and, in my opinion, to use material from the civil service, in favour of a particular policy. That happens in general elections, because there is often civil service input in policy development. However, Ministers are not entitled to use Government resources during the campaign, such as using money to distribute leaflets that put only one side of the case, or using Government cars.
Mr. Gareth Thomas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. MacGregor: No, time is short.
That is such a narrow point that the Home Secretary should not make anything of it by suggesting that the overall package put forward by Neill is flawed. There is no disagreement on that narrow point, so I hope that no more will be made of it.
1428
My conclusion is that there has been strong universal support from many parts of the country for the Neill committee's recommendations on referendums. The Government, in their heart, believe that there is a fair case for those recommendations, and I hope that they will not try to continue to run the argument about Governments not being able to make known their views.
It is important that the Government state clearly in this debate what they intend to do. I strongly urge that their actions follow the lines of the Bill and the Neill recommendations. Above all—I very much agree with the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) on this point—there is much suspicion that the issue might drag on and arise late in the day before a referendum takes place—so, if the Government intend to filibuster on the Bill, I urge them to introduce legislation as quickly as possible.
12.27 pm
Mrs. Louise Ellman: When the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) made the case for his Bill, he said that it was short and simple. In considering the Bill, we must ask whether it is adequate to deal with complex and wide-ranging issues. I have listened to the comments of several hon. Members, and it is clear that the issues are ones of principle and of significant detail.
Referendums will become increasingly important. We know that there is to be a referendum on joining economic and monetary union and we expect one on electoral change. Referendums are also likely to be held on devolution to the English regions. The Government are encouraging referendums for a wide range of activities relating to local government.
The principle of holding more and more referendums highlights the relationship between elected authorities and the people who elect them. It raises questions of the legitimacy of those referendums and of parliamentary democracy itself. I am sure that all hon. Members would agree that it is vital that referendums are conducted so that the results are credible and do not undermine elected authority. I am convinced that statutory regulation is required to achieve that. We must consider carefully the processes by which referendums take place and their results can be assessed. What we are considering today is whether the Bill, described by its promoter as short and simple, deals adequately with those important and fundamental issues of constitution and practice.
The major difficulty with the Bill is the scope of the referendums and the different types of decisions with which it is designed to deal, and the scope of the proposed referendums commission, which would deal with matters relating to economic and monetary union, electoral change, devolution and, presumably, local government referendums. It is clear that we are going to have more and more referendums in local government. Indeed, we are told that there may be legislation on that. The White Paper on local government reform referred to specific new legislation giving specific powers to local authorities to carry out more referendums. Is the Bill to supersede such legislation? Would it be compatible with it? Is it intended to embrace it? We simply do not know.
The question of local government legislation for referendums and the scope of future referendums is extremely important. The Government's stated policies

1429
envisage the Government themselves enforcing local government referendums on local authorities considering whether to change their structure. They envisage the public being able to trigger a referendum on having a directly elected mayor; they envisage compulsory referendums before a directly elected mayor can be installed; and they encourage referendums as tools of consultation on controversial local issues. Clearly, these are wide-ranging measures which encourage more referendums.
Dr. Whitehead: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as she seems about to say, the Bill is silent on the question of what might be termed citizens' propositions, whereby the local electorate can trigger referendums? It is also silent on how those propositions are put together in terms of signatures and how the appropriate wording might appear on the ballot paper. Would not that require regulation in itself?
Mrs. Ellman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. He makes an extremely important point. One of the deficiencies of the Bill is that, being simple and short, it does not deal with the complexities of the practical issues that are likely to arise.
The Bill's proposals on the role of the referendums commission ignore many fundamental issues. Should the same regulations and procedures apply for a referendum that is binding and for one that is simply advisory? Should the same recommendations and procedures apply for a referendum that could change national economic policy—for example, the decision to enter economic and monetary union—and one that expresses the view of a section of a local electorate about an issue on which a reversal of that referendum decision might be possible?
In other words, should a binding decision on electoral change, EMU or regional devolution equate to a referendum taking a view on a proposal about local car parking restrictions? They are fundamentally different issues, and the respective referendums must vary in force and importance. However, the Bill does not distinguish between those issues; indeed, it does not consider them at all.
There are other matters of concern relating to the Bill—matters of concern because of their omission. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) and the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) have each detailed those issues in their own way. The matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon are of great importance, and I refer hon. Members to them.
The right hon. Member for South Norfolk drew attention to some very important issues, and in doing so highlighted the fact that the Bill does not reach any conclusions about them. They include matters to do with financial rules on the conduct of referendums and to do with the question of when a referendum campaign has begun. Has a referendum campaign on economic and monetary union started already?
The Bill does not ask questions about proper public access to information. It does not consider whether there should be free airtime for competing viewpoints, access to free public rooms or free mail—issues considered by the Neill committee.
1430
The Bill does not consider the proper remit for the commission. It does not look at other related issues of importance, such as the idea of a rolling electoral register. It does not consider very important issues concerning the relationship between the referendum commission and the constitution unit of the Home Office, which is also involved in these matters.
Therefore, many crucial aspects are omitted from the scope of the Bill. The House should not be asked to approve a Bill of fundamental importance, relating to an area that will become increasingly important, until those issues have been considered. They are not simply issues of detail; they have, and will increasingly have, great significance.
All the matters that have been mentioned in the debate are of great importance and complexity, and require thought and consultation. That is why a Bill that has been described by its promoter as short and simple is inadequate to deal with those important and fundamental matters.
It would be far preferable for the Government to come up with a proposal and to allow widespread consultation on all those important issues. Pre-legislative scrutiny might be a consideration, but it is important that the House has the opportunity to consider documentation that sets out all those important issues, which touch the heart of our constitution, and that proper public consultation is undertaken on all those matters before a decision is taken.
We are considering issues of public importance—and growing importance. We are considering issues to do with the legitimacy of government and the credibility of the results that will emerge from, no doubt, a growing number of referendums. Those matters deserve deeper thought than the Bill permits. For that reason, the Bill is deficient and should not be allowed a Second Reading today.
12.38 pm
Dr. Liam Fox: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on introducing this immensely important Bill, and doing so in a very stylish way. The Bill relates to an issue of fundamental importance to the way in which we are now governed, given the Government's appetite for referendums on many different issues, all of them in a pre-legislative form.
I was most interested to note that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) said that, since my hon. Friend had described his Bill as short and simple, it could not deal adequately with the complex issues raised in the debate. I remind the hon. Lady that "short" and "simple" are two of the three words that the Leader of the House has used to describe the Government's House of Lords reform Bill. Presumably, given that description, the hon. Member for Riverside believes—by her own logic—that the Government are dealing inadequately with the complexities of House of Lords reform in that Bill.
Mrs. Ellman: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the description given by the Leader of the House concerned the first phase of House of Lords reform? The proposal is indeed short and simple, but there is to be full consultation. A commission is sitting at this moment, considering the detailed complexities of what is to follow.
Dr. Fox: That is definitely a case of when the accused should opt for the right to silence.

1431
This debate has been a test of the Government's democratic credentials. It has been a chance for them to prove that, as they have always said, they want a fair and equitable democratic system. We all know for our experience in this House exactly what is happening today. The Government have decided—it is in their power to do so—that this Bill should not be given a Second Reading. Labour Members have attempted to filibuster, although the quality has been fairly poor. It is a great pity that the Government have decided not to accept the fairly reasonable Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby.
This Bill is part of a wider debate. In this Parliament, we are experiencing a battle between democratic man and Executive man, in which Executive man is increasingly taking the upper hand. I am disappointed that some Labour Members have rolled over in the face of the Executive's desire. In doing so, they have not only failed to defend the rights of Parliament, but have allowed the Government to extend Executive power beyond both Houses of Parliament into areas such as how people can speak in a referendum. I find that an extremely disturbing trend.
Let us be clear about the intention behind the Bill: it is that referendums should be conducted fairly. The Bill asks for fairness in setting the question, so that the Government are not allowed to set a question that suits them. I can imagine the sort of objective question that the Prime Minister might set on economic and monetary union: "Well, I'm a great sort of guy, and if maybe I can come up with the right sort of solution at some point in the future, do you think maybe I should be given the chance to accept it if I think the timing is right?" We want a separate body to set a fair and objective question.
We want fairness in the timing of referendums, so that no one group is favoured. The hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) told us, in an answer that would have made Pravda proud, that the Welsh and Scottish referendums were staggered because there was a media deficit in Wales. Apparently, that does not apply to the elections for the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament—the Scots and the Welsh are apparently now quite capable of distinguishing which country they live in.
We want fairness in the funding of referendums. We believe that both sides of the argument should have reasonable access to funding, so that the disadvantage in the Welsh referendum, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) referred, does not recur. There should be fair access to the media. In this day and age, when the broadcast media matter so much, it is essential to the democratic process that both sides in a referendum campaign, just as in a general election, are given equal access and equal air time.
Judy Mallaber: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there should be a limit on the amount of money that either side can spend on a referendum campaign? Does he believe that such a limit should be in the Bill? I understand why he is supporting the Bill—I support its principles—but does he not agree that a Bill that covered other issues, such as funding, would be preferable?
Dr. Fox: Those are valid questions for consideration in Committee. Maximum levels of funding should be considered in Committee. We want an urgent response to
1432
the problem that we face. The Government would have no problem if they allowed this Bill, with its limited provisions, a Second Reading, and then introduced a wider Bill to cover its functions. It would be entirely possible to repeal this Bill.
Why have Labour Members decided that they do not want this Bill to become law? They have done so because of the will of the Executive, not of Parliament. The Executive ask, "Why should we give anything away when we might be able to use it to our advantage?" That is the worst aspect of the way in which we are governed.
We must ask is why we need fairness. The overriding reason is that the legitimacy of any referendum result requires validity. In Wales the legitimacy was questioned because there was a 0.6 per cent. majority on only a 50 per cent. turnout. That occurred after the Government had used public money—by definition, from those who support both sides of the debate—for Government propaganda. The case put forward was not objective—it was the Government's case.
In this country, not only is no threshold set for a referendum to give it validity, but we have no numerical barriers in our Parliament to changes to our constitution. Results such as that in Wales can therefore lead to questions about validity. That is the wrong basis for making any form of constitutional change, and we should all be deeply worried about it.
What if we get a referendum on electoral reform, and what if that system is entirely dependent on a tiny proportion in a low turnout? What would be the validity of the result? That is why we require a referendums commission.
The Government have shown their fondness for pre-legislative referendums. There is a difference in legitimacy between the results of a pre-legislative referendum and a post-legislative referendum. In a pre-legislative referendum, the people have an idea of what principles they are voting for. In a post-legislative referendum, they know what legislation they are supporting. There can be a world of difference between the two.
The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) is no longer in his seat. His points were entirely based on the concept of legitimacy. As he raised the issue of the current fair British voting system, as against the gerrymandering proposed in other quarters, I would ask him to consider the proposition that a post-legislative referendum would be a far fairer basis for such plans.
Apart from the potential electoral reform referendum, there is concern about the way in which the Government are spending money on the so-called national changeover plan, which is actually the national handover plan, for economic and monetary union. We must make sure that a firm and equitable basis for conducting a referendum is in place before we ever conduct a referendum on electoral reform, and before we conduct a referendum on the most constitutionally important step this side of 1066—the economic and monetary union referendum.
We must have fair rules. The Bill would go some way to achieving that. The Minister will no doubt tell us not to worry, as the Government will put some measure in place. We will have draft legislation. We can have pre-legislative scrutiny. We will get a vague timetable, but we will be given no firm assurances.

1433
If the Government's democratic credentials mean anything at all, the Minister will give us an assurance, with the authority of the Government and the specific authority of the Prime Minister, that no referendum on any constitutional change will be introduced in Parliament without a body having first been established to determine objectively the question, the timing, the funding and the media access to referendums in this country.
If the Minister can give us that assurance, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby has reasonably said that he will not press his Bill any further. If the Minister fails to give us such an assurance, he will boost our fear of the Government's motives. He will boost among the many cross-party groups that supported the Bill the suspicion that the Government are out to concoct a system that suits the Labour party's interests, not the national interest. That is what we have seen from them before, and what we suspect we will get in future.
12.49 pm
Mr. Gareth Thomas: I am prepared to accept that the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) tabled the Bill in an altruistic spirit. He seems to be good-humoured individual. I am prepared to accept that, although there is a battle raging within the ranks of the official Opposition on the role of Britain in Europe and on the single currency, the hon. Gentleman's main motive, if not that of his colleagues, in pursuing the Bill has nothing to do with the anti-European stance of many within his party, but has to do with a fundamental democratic issue, which all those who are interested in democracy and fair play should recognise—the need for a level playing field and a fair and open regulatory system for the conduct of referendums.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas rose—
Mr. Gareth Thomas: I give way to my hon. Friend. It is always a pleasure to give way to my namesake.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Does my hon. Friend think it a shame that the official Opposition spokesperson did not have the courage to take a few more interventions? Does he think also that it is a little rich for Conservative Members to be asking questions about our democratic credentials when they opposed any attempt to establish the equivalent of the Neill committee at a much earlier stage?
Mr. Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend raises a significant point with which, he will not be surprised to learn, I agree wholeheartedly.
As I have said, I am prepared to give the hon. Member for Blaby the benefit of the doubt. I agree with the valid points made by the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor). However, the Bill contains many defects and lacunae, and in my view should not receive a Second Reading. I recognise that the Bill addresses a fundamental issue. That being so, it should have been thought through in a fundamentally sound manner. There should be full consultation with the public and all interested groups. The Bill is premature and precipitate.
1434
Much more work has to be done on it. The devil is in the detail, and I shall take up some of the detail of the Bill, or, rather, the lack of detail, which causes me concern.
I express my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). Although he was unfairly criticised by some Conservative Members, he did the House a favour in his comprehensive analysis of the problems and defects associated with the Bill. My hon. Friend mentioned that there is no upper limit on the spending that could be brought to bear by designated referendum campaigns. That is a fundamental defect. The right hon. Member for South Norfolk said that, in some way, such a limit would cut across the grain of the right to freedom of speech.
However, if the main motive behind the Bill is to ensure a competitive environment for a referendum campaign, an upper limit is essential in the interests of fair play.
Dr. Whitehead: Does my hon. Friend accept that we do not need to look into a crystal ball on this point? I have in mind what has happened over the years in America, particularly in the holding of local and state referendums. The proportional difference in spending between one side and the other, especially when business spending is involved, goes up to 200:1, despite whatever the state may do to apply fair funding and fair information between both sides.
Mr. Thomas: My hon. Friend raises a fundamental point. Many Labour Members could be forgiven for thinking that the fact that there is no upper limit in the Bill gives the lie to the suggestion that it is an entirely altruistic measure designed to combat the perceived democratic deficit.
Mr. David Davis: I have a great deal of sympathy with the argument for an upper limit. However, everything that the hon. Gentleman has said so far suggests that he should be a member of the Committee that amends the Bill to fill the lacunae to which he has referred. His proposed alternative—that the Bill should not receive a Second Reading—does not follow on from what he has said.
What is the implication of delaying the passage of a referendum Bill through the House when one of the major referendums that this country will face—as my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said—will be on joining monetary union? The Government are already spending large sums on what the Neill report referred to as putatively factual information. How does the hon. Gentleman deal with that problem—the idea that delay will influence one of the most important referendums that is coming up?
Mr. Thomas: Although I agree with many of the principles of, and some of the concepts behind, the Bill, we must none the less take a detailed approach to the drafting of such legislation. My view is that the cumulative effect of the defects and the lacunae is that the Bill should not receive a Second Reading. Over and above that, if a fundamental measure of this sort is to be considered by the House, full consultation on all its details, and with all interested parties, is essential. That has to be undertaken before such legislation reaches the statute book. I hope that that answers the right hon. Gentleman's point.

1435
May I deal with some other lacunae in the Bill? As I have said, there is no upper spending limit, and there is no definition of what constitutes a referendum, which is a startling omission. I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon said: that could cause all manner of difficulties. The Bill could be a charter for lawyers, because it raises innumerable questions about what constitutes a referendum. It would cause complications over the freedom that the Government may wish to give to local authorities to conduct ballots, to establish citizens' juries or to ask questions of local electorates on matters of concern within local communities.
The Bill contains no details of how the referendum commission would operate. In my view, it should have a far more wide-reaching brief than the Bill suggests. I would favour an electoral commission charged not only with ensuring fair play in the conduct of referendums but with raising public awareness and enhancing public participation in elections generally. I believe that the Government would support that proposal.
Another of the Bill's defects is the absence of a reference to what should be the permitted role of the Government. Much of the debate has turned on that important point, and my view is that the Government of the day have a responsibility to raise public awareness. Indeed, the Government should use public money to enhance public awareness on matters of constitutional importance, such as the Welsh and Scottish referendums. I shall discuss those referendums, as well as the European single currency, in a moment.
The case for using public money is all the greater if the printed press is inclined to give a one-sided view of a case. It is essential that the Government be allowed to put their case, but the Bill does not refer to what their role should be. I believe that their role should be defined. Many Conservative Members have said that it would be wrong for the Government of the day to enter the arena overmuch, and I accept that point. There should be some control over the manner in which the Government generate information; it should not be propaganda, but, on the other hand, the Government have the important duty of raising public awareness.
I agree that practical difficulties are associated with the operation of designated referendum campaigns, and problems could also be caused by the Bill's broadcasting provisions. As has been said, it could be strongly argued that the current regulatory framework for broadcasters covers the position sufficiently, without further legislation being required.
May I deal with the position in Wales? As a Welsh Member and someone who was actively involved in the Welsh referendum campaign, I have a particular interest in that matter. Although the result of the referendum for setting up the National Assembly for Wales was close, it was none the less a victory for the yes camp. The Government should be congratulated on moving forward speedily with legislation to set up a democratic tier of government in Wales. It is well overdue and is a recognition of the national status of Wales within the British unitary state.
The problem in Wales arose because of the nature of the topography and the fact that Wales does not have a national printed newspaper. Moreover, many people in Wales either cannot, or choose not to, receive television or radio signals from Welsh channels. That creates the
1436
problem that I described in an earlier intervention. The hon. Member for Woodspring did not seem to accept my argument, perhaps because, with the greatest respect, he does not have sufficient knowledge of conditions in Wales. I advise him strongly to listen to some of his Welsh Assembly candidates, who will say that there is a media deficit in Wales. We do not have a national newspaper like the one that exists in Scotland. Right up until polling day for the Welsh referendum, many people did not understand that there was to be a referendum or what it would mean. In those circumstances, the Government had a duty to hold a public information campaign supported by public money—indeed, it would have been an abdication of their responsibility had they not done so.
Dr. Fox: Most of what the hon. Gentleman has said is nonsense, but surely he agrees that the logic of his argument is that both sides of the argument should have been presented to all the electors in Wales, rather than just one side, supported by public money.
Mr. Thomas: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman adopted a churlish tone in dismissing what I would like to think is an objective contribution to this valuable debate. Incidentally, I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaby on raising this issue. The Government did not overstep the mark in Wales. The information that was delivered to each doorstep in Wales was objective. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Woodspring and I will have to agree to disagree. My view is that the Government had a role to play in Wales. Given the lack of public awareness of issues surrounding devolution, they had a duty to step in and fill the media deficit.
We can learn from the results of the referendum in Wales. In terms of the yes and no votes, there was not a north-south split, but an east-west split. The west of Wales, which one might regard as the Celtic fringe—it certainly covers the more Welsh areas of Wales in terms of language and place of birth of the majority of the inhabitants—recorded large majorities in favour of an assembly, whereas the east, including parts of my constituency, recorded an equally large number of votes against devolution.
One can read many things into that, as one can with all referendums, which is why many people believe that they can be an unsatisfactory and inaccurate way of gauging public opinion. Many people in Wales believed that the result of the referendum reflected the degree to which people felt an affinity with the Welsh culture and nation. It may not have had as much as it should have to do with the fine detail of the democratic argument in favour of—or for that matter against—an assembly. However, it was necessary for the Government to invest money in educating the public.
When we have a referendum on the European single currency, the Government will have a similar duty to provide dispassionate information to the general public on the merits and demerits of joining the single currency, if only to counteract what may transpire to be the xenophobia that will emanate from many sources, not least some elements of the press.
Mr. Robathan: I do not want to detain the hon. Gentleman, as I should like other hon. Members to have a chance to speak. He has twice said that the Government

1437
have a duty to inform people, but he has also said that he will oppose the Bill. The Bill is about allowing people to make informed choices. Each side of the argument will be presented to everyone so that they can understand what it is that they are being asked to vote for. If only one side of the argument is given, how can anyone make an informed choice?
Mr. Thomas: I entirely agree with the principle that the public should hear both sides of the argument, delivered loud and clear. I should like there to be upper limits on spending so that fairness exists and so that the voice of parties to the arguments can be heard in equal proportion. However, there are fundamental problems with the Bill, and I cannot accept it.
Much has been made of the fact that the no campaign in Wales, which was poorly financed and resourced, achieved quite a degree of success. Most political parties in Wales—with the notable exception of the official Opposition—were in favour of the establishment of the National Assembly for Wales; it was an important commitment in the Labour, Liberal Democrat and Plaid Cymru general election manifestos. My own view is that there ought not to have been referendums in either Scotland or Wales because devolution was clearly a fundamental principle at the heart of the general election campaign. There was a stark division in both Scotland and Wales between the Conservatives and Labour on that principle.
The role of broadcasters during the referendum campaign in Wales was problematic. Broadcasters must give a balanced view of both yes and no campaigns, but they must surely be entitled also to give weight to the strength of opinion. To create an artificial balance would be completely wrong-headed. All political parties in Wales—except the Conservatives—supported devolution. It was artificial to allow the no campaign so much coverage when it had little support outside certain areas. Points made this morning about the Bill's problematic broadcasting provisions have highlighted a fundamental defect in the Bill.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaby on introducing an important Bill that deals with issues which the Government should comprehensively address. I hope that they will do so in the near future, because those issues go to the root of our democratic system. However, I cannot accept the Bill as it stands.
1.10 pm
Mr. David Davis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand from the news that the hon. Member for Newark (Mrs. Jones) has been found guilty in the election expenses-rigging trial. Have you received any notification from the Government that there will be a by-election?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I have had no notification of a statement.
1.10 pm
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I, too, add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on producing this important Bill, which
1438
is based on the well-researched Neill committee report and which had all-party support and should therefore be given a fair wind in the House—there is no excuse for not doing so.
In passing, I must inform the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) that hon. Members who are prepared to act as the Government's pooper-scoopers rarely come up smelling of roses when it comes to promotion. The hon. Gentleman illegitimately took up almost an hour of the House's time to pour out a lot of nonsense—he knew it was nonsense—in the hope of doing deals with his Front Bench.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) said, we could be forgiven for thinking that the Government do not intend to introduce any fairness into the system in time for the referendum that they have promised after the next general election, if they happen to win it. We will have a referendum if we win the election. The Government are deliberately delaying introducing that fairness because they do not want it for that referendum. As has been remarked, they are already pumping money into their side of the debate. That is why we are here this morning. We are trying to allow the people of this country to have a legitimate say in a matter that is of crucial importance to our future democracy and independence.
I had intended to raise two issues, but as one was partly dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox)—what I would have called the thresholds involved in a referendum and what he calls the legitimacy of outcome—I will move on to the second in the interests of brevity.
That issue is the scope of referendum, and we may deal with it in Committee. We need to define to some extent the issues that could legitimately qualify for Government support. As the hon. Member for Hendon remarked, ballots of parents concerning a school would clearly be outwith the scope of any legislation dealing with referendums, which should be held on matters of national importance—issues that should be the concern of every citizen at the time of the referendum.
The question of who is to be balloted in a referendum is another issue. I mention that because, in the recent past, there have been a number of referendums dealing with matters of fundamental importance to the whole population—the future of the legitimate structure of the United Kingdom—in which voting has been restricted to certain parts of the country. Had even all those of Scottish birth been given the right to vote in the Scottish referendum, we might have had a different outcome—and that will not have escaped the Government's attention. The point of that referendum was not to take note of public opinion but to achieve the political objective of the Government of the day.
The same was true in Wales where, as has been pointed out on a number of occasions, the turnout was extremely low—that is relevant to the question of the threshold that should be allowed. In the London referendum, the turnout was derisory. However, the Government now legitimately claim that they have a mandate to go ahead with a new form of administration and, again, they have a political motive. The Government know full well that the central part of our capital city sensibly returns Conservative councils such as Westminster—despite all the abuse and concoctions of the Labour party to discredit it—

1439
and Kensington and Chelsea. Though we do not know this from elections, I suggest that the City of London would be Conservative. If we tack on Wandsworth, we have a core in the centre of London likely to remain predominantly Conservative. The Government's actions are designed to undermine that position.
That brings me to the electorate in referendums and the Government's intention to exclude certain parts of the country from the overall game plan. Most particularly, that means the people of England. They, too, have a legitimate case, under the Government's criteria, to be asked whether they want a government to handle domestic issues that affect people who live in England and no other—a government of the sort that the Scots, and, to a large extent, the Welsh, will have.
Mrs. Ellman: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Gorman: I want to make progress. The hon. Lady has made her speech and others want to contribute.
I challenge the Government to say why people in England are not to be afforded the same courtesy and democratic right accorded to other parts of the United Kingdom. Several people who have written to me about this tell me that they also write to the Prime Minister, only to be told that there is no real interest in the issue. That is not a legitimate reason for excluding the people of England, because the referendums have presented them with an anomalous situation. Major domestic concerns such as health and education and welfare will be decided by separate Parliaments in Scotland and Wales, but Scottish and Welsh representatives will be free to vote on such issues as they affect the people of England. I hope that that will be at the forefront of deliberations in Committee.
The outcome of all this should fair to all citizens. So far, the Government's referendums have been anything but. They have been politically motivated and exclusive and do not qualify as legitimate consultation of the people. Polls are one thing, but matters likely to affect the construction of the United Kingdom are for general elections. The Government would say that they brought those things up in their manifesto and that they are therefore legitimate.
When the Government ballot the people of the United Kingdom through referendums on issues fundamental to all parts of the United Kingdom, the process should include all the peoples of the United Kingdom. We have gone past that stage for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but we can still accord the same fairness and courtesy to the people of England. If the Government are not prepared to do that, and continue to hold the people of England in contempt, there will be a repercussion. The people who represent the people of England in this Chamber will surely not stand by and continue to allow those who are not elected as English Members to the Westminster Parliament to determine matters of fundamental importance to the people of England. I hope that fairness and legitimacy will be to the fore in the Committee's discussions.
1.20 pm
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: As other hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, fair rules on referendums and elections are clearly an important
1440
issue. However, Opposition Members should be extremely wary of using words such as "democracy" and "fairness". My constituents remember only too well that the Conservative party refused to extend the remit of the Nolan committee to consider political party funding.
I am slightly surprised to see so many members of the Conservative party supporting a referendums commission in the light of the evidence that Lord Parkinson gave on its behalf to the Home Affairs Select Committee. The Committee noted that he was not convinced that an electoral commission was necessary or, indeed, that it would be desirable. It seems a remarkable volte-face, so soon after he gave that evidence, that so many Conservative Members should now support the Bill.
I fear that the Bill was born of the Conservative party's hysteria on all matters to do with the euro and their opposition to any future sensible attempts to modernise our electoral system. It is a badly drafted Bill that raises more questions than it answers. Therefore, I will not support it or urge the Government to support prolonging its life. Nevertheless, I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on securing such a high slot in the private Member's ballot and on the way, albeit misguided, in which he set out his case.
The background to the Bill lies in our party's decision to extend the remit of the Nolan Committee on Standards in Public Life. One of the most important recommendations made by the Neill committee was for the establishment of an elections commission. Recommendation 93 of its fifth report states that one function of such a commission should be to keep referendums and referendum campaigns under review, and that reports should be made to the Government and to Parliament about them.
In the debates on 9 November on the Neill committee's fifth report, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary clearly stated his intention
"to produce a draft Bill before the next summer recess and to bring forward legislation so that new rules can be in place for the next general election."—[Official Report, 9 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 53.]
The hon. Member for Blaby said in answer to my intervention that an elections commission would take over the role of a referendums commission. In the light of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's assurance, a referendums commission is entirely unnecessary, since legislation to establish a much more crucial elections commission, with a role in referendums but with even more fundamental responsibilities, will come before the House.
In the concluding part of his speech on 9 November, the shadow Home Secretary said, or at least claimed, that he wanted to see legislation
"that covers all the report's proposals, for referendums as well as elections."—[Official Report, 9 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 66.]
Yet here is the Conservative parliamentary party turning out in force to support a proposal that is not in the Neill report—indeed, much of it flies in the face of what he recommended—and does not cover the bigger picture of elections.

1441
Clauses 2 and 3 relate to the need for equal access to core funding to enable at least minimal campaigns to be mounted by designated pro and anti campaigns. Yet, in paragraph 12.35 of the fifth report, the committee states unequivocally:
"We believe that the new Election Commission should be the body both to receive applications for core funding from organisations intending to campaign in any referendum and to decide which of the organisations should be in receipt of the core funding."
The report mentions an elections commission, not a referendums commission.
The question in my mind is why the hon. Member for Blaby, backed by so many of his hon. Friends, is proposing a referendums commission and not an elections commission. I suspect that the Conservative party fears an elections commission. It fears the honesty, transparency and integrity that a commission would demand of all political parties. The Conservative party was most reluctant to see lasting reform of party funding. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), consistently opposed extending the remit of the Nolan committee to party funding.
What is particularly astonishing about the Bill is the absence of a broader regime of controls recommended by the Neill report, which, over a defined period, would require the registration of any campaigning group or individual intending to incur expenditure of more than £25,000.
The Bill contains no requirement to report donations of more than £5,000 to campaigning individuals or groups. Where is any restriction on the source of donations to campaigning organisations? Specifically, why does the Bill not at least ban foreign donations? The omission of such controls has an echo in the Conservative party's reluctance to accept tighter controls on, and tighter scrutiny of, election spending. Who could forget the extent to which the Conservative party was reliant on foreign donors at the last election? There was the £1 million gift from a Hong Kong businessman, and £1.5 million from a Greek shipping owner, not to mention the Asil Nadir debacle. At the time, the Conservative party was desperate for money—any money—to try to buy election success or, more realistically, to minimise—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going a bit wide of the Bill.
Mr. Thomas: Thank you for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Dismore: Perhaps I can help out my hon. Friend by reminding him of the suggestion that Paul Sykes might make a contribution of up to £20 million to a no campaign in the European referendum. Does that help to illustrate my hon. Friend's point?
Mr. Thomas: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I was asking why the Bill contains no ban on foreign sources of funding for referendum campaigns. Is it because, as I suspect, the hon. Member for Blaby and his right hon. and hon. Friends want to ensure that a treasure
1442
chest can be built up to buy advantage at any price in a referendum on entry to the euro, or to fight any form of sensible electoral reform?
The omission of references to the need for disclosure of the sources of funding, which was recommended by Neill not only for elections but for referendums, reminds me of the improper close relationship that existed between those who funded the Conservative party and those who held power in it, as described in Lord McAlpine's biography. Any referendum campaign must avoid such stigma, or even the hint of it, especially as the campaigns in the possible referendums on entry to the single currency and on electoral reform would inevitably be fronted by high-profile political or business figures. Without rules on disclosure and the source of donations, and thus without transparency and accountability, there will always be concern about the nature of the relationship between funders and funded in a referendum campaign.
The hon. Gentleman made much of the need for broadcast media to give equal access to both sides in a referendum campaign. I do not see what his Bill adds to existing legislative requirements, as broadcasters are already required to be impartial in their coverage of matters of political controversy. Another example of bad drafting is the absence from the Bill of a requirement for the commission to account for the expenses it incurs. Neither is it clear, either from the Bill or from the speeches in support of it, how the establishment of a permanent body dealing solely with referendums can be reconciled with the fact that referendums are, by definition, infrequent.
There is one other major omission from the Bill, which is any limit on the spending allowed during a referendum. The Neill report's recommendations that there should not be curbs on referendum expenditure are fundamentally flawed. The committee advanced two arguments for allowing any amount of spending. First, it argued that referendum campaigns are often fought by people and organisations who have never worked together, or who might not work together even during the campaign, and that it would thus be impractical to try to control campaign spending. I recognise the additional complexity that referendum campaigns bring, but I do not accept that control is impossible. The issue is one that an elections commission should explore in more detail.
The second argument against control over spending advanced by the Neill committee is that it would result in some sort of unwarranted restriction of freedom of speech, because the reasons for voting yes or no might be large in number, disparate, and even contradictory. The same conflicts exist during election campaigns, with the number of such conflicts reflecting the number of parties contesting the election. Therefore, if there should be constraints on spending during election campaigns, there should also be limits on spending during referendum campaigns.
I am extremely suspicious of the motives of Conservative Members who back the Bill. The Bill selectively picks out recommendations from the Neill committee report, it does not address key criticisms of the report and it completely ignores the need for more wide-ranging reform of our election system. That wide-ranging reform is necessary, in part to clean up and guarantee as far as is possible a continuing clean relationship between the Conservative party and its funders.

1443
I think that this Bill is really about trying to secure an advantage for the Conservatives' position in a referendum campaign on the euro. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that he has been rumbled, that he will withdraw his Bill immediately and engage instead in a more mature and genuine debate about the rules governing both electoral and referendum campaigns when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary publishes draft legislation this summer.
1.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): I join other hon. Members who have congratulated the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) not only on his success in the ballot, but on raising this important issue. It has given the House a welcome opportunity to debate several important points regarding the conduct of referendums. I also thank the hon. Gentleman for the good-humoured way—for the most part—in which he introduced his Bill and for his courteous comments about me.
As many hon. Members have said, the case for a generic referendums Bill is clearly stronger now than it was 10 years ago. As several hon. Members recounted, since 1973 eight referendums have been held either throughout the United Kingdom or, more commonly, in a particular part of the country. Some might find it surprising, given the subsequent history of referendums, that it was a Conservative Government who conducted our first referendum in 1973 on whether Northern Ireland should continue to remain part of the United Kingdom.
That was followed by three referendums under the last Labour Government. The first of those, in June 1975, was on the United Kingdom's continued membership of the European Community. It remains, to date, the only occasion on which a referendum has been held throughout the country. It is worth recording that the Neill committee saw the legal and administrative arrangements for the 1975 referendum as a model for future nationwide polls. There followed, in 1979, separate referendums in Scotland and Wales on whether the devolution legislation, enacted the previous year, should be put into effect.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) pointed out, the conduct of referendums fell into disuse during the 18 years of the previous Conservative Administration. However, the Labour Government were elected with a commitment to making some sweeping changes to this country's constitution, and we believe that key parts of that programme of constitutional change should be underpinned by the explicit consent of the people affected. To this end, we have already held four referendums. The first two, in 1997, sought the endorsement—which we received—of our proposals for devolved government in Scotland and Wales. They were followed, in 1998, by referendums in London and on the establishment of the Greater London authority and in Northern Ireland on the acceptability of the Good Friday agreement respectively.
However, as most speakers have conceded, the use of referendums will probably not stop there. Our manifesto contains a number of further commitments to hold referendums at an appropriate time. Last month, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when launching the national changeover plan, reiterated our commitment to hold a referendum on membership of the single currency
1444
after a Government decision to join. In addition to the euro, we have also said that we will hold a referendum before changing the voting system for elections to this House and before introducing directly elected regional government in England. The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) referred to England as one region or nation. As she well knows, the Government have no plans to introduce an English Parliament, although any demand for some sort of regional government will be pursued via a referendum in the area concerned.
Our commitment to referendums to strengthen the democratic legitimacy of our new constitutional settlement is not confined to changes at national and regional levels. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced in the Government's White Paper on modernising local government that local people should decide, in a referendum, whether they supported the creation of a directly elected mayor.
The White Paper also signalled the Government's support for the use of referendums as an important tool to give local people more say in such issues as major local developments or matters of particular local controversy. Several hon. Members have referred to that important and welcome development.
Mr. Letwin: Does the Minister recall the words of the Prime Minister, who stated:
"I want to renew faith in politics through a government that will … play by the rules"?
Will he now give a categorical assurance that his Government will not hold any more referendums beyond those that he has already described without implementing rules to give effect to those words?
Mr. Howarth: The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) asked specific questions to that effect and I shall answer those in due course, so if the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) exercises a little patience, I will come to that point.
It is clear from the agenda for modernising the political structures of our country that referendums will continue to play an important part in our political life. That was recognised by the Neill committee's report on the funding of political parties and the Electoral Reform Society's commission on the conduct of referendums, which reported in 1996 under the chairmanship of Sir Patrick Nairne. The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) and the hon. Member for Blaby referred to the work done by Sir Patrick Nairne and those who sat on his commission.
Until now, the practice has been to organise referendums case by case. In seven out of the eight referendums that have so far been held, statutory authority for the poll was derived from dedicated primary legislation. In the eighth case—the 1998 Northern Ireland poll—the statutory authority was derived from an order made under the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Act 1996.
It is clear from a quick reading of the various referendum Acts that there is now a reasonably well-established set of statutory provisions that are needed to provide for a referendum to be held. Typically, legislation for holding referendums has defined persons eligible to vote. The hon. Member for Billericay implied that anybody who has Scottish ancestry should have had

1445
a vote in the Scottish referendum, even if they did not live in Scotland. We do not agree, but it is important, as she suggested, to define who is eligible and who is not. The legislation usually needs also to specify the question.
Mrs. Gorman: My point was that the entire population should be considered suitable to express a view on an issue that concerns the whole nation. I was referring not only to people of Scottish ancestry, but the population of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Howarth: I am sorry—I had misunderstood the hon. Lady.
The legislation must also determine the date of the referendum, provide for the appointment of a chief counting officer with responsibility for counting the votes and announcing the result and provide powers to adapt existing electoral machinery as necessary.
In addition, the Referendum Act 1975 provided for grants to be made towards the cost of campaigning. That subject has been well ventilated during the debate, it is dealt with in the Bill, and I shall return to it later. The Neill committee's recommendations consider other issues, such as the registration of campaign organisations, to which I shall also return in due course.
If, as appears to be the case, referendums are to become a permanent feature of our political life, there is certainly an argument for setting up standing machinery for their conduct. We have such machinery for elections, so why not for referendums? There is a good deal of force in that argument, but, on the other hand, the process of selecting items for inclusion in a generic referendums Bill is, as the debate has demonstrated, by no means straightforward.
Mr. Cash: The Minister may recall the rather controversial Referendum Bill that I introduced in 1996, which caused something of a furore, and my Maastricht referendum campaign, which attracted 350,000 signatures, in 1993. That campaign was chaired by me, a Liberal Democrat and a Labour Member. At the heart of our debate is not simply the question of the generics of the Bill, but the extent to which the people may be misled if broadcasting is not accurate and impartial. Will the Minister be good enough to tell me whether the Government's Bill, like this Bill, will include specific and legally accurate provisions to ensure due impartiality on the part of Eurorealists and Europhiles? This is not a party political issue.
Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman mentions fairness in broadcasting. If he will bear with me, I shall cover that point later.
I have already outlined the type of provisions that have typically featured in dedicated referendum Acts. We need to pause before throwing all the individual ingredients into a generic referendums Bill. One approach might be to create a broad order-making power enabling a referendum to be called on any issue. The effect of that, however, would be to restrict Parliament's ability to debate the merits of holding a referendum on any particular issue, the wording of the question and the timing of the poll. There is a strong argument for saying that, on matters of national constitutional significance,
1446
there should be a full opportunity for Parliament to give its consent to each and every referendum, and that Parliament should set the question.
If we put to one side the question and the timing of any given referendum, we are left with the nuts and bolts of referendums. As the Neill committee recognised, however, these are still matters of great importance. Like justice, referendums must be conducted, and be seen to be conducted, fairly—I think that the hon. Member for Blaby made the same point in slightly different words. A generic referendums Bill could establish clear ground rules to ensure that that is so.
The Bill properly focuses on two ground rules—core public funding and equal access to the broadcast media—but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will concede that there are others. If we are to have ground rules, as I believe that we must, perhaps the first question to ask is, who or what sort of body is to police them? The Bill provides for the establishment of a referendums commission, as recommended by, I think, the Nairne commission—I believe that the hon. Gentleman conceded that his proposal was taken from that model—and as supported by the Jenkins commission on the voting system. The hon. Gentleman has sensibly been open in recognising that his referendums commission is intended only as an interim arrangement until a more suitable body is established under subsequent legislation.
During the debate on the Neill committee's report on 9 November last year, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced that the Government had accepted the case for the establishment of an electoral commission. As my right hon. Friend said in that debate, we are considering the precise role and remit of the electoral commission.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) said, it is clear that we do not want a plethora of bodies responsible for different aspects of elections, as well as referendums. If Parliament determines that a body of this kind should have functions in relation to referendums, it would make every sense to confer those functions on the electoral commission. Precisely what that entails remains at this stage a matter for more detailed consideration, but there must be some doubt about the wisdom of setting up a separate referendums commission at a time when the Government have accepted the need for an electoral commission, and there are no new referendums on the immediate horizon. I shall return to that point. It is perfectly possible that a body established in this way would never have any role before being superseded by the electoral commission.
The Government will want to use the next few months—
Mr. Damian Green rose—
Mr. Howarth: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I must then make progress.
Mr. Green: Will the Minister confirm that he is telling the House that there will be no referendums between now and the next general election, including one on the electoral system?
Mr. Howarth: I have told the hon. Member for West Dorset that I intend to answer that question shortly so, if the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) will bear with me, I shall return to it.

1447
During the next few months, we want to consider carefully how the electoral commission should be structured. I chair a working party on electorate procedures, on which the Conservative party and Liberal Democrat party are represented. Yesterday, we had a detailed and useful discussion on what the functions of an electoral commission should be, and what enabled us to discover variations in our thinking. We are not just treading water; something is happening. Discussions are taking place, and this debate is part of that discussion. The proceedings of that working party, on which both the opposition parties are represented, are also part of the consideration.
As the Neill committee said, the commission should be independent of Government and, as far as possible, the arrangements for making appointments to the commission and for setting its budget should reflect its independent status. On the appointments side, the hon. Member for Blaby has built in a role for the Speaker. That is one approach, and I would not rule out a role for the Speaker in connection with the electoral commission, but I would not in any way take the role or consent of the Speaker for granted at this stage of our debate.
The Bill is less forthcoming on the arrangements for setting the referendums commission's budget. There is the usual provision for money to be provided by Parliament to meet the commission's expenses, but the implication is that the commission's budget should be part of a departmental vote. The Neill committee pointed out that the mechanism for setting the budget of the National Audit Office provides a useful precedent, and it is one that we want to examine further.
I am sure that the House will agree that it is important to get the structure of the supervisory body right and to consider carefully the functions that it will need. The Nairne commission helpfully identified several possible functions—advising on the wording of the question; allocating funding to campaign groups; liaising with, and acting as a moderator between, any campaign groups; acting in an ombudsman role to deal with any complaints; monitoring balanced access to broadcast media; providing public information, including a balanced statement of the opposing arguments; and supervising the organisation of polling stations and counting and declaration arrangements. The commission also suggested that a continuing role might be to identify lessons from each referendum and to recommend any necessary changes in procedure for future referendums.
That is an impressive list, which requires detailed analysis. The promoter and sponsors of the Bill have obviously concluded that their referendums commission should have a more limited remit. On my reading of the Bill, the proposed commission's functions would be limited to advising and reporting on referendums in general; advising on the wording of the question; designating a referendum campaign body for each possible outcome; making grants to such designated campaign bodies; and reporting on the conduct of each referendum.
There may be a closer affinity between the functions that I have just listed and the functions recommended by the Neill committee, but even the list that I just enumerated is no small undertaking. We need to be sure that the functions conferred on any oversight body are appropriate. For example, should a referendums commission have a role in relation to all national, regional
1448
and local referendums? My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) drew attention to some of the difficulties that might arise in that regard.
Clause 4 requires the referendums commission to
"make a report to the Secretary of State on the conduct of any referendum conducted under any enactment".
As I read the Bill, that could include local referendums.
I have mentioned the Deputy Prime Minister's plans for local consultative referendums on such issues as major local developments and matters of local controversy. Those consultative referendums would be in addition to the binding referendums on whether there should be a directly elected mayor. The proposals in the Bill create potential for hundreds of local referendums to be conducted throughout the country every year. If the referendums commission was expected to report on every local referendum, it would need very many staff.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Blaby would agree that a balance must be achieved. We do not yet have a ready answer to that problem, but my instinct is that the Bill has not quite achieved a balance, although I accept that that is not as a result of prejudice on the hon. Gentleman's part, but simply reflects the complexity of the issues involved.
Clause 2 would provide for the designation, by the referendums commission, of referendum campaign organisations. The clause seeks to implement recommendation 85 of the Neill report, which provided that
"the Election Commission should decide which organisations, if any, should be in receipt of core funding".
There is, however, a key difference between what the clause provides for and the substance of the recommendation. The Neill committee acknowledged that identifying one organisation on either side of a referendum campaign which stood out from all other such organisations may not always be straightforward.
In 1975, the position was clear. The Government issued a White Paper, which advised:
"The Government are prepared to consider providing limited financial assistance, to be equally divided between the two sides, if it is possible to identify two organisations which adequately represent those campaigning for and against continued membership of the Community."
Events moved rapidly, to such an extent that, when the Referendum Bill was published on 26 March 1975, it provided for grants to be made to two named organisations: Britain in Europe and the National Referendum Campaign. It must be remembered that, at that time, the political landscape was in many ways not as complicated or crowded as it is today.
Other more recent referendum campaigns have spawned their own umbrella cross-party groups. Although such umbrella groups have emerged more often than not, the Neill committee pointed to the no campaign in Scotland in 1997 and the yes campaign in Northern Ireland in 1998, where such groups were not an obvious feature of the campaign.
Clause 2(2) requires the referendums commission to certify one organisation on each side
"as the designated referendum campaign".
As my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley pointed out, such a provision could place the commission in a very difficult, if not impossible, position. As the Neill committee sensibly recommended, it would be unwise to box the commission into such a corner.

1449
Another potential difficulty for the electoral commission is that the Bill refers to
"each of the possible outcomes"
in a referendum. In most cases, as the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) suggested, the possible outcomes are clear because electors are asked to vote either yes or no to a single question, or for one of two opposing propositions. The 1997 Scottish devolution referendum does not, however, fit neatly into this framework.
The House will recall that, in 1997, the Scottish people were presented with a two-part ballot paper. Voters were asked, first, to indicate whether they agreed or disagreed that there should be a Scottish Parliament, and secondly, whether they agreed or disagreed that a Scottish Parliament should have tax-varying powers. In theory, therefore, there were four possible outcomes: yes to a Scottish Parliament and yes to giving it tax-varying powers; no to both; yes to a Scottish Parliament, but no to giving it tax-varying powers; and no to a Scottish Parliament, but yes to giving it tax-varying powers.
Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman please answer this question: is he suggesting that, under the Bill, there could be two questions in a referendum—one asking people whether they wanted a single currency, and the other asking people whether they wanted to be part of the European Union? If that is what the Government have in mind, they are following a very dangerous path.
Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that that was not what I meant. I was merely referring to the fact that, in different campaigns and referendums, there could be more complicated sets of questions.
In practice, in the Scottish devolution referendum, campaigners fought for either a yes or a no vote to both propositions. None the less, given four possible outcomes, the referendums commission would be obliged under the Bill to designate four referendum campaign organisations, and pay each of them a grant in order that a campaign may be conducted. That example, and others that we have heard, demonstrate the difficulty of setting up a framework that covers all possible future circumstances. Despite the difficulties, we should not be put off trying to find a workable solution. All credit is due to the hon. Member for Blaby for introducing the Bill so that we can begin to discuss the issues.
Once we get over the problem of identifying the lead campaign body on each side of the referendum, there is the question of core funding, which several hon. Members raised. Clause 3(1) provides for grants to be made to the designated referendum campaigns and stipulates, in paragraph (b), that the same amount must be given to each side. It is worth spending a little time examining that proposition.
Recommendation 84 of the Neill report did indeed propose that
"each side should be given equal access to an amount of core funding".
From the preceding paragraphs in the report, it is clear that the concern was that each side should have sufficient
1450
funds to enable it to mount a minimum campaign. By "sufficient funds", the Neill Committee meant sufficient
"to cover minimal office accommodation, the purchase or rental of a quantity of office equipment and supplies, and the salaries of three or four members of staff for the duration of the campaign".
In making that recommendation, as the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) accepted, the Neill Committee pointed to the precedent of the 1975 referendum. Section 3 of the Referendum Act 1975 provided for a grant not exceeding £125,000 to be made to the two main campaign organisations.
The official accounts of Britain in Europe and the National Referendum Campaign were published in October 1975 (Cmnd. 6215). As an historical insight into the politics of the 1970s, that document makes interesting reading. As well as the audited receipts and payments accounts, the document lists all the individual donations of £100 or more received by the two campaigns.
The list for Britain in Europe—the yes campaign—includes the names of 369 individuals and organisations who together donated nearly £1 million. The list reads like a "Who's Who" of British industry and commerce, including as it does such companies as ICI, Marks and Spencer, Shell UK and the Rank Organisation. The list of donors to the National Referendum Campaign—the no campaign—makes rather more poignant reading. There were just seven individuals or organisations identified as having given more than £100.
The key fact that the accounts reveal is that the Government grant to the Britain in Europe campaign represented only 8 per cent. of its total income, whereas the grant to the National Referendum Campaign represented a massive 94 per cent. of its total income. In a typically thoughtful speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) alluded to that problem, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas).
If the purpose of core funding is to ensure that each side has sufficient funds to run at least a minimal campaign, it is arguable whether it was strictly necessary in 1975 to award funding to the Britain in Europe campaign at all. I am not making the case one way or the other, but simply posing the question whether the requirement to be fair to each side overrides all other considerations.
Dr. Fox: The Minister has been speaking for 29 minutes. He has three times said that he would answer a straight question. Will or will not the Government give a commitment that they will not introduce proposals for a referendum in this country until fair rules are established, under this Bill or subsequent legislation?
Mr. Howarth: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I intend to cover that in my speech. If he will exercise a little patience, I shall deal with the matter—there is plenty of time.
The question is whether, in the circumstances that I described, it was necessary to give a commitment to funding for both sides. Where core funding is available, it seems sensible not to spread it too thinly across a number of campaigning groups. The Neill committee's approach, which the Bill adopts, was to allocate the funding to only one organisation on each side of the referendum. However, we should not lose sight of the fact

1451
that there may be many other organisations, in addition to the lead umbrella groups, that are campaigning in the referendum.
Mr. Robathan rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The House divided: Ayes 129, Noes 5.

Division No. 121]

[2 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Amess, David

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Key, Robert

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Baker, Norman

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Baldry, Tony

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Lansley, Andrew

Bercow, John

Letwin, Oliver

Beresford, Sir Paul

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Body, Sir Richard

Lidington, David

Boswell, Tim

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Loughton, Tim

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Luff, Peter

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Browning, Mrs Angela

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Burns, Simon

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Butterfill, John

Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

Cash, William

McLoughlin, Patrick

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Madel, Sir David

Malins, Humfrey

Chope, Christopher

Mates, Michael

Clappison, James

May, Mrs Theresa

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Moss, Malcolm

Collins, Tim

Nicholls, Patrick

Colvin, Michael

Norman, Archie

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Ottaway, Richard

Cran, James

Page, Richard

Curry, Rt Hon David

Paice, James

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)

Paterson, Owen

Pickles, Eric

Day, Stephen

Prior, David

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Randall, John

Duncan, Alan

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Evans, Nigel

Robathan, Andrew

Faber, David

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Fallon, Michael

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Flight, Howard

Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

St Aubyn, Nick

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Soames, Nicholas

Fox, Dr Liam

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Fraser, Christopher

Spicer, Sir Michael

Garnier, Edward

Spring, Richard

Gibb, Nick

Steen, Anthony

Gill, Christopher

Streeter, Gary

Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

Swayne, Desmond

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Syms, Robert

Gray, James

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Green, Damian

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Greenway, John

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Hammond, Philip

Townend, John

Hawkins, Nick

Tredinnick, David

Hayes, John

Trend, Michael

Heald, Oliver

Tyrie, Andrew

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Walter, Robert

Horam, John

Wardle, Charles

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Waterson, Nigel

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Wells, Bowen

Hunter, Andrew

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Jenkin, Bernard

Whittingdale, John

1452

Wilkinson, John

Yeo, Tim

Willetts, David

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Wilshire, David

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Mr. Edward Leigh and Mr. Dominic Grieve.

Woodward, Shaun

NOES

Dismore, Andrew

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Tellers for the Noes:

Hill, Keith

Ms Bridget Prentice and Mr. Gareth R. Thomas.

Sedgemore, Brian

Question accordingly agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
The House Divided:Ayes 128, Noes 0.

Division No. 122]

[2.11 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Hammond, Philip

Amess, David

Hawkins, Nick

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Hayes, John

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Heald, Oliver

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Baker, Norman

Horam, John

Baldry, Tony

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Hunter, Andrew

Bercow, John

Jenkin, Bernard

Beresford, Sir Paul

Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Body, Sir Richard

Boswell, Tim

Key, Robert

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Browning, Mrs Angela

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Lansley, Andrew

Burns, Simon

Letwin, Oliver

Butterfill, John

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Cash, William

Lidington, David

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Chope, Christopher

Loughton, Tim

Clappison, James

Luff, Peter

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Collins, Tim

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Colvin, Michael

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

Cran, James

McLoughlin, Patrick

Curry, Rt Hon David

Madel, Sir David

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)

Malins, Humfrey

Mates, Michael

Day, Stephen

May, Mrs Theresa

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Moss, Malcolm

Duncan, Alan

Nicholls, Patrick

Evans, Nigel

Norman, Archie

Faber, David

Ottaway, Richard

Fallon, Michael

Page, Richard

Flight, Howard

Paice, James

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Paterson, Owen

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Pickles, Eric

Fox, Dr Liam

Prior, David

Fraser, Christopher

Randall, John

Garnier, Edward

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Gibb, Nick

Robathan, Andrew

Gill, Christopher

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

Gray, James

St Aubyn, Nick

Green, Damian

Soames, Nicholas

Greenway, John

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Spicer, Sir Michael

1453

Spring, Richard

Waterson, Nigel

Steen, Anthony

Wells, Bowen

Streeter, Gary

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Swayne, Desmond

Whittingdale, John

Syms, Robert

Wilkinson, John

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Willetts, David

Taylor, Ian (Esher& Walton)

Wilshire, David

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Townend, John

Woodward, Shaun

Tredinnick, David

Yeo, Tim

Trend, Michael

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Tyrie, Andrew

Tellers for the Ayes:

Walter, Robert

Mr. Dominic Grieve and Mr. Edward Leigh.

Wardle, Charles

NOES

Tellers for the Noes:

Mr. Gerald Howarth and Mr. David Maclean.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63(1) (Committal of Bills).

Cheques (Scotland) Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
2.22 pm
Mr. John Swinney: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I have pleasure in introducing this Bill to the House for its Second Reading. It tackles an historical anomaly created by the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, through the applications of the funds-attached principle, which affects the customers of Scottish banks.
I thank the Committee of Scottish Clearing Bankers for its assistance in the preparation of the Bill and for raising this important issue in the banking sector. I also thank the Economic Secretary and her officials, who have assisted in the preparation of the Bill.
The funds-attached principle means that a cheque operates as an assignation of the sum for which it is drawn in favour of the owner of the cheque. If there are insufficient funds to meet a cheque when it is presented, whatever sums are available are attached and suspended, to be passed over eventually to the owner of the cheque, should he or she fail to get full value for it by other means. That is a cumbersome administrative procedure. The banks estimate that it involves the operation of 100,000 accounts in any year and that the measure would save the Scottish clearing banks approximately £250,000 a year in administrative costs.
The operation of that principle was considered by the Review Committee on Banking Services Law, chaired by Professor Jack under the previous Government, who accepted the recommendations of the Jack committee subject to consultation. That consultation indicated that there was support for the measure.
Mr. Eric Forth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Swinney: No, I am short of time.
The Jack committee's recommendations were that the principle be abolished so that administrative savings and administrative convenience could be assisted within the banking sector. The Bill has the support of the four Scottish clearing banks and I hope that it will command the support of the House.
2.24 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: The hon. Gentleman scarcely did justice to the Bill, which has implications that go beyond the rather narrow definition that he gave, although I understand why, at a time such as this, he did that. I wanted to ask him several questions, but he was not prepared to answer them, so I will have to go into them in a little detail. That is the way these things happen.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: It will be taken unkindly in Scotland if the right hon. Gentleman obstructs the passage of the Bill by speaking at great length when it enjoys such widespread support.
Mr. Forth: At 2.25 pm, I leave the right hon. Gentleman to consider what great length might be.

1455
Perhaps we could discuss it another time. If he is suggesting that the people of Scotland expect legislation to go through without proper scrutiny, it reflects badly on them if not on him. I hope that he is not.
Mr. David Maclean: The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) spoke for more than an hour on the Referendums Bill—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We are not going to discuss what happened in a previous debate. We must keep to the terms of the Bill.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful for that guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
One of the issues properly raised by the Bill is whether this is a matter for the House of Commons and the Westminster procedure.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt): Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the previous Government, following the recommendations of the Jack committee, and the subsequent favourable consultation, were minded to introduce the measure but unfortunately did not have the time? Will he therefore support the Bill?
Mr. Forth: It appears that this Government cannot find the time either. It appears that the measure is so important that neither Government could find time for it.
Mr. Nick Gibb: To put the record straight, the Opposition support this eminently sensible Bill. The funds attached rule is absurd. I hope that the Bill progresses this afternoon.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I assume that, in the best traditions of the House, he will wish to explain at greater length why he and his colleagues favour the Bill. I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, agree that it is an essential part of the legislative process, that any measure however small or narrow, must be properly
1456
considered in the House of Commons. All views must be heard, both those of Front Benchers and those of Back Benchers. I welcome the opportunity that my hon. Friend will no doubt seek to set out his position in some detail. He might then answer the question to which the Minister's comments give rise—namely, why the previous Government failed to find time for the measure when they are alleged to have supported it. The same seems to apply to this Government. However excellent they may say they find the measure, they have not yet found time for it in their programme. We are therefore here today, following the private Members' procedure, rightly considering the principle of the Bill on Second Reading.
Mr. Maclean: Does not my right hon. Friend find outrageous the suggestion that, as we have had a two-minute speech by the Bill's promoter and declarations in favour, although no speeches, from the Front-Bench spokesmen, the Bill must be bounced through without discussion?
Mr. Forth: I agree with my right hon. Friend. It would be very much in tune with the contempt in which the Government normally hold the House for them to expect a measure such as this to be shoved through without proper debate.
Ms Bridget Prentice: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the irony of two Scottish Conservative Members opposing a measure that will benefit Scots and Scotland? Admittedly, like me, they represent English seats.
Mr. Forth: That brings me to the first question of substance. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for leading me in the direction that I wanted to follow. She has rightly pointed out that there is an irony in the fact that it is this House, with Members such as me considering this measure at this stage—the hon. Lady might, if she were to catch—
It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 14 May.

Remaining Private Members' Bills

  FUEL POVERTY AND ENERGY CONSERVATION BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 May.

  TRANSPORT OF FARM ANIMALS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 23 July.

  CONTROL OF RESIDENTIAL HEDGEROWS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 May.

  BUS FUEL DUTY (EXEMPTIONS) BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [12 March], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Debate to be resumed on Friday 16 April.

  STREETWORKS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 23 April.

  NUCLEAR SAFEGUARDS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 26 March.

  COMPUTER MILLENNIUM NON-COMPLIANCE (CONTINGENCY PLANS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 26 March.

  PUBLIC HOUSE NAMES BILL
  Order for Second Reading read
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 26 March.

  ENERGY EFFICIENCY BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [12 March], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Debate to be resumed on Friday 26 March.

  ENERGY CONSERVATION (HOUSING) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 26 March.

  DEREGULATION COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Stephen McCabe be discharged from the Deregulation Committee and Mr. John McDonnell be added to the Committee.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

  TRAVEL BY MEMBERS TO NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS AND EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the Resolution of 6th December 1991 relating to travel by Members to European Community Institutions be rescinded.
  That, in the opinion of this House, provision should be made as from 1st April 1999 for reimbursing Members in respect of the cost of travelling on parliamentary duties between the United Kingdom and any European Union institution in Brussels, Luxembourg or Strasbourg or the national parliament of another European Union member state and any additional expenses necessarily incurred in such travelling, subject to the limit that

  (1) the amount payable to a Member in any year, beginning with 1st April, shall not exceed the aggregate of—

  (a) the cost of a return business class airfare for the journey on the assumption that the journey begins and ends at a London airport and that the destination is any of the three cities mentioned above or the location of the national parliament of a European Union member state; and

  (b) twice the corresponding civil service class A standard subsistence rate for the time being in operation; and

  (2) expenditure in pursuance of this Resolution within financial year 1999–2000 shall not exceed the total currently planned for expenditure on travel by Members to European Union institutions within that year.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

  Hon. Members: Object.

  OFFICE COSTS ETC. ALLOWANCES
  Resolved,
  That, in the opinion of this House, the following provisions should have effect:
  The limit on the office costs allowance in relation to Mrs. Betty Williams should be up to 1.25 times that determined in accordance with paragraph (a) of the Resolution of the House of 10th July 1996 for any quarter beginning with 1st April 1998.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Tibet
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
2.32 pm
Mr. Norman Baker: I am grateful for the opportunity to make progress with my Adjournment debate, and that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) will not be able to prevent me from doing so in the next half hour.
Wednesday 10 March was the 40th anniversary of the uprising in Lhasa, when the Chinese finally made clear their intention to rule Tibet with a rod of iron. I am grateful that today we have not just the Minister with us but, in the Public Gallery, representatives from the Tibetan community in this country, including Migyer Dorjee, a representative of his Holiness—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Perhaps I might teach the hon. Gentleman something. He may not refer to anyone outside the Chamber, and that includes the Public Gallery.
Mr. Baker: I was unaware of that ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I shall respect it.
Since 1959, thousands of innocent Tibetans have been killed, imprisoned and tortured for no other reason than that they are Tibetan. The Chinese flag was raised for the first time in Lhasa on 23 March 1959—almost 40 years ago to the day. Within three days of the uprising, 10,000 Tibetans had been killed. Treasures from Tibet, especially from the monasteries, were looted and removed to China—in the same way as the Nazi Government in Germany behaved towards countries that they had invaded. By 1961, the land under cultivation had increased by 22.5 per cent. as a consequence of Chinese involvement, but Tibet suffered famine of epidemic proportions because grain was shipped out of Tibet to China. Tibetans starved in their thousands: so bad was the situation that parents were forced to feed their dying children with their own blood in an effort to keep them alive.
If that were not bad enough, the situation worsened with the onset of the cultural revolution, which affected Tibet as well as China. I could list statistic after statistic from that period, but suffice it to say that, before the Chinese decided to interfere in Tibet, there were more than 6,000 monasteries whereas, by the end of the cultural revolution, only five years later, there were only 13—a catalogue of destruction unimaginable in this country. Hundreds of works of art were destroyed—it seemed that everything Tibetan was up for destruction. The Tibetans are a religious people, but their religious places were used for keeping pigs in a deliberate attempt to denigrate Tibet's religion—contrary to the theoretical meaning of the Chinese constitution. In 1968, movement beyond house and field was forbidden, and Chinese officials' permission was required to collect firewood. By 1973, in just 14 years, one seventh of the Tibetan population had been killed as a consequence of the Chinese invasion.
Over the past 40 years, a policy of what can be described only as apartheid has been operated in Tibet. Electricity has been provided for the capital, but only in the Chinese quarters. Free medical care has been supplied for settlers, but only barefoot doctors are available for
1460
Tibetans. Food rations have been available for the whole population, but, when rationing is in place, the Chinese have received twice as much as Tibetans. All business has to be conducted in Chinese. Few Tibetans are in positions of power in Tibet, and those who are could be described as accomplices of the Chinese regime.
With my interest in the environment, I find the environmental damage that Tibet has suffered in the past 40 years horrifying. The Tibetans, as Buddhists, respect life in all its forms, but hitherto protected wildlife has been slaughtered to such an extent that formerly abundant species are now threatened with extinction. The snow leopard, the Himalayan monkey, wild yaks and gazelles are all on the brink of extinction as a consequence of Chinese involvement in Tibet. In addition, Tibet has been used as a convenient location for the dumping of nuclear waste. Deforestation continues apace, as the once prevalent Tibetan forests are cut down and the wood exported to China. That has not only destroyed the forests but has led to numerous environmental problems within Tibet. A once proud country has been raped and pillaged.
From 1977 to 1980, there was a slight improvement, and Hu Yaobang visited the country and admitted that mistakes had been made. However, it has all been downhill since then. In their own country, Tibetans continue to be second-class citizens, subject to arbitrary arrest and to torture with weapons such as electric batons. Ordinary Tibetans, whether or not they are monks or nuns, are subject to gross human rights abuses that no one in this world could possible defend. Such is the repression that it is now an offence to own or display a Tibetan flag. I have here a Tibetan flag and, by showing it to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am committing a simple act which, if I were in Lhasa, would make me subject to arbitrary arrest, imprisonment and torture.
For monks and nuns to have pictures of the Dalai Lama in their monasteries is now an offence. The Dalai Lama is the religious leader of Tibet; how can the Chinese possible claim to respect human rights and religious freedom when they go to such lengths to prevent Tibetans from possessing even photographs? On numerous occasions since 1959, monks and nuns have been required to issue ritual denunciations of the Dalai Lama and to undertake all sorts of horrific acts to demonstrate those denunciations of their religious leader.
The Tibetans, who are a proud and brave people, continue their protests. The Chinese will never win the hearts and minds of Tibetans as long as they continue their current policies of repression. They cannot win in that way, so, instead, they are trying to win in a far more insidious way. China is operating a policy of mass migration of Han Chinese into Tibet, with the clear intention of making Tibetans a minority within their own country. That is nothing new for China: it did the same thing in places such as Mongolia.
By 1982, a third of Lhasa was occupied by Chinese. Today, Lhasa is a Chinese city. Much of the original city has been destroyed and replaced with grey, faceless 1950s buildings. The policy of deliberately making Tibetans a minority in their own country, treating them as second-class citizens and destroying their civilisation I can only describe—and it is not a word I use cavalierly—as genocide.
I turn briefly to the international perspective. I believe that Tibet is legally an independent country—that is not the position of the British Government, and the Minister

1461
will elaborate on that point—and that China is an occupying power. I could cite at length the history of Tibet's independence and I have gathered information from previous centuries to back my case. I do not have time to set it out in full detail.
In 1876, the Chefoo convention gave the United Kingdom the right to establish a trade mission in Tibet. The United Kingdom had signed a similar convention in 1858 relating to China. Therefore, by reaching a separate agreement with Tibet, the United Kingdom recognised that that country was not part of China. In 1894, the then Foreign Secretary, the Marquis of Salisbury, said:
"If the Chinese ever had any authority in Tibet, they certainly have none now."
At the very least, the British Government recognised Tibet's de facto independence from China.
In 1904, the United Kingdom and Tibet signed the Lhasa convention. China objected, but the United Kingdom replied:
"Tibet is not one of the 18 provinces of the Chinese Empire."
Treaties have been signed by the United Kingdom and Tibet. China had no tax-raising powers in Tibet and had to pay taxes on its goods entering Tibet. How else do we define independence and sovereignty? Tibet conducted its own foreign policy. Those are the hallmarks of an independent country.
China invaded Tibet in 1905. However, after the Chinese emperor was deposed in 1910, the Dalai Lama declared all ties broken and the last Chinese troops left Tibet in 1913. Between 1913 and 1959, there is no question but that Tibet operated as an independent country, with its own currency and stamps. When China declared that Tibet was part of China, British authorities in this country issued a formal protest about that declaration.
Britain plays an important role in relation to Tibet. When the 1959 uprising occurred, Britain was the only independent witness to that event. We have enjoyed long relations with Tibet and, in this century and the last, Britain has been closer than any other country to Tibet. Therefore, we have an historical duty to represent the views of the Tibetan people.
There are further indications that Britain recognised Tibet's independence. In 1914, the British signed an agreement with Tibet—the Simla convention. The British said:
"the Chinese Government will of course lose all the privileges and advantages which the tripartite convention"—
the alternative agreement—
"secures to them, including recognition of Chinese suzerainty over Tibet; while the return of the Chinese Resident at Lhasa"—
the Amban —
"will be postponed indefinitely and His Majesty's Government will render the Tibetans all possible assistance in resisting Chinese aggression."
In 1921, Curzon, the then Foreign Minister, told the Chinese:
"We shall regard ourselves at liberty to deal with Tibet, if necessary, without again referring to China; to enter into closer relations with the Tibetans; to send an officer to Lhasa from time to time to consult the Tibetan Government … and to give Tibetans any reasonable assistance they might require in the development and protection of their country."
1462
It is clear that the British, in the inter-war years, recognised Tibet as an independent country.
When Tibet asserted her neutrality in the second world war, the British Foreign Office said:
"The Tibetans have every moral right to their independence for which they have fought successfully in the past, and we are committed to support them in maintaining it".
That is what the British Government said in 1942. They continued:
"For over 30 years (Tibetans) have enjoyed de facto independence and do not wish to be subjugated".
I believe it is quite clear that Tibet is an independent country and that China is an occupying force. Because of our historical connections with Tibet, Britain can play an important role in clarifying that position and pushing for human rights improvements and the recognition of Tibet. The Government must take up that role.
Unfortunately, for reasons of realpolitik, Tibet has been abandoned by the west since 1959. Tibet is not geographically important. It has no natural resources that the British, American and other western Governments need. It does not have the strategic importance of Kuwait. China is powerful, and there are other interests to consider, such as Hong Kong and trade relations.
The Government will never condone the human rights abuses in China. I acknowledge that they regularly make protests about those to the Chinese. They have genuinely tried to engage the Chinese in constructive dialogue and persuade them to change direction. As I said in an oral question to the Minister on Tuesday, I do not criticise that process in any way, but, unfortunately, the Chinese regard it as weakness. They have signed plenty of bits of paper in the past year to say that they will improve their human rights, but human rights have got worse in Tibet and China in that time. There has been no end to the invasion of Tibet by migrating Han Chinese. There has been no meeting with the Dalai Lama. In short, there has been no progress.
I should like the Minister to answer four questions in his reply. First, will the Government recognise that Tibet was independent before 1959 and that China is therefore an occupying power? Will the Minister admit that Tibet is not part of China? That is an important question.
Secondly, will the Government support a motion at the meeting of the UN Commission on Human Rights, due to take place on 22 March, condemning China, specifically mentioning Tibet, and pressing China to negotiate with the Dalai Lama?
Thirdly, will the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary meet the Dalai Lama when he visits the United Kingdom in May?
Finally, will the UK demand, with our European Union partners, the immediate release of the Panchen Lama, who has been imprisoned, without justification, in mainland China? Will the Government further demand that independent witnesses from the EU or the Government be sent to verify that the Panchen Lama is still alive and healthy?
Tibet is a wonderful country, which has been dealt a bad hand in the past 40 years. This country has an historical relationship with Tibet that gives us a moral duty to do what we can to help those people.
2.47 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on raising this issue and the way in which he put his arguments. I thank him for bringing to the House his concerns and those of others.
The hon. Gentleman has expressed his understandable worries about the situation in Tibet. He knows that Tibet is, rightly, of concern to the wider public and Members of the House. As he said, the issue has been brought sharply into focus this week with the 40th anniversary of the exile from Tibet of the Dalai Lama. The hon. Gentleman's timing is extremely good.
The Government share the deep concerns expressed by many hon. Members and we are actively addressing them with the Chinese through our human rights dialogues and other contacts. Tibet features prominently in those discussions and in the points that we make about human rights. The hon. Gentleman said that, for reasons of realpolitik, western Governments have abandoned Tibet. That is not the case; we have not abandoned the people of Tibet, and we shall continue to express our concerns and raise many of the issues to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
The hon. Gentleman asked me four questions, the first of which related to the status of Tibet. He knew the answer to the question even as he asked it, but it may be worth while putting on record again the position taken by successive UK Governments. They have regarded Tibet as autonomous, while recognising the special position of China there. That continues to be the policy of this Government. As the hon. Gentleman knows—he expressed his regrets on this point—Tibet has never been internationally recognised as independent. This Government and our predecessors have not recognised the Dalai Lama's government in exile. However, we believe strongly that the Tibetans should have a greater say in running their own affairs, and we have urged the Chinese authorities to respect the distinct cultural, religious and ethnic identities of the Tibetan people. The hon. Gentleman rightly made several powerful points about the way in which those distinct identities have been undermined in the past four decades.
We do not recognise the Dalai Lama as the head of the Tibetan Government-in-exile, but we do acknowledge him as a highly respected spiritual leader, the winner of the Nobel peace prize and an important and influential force. He has visited the United Kingdom several times, and we look forward to his visit in May when he will be met at an appropriate level by members of the Government.
The best way to achieve a lasting solution to the situation in Tibet is through dialogue between the Chinese Government and the Tibetans, including the Dalai Lama, without any preconditions. We continue to urge China to enter into such a dialogue. The hon. Gentleman may wish to know that, when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visited China in October last year, he raised the question of Tibet and our concerns about human rights and put forward the points that I have just made about the need for a dialogue between the Chinese Government and the Tibetans, involving the Dalai Lama.
We have also expressed many deep concerns to the Chinese about the situation in Tibet. The hon. Gentleman referred to some of them. They include the "re-education" of monks and nuns in Tibet, under which some, as he
1464
said, are reported to be required to renounce their loyalty to the Dalai Lama. We have also expressed our concern about the reported restrictions on the display of the Dalai Lama's picture and the use of the Tibetan flag, which the hon. Gentleman also highlighted. We have raised all those issues in our dialogue with the Chinese.
China's recent atheist propaganda campaign has also given us cause for concern. We most certainly believe that the Chinese should see religion as fulfilling a basic human need and right. Religion should never be seen as a threat. Again, I give the hon. Gentleman a clear commitment that we shall continue to raise such matters.
We are also concerned about the future of the special ethnic, cultural and religious characteristics of Tibet in light of the conditions there. The hon. Gentleman mentioned reports of the migration of a significant number of Han Chinese to the Tibet Autonomous Region. Again, we wish the essential characteristics of Tibetan culture to be maintained, not subverted and undermined.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the Panchen Lama. The detention in 1995 of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima raises particular concerns. The boy, who will be only 10 years old in April, was detained following his recognition in 1995 by the Dalai Lama as the Panchen Lama, the second highest religious figure in Tibet. The UK Government are not in a position to hold a view on the child's candidacy as the Panchen Lama—that is clearly a matter for the Tibetans alone to decide—but he is just a child, and we are concerned about his welfare. We have repeatedly asked the Chinese to be allowed to visit him to check on his well-being. Regrettably, this request has not been granted by China. We shall continue to raise his case and that of other Tibetans with the Chinese at each and every opportunity.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the positions adopted by this Government. It might be worth while to remind him, although I do not think that he has forgotten, of the special initiative that we took during our presidency of the EU. For the first time, a delegation of EU Troika ambassadors in Beijing made a week-long visit to Tibet in May last year to make an assessment of the situation there. We were pleased that that took place during the British presidency. The delegation was led by the British ambassador and was supported by a British Tibetan speaker, which was in itself an important innovation and precedent. As a result of that visit, the European Union as a whole agreed some common guidelines for addressing the issue of Tibet. It may be useful if I list them.
The first guideline was to urge China to respect human rights in Tibet. The second was to encourage China to begin talks with the Dalai Lama. The third was to target development assistance for ethnic Tibetans to help them to compete and survive in the economy. The fourth was to seek to preserve the Tibetan language and culture.
I hope that the hon. Member for Lewes will recognise that Europe and the United Kingdom are supporting the human rights dialogue with practical co-operation. While in Tibet, the EU Troika ambassadors visited Pa Nam, the site of a £5.1 million EU rural development project. That project will directly benefit indigenous Tibetan people by providing employment, training and access to land. Britain alone will contribute about 15 per cent. of the costs of that project. The Government are also providing development assistance to Tibet through the Save the Children projects in education and health, so we are

1465
pleased that the Troika ambassadors' visit took place. It was a welcome visit, and it was a welcome initiative on our part.
The hon. Gentleman asked about our overall approach to the issue of human rights and the forthcoming meetings in Geneva. Perhaps I may take a few minutes to put those in context. Since the successful handover of sovereignty in Hong Kong in July 1997, the Government have succeeded in placing our relations with China on a new, more constructive basis. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's visit to China last year strengthened that relationship. We shall continue to build on it and we look forward to welcoming President Jiang Zemin to the United Kingdom in the autumn.
As part of that relationship, we are addressing our human rights concerns in a variety of ways. We have raised them directly with the Chinese Government. The Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister did so when they met Chinese leaders during their visits to China last year. I will do so when I visit China next month. We do so regularly with the Chinese ambassador in London. We shall continue to press the Chinese Government to live up to the standards of the international covenants that they have signed—a process that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
The two processes—dialogue and the raising of specific cases—are often regarded as mutually exclusive. They are not. We have been able to express our concerns about individual cases—about what we would see as the violation of human rights—and to place those in the overall dialogue. We feel that that may well be the most constructive way to proceed. However, I emphasise that dialogue is not an end in itself. It must be a means to achieve an improvement in human rights in China—otherwise, the dialogue has no purpose. It is a vehicle for achieving change.
As a result of the dialogue, there have been some improvements in China, but there have been some very disappointing recent developments there about which we have expressed, and shall continue to express, our deep concerns.
Twelve positive steps have emerged from the dialogue, and it is worth remembering them and considering how much progress we could have made without the dialogue. In October 1997, China signed the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. In October 1998, China signed the international covenant on civil and political rights. In September 1998, there was the visit to China and to Tibet by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson. There was the visit to China and to Tibet by the UN working group on arbitrary detention. An invitation was extended to the UN special rapporteur on torture, who also visited China.
1466
Chinese agreement was given to report separately on Hong Kong under the two international covenants. The EU Troika ambassadors visited Tibet. Discussions took place with the Chinese on issues of serious human rights concerns, including individual cases, the death penalty, conditions of detention and Tibet. There was collaboration on the EU-China human rights co-operation programme, which includes projects in the areas of civil and political rights as well as economic and social rights, and those activities have been funded by the European Commission. There have been two EU-China legal affairs seminars, and a seminar on the rights of women. The Chinese accepted participation in the dialogue of critical western non-governmental organisations, such as Amnesty International. Finally, Chinese prosecutors have shown suspects a card describing human and basic rights in court proceedings.
Those are signs of the progress that we have made. We must decide in Geneva—we want European Union member states to take the decision together—whether we can achieve more by other means. It is a tactical not a principled question. I think that the hon. Gentleman and I share very much the same agenda.
Mr. Baker: I am grateful to the Minister for approaching this productively. When China signed the international covenant on civil and political rights in October 1998, China Daily said:
"It is not that China's stance or policies on the issue of human rights have changed … rather that the belated favourable turn in the international atmosphere has created an opportunity for China to elaborate its perspectives".
I am very concerned that China is signing bits of paper but changing nothing.
Mr. Fatchett: I understand that concern; we seek change. As I said, we are wedded not to the process but to the outcomes. That is why the question becomes tactical. China's signing into the international human rights regime is important in itself. It is a statement in itself, on which we must build. From the process to which I have referred, we never expected overnight, dramatic changes. The process is a long one, and we are committed to it.
I hope that I have been able to persuade the hon. Gentleman and those who have a real interest in the future of Tibet and its people that this Government share many of their concerns. We are active on those concerns, and will continue to raise them on behalf not just of individual Lobby groups or Members of Parliament but of the United Kingdom Government. That forms a central part of our dialogue on human rights and, because of it, to return to a phrase used by the hon. Gentleman, we will not forget Tibet. Tibet forms an essential and central part of what we are trying to do on human rights.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Three o'clock

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  EU Fraud
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what(a) discussions she has had and (b) proposals her Department has put forward at Council of Ministers' meetings in respect of EU fraud; and if she will make a statement. [77781]

  Clare Short
  The Development Council most recently discussed EU fraud on 30 November 1998 in the context of allegations about the European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO). The Government seek to ensure that anti-fraud considerations are taken fully into account when new policies are being developed and new or revised Regulations are on the table.

  Specific discussions on fighting EU fraud will be discussed at ECOFIN where the Treasury leads. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will provide details in answer to the hon. Member's question.

  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list what her Department's budget for the Commonwealth Development Corporation was or is for(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000. [77624]

  Clare Short
  The relevant figures are as follows:

  Voted in estimates

  £ million

  Payments to CDC

  Receipts from CDC

  Net provision

  1997–981

  23.286

  33.276

  -9.900

  1998–992

  35.919

  35.919

  0

  1999–20003

  38.670

  38.670

  0

  1outturn

  2 estimated outturn

  3budget

  Non-voted budget figures score as part of my Department's public expenditure figures. These reflect changes in CDC's cash deposits between year ends, not the absolute amount of cash balance which CDC holds. (A negative figure means an increase in cash deposits over the year). Relevant figures for the period in question are £12.5 million, -£15.2 million, and zero respectively.

  British Council
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is her Department's expenditure or budgeted expenditure through the British Council for(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000. [77619]
  824
  Clare Short
  In 1997–98 we provided a grant-in-aid of £29.8 million to support the British Council's development activities. In 1998–99 the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) assumed responsibility for the Council's grant-in-aid and the resources set aside in the Department for International Development's (DFID) budget—some £30.3 million—have been transferred to the FCO.

  The Council also undertakes work for DFID under contract arrangements, typically project management. In 1997–98 the value of contracts which they won was £28.7 million.

  Debt Relief
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much debt relief was granted by her Department in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99. [77622]

  Clare Short
  In 1997–98 the Department for International Development (DFID) approved new debt relief arrangements totalling £26.1 million. To date in 1998–99 a further £10.3 million of debt relief has been granted. In addition, over the past two years, we have foregone repayments of aid loans totalling £38.8 million under debt relief arrangements reached before April 1997.

  As well as cancelling aid debts owed to my Department, we have provided assistance to countries to help them meet their debt service payments. We have provided £10 million to Mozambique in 1997–98 and £16 million in 1998–99 for this purpose. For Tanzania we have provided £16.6 million in 1997–98 and £25 million in 1998–99, and we contributed £5 million to the Multilateral Debt Trust Fund for Rwanda in January 1999. Most recently, in March 1999, we contributed £10 million to the Trust Fund set up following Hurricane Mitch, to assist Nicaragua and Honduras meet their international debt service payments.

  DFID is also assisting the international financial institutions in providing debt relief under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative. In June 1998, we contributed £6.3 million to the HIPC Trust Fund to assist the African Development Bank (AfDB) with its costs in providing debt relief for Uganda. We have pledged a further £30 million for the AfDB, £11 million of which is earmarked for Mali and Mozambique, who are expected to receive HIPC debt relief later this year.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many people were directly employed by her Department on 1 March. [77620]

  Clare Short
  Statistics are produced on a quarterly basis. As at 1 January 1999, the Department for International Development directly employed 1,130 staff.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  999 Calls
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many 999 calls were received by each police force in each of the last five years. [77287]
  825
  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is as follows:

  AC2a total 999 calls received

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Avon and Somerset

  89,235

  159,800

  159,095

  197,706

  198,390

  Bedfordshire

  43,200

  51,192

  34,466

  59,863

  56,870

  Cambridgeshire

  53,504

  58,805

  73,923

  79,332

  82,541

  Cheshire

  75,094

  80,035

  90,243

  94,953

  102,2665

  City of London1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cleveland

  67,398

  84,346

  87,253

  89,061

  86,318

  Cumbria

  33,985

  34,729

  37,047

  37,749

  36,206

  Derbyshire2

  49,457

  n/a

  94,632

  96,746

  103,413

  Devon and Cornwall

  102,391

  121,798

  148,381

  165,013

  175,942

  Dorset

  55,155

  54,791

  71,700

  71,362

  73,005

  Durham

  29,447

  29,923

  31,424

  46,178

  51,729

  Dyfed-Powys

  21,231

  24,068

  25,208

  25,374

  29,382

  Essex

  110,005

  114,883

  121,934

  129,165

  176,374

  Gloucestershire

  40,462

  45,388

  46,678

  62,790

  57,833

  Greater Manchester

  416,873

  446,345

  500,820

  501,093

  584663

  Gwent

  32,191

  35,360

  36,088

  53,471

  57,143

  Hampshire

  162,082

  170,560

  191,090

  211,000

  225,355

  Hertfordshire

  67,610

  77,071

  87,256

  101,283

  107,675

  Humberside

  85,632

  88,402

  87,653

  95,238

  106,042

  Kent

  130,015

  141,769

  161,149

  170,908

  168,849

  Lancashire

  71,986

  102,984

  156,349

  132,194

  177,088

  Leicestershire

  100,232

  114,314

  129,686

  130,940

  127,316

  Lincolnshire

  34,694

  45,828

  46,556

  46,102

  48,247

  Merseyside

  200,711

  220,432

  251,985

  326,654

  246,646

  Metropolitan Police

  1,347,207

  1,538,385

  1,681,620

  1,772,871

  1,875,381

  Norfolk

  37,143

  48,984

  56,261

  63,684

  69,852

  Northamptonshire

  25,027

  32,256

  55,994

  60,028

  69,581

  Northumbria

  213,369

  224,569

  222,835

  229,478

  227,129

  North Wales

  39,945

  40,575

  42,864

  48,131

  71,690

  North Yorkshire

  31,956

  56,646

  60,561

  53,226

  43,423

  Nottinghamshire

  119,489

  115,695

  129,831

  147,739

  156,239

  South Wales

  150,370

  158,006

  179,586

  175,535

  196,599

  South Yorkshire

  123,144

  149,178

  153,276

  177,278

  180,197

  Staffordshire

  58,935

  65,266

  74,900

  76,400

  87,737

  Suffolk

  27,521

  30,253

  56,112

  60,951

  61,961

  Surrey

  56,182

  67,268

  74,763

  80,201

  82,399

  Sussex

  94,251

  138,265

  151,652

  162,452

  172,250

  Thames Valley

  125,754

  195,016

  221,119

  228,508

  240,002

  Warwickshire

  43,468

  48,870

  54,921

  60,861

  63,503

  West Mercia

  80,894

  98,539

  99,012

  110,688

  111,924

  West Midlands

  358,009

  412,211

  455,056

  462,052

  479,112

  West Yorkshire

  267,786

  323,081

  348,120

  342,199

  353,125

  Wiltshire

  25,000

  42,768

  56,064

  60,762

  48,243

  England and Wales Total2

  5,297,040

  26,088,654

  6,881,163

  7,297,219

  7,670,039

  1 Calls included in with the Metropolitan Police.

  2 Figures for Derbyshire are missing for 1994–95 due to the installation of a new call logging system.

  Interception of Communications Act 1985
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many warrants under the Interception of Communications Act 1985 were(a) in force on 31 December 1998 and (b) issued during the course of 1998 for (i) the interception of telecommunications, (ii) the interception of letters and (iii) in total. [77276]

  Mr. Straw
  The Commissioner appointed under the Interception of Communications Act 1985 publishes figures on the number of interception warrants issued by the home Secretary in his annual reports. In his report for 1998, (which will shortly be presented to the Prime Minister) the Commissioner will record the following numbers.
  826

  Numbers of interception warrants issued by the Home Secretary: 1998

  Number

  Interception warrants in force on 31 December 1998:

  Telecommunications

  385

  Letters

  48

  Total

  433

  Interception warrants issued during the course of 1998:

  Telecommunications

  1,646

  Letters

  117

  Total

  1,763

  827
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for warrants under the Interception of Communications Act 1985 were refused in each of the last five years. [77278]

  Mr. Straw
  The information requested is not available. Each application for interception of communications is subject to careful scrutiny at a number of stages before a warrant is issued. The application is submitted by a very senior officer following scrutiny within the Agency concerned. Within my Department, it will normally be examined by officials at four successive levels of seniority before being presented to me for approval. I examine each application carefully before issuing the warrant.

  At any stage in this process the case may be, and on occasion is, referred back to the applicant agency for clarification or further detail. This may, and occasionally does, result in a decision that the application should be withdrawn or that a warrant should not be issued. Records are not kept in a form which would enable the information requested to be extracted without disproportionate cost. But given the very careful scrutiny which I have described, it is seldom necessary for the Home Secretary to refuse to issue a warrant.

  Surveillance
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the consequence of incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into United Kingdom law for the use of police and security service surveillance methods; and if he will make a statement. [77293]

  Mr. Straw
  Surveillance by the police and security service must be carried out in a way compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights to which the United Kingdom adheres, even before its incorporation into United Kingdom law. My Department is currently considering whether further changes are needed to the framework of controls on the use of surveillance.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, by date, the number of people who have been turned away after queuing at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate on each day after 1 February. [77809]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  From 1 February to 4 March, all callers attending the Immigration and Nationality Directorate Public Caller Unit (PCU) were seen by an officer. On Wednesday 4 March, following a disturbance by certain individuals in the queue, it proved necessary to close the doors to the public early. In the light of the incident it was decided that for Health and Safety reasons and for a temporary period, only the first 400 callers would be allowed in to the PCU each day. This restricted service was also in operation on 5, 8 and 9 March whilst managers considered how to provide better facilities for callers. I regret that figures were not kept of the number of callers turned away during those four days.

  Since 10 March, additional temporary accommodation has been used and all callers to the PCU are again being seen on the day by a member of staff. I am informed that the PCU is now dealing with more people each day than it was in the second half of last year.
  828
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints he has received about the operation of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate since 1 January. [76962]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There has been an increase in complaints about the operation of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) following the introduction of the new caseworking arrangements in IND headquarters in Croydon and the disruption caused by the relocation of about 900 staff and 200,000 files. However, the numbers of complaints are not recorded.

  Police Statistics
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were in post in each constabulary in Wales(a) in April 1997 and (b) at the latest available date. [77554]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  Force

  31 March 1997

  30 September 19981

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,005

  1,013

  Gwent

  1,243

  1,254

  North Wales

  1,369

  1,395

  South Wales

  2,976

  2,946

  Total

  6,593

  6,608

  1Latest date for which figures are available

  Court Welfare Officers
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of training court welfare officers in each of the last two years; and what training was made available to such officers. [77556]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The total spent on centrally supported training for family court welfare officers was £68,950 in 1997–98 and £65,710 in 1998–99. This training took the form of a modular learning programme for staff new to family court welfare work. Additional training has been provided by individual probation services, but figures for the amounts spent are not held centrally. There is also a training manual, "An introduction to the work of the family court welfare service", which was prepared in 1996 by the Association of Chief Officers of Probation, and a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what training is provided to(a) court welfare officers and (b) relevant members of the judiciary on parental alienation syndrome. [77558]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The training material provided for family court welfare officers covers the psychology of children in separating families. The training of members of the judiciary is a matter for the Lord Chancellor.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) for what reasons Her Majesty's Government have not ratified the Council of Europe: Protocol of amendment to the European convention for
  829
  the protection of vertebrate animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes; and if he will make a statement; [77988]

  (2) for what reasons Her Majesty's Government have not ratified the Council of Europe's European convention for the protection of vertebrate animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes; and if he will make a statement. [77285]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The United Kingdom signed, but postponed ratification of European Convention ETS 123 at the request of the European Commission. Through an agreement brokered during the United Kingdom's Presidency of the European Union in 1998, the way has been cleared for the Community and member states to accede to the Convention by 1 January 2000.

  We intend to lay instruments of accession to meet this timetable. This will include ratification of the Amending Protocol. As part of our preparation, we are canvassing
  830
  the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey, the Isle of Man and Northern Ireland about their wishes with regard to ratification.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those people he has appointed to public bodies since 1 November 1998, indicating the positions to which they have been appointed and if they receive remuneration. [76417]

  Mr. Straw
  The information showing appointments to public bodies between 1 November 1998 and 28 February 1999 is shown in the tables.

  I am unable to publish the names of those appointed to the Boards of Visitors in England and Wales because of concerns for their personal safety, but I can say that 100 new appointments were made between 1 November 1998 and 28 February 1999. These posts are not remunerated.

  Table showing people appointed to Home Office public bodies between 1 November 1998 and 28 February 1999 who are remunerated

  Name of body

  Name

  Position

  Horserace Betting Levy Appeals Tribunal

  Mr. Brian Waters1

  Member

  Police Discipline Appeals Tribunal

  Mr. Michael Bennett

  Member

  Mr. John Burrow

  Member

  Mr. Martin John Wale

  Member

  Commission for Racial Equality

  Ms Shushila Patel

  Member

  Police Complaints Authority

  Mrs. Molly Meacher

  Deputy Chair

  Ms Mehmuda Mian

  Member

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board

  Mrs. Suzan Matthews QC

  Member

  Parole Board

  Mrs. Mollie Weatheritt

  Member

  1 Re-appointment

  Table showing people appointed to Home Office public bodies between 1 November 1998 and 28 February 1999 who are not remunerated

  Name of body

  Name

  Position

  Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs

  Mrs. Joy Barlow1

  Member

  Mr. Raj Boyjoonauth1

  Member

  Mr. Alexander Cameron1

  Member

  Dr. William Clee1

  Member

  Dr. Michael Donmall1

  Member

  Dr. Anthony John Duxbury1

  Member

  Professor Griffith Edwards1

  Member

  Dr. Laurance Gruer1

  Member

  Ms Lorraine Hewitt1

  Member

  Mr. Roger Howard1

  Member

  Professor Ronald Jones1

  Member

  Professor Malcolm Lader

  Member

  Professor Otto Meth-Cohen1

  Member

  Mr. Michael Narayn-Singh1

  Member

  Dr. Diana Patterson1

  Member

  Dr. Roy Robertson1

  Member

  Dr. Sue Ruben1

  Member

  Mr. Ian Sherwood1

  Member

  Professor Gerald Stimson1

  Member

  Professor John Strang1

  Member

  Mr. Peter Walker1

  Member

  Animal Procedures Committee

  Professor Ronald Anderson1

  Member

  Professor Christopher Atterwill

  Member

  Mr. Michael Baker

  Member

  Professor Grahame Bulfield

  Member

  Professor Stephen Clark

  Member

  Professor Paul Flecknell1

  Member

  Mr. Alan Holland

  Member

  Professor Colin Johnston

  Member

  Dr. Ian Purchase1

  Member

  Professor Genrvra Richardson

  Member

  Alcohol Education and Research Council

  Professor Donald Broom

  Member

  Baroness Shreela Flather1

  Chair

  831

  Table showing people appointed to Home Office public bodies between 1 November 1998 and 28 February 1999 who are not remunerated

  Name of body

  Name

  Position

  Firearms Consultative Committee

  Deputy Chief Constable Graham Bennet

  Member

  Chief Constable Anthony Thomas Burden

  Member

  Mr. Brian George Carter

  Member

  Dr. C. J. Robin Cooper

  Member

  Mr. Jim Duncan

  Member

  Mr. Charles Alexander Ewing

  Member

  Mr. Joseph William Harriman

  Member

  Mr. John Anthony Hill

  Member

  Lt. Col. John David Hoare

  Member

  Mr. Barry Michael Hughes

  Member

  Mrs. Gillian Marshall-Andrews

  Member

  Assistant Chief Constable David McCrone

  Member

  Mr. David John Penn

  Member

  Mr. Robert James Pitcher

  Member

  Lord Charles Shrewsbury

  Chair

  Dr. Stephen Murray Smith

  Member

  Mr. Ian Sneddon

  Ex officio member

  Mr. Thomas Alfred Warlow

  Member

  Mr. Graham Widdecombe

  Ex officio member

  Mr. James Arthur Winnington

  Member

  Parole Board

  The Hon. Mr. Justice Scott Baker

  Member

  1Re-appointments

  Fires
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many fires there were in domestic premises in(a) 1997 and (b) 1998; [77199]

  (2) how many fires were started by arson in (a) 1997 and (b) 1998. [77198]

  Mr. George Howarth
  In 1997, the United Kingdom fire service attended a total number of 86,400 primary fires (those involving property or casualties) which were of malicious or suspected deliberate ignition. The number of arson offences recorded by the police in England and Wales for the same period was 31,500.

  The total number of dwelling fires attended by the United Kingdom fire service was 72,200. Data for 1998 are not yet available.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many refugees who have been granted asylum are currently resident in Britain; and what percentage are known to be in receipt of means-tested benefits. [76605]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I regret that information regarding the number of refugees currently resident in the United Kingdom is not available.

  It is possible to say how many people are granted asylum in any one year, but not whether they have remained in the United Kingdom. Some refugees decide to go back to their country of origin when circumstances improve. Nor is it possible to determine the percentage of refugees in receipt of means-tested benefits.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the numbers of refugees seeking asylum in the United Kingdom by(a) nationality and (b) country of origin in (i) 1996, (ii) 1997 and (iii) 1998. [R] [76751]
  832
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The requested information is given in the table. I regret that information on the country of origin is not held centrally and could be collated only at substantial cost.

  Applications received for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, by location of application, by nationality,1996 to 1998

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Europe

  Bulgaria

  305

  545

  165

  Cyprus

  615

  495

  90

  Poland

  900

  565

  1,585

  Romania

  455

  605

  1,015

  Former Soviet Union

  1,400

  2,015

  2,820

  Turkey

  1,495

  1,445

  2,015

  Former Yugoslavia

  1,030

  2,260

  7,980

  Others

  275

  1,220

  2,075

  Total

  6,475

  9,145

  17,745

  Americas

  Colombia

  1,005

  1,330

  425

  Others

  765

  1,495

  550

  Total

  1,765

  2,825

  975

  Africa

  Algeria

  715

  715

  1,260

  Angola

  385

  195

  150

  Cameroon

  105

  175

  95

  Democratic Republic of Congo

  680

  690

  660

  Ethiopia

  205

  145

  345

  Gambia

  245

  125

  45

  Ghana

  780

  350

  225

  Ivory Coast

  125

  70

  95

  Kenya

  1,170

  605

  885

  Liberia

  330

  205

  70

  Nigeria

  2,900

  1,480

  1,380

  Rwanda

  80

  90

  280

  Sierra Leone

  395

  815

  565

  Somalia

  1,780

  2,730

  4,685

  South Africa

  40

  50

  65

  Sudan

  280

  230

  250

  Tanzania

  225

  90

  80

  Togo

  50

  30

  60

  Uganda

  215

  220

  210

  Zimbabwe

  130

  60

  80

  Others

  450

  445

  895

  Total

  11,290

  9,515

  12,380

  833

  Applications received for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, by location of application, by nationality,1996 to 1998

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Middle East

  Iran

  585

  585

  745

  Iraq

  965

  1,075

  1,295

  Lebanon

  145

  160

  155

  Others

  455

  515

  595

  Total

  2,150

  2,335

  2,785

  Far East

  Afghanistan

  675

  1,085

  2,395

  Bangladesh

  645

  545

  460

  China

  820

  1,945

  1,925

  India

  2,220

  1,285

  1,030

  Pakistan

  1,915

  1,615

  1,975

  Sri Lanka

  1,340

  1,830

  3,505

  Others

  275

  265

  650

  Total

  7,885

  8,570

  11,940

  Other and Unknown Nationalities

  80

  105

  190

  Grand total

  29,640

  32,500

  46,015

  Notes:

  1. Provisional and estimated figures rounded to the nearest 5 with * = 1 or 2

  2. Includes relevant revisions to the number of in-country applications lodged in September-December 1996

  Immigration and Asylum Appeals
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) appeals were lodged against deportation by overstayers and others not lawfully in the UK and (b) immigration/asylum appeals there were in total, in the last full year for which figures are available; and how many of those appeals were allowed in each case. [76579]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  In 1998, the Immigration Appellate Authority (IAA) received a total of 24,720 appeals to immigration adjudicators. Of these, 15,440 related to applications for asylum and 9,275 to other immigration cases.

  In the same period, 25,320 adjudicator appeals, in asylum cases, were determined by the IAA. It is estimated that of these, 2,355 were allowed. I regret that information regarding the number of non-asylum appeals allowed is not available.

  With regard to appeals lodged against deportation by overstayers and others not lawfully in the United Kingdom, information at this level of detail could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Immigration Detainees
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many immigration detainees there were at the latest date for which figures are available in (i) immigration detention centres and (ii) prison establishments who(a) had been convicted of a criminal offence in the UK, (b) were awaiting removal following a recommendation for deportation made by a court, (c) were awaiting removal having exhausted all appeal rights and (d) who were not within the above categories. [76614]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The available information, on all persons detained solely under Immigration Act powers in immigration detention centres and prisons in the United 834
  Kingdom as at 31 January 1999, is given in the table. The detailed information requested can be obtained only through the examination of individual case records and is, therefore, available only at disproportionate cost.

  Persons recorded as being in detention1 in the United Kingdom solely under Immigration Act powers as at 31 January 1999 by place of detention

  Location

  Total detainees

  Immigration detention centres

  Campsfield

  183

  Dover Harbour

  15

  Harmondsworth

  91

  Heathrow's Queen's Building

  15

  Manchester Airport

  16

  Tinsley House

  147

  Prison establishments

  Bedford

  2

  Belmarsh

  16

  Blakenhurst

  3

  Brixton

  8

  Bullingdon

  2

  Canterbury

  10

  Dorchester

  3

  Edinburgh

  5

  Feltham

  2

  Haslar

  130

  High Down

  23

  Holloway

  15

  Holme House

  3

  Leeds

  2

  Lewes

  2

  Longriggend

  16

  Maghabberry

  2

  Magilligan

  7

  Manchester

  3

  Norwich

  3

  Pentonville

  6

  Rochester

  191

  Swansea

  2

  Wandsworth

  9

  Woodhill

  2

  Wormwood Scrubs

  16

  Other prison establishments

  12

  Total

  962

  1 Excluding persons detained in police cells (other than at Dover)

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many civil servants in his Department have been invited to waive the Working Time Directive requirement to work less than 48 hours a week on 17 consecutive weeks; how many civil servants in his Department have refused to waive the requirement; and what is the total cost of compliance with the Directive. [76806]

  Mr. Straw
  No figures of the kind sought by the hon. Member are currently available. The standard terms and conditions of service for staff employed by the Home Office are well within the limits set by the Working Time Regulations. The Regulations do not require employers to keep records of the number of workers who refuse to sign an opt-out agreement and no central records are kept by the Home Office. Compliance costs are not kept centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  835

  Immigration and Asylum Bill
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library the representations he received on which he based his statement under section 1g (1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998 with respect to the provisions of the Immigration and Asylum Bill. [76973]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  No. The statement was based on internal advice which is exempt from disclosure in accordance with the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Ministerial Meetings (US)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 22 February 1999,Official Report, column 121, if he will list the dates and locations of the meetings he has had with the US Attorney General since 1 June 1998. [77152]

  Mr. Straw
  In the period covered by the Question, I have not met personally with the United States Attorney-General. However, I have chaired one meeting of G8 counterparts on 16 December 1998, which was conducted by video conference, at the request of Janet Reno, and spoken with her by telephone from time to time.

  West Yorkshire Police
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information was obtained by unauthorised persons gaining access to the West Yorkshire Police internal communications system; and what assessment he has made of the current security of the system. [76977]

  Mr. Boateng
  I understand that an individual gained access to the West Yorkshire Police voicemail system and was able to access messages left on voicemail boxes that had not been password protected. He also gained access to the Crimestoppers Line.

  The security of the communications system is an operational matter for West Yorkshire Police. I understand they have implemented a number of security measures to prevent further breaches. Calls to the Crimestoppers line now go directly to a manned extension and are no longer on the internal voicemail system.

  European Elections
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if votes will be published by constituencies as well as by regions in the European elections. [77758]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Votes will be counted at Westminster Parliamentary constituency level though the regulations will provide that where the same person is acting returning officer for two or more constituencies he or she will be able to combine them for counting purposes. Local results will be communicated to the regional returning officers who will perform the seat allocation calculation for each of the 11 regions.

  The results of all local counts will be made public as well as the final regional result.
  836

  West Mercia Police Force
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what proportion of the West Mercia Police Force police officer posts for 1998–99 were vacant at the latest available date; and what was the average length of such vacancies. [77324]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 18 March 1999]: It is for the Chief Constable to determine the number of police officers in the force, within the resources available. I understand from the Acting Chief Constable of West Mercia that there are 2,063 budgeted posts in the force. On 1 March the force had 52 full-time equivalent vacancies. The average number of vacancies in 1998–99 has been 45, which represents 2 per cent. of the budgeted posts available. It is not possible for the force to provide information on the average length of a vacancy during 1998–99.

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire can expect a reply to his letter of 19 January on behalf of his constituent, Sir Stephen Hastings. [77445]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 18 March 1999]: I am sorry that the right hon. Member did not receive an earlier reply to his letter. A full reply was, however, sent on 16 March.

  Electronic Red Boxes
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will name the Ministers in his Department who are regular users of electronic Red Boxes. [76175]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary for the Cabinet Office on 16 March 1999,Official Report, column 651.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensioners (Minimum Income Guarantee)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussions he held with pensioners' groups before increasing the minimum income guarantee for pensioners; and if he will make a statement. [77363]

  Mr. Timms
  We meet representatives of pensioners' organisation regularly to discuss a broad range of issues. We are determined that even the least well off of today's pensioners should share in rising national prosperity, and the proposed increase from next April in line with earnings will build further on the significant boost we are giving to the incomes of these pensioners this year.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of pensioners who will have an income below the minimum income guarantee level who will not qualify for the minimum income guarantee. [77552]
  837
  Mr. Timms
  I refer the hon. Member to the Written Answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) on 11 March 1999,Official Report, column 346.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners he estimates will be ineligible for the minimum income guarantee, following the Budget, due to the level of their savings; and if he will make a statement. [77362]

  Mr. Timms
  This information is not currently available. Estimates of the number of pensioners ineligible for the Minimum Income Guarantee due to the level of their savings are based on the data used to produce the published estimates of take-up of income-related benefits. These estimates are currently being revised following the discovery in December of an error, the effect of which was to understate income brought to account. The estimates will be republished in May. We will then be in a position to provide an answer to this question.

  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are estimated to be eligible for benefits under the minimum income guarantee for pensioners aged(a) 60 to 74 years, (b) 75 to 79 and (c) over 80 years, (i) in total and (ii) by gender. [75858]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is not currently available in the form requested.

  In total, we estimate there are approximately 1.5 million pensioners in receipt of Income Support who will be eligible for the Minimum Income Guarantee in 1999–2000. Additionally, we estimate there are between about 400,000 and 700,000 pensioners who are not claiming Income Support but who would be entitled to it if they claimed. The estimate is provisional, as revised estimates of the take-up of income-related benefits are currently being worked on.

  We will in a position to provide final estimates and the breakdown requested in May, when revised estimates of the take-up of income-related benefits are due to be published.

  Notes:

  1. "Pensioners" for the purposes of the Minimum Income Guarantee, means single persons aged 60 or over, and couples where at least one partner is aged 60 or above.

  2. The figure is rounded to the nearest quarter of a million and does not include pensioners living in residential care and nursing homes.

  Minimum Funding Requirement
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security who will be undertaking the Minimum Funding Requirement review; and if he will list all those involved in the review. [77553]

  Mr. Timms
  The Pensions Board of the Faculty and Institute of Actuaries have been asked to carry out the review in partnership with this Department. The Department is also advised by the Government Actuary. The Pensions Board may decide to set up technical working groups to research particular aspects. The Confederation of British Industry, Trades Union 838
  Congress, National Association of Pension Funds and the Association of British Insurers have been invited to comment on the scope of the review.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many recruitment or contracting companies have been required to administer statutory sick pay to workers they contract to other companies since 1998; and what has been the consequent average additional annual (i) premiums for professional indemnity, public liability and employee's liability insurance and (ii) time which a company has had to spend administering the new rules. [77807]

  Mr. Bayley
  The legislation governing the payment of Statutory Sick Pay to employees engaged on short-term contracts has remained unchanged since 1982. Those provisions were clarified in a Court of Appeal judgment in October 1996 and further guidance to reflect that judgment was issued to employment agencies in 1998. Information on the effect, if any, on insurance premiums and the amount of time on which a company has to spend administering the scheme is not available.

  Pensioners (Income Support)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the percentage of those pensioners who are entitled to claim income support who actually do so. [77364]

  Mr. Timms
  The latest available figures suggest that between 68 per cent. and 79 per cent. of pensioners entitled to Income Support actually claim it. These figures are, however, a provisional estimate following the discovery of an inaccuracy in the published estimates of take-up of income-related benefits. Work continues towards a fully revised set of figures to be published in May.

  Note:
  "Pensioners" in the context of Income Support, means pensioner benefit units—a single person aged 60 or over, or a couple (counted as one "benefit unit") where one or both members is aged 60 or over.

  Bereavement Benefits
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the(a) number and (b) proportion of widows in each region and nation who are in receipt of occupational pension payments. [76106]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Number and proportion of widows in receipt of occupational pension by Government Office Region/Home Nation (1996–97)

  Government Office Regions (excluding NI)

  Number of widows (000s) in receipt of occupational pension

  Percentage of widows in receipt of occupational pension

  All widows

  1,760

  50

  North East

  100

  53

  North West and Merseyside

  210

  46

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  190

  54

  East Midlands

  120

  48

  West Midlands

  170

  50

  Eastern

  150

  48

  London

  170

  42

  839

  Number and proportion of widows in receipt of occupational pension by Government Office Region/Home Nation (1996–97)

  Government Office Regions (excluding NI)

  Number of widows (000s) in receipt of occupational pension

  Percentage of widows in receipt of occupational pension

  South East

  240

  55

  South West

  160

  53

  England

  1,490

  50

  Wales

  110

  52

  Scotland

  160

  48

  Notes:

  1. The estimates are for all widows including those over pension age.

  2. All figures are estimates and are taken from the Households Below Average Income (HBAI) data set based on the Family Resources Survey (FRS). The FRS does not include Northern Ireland. 1996–97 is the latest year for which information is available.

  3. Numbers are given in thousands and are rounded to the nearest 10,000.

  4. Due to rounding, components may not sum to totals.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of including entitlement to extended payments of housing benefit to those moving into work who had been in receipt of incapacity benefit alone. [77239]

  Angela Eagle
  The cost of including entitlement to extended payments of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit to all those moving into work who had been receiving Incapacity Benefit is estimated at £3.4 million. Of this £2.3 million is in respect of claimants on Income Support and Incapacity Benefit and £1.1 million in respect of those on Incapacity Benefit without Income Support.

  Private Pensions
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what interest rate has been paid to persons who opted out of SERPS and who normally receive a lump sum for investment in their private pension scheme, during the delay in issuing payments by his Department's computer systems. [77658]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave to the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) on 2 March 1999,Official Report, columns 710–11.

  Select Committee Reports
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) pursuant to his answer of 10 March 1999,Official Report, columns 250–51, on Select Committee reports, if he will list the occasions on which Ministers discussed the contents of Social Security Committee reports or draft reports of the deliberations of the Committee with members of the Social Security Committee prior to their publications; [77810]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 10 March 1999, Official Report, columns 250–51, on Select Committee reports, if he will conduct an investigation into whether special advisers or civil servants reviewed or discussed Social Security Committee reports, drafts or parts of reports or their conclusions, prior to their publication. [77811]
  840
  Mr. Darling
  There have been no occasions on which I, or my ministerial colleagues, have discussed reports or draft reports with members of the Social Security Committee prior to their publication.

  Also, other than embargoed copies of Social Security Committee reports, issued under House of Commons Standing Orders, neither civil servants nor the special adviser have discussed reports or draft reports prior to their publication. I see no reason or basis for an investigation.

SCOTLAND

  Meat Imports
  Mr. Alan Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to stop the import of meat grown abroad in conditions not allowed in the UK. [76737]

  Mr. Macdonald
  All consignments of fresh meat imported into the UK, whether from other EU member States or third countries, must have been produced in accordance with the harmonised Community rules laid down in Council Directive 64/433/EEC. Products not subject to Community rules may be imported only if they comply with our national rules. Food which fails to meet food safety requirements can be refused entry into the UK or it can be seized under the Food Safety Act 1990.

  Trade implications of any suspension of imports are a matter for the EU Commission. Any action taken or imposed must be in accordance with the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement of the World Trade organisation.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Local Government Employees (Pay)
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average full time pay without overtime of(a) teachers, (b) local authority manual workers, (c) council APT and C staff and (d) council chief officers in (i) 1998–99, (ii) 1993–94, (iii) 1988–89, (iv) 1983–84 and (v) 1978–79, in 1998–99 prices. [76620]

  Mr. McLeish
  The information requested is not available centrally, nor is it readily available from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what resources he is providing to enable councils to fund pay increases for(a) teachers and (b) other local government employees. [76750]

  Mr. McLeish
  Over the next three years the Government are to provide an extra £530 million in support of Scottish local authorities' revenue expenditure. This represents real terms increases in each of the next three years. It is the responsibility of local authorities to decide how to allocate the money available to them and to meet the cost of pay increases from within their overall resources.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
  841
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the percentage pay increases agreed in Scotland for(a) teachers, (b) local authority manual workers, (c) council APT and C staff and (d) council chief officers in each year since 1993–94. [76624]

  Mr. McLeish
  The information requested is as follows:

  percentage

  Year

  Teachers

  Local authority manual workers

  APT and C

  Chief officers

  1993

  1.5

  1.5

  1.5

  1.5

  1994

  2.3

  2.3

  2.3

  2.0

  1995

  2.0

  2.2

  2.2

  2.3

  1996

  3.0

  2.9

  2.9

  2.9

  1997

  2.5

  12.5

  12.5

  2.5

  1998

  3.0

  3.0

  3.0

  3.0

  1Or £4 per hour minimum if greater

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Sentencing Policy
  Ms Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the members of the committee established under Lord MacLean to review the sentencing and treatment of serious violent and sexual offenders. [78296]

  Mr. McLeish
  The following have accepted my invitation to serve on Lord MacLean's Committee:

  Mr. Andrew Brown, Chief Constable, Grampian Police

  Mr. David Burns QC, Advocate

  Dr. Derek Chiswick, Consultant Psychiatrist, Edinburgh Healthcare NHS Trust

  Professor David Cooke, Professor of Forensic Psychology, Glasgow Caledonian University

  Mr. Douglas Crawford, Depute Director of Social Work, Renfrewshire Council

  Ms Jeane Freeman, Parole Board member, Chief Executive, APEX

  Professor Christopher Gane, Professor of Scots Law, University of Aberdeen

  Mr. William Gilchrist, Regional Procurator Fiscal, North Strathclyde

  Mr. Roger Houchin, Governor, Barlinnie Prison

  Mr. Murray Macara, Solicitor Advocate, Beltrami and Co.

  Mr. Jamie Malcolm, Nursing Officer, Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland

  Dr. Linda Treliving, Consultant Psychotherapist, Dundee Healthcare NHS Trust

  Sheriff Charles Stoddart, Director of Judicial Studies.

  Arrangements for taking evidence will be announced later.

PRIME MINISTER

  Select Committee Reports
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will issue instructions to Ministers on the actions 842
  to be taken following unauthorised receipt of (a) drafts and (b) final unpublished versions of Select Committee reports; [77846]

  (2) pursuant to the answer to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, 16 March 1999, Official Report, columns 641–42, if he will require the Chancellor to return the leaked Select Committee report to the Chairman of the Social Security Committee; [77844]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the Government's policy when Ministers receive leaked copies of a Select Committee report in (a) draft and (b) unpublished form. [77845]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) on 1 March 1999,Official Report, column 531.

  EU Political Committee
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish the agenda for the forthcoming EU Political Committee meeting of 22 March. [77161]

  The Prime Minister
  The agenda for the 22 March Political Committee has not yet been decided. As has been the case since 1970, draft agendas for Political Committees are not usually circulated until a few days before the meeting takes place, and are often amended up to the last minute.

  EU Special European Council
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish the agenda for the forthcoming EU Special European Council of 24 to 25 March. [77159]

  The Prime Minister
  The timetable for the Agenda 2000 negotiations was agreed at the end of the UK Presidency when the Cardiff European Council concluded that there should be political agreement on the package no later than March 1999. The purpose of the Special European Council is to meet that timetable. The negotiations are being conducted on the basis of a Presidency paper which sets out the issues for discussion. The Presidency regularly updates this document as negotiations progress. A copy of the latest version was placed in the Libraries of both Houses today.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister how many representations he has received from the United States Government on genetically modified organisms since 1 May 1997; on what dates each representation was received; in what form each representation was made; and from which United States department each originated. [77113]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Commission for Racial Equality
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps he has taken to meet the CRE's leadership challenge. [76963]

  The Prime Minister
  I accepted the CRE's Leadership Challenge on 12 May 1998.
  843
  I have made clear my commitment to Britain being a beacon to the world on race equality. This Government are taking a clear lead in improving race equality.

  The Lawrence inquiry has done much to identify the problems to which we must all face. With my full support, my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary is developing a comprehensive response to the report. He announced to the House on 24 February 1999, Official Report, columns 389–93, his intention to extend the Race Relations Act 1976 to cover all public services. A wider action plan is also being developed.

  In my role as Minister for the Civil Service, I am committed to ensuring that the Civil Service reflects at all levels the diversity of our society. I also commend the Charter for Action recently launched by the Minister for the Cabinet Office, the head of the Home Civil Service and the Council of Civil Service Unions, to redress the under-representation of the ethnic minorities in the Civil Service.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 20 January 1999,Official Report, column 484, when he expects to issue an updated report on the results of military action against Iraq. [77589]

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence sent an updated report on the results of Operation Desert Fox to all Members of the House on 18 January 1999.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library his reply to the letter from K. M. Kirk of Paphos, Cyprus, of 20 December 1998, about Iraq. [77355]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 18 March 1999]: As far as I am aware, the most recent correspondence I have had from Mr. J. M. Kirk was a letter from him dated 3 March 1998.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to reply to the letters sent to him by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe on 14 January and 3 March. [77662]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the right hon. and learned Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) on 17 March 1999,Official Report, column 706.

  Patten Commission
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy that no information from the Patten Commission on policing which is not in the public domain will be shared with(a) any other Government and (b) any private group. [77583]

  The Prime Minister
  The Commission on Policing is independent. Its terms of reference, set out in the Good Friday Agreement, require it to "consult widely and to report no later than Summer 1999". It is not for the Government to say what the Commission should discuss or with whom. The Commission's report will be made 844
  public in its entirety and implementation of its recommendations will be discussed with the political parties and the Irish Government.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when she expects the Patten report on policing in Northern Ireland to be published. [76739]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Belfast Agreement states that the Independent Commission on Policing should report no later than the Summer of 1999. The Government look forward to receiving the report, which is expected within the timescale established by the Agreement.

  Oil Payments
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those Governments with whom the United Kingdom Government to Government service and contract agreements allow for payments in oil; and for what dates such agreements were made. [71811]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 16 February 1999]: Payments in oil to the UK Government for supplying goods or services are not precluded under existing rules provided they represent the most cost effective and practical method. It is a matter for individual Government Departments to negotiate appropriate contracts after considering each case on its merits. Because of this, no centralised records are kept of the agreements reached.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Northern Ireland Electricity Report
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions she plans to hold with the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Consumer Committee on Electricity and the Regulator concerning the report published by Northern Ireland Electricity into the storm on 26 December 1998; and the implementation of the recommendations. [76642]

  Mr. Ingram
  None at present. Consumers' interest are being pursued vigorously by the Director General of Electricity Supply who is considering the Northern Ireland Electricity report on the storms. He will be discussing his conclusions with both the company and the Chairman of the Consumer Committee for Electricity and then publishing a consultation paper seeking the views of consumers on the action programme proposed by Northern Ireland Electricity. Ministers have requested a further report from and discussion with the company later in the year on progress with the action programme.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment she has made of the report from Northern Ireland Electricity published on Thursday 4 February into the storm of 26 December 1998. [76643]

  Mr. Ingram
  Protection of consumers' interests is primarily a matter for the independent Director General of Electricity Supply for Northern Ireland. He is considering the report by Northern Ireland Electricity on the recent storms; will meet with the company and the Chairman of the Consumer Committee for Electricity; and then publish a consultation paper.
  845

  Birth Defects
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many children have been born with(a) Downs Syndrome and (b) other abnormalities in each health and social services board in each of the last 10 years. [76641]

  Mr. McFall
  The table provides figures for the number of births of babies with Downs Syndrome and other selected congenital malformations notified in Northern Ireland and each Health and Social Services Board area for the years 1986 to 1996 (the latest year for which figures are available).

  Northern Ireland

  Year

  Anencephalus

  Hydrocephalus

  Spina Bifida

  Downs Syndrome

  1986

  17

  8

  37

  41

  1987

  20

  11

  43

  39

  1988

  9

  8

  27

  27

  1989

  5

  113

  20

  151

  1990

  5

  12

  21

  132

  1991

  5

  14

  22

  52

  1992

  2

  11

  20

  29

  1993

  2

  10

  11

  31

  1994

  3

  6

  19

  29

  1995

  3

  10

  12

  25

  1996

  6

  5

  8

  38

  1 For 1989 and 1990 individual figures for health and Social Services Board areas do not sum to Northern Ireland figures due to additions to the Northern Ireland total being made by the Department of Medical Genetics. These amendments are not available at Board level.

  Health Care
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what impact the Chancellor's Budget statement will have on health care provision in Northern Ireland. [76744]

  Mr. McFall
  The Chancellor's Budget statement confirmed the Government's continuing commitment to modernise the NHS. I am equally determined that health services in Northern Ireland are equipped to provide a first class service, and am considering how this can best be achieved.

  Northern Ireland Assembly
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is her estimate of the cost of(a) the Northern Ireland Assembly, (b) each of the 10 departments of Government and (c) the offices of the First and Deputy Ministers in the first full year of their operation. [76837]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Assembly Commission recently estimated the operating costs of the Assembly at £36 million in 1999–2000.

  Biological Scientists
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many biological scientists are employed in each hospital in Northern Ireland; what are the qualifications required for such work; and what are the salary scales for such posts. [76884]
  846
  Mr. McFall
  Clinical Scientists are employed in pathology laboratories in the following Northern Ireland Health and Social Services Trusts:

  Number

  Belfast City Hospital

  35

  Green Park

  1

  Mater Infirmorum Hospital

  2

  Royal Group of Hospitals

  26

  Ulster Community and Hospitals

  1

  United Hospitals

  2

  The basic entry qualifications to the grade of Clinical Scientist is a First or Second Class Honours degree.

  There are three grades of Clinical Scientist, the salary scales of which are set out in the following table.

  Clinical scientists: Grades and spine points, effective 1 December 1998

  Grade

  Spine points

  Salary £

  A

  01

  13,290

  02

  13,822

  03

  14,375

  04

  14,949

  05

  15,546

  06

  16,169

  07

  16,817

  08

  17,486

  B1

  09

  18,188

  10

  18,915

  11

  19,671

  12

  20,458

  13

  21,276

  14

  22,127

  15

  23,013

  16

  23,931

  17

  24,891

  18

  25,885

  19

  26,919

  20

  27,998

  21

  29,118

  22

  30,283

  23

  31,494

  24

  32,753

  25

  34,065

  C

  26

  35,426

  27

  36,844

  28

  38,318

  29

  39,851

  30

  41,443

  31

  43,102

  32

  44,825

  33

  46,620

  34

  48,485

  35

  50,424

  36

  52,443

  37

  54,539

  1 Individual posts will be assigned a payscale of three consecutive points within the range 09 to 25 on the spine

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many civil servants in her Department have been invited to waive the Working Time Directive requirement to work less than 48 hours a week on 17 consecutive weeks; how many civil
  847
  servants in her Department have refused to waive the requirement; and what is the total cost of compliance with the Directive. [76803]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  To date members of the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments and agencies have not systematically been invited to waive the 48 hour limit. However, a small number of staff who have been identified as working regularly in excess of the 48 hour average limit have signed the waiver. There have not been any refusals.

  The cost of the introduction of some minor modifications to existing administrative procedures, particularly record keeping, cannot readily be identified. No additional staffing requirements have been identified.

HEALTH

  NHS Appointments
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his written answer of 16 February 1999,Official Report, column 730, (1) if he will give the total amount of annual fees which is payable to (a) Labour, (b) Liberal Democrat, (c) Conservative and (d) independent councillors appointed to NHS trusts or health authorities since 1 May 1997; [72623]

  (2) if he will list the numbers of councillors of each political party appointed to each NHS trust or health authority since 1 May 1997; [72624]

  (3) if he will list the health authorities and NHS trusts to which each named individual has been appointed, indicating in each case whether the appointment is as (a) chairman and (b) board member. [73898]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answers 22 February and 1 March 1999]: Copies of the following information have been placed in the Library.

  A list of all individuals appointed to chairman and non-executive positions on National Health Service trust or health authority boards since 1 May 1997 and who were known to be councillors at the time of their appointment. The listing shows their appointment by name, NHS trust or health authority, political party and whether they were appointed as chairman or non-executive member; and a list of the same information but grouped according to the trust or health authority concerned.

  These listings include the names of 12 individuals who were not discovered by the database search of 15 February and reported in my answer of 16 February.

  Chairmen receive remuneration in one of three bands according to the turnover of their NHS trust or the allocation made to their health authority.

  Band 1: £19,285

  Band 2: £17,145

  Band 3: £15,125.

  All non-executive members or directors receive £5,000.
  848
  In a full year, the councillors listed (excluding those whose terms of office have ended) would receive remuneration as follows:

  £

  Chairmen

  Non-executives

  Total

  Labour

  390,895

  990,000

  1,380,895

  Conservative

  51,555

  45,000

  96,555

  Liberal Democrat

  62,520

  125,000

  187,520

  Other (including independents)

  0

  40,000

  40,000

  Local councillors account for 9.9 per cent. of those serving on NHS boards and receive 8.4 per cent. of the total amount of remuneration payable. They bring to the NHS invaluable experience and commitment to the service of their communities.

  All appointments are made on merit in accordance with Nolan principles. Information was not collected on the political activity of all non-executives appointed by the last Government, so full comparisons are not possible.

  Free Eye Prescriptions
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many pensioners will be eligible for free eye prescriptions in(a) the Medway towns and (b) Chatham and Aylesford in April. [75553]

  Mr. Denham
  From 1 April 1999, everyone aged 60 and over will be eligible for free National Health Service sight tests. We cannot make population estimates for areas within local authority boundaries. We estimate that there are some 40,000 people aged 60 and over resident in the area of the Medway Unitary Authority.

  Medical School Places
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what weighting he will give to regional needs when deciding which universities will benefit from the proposed allocation of an additional 1,000 medical school places; [75924]

  (2) in deciding where to allocate the proposed additional 1,000 medical school places, he will conduct an impact assessment on the consequences for (a) public health and (b) community regeneration of approving a new medical school at Hull University. [75935]

  Mr. Denham
  The responsibility for allocating medical student places in England lies with the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE).

  A joint implementation group has been established to take forward this work. The objectives, which were approved by Ministers, have been placed in the Library. The group wrote to all universities in England on 8 January 1999, inviting them to submit bids for a share of the extra medical student places by 12 March 1999. The group will consider all proposals received, and make recommendations to the HEFCE, which will announce the allocations later in the year.

  Elderly People (Care)
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the future of private sector care homes for the elderly. [75920]
  849
  Mr. Hutton
  The Government's policy in this area was set out in the White Paper "Modernising social services".

  The commissioning of long-term residential care is a matter for local authorities. The Government have no ideological view as to the choice of private or public ownership. What is important is that the arrangements made by authorities should be based on judgments about best value and optimum outcomes for individual users.

  Tobacco
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to raise in the EU Health Council the health effect of EU policy in relation to tobacco growers. [76935]

  Mr. Hutton
  We expect the German Presidency to include an item on tobacco on the agenda of the Health Council meeting on 8 June 1999. The Commission will report on progress made in implementing the recommendations of its 1996 report on the Community's role in combating tobacco consumption, which includes the issue of tobacco production in the European Union. We intend to indicate our support for co-ordinated action.

  CS Gas
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many times since 1 January 1996 UK chief medical officers have discussed the issue of CS sprays at meetings of their group. [77115]

  Mr. Hutton
  The United Kingdom Chief Medical Officers meet on an informal ad hoc basis and there is no record of any discussion of CS spray at any of their meetings which have taken place since 1 January 1996.

  Termination Payments
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by NHS region the termination payments made by(a) NHS trusts and (b) health authorities to (a) chief executives, (b) other board members and (c) senior managers, for each of the last five years. [76476]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 15 March 1999]: The information available is shown in the tables.

  The only data collected centrally for National Health Service trusts relate to the total 'Compensations for loss of office' within the category of 'Executive Director's Remuneration'.

  The only data collected centrally for health authorities and family health service authorities relate to the total 'Compensations for loss of office' within the category of Non-Executive Director's Remuneration', and to `Compensations for loss of office' for 'Chief Executive'. The figure for chief executive will be included within the overall total for non-executive directors.

  Information was not collected for health authorities and family health service authorities in 1993–94.

  Separate data are available for 'senior managers' however it is included here in those figures relating to NHS trusts.
  850

  Family health service authorities—FAA10 1994–95

  £000

  Compensations for loss of office

  Executive

  Chief executive

  Northern and Yorkshire Region total

  0

  0

  Trent Region total

  54

  54

  Anglia and Oxford Region total

  0

  0

  North Thames Region total

  0

  0

  South Thames Region total

  0

  0

  South and West Region total

  0

  0

  Anglia and Oxford Region total

  0

  0

  South and West Region total

  8

  8

  West Midlands Region total

  32

  32

  North West Region total

  0

  0

  Grand total

  94

  94

  Source:

  Family Health Services Authorities Annual Accounts 1994–1995.

  Family health service authorities—FAA10 1995–96

  £000

  Compensations for loss of office

  Executive

  Chief executive

  Northern and Yorkshire Region total

  0

  0

  Trent Region total

  58

  0

  Anglia and Oxford Region total

  0

  0

  North Thames Region total

  56

  56

  South Thames Region total

  95

  95

  South and West Region total

  17

  17

  Anglia and Oxford Region total

  8

  8

  South and West Region total

  51

  51

  West Midlands Region total

  40

  40

  North West Region total

  206

  206

  Grand total

  529

  465

  Source:

  Family Health Services Authorities Annual Accounts 1995–1996.

  NHS Trust—TAC07 1993–94

  Board members—compensation for loss of office

  Sub code £000

  Northern total

  0

  Yorkshire total

  0

  Trent total

  0

  East Anglian total

  30

  North West Thames total

  132

  North East Thames total

  197

  South East Thames total

  166

  South West Thames total

  31

  Wessex total

  19

  Oxford total

  5

  South Western total

  144

  West Midlands total

  157

  Mersey total

  104

  North Western total

  0

  Grand total

  985

  Source:

  NHS Trusts summarization schedules 1993–94.

  NHS Trust—TAC07 1994–95

  Board Members—compensation for loss of office

  Sub code £000

  Northern and Yorkshire total

  130

  Trent total

  86

  Anglian and Oxford total

  233

  North Thames total

  516

  South Thames total

  386

  South & West total

  97

  851

  NHS Trust—TAC07 1994–95

  Board Members—compensation for loss of office

  Sub code £000

  West Midlands total

  271

  North West total

  411

  Grand total

  2,130

  Source:

  NHS Trusts summarisation schedules 1994–95.

  NHS Trusts—TAC07 1995–96

  Executive Directors—compensation for loss of office

  Sub code £000

  Northern and Yorkshire total

  302

  Trent total

  123

  Anglia and Oxford total

  74

  North Thames total

  432

  South Thames total

  372

  South and West total

  203

  West Midlands total

  400

  North West total

  166

  Grand total

  2,072

  Source:

  NHS Trusts summarization schedules 1995–96.

  NHS Trusts—TAC07 1996–97

  Executive Directors—compensation for loss of office

  Sub code £000

  Northern and Yorkshire total

  221

  Trent total

  38

  South Thames total

  737

  North Thames total

  426

  Anglia and Oxford total

  229

  South and West total

  574

  West Midlands total

  195

  North West total

  321

  Grand total

  2,741

  Source:

  NHS Trusts summarization schedules 1996–97.

  NHS Trusts—TAC07 1997–98

  Executive Directors—compensation for loss of office

  Sub code £000

  Northern and Yorkshire total

  236

  Trent total

  97

  Anglia and Oxford total

  423

  North Thames total

  479

  South Thames total

  875

  South and West total

  221

  West Midlands total

  366

  North West total

  129

  Grand total

  2,826

  Source:

  NHS Trusts summarization schedules 1997–98.

  Health Authorities—HAA5 1994–95

  £000

  Compensations for loss of office

  Executive

  Chief executive

  Northern and Yorkshire Region total

  19

  0

  Trent Region total

  186

  0

  Anglian and Oxford Region total

  56

  37

  North Thames Region total

  136

  112

  South Thames Region total

  211

  69

  South and West Region total

  0

  0

  Anglian and Oxford Region total

  26

  0

  852

  Health Authorities—HAA5 1994–95

  £000

  Compensations for loss of office

  Executive

  Chief executive

  South and West Region total

  93

  93

  West Midlands Region total

  138

  52

  North West Region total

  0

  0

  Grand total

  865

  363

  Source:

  Health Authority Accounts 1994–95.

  Health Authorities—HAA5 1995–96

  £000

  Compensations for loss of office

  Executive

  Chief executive

  Northern and Yorkshire total

  67

  0

  Trent total

  200

  0

  Anglian and Oxford total

  228

  0

  North Thames total

  132

  91

  South Thames total

  322

  72

  South and West total

  0

  0

  Anglian and Oxford total

  74

  0

  South and West total

  97

  0

  West Midlands total

  388

  336

  North West total

  0

  0

  Grand total

  1,508

  499

  Source:

  Health authority Accounts 1995–96.

  Health Authorities—HAA05 1996–97

  £000

  Compensations for loss of office

  Executive

  Chief executive

  Northern and Yorkshire total

  281

  180

  Trent total

  238

  225

  Anglian and Oxford total

  32

  0

  North Thames total

  0

  0

  South Thames total

  11

  0

  South and West total

  79

  79

  West Midlands total

  30

  0

  North West total

  0

  0

  Grand total

  671

  484

  Source:

  Health Authority Accounts 1996–97.

  Health Authorities—HAA05 1997–98

  £000

  Compensations for loss of office

  Executive

  Chief executive

  Northern and Yorkshire total

  1

  0

  Trent total

  0

  0

  Anglian and Oxford total

  0

  0

  North Thames total

  285

  0

  South Thames total

  106

  84

  South and West total

  0

  0

  West Midlands total

  30

  30

  North West total

  0

  0

  Grand total

  422

  114

  Source:

  Health Authority Accounts 1997–98.

  Advertising Expenditure
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, by region, expenditure by the NHS on advertising in each of the last five years. [76485]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 15 March 1999]: Information about national Health Service expenditure on

  Advertising expenditure 1993–94 to 1997–98 trusts and health authorities

  £

  Region

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Northern/Yorkshire

  3,222,848

  3,612,511

  5,108,073

  4,614,783

  4,694,683

  Trent

  2,704,686

  3,327,513

  3,654,782

  3,473,188

  4,212,484

  Anglia and Oxford

  2,860,525

  4,263,608

  5,207,245

  5,288,974

  5,302,599

  North Thames

  5,383,073

  8,301,039

  10,787,87

  10,743,83

  11,084,23

  South Thames

  4,354,905

  6,448,038

  8,664,092

  7,935,490

  8,428,801

  South and West

  2,944,936

  4,121,499

  4,971,958

  4,450,681

  5,739,418

  West Midlands

  2,110,235

  3,655,466

  5,001,479

  4,618,611

  4,789,712

  North West

  2,485,535

  3,295,971

  4,453,542

  3,916,934

  4,558,358

  Sources:

  1. Financial returns of trusts and health authorities 1996–97 to 1997–98

  2. Financial returns of trusts, district health authorities, regional health authorities and special health authorities of the London postgraduate teaching hospitals 1993–94 to 1995–96 (this is not audited data)

  3. Regional aggregates as in 1997–98 have been used rather than the 14 regions in existence prior to 1 April 1996

  4. Regional data differs from information previously supplied because of (a) movement of NHS trusts and health authorities between regions, and (b) inclusion of special health authorities within the Thames regions. National totals remain consistent.

  Opencast Mining
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish the results of his investigation into the effects of opencast mining on health; and if he will make a statement. [77196]

  Mr. Hutton
  The study being undertaken at the University of Newcastle is funded jointly by the Department and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The findings of the study will be reviewed at the Institute for Environment and Health at the end of March as part of an annual review of air pollution research contracts. The results will be made available as soon as the staff undertaking the work are happy that this should be done and publication in a peer reviewed scientific journal is likely. This work will form a part of a wider review of the effects on health of emissions of dust and other substances from opencast coal mining sites which is being prepared by the Department's Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants. The Committee hopes to consider this subject at its meeting in October.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Residence Applications
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department how many fathers had their application for residence awarded in each of the last two years. [77555]

  Mr. Hoon
  This information is not collected.

  Contact Orders
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Minister of state, Lord Chancellor's Department how many contact orders 854
  advertising is given in the following table. It includes expenditure in a number of different areas including recruitment advertising, health promotion initiatives and measures to improve local accountability such as the production of annual reports and information about services.

  were not kept in 1998 resulting in applications to the courts; and how many penalties were awarded by the courts where contact orders were broken. [77559]

  Mr. Hoon
  This information is not collected.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Osborne House
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, (1) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) of 4 February 1999,Official Report, column 694, when he will bring forward legislation to repeal the Osborne Estate Act 1902. [77215]

  (2) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) of 4 February 1999, Official Report, column 694, if the King Edward VII Convalescence Home at Osborne House remains open for new convalescents, [77216]

  (3) how many members of (a) the Armed Forces and (b) the Civil Service used the facilities of the King Edward VII Convalescent Home at Osborne House on the Isle of Wight in each of the last five years. [77210]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  We plan to introduce the necessary legislation at the earliest opportunity. In the meantime, I can confirm that the King Edward VII Convalescent House at Osborne House remains open for new convalescents.

  The figures for use of the facilities offered by the home in each of the last five years are:

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  The Armed Forces

  Residents

  111

  111

  114

  113

  110

  Convalescents

  231

  267

  313

  274

  238

  855

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Average number of convalescents per week

  4

  5

  6

  5

  5

  The Civil Service

  Residents

  5

  16

  16

  15

  14

  Convalescents

  62

  96

  86

  88

  94

  Average number of convalescents per week

  1

  2

  2

  2

  2

  1 These figures represent the total number of residents at one time or another during a year including admissions, deaths and departures to other accommodation.

TREASURY

  Select Committee Reports
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 16 March 1999,Official Report, columns 641–42, (1) if (a) special advisers and (b) officials (i) saw the draft report and (ii) discussed the preliminary draft of the report with (A) the Parliamentary Private Secretary and (B) members of the Social Security Committee; [77852]

  (2) if (a) he and (b) his Ministers discussed the Social Security Committee's Draft report with (i) his Parliamentary Private Secretary, (ii) members of the Social Security Committee, (iii) special advisers and (iv) officials. [77886]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 16 March 1999,Official Report, columns 641–42.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate he has made for(a) small and medium enterprises and (b) larger companies of the number of man hours that a company will be required to spend to establish and administer the working families tax credit in (i) its first year and (ii) subsequent years; [76672]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the (i) first year and (ii) subsequent year compliance costs for (a) small and medium enterprises and (b) larger companies of their role in administering the working families tax credit system. [76869]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 16 March 1999]: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the draft Regulatory Impact Assessment which was published on 3 February 1999.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the change from the Family Credit programme to the Working Families Tax Credit programme on the number of claimants in Portsmouth. [69935]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Working Families Tax Credit, which will replace Family Credit on 5 October, will have a higher threshold and an increased taper. These improvements will result in an increase in take-up nationally.

  The introduction of Working Families Tax Credit will ease the poverty trap by allowing people to keep more of what they earn as they increase their earnings, thereby increasing the incentive to move from welfare to work.

  Tax Burden
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is the average net change in the tax burden on individuals since May 1997 in Scotland; [77005]

  (2) what is the average net change in the tax burden on individuals since May 1997 in Lancashire; [77004]

  (3) what is the average net change in the tax burden on individuals since May 1997 in Wales. [77006]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 16 March 1999]: Figures for tax receipts are not available by region. Financial year figures for UK tax receipts and social security contributions, net of tax credits, as a proportion of gross domestic product were published in table B27 of the March 1999 Financial Statement and Budget Report.

  Stamp Duty (Shares)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the revenue from stamp duty on shares if the rate was(a) increased to 1 per cent. and (b) lowered to ¼per cent. [R] [74066]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 2 March 1999]: As set out in Table B10 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report, the revenue from duty on transactions in shares and other securities is forecast to be £3.1 billion in 1999–2000. If the rate of duty was raised from the current 0.5 per cent. to 1 per cent., then it is estimated that revenue would be £5.4 billion in 1999–2000 whereas, if it was reduced to ¼ per cent., then revenue would be £1.7 billion. These estimates take account of the impact the relevant changes would be expected to have on the value of share transactions.

  EU Fraud
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what(a) discussions he has had and (b) proposals his Department has put forward at Council of Ministers' meetings in respect of EU fraud; and if he will make a statement. [77778]

  Ms Hewitt
  Fraud against the Community budget is something which the Government take very seriously and I can confirm that this informs our discussions with other member states at Council meetings. The Government aim to ensure that anti-fraud considerations are taken fully into account when new policies are being developed and new or revised regulations are on the table.

  Regular discussions on fighting EU fraud take place and specific proposals are considered at the ECOFIN Council where the Treasury is the lead UK Department. The Commission's annual "Fight against Fraud" report and work programme was discussed at the May 1998 ECOFIN which, under the UK Presidency, was devoted to fraud, financial management and budget issues. The Court of Auditors' Report for 1997 focused on improving financial management and fighting fraud and waste and was discussed at the March 1999 ECOFIN.

  The November 1998 ECOFIN discussed the European Court of Auditors' Special Report 8/98 concerning the Commission's services engaged in the fight against fraud. The Council concluded that there must be a policy of zero tolerance towards fraud and called for substantial improvements to be made without delay with fraud inside

  857
  the Community Institutions as the first target. It called on the Commission to consider all of the options for strengthening the fight against fraud.

  At the January 1999 ECOFIN the Chancellor called for a strong independent head of fraud investigations who would have wide ranging powers and rights matched by responsibility and accountability including reporting to the European Parliament and the Council. The March 1999 ECOFIN discussed the Commission's proposal of December 1998 for an independent fraud investigation office, and the 1997 European Court of Auditor's Report. The Council called on the Commission to bring forward amended proposals for a strengthened fraud investigation office, indicating the key elements it would wish the amended proposal to incorporate, which were in line with the Chancellor's January initiative.

  There may also be discussions of specific frauds against particular EC programmes in the relevant Council meeting, for instance on allegations of fraud against the EU humanitarian aid programme which were discussed at the November 1998 Development Council.

  Budget Publications
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what departmental guidelines govern the content of the Treasury publication, "Budget 99, Building a Stronger Economic Future for Britain"; and if he will make a statement. [77301]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 18 March 1999]: "Budget 99, Building a Stronger Economic Future for Britain" complies with the Cabinet Office guidance on the work of the Government Information Service.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people paid CGT in financial years(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98; and what is his estimate for (d) 1998–99. [R] [74063]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 2 March 1999]: The number of taxpayers with a Capital Gains Tax liability arising in the years 1995–96 to 1998–99 is as follows:

  Capital Gains Tax: Number of taxpayers 1

  Year

  Number

  1995–96

  100

  1996–972

  110

  1997–982

  160

  1998–992

  190

  1 Excludes companies as their capital gains are charged to Corporation Tax.

  2 Provisional. These figures were previously published in Table 1.6 of Inland Revenue Statistics 1998 (IRS 1998) and have been revised in line with outturn and the March 1999 Budget forecast.

  Business Taxes
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish for each tax levied on businesses(a) the amounts paid in 1996–97 and 1997–98 and (b) his estimate for 1998–99. [75293]
  858
  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 8 March 1999]: Detailed historical data on receipts from individual taxes can be found in Chapter 2 of "Financial Statistics".

  Estimates of tax receipts in 1998–99 can be found in Table B10 of the March 1999 Financial Statement and Budget Report.

  Duty Free
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the increased revenue to his Department as a result of the abolition of duty-free shopping in financial year 1999–2000. [77441]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Such estimates are sensitive to a whole range of assumptions about the nature of the successor regime and the post abolition marketing strategies of the duty-free operators. There is insufficient certainty on either of these points to make meaningful predictions at this stage.

  RAF Airfields (Exports)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions permission has been given by HM Customs and Excise for private companies to export goods from RAF airfields in each of the last five years. [77246]

  Dawn Primarolo
  HM Customs and Excise does not keep records of such information.

  Military Cargo
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if HM Customs' permission was given for a military cargo to be exported from RAF Manston in Kent in May 1998, which subsequently went missing en route to South Africa. [77251]

  Dawn Primarolo
  HM Customs and Excise did give authority for the loading of a shipment of goods to South Africa, which moved via the UK having been released for export from the Community by Customs in another Member State. Information available at the time of shipment did not indicate that the cargo included any controlled military goods.

  VAT Liability
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on changes to United Kingdom determination of VAT liability, pursuant to(a) COM (98) 660 and (b) COM (98) 663; what legislation will be required; and what effect this will have on income to the Exchequer. [74444]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Explanatory memoranda were placed in the Library of the House in respect of draft Directive Com (98) 660.

  Petroleum
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much extra revenue will be raised in excise duty on petroleum due to changes made since 1 May 1997 in 1997–98 and each of the following four years. [76575]
  859
  Dawn Primarolo
  HM Customs and Excise estimate the extra revenue raised in excise duty on petrol due to the changes made since 1 May 1997 to be:

  £ million

  Financial year

  Extra revenue

  1997–98

  350

  1998–99

  740

  1999–2000

  600

  2000–01

  820

  2001–02

  1,000

  The figures have been calculated by comparing estimated revenue streams under the current Government's duty commitments (as shown in table C.1 of the 1998 FSBR and table IB.2 of the 1999 ESBR/FSBR) with an estimate of what revenue streams would have been under the previous Government's 5 per cent. escalator.

  Diesel
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much extra revenue will be raised in excise duty on(a) diesel and (b) ultra-low sulphur diesel due to changes made since 1 May 1997 in 1997–98 and each of the following four years. [76574]

  Dawn Primarolo
  HM Customs and Excise estimate the extra revenue raised in excise duty on(a) diesel and (b) ultra-low sulphur diesel due to the changes made since 1 May 1997 to be:

  Financial year

  Diesel

  Ultra-low sulphur diesel

  1997–98

  220

  -5

  1998–99

  570

  10

  1999–2000

  120

  430

  2000–01

  0

  900

  2001–02

  0

  1,040

  The figures have been calculated by comparing estimated revenue streams under the current Government's duty commitments (as shown in table C.1 of the 1998 FSBR and table IB.2 of the 1999 ESBR/FSBR) with an estimate of what revenue streams would have been under the previous Government's 5 per cent. escalator. It has been assumed that after 1999–2000 all diesel will have been replaced with ultra-low sulphur diesel.

  Although it was legislated for under the previous Government, the separate rate for ultra-low sulphur diesel did not come into effect until after 1 May 1997 and has therefore been treated as a change since that date.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Toddington Primary School
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on what date he received the Statement of Case from Gloucestershire County Council on its proposals to close Toddington Primary School. [77365]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The statement of case was received on 12 March 1999.

  Under-fives
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what discussions he had with(a) teachers, (b) playgroup staff and (c) parents before proposing guidelines for the teaching of the under-fives; what extra provision he is making in terms of (i) teachers and (ii) buildings for implementing the guidelines; and if he will make a statement. [77367]

  Ms Hodge
  The Qualification and Curriculum Authority held eight consultative conferences with representatives of Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships, which include providers of early education and parents, before issuing its consultation document on the review of the desirable learning outcomes on 22 February. The consultation document has been sent to EYDC Partnerships, Local Education Authorities, teachers associations and to a sample of schools. Alongside this, the Secretary of State is considering responses to the consultation on the regulation of early education and day care which covered issues including adult:child ratios, qualifications and premises requirements.

DEFENCE

  Military Exercises
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of the airborne exercise in France carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998. [72925]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  This exercise was a reciprocal exchange exercise between the Parachute Regiment and the French 1 Regiment de Chasseurs Parachutistes, involving 80 personnel from the Parachute Regiment, which took place in France in September 1997. The only additional cost for this exercise was for personnel to travel to and from France at a cost of £3,100 as exercises conducted under a reciprocal agreement are at no cost to the visiting force because personnel exchange places and use the supporting assets that are already in place.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of, which countries had armed forces involved in, what assessment he has made of the value of and how many personnel were deployed on the air exercises in the USA carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998. [76597]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The UK was involved in a number of air exercises in the USA in the specified time period, all of which provided excellent and valuable training opportunities for the participating forces. Holland, Brazil, Singapore and Spain also participated in the exercises, with the UK and the US. For fast jet exercises, the total additional cost to the UK was some £1.85 million, with a total of 1,600 UK personnel being deployed in the specified time period, although no more than 500 personnel were deployed for a single exercise. For Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA) exercises, the total additional cost to the UK was some £600K, with a total of 550 UK personnel being deployed in the specified time period, although no more than 200 personnel were deployed for a single exercise.
  861
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of, which countries had armed forces involved in, and how many personnel were deployed on the jungle training exercise in Singapore carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998. [76590]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  835 personnel from the Royal Marine Command deployed, via Singapore, for a jungle training exercise in Malaysia. The exercise formed part of the Ocean Wave Far East deployment and the additional cost incurred was £51K. The exercises involved personnel of the UK and Royal Malaysian Armed Forces.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel were deployed on the jungle training exercise in Thailand carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998. [76593]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  136 personnel of the Royal Marine Command participated in this exercise.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of the three infantry battalion exercises in Kenya carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998. [72971]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 1 March 1999]: The cost of the three infantry battalion exercises in Kenya carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998 was as follows:

  £million

  Exercise

  Cost

  Grand Prix 1/97

  0.063

  Grand Prix 2/97

  0.622

  Grand Prix 3/97

  0.672

  Total

  1.357

  The cost of Grand Prix 1/97 excludes the costs of movement by RAF transport aircraft and from Kenya, as these figures are no longer available. The costs of ammunition and of spares consumed during the exercise are also excluded as these costs are not separately identified.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of the combined maritime and

  Army

  RN

  RAF

  Year

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Total

  Officers

  1989

  Not available

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1990

  2

  1

  3

  3

  0

  3

  1

  0

  1

  7

  1991

  2

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  2

  4

  1992

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  2

  4

  1993

  2

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  3

  5

  1994

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1995

  0

  0

  0

  4

  1

  5

  4

  0

  4

  9

  1996

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  3

  0

  3

  4

  1997

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  2

  0

  2

  3

  1998

  Not available

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  Other ranks

  1989

  —

  —

  132

  8

  1

  9

  —

  —

  119

  60

  1990

  20

  19

  39

  11

  1

  12

  14

  5

  19

  70

  1991

  21

  16

  37

  5

  1

  6

  4

  1

  5

  48

  1992

  13

  15

  28

  12

  3

  15

  6

  4

  10

  53

  1993

  18

  15

  33

  12

  1

  13

  9

  3

  12

  58

  1994

  17

  12

  29

  7

  6

  13

  5

  3

  8

  50

  1995

  21

  6

  27

  13

  1

  14

  11

  1

  12

  53

  1996

  28

  11

  139

  10

  7

  17

  3

  4

  7

  63

  1997

  18

  13

  131

  8

  5

  13

  5

  0

  5

  49

  1998

  26

  16

  142

  11

  6

  17

  3

  2

  5

  64

  1 These figures represent administrative discharges only. They do not include figures for dismissals

  862
  air exercise in Malaysia carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998. [76611]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  As I advised the hon. Member on 4 March 1999,Official Report, column 866, the RN participated in Exercise "Flying Fish" as part of their "Ocean Wave" deployment, the total additional cost of which was approximately £9.8M. The additional cost to the RAF of Exercise "Flying Fish" was some £800K.

  EU Directives and Regulations
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what EU directives and regulations affect compensation and pension arrangements for those for whom he and his Department are responsible, both military and civilian. [76960]

  Mr. Spellar
  MOD military and civilian personnel are entitled to membership of the relevant occupational pension schemes, Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS) and the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS) respectively. There are no EU directives or regulations which specifically govern public service pension schemes. However, more general EU directives and regulations governing employment and pay may in some cases have an impact on occupational pension schemes, including the AFPS and PCSPS.

  Service Personnel (Homosexuality)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) male and (b) female service personnel were discharged or dismissed on grounds of homosexuality in each of the past 10 years; how many of these, in each year, have challenged the decision at the European Court of Human Rights and at what cost to public funds, under the European Convention's (i) Article 3 (inhuman or degrading treatment), (ii) Article 8 (right to privacy), (iii) Article 10 (freedom of expression), (iv) Article 14 (freedom from discrimination) and (v) other Articles. [76955]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Based on the latest available figures, the numbers of those discharged or dismissed since 1989 are:
  863
  Six personnel are currently challenging their dismissals at the European Court of Human Rights. To the best of our knowledge, there have been no other cases in the last 10 years.

  All six of the applicants have claimed violation of their rights under:
  Article 8—right to respect for private and family life.
  Article 14—discrimination on any ground "such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.". of the Convention.

  Two of the applicants have also claimed violations of their rights under:
  Article 3—torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
  Article 5—liberty and security of person.
  Article 10—freedom of expression.

  The Court, however, declared their complaint under Article 5 alone, and in conjunction with Article 14, inadmissible.

  The costs to public funds which can be separately identified are, to date, approximately £11,000, including VAT. There are also internal staff costs associated with defending these cases: these could not be separately identified.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to review the hazards of exposure to depleted uranium. [74714]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  None. The hazards from depleted uranium are well documented in the scientific literature and are reviewed as new information becomes available. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my noble Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement on 17 February 1998,Official Report, House of Lords, column 21 and that given by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence on 13 May 1998, Official Report, columns 128–29. I have today placed a copy of the Ministry of Defence's Report on Depleted Uranium in the Libraries of the House.

  Naval Bases and Supply Agency
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are currently employed by the Naval Bases and Supply Agency; what was the figure at its inception; on what date the Naval Bases and Supply Agency published its report for 1997–98; and what was the cost of production of the report. [76894]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Naval Bases and Supply Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from J. A. Trewby to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 19 March 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Defence has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of people employed by the Naval Bases and Supply Agency and about the Agency's Annual Report as this falls within my area of responsibility.
  The Agency is currently complemented to employ 11,232 staff, including 2,954 military staff, compared to 13,350 on launch on 11 December 1996. This number will increase to 11,923 on 1 April this year with the creation of the new tri-service explosives
  864
  organisation within the Agency. Our 1997/98 Annual Report and Statement of Accounts was published on 27 July 1998 at a cost of £2,930.

  Ships Support Agency
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are currently employed by the Ships Support Agency; what was the figure at its inception; on what date the Ships Support Agency published its report for 1997–98; and what was the cost of production of the report. [76876]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Ships Support Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from J. D. Coles to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 19 March 1999:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State about the number of people currently employed by the Ships Support Agency, and at its inception; and about the date on which the Agency's report for 1997–98 was published and the cost of its production, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  On 31 January 1999, the number of people employed by the Ships Support Agency was 2,903 (2,460 civilian and 443 military). When the Agency launched in December 1996 its strength was 2,810 (2,450 civilian and 360 military).
  The Agency's Annual Report for 1997–98 was placed in the Library of the House on 29 July 1998. External printing of the Report cost £3,393. All production work was undertaken by Agency internal resources.

  Pay and Personnel Agency
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are currently employed by the Pay and Personnel Agency; what was the figure at its inception; on what date the Pay and Personnel Agency published its report for 1997–98; and what was the cost of production of the report. [76897]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Pay and Personnel Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from M. A. Rowe to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 19 March 1999:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the number of people employed by the Pay & Personnel Agency, and its annual report for 1997/98; as these matters fall within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the agency.
  There are 739 people currently employed by the PPA, and the comparable number was 956 at 1 February 1996, the date of the agency's inception. All staff in the agency are civilians. The agency's report for 1997/98 was published on 23 July 1998 and the cost of production was £19,922.

  Medical Supply Agency
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are currently employed by the Medical Supply Agency; what was the figure at its inception; on what date the Medical Supply Agency published its report for 1997–98; and what was the cost of production of the report. [76889]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Medical Supplies Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.
  865
  Letter from B. E. Nimick to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 19 March 1999:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the Medical Supplies Agency's manning and Annual Report as these matters fall within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Medical Supplies Agency.
  As at 12 March 1999 there were 354 employees funded by the Medical Supplies Agency. This Agency was formed in March 1996 and the total number of persons in post at 1 April 1996 was 301. Prior to its launch, the combined establishments of organisations that later formed the Medical Supplies Agency totalled 403. The reduction from 403 to 301 was achieved by means such as the removal of much of the military management, the closure of units in Germany and Hong Kong and the loss of a blood collection team. A Military/Civilian breakdown of these figures is shown below:

  Period

  Military

  Civilian

  Total

  Pre-Agency

  138

  265

  403

  1 April 96

  61

  240

  301

  12 March 99

  40

  314

  354

  A draft copy of the Medical Supplies Agency's Annual Report and Accounts for 1997/98 was circulated to members of the Surgeon General Owners' Review Board on 23 June 1998 and the final version was published on 19 January 1999. The report was written in-house by existing staff. It was designed using Ministry of Defence facilities, without incurring hard charges, and was printed at a cost of £1,204.

  Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are currently employed by the Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre; and what was the figure at its inception. [76893]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from S. J. Lloyd to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 19 March 1999:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the number of people currently employed at the Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre Defence Agency as this falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive.
  A total of 458 people are currently employed by the Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre as at 11 March 1999. The figure at its inception in April 1996 was 485.
  I hope that you find that this answer gives you the information that you are seeking.

  Defence Dental Agency
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which targets the Defence Dental Agency did not meet in 1997–98; and what monitoring he has undertaken for those targets in 1998–99. [72838]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 1 March 1999]: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Dental Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.
  866
  Letter from I. G. McIntyre to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 19 March 1999:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence concerning the 1997/98 achievement against targets and the monitoring of these targets in 1998/99, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive for the Defence Dental Agency.
  The Defence Dental Agency had six key targets for 1997/98 two of which were only partially met. Target number 6 which was to complete all Service Level Agreements with major customers. This target was specific to 1997/98, and although not met within the year due to delays in obtaining signatures from two of our customers, has now been achieved.
  Target number 2 which was, for each Service, to achieve a dental fitness target of 75% for all Service personnel, was not achieved in respect of Army personnel. It was recognised when the target was set that the Agency was not resourced to meet it for the Army. It was therefore set as an "aspirational" target in that respect. This target remains the same for 1998/99.
  Key targets are monitored continuously and reviewed quarterly. Quarterly results are published and submitted to the Owners Review Board, and the meetings of relevant Customer Advisory Group. Additionally end of year results will be published in the Next Steps Report.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the Defence Dental Agency published its report for the year 1997–98; and what was the cost of production of the report. [72841]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 1 March 1999]: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Dental Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from I. G. McIntyre to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 19 March 1999:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about publication of the report for the Defence Dental Agency for the year 1997/98, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Dental Agency. The Defence Dental Agency did not publish a report for 1997/98.

  Gulf Veterans
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the basis for the statement of 15 February by Mr. Alan Casson of his Department's Gulf Veterans' Illnesses Unit that it is highly unlikely that local populations would have been exposed to any significant amount of respirable dust. [77257]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 18 March 1999]: I believe that the statement to which the hon. Member refers was made in a letter dated 15 February from Mr. Alan Casson, an official in my Department's Gulf Veterans' Illnesses Unit, to a member of the public. The basis for that statement was fully explained in that letter, the text of which is repeated in its entirety as follows:

  Letter from Mr. Alan Casson, Gulf Veterans' Illnesses Unit to a member of the public, dated 15 February 1999:
  Thank you for your letter of 19 October to the Secretary of State for Defence, Mr. Robertson, which enclosed a copy of an article from the Independent concerning ill-health in southern Iraq and an alleged link to the use of depleted uranium (DU) based ammunition by UK and US forces during the 1990/91 Gulf. I have been asked to reply and apologise for not doing so sooner.

  867
  Both US and UK forces did indeed use DU-based ammunition during the Gulf War. UK forces used a new 120mm tank round which contained a solid DU penetrator core with a protective (non-DU) coating in its Challenger 1 tanks. US forces used 20mm, 25mm, 30mm, 105mm and 120mm ammunition rounds in its tanks, aircraft and ships. The MOD's current assessment is that UK tanks fired fewer than one hundred 120mm rounds against Iraq's military forces during hostilities (which equates to less than 1 metric tonne of DU), although additional rounds were fired during earlier work-up training to establish the round's Mean Point of Impact (MPI). In a paper published in August last year, the US Government reported that US forces in the Gulf had fired ammunition rounds containing some 290 metric tonnes of DU.
  It might be helpful if I explained the properties of DU and how the metal used in the manufacture of UK DU-based ammunition is produced. Uranium exists in three forms, known as isotopes. These isotopes are uranium-238, uranium-235 and uranium-234 and, in naturally occurring uranium, are found in the ratio 99.3% 238 U:0.7% 235 U:0.006% 234 U. Uranium in an 'enriched' form is used in nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons. The term enriched is used because the concentration of 234U has been artificially enhanced from that found in naturally occurring uranium. The by-product of this enrichment process is the production of DU, which involved the removal of virtually all234U and a reduction of the proportion of 235U to a low level. Typically, by weight, DU contains 99.7% 238 U, 0.2% 235 U and 0.00007% 234U.
  It might also be helpful if I explained the potential health hazards posed by the use of DU. Depleted uranium is defined by the International Atomic Energy Agency as a Low Specific Activity material; this means that its level of radioactivity is considerably lower than that of most man-made radionuclides such as plutonium and americium. DU-based ammunition rounds can produce a small amount of radioactive and toxic particulate material when they impact with a hard surface, which could present a health risk if inhaled or ingested. However, this material is fairly rapidly diluted and dispersed into the environment by the weather, to the point where it becomes difficult to detect, usually within a few hundred metres of impact, even with the most sophisticated radiation monitoring equipment. Thus, it is unlikely that anyone other than those in an armoured vehicle hit by a DU projectile or those spending prolonged periods within a few tens of metres of the point at which a DU-based round had impacted with a hard target would be exposed to large enough quantities of the material for their health to be a risk.
  Solid DU fragments present only a localised external radiation hazard to anyone handling them as only a very small fraction of the radiation emitted is able to penetrate the (dead) outer layer of the skin and because these fragments are too large to be inhaled or ingested. It would be necessary for a DU fragment to be in direct contact with the skin for tens of hours before any statutory UK dose limit for members of the public would be exceeded and even this would not give rise to any observable medical effects or a significant increase in the long term cancer risk.
  Another potential health hazard from DU is posed by its level of chemical toxicity, which is similar to that of other heavy metals such as lead. This could give risk to health problems if soluble DU were to be ingested or inhaled but this is very unlikely as the DU residues found on the battlefield are generally in the form of solid DU fragments or relatively insoluble oxides. Should any of these insoluble oxides be ingested, most would pass straight through the body and the risk of any health effects arising from this exposure route is therefore negligible. The inhalation of insoluble oxides gives rise to effects which result from the radioactive rather than toxic properties of DU. This is because insoluble particles are retained in the lung for prolonged periods and are excreted very slowly and at concentrations unlikely to affect the kidneys which are the organ at most risk from any toxic effects.
  The Independent article referred to a paper written by the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) in April 1991 entitled "Kuwait—Depleted Uranium Contamination", which was produced for Royal Ordnance plc (rather than the Ministry of Defence) on a commercial basis. (A copy of this paper is attached for your information.) The paper calculated 500,000 potential deaths if 50 tonnes of DU dust was left in the area.
  868
  However, a number of assumptions made in this paper are very far from realistic. Indeed, the paper itself makes clear that it is not a rigorous scientific analysis of the actual situation, but a theoretical appraisal of the possible worst-case effects of firing DU-based ammunition in Kuwait. In particular, the paper assumes that all the DU fired in Kuwait was converted into respirable dust and that all of this dust was inhaled by a very large number of people.
  However, as I have already explained above, a DU penetrator core needs to hit a very hard target to cause the burning which produces radioactive and toxic dust. In practice, this only occurs when a DU penetrator hits extremely hard armour such as is found on only the most modern Main Battle Tanks. Such burning does not occur if the penetrator hits other, softer, types of armoured vehicles or if it misses its target and hits the ground. Of the DU-based rounds fired in Kuwait and Iraq, only a relatively small percentage would have hit a target hard enough to cause the DU penetrator to burn. Furthermore, our assessment, based on a large number of trials carried out in the UK and US, is that only about 20% of the DU in a DU-based round that has hit such a target is converted into respirable dust. Since the DU-based rounds were fired in the desert, many kilometres from the nearest village, it is highly unlikely that the local population would have been exposed to any significant amount of respirable dust.
  The Government does not have any information concerning the levels of DU currently present in the Gulf and cannot, therefore, comment on this matter. However, the UK tanks which were equipped with DU-based rounds during the Gulf conflict did not operate in the areas in southern Iraq in which it has been suggested that there is an elevated level of ill-health compared to that in other areas in Iraq (see next paragraph). After crossing the Saudi Arabian/Iraqi border north of Hafr al Batin, these tanks, which were part of 1 (UK) Armoured Division, turned east, entered Kuwait and pushed towards Kuwait City. We assess that 1 (UK) Armoured Division came no closer than about 75 kilometres from Az Zubayr and about 40 kilometres from Urn Qasr. The maximum range of a DU-based round fired from UK tanks is less than 15 kilometres.
  The article attached to your letter and a number of other articles by Robert Fisk have suggested that the use of DU-based ammunition during the Gulf War is affecting the health of some of the Iraqi population. The Government is aware that there have been suggestions, particularly in the Independent, that the use of DU-based ammunition during the Gulf conflict has caused an increase in ill-health, including deformities, cancers and birth defects, in southern Iraq (particularly around Basra, Az Zubayr and Urn Qasr). However, the Government has not seen any peer-reviewed epidemiological research data on this population to support these claims and it would, therefore, be premature to comment on this matter. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the illnesses of the types highlighted in the article attached to your letter (or in other Independent articles) are uniquely associated with exposure to DU. The Government would, of course, consider carefully any medical or scientific data which was presented on this subject.
  Finally, it might be helpful if I set out the role that the Government has taken to alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people under Saddam Hussein's regime. Since 1991, the UK has donated around £100 million bilaterally and via the European Union for use in projects throughout Iraq (many of which have specifically targeted the needs of children and widow-headed families), making the UK one of the largest donors. The UK also co-sponsored UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 986 which set up the original 'oil-for-food' programme under which Iraq can sell oil to fund the purchase of humanitarian supplies. More recently, we drafted Resolutions improving and expanding the programme so that Iraq can sell US$5.3 billion of oil every 6 months (more than double the original amount).
  I hope this is helpful.

  A copy of the paper by the UK Atomic Energy Authority, which is mentioned in the letter, has already been placed in the Library of the House.
  869
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the response of Mr. Alan Casson of the Gulf Veterans Illness Unit to the letter of Mr. Bill Griffin of Templevisce, Glanmire (reference D/GVIV/a/I), 2 of 23 February, regarding depleted uranium. [77326]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 18 March 1999]: I am advised that Mr. Griffin telephoned a member of my Department's Gulf Veterans' Illnesses Unit (GVIU) on 22 January and discussed a number of depleted uranium (DU) related issues. During this telephone conversation, Mr. Griffin offered to provide the Ministry of Defence with copies of research papers which he suggested showed that the use of DU-based ammunition by UK and US forces during the 1990–91 Gulf conflict has caused a significantly higher incidence of ill-health—including cancers and birth defects—in southern Iraq. So far, however, my officials have not received any further communication from Mr. Griffin. The Government would, of course, consider carefully any medical or scientific data which was presented on this subject.

  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 3 March 1999,Official Report, column 776, when he expects to publish the paper setting out his Department's position concerning the testing of UK Gulf veterans for the presence of depleted uranium. [78299]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I am today publishing a detailed paper entitled "Testing for the presence of depleted uranium in UK veterans of the Gulf conflict: The Current Position". Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Macedonia
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about arrangements for the sending and receipt of personal mail by Her Majesty's forces deployed in Macedonia. [77494]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Mail to and from Macedonia and the UK is conveyed six days a week Monday to Friday and Sunday from London Heathrow to Skopje via Vienna and return.

  Mail to and from Macedonia and British Forces in Germany is conveyed five days a week Tuesday to Friday and Sunday outbound and Monday to Friday inbound from Dusseldorf to Skopje via Vienna.

  On both routes the mail is moved by commercial airline as this provides a quick, sustainable and reliable service. This core service is supplemented by RAF flights whenever they are flying to Macedonia and have space available for mail. Additional civilian routings are also being investigated.

  The current transmission time to Macedonia is four to five days from the UK and two to three days from Germany. Once the mail has arrived at Skopje, individual units collect and distribute the mail to their service personnel.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Territorial Army personnel are(a) currently deployed in Macedonia and (b) planned to be deployed in Macedonia; and whether notice has been given to TA units and personnel of intention to deploy them. [77491]
  870
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Ten personnel from the Territorial Army are currently deployed in Macedonia, and it is planned to deploy a further six on 22 March. At this stage general notice has not been given to TA units of an intention to deploy them to Macedonia. Individual members are being identified for particular posts as the requirement arises. If there is a requirement for further TA personnel a general trawl will be conducted, as was the case for Bosnia.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what units of the Defence Medical Services will be deployed in support of operations in Macedonia. [77492]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  In addition to medical personnel deployed as part of formed units, a number of specialist medical elements have been deployed to Macedonia on Operation "Agricola" with the main contribution being from 2 Armoured Field Ambulance which is supported by a surgical team and a small detachment of RAF medical personnel. Other specialist medical personnel from the three Services fill a variety of posts as part of the existing NATO Extraction Force, Kosovo Verification Co-ordination Centre, the Kosovo Verification Mission and UK headquarters staff.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether Internet and e-mail facilities will be available for the personal and welfare use of British forces deployed in Macedonia. [77493]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Internet facilities are not normally provided for personal and welfare purposes on operations. The main means of communication from theatre to home are letter and telephone, both of which are funded or subsidised by the MOD. In other operational theatres, where there is a demand, units have installed and maintained Internet terminals on their own initiative from non-public unit funds.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the(a) current and (b) planned entitlement for welfare telephone calls for personnel deployed in Macedonia; and whether such calls will be available through his Department's satellite links or commercial contractors. [77495]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Service personnel, where operationally feasible, are permitted a weekly 10-minute private call home at public expense while on operations. This concession currently applies to all ground forces in Macedonia (and also supporting elements in Greece). Where possible, calls are made using the Macedonian commercial PTT system. In some locations, where this is not available, arrangements are in hand for civilian contractors to provide a service. In cases where neither option exists, troops are permitted to use the military communications network to make weekly private calls home.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on the supply of bottled mineral water to British troops in Macedonia; and if he will make a statement. [77496]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The majority of our forces deployed in Macedonia obtain their drinking water from local sources which have been assessed as safe to drink either by local Government laboratories or the in-theatre Royal Army Medical Corps Environmental Health
  871
  Officer. For those personnel in specific locations where local water sources are suspect, bottled water is provided. The bottled water supplied to British troops is either potable drinking water or still bottled water. It is not classed as "mineral" water.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of British troops in Macedonia are currently accommodated(a) under canvas and (b) in CORIMEC 20 foot equivalent units and (c) in other shelters; and if he will make a statement. [77497]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Approximately 20 per cent. of the British troops currently deployed in Macedonia are accommodated under canvas, less than 1 per cent. in CORIMEC-type units and the remainder in other accommodation.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many 20 foot equivalent CORIMEC accommodation units are(a) in place in Macedonia, (b) in transit to Macedonia and (c) on order for use by (i) the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps and (ii) other British forces. [77498]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  No such accommodation units are currently in place, in transit or on order for use by the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps or other British Forces in Macedonia. However, accommodation will be provided, as necessary, in relation to the size of any force and the timing of its deployment.

  "Just in Time"
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he plans to take to ensure that "Just in Time" supply chain logistics support for military operations works effectively. [74661]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 4 March 1999]: "Just in Time" logistics is one of a range of supply management techniques which are being examined by a study team reporting to the Chief of Defence Logistics. Whilst there may be some scope for broadening the existing selective application of "Just in Time" logistics in the defence sector, the degree to which this is achievable would be dependent on the nature of military operations which need to be supported.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which of the following Territorial Army units are classified as infantry units(a) Bn HQ RRW, (b) RHQ Tpt Regiment, (c) RHQ 104 Regt RA and (d) Bn HQ, Wales. [77535]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 18 March 1999]: Of the units listed, only the Battalion headquarters, Royal Regiment of Wales (Bn HQ RRW) is an infantry unit. This will be replaced by the Battalion headquarters for the new TA infantry battalion for Wales (Bn HQ Wales) in the new structure.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the(a) current and (b) planned future locations, including counties, of the following TA headquarters (a) Bn HQ RRW, (b) RHQ Tpt Regiment, (c) RHQ 104 Regt RA and (d) Bn HQ, Wales. [77534]
  872
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 18 March 1999]: The Battalion headquarters, Royal Regiment of Wales (Bn HQ RRW) is currently located in Cardiff, Glamorgan. It will not exist in the new TA structure, but will be replaced int he same location by the Battalion headquarters of the new TA infantry battalion for Wales (Bn HQ Wales). The Regimental headquarters of 155 Transport Regiment (RHQ Tpt Regt) is currently located in Cardiff, Glamorgan, and will remain there in the new structure. The Regimental headquarters of 104 Regiment Royal Artillery (RHQ 104 Regt) is currently located in Newport, Gwent, and will also remain there in the new structure.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many questions he has answered from the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) since 1 January; and at what cost to his Department's budget. [77483]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Since 1 January 1999, our records show that 287 questions have been tabled to my Department by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) of which 240 have been answered to date. The cost to my Department's budget of answering individual Parliamentary Questions is not held centrally, however, the advisory cost limit of answering a Parliamentary Question is £500; therefore answering this number of questions may have cost some £120,000.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Sierra Leone
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Mr. Peter Penfold sent any message during 1997 to London from any German or US diplomatic premises in Africa. [75801]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 9 March 1999]: Mr. Penfold was consulted about the answer to a previous question from my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), 26 January 1999, Official Report, column 149, and had said it was not necessary for him to use the communication facilities at the German Embassy to communicate with London. A commercial fax facility was available at his hotel and allowed him to communicate with London directly. This answer was incomplete.

  Mr. Penfold has been consulted again, and has again confirmed that he did not use classified communication facilities at the German Embassy to send messages to London. He has added that some of his and the other British High Commission staff's messages were, however, sent by fax from the commercial fax machine in the German Embassy in Conakry. Mr. Penfold believes he did on occasion also use the telephone at the German Embassy to communicate with London.

  Other than the unclassified messages sent on commercial channels from the German Embassy in Conakry, Mr. Penfold has said he did not, to his best recollection, use German or US diplomatic premises in Africa in 1997 for sending messages to London.

  Dubai
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will meet with the UAE Ambassador to request an explanation for the failure of the Government of Dubai to respond to his note verbale of 10 November 1998. [76945]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 16 March 1999]: Our Embassy in Dubai asked the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Dubai on 11 March when we might expect a reply to the Note Verbale of 10 November 1998.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on Protocol number 4 to the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms; and if he will make a statement. [77001]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The fourth Protocol raises difficult issues, including the need for legislation. We will keep them under consideration.

  Firearms
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on the resolution of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly on control of the acquisition and possession of firearms by individuals; and if he will make a statement. [77000]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have been asked to reply.

  The European Convention on the Control of the Acquisition and Possession of Firearms by Individuals was agreed in 1978. It has been signed by the United Kingdom but not ratified.

  The Convention has effectively been superseded for European Community (EC) member states by the adoption of an EC Directive on the Control of the Acquisition and Possession of Weapons. This was incorporated into domestic law by virtue of the Firearms Acts (Amendment) Regulations 1992. The Directive contains many similarities to the Convention in that it established procedures for the notification of movement of firearms between member states.

WALES

  Airports and Air Services
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what progress has been made on the study of the economic impact of regional airports and regional air services announced in A New Deal for Transport; when these studies will be completed in Wales; and if he will make a statement; [76989]

  (2) what plans he has (a) to approve and (b) to initiate developments relating to airports before the completion of the economic impact studies covering airports and air services announced in A New Deal for Transport; and if he will make a statement. [76990]
  874
  Mr. Hain
  Work is currently under way on an air services study for Wales, in line with the commitment given in the White Paper, "A New Deal For Transport", and the Welsh transport policy statement "Transporting Wales into the Future". The study, which is focusing on the scope for new and enhanced services as well as the role of airports in economic development, is expected to be completed in the summer. I have no plans to initiate or approve developments relating to airports before that time, although I am continuing to consider improved surface access to Cardiff International Airport.

  It will be for the National Assembly, in collaboration with the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, to decide how to take forward the findings of the study in the context of the national airports policy which is being developed.

  Links Magazine
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the cost of producing(a) the November edition and (b) the September edition of Links magazine. [77487]

  Mr. Hain
  The first edition of Links was issued in November 1997 and cost £8,184.

  The sixth edition of Links was issued in November 1998 and cost £7,459.

  The first edition of Links cost slightly more than subsequent issues because of additional origination costs.

  In neither year has there been a September edition.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the average cost of producing each edition of Links magazine in the current financial year. [77488]

  Mr. Hain
  The average cost of producing each edition of Links in the current financial year is £7,577.50.

  Printing costs in this financial year for the supplement of Links extra have been £710.00.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Science Budget
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish the allocation of the science budget to each research council and other funded bodies, at cash and constant terms for (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97, (iii) 1997–98 and (iv) 1998–99 and the planned figures for(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02; and the proportion of this money allocated to Scotland. [76860]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 16 March 1999]: Details of Science Budget spend and allocations in cash and at 1998–99 prices are set out in the following tables.
  875

  Science budget spend and allocations 1995–96 to 2001–02

  £ million

  Council etc.

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Cash

  BBSRC

  180.0

  179.6

  183.0

  190.8

  198.3

  203.0

  208.2

  EPSRC

  368.9

  378.0

  386.3

  389.4

  397.6

  410.9

  427.2

  ESRC

  61.5

  63.7

  65.2

  67.5

  69.8

  71.2

  72.9

  MRC

  278.1

  282.1

  289.1

  294.0

  304.5

  319.2

  334.1

  NERC

  167.8

  157.3

  166.2

  175.0

  178.5

  181.8

  187.5

  PPARC

  202.7

  213.5

  197.9

  207.4

  186.8

  200.7

  204.2

  CCLRC

  2.4

  1.5

  1.2

  1.5

  2.0

  2.0

  2.0

  Royal Society

  21.1

  22.1

  22.3

  22.6

  23.9

  24.6

  25.7

  Royal Academy of Engineering

  2.6

  3.1

  3.4

  3.4

  3.7

  4.0

  4.3

  OST Initiatives

  1.8

  1.6

  1.8

  2.3

  2.8

  2.8

  2.9

  Superannuation Supplement

  8.2

  9.9

  14.7

  13.3

  12.0

  14.4

  14.8

  LINK/Foresight

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1.0

  3.0

  4.0

  University Challenge

  —

  —

  —

  15.0

  10.0

  10.0

  —

  Synchrotron Radiation Source

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15.0

  20.0

  Joint Research Equipment Initiative

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7.0

  10.0

  10.0

  Joint Infrastructure Fund

  —

  —

  —

  —

  75.0

  100.0

  125.0

  Science Enterprise Challenge

  —

  —

  —

  —

  25.0

  —

  —

  International/Contingency Reserve

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15.0

  15.0

  Total

  1,295.1

  1,312.4

  1,331.0

  1,382.3

  1,497.8

  1,587.5

  1,657.6

  £ million

  Council etc.

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  1998–99 prices

  BBSRC

  195.0

  188.6

  187.6

  190.8

  193.5

  193.2

  193.3

  EPSRC

  399.5

  397.1

  395.9

  389.4

  387.9

  391.1

  396.7

  ESRC

  66.6

  67.0

  66.9

  67.5

  68.1

  67.7

  67.7

  MRC

  301.2

  296.4

  296.3

  294.0

  297.1

  303.8

  310.2

  NERC

  181.8

  165.3

  170.3

  175.0

  174.2

  173.0

  174.1

  PPARC

  219.5

  224.3

  202.8

  207.4

  182.2

  191.0

  189.6

  CCLRC

  2.6

  1.5

  1.2

  1.5

  2.0

  1.9

  1.9

  Royal Society

  22.8

  23.2

  22.8

  22.6

  23.3

  23.4

  23.9

  Royal Academy of Engineering

  2.8

  3.3

  3.5

  3.4

  3.6

  3.8

  4.0

  OST Initiatives

  1.9

  1.7

  1.9

  2.3

  2.7

  2.7

  2.6

  Superannuation Supplement

  8.9

  10.4

  15.0

  13.3

  11.7

  13.7

  13.7

  LINK/Foresight

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1.0

  2.9

  3.7

  University Challenge

  —

  —

  —

  15.0

  9.8

  9.5

  —

  Synchrotron Radiation Source

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14.3

  18.6

  Joint Research Equipment Initiative

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6.8

  9.5

  9.3

  Joint Infrastructure Fund

  —

  —

  —

  —

  73.2

  95.2

  116.1

  Science Enterprise Challenge

  —

  —

  —

  —

  24.4

  —

  —

  International/Contingency Reserve

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14.3

  13.9

  Total

  1,402.6

  1,378.8

  1,364.3

  1,382.3

  1,461.2

  1,511.0

  1,539.3

  Notes:

  Figures for 1995–96 to 1997–98 are taken from the Appropriation Accounts

  1998–99 data are the amounts voted in Supplementary Estimates

  Figures for 1999–2000 to 2001–02 are the allocations announced on 27 October 1998 but PPARC's 1999–2000 figure includes the International/Contingency Reserve of £3 million.

  Allocations of resources by OST, the Research Councils and other bodies funded from the Science Budget are made on a scientific not a regional basis. Decisions are based on the quality of the science or the project involved.

  In the years 1995–96 to 1996–97, the latest years for which complete data are available, Research Councils' expenditure in Scotland totalled £121 million and £140 million respectively, 8.9 per cent. and 10.1 per cent. of the Councils' total expenditure (including non-science budget funds). Scottish institutions also benefit from access to UK and international facilities supported by the Research Councils.

  University Science Projects
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what projects in university science, supported by his Department's funding, will lead to the ownership of intellectual property by(a) the Wellcome Trust or (b) the Gatsby Foundation. [76071]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 11 March 1999]: None.

  Longbridge
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had within the EU on the subject of grant aid to BMW at Longbridge; and what responses he has received. [76256]
  877
  Mr. Byers
  In line with the practice of successive Administrations, should an aid package be forthcoming, it will be notified to the Commission and clearance sought in accordance with the Community framework for State aid to the motor vehicle industry.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list consents he has given, specifying under what legal authority, for cultivation of genetically modified crops for(a) research and (b) sale; and for each consent the name of (i) applicant, (ii) company and (iii) owner, if different, (1) the area of (A) enclosed and (B) open tillage of the crop, and (2) its location; the purpose of (x) research and (y) sale, together with any purchaser if known, and the period of permission. [72562]

  Mr. Meacher
  The legal authority for giving consent for the cultivation of genetically modified crops for research purposes or for sale (placing on the market) arises from the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and associated regulations covering the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms. To date 153 consents for research purposes have been issued. The information in the form requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, it is available on the statutory public register held in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. With respect to the placing on the market of genetically modified crops, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on 5 March 1999,Official Report, column 960.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list the(a) number, (b) type and (c) locations of genetically modified crops grown in (i) North East Cambridgeshire, (ii) Cambridgeshire and (iii) East Anglia; [73943]

  (2) if he will list the (a) number, (b) type and (c) location of genetically modified crop testing sites in (i) North East Cambridgeshire, (ii) Cambridgeshire and (iii) East Anglia. [73944]

  Mr. Meacher
  The information in the form requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, it is already available to the public, as information on all consents given for the cultivation of genetically modified crops is contained in the statutory public register held in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he has discussed with representatives of the biotechnology industry the introduction of a voluntary three-year halt in the planting of herbicide-tolerant genetically modified crops; [77679]
  878
  (2) what steps his Department has taken to delay the commercial release of herbicide-tolerant genetically modified crops through voluntary agreements with the biotechnology industry. [77680]

  Mr. Meacher
  My officials have been discussing with representatives of the biotechnology industry their proposals for the introduction of genetically modified crops for commercial growing by farmers once all relevant approvals have been granted. My officials have also been seeking to obtain assurances from the biotechnology industry that the commercial introduction should be restrained until results from the farm scale evaluations indicate that commercial activity may take place in accordance with the concept of managed development as set out in my statement to the House of Lords on 21 October 1998.

  Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reason employees of environmental non-Governmental organisations are not eligible for membership of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment; and if he will make a statement. [76271]

  Mr. Meacher
  There is no such barrier to employees of environmental non-governmental organisations becoming members of ACRE. The present ACRE includes one member who is employed by Green Alliance, although she serves in her individual capacity and not as a representative of that organisation.

  Driving Tests
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people passed their driving test examination in the United Kingdom in 1998. [76818]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  In 1998, 690,745 people passed the theoretical part of their driving test and 581,728 passed the practical part in Great Britain. These figures are inclusive of car, motorcycle and vocational tests.

  The corresponding figures for Northern Ireland are 26,360 theoretical driving test passes, and 24,817 practical test passes. These figures also include car, motorcycle and vocational tests.

  Car Ownership
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the number of registered car owners in the United Kingdom. [76817]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The record maintained by the Driver and Licensing Agency is a register of vehicle keepers. On 31 December 1998, there were records for 24,840,942 cars and light vans.

  R. J. B. Mining Ltd.
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the status of the application by R. J. B. Mining Ltd. to mine the
  879
  Cutacre and Wharton Hall spoil tips and land between Over Hulton and Little Hulton (planning application 48800/96); and when he expects it to be determined. [77197]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The appeal has been referred back to the parties who appeared at the local inquiry to see if they wish to make further representations or fresh submissions in the light of the emerging policies in the draft revised guidance on Coal Mining and Colliery Spoil Disposal published for consultation in October last year. In the light of those representations my Department will consider how best to proceed to determine the appeal and will issue a decision on the appeal as soon as it is possible to do so.

  Fast-growing Hedges
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many representations he has received on the issue of fast-growing hedges; how many responses have been received from local authorities to the recent circular issued by his Department; whom he has consulted other than local authorities on this issue; and if he will make a statement. [77459]

  Mr. Meale
  This Department has received around 2,500 letters on the issue of fast-growing hedges in 1998 and 1999. The number of telephone calls received has not been recorded.

  114 local authorities have so far responded to the circular issued by the Local Government Association on 11 February 1999.

  The Department is working with the members of the Leylandii Working Group to draw up a voluntary code of practice on the information to be provided on the sale of hedging plants. The members of the Leylandii Working Group are the Local Government Association, the Horticultural Trades Association, the Arboricultural Association, The British Association of Landscape Industries and the Consumers Association. My Department has contacted a number of other bodies, including the Garden Centre Association, the House Builders Federation, the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, the Planning Officers' Society, the National Association of Tree Officers, Mediation UK and the Hedgeline campaign group.

  We are considering whether there is anything further the Government should do to address the problems caused by high hedges. We will announce our conclusions in due course.

  Planning Inspectorate
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to improve the efficiency of the Planning Inspectorate. [77312]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Planning Inspectorate, Mr. Chris Shepley, to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from C. J. Shepley to Mr. Keith Vaz, dated 19 March 1999:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Question about the efficiency of the Planning Inspectorate.
  880
  Our track record on efficiency is already excellent. Indeed we have achieved our Ministerial target for efficiency gains every year since we became an Agency in 1992.
  We have also improved our performance in our main business area, the processing of planning appeals, dramatically in recent years:

  Handling times (for 80 per cent. of caseload)

  1996–97

  1998–99 (year to date)

  Cases by:

  Written Representation

  25

  17

  Hearing

  47

  27

  Inquiry

  58

  41

  Note:

  All times expressed in weeks from receipt to decision.

  But that is not to say that further improvements cannot be made, and we expect our new targets for the coming three year period following the Comprehensive Spending Review to be even more demanding. We have a number of measures in hand to ensure that we rise to the challenge.

  Tyres
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to prevent the sale in Scotland of part-worn tyres which are below United Kingdom safety standards. [77421]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Motor Vehicle Tyres (Safety) Regulations 1994 seek to control the safety and supply of part-worn tyres throughout the United Kingdom. The Regulations stipulate that, before being offered for sale, part-worn tyres must have been properly examined internally and externally to ensure suitability for their intended use and must be marked "PART WORN" adjacent to their European or British Standards approval markings. They must also have a minimum tread depth of 2mm across the whole breadth of the tyre. The priority afforded to enforcement of these requirements is a matter for Local Authority Trading Standards bodies.

  Airports (Passenger Service Charges)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each airport in the United Kingdom, in rank order, the schedule of passenger service charges for passengers (i) arriving and (ii) departing from and to destinations within(a) the United Kingdom, (b) the EU and (c) elsewhere. [77297]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 18 March 1999]: Passenger charges are levied on the airlines by airports for services and facilities provided by the airport operator. A schedule of passenger charges at UK airports subject to economic regulation by the CAA under the Airports Act 1968 are set out in the table. As the structure of charges varies widely between airports, it is not possible to rank them. Charges are generally shown for domestic and international passengers, and distinctions between EU and other international destinations are not made. Airport levy charges on either departing passengers or arriving passengers, but not both.
  881

  Passenger charges at UK airports 1998–99

  Airport

  Charged on arriving or departing passengers

  Charge £

  Aberdeen

  Departing

  9.22

  Domestic-Peak

  8.18

  Domestic-Off peak

  13.50

  International

  Barra, Campeltown, Islay, Tiree, Wick

  Arriving

  6.28

  Domestic

  16.18

  International

  Benbecula, Inverness, Kirkwall, Stornoway, Sumburgh

  Arriving

  6.36

  Domestic

  16.26

  International

  Belfast City

  Arriving

  8.10

  Domestic

  11.55

  International

  Belfast International

  Arriving

  9.60

  Domestic

  12.20

  International

  Birmingham

  Departing

  6.44

  Domestic

  10.71

  International

  Blackpool

  Arriving

  8.00

  Domestic

  11.25

  International

  Bournemouth

  Arriving

  3.00

  Domestic

  7.50

  International

  Bristol

  Arriving

  4.20

  Domestic

  9.50

  International

  Cardiff

  Arriving

  5.25

  Domestic

  11.85

  International

  East Midlands

  Departing

  3.86

  Domestic-Peak

  3.36

  Domestic-Off peak

  8.80

  International-Peak

  7.83

  International-Off peak

  Edinburgh

  Departing

  7.96

  Domestic-Peak

  7.41

  Domestic-Off peak

  12.20

  International-Peak

  10.70

  International-Off Peak

  Exeter

  Departing

  3.25

  Domestic

  9.45

  International

  Gatwick

  Departing

  3.40

  Domestic

  6.10

  International-Peak

  4.85

  International-Off peak

  4.85

  Ireland-Peak

  3.60

  Ireland-Off peak

  Glasgow

  Departing

  8.00

  Domestic-peak

  7.45

  Domestic-Off peak

  13.55

  International-Peak

  10.70

  International-Off peak

  Heathrow

  Departing

  3.50

  Domestic

  6.50

  International

  5.25

  Ireland

  Humberside

  Arriving

  5.05

  Domestic-Small aircraft

  7.65

  Domestic-Large aircraft

  12.30

  International

  Leeds-Bradford

  Departing

  6.46

  Domestic

  11.92

  International

  Liverpool

  not known

  1.80

  Domestic-Small aircraft

  7.25

  Domestic-Large aircraft

  3.50

  International-Small aircraft

  12.50

  International-Large aircraft

  882 883

  Passenger charges at UK airports 1998–99

  Airport

  Charged on arriving or departing passengers

  Charge £

  London City

  Arriving

  6.40

  Domestic-Peak

  5.75

  Domestic-Off peak

  12.10

  International-Peak

  10.90

  International-Off peak

  Luton

  Departing

  3.50

  Domestic

  7.90

  International-peak-Long flights

  3.50

  International-Peak-Short flights

  3.50

  International-Off Peak

  Manchester

  Departing

  1.34

  Domestic-Peak-Small aircraft

  1.08

  Domestic-Off Peak-Small aircraft

  5.59

  Domestic-Peak-Large aircraft

  5.05

  Domestic-Off Peak-Large aircraft

  8.52

  International-Peak

  5.05

  International-Off Peak

  5.74

  International-Early Morning-Summer

  2.38

  International-Early Morning-Winter

  Newcastle

  Arriving

  6.80

  Domestic

  11.82

  International

  Norwich

  Arriving

  6.76

  Domestic

  12.17

  International

  Plymouth

  Departing

  4.35

  Domestic

  8.71

  International

  Prestwick

  Departing

  8.00

  Domestic-Peak

  7.45

  Domestic-Off Peak

  13.60

  International-Peak

  10.65

  International-Off Peak

  Southampton

  Departing

  6.34

  Small aircraft

  8.18

  Large aircraft

  Southend

  Arriving

  9.00

  —

  Stansted

  Departing

  3.35

  Domestic

  6.00

  International-Peak

  4.75

  Internation-Off Peak

  4.75

  Ireland-Peak

  3.50

  Ireland-Off peak

  Teesside

  Arriving

  7.80

  Domestic

  11.90

  International-Peak

  8.50

  International-Off Peak

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if it is his target to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the United Kingdom by 20 per cent. of the 1997 level by 2010; and if he will make a statement. [77623]

  Mr. Meale
  At Kyoto, the EU agreed to a legally binding target to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases by 8 per cent. below 1990 levels over the period 2008–12: under the UK Presidency this target was shared out between the member states, with the UK agreeing to a 12.5 per cent. reduction. Achieving this target must be our priority. But the Government are committed to moving beyond that towards our domestic goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010.

  Birth Defects
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into a link between contaminated waste sites and birth defects in the local area. [77800]

  Mr. Meale
  (a) Following the publication of the EUROHAZCON study on congenital anomalies near hazardous landfill sites, the following research has been commissioned:

  The Small Area Health Statistics Unit (SAHSU) (Imperial College) has been commissioned to carry out a study of health effects around landfill sites, including congenital malformations.

  (b) The following research has been evaluated.
  885
  A one day meeting of experts was held on 26 January 1999 by the MRC Institute of Environment and Health, at the request of this Department, to discuss the links between health effects, especially congenital anomalies, and landfill sites. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss recent research findings, to identify gaps in the knowledge base, and to agree and prioritise further research requirements. The meeting made a number of recommendations for further research work. We are currently considering the best way to take forward these recommendations.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with the members of regional development agencies regarding their environmental role; what plans he has to monitor the environmental impact of RDAs; what plans he has to assess the implementation of the regional strategy of the RDAs; and if he will make a statement. [77366]

  Mr. Meale
  Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) have a statutory purpose to contribute to sustainable development, and a statutory duty to formulate a regional strategy in relation to all their purposes. The statutory guidance we will be giving to RDAs in relation to their strategies, which will be supplemented with more detailed advice from my Department, will emphasise the fact that sustainable development is integral to the RDAs' work. An RDA's strategy will be expected to include an appraisal of the contribution the strategy will make to sustainable development, and how it will foster the four key principles of sustainable development: high and stable levels of economic growth and employment; social progress which recognises the needs of everyone; effective protection of the environment and prudent use

  Authority

  Purpose

  Value (£ million)

  Political control

  Woking

  Town centre regeneration

  4.1

  Liberal Democrat

  Sheffield

  Waste incinerator

  17.0

  Labour

  Plymouth

  TCAs for self-financing schemes

  n/a

  Labour

  Harrogate

  Harrogate International Centre

  6.6

  Liberal Democrat

  Note:

  None of the applications was successful.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 15 March 1999,Official Report, column 469, if he will list the applications for trading credit approvals which were successful in 1998–99, and the political control of each local authority concerned with the applications. [77616]

  Ms Armstrong
  None was successful.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 15 March 1999,Official Report, column 469, what effect granting the trading credit approval applied for by Harrogate Borough Council would have had on the PSBR for 1999–2000. [77617]
  886
  of natural resources; and integration of economic, social and environmental objectives. RDAs are aiming to submit their first strategies by October 1999.

  We are working with RDAs to develop an effective monitoring and evaluation framework. This will take some time, and we have therefore produced an interim framework which includes a number of core indicators which RDAs should use in developing their strategies. The indicators cover each of the five statutory purposes of RDAs, including sustainable development, and provide both a regional context and a measure of key aspects of RDA activity. Further indicators which reflect the particular features of each region will be developed by the RDAs themselves.

  My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment discussed with the Chairmen of RDAs on 19 February their sustainable development role. Officials, from my Department and from the Government Offices for the Regions regularly discuss with RDAs the work they are doing in preparation for their strategies.

  Trading Credit Approvals
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 15 March 1999,Official Report, column 469, if he will list the local authorities that made trading credit approval applications in 1997–98, indicating (a) the value of each application, (b) the purpose for which the trading credit approval was sought, (c) the political control of the local authority concerned and (d) whether the application was successful. [77618]

  Ms Armstrong
  My reply to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough on 15 March 1999,Official Report, column 469, listed Trading Credit Approval applications by local authorities considered in 1998. In each case the applications were received in late 1997 or early 1998. Records show a further application, received in January 1997, which is also listed.

  Ms Armstrong
  If the Trading Credit Approval of £4.3 million applied for by Harrogate Borough Council for next year had been approved it would have been expected to increase the PSBR for 1999–2000 by that amount.

  Countryside Agency
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the appointment of members of the Countryside Agency will be announced. [78297]

  Mr. Meacher
  I am very pleased to announce that the following people have accepted my invitation to become members of the Board of the Countryside Agency.
  887

  Kate Ashbrook

  Janet Bradbury

  Bishop Alan Chesters

  Martin Doughty

  Dr. Victoria Edwards

  Prof. Philip Lowe

  Catherine Mack

  Miles Middleton

  Frances Rowe

  David Woodhall.

  Direct Labour Organisations
  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what further action he proposes to take against those local authorities whose direct labour and direct service organisations failed to meet their statutory financial objectives in 1997–98. [78347]

  Ms Armstrong
  On 18 December 1998, 26 statutory notices were served on 18 local authorities concerning the failure of their direct labour and service organisations (DLOs/DSOs) to meet the required financial objectives in 1997/98. My right hon. Friend has now considered the responses to those notices, and has decided to give nine directions to seven local authorities.

  The Directions require authorities to retender the work by 13 December 1999 if they fail to meet the financial objective in 1998/99, and to seek the Secretary of State's consent where the work has to be retendered and where the authority subsequently wish to award the work in-house.

  The directions take the following form:

  Coventry City MBC (vehicle maintenance)

  London Borough of Croydon (building maintenance)

  London Borough of Redbridge (building maintenance)

  London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (refuse collection, other cleaning, other catering)

  South Tyneside MBC (grounds maintenance)

  London Borough of Tower Hamlets (construction and maintenance of sewers)

  West Wiltshire District Council (refuse collection).

  The Secretary of State has also decided to take no further statutory action in respect of financial failure in 1997–98 by:

  Company

  Date of meeting

  Company

  Date of meeting

  Novartis

  3 August 98

  Monsanto

  18 November 1998

  Zeneca

  6 August 1998

  Zeneca

  28 January 1998

  Novartis

  22 September 1998

  Zeneca

  5 February 1999

  AgrEvo

  23 September 1998

  Novartis

  11 February 1999

  AgrEvo

  14 October 1998

  Novartis

  16 February 1999

  Novartis

  5 November 1998

  AgrEvo and Rhone-Poulenc

  22 February 1999

  Novartis

  9 November 1998

  Zeneca

  8 March 1999

  Cyanamid

  11 November 1998

  Cyanamid

  9 March 1999

  Zeneca

  12 November 1998

  Zeneca

  10 March 1999

  Cyanamid

  17 November 1998

  Cyanamid

  11 March 1999

  AgrEvo

  18 November 1998

  —

  —

  888

  Colchester Borough Council (grounds maintenance)

  London Borough of Hackney (supervision of parking and legal services)

  Harborough District Council (building and grounds maintenance)

  London Borough of Hillingdon (finance)

  London Borough of Merton (refuse collection)

  North Somerset Unitary Council (grounds maintenance)

  Northumberland County Council (vehicle maintenance)

  Oadby and Wigston District Council (management of sports and leisure facilities and grounds maintenance)

  London Borough of Redbridge (building cleaning)

  London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (building maintenance)

  Stafford Borough Council (highway maintenance)

  London Borough of Waltham Forest (building maintenance).

  Reviews of the financial operations of other councils' activities are ongoing.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering is due to be replaced in 2000 with a duty for councils to achieve Best Value for their local taxpayers. In the run up to Best Value the Government remains committed to ensuring that local authorities' accounts for the delivery of goods and services remain in good financial health and that pressure to minimise costs to council taxpayers is maintained.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the occasions since 29 July 1998 when(a) he, (b) his colleagues and (c) his officials have met representatives of biotechnology or seed companies, stating in each case (i) what matters were discussed, (ii) what the outcome of the meeting was and (iii) the names of those at the meeting. [70555]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 11 February 1999]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) on 19 November 1998, Official Report, column 285, in which dates of ministerial meetings with companies about genetically modified organisms are provided. No further meetings of this type have taken place since the answer was provided.

  I can also confirm that the following meetings between officials and biotechnology/seed companies have taken place since 29 July 1998:
  Meetings with biotechnology/seed companies and officials since 29 July 1998
  Meetings to discuss pesticide regulatory matters
  889
  Meetings with the Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops (SCIMAC)
  Meetings with SCIMAC to discuss the industry's progress towards establishing guidelines for the growing of new types of herbicide tolerant crops took place on the following dates: 2 October 1998,9 October 1998,13 November 1998,9 December 1998,11 December 1998,29 January 1999 and 3 February 1999.

  Company

  Date of meeting

  Company

  Date of meeting

  Monsanto, AgrEvo and Cyanamid

  28 July 1998

  Dow Agrosciences and Monsanto

  14 December 1999

  Monsanto

  30 July 1998

  Dow Agrosciences

  5 January 1999

  Zeneca and AgrEvo

  3 August 1998

  CPB Twyford and PGS

  8 January 1999

  Zeneca

  5 August 1998

  Zeneca

  11 January 1999

  Advanta

  19 October 1998

  Cyanamid, Monsanto and AgrEvo

  27 January 1999

  Advanta Seeds

  2 December 1998

  —

  —

  Meetings related to administration of plant breeders' rights and related matters
  The administration of plant breeders' rights, national listing and seed certification call for frequent meetings and other contacts between officials and representatives of plant breeding and seed companies. Since 29 July 1998 officials of the Plant Variety Rights & Seeds Division have had meetings with members of Sharpes International Seeds Ltd., Midland Shires Farmers, J. E. & V. M. Doultons Ltd., M. Hancocks & Son Ltd., Monsanto, Pioneer Hibred, Novartis, English Sugar Beet Co., AgrEvo, Advanta Seeds, CPB Twyfords, and the British Agro Chemical Association. The Plant Health & Seeds Inspectorate also made numerous visits to seed companies and held discussions with them in pursuance of the Inspectorate's duties.

  Other meetings
  A meeting took place with Monsanto on 20 January 1999 to discuss their GM cotton seed application under EC Regulation 90/220.

  Date

  Destinations

  Methods of travel

  12–13 May 1997

  Brussels and The Hague

  Scheduled flight and train

  20–21 May 1997

  Brussels

  Scheduled flight

  25–27 May 1997

  Domburg

  Scheduled flight

  15–16 June 1997

  Stockholm

  Scheduled flight

  23–25 June 1997

  Luxembourg

  Chartered flight

  15–16 July 1997

  Strasbourg and Bonn

  Scheduled flight

  22–23 July 1997

  Brussels

  Scheduled flight

  7 September 1997

  Luxembourg

  Scheduled flight

  22–23 September 1997

  Brussels

  Scheduled flight

  10–12 October 1997

  Rome

  Scheduled flight

  13–14 October 1997

  Dusseldorf

  Scheduled flight

  20–21 October 1997

  Luxembourg

  Scheduled flight

  6–12 November 1997

  South Africa

  Scheduled flight

  16–19 November 1997

  Brussels

  Scheduled flight

  15–16 December 1997

  Brussels

  Scheduled flight

  9–12 January 1998

  St. Lucia

  Scheduled flight

  19–20 January 1998

  Brussels

  Scheduled flight

  2–3 February 1998

  Brussels

  Scheduled flight

  16–17 February 1998

  Brussels

  Scheduled flight

  4–6 March 1998

  Paris

  Scheduled flight

  10–11 March 1998

  Madrid

  Scheduled flight

  12 March 1998

  Brussels

  Scheduled flight

  16–17 March 1998

  Brussels

  Scheduled flight

  23–24 March 1998

  Brussels

  Eurostar and scheduled flight

  30–31 March 1998

  Brussels

  Eurostar and scheduled flight

  20–21 April 1998

  Luxembourg

  Chartered flight

  22–28 April 1998

  Beijing and Hong Kong

  Scheduled flight

  25–26 May 1998

  Brussels

  Scheduled flight

  3 June 1998

  Brussels

  Scheduled flight

  7–9 June 1998

  Luxembourg

  Chartered flight

  15–16 June 1998

  Strasbourg and Rotterdam

  Chartered flight

  22–26 June 1998

  Luxembourg

  Chartered flight

  20 July 98

  Brussels

  Scheduled flight

  890
  Meetings to discuss research projects
  Meetings to discuss various research projects, including those under the BRIGHT (Botanical and Rotational Implications of GM Herbicide Tolerance) project, SAPPIO (Sustainable Arable Production through Precision and Input optimisation) project and environmental management and wildlife conservation projects, took place with companies listed below on the dates given.

  Overseas Visits (Right hon. Member for Copeland)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a list of the overseas visits made by the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) during his period as Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food giving details for each visit of(a) dates, (b) destinations, (c) methods of travel and (d) cost of hotels. [68087]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  During his period as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the right hon. Member for Copeland made the overseas visits listed.

  Where hotel stays were involved these were judged to fall within the guidelines on travel in the Ministerial Code.

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire can expect a reply to his letter of 19 October 1998 on behalf of his constituent, Mr. Moston. [77444]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 18 March 1999]: I replied to the right hon. Member on 4 November 1998.

  Artificial Insemination
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when work will resume on the revision of the regulations controlling artificial insemination of cattle and pigs. [78298]

  Mr. Rooker
  The exercise was suspended last April to re-deploy staff to work on lifting the beef export ban. I am pleased to announce that we are now able to resume this work. One of our first jobs will be to write to interested parties inviting them to send in comments on outstanding issues. We aim to progress the work as quickly as possible thereafter.

  Crustacea
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) of 12 March 1999,Official Report, columns 428–29, on
  892
  shellfish, what further representations he has received from shellfish interests about measures to protect lobsters and crawfish. [78300]

  Mr. Morley
  Some shellfishermen have urged very strongly that stocks need protection through a national UK ban on the landing of V-notched lobsters being introduced at as early a date as possible. I have, therefore, decided that legislation to extend the ban to the whole of the UK should be brought forward as soon as practicable. It already exists in Northern Ireland. The opportunity will also be taken to regulate the landing of V-notched crawfish.

  The other measures referred to in my answer to the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby are linked to changes in EU rules which will be coming into effect on 1 January 2000 and as already announced it is preferable for them to take place at the same time.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Terry Lewis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) when he expects to answer questions tabled by the hon. Member for Worsley on 25 January and 9 February 1999 concerning ministerial flights; [73804]

  (2) when he expects to answer the questions tabled by the hon. Member for Worsley on 25 January, 9 February and I March, concerning ministerial flights. [77853]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I replied to my hon. Friend on 17 March 1999,Official Report, column 653.

DEFENCE

  Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those people he has appointed to public bodies since 1 November 1998, indicating the positions to which they have been appointed and if they receive remuneration. [76420]

  Mr. Spellar
  The names, positions of those appointed or reappointed to the MOD Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPB) by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence or officials on his behalf since 1 November 1998 are as follows:

  Royal Naval Museum
  Vice Admiral Sir Barry Wilson, Chairman of the Board of Trustees, nil remuneration

  Royal Navy Submarine Museum
  Rear Admiral Anthony Hoddinott, Member of the Board of Trustees, nil remuneration

  RAF Museum
  Marshall of the RAF, Sir Michael Beetham, Chairman of the Board of Trustees, nil remuneration

  Defence Scientific Advisory Council

  (Members of the Register are paid on a daily basis)

  Mr. G. R. Beldbin, Member of the Register

  Mr. J. R. Holloway, Member of the Register

  Mr. D. G. Money, Member of the Register

  Mr. D. M. Clunie, Member of the Register

  Mr. D. J. Q. Carter, Member of the Register.

  In addition, in this period a reappointment was made by the Lord Chancellor to the Advisory Committee on Conscientious Objectors (a MOD NDPB): Mrs. R. Nugee, Member, remuneration is per meeting.

  European Defence Policy
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what discussions he has held with the non-NATO members of the European Union on the future of European defence policy; and if he will make a statement; [76261]

  (2) what discussions his Department has had with the countries associated with the Western European Union on the future of the WEU and the European Union. [76265]

  Mr. George Robertson
  We have invited all our Partners and Allies, including all countries associated with the Western European Union and non-NATO members of the European Union, to join us in thinking afresh about how to strengthen both European defence capabilities and the European Union's Common Foreign and Security Policy. This initiative has been very positively received, and I look forward to continuing the discussions with my colleagues over the coming months.

  External Consultants
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the names of external consultants indicating the fees agreed in each case and nature of studies undertaken since 2 May 1997. [74745]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 4 March 1999]: Full details of consultancy engagements since 1 May 1997 could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, I can confirm that, in financial year 1997–98, the total expenditure on external consultancy by the MOD was £148.1 million involving more than 3,000 separate consultancy appointments and, in the first half of this financial year, £62.8 million involving over 1,000 appointments. Details of this expenditure is placed in the Library of the House annually.

  The work undertaken by external consultants since May 1997 has included specialist input to procurement programmes and support to a number of Department efficiency initiatives, including market testing, the introduction of Resource Accounting and Budgeting, the review of the Department's UK estate and the development and implementation of SMART procurement.

  Heathlands
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when his Department expects to complete management plans for its sites containing lowland heathland in accordance with section 5.1.6 of the costed habitat action plan for lowland heathland in the United Kingdom Biodiversity Steering Group report; [76495]

  (2) how many sites owned by his Department hold more than 10 hectares of lowland heathland; how many of these sites are notified as sites of special scientific interest; and how many have management plans with specific targets for the maintenance and re-creation of lowland heathland agreed with the statutory nature conservation agencies; [76494]

  (3) what is the extent of lowland heathland owned by his Department; and what proportion of the United Kingdom total of lowland heathland this constitutes; [76493]

  (4) what sums his Department has allocated to bring lowland heathland habitats on its land into favourable nature conservation condition since May 1997; [76498]

  (5) how much of the target for the re-establishment of lowland heathland in the United Kingdom that was published in 1995 in the United Kingdom Biodiversity Steering Group report his Department has achieved on its land to date; and how much it is planning to achieve on its land by the year 2005; [76496]

  (6) what assessment he has made of the nature conservation condition of heathlands owned by his Department; how many of these sites were considered to be in favourable condition; and how many were in an unfavourable condition at the last assessment. [76497]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information requested is not held centrally and in order to provide a full response it will have to be collated from disparate sources around the country, making reference as necessary, to the statutory
  571
  conservation bodies. I will write to the hon. Member once this process has been completed and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Armed Forces (Recruitment)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it the policy of Her Majesty's Government to support the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention on Human Rights to raise the age of recruitment to the armed forces to the age of 18 years. [74308]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The UK has played, and will continue to play, a full and active part in negotiations on the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. We consider our current recruiting and deployment policies to be in line with the principles that are being sought internationally. We recruit only volunteers into the Armed Forces, and then only with the written consent of parents/guardians in the case of personnel aged under 18. The Services provide young people with a rewarding and challenging career, together with the opportunity to develop skills and civilian recognised qualifications in a wide range of trades and occupations.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Memorandum of Understanding signed in November 1991 by the British and Indonesian Governments is still in force; when it was last revised; and what assessment he has made of the benefits the Memorandum of Understanding has resulted in for British Governments. [76114]

  Mr. Spellar
  The MOU signed by the MOD with the Government of the Republic of Indonesia in 1991 made provision for UK MOD support to the sale to the Indonesia Navy of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Green Rover. All arrangements provided for under the terms of the MOU have now been completed and the MOU is, to all intents and purposes, no longer in force. I understand that the MOU has achieved its aim of ensuring the efficient conduct of business over this sale.

  Operation Desert Storm
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people under the age of 18 years were in active service during Operation Desert Storm. [75015]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  HMS Vengeance
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date HMS Vengeance is expected to start contractors' sea trials; what was the original planned date; and if he will make a statement. [76234]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 15 March 1999]: HMS Vengeance is due to start Contractor's Sea Trials later in the year. The exact date is classified for reasons
  572
  of physical security. The currently planned date is later than the original, due to the need to replace components found to be defective during system testing at the shipbuilding. The components have now been changed and the submarine's systems are performing well.

  RAF Logistic Support Services
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are currently employed by the RAF Logistic Support Services and how many there were at its establishment; on what date it published its report for the year 1997–98; and what was the cost of production of the report. [76617]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Logistics Support Services Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from P. Rawson to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 16 March 1999:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the number of people employed by the RAF Logistics Support Services and the production date and cost of its report for the year 1997–98 as this matter falls within the areas of responsibility of the Chief Executive of Logistics Support Services Agency. The Chief Executive, who is away on business, has agreed the content of this reply.
  On Agency vesting in December 1996, the established strength of Logistics Support Services was 1201 personnel; the current establishment is 1107.
  Logistics Support Services was not directed to produce an Annual Report for 1997–98 and therefore incurred no costs. The first published report and accounts will be for 1998–99.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on progress in implementing the recommendations of the Glidewell review of the Crown Prosecution Service. [77020]

  The Attorney-General
  I refer the right hon. Member to my written answer on 30 November 1998,Official Report, column 67, to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), which set out the interim response of the Government to the Review of the Crown Prosecution Service. On that day I placed in the Library of the House a chart setting out the position in relation to each recommendation.

  The Crown Prosecution Service and other Departments with responsibility for criminal justice matters have continued work on consideration and implementation of the Report. The most significant recent steps have been the appointment by the Director of Public Prosecutions of Chief Crown Prosecutors and Area Business Managers for each of the proposed 42 areas of the Crown Prosecution Service, which will come into being in April 1999. As I told the House on 30 November 1998, I expect to put a full response to the Review of the CPS before the House by the end of June.

PRIME MINISTER

  Security and Intelligence Service
  Jacqui Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the Staff Counsellor for the Security and Intelligence Services. [76586]

  The Prime Minister
  Sir Christopher France GCB has served as Staff Counsellor for the Security and Intelligence Services since April 1995. He will retire from this post on 31 March 1999 and I express the Government's gratitude to him for the way in which he has fulfilled the duties of this very sensitive post. Sir John Chilcot, GCB who was Permanent Under-Secretary of State at the Northern Ireland Office until 1997, will succeed him as Staff Counsellor from 1 April 1999.

  Iraq (Medical Goods)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his letter to the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 9 March, if he will examine the UN's procedures in relation to the distribution of medical goods to meet humanitarian needs which have arrived in Iraq since the end of 1996; and what assessment he has made of the memorandum from the Under Secretary of the Iraqi Foreign Office on this subject, a copy of which has been sent to him. [76781]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 15 March 1999]: According to the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of Iraq and the United Nations on implementation of the "oil for food" programme, it is Iraq, not the UN, which is responsible for the distribution of medical supplies in central and southern Iraq. Iraq's record on distribution is woeful. According to the UN Secretary General's latest report of 22 February on the implementation of "oil for food", over half the medicines and medical supplies which have arrived in Iraq since the start of the "oil for food" programme have accumulated in warehouses. These supplies are worth over $275 million. The Secretary General also noted that the quantity of medical equipment in warehouses was "alarmingly high".

  This issue is one which will no doubt be considered by the panel established by the UN Security Council on 30 January to assess the humanitarian situation in Iraq. We would support proposals from the panel to increase the role of the UN in distributing medical supplies in central and southern Iraq in the interest of getting these supplies to the Iraqi people.

  It should be noted that in the northern governorates, where distribution is carried out by UN agencies, no problems in the distribution of medical goods were noted in the Secretary General's report.

  The Iraqi Memorandum is an unconvincing attempt by Iraq to divert responsibility for the distribution problems in the centre and south onto others.

  President-elect Obasanjo
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister what communication he has had with the President-elect of Nigeria. [76964]
  574
  The Prime Minister
  Following the elections on 27 February I sent a message of congratulations and a letter to President-elect Obasanjo.

  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met President Obasanjo in Nigeria on 10 March. We look forward to welcoming him to Britain soon.

  Select Committees (Leaked Documents)
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 9 March 1999,Official Report, column 169, on leaked documents, if (a) he, (b) civil servants in his Department or (c) special advisers in his Department have (i) had sights of drafts of select committee reports in whole or in part, from any civil servant, special adviser or Minister or (ii) been informed of conclusions of Select Committee reports by any civil servant, special adviser or Minister prior to their publication by the select committees. [76743]

  The Prime Minister
  In my answer of 9 March 1999,Official Report, column 169, what I say about members of Select Committees is equally true as regards civil servants, special advisers or Ministers.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Leaded Petrol
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 27 January 1999,Official Report, columns 253–54, on leaded petrol, what estimate his Department has made of the costs of the (a) engine adjustments and (b) lead replacement petrol to motorists. [72327]

  Dr. Reid
  Lead replacement petrol is expected to become widely available by the end of this year, enabling those motorists that currently use leaded petrol—estimated at approximately 5.3 million—to switch seamlessly to this fuel without any engine adjustments and, hence, no additional associated costs.

  Indeed, of these 5.3 million motorists, it is estimated that some 0.7 million could make immediate savings on their fuel bills by switching to ordinary premium unleaded petrol now. A further 2.3 million could do so with timing adjustments to their engines costing in the order of £50.

  The remaining 2.3 million vehicles will need lead replacement petrol or, alternatively, separate additives to provide lubrication to critical engine parts. However, most of these vehicles can have engine modifications that would permit them also to save on running costs by using premium unleaded petrol. Such modifications, which are typically £200–£400 for a small family car, but higher for more sophisticated or specialist vehicles, would be offset by subsequent savings on running costs.

  Council Tax Benefit
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received since the introduction of the changes to the regulations relating to council tax benefit on 1 April 1998. [76268]
  575
  Ms Armstrong
  We consulted on our detailed proposals for council tax benefit subsidy limitation on 2 December 1998. We received 129 representations. I have placed in the Library a list of those that responded.

  SSSIs
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the implications for Sites of Special Scientific Interest of his access to the countryside proposals. [76275]

  Mr. Meacher
  We do not expect a new statutory right of access on foot to have a significant impact generally on the scientific interest of the land concerned. Provision will be made to close land, or otherwise restrict access, on nature conservation grounds, where this is justified. Such land may include areas notified as Sites of Special Scientific Interest.

  Countryside Access (MOD Land)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the application of his proposals for access to the countryside to Ministry of Defence property; what assessment he has made of the effect of the proposals on (i) security and (ii) property prices; and what consultations he has held with Ministers in the Ministry of Defence on this issue. [76280]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government's proposal for a new statutory of access to open countryside will apply to mountain, moor, heath, down and registered common land. Provision will be made for the Ministry of Defence to continue to close land, or otherwise restrict access, where necessary, in the interests of defence. Provision will also be made to close land, or otherwise restrict access, on grounds of conservation, land management and health and safety. The new right of access will not apply to developed land or to agricultural land other than that used for extensive grazing.

  An economic appraisal study for the Government by independent consultants supports the view that the economic impact on property prices is likely to be limited.

  In developing the Government's proposals, I have consulted Ministerial colleagues in all Departments with an interest, including the Ministry of Defence.

  Home Energy Efficiency Schemes
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many home energy efficiency schemes have been introduced since 1 May 1997. [76435]

  Mr. Meacher
  My Department funds the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme and a wide range of programmes which are run by the Energy Saving Trust to improve energy efficiency in the home. The Trust has introduced three new schemes since 1 May 1997. They are schemes to promote the development of energy services, encourage the installation of small scale Combined Heat and Power in residential premises and promote the installation of energy efficient boilers and heating controls. In addition a large number of schemes is run by others, including local authorities and electricity suppliers.
  576

  Recycling
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his Department's future programme for encouraging recovery and recycling of household waste. [76209]

  Mr. Meacher
  We are revising the existing waste strategy for England and Wales. A draft will be produced later in the Spring for consultation, and will include among other things our proposals for dealing with household waste. The final strategy will be published by the end of the year.

  Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those people he has appointed to public bodies since 1 November 1998, indicating the positions to which they have been appointed and if they receive remuneration. [76415]

  Mr. Meale
  The information requested has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Jubilee Line
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the results of London Transport's Jubilee Line Extension cost review; and if he will make a statement. [76634]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply of 3 March 1999,Official Report, column 730, to the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway).

  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 3 March 1999,Official Report, column 730, concerning the cost of the Jubilee Line extension, when the cost review undertaken in August 1998 was completed; and when the results were made available to ministers. [76752]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  London Transport's August 1998 Jubilee Line Extension cost review was completed in August 1998 and its results were issued to my Department immediately after they had been submitted to the LT Board. A copy was made available to the Secretary of State's Agent, Ove Arup, who commented on it in a report to Ministers dated 11 August 1998.

  Climate Change
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards the European Community strategy on climate change. [76193]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 12 March 1999]: The UK plays a leading role in developing and arguing the Community's position in international negotiations on climate change.

  Within the Community, the UK brokered the agreement reached in June 1998 sharing out the EU' s 8 per cent. reduction target from Kyoto, under which the UK took on a share of -12.5 per cent. The UK Presidency also

  577
  brokered a set of key agreed areas where policies and measures at Community level were called for to support action taken by Member States to meet their targets.

  Black Cabs
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 9 March 1999,Official Report, column 164, concerning black cabs, if a taxi licensed by the Public Carriage Office will be permitted also to be licensed by another licensing authority to ply for hire outside the new Metropolitan Police District boundary. [76473]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 15 March 1999]: This decision will rest with the relevant local licensing authority. But I can see a number of practical reasons, particularly in relation to taximeters and licence plates, why a local authority would choose not to grant a second taxi licence for a vehicle which has already been licensed as a London taxi.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of taxi cabs that will be affected within each suburban licensing sector by the realignment of the Metropolitan Police District. [76474]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 15 March 1999]: Of the 22,700 London licensed taxi drivers, 1,365 hold suburban licences which entitle them to ply for hire in one or more of the nine suburban sectors which will be directly affected by the Metropolitan Police District boundary change. 444 drivers hold licences covering sectors 3A (Epsom) and 3B (Carshalton); 338 covering sectors 1A (Woodford); 237 covering sectors 4A (Kingston) and 4B (Hounslow); 215 covering sector 5B (Ruislip); and 131 covering sectors 6A (Finchley), 6B (Wood Green) and 6C (Walthamstow). Drivers holding suburban licences will still be entitled to ply for hire throughout the relevant suburban zone; the Public Carriage Office is currently reviewing the boundaries of suburban sectors in the light of the Metropolitan Police District boundary change, with a view to ensuring that each sector is of reasonable size. In addition, the 20,400 drivers with all-London licenses will continue to be entitled to ply for hire throughout the Metropolitan Police District (as defined by the new boundary).

  Railway Stations (Access)
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussion he has had with the rail regulator on the obligations to be placed on Railtrack and train operating companies regarding access to railway stations for people with disabilities when part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 takes effect; and if he will list them. [77158]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My Department keeps in close touch with the Rail Regulator on mobility issues generally, although we have had no specific discussions on these issues. In relation to station access, Railtrack and the train operating companies, are subject to the provisions of Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act in the same way as any other service provider.

  From October 1999, they will have to take reasonable steps to change practices, policies or procedures which make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled
  578
  people to use a service; provide auxiliary aids or services, for example induction loops or information in Braille, which would enable disabled people to use a service; and overcome physical barriers by providing a service by a reasonable alternative method.

  From 2004, they will have to take reasonable steps to remove, alter, or provide reasonable means of avoiding physical features that make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people to use a service. For example, the provision of a ramp to allow wheelchair access into a station.

  Railtrack and the train operating companies were informed about these requirements at a seminar organised by my Department and the DfEE at the end of last year.

  Thames Gateway (Rail Links)
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 9 March 1999,Official Report, column 149, on the Thames Gateway, what assessment he has made of the regeneration potential of (a) the proposed Woolwich rail tunnel, (b) a rail and (c) a rapid transit link to Thamesmead. [76769]

  Mr. Caborn
  The regeneration potential of new cross river public transport links were assessed within the East Thames Appraisal Framework report, commissioned by the Government Office for London, which reported in July 1998. The options considered in the report included a rail tunnel at Woolwich, and light rail and guided bus links to Thamesmead.

  GM Vegetables
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the applications he has received in respect of genetically modified vegetables where the purpose of modification is to enable contaminants to be removed from soil; what is the approved disposal route for such vegetables; and if he will make a statement. [76509]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have received no applications for consent to release this type of genetically modified crop.

  Traffic Reduction
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his oral answer of 9 March 1999,Official Report, column 172, if he will list the areas where he aims to secure a real reduction in traffic levels. [76513]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 3 November 1998,Official Report, columns 458–59.

  Train Punctuality
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to eliminate the setting of artificially late expected arrival times at destinations by train operating companies where the object is to meet punctuality targets. [76516]
  579
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Passenger Service Requirements (PSR) in franchise agreements prescribe maximum journey times based on pre-privatisation practice. Train operating companies' timetables must comply with PSRs.

  Soil Crops
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has received from ACRE of the recent report from the Soil Association on genetically modified crops, with particular reference to the distance beyond the precautionary 200 metre boundary around genetically modified plants which pollen can spread; if he will publish the evidence for that assessment; and what assessment he has made of their conclusions. [76518]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment will discuss the Soil Association commissioned report on the dispersal of maize pollen at their next meeting on 25 March. Its advice will then be made public through the minutes of the meeting.

  Retroviruses
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those retroviruses approved for release into the environment, giving in each case the date of approval given for release. [76504]

  Mr. Meacher
  No genetically modified retroviruses have been approved for release into environment in the UK.

  Rural Railways
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the railway routes classified as rural where the present frequency of service exceeds that required under the relevant franchise agreement, giving in each case (i) the minimum frequency required, (ii) that currently applicable and (iii) that applicable in 1988. [76506]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his policy in respect of the present minimum frequency levels required by current franchise agreements in respect of rural railway services. [76505]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The present minimum frequency levels in respect of all services are matters of contract. We have made it clear we are prepared to renegotiate existing franchise agreements if greater investment and better performance can be obtained for passengers and on terms that represent value for money for the taxpayer.

  Railway Security
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in respect of the annual report 1997–98 of the Director and Co-ordinator of Transport Security, (i) if he will list the 37 stations referred to in Paragraph 24, (ii) if he will list the problems identified as requiring rectification in Paragraph 24, (iii) how many bomb-warnings, in Appendix A Paragraph 3, proved to 580
  relate to bombs and (iv) how many (a) suspicious packages and (b) bomb threats, in Appendix A Paragraph 6 proved to relate to bombs or other material capable of endangering life. [76507]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  In answer to (i) and (ii), for security reasons it would not be appropriate to reveal the actual stations inspected or the issues identified for rectification. The stations inspected included major stations throughout England, Scotland and Wales.

  (iii) None.

  (iv) During the period 1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998 no suspicious packages proved to be actual devices. One bomb threat proved to be a device and this exploded at Leeds Station in April 1997.

  Community Transport
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to publish the report into the role of voluntary and community transport services. [76511]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  A draft of the final report was presented last week to the project steering group which includes representatives of the Community Transport Association, the Rural Development Commission and local authorities. Subject to their comments and final drafting changes, it should be possible to publish the report within the next few weeks.

  Traffic Increases
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his oral answer of 9 March 1999,Official Report, column 172, what estimate he has made of the overall increase in traffic levels by 2010 having taken into account those areas where road traffic levels will be reduced. [76514]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The answers I gave to the hon. Member on 12 January 1999,Official Report, column 189, explained that my Department is undertaking further analysis of the expected effect on traffic of the policies in last year's Transport White Paper—taking into account information from local authorities on what measures they plan to introduce—in order to inform reports under the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Act 1998. The first such report will be published by the end of this year.

  National Rail Timetable
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many train journeys were advertised in the national rail timetable for each year from 1980 to date. [76517]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information requested is not available.

  Greater London
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received concerning the European Commission's assessment of the levels of(a) wealth and (b) deprivation in Greater London. [77167]
  581
  Mr. Raynsford
  This Department has received no representations concerning the European Commission's assessment of the levels of(a) wealth and (b) deprivation in Greater London.

  Regional Expenditure
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what the reduction in expenditure by English Partnerships in 2000–01 will be relative to that for 1999–2000 in the south-east region of England; and in what areas spending will be reduced; [77026]

  (2) what the reduction in expenditure by English Partnerships in 2000–01 will be relative to that for 1999–2000 in the central region of England; and in what areas spending will be reduced; [77022]

  (3) what the reduction in expenditure by English Partnerships in 2000–01 will be relative to that for 1999–2000 in the east midlands region of England; and in what areas spending will be reduced; [77027]

  (4) what the reduction in expenditure by English Partnerships in 2000–01 will be relative to that for 1999–2000 in the west midlands region of England; and in what areas spending will be reduced; [77021]

  (5) what the reduction in expenditure by English Partnerships in 2000–01 will be relative to that for 1999–2000 in the north east region of England; and in what areas spending will be reduced; [77030]

  (6) what the reduction in expenditure by English Partnerships in 2000–01 will be relative to that for 1999–2000 in the Yorks and Humber region of England; and in what areas spending will be reduced; [77028]

  (7) what the reduction in expenditure by English Partnerships in 2000–01 will be relative to that for 1999–2000 in the south-west region of England; and in what areas spending will be reduced; [77023]

  (8) the reduction in expenditure by English Partnerships in 2000–01 will be relative to that for 1999–2000 in the north-west region of England; and in what areas spending will be reduced; [77029]

  (9) what the reduction in expenditure by English Partnerships in 2000–01 will be relative to that for 1999–2000 in the eastern region of England; and in what areas spending will be reduced. [77024]

  Mr. Meale
  From 1 April 1999, responsibility for the regional elements of the land and property budget (with the exception of London which will transfer a year later) will move from English Partnerships to the Regional Development Agencies. Regional budgets for 2000–01 have not yet been confirmed. The decision on budgets for that and subsequent years needs to wait for RDA regional strategies and corporate plans.

  The grant in aid voted by Parliament for the total land and property programme will be £208m for 2000–01, compared with £216m1 in 1999–2000, as set out in the CSR settlement. The balance of funding for the programme is made up from capital receipts.
  1 The CSR settlement for 1999–2000 is £230m, but £15m of this total is ring-fenced for the Greenwich Millennium project.
  582
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what targets he has set the East of England RDA for 2000–01. [76942]

  Mr. Meale
  Targets have not yet been set for any RDAs for 2000–01.

  RDA Hearings
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which officials in his Department attended the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee hearings on RDAs(a) at Westminster and (b) elsewhere; what was the purpose of their attendance; and what was the cost. [76941]

  Mr. Caborn
  In addition to those from my Department and the Government Offices who gave evidence to the Committee, the following attended the sessions:

  (a) Westminster

  Date of session

  Number of officials attending

  16 February

  3

  2 March

  2

  9 March

  6

  (b) Elsewhere

  Date of session

  Number of officials attending

  22 February, Newcastle

  3

  22 February, Leeds

  1

  23 February, Manchester

  2

  23February, Birmingham

  1

  25February, Chelmsford

  1

  The purpose of their attendance was to inform their work in briefing those appearing as witnesses and/or staff development. On 9 March, the officials included a private secretary and two press officers.

  The cost, over and above salaries (standard class travel, and subsistence) was £306.48.

  Environment Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the outcome of the Environment Council held in Brussels on 11 and 12 March; and if he will make a statement. [77248]

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the issues discussed at the Environment Council on 11 and 12 March, indicating the positions adopted by the UK Government. [76201]

  Mr. Meacher
  I represented the United Kingdom at the Environment Council which took place in Brussels on the 11 March.
  583
  The Council reached a common position on the proposal for a Water Framework Directive following the receipt of the European Parliament's opinion in February. This is a major environmental proposal which will set demanding but achievable targets for improvements in the quality of both surface and groundwaters to be delivered through co-ordinated plans, where necessary between Member States, for each river basin. It was agreed to postpone a final decision on the End of Life Vehicles Directive until the next Council meeting in June.

  Discussions took place on Council Conclusions establishing the Community's negotiating position on climate change for the next round of global negotiations. These focused in particular on the definition of a concrete ceiling on the use of emissions trading and other off-set mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol. A final consensus was not reached on this despite protracted negotiations, and Ministers will return to this issue in the near future.

  Council Conclusions were adopted on the Commissions negotiations with Japanese and Korean car manufacturers, which seek to secure an equivalent voluntary agreement to that reached with ACEA last October. This is part of the EU Strategy on reducing carbon dioxide emissions from cars. The Conclusions impress on the Commission to conclude their negotiations by May and report back to the Council by June.

  First Ministerial debates were also held on two other dossiers. The first, on a proposal to amend the Directive limiting emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants, is an integral part of the Commission's Acidification Strategy. It will reduce emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxides, both of which can potentially cause acidification and health problems. During discussions on whether the directive should cover existing plants emissions, I argued that these were better covered by the current IPPC directive and National Emissions Ceilings Directive being developed by the Commission. The second debate was held on a proposal that would allow voluntary participation by organisations in a Community eco-management and audit scheme. Both of these proposals will return to the Council in June, along with a proposal for a directive on the incineration of waste. At this Council the Commission reported on the progress of negotiations in working group of this dossier.

  I welcomed the Presidency announcement on its plans to reach a common position at the June Council on the proposal for a revision to the 90–220 Directive controlling the release and marketing of genetically modified organisms. In addition, Council Conclusions were agreed that reflect on the suspension of discussions on the biosafety protocol in Cartegena last month, and agree that a strategy be developed with a view to completing the negotiations.

  Lorry Accidents
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the number of road accidents involving lorries for each year since 1980. [77211]

  Dr. Reid
  The number of road accidents involving a Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) is shown in the following table.
  584

  Road accidents involving at least one HGV1: 1980–97

  Year

  Number of accidents 2

  1980

  14,117

  1981

  13,283

  1982

  13,307

  1983

  12,328

  1984

  12,950

  1985

  13,073

  1986

  13,435

  1987

  13,642

  1988

  14,775

  1989

  16,107

  1990

  15,063

  1991

  13,616

  1992

  13,016

  1993

  13,173

  1994

  13,178

  1995

  12,613

  1996

  12,426

  1997

  13,122

  1 HGV: From 1 January 1994 the weight definition changed to those vehicles over 3.5 tonnes maximum permissible gross weight. Prior to that these vehicles were defined as goods vehicles over 1.524 tonnes unladen weight and included vehicles with six or more tyres, some four wheel vehicles with extra large bodies and larger rear tyres and tractor units travelling without their usual tailer.

  2Accidents may involve more than one HGV.

  Bus Service Partnerships
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many quality partnerships for delivery of bus services are currently in place; and what plans he has to put such partnerships on a statutory basis. [77175]

  Dr. Reid
  I am aware of over 30 quality partnerships in existence, and more in prospect. We announced in the Transport White Paper our intention to provide statutory backing for quality partnerships and will be publishing further details shortly.

  Government Grants
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what grants each(a) unitary, (b) shire county, (c) shire district, (d) metropolitan district and (e) London borough council received for 1998–99 from central Government other than those included in the total external support figure; and if they were ring-fenced for any purpose; [76789]

  (2) what grants each (a) unitary, (b) shire county, (c) shire district, (d) metropolitan district and (e) London borough council will receive for 1999–2000 from central Government other than those included in the total external support figure; and if they will be ring-fenced for any purpose. [76790]

  Ms Armstrong
  The information has been placed in the Library of the House. It has been assumed that the question relates to grants for revenue purposes. All revenue grants, apart from those included in total external support, are specific or special grants which are, by definition, earmarked for the purpose indicated by their title.

  Shipping
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the measures his Department is taking to develop shipping and ports. [77180]

  Dr. Reid
  The Government's policy for developing British shipping is set out in the White Paper "British Shipping: Charting a new course", published in December 1998. A ports policy paper is currently out for consultation and should be issued later this year.

  Cycling
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish advice to local authorities on good practice in improving the safety and convenience of cycling. [77177]

  Dr. Reid
  The Department generates a wide range of advice to local authorities on encouraging safer and better conditions for cycling. In addition to our Local Transport Notes and Traffic Advisory Leaflets, we have worked with the Institution of Highways and Transportation, the Cyclists' Touring Club and the Bicycle Association to produce "Cycle-friendly Infrastructure". We have also collaborated with the Institution of Highways and Transportation to produce "Guidelines for Cycle Audit and Cycle Review". Four new Traffic Advisory Leaflets on cycling will be produced in April.

  Access to Countryside
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what advice his Department plans to issue to landowners regarding public liability insurance as a result of his Department's plans to provide a statutory right of access to open countryside. [76792]

  Mr. Meacher
  It is, in the first instance, for individual landowners and their advisers to decide what insurance, including public liability insurance, is most appropriate for their needs. The Government have made clear that the liability owed by landowners to people exercising a new statutory right of access will be limited to that owed to trespassers.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the extra public liability insurance costs for landowners as a result of his Department's plans to provide a statutory right of access to open countryside. [76796]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government do not expect a new statutory right of access on foot to open countryside to have a significant impact on public insurance costs for landowners. An economic appraisal study for the Government by independent consultants suggests that any increase in the public liability insurance premium will be small.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to place on local councils a statutory duty to protect the homeless. [77088]
  586
  Ms Armstrong
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for London and Construction to my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on Monday 1 March 1999,Official Report, columns 519–20.

  Roads Maintenance
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to introduce public/private partnerships for the maintenance of roads. [77179]

  Dr. Reid
  Existing DBFO contracts already cover a significant proportion of the maintenance obligations for the trunk roads network. We have announced that we intend to increase this through pursuing the DBFO procurement method for certain schemes announced in the Accelerated Review and in our targeted programme of improvements. In addition, we are currently examining the scope for further public private partnerships for trunk road maintenance.

  London Transport Plans
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the first local transport plans will be published; and when he expects such plans to be placed on a statutory basis. [77178]

  Dr. Reid
  Local highway authorities in England (outside London) need to submit their provisional local transport plans (LTPs) to the Department by 31 July. Full LTPs are to be submitted by 31 July 2000. Publication is a matter for the local authorities, but we expect LTPs to be readily available locally.

  We believe there would be advantages in making LTPs statutory and propose to legislate in due course. However, LTPs can be implemented on an administrative basis, which will provide an opportunity to test the system and identify the necessary requirements of any subsequent legislation.

  House Sales
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he has put in place to tackle problems arising from the non-enforceability of verbal agreements to sell houses. [77011]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Government published for consultation on 7 December 1998 a package of proposals aimed at making the home buying and selling process easier and more efficient. The consultation period ends on 31 March. We will consider carefully responses to the consultation in reaching conclusions on action required to improve the process in the interests of all responsible home buyers and sellers.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 30 November 1998,Official Report, column 48, what representations he has received from BNFL Ltd. concerning (a) its investment in Pangea

  587
  Resources Inc., and (b) its support for Pangea's plans to construct an international repository for nuclear waste in Australia. [77170]

  Mr. Meale
  No representations relating to this issue have been received by DETR from BNFL Ltd.

  Light Dues
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on light dues. [77456]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I am pleased to announce that there will be no changes to the light dues rates for 1999–2000. Current rates were set in 1997,When charges were reduced by an average of 4.6 per cent., following four years of stability. The ability to maintain light dues at current levels is an indication of the General Lighthouse Authorities' continuing efforts to achieve greater efficiency.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Manpower
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the latest year for which figures are available how many police officers and of what ranks are engaged exclusively in(a) complaints and discipline and (b) drug squad duties in each constabulary in Great Britain; and what is the total manpower of each constabulary. [75908]

  Kate Hoey
  I can answer only in respect of England and Wales. Information is not available centrally on the number and ranks of police officers engaged exclusively in complaints and discipline duties. The number of officers engaged exclusively in drugs duties in 1997–98 in each force area is in the table. Information is not collected centrally on the ranks of the officers involved. In some forces, the detection of drugs offences will form part of a wider range of responsibilities undertaken by officers.

  Figures for the number of officers in each force in England and Wales at the end of September 1998 are also in the table.

  Year: 1997–98

  Forces

  Number of dedicated drugs officers

  Avon and Somerset

  38

  Bedfordshire

  13

  Cambridgeshire

  6

  Cheshire

  6

  City of London

  0

  Cleveland

  4

  Cumbria

  0

  Derbyshire

  21

  Devon and Cornwall

  10

  Dorset

  18

  Durham

  14

  Dyfed-Powys

  16

  Essex

  8

  Gloucestershire

  23

  Greater Manchester

  30

  Gwent

  10

  Hampshire

  19

  Hertfordshire

  11

  Humberside

  14

  Kent

  0

  588

  Year: 1997–98

  Forces

  Number of dedicated drugs officers

  Lancashire

  0

  Leicestershire

  13

  Lincolnshire

  9

  Merseyside

  6

  Metropolitan Police

  83

  Norfolk

  21

  Northamptonshire

  25

  Northumbria

  31

  North Wales

  21

  North Yorkshire

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  17

  South Wales

  26

  South Yorkshire

  80

  Staffordshire

  27

  Suffolk

  24

  Surrey

  11

  Sussex

  0

  Thames Valley

  27

  Warwickshire

  10

  West Mercia

  9

  West Midlands

  38

  West Yorkshire

  105

  Wiltshire

  18

  England and Wales total

  862

  Number of officers—police forces in England and Wales

  Forces

  30 September 1998

  Avon and Somerset

  2,965.8

  Bedfordshire

  1,050.9

  Cambridgeshire

  1,285.9

  Cheshire

  2,054.9

  City of London

  792.5

  Cleveland

  1,453.2

  Cumbria

  1,153

  Derbyshire

  1,768.5

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,918.1

  Dorset

  1,286.4

  Durham

  1,559.1

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,013.3

  Essex

  2,903.1

  Gloucestershire

  1,090.9

  Greater Manchester

  6,890.2

  Gwent

  1,254.3

  Hampshire

  3,489.9

  Hertfordshire

  1,706.4

  Humberside

  2,003.4

  Kent

  3,200.2

  Lancashire

  3,245.1

  Leicestershire

  1,974.5

  Lincolnshire

  1,159.2

  Merseyside

  4,270.4

  Metropolitan Police

  26,106.3

  Norfolk

  1,409.6

  North Wales

  1,395

  North Yorkshire

  1,359.8

  Northamptonshire

  1,162.3

  Northumbria

  3,802

  Nottinghamshire

  2,269

  South Wales

  2,945.6

  South Yorkshire

  3,170.6

  Staffordshire

  2,271.1

  Suffolk

  1,179.7

  Surrey

  1,614.7

  Sussex

  2,923.9

  Thames Valley

  3,789.6

  Warwickshire

  923.5

  West Mercia

  2,024.2

  West Midlands

  7,215.3

  West Yorkshire

  5,065.7

  Wiltshire

  1,147.8

  Total

  124,264.8

  Common Market Referendum
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Sir R. Body), of 21 January 1999,Official Report, column 553, on the Common Market referendum, which provisions of the Public Records Acts relating to the timing of release of documents apply to the files relating to the referendum. [76365]

  Mr. Straw
  The 30-year-rule established by section 5(1) of the Public Records Act 1958, as amended by the Public Records Act 1967, generally applies. However, the Lord Chancellor may give his approval for records more than 30 years old to be retained by the Security Service under section 3(4) of the 1958 Act if they are required for administrative purposes or ought to be retained for any other special reason. In the case of Security Service records, the special reason may be that the records in question contain highly sensitive information relating to national security.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 30 November 1998,Official Report, columns 80–81, what conclusions he has reached in respect of the requirement to report figures relating to the overbreeding of animals listed in Schedule 2 to the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. [76515]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I have not yet reached any conclusions on this issue. There are a number of issues that need to be carefully explored, including the practicalities of collating this information.

  Lighter Refills
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the banning of the sale of cigarette lighter refills to under 16-year-olds. [77010]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) on 10 March 1999,Official Report, column 273.

  Victims of Crime
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he has put in place to ensure that victims of crime are kept fully informed about the progress of their cases. [77015]

  Mr. Boateng
  The 1996 Victim's Charter places responsibility on the police for keeping victims informed about significant developments in their case. Pilot projects to establish best ways of doing this were set up later that year. Interim findings of an evaluation managed by the Home Office Research and Statistics Directorate and carried out by Bristol University were published late last year, and drawn to criminal justice agencies' attention in Home Office Circular 55/1998 issued on 23 December 1998. This also reminded the police, and other agencies, of their responsibilities for keeping victims informed.590
  A final evaluation report and recommendations are expected later this year, after which it is hoped good practice guidelines can be issued.

  Youth Offender Teams
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many youth offender teams have been established; at what cost; and what plans he has to monitor their effectiveness. [77019]

  Mr. Boateng
  Youth offending teams under section 39 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 have been established in 10 areas, by 16 local authorities working in partnership with the police, probation service and health authorities. These areas are piloting the teams, together with new powers for the police and the courts under the 1998 Act, ahead of national implementation. The Government expect all areas of England and Wales to have youth offending teams in place by April 2000, when it intends to implement section 39 nationwide.

  The Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, established under section 41 of the 1998 Act, is monitoring progress in all areas in preparing for national implementation of the Act's provisions for youth offending teams and other new youth justice measures and will monitor the effectiveness of the new teams in reducing youth offending. The Board is aware that youth offending teams have so far been substantially established on a non-statutory basis in around 35 local authority areas to undertake existing work with young offenders.

  The pilots will help the Government better to assess the costs and savings associated with the new youth justice measures. The Government are expecting local authorities and their partner agencies to put in place the basic structure of youth offending teams within existing resources, reflecting the work which staff within those agencies should already be undertaking with young offenders and those at risk of offending. Where local areas are being expected to deliver new services under the 1998 Act, the Government recognise that extra resources may be needed. These were estimated in the Financial Memorandum to the Crime and Disorder Bill and these estimates are now being tested through the pilots.

  Crime and Disorder Act 1998
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) local child curfew schemes, (b) parenting orders and (c) anti-social behaviour orders have been made under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. [77016]

  Mr. Boateng
  The power to impose a local child curfew is a permissive one. The decision as to whether or not a local child curfew is appropriate will be one which must be made by a local authority following appropriate local discussion.

  The relevant provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 were brought into force on 30 September 1998. Before imposing a local child curfew, local authorities, in consultation with the chief officer of police and such other persons or bodies that they consider appropriate, must first draw up proposals for a local child curfew scheme,

  591
  including arrangements for consultation with the residents in the area in which the curfew is to apply, and submit these to the Home Secretary for approval.

  No applications for local child curfew schemes have been received at this stage. Such schemes are designed to be part of an integrated response to reducing crime and disorder in local areas. In considering their potential use, local authorities will wish to take into account the wider crime and disorder reduction strategies, also required under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which are currently being developed.

  Parenting orders have been available since 30 September 1998 in the nine areas which form the greater part of the youth justice pilot exercise. By the end of January 1999, courts in these nine pilot areas had made 12 parenting orders.

  Although the parenting order will be available in several different court arenas, that is, the family proceedings court, a civil magistrates court and all criminal courts, the order has been introduced gradually throughout the youth justice pilot areas. This has been done partly to allow pilot areas to focus initially on the need to establish and operate satisfactorily the new youth offending teams across the full range of existing and new work with juvenile offenders. Also, to see how the parenting order will operate alongside Children Act 1989 based work with children and families in need and to put in place provision for counselling and guidance sessions required under the parenting order.

  The provisions in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 in relation to anti-social behaviour order do not come into force until 1 April 1999.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there have been for(a) racially aggravated assaults and (b) racially aggravated harassment under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. [77017]

  Mr. Boateng
  These offences came into force on 30 September 1998. Provisional data for the last quarter of 1998 from the Home Office Court Proceedings database should be available in June with provisional data for each quarter of 1999 becoming available at three monthly intervals thereafter.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drug treatment and testing orders have been made under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. [77014]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Thirty drug treatment and testing orders had been made in the Crown Court and magistrates courts in the pilot areas (Croydon, Gloucestershire and Liverpool) as at 12 March 1999.

  Sentencing Policy
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he has put in place to monitor the effectiveness of sentencing policy. [77018]
  592
  Mr. Boateng
  The Home Office is committed to monitoring the effectiveness of the sentences imposed by the courts, including their effect on reconviction. It does this through the regular collection of statistics and ad hoc research. All major new initiatives in the field of sentencing policy, as in other areas of criminal justice activity, are accompanied by measures to monitor their effectiveness. In addition, three sentencing projects are being funded under the crime reduction programme. These are in the areas of fine enforcement, restorative justice and the information available to sentencers and are aimed at improving the cost-effectiveness of sentencing.

  Telephone Tapping
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has held with other European countries on co-operation for tapping on request of (i) land lines, (ii) cellular telephones and (iii) electronic mail; what is the intended role of Europol; which countries outside the European Union are involved; what discussions he has had with the United States Government on this issue; and if he will make a statement. [76300]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 12 March 1999]: A working group operating under the European Union Justice and Home Affairs Council is currently considering a draft Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance which contains proposals for co-operation on the interception of telecommunications. The text of the draft Convention does not distinguish between the kinds of telecommunications mentioned in the Question. The German Presidency has also proposed a draft Council Resolution on the lawful interception of new technologies such as the Internet and satellite communications. The latest texts of these proposals have been submitted to the European Scrutiny Committees for their consideration. Copies are in the Library. This matter has been discussed at formal meetings of the Justice and Home Affairs Council, in which I and other Home Office Ministers have participated, and informally with other European Union Interior Ministers.

  I am not aware of any proposal for Europol to be involved in co-operation on interception matters between member states.

  The draft Convention and Council Resolution apply only to the European Union. Ministers have not discussed them with the United States Government.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Trade Delegations
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the last occasion on which a Government Minister led a trade delegation to(a) Mexico, (b) Morocco, (c) Mozambique and (d) Namibia; and what future trade delegations are planned. [76547]

  Mr. Wilson
  (a) The last Government Minister to lead a trade delegation to Mexico was Lord Laing of Dunphail when President of the Board of Trade in October 1996.
  593
  I will be taking a trade delegation in June this year. Other trend mission planned are as follows:

  Month/Year

  May 1999

  General trade mission led by Wolverhampton Chamber of Commerce

  September1999

  Healthcare mission led by London Chamber of Commerce

  October 1999

  General trade mission led by the Latin America Trade Advisory Board

  November1999

  General trade mission led by the Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland

  (b) The last ministerially-led trade delegation to visit Morocco was in December 1997 (a water mission led by the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) the then Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  Two trade missions to Morocco are planned:

  Month/Year

  September 1999

  Business Link, Barnsley

  March 2000

  Nottingham Chamber of Commerce

  (c)There have not been any ministerially-led mission to Mozambique. There are plans for three trade missions to visit Mozambique:

  Month/Year

  February 2000

  Business Link, Gloucestershire

  February 2000

  British Water

  Date to be announced

  London Chamber of Commerce

  (d) My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) when Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry, led a delegation to the Southern Africa Trade and Investment Conference held in Namibia between 24 and 27 July 1998.

  There is a trade mission in Namibia at present. No others are planned.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the last occasion on which a Government Minister led a trade delegation to(a) Belarus, (b) Bolivia, (c) Botswana, (d) Cambodia and (e) Chile; and what future trade delegations are planned. [76523]

  Mr. Wilson
  There has been no recent ministerially-led trade delegation to Belarus or Botswana and none is planned in the near future.

  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie led a trade mission to Bolivia in November 1996 and I am planning a visit at the end of May 1999. A trade mission run by the Energy Industries Council will also visit Bolivia in May 1999.

  There have been no recent ministerially-led trade delegations to Cambodia and none is planned in the near future. The British Electro Technical and Allied Manufacturers Association are planning a trade mission in November 1999.
  594
  Lord Clinton Davis led a trade delegation to Chile in September 1997. The following trade missions are planned:

  Month/Year

  Trade International Northern Ireland

  April 1999

  Northern Development Company

  May 1999

  British Electro Technical and Allied Manufacturers Association

  June 1999

  Southern Derbyshire Chamber of Commerce/BL North Derbyshire

  September 1999

  Birmingham Chamber of Industry and Commerce

  November 1999

  British Chilean Chamber of Commerce

  November 1999

  London Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  March 2000

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the last occasion on which a Government Minister led a trade delegation to(a) Pakistan, (b) Panama and (c) Paraguay; and what future trade delegations are planned. [76553]

  Mr. Wilson
  The last Government Minister to lead a trade delegation to Pakistan was my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) in January 1998, when President of the Board of Trade. This year trade delegations from Business Link Sussex (March), the Society of British Gas Industries (April), Thames Valley Chamber of Commerce (September) and Nottinghamshire Chamber of Commerce (October) will visit Pakistan.

  Sir Martin Laing, BOTB Chairman, led a small delegation to Panama in May 1998. LATAG, the Latin American Trade Advisory Group will be taking a mission to Central America, including Panama this July.

  The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) led a trade delegation to Paraguay in 1993. There are plans for Mid-Yorkshire Chamber of Commerce (July) and the British Argentine Chamber of Commerce to visit this year.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the last occasion on which a Government Minister led a trade delegation to(a) Georgia, (b) Ghana, (c) Guatemala and (d) Honduras; and what future trade delegations are planned. [76532]

  Mr. Wilson
  There have been no recent ministerially-led missions to Georgia. There are no planned trade missions to that country.

  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie led a trade mission to Ghana from 3–5 March 1996. The following trade missions to Ghana are currently planned:

  Date

  Thames Valley Chamber of Commerce

  6–18 June 1999

  Birmingham Chamber of Commerce

  9–23 September 1999

  London Chamber of Commerce

  February-March 2000

  There have been no recent ministerially-led trade delegations to either Guatemala or Honduras and none is planned. A trade mission run by LATAG, the Latin American Trade Advisory Group, will visit Central America in July 1999; Guatemala will be one of the countries visited.
  595
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the last occasion on which a Government Minister led a trade delegation to(a) New Zealand, (b) Nicaragua, (c) Nigeria and (d) Oman; and what future trade delegations are planned. [76550]

  Mr. Wilson
  The information is as follows:

  New Zealand

  There have been no recent ministerially-led trade delegations to New Zealand. However, New Zealand has been visited by many UK Ministers, including the previous Minister for Trade.

  My Department plans to support nine trade missions to New Zealand in the financial year 1999/2000:

  Date

  Association of British Healthcare Industries

  12–14 July 1999

  Business Link Sussex

  6–10 September 1999

  Dorset Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  27–29 September 1999

  North Staffordshire Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  13–15 October 1999

  Australia and New Zealand Trade Advisory Committee

  17–19 November 1999

  Liverpool Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  2–5 February 2000

  Nottinghamshire Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  14–18 February 2000

  Business Link Shropshire

  20–22 March 2000

  Birmingham Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  13–15 March 2000

  Nicaragua

  There have been no recent ministerially-led trade delegations to Nicaragua.

  My Department has no plans to support any trade missions to Nicaragua in the financial year 1999/2000.

  Nigeria

  The present Minister for Trade led a trade delegation to Nigeria from 14–16 December 1998.

  My Department is planning to support four trade missions to Nigeria in the financial year 1999/2000:

  Date

  Thames Valley Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  6–18 June 1999

  Birmingham Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  9–23 September 1999

  Energy Industries Council

  29 November-3 Dec 1999

  London Chamber of Commerce

  February-March 2000

  Oman

  The last occasion on which a Government Minister led a trade delegation to Oman was in October 1996.

  My Department is planning to support four trade missions to Oman in the financial year 1999/2000:

  Date

  Coventry and Warwickshire Chamber of Commerce

  22–24 May 1999

  London Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  25–27 September 1999

  Business Link West

  8–17 February 2000

  Middle East Association

  6–8 March 2000

  Trade Promotion
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what trade promotion priorities his Department has given to United Kingdom trade promoters in(a) Colombia, (b) Cuba, (c) Cyprus, (d) Dominica and (e) the Dominican Republic; [76528]

  (2) what trade promotion priorities his Department has given to United Kingdom trade promoters in (a) Pakistan, (b) Panama and (c) Paraguay; [76555]

  (3) what trade promotion priorities his Department has given to United Kingdom trade promoters in(a) Belarus, (b) Bolivia, (c) Botswana, (d) Cambodia and (c) Chile; [76525]

  (4) what trade promotion priorities his Department has given to United Kingdom trade promoters in (a) India,(b) Indonesia, (c) Israel and (d) Jamaica; [76537]

  (5) what trade promotion priorities his Department has given to United Kingdom trade promoters in (a) South Africa, (b) Sri Lanka, (c) Thailand and (d) Uganda; [7656]

  (6) what trade promotion priorities his Department has given to United Kingdom trade promoters in (a) Lithuania, (b) Malawi, (c) Malaysia and (d) Mauritius; [76546]

  (7) what trade promotion priorities his Department has given to United Kingdom trade promoters in(a) Kazakhstan, (b) Kyrgyzstan, (c) Lebanon and(d) Lesotho; [76543]

  (8) what trade promotion priorities his Department has given to United Kingdom trade promoters in (a) New Zealand, (b) Nicaragua, (c) Nigeria and (d) Oman; [76552]

  (9) what trade promotion priorities his Department has given to United Kingdom trade promoters in (a) Ukraine and (b) Uruguay; [76564]

  (10) what trade promotion priorities his Department has given to United Kingdom trade promoters in (a) Japan,(b) Jordan, (c) Kenya and (d) Kuwait; [76540]

  (11) what trade promotion priorities his Department has given to United Kingdom trade promoters in (a) Ecuador, (b) Egypt, (c) Estonia and (d) Gambia; [76531]

  (12) what trade promotion priorities his Department has given to United Kingdom trade promoters in (a) Peru, (b) Qatar, (c) Saudi Arabia and (d) Singapore; [76558]

  (13) what trade promotion priorities his Department has given to United Kingdom trade promoters in(a) Algeria, (b) Argentina, (c) Australia, (d) Bahrain and(e) Bangladesh; [76522]

  (14) what trade promotion priorities his Department has given to United Kingdom trade promoters in (a) Mexico,(b) Morocco, (c) Mozambique and (d) Namibia; [76549]

  (15) what trade promotion priorities his Department has given to United Kingdom trade promoters in (a) Georgia, (b) Ghana, (c) Guatemala and (d) Honduras. [76534]

  Mr. Wilson
  Our export promotion priorities for the majority of the markets mentioned are contained in the Markets and Sectors Matrix, published on 4 March, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. Major trade promotion campaigns are underway in a number of markets included in the Matrix; for example campaigns aimed at new and inexperienced exporters in
  597
  Western Europe and USA, and at the more experienced exporter in Japan, Brazil (in the context of MERCOSUR), India, China/Hong Kong, Egypt, South Africa and Turkey. In the coming months, we shall also be launching campaigns for Canada, Taiwan, Mexico and extending the existing campaign in Poland to cover Central Europe, adding in Hungary and the Czech Republic.

  We provide a range of help for exporters in all markets, including targeted market information, market research services, and where appropriate support for missions and trade fairs.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will make a statement on the prospects for increasing United Kingdom trade with(a) Colombia, (b) Cuba, (c) Cyprus, (d) Dominica and (e) the Dominican Republic; [76527]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the prospects for increasing United Kingdom trade with (a) Peru, (b) Qatar,(c) Saudi Arabia and (d) Singapore; [76557]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the prospects for increasing United Kingdom trade with (a) Algeria,(b) Argentina, (c) Australia, (d) Bahrain and (e) Bangladesh; [76521]

  (4) if he will make a statement on the prospect for increasing United Kingdom trade with (a) South Africa, (b) Sri Lanka, (c) Thailand and (d) Uganda; [76560]

  (5) if he will make a statement on the prospects for increasing United Kingdom trade with (a) Mexico, (b) Morocco, (c) Mozambique and (d) Namibia; [76548]

  (6) if he will make a statement on the prospects for increasing United Kingdom trade with (a) India, (b) Indonesia, (c) Israel and (d) Jamaica; [76536]

  (7) if he will make a statement on the prospects for increasing United Kingdom trade with (a) Georgia, (b) Ghana, (c) Guatemala and (d) Honduras; [76533]

  (8) if he will make a statement on the prospects for increasing United Kingdom trade with (a) Kazakhstan, (b) Kyrgyzstan, (c) Lebanon and (d) Lesotho; [76542]

  (9) if he will make a statement no the prospects for increasing United Kingdom trade with (a) Japan, (b) Jordan, (c) Kenya and (d) Kuwait; [76539]

  (10) if he will make a statement on the prospects for increasing United Kingdom trade with (a) Ukraine and (b) Uruguay; [76563]

  (11) if he will make a statement on the prospects for increasing United Kingdom trade with (a) Lithuania, (b) Malawi, (c) Malaysia and (d) Mauritius; [76545]

  (12) if he will make a statement on the prospects for increasing United Kingdom trade with (a) Pakistan, (b) Panama and (c) Paraguay; [76554]

  (13) if he will make a statement on the prospects for increasing United Kingdom trade with (a) New Zealand, (b) Nicaragua, (c) Nigeria and (d) Oman; [76551]

  (14) if he will make a statement on the prospects for increasing United Kingdom trade with (a) Ecuador, (b) Egypt, (c) Estonia and (d) Gambia; [76530]
  598
  (15) if he will make a statement on the prospects for increasing United Kingdom trade with (a) Belarus, (b) Bolivia, (c) Botswana, (d) Cambodia and (e) Chile. [76524]

  Mr. Wilson
  The excellence of many British products and services means that there are prospects for increasing UK trade in all markets to which our companies have access.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry under what circumstances(a) designs and (b) designs backed up by training or implementation services, require an export licence. [76123]

  Dr. Howells
  Specified exports of technology, including designs, are subject to control under various entries in the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, the Dual-Use and Related Goods (Export Control) Regulations 1996, and Council Decision 94/942/CFSP, and the controls apply irrespective of whether or not the technology is linked to the provision of training on its use or implementation.

  At present, as noted in the White Paper on Strategic Export Controls, published in July 1998, HMG can control only tangible exports, which means that export licences are currently required for controlled technology only when this is exported in physical form e.g. on paper or computer disc. However, the White Paper contained a proposal to provide HMG with the power to control the transfer of technology, whatever the means of transfer, and proposals for the use of that power.

  Firework Safety
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish the fireworks injuries statistics for the 1998 firework season; and if he will make a statement. [77007]

  Dr. Howells
  The total number of persons recorded as requiring treatment at hospital casualty departments in Great Britain during the 1998 firework season was 831. This represents a reduction of over 8 per cent. on the previous year's total. Within the overall reduction, there was a 36 per cent. fall in injuries caused by sparklers. My Department's firework safety campaign highlighted the risk of injury from sparklers and I am particularly pleased that this message has been heeded.

  The number of serious injuries fell from 71 in 1997 to 46 last year. Figures also reveal a 12 per cent. drop in hooligan injuries after 21 areas were targeted by my department in partnership with local councils during the campaign to stamp out this anti-social behaviour.

  I am arranging for copies of a summary of the injury figures to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Detailed analytical and regional tables will be published soon.

  US Import Duties
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will compensate Cornflower Fine Art Publishers of Reading for the increase in their export
  599
  costs to the United States as a result of the increase in United States import tariffs; and if he will make a statement; [76778]

  (2) what assessment he has made on the loss of revenue to Kew Gardens as a result of the increase in United States import duties; and if he will make a statement. [76776]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answers 15 March 1999]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 4 March 1999, Official Report, columns 1223–29, that the Government had decided to establish a scheme for the cashmere knitwear industry to guarantee the bonds requested by the United States. The mere threat of US action had been having a particularly significant effect on cashmere, in view of the highly seasonal nature of that industry. The precise details and scope of the bond scheme have still to be decided.

  The Government are very aware of the effect that the US action may have not only on the various industry sectors targeted by the US (including lithographs), but also on the possible implications for others in the UK involved with those sectors.

  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with the United States Government on a resolution of the present dispute over United States increased import tariffs; and if he will make a statement. [76783]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 15 March 1999]: It is of course the European Commission that acts for the European Union on this matter. The UK Government have also discussed this with the US Administration at every level. We have repeatedly made clear our desire to see the dispute resolved within the WTO framework. We have stressed that US retaliatory action will do nothing to resolve the underlying dispute, which is about the compatibility with WTO rules of the EU' s revised bananas regime. We have urged the US to abide by the WTO process currently under way, which offers the best prospect for a resolution of this dispute.

  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate(a) how many United Kingdom companies will incur increased export costs as a result of the increase in United States import tariffs, (b) how many companies Her Majesty's Government have compensated for the increase in their export costs, (c) the cost to public funds of this compensation, (d) the nature of the exports of each company and (e) the cost to United Kingdom businesses of the increase in United States import duties. [76782]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 15 March 1999]: Against the background of historical levels of exports in each sector, it is not possible to say what the overall impact might be. Much will depend on how long any retaliatory measures remain in place, the ability of the affected firms to find alternative customers and local labour market conditions. The precise details of the bond scheme announced by the Government on 4 March 1999, Official Report, columns 1223–29, have still to be decided. No companies have therefore been compensated so far. The sectors affected by the US action are: cashmere sweaters; batteries; plastics; biscuits; bath oils; candles; lithographs; bed linen; cartons; coffee makers; wallets; handbags; cheese; and felt paper.
  600

  Minister for Science
  Mr. Lanskly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions the Minister for Science has had with the Wellcome Trust concerning their applications for planning permission at Hinxton Hall in South Cambridgeshire. [76069]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 11 March 1999]: None.

  Milk Marque
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish the conclusions of the MMC investigation into Milk Marque. [76901]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 15 March 1999]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is required to publish all monopoly reports by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The report will be published as soon as is practicable.

  Supermarkets
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish the conclusions of the Office of Fair Trading report of their investigation into the trading practices of the main supermarkets in the United Kingdom. [76900]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 15 March 1999]: It is a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading to decide what he will publish regarding his investigation into the profitability of the major supermarkets in the grocery sector. I understand that he hopes to be in a position to announce his conclusions by the end of this month.

  Edgar Fernandes
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Minister of State will take up the case of Edgar Fernandes during his visit to Turkey. [76428]

  Mr. Wilson
  The purpose of my visit to Turkey is to promote British trade. British consular staff in Ankara, Istanbul and Valetta continue to monitor closely Turkey's request for the extradition from Malta of the man charged with Mr. Fernandes' murder. They have urged both Governments to act swiftly to resolve this case.

SCOTLAND

  Social Work
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he proposes to publish the White Paper on Social Work in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [77455]

  Mr. Dewar
  The White Paper "Aiming for Excellence: Modernising Social Work Services in Scotland" is published today. It contains the answers to three key questions—What kind of social work services do we want? How can they be delivered? How will we know if they are being delivered effectively? It sets out proposals to strengthen the protection of children and vulnerable adults, to support a confident and competent workforce and to ensure high quality services which meet people's needs.
  601
  We propose to create a Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care as the independent regulatory of social work services, whoever provides them. The Commission will register all organisations that provide care gainst agreed criteria and will make regular independent inspections to see that they are met. It will regulate residential care homes and nursing homes, making it easier for homes to offer both forms of care. It will introduce for the first time regulation of care services provided in people's own homes and will also cover all relevant children's services.

  We propose that the workforce should be regulated by a Scottish Social Services Council which will have the duty of registering specified groups of staff who have completed approved courses of training as a pre-condition for registration. The Council will also regulate professional and vocational education and will publish codes of conduct and practice. Social work services make a critical contribution to social inclusion, providing crucial support to people at times of personal or family crises. The White Paper also underlines the critical importance for successful services of close and effective partnership working between agencies.

  If enacted by the Scottish Parliament, the proposals in this White Paper will strengthen public confidence, creating modern social work services on which we can all rely.

  Copies of Command Paper No. CM4288 are available in the Library of both Houses.

  Education Budget
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the Scottish Office education budget in cash terms and at 1998–99 prices for(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98 and (d) 1998–99; and what is his estimate for (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) 2001–02. [76866]

  Mr. Dewar
  The information is as follows:

  £million

  Year

  Cash terms

  1998–99 prices

  1995–96

  3,553

  3,848

  1996–97

  3,611

  3,794

  1997–98

  3,524

  3,612

  1998–99

  3,633

  3,633

  1999–2000

  4,039

  3,940

  2000–01

  4,360

  4,150

  2001–02

  4,536

  4,212

  Sources:

  1995–96: 1995 Departmental Report (table 6.2 excluding sport and Gaelic Broadcasting) and GAE announcement

  1996–97: 1996 Departmental Report (table 4.1 excluding sport) and GAE announcement

  1997–98: 1997 Departmental Report (table 4.3 excluding sport) and GAE announcement

  1998–99: 1998 Departmental Report (table 4.2 new deal for schools and table 4.4 excluding SOPA running costs) and GAE announcement

  1999–2000 to 2001–02: Comprehensive Spending Review and 1999 Budget announcement

  As from 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Fossils
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps Scottish Natural Heritage has taken to prevent the illegal removal of important fossils from sites of special scientific interest in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [76938]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Scottish Natural Heritage is developing a site safeguard plan which will be published shortly.

  As from 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Agriculture Improvement Scheme
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the budget for the Highlands and Islands Objective 1 area under the agricultural improvement scheme for(a) 1991–92, (b) 1992–93, (c) 1993–94, (d) 1994–95, (e) 1995–96, (f) 1996–97, (g) 1997–98 and (h) 1998–99; and what is the underspend for each year. [76862]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The Agricultural Business Improvement Scheme (ABIS) forms part of the Objective 1 Highlands and Islands Agricultural Programme (HIAP), along with the Marketing Scheme and the Crofting Township Development Scheme. There is no separate budget provision for ABIS.

  The original budget provision for the HIAP was £23 million, but due to the strength of sterling against the ecu, this figure is now nearer £20 million.

  The estimated expenditure and outturn figures from 1994–95, when the programme was launched, to 1998–99 are shown in the table:

  £million

  Financial year

  PES provision

  Expenditure

  1994–95

  1.600

  0.049

  1995–96

  2.178

  1.188

  1996–97

  4.855

  2.528

  1997–98

  4.836

  3.162

  1998–99

  4.830

  12.132

  1To end February 1999

  Total expenditure to date under HIAP is therefore £9.059 million. In addition, there are commitments totalling £4.7 million still to be paid, giving an overall total to date of £13.759 million. The programme remains open for approvals until 31 December 1999 and for payments until 31 December 2001.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Health Budget
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was his Department's health budget in cash terms and at 1998–99 prices for(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98 and (d) 1998–99; and what is his estimate for (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) 2001–02. [76868]
  603
  Mr. Galbraith
  The information is as follows:

  £ million

  Cash terms

  1998–99 prices

  1995–96

  4,105

  4,446

  1996–97

  4,227

  4,441

  1997–98

  4,376

  4,485

  1998–99

  4,626

  4,626

  1999–2000

  4,934

  4,814

  2000–01

  5,225

  4,973

  2001–02

  5,449

  5,153

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Special Police Officers
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated number of(a) full-time and (b) special police officers, by rank and force, for (i) 1999, (ii) 2000, (iii) 2001 and (iv) 2002. [76859]

  Mr. McLeish
  The information is not available in the form requested. My right hon. Friend does not estimate police numbers in future years. Numbers of regular and special constables at the latest date available are shown in the table.

  At 31 March 1998

  Number of regular constables

  Number of special constables

  Central

  719

  72

  Dumfries and Galloway

  446

  193

  Fife

  841

  132

  Grampian

  1,226

  138

  Lothian and Borders

  2,621

  198

  Northern

  667

  480

  Strathclyde

  7,186

  319

  Tayside

  1,148

  191

  Total

  14,854

  1,723

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Structural Adjustment Programmes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has made to the IMF and World Development Bank concerning the impact of structural adjustment programmes on health and education programmes. [77168]

  Clare Short
  In all my discussions with both the Managing Director of the IMF and the President of the World Bank, I have underlined the importance of protecting anti-poverty spending during adjustment. In particular, I have stressed the importance of avoiding interventions which work against the poor having access to health and education services. We were pleased that the 1998 Review of ESAF proposed that the IMF should pay greater attention to the potential social impact of adjustment programmes, drawing on the expertise of the World Bank and paying particular attention to health and education. We are following closely the implementation of these recommendations.
  604

  South Africa
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to fund(a) police and (b) army training for the Republic of South Africa. [76250]

  Clare Short
  We have committed up to £5.5 million since 1994 to help South Africa develop effective civilian oversight of the police. We have provided international expertise to the national Department of Safety and Security, the national Police Service and the Independent Complaints Directorate and contributed to production of a White Paper on Safety and Security. We have supported community policing projects in Western Cape, Free State, Eastern Cape and North-West Provinces.

  We have no plans to assist South Africa with army training beyond our contribution of £50,000 to Exercise Blue Crane, a peacekeeping exercise by regional armed forces to take place in South Africa in April.

  Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list those people she has appointed to public bodies since 1 November 1998, indicating the positions to which they have been appointed and if they receive remuneration. [76416]

  Clare Short
  The following appointments have been made during the period in question:

  Commonwealth Development Corporation

  Ms Jayne Almond (Deputy Chair): annual remuneration £10,000.

  Mr. Russell Seal (Non-Executive Board Member)>: annual remuneration £7,500.

  Know How Fund Advisory Board

  Baroness Williams of Crosby (Member): unremunerated 1

  Ms Ann McElvoy (Member): unremunerated1

  Professor Robert Deacon (Member): unremunerated1

  Development Awareness Working Group

  Mr. John Westaway (Member): unremunerated1

  Ms Gill Beauchamp (Member): unremunerated1

  Mr. Peter Smith (Member): unremunerated1

  1travel expenses are reimbursed.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Community Trusts
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many part-time staff are employed in the(a) North and West and (b) South and East Belfast community trusts; and how many of them are employed by private businesses with contractual relations with the trusts. [75520]

  Mr. McFall
  The number of part-time staff employed in each Trust is as follows:

  (a) North and West Belfast: 1,873

  (b) South and East Belfast: 2,290.

  None of the part-time staff is employed by private businesses with contractual relations with the trusts.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Digital Radio
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to ensure that people in Derby and South Derbyshire can receive digital radio services. [74448]

  Janet Anderson
  The Government are committed to encourage the take up of digital radio. Responsibility for the roll out of digital radio services across the UK rests with the BBC in accordance with the Royal Charter and Agreement and with the Radio Authority under the framework of the Broadcasting Acts. The BBC national digital radio multiplex is already broadcasting and Digital One's national commercial digital multiplex is expected to commence in the autumn. These national multiplexes will deliver services to the major population centres in Derbyshire, with the lowland populated areas particularly well served. Initially, services may not cover some of the more remote areas in the county where they are shielded from signals by local terrain. It may be necessary to consider improvements to coverage in future transmission plans, in the light of initial experience.

  Tourism
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to promote tourism in the North West of England; and if he will make a statement. [76362]

  Janet Anderson
  The North West, like all parts of England, benefits from the work of the British Tourist Authority and of the English Tourist Board. For 1998–99, the BTA has a grant of £35 million and the ETB a grant of £9.7 million, of which £292,000 is for the North West Tourist Board. New support structures for tourism in England, announced on 14 December, must ensure that more effective use is made of this money in the future, with a greater proportion going to the regions.

  The Government's new tourism strategy, "Tomorrow's Tourism" which was published on 26 February, sets out specific proposals for action by Government, local authorities, tourist boards and the industry to promote the sustainable development of a modern, competitive, high quality tourism industry. This will benefit all regions, including the North West.

  BBC On-line
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the estimated expenditure on BBC on-line over the next three years. [76163]

  Janet Anderson
  Total expenditure on BBC on-line to date is as follows:

  —million

  Date

  1997–98

  18.7

  1998–99

  23.1

  1999 –2000

  23.4(forecast)

  Levels of expenditure in years after 1999–2000 have not yet been determined

  Gardens (Funding)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what support(a) his Department and (b) the National Lottery give to gardens. [76162]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My Department does not directly fund gardens. However, English Heritage (EH) can offer grants under its Historic Parks and Gardens Grant Scheme and in recent years it has offered an average of £200,000 per year to garden projects. In the past three years it has assisted 20 sites. Grants are, however, restricted to outstanding historic gardens which are graded I and II* on EH' s Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest in England. EH is also currently considering a new integrated grant scheme for gardens, buildings and monuments.

  The Heritage Lottery Fund, National Lottery Charities Board and UK Arts Councils have to date contributed over £84 million to over 223 projects which create, restore or enhance gardens.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 12 March that £125 million of Lottery money will be made available through the New Opportunities Fund, under its Green Spaces and Sustainable Communities Initiative, to help urban and rural communities across the UK to understand, improve and care for their natural and living environment and improve the overall quality of their surroundings. Gardens may well benefit from this new initiative.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Information Superhighway
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many schools have to date been linked to the information superhighway and at what cost; and when he estimates that all schools will have been linked to the information superhighway and at what total cost. [74760]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Department published last year the results of a survey of ICT provision in schools which indicated that 17 per cent. of primary schools and 83 per cent. of secondary schools were connected to the Internet by March 1998. This is in comparison to the previous year's survey (published in 1997), which indicated that 5 per cent. of primary schools and 47 per cent. of secondary schools were connected to the Internet at that time. Subsequent annual surveys will indicate the change in growth of schools with such connections, although the latest estimates from British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA) are that approximately 30 per cent. of primary schools, 90 per cent. of secondary schools and 45 per cent. of special schools in England currently have some form of Internet access. The Government are committed to ensuring that all schools are connected to the Internet by 2002.

  The Government are supporting expenditure of over £700 million during the period 1998–2002 on the National Grid for Learning Standards Fund. This is enabling schools to connect to the information superhighway and equip themselves with the networking infrastructure and information and communications technology to make

  607
  best use of it. It is not possible to break down this figure into the precise amount that schools spend on use of the Internet.

  Opportunity for Youth
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on his policy on the development of an Opportunity for Youth strand to the European Communities budget. [76277]

  Mr. Mudie
  The European Commission has proposed an action programme for youth from the year 2000 that includes support for young people undertaking projects to develop their initiative and enterprise. The Government are participating positively in negotiations with other Member States on the content of the new programme.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many pupils in Oxfordshire at(a) primary school, (b) Key Stage 1, (c) Key Stage 2 and (d) secondary schools were in classes of 31 or more pupils taught by one teacher in (i) January 1997, (ii) January 1998 and (iii) January 1999. [76761]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 15 March 1999]: I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 19 November 1998, Official Report, column 776, and my subsequent letter of 24 February 1999, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Information on Class Sizes (Provisional) in Maintained Primary Schools in England: January 1999 will be published in April.

  National Curriculum
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans the Government have to implement the curriculum recommendations of the Panel for Education for Sustainable Development. [76967]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We have asked the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to take the Panel's recommendations into account in their review of the National Curriculum. This will inform the forthcoming consultation about changes to the National Curriculum from September 2000.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he intends to reply to the letters to him dated 14 October 1998, 7 January and 11 February 1999 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. W. Jackson. [76940]

  Mr. Mudie
  A reply to Mr. Jackson's letter will be issued today, 16 March 1999.

  Suicides
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to reduce the rate of suicide among young men by introducing education in schools to help children recognise the symptoms of depression and sources of help. [76578]
  608
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Department for Education and Employment, together with the Department of Health, announced the Healthy Schools Initiative in May 1998. This will support personal, social and health education in schools and address the issue of emotional health and well being. As part of the initiative we have established the Wired for Health website, providing health information initially for teachers, and later for pupils and students. The site provides a link between the Young Minds Website and the Royal College of Psychiatrists fact sheets on child and adolescent mental health. We will be expanding the information relating to mental health on the website in due course.

  The Government regard children with emotion and behavioural difficulties and mental health problems as having special educational needs. Preventing the development of these problems is a key element of our policy. The recently published Action Programme, "Meeting Special Educational Needs" flagged as priorities measures targeted at young children to prevent them developing problems, and to strengthen provision for older children. Such activities were eligible for support under the 1999–2000 Standards Fund, and approximately 20 Local Education Authorities are to be supported to undertake pilot projects in this field.

  Autistic Children
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what action he has taken since the research project commissioned in 1993 by his Department and the Department of Health into under-identification of autistic children; [76400]

  (2) what statutory provisions require a local education authority in England and Wales to provide a relevant education service for an individual child with autistic spectrum disorder; and if he will make a statement; [76401]

  (3) if he will institute a public inquiry into the educational services provided for children with autistic spectrum disorder in the United Kingdom; [76403]

  (4) what steps the Government have taken to implement the recommendations of the Health Committee's report on health services for children and young people in the community and school (HC 314 of session 1996–97) in respect of education services for children with autistic spectrum disorder. [76440]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Under Part IV Chapter 1 of the Education Act 1996, local education authorities are required to identify and assess children with special educational needs who may require provision beyond that which can normally be met from within the resources of local schools, and to arrange suitable provision where necessary. This includes children with autistic spectrum disorders.

  The final report of the research project commissioned in 1993 by the Departments for Education and Employment and Health, "A Descriptive and Comparative Study of Current Interventions for Children with Autism"

  609
  (Jones, Meldrum, Newson; University of Nottingham, June 1995) found under-identification of children with autism and a shortfall in specialist provision.

  The Government are implementing an SEN Action Programme, announced in November 1998, designed to improve provision for all children with special educational needs, including those with autism. This followed wide-ranging consultation and takes into account the University of Nottingham's report and the Health Committee's recommendations, contained in "The Specific Health Needs of Children and Young People". Last year my Department published a report on existing research into the educational interventions for children with autism which will complement current research into the provision made for such children, commissioned by the Local Government Association. We will consider the findings of the latter research carefully once they are available.

  Provision for children with autism in the rest of the United Kingdom is a matter for my hon. Friends the Secretaries of State of Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland.

  Investors in People
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action he is taking regarding the alleged misuse by Classic Collections (UK) Ltd., Slough, of the Investors in People logo; and if he will make a statement. [76129]

  Mr. Mudie
  The guardianship of the intellectual property and associated trademarks of the Investors in People Standard is a matter for Investors in People UK.

  I understand that the Compliance Unit of Investors in People UK received satisfactory assurances on 3 March from the Chairman of Genesis Marketing, the company which owns Classic Collections, that they would cease use of the logo immediately.

  Schools (Exclusions)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) permanent and (b) temporary exclusions there have been over the last five years. [75023]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The following table shows the number of permanent exclusions from maintained schools in England for each of the school years for which information is available centrally. Data on permanent exclusions in 1997–98 are currently being collated and will be published later this year.

  Permanent exclusions from maintained schools in England

  Year

  Number of permanent exclusions

  1994–95

  11,084

  1995–96

  12,476

  1996–97

  12,668

  610
  The Department does not currently hold information on fixed period (temporary) exclusions. The Department plans to collect information about fixed period exclusions of more than five days from the end of the 1998–99 school year. This information will be used to set a baseline for a national target of a one third reduction in fixed period exclusions by 2002.

  The Government will be spending £493 million over the next three years on initiatives to reduce truancy and exclusions, including the provision of more on-site units in schools for disruptive pupils.

  Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list those people he has appointed to public bodies since 1 November 1998, indicating the positions to which they have been appointed and if they receive remuneration. [76411]

  Mr. Mudie
  The information requested is given in the following table. My hon. Friend will wish to note that this information will be in the Department's Annual Report when it is published this year.

  Name of public body

  Position

  Remuneration

  Construction Industry Training Board

  David Adamson

  Board Member

  None

  Robert Blackman

  Board Member

  None

  Stewart Bonnette

  Board Member

  None

  Engineering Construction Industry Training Board

  Susan Bush

  Board Member

  None

  Douglas Walker

  Board Member

  None

  Education Transfer Council

  Keith Bridge

  Chair

  £15,000 per annum

  Roy Atkinson

  Board Member

  None

  Michael Ellison

  Board Member

  None

  Michael Lodge

  Board Member

  None

  George Mathews

  Board Member

  None

  Mary Schofield

  Board Member

  None

  Equal Opportunities Commission

  Julie Mellor

  Chair

  To be finalised

  FEFC—West Midlands region

  Jock Gallagher

  Board Member

  None

  Christine King

  Board Member

  None

  Roy Pinney

  Board Member

  None

  FEFC—South East region

  John Brookham

  Board Member

  None

  Higher Education Funding Council for England

  John Taylor

  Board Member

  None

  Investors In People UK

  Norman McLean

  Board Member

  None

  Lord Tom Sawyer

  Board Member

  None

  John Steele

  Board Member

  None

  Students Loans Company

  Sir Anthony Battishill

  Chair

  £50,000 per annum

  Brian Booth

  Board Member

  £5,000 per annum

WALES

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the amount spent by the WDA in each local authority area in Wales for each of the last five years. [72371]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 25 February 1999]: As the details of the amounts spent by the WDA in each local

  Budget

  Expenditure £ (estimated out-turn)

  Recipient(s)

  Service Increment For Training (Trusts)

  18,544,000

  NHS Trusts involved in undergraduate teaching

  Service Increment For Training (GPs)

  291,500

  Training practices

  Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education

  10,320,000

  University of Wales College of Medicine, NHS Trusts and Health Authorities

  Central contribution to salaries of doctors in postgraduate training

  26,566,000

  NHS Trusts

  Postgraduate Pharmaceutical Education

  703,000

  University of Wales College, Cardiff

  Postgraduate Optical Education

  28,000

  British College of Optometrists, London

  Other training of health professionals

  41,605,000

  Higher education institutions

  Trusts and GPs involved in medical and dental undergraduate training are reimbursed through Service Increment For Training (SIFT) for the ancillary costs incurred as a result of training activity. SIFT money is allocated on a basis that reflects historical costs, but also changing student numbers and distribution.

  The Department's direct contribution of £10,320,000 to postgraduate medical and dental education and training includes a one-off payment of £500,000 from the Welsh Office Primary Care Initiative. This budget is managed and accounted for by the Post-Graduate Dean, UWCM. In addition, the Department contributes towards the salaries of doctors in training, in recognition of the time they spend on their studies. Contracts for education and training of health professionals other than doctors and dentists in higher education institutions in Wales are managed by the Education Purchasing Unit of the Welsh Health Common Service Authority (which will become part of the Department when WHCSA is abolished), which monitors student numbers and pays invoices monthly.

  In addition, the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales fund medical and dental undergraduate degrees (and funded degrees in certain other health-related subjects until the end of the 1997–98 academic year), but their funding is calculated on the basis of overall numbers of students in each College, not numbers of students taking particular courses.

  The Department does not monitor that expenditure on education and training which is undertaken by Trusts themselves, though this is included in Trusts' annual accounts together with expenditure on research.

  Trust expenditure includes training purchased from the NHS Staff College. The College receives support from Health Authorities, which totalled £1,278,000 in 1997–98.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.
  612
  authority in Wales for the last five years are lengthy, they have been placed in the Library.

  NHS Training and Education
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what data his Department collects on expenditure on NHS training and education and its distribution. [76943]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The information is as follows:

  Departmental expenditure on NHS education and training in 1998–99 is summarised in the table:

  Health Authority Budgets
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the estimated surplus or deficit of each health authority in Wales in 1998–99. [74378]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  [pursuant to his reply, 9 March 1999, c. 175]: I regret that two of the figures given in the answer were incorrect. A corrected answer is as follows:

  The estimated surplus/(deficit) that health authorities and their Trusts will be incurring in 1998–99 is as follows:

  Health authority area

  £ million

  Bro Taf

  (5)

  Dyfed Powys

  (13)

  Gwent

  —

  lechyd Morgannwg

  (2)

  North Wales

  (1)

  Wales

  (21)

  Note:

  These forecasts are based on health bodies' best estimates of their income and expenditure position, and are subject to audit adjustment. The final position will be reported in their 1998–99 annual accounts, which will be available in audited form at the end of July 1999.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will become a matter for the National Assembly.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Spain
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the current state of relations between the United Kingdom and Spain. [74921]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I have already given earlier in the House today to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier),Official Report, columns 867–68.

  MOX Fuels
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what(a) assessment he has made of and (b) recent representations he has received concerning the proliferation dangers posed by the use and transport of plutonium-based MOX fuels. [74925]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The proliferation risks posed by the use of Mixed Oxide Fuel (MOX) by European Union countries and its transport from EU suppliers to Japan are assessed as being extremely low. Indeed, the use of MOX fuel reduces proliferation risks by gradually reducing plutonium stockpiles.

  I am aware only of representations made by the Fijian-based Pacific Concerns Resource Centre Inc to HMG in August 1998.

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's relations with Indonesia. [74928]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We enjoy a positive bilateral relationship and look forward to continuing to work with the Government of Indonesia in their efforts to bring about peaceful, democratic reform and economic recovery.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 26 February 1999,Official Report, column 490, on Indonesia, what information he has received from President Habibie since the Minister raised the investigation into the deaths of Malcolm Rennie and Brian Peters in October 1998. [77184]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I still await a full reply. I will continue to press for information.

  Syria
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the Amnesty International report on human rights and democratic representation in Syria. [74929]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have taken note of the report and of the concerns it raises about political detainees in Syria. We raise human rights with the Syrians both bilaterally and together with EU partners.

  East Timor
  Mr. Patrick Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on UK policy on the transition of East Timor towards independence. [74930]

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress he has made towards resolving the issue of the status of East Timor. [74933]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We continue to support the efforts under UN auspices to secure a future for East Timor which will fully respect the interests and legitimate aspirations of the East Timorese people. We hope that the Indonesian 614
  Government's recent announcement on East Timor, including their willingness to envisage independence, will prove to be a turning point.

  St. Helena
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the restoration of full British citizenship to residents of the island of St. Helena. [74931]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The issue of British citizenship for those citizens of the UK Overseas Territories who do not already have it was considered as part of our review of policy towards the UK Overseas Territories. The outcome will be contained in the Overseas Territories White Paper, which will be published this week.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to secure peace and conformity with international legal obligations in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. [74932]

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Kosovo. [74939]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The United Kingdom has played a leading role in international efforts, including in the UN, in NATO, in the EU, in the Contact Group—particularly as co-chairman of the talks which began in Rambouillet in February—and on the ground, to promote a peaceful settlement of the crisis in Kosovo and persuade the authorities of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and representatives of the Kosovar Albanians to comply with their obligations to the people of Kosovo and to the international community, including those set out in successive UN Security Council resolutions. This week's resumed negotiations in France are a key element in those efforts.

  British Council
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future funding of the British Council. [74934]

  Mr. Fatchett
  As a result of the Comprehensive Spending Review, the Government have been able to secure for the British Council £133.1 million in the first year, rising to £138.9 million in the third year. This means a real increase of about £2 million for each of those years. The British Council now has the resources to continue the excellent work it does and to develop further programmes.

  Iran
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Iran. [74935]

  Mr. Fatchett
  In September last year, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Iranian Foreign Minister, Mr. Kharrazi, came to an agreement concerning
  615
  the Rushdie case. We hope that this agreement will provide the basis for further positive developments in the relationship between Iran and the UK.

  Lebanon
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's relations with Lebanon. [74936]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We enjoy good relations with Lebanon.

  Kashmir
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the recent meeting and agreements between the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan; and if he will launch a new initiative regarding the situation in Kashmir. [74937]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We welcome the recent talks between the Indian and Pakistani Prime Ministers in Lahore, and applaud their joint commitment to intensify efforts to resolve bilateral issues, including Kashmir. We wish them every success in their efforts to find solutions to these problems.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Governments of India and Pakistan regarding the composition of those undertaking talks between the two countries on the issue of Kashmir. [74940]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We regularly discuss Kashmir with representatives of India and Pakistan. We welcome the joint commitment made in Lahore by the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan to intensify efforts to resolve all bilateral issues, including Kashmir.

  Wye Agreement
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet President Arafat to discuss the implementation of the Wye agreement; and if he will make a statement. [74938]

  Mr. Fatchett
  President Arafat visited London on 11 March at the personal invitation of the Prime Minister. In addition to talks with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, he attended a dinner that I hosted at Lancaster House. This visit provided us with a valuable opportunity to explore ways that Europe can help get Wye back on track.

  Together with our EU partners, we have deplored the failure to complete implementation of the Wye River Memorandum within the declared deadline. We continue to urge both sides to implement their obligations in full and without new conditions.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in Sierra Leone. [74941]
  616
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The security situation in Sierra Leone remains fragile following the renewed fighting in Freetown at the start of the year, when rebel forces caused appalling violence and destruction.

  We continue to support strongly the democratically elected Government of Sierra Leone, and the efforts of the Nigerian-led West African force, ECOMOG, to protect the civilian population and deliver lasting peace and stability.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many matching pledges of financial support have been received to date from the international community to match the £10 million package for Sierra Leone. [77172]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  A number of pledges of support for Sierra Leone have been received from the international community following the announcement of the UK £10 million package of assistance. So far, confirmed new pledges have been received from the European Commission, the United States, Italy and Sweden, totalling over £5 million. Several other countries have undertaken to consider making new contributions to Sierra Leone. We welcome the fact that others are now following our lead in helping to promote lasting peace in Sierra Leone.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 8 March 1999,Official Report, column 2, if he will spend any part of the £10 million additional support for Sierra Leone in the event of no matching pledges of financial support being received from other countries. [77171]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Treasury has stipulated that access to the Reserve for up to £10 million for Sierra Leone is conditional upon matching new pledges of support from other international donors. The UK £10 million will be disbursed as we receive these matching pledges from other donors.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the embassies and high commissions which contacted their host country about financial support for Sierra Leone, indicating whom they contacted and when; and if he will place a copy of the letter of contact in the Library. [77173]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  On 2 March, Posts in European Union Member States, and Posts in key countries of the Sierra Leone Contact Group, as well as in other key international donor countries, were instructed to lobby for additional support to Sierra Leone in response to the announcement of the new UK £10 million package of assistance. We continue to receive responses from these countries. The telegram instructing Posts to make contact is classified, and it would therefore not be appropriate to place a copy in the Library.

  Turkey
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on current relations with Turkey. [74942]

  Ms Quin
  We attach considerable importance to our relations with Turkey, and pursue dialogue on a wide range of issues.
  617
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is in regular contact with the Turkish Foreign Minister, Mr. Cem.

  Russian Arms Supplies (Middle East)
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Russia about the supply of weapons to countries in the middle east. [74943]

  Ms Quin
  During my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's visit to Russia on 2–5 March, he discussed with Foreign Minister Ivanov the dangers of arms exports and assistance to countries of concern, including the recent speculation about Russian arms exports to Iraq. He has noted the Russian Government's strong statements that they are committed to upholding UN sanctions.

  Euro
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held with other EU member states about Britain joining the euro. [74944]

  Ms Quin
  There has been no recent discussions on joining the Euro in EU Council meetings. We do, however, keep our partners informed of the Government's position, most recently following the statement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 23 February 1999.

  EU Enlargement
  Mr. White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the timetable for enlarging the European Union to include the first group of applicant countries. [74945]

  Ms Quin
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier in the House today to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell),Official Report, column 883.

  Al Shifa
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new information he has received about the functions of the Al Shifa factory. [74946]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 25 January 1999,Official Report, column 148, and the answers I gave the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) on 16 February 1999, Official Report, columns 751–54, and 22 February 1999, Official Report, column 199.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's relations with Pakistan. [74923]

  Mr. Fatchett
  United Kingdom/Pakistan relations are long-standing and friendly. We have a continuing dialogue on a wide variety of issues of mutual concern.

  Algeria
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the European Union is taking in respect of human rights violations in Algeria. [76871]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The European Union takes a close interest in allegations of human rights violations in Algeria. It raises its concerns at both bilateral and multilateral level. The first bilateral dialogue of substance took place in January 1998, when I led the EU Troika of Ministers to Algiers. The presidency has had two further meetings with the Algerian Government since, in Palermo last June led by Robin Cook, and Vienna last October. In Vienna, the Algerian Government agreed to consider individual human rights cases put forward by the presidency. I submitted the UK's contribution, supported by Amnesty International, to the presidency in January.

  On a multilateral level, such as the UN Commission on Human Rights, the EU works to persuade the Algerian Government to co-operate with UN human rights instruments and institutions. This year, the UK will work with the EU to try and persuade the Algerians to invite in UN Special Rapporteurs on Extra-judicial Executions and on Torture.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to strengthen the measures taken by the European Union in respect of human rights violations in Algeria. [76872]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We support efforts by the European Union to establish a constructive dialogue with the Algerian Government on the issue of human rights. These efforts take place at both a multilateral and bilateral level and have made genuine progress in the past six months.

  At this year's UN Commission on Human Rights, the UK will encourage the EU to urge the Algerian Government to invite in UN Special Rapporteurs on Extra-judicial Executions and on Torture.

  British Passport Holders
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on how his Department deals with(a) complaints and (b) inquiries regarding missing or abducted British passport holders in the Indian sub-continent when the persons involved hold dual nationality. [76405]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Complaints received from hon. Members are answered by Ministers, those from the public may also be answered by Ministers or by the relevant Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) department.

  Inquiries about missing or abducted British nationals in the Indian Sub-continent are handled by Consular Division in the FCO, or by our overseas diplomatic and consular missions. Our ability to help dual nationals in the country of their second nationality is limited by international law.

  Arms Exports
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will publish the first annual report on arms exports; and if he will list and define the arms categories to be covered. [76870]
  619
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We will publish the report as soon as possible. As regards the content of the report, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) on 14 July 1998,Official Report, column 149.

  Recruitment
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of those recruited at the policy entrant point were women in(a) 1996, (b) 1997, and (c) 1998. [77183]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The percentages of women recruited at the policy entrant point in the years requested were as follows:

  Date

  Percentage

  1996

  24

  1997

  36

  1998

  52

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many disabled entrants have been recruited into his Department since the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. [77191]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Since the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has recruited 10 staff who have declared themselves to have a disability(s). Total recruitment to the FCO over the same period numbered 750.

  Family Policies
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place a copy of the review of family policies within his Department in the Library. [77174]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I am placing in the Library of the House a copy of the list of family policies which was drawn up following a process of review of family policies in 1997–98. It includes several items which were added as a result.

  Select Committee Reports
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) of 4 March 1999,Official Report, column 876, from whom his office received (a) the command paper version of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee's report on Human Rights shortly before its publication in December 1998 and (b) the draft version of the Foreign Affairs Committee's report on enlargement. [77095]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  My office received the command paper version of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee's report on Human Rights from the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross).

  There was nothing on the draft version of the Foreign Affairs Committee's Report on enlargement to indicate its source. The hon. Member for Dundee, West has made clear to us that he did not send the document.
  620

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning BNFL Ltd.'s(a) investment in Pangea Resources Inc. and (b) support for Pangea's plans to construct an international repository for nuclear waste in Australia. [77097]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Australian High Commission in London has sought information about the Pangea project. We have also received two representations from members of the public.

  General Pinochet
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs at what time(a) his office and (b) he personally, was first informed of (i) the presence of General Pinochet in the United Kingdom, (ii) his intention to leave the UK on 20 October, (iii) the reports from the British Embassy in Madrid on Judge Garzon's activities, (iv) the contact between the 5th Central Magistrate's Court in Madrid and the Metropolitan Police and (v) the issuing of an arrest warrant for General Pinochet. [70290]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 9 February 1999]: On the answers to (a) and (b) (i), and (ii) I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) on 4 November 1998, Official Report, column 601, and to the answer I gave to the hon. Lady on 27 October 1998, Official Report, column 146

  (iii) The reports from our Embassy in Madrid of 12 November 1997 and 23 January 1998 were read at desk level; the reports of 15 and 16 October 1998 were read at senior official level, and drawn on in briefing the Foreign Secretary orally on 16 October before Senator Pinochet was detained.

  (iv) FCO officials were informed of the request to interview Senator Pinochet from the 5th Central Magistrate's Court in Madrid on 14 October. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was briefed on this request at the same time as he was informed of the request for Senator Pinochet's provisional arrest on 16 October.

  (v) The FCO was informed of the issuing of a warrant for the provisional arrest of Senator Pinochet by the Bow Street Magistrate late on the evening of 16 October. The Foreign Secretary was immediately informed.

  Prisoner Transfers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken by Her Majesty's Government to establish arrangements for prisoner transfers between Venezuela and the UK. [76423]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Her Majesty's Government has encouraged the Venezuelan Government to sign the Council of Europe Convention of the Transfer of Sentenced Prisoners. The Venezuelan Government's application to accede to the convention is being processed by the Council of Europe.

  Entry Documents
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in which countries the facilities for obtaining entry documents by people wishing to enter the UK are not available. [76622]

  Mr. Fatchett
  There are no facilities to apply for UK entry clearance in the following countries: Andora, Benin, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Cayman Islands, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Macao, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Micronesia, Moldova, Monaco, Nauru, Netherland Antilles, North Korea, Niger, Palau, Paraguay, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Sikkim, Suriname Tajikistan, Togo, Tuvalu, Western Samoa, Anguilla, Antigua & Barbuda, British Virgin Islands, Commonwealth of Dominica, Grenada, Montserrat, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent & The Grenadines.

  Posts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Sierra Leone, Somalia and Sudan are closed.

  The following Posts offer a limited entry clearance service: Algiers, Almaty, Baku, Kigali, Riga, Skopje, St. Helena, Taipei, Tallinn, Tashkent, Tblisi, Tehran, Tirana, Tripoli, Vilnius and Yerevan.

  Applicants for visit visas may apply at any UK diplomatic or consular Post offering a full visa service. Applicants for other categories of visas who have no UK entry clearance Post in their country of residence are required to apply to a designated Post, usually in a neighbouring country. My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary will write to the hon. Member with full details of such Posts.

  TACIS Programme
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) of 5 March 1999,Official Report, column 940–42, on the General Affairs Council, for what reasons funds from the Russian TACIS programme were transferred to the European Community Humanitarian Office; and if the issue of fraud was raised in the course of this stage of deliberations. [76368]

  Clare Short
  I have been asked to reply.

  TACIS is a technical assistance programme wherever this European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO) provides emergency humanitarian relief. However, the need in this particular case was for emergency assistance. Transferring funds from TACIS to ECHO is the best way to address these needs while at the same time respecting overall budgetary ceilings. There has been no suggestion of fraud in discussion of the transfer.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 16 February 1999,Official Report, column 739, on Iraq, from whom he received the account of the episode relating to the 16-year-old Iraqi youth. [72887]
  622
  Mr. Fatchett
  [pursuant to his reply, 15 March 1999, c. 511]: An administrative error led to a mistake in my answer to the hon. Member of 15 March. The correct answer should read as follows:

  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary received the information from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many individuals were claiming incapacity benefit in(a) each region and nation of the United Kingdom and (b) in each county, metropolitan or unitary authority in the Government Office-North East Region on 31 May (i) 1996, (ii) 1997 and (iii) 1998. [76124]

  Mr. Bayley
  The available information is set out in the tables.

  Incapacity benefit recipients in the United Kingdom

  31 May 1996

  31 May 1997

  31 May 1998

  All cases

  1,872,328

  1,810,908

  1,720,655

  England

  1,376,060

  133,220

  1,270,720

  North East

  140,600

  133,000

  124,080

  North West

  258,540

  235,040

  221,020

  Merseyside

  81,600

  76,540

  72,560

  Yorkshire and Humber

  162,020

  167,380

  157,640

  East Midlands

  111,780

  109,660

  107,980

  West Midlands

  155,740

  151,060

  144,880

  South West

  100,240

  99,890

  102,420

  Eastern

  111,820

  110,220

  105,220

  London

  98,680

  98,060

  100,840

  South East

  155,040

  152,280

  134,080

  Scotland

  234,220

  225,240

  211,000

  Wales

  175,440

  165,760

  154,920

  Overseas

  8,740

  8,520

  8,000

  Northern Ireland

  77,868

  78,168

  76,015

  Notes:

  1. Great Britain figures are taken from a 5 per cent. sample of the computer and exclude a small number of cases held clerically.

  2. Northern Ireland figures are taken from a 100 per cent. sample of the computer and exclude a small number of cases held clerically.

  Incapacity benefit recipients in the North East region

  31 May 1996

  31 May 1997

  31 May 1998

  Gateshead

  12,038

  11,960

  10,728

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  12,424

  11,649

  11,032

  North Tyneside

  9,175

  8,606

  7,991

  South Tyneside

  8,303

  7,976

  7,664

  Sunderland

  18,534

  17,678

  16,246

  Chester-le-Street

  2,903

  2,760

  2,698

  Darlington

  3,694

  3,552

  3,366

  Derwentside

  5,278

  5,054

  4,746

  Durham

  4,141

  3,937

  3,449

  Easington

  11,145

  10,371

  9,515

  Sedgefield

  6,131

  5,622

  5,355

  Teesdale

  771

  731

  710

  Wear Valley

  3,938

  3,714

  3,429

  Alnwick

  1,015

  1,035

  1,013

  Berwick-upon-Tweed

  873

  731

  689

  Blyth Valley

  3,918

  3,714

  3,448

  Castle Morpeth

  1,705

  1,766

  1,622

  Tynedale

  1,746

  1,624

  1,722

  Wansbeck

  3,918

  3,613

  3,327

  Hartlepool UA

  5,989

  5,683

  5,171

  Middlesborough UA

  7,085

  6,312

  6,044

  Redcar and Cleveland UA

  8,080

  7,713

  7,181

  Stockton-on-Tees UA

  7,796

  7,469

  6,935

  Notes:

  1. Figures are derived from available information about postcodes

  Company Licences
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for(a) small and medium-sized enterprises and (b) larger companies (i) all licences and permits issued by his Department and its agencies to companies permitting them to carry out their business, (ii) the cost of each such licence or permit in (A) 1997–98 and (B) 1999–2000 and (iii) the current number of companies which are in receipt of each such licence or permit. [76848]

  Mr. Timms
  We issue no licences or permits.

  Housing Benefit Fraud
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the level of fraud in respect of housing benefit in(a) Bolton, (b) the North West and (c) England. [75621]

  Mr. Timms
  There are no figures available regarding the level of Housing Benefit fraud in Bolton.

  The results of the 1997–98 Housing Benefit Accuracy Review provide the estimates shown in the table for the percentage of the Housing Benefit caseload in 1997–98 within each of the categories.

  Percentage of caseload

  Confidence limits

  North West

  Confirmed fraud

  1.6

  Below 0.05–3.4

  Strong suspicion of fraud

  4.3

  1.9–6.8

  Mild suspicion of fraud

  1.1

  Below 0.05–2.7

  England

  Confirmed fraud

  1.5

  0.8–2.3

  Strong suspicion of fraud

  4.1

  1.8–7.2

  Mild suspicion of fraud

  1.2

  0.7–2.0

  Great Britain

  Confirmed fraud

  1.9

  1.3–2.6

  Strong suspicion of fraud

  4.0

  1.9–6.8

  Mild suspicion of fraud

  1.1

  0.7–1.7

  Note:

  The main figures provide the best estimate from the review for the percentage of the Housing Benefit caseload in 1997–98 within each of the categories. These estimates are uncertain since conclusions about the level of fraudulent payments were derived from evidence from a sample of HB claims. The uncertainty surrounding an estimate derived from a sample can be quantified by calculating "confidence limits". For the table above 95 per cent. confidence limits have been calculated for each of the estimates and are shown in brackets. These limits indicate the range within which we can be 95 per cent. certain that the true value lies. For each estimate derived there is a 5 per cent. chance that the true value lies outside the stated range.

  Myalgic Encephalitis
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of myalgic encephalitis sufferers who(a) were in receipt of disability living allowance, (b) were appealing against being turned down for disability living allowance or having it withdrawn and (c) had successfully appealed against a decision to refuse payment of disability living allowance at the latest date for which figures are available. [76222]
  624
  Mr. Bayley
  Figures are not available in the form requested. The available information for a wider group of people, those with Chronic Fatigue Syndromes including myalgic encephalomyelitis and post viral conditions, is in the table.

  People claiming Disability Living Allowance whose main disabling condition is chronic fatigue syndrome

  Number

  People in receipt of benefit at 31 August 1998 First awards of benefit between 1 April 1992 and 31 August 1998

  8,900

  All first awards

  10,300

  awards on initial claim

  6,500

  awards resulting from review

  2,600

  awards resulting from appeal

  1,300

  Notes:

  1. People for whom myalgic encephalitis is not their main disabling condition may also receive Disability Living Allowance

  2. Figures do not sum owing to rounding

  Source:

  Analytical Services Division: 5 per cent. data

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of Trillium in managing health and safety issues within the DSS Estate. [77185]

  Angela Eagle
  Prior to awarding the contract, Trillium's credentials and proposals for managing health and safety across the DSS estate were scrupulously examined by an independent Health and Safety assessor and found to be robust and comprehensive. Post contract, Trillium now have fully trained and qualified health and safety professionals in place throughout the country. Their performance is rigorously monitored by a dedicated contract management team which includes a fully qualified in-house health and safety professional together with a team of technical auditors.

  All Trillium's practises and processes are closely monitored to ensure their effectiveness. We are satisfied that all contractual and statutory duties are being met and that they are fully competent to manage health and safety on behalf of the Department.

  Benefits (Ministerial Discretion)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what guidance is used by Ministers in determining requests to exercise discretion in relation to individual benefit cases; and if he will place a copy of that guidance in the Library; [76239]

  (2) on what grounds the Secretary of State rejected the request by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire to use his discretion in the case of the overpayment of benefit to Ms Linda Knight of 42 Stalls Farm Road, Droitwich Spa, Worcestershire; and if he will make a statement. [76237]

  Mr. Timms
  In individual cases of overpayments the Secretary of State can apply his discretion in relation to the recovery of the overpayment. This discretion is exercised only where recovery would cause extreme hardship. Guidance is contained in "Government Accounting", a copy of which is held in the House of Commons Library.

  Pensions
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what circumstances he proposes to make contracting out of the state second pension compulsory. [76154]

  Mr. Timms
  None.

  Bereavement Benefits
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the numbers of(a) widows and (b) widowers who will be claiming income support with the bereavement premium in each of the first five years after implementation of his proposals for bereavement support as set out in paragraph 1 of his consultation paper on bereavement support. [76103]

  Angela Eagle
  It is estimated that there will be(a) fewer than 5,000 widows and (b) fewer than 5,000 widowers who claim Income Support with the Bereavement Premium in each of the first five years after implementation of our proposals.

  Notes:

  1. The estimates presented above are broad orders of magnitude. They are rounded to the nearest 10,000 and are our best estimate of the number who might be in receipt of the premium, but are subject to a wide range of uncertainty.

  2. Estimates assume that a constant proportion of those affected by the proposed changes to Bereavement Benefits move onto Income Support with the IS bereavement premium.

  3. Estimates use information from the 1995–96 Family Resources Survey, the Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry and forecasts from the Government Actuary's Department concerning the number of men and women affected by the proposed changes.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if it is his policy that widows and widowers who are bereaved below the age of 55 years will be entitled to claim the proposed income support bereavement premium on reaching the age of 55 years if the qualifying conditions for the premium apply on the basis set out in paragraph 1 of his consultation paper on bereavement support. [76102]

  Angela Eagle
  No. The proposed bereavement premium in Income Support, and other income-related benefits, will be available only to those men and women who are aged 55 and over at the start of the new arrangements and who are widowed during the subsequent five years. The premium will be payable once their time-limited benefit, Bereavement Allowance, comes to an end.

  Family Resources Survey
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what evidence is provided by(a) the 1995–96 Family Resources Survey and (b) his Department's administrative data on the housing tenure distribution among pensioners who are (i) receiving income support and (ii) entitled to, but not receiving, income support, and if he will break down his answer for the age groups (1) 60 to 69, (2) 70 to 79 and (3) 80 years or above. [76090]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.626

  Percentage

  Age 60–69

  Age 70–79

  Age 80 or above

  Housing tenure

  Local authority tenants

  50

  54

  43

  Other social tenants

  8

  10

  11

  Private renters

  6

  5

  6

  Owner occupiers

  35

  29

  38

  Other

  1

  1

  2

  Total

  100

  100

  100

  Notes:

  1. Figures are shown as a percentage of the total number of pensioner benefit units receiving income support in each age band.

  2. Estimates are rounded to the nearest whole per cent. Rows may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

  3. Pensioners are defined as single people or couples where at least one partner is aged over 59 years. Couples are allocated to age bands according to the age of the older partner.

  4. Receipt of Income Support is based on respondents' own assessment and may be subject to misreporting.

  5. "Local authority tenants" are defined as those households where the landlord was either a local authority/council, a New Town development or Scottish Homes and where the property did not go with the job of anyone in the household. "Other social tenants" are defined as those households where the landlord was either a Housing Association, a co-operative or a charitable trust and where the property did not go with the job of anyone in the household. "Private renters" are defined as those households where the landlord was an employer, friend or relative of a household member, or another private landlord or organisation. "Owner occupiers" are defined as those households that were either owned outright, being bought with the help of a mortgage or loan, or were part rented and part mortgaged.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey 1995/96.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many reviews of disability living allowance were undertaken under the Benefit Integrity Project in 1997–98 and the current financial year to date; and how many reviews it is anticipated will be held in 1999–2000 under the new periodic review system. [76840]

  Mr. Bayley
  The administration of Disability Living Allowance is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mrs. Theresa May, dated 15 March 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many reviews of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) were undertaken under the Benefits Integrity Project (BIP) in 1997–98 and the current financial year to date; and how many reviews it is anticipated will be held in 1999–2000 under the new periodic review system.
  It might be helpful to clarify what we mean by a review. I assume from your question that you are referring to the total number of cases that have been, and will be, checked under the BIP using the most available year to date figures, and the total number that are likely to be checked under the periodic review of DLA awards that starts in April 1999. I have answered your question on this basis.
  The number of DLA cases that were examined and completed by the BIP in the period 1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998 was 72,470. For the period 1 April 1998 to 31 December 1998 (the last available figures), the corresponding figure is 88,117.
  A monthly statistical report providing detailed information can be found in the House of Commons library.

  627
  Turning now to the number of cases we anticipate dealing with under the new periodic enquiry system from April, the new process will be continually evaluated, refined and developed, in consultation with disabled people and their representatives. Officials will take stock of the findings after six moths. I estimate that over the first six months work will be started on some 10,000 to 15,000 cases, through a mixture of visit and postal enquiry.
  I hope that this is helpful.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Law Firms (Franchising)
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the level of access for rural communities under the proposed new arrangements for the franchising of law firms providing legal aid services. [76287]

  Mr. Hoon
  It is for the Legal Aid Board, through its 13 Regional Legal Services Committees, to establish the legal needs and priorities of any particular community. Contracts will be granted to those quality assured legal service providers who can satisfy, as far as possible within the financial resources available, the communities' needs and priorities. The RLSC's will continue to monitor needs in their regions so that provision can be adjusted as the needs and priorities change.

  Electronic Red Boxes
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will name the Ministers in his Department who are regular users of electronic Red Boxes. [76176]

  Mr. Hoon
  Neither the Lord Chancellor nor I yet use the new "laptop red boxes" described by the Minister for the Cabinet Office in his reply,Official Report, columns 651–52.

  Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list those people he has appointed to public bodies since 1 November 1998, indicating the positions to which they have been appointed and if they receive remuneration. [76464]

  Mr. Hoon
  The following lists the non-judicial appointments made to the Lord Chancellor's non-departmental public bodies since 1 November 1998. It does not include re-appointments.

  Those not receiving remuneration

  Advisory Committees on Justices of the Peace

  Dr. F. Rabiee-Khan (f)

  N. Lowe Esq

  J. W. A. Watkin Esq JP

  Mrs. M. Mann

  Mrs. S. G. Goldie

  Ms S. M. Carey

  Dr. P. R. Ashurst JP (m)

  A. E. Cledwyn Davies Esq

  Mrs. J. M. A. Glossop JP

  Mrs. E. F. Metcalfe

  K. R. Belding Esq JP

  628

  Mrs. G. M. Frame

  Mrs. A. M. Davies

  P. J. Pownall JP

  Mrs. S. Friend-Smith

  M. H. Smart Esq

  Mrs. G. E. A. Wild

  L. Forbes Esq JP

  K. B. Martin Esq JP

  Mrs. J. A. Masterson JP

  Mrs. J. C. Ralli

  K. Savage Esq JP

  Mrs. M. Wyndham JP

  Mrs. C. A. Orton JP

  Mrs. E. A. Hubbick JP

  D. L. Maunder Esq

  Mrs. S. P. Holdstock JP

  Mrs. B. G. Smith

  T. I. J. Mann Esq JP

  C. E. Ewing Esq

  Miss A-M. C. Costa

  P. G. Wells Esq JP

  D. Libby Esq JP

  Dr. D. F. Johnson

  Sir Paul Nicholson LL

  Mrs. P. M. Hunt JP

  Mrs. J. Robson

  K. Moffitt Esq

  Mrs. A. L. Battista

  H. H. J. Radford

  Mrs. M. E. Clibbon JP

  A. J. Hill Esq JP

  D. Redhead Esq

  Ms D. Shandley

  V. A. Stanbrook Esq JP

  Mrs. A. Walker JP

  Advisory Committees on General Commissioners of Income Tax

  Mrs. A. J. M. Taylor

  P. K. Lucas Esq JP

  P. R. Clarke Esq

  C. H. Vero Esq

  C. S. Pratt Esq

  J. A. Clarke Esq JP

  C. D. Suter Esq

  Mrs. D. Meacock

  Mrs. I. R. Moffat

  P. J. Walker Esq

  P. M. Garnett Esq

  W. M. Wannop Esq OBE

  M. J. S. Holwill Esq JP

  D. R. Lewis Esq

  C. J. Cleugh Esq

  Sir Michael Swann

  R. D. C. Jones Esq

  Mrs. J. L. Jenkins JP

  A. J. Cordery Esq

  R. E. F. Hall Esq

  Dr. A. C. Turner

  Lt. Col. J. E. K. Goodbody

  629

  S. A. Watson Esq

  J. E. King Esq

  J. Garner Esq

  H. H. Roberts Esq

  C. P. Butler Esq

  J. R. Trustram-Eve Esq

  B. R. J. O. Hughes Esq

  R. L. Nash Esq

  I. C. Rose Esq

  H. J. Wiseman Esq

  Advisory Council on Public Records

  Professor David Cannadine

  Miss Rosemary Dunhill

  Sir John Chilcot

  Mrs. Anne Hanford

  Professor Rodney Lowe

  Mrs. Shahwar Sadeque

  Crown Court Rule Committee

  Judge Grigson

  Family Proceedings Rule Committee

  Mrs. J. M. Roberts

  Honorary Investment Advisory Committee

  Mrs. P. H. Challens

  Mr. A. H. Clifton

  Mr. I. E. Sands

  Judicial Studies Board

  District Judge Wyn Rees

  Those receiving remuneration

  Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct

  George Pulman QC

  Malcolm Fowler

  Council on Tribunals

  Mr. Emrys Roberts

  Law Commission

  Mr. Justice Carnwath CVO (draws his judicial salary).

HEALTH

  Departmental Reviews
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 22 February 1999,Official Report, columns 134–35, on departmental reviews, if he will give an estimated publication date for each of the reviews which have yet to publish their reports. [73966]

  Mr. Hutton
  The estimated publication date for each of the reviews which have yet to publish their reports are:

  Estimated publication date

  Thoracic Surgical Services Review

  April 99

  United Kingdom Transplant Support Service Authority Review

  Spring 1999

  Mental Health Act Review

  July 99

  Review of general anaesthesia and sedation with dental treatment

  Late summer

  Review of the wheelchair voucher scheme and the provision of electrical and indoor wheelchairs

  Spring 1999

  Physiotherapists
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many physiotherapists are employed by NHS trusts in each region of England; and how many posts are currently vacant in these regions. [74291]

  Mr. Denham
  Information on the numbers of physiotherapy staff employed by National Health Service trusts in each region of England as at 30 September 1997 has been placed in the Library. Information on how many posts are currently vacant in these regions is not available centrally.

  NHS Waiting Lists
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS patients were waiting to be seen(a) following GP written referral and (b) following referral to consultation, for each quarter since 30 March 1997 in each (i) health authority and (ii) English region. [74740]

  Mr. Denham
  Information on outpatient waiting times by health authority is available only from 1998–99.

  Available information on the time patients have been waiting for a first outpatient appointment following general practitioner written referral by health authority has been placed in the Library.

  NHS Running Costs
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total running cost of the NHS in real terms has been in each year since 1979. [74742]

  Mr. Denham
  National Health Service total net expenditure, at 1997–98 prices, is shown in the table:

  Year

  £million

  1978–79

  19,575

  1979–80

  19,899

  1980–81

  21,919

  1981–82

  22,399

  1982–83

  22,810

  1983–84

  23,045

  1984–85

  23,494

  1985–86

  23,597

  1986–87

  24,494

  1987–88

  25,545

  1988–89

  26,439

  1990–91

  27,732

  1991–92

  29,654

  1992–93

  31,665

  1993–94

  31,919

  1994–95

  33,262

  1995–96

  33,795

  1996–97

  33,822

  1997–98

  34,664

  1998–99

  35,961

  Note:

  Using current GDP deflator estimates

  NHS Personnel
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many (i) paramedics, (ii) chiropodists, (iii) physiotherapists, (iv) clinical psychologists,
  631
  (v) occupational therapists and (vi) speech therapists were practising in (a) the National Health Service and (b) the private sector at the latest available date. [75243]

  Mr. Denham
  For the available information, I refer my hon. Friend to the "Department of Health NHS Hospital and Community Health Services Non Medical Workforce Census Detailed Results England: 30 September 1997", copies of which are available in the Library. Information is not collected centrally on how many of these grades were practising in the private sector.

  Aricept
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the cost to the NHS of the prescription of the drug Aricept in 1998; and how many prescriptions were issued by each health authority; [75530]

  (2) what funds each health authority in England has allocated to consultants and general practitioners for prescribing the drug Aricept in the current year. [75531]

  Mr. Denham
  The Department does not allocate funds specifically for prescribing the drug Aricept. Health authorities are expected to budget for the prescribing of this drug within their overall allocations.

  In the 12 months ending September 1998, 17,000 prescription items for Donepezil Hydrochloride (Aricept) were dispensed in the community. The total net ingredient cost was £1.6 million. The net ingredient cost is the basic cost of a drug and does not take account of discounts, dispensing costs, fees or prescription charges income. Information for prescriptions dispensed in the year ending December 1998 is not yet available. Information about drugs dispensed in hospitals is not available

  Donepezil Hydrochloride was prescribed on the National Health Service in all health authorities in England over the twelve-month period ending September 1998. Information for individual products such as Aricept is not released at health authority level. This is in order to preserve patient, contractor and commercial confidentiality.

  NHS Pay and Pensions Enhancements
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it is consistent with national guidance for NHS trusts to award pay and pension enhancements(a) on the authority of the Chair and (b) without presenting minutes or reports of remuneration committees to full trust boards. [76131]

  Mr. Denham
  When dealing with issues o f corporate governance, National Health Service trusts should comply with the national guidance contained in the Codes of Conduct and Accountability, which was issued on 28 April 1994, under cover of Executive Letter (94)40, copies of which are available in the Library.
  632
  Trust boards are obliged to establish remuneration committees to advise the Board about the appropriate remuneration of the chief executive and other executive directors. However, approval of the remuneration of such key staff would be a decision of the Board.

  GP Records
  Mr. Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the incidence of tampering with patients' records by general practitioners; and if he will make a statement. [75922]

  Mr. Denham
  Allegations that general practitioners have tampered with patients' records are dealt with locally. There is no evidence that tampering occurs to an extent that would warrant a national assessment.

  Prescribing
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans his Department has to supply copies of the British National Formulary to all essential users in Norfolk; [75910]

  (2) what assessment his Department has made of the (a) economic and (b) safety implications of general practitioners prescribing without access to an up-to-date copy of the British National Formulary; [75911]

  (3) what guidelines his Department lays down for the distribution of the British National Formulary to health care professionals. [75909]

  Mr. Denham
  Copies of the British National Formulary are distributed twice yearly free of charge to all health authorities and trusts. They are responsible for ensuring that it is passed to all essential users.

  The Department recommends that all general practitioners, community pharmacists, hospital doctors, hospital pharmacists and health authority medical and pharmaceutical advisers should receive the formulary. In addition, where possible, there should also be a reference copy on each hospital ward and in each paramedic ambulance. The Department has no reason to believe these recommendations are not being followed.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact on the private sector care industry of the national minimum wage; and if he will make a statement. [75934]

  Mr. Hutton
  It is not possible to estimate with precision the overall impact of the national minimum wage on the private sector industry. Subject to statutory requirements, terms of employment are a matter for employer and employees.

  Front-line Care
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money, in real terms, has been spent on front-line care in the NHS in each year since 1979. [76035]
  633
  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 11 March 1999]: Information in the form requested is not available. However, information on expenditure by programme of care within hospital and community health services is provided each year to the Health Select Committee's Public Expenditure Inquiry (HC959), copies of which are available in the Library.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health after the publication of the Poswillo Inquiry, how many general dental practitioners underwent training in anaesthesia and equipped their practices to meet the appropriate recommended safety levels; and what contribution his Department made towards this training. [75429]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 15 March 1999]: Following publication of the Poswillo Report the Department allocated £20.4 million to regional health authorities over the three years 1992–95. We do not have a breakdown of the usage of this money to include numbers trained and the amount spent on equipment.

  Elderly People (Abuse)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the levels of abuse of elderly people in care; if he will publish this assessment; and if he will make a statement. [76484]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 15 March 1999]: The Department does not keep data on incidents of abuse in adult care homes. However, the Department has provided funding to Action on Elder Abuse for its national helpline service. Furthermore, we are funding an analysis of the first one thousand calls which that helpline has received. National guidelines for dealing with incidents of abuse to vulnerable adults are currently being developed, and this work is financed and led by the Department.

  Incontinence
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list his Department's expenditure on grants to voluntary bodies working on incontinence. [76767]

  Mr. Hutton
  In 1998–99 the Department has funded the following voluntary organisations for continence projects:

  £

  Continence Foundation

  35,000

  Disabled Living

  24,750

  InContact

  6,250

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has(a) completed, (b) published and (c) commissioned on incontinence. [76768]
  634
  Mr. Hutton
  The Department funds research and development to support its work on policy development and evaluation in health and social care. The Department also manages the National Health Service research and development levy, which is used to support research and development of relevance to the National Health Service in hospitals, general practice and other health care settings, and to fund the NHS research and development programme. In addition, the Medical Research Council (MRC), which receives most of its income via grant-in-aid from the Office of Science and Technology in the Department of Trade and Industry, funds medical research as part of the Government's funding of the science and engineering base.

  The NHS research and development programme is currently supporting the following two projects on incontinence:
  Cost-effective night-time management of heavily incontinent adults (Dr. Cottenden, University College London); and
  The treatment of urinary incontinence in stroke patients (Professor Castledon, University of Leicester).

  The Department's policy research programme supported the following research projects:
  The development of methodologies to identify urinary incontinence and set targets for health gain (Professor Pearson, University of Liverpool, completed September, 1995); and
  DH Post Doctoral Fellowship, Dr. Brenda Hilary Roe, University of Oxford, completed March, 1996. (Dr. Roe's research project evaluated health interventions by primary health care teams and continence advisory services related to incontinence.)

  The MRC spent £953,000 in 1997–98 on the following three ongoing projects in the general area of incontinence:
  A randomised trial of open versus laparoscopic colposuspension for genuine stress incontinence, (Professor Kitchener, St. Mary's Hospital);
  Incontinence: a population laboratory approach to the epidemiology and evaluation of care, (Dr. McGrother, University of Leicester); and
  Ion channels in myoctes from human and pig urethra/ bladder-modulation by drugs and role in tissue contractile behaviour, (Dr. Brading, University of Oxford).

  In addition, the MRC also made grants during the mid 1990s for the following projects:
  Can the lower urinary tract be controlled by sacral root stimulation? (Dr. Baxendale, University of Glasgow);
  Oestrogen replacement therapy on urinary tract dysfunction and urogenital collagens in postmenopausal women with stress, (Mr. Jackson, Bristol Urological Institute);
  Determining the outcome of surgery for stress incontinence in women (Professor Black, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine).

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list his Department's budget and planned expenditure relating to incontinence for each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [76766]
  635
  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not available centrally. Local health authorities are responsible for commissioning continence services to meet the needs of their local population. The National Health Service Executive is currently reviewing continence services policy with a view to issuing updated guidance in the spring.

  Human Vaccines (Bovine Material)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the last date on which human vaccines containing bovine material prohibited for use in human food were used on humans; [76508]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 8 March 1999, Official Report, column 85, on human vaccines, for what reason he is unable to state how those human vaccines which contain bovine material prohibited for use in the human food chain were disposed of; and if he will make a statement. [76500]

  Ms Jowell
  No human vaccines for use in the United Kingdom contain or ever have contained in the finished product bovine material prohibited for use in the human food chain. Therefore, no vaccines have ever been disposed of for the reason that they contained bovine material prohibited for use in the human food chain.

  Xenotransplantation
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has prohibited on ethical grounds the use of primates in xenotransplantation trials. [76501]

  Mr. Hutton
  We recognise that the use of primates as possible source animals for xenotransplantation is an emotive issue arousing strong feelings. The view taken

  Ordinary admissions and day cases combined: number of completed first order episodes by primary diagnosis and Regional Health Authority (RHA) of treatment

  NHS hospitals, England 1993–94 to 1995–96

  Heart attacks

  Strokes

  Regional health authority

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Northern

  8,807

  7,473

  6,987

  8,234

  7,597

  6,387

  Yorkshire

  8,812

  8,132

  7,636

  8,912

  8,535

  6,757

  Trent

  10,119

  9,045

  9,858

  11,150

  10,982

  8,670

  East Anglian

  4,625

  5,791

  4,240

  4,844

  6,647

  4,531

  North West Thames

  5,269

  4,438

  3,996

  6,453

  5,771

  4,624

  North East Thames

  7,208

  6,958

  6,149

  7,980

  8,731

  6,511

  South East Thames

  6,464

  6,246

  5,735

  7,780

  8,198

  6,561

  South West Thames

  5,106

  4,639

  4,321

  6,386

  6,360

  5,296

  Wessex

  6,098

  5,604

  4,530

  6,447

  6,783

  4,623

  Oxford

  3,561

  4,211

  3,504

  4,441

  5,646

  4,059

  South Western

  7,532

  6,713

  7,087

  8,601

  8,237

  7,336

  West Midlands

  11,209

  10,377

  9,756

  13,322

  13,499

  10,440

  Mersey

  5,637

  5,356

  4,780

  6,195

  6,162

  4,579

  North Western

  9,609

  9,429

  8,529

  10,458

  10,705

  8,078

  SHAs

  204

  0

  0

  594

  0

  0

  England

  100,261

  94,411

  87,109

  111,798

  113,853

  88,451

  Notes:

  ICD 10 replaced ICD 9 in 1995–96.

  Heart attack: ICD9 code 410 and ICD10 code 121–122 used.

  Stroke: ICD9 code 430–436 and ICD10 code 160–164 used.

  Data for 1993–94 to 1995–96 are grossed for both coverage and unknown/invalid clinical data.

  Source:
  Hospital Episodes Statistics
  636
  by the Government, as advised by the United Kingdom Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority, is that there should be a strong presumption against the use of primates as sources for xenotransplantation. The use of great apes in scientific procedures, including xenotransplantation, has already been ruled out.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how his Department assesses the risk of a new viral disease emerging via xenotransplantation procedures. [76503]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government are advised on all issues related to xenotransplantation by the United Kingdom Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority (UKXIRA).

  The UKXIRA membership provides an excellent balance of medical and scientific expertise with appropriate lay representation. The authority keeps itself fully updated on all developments in the field and has developed extensive networks, both in this country and abroad, through which to obtain additional specialist advice. For example, the UKXIRA last year hosted a workshop on the possible risks posed by porcine endogenous retroviruses, involving fifty leading experts from the UK and the United States of America. A report of the day's proceedings is due to be published shortly.

  Heart Attacks and Strokes
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the numbers of(a) heart attacks and (b) strokes in each region in each of the last five years. [75961]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the number of patients admitted to hospital for heart attacks and strokes for the financial years 1993–94 to 1997–98 are shown in the following tables.
  637

  Ordinary admissions and day cases combined: number of completed first order episodes by primary diagnosis and regional office of treatment

  NHS hospitals, England 1996–97 and 1997–98

  Heart attacks

  Strokes

  Reginal office of treatment

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Northern and Yorkshire

  12,119

  11,237

  11,533

  10,887

  Trent

  8,333

  8,577

  7,979

  8,828

  Anglia and Oxford

  6,061

  7,284

  7,170

  8,267

  North Thames

  8,647

  9,050

  10,180

  10,811

  South Thames

  9,799

  9,401

  11,605

  10,991

  South and West

  10,556

  10,174

  11,385

  12,206

  West Midlands

  9,084

  9,159

  9,470

  9,409

  North West

  12,392

  12,007

  12,140

  12,289

  Not Known

  0

  85

  0

  79

  England

  76,991

  76,974

  81,462

  83,767

  Notes:

  Heart attack ICD 10 code 121–122 used.

  Stroke: ICD10 code 160–164 used.

  Data for 1996–97 and 1997–98 are provisional, no adjustments have yet been made for shortfalls in data, (i.e. the data is ungrossed).

  Source:

  Hospital Episodes Statistics

  Neurological Services
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment he has made of the current arrangements for consulting on and drawing-up contracts for the provision of neurological services. [72565]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]: The White Paper, "The new NHS", set out new arrangements for commissioning services through the introduction of long term service agreements. All commissioning in the new National Health Service will take place through service agreements.

  Health authorities and primary care groups will be responsible for drawing up service agreements with NHS trusts to deliver improvements in health and health care services which meet the needs of their population.

  Increasingly, service agreements will need to reflect the development of long-term relationships between primary care groups and NHS trusts, be based on the shared view of the outcomes of care needed, and cover integrated pathways of care. Guidance on "Commissioning in the new NHS" emphasised that this will apply, in particular, to long-term medical conditions, such as neurological conditions, where, following accurate and timely diagnosis, patient care will largely be managed outside of an acute setting.

  A compendium of good practice on the commissioning of neurological services is currently being considered for development in 1999/2000.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Publications
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the latest volume of "Agriculture in the United Kingdom" to be published. [77432]
  638
  Mr. Nick Brown
  "Agriculture in the United Kingdom 1998" was published today and copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Baby Foods
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action is being taken to control pesticide residues in baby foods. [77433]

  Mr. Rooker
  Agreement was reached last week on 2 new EC Directives which impose stringent limits on the levels of pesticides in infant formulae and baby foods. These measures will enhance existing controls and provide even greater protection for the health of this vulnerable group of the population.

  Abattoir Inspectors
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set out the number of incidents of harassment of Ministry abattoir inspectors by abattoir staff for each year over the last five years. [66386]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 3 February 1999,Official Report, column 689.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has held with the Minister for Science, about genetically modified crops. [68067]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I have not held any discussions with the Minister of Science about genetically modified crops.

  Mink Farming
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many visits were made in 1998 to mink factory farms, by county, by Ministry officials(a) for animal welfare inspections and (b) to check compliance with the conditions of the Mink Keeping Regulations 1975 (as amended). [68147]

  Mr. Morley
  Visits in 1998 were made as follows:

  county

  Inspections to check compliance with the animal welfare legislation

  Inspections to check compliance with the Mink Keeping Regulations 1975

  Cornwall

  5

  2

  Dorset

  2

  4

  Hampshire

  4

  8

  Isle of Wight

  2

  2

  Lancashire

  5

  11

  Northumberland

  4

  2

  South Yorkshire

  1

  3

  Staffordshire

  3

  6

  West Yorkshire

  2

  4

  Total

  28

  42

  Fisheries Inspectors (EU)
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many fisheries inspectors there are in each member state of the European Union. [68591]
  639
  Mr. Morley
  Information on the number of inspectors for each Member State, based on the most recent report from the Commission on Monitoring the Common Fisheries Policy in 1995, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House, is set out:

  Country

  Number

  Belgium

  6

  Denmark

  143

  Germany

  30

  Greece

  172

  Spain

  1262

  France

  532

  Ireland

  18

  Italy

  2—

  Netherlands

  56

  Portugal

  12

  Finland

  890

  Sweden

  500

  United Kingdom

  3158

  1 In addition to 30 national inspectors based in Madrid this includes a further 232 inspectors who work for the autonomous regions. Since the report was published we have been informed that the number of national inspectors for Spain has increased to 53.

  2 In theory some 5,200 persons are available for inspection work as part of their duties.

  3 The UK currently has 152 inspectors.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his oral statement of 14 January 1999,Official Report, column 544, in what way the industry indicated its agreement not to take the full recommended allocation of cod. [69396]

  Mr. Morley
  The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea recommended a North Sea cod TAC of 153,000 tonnes for 1998. Following discussion with representatives of the industry, the UK supported a lower TAC of 140,000 tonnes being set in order to help the rebuilding of this stock.

  Meat Hygiene Inspectors
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the charges for inspections under meat hygiene regulations in each of the member states of the European Union in pounds sterling. [69719]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 10 March 1999]: I am currently seeking information about the level of hygiene inspection charges levied on individual meat plants in other EU Member States. Once I have received this information, I will write to the hon. Member.

  Biotechnical Industry
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the biotechnical companies which have placed staff(a) on secondment and (b) on placement within his Department since 1 May 1997. [74842]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 March 1999]: Secondments and attachments are part of the Interchange Initiative which promotes the exchange of people and
  640
  good practice between the Civil Service and other organisations. All sectors of the economy are involved: Voluntary, Education, Health, Public and Private.

  No biotechnical companies have placed staff (a) on secondment or (b) on placement within this Department since 1 May 1997.

  Pig Industry
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure that the pig industry in other member states in the European Union is competing with the British pig industry on equal terms in respect of animal welfare. [75894]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 March 1999]: Pig producers in all EU member states are required to comply with the minimum welfare standards laid down in EU Directive 91/630/EEC. We will continue to press the Commission to come forward with proposals to update EU welfare standards to at least those currently applying in the UK.

  Organic Aid Scheme
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to narrow the definition of unimproved land for the purpose of calculating organic aid scheme entitlements; and what estimate he has made of the effect of such a change on the total grants payable under the organic aid scheme. [76754]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 15 March 1999]: The regulations introducing the Organic Farming Scheme were laid before the House on 11 March. The new scheme, which follows a comprehensive review, includes aid for an 'unimproved land' category. I have no immediate plans to carry out a further review of aid rates.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations Ministers in his Department have received on genetically modified organisms and the biotechnology industry from the US Government. [72760]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 1 March 1999]: Genetically modified organisms and the biotechnology industry have been discussed on three occasions by Ministers in this Department and representatives of the US Government since May 1997. These discussions took place during meetings between my right hon. Friend the previous Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the US Ambassador to London on 26 November 1997; and between my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and (a) the US Trade Representative, Ambassador Barshefsky, on 23 October 1998 and (b) Mr. Dan Glickman, the US Agriculture Secretary, on 22 January 1999.

TREASURY

  Green-field Development
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to introduce a tax on the development of green-field land. [68800]
  641
  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 9 February 1999]: The Government keep under review the scope for using economic instruments to complement the planning system.

  Customs and Excise (Plymouth)
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the future of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise units in Plymouth. [75515]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 10 March 1999]: Plymouth is a strategic base for Customs work to tackle smuggling and there are currently no plans to change that position.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made on the financial saving arising from the closure of the Drug Dog Unit and the Customs Intelligence Unit in Plymouth. [75514]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 10 March 1999]: The Customs Drug Dog Unit in Plymouth is still operational. Customs managers in the South West are currently reviewing the position and a number of options is currently being considered. No final decision has yet been taken.

  Tobacco Sales (Belgium)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with tobacco warehouse owners in Belgium about sales to United Kingdom customers; and if he will make a statement. [R] [73283]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 26 February 1999]: None.

  Select Committee Reports
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if(a) he, (b) civil servants in his Department or (c) special advisers in his Department have (i) had sight of drafts of Select Committee reports, in whole or in part, or (ii) been informed of conclusions of select committee reports prior to their publication by the select committees. [75867]

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he or any of his Ministers or his Department's Parliamentary Private Secretaries, advisers or civil servants discussed the contents of the Social Security Committee's report on Child Benefit with any members of the Committee prior to publication of the report; [76079]

  (2) if he or any of his Ministers or his Department's parliamentary Private Secretaries, advisers or civil servants received copies of the Social Security Committee's report on Child Benefit prior to its publication; [76077]

  (3) if he or any of his Ministers or his Department's parliamentary Private Secretaries, advisers or civil servants received any copies of a draft report of the Social Security Committee on Child Benefit. [76078]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answers 10 and 11 March 1999]: Most of the Treasury's business is dealt with by the Treasury Select Committee, and Treasury Ministers have given evidence to the Committee on
  642
  several occasions. I have also given oral evidence to the International Development Committee and to the House of Lords Committees on European Legislation and on the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England. Neither I nor any other Treasury Minister have seen copies or drafts of any report prepared by these Committees prior to their release.

  Because the Social Security Committee normally deals with the work of DSS, there have been informal discussions between the Treasury and the Committee on how co-operation can best be achieved. The Committee has been anxious to work with the Treasury in two areas: integration of tax and benefits, and child benefit. To discuss tax and benefits, Treasury and Inland Revenue officials have given oral evidence to the Committee. There was also an informal meeting at 11 Downing Street between the whole Committee and myself. More recently, there have been discussions about how best the Treasury can assist the work of the Committee in matters related to the taxation of child benefit. One issue has been detailed questions about the practicalities of implementing arrangements for taxing child benefit. I have talked to the Chairman of the Committee about Treasury officials and Ministers giving evidence; and Treasury and Inland Revenue officials gave evidence on 24 February 1999. It was agreed that, if requested, a Treasury Minister would appear before the Committee following the Budget. A preliminary draft of a report was given to my Parliamentary Private Secretary, but not the final report. Neither I nor any other Treasury Minister was given or read any copy of reports, draft or otherwise, prior to their release.

  Children's Tax Credit
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the children's tax credit allowance will be available for use against investment income. [76657]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 15 March 1999]: The children's tax credit will reduce the income tax liability of the person claiming the credit up to a set amount. In 2001–02, that amount will be £4,160 at 10 per cent. It will be available to be set against income tax due on earnings and on other sources of income.

  Tax Investigation Notices
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many investigation notices dated 31 January 1999 were issued by the Inland Revenue concerning 1996–97 tax affairs; and if he will make a statement on the implications for revenue collection. [75413]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 9 March 1999]: A small number of inquiry notices—around 100—were issued on 31 January 1999. In any case where an inquiry notice concerning the Self Assessment tax return for 1996–97 was issued, local tax offices have been advised to inform taxpayers and their agents and to discontinue the inquiry.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of businesses in
  643
  (a) Tamworth and (b) Staffordshire who will benefit from the reduction in corporation tax scheduled for April 1999; and if he will make a statement. [75657]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 9 March 1999]: Nationally about 400,000 companies have a corporation tax liability each year. All will benefit from the cuts in the main and small companies' rates of corporation tax scheduled for April 1999, including an estimated 2,200 of the companies dealt with by the Walsall tax office, which covers Tamworth, and 4,000 of the companies dealt with by tax offices in Staffordshire. Other tax-paying companies trading in these areas will also benefit.

  The 1 per cent. reduction in corporation tax rates scheduled for April 1999 builds on the 2 per cent. reduction introduced by this Government from April 1997 and will promote enterprise and encourage investment. The United Kingdom's main rate of corporation tax is the lowest of any major industrialised country.

  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate he has made of how many businesses in the Wakefield District will benefit from changes in corporation tax which were(a) agreed and (b) proposed since 1 May 1997; [74039]

  (2) what estimate he has made of how many businesses in Hemsworth constituency will benefit from changes in the rate of corporation tax which were (i) agreed and (ii) proposed since 1 May 1997. [74040]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Nationally about 400,000 companies have a corporation tax liability each year. All will benefit from the cuts in the main and small companies' rates of corporation tax, including an estimated 700 of the companies dealt with by the Wakefield tax office and 400 of the companies dealt with by the Pontefract tax office which covers Hemsworth. Other tax-paying companies trading in these areas will also benefit.

  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many businesses in Barnsley and Doncaster will benefit from the proposed reduction in corporation tax scheduled for April. [73371]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Nationally about 400,000 companies have a corporation tax liability each year. All will benefit from the cuts in the main and small companies' rates of corporation tax, including an estimated 1,500 of the companies dealt with by the Barnsley and Doncaster tax offices. Other taxpaying companies trading in the Barnsley and Doncaster areas will also benefit.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate(a) the number of people liable for CGT and (b) the total revenue raised if the individual allowance threshold was raised to (i) £10,000, (ii) £13,600 and (iii) £20,000. [R] [74064]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 2 March 1999]: The March 1999 Budget proposes an Annual Exempt Amount of £7,100 for the tax year 1999–2000, at which level it is projected that 200,000 taxpayers will have capital gains tax liabilities of £3.6 billion. These estimates exclude companies as their capital gains are charged to corporation tax. The effect of raising the Annual Exempt Amount to the specified levels is shown in the table.

  644

  Change to

  Annual Exempt Amount

  Number of taxpayers (thousand)

  Capital gain tax liabilities (£ million)

  £10,000

  –55

  –90

  £13,600

  –90

  –180

  £20,000

  –125

  –310

  1 These estimates take into account the likely effect on capital gains tax yield of changes to volume of disposals in the year brought about by changes to taxpayer behaviour

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the amount of CGT revenue which will be collected in respect of the financial year 1998–99; and what will be the cost of collection. [R] [74062]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 2 March 1999]: The latest available information is given in the table. Information on the cost of collecting Capital Gains Tax in 1998–99 is not available.

  Capital Gains Tax

  £ million

  Year

  Net receipts1

  Cost of collection2

  1997–98

  1,453

  33.4

  1998–99

  32,400

  4—

  1 Excludes tax on gains of companies which are charged to Corporation Tax

  2 Relates mainly to the costs arising from gains to individuals and trustees but some other costs (mainly of land valuations for companies) cannot be separately identified and are included in the collection costs of capital gains tax

  3 Provisional estimate

  4 Not available

  Stamp Duty (Shares)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with his European colleagues about rates of stamp duty on shares in other EU states. [R] [74061]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 2 March 1999]: My right hon. Friend has frequent discussions with his EU counterparts covering a wide range of matters.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the amount of revenue (i) collected in financial years(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98 and (ii) projected for 1998–99 in respect of stamp duty on shares; and what was the cost of collection. [R] [74065]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 2 March 1999]: The figures are as follows:

  Stamp duty (including stamp duty reserve tax) on transactions of shares and other securities

  £ million

  Year

  Net receipts

  Cost of collection

  1996–97

  1,408

  1.0

  1997–98

  1,960

  1.4

  1998–99 (provisional estimate)

  2,600

  1.4

  645

  Premium Bonds
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the maximum allowed holding of Premium Bonds in each year since 1969. [75944]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 11 March 1999]: The maximum holding of Premium Bonds in 1969 was £1,250. Since then it has been increased as follows:

  £

  1 April 1971

  2,000

  11 September 1978

  3,000

  21 April 1980

  10,000

  13 April 1993

  20,000

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the role of professional lobbyists in formulating policy in his Department. [74367]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 4 March 1999]: Any contacts with lobbyists by Ministers and civil servants in this Department are conducted in accordance with the "Ministerial Code" and "Guidance for Civil Servants: Contact with Lobbyists."

  Fiscal Policy
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he plans to publish the paper "Fiscal Policy: Public Finances and the Cycle", referred to in the November 1998 Pre-Budget report (Cm 4076), paragraph B24; and if he will make a statement. [75353]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 8 March 1999]: The paper "Fiscal Policy: Public Finances and the Cycle" was published with other documentation on Budget day, 9 March 1999.

  KPMG
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the services that KPMG have performed for his Department(a) since 1 May 1997 and (b) in the corresponding period prior to 1 May 1997, indicating the remuneration made in each case. [72014]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]: The services carried out by KPMG for HM Treasury during the periods requested are as follows:

  £000

  Services provided since 1 May 1997

  Windfall Tax Consultancy

  13

  Review of National Savings

  6

  General consultancy and secondments

  26

  Services provided between April 1996 and April 1997

  General consultancy and secondments

  69

  Study on possibility of market testing forecasting function

  39

  646

  Insurance Premium Tax
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of insurance policies which will be taxed at the new rate of insurance premium tax announced in his 1999 Budget. [76453]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 15 March 1999]: No estimate is available of the number of policies affected.

  714 Certificates
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of current holders of a 714 certificate who will not be eligible to hold a tax certificate under the Construction Industry scheme. [74157]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 3 March 1999]: We believe that around 200,000 subcontractors currently holding 714 certificates are unlikely to qualify for gross payment certificates under the Construction Industry Scheme as a result of the new turnover test.

  Pensions (Taxation)
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which of the Ministers in his Department has responsibility for policy towards the taxation regime for pensions. [75004]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 8 March 1999]: Decisions on taxation are taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the financial stability of the Republic of Cyprus following that country's application for membership of the European Union. [76054]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government keep the economic and financial position of all the applicants to the EU, including the Republic of Cyprus, under constant review.

  European Central Bank
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with his European partners on increasing the democratic accountability of the European Central Bank. [74878]

  Ms Hewitt
  Article 109b(3) of the Maastricht Treaty contains several provisions designed to balance the necessary independence of the European Central Bank with the need for democratic accountability.

  The Government believe that accountability and transparency in policy/making will be key to ensuring that the European Central Bank gains the trust of the European public and financial markets. Ultimately, it will help to provide the credibility needed to deliver a more effective monetary policy.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if(a) the European central bank and (b) other Community bodies can prevent the accession of a member state on

  647
  EMU-related grounds where that prospective member state has declined to negotiate an opt-out from full economic and monetary union acquis. [74441]

  Ms Hewitt
  According to Article O of the Treaty on European Union, applications for membership of the Union are considered by the Council of Ministers, after consulting the Commission, and after receiving the assent of the European Parliament. The conditions of admission are then for agreement between Member States and the applicant state.

  Exchange Rate (Euro)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what criteria he will use to decide the appropriate exchange rate for the pound against the euro for the United Kingdom's entry into the monetary union; and what is his strategy for(a) achieving and (b) maintaining that rate. [74877]

  Ms Hewitt
  The rate at which sterling would enter the single currency would need to be consistent with economic fundamentals in the UK and compatible with sustainable convergence between the UK and the euro-area. This was the basis for the decision on the conversion rates of currencies which joined in the first wave.

  The Government's policy is for a stable and competitive exchange-rate over the medium term. The Government's fiscal and monetary policy framework will help to deliver the macroeconomic stability needed for a stable exchange rate.

  Stability Programme
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library a copy of the Options on the Stability Programme of the UK, agreed in the ECOFIN Council of 8 February. [75052]

  Ms Hewitt
  A copy of the ECOFIN opinion on the 1998 UK Convergence Programme has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Trustee Investments Act 1961
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he plans to bring forward a proposal under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 to amend the Trustee Investments Act 1961. [74962]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government accept in principle the case for reform of the Trustee Investments Act 1961. But any reform must provide a complete and lasting solution, which is not likely to be achieved without primary legislation. The Government are committed to reform in a number of areas and already have a full programme of legislation implementing their key policy priorities. The Government will keep the position under review and seek to make progress at the earliest opportunity.
  648

  Income Taxpayers (Scotland)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of income taxpayers in Scotland. [75508]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 5 March 1999,Official Report, column 966.

  US-UK Double Tax Treaty
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current position of the re-negotiations of the US/UK double tax treaty. [76603]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Talks at official level were held in Washington in January 1999. It was agreed that a further round of talks would be held in May.

  Smuggling
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he is putting into effect to reduce the smuggling of alcohol and tobacco into the UK. [76621]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) on 10 February 1999,Official Report, column 256–58.

  Pensioner Incomes
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many pensioners living in the Greater London area have annual incomes in excess of(a) £10,000, (b) £15,000, (c) £20,000 and (d) £25,000. [75719]

  Ms Hewitt
  The latest Survey of Personal Incomes indicates that there were about 200,000 pensioners living in the Greater London area in 1996–97 with annual incomes in excess of £10,000 per annum. Of these, some 110,000 had annual incomes about £15,000, about 65,000 had incomes above £20,000 and 40,000 had incomes above £25,000.

  Euro Zone Trade
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the balance of(a) visible and (b) invisible trade between the euro zone member countries by the rest of EU for each of the last 10 years. [74129]

  Ms Hewitt
  Data on trade in goods within the EU are available in the publication "External and Intra-European Union Trade" published by Eurostat. Data on trade in services in the EU are available in the Eurostat publication, "International Trade In Services". Both of these publications are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the costs of upgrading Government computer systems to facilitate the National Changeover Plan for United Kingdom participation in the single currency. [73600]
  649
  Ms Hewitt
  The overall cost of a UK changeover would depend on the approach taken to the changeover. By planning ahead, we can keep costs to the whole economy to a minimum.

  European Commission
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate his Department has made of the cost of expanding the staff of the European Commission as proposed in the Commission's internal policy spending review; what grades of post are proposed; and if he will make a statement on(a) their purpose and (b) his Department's policy on the proposals. [72530]

  Ms Hewitt
  I would expect any proposals for additional staff for the European Commission to be made in the usual way as part of the Commission's preliminary draft budget for 2000, or as a supplementary amending budget for 1999. No such proposals have been made. In assessing the merits of any proposals for new staff the Government will consider, inter alia, the priority of the tasks new staff are intended to fulfil, the extent to which redeployment has or could be used to meet additional needs, and the availability of additional resources.

  VAT
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will assess the benefits of applying a reduced rate of VAT for services with high labour intensity. [74401]

  Dawn Primarolo
  We understand that the Commission will shortly be bringing forward proposals on experimental reduced rates of VAT on labour-intensive services. We shall consider them when they have been received.

  London Inland Revenue
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many inquiries the London Inland Revenue Mobile Advice Centre has handled; and if he will make a statement. [74550]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue Mobile Advice Centre has handled 1,984 inquiries since it was brought into service on 21 October 1998.

  Shipping Tax
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to introduce a tonnage-based tax regime for UK shipping. [75523]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Chancellor has announced that Lord Alexander of Weedon will conduct an independent study of the national and international issues.

  Computers for the Blind
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to zero-rate for VAT computers fitted with screen readers and voice synthesisers for blind people. [74628]
  650
  Dawn Primarolo
  People who are blind can already purchase at the zero-rate of VAT goods which are designed solely for use by a handicapped person. This includes specialised software and hardware for use with computers.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment he has made of the impact of the operation of tapers on working families tax credit benefits; [69936]

  (2) what factors underlay the setting of the maximum credit limit on working families tax credit; [69688]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the impact on poorer income groups of the change from the family credit programme to the working families tax credit programme. [70276]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Working Families Tax Credit, which builds on Family Credit, will have a higher withdrawal threshold and a flatter taper. These improvements will ease the poverty trap by allowing people to keep more of what they earn as they increase their earnings.

CABINET OFFICE

  Minister for Science
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to his answer of 26 February 1999,Official Report, column 455, concerning meetings on genetically modified foods and crops, for what reason the Minister for Science left the meeting. [75541]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  [holding answer 9 March 1999]: My noble Friend the Minister for Science set out his reasons for withdrawing from Government decisions or discussions relating to genetically modified food and crop policy in his statement of 16 February. This stated:
  "At the time I became a Minister I stated in the press statement I issued that while all my shares in J. Sainsbury plc would be placed in a blind trust, the size of my shareholding in the Company meant that it was likely that I would retain a beneficial interest in the Company via the blind trust. I therefore said that I would stand aside from decisions or discussions having any specific effect on the company."

  Electronic Red Boxes
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will name the Ministers in his Department who are regular users of electronic Red Boxes. [76173]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The original electronic red box was essentially a laptop computer built into the traditional red box casing. It provided a useful symbol and demonstration to raise the profile of information-age government.

  Experimentation with this device showed its useful facility was the secure connection that allowed non-sensitive documents and information to be emailed between the Private Office and the Minister. However, development of the Government Secure Intranet and other

  651
  research, is examining alternative ways to provide this capacity.

  Brit Awards
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list those Ministers in his Department 652
  who were present at the recent Brit awards in an official capacity, indication the organisation action as their sponsor or host. [76648]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  [holding answer 15 March 1999]: No Ministers in my Department attended the recent Brit awards.