asked Her Majesty's Government:What steps they are taking for Spain to conform with its 5 February 1985 agreement to open fully the land frontier with Gibraltar, bearing in mind present restrictions, and its agreement to operate red and green customs channels.

We continue to urge Spain to provide sufficient staff to ensure that delays are kept to a minimum, and to implement its proposal in 1985 to establish red and green channels. Spain has the right to carry out customs checks because Gibraltar is outside the Community Customs Territory.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether Tunisia is receiving consideration in Brussels as a potential member of the European Union.

It is not.

asked Her Majesty's Government:What funding from United Kingdom sources will be available to the Department for International Development for its activities overseas, and what those sources will be.

The resources for the Department for International Development remain as those shown for the ODA in table 36 of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office 1997 Departmental Report (CM 3603). The figures reflect the ODA allocation in the last Public Expenditure Survey and the level of anticipated appropriations-in-aid from past aid loans which DFID are permitted to reallocate in the Development Assistance programme.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether the article by the Secretary of State for International Development, Miss Clare Short, published in the

The article was a personal comment by the Secretary of State for International Development based on the Government's determination to seek an effective international ban on anti-personnel landmines at the earliest possible opportunity and to seek more rapid progress in demining.

asked Her Majesty's Government:What actions they and the water companies are taking on the 10-point plan which was announced at the recent Water Summit.

Each water company has now responded in a generally positive and constructive way to our proposals for action. Copies of each company's response have been placed in the Libraries of the House, together with a short analysis of them prepared by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.All water companies will now provide free supply pipe leakage detection and repair services to their household customers. Eight of the smaller companies have told us that they will limit the number of free repairs to any one service pipe. Two other of the smaller companies have decided to replace leaking supply pipes free of charge.All companies are taking action to promote water efficiency. All tell us that they are making significant efforts in the provision of water saving devices. Most are actively distributing devices to reduce toilet flush volumes or else are making them available free on request. A very few companies have decided to conduct trials before committing themselves to widespread promotion; they should take very careful note of what the majority of companies have done and are doing. Most water companies already offer free water efficiency audits to household customers. The remainder are developing or evaluating the service they intend to offer and we want them to go firm very soon. All water companies confirmed that they have in place a wide variety of measures to encourage water efficient gardening. All companies see clear roles for the Environmental Task Force in promoting water efficiency.In addition to the 14 companies which had already done so, eight companies have indicated that they are now prepared to conclude formal arrangements with the Director General of Water Services in respect of their compensation schemes for drought-related supply interruptions. We want to see these eight licence amendments made by October. We also want the six other companies which indicated that they are minded to accept licence amendments to resolve their reservations with the Director General and to have the amendment process agreed by the same time. That also applies to the one company which still declares itself unable to accept licence amendment. All companies have expressed a willingness to consider compensation payments if they have to issue advice to boil or refrain from using mains water for reasons within their control.Those companies which have not already done so are now moving to agree with the Environment Agency a publicly available drought contingency plan. We are pleased that the industry is united in taking this action in advance of our bringing forward legislation to make it a statutory requirement when parliamentary time allows.We asked companies to do more to explain to their customers their water supply performance targets and how well they are being met. Altogether, we believe that companies are taking appropriate action. But none should rest contented with their efforts.We shall be looking for sustained commitment to all of these actions. So my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions will he writing to all companies again in November, asking for an update on the various activities and initiatives they have described.We have kept to our part of the plan. At its head was tough action by the Director General of Water Services on leakage. He wrote to all water companies on 22 May, setting out the process by which he will establish mandatory targets.We said that we would make new water regulations which would include significantly tighter requirements for water efficiency. The proposed recommendations of the Government's Water Regulations Advisory Committee were published for consultation on 19 June. We also announced that we would be conducting two reviews. My right honourable friend the Minister for the Environment announced on 25 June the launch of a review of the water charging system in England and Wales.Yesterday, we launched the review of the water abstraction licensing system in England and Wales. A key aim will be to ensure that abstraction licensing and related processes provide full protection for the environment while enabling fair and flexible arrangements for meeting properly managed demand for water resources. This review will be conducted jointly by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Welsh Office, in consultation with the Environment Agency and the Office of Water Services. We have written to interested organisations, inviting their representations on a wide range of issues associated with water abstraction. A copy of this letter has also been placed in the Libraries of the House.

asked Her Majesty's Government:When they will publish the report of the Chief Inspector of Marine Accidents into the grounding and subsequent salvage of the tanker "Sea Empress" at Milford Haven in February 1996.

My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions is publishing the report by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch on the grounding and subsequent salvage of the tanker "Sea Empress" at Milford Haven between 15 and 21 February 1996 today. A copy has been placed in the Library. The report will be distributed by the Stationery Office. It is open for public comment for a period of six weeks. Thereafter, the Government will issue a detailed response to the report. In the meantime officials at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will begin a review of the 1987 Pilotage Act. Lord Donaldson of Lymington has also been asked to conduct an independent review of salvage and intervention operations and their command and control, having satisfied himself that the Marine Accident Investigation Branch's report provides a reasonable basis for his review. Lord Donaldson's review will form part of the Government's ongoing review of the National Contingency Plan for Marine Pollution. The detailed terms of reference of these reviews will be announced later.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they intend to return the areas occupied by the counties of Middlesbrough and Redcar and Cleveland to the County of North Yorkshire.

For ceremonial purposes, the counties of Middlesbrough and Redcar and Cleveland are deemed to form part of the ceremonial County of North Yorkshire County Council.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Further to the Answers given by Baroness Jay of Paddington on 3 July (H.L. Deb., cols 298–301) whether they consider that it is lawful for a doctor or nurse whose primary intention is the relief of severe distress (as distinct from pain), and not the deliberate shortening of the patient's life, to give medication to a terminally ill patient, in accordance with the patient's wishes, to relieve such severe distress, even though the likely consequences may be the shortening of the patient's life.

We are unaware of any case law which elaborates on what is meant by relief of pain and suffering or distress but consider that, as part of good health care, both physical and mental suffering may require treatment. In my Answer on 3 July I referred to the case of Regina v Cox and we have the judge's comments to guide us. In summing up the evidence the judge said, "If a doctor genuinely believes that a certain course is beneficial to his patient, either therapeutically or analgesically, then even though he recognises that that course carries with it a risk to life, he is fully entitled, nonetheless to pursue it. If in those circumstances the patient dies, nobody could possibly suggest that in that situation the doctor was guilty of murder or attempted murder". He went on to say: "What can never be lawful is the use of drugs with the primary purpose of hastening the moment of death".

asked Her Majesty's Government:What are the legal obligations local authorities have towards the funding and support of asylum seekers.

A judgment given in the High Court on 8 October 1996 (Regina v City of Westminster and others, ex parte A, P, M & X) held that asylum seekers who are excluded from receiving social security benefits and housing under the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 may be eligible for residential accommodation under Section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948. This judgment was upheld by the Court of Appeal in February 1997. Local authorities have no power or duty to provide food to asylum seekers for whom they are not providing residential accommodation (Regina v London Borough of Newham ex parte Gorenkin) or to provide money for the purchase of food or other items to people for whom they are providing residential accommodation (Regina v Secretary of State for Health ex parte London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, K, A & M, 9 July 1997).There are no special provisions for the children of asylum seekers in the Children Act 1989. If they are "in need" within the meaning of Section 17 of the Act, their local authority will be obliged to provide services under Part III of the Act, with a view to safeguarding and promoting their welfare. The obligation on the local authority in this respect is the same as for any other child in need.The definition of a child in need is set out in Section 17(10) and, if an unaccompanied asylum-seeking child falls within that definition, authorities have the same duties to provide services for that child, which may include the provision of accommodation, as for any other in their area who may be in need.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they intend to make regulations to satisfy the outstanding fire safety requirements of the European Community Framework and Workplace Directives.

Yes. After consultation with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland we intend shortly to make suitable regulations. These will build on those proposals on which consultation was completed last year and will be accompanied by a simple guidance package. We hope to lay the regulations before Parliament rises for the Summer Recess. My honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth) understands from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that she intends to lay equivalent regulations for Northern Ireland before the end of the year.

asked Her Majesty's Government:What plans they have for consultation on the intrusive surveillance code of practice required under Part HI of the Police Act 1997.

On 14 July, my honourable friend the Minister of State (Mr. Michael) signed an order to commence Section 101 of the Police Act 1997 on 5 August 1997. This will allow the public consultation exercise to begin on that date. Officials will send copies of the draft code of practice to a number of individuals and organisations, inviting their comments by the end of September. Copies will be placed in the Library and additional copies of the draft code are obtained from the Home Office.

asked Her Majesty's Government:What changes are being made in the handling of applications from refugees and displaced persons from the former Yugoslavia following the Dayton Peace Agreement.

All applications for asylum will continue to be considered on their individual merits within the terms of the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.Since 1992 exceptional leave to remain has been granted to those who came from Bosnia but did not qualify for refugee status. The situation now, following the Dayton Agreement and subsequent developments, makes that policy unnecessary and the United Nations High Commission for Refugees has recently said that certain categories of persons could reasonably be expected to return to Bosnia.The Government share the United Nations High Commission for Refugees' hope that many Bosnians will wish to return home voluntarily. However, leave will not be withdrawn from Bosnians already granted exceptional leave to remain on having been refused refugee status, nor from former Yugoslays admitted under the Temporary Protection Programme, and, subject to personal acceptability, extensions of stay will normally be granted.

asked Her Majesty's Government:What plans they have to improve joint working between the prison and probation services.

It is very important that the prison and probation services work together closely and effectively. They are both responsible for protecting the public from harm; and, where prisoners are released from sentences which are served partly in custody and partly in the community, they are subject to probation service supervision. There need to be the best possible arrangements for sharing information about prisoners and co-ordinating effort on risk assessment, resettlement planning and programmes directed to reducing offending and dealing with problems, such as drug or alcohol misuse, which get in the way of successful rehabilitation.We therefore intend to look at ways in which the better integration of the two services could improve their performance and effectiveness. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has asked my honourable friend the Member for Gateshead East and Washington West, who has ministerial responsibility for both services within the Home Office, to lead this work. This will include looking at the structure and organisation of the probation service to complement the review of the prison service which is now under way.A system of punishment which is effective, credible and commands public confidence requires both community and custodial sentences to work, and to work together. Having considered the options for improving on present arrangements, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will consult all concerned before deciding on the best way forward.The detailed terms of reference of this review are as follows:To identify and assess options for closer and more integrated work between the prison service and the probation services of England and Wales, including any implications for the structure, organisation, management, working practices, human resources, funding and legislation governing the functions of those services;To examine international models reflecting good practice and to identify any lessons concerning the effectiveness and efficiency, organisation and management structures exhibited by those models;To provide a preliminary analysis of the options identified, including the estimated costs and benefits, as a basis for consultation.This review will in due course form part of the Comprehensive Spending Review.

asked Her Majesty's Government:What plans they have in relation to under age alcohol misuse, with particular reference to alcopops.

My honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth) is publishing tomorrow the conclusions of the Ministerial Group on alcopops. A copy of the group's statement will be placed in the Library tomorrow at 10.30 am.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether, in assessing the performance of the Child Support Agency, they will compare the amount of maintenance recovered not only with the amounts required under British legislation, but also with the sums actually recovered in other comparable countries.

Absent parents should pay the maintenance they owe, and we will ensure that the Child Support Agency takes appropriate action to ensure that they do. We do keep in touch with developments with other countries and to make comparisons where appropriate. However, direct comparisons with other countries can be difficult since no two systems are the same and the respective debts may be calculated differently. In the United States of America, for example, there are broad Federal guidelines for child support within which states are free to develop their own systems, which may include a large amount of discretion over the child support levied. In Australia, only that portion of the debt (excluding charges and penalties broadly equivalent to Interim Maintenance Assessments) estimated to be collectible is reported.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they will entertain the possibility that some absent parents assessed for maintenance under the Child Support Act may be unable rather than unwilling to pay the sums assessed on them.

The Government believe that children are entitled to the support of both parents and the Child Support scheme is designed to provide levels of maintenance which absent parents can realistically afford. The protected income provisions ensure that absent parents and their current families are at least £30 a week better off after payment of maintenance than they would be if receiving income support, and there are additional provisions to restrict the maximum amount of current maintenance to 30 per cent. of the absent parent's net income. The Departures system introduced in December 1996 also enables the formula assessment to be varied in prescribed circumstances.