Sitting of 7 July 1992

Preamble
The House met at half past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) (No. 4) BILL [Lords]
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
  PRICE'S PATENT CANDLE COMPANY LIMITED BILL [Lords]
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
  GREATER NOTTINGHAM LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT BILL
  Ordered,
  That the Committee on the Greater Nottingham Light Rapid Transit Bill have leave to visit and inspect the site of the proposed works, and any sites which have been proposed as alternatives, provided that no evidence shall be taken in the course of such visit and that any party who has made an appearance before the Committee be permitted to attend by his Counsel, Agent or other representative.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  EMPLOYMENT

    Industrial Action
    Mr. Day: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures the Government are considering to enable action to be taken against unlawful industrial action.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Forsyth): We intend to give people who are denied goods or services because of unlawful industrial action a new right to go to court to have it stopped.
    Mr. Day: Does my hon. Friend agree that the measure to which he referred will greatly improve industrial relations in this country? Does he also agree that it will help us to attract even more inward investment into this country?
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my hon. Friend. The effect of our step-by-step approach to the reform of industrial relations has seen this year the lowest number of days lost through strike action ever recorded. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of that in respect of inward investment. We in this country enjoy 62 per cent. of United States investment into the European Community and more than 40 per cent. of Japanese investment. That is a testimony to the success of the Government's policies in that area.
    Mr. Ashton: Is the Minister aware that if the French Government had taken the lorry drivers to court, they would be out on strike for another week? Is he aware that unofficial action is best settled by negotiations and not by the kind of violence that we saw during the miners' strike, the poll tax riots in Trafalgar square and the incidents that we saw at Wapping? Negotiation is the best way to settle any industrial dispute.
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the law in France is, in many respects, far tougher than the law in this country. He must not tempt me down that path. I agree with him that negotiation is always the best way to resolve disputes. They should not result in industrial action. The success of the Government's policy has been to avoid industrial action by creating a climate in which the unions have been given back to their members and are no longer subject to the whims of the trade union barons from whom the Labour party seems keen to distance itself.

    Skillcheck Scheme
    Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress has been made with the skillcheck scheme.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): The consultative document, which the White Paper "People, Jobs and Opportunity" promised, has been issued and will he discussed with representatives of training and enterprise councils and other interested parties in the next month.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that in addition to the progress of the skillcheck scheme, it is right to welcome the development of the national training targets as an example of the combination of thinking from training and education leaders and business leaders in the community? The achievements of those targets is well worth while and will be helped by the development of training agencies such as Beneast in my constituency.
    Mr. McLoughlin: We are doing a considerable amount to encourage the attainment of those targets. My hon. Friend rightly identified the importance that the Government attach to them. They are not Government targets, but they are targets to which we subscribe.

    Training Expenditure
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the Government's expenditure on training for 1992–93.
    Mr. McLoughlin: The Government expect to spend £2·7 billion on training, enterprise and vocational education in 1992–93.
    Mr. Williams: Will the Minister comment on the report in The Sunday Times that the Government, because of their problems with public expenditure, are considering scrapping payments of up to £35 a week to young people on the youth training scheme?
    Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman should not believe everything that he reads in The Sunday Times.
    Sir Dudley Smith: Is it not a fact that, irrespective of expenditure, the quality of training has improved immeasurably in the past five years?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is quite right. We attach great importance to training and to the results that people who take training courses achieve at the end of them. Obviously, we must ask a number of questions. I am satisfied that youth training fulfils an important role for young people.
    Mr. Steinberg: Is the Minister aware that, this year, Durham training and enterprise council has invested about £1 million and at the same time has drastically cut training for special needs? Does he agree that that is absolutely disgraceful, and will he make representations to Durham 'TEC to put that right?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I know that Durham TEC will meet its youth training guarantee, and the Government are determined that that should be done. It is for a local TEC to decide its operation. If the hon. Gentleman has a specific complaint, obviously I will look at it and take it up with the relevant TEC.

    Employment Action
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what support the trade unions are offering in the employment action programme.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: I regret to say that the Trades Union Congress voted last September to oppose employment action. [Interruption.] That is a programme
    166
    which helps the unemployed to maintain their skills while undertaking temporary work which is of benefit to the whole community.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that progress by the National Association of Local Government Officers and other unions is destroying employment action projects in Cirencester and Tewkesbury? Does he agree that the Opposition's criticisms would be better directed at their trade union friends and not at the Government, who are fully committed to doing everything that they possibly can to create as many jobs as possible?
    Mr. Forsyth: I was aware of the difficulties that have been created with Gloucestershire county council in respect of programmes under employment action. I hope that the whole country will have heard Opposition Members' cheers at the decision by the TUC to boycott a programme which is geared to helping people who are unemployed and helping communities by providing projects of that kind. I hope also that Opposition Members will recognise that the Transport and General Workers Union, which sponsors the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), also voted at its previous conference to boycott youth training and employment training. So let us have no more humbug from Opposition Members that they are concerned about those programmes.
    Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister agree that we had community programmes which provided jobs that were worth while to the community at reasonable wages, then we had employment training, which provided work with no wages but some training, but that employment action is a combination of the worst features of both, combining no training with no wages? Employment action is not a new idea: it is a very old idea—called slavery.
    Mr. Forsyth: That is one of the silliest questions that I have heard in the House. The hon. Gentleman should know that people on employment action are paid benefit plus £10. Exactly the same applies to those on employment training. The hon. Gentleman does a great disservice to the many thousands of people who are engaged in running those programmes to help the unemployed with considerable success and distinction.

    EC Working Time Directive
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what further discussions she has had with her EC counterparts on the proposed 48-hour-week directive.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): I last met my European Community counterparts to discuss the 48-hour working week and other matters on 24 June at the Social Affairs Council.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the working time proposals challenge the concept of subsidiarity? Does she intend to challenge that directive in the European Court?
    Mrs. Shephard: The Government have always made it absolutely clear that they see no need for that directive. We do not want that directive. I remind my hon. Friend that

    167
    there is no directive, but if there should be a directive we would certainly reserve the right to challenge its legal base in the European Court.
    Mr. Stevenson: Is the Secretary of State prepared to tell the House whether she discussed with her counterparts in the European Community the fact that workers in this country who are involved in perfectly legitimate industrial action can be sacked arbitrarily and that this is the only European Community country in which that disgraceful situation pertains? What action is she prepared to take about the situation?
    Mrs. Shephard: It is absolutely clear that such directives, which impose unnecessary burdens on the labour market, are the worst possible solution for employers and employees.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My right hon. Friend is aware that an exellent firm called Celtech in my constituency works four 12-hour day shifts, followed by four days off, followed by four 12-hour night shifts. If the directive came into operation the workers could voluntarily opt out of the 48-hour provision, but could they opt out of the provisions which forbid such long night shifts? That is extremely important. I have spoken to the staff and they like working those hours. They like the system, the industry likes it, and it does a good job.
    Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend is right to stress that workers in Britain like the flexibility that our labour market affords them, and that they appreciate the opportunity to work more than 48 hours a week if they so choose. Rest periods and shifts would be controlled by reference periods and there is considerable flexibility therein.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: After the recent Council of Ministers meeting, the Secretary of State told the world that she had made no concessions, but will she confirm that when the directive comes through it will establish the principle of a 48-hour maximum working week, of minimum rest breaks and of minimum holiday entitlement? In those circumstances, will she respond to the question put by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) as to whether she intended to take legal action against the directive? Or is it simply huff and puff?
    Mrs. Shephard: Perhaps I can repeat to the hon. Gentleman what I said as he does not appear to have heard me. There is no directive. I have made it clear, and I make it clear again this afternoon, that we do not see a need for a directive. We do not want a directive. That is still the case. We reserve the right to challenge it, if and when a directive is adopted. Faced with proposals subject to qualified majority voting, which the United Kingdom could not block on its own, we had to do what we could to improve the proposed directive and to prevent its most damaging effects on employers and employees. The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) and his hon. Friends would welcome those effects. We were successful in improving the directive.
    Mr. Nicholls: Did my right hon. Friend note that it was urged on her a moment ago that it should be impossible to dismiss strikers for being on strike? Will she confirm that that position is so extreme that it was not adopted even by previous Labour Administrations?
    Mrs. Shephard: I agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, the assertions made by Opposition Members in respect of the directive, other labour market matters and industrial action defy description.

    Wages Councils
    Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are her plans concerning the future of wages councils.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: The Government have made it clear on many occasions that the wages councils have no permanent place in the labour market.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Are not the Government in fact planning to rid themselves entirely of wages councils? How does the Minister reconcile the withdrawal of such little protection as is afforded by wages councils with the fantastic salaries that the heads of the formerly nationalised industries award themselves? How do those two things combine to achieve a country at ease with itself?
    Mr. Forsyth: The Government's position is clear. Wages should be negotiated between employers and employees, based on productivity, profitability and the firm's ability to provide the wages which are the subject of the negotiation. They should not be set centrally by the Government or Government bodies. The hon. Lady will recall that in the recent general election the Opposition proposed a national wage. They were soundly defeated because most people recognised that it would cost between 1 million and 2 million jobs.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my hon. Friend confirm that we have not had a national wage? Will he say how many wages councils there are? Has employment increased or fallen in those industries that have given up wages councils? Has he done a survey of small employers, who often find that it is of some help to have wages set by wages councils because it provides a way of finding a just level of pay for their employees'?
    Mr. Forsyth: I shall try to deal with all five questions. There are 26 wages councils. My hon. Friend is right to point to the falling numbers of people employed in many of the wages council industries. Some of them have names which reflect the turn of the century, such as the ostrich, fancy feather and artificial flower wages council. The flax and hemp wages council and others have disappeared. My hon. Friend is right to stress that, for the rest of this century and for the 21st century, the way forward is for wages to be negotiated according to employers' ability to pay, and reflecting local circumstances.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Minister accept that in such areas employers frequently ask that wages councils should be maintained, to protect them from unfair competition as well as to protect their work forces? Would not the Government's determination to retain the right for Britain to have its own labour market conditions ring a little more true to the unemployed and those with poor conditions if there were any evidence that the Government were prepared to do anything to guarantee the rights of the low paid?
    Mr. Forsyth: The Government's record on the low paid is second to none—[Interruption.] We have taken measures through the social security system to maintain

    169
    the income coming into the family home. If the hon. Gentleman cares to study the facts on wages councils, he will find that many people covered by them are second wage earners. Unemployment is the greatest cause of poverty, and statutory minimum wages destroy jobs and put people on the dole.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: Is my hon. Friend aware that increasing numbers of employers are becoming more concerned about the operations of the wages councils? Will he also confirm that, in so far as the councils set minimum wage levels, their operations often lead to the destruction of jobs—a fact which seems to have escaped Opposition Members before and since the election?
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my hon. Friend. He will recall that when we removed young people from the scope of the wages councils. Opposition Members predicted that it would result in falling wage levels. On the contrary, it has not and there is no evidence to sustain such a view. I repeat the point that I have tried to get across to Opposition Members—there is no point in giving people a minimum wage if the consequence is that they have no jobs.
    Mr. Blair: Will the Minister answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe)? How does he justify abandoning all forms of protection against poverty pay for the 2·5 million people who work in pubs, hotels and shops throughout the country—there are thousands in every constituency—who will lose hundreds of pounds a year and more if wages councils go? How does he justify that, when the chairmen of the utilities that the Government privatised are paying themselves telephone-figure salaries out of monopoly profits while he and his hon. Friends do nothing?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is talking poppycock. He knows perfectly well that about two thirds of the people covered by wages councils are paid more than the minimum wage set by those councils. That is an expensive, bureaucratic anachronism, which the Government have made clear has no permanent place in the labour market.

    Employment, Greater London
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many new jobs she estimates have been created in the Greater London area since 1979; and if she will make a statement.
    Mr. McLoughlin: I am afraid that the information that my hon. Friend requests is not available.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the 1,000 jobs which will shortly come on stream at the Tesco development on the former Hoover site in Perivale in my constituency'? Will he ensure that the employment services are geared to help people to get jobs on that site, which we have worked so hard for so long to obtain, and elsewhere in my constituency in Ealing and in greater London?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I am pleased to hear of the jobs being created in my hon. Friend's constituency. I assure him that the employment service will do all that it can to help to recruit for that company if the company asks it to do so.
    Mr. Gapes: Does the Minister agree that unemployment in London continues to rise week by week and day by day? Does he accept that the Government are responsible for that? Is it not time that they stopped saying that they can do nothing about it and started to take action to put people back to work?
    Mr. McLoughlin: The Government believe that one way of ensuring that employment rises is to conquer inflation, which we have taken action to do. That follows the point made by the noble Lord Callaghan that high inflation leads to high unemployment.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that even more important than curbing inflation—important though that undoubtedly is—is the necessity to get real interest rates down substantially and fast? Will that not be the best help for small, businesses, and the construction industry in particular, to offer the people of London real hope of increased employment, which is so urgently needed in the capital?
    Mr. McLoughlin: My hon. Friend will realise that that is a matter not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's comments are drawn to his attention.
    Mr. McLeish: When will the Government come clean on their employment record? Why, in December 1991, were there 191,000 fewer people in work in Britain than in 1979? More importantly, in the 18 months to December 1991, why did Germany, France, Portugal, Spain and Italy have an employment growth—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should restrict his question to the Greater London area since 1979.
    Mr. McLeish: Why, relative to the employment growth in Germany, Spain, Portugal, Italy and France of 912,000 in 18 months to December 1991, was there a drop in the number of people in employment in London between December 1981 and December 1991? After 13 years, cannot the House and the country expect the Government to be taking employment seriously?
    Mr. McLoughlin: What the Government are not prepared to do is to take lectures or sermons from the Opposition. We put our record to the test not so long ago. The Opposition put their proposals to the test; they were rejected by the electorate and ours were endorsed.

    Training
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will set out her Department's latest training initiative in Essex and Basildon.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The Essex training and enterprise council, with the Government, is playing a major role in helping people in Essex to get and keep their jobs.
    Mr. Amess: Is my right hon. Friend aware that last month I had the honour to open the Basildon job club, which has already been successful in securing jobs for a number of my constituents? Does my right hon. Friend agree that such job clubs have a vital role to play in

    171
    enabling my constituents who have been long-term unemployed to gain the confidence to return to the job market?
    Mrs. Shephard: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his continuing concern for his now famous constituency, and I am delighted that he had the pleasure and honour of opening the Basildon job club. Job clubs do a very good job in getting people back to work as fast and effectively as possible. Nearly half the people who attend job clubs go from them into employment, and I am glad to say that this year we have 220,000 places in job clubs.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Will the Secretary of State reflect on the fact that the training initiative for Essex will be irrelevant unless she stops the haemorrhaging of jobs throughout Essex? In particular, will she consider the need for training initiatives to meet the redundancies of Marconi workers in Chelmsford and the hundreds of workers facing redundancy at Ford's in Aveley and Dunton? What does she intend to do to stop the unemployment, particularly in Basildon where it has exceeded 160 per cent. in two years?
    Mrs. Shephard: I think that it has escaped the hon. Gentleman's notice, and that of many of his hon. Friends, that the Opposition's economic policies would do nothing but increase unemployment. The only way to create lasting employment is to pursue a policy of low inflation, as this Government are doing.
    The hon. Gentleman asked a specific question about what the Government were doing to help people back into jobs. Obviously, he was not listening to my previous answer, but I shall tell him what we are doing. There are increased targets for the employment service and there are 100,000 more places on employment and training programmes this year than last year, making almost 1 million in all. The effectiveness of the measures described by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) should also appeal to the hon. Gentleman if he is actually thinking of getting his constituents back to work as quickly and as effectively as possible.
    Dr. Spink: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people from Castle Point, including many from Canvey island, have to travel to beautiful Basildon to get training and further education? While Basildone does an excellent job for my people, should not provision for those services be made on Canvey island for its people? My right hon. Friend may be aware that there is not a single further education place available on Canvey island.
    Mrs. Shephard: I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend's plea for his beautiful constituency. Until such places are provided, I feel sure that his constituents will benefit from the excellent service described by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon.
    Mr. Blair: On a point of information, will the right hon. Lady tell us—I believe that her Department now has this information—how many young people in Essex arid in Britain are waiting for a training place?
    Mrs. Shephard: I do not have that information, but I shall remind the hon. Gentleman of the answer that I gave when we last had employment questions. I said that there were sufficient resources to provide youth training places for all young people and that resources need not be a
    172
    problem to training and enterprise councils. I also said that the machinery for providing those places and for cutting down queues should not fail young people.
    I am delighted to tell the hon. Gentleman that I am today putting into place new measures to establish a national system for monitoring the numbers of young people covered by the YT guarantee and seeking a place on YT. I shall shortly be discussing that matter with TEC representatives.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Denham: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action she intends to take to reduce unemployment in the Southampton travel-to-work area.
    Mr. McLoughlin: The employment service in Southampton and the Hampshire training and enterprise council deliver a wide range of employment, enterprise and training programmes to help unemployed people find the best and quickest route back to employment. The latest figures for the Southampton travel-to-work area show that there was a reduction of 298 in the number of people claiming benefit.
    Mr. Denham: Does the Minister accept that during the past three years unemployment in Southampton has risen from 7,400 to almost 13,000 and that there are now 42 unemployed claimants chasing every jobcentre vacancy? Is he aware that according to yesterday's Treasury model forecasts, my constituents can expect unemployment to rise even higher?
    May I assume that the hon. Gentleman would not attempt to cure a migraine with a hammer, and that therefore there might to an outside chance that he will realise that Government policies are creating unemployment, not solving the problem'?
    Mr. McLoughlin: No, I do not accept that. My point was that there was a reduction in the number of people claiming benefit last month. The way to ensure that employment grows is to keep inflation low and not to create artificial barriers to employment—the policy on which the Labour party fought the last election.
    Mr. Milligan: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the most serious threats to jobs in the Southampton area is the delay in completing the M3 motorway at Twyford down, which has resulted in some of the worst traffic jams in southern England? Is he further aware that if the Labour party had won the election, it would have carried out its commitment to stop all work on that motorway, which would have seriously damaged employment in Southampton?
    Will my hon. Friend convey his view, if it is his view, to our right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that that motorway should be completed as soon as possible? Jobs in Southampton are more important than butterflies on Twyford down.
    Mr. McLoughlin: I acknowledge my hon. Friend's point about the importance of infrastructure in serving particular regions. and areas. The former Member of Parliament for Southampton, Itchen, Mr. Christopher Chope, played a leading role in securing the completion of the M3, which is a great credit to him. I will convey the

    173
    points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan) to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

    16-plus Policies
    Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans she has to better co-ordinate policies for 16-plus training and education.
    Mr. McLoughlin: The jointly produced White Paper "Education and Training in the 21st Century" published in May 1991 was designed to encourage young people to develop to the best of their ability, remove barriers to opportunity, achieve higher standards and provide more choice. We are making good progress towards those aims.
    Mr. Luff: Pausing only to apologise for the split infinitive in the question in my name on the Order Paper, which I assure my hon. Friend the Minister was not in the question that I submitted to the Table Office, I invite him to congratulate all those in my constituency who have worked so hard to deliver an important part of the Government's plans for the 16-plus age group. I refer in particular to the training and enterprise council, the chamber of commerce and the wider business community. Will my hon. Friend assure me that, in the unlikely event that allegations that the YT guarantee is not being delivered in a particular area are proved to be true, he will make every effort to ensure that the guarantee is forthcoming.
    Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the praise that he rightly gives to his local training and enterprise council. I am glad that he has approached it to establish how the guarantee is operating—rather than rely on the scare stories that we often hear from Opposition Members. I assure my hon. Friend that the Government take the YT guarantee very seriously. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has just made an announcement about the way in which we shall monitor the scheme to ensure that it is delivered throughout the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Leighton: Is the Minister aware that 500 young school leavers in the London borough of Newham have no jobs, no training place and no benefits? That is the situation this year, as it was last year—and the same is projected for the future. Will the Minister give that matter his personal attention? Is he aware that his Department has received a letter inviting a Minister to the borough to study the situation on the ground? Will he make a positive response?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I am not aware of the letter to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I will check it out and I hope to respond positively to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Will my hon. Friend confirm that 60 per cent. of young people are staying on at school —the highest ever figure? In my own constituency, the Kidderminster college of further education has seen the number of full-time students rise by 10 per cent. over the past year. Is that not evidence of what occurs when colleges of further education are given greater flexibility and independence from local authorities? Ought we not to pursue that theme, with the support of industry?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I agree. The staying-on level in Hereford and Worcester is 63 per cent., which is slightly above the national average. The increase in the numbers staying on for further education are surely welcomed in all parts of the House.
    Mr. Fatchett: When all the best estimates suggest that the youth training guarantee is not being delivered to between 60,000 and 100,000 youngsters—and for many of them, that means poverty and homelessness—why do the Government not accept the figures and act upon them? Is it because the Minister is ignorant of the facts, or is he simply callously indifferent?
    Mr. McLoughlin: It is because this Minister deals with the facts that he does not recognise the hon. Gentleman's figures. They are bogus and scaremongering. We have made it clear that we want to ensure that the guarantee is met. It is a pity that a number of trade unions and Opposition Members refuse to have anything to do with the youth training guarantee.

    RADAR
    Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when she next expects to meet the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation to discuss the employment of people with special needs.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: My right hon. Friend or my noble Friend would certainly consider a request for a meeting, but none has been made.
    Mr. Clarke: Should not the Government be using their own initiative and meeting organisations such as RADAR, in which case they would be hearing of people's concerns that every Department, including the Minister's and even the Prime Minister's, is not employing people with disabilities? Is not it disgraceful that this week—the sixth anniversary of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 being passed —because the Government do not fully implement the Act, people with disabilities are not in responsible positions? May I remind the Government that they are not accepting responsibility for giving jobs to people with disabilities?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is being a little unfair, uncharacteristically so. He must not assume that we have to have a meeting with every organisation in order to maintain contact. In fact, I have just received a letter from RADAR in which it raised one or two aspects of help for the disabled which arose from our previous Question Time. The Department maintains a close liaison with such organisations.
    On the hon. Gentleman's second point, he will know from his own work in this field that there are many organisations concerned with the disabled, which are not backward in coming forward with their views and, of course, the Department seeks to respond to them. The current reorganisation taking place in the employment service is designed in part to respond to representations made to us following the consultation paper that we issued recently.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend bear it in mind that the public sector as a whole is not as good as the

    175
    private sector at employing disabled people? Will he take specific steps to encourage public sector employers to do better?
    Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend has a point. It is certainly true that the public sector has not been as successful as the private sector, but I do not think that there is any room for complacency on either side. The employment service uses whatever mechanisms are open to it to try to encourage more help and support for disabled people, but I am sure that my hon. Friend's point will be borne in mind by the organisations in the public sector that could do better.
    Mr. Worthington: Will the Minister undertake to examine the problem of youth training for those with special needs because the cost of training such people is legitimately high? At present all over Scotland—and, I am sure, elsewhere—there are signs that in future it will not be possible to meet the costs of the youth training guarantee for those with special needs without taking from elsewhere. Will the Minister consider that and ensure that those with special needs are safeguarded?
    Mr. Forsyth: The Government have made the position perfectly clear—the youth training guarantee stands. If the hon. Gentleman knows of specific examples in Scotland where people with special needs or people who are disabled are not having their demands met, he should take them up with the local enterprise companies which are responsible for the delivery of the youth training guarantee. We have made it clear that the youth training guarantee will not fail to be delivered because of a lack of resources. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern that those with special needs should be given priority and should not be left behind. That is reflected in our policies throughout the employment service.

    Overtime
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make a statement on the proposed European directive that would restrict the overtime that British workers are allowed to work.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The Social Affairs Council did not reach a common position on the proposed working time directive on 24 June so we do not have a directive. In discussions on the text, the United Kingdom secured all its key objectives, in particular the right for employees to work for more than 48 hours a week if they choose to do so. I made it clear that the United Kingdom continues to have very severe doubts about the directive as a whole and its proposed legal base.
    Mr. Bruce: I wonder whether the next time my right hon. Friend meets her colleagues in Europe she will express my concern that, having been a Member of Parliament for more than five years—[Interruption.]—I have yet to receive a single letter from a single constituent complaining that he has too many hours to work. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Will the House come to Order? The hon. Gentleman cannot be heard. Even though he has been here five years, he is going to be heard.
    Mr. Bruce: Opposition Members cannot take it, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    176
    Will the Minister tell her Employment colleagues at the Council of Ministers that although they may be Euro workaholics working well over 100 hours a week each, they are in no position to legislate for people who would like to arrange with their own employers their own hours of work?
    Mrs. Shephard: I shall be pleased to pass on to my European counterparts the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend, who may now find that he receives a letter or two on the issue, and I feel certain that they will be in support of the position taken by the United Kingdom. The number of hours worked by MEPs and MPs would be excluded from the provisions of the directive, should it ever come to pass.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. McMaster: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 July.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the economic summit in Munich.
    Mr. McMaster: Will the Leader of the House guarantee not to guillotine the Maastricht Bill when it returns to the House for debate?
    Mr. Newton: The Leader of the House will guarantee that the Government will consider all matters carefully before deciding how to proceed.
    Mr. James Hill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should pass as quickly as possible legislation dealing with imitation firearms? Is he aware that they are becoming a serious problem for the public, because one can suffer as much trauma and be robbed just as effectively with an imitation firearm as with a real one?
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend's concern is shared in many quarters. The Home Secretary is on the Bench beside me and will have heard what has been said.
    Dr. John Cunningham: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the Government's moratorium on stamp duty for house purchase has been a success?
    Mr. Newton: I believe that the arrangements brought forward by my right hon. Friend and other colleagues at the turn of the year have materially assisted in reducing the number of repossessions and in bringing about an improvement in the housing market compared with what the position would have been. Frankly, I would find the hon. Gentleman's answer more credible but for the fact that his hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), I understand speaking for the Opposition, described the suspension of stamp duty at the time as a racket and a gimmick.
    Dr. Cunningham: If it has been of material benefit to the housing industry, is it not a fact that when we are in the depths of the worst recession for 60 years, with confidence at an all-time low and the building and construction industry in disarray, this is the last moment to remove any incentive from the desperately needful building sector? As

    177
    the Government have still not used up all the money that they allocated for the scheme, why will they not concentrate the relief on transactions up to £100,000, thus helping the lower end of the market and first-time buyers? That would be a sensible step to take in the depths of the present awful recession.
    Mr. Newton: The aim of the scheme was to bring forward transactions that might otherwise have been delayed. I believe that it has made an important contribution in doing just that.

    Hastings and Rye
    Mrs. Lait: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to Hastings and Rye.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is making plans for a series of visits to all parts of the country and hopes to include the south-east among them.
    Mrs. Lait: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I welcome the opportunity of my right hon. Friend visiting Hastings and Rye and hope that he will leave plenty of time to come down the road affectionately known as the snail trail. Will he also visit the Conquest hospital, which is operated by the Hastings and Rother trust, which took its first out-patients yesterday and will take its first in-patients on 20 July? Does he agree that this is another indication that only Conservative health policies deliver health care to the nation?
    Mr. Newton: I am sure that, if he is able to visit my hon. Friend's constituency, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will wish to join her in welcoming the opening of the new hospital—and, indeed, in looking forward to phase 2, which is currently under consideration by the regional health authority.

    Engagements
    Mr. Denham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 July.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Denham: Does the Leader of the House agree that high-rise tower blocks are entirely unsuitable as homes for young children? Does he, like me, regret that, over the past few years, the number of young children trapped in Southampton tower blocks has risen two and a half times, and that hundreds of children will never have a decent home? Does he accept that Southampton council has a lower-than-average number of vacancies and that the number of children who are trapped in a high-rise hell is a direct result of Government policies? Can he offer those children any hope and what action will he take to ensure that they have a chance to live in a house with a garden?
    Mr. Newton: The Government have a range of policies designed to improve the supply of rented accommodation. They are channelling £6 billion into housing associations over the next two years to provide more than 150,000 new homes for rent and low-cost purchase by 1995–96. I very
    178
    much hope that that will help to solve Southampton's problems, given that the local authority wishes to participate.
    Dr. Hampson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing feeling on both sides of the House that the county hall site would be ideal for the London school of economics? Would it not be poignantly symbolic if the Prime Minister, while he is President of the European Council, assisted in the development on the Thames of a great European university on a scale to rival anything on offer in Paris, rather than allowing a fine building to become a second-rate hotel for Japanese package tours?
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will know that the disposal of county hall is a matter for the London residuary body. It is now up to the LSE to put firm proposals to that body.
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 July.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Cohen: The Lord President will know that I shall be presenting my Homicide (Defence of Provocation) Bill today. Does he agree that a woman who acts in desperation after suffering sustained domestic violence ought to have recourse to a mitigating plea of provocation? Is not the present law—which has gaoled women such as Sara Thornton and Kiranjit Ahluwalia —unjust, and should it not be changed?
    Mr. Newton: I understand the concern that is felt about the matter, not least because of my past social services responsibilities. I am not sure that the solution is as easy as the hon. Gentleman suggests, but I certainly undertake to bear his points in mind, along with my right hon. Friends.
    Mr. Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that thousands of fishermen are demonstrating outside the House today, largely because they fear that the conservation measures required by the EC—which are being dealt with in the House—will not be observed by their counterparts on the other side of the Channel? That has happened many times in the past. Will the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food look again at ways of preserving our fishing industry?
    Mr. Newton: I assure my hon. Friend that it is no part of the British Government's purpose to introduce what I take to be sensible measures to promote the conservation of fish stocks and the long-term future of the industry, only to see those measures destroyed by the actions of others. My right hon. Friend the Minister will take every possible step to ensure that that does not happen.

    European Community
    Mr. Spearing: To ask the Prime Minister what approaches have been received by Her Majesty's Government concerning reallocation of powers currently the responsibility of the Council of Ministers of the European Community.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

    179
    The treaty on European union enshrines in Community law the principle of subsidiarity, but the Community should act only when objectives cannot be achieved at the level of individual member states acting alone. The principle should be applied strictly to existing as well as to future legislation. It calls for urgent work on the procedural and practical steps to implement the principle and invites the Commission and the Council to report to the next European Council in Edinburgh. The treaty contains a presumption of action at the national level.
    Mr. Spearing: Yes, but that is answering a question that was not asked. So what is new? Is this not about the possible repatriation of powers? Is it not a fact that President Major as well as President Delors have been in favour of that, or have mooted the possibility? In respect of the President of the Commission, why is it that the Commission must always call the shots? Would it not be an advantage if it reacted only to requests from the Council of Ministers or the Heads of Government and therefore made the whole outfit more intergovernmental than it is already?
    Mr. Newton: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think that my answer did address the question that he asked. The plenary session between the United Kingdom presidency and the Commission last week, which I attended, very much addressed precisely that question. The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that plans are in hand to undertake a review of existing legislation before the Edinburgh summit at the end of the year.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Did my right hon. Friend see certain scholarly articles that were published over the weekend drawing attention to the fact that the word "subsidiarity" is derived from the Latin word "subsidium" which, apparently, is a term of Roman Catholic dogma and that the Roman interpretation of that word is quite different from the Anglican?
    Mr. Newton: Coming from a somewhat mixed religious background, I do not intend to allow myself to be caught up in ecclesiastical controversy.

    Engagements
    Mr. Eastham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 July.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Eastham: Two weeks ago one of my hon. Friends with a London constituency raised with the Prime Minister the question of the housing crisis. The Prime Minister proceeded to attack local authorities, including Manchester—
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Question!
    Mr. Eastham: Why don't you shut up? [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. It may be very amusing, but it is a great waste of time when we are nearly at 3.30. Can we hear the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) in silence now?
    Mr. Eastham: In responding, the Prime Minister proceeded to attack local authorities, including Manchester, and said that we had empty properties. May I point out to the Leader of the House that we have hundreds of empty properties in Manchester that are dangerous and unlettable but that central Government are not allowing Manchester to borrow money to make those properties habitable? Is it not time that the Government got their spending priorities right and accepted their responsibilities, which clearly they are failing to do now?
    Mr. Newton: The Government have clearly accepted their responsibilities, with the arrangements that they have made concerning approvals for capital expenditure. I hope that Manchester will look carefully at the policy that leads to so many houses being empty.
    Dame Jill Knight: Will my right hon. Friend convey to the Prime Minister the level of public concern over the fact that a professional drug courier should have been protected from police action by hospital staff? Does he agree that drugs constitute an appalling danger, particularly to young people, and that the police ought to be helped, not hindered, in their fight against drugs?
    Mr. Newton: Again, I think that my hon. Friend raises a point which will be of concern to other hon. Members. I have seen reports of the case. Clearly, as I think all hon. Members will agree, it is important to balance a patient's right to medical confidentiality against the safety of the community at large, but this is a very complex area. I understand that the chief executive of the North Staffordshire health authority is seeking an urgent meeting with the chief constable to discuss the confidentiality issue and agree clearer lines of communication.
    Mr. Garrett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 July.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Garrett: Last year 69,000 families had their homes repossessed. At the moment, 290,000 borrowers are more than six months in arrears with their mortgage repayments. The Government's mortgage rescue scheme has so far managed to rescue 12 home buyers. When will the Government make a serious attempt to help home buyers and borrowers who are in difficulties?
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Council of Mortgage Lenders has estimated that as a result of the action taken at the turn of the year some 55,000 repossessions will be prevented this year, and that the Halifax building society reckons that its repossessions are down by about 40 per cent. over the latest six months compared with the last six months of last year. That is substantial progress which has helped many tens of thousands of families.

European Fighter Aircraft
3.30 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell (Fife, North-East) (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the European fighter aircraft in the light of his meeting on 6 July 1992 with the German Defence Minister.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The German Defence Minister visited me in London yesterday. Along with a range of other current topics, we discussed extensively the European fighter aircraft. It was clear that both countries need a new fighter aircraft by around the year 2000, both are looking for something at lower cost than the earlier projection for EFA, and both would like wide European participation.
Herr Riihe said that Germany would not proceed to produce EFA and would like to develop a completely new aircraft. I indicated that, given the investment of some £5 billion by the partners in EFA already, we believed that the best route to a cheaper aircraft was to drive down the costs of the existing design, as otherwise the taxpayers of each country would lose any benefit from the substantial sums already invested. The next step is to consider with the other EFA partners and with industry how we can best take the project forward. We do not face decisions on the production phase until next year.
Mr. Campbell: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's assurance that it is still his view that the United Kingdom will require a new fighter aircraft by the end of the century will be warmly received in all parts of the House. Can he assure the House that the Government will explore every possibility, with or without partners, to see that the United Kingdom embarks upon the production phase of the European fighter aircraft? Will he further assure the House that, if any reduction in cost is to be obtained, it will not be achieved at the expense of the inherent capability of the aircraft?
Mr. Rifkind: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his words of support for the Government's efforts. It is of course our desire that we should continue as part of an effective partnership towards the production phase of this project. In trying to identify ways in which the cost can be reduced, already substantial cost savings have been identified. In addition, it is possible to develop EFA on the basis that each participating country could identify which particular components met its own military requirements. That would mean that significant savings would be available for the country in question.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that he has widespread support on both sides of the House for the way in which he has approached this unfortunate affair? Is it not a fact, following his conversations yesterday with the German Defence Minister, that the attitude of Germany is very much conditioned by constitutional restraint and internal political pressure, and that there is an unwillingness to recognise that, since the defence of western Europe relies upon the strength of the NATO alliance, if future threats, which could emanate from outside the traditional areas, are to be met, Germany, along with the NATO alliance, must be faced with the prospect of developing equipment which can face up to those new responsibilities?
Mr. Rifkind: I agree with my hon. Friend. Of course, we recognise that Germany's decision must be based on its own assessment of its military requirements. However, we pay attention to the fact that Germany continues to state that it will need a new fighter aircraft by the turn of the century, and we cannot see how a new aircraft for which no preliminary work would be taken into account could be anything but vastly more expensive than would developing EFA to the production stage.
We also think it appropriate to take into account the fact that, while we share with the German Government a welcome for the enormous changes that have taken place in Europe, and while we recognise the completely different situation that we face with regard to Russia, a decision taken this year or next year with regard to a new fighter aircraft must take into account all the uncertainties that might develop in Europe and throughout the rest of the world over the next 20 to 30 years. That is the kind of time-frame for which the new fighter aircraft will be required, and it is quite clear that at a time when it is impossible to predict what will happen in Moscow next week it would be very unwise to make assumptions as to what might happen over the next 30 years.
Ms. Dawn Primarolo: Has the Secretary of State had discussions with the President of the Board of Trade with regard to diversification plans for the employment of workers who will lose their jobs if the Government decide to pull out of the EFA project?
Mr. Rifkind: We have no plans to pull out of the EFA project, but the hon. Lady is right to make reference to the importance of the industrial implications of EFA. At the moment about 9,400 people are employed in work directly attributed to EFA, and at the peak of production the number will rise to about 27,000. I should emphasise that, so far as the Government are concerned, the primary consideration must be our defence requirements, and not the industrial implications, but obviously it is important that the House and the public should be aware of the industrial aspect as well.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): I applaud my right hon. and learned Friend for the robust way in which he has endorsed the professional judgment not only of his own air staff but also of the air staffs of the partner nations, which only this spring declared that the European fighter aircraft was the aeroplane best suited to meeting the operational needs of their respective air forces way into the future.
I applaud my right hon. and learned Friend also for his clear view that this aeroplane represents the best investment for the United Kingdom's defence. Will he always see that that consideration is put first? There would be no point in buying any aeroplane that was inferior to those of potential adversaries. That would be the worst possible investment for the United Kingdom.
Mr. Rifkind: I thank my hon. Friend. In our assessment we have been fortified by the views of the Select Committee of the House, which looked into the whole question of whether there were any alternatives to EFA that would represent better value for money, given the very substantial costs involved. The Select Committee unanimously concluded that EFA continues to represent

183
the best value for money and the best means of ensuring that the defence requirements of this country will be met for the next generation.
Dr. Gavin Strang: Does the Secretary of State accept that all of us hope that RAF pilots will not see active service in the first half of the next century? However, the Government are responsible for ensuring that if those pilots should see active service it would be in planes giving them a much better than evens chance of survival. I put it to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it was for that reason that the Luftwaffe supported EFA, and it is for that reason that the British Government must reject an inferior spatched-up European alternative.
Mr. Rifkind: It is certainly our view that the only alternative to EFA capable of meeting our defence requirements would be significantly more expensive. Alternative aircraft would be based on much more primitive technology, and could not begin to compete with the existing Russian aircraft, which are used not only by the Russian air force but also by those countries, such as Iraq and Iran, to which they have already been sold.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that EFA would be the best value for money for Britain, for Germany and for Europe? Does he also agree that, while it is desirable to have the Germans on board for the production of EFA, it would not be essential?
Mr. Rifkind: I thank my hon. Friend for the efforts that he has made, and his membership of the parliamentary delegation that visited Bonn. The Government's view is that the alternative approach recommended by Mr. Rae should not commend itself in this country, in Germany or elsewhere. The smaller version of EFA proposed by Mr. Rühe would involve redesign of the EFA airframe, engine and installed equipment. The work done so far would largely be wasted and the development programme would have to start again. This could delay entry of the aircraft into service by up to eight years. The operational performance of the aircraft would inevitably be substantially inferior to EFA and the cost of changing our minds halfway through the existing project would add at least 20 per cent. to the price that we would all have to pay for the aircraft.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Is it not seriously irresponsible of the Government, knowing the difficulties with the EFA and the likelihood that Germany would drop out, not to prepare plans for diversification from an aeroplane that we now cannot afford to an aeroplane that can be used in civilian service? Would it not be better to scrap the EFA scheme and concentrate on civilian airliners, for which there is a real need but in the production of which we have been left sadly behind? We are now completely dependent on American technology, mostly Boeing aircraft. Is not that unsatisfactory? We have the skill and the ability: should not we use them for peace rather than for this doubtful project?
Mr. Rifkind: The first sign of a possible German withdrawal came only two or three months ago. It is a fitting comment on his perception of these matters that the hon. Gentleman believes that the best way to deal with the challenge from hostile fighter aircraft that we might face over the next 30 years is by developing civil airliners.
Mr. David Sumberg: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his robust stance on this matter, which has severe consequences for jobs not just in the north-west of England but throughout the country, and not just with British Aerospace but with hundreds of small firms. They wish him well and hope that he will achieve success.
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right to say that many thousands of people, not only in this country but in Germany, Spain and Italy, have an equally strong interest in the continuing project to which the House has given its support.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is not a critical factor the financial and technical resources of Italy? Before the House comes to a judgment, could we have more information about the attitude of the Italian Government and the Italian Departments of State to this matter?
Mr. Rifkind: I expect to have a meeting with my Italian and Spanish colleagues soon. It is clear that the Italian Government would like to see the project continue. They share with us a desire to see costs significantly reduced, and we shall be working towards achieving that objective.
Mr. Harold Elletson: Did my right hon. and learned Friend make it clear to the German Minister of Defence that Germany's decision to withdraw from this project seriously undermines Germany's credibility as a serious partner in pan-European collaborative projects of this kind?
Mr. Rifkind: While we do not dispute Germany's legal right to withdraw from involvement in the production phase, it is highly unfortunate and disturbing that, with a project that has been making good progress, that is on time and that is intended to produce an aircraft for which all the participating countries have a requirement, Germany should have decided to withdraw, especially when it is not clear to what alternative strategy it is committed.
Mr. Ron Leighton: Will the Secretary of State give us some more detail of what the German Minister of Defence said to him? I saw Volker Rae, whom I know to be a realistic man and the one most likely to be the next Chancellor of Germany, interviewed on British television last night. He was dismissive of the British view, saying that we had not caught up with the debate in Europe. He said that Germany had wanted the plane to fight the Russians, but it was not going to fight the Russians any more. He said that the Germans were putting money into East Germany and Russia and that the plane was intended to fight a very advanced MiG. Instead of putting money into a plane to fight the MiG, the MiG can be purchased at a knock-down, bargain price at the moment—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question.
Mr. Leighton: Why should the money be wasted and not devoted to defence diversification? The EFA will not fly.
Mr. Rifkind: The German position is not that they want to buy Russian MiGs. Instead, they want to begin to design and develop a completely new aircraft. The hon. Gentleman must reflect on the fact that it has taken seven

185
years and £5 billion of expenditure to reach the present stage in respect of the development of EFA. It is simply not credible to believe that putting all that on one side and starting again would result in anything other than a massive increase in expenditure for the countries which might become involved.
Mr. Peter Viggers: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Government face very difficult decisions and that the way ahead is by no means clear? Does he accept that the decision must be based on the defence need, because defence is far too important to be a job creation scheme? Will he undertake that the decisions, when they are taken, will be defence-led and not industry or employment-led?
Mr. Rifkind: Yes, I can give that clear and unambiguous statement. While we are aware of the industrial implications, when one is dealing with a project which is enormously expensive and a significant burden on the taxpayer, it is crucial that we go forward with such a project only if, and for so long as, we are satisfied that it is necessary to ensure the defence needs of this country. It cannot possibly be justified that we should go forward purely for industrial reasons if the defence case was not and did not remain convincing.
Mr. John Home Robertson: I share the Secretary of State's hope that EFA will be constructed, because of the jobs that arc affected in his constituency and in mine at GEC-Ferranti. As Volker Ruhe has said that the Luftwaffe will have to replace its aging Phantoms in the near future, does the Secretary of State believe that Germany is likely to end up buying EFA from Britain, Spain and Italy at a far higher price than it might have had to pay had it remained a participant in the project?
Mr. Rifkind: That is certainly a consequence that cannot be excluded. It was clear from my discussions with the German Minister that the Germans have at the moment no clear idea where they would acquire the aircraft they need. Therefore, if EFA continues without German participation, the Germans acknowledge that they will need a new fighter aircraft and EFA may well become the most attractive option for them. but a more expensive one than if they had not withdrawn from the project.
I must point out that Germany has made it clear that it will continue to pay any outstanding sums due with regard to its commitment to participate in the development project. That means that, even if Germany withdraws from involvement in production, there is a further £ 1 billion which Germany is committed to investing in the on-going development project for EFA. That is an additional reason why I hope that the German Government will give some further thought to whether it is in the interests of their taxpayers to withdraw from the project.
Mr. Winston Churchill: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his staunch championship of the European fighter aircraft will he warmly welcomed by the Royal Air Force, and particularly by the pilots who will be flying that equipment beyond the year 2000? Is it not clear that the House must never let down the very few who man our front-line defences by allowing them to enter future battles—should there be any—with second-rate
186
equipment? Furthermore, Europe needs a military fighter aircraft programme. Buying off the shelf from the United States might be a solution in the short term, but in the longer term it would cost us very dear.
Mr. Rifkind: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. However, the evidence available at the moment suggests that, even in the short term, buying from the United States would be a more and not less expensive option. I agree with my hon. Friend that, if we expect our fighter pilots to be in combat against enemy aircraft. the least we can do to assist them is ensure that the aircraft in which they fly are at least as sophisticated as those of any enemy that they are likely to face.
Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: Is the Government's support for the European fighter aircraft dependent on the continued involvement of the Spanish and Italian Governments? If those Governments should withdraw their support, what would the Government's view then be? Does the Secretary of State agree that, in the longest recession for 60 years, it is unthinkable that 40,000 defence workers should be thrown on to the dole? Does he agree also that, in the long run, the Government must develop a defence diversification strategy?
Mr. Rifkind: I do not believe that it is the Government's responsibility to tell individual companies that they should diversify into other forms of activity. Many have done so or are doing so. Each company is in the best position to judge what is in its interests. However, I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important and desirable to seek a conclusion that enables those countries which are part of the EFA project to continue in the collaboration and thereby ensure that we have the fighter aircraft and maintain industrial capability.
Mr. Michael Colvin: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that there have been too many instances in this nation's military history that have enabled us to judge the importance of air defence and to appreciate the need to have an aircraft of what I would describe as "top gun" capability? Will he confirm that EFA has such a capability? That means that it is able to take out any other aircraft pitted against it at present—perhaps not the F22 of the United States, but that aircraft is not yet flying. Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, in a quest for the cheaper version of EFA, that capability will not be sacrificed?
Mr. Rifkind: I can confirm what my hon. Friend asks. Perhaps the attitude of the House. unlike that of our German colleagues, is influenced by the fact that twice in the past 10 years the Royal Air Force has had to fly in combat and therefore has had to rely on the sophistication and quality of its aircraft in combat. That is a factor that none of us would wish to forget.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: The whole House will agree that we do not want our pilots to go to war or into the air in anything but the most effective aircraft available to us, and at the moment EFA is that only option. Does the Secretary of State agree that the significance of EFA to our aerospace industries is greater than that of any of our partners? Does he accept that the narrowness of our industrial base is such that, unlike Germany, we cannot afford to lose the competitive technological edge which EFA represents?

187
Does the Secretary of State accept that the future of our aerospace industries depends to a large extent on revenue raised by the project and that the Government's refusal to fund diversification means that our aerospace industries would need EFA-generated profits to move into non-military civilian activity? Does the Secretary of State agree that the replacement of aging aircraft with anything but that cost-effective European collaborative project will leave us at the mercy of American suppliers?
Mr. Rifkind: The project certainly is of importance to the British aerospace industry, but it is quite clear from their public statements that German and Spanish industries—I have no doubt Italian industries also—attach equal importance to the continuation of the project. There is not a uniform view in Germany. A number of people and indeed the industry itself have made it quite clear that they believe that the current German proposal would be extremely damaging to their own industrial capacity. That is something which should be borne in mind.

BILLS PRESENTED
  HOMICIDE (DEFENCE OF PROVOCATION)
  Mr. Harry Cohen, supported by Mrs. Teresa Gorman, Mr. Bruce Grocott, Ms. Glenda Jackson, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Mr. David Knox, Ms. Dawn Primarolo, Ms. Jo Richardson and Mr. Nicholas Winterton, presented a Bill to amend the Homicide Act 1957 in respect of the defence of provocation: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 13 November and to be printed. [Bill 53.]
  FIREARMS (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Bob Cryer, supported by Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Bill Michie, Mr. Max Madden and Mr. Harry Cohen, presented a Bill to amend the Firearms Act 1982 to include blank-firing replica firearms and detailed replica firearms and to render their sale or carrying uncovered in a public place illegal: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 4 December and to be printed. [Bill 55.]

  Hospital Security
  3.53 pm
  Ms. Glenda Jackson: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require persons responsible for hospitals to maintain prescribed standards of security; and for connected purposes.
  The Bill is an attempt to deal with the growing and disturbing trend of violence within our nation's hospitals.
  On 24 May, a constituent, Mr. Graeme Woodhatch, while a patient at the Royal Free hospital in Hampstead and Highgate, was murdered by being shot by a yet unknown assailant. Five hours earlier, in an entirely separate and unconnected incident, a nurse in the accident and emergency department of the same hospital was assaulted. A week later, another nurse in yet another London hospital, St. Thomas's, was knocked unconscious and slashed with a knife. On the very same day, an attempted rape took place at Guy's hospital. Six clays later, the abduction of a newborn baby was foiled only by the prompt action of a porter at the Withington hospital in Manchester, who scared off two intruders.
  The incidents would be terrible wherever they were committed, but they adopt a particularly awful dimension when they are committed in places and against people dedicated to saving life and restoring health, and where the recipients of that care are so especially vulnerable. It is equally terrible that the incidents are by no means new or isolated. In 1986, anxiety about the increasing number of violent attacks suffered by the staff of the then Department of Health and Social Security prompted the convening of the Westminster conference, which in turn gave rise to the Committee on Violence to Staff within the DHSS. The committee, chaired by Lord Skelmersdale, published its findings in 1988. Several recommendations were made: better staff training, installation of video cameras and centralised recording of incidents.
  Most significantly, Lord Skelmersdale commented:
  "Violence must merit a new and high priority, and the provision of extra resources from the centre. Provision of a safe workplace is not seen as an accessory but part of the bedrock of service provision. Ignoring this can, if it becomes significantly serious, lead to an inability to maintain that service."
  As I have stated, that report was published five years ago, but the problems of violence which it underlined have by no means diminished.
  The centralised recording of incidents for which Lord Skelmersdale called is still not in place. Indeed, a report by Dr. Colin MacKay of the Health and Safety Executive revealed that, in one year, in just five health authorities across Britain, almost 2,700 nurses and more than 200 hospital doctors had been attacked or injured and 650 ambulance personnel had been assaulted. Even more disturbing, it has been estimated that only one out of every 20 such incidents was reported.
  This state of affairs simply cannot be allowed to continue. For years, concerned groups and individuals have called for action to combat the growing wave of violence. The Confederation of Health Service Employees, the National Union of Public Employees, the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives, and the Police Federation have all communicated their concern that violence in our

  189
  hospitals is reaching unacceptable levels. Right hon. and hon. Members in this House and in another place have often voiced their concerns.
  It is time that those concerns were finally and properly addressed. It is time that we faced up to the challenge of making our hospitals secure. My Bill proposes a statutory body specifically charged with taking up that challenge. Such a body would have as its task the administration and monitoring of adequate and comprehensive security arrangements within our hospitals. It would be similar in structure and function to the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive. It would comprise representatives of the hospitals, the security sector and local health authorities. It would be independent of the Department of Health but would report and submit recommendations to the Secretary of State.
  The body would have as its primary aim the setting of a national framework within which could be co-ordinated a comprehensive strategy for combating crime, whether against property, patients or staff. It would ensure that such a strategy was consistently updated and maintained. Obviously, many security arrangements are best made at a local level. Hospital managers are undoubtedly best placed to recognise their security needs and solutions. They must have the support of national guidelines to which they can refer. At present, 48 per cent. of hospitals give no security training to any members of their staff.
  The body that I propose would ensure that training for all staff is compulsory, and is effectively and regularly updated. Prevention is by far the best cure. Training staff to predict and recognise dangerous situations would go a long way to ensuring that they do not escalate. At present, safety improvements are implemented in a haphazard manner, as and when resources allow. The body that I propose would be charged with identifying problem areas, formulating solutions and ensuring that the resources required for those solutions are made available.
  It is time for Lord Skelmersdale's recommendations to be fully taken on board. Where there is need, resources must be provided. Hospitals can no longer be forced to choose between employing security staff or buying incubators. The body that I propose would also be charged with the vital task of recording and collecting centrally information on the scale, nature and number of incidents that occur.
  190
  Apart from the incalculable human costs, conservative estimates put the annual financial loss to the health service through crime at about £600 million. That is equivalent to six new hospitals every year lost through crime. It is clearly unacceptable for a problem of that scale not even to be centrally recorded. The recording of crime must be one of the first steps taken in any battle to conquer it.
  I recognise that the growing menace of crime in our hospitals is not a problem that can be easily solved; nor would I wish our hospitals to become fortresses. A relaxed and open hospital environment is by far the best for rapid and effective treatment and recovery. But neither can we ignore the fact that every day, in virtually every part of the country, crime and violence are already blighting that environment.
  When nurses fear to walk down hospital corridors because of the possibility of attack, and when patients are subjected to violence when they should be receiving care, we fail to keep faith with the most hallowed tenets of our health service and with the dedicated people who continue to work within it. To quote Lord Skelmersdale once more:
  "A safe work place is not an accessory to the health service but a bedrock."
  It is time for that bedrock to be built. It is time for action to be taken to protect our hospitals, those who work in them and those who depend on them. I therefore commend my Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms. Glenda Jackson, Mrs. Anne Campbell, Ms. Ann Coffey, Ms. Jean Corston, Ms. Angela Eagle, Mrs. Helen Jackson, Dr. Lynne Jones, Ms. Tessa Jowell, Mrs. Jane Kennedy, Ms. Estelle Morris, Mrs. Bridget Prentice and Mrs. Barbara Roche.

  HOSPITAL SECURITY
  Ms. Glenda Jackson accordingly presented a Bill to require persons responsible for hospitals to maintain prescribed standards of security; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 4 December and to be printed. [Bill 55.]
WAYS AND MEANS

  VALUE ADDED TAX (INQUIRIES)
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made amending section 38A of the Value Added Tax Act 1983 and section 20 of the Finance Act 1985.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Orders of the Day
  Finance Bill
  Not amended in the Committee and as amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
New clause 1

  VAT: TIME FOR RAISING AND ANSWERING INQUIRIES
  —(1) In section 20 of the Finance Act 1985 (repayment supplement in respect of certain delayed payments or refunds) after subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
  "(3A) In determining for the purposes of regulations under subsection (3) above whether any period is referable to the raising and answering of such an inquiry as is mentioned in that subsection, there shall be taken to be so referable any period which—

  (a) begins with the date on which the Commissioners first consider it necessary to make such an inquiry, and

  (b) ends with the date on which the Commissioners—

  (i) satisfy themselves that they have received a complete answer to the inquiry, or

  (ii) determine not to make the inquiry or, if they have made it, not to pursue it further,

  but excluding so much of that period as may be prescribed; and it is immaterial whether any inquiry is in fact made or whether it is or might have been made of the person or body making the requisite return or claim or of an authorised person or of some other person."
  (2) In section 38A of the Value Added Tax Act 1983 (interest in certain cases of official error) after subsection (8) there shall be inserted—
  "(8A) In determining for the purposes of subsection (8) above whether any period is referable to the raising and answering of such an inquiry as is there mentioned, there shall be taken to be so referable any period which—

  (a) begins with the date on which the Commissioners first consider it necessary to make such an inquiry, and

  (b) ends with the date on which the Commissioners—

  (i) satisfy themselves that they have received a complete answer to the inquiry, or

  (ii) determine not to make the inquiry or, if they have made it, not to pursue it further,

  but excluding so much of that period as may be prescribed; and it is immaterial whether any inquiry is in fact made or whether it is or might have been made of the person referred to in subsection (1) above or of an authorised person or of some other person."
  (3) Subsection (1) above shall apply where the requisite return or claim is received after the day on which this Act is passed.
  (4) Subsection (2) above shall apply where the claim is received after the day on which this Act is passed.'.—[Sir John Cope.]
  Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: (a), in line 7, after 'Commissioners', insert
  `, intending to act, with no unreasonable delay,'.
  (b), in line 9, after 'Commissioners', insert
  ',acting with no unreasonable delay,'.
  (c), in line 23, after 'Commissioners', insert
  ', intending to act with no unreasonable delay,'.
  (d), in line 25, after 'Commissioners', insert
  acting with no unreasonable delay,'.
  4.5 pm
  The Paymaster General (Sir John Cope): Following the Keith report, the Finance Act 1985 brought in a package of measures that were aimed mainly at improving compliance by taxpayers registered for VAT in furnishing their returns and payments. It also introduced the so-called "repayment supplement". Under that provision, Customs pays a surcharge if, in a normal case, it takes more than 30 days to process a claim for repayment of VAT.
  The period of 30 days was considered appropriate for Customs normally to process and pay such claims. The period would count from the date of receipt of the claim by Customs until the date on which payment was authorised. Where that exceeded 30 days, a supplement of 5 per cent. of the value of the claim, or £30, whichever was greater, would be and has been paid from that time.
  However, it was also recognised that it was necessary for Customs to have time to undertake other activities during that period, such as making verification inquiries and correcting errors. Where those inquiries were genuinely pursued by Customs, provision was made in section 20(3) of the Finance Act to provide for such periods to be left out of account in reckoning the net qualifying period of 30 days, and therefore deciding whether to pay a repayment supplement. In effect, the clock stops while Customs is making important inquiries to verify the claim.
  Customs has operated on that basis since the repayment supplement regime took effect in October 1986. However, a recent VAT tribunal case, which later turned into a High Court case—the Commissioners of Customs and Excise v. L. Rowland and Company (Retail) Ltd.—has shown that the law as it stands allows Customs to leave out of account only the period from when the query is raised with the claimant until the claimant provides an answer to Customs. The time taken for Customs to consider whether to raise a query with the claimant and the time taken for Customs to consider the answer to that query are not to be allowed within the 30 days.
  The original intention of the repayment supplement was to exert pressure on Customs to improve its efficiency. It was not intended to bring about a reduction of Customs' necessary efforts to protect the Revenue and taxpayers' interests at large, as opposed to the specific taxpayer's interests in the claim. That would be contrary to its responsibilities for the care and management of the tax.
  When Lord Keith originally produced his report, it was suggested that there should be an overall period of 60 days rather than 30 days, to embrace all functions. However, when those proposals were exposed for public consultation, queries were raised and the Government then considered that 30 days, exclusive of the time for reasonable inquiries, would be fairer for claimants, and that is how the law was written. At least, that is how it was intended to be written.
  As I said, the recent case of Rowland and Company has decided that that is not how the law was written. The purpose of the new clause is to make the law clear, as the Government and, I assume, Parliament at the time intended and as it has been operated by Customs in the intervening period. It will give Customs the essential freedom to look into claims for the repayment of VAT before they are paid, to prevent the losses of tax to the detriment of taxpayers generally.

  193
  The House will be aware that the whole structure of VAT, particularly the fact that we have a zero rate on a wide range of items, means that repayment is a large feature of VAT. Many traders never actually pay VAT. They are registered for it and they receive repayments each month because essentially they are in a zero-rated business.
  Customs receives and processes almost 2·5 million claims for VAT repayment each year, with an overall value of some £23 billion in tax. The repayment of tax is therefore an important matter; hence the importance of the repayment supplement. More than 90 per cent. of the claims are authorised for payment within 10 days of their receipt at the VAT central unit in Southend, which handles the administration for Customs and Excise. That reflects both an efficient system and a high desire to act promptly in the interests of claimants.
  Less than 2 per cent. of all claims need further inquiries before verification of repayment, and that is when the clock stops for a time during the 30-day period. Those are the claims which carry the greatest potential risk to the Revenue, which is why it inquires into them—and it is the inquiry time referrable to those cases for which the amendment seeks to provide.
  At the same time, we were anxious to ensure that, while there is the necessary protection for the Revenue, the individual claimants and taxpayers should be in a fair position vis-a-vis Customs and Excise. Apart from the new clause, Customs and Excise is producing a code of conduct relating to its processing of claims for repayment. It will say how claims are received and dealt with and the points at which the repayment supplement clock stops and starts.
  In particular, the code will describe how, on stopping the clock while verification inquiries are under way, due regard is given to any unreasonable delay that might occur. It will also make more visible the safeguards that are built into the system to ensure that such time will count against Customs and towards the 30 days that would qualify a claimant for repayment supplement.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: If 30 days must be defined more generously to give Customs reasonable time to deal with these matters, is not seven days a little unreasonable for everybody involved to digest the new clause and to determine whether it will work satisfactorily?
  Sir John Cope: I agree, but I shall return to that point.
  Apart from the code of conduct—this is relevant to the right hon. Gentleman's point—Customs and Excise is already undertaking a review of the repayment supplement regime to determine whether changes should be recommended in addition to the introduction of the new clause. As before, there will be a full consultative process, starting, I hope, in September or October, at a similar time to the production of the code of conduct, with the aim of reaching conclusions before the end of the year. Customs will also be seeking time further to strengthen its procedures.
  Mr. John Watts: As there has not been an opportunity for consultation on the new clause, is my right hon. Friend prepared to consider consultation on the code of practice when it is published? If there are helpful
  194
  suggestions from those interested in these matters, they might then be taken into account in a way that they cannot be in the consideration of the new clause.
  Sir John Cope: Yes, Customs will discuss the draft code of practice with those with whom it is in touch, but initially there will not be public consultation. The idea is to publish the code of practice as soon as possible, together with the review, so that both can be considered together. If necessary, the code can be modified subsequently.
  As both the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and my hon. Friend have said, we tabled new clause 1 quickly, in response to the High Court case. That was important, because substantial repayments are involved. It is also right, however, to proceed with the code of conduct and the review, to give an opportunity for further comment.
  4.15 pm
  The new clause continues the existing practice into the future. We must also consider whether we ought to seek to give the new clause retrospective effect, so that the procedure followed by Customs and Excise since 1986, when the repayment supplement was introduced, can be retrospectively endorsed. We decided not to do that, because it would be inappropriate. Instead, we are accepting the High Court's interpretation of the law in respect of retrospective claims and claims made up to the date that the Bill receives Royal Assent in a few days' time.
  The recent High Court judgment will be applied retrospectively. Customs and Excise will publicise the conditions that must be met to qualify for the new repayment supplement under the new interpretation, and will invite traders to apply for such repayments. Claims will have to be considered right back to the days when the supplement was first introduced, in 1986. That is a considerable administrative task that will take some time to complete, but it is right that it should be undertaken.
  There will be some cases which have not come to full effect in the tribunal or the courts, as the Rowland case has, but which are nevertheless pending. They are easy to spot and to deal with. There will be other cases that Customs does not know about, where we shall have to rely on traders to submit claims. We will publicise as much as possible the opportunity to make claims under the new provision, so that we can put right any payments and bring them in line with the High Court's interpretation.
  I hope that the House agrees, given the large sums of money involved, that we are right to move quickly, and not retrospectively to appeal against the High Court judgment of the law as it was first formulated in 1985. I commend new clause 1 to the House.
  Dr. John Marek: I sympathise with the plight of the Paymaster General, in that an unfavourable judgment was made against him, and there is perhaps a case for acting quickly to put matters right—especially as the Finance Bill is before the House. Among the representations I received, however, is one from the Institute of Directors. I will quote from a letter dated 7 July that it sent to the Paymaster General:
  "Indeed, when the New Clause was drawn to the attention of the Joint VAT Consultative Committee yesterday afternoon, Customs were unable to comment on the grave concern raised immediately by the business and professional representatives, because they said that they could not pre-empt your statement"
  that is, the Paymaster General's statement—

  195
  "in the House".
  As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) implied, time has not been allowed for debate and careful consideration.
  Although there has been a problem as a result of the recent court case, the Opposition believe that the new clause swings the balance very far in the direction of Customs and Excise and that Customs and Excise will be able to decide almost as it wishes when the clock will stop and when it will start ticking again.
  The Opposition raised the issue in a previous debate on 16 May 1991 in Standing Committee B. During our deliberations on clause 16, entitled "Interest of Overpayments etc.", I said:
  "I do not say that Customs and Excise would deliberately take weeks or months over an investigation, but this is not a perfect world. No interest would be paid while an investigation was in hand. There should be a clear provision as to the date from which interest should be paid. If Customs and Excise has received money from a taxpayer which earns interest in a bank, why should that interest be kept if there was an error?"—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 16 May 1991; c. 67.]
  During the passage of the Finance Bill in 1985, Mr. Barney Hayhoe, who I think was the then Financial Secretary, said during a debate on clause 20:
  "if we get it wrong one year, and experience shows that changes are needed, we can seek to put it right the following year. Indeed, large chunks of each year's Finance Bill put right the mistakes or errors of judgment of our predecessors." —[Official Report, Standing CommitteeB, 21 May 1985; c. 185.]
  If so, this is a considerable error and misjudgment, because it will cost about £100 million or £150 million for the past six years. The new clause should be got right in the first instance. I do not pretend that the Opposition's amendments (a) to (d) would put it right, but they would redress the balance which favours the Customs and Excise should the clause be passed unamended. They would impose a requirement on Customs and Excise not to act with unreasonable delay. It would have to be expeditious and not say that it might want to institute an inquiry so the clock should be stopped. It does not even have to tell the person into whose accounts it is inquiring whether it has stopped the clock.
  Under the new clause, the Government are aggregating to themselves all the power to be master and disposer of the issue. The Opposition believe that that is wrong and that the customer, client or person who pays value added tax should know that his or her affairs were to be run properly, that any investigation would be undertaken expeditiously and that there would be no unreasonable delay.
  There are other issues which should be explored, but I want to be expeditious myself. If there is not to be 30-day statutory period, why should it not be 40 or 50 days? The subject should be discussed with the various interests involved. There should be a review and a right of appeal, but the new clause makes no such provision. We cannot discuss all the issues on Report, but they should be discussed with the interests involved.
  I accept that it is not of the Government's making that the court case happened so recently, but because it did happen so recently, the issues have not been discussed with the appropriate interests. Perhaps it would be best for the Government to withdraw the new clause, and bring back later an agreed statutory instrument, if that is possible. As it is, they will have to pay claims for five years. If the
  196
  Government were to withdraw the new clause, and if there were general agreement between the industry and the Government, the Opposition would expedite the progress of any legislation which would have to be introduced.
  However, that is unlikely to happen, and the Opposition believe strongly that, if accepted, amendments (a) to (d) would go some way towards redressing the balance which undoubtedly needs to be redressed in favour of the consumer, customer or person who pays VAT.
  Mr. Michael Stern: I can best put the clause in context by contrasting it with what would be the position the other way round. If I, as a VAT payer. was due to pay some VAT and informed Customs and Excise that I was doubtful about the amount, or indeed about the legality, of my liability and I therefore wished to stop the clock for an indeterminate period while I investigated whether there was a liability, I can imagine the size of the raspberry that I would get from Customs and Excise.
  There has always been a disparity between the right of the taxpayer to receive compensation for the fact that his money is being held by the Treasury, and the duty of the Treasury to compensate the taxpayer for the fact that his money is being held. That disparity is being strengthened, and even made wider, by the clause.
  The Paymaster General referred to substantial sums at stake in the clause. I hope that he will be more specific. We are not talking about the overall cost of repayment supplement in relation to VAT overpayments. We are talking about the cost of repayment supplement which is currently payable because Customs and Excise has not made inquiries and has delayed matters beyond 30 days. In all other cases, the clause will not affect the issue. How much does my right hon. Friend believe will be saved by rushing through the clause, when the process of consultation which he is proposing, and which is welcome, for the latter part of the year would enable a fairer and less disputed clause to be introduced?
  My right hon. Friend referred to a recent legal case as being the occasion for the clause. It is fair to point to tribunal decisions which were reported last year and which should have given an indication of the need for further legislation. I refer my right hon. Friend in particular to the decision concerning Anthony Albert Aston under the reference MAN/90/499 in VAT Tribunal Decisions. In that case, a claim was made by Customs and Excise that it should not have to pay repayment supplement because it had spent some months investigating whether it had ordered a cheque to be issued. Rightly, that claim was objected to by the tribunal. May we be assured that the new clause, and code of conduct resulting from it, would not give rise to the denial of repayment supplement in a case such as that?
  The review of the working of the clause will be welcome. After all, as the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) said, in a minority of cases it will be open to Customs and Excise to be judge and jury in its own cause. I hope that, as part of the review, an option to be considered will be a return to the Keith recommendation of an absolute time limit—of 60 days or what other time may be considered appropriate—within which no repayment supplement will be paid and after which repayment supplement will automatically be paid. By that means, the taxpayer will at least know where he stands.
  Mr. Beith: We are faced with a paradox. The provisions that we are discussing relate to Customs and Excise taking too long to deal with complaints from taxpayers and needing the capacity to adjust the start and stop of the 30-day period to avoid being landed with repayments. Yet that part of Customs and Excise concerned with the introduction of legislation can work to a far stricter timetable. Indeed, there does not appear to be any time limit on that. Within 20 days of the High Court decision, it saw to it that a new clause was slapped on the Order Paper, and seven days later we are debating it. That is well within the 30-day limit. Perhaps that section of Customs and Excise could transfer some staff to the department that deals with VAT payers' inquiries. That would ensure that they were all dealt with within 30 days, and the clause would not be needed.
  We are witnessing an incredible amount of haste. That haste is justified by the Paymaster General on the basis that tremendous sums of money are involved. But our understanding, from Customs and Excise information, is that the vast majority of cases are considered within 10, not 30, days. Surely only a small minority of VAT cases will risk falling foul of the procedure if the new clause is not accepted.
  As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), various bodies, including the Institute of Directors, are extremely concerned about the way in which the matter has been handled. The institute writes:
  "We can understand that Customs should find the decision in the Rowland case unpalatable, but we regard it as totally unacceptable that the Government should table a New Clause … on the 1 July Order Paper a mere 20 days after the High Court decision and without any kind of prior warning for the Report Stage debate today 7 July. This is exactly the sort of practical matter which does not involve large sums of revenue but which requires detailed consultation with the representative bodies of taxpayers and their professional advisers."
  4.30 pm
  The Law Society has made similarly strong representations. In the society's opinion, the proposed new legislation will render it unlikely, in most cases in which Parliament thinks it appropriate for Customs and Excise to pay repayment supplement or interest, that that supplement or interest will be paid. That is partly because it would always be open to Customs and Excise to claim that, in its opinion, an inquiry was necessary, even if it subsequently changed its view and decided not to make any inquiry into the claim. Another reason is the fact that, although a taxpayer may have provided complete and satisfactory answers, time will start running only once the Commissioners have satisfied themselves that they have received a complete answer to the inquiry. The inquiry may have to be taken all the way up the line to headquarters; all kinds of factors may have caused problems.
  Many people who deal with such matters on a day-to-day basis feel that the new clause is not urgently needed. They believe that it will cause severe difficulties, and that it may well defeat Parliament's intention of providing restitution for the taxpayer in cases that have involved unnecessary delay. The Paymaster General tried to offer a way out by telling us that a code of conduct was being produced, but I gather that even that will not be subject to consultation initially, so that it can be implemented quickly.
  The fact that the code of practice is being produced at the same time as the review implies that, once the review
  198
  begins, the code of conduct already brought in will fall to be considered along with the new clause as a whole. That is a rather backwards way of dealing with the matter, and I do not think that the Paymaster General has convinced us that the present scale of risk to the Revenue justifies such proceedings.
  Sir John Cope: Both the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) referred to the letter from the Institute of Directors, which mentioned the speed with which the new clause had been tabled. I gave the reasons for that earlier.
  Let me reassure the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed that I did not table the new clause in a half-hearted way. I consider it an important measure: some £30 million a year would be involved without it. At yesterday's meeting with the Institute of Directors and others, Customs and Excise found themselves in a slight difficulty. They had a good idea of what I was likely to say today—particularly about the code of conduct and the review, which we have been discussing ever since the High Court case. Indeed, we had discussed our possible course of action to some extent before the completion of that case. We were able to move as quickly as we did partly because of contingency planning. I hope that the House will consider that wise, in the circumstances.
  The Customs and Excise officials were unwilling yesterday to pre-empt what I would tell the House. The House has a right to know things, and sometimes becomes rather upset if they are leaked rather than presented to it first. It is a difficult balance to achieve immediately before a ministerial statement, although in many cases we are keen to consult widely, and usually do so.
  Dr. Marek: I understand that, but can the Minister say something about the review and whether he will try to reach an agreement with the industry and the interests involved about how Customs and Excise will stop and start the clock? If he could assure the House that the review would take these matters into consideration in order to arrive at least at an unofficial method of procedure to be followed by Customs and Excise that was satisfactory to the interests involved, it would go a long way towards helping hon. Members on this side of the House and, I suspect, a lot of Conservative Members.
  Sir John Cope: Yes. I mentioned earlier that claims are initially sent to the VAT central unit in Southend. During the initial checking process, some of the claims—about 2 per cent.—are selected for further inquiries. The rest have a smoother passage. If the VAT central unit decides to make further inquiries, they may be inquiries either with the local VAT office—that is, local to wherever the trader happens to be—or with the Customs and Excise investigation branch or an outside agency. It is at that point that the clock stops. It is when the points that have been raised that cause the clock to stop in that way have been cleared up that the clock restarts.
  A number of hon. Members have suggested that there is no way in which Customs and Excise is accountable for its management of this system. From time to time it has to justify to the VAT tribunal, to Members of Parliament and, through Members of Parliament, to the parliamentary Commissioner its actions in this respect. Customs and Excise is, therefore, subject to the checks that I have just mentioned.

  199
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) is concerned about the disparity between the taxpayer and Customs and Excise. If the taxpayer has reasonable excuse which Customs accepts, the clock stops for the taxpayer, too. My hon. Friend asked whether there should instead by an absolute timetable of 60 days or another period, as was originally suggested by the Keith committee. That is one option. Nevertheless, if we can arrive at a code of conduct and if the results of the review are satisfactory to most people who are involved, I think that the 30-day period, plus a clock-stopping system that is generally acceptable, is the best approach. That is the way that I should prefer to approach it, if possible. I accept, however, that it may not be easy to achieve.
  The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed criticised the order of events. I accept his criticism in some respects. I refer to the timing of the Finance Bill relative to the timing of the High Court case. We thought that the High Court case would not be heard until the autumn, but, somehow or other, the High Court succeeded in clearing its in-tray faster than it normally does and got round to it. It seemed to me that it would be wrong not to use the opportunity that that presented in the interests of taxpayers at large—that is to say, of revenue to the Government.
  The code of conduct will to some extent be an interim one while the review takes place. I have no doubt that we shall want to refine it in some ways, or certainly consider doing so, during the review process.
  I have some information on the tribunal case to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West referred. That case had to do with the actual date of payment; it was not a reasonable time inquiry. The case was not appealed by Customs and Excise, which might have to consider appealing if there were another similar case. But I do not think that it is on all fours with the case with which we are dealing in this new clause.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West also asked about the cost. The cost would be about £30 million a year if we did not pass the new clause.
  Incidentally, the Institute of Directors also drew attention to the fact that the clause inserts into the Finance Acts similar provisions about the stopping of the clock in interest cases. That is dealt with in the second part of the clause. These cases are related to official error. It is, of course, a much smaller matter, because it is a question of interest at an annual rate for a few days while the clock is stopped. However, I think that it is sensible to keep the wording of the two parts of the Finance Acts in line with one another, and that is why we have introduced the second part of the new clause, which I commend to the House.
  Dr. Marek: I listened with interest to the Paymaster General who made some encouraging noises to the effect that there will be a review and a code of conduct. I know that he will carry out that review to the best of his ability and I hope that he will try to reach agreement with the interests involved. It is a matter which we can come to again on next year's Finance Bill; there is no problem about that. We will have to keep an eye on it.
  I had intended to ask my hon. Friends to support me in the Division Lobby, because we believe that there is an important principle at stake here, but I think that we should be charitable to the new clause. We shall wait and
  200
  see what happens, reserving our right to come back to the matter on the Finance Bill in a year's time; and we shall not press our amendments to a Division.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 2

  INHERITANCE TAX AND ACCESS
  `The following section shall be inserted after section 230 (acceptance of property in satisfaction of tax) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984—
  "230A.—(1) The provisions listed in subsections (2) and (3) below shall not apply unless the conditions set out in subsection (4) below are met.
  (2) The provisions referred to in subsection (1) above comprise the following sections of this Act—

  (a) section 230 (acceptance of property in satisfaction of tax)

  (b) section 231 (powers to transfer property in satisfaction).

  (3) The provisions referred to in subsection (1) above also comprise section 26A (potentially exempt transfer of property subsequently held for national purposes, etc.) of this Act if any transfer is an exempt transfer under section 26A only by virtue of the phrase '(b) has been disposed of in pursuance of section 230 below'.
  (4) The conditions referred to in subsection (1) above are that any property that would, apart from this section, be dealt with under the provisions listed in subsections (2) and (3) above must

  (a) if consisting of property other than land, be available for public viewing free of charge at regular intervals and for periods of reasonable duration throughout the whole of the year;

  (b) if consisting of land, be available for reasonable public access free of charge on clearly defined access routes or rights of way throughout the whole year.

  (5) Without prejudice to the generality of the words in subsection (4) above, property other than land shall not be regarded as available for public viewing at regular intervals and periods of reasonable duration throughout the whole year unless these periods total at least 52 days in each and every continuous twelve month period, commencing the first twelve month period for these purposes no later than a date fifteen months after the date of the Board first accepting property in satisfaction of tax in anticipation that the conditions referred to in subsection (4) above will be met.
  (6) Property shall not be regarded as meeting the conditions set out in subsection (4) above unless full details of the public access are readily available, and the Board is empowered by this subsection to set out such criteria as it sees fit for this test to be met.
  (7) This section shall apply in relation to all acceptance and transfers of property after 30th June 1992.".'.—[Mr. Chris Smith.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Chris Smith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  The new clause deals with what are known as conditionally exempt transfers. They represent a procedure under the Inheritance Tax Act 1984, which originated in the Finance Act 1976, where relief, originally from capital transfer tax but subsequently from inheritance tax, is given where works of art or areas of land of special quality remain in the ownership of the original owners in return for their agreeing to maintain the land properly and provide public access to either the land or the works of art.

  201
  Substantial sums of money are involved. In relation to land, the latest information that we have been able to obtain from the Treasury is that there has been a total of 149 cases since 1983 of access agreements over land being made to escape inheritance tax or capital transfer tax, and that the cost to the Exchequer has been between £5 million and £10 million in each year. So we are talking about something like £100 million in a 10-year period.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Can my hon. Friend give one or two examples of where this has occurred throughout the country? These figures sound impressive and I should like to know where I can walk now, as a result of this measure, where I could not walk before.
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend, who is well known in the House for his support for the work of the Ramblers Association and for issues of access to the countryside, puts his finger precisely on the problem.
  We know of one specific instance, which has been publicised, and I will come to that in a moment. But, apart from that, there is no public information about where the access has been provided. Indeed, in the parliamentary answer that I obtained from the Treasury on 2 June, which told me that there had been 149 cases of access granted and that this had cost £5 million to £10 million a year over the 10-year period, when I asked as part of my question where this access had been made available, the answer from the Financial Secretary was:
  "I regret that statistics of new public footpaths and permissive paths, or of land over which there is a right to roam, resulting from conditional exemption are not available."—[Official Report, 2 June 1992; Vol. 208, c. 399.]
  We are talking about public money forgone—£100 million over a 10-year period—yet, even from the Treasury, which has granted the relief from inheritance tax, or from any other Government Department, information about where the public access is available is simply not available.
  4.45 pm
  The situation with regard to works of art is similar, although the amounts of money involved are even greater. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) has been pressing this matter for some time. He was told, in a parliamentary answer just a few days ago, that the average amount of inheritance tax relief in return for supposed access to works of art has been £70 million per year over the past 10 years.
  In all, therefore, we are facing expenditure from the public purse, effectively, of some £800 million over 10 years, in return for supposed access to areas of landscape quality and superlative works of art.
  I have no objection to the principle of relieving inheritance tax in return for gaining public access to important parts of our countryside and important works of art, but the additional access that is given in return for inheritance tax relief must be clearly available and information about it must be readily to hand.
  I believe that even the Economic Secretary realises this, because, in Committee a week or two ago, in the debate on some of the changes to inheritance tax which the Government are bringing in in rejecting our argument that the Government were being foolish with regard to areas of
  202
  high-quality landscape, in going for 100 per cent. agricultural inheritance tax relief, thereby skirting round the present system of 50 per cent. tax relief with the possibility of 100 per cent. relief in return for conditions, the Economic Secretary said:
  "It is a more profitable line of inquiry to consider whether conditional exemption agreements are working properly in relation to signposting and so on than it is to explore whether sufficient land is being entered into such arrangements." [Official Report, Standing Committee B, 30 June 1992; c. 419.]
  Those are the words of the Economic Secretary himself.
  It seems to us that the agreements are not working properly. Our new clause seeks to set very clearly on the statute book the requirement that agreements must work properly if inheritance tax relief is to be gained. The new clause provides that information about the rights of access that exist must be made readily available to the public, and it requires that access be free of charge. In relation to land it requires that access must be available throughout the year, and in relation to works of art it requires that reasonable access must be available at least 52 days in every year, on a regular basis such as a day a week.
  I want to discuss access to land. Perhaps I should own up to a keen personal interest, as I have roamed the wild and remote parts of our country and hope to be able to do so for many years to come. Public access to land is extremely important. If access is available to the public but no one knows where it is, what is the purpose in having it? There is only one publicly documented case, to which I shall refer in detail in a moment. For the past few years details are supposed to have been lodged with the Central Council of Physical Recreation. On being asked about the matter, the council told us that no details of any arrangements had been lodged in the past few years. We know that in 1990–91 there were 17 cases of the granting of access, and that in 1991–92 there were 16, yet these were not recorded with the CCPR as they should have been.
  I appreciate that there is an Inland Revenue rule about the secrecy of the affairs of individual taxpayers. But we are not asking how much relief, in terms of money, has been granted in individual cases; we are asking simply where access has been granted in return for relief.
  Mr. Bennett: I understand the taxation principle, but does my hon. Friend accept that if, for example, a farmer in the Peak district enters into an access agreement with the national park, people can find out how much money is involved and can judge whether it represents value for those being provided with extra access? Surely there ought to be some relationship between the sums of money forgone in tax—the amounts appear to be huge—and the number of acres of land or miles of footpath secured. I understand the argument for confidentiality in respect of individual cases, but the House ought to know whether the Government are getting value for money.
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A few weeks ago I asked a question about the number of acres that had been made available for the right to roam, the number of additional miles of footpath had been made available, and the overall cost in each year. The answer was that no information was available. But the provision of that information would not contravene the Inland Revenue's secrecy rules.
  There is an additional problem. The Government seem to believe that where access is made available some sort of additional right is granted if the access is by rights of way

  203
  or what are called permissive paths. But rights of way are precisely what their name suggests. They are rights of way, and whether or not a conditionally exempt transfer agreement is entered into, they will remain so for time immemorial. That must be so. No additional right of access can be granted in the case of a right of way. What about permissive paths? Suppose a permissive path is made available so that people may walk in the countryside. In view of the way in which permissive paths work, I fear that the permission could be withdrawn at any time. Therefore, it is simply not good enough to say that access in return for inheritance tax relief shall be over rights of way and over permissive paths. In terms of additional rights for the public, that does not add up to very much.
  I said that I would come to the one specific instance about which we know. I refer to the Bransdale Moor estate in the North York moors. It is known also as the Nawton Tower estate. It is a remote area of moorland of about 15,400 acres and was the subject of a conditionally exempt transfer in 1978. The land in question is owned by Lady Clarissa Collin, who is the granddaughter of the late Earl of Halifax, the Conservative Foreign Secretary from 1938 to 1941. Lady Clarissa Collin entered into a conditionally exempt transfer in 1978. As that took place under a Labour Government, the information was made public. The North York Moors national park, in its information bulletin of the winter of 1978–79, told us exactly what had happened in return for inheritance tax relief for the Bransdale Moor estate. There was an agreement for the maintenance of landscape character; there was a provision that any proposals involving ploughing and reclamation of moorland had to be agreed; there was agreement that there would be a management programme of moor burning; and there was agreement that scientific interest would be looked after. All of that is good conservation management. But, in addition, the undertaking provided that
  "The Trust"—
  that is, the trust of the estate—
  "would agree to ensure that within the context of good estate management and the securing of farming and sporting objectives, there will be reasonable access to members of the public for walking and horseriding."
  The undertaking went on:
  "Public access shall be normally along existing rights of way. The Trust would accept the principle that access off these routes would be permissible".
  There are set out a few conditions about walkers being asked not to leave rights of way during the nesting time in April and May and during grouse shooting in August and September, but otherwise the undertaking says very clearly that access off the existing rights of way shall be permissible. That agreement was signed by Lady Clarissa Collin in 1978 in return for relief from capital transfer tax.
  But what happened in March 1990? Twelve land owners in the North York moors wrote to the national park officer, saying:
  "Access to the highly important and vulnerable upland heather moors must be restricted to an improved footpath system where that is appropriate."
  The signatories included Lady Clarissa Collin. So in 1978 Lady Clarissa Collin entered into an agreement in return for relief from inheritance tax—and the agreement provided that access would be available off rights of way —yet in 1990 she joined other land owners to write to the national park officer saying that access should not be available off the rights of way.
  204
  What is happening on the ground follows that letter. There is a notice saying that walkers must keep to the established footpaths and there are gamekeepers wandering around to reinforce the message. In other words, in return for being relieved of inheritance tax, Lady Clarissa Collin has given the public nothing. In her letter of 1990, along with others, she was clearly showing her intention to renege on the agreement that she had made in 1978. Our new clause challenges such practices.
  5 pm
  One might ask why this is important. Access to the countryside and enjoyment of the open air are extremely important to millions of our fellow citizens. Back in 1934, G. H. B. Ward, founder of the Sheffield Clarion Ramblers and a fighter, throughout his life, for public access to open country, wrote about this matter, putting it better than any of us ever could. He said:
  "Rambling is also a culture and a craft … an intense love for one's own country, the innermost and the most remote parts of it, the sweetest as well as the wildest, a love for the wind and the rain, the snow and the frost, the hill and the vale, the widest open spaces and the choicest pastoral and arboreal retreats."
  That is what the new clause is all about.
  In 1884, James Bryce, then Member of Parliament for Aberdeen, South, introduced a Bill to provide unrestricted public access to uncultivated mountain or moorland. We have been waiting 108 years for such a measure to pass through the House. I long to see the day when we legislate to ensure that ordinary people can have access to the wide open spaces as of right rather than having to beg and scrape for it. While such a system exists and while we rely on arrangements such as inheritance tax relief to ensure it, we must make sure that those arrangements work properly.
  Let us deal with works of art. If one owns a valuable painting or a piece of sculpture, one can record it as being in one's ownership and, in return for saying that one will grant public access to view the work of art, one can gain relief from inheritance tax. Although there is no list of access to land, there is a list of access to works of art. Held in the Victoria and Albert museum, it runs to 13 files, some of which are an inch thick. There are 10 items on each page and there are probably, although I have not counted them personally, 30,000 to 40,000 items in all. They include paintings, sculpture, furniture and jewellery.
  Last year, three members of the public, one of whom was an Inland Revenue inspector, inspected the list. For each item, there is a rough description, an approximate location and a contact name. Normally, the contact name is a local solicitor or someone of the kind. The Observer, which has been running an admirable campaign on this issue in recent weeks, noted names and tried to contact five of them. Two of the names were no longer the correct contact names and those people could not say who the right person was. One of the names was the correct contact, but had no idea of the procedure to view the item. One other asked for a request in writing and the fifth, who was the owner of the painting in question, said, "Viewing is difficult."
  This is hardly "readily available public access". I understand that some of the owners charge for viewing, and that should not happen. Not only are many of the contacts out of date, but much of the information about the contents of the list is as well. For example, a painting by Miro that is recorded as being in private ownership in

  205
  Sussex is in the Scottish National Gallery for Modern Art and has been there for some years. These are not minor paintings. They range from paintings by Leonardo to paintings by Picasso, from Turner to Canaletto. They are part of our vital artistic heritage. We should know where they are and how we can go about seeing them because we, the taxpayers, have effectively paid for doing so.
  Arcane and archaic viewing arrangements, inadequate and out-of-date information and no public knowledge at all of land is not good enough. It is high time that we ensured that, where public money is yielded up, proper public access is made available in return. The superb works of art and the finest and most remote of landscapes should be there for the ordinary citizen to enjoy. At heart, that is what the new clause is all about.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: Before most major changes in legislation, we have the most elaborate consultations within and outside the House with national and local organisations. There are Green Papers and White Papers and so on. One of the curious anomalies of the Budget process is that, as soon as the Chancellor goes into Budget purdah, there is no such dialogue. Therefore, it is fair to say that the new inheritance tax exemptions have not been digested anything like as thoroughly as, for example, new legislation setting the framework for agricultural and environmental law or that on recreation.
  Therefore, we find ourselves in the curious situation that the exemptions that we have had since 1976 in several formats have been assumed to continue until the Budget. As soon as the Budget proposed changes, organisations of the stature of the Countryside Commission, English Nature, the Ramblers Association, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, farmers and landowners and their respective bodies in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland all wondered what the impact would be on the work that they do on behalf of the Government and the nation.
  It may be that the other Departments that have responsibility in this subject were caught napping as well. When I tabled a question to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food last week, his answer was at best a holding one and at worst a neat passing of the buck. He seems to have no view of what the impact of these changes will be either in financial and environmental terms or on farming practice.
  In Committee, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury reassured us. He said that he did not wish to undo all the good work done by successive Governments by the use of exemptions. By inference, we have to take it that he believes that the success of past policies and the continuing success for whole categories of land that will not otherwise be exempt is such that they will want to boast of their success. One wonders how one can boast of success if everything is kept secret.
  It is surely a maxim of Thatcherite economics—if we dare still mention them in this place—that one should know what one is paying for. It is surely a matter for open government that the public, having effectively subsidised a particular asset, should know what they are getting for their money. As the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said, there are already some curious anomalies. It is possible to obtain some information about works of art that have been subject to the concessions.
  206
  Today's Hansard contains written answers which include much detailed information about works of art. The information includes reference to:
  "A drawing, 'A wild boar at bay', Frans Snyders (1579–1647)".—[Official Report, 6 July 1992; Vol. 211, c. 21.]
  The written answers contain much detail and a long list. However, there is no schedule showing what areas of the country and great heritage items of landscape and recreational access have been bought with our money. There is obviously a curious anomaly.
  The new clause is obviously very well intentioned and we support it. However, as worded, it avoids the curious problem which we always have to overcome of the criteria by which a judgment should be made—in this case, for reasonable public access. I am not sure that empowering the board of the Inland Revenue is the best way to ensure that the sharpest minds on that particular issue will be used to produce the right criteria.
  The crucial issue in the new clause is the criteria. If the criteria are very detailed, there will be considerable confusion. The issue will be very complex, bureaucratic and possibly litigious because large sums of money will be involved. Whether or not a farmer will receive relief will be of considerable concern to him, his family, his tax advisers and his lawyers.
  For example, over what period would the farmer need to have cared for the land in question and ensured that there was public access before the death that triggers inheritance tax liability? What will be taken as proof? Who is to be judge and jury in the matter? Conversely, if the criteria are very scanty, they could surely be met so easily that the new clause would be worthless.
  We hope that the proposal can be made to work because it is of considerable interest to landowners, to farmers and to the public. In many areas of tax legislation and administrative criteria, there is already a balance which must be struck. We can only hope that the board or professional advisers from the appropriate national statutory bodies can find the right balance.
  We support the new clause and hope that the Government mean what they said in Committee upstairs and in their manifesto about the public interest in future policy for the countryside. We hope that that wider Government interest will prevail against the narrow interests of the Treasury.
  Mr. Clive Betts: I wish to address my comments to tax relief on land. It might seem slightly strange to people with a false impression of the city from which I come and which I have the privilege to represent to learn that, contrary to some opinions, Sheffield contains a great deal of moorland and open countryside of considerable beauty. One third of the city lies within the Peak district national park and rambling is an extremely important local hobby for many people in the city. Much of the land lies within the Sheffield constituencies of Hallam and Hillsborough. As well as having older industrial areas, my constituency contains important areas like the Moss valley which are important to my constituents, as is the whole issue of access to the open countryside.
  The Government might argue that the current arrangements for tax relief on land are not working. They might argue that the expenditure of £5 million to £10 million a year of public money over 10 years, when the public have no details about what land that expenditure

  207
  refers to and when the supposed benefits of access to the countryside cannot be realised because the public are unaware of that access and to which land it applies, is a waste of public money and cannot be justified.
  It is difficult to understand precisely what benefit the public are receiving. The Government could argue that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) explained, because some of the agreements apply to permissive paths as well as to public rights of way, the public are not getting a very good deal. The Government could argue that, because the management agreements often relate to the maintenance of land in its existing state rather than to the addition and enhancement of new land and improvements to management services, the public are not getting a very good deal.
  5.15 pm
  The Government may even argue strongly that the whole scheme has been a sham, abuse and waste of taxpayers' money since its inception. Those are reasons not for the Government to change the law as they propose, but for the Government to begin to enforce the provisions properly and to make the information about the agreements open so that the public can receive the benefit of the money that has been expended on their behalf.
  In Committee, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury said that the Government's proposed changes applied only to 25 per cent. of the land in question. Only 25 per cent. of the land would receive 100 per cent. tax relief automatically. For the remaining 75 per cent. to receive 100 per cent. tax relief, the current agreements on access and management would have to apply.
  We must ask whether the Government's proposals will provide equality in respect of that land. I believe that the new clause provides a much better arrangement. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury accepted that there would have been instances in the past when agreements had been reached on access and management of land to obtain the 100 per cent. tax relief. However, according to the Government's proposals, in exactly the same circumstances the tax relief in future will be available automatically without the need for agreements. In other words, because of the timing of the death of the landowner, similar land would be treated in very different ways. There was no proposal to terminate the previous agreements on land even though similar land will be treated differently in future.
  It was accepted that in respect of the 75 per cent. of land for which agreements would still be needed for owners to claim 100 per cent. benefit of tax relief, that land in respect of scientific interest, beauty and benefits of walking over it, would be no different from other land which, in future, will gain 100 per cent. tax relief without the need for agreement.
  There seems to be an inequality of treatment there and between the 25 per cent. of land for which 100 per cent. of tax relief will be available automatically and the 75 per cent. of land for which agreements on management and access will still be required to secure such relief even though there is no difference in scientific interest, beauty and access between those two cases.
  There is a problem. Either the Government are claiming that access and management are not important because tax relief will now be given automatically on some land or, if they are important—and they must be because
  208
  the agreements are to be maintained for 75 per cent. of the land—how will the Government secure access and proper managment for the 25 per cent. of land unless other inducements and tax reliefs are to be introduced in future at further cost to the Treasury? We pushed that question hard in Committee but we did not receive an answer from the Minister. The matter continues to worry me, and I hope that the Minister will explain why his arrangements are better than the new clause, which would resolve the problem.
  The kernel of the argument is that the Government have not thought through the implications of their proposals. One can understand that some arguments about the need for agricultural holdings to be kept together on the death of an owner are relevant, and why the Government have put them forward. However, they have pushed the arguments without considering the important implications for management and access.
  Whatever happens when we vote on the new clause, the Government must accept that, in respect of agreements that have previously been reached and new agreements that are reached in future, there will still need to be agreements on management, and access information must be made public so that taxpayers will benefit from the considerable sums that they are forgoing.
  Mr. Bennett: I support the new clause. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) on the new clause, and I congratulate The Observer on its campaign in respect of the issue. I also congratulate the Ramblers Association on its work, particularly its document on public access to the countryside and the inheritance tax. I am not quite so sure whether I should congratulate it on its rather corny title, "Give us Some Quo for Our Quid", but the association still produced a worthwhile document.
  It is absolutely amazing that the Government have not come up with any information about benefits to the public as a result of the tax concession. I hope that the Minister will set out some good examples of areas in which access is working and where people benefit from the provision, otherwise hon. Members will feel that there has been a gross fraud such as that which my hon. Friend described. People were given tax benefits, but they appear not to have given the public any access.
  I am not one of those who believe that we should pay for access. There should be a right to roam on all mountain land, moorland and open land, and there should be no attempt to charge for that. I do not believe that people walking on land cause any problem, therefore there is no justification for a charge. The only reason for making a charge would be to provide extra stiles or, in a few popular areas, to stop erosion. People should be able to roam freely. If we are to pay from the public purse, it is important to produce fairness across the board.
  In large areas of the Lake district and of north Wales, some tenant farmers and owners have always allowed free access. I fear that if those farmers discover that large landowners have been paid to provide what they already provide freely, there will be restrictions on many areas where access is already available. I plead with the Government at least to demonstrate that by making those tax concessions we will have something of outstanding value in return. So far, I can see no evidence of that at all.

  209
  Instead of improving access, it will be more difficult to achieve in areas in which no one has thought of making charges.
  I press the Minister, if there are to be access agreements and conservation, particularly in areas such as the north Yorkshire moors, to consider the argument that it is far better to let people roam freely rather than encourage them to stay on footpaths. Inevitably, if people must follow footpaths, those footpaths become worn and it becomes difficult for small animals and insects to cross from one side to the other. That does far more damage than allowing people freely to roam across the land. Some landowners represent shooting interests and have fought very hard against the right to roam, but, on conservation grounds, it is far better to let people have open access rather than restrict them to footpaths. In areas in which access agreements have been negotiated, particularly in the Peak district, and where people have roamed freely, there are far fewer problems than in areas where they have been restricted to footpaths, some of which are eroded.
  I strongly support the new clause. I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury referred to G.H.B. Ward. I was able to go with the ramblers when they dedicated a memorial to Mr. Ward. Admittedly, it was one of those occasions when there was a chance to harangue a large assembly of ramblers. The only aspect that was disappointing was that it was pouring with rain and, in the circumstances, extremely difficult to make a speech. However, Mr. Ward, who was from Sheffield, was a very important fighter for the rights of access.
  I hope that the Minister will assure us that we will have a public statement on what new access is to be created as a result of what payments.
  Mr. Eric Martlew: We are talking about a scandal—giving £800 million of taxpayers' money to some of the wealthiest people in the country. Although I support new clause 2, it is rather generous. History over the centuries has proved that those who have received tax relief have managed to keep all their wealth anyhow. There is a feeling that £800 million could have been better spent. That is the exact amount that is needed to upgrade the west coast main line railway from Carlisle to Glasgow, which would ensure that my constituents had an effective railway service. That might not happen because the money will not be available.
  The scandal is that landowners have received money for very little. I was told in a parliamentary answer that there are six such landowners in Cumbria. Shortly after that, the Government stopped naming counties in which such landowners live. I cannot understand the reason. However, there are six such landowners in the county of Cumbria. We are refused information on who they are, what access is available and how much it costs. We are told that that is because of confidentiality. That is nonsense.
  If those landowners wished to remain anonymous and not have their tax matters discussed, they should not have opted for the tax exemption. They decided that they wanted hundreds of thousands—perhaps millions; we are not to be told—in tax relief from the Exchequer. Surely, by doing that, they forfeited the right to confidentiality. They should have told my constituents, "We have made a deal" —we do not need to know how much it has cost—"for this
  210
  piece of land, and there is now open access to that land", but that is not the case. It is even worse than that. Not only are the people of the county not told, but representatives of local planning committees and the Lake District planning board—elected representatives—are not told. I recently spoke to the former chairman of the Lake District planning board, Councillor Phizackerley. He had no knowledge that that was happening in the Lake district, even though Lake District national park officers were acting as agents of the Countryside Commission to monitor what was going on. The members of the authority were not told.
  I tabled another parliamentary question on the matter and received an ambiguous answer from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He was not telling us anything. The scandal of money for access to land is nothing compared to the scandal of money for access to works of art. Some £700 million has been given in the past decade to various people in return for making their works of art available to the general public. Of course, that is if people can find those works of art. That is not so easy.
  5.30 pm
  I went to the House of Commons Library as my first port of call. The Library rang the national art library at the Victoria and Albert museum and was told that information was not available and photocopies could not be made of the records at the national art library. That is nonsensical, because public money is involved and Parliament passed the legislation.
  Then I tried to find the information personally. Last Friday I rang the V and A and was told that, due to staff shortages, unfortunately the library was closed. So I rang on Saturday and was told that, due to staff shortages, unfortunately the library had an extended lunch break and was closed from 12 to 2 pm. As I had tabled a parliamentary question asking the Minister to put a copy of the document in the Library, I decided to sit back and wait until it arrived. Surprise, surprise, I received an answer from the Minister that he would not place the document in the Library on the ground that it was a big book. As it cost £700 million to compile the book, it is no wonder that it is a big book.
  Undaunted, my research assistant went to the V and A today to have a look at the document. She is a former librarian and she was appalled at the state of the document. It is not even indexed. Unless one knows what one is looking for, there is no point in looking at the document.
  Perhaps the position is simply part of a muddle. Perhaps the Government have not taken the matter seriously. But I believe that the Government did not want people to know where to go to see the art treasures. Comments have been made that some well-known parliamentary names from the past appeared in the document. I will not go into those names. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] Hon. Members will have to go and look for themselves. Obviously, names of noble Lords from another place appear in the document.
  Perhaps we have now come to the crux of the matter. The Government have dealt with public access in this way. It is a way of maintaining wealth and power in Britain. We see it in the Chamber and in the other place. But how does that compare with the open government and classless society of the Prime Minister?
  Mr. Geoffrey Hoon (Ashtield): The application of inheritance tax legislation to allow conditionally exempt transfers to attract substantial tax relief is a Kafkaesque exercise in secrecy and obfuscation. Property, land and works of art can be exempted from inheritance tax where undertakings are given which purport to guarantee public access to the property, such as that land should be managed for the benefit of the public and works of art should be available for public view and inspection.
  New clause 2 sets out to define the circumstances in which public access should be made available. It defines what in practice public access should mean. It states, first, that details of access rights should be available to members of the public; secondly, that access should be available on a regular basis; and thirdly, that access should be free of charge.
  New clause 2 will therefore provide a practical guarantee of public access rights. That is not unreasonable because members of the public pay for those rights through the tax system in the form of tax relief and tax forgone. So why should new clause 2 be necessary? As has already been said, substantial sums of public money are involved and between £5 million and £10 million per year are relieved in return for access to land alone. That is about £100 million in the past 10 years. That raises some basic questions about the land. Where is the land? What public access rights have been granted over it? Are they new rights or have existing rights of access been confirmed? Moreover, what is the point of granting rights of public access if no one knows precisely where the land is and which land is being considered?
  Exempt transfers are important because the landowner is required not only to guarantee public access but to keep the land in proper condition. He is required to maintain the land and preserve its character. That is crucial because many of the transfers involve land in areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks or cover sites of special scientific interest. Again, if no one knows precisely what land is covered, or the nature of the access granted to the public, how is it possible to determine whether the land has been properly maintained or its character properly preserved? It is possible for the landowner to take his tax relief and his money and run to the safety of the badly maintained hills.
  The same principles apply to works of art. To qualify for inheritance tax relief it is necessary to lodge with the Victoria and Albert museum details of the nature of the work of art—whether it is a painting, sculpture or piece of furniture—together with information on how the public can exercise their right of access. Unfortunately, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) graphically demonstrated, the practical exercise of that right is frustrated by the administrative nature of the system operated at the museum.
  Even though a rough description is required for each work of art, together with its location by county, in practice it is impossible for the public to gain access to a remarkable range of public assets. They include paintings and drawings by Picasso, Leonardo da Vinci, Rembrandt, Rubens, Titian and Hogarth; sculptures by Rodin, Degas and Henry Moore; and thousands of antique rugs, tapestries and items of jewellery and furniture.
  As the Government have made train-spotting so difficult by running down our railways, perhaps I could recommend a new public pastime of public access art-spotting. Treasure hunts are popular at weekends. This
  212
  would be a real treasure hunt. People would be able to draw up lists of property that they had spotted. I am sure that enterprising publishers could publish helpful guides such as "I Spy a Masterpiece".
  Mr. Ken Purchase: Would not we need to know which land we could cross on the treasure hunt before we could find the works of art?
  Mr. Hoon: That would be part of the challenge. Indeed, it would require only a modest addition to new clause 2 to make the treasure hunt competitive. if we knew how much tax had been forgone, points could be awarded according to the value of the pieces of art spotted by enterprising members of the public. The more valuable the item, the more tax relief, and the more points would be awarded. I am confident that the Secretary of State for National Heritage will seize on that modest suggestion and that the ministry of fun will encourage it as part of its attempt to encourage public access to our national heritage.
  It follows from what I have said about both land and works of art that land and property owners are technically in breach of the law. They are certainly in breach of the spirit, if not of the letter, of the law. Given that, under the rules, a property owner forfeits the right to tax relief if the land or property is no longer available to the public, clearly he or she should, in such circumstances, be liable to repay the tax forgone.
  Perhaps the Government might like to tell us precisely how many tax inspectors are deployed to ensure public access to the works of art or pieces of land in question. I suspect that the Government might be embarrassed by the modesty of their answer to that question. Yet, taxpayers are carefully followed up by tax inspectors, and small businesses face questioning by tax inspectors. I wonder whether the Treasury, which oversees the deals, is allowing substantial amounts of money to escape the Revenue, without a proper investigation into the right of public access.
  I recommend new clause 2 to the House. Is it so unreasonable to ask the Government to ensure in practice the largely theoretical rights of public access, enshrined in the tax legislation? That is the purpose of new clause 2. and it is difficult to understand why the Government should resist it.
  Mr. Alan Milburn: The new clause seeks to put to rights a clear abuse of the tax system. The lax operation of the law puts the interests of the very wealthy —landowners and owners of great national treasures—above those of the public. It confers privileges on the owners of land and art treasures, without any payback for the taxpayer—the people who financed the privileges out of their pockets in the first place. To coin a phrase from The Ramblers, the law is supposed to give the taxpayer
  "Some quo for its quids."
  In return for offering public access to land or works of art, an owner can keep it and be relieved of inheritance tax. All that costs a pretty penny. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said that it is costing the taxpayer and the Exchequer about £10 million per year for land, and my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) said that costs for art treasures are way in excess of that figure, at about £70 million per annum.
  Normally, we are not privy to the deals negotiated between the Exchequer and owners of land or art

  213
  treasures. The Observer has managed to track down the only case where a known sum of money has been attached to access to land. The land is owned by the Duke of Devonshire—a man who is not known to be short of a bob or two. He owns the Bolton abbey estate in the Yorkshire dales. According to The Observer, negotiations are under way at this moment with the Treasury and with the Countryside Commission. It is understood that the Duke of Devonshire is demanding about £12 million in return for keeping open existing public rights of way—they are not new rights of way. The taxpayer and the Exchequer are expected to pay £12 million for the privilege. The Economic Secretary has an opportunity to confirm whether that is the case and how the negotiations are progressing.
  It is as well to remember that the Government are anxious to damp down public expenditure, to ensure that we get good value for money and that the taxpayer gets a good deal. I wonder whether the Economic Secretary will confirm that he thinks that the deal being concluded with the Duke of Devonshire fits all those criteria. I think that it probably does not.
  In the past decade, handouts from the Exchequer have cost approximately £800 million. Before too long we shall hit the magic figure of £1 billion. As my hon. Friends know only too well, £1 billion is equivalent to ½p on the standard rate of income tax. We are paying through the nose to maintain the privileges of wealthy landowners and the owners of art treasures. Perhaps that would not be so bad if the public were getting some value for money, or at least some knowledge of value for money, but clearly they are not.
  5.45 pm
  The law states that when inheritance tax relief is given, full details of access rights must be readily available to the public. We know, from contributions from the Opposition Front Bench and from my other hon. Friends, that those details are simply not forthcoming. We know that a substantial amount of land—about 315,000 acres—is covered by such arrangements, including many sites of outstanding beauty or of special scientific interest. They are the jewels in the crown of this country. and the lax operation of the present tax laws means that those 315,000 acres are being subsidised out of the public purse for the private use of the wealthy.
  The public, who are supposed to be the direct beneficiaries of deals concluded between the Exchequer and landowners and owners of art treasures, arc being kept in the dark about where they can exercise the rights being bought on their behalf. Worse still, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said, there is clear evidence that there has been direct infringement of some deals. If anything, the situation is even worse as regards art treasures. When The Observer contacted the National Art-Collections Fund, which helps museums to buy works of art, and the Museums Association, the umbrella body dealing with museums, neither knew of the existence of the register of works of art kept at the Victoria and Albert museum.
  As we have heard from some of my hon. Friends, the works concerned are treasures indeed. One such work, Canaletto's view of Old Horseguards, was recently bought for the nation for £10 million. It was previously on the
  214
  register, although few people have seen it. The owner, Viscount FitzHarris, had avoided paying inheritance tax on it amounting to about £4 million at today's prices. The public got a raw deal and I suspect that Viscount FitzHarris got a good deal.
  Who does all that benefit? It certainly does not benefit the taxpayer or the Exchequer, the rambler or the art lover. Their rights of access are denied to them, yet we are talking of national treasures which the public have effectively funded. The sole beneficiaries are the very wealthy.
  If the Government fail to accept the new clause, which brings public rights out into the open, and defines access in precise terms, we shall be left with the impression that Ministers are more concerned to protect the interests of the very rich than those of the public or the taxpayer. However, that should come as no surprise to my hon. Friends. After all, for about 13 years it has been Conservative party policy to defend the interests of the very wealthy against those of the public in general. I do not say that from any party political or prejudiced point of view, as my hon. Friends will know.
  The Financial Secretary, who sadly is absent, told one of my hon. Friends on 29 June that the principal beneficiaries of income tax reductions from 1979 have been those earning more than £80,000 a year. That small group of just 150,000 people gained some £7,200 million in income tax cuts—an average of some £46,000 each per annum. By contrast, the 3 million people who earned less than £5,000 per annum received a total reduction, thanks to income tax cuts, of just some £500 million—a paltry £150 a year each. As always happens under the Conservative party, the gainers have been the most privileged in our society and the losers have been the least privileged.
  It is time that the Government accepted that they should govern in the interests of everyone, not just a tiny few. After all, in recent months we have heard many claims by Conservative Members about the need for a classless society and open government. The Government have an opportunity to demonstrate both their commitment to a classless society and to open government by ending what has become a racket in inheritance tax exemptions and by accepting new clause 2.
  Mr. Peter Mandelson: It is difficult to understand why the Government might resist the new clause, because it does not alter, but, rather, strengthens the principle that underpins inheritance legislation and assists in enforcing the conditions that the Inland Revenue seeks to oppose. Moreover, the Government should not resist the new clause on grounds of effectiveness and efficiency. It is obviously of wide benefit to the people whom we represent and would not cost the Treasury a penny to implement.
  If the new Secretary of State for National Heritage were present, he would probably embrace the new clause enthusiastically because it goes to the heart of the role that the Prime Minister has given him. In one deft move, its acceptance would help to tear away the dust sheet from significant parts of our national heritage and allow the padlocks to be removed from areas of scenic beauty and hitherto unexplored delights in our countryside. The acceptance of the new clause and the more efficient operation of that part of inheritance tax would lift the Heritage Secretary's horizons considerably. Rather than

  215
  seeking new photo opportunities for himself, which seems to be what his new post has consisted of so far, it would enable him to create new opportunities for the people of this country to enjoy the national heritage, which the Minister has been appointed to serve.
  There has never been disagreement about the objectives and virtues of the relief from inheritance tax. Those objectives are to open up what has hitherto been hidden and provide access to what has been closed or at least unknown or undiscovered in the past. The objectives have never been questioned by Labour or Conservative Governments. The new clause deals with the lack of diligence in the operation and application of the provisions and the lack of thoroughness in extending the benefits of the inheritance tax relief provisions to the public at large. Because of that lack of diligence and thoroughness in the provisions' implementation and operation, a good and fair system has gone badly wrong. Indeed, that fair and reasonable system to defray inheritance tax, which was meant to operate in the public interest, has instead turned into a racket and a rip-off.
  The lack of diligence and thoroughness with which the provisions have been implemented has resulted in such abuse of the system and generated such contempt for the authorities that, were it present in the operation of the social security system of welfare benefits, it would produce howls of outrage and demands for a crackdown from Conservative Members.
  Recently I was subjected to an intervention by the hon. Member for Welwyn, Hatfield (Mr. Evans), who asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether she planned to act against what he termed "social security scroungers". He said in his characteristically unattractive—some would say obnoxious—way:
  "Is she aware that many of the long-term unemployed are layabouts? They should have to do community work before receiving benefit. The taxpayers are sick and tired of financing these layabouts."—[Official Report, 9 June 1992; Vol. 209, c. 139.]
  Why should not the same standards that apply to those who enjoy benefits from the social security system also apply to those who are considerably better off and enjoy similar benefits from relief in the operation of inheritance tax?
  I am reminded of a story that appeared a couple of weeks ago in The Sunday Times by Mr. Andrew Grice, political correspondent and respected member of the reporting staff in the House. He said that the Secretary of State for Social Security was going to order a crackdown on dole fleecers.
  Why do the Government operate double standards? If the report is accurate and the Social Security Secretary is preparing to order a crackdown on dole fleecers, why should not the same standards be applied to those getting away with an abuse of the inheritance tax system? They are enjoying the benefits and relief to which they are entitled under the legislation to which the new clause refers, but are not giving back what they are obliged to return under the agreement that they have reached. What is the difference? What is regarded as an abuse of the social security system is treated with a benign shrug in the case of inheritance tax and the relief that is offered to people to defray it.
  The harsh punishment that many would like to see given for what they call "scroungers" should not be blindly ignored in the case of rich landowners and art collectors who are taking advantage of the relief under inheritance
  216
  tax law. Is that not a clear example of double standards'? Are not the Government saying that the rich should be given more while the poor should have it taken away?
  Abuse of the system allows the well-off, with land and priceless artefacts, to hold on to their wealth without subsequently meeting the obligations into which they have freely entered.
  However, for those without such land and artefacts. the abuse of the system denies them access to what it is their right to view, to walk upon or otherwise to enjoy. It is not hard to understand why the system is going wrong and why it is open to such abuse when, upon the death of an enormously rich person, his heirs seek to defray tax payable on the estate by exploiting the available relief.
  6 pm
  Let us consider the interesting and purely theoretical case of Princess Diana and the Spencer family treasures. What alternative is there to those treasures coming under the hammer to pay the huge death duties that arose upon the tragic death of Princess Diana's father, Earl Spencer'? The new Lord Spencer inherited not just an earldom, but the need to find £4 million out of the estate to pay the death duties. The new lord inevitably wants to retain as much of his inheritance as possible. Some people might argue that those magnificent treasures should instead pass in their entirety into public ownership for the benefit of the nation.
  To defray those death duties, it is open to the new earl to negotiate a conditionally exempt transfer. That would enable him to keep the treasures in his ownership—his exclusive private ownership—but in exchange he would have to provide assured public access so that those treasures could be viewed by members of the general public. That is the principle at the heart of the provision that is addressed by the new clause.
  In the words of the Ramblers Association, there must be a public quo in return for the earl's quid. Instead, we have what my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) described as a treasure trail, but with almost no clues available to enable members of the public to embark on the treasure hunt with any reasonable expectation of success, so that they might view and enjoy treasures that remain in private ownership but which, under the operation of the legislation, are meant to be available for the enjoyment and satisfaction of ordinary members of the public.
  I do not doubt the earl's good intentions, but just consider the hoops through which members of the public must go to view the pictures, the furniture and the artefacts —the priceless, stupendous treasures—in the great Spencer collection. My hon. Friends the Members for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) have already referred to the hoops, hurdles and obstacles that any member of the public might have to go through, over or under to have sight of treasures that are available for public viewing.
  Mindful of the fact that the Bill and its prolonged proceedings—in which I have been pleased to play some little part over the past almost incalculable number of weeks—are coming to an end, I thought that I might spend my weekend near my constituency walking through scenes of great beauty near Hartlepool in the county of Cleveland.
  As has already been said, there is no point going to the Countryside Commission, to the Central Council of

  217
  Physical Recreation or to the Ramblers Association because none of them can tell me what rights of way, what sights of scenic beauty or what natural landscapes I can enjoy under the provisions of our legislation near to my home in my constituency of Hartlepool—because there is no land, there are no walkways and there are no scenes of beauty recorded by any of those organisations that would enable me to make my choice.
  In the absence of a nice walk, I thought that I might instead use the time available to me, after we have completed a successful constituency barbecue that is to be held this weekend, looking at some nice pictures—
  Mr. Tony Banks: Are there any spare tickets?
  Mr. Mandelson: Yes, there are spare tickets.
  I thought that I would look at some nice pictures and some nice furniture. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle, I asked my office to contact the Victoria and Albert museum and the national arts library. However, the problem is not that there is any dearth of pictures, artefacts or fine pieces of furniture listed in the locality —on the contrary, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said, there are between 30,000 and 40,000 such objects, pictures and items of fine furniture from which I could select; the problem is that they are not broken down geographically. I would have to pore through thick books listing between 30,000 and 40.000 items before I could come upon that picture, that fine piece of furniture, that treasure located near Hartlepool that I might visit this weekend after the completion of my constituency barbecue.
  The practical problem is that what is available is not accessible; what is listed is impossible to divine in any simple, practical way that would allow ordinary members of the public, or even ordinary Members of Parliament celebrating the conclusion of the Finance Bill, to benefit from the sight and enjoyment of those items that are listed by the Victoria and Albert museum.
  I hope that, in responding to the debate, the Economic Secretary will reflect on the strength of argument that has supported the promotion of the new clause. It is needed to ensure that full details of art and land are readily available to the public, that access to them is free, and that such access is either regularly available during the year in the case of art, or permanently available in the case of land. The new clause is a practical, sensible proposal and I hope that, on reflection, the Economic Secretary will be minded to accept it.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I hope that the constituency barbecue of my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) is enormously successful. The only thing that he did not tell us was the price of the tickets.
  Mr. Mandelson: They are £4 each.
  Mr. Banks: That is an excellent bargain. I hope that anyone within a coach ride of Hartlepool will find his way to the barbecue.
  My hon. Friend is lucky to have rural idiocies to enjoy in his constituency at a weekend. I do not have very much in the London borough of Newham. Last Sunday we had a walk along the northern sewer outfall—[Laughter.] I knew that hon. Members would laugh, but it is quite beautiful if one likes sewers. It is a grassed-over embankment and it is pleasant to walk along it. When I
  218
  think of all the wealth and opportunity that some have in our society and then see the deprivation that so many of my constituents have to endure, it is easy to become angry. I could never believe that a scheme that allows people to set aside their tax liability by pledging paintings and land while continuing to enjoy them is anything but a total con. It is an absolute rip-off. The obstacles that are placed in the way of the public when they want to see such treasures make it an absolute sham.
  I am deeply grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) and for Islington. South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) for bringing that abuse to the public's attention. It has been going on for years, but until someone tells us about it, we remain ignorant.
  Few people in Newham have hereditary land and artefacts of great beauty that they can pledge to the nation to avoid taxation. They have nicked a few in their time, but have never been able to offset them against tax because the Inland Revenue is not too enthusiastic about the acquisition of property in that manner. The people of Newham cannot take advantage of the scheme, so it makes them feel that much more cheated.
  The more that I think of the scheme, the more monstrous it becomes—the idea that people can say, "I will set these paintings against my tax liability, but continue to keep them." What if I were to tell the Inland Revenue," I know that I owe you some money. I will leave it in the bank so that you know that it is there—but you cannot have it." That would never be allowed. It might be a nice try, but one would not be permitted to get away with it.
  Artefacts represent accumulated wealth that should be taxed. Many of those wonderful items and much of the land were originally stolen—given away by kings and queens to acolytes who had done them a favour. We all know the favours that used to be done for kings and queens.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the 1970s, when the now Lord Healey proposed a wealth tax, there was an outcry in all parts of the House? It was realised that it would lead to treasures leaving the country, and the opposition was such that Lord Graham of Edmonton, as he now is, presented to this House an all-party petition signed by more than 1 million people. The all-party arts and heritage group was formed at that time, and claimed the allegiance of right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House—as it still does. For once, the hon. Gentleman has got it wrong.
  Mr. Banks: Well, there you go. I remember Denis Healey, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, saying that he would squeeze the rich "until the pips squeak". That is one of my favourite political sayings. I looked forward to that, but unfortunately it did not happen. I ask the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), for whom I have great respect, how anyone could take land out of the country. One cannot pick up 3.000 prime acres and ship them abroad. Not even the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South, for all his ingenuity, could do that.
  Mr. Cormack: I remind the hon. Gentleman that a country house, with its parklands and treasures, must be sustained by income from some source—and in many cases the income comes from the land.
  Mr. Banks: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but he was saying that valuables should not be shipped out of the country. I merely mentioned land as an example. However, the hon. Gentleman is on to something. To answer his point, I would like to be set up a national register of all items of heritage of great value that belonged to the nation. An export embargo should be placed on them so that people would not be allowed to ship them out of the country. Export licences are required in respect of some items designated as being of considerable artistic merit. A national register would prevent items from being disposed of by an individual, who may often have acquired them by some nefarious means in the first place.
  I support the new clause, but I would like a Labour Government to commit themselves to getting rid of a tax loophole which is available to only a few privileged people, and which is obviously abused. The new clause attempts to end that abuse, and I hope that the Minister will see his way clear to accepting it.
  6.15 pm
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson): It has been an interesting debate, and I have taken in a positive spirit many of the contributions made by Opposition Members on the subject of conditional exemption, which I will address later. I am, however. presented with a genuine dilemma. I do not mean to criticise the Opposition, because I am sure that their new clause was intended to do as they said, but in fact it has nothing to do with conditional exemption; it concerns gifts in lieu. I will try to respond, but as a matter of form perhaps the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) will agree that it would be more appropriate for me to answer specific points about the new clause, which is interesting in itself.
  The only relevant comments on new clause 2 were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) in his short intervention, when he gave the background to the in-lieu provisions. If the House is agreeable, I will make an initial reply to the points raised by the new clause, and then deal with conditional exemption.
  The clause seeks to restrict the provisions for the acceptance of works of art and land in lieu of inheritance tax to qualifying property to which the public will be given access free of charge. In the case of land, free public access would he required throughout the year. In the case of other property—mainly works of art—free public access would be required for at least 52 days in each 12-month period.
  The acceptance-in-lieu scheme provides an effective means for museums and galleries throughout the country to acquire pre-eminent works of art and other objects. The special price paid for acceptances in lieu on behalf of museums or galleries will be less than the market value of the object, and the funds that are available for acquisitions by those bodies can therefore be used to buy more objects than in the open market. The scheme helps to protect our national heritage and to retain important works of art in the United Kingdom, as my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South said. It has enjoyed broad cross-party support. All acceptances in lieu are announced in reply to parliamentary questions.
  The majority of acceptances in lieu are allocated to museums and galleries. Over the past five years, the
  220
  amount of inheritance tax satisfied by acceptance in lieu of works of art and other objects was £31·9 million. About 96 per cent.—some £30·5 million of that—related to items that were allocated to museums and galleries open to the public. Many are open all year round, and all of them are open for more than the 52-day minimum referred to in the new clause.
  Some—but not all—of those museums and galleries charge for admission. The decision on charging is for the board of the trustees of the individual institution, and the Government neither impose nor prohibit the introduction of admission charges. It would not be practicable for a museum or gallery that charges for admission to allow free access to one or two items that had been accepted in lieu of tax.
  The reason for allocating an item accepted to a particular museum or gallery will sometimes be that it will augment an existing collection of similar items. It would therefore not be desirable to display the accepted item in some free-access room separate from the rest of the collection.
  The Government are committed to maintaining their support for national museums and galleries while at the same time encouraging them to develop greater independence and self-reliance. It would he wrong to force a museum or gallery that received a work of art under the acceptance-in-lieu scheme to change its charging policy in the way that new clause 2 suggests.
  Mr. Cormack: Will my hon. Friend confirm that some in-lieu items are in National Trust properties or even in private properties which are open to the public?
  Mr. Nelson: That is certainly the case, but they are always well known cases and, as I said, they are subject to a parliamentary reply. Such matters are in the public domain.
  A small number of acceptances of works of art and other objects are left on display in situ in their previous location. Public access is available to these items for not less than 30 days a year. Since 1980, 20 items have been accepted in situ, 15 in privately owned houses open to the public. The average opening period of these properties is 130 days a year, far in excess of the minimum requirement of 52 days proposed in this clause. In addition, a number of in-situ items historically associated with a property are in National Trust hands. These houses usually open from April to October, and a small number throughout the year. The owners of these properties will generally charge a reasonable entry fee which, in most cases, will be used to meet costs of public access and help towards the maintenance and preservation of the property. It would be unrealistic to suggest that these charges should be waived for at least 52 days of the year where an acceptance was made after 30 June 1992.
  The acceptance-in-lieu scheme has mainly been used for works of art and other objects in recent years and little land has been accepted in lieu. Where land is accepted, it would be wrong to prescribe, as suggested in this new clause, a simple and all-embracing rule for all categories of land. The degree of access must depend on the property in question: what might be appropriate for open land will not be reasonable, for example, in the case of land immediately surrounding a house where access at night might have to be restricted. Even where land is open, it is accepted only if it has some special quality—in particualr, that includes

  221
  land which is important for nature conservation. Access to such land has to be managed, which means balancing the access objective and the benefits of preserving its special characteristics. We aim to ensure the widest possible enjoyment of properties accepted in lieu of tax, but we will not achieve this by imposing an across-the-board condition to all land accepted.
  Buildings and land do not maintain themselves. It has long been the practice to make a reasonable charge for admission to some buildings and land to help to meet the costs of maintenance. This is true whether the land is publicly or privately owned or placed with a charitable trust.
  For the reasons that I have set out, I consider that there is already a high level of public access to items which have been accepted in lieu and that this new clause would be unlikely to add to the availability of public access to future acceptances in lieu. In the case of land which is protected for nature conservation purposes, the unrestricted access proposed could be positively damaging.
  If you will permit me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall comment on what I readily acknowledge to be the related issue of conditionally exempt lands and items. The issue was raised in a different way in Committee and has been commented on more widely this afternoon. In his advocacy of public rights of access, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury was prosaic, a virtue which accords not only to his colleagues. There is a general welcome for the maintenance, improvement and increase of public rights of access where that is feasible and desirable.
  However, it is important to answer the hon. Gentleman's question about the cost of conditional exemption since it has been in existence. The annual cost of conditional exemption from inheritance tax and capital transfer tax of works of art alone is estimated to have averaged about £70 million from 1983–84 to 1991–92. There are sometimes significant fluctuations in the estimated cost from year to year.
  The 1991–92 cost was £20 million, but the 1990–91 cost was £160 million. The annual cost of conditional exemption for land and buildings is estimated to have averaged £5 million to £10 million from 1984 to 1992. If one adds the two figures together and multiplies them by eight, one arrives at the figure of £800 million which has been mentioned and in a further two years—bringing the period to 10 years—the figure would be pressing the £1 billion mark.
  At least one hon. Member—it may have been the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn)—referred to the equivalent cost of income tax. He said that it amounted to the equivalent of ½p on the rate of income tax. Of course, numerically that is correct in any one year, but we are talking about relief over a 10-year period, whereas ½p would raise £1 billion a year, so the two are not strictly comparable.
  The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) asked how the criteria for relief would be determined. I acknowledge that that is an important issue. The hon. Member was referring not specifically to conditional exemption, but, I think, to the enhanced reliefs for inheritance tax purposes provided in the Bill.
  222
  The tax authorities already have to make a judgment about what properties fall into the various categories for the higher and lower rates of inheritance tax relief, and, of course, that will not change. In future it will, as before, be a matter of fact as to what amounts to an agricultural holding in possession and whether it attracts the full 100 per cent. rate of inheritance tax relief to be passed on as a family farming business from one generation to another. There may be problems and there may be contested assessments of whether such relief applies, but there will be no new problems because the existing definitions will continue to obtain.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) also raised that issue today and in Committee. He asked, among other things, what incentives there were for access to the prospective 25 per cent. of lands which it is estimated is not now likely to claim conditional exemption but which will instead claim the full 100 per cent. relief. It is acknowledged that in granting that enhanced relief for certain businesses there will be a disincentive—or less of an incentive—for some landowners to enter into conditional exemption agreements. Yes, that is the case, but the original fear was that it would be such a disincentive that there would be virtually no new conditional exemption agreements.
  I hope that in Committee and in the House we have been able to reassure people that a substantial amount of lands will still have a very positive incentive to go into conditional exemption agreements because they will effectively obtain 100 per cent. relief from inheritance tax, whereas if they did not go into conditional exemption agreements they would be liable for a lower rate of only 50 per cent. relief, or for none at all.
  The hon. Member for Attercliffe was right to say that there is still a proportion of land—prospectively 25 per cent., and I stress that it is only prospectively—which will not now go into conditional exemption and will not be available for public access as it might otherwise have been. In terms of quantity, that will not be as material as the benefits which will accrue to the businesses and farming businesses of lands which are, after all, handed on.
  Much of the land that we are discussing, which will qualify for 100 per cent. relief, will be family-owned farming businesses where a large part of the land is, by its nature, farmed and therefore cannot be roamed across. Where there are rights of access to it, there are likely to be public rights of way which will continue to exist. While conditional exemption was in the past a valuable relief, the new 100 per cent. relief from inheritance tax will also be substantial. In many cases—probably the overwhelming majority of cases—there will still be public rights of way over such lands. They cannot be regarded in the same way as unfarmed heritage lands which simply would not be open to inspection by the public.
  Mr. Betts: Has the Minister considered the possibility of treating differently different types of land which, under the proposals, will automatically get 100 per cent. exemption? Ordinary farming land may acquire exemption and automatically gain 100 per cent. relief. Would it be possible for SSI land to be treated in such a way that 100 per cent. exemption from tax would apply only if some form of agreement were reached?
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Nelson: That possibility was raised in Committee. We resist the idea because it would draw an arbitrary and improper distinction between certain lands which could qualify for the same amount of relief. It would mean, in effect, that a hill farm which had no special heritage value might, as a going family concern, be entitled to the full 100 per cent. inheritance tax relief, while another farm which had heritage features would not obtain that status without a condition being placed on it.
  The hon. Gentleman may be in favour of that—indeed. other Opposition Members have spoken, some passionately, in favour of linking access to relief—but we have not sought to do that, and to the extent that it exists, it is provided through the conditional exemption and the in-lieu provisions. They are substantial and, as has been acknowledged. they have brought much land, chattels and items of heritage to the public for inspection.
  We believe that it would be wrong to create such a distinction through conditionality on certain pieces of farming land and not on others. They are both farming, going concerns— businesses—to which we are trying to give relief. It would be wrong to give it in one case with substantial conditions attached and not to do so in the other.
  The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) challenged me to give examples of conditional exemption. He knows well that I cannot do that, not because I do not wish to do so, but because I am not allowed to do so. The principle of confidentiality in Inland Revenue matters is absolute. It is an extremely important principle for the protection of the public that they should know that their affairs with the Inland Revenue are confidential.
  I shall explain why, in respect of items that are made conditionally exempt, that is known and is public. The crucial difference is that it can be at the choice of the individual, because other options are open to him to obtain conditional exemption for a work of art, other than it being placed on the list. There are other ways by which he can continue to make it available, in a conditionally exempt property, for inspection to which the public already have access. It is important to maintain the fundamental principle that there should continue to be confidentiality in Inland Revenue matters.
  Mr. Bennett: I question whether the Minister's logic stands up. Is there a difference between a piece of landscape and a picture? I accept that the person with a picture has a choice; he can go for exemption, after which conditions apply. Similarly, the person with a landscape has a choice. He can sell the piece of countryside to raise money to pay the tax. It seems ridiculous to have what is an obscure list of pictures, yet it is claimed that there cannot be a list of pieces of land to which the general public are supposed to have access. How on earth can the general public benefit if they do not have the access details?
  Mr. Nelson: The hon. Gentleman is right in his final point, and I concur with the sentiments that he expresses, but I invite the House to draw a distinction between the issue of access—on which we can have a positive discussion about what improvements might be sought—and the separate issue of the confidentiality of dealings
  224
  with the Inland Revenue. It is not necessary to break that relationship of confidentiality to have, and improve, access. They are separate matters.
  One is sometimes driven to the suspicion, as Opposition Members press the matter, that they are really talking about the identification of accumulated wealth and the circumstances of individuals—[Interruption.] I am pleased if their reception of that statement means that I am wrong. Opposition Members—the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) was vitriolic about it—do not like accumulations of wealth. They want all such matters to be exposed.
  The question of access is a different matter, and if we want to improve access for the public to heritage lands, buildings and works of art, let us try to improve the mechanisms to make that possible. But that does not require breaking confidentiality with the Inland Revenue.
  Mr. Mandelson: I assure the Minister that I am not motivated by greed. I am motivated by a desire to see everyone, no matter how big or lowly, not given opportunities to cheat the public purse or wider public interest in disreputable and unlawful ways.
  I ask the Minister the question that I had intended to put to him: how would he square his commitment to increase information to facilitate the access that he believes is so important with maintaining the principle of confidentiality which he believes must be upheld?
  Mr. Nelson: I shall suggest some ways in which access can be improved, and discussions are taking place about that. But we need not disrupt the basic principle to which I referred—[interruption.] I shall return to the subject, but I am anxious to comment on other important matters to which hon. Members have referred.
  The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish asked where the public benefit was in the relief. The public benefit in the inheritance tax relief in the Bill is not directed principally to the access of the public. It is directed mainly to the integrity and prosperity of family businesses and agricultural farming units. The judgment of the Government—opposed by Opposition Members, who voted against the clause—is that there is economic and employment benefit to be derived from the integrity of passing on from one generation to another the aggregation of businesses and of working family farming units.
  The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish also asked about the ability to roam freely, and I appreciate the sentiments that drove him to ask that type of question. The Inland Revenue takes expert advice from amenity bodies, local authorities and others concerned in setting up management agreements for such land with a view to ensuring that environmental management and access schemes have the proper balance of access for the public, with the right to see and roam but also to conserve the environment. I contest whether it is always better to allow people freely to roam rather than to keep to footpaths.
  The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) referred to the Lake district and the identity of landowners there. I do not know which of us has walked more miles in the paths of Wainwright throughout the Lake district, but I have never found much difficulty there in gaining access to outstanding lands, though that is due more to the national parks than to conditionally exempt arrangements. For the

  225
  same reasons that I gave to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, we must bear in mind the issue of confidentiality.
  The hon. Member for Carlisle asked why his local councillors did not know about such matters. In the overwhelming majority, if not all, of cases, local authorities would be taken into consultation with the Countryside Commission and others on the management agreements that are set up to provide access. The planning committee ought to know about that. It is for the committee to determine the way in which the information is treated. It is unlikely, however, that all council members will know such confidential details.
  Mr. Martlew: The information given by the Countryside Commission to the Lake District special planning board was so vague that the officers of the board believed—correctly or otherwise—that they could not pass it on to members. I tabled a question on the matter to the Financial Secretary, who answered it in a very ambiguous fashion. Is the Economic Secretary telling us that members of local councils' planning committees and national park authorities can be told the details of such agreements?
  Mr. Nelson: I am saying that local authorities are involved, and have information about land that will be subject to management agreements. I cannot speak in detail about the specific constituency points raised by the hon. Gentleman, but, if he would care to write to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary or to me, we should be delighted to follow up his comments.
  The hon. Gentleman complained about not being able to obtain information from the Victoria and Albert museum list. He complained about the state of documents, and about the lack of an index. I have taken his complaints on board, and I shall deal with the V and A list in more detail shortly.
  The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) asked how many tax inspectors were employed to ensure compliance. As I have already made clear, others are responsible for compliance with the management and access agreements, but the Inland Revenue must ensure that those arrangements are monitored effectively. We are satisfied that they are being examined as they should be, but it is not the Revenue's direct responsibility to ensure compliance with such argeements, except in the case of works of art.
  The hon. Member for Darlington complained that relief was being granted to the rich, while others were receiving no privileges. He described the position as a racket, and raised questions about the Duke of Devonshire and his estates. I cannot comment on such matters, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that public rights of way cannot be removed under the agreements with which we are dealing.
  As I said earlier, the hon. Gentleman's comments raised doubt about his motivation. It was not clear to me whether he was in favour of extending or of curtailing such reliefs. He seemed to have grave misgivings about the whole basis of conditional exemption. He nods, suggesting that he does not like conditional exemption—unlike most hon. Members, who have called for its extension and the provision of access in other ways. The hon. Gentleman will have to resolve that problem with his hon. Friends.
  226
  In a characteristically colourful intervention towards the end of the debate, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) talked of wealth and plunder. Perhaps he, like his hon. Friend the Member for Darlington, feels that no relief should be provided for such purposes. Presumably he would have applied the same principle to the GLC silver: banning exports of all such objects would be right up his street.
  I promised to mention the conditional exemption arrangements relating to the Victoria and Albert museum list. Let me make it clear that works of art that are granted conditional exemption must be made available for viewing by the public. That can be done by displaying them either in a privately owned house or in a room that is open to the public. Publicity about the object may then be included in any general publicity. Alternatively, the owner can arrange for the object concerned to be on long-term loan to a public collection—again, publicity may be included. A third option is to allow public viewing by appointment, and to lend the object to a public collection on request.
  Availability for viewing is publicised by means of an entry in the register of conditionally exempt property, which is held by the national art library in the Victoria and Albert museum—the V and A list. Copies of the list are also available in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. The register is available for inspection by members of the public. Entries in it describe the object, and provide information about the county in which it is located; they also give the name and address of a contact who can arrange viewing. In many cases, the contact will be an agent. That is an important way of providing the owners of the property with some security: the inclusion of a name other than theirs is entirely for security reasons.
  The existence of the V and A list is known to art scholars and researchers, but other members of the public may well be unaware of it. Recent articles in The Observer will have helped to increase awareness, and I welcome that; but I reject the criticism in the articles, which suggest that the system of allowing public access to conditionally exempt items is deeply flawed. The V and A list allows interested members of the public to arrange appointments to view such works of art, thus providing reasonable public access. I urge any member of the public who consults the register and encounters difficulty in contacting the person whose name is shown on the register, or who considers that unreasonable conditions are being placed on any appointment to view, to write to the Inland Revenue's capital taxes office with details. If reasonable public access is being denied, the capital taxes office will attempt to correct the position. If that is not feasible, a deferred inheritance tax charge will be raised on the owner, based on the current value of the object. That is a considerable penalty for those who fail to comply with the conditions.
  6.45 pm
  Let me tell the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury that the Government feel that there is scope for improving publicity for the V and A list and some of the more important items on it. The Inland Revenue, with the Department of National Heritage, is considering what can be done in that regard. In particular, they are examining the scope for regular press releases about additions to the list, and increasing awareness of the list among museum and gallery curators. The latter option could lead to feature articles about some items, with wider circulation.

  227
  The review is at an early stage, and I cannot announce any decisions now; but I am sure that the House will welcome that intitiative.
  I assure the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury that, in discussions with officials, I have posed many of the questions that he and his hon. Friends have raised about the working of the arrangements. I, too, believe that improvements can be made, but the way in which to achieve that is to consult the parties and authorities concerned. In that way, it will be possible to make improvements that will match the mood of the House.
  Mr. Martlew: How does the existence of the list in the Victoria and Albert museum help my constituents., who live more than 300 miles away? Consulting it involves a round trip of 600 miles, and then the place may turn out to be closed, as it was last week. When will there be real public access for people all over the country? After all, the vast majority of people do not live in London. Why have the Government refused to place a copy of the list in the House of Commons Library? That is disgraceful. Why can it not be photocopied?
  Mr. Nelson: I am not at all sure that the V and A list would be a best seller in the House of Commons Library. As I told the hon. Gentleman earlier, however, copies exist elsewhere—in Edinburgh and Cardiff, for instance. It is not intended to be a secret document, and, if there is a better way of promulgating the informaiton, we shall try to adopt it.
  For all the reasons that I have given, I do not believe that even Opposition Members will wish to support the new clause, which refers to an entirely different matter. I believe that a warm and general welcome should be given to the assurances that I have provided, and to our genuine intention to improve access arrangements.
  Mr. Chris Smith: We have got something out of the Government: they have acknowledged that the viewing arrangements at the Victoria and Albert museum are inadequate and need to be examined, and that awareness of the availability of access to works of art needs to be increased.
  We have heard of the potentially tough penalties that will be imposed on someone who has claimed relief but who does not provide for public access. All that is welcome. The fact that the Minister said that he was approaching the matter in a positive spirit is also welcome. However, I am afraid that the spirit was not positive enough.
  The Minister was wrong on one or two points. He was wrong when he claimed that our new clause simply addresses the question of in—lieu gifts. He has obviously not looked carefully enough at subsection (3). The new clause clearly applies to conditionally exempt transfers. That has been the nub of our debate. The Minister was also wrong when he said that Opposition Members were —I think I quote him correctly—calling for an extension of conditional relief. None of us is calling for that. What we want is to get something for conditional relief, and the "something" that we want is public access.
  Mr. Cormack: There is public access. Will the hon. Gentleman be a little careful about what he is doing? The policy for preserving the heritage of this country has been evolved with the help of Members in all parts of the House.
  228
  Many members of the hon. Gentleman's own party have played a distinguished and constructive part in evolving that policy. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), a former Treasury Minister, is in the Chamber. He was immensely helpful when we had a Labour Government in the 1970s. We have a bipartisan policy. The National Heritage Memorial Fund and all the strands in that policy have been built on all-party support. I implore the hon. Gentleman not to wreck it for the sake of a cheap laugh.
  Mr. Smith: I am afraid that that remark was unworthy of the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have considerable respect on many of these matters. I do not demur from what he says about the importance of ensuring that works of art of great quality are kept in this country and about the need to ensure that our tax provisions and our public policy are framed accordingly. However, where inheritance tax relief is made available in return for ensuring that works of art are kept in this country, we believe that there should be reasonable and genuine public access to view those works of art. It is a simple point. In no way does it destroy the consensus to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
  The Minister acknowledged the disincentive effect of the new 100 per cent. agricultural relief, for which provision is made in the Finance Bill. He said, however, as though it were a great concession, that there would still he public rights of way across that agricultural land. But there would still be public rights of way whether or not relief was given, whether or not the Finance Bill goes through, whether or not the provisions of the new clause are put into effect. There is no great Government concession. A public right of way is a public right of way, and ever shall it be so.
  The Minister also referred to the register in the Victoria and Albert museum. We welcome the fact that there are copies of the register in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. Why, then, is it impossible to place a copy in the Library of the House of Commons? If it is possible to make copies available for three other locations, why is it impossible to make a fourth copy available for the Library?
  Mr. Tony Banks: Can my hon. Friend give the House a clue as to where these additional copies are in Edinburgh and Belfast? They are big cities. We should be able to narrow it down a bit.
  Mr. Smith: I should have to yield to the Minister in order to provide my hon. Friend with that information, but the Minister does not appear to be leaping to his feet to tell us. Perhaps we shall be able to pursue the matter further in the next few days by means of a parliamentary question.
  Apart from the fact that there ought to be a copy of the register in the House of Commons Library, why are we unable to go to the Victoria and Albert museum and make photocopies from the register? Why do we have to sit there and write down anything that we wish to copy from it? Why is the register not regularly updated? Why are half the contact names in the register out of date? Why is the register not properly indexed, which would enable us to look up what works of art are to be found in Cumbria or in the vicinity of Hartlepool? All those questions need to be addressed in the Minister's review.
  The heart of the debate is about public information and proper public access. When pressed, the Minister said that

  229
  he could not give examples of areas of land where access had been made available. He said that he was not allowed to do so because of the principle of confidentiality. Breathtakingly, he went on to say that this was for the protection of the public. No person who enters into a conditionally exempt transfer is forced to do so. It is his or her choice to take up that opportunity. In return for taking it up, that person commits himself or herself to make access available.
  None of us asks for details of the inheritance tax relief that any individual has secured in return for a specific agreement. All that we are asking for is information about where the access is available. That does not breach any tax confidentiality. All it does is to tell us what the benefit is to the public.
  Welcome though some of the Minister's points may be, I am afraid that the concessions that he has given are far too few. Unless the new clause is passed, we shall still forgo £110 million or more every year in Exchequer income, in return for very little. There will be no information on what areas of land have been made available for public access. Inadequate and out-of-date catalogues of access to works of art will remain. Lady Clarissa Collin will continue to tell people that they cannot roam freely on her land on the North Yorkshire moors. The new clause is about public access to our heritage and our landscape. That access is not properly available at the moment. I commend the new
  clause to the House.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 263, Noes 308.

  Divsion No. 53

  [6.57 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Campbell, Ronald (Blyth V)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Ainger, Nick

  Cann, James

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Allen, Graham

  Clapham, Michael

  Alton, David

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Clelland, David

  Ashton, Joe

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Austin-Walker, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Cohen, Harry

  Barron, Kevin

  Connarty, Michael

  Battle, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Corbett, Robin

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Cousins, Jim

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cox, Tom

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Cryer, Bob

  Benton, Joe

  Cummings, John

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Berry, Roger

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Betts, Clive

  Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)

  Blair, Tony

  Darling, Alistair

  Blunkett, David

  Davidson, Ian

  Boateng, Paul

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Boyes, Roland

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Bradley, Keith

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Denham, John

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

  Dewar, Donald

  Burden, Richard

  Dixon, Don

  Byers, Stephen

  Dobson, Frank

  Caborn, Richard

  Donohoe, Brian

  Callaghan, Jim

  Dowd, Jim

  Campbell, Ms Anne (C'bridge)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  230

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Eastham, Ken

  McAllion, John

  Enright, Derek

  MacDonald, Calum

  Etherington, William

  McGrady, Eddie

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McKelvey, William

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Fatchett, Derek

  McLeish, Henry

  Faulds, Andrew

  McMaster, Gordon

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Madden, Max

  Fisher, Mark

  Mahon, Alice

  Flynn, Paul

  Mallon, Seamus

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Foster, Donald (Bath)

  Marek, Dr John

  Foulkes, George

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Fraser, John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Martlew, Eric

  Galloway, George

  Maxton, John

  Gapes, Mike

  Meacher, Michael

  Garrett, John

  Meale, Alan

  George, Bruce

  Michael, Alun

  Gerrard, Neil

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Milburn, Alan

  Godsiff, Roger

  Miller, Andrew

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Mitchell, Austin (Gf Grimsby)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Graham, Thomas

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Morley, Elliot

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Gunnell, John

  Mudie, George

  Hain, Peter

  Mullin, Chris

  Hall, Mike

  Murphy, Paul

  Hanson, David

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hardy. Peter

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Harvey, Nick

  O'Hara, Edward

  Henderson, Doug

  Olner, William

  Hendron, Dr Joe

  Orme. Rt Hon Stanley

  Heppell, John

  Patchett, Terry

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Pendry, Tom

  Hinchliffe, David

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hoey, Kate

  Pike, Peter L.

  Home Robertson, John

  Pope, Greg

  Hood, Jimmy

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hoon, Geoff

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Prescott, John

  Hoyle. Doug

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Purchase, Ken

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Radice, Giles

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Randall, Stuart

  Hutton, John

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (H'stead)

  Redmond, Martin

  Jackson, Ms Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jamieson, David

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Janner, Greville

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Roche, Ms Barbara

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Rogers, Allan

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Jones, Ms Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Rooney, Terry

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Ruddock, Joan

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Salmond, Alex

  Keen, Alan

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C & S)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Kennedy, Ms Jane (L'p'l Br'g'n)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Khabra, Piara

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Short, Clare

  Leighton, Ron

  Simpson, Alan

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Litherland, Robert

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Snape, Peter

  231

  Soley, Clive

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Wareing, Robert N

  Spellar, John

  Welsh, Andrew

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Stevenson, George

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Strang, Gavin

  Wilson, Brian

  Straw, Jack

  Wise, Audrey

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Worthington, Tony

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Str'gf'd)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Wright, Tony

  Tipping, Paddy

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Trimble, David

  Turner, Dennis

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Tyler, Paul

  Mr. Eric Illsley and

  Wallace, James

  Mr. Thomas McAvoy.

  Walley, Joan

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Cormack, Patrick

  Alexander, Richard

  Cran, James

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Setby)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Amess, David

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Ancram, Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Day, Stephen

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Devlin, Tim

  Ashby, David

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Dicks, Terry

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Dover, Den

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Duncan, Alan

  Baldry, Tony

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Dunn, Bob

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Bates, Michael

  Eggar, Tim

  Batiste, Spencer

  Elletson, Harold

  Beggs, Roy

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Bendall, Vivian

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bitten, Rt Hon John

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Evennett, David

  Booth, Hartley

  Faber, David

  Bottomley. Peter (Eltham)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Bowden, Andrew

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bowis, John

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Forman, Nigel

  Brazier, Julian

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bright, Graham

  Forth, Eric

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Freeman, Roger

  Burns, Simon

  French, Douglas

  Burt, Alistair

  Fry, Peter

  Butcher, John

  Gale, Roger

  Butler, Peter

  Gallie, Phil

  Butterfill, John

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Carrington, Matthew

  Garnier, Edward

  Carttiss, Michael

  Gill, Christopher

  Cash, William

  Gillan, Ms Cheryl

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Churchill, Mr

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Clappison, James

  Gorst, John

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Colvin, Michael

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Congdon, David

  Hague, William

  Conway, Derek

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  232

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Monro. Sir Hector

  Hannam, Sir John

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Moss, Malcolm

  Harris, David

  Needham, Richard

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nelson. Anthony

  Hawkins, Nicholas

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hayes, Jerry

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Heald, Oliver

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hendry, Charles

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Norris, Steve

  Hicks, Robert

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Page, Richard

  Horam, John

  Paice, James

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Patnick, Irvine

  Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Pawsey, James

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Pickles, Eric

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Jack, Michael

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Redwood, John

  Jessel, Toby

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Richards, Rod

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Riddick, Graham

  Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Key, Robert

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Knapman, Roger

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

  Sackville, Tom

  Knox, David

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Shepherd. Colin (Hereford)

  Legg, Barry

  Shepherd. Richard (Aldridge)

  Leigh, Edward

  Sims, Roger

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lidington, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lightbown, David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lord, Michael

  Spicer. Sir James (W Dorset)

  Luff, Peter

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Spink, Dr Robert

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Spring, Richard

  MacKay, Andrew

  Sproat, Iain

  Maclean, David

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stanley. Rt Hon Sir John

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Steen, Anthony

  Madel, David

  Stephen, Michael

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Stern, Michael

  Malone, Gerald

  Stewart, Allan

  Mans, Keith

  Streeter, Gary

  Marland, Paul

  Sumberg, David

  Marlow, Tony

  Sweeney, Walter

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Mates, Michael

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Thomason, Roy

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Merchant, Piers

  Thurnham, Peter

  Milligan, Stephen

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mills, Iain

  Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Tracey, Richard

  Moate, Roger

  Tredinnick, David

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Trend, Michael

  233

  Trotter, Neville

  Whittingdale. John

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Viggers, Peter

  Wilkinson, John

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Willetts, David

  Walden, George

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Waller, Gary

  Wolfson, Mark

  Ward, John

  Wood, Timothy

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Yeo, Tim

  Waterson, Nigel

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Watts, John

  Wells, Bowen

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Mr. Tim Boswell and

  Whitney, Ray

  Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 3

  STAMP DUTY (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) (EXTENSION)
  '.—Section 1 of the Stamp puty (Temporary Provisions) Act 1992 shall be amended, by leaving out the words "20th August 1992" in subsection (2)(b) and inserting the words "31st March 1993.".'.—[Dr. Marek]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Dr. Marek: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  The Opposition have taken the Government at their word in respect of the Stamp Duty (Temporary Provisions) Act 1992 and now propose extending the exemption from stamp duty on the purchase of homes until March 1993. We had a trailer at Prime Minister's Question Time this afternoon. I did not get to the Chamber until about two minutes after the Leader of the House, on behalf of the Prime Minister, quoted me as having said that this legislation was a racket and a gimmick. I certainly remember saying that it was a gimmick—it was an election gimmick—but not that it was a racket. If any Minister can find the report of my words, I shall be delighted to hear exactly what I said.
  It is possible that this was a genuine attempt by the Government to intervene in the market with a view to encouraging recovery from recession. If so, the Government ought to accept our new clause. If they do not accept it, we can conclude only that the Act was a gimmick for election purposes, an expedient from a Government who knew that it would not have any effect in the event of our failing to move out of recession.
  7.15 pm
  The reality is that we are not recovering from recession. That being the case, and as the purpose of the legislation, which was to give the economy a kick start, has not been fulfilled, what objection can there be to extending the exemption until 31 March 1993? That is a simple question to which I hope we shall get a favourable reply.
  On 20 January 1992 Opposition Members said that the Bill would provide little help, that there were better ways of spending money to assist the manufacturing and construction industries. We said that capital allowances could be used and, above all, that lower interest rates would be a significant advantage. But the Government are not taking any of these steps. For a number of years we have looked in vain for Government intervention in the market to get us out of recession. The Act to which I referred amounted to Government intervention in the
  234
  market, and if it was not just a gimmick we should be able to regard it as an attempt to get the economy back on its feet.
  But the Ernst and Young Item Club, which published a forecast yesterday, now expects the gross domestic product to shrink by a further 0·6 per cent. this year. It says that this forecast is gloomier than most recent City predictions. That is very poor. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the economy would bounce back to a level of 1 per cent. growth this year, having contracted by 2·5 per cent. in 1991. In the Budget, he forecast that the economy would expand by 3 per cent. in 1993. Patently that is not happening. If there is to be a further contraction of 0·6 per cent. this year, as the Ernst and Young Item Club has predicted, we have a serious situation in which none of us can take any pride.
  We must all agree that something has to be done. The return of consumer confidence is an absolute prerequisite. If the extension of stamp duty exemption that we seek were granted, and if it were to give the housing market a kick start, the whole economy would benefit. When people move into new houses, construction is not the only industry to benefit. New carpets, refrigerators and beds are needed, and the whole engine of the economy benefits. That is why the Opposition regard this as a very important proposal.
  In an interview with David Frost on TV-am on 24 July 1991, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, referring to the recovery, said:
  "It may be slow at first. It will begin probably in the housing market. These arc just vague stirrings, but the signs are there."
  Recently the Evening Standard published a long list of the Chancellor's sayings about stirrings and green shoots. I expect that hon. Members know most of them by heart, but as no doubt the House wants to make progress I shall not quote any of them. I do not think that the stirrings or signs to which the Chancellor referred in his interview with David Frost existed. He may have been right when he said that the housing market might be one of the engines of recovery upon which other recovery would depend. It is a year since he made that statement, and unfortunately house prices have continued to fall. The latest Halifax price index shows that house prices fell by 0.5 per cent. in May. They are now 6·2 per cent. lower than they were a year ago.
  It may be said that the Opposition are proposing that the Government give money away liberally. Yes, this measure will cost money and the Opposition, as I said in January, believe that the money could be better spent on getting the economy working again. However, as the Government are not prepared to entertain any of our ideas on how to do that which we have put forward over a number of years, the Opposition are left with no alternative but to support the Chancellor's initiative.
  The Stamp Duty (Temporary Provisions) Act 1992 could easily be extended to the end of this financial year. It could be paid for by further postponing the exemption of duty on share transactions. That has already been done once and could easily be done again for another six months if the Government did not want to increase the PSBR. That is already £28 billion, and could be £30 billion soon, which is almost 4 per cent. of GDP, so I have every sympathy with the Government if they do not want to increase the PSBR.

  235
  There is no need to do that. I do not know whether TAURUS—the transfer by automated registration of uncertified stock—will be ready by next April, but another six months will not do any harm. If there were a choice between spending the money on the abolition of duty on share transactions and on giving further relief on stamp duty on house transactions, the Government should spend money on the latter.
  In January and February, when the Bill was going through the House, we said that we thought it was an electoral gimmick with which the Government were fishing for votes. This evening, the Government have a chance of proving the Opposition wrong by admitting that we are still in recession and that the other aspects of the recessionary cycle have not changed and by agreeing to continue the exemption. If they did that and accepted the new clause, I would pay full tribute to them.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: I am grateful to the Opposition for tabling the new clause and allowing us to debate this important issue. However, it is absurd that, having said recently that exemption is a gimmick. they should now feel that it is not a gimmick and should want to table a new clause to extend it.
  In Northampton we have the Carlsberg brewery, which claims that its beer is probably the best in the world. We also have Wilcon, a well-known company, which is probably the best house builder in the country. It knows a thing or two about house building and has been successful for a long time, and is probably more successful than anybody else at the moment. Life in the building industry in general is not easy. There are two deductions to he made from that.
  When I was at Cambridge university, I read engineering, and there were about 135 of us in the engineering department, one of whom had a rather disgusting beard, wore a CND badge and was obviously harking mad. All the rest had short hair and were decent. beer-drinking, women-chasing, rugby-playing, Conservative-voting undergraduates. What was true of the engineering department of Cambridge university is true, man and boy, or the building industry. It is not just that they do not read The Guardian—they have never heard of it. They are Tory voters to a man.
  This is not a point that I am concerned about, but I suggest that the Government take it on board. There is distress in the building industry. It does not matter if industries come and go—some industries grow, other industries come up afterwards, disasters occur, bankruptcies take place and it is all part of the general gaiety of the economy. However, by and large, all these people vote Conservative.
  The second point—I think it is important even if the Government do not—concerns the green shoots of recovery. Of course they are there for everybody to see, provided that one looks carefully, has a magnifying glass, and is an optimist. I am sure that they must be there. The Government wish to get the recovery moving more quickly, so they made this concession in the Budget. It was wise of them to do so. The Government will agree that it has had an effect. Houses that would not otherwise have been bought have been bought. Therefore, it has had a positive impact on the housing market and the building industry. It may be that we have not moved very far forward, but without the exemption we might have moved backwards.
  236
  Everybody knows that there are two house buying periods a year. First, when the daffodils come into bloom and the spring starts, people start to think of moving house.
  Mr. Tony Banks: And of other things in the hon. Gentleman's case.
  Mr. Marlow: It takes one to know one.
  In most springs, there is an upsurge in the housing market. Then people go away for their summer holidays, come back in September and have a second bite of the cherry. That is the second time in the year when the housing market is active.
  I know that the Government have two cases against the extension. The first is that it will cost money. That is a bad argument, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister does not adduce it. One may not get the revenue from stamp duty because people are not paying it, but by buying houses people generate activity. As the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) said, they buy carpets and equipment. Those green shoots will start thrusting through, the economy will start moving more quickly, there will be more tax revenue, and the Department of Social Security will spend less money. What might be lost from tax revenue could be gained by growth in the economy.
  There is a good argument. That is, if the Government give an exemption with a time bar and then keep extending it, people will feel that, with one shove or push, the whole structure will come caving in and the Government will give in again. I can sympathise with the Government on that. However, they should extend the exemption until the end of the year. Such a concession would put into people's mind the message, "Buy while stocks last". If the exemption continues until December, it will improve the second house-buying period of the year. People will feel more impelled to buy than they might otherwise. They will feel that if they do not get on with it now, they will have to pay more later. It will give the boost to the housing market that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor suggested that it would when he introduced the measure in the Budget. The moratorium should be taken on until the end of the year. The housing market and the economy need a boost. The moratorium is part of the boost that would help us to move more quickly out of recession.
  7.30 pm
  If the moratorium proves that assistance, it will not make it more difficult for the Government to lower interest rates—something that we all want. It is not valid for the Government to argue that they cannot reduce interest rates because they would be forgoing the income from stamp duty if they extended the moratorium.
  The concession should continue until the end of the year. The housing market should not be depressed; it should be helped. People should be helped in the second buying period of the year to bring their purchases forward. That would help the Government and the country as the economy would be moving once more.
  Mrs. Barbara Roche: Anyone who looks at the housing market in London, and anyone who, like me, is trying to sell a house and buy another one, would not believe that green shoots are sprouting as though springtime—although it is summer now—is about to arrive in the housing market. It is a

  237
  desperate time in London for people who are anxious to buy houses. Many of those people are first-time buyers, and they are essential to ensure that the housing market picks up.
  Figures released today by the Association of London Authorities show that first-time home buyers in London will be particularly hard hit when the Government's eight-month stamp duty moratorium ends on 19 August. Higher house prices in London and the south-east mean that only 6 to 8 per cent. of first-time purchases in the region fall below the £30,000 stamp duty threshold compared with 22 per cent. nationally. The average amount paid in stamp duty in the region is higher because it is levied as a percentage of the purchase price. These figures are devastating news for Londoners who will look with absolute dismay at the Government position this evening.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) was right to question the Government's motives and the timing of the moratorium when the stamp duty proposal was introduced to the House. He said:
  "If a general election were not to be held in the next four months, the Government would have shed crocodile tears and Ministers and the Prime Minister himself at Prime Minister's Question Time would have said that nothing could be done about house repossessions."—[Official Report 15 January 1992; Vol. 201, c. 1064.]
  Given the background, the difficulties and the moratorium on stamp duty, the housing market will face worse straits if the concession is removed.
  Many things need to be done for housing. There should be a proper mortgage rescue scheme. Although it is outside the scope of the new clause, I believe that the housing market also desperately requires the phased release of receipts from council house sales so that adequate rented accommodation can be provided for the thousands of families living in unsatisfactory and high-cost bed-andbreakfast accommodation.
  It would be a shame and a scandal to have a debate about housing without mentioning the thousands of families throughout the country who are in the misery of bed-and-breakfast accommodation and whom we see every week in our surgeries. We deal with their cases every day and we have to tell them that basically nothing can be done because the Government do not have the heart or decency to act.
  Having established the moratorium, the Government, although they claim that they do not believe in interfering with the market, do not seem to be able to leave it alone. It is worth considering the comments of the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate):
  "the housing market will certainly come to a stop on 20 August. How many property transactions will take place on that day or during the succeeding weeks? Arc we really contemplating cessation of this exemption in mid-August? That is hardly a practical proposition, and I ask Ministers to think again about it … Ministers must recognise that it is impractical to suspend a tax for eight months while applying it to sums above an artificial threshold."—[Official Report. 15 January 1992; Vol. 201. c. 1068.]
  Indeed, Mr. Melville-Ross, the chief executive of the Nationwide building society and chairman of the Council of Mortgage Lenders, has also said that the decision not to extend the stamp duty holiday beyond the August deadline could be "fatal". Ministers must deal with this and respond to it.
  238
  Given the background and the dire straits of the housing market, I urge hon. Members to support the new clause in order to make a small impact on the horrendous mess which is the housing market under the Conservative Government.
  Sir Malcolm Thornton: There is no doubt that the construction industry faces severe problems and that the housing market is depressed. The House will know of my interest in such matters.
  Without any doubt, the Government's decision earlier this year was welcomed by the industry at large. Ministers have said on many occasions over many years that the construction industry is the barometer of the economy. So much depends on confidence. Whether or not the green shoots are there, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) said, it is generally held that the elements for the recovery are in place, but there is little evidence of that recovery taking place in substantial measure at the present time.
  The moratorium on stamp duty had some effect, although I am bound to say that it did not have the dramatic effect that some of us might have hoped for. There was a slight post-election surge in interest in the housing market, but unfortunately that has fallen back. The House will be interested and, I hope, concerned to note that the figures from the House-Builders Federation for May are worse than they were for May 1991. Indeed, the June figures are likely to be worse than the May figures. The present position on stamp duty has not had the desired effect.
  However, it is equally clear that if one accepts that the construction industry is capable of leading the recovery, the signals that we send to it are very important. Confidence is at the heart of the exercise. I believe that this debate is about confidence. That is what the Government are attempting to address at the moment.
  If the elements for recovery are in place, it is clear that the only element that is lacking is confidence. When it resumes, people will begin to buy houses and that will have a ripple effect throughout the housing market which will be of enormous benefit.
  Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman referred to a surge in house buying after the general election. Does he accept that there was actually a 9 per cent. reduction in property transactions between April and May?
  Sir Malcolm Thornton: I am not certain what the hon. Gentleman is basing his figures on, but the evidence from the organisations concerned showed that there was an increase in interest after the election, which reflected people's confidence in the return of a Conservative Government. Clearly, the anticipated recovery has not proceeded in the way for which we hoped.
  Much has been made of the early-day motion to which I and many of my hon. Friends have put our names. It reflected our belief that the Government's policies of encouraging home ownership over the years have been right and that there is still among our fellow citizens a substantial desire to own their own homes.
  The construction industry has played a major part in making available at the right price homes that people want to buy. The early-day motion said that we hoped—the words were picked very carefully—that the Government would recognise the importance of doing everything that they could to stimulate the building and construction

  239
  industry. It added that if the Government could see their way to keeping or extending the moratorium, that would help. That remains the position.
  We want the Government to give every assistance that they possibly can to an industry which we firmly believe is capable of leading the country out of recession and of leading us to the confidence that we believe is necessary.
  We recognise that our right hon. Friend the Chancellor has enormous difficulty in balancing the various competing claims. At the end of the day, my right hon. Friend and his Treasury Ministers must judge exactly where they can best use the resources that are available to them. I shall have no difficulty in accepting what my right hon. and hon. Friends have to say in making their judgment. They are in possession of all the facts, and they know exactly—[Interruption.] Opposition Members can scoff as much as they like, but they cannot have it both ways. They previously regarded the measure as a gimmick and they are now seeking to try to embarrass the Government because some of my colleagues have ventured to suggest that the Government should consider something. We do that all the time. Putting one's name to an early-day motion is not a gesture of rebellion: it is an expression of opinion. The sooner Opposition Members realise that, the better.
  I reiterate that the building and construction industry is capable of making a major contribution to the recovery that we badly need. It is capable of leading the economy out of recession, particularly that difficult sector, the housing market. If my right hon. and hon. Friends will consider what they can do to stimulate the industry, we shall be content that the matter has been raised. For argument's sake, perhaps they will want to consider lowering the ceiling, recognising that a large proportion —about 70 per cent.—of all housing transactions involve sums of less than £80,000.
  Sir Michael Neubert: My hon. Friend speaks, as he has acknowledged, for the major construction companies. I should like him to accept—I am sure that he does—that his views are shared by smaller and medium-sized companies as represented by the Federation of Master Builders, whose parliamentary adviser I am. Does my hon. Friend accept that, in view of all that we have done for home ownership, one point that the Government might consider is that the time might come when the Chancellor is able to consider abolition of stamp duty altogether? It represents a tax on home ownership. What are we as Conservatives doing perpetuating a tax which has already been abolished for shares and other transactions and which remains a tax on home ownership?
  Sir Malcolm Thornton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that, in the long term, that very desirable matter will be fully considered by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and the Treasury team. Bedevilled as they are by advice from every quarter—many people urging them to spend money as though it is going out of fashion, yet urging them to contain public expenditure—they have some very difficult choices to make.
  7.45 pm
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor received a letter from the managing director of a major construction company, the Berkeley Group plc, who said:
  "I personally believe that the housing market is the barometer of the economy and until such time as it recovers
  240
  and the public in general have a feeling of well being, I do not believe that the economy as a whole will recover as the Government is hoping for."
  I endorse that remark. We recognise that until confidence is back and the recovery starts, we will be in a depressed period. I do not envy the task of my right hon. and hon. Friends, but I urge them to recognise the importance of that major industry and the vital contribution that it can make in leading us into the recovery that we all want.
  Mr. George Mudie: The hon. Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton) overestimates his importance and that of his colleagues who signed the early-day motion. It is not their credibility that is at stake; it is that of the Chancellor and the Government.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) for referring to the green shoots of recovery, as that is the background against which the matter should be viewed. I shall add a northern voice to the discussion and tell the House what is happening to the green shoots of recovery in my home city. In Leeds in 1990, the unemployment figure was 22,476. That and the other figures that I shall give are the registered unemployed figures. The House knows the difference between the real level of unemployment and the real poverty that it causes and the registered figures which totally understate the position. In 1991, when the Chancellor introduced the measure, unemployment in Leeds climbed to 30,122, a 30 per cent. increase. As we discuss this matter, the unemployment figure is 35,102, which represents a 47 per cent. increase since 1990.
  Does that sound like the green shoots of recovery? If Conservative Members think so, let us consider employment in the construction industry. Unfortunately, the 1992 figures will not be available until Thursday, but the 1991 figures relating to employment in that industry both in the country and—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to relate his figures to stamp duty. He is straying rather wide.
  Mr. Mudie: I hope that in a moment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will see the picture that I am attempting to draw.
  I was dealing with the green shoots of recovery. The suspension of stamp duty was either a cynical measure to take matters relating to repossessions and so on off the front pages, or a genuine attempt by the Chancellor to bring forward the recovery by making a move in the housing sector that would help the construction industry, the retail industry, and unemployment. I give two figures to demonstrate my point. Employment in the construction industry, despite the suspension of stamp duty, continues to decline. In Leeds 95,000 people were employed in the construction industry in 1990, but that has fallen by 14 per cent. For Britain as a whole the figure has fallen by 13 per cent.
  The second figure is for property transactions—Conservative Members will surely accept that they are closely related to the matter with which we are dealing. The hon. Member for Crosby challenged my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) about the figures for property transactions in England and Wales. In May last year there were 111,000 property transactions. In May this year, with stamp duty abolished, the figure was 83,000. Conservative Members may think that that is a one-off

  241
  figure but the figures for the preceding months are April: 91,000; March: 90,000; February: 89,000; January: 79,000.
  So if we consider unemployment in the construction industry and property transactions, the picture is bad. Unemployment continues to grow generally. Unemployment in the construction industry continues to grow and property transactions continue to fall. [Interruption.] You are well aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that in Yorkshire that is the highest office that one can assume. So you will understand the tribute that I take from that remark.
  When stamp duty was abolished the Chancellor of the Exchequer was accused of being cynical because of the closeness of the election. On 19 December he said:
  "But I recognise that there is a wider concern about the depressed state of the housing market, which has consequences for home owners in general and for the wider economy. I therefore have one further announcement to make."
  The announcement was the abolition of stamp duty. He continued:
  "I have decided to use a portion of that additional revenue to help encourage and facilitate transactions in the housing market."—[Official Report, 19 December 1991; Vol. 201, c. 454.]
  If in those circumstances he felt that it was necessary to encourage property transactions, we must ask the Economic Secretary as we approach August, with unemployment continuing to rise, home sales continuing to fall and unemployment in the construction industry continuing to grow, why on earth he is reintroducing stamp duty.
  Mr. David Hanson: We take it that the Government are genuine in this matter. I have received a letter from a building firm in my constituency saying that it had hoped that the Government's measure of a moratorium on stamp duty
  "would have provided a little extra confidence and possibly urgency within the house sale market. Unfortunately this has proved not to be the case".
  That is a major building firm in north Wales, Cheshire and the north-west. If the Chancellor was genuine, surely he should have given the measure time to work. The Minister should therefore support the Opposition new clause. That would meet the point that my hon. Friend makes.
  Mr. Mudie: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point —[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us have some tolerance in the House. We all appreciate the difficulties for new Members.
  Mr. Mudie: When stamp duty was abolished the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and others said that if £410 million were available, the money could have been spent better elsewhere. That is still a valid point and that is the issue tonight. Has the Minister come to the Chamber to say that the money will be spent elsewhere or is the measure a precursor of the autumn expenditure cuts? Will the money be spent elsewhere? It will not be spent on training, research and development or any measure to help the economy. Is it simply the beginning of public expenditure cuts?
  242
  On 2 June, in answer to the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), the Minister seemed to imply that the measure was simply to save money. He said:
  "The yield costs are considerable, and we cannot afford to ignore the impact on the borrowing requirements of Government.… We simply cannot ignore such money in the current equations on public expenditure."—[Official Report, 2 June 1992; Vol. 208, c. 770.]
  In my constituency, as in Leeds as a whole, unemployment is growing. People look to the Government to give assistance and help. Tonight people see the answer. The money which was provided and which the Chancellor said was aimed at helping the economy, relieving unemployment and helping the construction industry and house sales is being withdrawn simply to save money in the forthcoming public expenditure round. That would lead the people in my constituency to agree with those who said that the Government were acting cynically and arranging something for the election rather than seeking to help the millions of people who faced unemployment in the city.
  Sir Anthony Grant: I have some sympathy with the new clause. I strongly supported the Chancellor when he introduced the moratorium. I do not believe for one moment that it was a gimmick. It may well have been a vote-catcher but what is wrong with that in a democracy? Listening to Opposition Members, one would think that they did not want any votes. Judging by the results of the election, they did not get many. There is nothing whatever wrong in vote-catching.
  I supported the abolition of stamp duty first because I have always disliked it. It is a ridiculous tax. It is perhaps a little better than the window tax of many years ago, but it is not a sensible tax and it should always be substantially reduced. I have always welcomed reductions in it. Secondly, in the wretched recession that we are suffering, there is no doubt that the construction industry and the housing market are the most serious aspect. They were the first to suffer, and they are suffering considerably. The housing market is a major factor in the confidence on which so much depends.
  Indeed, I would go further and say that a major factor in bringing back the confidence that we require to bring us out of the recession is a return to confidence in housing, house ownership and a property-owning democracy. In my time in Parliament I have been through all sorts of economic crises. There was stop-go and devaluation under the Labour party. All sorts of remedies have been suggested including monetarism and interventionism. None of them works. But the one thing that has been absolutely certain in the mind of the public throughout the ups and downs has been the thought that they owned a little bit of this country—their property. They believed in the old saying, "As safe as houses." That saying has existed for many years. To feel as safe as houses is a solid bedrock through the ups and downs of the economy and the proposed remedies.
  Unfortunately, the unease which has crept in in recent years has destroyed that confidence. That is a major factor in the lack of confidence. Let me hasten to say that I do not blame my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister or my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for that. The trouble arose during the previous regime, because of the ludicrous boom stimulated by the previous Chancellor, the noble Lord Lawson, and his absurd mortgage tax relief proposals, which encouraged young people, including my

  243
  daughter, to rush into buying houses like mad. That was what stimulated a lot of this nonsense, and it was an artificial boom.
  If we manage to stimulate the housing market now, it is not likely that another boom will occur for many years. Banks and building societies are not so stuffed with money, nor are people sufficiently confident that they will take on loans with high interest rates, as another shift in value might mean that they would find themselves with a mortgage which was higher than the value of their property. There is no danger of another "Lawsonian" boom. Therefore, the Chancellor can feel confident about giving a boost to the economy. That is why he should apply his mind seriously to amendments such as new clause 3 and to the words of the early-day motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton), which also touched upon the matter.
  8 pm
  I recognise the importance of curbing public expenditure; I realise that it is fundamental to our economy. I am told that the stamp duty concession is worth about £600 million. Whatever it is, the sum involved is substantial. I therefore recognise that it plays a part in the public expenditure round.
  Unlike the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie), I do not want the Government to cancel the concession and to spend the money instead on some folderol, which would he entirely counter to their general economic thrust. I should be happy if they used the money on the general, essential needs of the economy.
  Mr. Paul Boateng: Since when has building homes for people been a folderol? We have heard what the hon. Gentleman has had to say about the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the noble Lord for Blaby. Was there a single occasion when he voted against any measure introduced by the previous Chancellor?
  Sir Anthony Grant: I never said that building houses was a folderol. As regards voting, if all of us had io bow down for errors in the way that we had voted, I am afraid that we would never stand up again. At least I accept my errors as much as anyone, and at least I was not Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time.
  I am strongly in support of what I understand to be the policy of curbing public expenditure. I hope that that will be done with a view to lowering interest rates, which is more important than reducing or abolishing stamp duty. That is a fundamental factor in the confidence equation. If my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary tells me in his winding-up speech that the purpose of cancelling the moratorium is not merely to fritter the money away but is a fundamental means of reducing interest rates, I shall happily support whatever he advises on the new clause. Whatever he proposes—[interruption] I have found that nearly everything that the Opposition propose is doomed to failure and disaster, so I shall also be guided by that factor.
  In all seriousness, the damage to confidence and to the concept of a property-owing democracy is extremely sad. I have believed in that theory throughout my political life. The Government and the Conservative party have always believed that encouraging people to buy is essential to our way of life. It is a bulwark against the ever-encroaching power of the state which the Opposition always encourage. I therefore hope that the concept of a property-owning
  244
  democracy has not disappeared and that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary will express some sympathy, on behalf of the Treasury and of the Government, for the plight of the construction industry and of people who believed in such a democracy and who are now in a state of great unease. I hope that he will say something to reassure them. We shall listen with keen interest to his reply. In the words of the sergeant major who saw his junior NCO allowing a body of troops to walk to the precipice, "For God's sake say something, even if it's only goodbye."
  Mr. Hoon: New clause 3 sets out a stark choice for the Government and their supporters: they either plead guilty to the charge that they used up to £400 million of public money for electioneering, on a failed policy of kick-starting the housing market, or they accept the new clause and allow the housing market time to make some sort of recovery. Either the Government believe in the policy that they so eloquently advocated in December and January or they admit to raiding the public purse to secure their re-election.
  When moving the Second Reading of the Stamp Duty (Temporary Provisions) Bill in January this year, the then Financial Secretary said:
  "The purpose of the measure is to encourage people considering buying houses to get on with buying their houses or flats and to prompt others to bring forward their purchases to take advantage of the moratorium."
  That manifestly has not worked. The housing market remains flat, which is why I am prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt and to allow a little more time for the proposal to work. The then Financial Secretary admitted that that might be necessary because he added:
  "It will, of course, be a little while before the effects of the measure show up in the levels of house sales."—[Official Report. 20 January 1992; Vol. 202, c. 117.]
  New clause 3 is a modest proposal to give a little more time—as advocated by the then Financial Secretary—for the housing market to recover.
  If the Government were so enthusiastic about extending stamp duty relief in December and January, why are they choosing to abandon that policy now? One answer
  not available to them is to say that they can withdraw the extra relief because the policy has worked. Whatever else the Government may claim, they cannot say that the extra relief has helped the housing market in any way. If we compare the figures for January to May 1991 with those for January to May 1992, we find that there was a 24 per cent. reduction in property transactions.
  For the benefit of the hon. Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton), who challenged the statistics earlier, I should add that those figures were supplied by the Library and are based on the Government's figures for property transactions. Those figures illustrate a steady downward trend throughout 1992, when compared with the equivalent period in 1991. Notwithstanding the availability of extra relief, which came into force on 15 January, that trend continued.
  There is no evidence from the statistics that the Government's scheme has had the effect that the then Financial Secretary said that it would have, unless it is the Government's case that the decline in property transactions would have been greater but for the availability of extra relief. If that is their case, it is time that they said so. Otherwise, we risk a sudden surge at the end

  245
  of August, as people understandably try to complete transactions before relief ends, followed by a chronic reduction in demand.
  Mr. Tim Smith: Could the hon. Gentleman explain why, if the measure has had no noticeable effect on the housing market, he thinks that we should continue with it?
  Mr. Hoon: For precisely the reasons that the then Financial Secretary gave in January—he said that the measure would take a little time. If the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) looks at that speech, he will find that the then Financial Secretary referred to people's difficulties in finding homes, the time taken by the legal procedure and the time necessary to complete. There simply has not been enough time.
  The purpose of new clause 3 is to allow a little more time, precisely as the then Financial Secretary set out. The question by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) implied that the scheme was not justified in the first place and that the Government were simply gambling up to £400 million of taxpayers' money in trying to secure an upturn in the market. I presume that the hon. Gentleman is now saying that that policy was doomed to failure in any event. Is he really saying that the policy has failed?
  Mr. Tim Smith: I am hoping to catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to prolong the hon. Gentleman's speech.
  Mr. Hoon: The Government may be tempted to tell us the truth for a change and to say that their policy was the shortest of short-term policies. It was designed to get the Government through the election but no further and is now to be abandoned, despite the evidence of a severe housing crisis throughout the country.
  The current state of the British housing market has caused a record number of repossessions. One in five of the houses currently on the market is available as a result of repossession or people voluntarily giving up their keys without waiting for appropriate legal proceedings. Those houses remain to be sold and the market will remain flat until they are sold and demand picks up.
  The fall in the value of houses has had a further effect on the level of demand and has led to a debt trap in which 1·8 million people are borrowing more money than the current value of their house. Their mortgages and loans against their house are much larger than its actual value, and they are unlikely to risk selling those properties and trying to move on while they are saddled with a substantial debt.
  Against that background, the Government have decided to restore stamp duty to its 1991 level and the fragile housing market will be given yet another serious blow inspired by the Government's misguided policies. That is not simply my view. We heard earlier the opinion of the chairman of the Council of Mortgage Lenders, who said that such a measure would be fatal to any recovery in the housing market.
  How do the Government propose to stimulate the housing market? Must we wait for another election before we can expect further action to help the housing market?
  Mr. George Walden: I speak as a supporter of the Government, but as a supporter they
  246
  would probably prefer not to have. When the moratorium measure first came up, I supported it out of loyalty. I now support its abolition out of conviction.
  Both sides of the House have been playing at competitive populism. The British economy is deformed by the housing market. When hon. Members talk about the "barometer of the economy", the "engine of the economy" and "leading us out of recession", they use damaging phrases that have gained currency in this country. People observing the British economy have said for years that such talk cripples British economic prospects because it sustains the illusion that the economy can be run on a pile of sterile bricks and mortar.
  I know exactly what the argument is about because I, too, have many small builders in my constituency. I do not need to discuss the matter because I understand it. I have been to many houses where a little van is parked outside at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, showing that the small business induced by the housing folly has collapsed and that the owner of that business has lost his job. Based on that business, he has bought an over-priced house for £90,000 that is now worth only £60,000.
  The House should not sustain the bubble of that illusion, yet in some way hon. Members on both sides of the House have sustained it for years. I do not subscribe to phrases like "barometer of the economy". The housing market may be a barometer of the economy but it should not be, because this country will not come out of recession into permanent prosperity on the back of a pile of bricks and mortar, the price of which is artifically supported by Government subsidy.
  8.15 pm
  Dr. Marek: I listened to the hon. Gentleman with interest but I hope that he does not misrepresent the Opposition's view. It will help if we can get the housing market moving again but the Opposition have always held the belief that the prosperity of this country is based on high quality investment in manufacturing industry and the export of services as well as manufactures. That is the prime requisite of any successful industrial economy.
  Mr. Walden: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman felt moved to correct himself because I sense a note of defensiveness in his remarks. In my view, it is highly justified.
  When we talk about the primacy of confidence in the housing market we mean higher prices, so why beat about the bush? If the measure were to succeed—hon. Members on both sides of the House have suggested that it has not had much effect—in promoting "confidence", it would mean higher house prices and higher mortgages. All the crocodile tears about first time buyers are rubbish, because it would mean people gearing up from paying the preposterous current rate of 3·9 times of their incomes to paying even more. It is a deformity of the British economy and does not happen to the same extent in other countries. It deforms people's lives, which are geared to trying to meet that 3·9 times of their income for years, stretching to their middle age.
  Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood)rose—
  Mr. Walden: May I finish my emotional outburst and then I shall give way.

  247
  Those mortgage repayments will stretch across the horizon, while the people sit at home and eat baked beans and do not go out and enjoy themselves as I would prefer them to do.
  Mr. Wilkinson: Whether they eat baked beans is neither here nor there. What is at issue is whether it is sound policy for the value of houses to continue to decline and the market to be so depressed that many thousands of people are in the miserable position of realising that the equity value of their property is less than the value of their mortgage. They are therefore totally locked in and face penury. Anything that can be done to do away with that misery, whether by continuing the relief or, more sensibly, by cutting interest rates, should have the support of the House.
  Mr. Walden: My hon. Friend has spoken to the feeling side of the nation. I want to do the impossible and appeal to its rational sense, which I have reason to believe exists. I have met people in my surgery who are trapped by a policy for which the Conservative party bears much responsibility—leading people to believe throughout the 1980s that the be-all and end-all of economic activity was to get on the housing ladder. It was wrong of us to do so. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) that Conservative policy is to create a property-owning democracy. Property does not mean houses, and Conservatives, especially modern Conservatives, do not tell people what to do with their money. We give them the choice. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Housing and Planning said in a recent speech, the real choice that we should encourage is between whether people want to own or privately rent their house. It is wrong of us to continue to encourage, even at the present sotto voce level, this mumbo jumbo about home ownership.
  People must decide whether they want to own their homes. We must try to level the market and allow them to decide. The priority should not be to encourage home ownership, even by this relatively piddling measure—although £600 million is not piddling and could be better used than to prop up prices artificially. We do not want confidence if it means higher prices; we want stability, rationality and common sense in the housing market, and that means the minimum possible subsidies.
  Sir Anthony Grant: I do not dissent from my hon. Friend's view, but he appears to think that there is some marvellous alternative—that people can either buy property or privately rent it. That is not the case. It was true before the war, but since then—because of the trembling structure of the rent Acts, because of the hostility of Labour Governments to landlords and their belief in having council house ghettos all over the place —there has not been that choice. We believe that people should have a choice and own their homes if that is what they want. The point is that there has been little choice; I only wish that there were.
  Mr. Walden: If my hon. Friend is handing me arrows to fire at the Opposition, I am happy to let loose with them. The debate is relatively small stuff compared with the £6 billion to £8 billion—a third of the education budget that we spend, most of it wasted, on propping up the housing market through mortgage tax relief. We all know
  248
  the story of that. We are discussing a minor amount of taxation on house buying, yet at the other end of the scale we are giving £6 billion to £8 billion of indiscriminate tax relief to rich and poor alike. My points are directly relevant to the overall view, on which I am sure the Treasury rightly keeps an eye, of the housing market. Let us try for once to be a little rational and cool and not mislead the public, or lead them again along a path that has brought many families to the brink of financial ruin.
  Mr. John Townend: My hon. Friend's case is that the purpose of the moratorium on stamp duty was to increase house prices. Surely he does not expect us to believe that. Most of us do not want an increase in house prices. The purpose of the moratorium was to improve liquidity in the market.
  Mr. Walden: As I explained earlier, I supported the original proposal for a moratorium, although I was in two minds about it. My hon. Friend has eloquently expressed one of those minds. I did not want then, and I do not want now, the housing market to go into a precipitous slump because so deformed is our economy by the housing market that we cannot risk that happening. If it did, a whole series of dreadful things would happen in the City and elsewhere. Indeed, some are already happening. One reason why I supported the Government was that I wanted the housing market to be held steady rather than watch it go into an abyss.
  What is now happening in the housing market looks suspiciously like stability. That is not a bad thing. We should not lead people to believe that the price of their house can grow exponentially over the years with no effort from them, and that the Government have a duty to sustain inflated house prices for all time. Some people argue—in my view, out of the back of their heads—that mortgage tax relief should be increased to boost prices still further.
  I could continue like this, but I have taken enough time. I am trying to break through the collusive populism in the House on this matter, which has been so damaging to the country—especially the poorer sector—by misleading people in the economic organisation of their lives. Only a few hundred million pounds is involved, but this time the Government are getting it right.
  Mr. George Howarth: It is a rare event, but I could go along with about two thirds of the speech of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden). Indeed, I am more likely to agree with him than are many of his hon. Friends. He said that our economy was deformed by the way in which the housing market works. He made an important point in his comments about mortgage tax relief. I am sure that he would agree, as most economists agree, that the boom in 1987–88 was very much led by the property market, just as the recession has also been very much led by it. As prices fell, so the economy moved deeper into depression.
  It is not healthy for any economy to be in that position. It is also unusual. The United States and almost all European economies do not operate in the same way as Britain because they do not have the same overdependence on what happens in the property market, whichever way it moves.
  I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Government's central mistake since 1979 has been their belief that there is an automatic virtue attached to home ownership. There

  249
  is not, and nor is there anything virtuous about renting. It is just a simple transaction that people make and it should not be based on which is the most subsidised option; it should be based on what circumstances suit an individual and his family at any given point in their lives.
  In the longer term, we must move away from that over-dependence on one tenure because it has such a dramatic impact on the economy. Not only is it not good social policy; it is appalling economic policy. The hon. Gentleman described the effects of that. From his tone, I suspect that he would have gone further in his point about mortgage tax relief. It does not have any economic benefit and, strictly speaking, it does not help anyone to buy a home. Most objective commentators—not generally politicians—such as the two national inquiries into housing led by the Duke of Edinburgh have said that mortgage tax relief achieves nothing in housing policy.
  The difficulty, and it is not unique to the Government, is that every political party that seriously wants power—with the exception of the Liberal Democrats, who usually do not expect to be taken seriously—has a difficult political problem because so many people receive mortgage tax relief. The economic and social aspects are different matters.
  At various times some of my hon. Friends, most recently my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), have tried across the Dispatch Box to interest Ministers in finding a politically acceptable solution that would break the logjam of that problem, but so far they have shown no interest in reaching any accommodation. In the long run, a Government—or, I hope, a combination of major political parties—must reach consensus because we cannot go on in this way. The problem will not wither on the vine for a long time unless action is taken. We cannot be certain that stamp duty relief has had any appreciable effect on the property market. The state of the construction industry is so appalling—with low unemployment, a small number of starts, and every other indicator depressed—that something must be done.
  In the absence of a comprehensive package of measures of the kind that a Labour Government would have introduced, we must lend our support to stamp duty relief. It is not a wonderful innovation, and something more comprehensive is needed to deal with the real crisis in the construction industry. However, it is worth persevering, in the hope that that relief will eventually have some effect. I have no great enthusiasm for that policy, but in the pragmatic hope that it will have some useful effect, I will support my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Lobby.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Wilkinson: Every now and then, we would do well to ask ourselves whether, especially on this side of the House, we have truly kept faith with our electors in housing matters. We have spent much of our political and parliamentary careers urging and encouraging people to realise their natural family aspiration to own their own home. By and large, we have been successful in that; but if we had been more successful, this debate would be neither so prolonged nor so intense. Nor would we have opened the Evening Standard a few days ago to see my
  250
  right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer portrayed as innocent cherubs—somewhat podgy, but surprisingly underclothed.
  The Opposition's new clause is very much in the spirit of early-day motion 307, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton). The Government would have done well to use the interval between the publication of that early-day motion and this predictable debate to announce new measures to stimulate the housing market and to make it easier for people, particularly first time buyers, to purchase their own homes. They noticeably did not do so.
  In that interval, I received letters from Prowling Homes, whose headquarters is located in Ruislip. It is a big company which contributes to the local economy, and it urges that stamp duty relief be maintained for some time yet. The same is said by Taylor Woodrow, which is no inconsiderable company. For Taylor Woodrow to have written in similar vein suggests that it has negated the apophthegm that he who pays the Tory piper calls the Conservative Government's tune. A similar letter came from Ideal Homes, which is not located in Ruislip, but which no doubt builds desirable residences all around the country.
  The facts are—and I wish that the Government and the House would pay more attention to the facts—that average house prices in London have fallen by no less than one quarter since the peak of the boom in 1989. That is a substantial decline, and the fastest that I have experienced during my 17 years in the House. It indicates that there is a prima facie case for stamp duty relief to be extended. If the market is so depressed, any ameliorating measure, such as perpetuating stamp duty relief, should be welcomed.
  That relief pales into insignificance compared with the measure that is really required—the reduction of interest rates by about 2½ per cent. Given that the Government are either unwilling or unable to do so, the next best thing must surely be to maintain stamp duty relief.
  Lord Healey, when he was a Member of this House, used to remind us in his engaging way that one of the first things that one learns in politics is that if one is in a hole, it is better to stop digging. The big hole in which our economy finds itself is the result of maintaining astronomically high levels of real interest for far too long.
  It was done not because inflation was out of control but because in our membership of the exchange rate mechanism a rate of 2·95 deutschmarks to the pound is some kind of totem or shibboleth. Would it adversely affect my constituents in Ruislip and Northwood—or the other people of London whose house values have declined so much and so fast—if the pound were worth instead only 2·83 deutschmarks or 2·75 deutschmarks? What matters to them is that they can service their mortgages, or can afford a mortgage to enter the property market in the first place.
  Mr. Walden: I genuinely do not understand my hon. Friend's argument. He seems to he saying that the Government should provide a stimulus to the housing market—which in my terms means higher prices—so that first-time buyers can buy property.
  Mr. Wilkinson: My hon. Friend may not understand, but many young people who want to buy a home understand very well. The marginal extra increment on the

  251
  cost of house purchase represented by stamp duty can make all the difference between a successful and an unsuccessful transaction.
  The cynical may argue that stamp duty relief represents only 1 per cent. of the purchase price, and that house values need to fall only by this amount to have the same effect. However, property values have already fallen 6 per cent. on average over the past year. Do we want them to fall further to meet the objective achieved by stamp duty relief?
  Reintroducing stamp duty would be to impose a direct tax on mobility and flexibility in the employment market. At a time when substantial and dramatic changes in employment patterns—with companies in various sectors of industry feeling the pinch, and other large companies going out of business—are forcing people to sell up and to move elsewhere for jobs, the Government are making the process more difficult by their desire to reimpose the stamp duty the relief of which new clause 3 seeks to perpetuate a little longer.
  Would it not be wiser to consider over the winter period whether other measures could be introduced, such as the cut in interest rates that I suggested? Or stamp duty might be abolished altogether, as my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) has cogently urged over the years on the basis of his professional experience. After all, there are few areas left in which the House has genuine discretion in tax matters.
  It is a matter of principle that we should at least consider using it in this instance. Without the approval of the House, we forwent the right to reduce VAT below 15 per cent. in the next four years. In days gone by, the reduction of indirect taxation was one of the primary methods that the Government used to restimulate the economy. Now we have deliberately eschewed it and I find this exceedingly strange.
  My distinguished and learned hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) said that it did not particularly matter whether the housing and construction industries were stimulated and that we should not look to bricks and mortar to regenerate our economy. What was he looking to? Was he looking to the export market? There is not much of a growing export market to the United States where the recession is so deep, or to Japan which is facing such parlous economic problems, or to Europe which faces recession as we do. Anyway, with an artificially over-valued currency, it is all the more difficult for our exporters to get into those markets.
  What about aerospace? We all know about the difficulties of the airlines and the retrenchments in that business. What about motor cars? The motor industry is hardly the booming sector for which some people had hoped. What about defence and what about consumption? The savings ratio is so high that one cannot look to the high street to regenerate the economy. Therefore, the costs of extending the relief for a little longer are relatively small.
  The Government have shown by their actions that they are not especially concerned about public expenditure: just before the election the public sector pay settlement was ahead of inflation, child benefit was uprated in line with inflation instead of introducing child tax allowances, £1 billion was allocated to the inner cities—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but we are debating new clause 3, not the entire economy.
  Mr. Wilkinson: Against those examples of massive increases in public expenditure, to which I add the net contribution to the European Community, the extension of this relief is small beer. That is why I believe that the Opposition have done the House a favour in tabling the new clause and giving us an opportunity to air the arguments.
  I accept that the Government said from the outset that the relief would be temporary. They are sticking to their intentions and carrying them out, and, I suppose, one should applaud that, however wrong-headed the end results. I shall not oppose the Government, but I shall not support them because I believe that the constructive criticisms which I have deployed were worth deploying, and I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will take note of them.
  Mr. John Hutton: I shall be brief because this has been a long debate and many hon. Members still wish to contribute. I believe that the new clause should be supported because it offers a small but practical incentive to persuade house buyers to enter the property market to get things moving again.
  It is extraordinary that the Government are proposing to end the moratorium on stamp duty at this time. I wonder whether they really believe that the worst is over for the housing market. Many hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), drew attention to some of the key housing market indicators. All hon. Members will have seen them, and there is no sign that the worst is over. The latest Halifax index shows that house prices fell again in May. In the first quarter of 1992, there were more than 16,500 repossessions. In 1991, 75,500 houses were repossessed, and those figures represent a 72 per cent. increase over 1990.
  All hon. Members know from their constituency surgeries and advice sessions for their constituents that the problems of mortgage arrears continue unabated. There is a massive problem in many constituencies, not least in mine, for people who are living in houses which are heavily mortgaged. Their mortgages now exceed the value of their houses. There are 1–5 million people living in such depressing circumstances.
  The Government simply cannot believe that this is the right time to lift the moratorium on stamp duty because it is evident that the housing market is still acutely depressed. If the Government are wrong and believe that the housing market is set to boom, and if some of the green shoots to which hon. Members have referred are apparent in the economy—although I believe that the green shoots, if they ever existed, have shrivelled up and dropped off by now —will they assure the House that they will draw up a fresh set of proposals to deal with the serious problems with which many of our constituents have to live?
  I find it difficult to appreciate and understand the argument about cost. As I understand it, the Government want to lift by 1993 the stamp duty in respect of share transactions. If my figures are correct, that will cost the Government nearly twice as much as extending the moratorium on housing purchases.
  The housing market is still in the doldrums as a result not only of the recession, which continues in my constituency and many others, but of many years of very

  253
  high interest rates. Although the recent cuts in interest rates are welcome, they have not slowed the number of repossessions or reduced the extent of mortgage arrears.
  8.45 pm
  We have heard some eloquent and rather philosophical contributions from Conservative Members, but what underscores the issue that we are debating is the fact that the Government do not have a credible housing policy. It is not enough to trot out the rather limp and tired slogans about the property-owning democracy. For many people who accepted the advice of the Government and were encouraged to buy their own homes, the reality of repossession and high personal debt has left a bad taste. A relevant housing policy should encompass the private as well as the public sector, tenants as well as home owners. Sadly, we are some way from such a credible housing policy.
  I shall say one or two brief words about the extent of the housing difficulties being experienced in my constituency. I took the trouble to consult all the estate agents in my constituency, and they have provided me with some interesting and relevant material for the debate. The local housing market is depressed for two reasons.
  First, as many hon. Members know, it is depressed because of the many job losses in the past two years at Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd., which has led to a general lowering of confidence in the future. In fact, it has led to deep concern about what the future holds for people in Barrow and Furness. Secondly, and in particular, it is depressed because of the high level of redundancies among apprentices in my constituency, young men and women who have this year completed their four-year indentures. They have recently been declared redundant and, of course, they are the prospective first-time buyers in my local housing market. They now face the prospect of an uncertain period on the dole—it could be long or short, but we do not know—so there is no prospect of their considering the expensive option of purchasing their own property. Those combined effects have left the local property market in a sadly depressed condition, to which local estate agents see no signs of a substantive recovery.
  In that context, all my local estate agents have said in recent days that they want the Government to extend the moratorium on stamp duty. They do not believe that we can press a button, as it were, to extend the moratorium and suddenly create a whole new climate of optimism in the housing market. It is a complex and sensitive market, but it lies at the root of confidence in the economy as a whole, and until confidence returns to the housing market we shall not see green shoots springing up anywhere in the economy.
  I accept the view of my local estate agents that this is an important moment not to end the moratorium on stamp duty on house purchases. In my constituency, as elsewhere, ending the moratorium would have a negative effect on the housing market, and that would be bad news for the nation as a whole. So the Opposition proposal would be unlikely completely to transform the present state of the housing market. I wish it were possible for such a change to occur. But to end the moratorium now, when
  254
  there is no sign of an end to the housing crisis—the market remains in a deep trough of recession—would be a foolish and retrograde step.
  It is a novel experience for me, a new hon. Member, to hear a debate of such high quality, with a clear measure of cross-party support for our proposal. I hope that when we vote on the new clause there will be voting with us Conservative Members who have the courage of their convictions.
  Mr. John Townend: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) that stamp duty is a bad tax which should be ended. We want to increase mobility of labour. A tax that bears heavily on people wishing to move house because they want to change jobs is damaging.
  On the other hand, most people accept that it is impossible to abolish now a tax which raises a great deal of money, when we are faced with a huge public sector borrowing requirement which next year will be nearly £40 billion.
  The housing market is flat, as hon. Members have made clear. It is experiencing little recovery, and that is holding back the recovery in consumer spending on which a general recovery of the economy could rest.
  I welcomed the Government's decision to lift stamp duty for a limited period, up to 20 August, to give a short-term boost to the property market and increase liquidity. That move has not had the impact that some might have expected, but I remind the House that there are still six weeks to go, and with any time-limited relief one would expect a surge as the last days of the relief approach.
  A significant example of that occurred when Lord Lawson was Chancellor of the Exchequer. He abolished dual mortgage tax relief for couples and, instead of abolishing it overnight, he had a moratorium for several months. What occurred towards the end of that period resulted in an enormous surge in the housing market. Indeed, that was one of the principal causes of the overheating of the economy.
  It is inept of the Opposition to propose a new clause that would extend the termination date of the moratorium before we have arrived at the first termination date of 20 August. That could abort the surge that we might expect in the coming six weeks. Had Opposition Members thought the issue through, they would have waited until 20 August and then, on our return after the summer recess, made the proposal, when it could have been discussed more sensibly.
  Another argument against the new clause is that it would cost £430 million more this year when, as I said, the Government's finances are under severe pressure. One way to make it possible to reduce interest rates—which, above all, would help the housing market and reduce the pain felt by those locked into high mortgages—would be to reduce the PSBR. I hope that there will be strong support from Opposition Members this year as each Government Department attempts to reduce its spending and bring Government finances more into balance. The more success we have in achieving that, the faster interest rates will come down. That is why I shall support the Government in opposing the new clause.
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: The new clause goes to the heart of the Conservative bogus commitment to lift the burden on home owners and the housing

  255
  industry. What reasons have the Government given for reimposing stamp duty at this time? Do they claim that the recession is over, that recovery is under way or that the housing market is beginning to boom?
  Even the Government's friends are sceptical about those issues. Like other hon. Members, I receive many begging letters. Few have been as pitiful as one from the House-Builders Federation, the director of which sent me a copy of a letter he had written to the Prime Minister, saying:
  "now that the euphoria has passed"—
  clearly, he has been slightly unhinged—
  "it must be evident to you that nothing much has changed since 9th April. The economy is still locked in recession and Treasury claims of recovery are widely disbelieved. Indeed, they are thoroughly discredited."
  Commenting on the performance of the Chancellor, he says of the Treasury:
  "The housing market has been one of its greatest failures … we built fewer houses than in any decade since the 1940s. This imbalance alone left a shortage of more than one million homes by 1990."
  The House-Builders Federation, speaking for the private house building industry, as Conservative Members have done in this debate, writes:
  "Despite lower house prices and interest rates…the continued recession is holding back the housing market. After signs of an improvement in January and February, the housing market has slowed down markedly in May and June…If further damage to purchaser confidence is to be avoided, the existing stamp duty moratorium should be extended beyond 20th August…An improving housing market, with its stimulus to retail spending and to employment through new housebuilding, can play an important role in economic recovery."
  Government figures pay eloquent testimony to those sentiments. The slump has never been clearer. In my constituency and in Scotland generally, the boom in the issuing of mortgages by building societies occurred not in 1987, 1988 or 1990—although mortgage lending was much higher then—but in 1984. By 1991, lending had hit a 10-year low. That has meant, for example, that Edinburgh house prices have fallen dramatically and, as we have heard, they have fallen in London and throughout the country.
  No wonder the new clause is supported by the building industry, the mortgage lenders and everyone who believes that people should not be prevented from buying a first home or from moving to a new home, whatever the reason. If the Economic Secretary does not accept it, he will find that the Government's erstwhile friends will desert them, never to return. A time of deep recession is not a time at which to drive up house prices.
  If the new clause is not accepted, 20 August 1992 will go down in housing history as the day when an iron curtain was drawn, separating tens of thousands of families from their dream of home ownership for the foreseeable future. According to the housebuilders, the frosty freeze that will follow 20 August will make last year's housing slump seem like a boom. After a long, cold summer and a long and bitter winter—a winter of discontent—for milions of home owners and aspiring home owners, 20 August will come as the Government's nemesis.
  There is time, however, for the Government to listen to their friends in the building industry, who donated to their election campaign the lavish sums that put them in power and gave them the power to vote for or against home owners and aspiring home owners. We wait, but not with bated breath.
  9 pm
  Mr. Den Dover: I entirely deny that the Government introduced the moratorium in late 1991 as a gimmick. It was a responsible gesture, aimed at injecting some life into the housing industry.
  As one who has spent almost all his career as a civil engineer in housing, construction and property development, I consider the continuation of the relief immaterial: I do not believe that it will have any effect, adverse or positive, on the housing market. In the past it has exerted little pressure on the market; few additional sales have resulted. Anyone trying to buy a house anywhere in the country now is looking not for a I per cent. price reduction, but for a reduction of 5, 10 or 15 per cent.
  I want to dispel some of the doom and gloom. In the south-east a reduction of 25 per cent. or, more probably, 30 per cent. is possible, but in the more responsible areas —the north, the north-west and the north-east—house prices never reached such crazy levels. House owners and house builders are suffering the consequences of those price rises. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) blamed the construction industry for the present parlous state of the economy, but I believe that it is the other way around: the economy is in such a difficult position that people arc unemployed, fearful of becoming unemployed or worried about the falling value of their properties.
  I am grateful to the Government for introducing the minor benefit of the moratorium last year, but, rather than continuing it, they should reduce the amount of public expenditure—hundreds of millions of pounds—that is involved in its perpetuation. The house building industry wants positive action. It wants lower interest rates and more action on repossessions; it wants pressure to be exerted on the insurance industry, because the present indemnity insurance premium levels are criminal. It does not help house buyers to make them pay a swingeing insurance premium for a mortgage of more than 70 or 80 per cent.
  The housing industry is probably the most private-enterprise oriented industry in the United Kingdom. It does not want subsidies; it wants the real market to apply, and it is more than capable of lifting itself to its former level. So often in the past, successive Governments have used the building industry as a regulator of the economy. At difficult times they have held back public expenditure, especially on council houses and infrastructure; at boom times they have expected too much of the industry, and the economy has overheated as a result.
  I signed the early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton), but I told him that—along with other hon. Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert)—I had pressed for the total abolition of stamp duty for at least 10 years. The Government should bring that about in the next few years, for I am certain that, if left to its own devices and to natural market forces, the housing industry will lift off. This minimal measure will not do much.
  Mr. Betts: The stamp duty changes that were introduced last December were not, in my view, part of a coherent economic policy or of a coherent housing policy. They were a recognition by the Government that economic

  257
  recovery was not happening and that an election was coming. It was a matter of electoral expediency, in the crudest sense.
  The problem for the Government is that economic recovery has still not happened and that the election has come and gone. The Government now feel that the measure that they introduced to try to win some popularity has served its useful purpose.
  I agree with some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) about the Government's housing policy. They were very interesting. However, stamp duty is a matter not of general housing policy but of its potential impact on the housebuilding industry. If I were feeling a little more charitable about the Government's designs, I might even accept, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said at the time, that there was recognition of the fact that the housebuilding industry could be one of the important motors for economic recovery. If the Government did recognise that fact, when they looked around they found that there were not many alternatives.
  The Government looked at the council house building sector and found that it no longer existed because their bigoted and dogmatic policies towards council housing over the years had killed it off. They were not prepared to take the obvious step of releasing capital receipts—which, by any logical definition, would have had no impact on the public sector borrowing requirement—which would have allowed local authorities to build council houses. They looked at the housing association sector and saw a little increase there, but the Treasury was growing worried about the cost. The Government also looked at the private rented sector and found that, after their 13 years in power and an awful lot of talk, the private sector was continuing to decline.
  Housebuilding in the private sector remained virtually steady throughout the 1980s, though the private sector had not replaced the fall-off in the council house building sector. By the early 1990s, however, private housebuilding had fallen to a record low. Stamp duty exemption was introduced against that background.
  If we examine the impact of that measure so far, it is fair to say that there are real doubts about its effectiveness. It has had a limited effect on the housing market; there has been no great take-off. In Sheffield, which has not been so badly hit by the fall in house prices and the fall-off in activity as other parts of the country, there are no clear signs of a sustained recovery.
  The question that we should be asking is not what has happened as a result of this measure but what the impact will be if the exemption is removed. It is just possible that the failure of the housing market to take off in the last few months was not due to the stamp duty changes. It is just possible that the housing slump would have been much worse without those changes. The real worry and concern is that the reimposition of stamp duty now will send the housebuilding industry into yet further decline. Confidence in the housebuilding sector is very delicate. The reimposition of stamp duty could have a significant impact in the wrong direction.
  Before I came to the House today, I asked a few builders and estate agents in Sheffield for their views. Obviously they have a vested interest, but they also have
  258
  knowledge that is worth sharing. Garton, Lockwood and Riddle, one of the leading estate agents in Sheffield, said that there is a real problem of confidence, that ending the exemption will be just another element in the equation which will be unhelpful to recovery and that the market is slow. The House-Builders Federation said that
  "while the stamp duty moratorium … may not have had the positive effect that was hoped for, its reimposition will simply depress confidence further and delay recovery."
  That point is borne out by Gleeson Homes, a major housebuilder in Sheffield. It referred to the real problems caused by the deep recession and said that the reimposition of stamp duty will further weaken any return of confidence. It said:
  "We believe that by suspending Stamp Duty it will not necessarily create an early market recovery but reimposing Stamp Duty will have a further depressing factor on an already weak, buyers confidence."
  Omega Homes have said that people have been rushing to meet the deadline in the last few weeks, but now it has all gone flat. Henry Boot told me that any reduction could have a detrimental effect on the housing market, which is just showing a few signs of recovering. And, of course, there are the comments by Tim Melville-Ross of the Nationwide building society, who said that the Government proposals could have a fatal impact.
  It is very clear from all this that there are some doubts so far about the effectiveness of the measures taken last December and a very real worry about the impact of reversing those measures at this time.
  There are two questions for the Government. Is the economic recovery so assured that the Government can afford to take any steps that might curtail it? I believe that the answer to that has to be a very clear no. Secondly, is the public sector borrowing requirement so completely out of control that the Government cannot afford another £400 million to continue the current exemption?
  The real problem for the Government is that one of their economic disasters, the PSBR, is now constraining their ability to deal adequately with another of their disasters, the economic slump which they have created. My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) gave the Government a way out with some suggestions about how they could negate the effects of the PSBR increases that would come from a continuance of the exemptions. Therefore, the only question left open concerns the impact on economic recovery.
  I hope that all hon. Gentlemen who spoke in favour, in principle, of the proposals in the new clause moved by the Opposition will support it in the Lobby. I do not believe that any of them, in the very delicate state of the economy, can ignore the risk that the measures that the Minister is proposing might have the very damaging effect of curtailing the possibilities of recovery. I will put it no more strongly than that. I therefore think that it is worth taking the risk, for £400 million, of supporting the new clause and giving a bit of hope to the housebuilding industry in the very difficult situation that it is experiencing.
  Mr. Milburn: When Ministers announced the moratorium on stamp duty it was part of a package of measures designed to stimulate recovery in the housing market. The argument deployed by the then Financial Secretary was that the measure
  "would not transform the world"
  but would give a mild impetus towards housing recovery.

  259
  I have a dreadful feeling as we sit here tonight that there were two kinds of impetus towards the introduction of the moratorium. Certainly the depth of the housing crisis with which Ministers were confronted was one, but I suspect that the second was the ticking away of the general election clock sounding very loud and clear in Ministers ears, and providing a very clear incentive to tackle the problems of the housing crisis.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Cynical.
  Mr. Milburn: The hon. Member for Blyth Valley shouts "Cynical". Well, maybe I am.
  With its sister policy, the mortgage rescue plan devised by the building societies, the stamp duty moratorium was supposed to kill two birds with one stone: first, to give a boost to the housing market; hut, secondly, to give a boost to the Conservatives' electoral fortunes.
  Six months on, the Government have certainly achieved one objective, but they have failed lamentably in the other. Housing and the economy as a whole remain stuck deep in recession. The housing crisis that prompted the moratorium in the first place has not gone away; arguably, in some respects, it has even intensified. Hon. Gentlemen are therefore faced with a very simple question: why is it that the measure that was so important six or seven months ago is no longer relevant? If we accept that the housing crisis is as deep today as it was in December or January last, why should the moratorium be withdrawn?
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will accept from me an answer to that question. The letter from the House-Builders Federation to which there has been reference says that the moratorium has had very little effect on the housing programme. The relief is not the primer that we hoped it would be, and it is costing £430 million. Has not the House-Builders Federation answered the hon. Gentleman's question?
  Mr. Milburn: I assume that the hon. Gentleman accepts that, in effect, Ministers have wasted about £400 million of public money. I see nods from Conservative Members. And this is from a Government who accept financial rectitude and tight control of public expenditure, a Government who always have the correct financial and economic answers.
  Let me tell the House what the House-Builders Federation said. I have a letter from Mr. Adamson, the regional chairman in the northern counties region, which says:
  "I accept that suspending stamp duty will not kick-start the market on its own, but reintroducing it will be a further depressing factor to house purchase confidence."
  The hon. Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton) made a very important comment when he said that the housing market is sensitive and very prone to shifts in confidence. It is confidence that counts, yet here we have an example of the ways in which the Government undermine confidence in the very housing market that they are supposed to support.
  Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman seems to be implying that the Government have wasted the £400 million. If he is saying that that money has been wasted—
  Mr. Bob Cryer: He is not saying that. You are.
  Mr. Milburn: You are saying that it has been wasted.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. There are many "you"s flying about. I hope that they do not refer to me.
  Mr. Marlow: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that that money has been well spent?
  Mr. Milburn: I refer to comments of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends—and I note the nods from Conservative Members—that the money has been wasted.
  When this measure was introduced, Ministers made it very clear that it would take some time to become effective. We have now had six or seven months to test its credibility. I hope that when the Financial Secretary introduced it he did not have in mind just the period leading up to the general election and immediately after it. That would give rise to a great deal of cynicism among hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  The housing crisis has not gone away. The number of families losing their homes through repossession has hit 144 per day. As is normal in these situations, Conservative Members are indifferent to the consequences of their own Government's policy. On the programme "Desert Island Discs" a few months ago the Prime Minister, with his finger on the pulse of public concern, as usual, told Sue Lawley:
  "Well, we stopped, if you recall, the repossessions before Christmas."
  Let the Prime Minister and other Ministers express that sort of sentiment to the 126 families in the Darlington area who had mortgage repossession orders against them in the first four months of this year—a 9 per cent. increase on the number for the same period last year. In the north-east as a whole about 1,670 families lost their homes in the first four months of the year, compared with 1,284 in the same period last year.
  Mr. Marlow: A little while back, the hon. Gentleman was quite candid and straightforward. He said that the money that the Government had spent so far had been wasted. In that case, why does he want to extend the exemption to March next year?
  Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman is obviously confusing what I have said with what his hon. Friends have said. They have said that the £400 million has been wasted, and others nodded in assent.
  Mr. Dickens: It may be that in terms of priming the housing market the money has been wasted, but the hon. Gentleman should not forget all those families who have been grateful for that tax concession when buying their homes. The money was not wasted because it stayed with the people.
  Mr. Milburn: In that case, if the measure was important enough in the past seven months and if it has failed lamentably, as it has, to stimulate the major pick-up in the housing market for which we all hoped, why on earth, at this juncture, are the Government saying that enough is enough? Why should not the measure be given a chance to benefit other families, other owner-occupiers and young families seeking to get on the first rung of the housing ladder?

  261
  By ending exemption, the Government will be seen as delivering a kick in the teeth to young families who are looking to get on the first rung of the housing ladder. Far from kick-starting the recovery in the housing market, by ending the moratorium on stamp duty, the Government will kick away the prospective recovery in the housing market. The crisis is as deep as ever and the Government, by withdrawing what paltry assistance they offered six months ago, leave us to draw no other conclusion than that the whole exercise was designed not to help people save their homes but to help Conservative Members of Parliament to save their seats. That was the cynical purpose underlying the measure.
  The exemption was a cynical and crude exercise in manipulating genuine public concerns about the difficult circumstances of home owners. The mortgage rescue plan and the temporary exemption of stamp duty have fulfilled their purpose for the Conservative party but not for those who are suffering the consequences of the policies pursued by the Government. I only wish that Conservative Members would listen not only to the House-Builders Federation but to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the building societies, and to the estate agents in my constituency, whom I contacted today, who are urging that the moratorium be continued if the fragile recovery that may be around the corner is not to be brought to a shuddering halt.
  As the hon. Member for Crosby said, we all know that confidence is the key to recovery in the housing market. After all, we are told that all the other ingredients are in place—prices have fallen, there is a glut of properties on the market, it is a buyers' market—but people are not buying because they lack confidence or the incentive to do so. The Government can help with both. They can pursue measures to stimulate the economy by cutting interest rates, by investing in the regions, in infrastructure and in training. They could also stimulate housing more directly. For example, they could ensure that there is a phased release of capital receipts to allow local authorities to make good use of the money that is lying useless in bank accounts around the country. Those assets should he put to use. They should not be allowed to gather dust.
  The Government should not be closing options at this stage; they should be opening them up. First-time buyers are the mortar of the housing market and they must feel that it is worth their while to invest in a home. Suspending stamp duty for another nine months will not, by itself, instil new confidence. However, it will be a pointer in the right direction. The removal of the concession can only make matters worse.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) said earlier that young families who are hoping to get on to the first rung of the housing ladder will look rather askance at a Government who claim that they cannot continue the moratorium because of public expenditure concerns, but who, at the same time, are prepared to spend £730 million ending stamp duty on share transactions as from next April.
  I have a direct point for the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. No doubt some Conservative Members are genuinely concerned about the ending of the moratorium, but they will not be prepared to put their money where
  262
  their mouths are. They will vote against the new clause. I have no doubt that the new clause will be lost as a consequence of that.
  However, what are the Government prepared to put in place of the moratorium to ensure that there is a recovery in the housing market? What are they going to do to ensure that there is new investment in housing so that we begin to house our homeless people and start to bring an end to the repossession crisis that is gripping my constituency and others around the country? What new measures will the Government introduce tonight? By all means end the moratorium on stamp duty, but let us hear from the Conservative Benches exactly what new policies the Government are prepared to bring forward to stimulate the recovery that we all want to see in the housing market.
  Mr. Nelson: There are perhaps two things that we can all agree on at the end of this extensive debate. The first is the comment of the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) that this has been a very high-quality debate and the other is that stamp duty is not a much-loved tax.
  I will try to persuade the House that stamp duty raises sums of money that the Government cannot ignore or forgo. I will also try to persuade the House that when introducing a concession for a time-limited period, it does not induce one to embark on further concessions unless one sticks to the conditions. That does not mean that they are immutable, but that is a powerful argument for sticking to the concession that has been agreed.
  If money is available, there is a question of judgment as to how most effectively it can be spent in the regeneration of the housing market and in other social and industrial areas and priorities for public expenditure. We have debated some of the criteria and considerations to a high standard.
  I want first to set out the financial parameters. The concession has cost £400 million. During that time, 540,000 housing transactions have benefited and have not had to pay stamp duty. Although the moratorium has been of limited value, it has been of real value. It has meant that a number of transactions have been brought forward, and a number of individuals have not had to incur an additional marginal capital cost on the purchase of their properties. That is still happening, for the moratorium period has not yet ended. Many people are bringing forward their house purchases, to the benefit both of the construction industry and the general liquidity of the housing market.
  The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) asked what amount of money the delay in the implementation of TAURUS has released. The answer is about £850 million. Of course, the concession, which costs about £400 million, leaves a balance. The hon. Gentleman rightly asked, "Is not that money available?" Sadly, it is not available. The balance of those sums is included in the Budget strategy of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. It is part of the overall equation of income and expenditure of the Government; therefore, it is not money which has been released and which can easily be spent.
  9.30 pm
  If we were to extend the moratorium, it would be an additional cost which would have to be financed by additional borrowing, additional taxation or cuts elsewhere in public expenditure. It behoves hon. Members, principally Opposition Members, who easily call for an

  263
  extension to say where the money would come from, what additional tax or borrowing burden they would be prepared to live with, or what public expenditure cuts they would be prepared to make.
  I shall complete what I was saying about the financial parameters, because they are very important. The moratorium cost £400 million. Were we to extend the moratorium, as the new clause provides, for the rest of the financial year, the additional cost is estimated to be £430 million. That is not an insignificant sum, even in terms of an addition to the borrowing requirement.
  One of my responsibilities in the Treasury is to help to raise the funding requirement through national savings and through the gilt-edged markets. That is not easy. Substantial sums are involved. We are talking about very material additional amounts which would be bound to inhibit the extent to which we could further reduce interest rates at a later date or the extent to which we could further reduce taxes—objectives to which the Government have firmly adhered.
  Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend has said quite clearly that the moratorium has persuaded people to bring forward their house purchases. Does he agree that if the moratorium were extended to the end of this year, thereby extending the house-buying season, other people would bring forward their house purchases? If they brought forward their house purchases, what impact would that have on the recovery of the economy? What impact would that have on tax revenues? What impact would that have on the reduction in the cost of unemployment?
  Mr. Nelson: I was about to refer to my hon. Friend's intervention, because I listened carefully to what he said. His proposal would cost another £220 million. That money would have to be found from one of the sources to which I referred. Also, our hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) said that part of the effect of increasing liquidity by bringing forward sales would be diminished if we announced that we would extend the exemption period, because people would relax and be less keen to complete sales early.
  Although it is not the intention to have an enormous bunching of house sales towards August, that would be the effect of a finite date on the exemption period. Wherever we set that, whether later in the financial year or at the end of it, we would have the same effect. The substantial answer to my hon. Friend's proposal is that it would cost us £220 million—again a highly significant sum.
  The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) referred to the problems of first-time buyers in London. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) referred to the 25 per cent. reduction in house prices in London. The Government are very conscious of the personal problems that that imposes on many families who are struggling with mortgage repaymeois. We are also very conscious of the difficulties that have been faced in the construction and property-related industries because of it, but, to the extent that prices have fallen, the only group who have benefited are first-time buyers, because property prices are more affordable. Of course, I acknowledge that that depends on whether someone has a job, can afford the mortgage payments and so on. However, more affordable
  264
  accommodation at least offers more hope to first-time buyers than the ridiculous, spiralling boom prices that many of them faced previously.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton) made an outstanding contribution to the debate. He said that the debate was about confidence in the housing market. That point was reiterated by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant). I acknowledge that confidence is essential to both prospective buyers and people maintaining their financing commitments once they have bought a home.
  However, the Government should not try to rekindle confidence by fiscal or other measures that simply inflate house prices still further. The Government already have in place a range of measures, including mortgage interest tax relief and other financial supports. We provide substantial support for home ownership. Surely the main factor that will revive confidence in the housing market is not fiscal stimulus provided by the Government but economic policies that lead to further reductions in interest rates when it is sensible and responsible to cut them. Our policies should provide a sustained basis for more liquidity and healthier prices in the market, but especially more liquidity.
  Mr. Betts: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Nelson: If the hon. Gentleman will permit me. I shall make a little progress. I will come to his remarks later.
  The hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) referred to unemployment in the construction industry and in his constituency. I readily acknowledge that the social and employment impact of the recession in the housing market has been serious. Those of us who represent constituencies in the south are at least as conscious of that as the hon. Gentleman.
  While my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) understood the Government's position, he reiterated his long-held conviction that we should get rid of stamp duty altogether. He espoused that conviction in compelling fashion.
  As I said, stamp duty is an unloved tax and abolishing it altogether is an appealing line. However, the cost of doing so would be £1 billion. Approximately £800 million is raised from transactions up to the current threshold, but another £200 million to £300 million over and above that is raised from much higher-priced properties. The total amount is about £1 billion. To abolish it would impose on us opportunity fiscal costs. Where would we raise the revenue from—extra borrowing or cuts in public expenditure?
  I cannot predict in the longer term the decisions of the Government and the Chancellor on stamp duty. All such taxes are examined from year to year. But the Government and the Conservative party have a good record on stamp duty. Since we came to office we have not only halved the rate of stamp duty on property but increased the threshold twice.
  Mr. Roger Moate: Does my hon. Friend the Minister recall that we seemed to find it relatively easy to get rid of stamp duty on all exchange dealings and share transfers, at a cost of almost £1 billion yet we seem to find it incredibly difficult to get rid of it for the much worthier matter of house purchase? Many of us find it extremely difficult to walk through the Lobby in support of stamp

  265
  duty—a tax to which most of us have objected for decades. Can he at least tell us that there is some prospect that in years to come, sooner rather than later, we will consider getting rid of stamp duty altogether?
  Mr. Nelson: We can always consider it. However, it would be improper for me to hold out false hopes to my hon. Friend. I am not in a position to say that we anticipate or intend to abolish stamp duty. The considerations that led to that decision for paperless transfers in the TAURUS system had as much to do with the new technical systems that were being imposed and the attractions of the London market for international share dealings as anything else. Stamp duty is a duty on documents and it extends to not only financial transactions and house purchases but other documents.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West said that reassurance about the Government's commitment to home ownership was required. I am happy to provide that reassurance, even though my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) is not in the Chamber, as he also made an interesting speech, which questioned the import of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West.
  The Government are committed to maintaining and encouraging home ownership, and the range of measures that we have already implemented should stimulate it. The stamp duty concession was designed to promote and encourage home ownership, as were many other measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. A testimony to that is the £600 million worth of payments to people on income support who are having difficulty with their mortgages.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West said that the boom went too far, too fast, and that, as there was no prospect of its being repeated, we could afford to extend the concession. Large sums of money are involved and, as he rightly remarked, it is much more important for us to pursue policies designed to reduce interest rates and to maintain restraint on public expenditure.
  The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) dismissed the moratorium, but then called for its extension. That paradox was also implicit in speeches by the hon. Member for Wrexham and others. They called the moratorium a political ploy and described it as being of marginal benefit, if any, but also called for its extension. I have mentioned the cost involved. That is real money and it is a substantial amount of money, which remains in the private, rather than the public, sector.
  In a brave and interesting speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham said that housing should not be a barometer of the economy and that high-priced property is a deformity of the economy. I acknowledge the intellectual persuasion of much that he said, but it is a question of "where you are at" and not "where you come from". For many years, substantial support has been given to the ideal and the reality of home ownership and the Government are not about to abandon that or to undermine it in any switch of policies.
  The hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) supported an extension of the moratorium, in the absence of other Government policies. I have sought to explain that the Government have other policies—notably on the
  266
  broader economic front—which are designed to return a healthier degree of liquidity in transactions to the property market.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood was right to remind the House that owning one's home is a family aspiration and that for many people in London ownership has had to be deferred because of the difficulties that they face. As mortgage liabilities have in many cases exceeded the value or properties, following the fall in prices, home ownership has also become more difficult for those who have mortgages on their homes to realise.
  My hon. Friend said that stamp duty was a tax on mobility. The substantial reduction in house prices has reduced the differential between prices in the north and south of England. During the boom, prices spiralled up in the south. Although the fall in price has been injurious to many home owners, it has meant that the differential has narrowed. If anything, that should encourage mobility rather than discourage it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington was right to concentrate on public expenditure. It is essential that the Government are mindful of the impact of public expenditure on their ability to deliver lower interest rates and lower taxation in years to come. I am sure that all my hon. Friends agree that the Government have an essential early responsibility to get a grip on public expenditure if we are to deliver the sort of political promises with which we gained the trust of the electorate at the general election. We shall not do so if we grant extensions and engage in expenditure of this order.
  Stamp duty is but one of many items on which the Government will rightly be pressed for concessions to bring personal relief, but we have a greater responsibility. We must bring the benefits of lower interest rates, lower inflation and lower public expenditure to our economy.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) gave an apocalyptic, theatrical description of his predictions for Scotland. I acknowledge that there have been serious problems with the depth and severity of the property recession in Scotland, but that alone is not a reason for extending the relief, given the cost for the country as a whole.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover), whose considerable knowledge and experience in these matters is acknowledged throughout the House, also supported the case for total abolition, about which he has spoken on many occasions. I am sorry that I cannot offer him that prospect tonight, but I hope that he understands why we must reintroduce stamp duty in August.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) said that as the market would have been much worse without the moratorium, now is not the right time to abolish it. However, although the market is still low and there are serious problems, there are also some positive signs. The figures for housing starts and completions in May were up by 4 per cent. and 1 per cent. respectively. Many building society predictions show substantial increases in the turnover of property transactions as well as prices in the remainder of this year.
  9.45 pm
  The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) accused us of a cynical political ploy. It would have been a cynical political ploy if the Chancellor had announced the abolition or the substantial raising of thresholds permanently, won the election and then reneged on that.

  267
  [Interruption.] No, it was always clear that the measure was for a finite period of time to bring much-needed relief, liquidity and some support to the property market during a difficult time. The fact that we have been able to reduce the average mortgage interest rate from 15·4 per cent. to less than 11 per cent. shows that the Government's policies are working and we are moving in the right line. To abandon those policies with public expenditure commit-ments that would derail us would be imprudent and the Government could not responsibly offer such a course to the House.
  Therefore, although I understand the concerns and representations of all my hon. Friends, I hope that they will understand that, for public expenditure and other reasons, it is essential and important that we revert to the imposition of stamp duty on the date originally given.
  Dr. Marek: We have had a good debate and, in some ways, its nub was when the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) intervened in the Minister's speech and presented him with the option of cutting the duty on share transfers or extending the moratorium on stamp duty. Presented with such an option, I should have thought that share transactions could bear tax for a few months longer so that the Government could find the extra £220 million necessary for them to accept the Opposition's new clause. That would be straightforward because, ultimately, getting the economy right and lifting the country out of recession are far more important than allowing shares to be exchanged without tax for a few more months. No harm would befall the City or the international capital markets if the Government chose to do that.
  The Minister tried to muddy the waters a little by implying that the Government had a good record on interest rates because they were already down to 11 per cent. So they were from the high of 15·4 per cent. that we experienced for a year and a half a few years ago. Interest rates were above 10 per cent. for some 20 per cent. of the time in which the last Labour Government were in office, whereas they have been below 10 per cent. for only 20 per cent. of the time in which the present Conservative Government have been in office. When hon. Members compare the record of the past Labour Government with the present Conservative Administration they will see that, by and large, interest rates are high when a Conservative Government are in office and much lower under a Labour Government. There was a secret agenda for the Conservative Government to have high interest rates so that they could have high real interest rates.
  I agree with the Economic Secretary that this has been a good debate, in which many different views have been expressed. It was nice to hear speeches from seven or eight Conservative Members and eight Labour Members. The Labour speeches were all individual and targeted at the problem. My hon. Friends made the case for the new clause. Although it will not solve the problems of the recession, if the Government are not prepared to do anything else at least it will do something to help the country when it comes out of recession.
  We were treated to amazing pirouettes by a number of Conservative Members. I shall start with the hon. Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton). He said that it did not matter what is contained in an early-day motion because it is simply an expression of opinion. He invited us to believe that if the House did not like a particular set of opinions, it did not matter because he had plenty of others.
  268
  I wonder what his constituents in Crosby will think. It is hardly worth him putting his name to an early-day motion if, at the slightest pressure from the Whips, he says, "I do not really mean it, or if I do, I do not mean it that much. I shall exercise my beliefs in the right Lobby in the interests of my constituents—but I shall be persuaded by the Whips to go elsewhere."
  That was not the view of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who made a principled speech. He did not say that he would support the Opposition, but he said that he would not support the Government. He was the only Conservative Member to say that and he has my respect for doing so.
  The hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) said that, as there are still six weeks to go before the relief from stamp duty ends, there is still plenty of time. He implied that we should ask for a recall of Parliament on 21 August to debate the issue. I do not think that there is much chance of that. Although there are six weeks left, people cannot suddenly buy a house. They have to exchange contracts, proper searches have to be made and the conveyance procedure must be carried out. Indeed, moving from one house to another depends on many agreements in a chain. All that takes time, but there is no more time. The Government now know what removing the exemption from stamp duty will mean to the housing market. Six weeks may appear to be a long time, but it is not.
  The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) made a very different speech and I agree with the Economic Secretary's analysis of it. Most Labour Members felt that the hon. Gentleman made some good points. However, as the Economic Secretary said, it is not a matter of where we want to start from, but where we are now. I have a great deal of sympathy for what the hon. Member for Buckingham said. He spoke his mind and added to the debate.
  We believe that there are better ways of spending £220 million—such as helping manufacturing industry or, if possible, reducing interest rates. The Government either cannot or will not do that. Because of that attitude, the new clause would help when the economy eventually begins to move out of recession. That has not begun yet, which is why the exemption from stamp duty has not really been successful—but it would be when we do begin to move—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) has not been here during the debate. I hope that she has dined well. Making silly noises and signs does not help or add to a debate in which about eight Conservative Members and eight Opposition Members have spoken—and which, by and large, has been one of the best debates in the House for some time.
  Madam Speaker: Order. The House is not giving the hon. Member a fair hearing. Right hon. and hon. Members who want to hold conversations must either do so quietly or remove themselves from the Chamber so that the rest of us can hear the hon. Member.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure that we are all extremely keen to hear the hon. Gentleman, but I am not sure that his microphone is working. He is almost inaudible to those of us seated on these Benches.
  Madam Speaker: I am not surprised that the hon. Lady did not hear. I was watching her closely, and she was engrossed in conversation.
  Dr. Marek: That has enlivened the debate a little. I am reaching the end of my remarks.
  The continuation of stamp duty relief would be useful if we move out of the recession. The cost of £220 million could be budgeted. The duty on share transactions can be delayed if the Government so choose. That presents them with a clear choice, but I understand that they have decided to terminate the relief in August.
  We will see how many Conservative Members turn on their heads and vote for the cessation of stamp duty relief and for a continuing crisis in housing. I urge my hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby in voting for new clause 3. It is not the complete answer. There are better ways of spending the money and of helping manufacturing industry, which is absolutely necessary if we are to survive as an industrial nation. However, I invite the House to join me in voting for the new clause because it will provide some help in alleviating the crisis in housing that we all want to see come to an end at the earliest opportunity.
  Question put. That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 281, Noes 311.

  Division No. 54]

  [19.57 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Ainger, Nick

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clelland, David

  Allen, Graham

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Alton, David

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Cohen, Harry

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Connarty, Michael

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Ashton, Joe

  Corbett, Robin

  Austin-Walker, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Cousins, Jim

  Barron, Kevin

  Cox, Tom

  Battle, John

  Cryer, Bob

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cummings, John

  Beckett, Margaret

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Beggs, Roy

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Darling, Alistair

  Benton, Joe

  Davidson, Ian

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Berry, Roger

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Betts, Clive

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Blair, Tony

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)

  Blunkett, David

  Denham, John

  Boateng, Paul

  Dewar, Donald

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Dixon, Don

  Boyes, Roland

  Dobson, Frank

  Bradley, Keith

  Donohoe, Brian

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Dowd, Jim

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Burden, Richard

  Eastham, Ken

  Byers, Stephen

  Enright, Derek

  Caborn, Richard

  Etherington, William

  Callaghan, Jim

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Campbell, Ms Anne (C'bridge)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Campbell, Ronald (Blyth V)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Cann, James

  Fisher, Mark

  Carlife, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Flynn, Paul

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  Clapham, Michael

  Foster, Donald (Bath)

  270

  Foulkes, George

  Mallon, Seamus

  Fraser, John

  Mandelson, Peter

  Fyfe, Maria

  Marek, Dr John

  Galbraith, Sam

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Galloway, George

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Gapes, Mike

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Garrett, John

  Martlew, Eric

  George, Bruce

  Maxton, John

  Gerrard, Neil

  Meacher, Michael

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Meale, Alan

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Michael, Alun

  Godsiff, Roger

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Milburn, Alan

  Gould, Bryan

  Miller, Andrew

  Graham, Thomas

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Grocott, Bruce

  Morley, Elliot

  Gunnell, John

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Hain, Peter

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hall, Mike

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Hanson, David

  Mudie, George

  Hardy, Peter

  Mullin, Chris

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Murphy, Paul

  Harvey, Nick

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Henderson, Doug

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Heppell, John

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hinchliffe, David

  Olner, William

  Hoey, Kate

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Home Robertson, John

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Hood, Jimmy

  Patchett, Terry

  Hoon, Geoff

  Pendry, Tom

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hoyle, Doug

  Pope, Greg

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Prescott, John

  Hutton, John

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (H'stead)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jackson, Ms Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jamieson, David

  Radice, Giles

  Janner, Greville

  Raynsford, Nick

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Redmond, Martin

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Jones, Ms Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Rogers, Allan

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Rooker, Jeff

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rooney, Terry

  Keen, Alan

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C & S)

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Kennedy, Ms Jane (L'p'l Br'g'n)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Khabra, Piara

  Ruddock, Joan

  Kilfoyle. Peter

  Salmond, Alex

  Leighton, Ron

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Litherland, Robert

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Livingstone, Ken

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Short, Clare

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Simpson, Alan

  Loyden, Eddie

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McAllion. John

  Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

  McAvoy. Thomas

  Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McGrady, Eddie

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  McKelvey, William

  Snape, Peter

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Soley, Clive

  McLeish, Henry

  Spearing, Nigel

  McMaster, Gordon

  Spellar, John

  Madden, Max

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Maginnis, Ken

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Mahon, Alice

  Steinberg, Gerry

  271

  Stevenson, George

  Watson, Mike

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Welsh, Andrew

  Straw, Jack

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Williams. Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D.(Str'gf'd)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Wilson, Brian

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wise, Audrey

  Trimble, David

  Worthington, Tony

  Turner, Dennis

  Wray, Jimmy

  Tyler, Paul

  Wright, Dr. Tony

  Vaz, Keith

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Wallace, James

  Walley, Joan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Mr. Jack Thompson and

  Wareing, Robert N

  Mr. Eric Illsley.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Cormack, Patrick

  Alexander, Richard

  Cran, James

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Amess, David

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Ancram, Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Day, Stephen

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Devlin, Tim

  Ashby, David

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Dicks, Terry

  Atkins, Robert

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Dover, Den

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Duncan, Alan

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Baldry, Tony

  Dunn, Bob

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Eggar, Tim

  Bates, Michael

  Elletson, Harold

  Batiste, Spencer

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Bendall, Vivian

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Evennett, David

  Booth, Hartley

  Faber, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bowden, Andrew

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bowis, John

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Forman, Nigel

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Brazier, Julian

  Forth, Eric

  Bright, Graham

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Freeman, Roger

  Budgen, Nicholas

  French, Douglas

  Burns, Simon

  Fry, Peter

  Burt, Alistair

  Gale, Roger

  Butcher, John

  Gallie, Phil

  Butler, Peter

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Butterfill, John

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Garnier, Edward

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Gill, Christopher

  Carrington, Matthew

  Gillan, Ms Cheryl

  Carttiss, Michael

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Cash, William

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Gorst, John

  Churchill, Mr

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Clappison, James

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Congdon, David

  Hague, William

  Conway, Derek

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  272

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Moate, Roger

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hannam, Sir John

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Moss, Malcolm

  Harris, David

  Needham, Richard

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hawkins, Nicholas

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hawksley, Warren

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hayes, Jerry

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Heald, Oliver

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hendry, Charles

  Norris, Steve

  Hicks, Robert

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Page, Richard

  Horam, John

  Paice, James

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

  Pawsey, James

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Pickles, Eric

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jack, Michael

  Redwood, John

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Richards, Rod

  Jessel, Toby

  Riddick, Graham

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Key, Robert

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Knapman, Roger

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Sackville, Tom

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Knox, David

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Sims, Roger

  Legg, Barry

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Leigh, Edward

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lidington, David

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lightbown, David

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lord, Michael

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Luff, Peter

  Spring, Richard

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Sproat, Iain

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Maclean, David

  Steen, Anthony

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stephen, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Stern, Michael

  Madel, David

  Stewart, Allan

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Streeter, Gary

  Malone, Gerald

  Sumberg, David

  Mans, Keith

  Sweeney, Walter

  Marland, Paul

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Marlow, Tony

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Thomason, Roy

  Mates, Michael

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Merchant, Piers

  Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

  Milligan, Stephen

  Tracey, Richard

  Mills, Iain

  Tredinnick, David

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Trend, Michael

  273

  Trotter, Neville

  Whittingdale, John

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Viggers, Peter

  Willetts, David

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Walden, George

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Waller, Gary

  Wood, Timothy

  Ward, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Watts, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wells, Bowen

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Mr. Irvine Patnick.

  Whitney, Ray

  Question accordingly negatived.
  It being after Ten o'clock, MADAM SPEAKER interrupted the business.
  MADAM SPEAKER then put forthwith the Question which she was directed to put pursuant to paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 53 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.).

  SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1992–93
  Resolved,
  That a supplementary sum not exceeding £833,362,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges for Defence and Civil Services which will come in course of payment for the year ending on 31st March 1993, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 44 and 45.
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing resolution relating to Supplementary Estimates 1992–93 by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Michael Portillo, Mr. Stephen Dorrell, Sir John Cope and Mr. Anthony Nelson.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND APPROPRIATION BILL
  Mr. Stephen Dorrell accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on 31 March 1993 and to appropriate the supplies granted in this Session of Parliament: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 40.]

  Points of Order
  10.12 pm
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, relating to the manner in which Secretaries of State present reports to Parliament. You may be aware that, last August, the Secretary of State for Transport published a report by the marine accident investigation branch into the "Marchioness" tragedy. It precipitated some controversy, because of the nature of the report and its failure to mention six accidents involving the dredger "Bowbelle". Subsequent parliamentary questions and requests led the Secretary of State to appoint a Mr. Hayes to report on river safety in general.
  That report was published today. I had given evidence, and had tabled a question asking when the report would be published. This afternoon the Secretary of State for Transport published an extensive press release relating to the report, a copy of which is in the Library. I understand that the Minister for Aviation and Shipping, Lord Caithness, has given television and radio interviews on the subject.
  According to the press release,
  "Mr. Hayes recommended that there should be an early review of the rescue arrangements and equipment on the Thames. The Government has given careful consideration to the recommendation but has concluded that further review of this kind would not be justified."
  My point of order is that, having asked the question as to when this report would be published and having submitted evidence to the inquiry, neither I nor the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who is the constituency Member concerned, was informed about this report, or about the press conference, or about the statement that is in the Library. We were told about it by, ironically, Thames Television. If a report is made to Parliament, it is surely made to Members of Parliament. In particular, it should be available to those who have some concern about and knowledge of this matter, as well as to the generality of hon. Members. I ask you, Madam Speaker, so to rule.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I confirm everything that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has said. He and I have discussed the issue since these matters were drawn to our attention early this evening. There is no difference between us.
  The points that I should be grateful if you would also consider are these. First, when any hon. Member tables a question that specifically asks about the publication of a report that is either known to be or is believed to be imminent, is it a proper procedure or an abuse of procedure for a planted question subsequently to be tabled so that the question is then asked by somebody who has no constituency or previous interest in the matter? That appears to be a breach of the traditional link between a constituency Member, or a Member with a wider interest, and the Department concerned.
  The second matter relates to the sequence of events once a decision has been made to produce a report to Parliament. I understand that there may have been an appropriate time of day when that report could be published, but, like the hon. Member for Newham, South, the first knowledge I had that the report had been published today was a telephone call to my office at about

  275
  5.30, two hours after it had been confirmed by Thames Television that it had been published. I was out of the House. I asked that inquiries should be made of the Department as to the contents of the report. The anwer that was given to my assistant was that that information could not be divulged because a press conference was at that very moment going on. I had to wait until after the press conference was over before I was allowed to have the information contained in the press release that had been issued earlier in the day.
  There have been similar sequences of events on other issues. I hope that you, Madam Speaker, will feel it appropriate, either now or at an early opportunity, to rule on the proper procedure so that all Departments and all Members can believe, on behalf of those whom they represent, particularly in the case of tragedies such as this, that the proper procedures have been observed. I hope, too, that an appropriate apology will be made regarding what has happened today.
  Madam Speaker: I take the view that those Members who are directly involved in such incidents should be the first to be informed when there is any statement to be made, but I also take the view that I am biased in favour of this House in its entirety being informed when the Government have something to say to the House and that statements of such a nature should not first be made outside it. We in this House have the right to know first.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not know whether you witnessed the quite disgraceful incident that took place on the previous vote. What I saw—it may be confirmed by a large number of colleagues—was two Opposition Members trying to get through the door after you, Madam Speaker, had ordered it to be closed. What then followed was the attendant—doing his duty as the servant of the House—trying to hold the door closed while those two hon. Members tried to force it open. They were not able to do so, but only after a protracted struggle and, no doubt, a great deal of energy having been expended by the servant of the House who was following your orders. One of the most disgraceful aspects of this incident is that those hon. Members who are sitting on the Opposition Front Bench saw this incident, but have not seen fit to come to the Dispatch Box and apologise for the behaviour of those two hon. Members. I respectfully ask, Madam Speaker, that, having seen that incident yourself, you will do something about it, because it is totally wrong that such an incident should go unredressed.
  Madam Speaker: I sit here very quietly and watch what goes on at the door once a Division is called. I saw precisely what happened tonight. Members who were going through the door did so in a very leisurely fashion, and I feared that they would not get through in time. However, hon. Members know the rules of the House, and there is nothing I can do about that, other than, when I instruct the Doorkeepers to close the door, to see that they obey my instruction. I deprecate the incident that occurred tonight when two Members forced their way through the door. I hope that this is the last time that I shall sit in this Chair and see anything like that happen. The Doorkeepers are, like me, servants of the House. We all know the rules. Let us now proceed with our business.

  Finance Bill
  Not amended in the Committee and as amended ( in the Standing Committee), again considered.
New clause 5

  ADDITIONAL RELIEF FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRY DEBT
  `After section 88C of the Taxes Act 1988 to insert the following section—
  "Additional relief for overseas Government debt
  88D—(1) Where in relation to a debt to which section 88A(2) above applies, a company has included a provision in its accounts for any accounting period ending on or after 30th June 1992 which exceeds the aggregate amount which has been deducted under section 74(j) above in relation to that debt for that and any previous accounting period, then it shall be entitled to additional relief under subsection (2) below, subject to the clawback provided for by subsection (3) below.
  (2) The additional relief shall be a deduction from profits chargeable to corporation tax for that accounting period equal to the difference between the aggregate amount mentioned in subsection (1) above and the lesser of

  (a) the provision mentioned in subsection (1) above and

  (b) the maximum provision which would have been made in relation to the debt had the company followed the recommendations contained in the Bank of England's guidelines for overseas debt provision m force at the end of that accounting period;

  and for the purposes of subsection (1) above any relief given by virtue of this subsection shall be regarded as an amount deducted under section 74(j) above.
  (3) The additional relief granted by subsection (2) above shall be withdrawn to the extent that, at a date one year from the end of that accounting period, the company has not made a relevant release of the debt; and an assessment made to give effect to this subsection (or subsection (5) below) may be made at any time up to six years after that date.
  (4) For the purposes of subsection (3) above, a "relevant release" means

  (a) a release of the debt in favour of the Creditor Overseas State Authority for no consideration, or

  (b) a disposal of the debt to the Creditor Overseas State Authority for a consideration equal to or less than its book value at the end of that accounting period, or

  (c) a disposal of the debt by the company under a development plan or an environmental protection plan approved by the Treasury;

  and the Treasury shall be empowered by this subsection to issue regulations demonstrating the criteria which it will use in deciding whether or not to approve under this subsection a development plan or environmental protection plan submitted to it for approval.
  (5) Nothing in subsections (1) to (4) above shall cause the aggregate profits charged to corporation tax of any person for the accounting period in question, and all previous accounting periods in relation to which he was chargeable to corporation tax, to exceed those which would have been so charged had this section never been enacted, and this section shall have no effect to the extent that it would otherwise cause such excess to be charged to corporation tax.".'.—[Mr. Boateng.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  10.20 pm
  Mr. Boateng: I beg to move, That the clause he read a Second time.
  This clause is debated in the aftermath of the Rio summit, where the disparity between the nations of the north and of the south was revealed in all its reality and we

  277
  saw the impact, not only in terms of poverty and life expectancy but in terms of environmental degradation, of the ever-growing burden of third-world debt.
  This clause seeks to focus the attention of the House on that issue and to put forward a practical proposal to encourage banks and those commercial lenders who currently require from the developing world a degree of interest, a degree of repayment, that all too often has the effect of crippling those countries to forgo the debt and to see that it is applied in such a way, in the alternative, as to promote environmental and development objectives.
  No one should be under any illusions as to the extent of the global crisis in debt. The figures speak for themselves. In 1989, the figure was $1·3 trillion—44 per cent. of the gross national product of the developing world. Money paid to developed nations in interest was $77 billion; money repaid, $85 billion; net flow from poor to rich countries, $50 billion.
  The figures are enormous and they speak for themselves. What they do not reveal, however, is the enormous burden of human suffering that flows from those figures. In the last decade debt has emerged as the main cause of hunger and misery in the world. One thousand children are estimated to die every day from its effects alone. That is a clear indication of the extent to which the matter with which the House is concerned tonight has an immediate impact on the world outside the House.
  If we take one example, the impact on one country, Ghana, of the burden of overseas debt, the position becomes very clear. In Ghana, the current position is that to meet its crippling burden of debt it devotes one half of the foreign exchange earned by its cocoa farmers to servicing that debt. The cocoa farmers provide the countries of the north with drinking chocolate and chocolate to eat, at a time when, Oxfam informs us, more than half of the children in Ghana do not have enough to eat. That is an indication of the extent of the crisis.
  But it does not end there. No doubt we shall hear that some measures have been taken by the developing world to address the problem. The Trinidad terms that were proposed by the Prime Minister when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer were welcome so far as they went, but they did not go far enough.
  Mr. Tim Smith: They have not been accepted.
  Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. The Trinidad terms, limited though they were, were not accepted by many of our partners in the European Community or, indeed, by the United States. The result is continued failure to address the problem of world debt.
  When one peels away the rhetoric of Rio—and, indeed, when one examines the rhetoric itself—one sees that a great deal was said about the importance of at least aiming for the United Nations target of the expenditure of 0·7 per cent. of gross domestic product on overseas aid. That fact is not insignificant. But the target was dismissed by President Bush as being unrealistic, and the British Government regarded it as a dim, distant objective. However, at least there was talk about the matter; at least the objective was focused upon.
  278
  How much time did the participants at Rio devote to discussion of the issue of debt?
  Mr. Chris Smith: None.
  Mr. Boateng: Indeed—none. But a good deal of time was devoted to keeping it off the agenda, to ensuring that it was not given the negotiating position that it merited as a matter of urgency to the developing world. Indeed, the action programme for Governments managed to reach it only as agenda item number 21, at which point it was said that a reduction of up to $80 billion in debt should be given consideration. That is the extent to which the Rio programmme of action was prepared to take this matter on board. We seek to give the banks some kind of incentive to address the issue. That is modest enough, but it should be welcomed by all and every hon. Member, on whichever side, who cares about development.
  It is interesting to note how this is being addressed through the current tax provisions—a matter that was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) in a recent question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Economic Secretary responded to my hon. Friend's question about the amount of corporation tax that had been forgone from British banking institutions through the writing down of developing country sovereign debts in the past five years. My hon. Friend asked:
  "how much sovereign debt has (a) been cancelled or (b) been made available for debt-for-environment or debt-fordevelopment swaps, in each of the last five years as a result of this writing-down."
  The answer was:
  "Provisions for doubtful sovereign debt by banks operating in the United Kingdom are estimated to have reduced corporation tax receipts in the last five years by the following amounts:

  £ million

  1987–88

  240

  1988–89

  550

  1989–90

  360

  1990–91

  720

  11991–92

  190"

  —[Official Report, 25 June 1992; Vol. 210, c. 278.]
  10.30 pm
  The last figure is provisional. It was not possible to provide the information requested and to show the benefit in terms of debt for environment or debt for development swaps, and how the forgoing of corporation tax had benefited the developing world.
  The most commendable feature of this modest new clause is that it at least begins to make a start in that direction. At least it requires, through subsection (4)(a), (b), and (c), that there be a notion of what the objective of the "relevant relief" is. We shall be able to recognise to what end reliefs are directed. That important aspect of the new clause should commend itself to the House.
  We do not hold out this modest new clause as being the whole answer to the problem, but at least it makes a start towards encouraging the banks to resume an attitude towards such debts that is conducive to development and makes a start to recognising the link between the burden of debt and environmental degradation. The developed countries of the north have condemned the developing countries of the world to a labour of Sisyphus in which, day in and day out, their agricultural and industrial

  279
  production, such as it is, is used to service an ever-increasing mountain of debt. That crushes their efforts and has a devastating effect on their environments and peoples.
  We hope that the House will give a warm welcome to this new clause, which will make a small start in the right direction.
  Mr. John Battle: In May of this year, a report was published by the Washington-based Population Crisis Committee in the form of an "International Index of Human Suffering". It pointed out that almost three quarters of the world's population live in conditions that tax human endurance, and that the gap between the rich and the poor countries is massively widening. It pointed out that more than 430 million people live in conditions of extreme suffering and 3·5 billion in conditions of what it terms high suffering. We do not recall often enough in the House or in our society that we live in a world in which 1 billion people have less than the equivalent of £1 a day on which to live.
  Economic distress, national disasters, persecution and war are turning millions of people into refugees and migrants. This year we need only consider the evidence of drought in sub-Saharan Africa. Zambia set out at the beginning of last year with a new planting programme. It managed to plant 130 per cent. more of the land than had been planted the previous year. In other words, it was on target for a better harvest than ever before. The spring shoots came through, but people then had to sit and wait for the rain, and it did not come. The crop failed and the lack of sales of that crop to other countries will mean hardship and economic distress in Zambia.
  Some development bodies, including the World bank, are referring to the 1980s as the lost decade of development. Since our previous debate on the issue in 1990, the burden of third-world debt has increased. When we last debated the issue in a Finance Bill debate, the debt figure was $1,180,000 million. In 1992, the projected figure is $1,223,000 million. Some 55 per cent. of the debt is in the poorest 46 countries.
  The debt that has built up is equivalent to half the developing countries' combined gross domestic product and nearly twice their annual export earnings. In 1991, the debtor nations paid out $24 billion more in debt payments than they received in new loans. For example, Peru is now paying $50 million a month back to the International Monetary Fund and the World bank since Mr. Fujimori took office. In other words, the net flows of funds are clearly from the south to the north specifically as a result of the volume of debt.
  Debt servicing is continuing to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich countries. In April, the United Nations development programme report spelt out how the gap between rich and poor had doubled in the past 30 years with the richest one fifth receiving 150 times the income of the poorest. Even the author of the report, a former Minister in Pakistan, said that he was shocked by that figure and that the international community should be shocked by it as well. Some 1·2 billion people live in acute poverty and suffer grossly inadequate access to resources such as education, health, infrastructure, fresh water, land and credit. That number has been increasing annually.
  The restrictions in the global market—otherwise known as trade barriers—cost developing countries about
  280
  $500 billion a year. Farm and industrial production protection cost third-world countries $55 billion a year in lost earnings.
  Although that protection is in place and although, even today, we are told that the Prime Minister has not managed to make any breakthroughs in the GAIT third-world trade talks, third-world countries are being told by the World bank, the IMF and northern Governments that, conditional to their getting aid and trade, they should liberalise and open up their national markets, precisely when the world will not do that when it is not in its interests. Apparently, it is fine for third-world Governments to have open and fair trade, but it is not fine for the world system to open up so that there is some justice in the trade system for third-world countries as well.
  We need to remember that only 17 per cent. of global capital is available to poor countries in the south. Only 0·2 per cent. of global commercial credit goes to poor countries. Africa, which now has to be the most marginalised continent from the world economy, now accounts for only 1 per cent. of world trade. In the 1960s, it accounted for 4 per cent. In other words, in terms of trade, Africa is being marginalised even further.
  In practice, the World bank and the IMF have become institutions for recycling debt, rather than sources of new resources. Again, the United Nations Development Programme report spelt out that the IMF is now taking $6 billion a year out of the south and that the World bank is taking $0·5 billion a year out of the poorest countries. What is being done to tackle the debt burden? The United Nations Secretary-General, in his acceptance speech. commented:
  "tackling the crippling problem of international debt is central to achieving a healthy world economy."
  We have had the Brady plan and we have had the Prime Minister's Trinidad terms initiatives. Of course, they related only to Government official debt relief, especially aimed at the poorest. We would have pressed for them to be extended certainly to middle-income countries as well, such as Peru, but not even they have been accepted at the G7 summit. At the previous summit, the issue of international debt was pushed off the agenda by the new east-west negotiations with what was the Soviet Union. It would be helpful if world debt were even on the agenda of the G7 summit which is now meeting.
  On commercial debt, in 1990, the Government changed the rules, as we know, on corporation tax relief, but only in relation to how much relief could be claimed in any one financial year. In practice, tax relief in Britain has not meant debt cancellation in third-world countries. Many middle-income countries and many Latin American countries owe most of their debts to commercial banks. At present, if a commercial bank has a developing country debt in its portfolio, it can claim corporation tax relief when it writes down that debt in its books. It does not, however, have to cancel the debt to the country concerned. In other words, provision seems to be set aside in the accounts of the bank but it does not necessarily benefit third-world countries.
  The new clause would insist that in order to qualify for relief from corporation tax, a bank must cancel the debt to the debtor nation or transform it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) has suggested, into a debt-for-development swap, for example. The new clause would grant immediate tax relief to overseas debts if the banks released or disposed of the debt to the country

  281
  concerned. At present, British taxpayers are subsidising the banks, but without much relief to the world's poorest. The subsidy is said to have been worth £650 million last year. My hon. Friend gave the table of figures that were available for each year from 1988 to the present. It strikes me that that relief alone is worth more than half of what the Government are currently giving in aid to third-world countries.
  Debt has fundamentally undermined the value of trade earnings and flows of aid to developing countries. In the immortal words of Michael Manley, it seems to third-world countries that they are trying to go up an escalator that is coming down against them and speeding up in the process. What chance do they have of going up the down escalator? Two thirds of the world is being drained of capital by the industrialised world. External debt is a major obstacle to economic development and social progress in the poorest countries of the world.
  10.45 pm
  The way in which our corporation tax operates is crucial. We ought not to pretend that it contributes to the alleviation of world poverty when nothing of the sort happens in practice. Ministers tell us that aid has to be tied for third-world countries. Countries are told that the aid must go to certain projects and according to certain conditions. The same rule should apply to the banks. If tied aid is good enough for third-world countries, it ought to be good enough for banks in the western world. The tie should be that if banks are to receive corporation tax relief on debts, those debts must be cleared.
  The new clause would be a minor measure in the Bill, but we do not have too many opportunities to take practical, political and economic action on the problem of world poverty. It is important that the attention that the world paid to the Rio summit is not simply dissipated with words without any action resulting. Tonight. the Government have a chance to support the new clause and carry through a tiny measue which might make some difference.
  Sir David Steel (Tweddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale): I rise to support the amendment on behalf of my party. When I spoke in the post-Rio debate in the House, I dwelt at some length on the symbolism of our aid programmes and their failure to meet the United Nations target. But I said in parenthesis that I recognised that the aid target was less important to the developing world than the terms of trade and debt write-off. The figures that were given by the hon. Members for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) and for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) justify the observation.
  The developing world owes in total approximately $1,300 billion to the developed world—to the Governments and banks of the industrialised nations and to the international financial organisations. The blunt truth—public opinion does not seem to have grasped it —is that the amount of debt repaid from the developing world every year in capital and interest to the developed world exceeds the amount of aid that we give every year. So there is a net flow of resources every year from the developing world to the developed world.
  As the hon. Member for Leeds, West said, the new clause is modest. However modest, such measures would be warmly supported by the public if people knew that
  282
  they existed. I welcome the opportunity on the Report stage of the Finance Bill to give a small nudge towards encouraging the write-off of debt.
  One problem that the developing countries face in tackling debt repayment is that there is no single effective body to which they can turn for assistance. They have to cope with several organisations separately—the IMF, the World bank and the individual creditor nations. It is because the thinking of creditor nations is of such importance that when he presented his plan as the United States treasury secretary, Mr. Brady said:
  "creditor governments should consider how to reduce regulatory, accounting or tax impediments to debt reduction where these exist."
  I assume that that is what the new clause seeks to do. I say that because I am honest enough to admit that the clause is so technical that I do not fully grasp how it will work. I am comforted by the thought that nor did the official Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Brent, South. Certainly he did not explain how it would work.
  In all seriousness, it is important that the House should register its support for any measure, however technically complex, that will have the effect of assisting the banks in relieving third-world countries of some of their debts. That is the object of the new clause, and accordingly it has my support.
  In 1990, as the hon. Member for Leeds, West said, the Prime Minister, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, responded to pressure from the House and outside organisations and took a small but significant step in the direction of using tax incentives to encourage debt reduction. Two years later, we are asking the Treasury to take a similar step. I know that the Financial Secretary, who will respond to the debate, was a member of the board of Christian Aid, and I know also that he is genuinely concerned about the issues which have been raised. Perhaps he is more concerned than a standard Treasury Minister. I hope that he will respond positively. It is—[Interruption.] I do not understand why the Minister smiles; I am paying him a tribute.
  The United Kingdom's record on debt repayment is not all that good. We all cheered in October 1991 when the Trinidad announcement was made. We were told that there was to be a 67 per cent. write-down of all official debt. My party believed that that pledge should be upheld and implemented in full. Two months later, in Paris, it was quietly downgraded to 50 per cent. of the amount falling due in the next three years. Unfortunately, we have gone back on the excellent statements of the Prime Minister when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope that the Treasury will redeem itself, at least to some extent, by accepting the new clause.
  Mr. Tim Smith: The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) was honest enough to say that, because the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) did not explain the new clause, the right hon. Gentleman does not understand it. I do not understand it either, but I understand the general objective behind it.
  Does it make sense, whatever one thinks about the growing disparity between the poverty of developing countries and the wealth of developed countries, to use or manipulate the corporation tax system to try to alleviate the debt problem of developing countries? That is the question which the House must consider.

  283
  Much of what the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) said was irrelevant to the new clause. I agree with his remarks about the terms of trade between developing and developed countries, but they are not relevant to the clause. I agree with his comments about the poorest countries, but they are not much affected by the clause. On the whole, the banks did not lend to the poorest countries. Largely, they lent to middle-income countries. Implementation of the Trinidad terms, to which the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale referred, would benefit the poorest countries the most.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) said that.
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Member for Leeds, West said it all, and I am repeating what he said, but it was all irrelevant to the new clause. That is the point that I am trying to make. The new clause is about lending by commercial banks, largely to middle-income countries. The question that the House must consider is whether it is right in principle to make a distinction in terms of corporation tax between the allowances that companies can have in the ordinary course of lending to domestic borrowers as against overseas borrowers.
  Mr. Boateng: It is not true that some of the poorest countries do not have a high proportion of commercial debt. Somalia and Mozambique, for example, have above average debt, even for sub-Saharan Africa. At the same time, more than the proportion of debt attributable to Governments is owed to commercial creditors or multilateral institutions. That is the position in Somalia and Mozambique. countries which have been ravaged by the burdens of famine and continual war as well as the burden of debt.
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman said that those countries are indebted to commercial banks or to multilateral institutions. The bulk of the debt, however, rests with South America and Latin America. That is a well-known fact. I do not want to become involved in a debate about the particulars, because, as I have said. the question of principle is whether it is right in terms of corporation tax to distinguish between domestic and overseas borrowers. I see no reason to make that distinction. To me, there is no distinction. If a lender makes provision against his profits because he does not think that he can recover a debt and the Inland Revenue accepts that, there should be corporation tax relief. If the lender subsequently recovers the money from the borrower, the relief is clawed back. That would happen in the unlikely event that one of the debtor countries repaid the banks, but we should recognise that large sums of money were lent to those countries and they have not been repaid, for whatever reason. In those circumstances, I see no reason to distinguish between that kind of debt and the debt that arises at home in a recession.
  Mr. John Denham: Whether or not the hon. Gentleman feels that it is right to distinguish between different categories of debt for the purpose of tax treatment, the Government established that principle in the Finance Act 1990. We are not arguing about that principle tonight because it is already enshrined in the law. We are discussing how the principle is further developed.
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the provisions of the Finance Act 1990, which do not deny banks the relief but simply deny them the relief in a particular time scale. It is a question of when, not whether, they receive the relief. A formula in the Act means that, whatever the provision in the accounts, the relief is phased over a period of years. I take no exception to that as it seems to be a reasonable arrangement, but it is not right to try to use the tax system to influence our policy in relation to poorer countries. That should come through our aid programme and the establishment of better trade relations through the GATT negotiations.
  Those measures would benefit the poorer countries much more than what was described by the hon. Member for Brent, South as a relatively modest new clause. Although the new clause's impact would not be great, it would distort our corporation tax system.
  Mr. Denham: The tax treatment of banks' third world provision constitutes one of the biggest but least known public financial scandals for many years. Billions of dollars of tax income have been forgone by Governments not just in this country but across the industrialised world. Banks have been allowed to avoid tax liabilities by claiming relief on provisions made against third world debt hut, at the same time, they have largely avoided any commensurate action to mitigate the burden of debt on developing countries.
  If we take stock of the international debt strategy in 1992, we must conclude that its whole thrust has been to cushion commercial banks, as far as possible, from the effects of imprudent lending at the expense not only of people in developing countries but of taxpayers in the developed world. The root cause of that scandal is simple. The regulatory systems may vary to some extent in the different industrialised countries but in most of the OECD countries banks have been able to claim tax credits on provisions made against sovereign loans, even though no loss was incurred by them and no reduction in the heavy burden of debt was enjoyed by the developing countries.
  The sums involved are huge. A conservative estimate would be that $40 billion of tax credits were generated by banks in the OECD countries by mid-1990, with little debt reduction to match. That is 55 times the annual budget of UNICEF—the respected organisation that estimated that half a million young children were dying each year as a result of the debt crisis—and twice the annual OECD development aid to low income countries. It is about eight times the extra money pledged in Rio to save the planet, about which we have heard so much in recent weeks.
  Christian Aid estimates that, by 1990, United Kingdom banks received some £1·6 billion in tax relief. If my mental arithmetic is correct, on the figures given earlier about £1·8 billion has now been received. But the tax relief that will ultimately be received by those banks will be about three times that figure.
  11 pm
  Of course, once the debt crisis had been created through imprudent lending, bad borrowing and even worse regulation, it was inevitable that the citizens of northern countries would have to pay a fair part of the cost of resolving the crisis. With the record of generosity of the British people, I believe that they would have happily accepted that burden. It is not acceptable that vast sums of

  285
  money should be used to pad out the banks' balance sheets without any benefit to the debtor countries or their peoples.
  For years up to 1990, the Government tolerated, endorsed and even encouraged that financial scandal. Year after year, they insisted that nothing could be done to treat sovereign lending differently from other loans, despite the obvious difference in the nature of those loans and the global urgency for a solution. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) Missed the central point, which is that the Finance Act 1990 clearly showed that third-world debt provisions could be treated legally in a different category and manner from other provisions. The Government swept aside their pretence and the 1990 Act proved that such loans could be treated differently. The tragedy is that the action was too little, too late.
  In the first stage of the financial scandal, the problem was one of allowing banks to claim tax relief on provisions on loans that they still held at face value. We are now in a second and rather different stage of the same scandal. Many banks, certainly many British banks, have disposed of a large part of their loans. They have taken some losses, so what was originally tax relief against provisions is now tax relief gained on the actual losses on the banks' balance sheets. The problem is that those losses and that tax relief are still, in most cases, unrelated to any real debt relief for developing countries. The British banks' balance sheets may look cleaner, but there has been little benefit to the developing countries.
  Most of the disposal of United Kingdom hank loans has been through sales on the secondary market. In 1989 and 1990, Midland reduced the debt on its books by almost $2 billion, but only $365 million was through out
  286
  and out debt reduction—the remainder was through debt equity swaps, which merely transforms one form of foreign obligation into another, or through simple trading on the secondary market. Other banks such as National Westminster appear to have disposed of virtually all of their third-world debt through secondary market sales.
  The truth is that having padded the banks to the hilt, the Government have now allowed them to get away with the loot. At that moment in time in the late 1980s and early 1990s when the provisions were high, had the Government chosen to link tax relief to direct debt reduction they could have ensured not only that the banks received the tax relief, but that there was a commensurate benefit in the developing countries.
  Internationally, the value of commercial bank debt reduction under the Brady initiative is perhaps at best $30 billion—less than the amount of tax credits that OECD banks appear to have generated. That is appalling. Of course, that is not the only way in which the taxpayers in the north have been asked to help the banks at no benefit to developing countries. In addition to the tax relief, it took vast sums of new official loans and new publicly underwritten loans to developing countries to enable them to maintain debt service payments to the commercial banks throughout the 1980s. The taxpayer has paid twice
  through tax relief and through the advance of new official loans.
  The sums involved amount to maladministration on a massive scale. The concern of Governments in the north to protect the banks, irrespective of the cost to their own citizens and the damage done to developing countries and their people, is truly scandalous.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). I welcome the work that he has done, and will no doubt continue to do, in exposing the scandal of banks fiddling around with third-world debt in order to enjoy Government tax write-offs.
  When the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) rose to speak, he first professed not to understand the new clause, and then went on to say that we should concentrate on overseas aid rather than worry about debt problems. He made one useful admission, which Hansard will obviously record—that there is a growing disparity between the rich and poor in the world.
  All the aid increases that are suggested, projected, sought, or demanded will be eliminated at the stroke of a pen by the debt repayment system, underpayment for commodities produced by third-world countries, and the repatriation of profits by multinational corporations That occurs to the extent that last year the poor in the poorest countries in the world transferred $50 billion to the economies of the richest countries in the world. That wealth went not to the people who are sleeping in cardboard boxes along the Strand tonight, but to the banking systems of this country, the rest of Europe, and north America.
  The new clause of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) takes a useful step forward in exposing what British banks have been up to over the past few years. They pretended to the public that they were doing something about the debt crisis of developing countries, when in reality they were enjoying a handout at the expense of British taxpayers.
  A new approach is needed. For all the honeyed words at Rio and the other statements that have been made, unless there is a fundamental change in the relationship between the richest countries and the poorest people in the poorest countries, we will be heading for a massive ecological and social disaster.
  In many cases, people who are seeking asylum in neighbouring third-world countries are the victims of the debt crisis. They flee to seek a living elsewhere because they have been forced off their land, have nowhere to live, and can get nothing to eat. They are the initial victims.
  The debt crisis has its origins in the oil price rises of the 1970s and the funding of inappropriate development programmes. The two crucial elements in any developing country's economy are the prices paid for the commodities that it produces and the interest that it pays on borrowings to develop its agriculture, social infrastructures, or industry.
  Neither of those two important economic levers is in the hands of third-world countries. The prices of cocoa, coffee, tea, and other commodities are set not by the producer country but in London, Frankfurt, Chicago—everywhere except in the countries that produce them. Similarly, interest rates are set not by those who must meet them but be greedy bankers in western Europe and north America.
  The debt crisis reached its height in the early 1980s, when, basically, Mexico declared itself bankrupt. The response was swift and, in some ways, very clever in the interests of north American bankers in particular. They sought to divide the indebted nations by making one-off agreements, to persuade them to borrow yet more money to pay the arrears on interest payments on existing loans and to accept an alternative economic package.
  288
  If one studies the economics of Latin American countries over the past 15 years, one finds a steady reduction in public spending on the social infrastructure and on social needs. One also finds a steady increase in the repatriation of profits by multinational capital and in the amount of money paid as interest on debts. Very little of the principal has been paid. Mexico, for example, has paid more than all the money it ever borrowed, but it is still a heavily indebted country.
  In a sense, they are technical points. The reality is that expenditure on the health service, social services and education is cut in countries which cannot afford any reductions of expenditure on such vital services. When we read of increasing infant mortality rates in third-world countries and of the growing cholera epidemic in many parts of Latin America, we should realise that there is a direct connection between those horrible and horrifying facts and the economic restructuring programmes which have been forced on those countries by the International Monetary Fund and by the World bank.
  This process cannot continue. Tonight we are considering one aspect of that process, in which the British taxpayer is expected to support the British banks in their attitude—their mistaken attitude—towards third-world countries. The issue is enormously important. Unless there is a serious programme of writing off public and private sector debt in its entirety and of restructuring payments for commodities and trading arrangements with third-world countries, the future will involve nothing but more and more experts stepping off planes from Washington—
  Mr. Bernie Grant: And London.
  Mr. Corbyn: And London, telling third-world Governments that they must cut down their rainforests because they are a source of export earnings, that they must produce more coffee, tea and cocoa while, at the same time, the world price for those commodities continues to fall. They must repay increasing sums in debt, sell state-owned enterprises and cut public expenditure programmes. Such countries face horrific prospects.
  While I obviously support an increase in the aid programme and support the non-governmental aid programmes, unless we deal with the basic issues of debt, fair trade and commodity prices, the outlook for 1 billion people around the world is not one of improved living standards or increased life expectancy but of the very opposite—of seeing their economies collapse, their life expectancy fall, and infant mortality rates rise.
  As a developed country which has made millions or billions of pounds over decades and centuries from the poorest people in the poorest parts of the world, we have a responsibility to play an important role in trying to restructure the world's economy and to base it on social justice, on environmental protection and on paying the people who produce the goods that we consume a reasonable price for them. Instead, we have a cock-eyed financial system under which those who have made the most out of the third world now seek to make the most out of the British taxpayer.
  The new clause is a useful step forward, but I hope—indeed, I am sure—that we shall return time and again to such an important issue as the world situation gets worse and more people suffer because of the rapacious attitudes of the banking systems of western Europe and north America.
  11.15 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: At this late hour, I shall confine myself to asking the Financial Secretary three questions. First, can we be clear about whether the £100 million talked about in relation to Rio is new money or whether some or all of it will come out of existing Overseas Development Administration funds? I see my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) indicating that she, too, wants that question answered. Few people know precisely what is the Government's position in the matter. I went to hear the Secretary of State for the Environment make his big statement at the natural history museum in South Kensington and it was far from clear to the roomful of experts just what had been committed by the Government.
  As another part of the same question, may we be told what money has been given to the Darwin initiative? Is it £2 million or £5 million? I am all for that initiative, but a sign of how little it was thought out is the fact that neither the head of the Royal Botanic gardens in Edinburgh, whose institution was named by the Prime Minister in Rio, nor the head of Kew gardens, Ghillean Prance, knew anything about it beforehand. Dr. David Ingram learned about it from a reporter from the Edinburgh Evening News. Not since Harold Wilson dreamt up the Open university on the night train to Glasgow has such a thing happened.
  Secondly, what does the Financial Secretary consider the responsibility of the Government to be in this area? I listened carefully to everything that my hon. Friends, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), said, and I agree that there is a big problem. One or two banks cannot be expected to operate by themselves in the matter.
  I went to the rally of the Amerindians in February 1989 and I was in Brasilia at the same time as Sir Kit McMahon, who had briefed me when I was a member of the indirectly elected European Parliament, when he was an official of the Bank of England. He subsequently became chairman of the Midland bank. It was clear that the Midland could not unilaterally take on the responsibilities involved. Indeed, the Midland and Lloyds could not take on those responsibilities, and one could not in those days expect Sir Jeremy Morse and Sir Kit McMahon to take on total responsibility. What does the Treasury now see, in those circumstances, as the responsibilities of the British Government and the responsibilities of the EC as a whole?
  My third question, asked in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant), is about Libyan sanctions. I hope that in the Consolidated Fund Bill debate one of us will be lucky enough to raise at length the folly and—dare I use the expression—ignorance of the Foreign Office in relation to that issue.
  I am as concerned as anybody about Lockerbie. I saw it. But I also saw, in the company of my hon. Friend. the bombing of the working-class areas of Benghazi and Tripoli. It is a complicated matter. It is generally accepted who were the main instigators of the worst crime against civilians in the western world since 1945, the bringing down of the PanAm airliner over that Scottish village. The police from my constituency had to help clear up the mess, and it was a terrible mess.
  We want to know the cost of the sanctions. We talk about the third world, but, frankly, the Gadaffi regime, for all its shortcomings in the middle and early 1980s—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Member has been in the House long enough to appreciate that he is straying from the subject matter of the new clause.
  Mr. Dalyell: I always accept the Chair's ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I leave the matter there. What is the cost of the Libyan sanctions, imposed against a regime that is one of the most ecologically imaginative in Africa?
  Mrs. Roche: As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) has said, the new clause constitutes a modest attempt to set Britain in the right direction in regard to the debts of the south of the world. It is not nearly enough, but it is a start.
  In 1992, UNICEF published its "State of the World's Children" report, which stated:
  "A new slavery has shackled the African continent and its name is debt. The countries of Sub-Saharan Africa, including most of the world's least developed countries, now owe a total of approximately £150 billion. Each year, Africa struggles to pay about one third of the interest which falls due; the rest is simply added to the rising mountain of debt under which the hopes of a continent lie buried. The total inhumanity of what is now happening is reflected in the single fact that even the small proportion of the interest which Africa does manage to pay is absorbing a quarter of its export earnings and costing the continent, each year, more than its total spending on the health and education of its people".
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) pointed out, the 1970s saw the beginning of many problems for developing countries. Following the first oil shock at the end of 1973 and the subsequent world economic slump, many developing countries faced financial disaster, and borrowing was one temporary way out. Many of the debts then fell due in the late 1970s, at the same time as oil prices quadrupled for a second time and interest rates began to rise. As we have seen time and time again, it is always the poor who pay the price.
  For as long as I can remember, we have periodically seen on our television screens terrible pictures of famines and droughts. and of politicians saying that this must never be allowed to happen again. Yet, time and time again, we see the same pictures and hear the same words.
  There were many fine words to be heard at the recent conference in Rio. Of course something must be done. It is frequently said, not only by Opposition Members, but in the House as a whole, that we are not three worlds but one world. As Susan George so ably pointed out in her book
  "A Fate Worse than Debt":
  "The reality is we are all aboard the same ship steaming towards the iceberg. Even if those of us in the developed countries are travelling first class, and the people of the poor countries are travelling in the most miserable steerage, we all have the same need to navigate away from disaster".
  If Brazil is crippled by bank loans and debts, the one world's ecosystem is destroyed and its rainforests are flattened. If India is defenceless against unscrupulous corporations. the one world's atmosphere is polluted by chemical plants.
  Our one world is a small world, and the new clause goes only a tiny part of the way towards putting things right. Without action to reduce debt substantially, any form of development in the 1990s simply will not be possible for many developing countries. Of course small steps such as the British Trinidad terms initiative are to be welcomed. but they need to be greatly expanded. Faster and deeper reductions in commercial debt must be achieved. It is

  291
  deplorable that while the Government were proposing the Trinidad terms, they were blocking proposals in Brussels to reduce debt owed to the European Community.
  British tax regulations encourage commercial banks to set aside provisions against possible default on third-world debts in the accounts, but not to translate these provisions into debt relief for the countries concerned. Many British taxpayers resent the fact that they are subsidising the banks without providing any relief for the world's poor —especially when the tax relief is to the tune of £650 million, as it was in the financial year 1990–91. According to the Government's figures, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), that is about half of what Britain spends in aid a year. The new clause seeks to offer banks more relief, but it would be conditional on using it for the reduction of debt, either through the sale at a loss of the debt to the debtor country or a swap that had environmental or developmental gain.
  When the Opposition tabled a new clause similar to this one during the proceedings on the Finance Bill in 1990, the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Ryder), told my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South that the relief proposals in the new clause could be very costly. Rather than considering these proposals as costly, we should consider them as a first faltering step which we cannot afford not to take.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): The purpose of the new clause is to extend relief against corporation tax to relief, in certain circumstances, of world debt. Two separate issues are tied up in that proposition, as the debate has made clear. That is best illustrated by looking at the transaction from two different perspectives.
  First, there is the perspective of the banking supervisor or the banking manager whose proper concern is to ensure that if a debt is in the bank's balance sheet and is unlikely to be serviced or repaid, proper provision is made against that debt within the bank's accounts. The second perspective is what one might broadly term the borrower's perspective: never mind what is going on in the bank's accounts, is the bank going to demand repayment of the debt, whether or not it has been provided against?
  There has been a tendency during the debate to assume that the banker's or the banking supervisor's viewpoint is the private concern of bankers and that it need be of no concern to hon. Members, and still less of concern to developing countries. That is not a proper proposition for any hon. Member to accept. The fact is that every hon. Member and everyone working in our domestic economy has a clear and important vested interest in ensuring that banks have stable balance sheets so that they are able to undertake their proper activity of providing credit for the purpose of ensuring the efficient functioning of both the home and the overseas economy. It is not, therefore, something that is an abstruse concern of banking regulators.
  What is also striking is the hostility that has been articulated, not so much by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) but certainly by his hon. Friends the Members for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), towards the role of private capital in financing trade and economic activity in the developing world. They made it absolutely clear that they saw no legitimate role for servicing the capital
  292
  provided to third world countries through private banking institutions. In taking that view, they are being left far behind by those in the developing world whose day-to-day responsibility it is to ensure the development of those third world economies and who have moved on from the world of 20 years ago when they regarded every private sector company from the developed world as a multinational company whose sole purpose was to rape their country. That is not the role or the perspective of those people within the developing world who are now interested in ensuring the development of their countries.
  It was striking to hear the hon. Member for Islington. North rightly stress the importance of ensuring proper and fair terms of trade between developed and developing countries and then, in the next breath, to make clear his hostility to the provision of finance to allow that trade to take place. That seems to me a difficult argument for the House to accept.
  Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman may not have heard all that I said very clearly. Perhaps he has a problem with hearing. The point that I was trying to make was that the money paid for coffee, cocoa, tea and other commodities is less now, in real terms, than it was 20 years ago. The more coffee that is produced at the behest of advisers from the World bank and the International Monetary Fund, the lower, in effect, is the resulting price. Thus, more land is taken up producing export crops, and there is less land available to produce food for the people in the countries concerned. I want the Government and the Minister to address the serious problem of the prices paid for basic commodities produced by poor countries.
  11.30 pm
  Mr. Dorrell: The one thing I will certainly not do is export on an international scale the kind of intervention price system which is causing us so much difficulty in the context of the common agricultural policy. The interest of those who want proper development to take place and full participation of developing countries in the international trading system, among whom I include almost all the responsible Governments in the developing world, is to see a proper financial structure that allows a free interchange of goods and services between all countries, developed and developing, and to allow that trade to be properly financed.
  The Opposition, during this debate, have, not surprisingly and not improperly—I make no complaint about it—concentrated on the borrower's perspective. They have been concerned—it is not fundamentally controversial between the two sides of the House—to ensure that if a debt continues to be shown and to he enforceable against a particular country there should he the realistic prospect of that developing country being able to service and repay that debt. That was, indeed, the point of view that motivated my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he promulgated the Trinidad terms, which have been mentioned in the debate. It was also the perspective which motivated Treasury Secretary Brady when he launched his initiative to encourage the banks to recognise in the Brady plan the proper limits on the likely collectability of their debts. He was concerned to make the reduction of the debts outstanding between the banks and the developing countries conditional on the necessary

  293
  reforms, to make the economic benefit of that debt reduction tangible within the developing country in question.
  It is easy to dismiss, as some hon. Members have done, the practical results of the Brady plan, but I think that it would be wrong to do so. Let us look, for example, at the most publicised headline case of the Brady plan in action —Mexico. Whereas in the 1980s the average rate of growth of the Mexican economy was 1·1 per cent., it has now been projected to over 3·5 per cent. as a direct result of the changes negotiated in the context of the Brady plan. That plan has seen the debt outstanding from Mexico fall from 74 per cent. of gross domestic product in 1988 to 29 per cent. of GDP this year. The Brady plan has seen the Mexican economy relieved of $400 million a year in interest costs. So it is not true to say that the Brady plan has been disappointing in action. It has been quite impressive and has delivered, tangible benefits to those countries where the banks have been involved in a discussion about the future economic well-being of their borrower clients.
  I move now to the specifics of the new clause and the proposal that is being pressed upon the House in terms of an amendment to the provisions of the Finance Act 1990. It was precisely that recognition of the importance of ensuring that we do not insist on the repayment of irrecoverable debts that motivated the changes to the corporation tax provision that we introduced into the Finance Act 1990. There were three important changes. First, the Finance Act 1990 made it clear that provisions by banks against irrecoverable sovereign debt were indeed tax allowable. Secondly, it made provision to fix the quantum by which allowable reliefs would be decided. Thirdly, it included phasing of that provision to ensure that the tax relief would not all fall in a single year. But the important point that the supporters of this new clause Miss is that there is no phasing in terms of the 1990 Act if the debtor is to be released immediately from the obligation to repay the loan.
  The clause would simply remove the phasing requirement in three circumstances that are identified in subsection (4). The first of those relates to the release of debt in favour of the creditor state, and the second concerns the reduction of debt in favour of the creditor state. In both those cases phasing is already waived under the terms of the 1990 Act. Therefore, the new clause would only provide the tax relief a year earlier than the present law allows—in effect, a one-year, interest-free loan from the Government to the bank provided that the bank then went ahead and made a "relevant release" of the debt in question.
  Mr. Boateng: That is the purpose.
  Mr. Dorrell: The Opposition now say that that was their purpose. It was not the tenor of their speeches, which indicated greater concern with the introduction of a new principle into the law. But the principle that if a debt is written off, and the debtor is exempted from servicing or repaying it, there should be no phasing requirement is written into the 1990 Act. The only provision of this new clause that is not in the 1990 Act is the third one in subsection (4)—that the phasing requirement should be waived if an environmental and development plan that has
  294
  been approved by the Treasury is undertaken. That shows a touching faith in the environmental and developmental expertise of Her Majesty's Treasury, and I gratefully recognise it.
  Mr. Dalyell: Is the Rio £100 million new money? The question of Treasury approval is very unclear.
  Mr. Dorrell: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister does not make commitments to put money into the global environmental fund without securing the prior consent of the Treasury. This does indeed have Treasury consent.
  The proposal is that there should be exemption in the case of development plans approved by the Treasury. I prefer to encourage the banks to agree to release the borrowers, provided that they undertake the reforms that are necessary to the efficient functioning of their economies. That principle underlies the Brady plan, which has been effective in practice, and I commend it, rather than the one espoused by the Opposition, to the House.
  Mr. Boateng: In his speech, which was clearly prepared before the debate, the Minister has not in any way answered the points made by my hon. Friends. He has not addressed the central issue that has dominated this debate —the need to ensure that where relief is given it actually relieves the countries that are so desperately in need. The Minister has not addressed the importance of ensuring that relief given to commercial banks has an environmental and developmental focus. These issues, which are incorporated in the new clause, remain crucial. They are central to the modest proposals intended to lighten an intolerable burden on developing nations, and we intend to press the new clause to a Division.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 101, Noes 254.

  Division No. 55]

  [11.39 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Dowd, Jim

  Alton, David

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Barron, Kevin

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Foster, Donald (Bath)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Fyfe, Maria

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  George, Bruce

  Benton, Joe

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Betts, Clive

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Boateng, Paul

  Graham, Thomas

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Gunnell, John

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hall, Mike

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hanson, David

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Heppell, John

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hoey, Kate

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Home Robertson, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Hood, Jimmy

  Connarty, Michael

  Hoon, Geoff

  Cryer, Bob

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hoyle, Doug

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Davidson, Ian

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)

  Hutton, John

  Denham, John

  Illsley, Eric

  Dewar, Donald

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dixon, Don

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Donohoe, Brian

  McAllion, John

  295

  MacDonald, Calum

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

  Mahon, Alice

  Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Spearing, Nigel

  Marek, Dr John

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Meale, Alan

  Strang, Gavin

  Michael, Alun

  Turner, Dennis

  Milburn, Alan

  Tyler, Paul

  Morley, Elliot

  Wareing, Robert N

  Mudie, George

  Watson, Mike

  O'Neill, Martin

  Welsh, Andrew

  Pendry, Tom

  Wilson, Brian

  Pike, Peter L.

  Wise, Audrey

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wray, Jimmy

  Purchase, Ken

  Radice, Giles

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Roche, Ms Barbara

  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn and

  Salmond, Alex

  Mr. John Battle.

  Short, Clare

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Alexander, Richard

  Dover, Den

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Duncan, Alan

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Amess, David

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Ancram, Michael

  Eggar, Tim

  Arbuthnot, James

  Elletson, Harold

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Ashby, David

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Evennett, David

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Faber, David

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Baldry, Tony

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Bates, Michael

  Forman, Nigel

  Beggs, Roy

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Forth, Eric

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Booth, Hartley

  Freeman, Roger

  Boswell, Tim

  French, Douglas

  Bowden, Andrew

  Gale, Roger

  Bowis, John

  Gallie, Phil

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Brazier, Julian

  Gill, Christopher

  Bright, Graham

  Gillan, Ms Cheryl

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Gorst, John

  Burt, Alistair

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Butcher, John

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Butler, Peter

  Green way, John (Ryedale)

  Butterfill, John

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hague, William

  Cash, William

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Churchill, Mr

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Clappison, James

  Hannam, Sir John

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Harris, David

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Congdon, David

  Hawkins, Nicholas

  Conway, Derek

  Hawksley, Warren

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Heald, Oliver

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Cran, James

  Hendry, Charles

  Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Horam, John

  Day, Stephen

  Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Devlin, Tim

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  296

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jack, Michael

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Jessel, Toby

  Sackville, Tom

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Key, Robert

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Sims, Roger

  Knapman, Roger

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Knox, David

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Spring, Richard

  Legg, Barry

  Sproat, Iain

  Leigh, Edward

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lidington, David

  Steen, Anthony

  Lightbown, David

  Stephen, Michael

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Stern, Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Stewart, Allan

  Luff, Peter

  Streeter, Gary

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Sumberg, David

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Sweeney, Walter

  MacKay, Andrew

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Maclean, David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Thomason, Roy

  Madel, David

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Malone, Gerald

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mans, Keith

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Marlow, Tony

  Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Tracey, Richard

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Tredinnick, David

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Trend, Michael

  Merchant, Piers

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Milligan, Stephen

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Mills, Iain

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Walden, George

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Waller, Gary

  Moss, Malcolm

  Ward, John

  Needham, Richard

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Waterson, Nigel

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Watts, John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Wells, Bowen

  Norris, Steve

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Whitney, Ray

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Whittingdale, John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Page, Richard

  Wilkinson, John

  Paice, James

  Willetts, David

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'Id)

  Pickles, Eric

  Wolfson, Mark

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Wood, Timothy

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Yeo, Tim

  Redwood, John

  Ronton, Rt Hon Tim

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Richards, Rod

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Riddick, Graham

  Mr. Irvine Patnick.

  Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 8

  Vans provided to employees for private use
  'After Section 156 of the Taxes Act 1988, there shall be inserted the following new section—
  "156A(i) This section shall apply where a van is provided by an employer to an employee for private use.
  (ii) In these circumstances, no benefit shall arise under section 156 above.
  (iii) Instead, the scale benefit that will apply to a van will be £200 for each year.
  (iv) The above scale benefit will be reduced proportionately when the van is available for private use for less than the whole tax year.
  (v) The van will not be regarded as available for private use when it is a pool van (to be determined in like manner to a pool car as is set out in Taxes Act 1988, section 159).
  (vi) For the purposes of this section, a van means any mechanically propelled motor vehicle construct-ed primarily for the conveyance of goods or burden of any description.".'.—[Mr. Beith.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Beith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Hundreds of thousands of employees who are provided by their employer with a van ih which they drive home at night now face additional income tax charges. That is also a problem for their employers because they have much paperwork associated with it. It results from the Inland Revenue treating the provision of a van for private use as a benefit in kind, so thousands of employers, from the largest such as British Telecom to small businesses such as plumbers, shopfitters and joiners, face the prospect of a bureaucratic nightmare in maintaining the records necessary to fill in form P11D, which is the form on which benefits in kind are included.
  The tax charge applies whenever an employer makes a van available for the private use of an employee, and that will include private motoring on evenings or weekends, travel from home to either the main base of work or to the first call of the day, and travel to home from the main base of work or from the last call of the day.
  Let us consider a plumber's employee who is provided with a van which he uses to make his calls and to carry his heavy equipment. He takes the van home each evening, partly because he has secure parking here, partly, perhaps, because it is a way of carrying his tools home and not leaving them around, and partly because he can then proceed to his first call the next day. The Revenue will regard as private use that private journey home, plus any use that he may make of the van at the weekend, and a tax charge will be raised on that.
  It is well known that the provision of a car to an employee triggers an income tax liability computed with reference to a scale of charges in the tax legislation, but, because of the precise definition of a car in the legislation, the provision of vans for private use is not caught by the car scale charge provisions. The legislation enabling a tax charge to be levied on vans has been around since 1976, but until recently it has not been invoked by the Revenue.
  The Inland Revenue finds out about benefits in kind from form P11D, which has to be completed by the employer in respect of every employee earning more than £8,500 a year, which is increasingly most people who would have the use of a van. The pre-printed form issued by the Revenue lists all the main tax benefits, and the employer fills in the details. Although technically the provision of a van for private use should in any event be filled in by the employer in the other section on the form, there was no specific box on the form to record the provision of vans. Largely because of that, most employers
  298
  did not bother. Apparently, that was allowed by the Revenue by default. The result is that people have not faced a tax charge on the availability of a van.
  The Revenue appears to have changed its policy during the tax year 1990–91, and it started to raise the matter during inspections. During a form P11D inspection, a member of the Inland Revenue visits an employer and looks into the background documentation on the basis of which the form has been filled in. In some recent investigations, it appears that the Revenue took the view that it would regard the provision of a van for private use as a benefit from 6 April 1990, although not apparently from any earlier date. That approach of apparently ignoring previous tax years is completely non-statutory. It illustrates that there has been a change in the Revenue's policy.
  For the employees the change means that they have to pay more tax. For the employers it means an awful lot of paperwork. Records need to be kept of individual vehicle costs right down to the last gallon of petrol, which employee has the use of the van in each year and each mile travelled by the van, differentiated between business and private use. Guidelines have to be established on what is business and what is private use. It is a complex task for employers. In many cases, small businesses have just one or two vehicles. Several employees may switch around and have the van for private use at different times in the tax year.
  The only way to avoid the charge is to require the employee to return the vehicle each night to the employer's depot and hand in the keys and demonstrate that he did no private mileage during the day, for example, at lunch-time. That is an extremely elaborate procedure for the relatively limited benefit of the private use of a van.
  Therefore, in the new clause we suggest a simple annual scale charge of £200. That would avoid the employer having to keep the records. It would fix at a limited point the liability of the employee to tax—that is the tax raised on the £200. The charge would be analogous to the car tax, but would be at a lower level. It seems reasonable to put it at a significantly lower level. First, the private use of a van has not been taxed in practice until recently. Secondly, the use of a van for private motoring is not exactly a luxury motoring perk.
  I can speak with some authority and experience on the matter because, before we were married, my wife came to meet me on many occasions driven in a van which her father used to drive home from work. Sitting on a cushion in the back of a van for transport is not by any means an opportunity for luxury motoring. I must stress that I no longer have a financial interest in the matter because the events took place more than 25 years ago.
  Not many employees who have the use of a van for private motoring would regard the imposition of a detailed charge justified mile by mile as a reasonable way of computing a tax liability. It does not make sense to the man who has the use of the van when he compares his pay slip with that of his mate who he drops off on the way home from work, who does not have the use of the van but gets a lift home in it. One of them pays a higher tax charge than the other because he has the van available. The procedures are wholly bureaucratic and could be easily remedied by the use of a small scale charge such as I have proposed.
  Mr. Dorrell: The new clause proposes to set a scale benefit of £200 for the purposes of charging tax under schedule E on the benefit of a van provided by an employer to an employee for private use—one might add, of whatever kind. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) justified his proposal on the ground of the undoubted complexity of the present position because there are no special rules governing the provision of a van to an employee. Such provision is consequently covered by the general rules which, as they apply to a van, can be complex.
  I have some sympathy with the principle of the new clause. But the crucial question is whether the proposals should be added to the Finance Bill this year and whether the hon. Gentleman wants to go down as the Member of Parliament who introduced the tax charge on vans used privately by employees.
  Of course, the use of scale charges is not new. It applies to the majority of company cars. It has been applied more recently to mobile telephones. The £200 charge that the hon. Gentleman proposes is, of course, the same as that which applies to a mobile telephone. I am not sure that it is reasonable to say that the value to the employee of the availability of a van is the same as that of a mobile telephone. The most obvious difference is that the capital and running costs of a typical van—they must be taken into account in setting a scale benefit because it is an approximation of the value of the benefit—are considerably higher than those of a mobile phone. A charge of £200 would seem rather low when set alongside the scale benefit of just over £1,000 for the smallest company car with a high business mileage, even bearing in mind the intrinsic difference between the two levels of benefit to which the right hon. Gentleman drew attention.
  12 midnight
  I do not want to rule out the idea of some scale benefit for company vans. The Inland Revenue reminded employers last year that the provision of vans for employees' private use should be returned on P11Ds. That leads, undoubtedly, to the complexity that the right hon. Gentleman has described. I invite him to consider withdrawing the clause on the basis that we recognise that the present position causes unnecessary complexity and that it is something that we undertake to consider.
  Mr. Beith: I am glad to know that the Minister understands that from the employers' point of view complexity leads to problems, and that many employees might have to pay a larger amount of tax because their employers have not calculated carefully and accurately the relevant charges, because of the time involved. A scale charge, although perhaps a rough-and-ready method, is probably—the same applies to a car—a much simpler approach from an employee's point of view.
  I recognise the willingness of the Minister to consider the issue with greater care between now and the next Finance Bill. On that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the new clause be withdrawn?
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is, That the clause be read a Second time. As many as are of that opinion say Aye. To the contrary, No.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Noes have it.
  Question negatived.
  Mr. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The initial pressing of the matter to a Division—it did not proceed—was not my doing because I was happy to accept the Minister's undertaking.

New Clause 11

  TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR CERTAIN SPORTING AND RECREATIONAL ASSOCIATIONS
  `(1) Where—
  (a) an Association which has as its object the encouragement, development and governance of any sport or other form of recreational activity (or which has as its objects the representation of such Associations) is approved for the purposes of this section by the Secretary of State, and
  (b) the memorandum of association of other similar instrument regulating the functions of the Association precludes the direct or indirect payment of transfer to any of its members of any of its income or property by way of dividend, gift, division, bonus or otherwise howsoever by way of profit,
  there shall, on a claim in that behalf to the Board, be allowed in the case of the association—
  (i) exemption from tax in respect of income, and
  (ii) exemption from tax in respect of chargeable gains.
  (2) In sections 338 and 339 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, "qualifying donation" shall include a payment under a disposition or covenant made by a company in favour of an Association approved for the purposes of this section under subsection (1) above.
  (3) The conditions specified in paragraph (b) of subsection (i) above shall not be deemed not to be complied with in the case of any Association by reason only that the memorandum or other similar instrument regulating its functions does not prevent the payment to its members of reasonable renumeration for goods or facilities supplied, or for services rendered, of reasonable interest for money lent, or of reasonable rent for any premises.
  (4) In this section "recreational activity" means any activities in the fields of physical recreation conducive to the health or welfare to those participating in them.'. —[Ms. Hoey.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Ms. Hoey: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) first raised this issue in the House in 1980. Since then, many all-party attempts have been made to convince the Treasury of the strength of our case. Those of us who persist in pushing the new clause hope that reason and justice will eventually prevail. As a relatively new Member, I have made various speeches on the subject. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) and the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) must have filing cabinets full of speeches that they have made on it.
  The only thing that changes each year is that the debate on the matter gets later. I apologise for holding up the House on this issue, but it is important and hon. Members should listen with a little more attention—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If hon. Members want to leave the Chamber, they should do so quietly. I am having

  301
  great difficulty in hearing the hon. Lady and a lot of patter is also going on behind me. I hope that hon. Members will take note.
  Ms. Hoey: The new clause is simple and I hope that hon. Members will not be taken in by Treasuryspeak, which usually seeks to make the issue seem difficult. The new clause seeks to obtain tax exemptions for governing and representative bodies of sport and recreation, such as the Central Council of Physical Recreation, the Sports Aid Foundation and, most important in this Olympics year, the British Olympic Association.
  The proposal is not intended to benefit private sports clubs and associations that operate for private profit. Corporation tax is paid by 81 national governing bodies of sport, which are members of the Central Council of Physical Recreation. That amounted to almost £3 million in 1980–90, which is approximately 6 per cent. of the Government's direct funding to the four sports councils.
  The all-party new clause would give the Secretary of State for National Heritage a duty in addition to the many duties that he is adding to his new Department. He would have the final decision on whether the governing or representative body met the objective that is stated clearly in the new clause: to encourage, develop and govern sport or other forms of recreational activity.
  Another purpose of the proposal is to enable sports governing bodies to benefit in a similar way to charities, so that those who wish to give donations will find them tax-attractive. They could benefit from the tax advantages of the gift aid scheme introduced by the Prime Minister in his former role of Chancellor.
  Although the amount of tax lost to the Exchequer would be relatively insignificant, the benefit to sport and recreation cannot be overestimated. It would be substantial, not just because there would be some financial help to the beleaguered finances of many of the governing bodies of sport, but because of the moral boost that it would give, at a stroke, to some 6 million volunteers in sport. They are its backbone, providing thousands of hours of unpaid work to run the 150,000 registered sports clubs in the country.
  Last week I attended the sports day of an inner-city school in my constituency—Charles Edward Brook. Many of the pupils were enjoying competitive sport at every level in that deprived area. The enjoyment that the youngsters were getting out of that sports day was evident, but more important was the voluntary work that the school's physical education department did after school hours and in the evenings, and the work that the instructor in charge, Steve White, does to encourage many youngsters who show talent to get involved in a sports club in the evening.
  It is those sorts of voluntary works that we want to encourage through the new clause. It would be a clear signal from Parliament that it recognised the importance and the beneficial contribution to our communities of the voluntary sports governing bodies.
  Without the burden of corporation tax, more money could be made available for grassroots sporting development at a time when there is so much concern about the welfare of schools' sporting arrangements. There is no reason why some of the exemptions could not
  302
  be tied to specific development projects, which the governing bodies of sport would have to undertake as part of an overall strategy for sport and recreation.
  I wish to say a few words about the British Olympic Association. It is incredible that in an Olympics year the association is virtually unique among the 166 national Olympic committees in that the British Government tax its Olympics fund-raising efforts. All the effort of many people throughout the country to help the association to ensure that our team has the best when competing with other countries is bitten into by Government taxation.
  Mr. Brian Wilson: Does my hon. Friend find it as odd as I find it that, while she is fighting the good fight on behalf of sport and the British althletics and Olympic movements, the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) is not with us?
  Ms. Hoey: The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne is a sponsor of the new clause. He has apologised for not being able to be here for personal reasons, which will probably appear in the newspapers tomorrow—[Interruption.] He has rather pressing personal problems tonight—or rather, his wife has.
  The British Olympic Association bears sole responsibil-ity for the cost of the British team at both the winter and summer Olympics, including transport, maintenance and equipment. It also funds injury research and pre-Olympic training and it maintains the Olympic library. That expenditure has increased substantially during the past 10 years. The association receives no direct Government grant. In 1988, the year of the last Olympics, it raised more than £4 million towards the cost of the participation of the British team. In 1989, just after the Olympics were over, it paid back £750,000 of that revenue in tax to the Treasury.
  The association is wholly dependent on appeals to raise money every year. Relief is now needed. It would be an important gesture, not just to the association but to sport generally, if some attempt were made immediately to consider specifically the position of the association. Will the Minister agree to meet a deputation within the next week from the governing bodies of sport? Will he consider the immediate position of the British Olympic Association? Depending on his answer to those questions, I shall decide whether to press the new clause to a vote.
  We have had enough excuses. Each year the matter is raised time and again. Last year, it appeared that there was some give from the Treasury; there was a feeling that something might be done in the Budget. In fact, because of various deals being struck with the pools companies—ironically, unsuccessfully to try to stave off a national lottery—any plans were dropped.
  I hope that the Treasury will reconsider and that the Secretary of State for National Heritage, rather than just talking and attending sporting events, will show that his Department has muscle. I hope that he and his officials will get back to the grassroots of sport and serve our youth and British sport well.
  12.15 am
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: This debate has become something of an annual event in the British sporting calendar, though it is not always attended by as many spectators as it is this evening. It gives the Government an opportunity to demonstrate whether their

  303
  public profile of support for British sport is buttressed by a realistic understanding of the consequences if new clause 11 were to pass into law.
  The Olympic games will shortly commence in Barcelona. If previous performances are any yardstick, the United Kingdom will undoubtedly win several medals. When Britain's competitors return they will be received at No. 10 Downing street. There will be considerable expressions of pride at their achievements, and it will be said how much the United Kingdom's reputation has been enhanced. Some may even find themselves figuring in the next honours list.
  The truth is that that will do nothing to assist sport's various governing bodies in helping others to achieve the standards of Olympic medallists. Nor will it do anything to help sports men and sports women of all standards, or to provide recreational facilities for the increasing number of people who, for sound and sensible health reasons, consider sport to be an attractive pastime.
  As the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey) made clear, the House has debated tax exemption on many previous occasions. In a debate on new clause 15 of the Finance (No. 2) Bill on 13 July 1988, beginning at column 454 of the Official Report, a similar proposal attracted the support of Sir Eldon Griffiths, the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey), who I am glad to see in his place, Mr. Denis Howell, as he then was but now ennobled, and the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). Previous proposals for making sports associations exempt from tax attracted considerable support in all parts of the House. It would be to the great advantage of British sport and British sports men and sports women if new clause 11 were added to the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Vauxhall hopes that the Government will respond positively, by meeting a deputation representing those with an interest in the subject. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer were willing to meet such a deputation, he would be doing no more than reflecting his remarks in the debate to which I referred. Replying to the amendment moved by Sir Eldon Griffiths, the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "I have noted the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths). There are difficulties with the new clause, but I am prepared to review the issues raised in it and to meet hon. Members to discuss it."
  He concluded:
  "I have just outlined a number of difficulties, but I recognise that there is keen interest in this subject. I shall review it, and I shall be happy to talk to hon. Members about it at their convenience."—[Official Report, 13 July 1988; Vol. 137, c. 460–62.]
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: There could be a meeting in Barcelona.
  Mr. Campbell: We could meet in Barcelona, if we could persuade the Fees Office that was a legitimate purpose for Members of Parliament. If the Minister is concerned about making what might appear to be a concession in being willing to meet hon. Members who have expressed an interest, he can take comfort from the fact that as far back as 1988 the Chancellor of the Exchequer—albeit when operating at a different level of responsibility—thought that a meeting about and further discussion of the subject was well justified.
  I am happy to support the new clause, which was moved so ably by the hon. Member for Vauxhall, and I hope that it will commend itself to the House.
  Mr. Richard Tracey: I rise briefly to support the cross-party new clause. I agree with the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey) and the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) that it is about time that my party said something other than it will consider the issue and that it really did so.
  As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer occupied the post now held by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary he gave an undertaking that he would examine the matter seriously and I take him at his word. This year we were pleased to be joined in tabling the new clause by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe). I reiterate his regrets that he is not here because his wife is expecting an imminent happy event. I am sure that the House will understand why he is not here to lend his considerable support as one of the greatest athletes this country has ever produced and to urge my hon. Friend the Minister to give the issue some serious thought, especially with regard to the British Olympic Association.
  As the hon. Member for Vauxhall said, the association is merely seeking relief in line with all other Olympic associations across the world. It seeks tax relief once every four years to allow our teams to be better supported and thus to perform better in the Olympic games.
  We now have a Prime Minister with an avowed and very visible interest in sport. Although we did not hear him say that he would consider the issue when he was a member of the Treasury team, I am sure that in his heart of hearts he wishes to see our Olympic team going into the field properly supported and equipped. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to say something more and will at least agree to meet a delegation so that the hon. Member for Vauxhall will not be forced to press the matter to a vote.
  Mr. Wilson: I shall be brief, as I spoke in the debate last year. I think that the arguments have been well made and I shall merely support them rather than prolong the proceedings.
  As a matter of courtesy, I express my best wishes to the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe). It is generally a sound rule not to make impromptu references to hon. Members' non-presence in the House and I regret the fact that I broke that rule.
  Mr. Dorrell: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) will be grateful to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) for the retraction of his ill-judged comment.—[Interruption.] Indeed. Perhaps we shall see the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) there too.
  Several hon. Members have said that this debate has become an annual event, and my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) was good enough to offer me a little career advice by suggesting that the Prime Minister will take a keen personal interest in the examination of the issue so it behoves the holder of my office to consider it particularly seriously. I gladly assure the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey) that if she wants to discuss it in depth with me and my officials, I should be very pleased to see her and any delegation she may wish to bring. The issue has aroused interest in all parts of the House over a number of years, so I gladly commit myself to looking at it in detail and from a sympathetic background.

  305
  However, I should in honesty tell the House that there are some reservations. I put them to hon. Members not in a spirit of saying, "That is why I shall conclude, as a result of the examination, that the system must go on as before," but in the spirit of saying, "Those are the questions that the hon. Lady and her delegation will find confronting them when they come to see me, so those are the issues that their representations will have to address."
  The new clause is generous and wide ranging. It would give complete exemption from corporation tax to any association that was involved in the promotion of physical and recreational activities. That would include a very wide range of activities. That generosity should be compared with the present position, where the only bodies in British tax law that are wholly exempt from corporation tax are local authorities and health service bodies. Even the exemption enjoyed by charities is conditional on the charity's income being applied solely to charitable purposes, which does not include sport. That is not to say that there is no way round the problem, but it is the problem that we face in the current structure of corporation tax.
  If such an exemption were granted carte blanche to the bodies that the hon. Lady and her supporters have in mind, it would confer an unfair advantage on those bodies where, for example, they sold sports equipment or refreshments or indulged in any other trade activity in direct competition with other local traders who did not enjoy similar tax privileges.
  Further, although there is a common-sense perception of the meaning of the word "sport", it is not a word which lends itself easily to the sort of tight definition that would be necessary if it were to be written into tax law in such a way as to avoid others free riding on the hon. Lady's proposal in a way that she would be the first to deprecate. So if we are to make any progress, we must consider a definition of "sport" that delivers the hon. Lady's objective without including a wide range of activities which she would not wish to include.
  The clause contains provisions designed to allow companies to receive relief for covenanted donations. Again, I am prepared to examine that, but we must remember that the covenanting system is currently associated with the concept of charity. It is well understood in charity law, as I said, that sport is not a charitable activity, and it is legitimate to ask whether we want a significant share of money now provided to the charities world through the covenanting system diverted to the sports world, remembering that the sports world benefits to a significant extent from company sponsorship, which in many cases is tax allowable.
  The hon. Lady asked for a meeting. I shall be glad to hold a meeting to examine the issue carefully and to see whether those questions can be answered.
  Mr. Skinner:When?
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman, tough inquisitor that he is, asks when. When the hon. Lady seeks a meeting, I shall be glad to arrange it as quickly as may be.
  Ms. Hoey: The Minister has said nothing about the British Olympic Association. Will he please dwell on that?
  Mr. Dorrell: I think that the fact that the Olympic games start in the next couple of weeks is a coincidence of timing which concentrates hon. Members' minds on the application of a general principle. I did not gather that the hon. Member for Vauxhall was seeking special treatment for the Olympic movement; I understood her to be citing it as a particularly acute example of the operation of tax law in Britain and contrasting our treatment of our Olympic association with the treatment of such associations in other jurisdictions. I consider that a less powerful argument than the arguments that the hon. Lady advanced about the generality of sporting bodies. To consider the impact on the Olympic association of a specific aspect of our tax system is to avoid, or ignore, a range of support arrangements that are available to our Olympic movement and available—or not, as the case may be—to other such movements. I think that the hon. Lady's case is stronger when she concentrates on the principle, rather than on its specific application to the Olympic movement.
  As I have said, I will gladly meet the hon. Lady to discuss the subject further, but I hope that she will then address her representations to the concerns that I have expressed this evening—concerns that my predecessors have expressed on similar occasions in the past.
  12.30 am
  Ms. Hoey: I thank the Financial Secretary, who has been a little more positive than his predecessor. It may be a coincidence that his predecessor is no longer a Member of Parliament. His predecessor did meet a deputation last year, and we considered the meeting very useful; unfortunately, nothing came of it.
  I should be happy to meet the Financial Secretary with a deputation, but I hope that his powers of persuasion are a bit stronger than those of the previous incumbent; otherwise, we shall be wasting our time. The hon. Gentleman said that he would consider the wider issues carefully. I hope that that will happen as a result of our meeting, and that we shall not have to come back next year for the same sterile debate. I hope that we shall make progress during the coming year.
  There is strong agreement, and a wish to find a way forward. I realise that the issue is complicated; we all realise that. What I do not want, however [and what sports governing bodies do not want—is a continuing failure to consider the matter seriously because of the gobbledegook of Treasuryspeak.
  I shall take up the Financial Secretary's offer, and hope to see him next week. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 22, Noes 161.

  Division No. 56]

  [12.32 am

  AYES

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hoey, Kate

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Home Robertson, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Hood, Jimmy

  Donohoe, Brian

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Dowd, Jim

  McAllion, John

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  MacDonald, Calum

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Pendry, Tom

  Graham, Thomas

  Salmond, Alex

  Heppell, John

  Welsh, Andrew

  307

  Wilson, Brian

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wray, Jimmy

  Mr. Bob Oyer and

  Mr. Dennis Skinner.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Alexander, Richard

  Hayes, Jerry

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Heald, Oliver

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Amess, David

  Hendry, Charles

  Ancram, Michael

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Jack, Michael

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Jessel, Toby

  Ashby, David

  Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Key, Robert

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Baldry, Tony

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Bates, Michael

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Booth, Hartley

  Legg, Barry

  Bowden, Andrew

  Lidington, David

  Bowis, John

  Lightbown, David

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Brazier, Julian

  Lord, Michael

  Bright, Graham

  Luff, Peter

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  MacKay, Andrew

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Maclean, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Butcher, John

  Malone, Gerald

  Butler, Peter

  Mans, Keith

  Butterfill, John

  Marlow, Tony

  Carrington, Matthew

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Cash, William

  Merchant, Piers

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Milligan, Stephen

  Chapman, Sydney

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Clappison, James

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Nelson, Anthony

  Congdon, David

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Norris, Steve

  Cran, James

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Page, Richard

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Paice, James

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Patnick, Irvine

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Dover, Den

  Richards, Rod

  Duncan, Alan

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Elletson, Harold

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Faber, David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Soames, Nicholas

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Forman, Nigel

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Forth, Eric

  Spring, Richard

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Sproat, Iain

  Freeman, Roger

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  French, Douglas

  Steen, Anthony

  Gale, Roger

  Stephen, Michael

  Gallie, Phil

  Stern, Michael

  Gill, Christopher

  Stewart, Allan

  Gillan, Ms Cheryl

  Streeter, Gary

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Sweeney, Walter

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Gorst, John

  Thomason, Roy

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Hague, William

  Thurnham, Peter

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Trend, Michael

  Harris, David

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Hawkins, Nicholas

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  308

  Waller, Gary

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Wells, Bowen

  Wood, Timothy

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Whittingdale, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Mr. Tim Boswell and

  Wilkinson, John

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes.

  Willetts, David

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Motion made, and Question put, That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned.—[Mr. MacKay.]
  The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 14.

  Division No. 57]

  [12.43 am

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Hawkins, Nicholas

  Alexander, Richard

  Heald, Oliver

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Amess, David

  Hendry, Charles

  Ancram, Michael

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Jack, Michael

  Ashby, David

  Jessel, Toby

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Bates, Michael

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Lidington, David

  Booth, Hartley

  Lightbown, David

  Bowis, John

  Lord, Michael

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Luff, Peter

  Bright, Graham

  MacKay, Andrew

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Maclean, David

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Malone, Gerald

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Mans, Keith

  Burt, Alistair

  Marek, Dr John

  Butcher, John

  Merchant, Piers

  Butler, Peter

  Milligan, Stephen

  Butterfill, John

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Carrington, Matthew

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Norris, Steve

  Chapman, Sydney

  Paice, James

  Clappison, James

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Congdon, David

  Richards, Rod

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Cran, James

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

  Dover, Den

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Soames, Nicholas

  Elletson, Harold

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Spring, Richard

  Faber, David

  Sproat, Iain

  Fabricant, Michael

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Steen, Anthony

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Stephen, Michael

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Stewart, Allan

  Freeman, Roger

  Sweeney, Walter

  Gallie, Phil

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Gill, Christopher

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Gillan, Ms Cheryl

  Thurnham, Peter

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Tracey, Richard

  Gorst, John

  Trend, Michael

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Hague, William

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Waller, Gary

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  309

  Wells, Bowen

  Wolfson, Mark

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Wood, Timothy

  Whittingdale, John

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wilkinson, John

  Mr. Irvine Patrick and

  Willetts, David

  Mr. Tim Boswell.

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  NOES

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Morley, Elliot

  Connarty, Michael

  Salmond, Alex

  Donohoe, Brian

  Welsh, Andrew

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Wilson, Brian

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Wray, Jimmy

  Graham, Thomas

  Hood, Jimmy

  Tellers for the Noes:

  McAllion, John

  Mr. Dennis Skinner and

  MacDonald, Calum

  Mr. Bob Cryer.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill, not amended in Committee and as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.

  The Naze
  Motion made, and Questions Proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
  12.53 am
  Mr. Iain Sproat: I am extremely grateful, at this early hour of the morning, to have the opportunity to put to my hon. Friend the Minister the important case of the Naze at Walton-on-the Naze. I do so because I seek the Government's help in efforts to protect and preserve the Naze. Before I go into further detail on this matter, perhaps I should give a description of the Naze because I do not know whether my hon. Friend has seen it.
  The Naze—I believe that the name is etymologically connected with the word "nose"—is a grassy promontory that sticks out into the North sea. It is extensive, being about 159 acres, and it has a sea line of three miles. The important thing about it is that it is an extremely beautiful, open, natural space. It is unspoilt countryside and a real bit of old England. It is absolutely central to the life of the community, and that is easily proven by the fact that the attractive and picturesque seaside resort of Walton-onthe-Naze takes its name from the Naze.
  We have 150 acres of beautiful land. However, it is not just a beautiful coastline, and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should consider several other factors when, hopefully, he agrees to approve the scheme which lies with his Ministry and grants the money to execute the scheme. As well as being a beautiful landscape, there is a listed building on the Naze called the Naze tower. It was built in 1720 and is a very dramatic and romantic building.
  The area is much visited by tourists and the prosperity of Walton-on-the-Naze depends to a considerable degree on the tourist trade. However, most important of all is the natural amenity value. My hon. Friend the Minister will recall that, when there was a public inquiry on a previous occasion about the Naze, the inspector said that it was a natural asset whose high amenity value could not be measured simply in monetary terms. That is part of the essence that I wish to put to my hon. Friend the Minister.
  We have a beautiful area, so what is the problem? Very simply, the problem is that that very beautiful area is being destroyed by two factors: first, by springs at the top of the cliffs; and, secondly, by the fact that the cliffs, which run for well over 1,000 yds along the seaward side and which are very substantial, being about 70 ft to 80 ft high, are being worn away by the action of the sea. When I say "worn away", I am not talking about a slow erosion.
  I received a reply from my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 22 June which stated that the erosion over the past 12 months was on average about 6 ft a year. Of course, if there is a violent storm, a huge chunk of the cliff—much more than 6 ft—may fall away. Perhaps I can give an example that may strike the imagination of my hon. Friend the Minister. In the days when his grandfather was Prime Minister, a number of block houses were built on the cliffs of the Naze to resist the German invasion. If one walks on the cliffs today, one can hardly see those concrete block houses because they are so far out at sea with the waves washing over them. That is what will happen to the whole of the Naze.
  I mentioned earlier the Naze tower, a beautiful and romantic listed building that was built in 1720. The Naze

  311
  tower now stands some 60 yds from the cliff edge. One does not need to be a profound mathematician to work out that it will not take many years with an erosion rate of 6 ft or more a year before that listed building topples into the sea.
  We have a beautiful amenity area with a listed building standing on it, and it is a prime source of tourist attraction for the area. However, it is being steadily destroyed. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to provide the funds to preserve it. As he will know, on three occasions over the past 15 years, plans have been put to the Government for groynes, rebutments and other ways of stopping the sea smashing up against the base of the cliffs. Those plans were rejected on every occasion. I shall refer to the reasons for the rejections in a moment, but now a fourth plan is being laid before the Ministry.
  The fourth plan is not very expensive —indeed, it is so cheap comparatively that I wonder how much good it would do in the long term. None the less, those who are more expert than I in such matters say that it is desirable. At 1992 prices, it is costed at £400,000, of which my hon. Friend's Ministry will be responsible for only 70 per cent., 15 per cent. being the responsibility of the local Tendring district council, and the other 15 per cent. being the responsibility of Essex county council. My hon. Friend has it in his power to enable a comparatively small amount of money to do an enormous amount of good.
  My hon. Friend, with his usual robust common sense, may ask, "Why are we even having the debate? We have that beautiful area, that listed building, that tourist attraction, and something which is central to the locality. It is being destroyed. Why should there be any argument about it?" Of course, it is a natural asset of this country, and it should be preserved. There have been a number of reasons in the past why previous Governments have rejected plans to preserve and protect the Naze as it should be preserved.
  The first argument which my hon. Friend's predecessors have put forward is that that kind of protection against the sea is normally given only when houses are in imminent risk of being washed away. I gladly tell my hon. Friend that, on this occasion, no houses are in imminent danger of being washed away. There are certainly houses on the Naze, but it would take many years before the land on which they stand is in danger of crumbling away, although considerable apprehension is felt by the people who live there. They feel that a blight has descended on their houses because the defences are not adequate to protect the Naze against the sea. None the less, I am not maintaining the argument that it is to preserve houses that are in imminent danger of destruction, but surely the point of saying that the danger to houses is an argument to be taken into consideration by the Government is that houses are an important asset. We have another important asset, and that is the Naze itself. That is what, on this occasion, should move my hon. Friend.
  The second argument that has been put on previous occasions concerns the economic benefit of the Naze. I wrote to my noble Friend Earl Howe two weeks ago, and he sent me a letter which I received yesterday. I thank him and his officials for sending me a duplicate copy this morning. However, when I read the letter I was disturbed by it, first, because my noble Friend said that, as entry to the Naze is free, it is very difficult to make any economic judgments and that we must find an indirect way of judging it.
  312
  Of course, although it is true that access to the Naze is free to pedestrians, one must pay if one goes in a car. The least charge that one pays is 1·20. In spite of that, 16,000 cars a year go to the Naze. If there is an average of three people in a car, and that is almost 50,000 visitors already, I guess from my own observation of the Naze that at least that number arrive on foot. One hundred thousand people a year think that the Naze is a sufficient tourist attraction to visit.
  Even more worrying about my noble Friend's letter and his not realising that cars have to pay to go to the Naze and that therefore we have a direct economic index of the popularity of the Naze is his description of how the Ministry proposes to make an indirect judgment of the economic benefits of the Naze. My hon. Friend the Minister, who might not have seen the letter, will hardly credit that his Ministry proposes that tourists should be stopped at the top of the Naze and asked what monetary value they place upon visiting the Naze at this moment and what monetary value they would place on the Naze next year if it were to be reduced by 6 ft. That is absolutely barmy. The Ministry proposes to aggregate that sum, multiply it by the number of visitors, and say that the difference between the two is the value which people put on having the Naze protected. I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Minister will want to take into account the economic value of the Naze. However, the extraordinary ivory-tower academic absurdity of the letter will give people living in the constituency little confidence that a proper economic evaluation has been made.
  The third reason why the Naze has not attracted Government help in the past is almost more absurd. It can be described as "the fossil case". The Naze is built in part of a type of earth, if I may speak in layman's language, known as London clay. London clay is an old substance —some 50 million years old. Many ancient fossils are found in it. Of course, fossils are extremely interesting, but the argument has been made that the more the sea is allowed to wear away the wonderful natural beautiful asset of the Naze, the more fossils will become apparent.
  The value placed on studying the fossils is given priority over the value to the people who enjoy the amenity of the Naze. I hope that my hon. Friend will not use that argument again, as it has been used in the past. I understand that agreement has been reached with English Nature—the quango which deals with such matters—on finding a way for the fossil hunters to continue to find some of the fossils without the whole of the Naze having to be destroyed.
  So far the plan which the Tendring district council put before my hon. Friend the Minister has found only one objector out of the many thousands of local inhabitants. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that it would be an abuse of democracy if we had to go through the rigmarole of a public inquiry, which would cost money that could be far better devoted to saving the Naze, simply because one person had objected. I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that any application made by one person for a public inquiry should be overridden.
  If my hon. Friend the Minister says, "I agree with everything that you say. You have persuaded me. I am about to give approval to the plan and to give funds to execute it", I will accept with alacrity and gratitude. But if he is minded to say no to the splendid plan, I hope that his refusal will not be set in concrete. I hope that he will agree

  313
  to meet me and perhaps a delegation so that we can bring more persuasion to bear in private than perhaps I have been able to bring this morning.
  1.7 am
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nicholas Soames): May I first congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Sproat) on being selected to debate this topic on the Adjournment of the House. Without being over-familiar, I congratulate my hon. Friend on presenting such a persuasive and authoritative case without using a single note. He was obviously in command of his subject and knowledgeable about it.
  My hon. Friend represented the interests of his constituents with great knowledge and feeling. He has written to my Department on several occasions about the matter and has tabled no fewer than nine parliamentary questions. The issue is of considerable importance to him and his constituents. Naturally, we take it seriously. I assure my hon. Friend that, whether or not he is satisfied with the answer that he receives tonight, the Parliamentary Secretary in the House of Lords, Earl Howe, will, of course, be delighted to receive my hon. Friend at a suitable time, together with whatever delegation he may choose to bring with him.
  Coastal defence is an important and often controversial issue. It is right that such matters should be subjected to careful scrutiny, as my hon. Friend acknowledged, before any decisions are reached. Before I respond to the particular points that he has made, I shall explain a little of the background.
  The Ministry that I represent has policy responsibility both for the alleviation of flooding, whether by rivers or the sea, and for the protection of the coastline from erosion. The Government set the national priorities, provide substantial sums in grant aid for flood and coastal defence works and give guidance on the engineering, environmental and economic factors that should be taken into account.
  Operational responsibility for the construction and maintenance of defences in particular locations rests with local bodies. For sea defences against flooding, this generally means the local committees of the National Rivers Authority. For works to protect the coast from erosion—as, for example, at Walton-on-the-Naze—this usually means the district councils. These local bodies decide whether to put forward schemes of coastal defence work to the Ministry for approval and for grant aid. The system is essentially one of partnership between central and local government.
  In considering applications for grant aid, the Ministry expects the operating authorities to have examined a range of options for tackling flooding or erosion at a particular site, and also to have assessed the implications of taking no action whatever. The no-action option provides an essential benchmark against which to judge the advantages and disadvantages of attempting to resist the forces of nature at a particular point. Naturally, much depends on the nature of the land immediately behind the coastline.
  Proposals for coastal protection work are considered first by the Ministry's regional engineers for the relevant area, who have the necessary professional expertise.
  314
  Essentially, there are a number of yardsticks against which all such proposals will be judged. Planned schemes must be sound in engineering terms, environmentally acceptable and economically worth while.
  It is essential that these works should fall into the criteria that I have described. Above all, they must represent value for money for the taxpayer. My hon. Friend is an experienced parliamentarian and had been a Member before being elected to represent Harwich, so he knows that value for money must be a critical judgment and assessment. That means that all of the costs and benefits of a proposal must be extremely carefully quantified. Put simply, unless it can be shown that the benefits are at least equal to the costs, there must be a presumption against a particular scheme being approved for grant aid.
  It is self-evident that coastal defence works must be properly engineered to undertake the task that is required. There are often a number of different ways of achieving the desired result, and the local authority must be able to demonstrate that its design and construction plans, and its choice of materials, are sound. The Ministry's engineers are well qualified to undertake the task of verifying the propositions.
  Proposed works must be properly engineered and environmentally acceptable, and that is inevitably a more subjective assessment. All coastal engineering work involves some interference with the natural environment, and sometimes a balance will have to be struck between the protection of life and property and the protection of the environment. All proposed schemes are, therefore, passed to English Nature for comment. Local authorities are strongly encouraged to consult both statutory and voluntary conservation bodies from the earliest stages when planning work. Wherever possible, conservation and amenity features are incorporated in modern coastal defence schemes. We now try to work with, rather than against, nature.
  I should stress that these cost-benefit analyses are not undertaken in a crude or simplistic manner. It is, of course, easier to quantify the so-called "tangible" costs and benefits of coast protection schemes. By that I mean that we can fairly readily measure benefits in terms of prevention or mitigation of damage to domestic and commercial property and transport links, for example. We have made progress in recent years with the much more difficult job of quantification of the so-called "intangible" benefits of coastal defence schemes, such as amenity, recreational and environmental benefits.
  A number of techniques are available for the quantification of amenity or environmental benefits. Of those, the contingent valuation method is best suited to valuing the benefits of preserving cliff-top recreational sites like those so graphically and admirably described by my hon. Friend. That involves asking members of the public to place a monetary value on their enjoyment of a site as it is and as it would be if no action were taken to preserve it. The differences between the two values can then be aggregated to give a value for the amenity benefit of any scheme that preserved the site. There is clearly an element of subjectivity here and it is clear that this and similar techniques must be used with scrupulous care if credence is to be given to the results. But such measurements can help us to put a figure on intangible benefits when carrying out a cost-benefit analysis. There are examples of schemes in which the costs outweighed the benefits when only

  315
  tangible factors were looked at, but which became eligible for grant aid once the intangible benefits were brought back into the scale.
  I now come to the particular problems of the Naze. As my hon. Friend graphically pointed out, the Naze is a site of special interest and concern for his constituents. It is a site of special scientific interest, a nature reserve and a popular area for recreational pursuits. The cliffs contain important bird fossils and the Naze tower, a disused lighthouse, is a listed building. The area suffers from severe coastal erosion as the cliffs are cut away.
  Tendring district council, the responsible coast protection authority, submitted schemes to protect the Naze from erosion twice in the 1970s and once in the 1980s. Those schemes were either rejected by the Department of the Environment—which had policy responsibility for coast protection against erosion until it passed to MAFF in 1985—or were withdrawn by the council itself. That was because the costs of the proposed schemes outweighed the benefits and, in the most recent case, because of objections from conservation bodies that the fossil deposits would be damaged.
  The present scheme from Tendring district council was submitted to the Department last year and has been redesigned in consultation with English Nature. The scheme does not seek to prevent erosion at the Naze altogether, but rather to slow the rate of erosion. The scheme would change the appearance of the coastline by turning it into two small sheltered bays. But I am advised that English Nature is satisfied that it would permit sufficient residual erosion to allow the important bird fossils to be released for study.
  The present position is that officials have assessed the council's proposal and found it to be sound from an engineering and environmental point of view. However, I understand that, as my hon. Friend said, a private individual has lodged an objection which, if unresolved, may necessitate the holding of a local investigation by the Ministry. Leaving that on one side for the present, the other main area that remains in contention is the economic justification for the scheme, with which my hon. Friend dealt at some length.
  On the basis of the information so far provided by the council to officials, the costs of the scheme are likely to be considerably in excess of the benefits. Residential properties to the rear of the Naze are not expected to be at
  316
  risk from erosion for 100 years and so do not have a significant effect on the calculation. The main benefits from the scheme, as my right hon. Friend rightly said, would be amenity benefits, and I have already acknowledged, as he does, the difficulty of quantifying those. But if we are to justify the expenditure of public money, we must quantify those intangible benefits as best we can. It is also essential that we do that if we are to assign priority as between different schemes competing for scarce resources. Competing schemes elsewhere in the country may involve a much more direct threat to life and property than is the case at the Naze. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that the Naze case is by no means an open and shut matter.
  In the last financial year, the Government spent around £19·5 million in grant aid on coast protection works against erosion, out of a total of £56 million on flood and coastal defence overall. We are therefore investing very considerable sums of public money, and rightly so. However, the resources available are not infinite in this or any other area. I hope that my hon. Friend will also accept that the cost-benefit analyses which the Department rightly insists are carried out help to provide a broad indication of the types of coastal defence project that are likely to represent the best return on that capital investment.
  In conclusion, I assure my hon. Friend that I and my ministerial colleagues will give very careful consideration to the points that he has raised. When he sees my noble Friend, he may wish to elaborate on other points. We have yet to reach a final decision on the Naze proposals. I have been entirely open with my hon. Friend about the rules to which we work and the potential difficulties we envisage with the district council's present scheme. However, I shall not prejudge the eventual decision tonight. I think that we have had a useful and constructive debate in which my hon. Friend has raised with considerable skill and care some very important and fundamental issues. We will want to reflect on them before reaching a final view, but I assure my hon. Friend that we hope to do that in the very near future. I assure him that he will be the first to know when we have done so.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past One o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Court Time
  Mr. French
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what progress has been made on the Lord Chancellor's proposals concerning the management of court time;

  (2) what measures he has taken to improve the use of court time.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Over the last two years a number of measures have been introduced to improve the use of court time in the civil courts: jurisdictional changes and new arrangements for the allocation of business between the High Court and county courts which ensure cases are directed to the most appropriate forum for trial; procedural changes which advocate the early exchange of more informative pleadings so that trials can be focused on the issues in dispute, and the development of 80 county court trail centres which offer continuous hearings.

  In the Crown court and magistrates courts, recommendations to reduce delay made by a working party on pre-trial issues are being introduced. Three pilot schemes are already operating to monitor the effectiveness of magistrates committing defendants to appear in the Crown court on a specific date, either for pleas to be taken or directions given if the case is contested. The guidance for Crown court listing officers is being revised and will include maximum times for the period between committal and trial. Magistrates and their clerks have been asked to give the reduction of waiting times a high priority and are being encouraged to develop methods of listing which will minimise the time people have to wait at court.

  Magistrates
  Mr. French
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many applications have been made for the post of magistrate; and how many appointments have been made in each of the last five years.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The first part of the question cannot be answered without disproportionate cost. The numbers of appointments made by the Lord Chancellor for each of the last five years are:

  Number

  1991

  1,687

  1990

  1,756

  1989

  1,687

  1988

  1,480

  1987

  1,213

  Mr. French
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many magistrates have been relieved of their duties in each of the last five years owing to misconduct.
  92
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Prior to 1989, the records kept provide no differentiation between those who were removed on the grounds of misconduct and those removed on other grounds. However, the figures for each of the last three years are as follows:

  Number

  1991

  10

  1990

  10

  1989

  7

  Mr. French
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what criteria are used in the appointment of magistrates.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The criteria used in the appointment of magistrates are set out in the Lord Chancellor's "Directions for Advisory Committees on Justices of the Peace" at pages 12 to 14. A copy of these directions is in the Library.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many complaints are received each year concerning the conduct of magistrates.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  During the period 1 May 1991 to 30 April 1992, a total of 70 conduct files were opened where complaints were received which, by nature of allegations made, could have involved possible disciplin-ary action by the Lord Chancellor.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department to what extent political persuasion is taken into account in the selection of magistrates.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  A candidate's political persuasion is neither a qualification nor disqualification for appointment. Political persuasion and other factors are taken into account in order to obtain, so far as possible, a bench which broadly reflects the area it serves.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what training magistrates receive; and how many are deemed unfit for duty after they have been selected.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  All newly appointed magistrates receive induction training totalling a minimum of 16 hours before they sit to adjudicate. This should be completed within three months after appointment. Following this, within 12 months after appointment they undertake the basic course—year one—comprising sitting in court to adjudicate with two experienced colleagues; visits to a local adult prison and a young offender institute, and an introduction to the probation service—totalling six hours; and a training course of 12 hours. The basic course continues in years two and three after appointment and may either take the form of four hours' training in each year or be combined into eight hours' training as a residential course. Further training takes the form of 12 hours' training in each three-year period thereafter. Members of the juvenile court—youth court from October 1992—and family panels, and chairmen of courts receive specialist training. No justice has been removed because he or she has failed to complete the training satisfactorily.

  Witnesses (Non-appearance)
  Mr. French
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many cases are adjourned each year owing to the non-appearance of witnesses.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No figures relating to this subject are generally collected.

  Immigration (Guidance)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the effects on his Department's work of the new guidance notes on the interpretation of the Immigration Act 1971.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The only recent policy guidance to immigration officers of which I am aware relates to primary purpose cases. The effect of policy on caseloads is continuously assessed but, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department made clear, in answer to a question from the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on 30 June,Official Report, columns 523–24, it is not possible to estimate accurately the number of applicants who may be effected by this guidance. The effect, therefore, on the number of appeals to the immigration appellate authorities is similarly unclear.

  Court of Appeal
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he has plans to permit the Court of Appeal to be televised; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has no plans at the present time to promote amending legislation to permit the televising of proceedings in the Court of Appeal.

  Retired Judges
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to discontinue the system whereby retired judges are permitted to sit part time; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor has no plans to end the arrangements under existing legal provisions whereby retired judges may be asked to sit judicially from time to time. The Judicial Pensions and Retirement Bill[Lords], at present under consideration in another place, contains a provision which would prevent a retired judge from sitting after reaching the age of 75.

  Judicial Salaries
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on judicial salaries.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No. The Government are presently considering the salaries of members of the judiciary.

  Plea Bargaining
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he plans to introduce a pilot project for court-based plea bargaining; and if he will make a statement.
  94
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor and I are considering the matter, but there are no plans to introduce a pilot project for court-based plea bargaining at the present time.

  Judicial Pensions
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if it will be possible for judges to buy additional years under the new judicial pension provisions.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Judicial Pensions and Retirement Bill[Lords], which has recently completed its Committee stage in another place, contains a regulation-making power to enable provision to be made to entitle qualifying judicial officers to make voluntary contribution towards the cost of provision of additional benefits under the new judicial pension scheme.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Attorney-General when he expects to lay before Parliament and publish the annual report of the Crown prosecution service for the year 1991–92.

  The Attorney-General
  The CPS annual report for 1991–92 was laid before Parliament at 11 o'clock this morning. I have caused a copy of the report to he placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Former Members
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what steps are being taken to make known to qualified former Members the availability of special guest passes.

  Mr. Beith
  It was agreed by the former Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) that the initiative for applying for special guest passes should lie with the former Members concerned. No specific steps are therefore being taken to alert those concerned to the availability of the new passes, although it is understood that a number of former Members have already submitted applications.

  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, how many special guest passes have been issued to qualified former hon. Members of the House.

  Mr. Beith
  Thirty-three.

  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, how many former Members are known to qualify for special guest passes.

  Mr. Beith
  Excluding the 81 former Members who have been elevated to the peerage and who therefore continue to enjoy certain facilities in this House, 205 former Members are known to qualify for special guest passes.

  Disabled People
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what special arrangements are in place within the precincts of the House of Commons for the parking of vehicles used by disabled people; how these arrangements are enforced; how the abuses of these arrangements are dealt with; what plans he has to improve such arrangements; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Beith
  The Serjeant at Arms has authorised four hon. Members, four Members' secretaries and 10 staff of the House to use on a first-come first-served basis the 12 parking spaces reserved for the use of vehicles driven by or used by photo-identity pass holders who are disabled. In addition, authority for the use of these spaces is given from time to time to disabled visitors and to photo-identity pass holders suffering from temporary incapacity.

  Those who use the other parking bays in Star Court have been reminded not to use the spaces reserved for disabled people.

  These arrangements are dependent in the first instant on the co-operation of all right hon. and hon. Members; but they do form part of the responsibilities of the Administration Committee in respect of regulations governing car parking in the precincts of the House. That Committee will act on advice from the Serjeant at Arms.

  I understand no complaints of misuse or abuse have been received this year and it would appear that the arrangements are working satisfactorily.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what plans he has to improve access and facilities for disabled people in the House; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Beith
  The arrangements for access and facilities for the disabled are kept under regular review. The hon. Gentleman may have noticed the recent installation of a stair lift up to the Grand Committee Room and Jubilee Room and handrails leading to the interview rooms off Westminster Hall. Consultants were commissioned last year to look at what might be done to improve access to the main public areas. Their initial report has been examined and further advice is now being sought.

  Telephone Directories
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what was the cost of producing new green plastic folders for the House of Commons telephone directory; why it was necessary to replace the black folders; how many were issued(a) to each hon. Member and (b) in total; who approved the cost; and how much was spent.

  Mr. Beith
  Some 3,500 new folders and directories are to be issued including a single personal issue to each hon. Member. The cost of the folders was £5,181. Their purchase was approved by the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee of the Services Committee in the last Parliament. The Sub-Committee's successor committee, the Administration Committee, approved a mock-up of the new directory and the new folder.

  The new green folders for the House of Commons telephone directory are to replace the current black folders
  96
  which are wearing out and which are too small satisfactorily to contain the newly designed telephone directory.

DEFENCE

  Low Flying
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how his policy on the release of information concerning low-flying avoidance areas has changed since the introduction of the new open government measures.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My Department will continue to provide information on how to apply for avoidance status and on matters taken into account when applications are considered; applicants are informed of the decision in all cases. Our policy continues to be based on the considerations set out in the Government's reply—HC 659, October 1990, page v—to the Defence Committee's report on low flying.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the numbers of low-flying sorties by aircraft type for each month of 1992 to date.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information for the period January 1992 to April 1992, the most recent month for which figures are available, is as follows:

  Numbers of Sorties

  Aircraft type

  January

  February

  March

  April

  Buccaneer

  153

  153

  95

  116

  F-4

  87

  167

  61

  115

  Harrier

  511

  698

  433

  541

  Hawk

  1,298

  1,563

  1,529

  1.500

  Jaguar

  403

  647

  761

  426

  Jet Provost

  567

  730

  669

  615

  Tornado

  1,704

  2,174

  2,232

  1.879

  Tucano

  348

  422

  349

  273

  A-10

  442

  522

  586

  542

  F-15

  0

  0

  4

  14

  F-111

  633

  693

  916

  858

  Other aircraft(including helicopters)

  3,482

  4,922

  5,541

  3,696

  Monthly total sorties

  9,628

  12,691

  13,176

  10.575

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to measure the noise levels generated by the F 15E aircraft at low level.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We hope to measure the noise generated by the F15E aircraft at low level later this year.

  Aurora
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many times the radar operators at RAF Machrihanish have detected the new United States aircraft Aurora during the last 12 months; and if he will list by location where it has been detected by other RAF radar monitoring stations.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The existence of such an aircraft would be a matter for the United States authorities.

  "Agenda 21"
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to ensure that his Department's bases and facilities meet the guidelines set
  97
  out in paragraph 20.23, as amended, of chapter 20 of "Agenda 21" as agreed at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is MOD policy to comply fully with United Kingdom environmental legislation except for certain operational activities where compliance is impractical and closely controlled exemptions are permitted. Appropriate guidance exists on the management of hazardous materials and wastes at defence establishments. It is MOD policy to minimise or eliminate the use of hazardous substances wherever practicable.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence following the agreement between the United States of America and Russia to cut strategic nuclear arms and to co-operate on the global protection against limited strikes system, whether Britain will develop a different tactical air-to-surface missile type delivery system.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We are continuing to study a range of possible options for the eventual replacement of WE177. These include French and American tactical air-to-surface missiles. No decision has yet been taken.

  Jet Skis
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans the Queen's Harbour Master, Portsmouth has to extend restrictions on the use of jet skis in those waters off the Isle of Wight for which he is responsible.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None.

  David Pascall
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at what time RAF Leuchars was advised of the needs to provide an aircraft to rescue David Pascall on Sunday 28 June; at what time the aircraft was scrambled; how long was the flight time to the point of pick up of Mr. Pascall; how long was the flight time from the point of pick up to Vale of Leven hospital; and at what time the aircraft returned to RAF Leuchars.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  RAF Leuchars was advised on Sunday 28 June at 2.03 pm. The aircraft was airborne at 2.10 pm, reaching Mr. Pascall some 35 minutes later. Once Mr. Pascal] was on board, the aircraft took 20 minutes to reach the Vale of Leven hospital, after which it returned to Leuchars, landing at 5.25 pm. The Royal Navy search and rescue flight at Prestwick, which operates to the same 15 minutes standby as the RAF search and rescue flight at Leuchars, would have had a similar transit time to the incident.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civil servants in his Department are paid at a rate exceeding that of a Cabinet Minister.

  Mr. Aitken
  The total salary, including reduced parliamentary salary, of most Cabinet Ministers is £63,047. The number of civil servants in the Ministry of Defence whose pay currently exceeds this figure is 12.

  Empty Property
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the 24 empty houses referred to in his answer of 18 December 1991,Official Report, column 160, have been sold; how many are under offer; and how many have been sold to ex-service personnel.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None has been sold. Six are surplus to my Department's requirements and these are currently being offered for sale through the services discount scheme.

  Service Children's Schools
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Service Children's Schools (North West Europe) Defence Support Agency for 1992–93.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The chief executive of Service Children's Schools (North West Europe)—SCS (NWE) —has been set the following key targets for 1992–93:To implement, so far as it is feasible in the British Forces Germany (BFG) situation, the Education Reform Act to the statutory timetable laid down for England and Wales by: Introducing the National Curriculum to SCS (NWE) by subject and Key Stage; introducing pupil assessment by subject and Key Stage; and implementing Teacher Appraisal.
  To implement the SCS (NWE) "Schools For the Future Plan" in line with BFG drawdown.
  To produce Management and School Development Plans to enable "taut" full cost financial and management planning within an agreed budget and to achieve annual efficiency savings of at least 1 per cent.
  To increase the overall pass rate at GCSE (grades A-G) and "A" Levels (grades A-E) by 10 per cent. Within this target achieve an annual 2 per cent. improvement in the proportion of pupils achieving grades A, B and C.
  To ensure that all teachers meet at least two of the four qualification-match criteria for their post with at least 75 per cent. meeting three criteria and at least 50 per cent. meeting all four criteria. The criteria are: a recognised professional qualification; relevant Specialist subject or phase qualifica-tions; broad and relevant previous teaching experience; and relevant post-entry in-service training;
  To implement Parents' Charter requirements for: child's progress report to parents annually and on change of school; examination/Standard Attainment Tests (SATs) results to be reported to parents annually; and informing parents of relevant educational developments.
  To be in a position to submit an application for a Charter Mark in mid-1993.

  A copy of the annual report and accounts for 1991–92 will be placed in the Library shortly.

  "Options for Change"
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will respond to the third report of the Defence Select Committee, Session 1991–92, "Options for Change: Army, Review of the White Paper, Britain's Army for the 90s".

  Mr. Rifkind
  I have today placed in the Libraries of both Houses a memorandum giving the Government's formal response to this report.

  Trident
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the Trident programme.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I am pleased to announce that an order is being placed today with Vickers Shipbuilding and
  99
  Engineering Ltd. at Barrow-in-Furness for the construc-tion of the Royal Navy's fourth Vanguard class Trident missile submarine.

  Negotiations have resulted in a keenly priced contract, and a price lower on a comparable basis than those for the first three submarines. This reflects improvements in productivity at VSEL and the considerable experience the company now has in building this class of submarine.

  The order underlines the Government's commitment to the United Kingdom Trident programme and to the effective maintenance of Britain's strategic nuclear deterrent, while obtaining the best possible value for money for the taxpayer.

  Trident remains firmly on course for introduction into service with the Royal Navy in the mid-1990s.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Civil Servants (Shares)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list all regulations covering senior civil servants' shareholdings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  Central rules covering civil servants' shareholdings are contained in the "Civil Service Pay and Conditions of Service Code", paragraphs 9874 and 9875; and the "Establishment Officers Guide", paragraph 4065. Copies of both documents are in the Library of the House. In some cases, Departments and agencies supplement these rules by further regulations and guidance in handbooks or equivalent documents for their staff. These are not held centrally.

  Civil Service College (Theft)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the value of the 3 ft 6 in diameter table stolen from the Civil Service college, Sunningdale; what period of time elapsed before it was noticed it had been stolen; in what circumstances it was stolen; whether it has yet been recovered; how many other items were stolen at the same time: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  This is a matter for the chief executive and I have asked her to reply direct to the hon. Member. Copies of the letter will be placed in the House of Commons Library and Public Information Office.

  Duchy Aid
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many requests were made to the Duchy of Lancaster for financial aid in each year since 1982; if he will give the numbers that were unsuccessful; and if he will list the criteria by which such applications are judged.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Since 1982 some 750 payments have been made by the Duchy of Lancaster benevolent fund. Most of these were selected by local advisers within the county palatine. There have been few unsuccessful applicants. These were either not connected with the county palatine or other areas of duchy interest, or had a reasonable prospect of raising funds elsewhere.
  100
  Decisions as to suitability have been based on the need for, and benefit to be derived from, each payment, while taking into account the wish to spread payments throughout the county palatine.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what consideration will be given by the Duchy of Lancaster to the application for financial aid from the Lancashire free legal action centre.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The application for financial aid from the Lancashire free legal action centre in Blackpool is being considered with other requests for financial assistance the duchy office receives. In keeping with normal practice we will be taking local advice before any decision is made.

  Alzheimer's Disease
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if she will commission additional research with the Medical Research Council for the development of Interleukin receptor antagonist—IL-Ira—in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Medical Research Council is funded by grant in aid from the science budget, and is an independent body which normally decides its research priorities on its own expert judgment. It is not currently funding research to develop interleukin receptor in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. However, it is supporting a considerable body of work relevant to the actions of interleukin in immunology, and has recently launched, with the help of additional funding from the science budget, a neuroscience approach to human health to develop further its research in fields such as Alzheimer's disease. The MRC welcomes high-quality research proposals relevant to the disease, and will consider them in competition by the usual peer review mechanisms.

  Information Disclosure
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will set out the improvements in widening the scope of information disclosure to the public that are expected to arise from the European Commission's proposal for a council regulation on security measures applicable to classified information—Com (92) 56 final.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Government consider that the draft regulation in its present form is unworkable. In consultation with other member states, the Government's aim will be to ensure that, within a framework which encourages greater openness in the EC's business, any genuinely sensitive material is effectively protected through appropriate security measures.

TRANSPORT

  River Safety
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will publish the report of the inquiry into river safety by Mr. John Hayes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  After the tragic collision between the Bowbelle and the Marchioness in August 1989 an
  101
  investigation by the marine accident investigation branch —MAIB—was immediately mounted. Directions on two new safety measures were made straight away, and action put in hand on six further safety recommendations which were announced in the MAIB interim report 10 days later.

  The MAIB final report could not be published until April 1991, because of possible prejudice to legal proceedings, but its 27 recommendations were published separately in July 1990. All were accepted immediately, and prompt action taken to put them into effect. All but eight recommendations have been implemented; five of those outstanding have been the subject of public consultation, and resultant legislation will be in force this autumn; one depends on international developments; and consideration of the remaining two, relating to the involvement of military helicopters in civil search and rescue, is not yet completed.

  The MAIB report commented, with the acknowledged benefit of hindsight, that action taken by the Department in the past had not gone as far as it should. My predecessor felt that further investigation was needed and invited Mr. John Hayes, secretary of the Law Society, to carry out an inquiry into the Department of Transport's handling of its responsibility for the safety of vessels on rivers and inland waters. I am today publishing his report.

  While pointing out that
  "The onus for the safety of travellers rests with the operators who undertake to provide a service for profit",

  Mr. Hayes concludes that the Department
  "showed technical competence and dedication but lacked the vision and drive to lead the river marine industry into accepting that high safety standards and commercial success were compatible."

  I am considering carefully all Mr. Hayes's 22 recommendations. Several concern the overall approach of the Department to the exercise of its functions in this area. We are urged to take a much higher profile in promoting safety among a variety of fragmented operators and regulators. Conditions vary greatly in different parts of the country and I have therefore decided to establish a series of district marine safety committees throughout the United Kingdom to review for each area the way in which responsibilities for safety, rescue and accident prevention are presently distributed. The committees will identify risks and the scope for reducing them, assess the necessary new measures and ensure that systems are set up to support the arrangements.

  Mr. Hayes made a number of suggestions concerning the way in which the Surveyor-General's Organisation should in future exercise its responsibilities in connection with safety on rivers and at sea. Following recent reports by the National Audit Office and a Committee in another place, I have had an internal review carried out. This has recommended that the organisation be reconstituted as a Marine Safety Agency, responsible to me and with the degree of independence enjoyed by other next steps agencies. I am therefore putting in hand work to establish whether the Surveyor-General's Organisation should become a candidate for executive agency status. I will make a further announcement of my conclusions in due course.

  Mr. Hayes recommended that there should be an early review of the rescue arrangements and equipment on the Thames. The Government have given careful considera-tion to the recommendation but have concluded that a further review of this kind would not be justified. Action is, however, being taken to ensure that the lessons from the
  102
  Marchioness/Bowbelle disaster have been fully assimilated. In addition, Thames rescue arrangements and equipment will also be examined by the relevant district marine safety committee as part of its wider review.

  A full list of Mr. Hayes's recommendations and the Government's initial response to them is being placed in the Library.

  Mr. Hayes's report makes a valuable contribution to the work we are doing to improve safety standards on our rivers and inland waterways, and I am most grateful to him for his work and that of his advisers, Captain Nic Rutherford and Mr. Mike Henderson.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects rolling stock for channel tunnel night passenger services to be ordered.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail and its continental partner railways have now confirmed with Metro Cammell their order for rolling stock. Night services are expected to begin in 1995.

  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on discussions, within the Council of Ministers, about the intervention by the Commissioner for Competition Policy in the decision by British Rail, together with the national railways of France, Belgium, Holland and Germany, to operate through sleeper services via the channel tunnel; and if he will resist any attempt to prevent the provision of such services.

  Mr. Freeman
  There has been no discussion of the channel tunnel night trains within the Council of Ministers. The question of exempting from European Community competition rules the joint venture agreement between the participating railways covering the purchase and operation of the night trains is a matter between the railways and the European Commission.

  Air Transport Policy
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to reply to the first report from the Transport Committee of Session 1991–92 on developments in European Community air transport policy.

  Mr. MacGregor
  My predecessor as Secretary of State, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), submitted the Government's response to the Committee on 16 March 1992. Copies of the response have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many civil servants in his Department are paid at a rate exceeding that of a Cabinet Minister.

  Mr. Norris
  The total salary, including reduced parliamentary salary, of most Cabinet Ministers is £63,047. The number of civil servants in the Department of Transport whose pay currently exceeds this figure is one.

  Reduced-Mobility Workers
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the Council of Ministers to approve the draft directive on safe transport to work of workers with reduced mobility; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Roger Freeman
  There was full discussion on the draft directive on safe transport to work of workers with reduced mobility in European Standing Committee A on 16 October 1991. I explained my position in detail at that time.

  I welcome moves towards more accessible transport for people with disabilities and my Department is actively promoting and encouraging them. There are a number of legal and technical objections to the directive as currently drafted. I will he discussing with the industry, with disabled people as consumers and with European colleagues, the best way to make progress.

  Unadopted Roads
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to extend local authorities' duties and powers to adopt currently unadopted roads.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I have no such plans.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the obligations on local authorities to maintain those unadopted roads which have operated as public tracks for over 20 years.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Section 31 of the Highways Act 1980 provides that a way over land which has been enjoyed by the public as of right and uninterruptedly for fully 20 years shall be deemed to be dedicated as a highway. But of itself this imposes no obligation for such a highway to be maintained at public expense.

  M1/M62
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration has been given to the quality of life in local communities within the proposed M1/M62 link road.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The effects of the proposals on local communities are considered in the environmental appraisal framework.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the extent to which the M1/M62 link motorway will attract traffic from the Snake and Woodhead passes, and divert south Yorkshire trans-Pennine traffic through west Yorkshire via the M 1.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  An assessment has been made which indicates that the transfer of trans-Pennine traffic from south Yorkshire to the proposed M1/M62 link road would not form a significant proportion of the total flow on that road.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how financial evaluations of cost-effectiveness have been undertaken for the proposed M1/M62 link road.
  104
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The economic evaluation of the scheme has been carried out using the Department's standard cost-benefit analysis—COBA. A copy of the COBA manual is in the House Library.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to be able to announce the results of the public consultation process on the proposed M1/M62 motorway link; and if he will undertake to publish(a) the number of responses in favour of the yellow route, ( b) the number of responses against the yellow route, (c) the number of responses in favour of the purple route and (d) the number of responses against the purple route.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  A full analysis of the response to the public consultation will take many months, after which an announcement will be made. Information about the responses will be published at that time.

  Totton Western Bypass
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he received the inspector's report on the final stage of the Totton western bypass; and when he expects to announce his final decision on the route.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The inspector's report on the reopened inquiries into the Totton western bypass was received by the Secretary of State for Transport on 28 May 1992. A final decision on the route may be expected by mid-August.

TRANSPORT

  Lowestoft Relief Road
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will instruct his officials to progress detailed discussions with staff at the Co-operative Wholesale Society factory at Lowestoft over the route of the Al2 relief road and the new crossing of Lake Lothing; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when he expects to be in a position to give the hon. Member for Waveney a substantive reply further to his holding letter of 2 March, Ref. C/PSO/1907/92; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 6 July 1992]: The Co-operative Wholesale Society's alternative proposals for a Lowestoft relief road are currently the subject of an assessment of economic, environmental and engineering aspects. The assessment is expected to be complete in approximately four to six weeks' time, when a substantive reply to my hon. Friend's correspondence on the subject will be sent.

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to ensure that those vans which are of the nature of saloon or estate cars in shape are classified as in category 1 for toll purposes under the Severn Bridges Act 1992.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 6 July 1992]: No. Car-based vans fall within the description of small goods vehicles for tolling purposes, and thus fall in toll category 2.
  105
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment he has made of the amount of traffic now taking the northern route for the journey into Wales following the changes in the system of collecting tolls on the Severn bridge;

  (2) what change there has been in the amount of road accidents as a result of traffic taking the northern route into Wales following the changes in the system of collecting tolls on the Severn bridge;

  (3) what assessment he has made of environmental damage to villages in Gloucester as a result of traffic taking the northern route into Wales following the changes in the system of collecting tolls on the Severn bridge.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 6 July 1992]: No assessment has been made of the effects of traffic diversion from the Severn bridge as result of the recent toll changes. There was a reduction in westbound traffic flows on the bridge immediately after the introduction of the new tolls. There is already some evidence to show that some drivers who may have diverted initially are now reverting to using the bridge.

  Motor Cycles
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on type approval as relating to motor cycles.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Many representations have been received on EC type-approval, mostly from private individuals, but also from representative organisations and industry. Apart from questioning the need for type-approval, they stressed, among other things, that customisation, low-volume manufacturers and sale of second-hand machines should be protected. Some went on to advocate that type-approval should apply only to the original design of a motor-cycle and not to machines in use. While supporting the principle of EC type-approval, industry stressed that much more time was needed to bring the scheme into operation. The Government took up these and other points during EC negotiations, and are now content that the main concerns of the motor-cycle user and industry are met in the type-approval framework directive as adopted on 30 June.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on the need for leg protectors for motor cyclists.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Many representations have been received on this matter, mostly from private individuals, but also from representative organisations and industry. The majority are opposed to leg protectors, and many reflect the view of the motor-cycle industry that they could increase injuries to other parts of the body, particularly the head. The Government's response to industry criticism has been in the form of a research paper by the Transport Research Laboratory (working paper WP/VS/213: "TRL Review of Research on Motorcycle Leg Protection— 1991"). Among other things, it concludes that all the evidence to date, and there is much of it covering a very wide range of conditions, shows the TRL-designed leg protectors to be successful in achieving their objectives of reducing leg injuries without increase of other injuries, while being compatible with the production of motor-cycles. I have arranged for a copy of the TRL review to be placed in the Library today.
  106
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has has with the EC regarding type approval for motor cycles.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Full discussions were held in Council prior to the adoption of the EC motor-cycle type-approval framework directive on 30 June. A further 23 Commission proposals for the separate directives that will constitute EC motor-cycle whole-vehicle type-approval are yet to be considered by Council.

  Street Furniture
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what street furniture local authorities can add to unadopted roads(a) with and (b) without permission of the road owners.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Local authorities may place any street furniture in unadopted roads that they may in adopted roads unless the power to do so says otherwise.

  A27
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he proposes to take regarding the blighted properties purchased on the proposed route of the A27 in the Worthing area and then let at an uneconomic rent when the leases expire in August.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  All our properties will be retained until our land-take for roadworks has been confirmed following public inquiries. As they expire, existing tenancies will be extended for further fixed terms. Rent reviews will have regard to current market rent levels and the means of the tenant.

  M42
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by how much the volume of traffic using the M42 motorway between the M6 junction and the M40 junction is greater than his Department's predictions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Department has made a number of predictions of likely traffic flows on this stretch of motorway over the period of several years during the phased construction of the M42 and M40 motorways. Projected flows for 1991 have varied between about 65,000 and 90,000 vehicles per day, with the whole of the M40 open to traffic. The figures vary for different parts of this stretch of motorway. The reasons for the disparity in the figures are changing circumstances affecting the basis on which traffic forecasts are made and the effects of developing plans for the trunk road network elsewhere. The actual flows for 1991 were about 95,000 vehicles per day.

  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment his Department has made of noise levels experienced by residents of Knowle due to traffic on the M42 motorway after the completion of the link between the M42 and the M40 motorways; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Department has made no such assessment. There is no statutory basis for one. The Department will be making an assessment of noise levels in this area when it widens the M42 motorway as proposed.

  Crossing Safety
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans his Department has to introduce safer road crossings.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  A new type of pedestrian crossing, called a Puffin crossing, is being installed at 50 trunk road sites in England during 1992–93. This crossing is equipped to detect the presence of pedestrians both on the crossing itself and waiting to cross. It automatically gives sufficient time for slow-moving people to cross in comfort and is designed to improve road safety.

  Solus 90
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those ships that currently comply with Solus 90; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is not available. All passenger ships built after 29 April 1990 and engaged on international voyages are required to comply with Solas 90.

  Air Misses
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make a statement in respect of the reported air near-miss on 26 June, involving an United Airlines Boeing 767 and a Venezuelan business jet over south Wales;

  (2) if he will make a statement in respect of the reported air near-miss on 25 June, involving an Air UK F27 and a Royal Air Force Tornado at approximately 12,000 ft, 15 miles north of Grimsby.

  Mr. Norris
  The responsibility for the safety regulation of United Kingdom civil aviation rests with the Civil Aviation Authority.

  All air-miss reports in United Kingdom airspace, involving civil or military aircraft, are investigated initially by the joint air-miss section of the national air traffic services, which is a joint CAA/Ministry of Defence organisation. They are then examined by the joint air-miss working group (JAWG), an independent committee drawn from a wide cross-section of responsible civil and aviation bodies.

  This incident is the subject of active investigation at this time. I have drawn the hon. Member's question to the attention of the CAA and have asked it to write to him direct when the investigation is complete.

  Air Fares
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) under what circumstances he is required to give approval for an air fare for scheduled flights in or out of the United Kingdom;

  (2) if he will set out the exact process by which an application for the setting of an airfare, for which he is required to give approval, is made; to what extent it involves (a) the Civil Aviation Authority, (b) officials of his Department, (c) any other body and (d) Ministers.

  Mr. Norris
  At present, the Civil Aviation Authority has the power to regulate air fares. Fares on scheduled services within the EC performed by EC carriers have to be 108
  approved if they are reasonably related to the carrier's long-term fully allocated relevant costs, or otherwise meet the requirements of current EC legislation. Fares on services to points outside the EC are governed by bilateral arrangements. From 1 January 1993 all fares within the EC are to be set by free pricing: there will no longer be an approval system.

  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what powers he has to regulate the air fares of British charter airlines;

  (2) what powers he has to regulate the air fares of non-British charter airlines flying in and out of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Norris
  The cost of a seat on a charter flight is part of the overall cost of the package offered by the tour operator.

  As from 1 January 1993, European Community arrangements will cover charter services for the first time. Existing practice will be continued, as those arrangements stipulate that charter rates are to be determined by free negotiation between the parties concerned.

  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will set out the powers he has to reject, vary, or accept applications for levels of air fares for(a) British scheduled airlines and (b) non-British scheduled airlines on routes other than EC or transatlantic;

  (2) if he will set out what powers he has to reject, vary, or accept applications for levels of air fares for (a) British scheduled airlines and (b) non-British scheduled airlines on transatlantic routes.

  Mr. Norris
  The Civil Aviation Authority has power to regulate air fares(a) in the case of United Kingdom airlines, under the air transport licensing provisions of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 and (b) in the case of airlines using foreign-registered aircraft, under part X of the Air Navigation Order 1989. In approving or disapproving a fare for international services the Civil Aviation Authority will have regard to the United Kingdom's international obligations.

  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out the powers he has to reject, vary, or accept applications for levels of air fares for(a) British scheduled airlines and (b) non-British scheduled airlines on EC routes.

  Mr. Norris
  EC regulation 2342/90 presently covers the setting of fares on scheduled services within the EC performed by British and other EC carriers. Generally, fares have to be approved if they are related to the carrier's costs. Fares charged by carriers from third countries on EC routes are governed by the bilateral agreements under which those services are permitted.

  Arrangements for EC carriers operating within the EC will change substantially on 1 January 1993 when free pricing is introduced for all carriers. The approval system disappears, and a carrier can bring in a fare on 24 hours' notice.

  There will be a safeguard against unfair pricing; but in agreeing this new regulation the Council and Commission made it clear that this safeguard was not intended as a means to reimpose a pricing policy on carriers. In the United Kingdom, whilst fares will be notified to the CAA, it will be for the Secretary of State to decide whether the safeguard should be activated.
  109
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the date of the next meeting between his Department and the relevant United States authorities to discuss the Bermuda agreement.

  Mr. Norris
  The next round of discussions with the US authorities about possible liberalisation of the Bermuda 2 air services agreement is due to begin on 20 July.

  Scheduled Flights
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the United Kingdom airports from which scheduled transatlantic flights leave.

  Mr. Norris
  Scheduled passenger flights to airports in north America, south America, and the Caribbean leave the United Kingdom airports listed:

  Glasgow

  London Gatwick

  London Heathrow

  London Stansted

  Manchester

  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list United Kingdom regional airports from which scheduled flights leave to airports abroad, other than in north America.

  Mr. Norris
  Scheduled passenger flights to airports abroad, other than in north America and the Caribbean, leave the United Kingdom regional airports listed:

  Aberdeen

  Belfast International

  Birmingham

  Blackpool

  Bristol

  Cardiff-Wales

  East Midlands

  Edinburgh

  Glasgow

  Humberside

  Leeds Bradford

  Liverpool

  Manchester

  Newcastle

  Norwich

  Plymouth

  Southampton

  Teesside

  Source: BAA Flight Guide, Summer 1992 edition.

  Motor Vehicles Register
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will introduce a public register of motor vehicles on lease or hire purchase, together with an obligation to register, as a measure to protect innocent purchasers and intermediaries from fraud.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No. Hire Purchase Information plc (HPI) has for many years maintained a record of third party interests. Motor traders have ready access to this information and I understand that HPI is considering how it may be made more readily available to the general public. I see no reason for the public sector to duplicate this service.

  Charter Flights
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list United Kingdom regional airports from which charter flights to airports abroad leave.
  110
  Mr. Norris
  Comprehensive information about the United Kingdom regional airports from which charter flights leave for airports abroad in the current season is not available in the Department. Information relating to 1991 is available in "UK Airports: Annual Statements of Movements, Passengers and Cargo 1991", published by the Civil Aviation Authority as CAP 504.

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make an assessment of the effect on small businesses in the Severnside area of the recent increases in toll charges on the Severn bridge.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 6 July 1992]: A report by Pieda plc which was recently published by the Department of Employment concluded, on the basis of a survey of businesses in Avon and south Wales, that the second Severn crossing scheme, taking account of the new tolls, would have a positive effect on local trading and commercial activity, and stimulate investment opportunities in south Wales. Copies of the executive summary of the report, entitled "The Economic Impact of the Second Severn Crossing", are in the House Library.

  Road Blocks, France
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has had concerning the impact on United Kingdom trade, tourism and the free movement of goods and people of the road blocks set up by French hauliers, dockers and farmers in Macon, Narbonne, Perpignan and elsewhere; what proposals he has to approach the French ambassador to the Court of St. James on the matter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 6 July 1992]: We have received representations from or on behalf of individual transport operators and the relevant trade associations. My right hon. Friend is keeping in close and regular contact with Mr. Bianco, his French counterpart, and is urging him to find solutions to this appalling situation as quickly as possible.

  Trust Ports
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what legislative provisions govern the freedom of trust ports not to release their annual report and accounts to interested parties or the public.

  Mr. Norris
  The relevant provision, which will be applicable where it has been incorporated in local harbour legislation, is section 50 of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847. This provides for the harbour undertakers to prepare annual accounts and send a copy to the county clerk, who will open them for inspection by the public for a small fee.

  Yachts
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice he gives(a) Commonwealth countries and (b) Caribbean nations on apprehending stolen United Kingdom registered yachts.

  Mr. Norris
  Tracing and recovering stolen yachts and apprehending those responsible is essentially a police matter working in co-operation with foreign law enforcement agencies.
  111
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve(a) the use of ships registered papers and (b) the registration of yachts within the EC.

  Mr. Norris
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies he has made of(a) the principal destinations and (b) the sale of United Kingdom registered yachts stolen from the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is not available centrally and could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

  Tilbury
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the management of the recently privatised Port of Tilbury to discuss the write-off of outstanding loans; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  There are no Government loans to the Port of Tilbury.

  Marine Theft
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last attended a conference on marine theft from the leisure sector in(a) the EC and (b) worldwide.

  Mr. Norris
  Never.

  Roads, West Lancashire
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made on the proposed improvement scheme for the A59 and A570 roads in west Lancashire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Consulting engineers were appointed last year to investigate possible routes for three schemes in the Liverpool-Preston corridor; the A59 Ormskirk-Walmer bridge improvement (which would incorporate a bypass of Burscough); the A570 Ormskirk bypass; and the A570 Scarisbrick and Pinfold bypass. This work is still at an early stage. I cannot yet say when we shall be able to publish proposals.

  Ports (Loans)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the outstanding loans between the Government and the Port of London authority and the Port of Tilbury.

  Mr. Norris
  The Port of London authority repaid all its outstanding Government loans in April 1992.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Fire Station, Crossmaglen
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the current projected start date for work on the new fire station, Crossmaglen, Newry; what are the reasons for delays in the commencement of the building work; and if he will take steps to ensure that the work is started within the current financial year.
  112
  Mr. Atkins
  The fire authority considered tenders for the fire station at Crossmaglen on 23 June 1992 and awarded a contract. Work will commence within the next few months and should be completed in the spring of 1993. The delay in the commencement of building work arose as a result of the authority's decision to retender.

  Customs Clearance
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to introduce measures to assist customs clearance agents(a) to prepare for the social impact of and (b) to cope with the economic consequences of the removal of tax barriers within the EC on 1 January 1993.

  Mr. Atkins
  European social fund assistance is being used by the Training and Employment Agency and others to finance activities aimed at the retaining or redeployment of those employed in small and medium-sized enterprises threatened with redundancies. There is also scope for some assistance within the existing INTERREG programme which was specifically designed to help border regions deal with the advent of the single market. In addition, assistance may become available as a result of recent proposals by the European Commission on the redeployment of customs agents, but it will be some time before final details are known.

  Official in the Department of Economic Development, including the Training and Employment Agency, can offer detailed advice about existing initiatives and have been in contact with customs clearance agents' representatives.

  Scottish Power
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent communications his Department has had with Scottish Power concerning plans to connect the province's electricity grid with the Scottish grid via a sea bed cable.

  Mr. Atkins
  None. The project is being progressed by Northern Ireland Electricity and Scottish Power directly.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many civil servants in his Department are paid at a rate exceeding that of a Cabinet Minister.

  Mr. Mates
  Three officials currently earn more than £63,047, the total salary of a Cabinet Minister, including reduced parliamentary salary.

  District Electoral Areas
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when a boundary commissioner will be appointed for the purpose of forming district electoral areas; and what is the timetable for his reports.

  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. Friend has today appointed Dr. Maurice Hayes as district electoral areas commissioner to report on the grouping of local government wards in district council areas for local elections. The commissioner is an independent officer and it will be for him to decide his precise timetable; but the submission of the commissioner's report will be in time to enable my
  113
  right hon. Friend to lay before Parliament a draft Order in Council making provision for electoral areas prior to the general local elections to be held in May 1993.

  Water Disconnections
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table showing the number of water disconnections in Northern Ireland in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1979

  48

  1980

  59

  1981

  134

  1982

  123

  1983

  345

  1984

  913

  1985

  651

  1986

  388

  1987

  318

  1988

  408

  1989

  292

  1990

  258

  1991

  385

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Summer Solstice Celebrations
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what reports he has received of damage to monuments or land in the counties of Hampshire, Wiltshire, Gloucester, Avon, Dorset, Somerset and Devon for which he has responsibility, resulting from the various manifestations to celebrate the 1992 summer solstice.

  Mr. Key
  Neither I nor my statutory advisers, English Heritage, have received any reports of any damage in the counties listed by my hon. Friend. In respect of Stonehenge, English Heritage advises that due to the vigilance of its representatives and the Wiltshire police, no damage occurred at the monument.

  Grant Aid
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will establish grant-aid funding to heritage projects which do not gain private good from public funds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The Department of National Heritage supports a number of heritage projects, both directly and indirectly, through agencies such as English Heritage and the National Heritage Memorial Fund. In all of the grant regimes funded by DNH resources, the primary objective is to ensure the preservation of the historic buildings, sites, or works of art concerned, or to enhance our knowledge, understanding and enjoyment of the national heritage, by providing financial assistance which would not otherwise be available. Such policies are in the public, rather than private, interest.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many civil servants in his Department are paid at a rate exceeding that of a Cabinet Minister.
  114
  Mr. Key
  The total salary, including reduced parliamentary salary, of most Cabinet Ministers is £63,047. The number of civil servants in the Department of National Heritage whose pay currently exceeds this figure is one.

  Church Buildings
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will give financial assistance to the listed grade II church of All Saints, Clayton-with-Frickley, south Yorkshire to cover the costs of subsidence damage; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The church is potentially eligible for grant towards repairs from English Heritage, and an approach has been made by the parish. However, the major part of the repair bill is attributable to subsidence caused by undermining and the parish is pursuing a claim against British Coal for a significant proportion of the costs. A decision by English Heritage will not be possible until the question of compensation has been settled.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the practice in other EC countries of state subsidy of heritage church buildings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  No specific study has been undertaken, but general information suggests that United Kingdom grant regimes for historic buildings compare favourably with those of most other European countries.

  Sports Councils
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much cash from the Sports and Arts Foundation has been disbursed to(a) Wales, (b) the Sports Council for Wales, (c) the Sports Council for England and (d) the Sports Council for Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 3 July 1992]: The Foundation for Sport and the Arts has allocated grants totalling £1,902,380 to projects in Wales, up to 5 April 1992. No grants have been made direct to the Sports Council for Wales, the Sports Council GB or the Sports Council for Scotland. The foundation is an independent body whose grants are made at the discretion of the trustees within the terms of the foundation's trust deed.

  Royal Parks Constabulary
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what statutory protection exists for constables of the Royal Parks constabulary from unfair dismissal; what statutory restrictions exist on their taking industrial action; what statutory police federation exists to represent them; and what statutory restrictions exist on their entitlement to join a trade union.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 30 June 1992]: No statutory protection exists from unfair dismissal for constables of the Royal Parks constabulary. In line with other police forces, they are an excluded category by virtue of section 146 (3) of the Employment Protection Consolidation Act 1978. There are similarly no statutory restrictions on their taking industrial action or their entitlement to join a trades union. Constables of the Royal Parks constabulary are

  115
  represented by the National Union of Civil and Public Servants and many have exercised their right to join that trades union. No statutory police federation exists to represent the Royal Parks constabulary.

PRIME MINISTER

  Darwin Initiative
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the answer of 24 June,Official Report, columns 200–1, if he is now able to say what funding for the Darwin initiative will be; if he will make a statement on his plans to set up the initiative; how it will relate to the United States biodiversity project based in New York; what further action he plans to conserve biological diversity; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  We are asking interested parties to come forward with ideas on how best to develop a framework for the Darwin initiative and to set priorities for action. We will consider the appropriate level of funding once we have decided those priorities. The Darwin initiative is based on United Kingdom expertise in the field of biodiversity, but we will be looking at action which other countries are taking.

  In addition to launching this initiative I have also written to my EC and G7 colleagues urging them to take follow-up action to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, including taking forward the convention on biodiversity.

  Global Technology
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister, further to his speech at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, when he plans to hold the global technology partnership conference; where it will be held; who will be the invitees; which British companies will be involved; what discussions he held with British companies prior to announcing the conference; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  The technology partnership initiative will extend the work of the United Kingdom throughout the preparations for the Earth summit to promote the role of technology co-operation in achieving sustainable development. It will provide developing countries with the opportunity to gain direct access to information on environmentally sound technologies, know-how, best practices and case studies available in the United Kingdom and will open up direct channels of communication with British companies.

  The initiative will be launched by a conference and exhibition in the first half of 1993. Officials are currently working on the details of both. We propose to invite representatives of developing countries and to approach United Kingdom companies and others who have experience in providing environmental solutions for developing countries.

  Non-governmental Organisations
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister which non-governmental organisations he will be inviting to the global forum in June; if NGOs from developing nations will be involved in the preparation for the forum; where 116
  the forum will be held; what consultations he held with NGOs before announcing the forum; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  We are discussing the arrangements with nongovernmental organisations. Overseas NGOs will be invited to attend and we expect them to be involved in the preparations.

  UNCED
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister, further to his speech at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, what extra amounts he intends to give to the following areas, stating for each over what time period the donation will be made and in what form(a) forestry conservation, (b) biodiversity, (c) energy efficiency, (d) population planning and (e) sustainable agriculture; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at Rio, we are planning to make available substantial extra resources for these areas. New commitments will be made as part of the planning and management of our overseas aid programme.

  Debt Burden
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister if he has any plans to reduce the debt burden on developing countries and extend the Trinidad terms to other G7 nations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government are fully committed to the agreed international debt strategy, and have given a strong lead in tackling the debt burden of the poorest and most heavily indebted countries. In addition to relieving developing countries of over $1 billion of aid loans, this Government have been responsible for both the Toronto and Trinidad initiatives. These were the first initiatives to result in the partial cancellation of the more substantial and burdensome debts owed by the poorest countries to export credit agencies.

  The Paris club began implementing Trinidad terms in December, and seven countries have already benefited. The agreed terms give a 50 per cent. reduction in debts falling due in the course of the debtor country's IMF programme of economic reform, and commit creditors to consider reducing the whole stock of debt in three to four years' time if the debtor keeps to its IMF and Paris club agreements. The Government hope that Trinidad terms can be further developed in the direction of our original proposals, which were for a benchmark figure of two thirds reduction applied immediately to the whole stock of debt. It would also be an important step forward if all creditors, without exception, were to implement debt reduction under Trinidad terms.

  Next Steps Agencies
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to ensure that(a) letters from hon. Members to Ministers concerning next steps agencies which are concerned with political rather than administrative or

  117
  commercial matters and (b) letters concerning the planning inspectorate will be replied to by Ministers and not chief executives.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government's policy on dealing with letters from hon. Members on agency matters was most recently set out in the Government's reply to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee's 1990 report on the next steps initiative, Cm 1263, which said:
  "It is for Ministers responsible for particular Agencies to respond in the way they consider most helpful and appropriate to inquiries raised by Members. Ministers will normally ask the Chief Executive to reply to letters which concern day-to-day operational matters delegated to the Agency".

  Royal British Legion (Training Centre)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 18 June,Official Report, column 620, if he will make it his policy for any grant from PERIFRA II in respect of the Royal British Legion's bid for the establishment of a training centre at Tidworth, for the purpose of giving specific training to service personnel and dependants for employment in civilian life, to be treated as additional to the Ministry of Defence existing budget, to the extent necessary; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  The matter will be dealt with in accordance with the arrangements for grants from the European regional development fund set out in my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade's statement of 30 June at columns 525–26.

  Subsidiarity
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy on applying the principle of subsidiarity to the work of local government within the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is for Parliament to decide on the distribution of functions between central and local government.

  Intervention Wheat
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Prime Minister how many tonnes of common wheat held in intervention by the European Commission to which he referred in his answer of 25 July 1991,Official Report, column 782, were released as emergency food and (a) in 1990 and (b) in 1991 and in each half of 1991 and (c) in the first half of 1992; and what is the predicted level for the whole of the current year.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Aid will write to the hon. Member as soon as the information requested is available from the European Commission.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 July.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 July.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.
  118
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the economic summit in Munich.

  Child Health
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer on 24 June,Official Report, column 219, if he will make a statement on the implementation of declaration 76 of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Harare in October 1991, relating to the framework for collaboration to put children first, particularly through co-operation programmes devised to enhance health and literacy levels among children: what priority is being given to enhancing child health in the developing countries in Commonwealth programmes; and what funding has been allocated to these programmes.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 2 July 1992]: I have been asked to reply.

  Paragraph 76 of the Harare declaration endorses the declaration and plan of action of the survival, protection and development of children adopted by the World Summit for Children, which we support. The commit-ments undertaken at the summit to improve child health and security and to develop appropriate education are already among the basic concerns of the British aid programme.

  We are making a significant contribution through our aid programme of some £45 million a year to health and population programmes in Commonwealth countries. A breakdown of the likely beneficiaries between adults and children is not available, but a considerable proportion of this assistance will directly benefit child health.

EDUCATION

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many civil servants in his Department are paid at a rate exceeding that of a Cabinet Minister.

  Mr. Forman
  The total salary, including reduced parliamentary salary, of most Cabinet Ministers is £63,047. The number of civil servants in the Department for Education whose pay currently exceeds this figure is two.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of local education authorities in England will have two or fewer grant-maintained schools operating within their area in September 1992.

  Mr. Forth
  A total of 76 per cent. of local education authorities fall into this category. Over 50 per cent. of LEAs will have at least one GM school operating by this September.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what procedures apply to the audit of public money spent by individual city technology colleges.

  Mr. Forth
  Each city technology college is required to have its accounts audited annually by independent
  119
  auditors. The auditors are required to report that they are satisfied that the college's internal control arrangements are appropriate and they have not identified any material weaknesses. The books and accounts of the college arc also required to be open to officials of the Department for Education and the National Audit Office.

  Further Education Funding Council
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will set out the amount of the Further Education Funding Council transitional funds which will be required(a) to fund consultants' reports and (b) to meet the appropriate internal running costs of the FEFC.

  Mr. Forman
  Of the £25 million that will be available to the Further Education Funding Council for transitional funding in 1992–93, the council's running costs, including the cost of consultancies, will account for approximately one third. Just over £1 million will be spent in 1992–93 on surveys by consultants of equipment, health and safety, and colleges' management and financial controls and systems. These surveys will be of direct benefit to colleges and will save considerable duplication of effort and expenditure on their part.

  Voluntary-aided Schools, Rossendale
  Ms. Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he has received an application for capital grant in respect of an extension to St. Veronica's voluntary-aided primary school, Haslingden, Rossendale.

  School examination survey School leavers Number of leavers with A-level passes

  Thousands

  Subject

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  11990–91

  English

  33·6

  35·3

  36·4

  35·4

  34·0

  31·5

  32·9

  34·1

  36·8

  41·8

  43·6

  History

  23·1

  24·5

  24·6

  23·8

  22·9

  20·8

  22·6

  22·3

  24·2

  26·3

  25·9

  Social Studies

  4·1

  4·7

  4·9

  5·0

  5·0

  5·0

  6·1

  6·5

  7·9

  9·1

  10·3

  Creative Arts

  13·6

  14·1

  15·1

  15·1

  14·9

  14·7

  14·6

  15·3

  17·7

  19·9

  21·0

  Mathematics

  37·4

  40·9

  42·1

  42·3

  42·8

  41·4

  39·8

  41·5

  39·6

  39·2

  36·9

  Physics

  29·8

  31·8

  31·2

  31·7

  30·8

  28·7

  26·5

  26·4

  25·9

  26·3

  24·4

  Chemistry

  27·0

  29·0

  28·9

  29·0

  28·6

  27·7

  26·0

  25·9

  24·9

  26·8

  25·7

  Biology

  22·9

  23·8

  24·2

  23·8

  23·4

  21·6

  21·9

  21·5

  22·1

  24·7

  23·3

  1 Provisional.

SCOTLAND

  Police National Computer
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what information he has as to the number of accesses made to the police national computer by each constabulary over the last year; and what is the proportion of access requests made to the vehicle indexes of the new police national computer;

  (2) how many accesses were made to each index of the new police national computer over the last year; and if he will include in these statistics an indication of the number of access requests that could search more than one index.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer to the answer given to the hon. Gentleman today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department.
  120
  Mr. Forth
  Yes.

  Ms. Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he has received an application for capital grant in respect of developments of St. Mary's voluntary-aided primary school, Haslingden, Rossendale.

  Mr. Forth
  Yes.

  Capital for Popular Schools
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if, in the consultation document "Capital for Popular Schools", the definition of popular schools includes grammar schools.

  Mr. Forth
  Yes. Details of how the popular schools initiative will be implemented, following our consulta-tions, will be issued shortly to LEAs and others.

  A-levels
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many students have passed A-levels in English literature, history, sociology, art, maths, physics, chemistry and biology for each year since 1981.

  Mr. Forth
  The estimated number of school leaves who have passed A-level in English, history, social studies, creative arts, mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology for each year since 1981 are shown in the table.

  Training
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the figures, by region, in Scotland for youth training and employment training budgets for(a) 1991–92 and (b) 1992–93.

  Mr. Lang
  The outturn figures for 1991–92 and budgets for 1992–93 for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise for youth training and adult training, subject to an adjustment to the 1991–92 outturn for adult training for Scottish Enterprise to make it compatible with the coverage of the 1992–93 budget, are as follows:

  £'000

  Scottish Enterprise

  Highlands and Islands Enterprise

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Youth training

  92,356

  90,150

  7,956

  6,080

  Adult training

  99,940

  93,567

  6,566

  5,655

  121
  These budgets cover a wider range of activities than the youth training and employment training schemes. The allocation of resources by Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise to local enterprise companies is an operational matter for these two bodies; and I have asked the chairmen to write to the hon. Member.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Mr. Michael Cook
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information embassy or consular officials in Portugal received from the Portuguese authorities about the timing and decision of the appeal by Mr. Michael Cook; and if he will make a statement on developments in the case since the Adjournment debate on 9 June.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  When asked by our embassy in Lisbon on 26 June 1992 the Portuguese supreme court confirmed that Mr. Michael Cook's appeal had been heard and turned down on 17 June 1992.

  Since the Adjournment debate, consular officials have again visited Mr. Cook. They are also in touch with his Portuguese lawyer and with his brother in the United Kingdom about the implications of the appeal verdict.

  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make an official request to the Portuguese authorities that none of the physical evidence connected with the Michael Cook case be destroyed until possible further proceedings are completed.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We understand that Mr. Cook may be appealing to the European Court of Human Rights. We have therefore instructed our embassy in Lisbon to ask the Portuguese authorities to ensure that all remaining evidence is retained.

  Green Minister
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will outline the priorities for future action of the green Minister in his Department(a) over the next year and (b) over this Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Over the next year I will, as the responsible Minister, oversee FCO involvement in developing international environmental policy following the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, and instigate policies for energy saving on the FCO estates. These policies will be carried forward over the lifetime of this Parliament.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much money is in the British embassy United Kingdom military training and assistance scheme fund in Indonesia; and for what purposes this fund is used.

  Mr. Goodlad
  A total of £14·7 million is available under UKMTAS worldwide in the current financial year. The allocation of funds to individual countries varies from year to year and is not made public.
  122
  In the case of Indonesia, UKMTAS funds enable a limited number of military personnel to attend develop-mental and educational training courses in the United Kingdom.

  EC Draft Regulations
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what categories of draft regulations will be accepted by the British presidency of the European Council as being put forward as list A items by the Committee of Permanent Representatives.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Council's rules of procedure state:"items for which approval of the Council is possible without discussion shall be included in Part A, but this does not exclude the possibility of any member of the Council or of the Commission expressing an opinion at the time of the approval of these items and having statements included in the minutes.
  However, an 'A' item shall be withdrawn from the agenda, unless the Council decides otherwise, if a position on an 'A' item might lead to further discussion thereof or if a member of the Council or the Commission so requests."

  It is clearly not possible now to predict which items will be taken as A items in any Council during the United Kingdom presidency.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many civil servants in his Department are paid at a rate exceeding that of a Cabinet Minister.

  Mr. Goodlad
  There are 18 officers in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and diplomatic service whose pay exceeds that of a Cabinet Minister.

  Tibet
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the number of Chinese settling in the Tibetan autonomous region and in the Tibetan autonomous areas in Qinghai, Sichnan, Gansa and Yunnan provinces, and the practice of the Chinese authorities to encourage Chinese immigration into these same areas, by freely granting licences to trade.

  Mr. Goodlad
  There have been numerous reports about the number of Chinese settling in Tibet. However, there is little or no reliable independent confirmation that a policy exists. According to the most recent Chinese census in 1990, over 95 per cent. of the population of the Tibet autonomous region is Tibetan while 3·7 per cent. is Han Chinese. The Chinese authorities have announced their intention of creating a special economic and technological zone in Lhasa aimed at attracting investment from other provinces, and from foreign countries.

  Brazil (Street Children)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will meet the Brazilian ambassador on a regular basis to discuss progress on bringing to justice the perpetrators of the killings of street children in Brazil.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to his question on 30 June, at column 508.

  GCHQ, Cheltenham
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will reconsider his policy on trade union membership at Government communications headquarters, Cheltenham.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Government remain convinced that membership of national civil service trade unions is incompatible with employment at GCHQ. However, we remain ready to listen to any proposals the Council of Civil Service Unions may have for alternative arrangements which would meet the Government's operational aims.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Expert Witnesses
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provisions have been made by police forces to give adequate notice to expert witnesses of the date and time of cases in which they are to give evidence in the Crown court.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Police forces recognise the need to give all witnesses as much notice as possible of the date of the trial, and generally do so as soon as they know the date from the Crown court lists. If the trial date is unexpectedly brought forward, however, they might only be able to give witnesses comparatively short notice.

  Arrests (Reporting)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy on police forces informing the media of opportunities to cover the arrest of people in connection with criminal charges.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Communications between the police and the press is an operational matter for chief officers, who must have regard to the relevant provisions of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.

  The Holocaust
  Ms. Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the adequacy of existing race relations legislation to deal with untrue claims about the holocaust.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Government deplore the sentiments expressed by exponents of "holocaust revisionism" and other extreme right-wing groups.

  It has always been the tradition in this country that people have the right to express their views—however controversial or repugnant they may be—provided that they do so within the law, including that covering incitement to racial hatred.

  We believe that part III of the Public Order Act 1986 has played an important part in deterring acts which are likely or intended to stir up racial hatred and it is for the police and prosecuting authorities to decide whether proceedings should be taken in any particular case. We shall continue to keep the legislation and its operation under review but we have no plans at present for amending it.

  Electoral Quotas
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out, on the assumption of an unchanged number of parliamentary constituencies for England(a) the 1991 electoral quota and (b) the entitlement of each county and London borough.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The 1991 electoral quota for England is 69,281.

  The entitlement of each county and London borough is given in the tables:

  Borough

  1991 electorate

  Entitlement

  A. London boroughs

  City of London1

  4,019

  0·06

  Barking and Dagenham

  111,789

  1·61

  Barnet

  212,819

  3·07

  Bexley

  168,332

  2·43

  Brent

  175,902

  2·54

  Bromley

  230,645

  3·33

  Camden

  123,706

  1·79

  Croydon

  236,777

  3·42

  Ealing

  190,289

  2·75

  Enfield

  197,718

  2·85

  Greenwich

  159,404

  2·30

  Hackney

  132,605

  1·91

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  99,441

  1·44

  Haringey

  144,577

  2·09

  Harrow

  147,069

  2·12

  Havering

  181,153

  2·61

  Hillingdon

  179,470

  2·59

  Hounslow

  155,701

  2·25

  Islington

  110,802

  1·60

  Kensington and Chelsea

  85,782

  1·24

  Kingston upon Thames

  93,687

  1·35

  Lambeth

  169,749

  2·45

  Lewisham

  175,193

  2·53

  Merton

  122,233

  1·76

  Newham

  156,762

  2·26

  Redbridge

  174,203

  2·51

  Richmond upon Thames

  114,961

  1·66

  Southwark

  178,189

  2·57

  Sutton

  126,167

  1·82

  Tower Hamlets

  105,968

  1·53

  Waltham Forest

  164,556

  2·38

  Wandsworth

  196,291

  2·83

  Westminster

  108,546

  1·57

  1 The whole of the City of London shall be included within a constituency, the name of which shall refer to the City of London.

  County

  1991 electorate

  Entitlement

  B. Metropolitan counties

  Greater Manchester

  1,924,289

  27·78

  Merseyside

  1,089,059

  15·72

  South Yorkshire

  1,007,339

  14·54

  Tyne and Wear

  876,143

  12·65

  West Midlands

  1,982,139

  28·61

  West Yorkshire

  1,576,418

  22·75

  Non-metropolitan counties

  Avon

  726,177

  10·48

  Bedfordshire

  388,868

  5·61

  Berkshire

  548,402

  7·92

  Buckinghamshire

  472,624

  6·82

  Cambridgeshire

  491,068

  7·09

  Cheshire

  739,530

  10·67

  Cleveland

  418,596

  6·04

  Cornwall

  369,868

  5·34

  Cumbria

  384,381

  5·55

  Derbyshire

  726,723

  10·49

  Devon

  785,360

  11·34

  Dorset

  524,037

  7·56

  Durham

  471,299

  6·80

  125

  County

  1991 electorate

  Entitlement

  East Sussex

  549,078

  7·93

  Essex

  1,182,193

  17·06

  Gloucestershire

  411,453

  5·94

  Hampshire

  1,190,661

  17·19

  Hereford and Worcester

  525,511

  7·59

  Hertfordshire

  746,634

  10·78

  Humberside

  671,522

  9·69

  Isle of Wight

  101,784

  1·47

  Kent

  1,154,802

  16·67

  Lancashire

  1,069,715

  15·44

  Leicestershire

  671,451

  9·69

  Lincolnshire

  457,508

  6·60

  Norfolk

  587,528

  8·48

  Northamptonshire

  437,903

  6·32

  Northumberland

  238,044

  3·44

  North Yorkshire

  555,689

  8·02

  Nottinghamshire

  784,219

  11·32

  Oxfordshire

  420,055

  6·06

  Shropshire

  313,966

  4·53

  Somerset

  364,667

  5·26

  Staffordshire

  805,603

  11·63

  Suffolk

  481,342

  6·95

  Surrey

  778,598

  11·24

  Warwickshire

  378,145

  5·46

  West Sussex

  557,811

  8·05

  Wiltshire

  430,277

  6·21

  Probation Service, London
  Ms. Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he intends to take to prevent the services provided by the inner London probation service homeless action research team being adversely affected by the imposition of cash limited budgets.

  Mr. Jack
  Decisions on the deployment of resources within the inner London and City probation service are matters for the management of the service, subject to their statutory responsibilities and national policies, standards and objectives. In 1992–93, the first year of cash limits on central government support to probation service expenditure, to the cash limit for the inner London and City probation service represents a 26·7 per cent. increase over their 1990–91 outturn compared with a national increase of 25·7 per cent.

  Police National Computer
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current size of each index of the new police national computer; and if he will include in these statistics an indication of the minimum and maximum size of each index over the past year.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is as follows:

  Numbers

  Vehicles (including stolen reports)

  41,222,646

  Persons (including wanted/missing and disqualified drivers)

  5,658,603

  Convictions

  4,223,022

  Fingerprints

  4,305,814

  Property

  41,682

  Police directories

  3,542

  Figures on the minimum and maximum size of each database over the last year are not available.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current size of each category in the 126
  wanted and missing persons' index of the new police national computer; and if he will include in these statistics an indication of the minimum and maximum size of each category on the index over the year.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is as follows:

  Numbers

  Wanted

  32,378

  Failed to appear

  36,410

  Deserter

  1,362

  Locate

  52,849

  Missing

  2,523

  Found

  22

  Absconder

  1,979

  Recall

  321

  Arrested

  2,947

  Unstated

  5,320

  Figures on the minimum and maximum size of each category over the last year are not available.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current size of each category in the stolen and suspect vehicle index of the new police national computer; and if he will include in these statistics an indication of the minimum and maximum size of each category in the index over the year.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number

  Lost

  373,042

  Found

  30,712

  Removed

  10,025

  Blocked

  6,258

  Information

  34,591

  Seen

  8,165

  Correction

  8,010

  Figures on the minimum and maximum size of each category over the last year are not available.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many accesses were made to each index of the new police national computer over the last year; and if he will include in these statistics an indication of the number of access requests that could search more than one index.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The following accesses have been made to the new police national computer since it came into operation on 16 September 1991:

  Number of accesses to the new police national computer since 16 September 1991

  Number1

  Vehicles (including stolen reports)

  17,935,412

  Persons (including wanted/missing, disqualified drivers and convictions)

  10,630,976

  Fingerprints

  507,199

  Property

  216,450

  Police directories

  164,852

  Access to more than one database:

  Persons and fingerprints

  452,698

  1 To 30 June 1992.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to the number of
  127
  accesses made to the police national computer by each constabulary over the last year; and if he will give the proportion or access requests made to the vehicle indexes of the new police national computer.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is as follows:

  Force

  Number of transactions for the year upto end June 1992

  Proportion of transactions made to vehicle database on PNC2 since 16 September 1991 Per cent.

  Avon and Somerset

  1,005,293

  67·9

  Bedfordshire

  376,810

  67·6

  British Transport Police

  157,147

  36·9

  Cambridgeshire

  395,113

  71·4

  Central

  178,845

  47·0

  Cheshire

  465,682

  62·2

  City of London

  131,595

  53·6

  Cleveland

  366,251

  52·8

  Cumbria

  411,513

  60·3

  Derbyshire

  499,539

  65·0

  Devon and Cornwall

  817,730

  58·7

  Dorset

  500,510

  55·5

  Dumfries and Galloway

  144,678

  52·1

  Durham

  438,370

  44·6

  Dyfed-Powys

  257,435

  46·4

  Essex

  978,632

  55·6

  Fife

  146,983

  54·2

  Gloucestershire

  413,502

  59·8

  Grampian

  296,778

  53·0

  Greater Manchester

  2,311,500

  63·1

  Guernsey

  26,788

  2·8

  Gwent

  262,288

  56·6

  Hampshire

  994,965

  51·8

  Hertfordshire

  473,262

  60·6

  Humberside

  522,632

  60·6

  Isle of Man

  22,259

  11·5

  Jersey

  52,208

  12·8

  Kent

  1,113,895

  59·0

  Lancashire

  1,301,886

  57·9

  Leicestershire

  426,477

  62·5

  Lincolnshire

  348,179

  56·5

  Lothian and Borders

  746,958

  65·1

  Merseyside

  896,264

  51·7

  Metropolitan

  7,499,843

  49·8

  Norfolk

  444,293

  59·4

  North Wales

  444,936

  50·3

  North Yorkshire

  532,677

  59·1

  Northamptonshire

  376,313

  63·1

  Northern

  123,843

  49·4

  Northumbria

  1,120,302

  68·5

  Nottinghamshire

  646,350

  69·3

  Royal Ulster Constabulary

  20,357

  68·3

  South Wales

  892,097

  59·3

  South Yorkshire

  767,279

  69·8

  Staffordshire

  506,686

  55·8

  Strathclyde

  1,465,650

  44·3

  Suffolk

  391,347

  57·4

  Surrey

  373,719

  61·4

  Sussex

  817,687

  50·8

  Tayside

  293,099

  47·8

  Thames Valley

  1,169,547

  50·8

  Warwickshire

  337,650

  60·2

  West Mercia

  423,034

  59·2

  West Midlands

  2,119,945

  59·0

  West Yorkshire

  1,470,260

  55·8

  Wiltshire

  322,982

  61·6

  Prison Escapees
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a list of all prison escapees since 1974, including their original offences, sentences and time left unserved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested by the hon. Member is available centrally only for prisoners who escaped since 20 June 1988. However, it would not be right to publish information which relates to individual prisoners. A total of 936 prisoners are recorded as having escaped between that date and 20 June this year.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were recaptured in 1991 after escape; what was the average length of time before they were recaptured; and what were the comparable figures for 1981 and 1986.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A total of 251 prisoners who had escaped from prison custody were recaptured in 1991, some of whom escaped before 1991. This includes prisoners who had escaped from penal establishments and prisoners who had escaped while being escorted by prison staff outside penal establishments, some before 1991.

  The figure does not include prisoners recaptured at or immediately following the time of escape; in these incidents the escape and recapture are subsumed in a single incident report of the escape; and this information could be retrieved only by a detailed manual search and at disproportionate cost.

  The average length of time prisoners were unlawfully at large was 40 days.

  On 20 June 1988 a new system of recording incident details came into operation. Prior to that date, records were not maintained centrally and information can be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the number of(a) male and (b) female prison escapees in (i) Wales and (ii) the United Kingdom in 1991 together with comparable figures for 1981 and 1986: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The following information relates to England and Wales.

  In 1991, 311 prisoners were recorded as having escaped from prison or prison escort in England and Wales. Of these, 306 were male and five female.

  There are no female penal establishments in Wales, and consequently no female prisoners are recorded as escaping from penal establishments in Wales in 1991. There is one recorded escape from prison escort when a female prisoner escaped while attending Swansea magistrates court. The inmate had travelled to court, under escort, from a penal establishment in England.

  There was one recorded escape incident from male penal establishments in Wales in 1991; two prisoners escaped.

  The total number of escapees in 1981 was 201 and in the 12 months to 31 March 1987 it was 192. Information about the sex of those escapees is not available centrally.

  On 20 June 1988 a new system for recording incident details came into operation. Prior to that date, records were not maintained centrally and detailed information can be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Race Relations
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the harmonisation of race relations laws of the member states of the European Community.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Government are opposed absolutely to discrimination on grounds of race; and this position is reflected in all our discussions with our European partners on these matters. The detailed legislative arrangements in other member states are, however, a matter for them, taking account of their particular circumstances.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many civil servants in his Department are paid at a rate exceeding that of a Cabinet Minister.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The total salary, including reduced parliamentary salary, of most Cabinet Ministers is £63,047. The number of civil servants in the Home Office whose pay currently exceeds this figure is three.

  Air Guns
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents involving personal injury caused by air guns have been reported in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Jack
  Statistics on the number of notifiable offences recorded by the police in which air weapons were reported to have caused injury are published in Criminal Statistics, England and Wales. The 1990 edition gives figures for the years 1980–1990 in table 3.10. A copy of this publication is in the Library.

  South Wales Police
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what fresh assessment he has made of the manpower needs of the south Wales police following criticism of his Department for using a mistaken assessment of the urban/rural split in the South Wales area.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 12 June to a question from the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones).

  Football Matches
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a table showing for Football League matches in England and Wales for each of the seasons 1987–88, 1988–89, 1989–90, 1990–91, 1991–92 and as a total over to same period(a) the combined total of arrests and ejections, (b) total attendances at such matches and (c) (a), as a percentage of (b)and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is contained in the following table:130

  Season

  Arrests and ejections (a)

  Attendance1(b)

  Arrests and ejections (a) as a percentage of (b)

  1991–92

  8,556

  20,487,192

  0·04

  1990–91

  9,190

  19,541,341

  0·05

  1989–90

  12,918

  19,466,826

  0·07

  1988–89

  13,792

  18,477,565

  0·07

  1987–88

  12,689

  17,968,887

  0·07

  1 These figures which have been provided by the Football League may differ slightly from those given in earlier replies based on information from police.

  European Frontier Control
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with his EC counterparts about publishing the convention on European frontier control; if he will take steps to arrange for its publication; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The question of publication has not been discussed between EC Ministers. International treaties are normally published only after signature. In this case, the provisions were explained fully in a reply to a written question by my predecessor on 20 June 1991,Official Report, columns 242–43, in Home Office evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee. In view of the very long delay since agreement was reached on the general substance of the draft convention, I have now decided to make the draft text available to Parliament. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  European Community
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the meeting of Trevi and European Community Immigration Ministers in Lisbon on 11 and 12 June.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Discussion at the meeting of Trevi Ministers focused on the establishment of Europol—a European police office to facilitate the exchange of information and experience necessary to prevent and combat terrorism, unlawful drug trafficking and other serious forms of international crime. It was agreed that a convention between the member states would be needed before Europol could be fully operational. However, work on the first stage of Europol—the European drugs unit —-is proceeding with the aim of establishing the unit by 1 January 1993 on the basis of a preliminary agreement among the member states.

  It was agreed that a project team led by Germany should be established to take work forward on the unit. The project team would begin its work in Strasbourg. No decision was taken on the future location of Europol.

  The meeting of Ministers concerned with immigration. which was attended by a vice president of the European Commission, was the 12th in the series of meetings held towards the end of each presidency since 1986. The European Commission made a statement on its communication setting out its views on the requirements of article 8A of the treaty of Rome which has now been deposited in Parliament according to the normal rules for scrutiny of Community documents.

  I made clear the Government's view that article 8A applies only to EC nationals and had no effect on our

  131
  entitlement to retain a frontier-based system for controlling third country nationals. I emphasised that such a system necessitates a light check on EC nationals in order to ensure that the control of third country nationals is not evaded. I stressed the desirability of avoiding confronta-tion on this issue and I expressed a willingness to explore ways of keeping delays at frontiers to an unavoidable minimum in the interests of British and other Community citizens.

  I join other Ministers in stressing the importance of the external frontiers convention, signature of which continues to be held up because of a problem raised by Spain over the application of the convention to Gibraltar.

  On asylum, I announced that the United Kingdom hoped to ratify the Dublin convention shortly. Ministers agreed to consider extending the system of the Dublin convention to third countries, by means of a parallel convention.

  Ministers discussed the issue of refugees from Bosnia-Herzegovina.

  Asylum
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for entry clearance in order to seek asylum in the United Kingdom were(a) received and (b) granted by country during 1991 and the first quarter of 1992.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 6 July 1992]: The available information on applications for asylum in the United Kingdom made abroad is given in the table. These figures may be under-recorded.

  Applications1, 3 for asylum in the United Kingdom received by British posts abroad and referred to the Home Office for decision2, and grants1, 3 of asylum, by nationality (provisional estimates4)

  Number of persons

  Applications received

  Grants of asylum4

  Nationality

  1991

  First quarter 1992

  1991

  First quarter 1992

  Angola

  *

  —

  —

  —

  Bulgaria

  *

  *

  —

  —

  China

  —

  *

  *

  —

  Ethiopia

  —

  —

  —

  *

  Ghana

  *

  —

  *

  —

  Iran

  5

  —

  5

  —

  Iraq

  10

  —

  5

  —

  Kenya

  *

  —

  —

  —

  Lebanon

  *

  —

  —

  —

  Nigeria

  —

  *

  —

  —

  Pakistan

  *

  —

  —

  —

  Somalia

  —

  —

  *

  —

  Turkey

  —

  —

  *

  —

  Uganda

  5

  *

  *

  —

  USSR

  *

  —

  —

  —

  Yugoslavia

  —

  *

  —

  —

  Zaire

  *

  —

  —

  —

  Nationality uncertain

  *

  —

  *

  —

  Total2

  30

  5

  20

  *

  1 Excluding dependants.

  2In addition a further 20 applications during 1991 and the first quarter of 1992, made by nationals of Afghanistan, and 40 applications during 1991 made by nationals of Liberia, to the British high commissions in New Delhi and Lagos, respectively, were processed locally. No grants of asylum were made during this time.

  3 Figures may understate: rounded to the nearest 5, with "*" = 1 or 2.

  4Grants in the time periods shown do not necessarily relate to applications made in those periods.

  132
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many passengers seeking political asylum in(a) 1990, (b) 1991 and (c) 1992 up to the nearest available date were granted temporary admission.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 6 July 1992]: The information requested on temporary admission is not available centrally.

  The information on detention is not available in the form requested. However, information on passengers seeking asylum who at 3 July 1992 had been detained for seven days or more is given in the table.

  Prison department establishment

  IS detention

  Algeria

  —

  2

  Angola

  4

  —

  Chile

  1

  —

  Colombia

  —

  1

  Cyprus

  1

  —

  Ghana

  6

  10

  India

  5

  3

  Iran

  1

  2

  Ivory Coast

  1

  2

  Kenya

  —

  2

  Lebanon

  6

  8

  Morocco

  1

  —

  Namibia

  1

  —

  Niger

  —

  1

  Nigeria

  4

  7

  Pakistan

  1

  1

  Peru

  —

  1

  Saudi Arabia

  —

  1

  Sierra Leone

  1

  2

  Sri Lanka

  1

  —

  Uganda

  3

  —

  Zaire

  12

  13

  Zimbabwe

  1

  —

  Total

  50

  56

WALES

  Castell Alun High School
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will pay an official visit to Castell Alun high school.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have no plans at present to do so. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State visited the school in May 1988.

  Tourism
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the Wales tourist board over its planned consultative paper on tourism and the environment in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend and I meet regularly with the Wales tourist board along with officials to discuss the development of suitable policies including the preparation of a new national tourism strategy to take tourism in Wales into the next century.

  The board has announced its intention to issue a series of consultative papers dealing with some of the key themes to be covered within the strategy, including tourism and the environment. The consultations will be supported by research studies and other papers relevant to the strategy.
  133
  We commend the board in taking forward this initiative.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of the budget of the Welsh tourist board is currently spent outside the United Kingdom on the marketing of Wales as a tourist location.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  For 1992–93, 4·8 per cent of the Wales tourist board's net provisional budget will be allocated for the overseas promotion of Wales as a tourist destination.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the effect of the decision by Gwent dental practitioners not to accept new national health service patients.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  It is for the Gwent family health services authority (FHSA), as manager of general dental services in its locality, to address the issue of NHS dental care drawing upon its expert local knowledge. If the FHSA should experience any difficulty in securing NHS care for its local residents, it can apply to the Department for approval to employ a salaried dentist.

  In the meantime, the community dental service provides a safety net for patients who are unable to obtain treatment under the general dental services.

  Paediatrics
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the health authority areas in Wales which currently have a paediatric pathologist in post: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Metabolic Disease
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much funding is currently allocated in each health authority area in Wales towards the provision of services for the detection of inherited metabolic disease; and if he will make it his policy to ensure adequate funding is granted to existing schemes for a two-year period to allow for successor arrangements to be fully evaluated.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Screening for inherited metabolic disease is undertaken for health authorities, by the medical genetics centre at the University hospital of Wales and through the supra-regional assay service. Funding has been devolved to the district authorities and details of specific costs are not held centrally.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has concluded his discussions with local authority associations concerning the reorganisation of local government in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  No.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for the phased release of receipts from the sales of council houses in Wales.
  134
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) on 19 June 1992,Official Report. column 715.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many civil servants in his Department are paid at a rate exceeding that of a Cabinet Minister.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The total salary, including reduced parliamentary salary, of most Cabinet Ministers is £63,047. The number of civil srvants in the Welsh Office whose pay exceeds that figure is one.

  Recycling
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much paper, by volume and by cost, he estimates is used annually by his Department: what arrangements are made for its recycling: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My Department uses an estimated 360 tonnes of paper, with an estimated value of £293,000 per annum. All restricted waste and shredded confidential waste are collected for recycling into various kinds of tissue-type paper. For other types of waste paper, the Welsh Office is currently trialling a waste paper recycling scheme. If the trial is successful, the scheme will be extended throughout the Department.

  Unitary Authority
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if it is his intention that the new unitary authority based in Cardiff will be bounded on the north by a line based on the current natural physical boundaries which form the boundary between the current Cardiff authority and the current Rhymny Valley authority.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave him on 6 July 1992,Official Report, columns 7–8.

  Commonwealth Games
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the response of the Commonwealth Games Council for Wales to the recommendations of the Sports Council for Wales on the funding and organisation of the Commonwealth Games Council for Wales especially in respect of the Commonwealth games in Canada.

  Mr. David Hunt
  It is a matter for the Sports Council for Wales to assess the response of the Commonwealth Games Council for Wales to the recommendations contained in its report.

  Tenants (Arrears)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will bring forward proposals for powers to issue regulations to local authorities in Wales to prevent eviction of local authority tenants for arrears of water and environmental charges.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No. Local authorities do not have powers to evict tenants solely on the grounds of the non-payment of water and environmental charges.

  Trusts (Salaries)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to require national health service trusts to publish the salary and fringe benefit packages of their executive directors in their annual reports.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  NHS trusts in Wales will be required to publish annual financial statements. The information to be provided will include:

  (i) Total emoluments paid to the chairman and to the highest paid hoard member:

  (ii) Emoluments paid to other board members in hands of £5,000 with no lower limit:

  (iii) The number of employees, excluding executive directors, who received remuneration in excess of £40,000 in hands of £5,000.

  Water Disconnections
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing the number of water disconnections in Wales in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the lion. Gentleman to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) on 24 June 1992,Official Report, column 204. Information prior to 1984–85 was not held centrally. Since privatisation. this information is collected by the Office of Water Services. Data are also published by the Water Services Association in "Water Facts", copies of which are in the Library of the House.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Foie Gras
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will show the volume of imports of foie gras into the United Kingdom, and their countries of origin, in the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Soames
  Provisional figures for 1991 show that the United Kindom imported 24,072 kg of foie gras—classified as "fatty livers of geese or ducks"—21,622 kg of which was dispatched from France and the remaining 2,450 kg from the Netherlands.

  Source: Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many civil servants in his Department are paid at a rate exceeding that of a Cabinet Minister.

  Mr. Curry
  The total salary, including reduced parliamentary salary, of most Cabinet Ministers is £63,047. Only three staff in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and its agencies are currently paid above that figure.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many fishing vessels beneficially owned in other EC member states are registered as fishing vessels in the United Kingdom; and what countries arc involved.
  136
  Mr. Norris
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to my answer on 9 June, Official Report, column 110. There are now some 56 Spanish, 18 Dutch, two Danish and one Belgian vessels.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Electricity Prices
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to review the regulatory system for controlling the level of domestic electricity prices.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a matter for the Director General of Electricity Supply.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what representations he has had from the Major Energy Users Council about the costs of electricity to the steel industry;

  (2) when he will next meet the Energy Intensive Users Group and the Major Energy Users Council to discuss electricity-pricing mechanisms;

  (3) if he will bring forward proposals to reduce the fossil fuel levy to large users of electricity and manufacturing industry to the extent necessary to bring their energy costs in line with European competitors;

  (4) if he will bring in reforms to the regulatory mechanism to ensure that electricity costs for manufacturing industry are competitive.

  Mr. Eggar
  I recently met representatives of the Major Energy Users Council and Energy Intensive Users Group to discuss electricity prices for their members. Proposals they put forward will be considered.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the opencast coal sites which are now, or have previously been, operated by the R A Young Mining Company; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a matter for British Coal as the licensing authority under the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946.

  Dounreay
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place in the Library details of what is stored in the high active shaft at Dounreay.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a management matter for the Atomic Energy Authority. I am asking the chairman of the AEA to write to the hon. Member.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plan he has to remove market distortions affecting combined heat and power developers in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Eggar
  The operation of the electricity market is a matter for the Director General of Electricity Supply.

  British Waterways Board
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to implement the recommendations of the 1987 Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry
  137
  into the activities of the British Waterways Board; and if he will ask the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to institute a further inquiry.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects the further external review of the British Waterways Board as recommended in paragraph 2.35 of the 1987 Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry into the British Waterways Board to commence.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  In response to a question from Lord Brougham and Vaux on 24 July 1990, Lord Strathclyde welcomed the British Waterways Board's third and final response to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's 1987 report. The board accepted almost all the commission's recommendations.

  At paragraph 2.35 of its 1987 report, the commission recommended that a further external review of BWB's progress in improving its efficiency should be undertaken in five years' time. There is no immediate plan to invite the commission to undertake such a review.

  Energy Study
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish the details of the study conducted by the former Department of Energy in conjunction with the Major Energy Users Council.

  Mr. Eggar
  The study conducted by the former Department of Energy and the Major Energy Users Council is based on information supplied by individual companies; these details are commercially confidential.

  Nuclear Safety
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to receive the published report from the nuclear installations inspectorate on the long-term safety reviews for Dungeness A, Oldbury, Sizewell A, Trawsfynydd and Wylfa.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Health and Safety Executive has already published the nuclear installations inspectorate's detailed findings on Berkeley, Bradwell, Calder Hall, Chapelcross, Hinkley Point A, and Hunterston A. I understand that Nuclear Electric's safety reviews for the remaining Magnox power stations are currently at various stages of assessment by the NII. However, the need for thoroughness in the assessment of these reviews precludes the setting of a precise timetable. Nevertheless, I am assured by the NII that its findings on each of the remaining stations will be published at the earliest opportunity with the last of them, which will address Wylfa, being completed in 1994.

  National Engineering Laboratory
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the future of the National Engineering Laboratory.

  Mr. Leigh
  The National Engineering Laboratory became an executive agency of the Department of Trade and Industry in October 1990 with the mission, published in its framework document at the time, of becoming commercially viable with a view to eventual privatisation. Good progress has been made towards that object. The 138
  agency's targets for 1991–92, its first year as an executive agency, were published on 16 October 1990 and all of them were achieved.

  Post Office
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the non-executive directors appointed to the board of the Post Office; on what basis they were selected; and for what levels of remuneration they are eligible.

  Mr. Leigh
  The non-executive members of the Post Office Board are as follows:

  Mrs. H. M. Cropper

  Mr. D. Gladwin CBE JP

  Dr. D. Grieves CBE

  Mr. D. Hodson

  These members were appointed by the Secretary of State for the wide range of skills and experience in industry, and for the independent judgment they bring to the board. Remuneration of directors of the Post Office is determined by the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Treasury, on an individual basis. The levels of remuneration paid are within the ranges shown in the Post Office report and accounts for 1991–92.

  Subcontractors (Late Payment)
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimates he has made of the effects of late payment in relation to payments due from main to sub-contractors.

  Mr. Leigh
  No such estimates have been made by the Department of Trade and Industry. I am nevertheless aware that late payment is a significant problem for sub-contractors.

  Nuclear Energy
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent changes have been made by his Department in the provision of public information on nuclear energy in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Eggar
  It is the Government's policy to assist Parliament and the public by being as open as practicable in the provision of information on civil nuclear energy in the United Kingdom, subject to considerations of security, commercial confidentiality and the costs of preparing the information.

  Nuclear Power
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will list for each year of operation since 1986 the percentage of the yearly total of nuclear material reprocessed at the Windscale B204 plant at Sellafield that arose from reactors operated by Nuclear Electric, Scottish Nuclear or their predecessor electricity boards:

  (2) what proportion of the total weight of plutonium reprocessed at Sellafield, in the period 1986 to date, originated in Central Electricity Generating Board/ Nuclear Electric installations.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information has been extracted from the annual press releases on plutonium for the years in question as published by the former Department of Energy and placed in the Library of the House.
  139

  Feed of civil magnox irradiated fuel to the Sellafield reprocessing plant

  Tonnes of uranium

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  (a) From NE/SNL fuel1

  861

  772

  787

  988

  688

  (b) From overseas reactors

  121

  32

  88

  141

  51

  (c) (a) as a percentage of total

  88

  96

  90

  88

  93

  1 The information given is for Nuclear Electric plc (NE) and Scottish Nuclear Ltd. (SNL) in 1989–90 and 1990–91 and for their predecessor generating boards in the earlier years.

  Plutonium dispatched from magnox sites

  Kilograms of plutonium

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  (d) From NE1

  2,050

  2,050

  2,100

  1,984

  2,067

  (e) From SNL1

  250

  200

  200

  160

  111

  (f) (d) as a percentage of total

  89

  91

  91

  93

  95

  1 The information given is for Nuclear Electric plc (NE) and Scottish Nuclear Ltd. (SNL) in 1989–90 and 1990–91 and for their predecessor generating boards in the earlier years.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will now make it his policy to make available through the Public Record Office or other appropriate routes all of those documents relating to the foundation of the civil nuclear programme withheld from public inspection beyond the 30-year period.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 30 June 1992]: The records in question continue to be reviewed in accordance with the criteria established under the Public Records Acts. Those which are withheld from public inspection beyond the 30-year period are progressively released as and when the reasons for their closure or retention cease to apply.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to renegotiate the confidentiality clauses in intergovernmental plutonium export agreements to permit the wider publication of information on amounts and end-use declarations involved.

  Mr. Eggar
  Intergovernmental exchanges of notes covering the transfer of significant quantities of plutonium are published documents. They contain information on the quantity of material to he exported and a declaration of peaceful end-use.

  CE Marks
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment the Government have made of the progress of British construction companies in meeting the requirements for CE marks to be awarded.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have been asked to reply.

  CE marks will be awarded within the framework of the EC construction products directive. They will be based on approved European technical specifications. It will he some time before these specifications are written. A recent sample survey by the Building Research Establishment has indicated that United Kingdom manufacturers are well placed to meet the procedures likely to be followed for CE marking. The Department is in close contact with the industry's representative organisations to ensure the developing requirements of the construction products directive are understood.

  Power Cut, Cardiff
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the power cut in Cardiff on 30 June and its causes, costs and consequences and the measures which are being considered to avoid a repetition.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 3 July 1992]: It is for the company to explain the circumstances of a particular incident. I understand that South Wales Electricity is to make an investigation into this matter.

  Chlor-alkali
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received concerning the impact of recent bulk electricity price increases on the future production of chlor-alkali in the United Kingdom; what information he has on the prices paid in other Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development countries by producers of chlor-alkali and other heavy industrial processes, whose viability is dependent on electricity price relativities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 3 July 1992]: I have met representatives of the chlor-alkali industry and of other industries which are major users of electricity.

  According to data supplied under the price transparency directive, electricity prices paid by large and medium consumers in the United Kingdom are around the middle of the range of other EC member states. In addition, the latest available data shows United Kingdom electricity prices for industry to be below the OECD average.

  Self-catering Accommodation (Fire Safety)
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 29 June,Official Report, column 405, how long a consultation period he envisages for the draft amendment regulations and associated documents relating to the fire safety of furnishings in respect of self-catering accommodation under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1987; what period of moratorium he proposes with effect from 1 March 1993; and if he will make a statement.
  141
  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 3 July 1992]: The Department plans to allow a period of two months for comments by interested parties on the draft amendment regulations and associated documents relating to the fire safety of furnishings in respect of self-catering accommodation under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1987.

  The date on which the requirement will apply will be decided in the light of this consultation.

  Electricity Division
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many people were employed in the electricity division of his Department on the most recent date for which this information is available.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 3 July 1992]: Forty-seven people were employed in the Department's electricity division as at Wednesday 1 July 1992.

  Small Firms Division
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to relocate staff of the small firms division of his Department currently based in Sheffield.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 3 July 1992]: My Department is conducting a review to determine the best location for the work of the small firms division and I will make a decision in due course in the light of the findings. Staff currently working in the division are on loan from the Department of Employment and, on any outcome of the review, will he able to return to that Department if they so choose.

  Telephone and Postal Canvassing
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish any proposed changes either emanating from the EC or his own Department which would restrict telephone and postal canvassing for trade or other commercial purposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 6 July 1992]: My Department has no plans for restrictions on telephone and postal canvassing for trade or other commercial purposes. We are discussing a European Commission proposal dated 9 June 1992 to the Council of Ministers for a directive on the protection of consumers in respect of contracts negotiated at a distance—distance selling. This proposal would impact on various kinds of direct marketing including mail order, telephone selling and automated telephone calling. A copy of the proposal is available in the Library of the House.

  In addition, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs is discussing with the Commission a further Commission proposal for a directive on data protection which. if adopted. would also be likely to affect direct marketing activities as well as on cross-border data transfer.

  Timeshare
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the president of the Board of Trade how many complaints his Department has received about International Resort Sales and Travel Ltd.
  142
  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 1 July 1992]: I have as yet received no such complaints. I understand, however, that a number of complaints have been made to local trading standards officers.

  Pyramid Selling
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many complaints his Department has received concerning pyramid selling schemes; how many of the complaints were upheld; and how many companies were prosecuted under part XI of the Fair Trading Act 1973, for each year from 1973 to 1992.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 3 July 1992]: My Department gets thousands of complaints about pyramid selling schemes, but the vast majority are on the mistaken assumption that such schemes are all illegal. The information requested on prosecutions under part XI of' the Fair Trading Act 1973 is not available. To the best of my knowledge. my Department has prosecuted two companies and individuals. These prosecutions, which related to a single scheme, were in 1987.

  Price Marking Order 1991
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will review section 10 of the Price Marking Order 1991 in the light of representations made to him on its effect.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 6 July 1992]: I am reviewing the order as a whole in the light of representations received. The draft amending order now in preparation will take account of these representations, so far as is practicable within the terms of the EC directives which the order implements.

HEALTH

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for each year from 1970 to 1991 what was the total number of people in each of the exemption categories for prescription charges.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The available information is shown in the tables.

  Table 1

  Estimated numbers of men aged 65 and over, women aged 60 and over, children aged under 16. recipients of Family Credit and recipients of Income Support in England 1970 to 1991 (millions)1

  Year

  Men over 65/ Women over 60

  Children under 16

  Family Credit2 recipients

  Income Support3 recipients

  1970

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1971

  7·6

  11·6

  —

  1·006

  1972

  7·7

  11·6

  —

  1·017

  1973

  7·8

  11·6

  —

  0·808

  1974

  7·9

  11·5

  —

  0·860

  1975

  8·0

  11·4

  —

  1·150

  1976

  8·0

  11·2

  —

  —

  1977

  8·1

  11·0

  —

  1·289

  1978

  8·1

  10·8

  —

  1·201

  1979

  8·1

  10·6

  —

  1·114

  1980

  8·3

  10·4

  —

  1·441

  1981

  8·4

  10·2

  —

  2·085

  1982

  8·4

  10·0

  —

  2·602

  1983

  8·4

  9·9

  —

  2·815

  143

  Year

  Men over 65/ Women over 60

  Children under 16

  Family Credit2 recipients

  Income Support3 recipients

  1984

  8·4

  9·7

  —

  3·055

  1985

  8·5

  9·6

  —

  —

  1986

  8·6

  9·6

  —

  3·334

  1987

  8·6

  9·5

  —

  3·217

  1988

  8·7

  9·5

  2·0

  2·811

  1989

  8·7

  9·5

  2·9

  2·670

  1990

  8·7

  9·5

  3·1

  2·598

  1991

  —

  —

  3·3

  3·071

  1 Source: OPCS. DSS.

  2 Family Credit introduced from April 1988.

  3 Numbers of Supplementary Benefit recipients 1970 to 1987.

  Table 2

  Estimated numbers of young people aged 16–18 in full-time education in England for each academic year from 1979–80 to 1989–90.

  Year

  Number (millions)

  1979–80

  0·629

  1980–81

  0·665

  1981–82

  0·732

  1982–83

  0·759

  1983–84

  0·718

  1984–85

  0·700

  1985–86

  0·694

  1986–87

  0·684

  1987–88

  0·699

  1988–89

  0·720

  1989–90

  0·747

  Source: DFE

  Metabolic Disease
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to issue direct contacts for the provision of services associated with the detection of inherited metabolic disease.

  Mr. Sackville
  We recognise that particular care is required in developing appropriate contracting arrange-ments for specialist services which are provided for a disparate catchment population. The national health service management executive has agreed with regional general managers that regions should take a close interest in purchasing arrangements for such services, both in NHS trust hospitals and in those managed directly by districts. In taking on this role, regions have an interest in ensuring that those services which are required continue to be available and therefore that specialist services have a reasonable level of secure income.

  Respite Care
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans she has to collect information on provision of respite care in each local authority area;

  (2) what figures her Department currently collects regarding respite care provided through local authorities; and when the figures will be published.

  Mr. Yeo
  Respite care can take many forms, such as a short-stay placement in a residential setting or hospital, attendance at a day centre, or arrangements for a care worker or volunteer to stay in the person's own home—perhaps for only a few hours a week—to provide respite for their main carer. Statistics collected by the Department do not therefore include respite care as a specific item.

  Information is collected centrally on the numbers of short-stay admissions and short-stay residents in local
  144
  authority staffed residential homes for adults for each local authority in England. These figures do not distinguish people receiving respite care from those receiving emergency, phased or intermittent care, which categories may all include elements of respite care. A copy of the publication—RA/91/2—containing the data for the year ending 31 March 1991 for the elderly and younger physically handicapped client groups is in the Library.

  Revised central statistical returns identify the provision of accommodation to children under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 by means of an agreement covering a series of placements. This information will include episodes of respite care but does not specifically identify them. The first such returns relate to the period ending 31 March 1992; no publication date for the information has been set.

  There are no current plans to collect additional information in respect of respite care.

  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will encourage local authorities to publish detailed information regarding respite provisions available in their respective areas.

  Mr. Yeo
  Local authorities are expected to provide information to carers about the services available to support them, including respite care services. Community care plans should also include information about the provision of such services.

  Atopic Illnesses
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research her Department had undertaken concerning the relationship between the agricultural use of pesticides and the incidence of atopic illnesses.

  Mr. Sackville
  Biomedical research is a matter for the Medical Research Council which is funded by the Office of Science and Technology.

  General Practitioner Fund Holders
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will hold talks with the chairman of the Mid-Cheshire trust on priorities given to fund-holding general practitioners in gynaecology.

  Mr. Sackville
  It is a matter for the trust to agree contracts with purchasers.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will investigate the effects on patients of fund-holding general practitioners in the Crewe and Nantwich area.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines she has issued to trust hospitals to ensure that patients from fund-holding general practitioners do not take precedence over the patients of non-fund-holding general practitioners.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In June of last year, the national health service management executive and the joint consultants committee of the British Medical Association issued guidance on GP fund holding in EL(91)84, a copy of which is available in the Library. This sets out the criteria for
  145
  acceptable contracts to be agreed between GP fund holders and all NHS hospitals, whether or not they have trust status. It clearly states that hospitals should not offer contracts to fund holders which would disadvantage patients of other purchasers.

  Multiple Pregnancies
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she intends to publish the counselling guide about multiple pregnancies for patients attending infertility treatment centres which was produced by Frances Price of Cambridge university as part of research commissioned by her Department.

  Mr. Sackville
  No decisions have yet been made concerning the possible publication of this booklet.

  Leeds General Infirmary
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her estimate of(a) the cost of transferring the cardiothoracic facilities from Killingbeck to the Leeds general infirmary and (b) the cost of improving the Killingbeck facilities in the event of the transfer to the Leeds general infirmary not going ahead.

  Mr. Sackville
  I am advised that the net cost of transferring cardiothoracic facilities from Killingbeck to the Leeds general infirmary as part of an integrated redevelopment of Leeds general infirmary is estimated to be £2·1 million, taking into account site proceeds. The cost of upgrading Killingbeck to provide similar levels of performance is estimated to be 15·4 million.

  Disability Working Allowance
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide for disabled persons who, because of low earnings, are entitled to disability working allowance to be exempt from national health service charges; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There are no plans to exempt recipients of disability working allowance from NHS charges. Disability working allowance recipients may qualify for NHS charge remission on grounds of low income under the NHS low income scheme.

  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated cost of exempting all disability working allowance recipients from national health service charges.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Current estimates indicate that extending NHS charge exemption to everyone expected to qualify for disability working allowance would increase the Department's programme expenditure by over £3 million in a full year.

  Trusts
  Ms. Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the current chairs and members of all the hospital trusts so far established, with their previous and current jobs and business interests, and their current salaries.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information concerning chairmen's and non-executive directors' previous and current jobs is not held centrally. Remuneration paid to chairmen and non-executive directors is as follows:
  146
  Chairmen

  Band 1 £19,285

  Band 2 £17,145

  Band 3 £15,125

  Non-executive directors

  £5,000 (all non-executives)

  Lists of the initial appointments of chairmen and non-executive directors of first wave NHS trusts which were made on 17 and 21 December 1990 and second wave NHS trusts on 1 November 1991, are available in the Library. Since then, the following appointments to NHS trusts have been made.

  CHAIRMEN

  Aylesbury Vale Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  Sir Timothy Raison appointed from 1 June 1992 to 30 November 1994

  Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust

  Sir Michael Knight appointed from 1 April 1991 to 30 November 1995

  West Dorset General Hospitals NHS Trust

  Captain Michael Fulford-Dobson appointed from 1 December 1991 to 30 November 1995

  NON-EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS

  Leeds General Infirmary and Associated Hospitals NHS Trust

  Mr. R. Farrar appointed from 7 February 1992 to 30 November 1994

  Central Middlesex Hospital NHS Trust

  Professor C. E. M. Normand appointed from 20 January 1992 to 30 November 1994

  Mrs. D. J. W. Venables appointed from 18 February 1991 to 30 November 1993

  Mrs. M. Ryder appointed from 23 January 1991 to 30 November 1992

  St. Helier NHS Trust

  Mr. R. B. Hill appointed from 1 December 1991 to 31 November 1992

  East Somerset NHS Trust

  Mr. J. D. P. Keegan appointed from 16 March 1991 to 30 November 1992

  East Gloucestershire NHS Trust

  Mrs. S. Pullen appointed from 1 December 1991 to 30 November 1992

  Mrs. J. Ralph appointed from 1 June 1992 to 30 November 1994

  Weston Area NHS Trust

  Mr. R. Norton-Collins appointed from 1 May 1991 to 30 November 1994

  Mental Health Foundation of Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust

  Dr. J. F. Fleming-Patterson appointed from 1 May 1991 to 30 November 1994

  Northern Devon Healthcare Trust

  Mr. G. E. Andrews appointed from 1 April 1991 to 30 November 1995

  Mr. D. Rowbottom appointed from 1 April 1991 to 30 November 1995

  Mr. J. B. Nash appointed from 1 April 1991 to 30 November 1995

  Miss D. M. Dibble appointed from 1 April 1991 to 30 November 1992

  Mr. J. R. Urquhart appointed from 1 April 1991 to 30 November 1992

  Bradford Hospitals NHS Trust

  Mrs. Z. P. Manzoor appointed from 1 April 1991 to 30 November 1993

  Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital
  147
  Miss J. Flindall appointed from 9 October 1991 to 30 November 1993

  West Dorset Community Health NHS Trust

  Ms. A. Neuberger appointed from 1 April 1992 to 30 November 1993

  South Yorkshire Metropolitan Ambulance and Paramedic Services NHS Trust

  Mrs. P. Battersby appointed from 12 March 1992 to 30 November 1993

  Barnsley Community and Priority Services Trust

  Mrs. J. R. Lees appointed from 8 June 1992 to 30 November 1994

  South Bedfordshire Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  Cllr. J. N. Tizard appointed from 15 June 1992 to 30 November 1993

  The Bart's NHS Trust

  Sir Charles Reece appointed from 17 February 1992 to 30 November 1993

  Optimum Health Services NHS Trust

  Mr. B. Huett appointed from 27 May 1992 to 30 November 1994

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will acquire and publish information on the comparable salary and fringe benefit packages of executive directors of health trusts in England and Wales.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Annual accounts for each NHS trust in England show the emoluments of the highest paid board member separately and the number of board members receiving emoluments in bands of £5,000 with no lower limit. These statements also show the number of employees, excluding executive directors, receiving remuneration of over £40,000 in bands of £5,000.

  Copies of NHS trusts' annnual accounts, when available, will he placed in the Library.

  Junior Doctors
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of junior doctors in the national health service; what is the comparable figure for 1985; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  At 30 September 1990, the latest date for which figures are available centrally, there were 23,377 whole-time equivalent junior doctors in the national health service compared to 21,368 whole-time equivalent junior doctors at 30 September 1985. These figures are rounded to the nearest whole number and include all permanent paid and honorary medical staff.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average number of hours per week worked by junior doctors in the national health service; what is the maximum amount allowed by law; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  At 30 September 1990, the latest date for which information is available, junior hospital doctors in England and Wales were contracted to be on duty for an average of 79 hours per week. Information on the number of hours spent actually working is not routinely collected centrally.

  There are currently no legal limits on the working hours of junior doctors. However, the new deal for junior doctors launched in June 1991 made clear our intention
  148
  that, regardless of the contracted hours of duty for individual posts, from 31 December 1994 doctors in training employed on a full-time basis should not normally be expected to work for more than an average of 56 hours per week.

  Specialists
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average number of weeks it takes a patient in the United Kingdom to see a specialist in the national health service; what is the comparable amount of time it takes for a citizen of (i) Germany, (ii) the United States of America and (iii) Japan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not collected centrally. Information relating to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many cases of tuberculosis have been notified nationally in the current year and in each of the last 10 years; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) how many cases of tuberculosis have been notified in London in the current year and in each of the last 10 years; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The latest available information from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys is given in the table.

  Notifications of tuberculosis

  Year

  England and Wales

  Greater London

  1981

  8,128

  2,495

  1982

  7,410

  2,146

  1983

  6,803

  2,027

  1984

  6,141

  1,833

  1985

  5,857

  1,741

  1986

  5,993

  1,701

  1987

  5,086

  1,445

  1988

  5,164

  1,486

  1989

  5,432

  1,646

  1990

  5,204

  1,603

  11991

  5,436

  1,794

  21992

  2,692

  893

  1 Provisional.

  2 Provisional (up to week ending 12 June 1992).

  Advisory Committees
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the advisory committees and their memberships which advise her on matters relating to the European Community; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There are no specific committees. We are advised by officials of the Department who consult other bodies on individual issues.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many civil servants in her Department are paid at a rate exceeding that of a Cabinet Minister.
  149
  Mr. Sackville
  The total salary, including reduced parliamentary salary, of most Cabinet Ministers is £63,047. The number of civil servants in the Department of Health whose pay currently exceeds this figure is seven.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what medical provision is available for homeless men and women and children respectively.

  Mr. Yeo
  General medical and hospital services are available to homeless people on the same basis as the rest of the population.

  In some areas there are significant numbers of homeless people whose needs for general medical services cannot be fully met under the normal arrangements, and the Department is funding special schemes. There are 10 such schemes already and more are being considered. These are designed to make general medical services available to homeless people at places where they are known to congregate. Each is staffed by a team of health professionals, including a GP.

  In addition, a demonstration project for homeless people who are mentally ill has been set up in London where the problem of homelessness is most acute. The £20 million programme includes up to 150 specialist short-term hostel places, 750 move-on places and four community psychiatric outreach teams.

  Child Employment
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will strengthen regulatory powers to ensure employers' adherence to child employment byelaws.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Government are very much aware of the need to protect children in whatever form of activity they may be engaged. We are generally satisfied that the safeguards which exist in legislation and byelaws to protect children who work are presently adequate.

  Suicide
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people committing suicide in each year from 1987 to the latest convenient date, were recorded as being(a) homeless or (h) schizophrenic or suffering other mental illness; and how many of these were (i) men and (ii) women.

  Mr. Sackville
  The number of people who have been recorded as having committed suicide and were homeless in each year from 1987 could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The number of those having been recorded as having committed suicide in the period in question as being schizophrenic or suffering from other mental illness is not available centrally.

  Clinical Grading Appeals
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many clinical grading appeals have been decided in each month since the start of the current process; how many appeals have been allowed in each month, and how many disallowed(a) in England, (b) in Wales, (c) in Scotland and (d) in each health authority area in England, Wales and Scotland.
  150
  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 1 July 1992]: The Department does not collect information on appeals at employing authority level. The available information has been placed in the Library.

ENVIRONMENT

  Water (Lead Content)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information his Department has received from the drinking water inspectorate on the number of water supply zones which exceed 15 mg/litres in lead content; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The drinking water inspectorate has received data on lead in water supplies from the water companies of England and Wales under the requirements of the information direction. The data relate to the concentration of lead in water supplies taken from consumers' taps in 1991, being set out in concentration bands of 10µg/1. Information was not sought specifically in relation to 15µg/1.

  In 1991, approximately 77,000 samples from 2,565 water supply zones were analysed for lead: 76·7 per cent. contained 10µg/1 or less; 10·6 per cent. contained between 11 and 20µg/1; and 3·7 per cent. contained more than 50µg/1, the standard set in the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989. At least one sample taken during 1991 from 1,908, 1,396 and 941 zones respectively contained more than 10, 20 and 50µg/1 of lead. In each zone where there is a risk of the water exceeding the lead standard because of lead dissolved from consumers' pipes, companies are evaluating and, where appropriate, installing treatment to reduce the plumbosolvency of the water.

  "Agenda 21"
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if Her Majesty's Government supported the amendments to paragraphs 20.1, 20.13, 20.15, 20.17, 20.20 and 20.26 of chapter 20 on the environmentally sound management of hazardous wastes including prevention of illegal international traffic in such wastes. of "Agenda 21" as presented to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.

  Mr. Maclean
  Yes.

  Advisory Committees
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the advisory committees and their memberships which advise him on matters relating to the European Community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  There are no committees dedicated to advising my Department on European Community matters. However, we consult as widely as necessary to ensure European Community proposals are given full consideration, and receive advice and views from a wide variety of sources.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many households in the Paisley, South constituency qualify for grant aid under the home energy efficiency scheme; and how many houses have been improved under the scheme in each year since its inception.

  Mr. Maclean
  In order to be eligible for grant under the home energy efficiency scheme, an applicant or his or her spouse must be in receipt of one of five passportable benefits: housing benefit, income support, family credit, community charge benefit and disability working allowance. In addition, his or her property must meet certain criteria concerning existing levels of insulation and receipt of a grant for similar work under previous schemes. Data on numbers of households eligible in any particular area at a particular time are not available.

  Figures for the number of homes treated under the scheme are not collected on a constituency basis. Within the network installer area which contains the hon. Member's constituency, 3,495 homes have benefited from home energy efficiency scheme grant since 1 January 1991.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many households in the Inverclyde district council area qualify for grant aid under the home energy efficiency scheme; and how many houses have been improved under the scheme since its inception in 1991.

  Mr. Maclean
  In order to be eligible for grant under the home energy efficiency scheme, an applicant or his or her spouse must be in receipt of one of five passportable benefits: housing benefit, income support, family credit, community charge benefit and disability working allowance. In addition, his or her property must meet certain criteria concerning existing levels of insulation and receipt of a grant for similar work under previous schemes. Data on numbers of households eligible in any particular area at a particular time are not available.

  Figures for the number of homes treated under the scheme are not collected on the basis requested. Within the network installer area which contains the Inverclyde district council's area, 3,495 homes have benefited from HEES grant since 1 January 1991.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many households in the City of Durham constituency qualify for grant aid under the home energy efficiency scheme; and how many houses have been improved under the scheme since its inception in 1991.

  Mr. Maclean
  In order to be eligible for grant under the home energy efficiency scheme, an applicant or his or her spouse must be in receipt of one of five passportable benefits: housing benefit, income support, family credit, community charge benefit and disability working allowance. In addition, his or her property must meet certain criteria concerning existing levels of insulation and receipt of a grant for similar work under previous schemes. Data on numbers of households eligible in any particular area at a particular time are not available.

  Figures for the number of homes treated under the scheme are not collected on a constituency basis. Within the network installer area which contains the hon. Member's constituency, 1,017 homes have benefited from home energy efficiency scheme grant since 1 January 1991.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many homes within the network 152
  installer area which contains the Leeds, West constituency have been improved under the home energy efficiency scheme since its inception in 1991.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 6 July 1992]: Within the network installer area, which contains the hon. Member's constituency, 2,058 homes have benefited from home energy efficiency scheme grant since 1 January 1991.

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many households in Preston have qualified for grant aid under the home energy efficiency scheme in the most recent available period; and how many houses have been improved under the home energy efficiency scheme in the network installer area including Preston since its inception in 1991.

  Mr. Maclean
  In order to be eligible for grant under the home energy efficiency scheme, an applicant or his or her spouse must be in receipt of one of five passportable benefits: housing benefit, income support, family credit, community charge benefit and disability working allowance. In addition, his or her property must meet certain criteria concerning existing levels of insulation and receipt of a grant for similar work under previous schemes. Data on numbers of households eligible in any particular area at a particular time are not available.

  Within the network installer area which contains the hon. Member's constituency, 1,626 homes have benefited from home energy efficiency scheme grant since 1 January 1991.

  Environmental Charter
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he has made towards issuing an environmental charter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State announced his intention to develop a charter for local authority environment services at the Prime Minister's seminar on 19 June. He has proposed that the charter should be developed through a working group of the central and local government environment forum and that it should build on the existing good practice in authorities. In addition, other environmental authorities will apply the charter principles to their services to the public.

  Hoop Iron Housing
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what proposals he has to assist former tenants who have purchased hoop iron housing and are now unable to sell their properties;

  (2) what consideration he has given to reports on the problems associated with hoop iron housing; and if he will make it his policy to include properties with this type of construction in the definition of defective housing under the Housing Act 1985.

  Sir George Young
  At the Department's suggestion, the London borough of Sutton has commissioned a report on these houses from the Building Research Establishment, which is expected shortly. When the borough, and the Department, have had an opportunity to consider its findings, it will be possible to decide whether any assistance to owners is needed, and, if so, what form it should take.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many civil servants in his Department are paid at a rate exceeding that of a Cabinet Minister.

  Mr. Redwood
  Four in the main Department and three in the Property Services Agency.

  London Docklands (Vandalism)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the extent of building vandalisation in the London docklands area to avoid payment of rates; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have not been advised of any empty properties in London docklands that have been unusable by their owners in order to avoid rates liability.

  Salt Water
  Ms. Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research his Department has under-taken on the use of salt water in fire hydrants, street cleaning or domestic sewerage.

  Mr. Maclean
  None. The Water Industry Act 1991 requires water companies to make available supplies of water for fire fighting, cleansing and watering highways, and other public purposes, in addition to their duty to supply water for domestic purposes. To deliver non-potable water for certain of these purposes would require the development of a separate supply system to avoid contamination of drinking water. The use of salt water for such purposes could also have implications for the contamination of land.

  British Waterways Board
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to commercialise the operations of the British Waterways Board.

  Mr. Maclean
  As far as is consistent with its statutory obligations, the British Waterways Board is already required to run its affairs on a commercial basis. How it manages its day-to-day operations is a matter for the board, but in all its activities BWB should achieve value for money, seek an adequate return on investment and increase opportunities for private sector participation.

  Council Rents
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing average council sector rents in each year since 1979 in cash and constant prices.

  Sir George Young
  Average local authority rents in England were as follows:

  Average unrebated rent (£ per week)

  As at April

  As reported £

  At 1992 prices £

  1979

  6·40

  16·36

  1980

  7·71

  16·19

  1981

  11·43

  21·42

  1982

  13·52

  23·16

  1983

  14·05

  23·14

  154

  As at April

  As reported £

  At 1992 prices £

  1984

  14·75

  23·10

  1985

  15·63

  22·89

  1986

  16·45

  23·38

  1987

  17·24

  23·51

  1988

  18·88

  24·77

  1989

  20·76

  25·21

  1990

  23·79

  26·40

  1991

  27·26

  28·43

  1992

  130·55

  130·55

  1 Estimates.

  In 1991 61 per cent. of council tenants were receiving housing benefit and therefore not paying the full rent.

  Water Disconnections
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing the number of water disconnections in England in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) on 24 June,Official Report, column 204. Information prior to 1984–85 was not held centrally. Since privatisation this information is collected by the Director General of Water Services. It is also published by the Water Services Association in "Water Facts", copies of which are in the Library.

  Local Authority Tenants (Arrears)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward proposals for powers to issue regulations to local authorities to prevent eviction of local authority tenants for arrears of water and environmental charges.

  Mr. Maclean
  No. Local authorities do not have powers to evict tenants solely on the grounds of the non-payment of water and environmental charges.

  Non-domestic Rates
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review non-domestic rating regulations to ensure the same treatment for self-catering holiday units as for bed-and-breakfast accommodation.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  No. Bed-and-breakfast accommodation is not rated if the person who lives in the premises intends to make the accommodation available to six people or fewer and such use is subsidiary to the use of the property as his home. It would not be appropriate to apply such a test to self-catering holiday units.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his current policy on planning regulations and consents in environmentally sensitive areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government's planning policy for areas of environmental sensitivity, including national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, is set out in planning policy guidance note 7, "The Countryside and
  155
  the Rural Economy". Paragraph 3.18 states that designation as an environmentally sensitive area under the Agriculture Act 1986 does not affect the status of the area in terms of national planning policies or development control regulations. However, the features which contributed to the designation of the area as an ESA may sometimes also be important features in local countryside planning policies and development control decisions.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to restrict the liability of residential care homes to the council tax.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  It is right that residential care homes should contribute to the cost of local services from which they benefit. However, we have taken several measures to ensure that these contributions are modest and fair.

  Special rules mean that the owner of a care home, not its residents, will be liable to pay the council tax bill. The size of that bill will be kept down by the banding arrangements, which ensure that larger dwellings gibe rise to less tax, proportionate to their value, than smaller ones.

  There will be personal discounts for residents of care homes, so that they do not count towards the personal element of the tax. In many cases these discounts will reduce the council tax bill by 50 per cent. Finally, any home with a resident who, because of a disability, needs a room, an extra bathroom or kitchen, or circulation space indoors for a wheelchair will be able to apply to the local authority for a reduction equivalent to one valuation band.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will require county councils to provide information to district councils which is considered necessary by district councils for the purposes of their submissions to the Royal Commission on the restructuring of local government.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Under schedule 2 to the Local Government Act 1992, public bodies have a duty to supply the Local Government Commission with any information which it reasonably requires in connection with any of its functions. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State intends to direct the commission to make such information available on request to local authorities provided the information is not sensitive for commercial or other reasons.

  Planning
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to review the permitted development rights granted in the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988 in relation to environmental assessment; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  Yes. We are committed to ensuring that all projects which could have significant environ-mental effects are thoroughly assessed by planning authorities before going forward. The Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 already secures this for projects which 156
  require a planning permission. But certain minor classes of development defined in the General Development Order do not presently require a specific planning application and this may require amendment.

  A consultation paper will shortly be issued with proposals for such amendments on which the views of industry, the public and planning authorities will be sought.

  Peat
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the terms of reference of the working group on peat extraction.

  Mr. Baldry
  I am pleased to announce that a working group has been convened by my Department which will work to the following terms of reference. Membership of the working group includes representatives of the peat industry, mineral planning authorities, the statutory nature and countryside conservation bodies, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Forestry Commission and the Scottish Office Environment Department. The working group will advise my Department about:current peat extraction and usage having regard to the overall peatland resource in Great Britain and the place of imports and alternatives, and having regard to the Government's general policies for reconciling the supply of minerals with sustainable development;
  any required guidance at national level in respect of development control over existing extraction sites; guidance on rehabilitation of existing workings; and guidance in respect of future land-use issues affecting peatlands, especially the nature conservation of, and extraction from, lowland peat mires.

  Particular topics that the group will need to consider include:

  (i) occurrence and types of peat;

  (ii) the nature conservation status of the identified peat areas, including the scale and extent of the protected areas; and the archaeological and landscape importance of peatlands;

  (iii) current areas of peat production;

  (iv) production and uses of peat, and the place of imports;

  (v) peat working practices, rehabilitation and after-uses, including the issues of old peat permissions as part of the Department's review of the operation of the 1981 Minerals Act;

  (vi) peat alternatives;

  (vii) the effects of mineral extraction on other peatland land uses (eg. conservation, agriculture and forestry);

  (viii) other land uses affecting peatlands (eg. agriculture and forestry);

  (ix) use of information from the above to consider preparation of further planning guidance about nature conservation, peat extraction and other land-use matters affecting peatlands.

  Information on these topics will be obtained through factual papers and other information provided by my Department and other members of the working group. The Department will also invite information and views on these topics from additional consultees.

  The Department's remit for minerals and planning policy legislation and guidance covers England. The Scottish and Welsh Offices are associated with the group, whose work will assist in preparing any similar guidance for Scotland and Wales.

  Rents
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from housing associations on the effect of reductions in Government grants on the level of rents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 6 July 1992] : My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning met representatives of the National Federation of Housing Associations recently to discuss housing association matters, including the level of rents. He has also received
  158
  some letters from individual associations. The Housing Corporation is monitoring outturn rents under the new financial regime and will shortly be putting proposals to the Department for grant rates in 1993–94. In reaching a decision we will take into account the views expressed by the federation and associations. Schemes are now financed by both grant and private loan and this, combined with the substantially increased resources which the Government are making available overall, should result in associations completing nearly twice as many new homes next year as they did last.

  Education Finance
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table for each local education authority in England showing their basic credit approval for(a) 1989–90, (b) 1990–91, (c) 1991–92 and (d) 1992–93; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 6 July 1992]: I have today placed in the Library a table which gives the basic credit approval for all of the services provided by each local education authority in England for 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93. No basic credit approvals were issued for 1989–90 as section 53 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, under which they are issued, was not in force for that financial year.

  Local education authority basic credit approvals

  1990–91 £000

  1991–92 £000

  1992–93 £000

  Counties and lsles of Scilly

  Avon

  13,614

  14,671

  16,746

  Bedfordshire

  7,361

  6,957

  9,505

  Berkshire

  11,926

  10,729

  6,687

  Buckinghamshire

  7,779

  9,017

  7,969

  Cambridgeshire

  18,327

  12,828

  9,944

  Cheshire

  15,578

  15,213

  20,930

  Cleveland

  11,397

  9,680

  9,847

  Cornwall

  13,003

  13,274

  11,067

  Cumbria

  12,826

  14,164

  12,615

  Derbyshire

  21,209

  30,139

  18,840

  Devon

  23,724

  17,672

  15,948

  Dorset

  8,702

  2,993

  8,790

  Durham

  9,797

  12,975

  13,322

  East Sussex

  15,373

  25,028

  22,926

  Essex

  32,312

  36,716

  29,470

  Gloucestershire

  12,527

  11,152

  12,340

  Hampshire

  22,172

  28,415

  22,449

  Hereford and Worcester

  9,250

  12,486

  8,841

  Hertfordshire

  14,131

  15,685

  14,497

  Humberside

  18,659

  18,431

  18,228

  Isle of Wight

  4,033

  4,231

  3,108

  Kent

  28,368

  61,843

  48,508

  Lancashire

  39,679

  39,781

  35,744

  Leicestershire

  17,990

  15,846

  17,926

  Lincolnshire

  11,198

  12,990

  16,076

  Norfolk

  9,388

  8,281

  8,834

  Northamptonshire

  9,601

  12,897

  7,631

  Northumberland

  5,025

  8,022

  6,283

  North Yorkshire

  11,268

  14,124

  15,110

  Nottinghamshire

  9,109

  15,891

  12,013

  Oxfordshire

  10,508

  12,777

  11,139

  Shropshire

  11,448

  12,865

  8,819

  Somerset

  10,228

  10,698

  10,201

  Staffordshire

  14,113

  17,304

  13,407

  Suffolk

  15,766

  23,297

  15,130

  Surrey

  9,454

  12,104

  8,908

  Warwickshire

  4,241

  4,292

  4,354

  West Sussex

  12,048

  11,024

  9,393

  Wiltshire

  12,700

  11,580

  8,956

  Isles of Scilly

  411

  293

  281

  Metropolitan districts

  Bolton

  14,272

  11,150

  12,185

  Bury

  7,680

  5,992

  5,295

  Manchester

  60,272

  55,860

  53,645

  Oldham

  17,236

  19,779

  13,687

  Rochdale

  17,279

  22,245

  13,824

  Salford

  21,127

  17,424

  13,968

  Stockport

  7,678

  8,563

  9,053

  Tameside

  8,694

  8,762

  10,952

  Trafford

  16,528

  10,463

  8,912

  Wigan

  18,150

  21,202

  15,178

  Knowsley

  10,864

  13,941

  20,756

  Liverpool

  48,548

  40,148

  33,819

  160

  1990–91 £000

  1991–92 £000

  1992–93 £000

  St. Helens

  14,000

  18,637

  16,968

  Sefton

  10,715

  11,260

  9,750

  Wirral

  15,043

  14,164

  14,346

  Barnsley

  16,295

  15,994

  17,009

  Doncaster

  13,264

  12,646

  11,058

  Rotherham

  11,272

  8,613

  10,075

  Sheffield

  43,962

  45,432

  43,145

  Gateshead

  12,148

  13,122

  9,921

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  19,034

  19,707

  17,886

  North Tyneside

  11,818

  10,381

  10,400

  South Tyneside

  10,635

  9,777

  7,938

  Sunderland

  19,481

  19,051

  19,110

  Birmingham

  87,409

  92,368

  90,930

  Coventry

  11,578

  17,259

  18,452

  Dudley

  16,568

  23,354

  19,431

  Sandwell

  20,519

  18,590

  23,123

  Solihull

  4,070

  5,610

  5,186

  Walsall

  18,623

  14,959

  12,929

  Wolverhampton

  15,145

  23,424

  18,433

  Bradford

  29,424

  29,674

  22,829

  Calderdale

  8,086

  9,308

  10,074

  Kirklees

  13,958

  17,255

  17,607

  Leeds

  40,098

  57,583

  55,917

  Wakefield

  25,626

  18,035

  17,124

  London

  City of London

  1,376

  0

  0

  Camden

  30,174

  32,298

  30,239

  Greenwich

  29,467

  27,453

  19,141

  Hackney

  30,902

  37,940

  33,387

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  20,271

  18,662

  22,319

  Islington

  33,371

  29,145

  26,822

  Kensington and Chelsea

  15,222

  12,091

  15,445

  Lambeth

  31,410

  36,247

  33,723

  Lewisham

  24,815

  29,073

  23,872

  Southwark

  39,942

  35,076

  34,273

  Tower Hamlets

  31,871

  32,339

  32,826

  Wandsworth

  26,631

  19,211

  26,183

  Westminster

  21,724

  19,359

  18,423

  Barking and Dagenham

  5,477

  3,729

  4,277

  Barnet

  6,298

  1,714

  8,148

  Bexley

  6,458

  7,920

  7,961

  Brent

  29,544

  25,454

  20,860

  Bromley

  4,557

  12,044

  14,196

  Croydon

  12,181

  17,793

  21,747

  Ealing

  24,316

  22,034

  19,110

  Enfield

  11,173

  11,475

  19,880

  Haringey

  31,477

  28,777

  28,092

  Harrow

  8,658

  9,258

  12,957

  Havering

  8,738

  4,827

  6,815

  Hillingdon

  5,379

  8,858

  17,790

  Houndslow

  10,224

  12,487

  17,602

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  6,886

  5,150

  5,794

  Merton

  15,751

  5,876

  5,604

  Newham

  28,952

  35,411

  35,073

  Redbridge

  7,164

  6,206

  13,947

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  10,685

  7,953

  7,456

  Sutton

  8,365

  8,370

  7,434

  Waltham Forest

  24,644

  18,350

  22,693

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish his latest estimates for each local authority and for England of(a) the percentage of total budgeted poll tax income collected so far for 1990–91,

  161
  1991–92 and 1992–93, (b) the total amounts outstanding in pound sterling million and (c) the numbers of liability orders taken out for poll tax debt.

  Mr. Redwood
  I estimate that by 31 March 1992 charging authorities in England had collected 97 per cent. and 89 per cent. of their budgeted community charge income for 1990–91 and 1991–92 respectively. Figures for 1992–93 are not yet available.

  I am arranging for a listing of the percentage of 1990–91 budgeted community charge income collected by each authority in the period 1 April 1990 to 31 March 1992 to be placed in the Library of the House.

  With respect to the percentage of 1991–92 budgeted community charge income collected, I refer the hon. member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), on 17 June 1992 to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond), at column 565.

  My Department does not collect figures for amounts of community charges outstanding or for the numbers of liability orders granted. Figures for the amount of community charge arrears at 31 March 1991, and for liability orders granted in 1990–91, were published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy in "Revenue Collection Statistics 1990–91 Actuals", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Construction Industry Training Board
  Ms. Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many training places were awarded by the Construction Industry Training Board in the north-west last year; and how many of them were filled.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Construction Industry Training Board negotiates individually with each training and enterprise council the number of training weeks rather than training places under youth training the CITB will provide. In 1991–92 in the north-west a total of 158,905 weeks were contracted, of which 127,482 were delivered.

  At March 1991 there were 2,235 young people in youth training with the CITB in the north-west.

  The CITB is not itself a training manager for employment training but provides support to employment training training managers through direct contracts with them. The detail of these contracts is not known to the Department.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Regional Economies
  Mr. Biffen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the degree of convergence between the English and Welsh economies based upon the statistical data provided in appendix E of the statistical supplement to the "Autumn Statement 1991" and the territorial gross domestic product data published in the regional accounts of the November 1991 issue of "Economic Trends".

  Mr. Lamont
  Simple comparisons of regional spending per head are misleading. Account needs also to be taken of a wide range of economic and social differences between the regions. Gross domestic product per head can provide 162
  a measure of the relative economic performances of regions of the United Kingdom although, due to the lack of regional price deflators, comparisons of regions' real rates of economic growth cannot be made. Gross domestic product per head in Wales was 82·8 per cent. of the level in England, very close to the equivalent 1980 figure of 82·4 per cent. This ratio has fluctuated a little, but has remained generally steady over the decade.

  Exchange Rate
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the variation in the position of the pound sterling against the deutschmark as at the close of business on each of the 10 working days following the reductions in the United Kingdom's bank base lending rates on(a) 8 October 1990, (b) 13 February 1991, (c) 27 February 1991, (d) 22 March 1991, (e) 12 April 1991, (f) 24 May 1991, (g) 12 July 1991, (h) 4 September 1991 and (i) 5 May 1992.

  Mr. Nelson
  The percentage differences from sterling's central exchange rate mechanism rate of DM2·95 as at the third concertation among central banks for the days in question were as follows:

  Date

  Percentage

  9 October 1990

  +1·95

  10

  +2·10

  11

  +2·06

  12

  +1·77

  15

  +0·70

  16

  +0·68

  17

  0·76

  18

  +0·14

  19

  +0·02

  22

  +0·03

  14 February 1991

  -1·62

  15

  -1·36

  18

  -1·38

  19

  -1·33

  20

  -1·19

  21

  -1·10

  22

  -0·95

  25

  -0·62

  26

  -0·88

  27

  -1·15

  28

  -1·11

  1 March 1991

  -1·13

  4

  -1·27

  5

  -1·17

  6

  -1·21

  7

  -1·04

  8

  -0·85

  11

  -0·85

  12

  -0·98

  13

  -0·76

  25

  -0·20

  26

  +0·45

  27

  +0·69

  28

  +0·86

  2 April 1991

  +0·76

  3

  +0·63

  4

  +0·71

  5

  +0·97

  8

  +1·23

  9

  +1·26

  15

  +0·97

  16

  +0·97

  17

  +0·94

  18

  +1·32

  163

  Date

  Percentage

  19

  +1·48

  22

  +1·35

  23

  +1·09

  24

  +0·59

  25

  +0·31

  26

  +0·22

  28 May 1991

  +0·34

  29

  +0·24

  30

  +0·03

  31

  +0·10

  3 June

  +0·46

  4

  +0·47

  5

  +0·34

  6

  +0·22

  7

  +0·30

  10

  +0·13

  15 July 1991

  +0·14

  16

  +0·39

  17

  +0·19

  18

  +0·16

  19

  +0·19

  22

  +0·27

  23

  +0·24

  24

  -0·25

  25

  -0·28

  26

  -0·46

  5 September 1991

  -0·14

  6

  -0·25

  9

  -0·30

  10

  -0·57

  11

  -0·70

  12

  -0·87

  13

  -1·02

  16

  -1·23

  17

  -1·23

  18

  -1·23

  6 May 1992

  -0·76

  7

  -0·38

  8

  -0·18

  11

  -0·29

  12

  -0·27

  13

  -0·25

  14

  -0·44

  15

  -0·60

  18

  -0·64

  19

  -0·78

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he considers it will be prudent to move the pound sterling into the narrow band of the exchange rate mechanism; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  Sterling will move to the narrow band of the ERM in due course at the current central rate of DM2·95.

  Pension Funds
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the provisions which govern the power of the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation to investigate the conduct or control of pension fund managers.

  Mr. Nelson
  Schedule 2 to the Financial Services Act 1986 sets out the requirements which a self-regulatory organisation must meet in order to be recognised under the Act. These include adequate arrangements for the effective 164
  monitoring and enforcement of compliance with its rules and with any directly applicable conduct of business requirements.

  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to publish the latest Treasury forecast on the PSBR.

  Mr. Portillo
  No. Forecasts are published twice a year. The next forecast will be published in the autumn statement.

  Oil Taxation
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those organisations and individuals whom he has consulted during his review of oil taxation.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Government remain in contact with a range of parties interested in oil production taxes. For instance, my officials have had exchanges with oil industry representative bodies—the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association and BRINDEX—and individual oil companies in devising the oil tax measures now before Parliament in the Finance Bill.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to complete his review of oil taxation; and if he intends to report to Parliament before deciding what reforms, if any, to introduce.

  Mr. Dorrell
  As with other taxes, the fiscal regime for oil production is kept under continuing review. Proposals are put to Parliament as appropriate.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many civil servants in his Department are paid at a rate exceeding that of a Cabinet Minister.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Eight.

  Third World
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy that any future structural adjustments agreed with third world Governments should take fully into account the effect of the changes experienced by vulnerable groups in debtor countries.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 6 July 1992] : The Government have made clear-most recently in my right hon. Friend's statement to the development committee at the spring meetings of the International Monetary Fund and World bank-the priority they attach to Governments and the international financial institutions taking full account of their responsibility to devise and implement effective strategies for the reduction of poverty when designing adjustment programmes. It is the policy of the IMF and the World bank to pay full regard to the impact of adjustment programmes on the poor.

  Inheritance Tax (Exemptions)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the hectarage of land where there is currently exemption from inheritance tax for access purposes in each county or region.
  165
  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 6 July 1992] : I regret that this information is not readily available.

  The Countryside Commission has estimated that, in England, there are about 130,000 hectares—315,000 acres —of heritage quality land for which a management agreement has been or is being negotiated. It is thought that about half of this area is land for which conditional exemption has been granted; the remainder relates to private treaty sales of land to bodies qualifying under schedule 3 to the Inheritance Tax Act, acceptances in lieu of tax, designations of land for heritage maintenance funds and conditional exemption claims which have not yet been agreed. Comparable figures for the rest of the United Kingdom are not available.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) on what dates and in what parts of the City of Durham constituency the cold weather payments scheme was triggered during the winter of 1991–92; and how many households received payments on each occasion;

  (2) on what dates cold weather payments were made in the City of Durham constituency in response to a forecast of a qualifying period; and what period was taken for payments to be made once the system was triggered.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) on what dates, and in what parts of the Falkirk, West constituency, the cold weather payments system was triggered during the winter of 1991–92; and how many households received payments on each occasion;

  (2) on what dates cold weather payments were made in the Falkirk, West constituency in response to a forecast of a qualifying period; and whether he will indicate the period taken for payments to be made once the system had been triggered.

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) on what dates the cold weather payments system was triggered in Preston during the winter of 1991–92; and how many households received payments on each occasion;

  (2) on what dates cold weather payments were made in Preston in response to a forecast of a qualifying period, indicating the period taken for payments to be made once the system had been triggered.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) on what dates cold weather payments were made in the parliamentary constituency of Greenock and Port Glasgow in response to a forecast of a qualifying period; and what was the period taken for payments to be made once the system has been triggered off;

  (2) on what dates, and in what areas of the parliamentary constituency of Greenock and Port Glasgow, the cold weather payments system was triggered during the winter of 1991–92; and how many households received payments on each occasion.

  Mr. Scott
  Such information as is available is in the Library.
  166
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many households in the Falkirk, West constituency qualify for payments under the cold weather payments scheme.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many households in the City of Durham constituency qualify for payments under the cold weather payments scheme.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many households in the parliamentary constituency of Greenock and Port Glasgow qualify for payments under the cold weather payments scheme.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Members with such information as is available and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Ms. Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will rewrite the section of the disability living allowance form on preparing a cooked main meal;

  (2) if he intends to rewrite the claim pack for the disability living allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms. Lynne) on 15 June at column 384.

  Ms. Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the claim pack for the disability living allowance will be available in a format accessible to blind and partially sighted people; and what the format will be.

  Mr. Scott
  The benefit inquiry line provides a forms completion service for disability living allowance. The claim pack is completed over the telephone and then sent to the person to be checked, signed and returned. The forms completion service is available in Braille and large print. The benefit inquiry line also provide audio cassette tapes to help visually impaired people to complete the disability living allowance forms.

  Pension Rights
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he will take to reduce the gender imbalance in pension rights.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Government have long been committed to the principle of equal treatment in pensions. We are now actively considering how best to achieve this in the state and occupational schemes.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for what reasons he decided that women widowed before the age of 45 years cannot receive widows' pensions.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The changes were made in 1988 to target help where it is most needed—older widows and widows with dependent children. This is fairer and reflects the reality of the changed employment pattern of women. Widows under 45 with dependent children continue to be eligible for widowed mother's allowance and there is now
  167
  a widow's payment of £1,000 for all eligible women immediately on bereavement regardless of entitlement to a subsequent weekly benefit.

  Young People (Hardship Payments)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for special hardship payments to 16 and 17-year-olds have been made at each benefit office in Tyne and Wear in each year since the general right to benefit was withdrawn; and how many of these applications were successful.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of income support is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Pensioners (Income Support)
  Ms. Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will allow pensioners in receipt of income support to continue to have benefit entitlement for housing/community charge benefit without having to re-apply every 12 months.

  Mr. Burt
  The existing arrangements are currently being examined in conjunction with representatives of the local authority associations.

  Standard rate of retirement pension

  Retirement pension as percentage of average gross earnings1

  Year

  Single £

  Couple £

  Average gross earnings £

  Single £

  Couple £

  November 1977

  17·50

  28·00

  83·40

  20·98

  33·57

  November 1978

  19·50

  31·20

  95·80

  20·35

  32·57

  November 1979

  23·30

  37·30

  114·10

  20·42

  32·69

  November 1980

  27·15

  43·45

  135·10

  20·10

  32·16

  November 1981

  29·60

  47·35

  149·50

  19·80

  31·67

  November 1982

  32·85

  52·55

  160·60

  20·45

  32·72

  November 1983

  34·05

  54·50

  172·40

  19·75

  31·61

  November 1984

  35·80

  57·30

  187·40

  19·10

  30·58

  November 1985

  38·30

  61·30

  199·50

  19·20

  30·73

  July 1986

  38·70

  61·95

  210·90

  18·35

  29·37

  April 1987

  39·50

  63·25

  224·00

  17·63

  28·24

  April 1988

  41·15

  65·90

  245·80

  16·74

  26·81

  April 1989

  43·60

  69·80

  269·50

  16·18

  25·90

  April 1990

  46·90

  75·10

  295·60

  15·87

  25·41

  April 1991

  52·00

  83·25

  318·90

  16·31

  26·11

  April 1992

  54·15

  86·70

  337·50

  16·04

  25·69

  1 Average gross earnings =average gross weekly earnings of full-time adult males in Great Britain.

  Child Support Act 1991
  Mrs. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated annual loss of revenue due to members of the armed forces being exempt from the provisions of the Child Support Act 1991.

  Mr. Burt
  It is intended that members of the Armed Forces will be subject to the child maintenance provisions of the Child Support Act 1991 in the same way as they are currently subject to court orders for maintenance. The necessary amending legislation is intended to be brought before the House in time for the implementation of the new scheme in April next year.

  Lodgers
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he proposes to take to encourage the taking in of lodgers(a) generally and (b) among those of or near retirement age.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have no plans for such initiatives in the social security system. However, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has introduced proposals for fiscal incentives in the current Finance Bill.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for South Hams, dated 23 April, regarding Mrs. J. Thorne of Southfield Rise, Paignton.

  Mr. Scott
  A reply was sent to my hon. Friend on 3 July. I very much regret the delay in responding.

  State Pensions
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average level of(a) a single person's state pension and (b) a married couple's state pension in each of the last 15 years; and how pension levels have related to average earnings in each year.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information is not available in the form requested. Details of the levels of the standard basic retirement pension, and how these have related to average earnings, are given in the table.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications his Department received in 1991 for back payment of attendance allowance; and how many of those applications were successful.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. leuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will specify the criteria used by his Department in determining applications for back payment of attendance allowance.
  169
  Mr. Scott
  Payment of attendance allowance cannot be made for any period before it is claimed.

  Advisory Committees
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the advisory committees and their memberships which advise him on matters relating to the European Community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I am advised by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council (IIAC) on relevant EC matters. This is a statutory advisory body made up of medical experts in occupational health, representatives of employers and employees organisations, a lawyer and an independent social researcher. A list of members can be found in their report published in May 1992, "Work-Related Upper Limb Disorders", Cm 1936.

  Other advisory committees associated with the Department are kept informed of EC issues. The Department also discusses EC issues with representatives of the pensions and financial services sector as necessary.

  War Disablement Pension
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the present level of war disablement pension for each rank; and what plans he has to increase the level.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information regarding levels of war disablement pension is contained in leaflet MPL 154, a copy of which is available in the Library. For ranks above private the levels include rank additions: for most war pensioners these represent only a few pence a week but several pounds for some officers.

  In order to simplify the war pensions scheme and provide a better service, rank additions will be abolished from April 1993. To ensure that no individual war pensioner will lose out as a result of the abolition the basic war disablement pension will be increased by 84p a week for non-commissioned officers and £5 for most officers.

  Mrs. Joanna Rotas
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the progress of the application of Mrs. Joanna Rotas of Western 'Has, Collins road, Totnes, south Devon, for(a) attendance allowance, made in October 1991 and (b) disability living allowance, made in March 1992; and when she can expect to learn whether these applications have been successful.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of attendance allowance and disability living allowance are matters for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many civil servants in his Department are paid at a rate exceeding that of a Cabinet Minister.

  Mr. Burt
  The total salary, including reduced parliamentary salary, of most Cabinet Ministers is £63,047. The number of civil servants in the Department of Social Security whose pay exceeds that figure is three.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what errors were made in the calculation of social fund allocations to district offices for 1992–93; when they were discovered; what changes were made in consequence and when; how many districts have had their allocations reduced or increased; and if he will supply details of the changes to hon. Members whose constituencies are affected.

  Mr. Scott
  An error in the data on which social fund discretionary budget allocations were based was identified on 17 March 1992; figures on income support caseload for a small number of districts had been attributed to the wrong districts. A full list of the revised allocations made to all districts was placed in the Library on 21 May 1992.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been his Department's response to the Social Security Advisory Committee's report "The Social Fund—A New Structure".

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) on 11 May at column 47.

  Benefits Agency Answers
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide a daily addendum to the Official Report which includes details of answers provided to hon. Members by the director of the Benefits Agency.

  Mr. Burt
  Copies of letters from the chief executive of the Benefits Agency which respond to hon. Members' questions are placed in the Library and Public Information Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 29 June at column 577 about future arrangements.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will now publish the evidence of all the organisations that replied to him in his recent consultations regarding the Child Support Agency regulations.

  Mr. Burt
  A number of interested organisations were approached for their views on the proposed content of the various regulations to be made under the Child Support Act 1991. It is for the organisations themselves to publish their views, if they wish to do so.

  Retirement Age
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list those organisations that supplied evidence to him in his recent consultations over the question of the equal state retirement age for men and women; and if he will now publish the evidence provided by all these organisations.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Over 3,500 responses have been received from organisations and individuals on the question of equalising state pension age. We will be examining these responses in detail and will be prepared to
  171
  accept late responses. The publication of the evidence received, and other issues arising from the discussion period, are still under consideration.

EMPLOYMENT

  Unemployment
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what specific measures she is taking to help the long-term unemployed.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I am determined to provide the best possible range of help and advice for long-term unemployed people. I keep our comprehensive package of employment and training measures under review to ensure that they continue to offer the most practical and effective help in getting back to work.

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current level of unemployment; and if she will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Compared with the previous month, there was a welcome slow-down in May in the increase in seasonally adjusted claimant unemployment, which for the United Kingdom stood at 2,716,600.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures she has planned to reduce unemployment in Ilford, South.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The employment service and training and enterprise councils deliver a wide range of employment, enterprise and training programmes to help unemployed people find the best and quickest route back to employment. In Ilford, South, as elsewhere. these programmes are tailored to take account of special local circumstances.

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make a statement about the level of unemployment in the northern region.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In May 1992 seasonally adjusted claimant unemployment in the northern region was 153,800.

  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will publish a table showing unemployment rates by ethnic origin in Greater London on the same basis as the answer on 13 November 1990,Official Report, column 123, to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman).

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested is as follows:

  Unemployment rates by ethnic origin in Greater London aged 16 and over Spring 1991

  per cent.

  All persons1

  9

  White

  8

  Non-white

  14

  West Indian/Guyanese

  15

  Indian

  12

  Pakistan/Bangladeshi

  18

  other ethnic origins2

  15

  Source Labour force survey.

  1 Includes those who did not state origin.

  2 Includes those of mixed origin.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make a statement on the definition of health and safety as used by European institutions in assessing the procedures by which instruments of European legislation are processed.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Article 118A of the treaty of Rome does not define health and safety, and we will continue to argue vigorously against its use where there are no proven health and safety risks.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will increase the Government's provision for young people's training.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  We plan to spend over £850 million on youth training in the current financial year. This compares with a mere £63 million spent on YOP in 1978–79. I am satisfied that this Government has given training and enterprise councils the resources they require to meet the training needs of young people.

  Bridlington Agreement
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will introduce legislation to make the Bridlington agreement unlawful.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Following proposals in the Green Paper, "Industrial Relations in the 1990s", my right hon. Friend intends to bring forward legislation which would greatly increase individuals' freedom to belong to the trade union of their choice. That legislation would make it unlawful for a union to exclude or expel an individual simply because it was required to do so through the application of the Trades Union Congress "Bridlington principles".

  Employment
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how full employment is currently defined.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Full employment is a concept with no generally accepted definition.

  Training
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what recent review she has undertaken of the effectiveness of the Government's training programmes.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I am satisfied that, across the country as a whole, the Government's training programmes are meeting the needs of young people, unemployed people and the economy.

  Single Parents
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action she is taking to allow single parents to carry out employment and training.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  We offer single parents help to join employment training through special eligibility conditions
  173
  and the chance to train on a part-time basis. In addition, all single parents who have been out of work for six months or more are eligible to join a job club. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is also making changes to the benefit system which will make it easier for single parents to go to work when they are ready to do so.

  European Community Working Time Directive
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make a statement about the EC's proposals to introduce a 48-hour working week.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The proposed working time directive was discussed at the Social Affairs Council on 24 June. I made it clear that the United Kingdom continues to have very severe doubts about the directive as a whole and its proposed legal base. In discussions on the text, the United Kingdom secured all its key objectives, in particular the right for employees to work for more than 48 hours a week if they choose to do so. Other member states continued to have difficulties with the directive as drafted and in consequence the Council did not reach a common position.

  Women Workers
  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how she intends to increase opportunities for women throughout the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have nothing further to add to the reply that I gave my hon. Friend on 9 June 1992,Official Report, column 140.

  Pregnant Workers
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will support the European Commission pregnant women at work directive.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government are seeking to uphold the common position on the directive which was agreed by the Council of Ministers in 1991.

  Travel-to-Interviews Scheme
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans she has to review the pilot scheme for travel to interviews currently operated on the Isle of Wight.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I am informed by the chief executive of the Employment Service that the pilot arrangements for travel to interviews currently operated on the Isle of Wight are being considered as part of an ongoing review of the travel-to-interview scheme. In the meantime, the pilot arrangements for the Isle of Wight will continue.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps she is taking to raise awareness among small businesses of the services offered to them by training and enterprise councils.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Training and enterprise councils (TECs) offer businesses, including small businesses, a174
  variety of support services to help business development. In doing so, TECs work with other local organisations such as chambers of commerce and local enterprise agencies. TECs are therefore best placed to raise awareness and market these services at local level.

  Work Statistics
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the estimated ratio of the work force to the non-working population(a) currently and (b) in the years (i) 2000, (ii) 2010 and (iii) 2020, respectively.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In 1991, the ratio of the estimated United Kingdom civilian labour force to the non-working population was 0·999. In the year 2000, the corresponding ratio is projected to be 0·995.

  Labour force projections are not currently available beyond the year 2001.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is her estimate of the size of the work force relative to the size of the retired population in the years(a) 2000, (b) 2010 and (c) 2020, respectively.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In the year 2000 the United Kingdom civilian labour force is projected to be 29,449,000, 2·97 times the retired population.

  Labour force projections are not currently available beyond the year 2001.

  Disabled People
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what criteria she uses to measure the performance of employment services for disabled people; what plans she has to improve these services; what consultations she intends to carry out with disability organisations before introducing any amendments to service provision; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Employment Department's main provision for helping to meet the employment needs of people with disabilities is delivered through the Employment Service (ES).

  The ES's objectives in its services for people with disabilities are to provide them with particular assistance to take advantage of work and training opportunities; and to help and encourage employers to make such opportunities available. The annual performance agreement between the Employment Department and ES sets out a performance target for the ES for 1991–92 that 2·5 per cent. of the total number of people placed in work are to be people with disabilities. In addition, the ES monitors the effectiveness of schemes using both management information, such as the numbers of people benefiting, and special research and surveys.

  Proposals for improving the Department's services for people with disabilities were contained in the consultative document "Employment and Training of People with Disabilities" published in June 1990 and further proposals were made when the "Evaluation of Special schemes for People with Disabilities" was published in November 1990. We received many responses to these documents from various individuals and organisations, including organisations of and for disabled people.

  As a result of these consultation exercises, we have announced and implemented changes in some areas and

  175
  we are considering other ways to improve our provision. For example, the ES is introducing placing assessment and counselling teams (PACTs) during 1992. PACTs will take on all the present functions of disablement resettlement officers, the disablement advisory service and the assessment functions of the employment rehabilitation service. These new teams will provide a more integrated service to both employers and disabled individuals.

  Ministers consult regularly with the National Advisory Council on Employment of People with Disabilities on plans and performance nationally and on local matters with committees for the employment of people with disabilities. When reconstituting the Department's advisory bodies care has been taken to include in them individuals with knowledge of the needs of people with disabilities, some of whom are members of disability organisations.

  In considering, planning and implementing improvements to employment services for people with disabilities the Department involves disability organisations as appropriate. For example, a number of interested organisations will be consulted on proposals arising from a recent review of funding for sheltered employment.

  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps are being taken by her Department to improve the accessibility of mainstream employment services to people with disabilities.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Most people with disabilities who find work through our services do so using our mainstream services. These services are kept under review with the aim of ensuring accessibility for people with disabilities.

  Since April 1991 people with disabilities have priority access to the main employment and training programmes—employment training, employment action, the job interview guarantee scheme, job clubs and the enterprise allowance scheme.

  The Employment Service has issued guidance to mainstream personnel about their role in helping people with disabilities to find work. The new placing assessment and counselling teams and regional ability development centres will offer support and guidance to mainstream personnel, including help with training, in providing help for people with disabilities who do not require specialist help.

  The Employment Service has issued to staff responsible for its premises guidance on improving access to jobcentres for people with disabilities which takes account of the latest standards in the building regulations.

  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when the audit of non-specialist programmes against the needs of people with disabilities was completed; and if she will place a copy in the Library.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Department's consultative document "Employment and Training for People with Disabilities" referred to the Department's intention to audit new and established programmes and services to ensure that they meet the needs of clients with disabilities. Auditing is now under way but the process is continuous and so there will be no report on its completion.

  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans she has to evaluate the policy of using agencies for the assessment and rehabilitation of disabled people.
  176
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Employment Service regularly monitors the effectiveness and quality of provision within individual agencies with which it contracts to provide specialist employment assessment and rehabilitation. It is currently considering carrying out further research into the effectiveness of rehabilitation.

  Health and Safety at Work Festival
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 5 June,Official Report, columns 645–46, if she will list the titles and originators of the videos chosen to represent the United Kingdom at the festival on safety, hygiene and health protection at work in Greece in October.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  A list of the titles and originators of the United Kingdom video entries to the European video film festival is not yet available from the European Commission.

  The film festival was open to all health and safety videos made after 1989. Entries were made direct to the European Commission and there was no pre-selection or nomination process.

  I will write to the hon. Member when the information is available and place a copy in the Library.

  Nursery Facilities
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures her Department are taking to encourage industry to make nursery and creche facilities available for female employees.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department consistently encourages employers to consider the possible advantages to them of supporting nursery and creche facilities which could benefit all employees with young children. The booklet, "The Best of Both Worlds", describes some initiatives which different employers have taken.

  EC Social Affairs Ministers
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will state the purpose of the informal meeting of Social Affairs Ministers of the European Community scheduled to take place on 12 and 13 October; when she expects to announce the agenda of that meeting; and in what manner the results will be communicated to Parliament and the public.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The informal meeting will focus on means of making progress on major employment and social affairs issues facing the Community. The discussion is, for example, likely to be concerned with how best to promote employment growth in the member states, and with ensuring effective implementation and enforcement of existing EC legislation across the Community. I shall arrange for the House to be informed of the main outcomes.

  Building Trade
  Ms. Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many full apprenticeships in the building trade were begun in the north-west in each of the last five years and in 1981, 1971 and 1961.
  177
  Mr. McLoughlin
  Information is not collected by the Department in the form requested. However, the labour force survey for the years 1987 to 1991 indicates that the numbers in the north-west of those continuing a construction trade apprenticeship were as follows:

  Numbers

  1987

  1under 10,000

  1988

  1under 10,000

  1989

  11,002

  1990

  11,226

  1991

  10,344

  1 Estimates for 10,000 people or fewer (after grossing up) are not shown, since they are likely to be based on small samples and therefore unreliable. This is in line with current practice for labour force survey based analyses.

  Jobseekers Charter
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make a statement on the working of the jobseekers charter.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Questions on operational matters in the Employment Service executive agency are the responsibility of the agency's chief executive, to whom I have referred this question for reply.

  Advisory Committees
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list the advisory committees and their memberships which advise her on matters relating to the European Community; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment consults widely on all proposals for EC legislation and other significant Community instruments. She particularly values the comments of advisory committees whose responsibilities cover matters which are the subject of the EC proposal in question.

  My right hon. Friend is advised by the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) on matters relating to health and safety at work, including proposed EC legislation in this area. HSC's advice follows consultation with its relevant consultative committees. The members of the Health and Safety Commission are:

  Sir John Cullen (Chairman)

  Councillor Eddie Carrick

  Mr. Paul Gallagher

  Mr. Peter Jacques CBE

  Mr. John C. Marvin

  Mr. Nigel J. Pitcher

  Councillor Dr. Colin Shannon CBE

  Mr. Rex H. M. Symons

  Mr. Alan Tuflin

  Dame Rachel Waterhouse

  Civil Servants,
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many civil servants in her Department are paid at a rate exceeding that of a Cabinet Minister.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The total salary, including reduced parliamentary salary, of most Cabinet Ministers is £63,047. The number of civil servants in the Department of Employment group whose pay currently exceeds this figure is three.
  178
  The chairman of the Health and Safety Commission, the chairman of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service and the President of the Central Office of the Industrial Tribunals, Scotland are also paid more than a Cabinet Minister but are not civil servants.

  Wages Councils
  Mr.Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary to State for Employment if she will make a statement on the future of the wages councils as they affect Wales.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Government have made it clear on many occasions that the wages councils have no permanent place in the labour market in Wales or the rest of the United Kingdom.

  International Labour Organisation
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make a statement on the implementation by the Government of those conventions of the International Labour Organisation to which the Government are currently a signatory.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government continue to have full and proper regard to the importance of the International Labour Organisation conventions which the United Kingdom has ratified and to honour its obligations accordingly.

  Earnings
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if she will provide a table indicating the average gross weekly earnings of(a) women and (b) men in each county area in the northern region for each year from 1979, (i) at current prices and (ii) at 1979 prices;

  (2) if she will provide a table indicating the average gross weekly earnings of (a) women and (b) men in each standard region for each year from 1979 at (i) current prices and (ii) 1979 prices;

  (3) if she will provide a table indicating the numbers and proportion of (a) women and (b) men earning less than 68 per cent. of the national average gross weekly wage in each county area in the northern region in (i) 1979 and (ii) 1991;

  (4) if she will provide a table indicating the proportion of (a) women and (b) men earning less than 68 per cent. of the national average gross weekly wage in each standard region in (i) 1979 and (ii) 1991;

  (5) if she will provide a table indicating the number of (a) women and (b) men earning less than 68 per cent. of the national average gross weekly wage in each standard region in (i) 1979 and (ii) 1991.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The average gross weekly earnings of men and women by standard region and county can be found in tables 110 and 113 of part E of the new earnings survey report from 1979 onwards. Information on the retail prices index—all items—to convert 1979 figures to 1991 prices is published in table 6.4 of the latest Employment Gazette for April 1991, and in table 26 of the annual supplement to Economic Trends for April of earlier years. Copies of the publications are available in the Library.

  Sixty-eight per cent. of average gross weekly earnings for all full-time adult employees was £60·09 in 1979 and

  179
  £193·06 in 1991. Estimates of the numbers earning less than these amounts are not available. The proportions earning less than the available figures which are closest to these are shown in the table.

  Full-time employees whose pay was not affected by absence

  Percentage1 with weekly earnings less than:

  April 1979 £60

  April 1991 £60

  Women

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Standard Regions

  South East

  41·8

  6·4

  31·6

  13–0

  East Anglia

  59·3

  10·7

  56·2

  20·8

  South West

  60·5

  11·8

  53·7

  22·3

  West Midlands

  56·6

  7·0

  57·6

  21·3

  East Midlands

  59·8

  8·4

  57·5

  21·7

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  61·0

  8·6

  56·4

  23·2

  North West

  58·2

  8·7

  54·5

  20·9

  North

  60·2

  8·1

  59·4

  22·0

  Wales

  56·8

  9·9

  57·7

  24·8

  Scotland

  59·5

  9·3

  54·7

  23·2

  Counties in the Northern region

  Tyne and Wear MC

  58·2

  9·4

  57·2

  22·5

  Cleveland

  54·4

  4·8

  58·9

  20·9

  Cumbria

  67·6

  7·8

  57·4

  16·7

  Durham

  62·9

  8·4

  63·9

  25·6

  Northumberland

  62·8

  9·8

  65·0

  26·7

  1 The percentages are not strictly comparable because the 1979 figures are for men aged 21 and over and women aged 18 and over while the 1991 figures are for men and women on adult rates of pay. Additional tables in part F of the 1983 NES report provide information on the change.

  Source: New earnings survey, 1979 and 1991.

  Employment Service
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will provide a table of expenditure showing the cost of running each regional office of the Employment Service aggregated by region, with Greater London shown as a separate region and excluding the funding programmes operated by the offices for each year from 1987–88(a) at current prices and (b) at 1987–88 prices.
  180
  Mr. McLoughlin
  Questions on operational matters in the Employment Service executive agency are the responsibility of the agency's chief executive, to whom I have referred this question for reply.

  Training Credits
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of all 16 and 17-year-olds is currently on a training credit scheme.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 3 July 1992] : Training credits schemes currently operate in 10 of the 82 training and enterprise councils in England and Wales, and one of the 22 local enterprise companies in Scotland, and offer training to those 16 and 17-year-olds who leave full-time education.

  The number of 16 and 17-year-olds currently on a training credit scheme represents an estimated 1 per cent. of the total number of 16 and 17-year-olds in Great Britain.

  Training
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is her estimate of the number of young people seeking a youth training place for the most recent date for which figures are available.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 6 July 1992] : The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the contribution of the European social fund to the Government's youth training, employment training and employment action programmes.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 6 July 1992] : In 1991, the latest year for which contributions received are available, employment training received £156·59 million and youth training received £15·81 million from the European social fund (ESF). There was no contribution to employment action.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester.

Lord Merlyn-Rees
The Right Honourable Merlyn Merlyn-Rees, having been created Baron Merlyn-Rees, of Morley and South Leeds in the County of West Yorkshire and of Cilfynydd in the County of Mid Glamorgan, for life —Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Dean of Beswick and the Lord Richard.

Lord Parkinson
The Right Honourable Cecil Edward Parkinson, having been created Baron Parkinson, of Carnforth in the County of Lancashire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Brabazon of Tara and the Lord McAlpine of West Green.
Noble Lords Noble Lords —Took the Oath.

War Crimes Act 1991
3 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote Viscount Caldecote asked Her Majesty's Government:
How much money has been spent on investigations of suspects under the War Crimes Act 1991.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, in England and Wales in 1991–92 the costs were £1,003,072. The corresponding figure for Scotland is about £300,000.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that clear reply. Can he say what the estimated further expenditure is likely to be before the stage is reached when a decision can be taken on whether prosecutions should be started on these suspects?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I cannot tell my noble friend whether or when prosecutions will be started. However, I can tell him that in the forthcoming year a figure of £6.2 million has been provided. In Scotland the figure is £1.15 million.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether the decision to prosecute by the prosecuting authorities in the United Kingdom will be taken only if there is enough evidence to suggest a realistic prospect of a conviction?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is the usual course of events but the decision to prosecute will be taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions after consultation with the Attorney-General; and in Scotland it will be taken by the Lord Advocate.
Lord Morris: My Lords, bearing in mind the second criterion which is always brought to bear when considering whether prosecution should go forward —namely, that it is in the public interest—and bearing in mind the appalling costs, can my noble friend demonstrate that it is in the public interest so to do?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is not for a government Minister to decide whether it is in the public interest. That is a matter for the lawyers. I have told your Lordships that that will be one of the cases which will be considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions and, indeed, by the Attorney-General.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, in view of the fact that the Question relates to the War Crimes Act 1991, and to the millions who were slaughtered, is it possible to measure in pounds and pence the cost of finding the criminals?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, those were parts of the arguments which were deployed when the War Crimes Bill was going through Parliament. The fact is that the Bill went through Parliament. Parliament decided to enact it and it is now for those responsible to take the necessary action.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell the House how many cases are at present under investigation?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, 300 cases were identified by the Hetherington-Chalmers inquiry. A further 43 cases have been brought to the attention of the Metropolitan Police War Crimes Unit. All those cases have been reviewed. Ninety-two cases are under active investigation.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, can my noble friend inform the House how many suspects are under investigation in the figures he has just given?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, 92 cases are under active investigation.

Unemployment and Bankruptcies
3.5 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they will take to reduce unemployment and business bankruptcies.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, the Government's key role is to ensure a sound and stable economic framework within which enterprise can flourish and produce the goods and services that people want to buy at the price they are willing to pay. That is how jobs are created and businesses become successful.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that reply. When will the Government commence the policy to which he has referred? Is he aware that the jobless figure for this year is the highest for the past five years? It is 75 per cent. higher than in May 1990. Is he also aware that 26,000 Britons have become personally bankrupt?

1055
Notwithstanding the magnificent endeavours of Mr. Malcolm Rifkind in his discussions with the Germans, it now appears that the contract for the European Fighter Aircraft will not now take place, involving the loss of 40,000 jobs. In future ought we not to make sure that a superb Minister like Mr. Rifkind is not put to that embarrassment? I am sure that if he had the job of seeking to get rid of unemployment and bankruptcies he would be able to carry out the policy that the noble Viscount has said that the Government intend one day to implement. Would it not be proper for us to write into any such contract that where there is some disagreement the contract will not immediately be broken so that both governments can examine the situation without thousands of people being put out of work?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I agree entirely with much of what the noble Lord said. I too admire my right honourable friend. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, would like to come and sit on this side of the House. I am sure that he would be a good advocate for us.
We obviously need now to discuss the German proposals on the European Fighter Aircraft in detail with Italy and Spain to establish whether there is a cost effective way to continue the EFA programme on a three-nation basis before we take rash decisions about the number of jobs that might be involved.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one has to set against the number of bankruptcies the much larger figure which represents the number of new companies being created? Does my noble friend also agree that one way to reduce the number of bankruptcies and the level of unemployment is for local authorities and large companies to pay their accounts to small companies more timeously than many of them do?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble friend brings out an important point in his last supplementary question. It is the duty of all large companies to make certain that their payment contracts are honoured. However, in any dynamic economy there will always be firms ceasing trading and new firms starting up. The National Westminster Bank and Barclays Bank estimate that between 120,000 and 134,000 new businesses started up in the first quarter of 1992. That puts the 30,000 failures reported in the first six months by Dun and Bradstreet—regrettable though they are—into perspective.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that one way to reduce bankruptcies, in particular of small businesses, is for training and enterprise councils to provide the counselling and informed advice needed to help fledgling businesses to survive.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, yes, indeed. In 1992–93 TECs plan to help about 50,000 business start-ups and about 100,000 other training and counselling support activities using financial resources of £170 million.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that between 1st January and 18th March this year over 33,000 jobs were lost in manufacturing industry? Is that not a very sorry record despite what he said about a dynamic economy? Will the Government consider utilising its presidency in Europe as a first means of devising a strategy for coping with unemployment at a European level? Should not a strategy be developed at European level to deal with unemployment as a first priority?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I agree that the number of jobs in manufacturing industries is continuing to drop, although at a much lower rate. However, the percentage of GDP within manufacturing has remained broadly the same for the past 10 years. Therefore, manufacturing industry is not being whittled away, as some noble Lords would have us believe. It is important that we should consider manufacturing industry because it has a part to play. However, we should not forget that a large number of jobs have been re-classified into the service industry sector.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, in view of the previous supplementary question and the answer that the Government are responsible for setting up a general framework to minimise unemployment and bankruptcies, can my noble friend say with certainty that some of the actions that the Government might like to take are hampered to some extent by the directives which come from Strasbourg and Brussels?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, if my noble friend is alluding to working practice, we need to be aware that we have one of the most flexible work forces. We must ensure that it remains so.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the West Midlands is known as the heartland of manufacturing and that in that area manufacturing is rising week by week? Is the Minister further aware that although he speaks about GDP, unemployment does not pay the mortgage?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the manufacturing industry is in a healthy state. During the three months to April output rose by 1 per cent. Productivity is increasing and we must ensure that we remain in a competitive position when the upturn in the economy arrives.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, in view of the fact that any revival of prosperity must be as the result of an export-led increase, do the Government intend to take any action to revise the cuts which they have made in export credit guarantees for industry, considering the disadvantages which our exporters face when dealing with the French and the Germans?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the policy is kept under review. It is pleasing to report that during the three months to May exports were 2.5 per cent. higher than in the previous three months. They are now running at a record level.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, has the Minister noted that, faced with similar circumstances, the

1057
United States recently reduced interest rates? Do the Government believe that a stimulus would be given to the economy if interest rates were reduced, or are we constrained from taking such action by our membership of the ERM?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, interest rates play an important part in the control of the economy. As inflation has fallen it has been possible to reduce them; since October they have fallen by some 5 per cent. The Government will continue to set interest rates at a level necessary to bear down on inflation and to keep sterling within its ERM bands. It is more important to keep down inflation than it is to keep down interest rates.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Government consider setting up a body such as the National Economic Development Council, which its creator, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, rightly stated was helpful to government and industry? Does the Minister agree that there is a human side to bankruptcies and unemployment and that the misery of bankrupt businessmen and their former employees should be taken into account?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I was not aware that Neddy created many jobs. Its role and composition ceased to be relevant to the challenges facing industry in the 1990s and for that reason it was abandoned. I understand the anxiety of all noble Lords for the people who lose their jobs and for the effect that that has upon them and their families.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if the Government were seriously concerned about unemployment or bankruptcies they could easily allow local authorities to use the capital which they have accumulated as a result of the sale of council houses to build more houses? That would encourage employment in the construction industry. Does the Minister further agree that the addition of provisions for energy efficiency would greatly increase employment among the workforce which installs insulation and other means of increasing energy efficiency?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the issue is one of financial prudence. Many assets will have been acquired by borrowing and it is sensible that a substantial part of the receipts from the sale of an asset should be set aside to repay debt.

"Working Peers"
3.15 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford asked the Leader of the House (Lord Wakeham):
How many Members of the House are "working Peers" according to the definition used by Her Majesty's Government.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I do not believe that the House or our constitution recognises the term "working Peer" as a separate category. Certain categories of Peers have, however, been created with the purpose of strengthening the
1058
political parties in this House. Since 1975, 107 Peers have been ennobled on that basis, of whom, I am pleased to say, 96 are still with us.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I had intended to say that I was grateful to the Minister for his Answer but after hearing the first part I became less grateful. Does he agree that it is high time that the distinction, which is so embarrassing to working Peers if they can be identified—I do not suppose that they would like to be asked to stand up this afternoon—and so insulting to the rest of us, should be discontinued?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, as I indicated, I do not believe that it is a term that we recognise. However, any definition of the term "working Peer" would be phoney if the noble Earl were not included in it.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in view of the imbalance between the parties in the number of Peers for life, does the noble Lord the Leader of the House agree that there is a strong case for introducing a better and more equitable system of appointing Peers who are prepared to give their time and abilities to the service of this House?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, since 1975, when so-called working Peers were created, 50 Labour Peers, 49 Conservative Peers, 5 Liberal Peers, 1 Social Democrat Peer (who I am afraid has died) and 1 Cross-Bench Peer have been introduced. There is also 1 Ulster Unionist, who has yet to be introduced. Therefore, it is unreasonable to say that the Opposition Benches do not receive a reasonable number of Peers.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for producing those figures. Is it not the case that during the past 13 years the disparity between the Conservative and Official Opposition Benches in this House has increased by 63?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I have studied the figures and I believe that there are many ways of interpreting them. The noble Lord and I have discussed the issue and I have no doubt that we shall continue to do so. However, on the basis of Peers specially created to assist the political parties, I do not believe that the Opposition parties have done too badly.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is it not fair to say that, even on the figures that the noble Lord has presented to the House, the introduction of five Peers on these Benches out of a total of 114 is an under-representation in relation to the level of support that we have in the country and to the level of support which this House receives from Peers on these Benches?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, 59 Peers now take the Liberal Democratic Whip and that figure is shortly to rise to 60. That represents 6 per cent. of the total number entitled to attend. However, in practice the percentage is higher because a significant number of Members of this House do not attend regularly. Of course, this House has never been constituted so as to reflect votes cast or the composition of the House of

1059
Commons. I believe that the Liberal Democrats are reasonably well represented in numbers and that their contributions are extremely valuable.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, given the continuing and perhaps increasing importance of this House in scrutinising legislation and the particular burden that that imposes upon those who speak from the Opposition Front Benches, does not my noble friend consider that the time has come for those who speak regularly from the Opposition Front Benches to be paid?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, it is always an attractive proposition to support a suggestion of that kind from my noble friend. I hope that he will not believe me to be a wet blanket if I do not go totally enthusiastically overboard as regards his suggestion. First, I do not believe that the quality of the Opposition is in any way lacking in this House. It is of an extremely high standard. The payment of Opposition spokesmen is governed by the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975. The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition and the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip are both salaried office holders. Of course, support for the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen is also available through the system of Short money. I have no plans to suggest any changes but those matters are discussed from time to time.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, there is no lack of quality on the Opposition Benches; as the noble Lord said, it is the lack of numbers. With the noble Lord's mastery of statistics which he has shown this afternoon—and we all know the definition of statistics—is it not clear that if there are 50 on one side and 49 on the other, nothing has been done to remove the disparity between the two sides? I am sure the noble Lord will take into account the fact that unless something is done to remedy the disparity, questions of reform of the House of Lords will continue to grow and this side of the House will continue to labour under a grievance as regards the failure by the Government to remedy that difference.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's point. I was not particularly quoting statistics. I was giving the House some simple facts which I thought would be helpful. I do not believe that the Opposition parties have done too badly in recent years. As the House will know, we are shortly to receive a number of welcome additions to our ranks from the Labour Party. However, we must keep the matter constantly under review.
Lord Elton: My Lords, do not recent voting figures suggest that the Opposition do not labour under the great disparity which is claimed? Is there not a great deal in the proposal by my noble friend Lord Marlesford that it would be possible for the Front Bench opposite, no matter which party is in office, to be strengthened if the great amount of time required
1060
by private individuals to devote to public business were to be recognised by some modest form of remuneration?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, those proposals can be considered but we should not lightly adopt them—not that we should be able to do that. There are a number of other considerations as regards the payment for attendance at the House. At present, expenses are reimbursed. If we sought to move to another system the Inland Revenue may have a view about that.
Earl Russell: My Lords, if it is true that the representation on these Benches in this House is not too bad, is it not the case that that is not as a result of the policy of successive Prime Ministers but rather because the hereditary principle is the only part of our constitutional arrangements which contains a de facto element of proportional representation?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, as I heard the noble Earl asking his question I wondered whether it was his father in my youth rather than the noble Earl. It is a wise question to which I do not know the answer.
Lord Annan: My Lords, will the Leader of the House consider something other than numbers in regard to this matter? He is able to refresh his Front Bench with young and spritely Members from among the hereditary Peers, whereas the Opposition are often driven to appoint to their Front Bench men and women of advanced years who find that late-night sittings and sustained committee work are intolerably burdensome?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, that struck me as another way of saying that the Opposition Front Bench is full of the wisdom of years rather than the inexperience of youth. However, my noble friends on the Front Bench do their best while labouring under that difficulty.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, as we are dealing somewhat lightheartedly with a serious question, will the noble Lord the Leader of the House, who has such a command of English, look tomorrow at Hansard? What will he do about his sentence to his noble friend in which he said that he did not wish to be considered a wet blanket if he did not go overboard?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I should say to the noble Lord that since 24 minutes have elapsed, perhaps it is time to move on to the next Question.

Cosmetics Marketing: EC Directive
3.25 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will endeavour during their Presidency of the Council of the European Community to ensure the adoption of the proposed amendments to the EC directive on the marketing of cosmetics.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government hope that the member states will be able to reach a common position on those proposals during the United Kingdom presidency.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, would the noble Baroness not agree that the higher status which is accorded to animal welfare, not least by the Maastricht declaration on the protection of animals, should be reflected by the Council of Ministers agreeing to phase out—and to do so quickly—all testing of cosmetics on animals, not just confining it to skin and eye irritancy testing?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. We should like to see all testing on animals phased out. As soon as there are validated alternatives, we should wish to see that.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, what validated alternatives are the Government suggesting to the Commission so that the directive can be properly amended?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, validated alternatives are being worked on. Her Majesty's Government drew attention to the skin and eye irritancy tests. In March of this year my predecessor asked for the target date of 1998 to be set because it would appear that that target can be achieved. As soon as other targets can be achieved relating to the problems of cancer-inducing substances and acute and repeated dose toxicity, we shall again be in the lead as regards the phasing out of animal testing.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, does the Minister accept that it is extremely important that there should be a Europe-wide ban so that cosmetic testing in other countries across the world will also be affected? If it is a European ban, does that not mean that British industry would not be at a disadvantage and, therefore, that the Government should pursue that course as vigorously as they can?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness. It is important that we should pursue that course with the utmost conviction.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, would the fairer sex be very much less fair if cosmetics were phased out altogether?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I should point out that the definition of cosmetics includes soap, toothpaste and deodorants. Your Lordships may wish us to continue our work in those areas.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the noble Baroness not accept that the proposal advanced by the Commission takes full account of the possibility that validated alternatives may not be ready by 1998? Consequently, why can the Minister not go along with the idea at this stage of a total ban and allowance for the qualification to take effect if need be?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I believe I said clearly that we support the directives. There is an explicit provision out of the parliamentary requirement that, if non-animal validated tests were not available, then the matter would be deferred until they were.

London Regional Transport (Penalty Fares) Bill
3.30 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Peterhead Harbours Order Confirmation Bill
Considered on report.

Civil Service (Management Functions) Bill [H.L.]
3.31 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. —(Earl Howe.)
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, before we proceed to Committee I should like to say a few words on behalf of my noble friends on this side of the House and also on behalf of noble Lords of the Liberal Democrat Party.
It became clear in the Second Reading debate of the Bill that there is a great deal of uncertainty in regard to its scope and meaning. As a result the noble Lord the Leader of the House arranged a meeting on 22nd June to seek to clarify the position. We were grateful to him for that.
The responsible Minister, the right honourable gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy, Mr. William Waldegrave, was good enough to attend that meeting and the assurances we were given tended to allay our apprehensions. We were told that the purpose of the Bill was not to introduce market testing, contracting out or privatisation. Of course, Parliament must scrutinise an enabling Bill with special care, as noble Lords will concede. But we have an uneasy feeling that behind the innocent facade stalks the menacing spectre of Henry VIII.
Following the meeting on 22nd June we are informed that a meeting was held between Cabinet Office officials and representatives of the Civil Service trade unions. Union officers left the meeting feeling that the responses on the central issue of market testing and privatisation were still ambiguous. Their impression was that although the Bill is not directly aimed at those matters, it is nevertheless part of a process for facilitating them.

1063
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, will be aware that we are concerned, first, about the alleged need for primary legislation. We were never sure about that. It is a complex matter because it still affects the Royal prerogative. Since 1968 considerable powers have been vested in the Minister responsible for the Civil Service. We are told that functions cannot be delegated by transfer of functions orders. Is that the legal position? The House needs to know that before we move into Committee. Is that the reason why the Bill is deemed essential? We need to be clear on that point also.
We were further told that the Bill will not authorise or facilitate market testing, contracting out or privatisation of the Civil Service. As I said, we appreciated that assurance when it was given to us at the meeting. However, I must put a crucial point to the Minister. Are the Government also saying that the policies outlined by Mr. Waldegrave in his speech of 1st June—that is, market testing, contracting out and privatisation on a large scale —can be implemented without further legislation in Parliament?
At the meeting of 22nd June the Minister said that there would be a parliamentary debate on the policies outlined by him in his speech of 1st June. No doubt that can be confirmed by the noble Earl today. I shall be most grateful if either the Leader of the House or the noble Earl can assist with the points I have raised.
Earl Russell: My Lords, it is proper that I should offer my apologies to the House for the fact that I was unable to attend the Second Reading of the Bill. Nevertheless, speaking rather more selfishly, I must admit to a certain relief that I was not present. Had I been present I may have found myself faced with a rather indigestible diet of words.
At present I believe that the Bill is not a conspiracy. However, it caused a certain amount of alarm, first, because of the lack of consultation with the Civil Service unions and, secondly, because of the absence of Notes on Clauses—in other words, the absence of any intelligible explanation of the Bill. Thirdly, it caused alarm because of the coincidence of its publication with the Minister's speech of 1st June on competition and market testing.
Since that time Notes on Clauses have become available—the most helpful documents to come from the Government for some time, containing a perfectly intelligible explanation of the Bill. I have now read the Bill several times. It seems to me appropriate for the purposes set out in the Notes on Clauses. They are purposes to which I have no objection. In due course, when we go into Committee, I hope to help the Government to achieve them.
My first object will be to make sure that the Government have not inadvertently enabled their successors to do things which perhaps they do not want to do but which others may want to do. For example, I wondered what the effect of the Bill would be on a proposal introduced in a subsequent Parliament for Scottish devolution. It is well known that that is something which I support and this Government do not. But I do not support it so blindly that I would wish to see it done without any further
1064
parliamentary scrutiny of the administrative changes involved. I wonder whether the Bill would involve that.
Secondly, I shall be scrutinising the Bill to see whether it has perhaps inadvertently authorised some future government to privatise parts of the Civil Service. That is a purpose I would find extremely sad.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, does not the noble Earl think he is out of order in making a Second Reading speech? The issue before the House is a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. I wish to comment on that; the noble Earl is virtually making a Second Reading speech.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am explaining why my reasons for supporting the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, are rather different from those that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, may attribute to me. That, I hope, is in order. I was explaining that, although I do not regard the Bill as a conspiracy, it has caused considerable alarm. Since the publication of the Notes on Clauses I have attempted, in conversations with a number of people who may be affected by the Bill, to try to dispel that alarm. I found that to be a surprisingly difficult task. It is one on which I am entitled to ask for the Government's help.
I now come to the nub of my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. It is not at all clear that the purposes outlined in the Minister's speech of 1st June would require further legislation. The question therefore arises of whether they should be scrutinised while we are dealing with the Bill or whether they should be scrutinised on some future occasion—for scrutinised they must be. Those who support them may agree to that equally with those who oppose them.
There are some quite significant changes. They may not be directly connected with the Bill; they could be indirectly connected. They could change our constitutional arrangements quite fundamentally. Therefore, before we go into Committee on the Bill and accept the Government's reassurances—the noble Lord perhaps now sees why I began by explaining that, provisionally at least, I accept those reassurances —I should like to ask whether the noble Earl, when he replies, can undertake that the proposals in the Minister's speech on 1st June will receive parliamentary scrutiny before any significant action is taken upon them. I am asking whether we can have a scrutiny of those proposals separate from the Committee stage of the Bill. That means a debate in government time before any action is taken. It means significant consultation with the Civil Service unions. When I hear the noble Earl's answer to that, which I await with interest, I shall then consider the Motion to go into Committee.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before my noble friend replies to the very important points raised by the Leader of the Opposition and to what I may describe as the Second Reading speech of the noble Earl on the Liberal Benches, perhaps I may ask him whether he appreciates that to many of us it seems that the points raised by the Leader of the Opposition

1065
would be considered in Committee much more conveniently and more in accordance with the rules of order. They will arise indubitably on several of the amendments which are already on the Marshalled List. I suggest that the right thing for your Lordships to do is for the House to go into Committee and for these matters then to be discussed.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, quite apart from the point put by my noble friend, I believe that the intervention made by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, should be looked at from a parliamentary point of view. He reminded the House that the Government offered to meet to discuss certain feelings of difference with the Opposition. That was honoured and the meeting took place. We are told that it was attended by the right honourable Minister who is responsible for eventually getting the matter to the statute book.
At that meeting the Opposition clearly must have been satisfied. Following it there was no question that the parliamentary contact was anything other than satisfied with the explanation given. This is the point that disturbs me. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, then said that an outside union had information which was obviously not known at the parliamentary meeting. That convinced the noble Lord that what had been said were not the facts. I should like to know what were the grounds which any union could have for implanting that state of mind in the noble Lord. How did the union get the information which caused that response? Are we now again in the position of having another leaked document where Ministers' advisers have leaked information which has not been made known? The noble Lord has raised a matter which stands on its own, quite apart from the procedures which take place when we go into Committee. This matter is very important. Why should some outside interventionist, who is not in a position to know the facts officially, be able to have information which influenced the noble Lord to the point where he wants to hold up the normal proceedings?
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, perhaps I may help the noble Lord. When we raised the matter at Second Reading we complained that there had been inadequate and indeed no consultation with the unions. We then had the meeting to which my noble friend Lord Cledwyn referred. It then transpired that there had been further discussions with the unions. But they reported to us that what had emerged had not been totally in line with what had transpired at our meeting with the Secretary of State. It is arising from that situation that we have raised these points. There is no leak or anything of that sort; the matter arose precisely from the consultation process.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is it not quite extraordinary that we should be holding up our proceedings in order to discuss matters which appear to be largely hearsay and which have been raised by Members of your Lordships' House between one stage and another when we have a perfectly satisfactory stage in which to debate these issues? Noble Lords who are interested already know from the Order Paper that they should attend.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I hope that noble Lords on both sides of the House will try to keep a little cool on this matter. This is the first time in the 18 years I have been in your Lordships' House that we have had any full-dress debate on the Civil Service. That of itself is remarkable because, generally speaking, the House of Commons regards itself as responsible for the Civil Service to the extent that it is necessary for Parliament to come into the matter at all.
I do not believe that your Lordships fully appreciate the atmosphere of apprehension and suspicion which the Government have aroused throughout the Civil Service by talk about privatisation, putting jobs out to tender and testing the market on price and effectiveness. The Minister concerned, who is the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, should not have made the remarks that he did to the Sunday Times without having made them somewhere else a little closer to those concerned on both sides.
There is such a thing as the Civil Service National Whitley Council. It has not been convened to hear anything about this issue. It is true that that council is a large and august body. It has representatives from both sides with heads of department in large numbers to see and to take part in the proceedings. They do not meet unless there is a situation of considerable gravity arising in connection with Her Majesty's Civil Service as a whole. This is such a case.
The Government are proposing reforms which are equal in significance and importance to those made over 100 years ago in an entirely opposite direction by Sir Stafford Northcote. That was then the basis: centralisation, uniformity, standardised recruitment, stopping log-rolling and all that kind of thing. The Civil Service has been built on the traditions that were then laid down. Now the Government believe that there is an opportunity, and probably a need in certain ways, to do something drastic in order to try to revitalise, if you like, the vast public service which is now far beyond anything contemplated 100 years ago.
What the Government are doing is so indefinite and imprecise, yet full of potential threats to jobs, that your Lordships' House cannot expect those of us who are deeply concerned with the Civil Service and who have spent a lifetime in its work, to sit here and see a spirit of co-operation and a constructive approach to these matters destroyed by incompetent presentation and procedure.
Therefore, in the interests of peace in the Civil Service and of what is fair to it, an opportunity should be taken to outline the strategy and the machinery for these changes for the benefit of the Civil Service as a whole. This is not a fractious request. It is necessary in order to avoid laying the seeds of further trouble. I plead with your Lordships for a little patience on this matter.
It is no good some noble Lords shaking their heads. Either they give attention to this matter or they may not. If they do not, they cannot expect co-operation from those of us who feel very deeply about it. I do not believe that this House should proceed with the Bill until opportunities have been taken for the fullest

1067
consultation with the Civil Service staff and these matters have been outlined for the benefit of both Houses of Parliament.
If noble Lords ask whether this Bill has been handled in a competent way perhaps I may remind them that at Second Reading we were all in a serious dilemma in trying to understand it. We do not have Notes on Clauses, which we understood were intended to be in our hands. They did not arrive. That Second Reading was largely futile because we were at cross-purposes. We believed that this Bill contained the potential for widespread powers to dispose of Civil Service work and personnel. The Government tried to explain that it is a technical Bill and not of very significant importance. Now we have discovered, having had interviews with the Minister and an exchange of documentation, that if we had been fully informed on Second Reading as to what the Bill meant it would have been a more fruitful debate. However, we are now in possession of that information and the more information that we get, the more concerned we become. Already some steps have been taken in one government department to shift work out of the Civil Service altogether and to put it out to contract.
The new headquarters of the Inland Revenue are now up in Nottingham and a contract has already been placed with Blue Arrow Personnel Services. Some of us have heard of Blue Arrow in a different connection—nothing to its detriment, but it certainly excited a certain amount of public attention. Work has been put out to contract with Blue Arrow. Those of us who are concerned should be able to see the framework of that contract because seeds of discord can arise on the conditions of contracts which are at variance with those in the Civil Service, especially if there is to be any juxtaposition of contracted staff and civil service staff. Do your Lordships not realise what problems we can get into? I warn your Lordships that there is serious unrest about this. Somehow or other, it must be cleared up.
I said on Second Reading that it was probably a pity that this Bill was introduced into your Lordships' House at all because what should have happened—and what should now happen—is that the issue should go before a Select Committee so that evidence can be taken and explanations can be given about the Government's intentions. However, nothing of that kind is on offer. I believe that the Civil Service National Whitley Council is entitled to be convened to hear authoritative statements from Ministers.
Perhaps I may also suggest that the ministerial arrangements for this Bill are quite unusual, to say the least. In what circumstances is the Duchy of Lancaster now taking the part of a Minister of controversial duties in the public service? With great respect to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, he is Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. This Bill is the first paving-stone up the path that the Government wish to take, and they have appointed the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to lead us there. With great respect to the noble Earl, he has no connection with the administration of the Civil Service. He is not,
1068
so far as I know, a Minister in the Office of Public Service and Science, which apparently is the new title of the department which is responsible for the Civil Service. Part of the difficulty arose last time because we were not informed—and nor, I submit with every respect, was he—about the real significance of the document that he was handling.
The Bill is disrespectful to the Crown and is almost a contempt of the Civil Service. I am referring to the way in which this Bill seeks to make statutory provision for shifting work which has already been devolved by the Crown into the hands of Ministers of State, in respect of whom specific provision for the transfer of functions has already been made. However, this Bill proposes that that should now he opened more widely without further reference to Orders of the Privy Council. A serious constitutional question is involved. The way in which the Royal Prerogative can be frittered away by Parliament in this way raises some questions of formality in a constitutional form.
I am sorry to take up the time of your Lordships' House, but I am probably the only spokesman who, because of my close contacts with the staff movement in the Civil Service, is fully informed about the significance of this matter. I feel that, at the very least, we are entitled to have put on the record of this House some summary of proceedings since Second Reading which, in the view of the Government, provide the basis for making progress with this Committee stage. I repeat that it is a Committee stage and we cannot be hurried over it. Each one of the amendments raises different aspects of the matter. The amendments are intended to curb and to inhibit the excessive powers that are given in an enabling Bill. It is always the case that enabling Bills are intended to be as wide as possible.
Well, I have had my say and it is for the House to decide what it does next—and it is for us on these Benches to decide what we do next.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the points that have been made by various noble Lords, and in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I welcome the latter's support for the thrust of the Bill. I hope to allay any residual misgivings that he and other noble Lords may have about it.
There are two main points on which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked me for a response. I shall deal first and simply with the question that the noble Lord asked me about market testing and contracting out. However, before I do so, I should like to make it absolutely clear from the outset that there is nothing in this Bill which the Government need to enable them to pursue their market testing policies. The purpose of the Bill is to allow for the more effective management of services which are kept within the Civil Service. As I stressed several times on Second Reading, it has no bearing either on our market testing policy or on the ability of the Government to contract out services where to do so would achieve better value for money. I hope that we can keep that clearly in mind throughout this afternoon.

1069
I have said that the Government need no new powers to enable them to contract out activities. Even if they did, the Bill would not grant them. The Government have been contracting out work to the private sector and buying in services from the private sector for years. Noble Lords may like to refer to page 8 of the White Paper Competing for Quality to remind themselves of that. It lists a wide range of functions that are already provided by the private sector, including building and construction, refurbishment, estate management, the bulk of the central government road programme, cleaning, laundry, catering and so on.
Having said that, there is no doubt that the Government's policy on market testing has attracted a good deal of attention both in the press and elsewhere. Perhaps that is why it reared its head as an issue on Second Reading. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has asked that the House be given, at some convenient time, an opportunity to debate the Government's policies on contracting out and market testing. I am happy to confirm to him that we shall do so, though, as I am sure he will understand, I am afraid that an opportunity will not present itself this side of the summer break. However, we shall do our best to find a slot for it later in the year.
Having dealt with what the Bill is not about, let me now turn to what it is about. In particular, I should like to address the question that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, concerning consultation with the Civil Service unions. There are three levels of consultation which are relevant to this Bill. First, there is the question of consultation over the Bill itself. Secondly, there is the question of consultation over the making of delegations by the central departments. Thirdly, there is the question of consultation over the use, by departments and agencies, of the powers delegated to them under the Bill. I shall have more to say on the last two points when we come to debate the relevant amendments, but my main focus now is on the first—the question of consultation over the Bill itself.
The Government accept that the introduction of the Bill may have appeared to the unions to be rather sudden—and so it was. However, I hope that the noble Lord will accept my assurance that there was nothing underhand about it. The unions have been aware of our intention to legislate on delegation for almost a year. As I have said before, it was clearly indicated in the Citizen's Charter White Paper which was published in July 1991. The Government had always intended to consult the unions over the Bill before its introduction and, with hindsight, the Government recognise that it might have been helpful to take the unions into their confidence rather sooner. However, I emphasise that in practical terms that would have been difficult. The legal complexity of the Bill meant that its final scope was determined only shortly before officials wrote to the unions to alert them to its introduction, and everything was done to let the unions know as quickly as possible of developments as matters progressed. A slot for legislation then presented itself in your Lordships' House, and we seized it.
1070
I accept that the history of the Bill may have given the unions a whiff of conspiracy when, in fact, no conspiracy existed. But it is also important to keep these matters in perspective. This is not a major constitutional Bill with widespread ramifications for the future of the nation. It is, as I have said before, a minor, technical measure of very limited scope.
Whatever the shortcomings of the consultation with the unions before the introduction of the Bill, they have been adequately redressed since. I believe we are here dealing with a question of timing as much as one of substance. Since the introduction of the Bill, officials have spent a good deal of time and effort addressing the unions' concerns. Two meetings, comprising in all five-and-a-half hours of discussions, some of them late into the night, have been held with the unions to respond to specific questions they have put to the Government. The unions have had written answers to all the questions they have put to us. We have worked hard—as have the unions—to address their concerns and to ensure that they have a full understanding of the issues involved.
That does not mean that the unions have come in the past fortnight wholeheartedly to embrace the Bill. Their more deep-seated concerns about the purpose of the Bill, which were in any case pretty wide of the mark, have, I think, been allayed, as, I trust, have the corresponding concerns of the noble Lord. I hope that we can now put those misunderstandings behind us. What are the unions' concerns? With respect to the Bill, they remain, I believe, concerned to ensure that there will be adequate consultation with staff before anything is done which might affect the welfare of the Government's employees. Let me immediately give assurances on the question of consultation. The Government have no intention of denying civil servants generally any rights that would be available to other employees. If terms and conditions of staff are to be changed as a result of any powers delegated under the Bill, those who are affected will be consulted, as they have always been. The Government have no other intention. And there is nothing in the Bill that would give the Government as an employer any rights to avoid consultation. We shall consult on all relevant matters.
I should make just one further point. It is a point which may not have been fully appreciated earlier but I think it is relevant. I said just now that the Bill is a minor measure of limited scope. The sole purpose of the Bill is to give the Treasury and the Minister for the Civil Service powers which would be available to any other employer but which, through a technicality—and that is all it is—are currently denied to the Government. No large corporation is constrained by legislation, or even by its shareholders, from delegating powers from one level of the organisation to another. I suspect that any large business would find it most surprising that the Government have to seek legislation to allow them to move management decisions from, as it were, their corporate headquarters to their individual operating companies. Yet that is all we are seeking here.
Nonetheless, if it would reassure the noble Lord, I can categorically assure him that the Government

1071
intend to consult the Civil Service unions over the making of major delegations. That is precisely what has been done when discretions have been given to departments and agencies, and the Government have no plans to change that practice.
As any sensible employer would, the Government consider it important that staff know with whom they are dealing in respect of their terms and conditions. We shall ensure that they do. Beyond that, staff will still be entitled to, and will receive, the opportunity either directly or through their representatives to influence the outcome of any proposals to change their terms and conditions. I welcome the opportunity to give the House those assurances and, in the light of them, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to allow the Bill to proceed to Committee.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl for his explanation and for the assurances which we on this side appreciate. Can he clarify one point? He and his colleagues now say that the policies outlined by the right honourable gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy in his speech to the meeting arranged by the Sunday Times can be proceeded with by way of secondary legislation and that primary legislation will not be needed for substantial privatisation in the future.
Earl Howe: My Lords, as I understand the position, if privatisation is being talked about, we shall need primary legislation; if contracting out is being talked about, which is what I referred to earlier, we do not need any other legislation.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am much obliged. In those circumstances I do not think that we on this side would object now to proceeding to Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord Murton of Lindisfarne in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Delegation of functions]:
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, leave out from ("which") to end of line and insert ("is the subject of the Civil Service Orders 1968 (SI 1968/1656) and 1971 (SI 1971/2099) and the Transfer of Functions (Minister for the Civil Service and Treasury) Orders 1981 (SI 1981/1670), 1987 (SI 1987/2039) and 1991 (SI 1991/188)").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 10. The Government have said that this is a minor Bill. This is a minor amendment. The object of the amendment is to make clear on the face of the Bill that the Government indeed mean what they say they mean —that is, that the Bill applies to existing TFOs and only to existing TFOs and to no further TFOs; that the area to which it applies is the area of personnel matters; that it has nothing to do with organisational change, nothing to do with privatisation, nothing to do with market testing, and so on. The Government can make this clear beyond peradventure by accepting this amendment and a number of other amendments which other Members of the Committee on this side will be pressing later today.
The amendment works by deleting the last sentence in Clause 1(1),
"which has been the subject of a transfer of functions Order",
which, it will be noted, is in the past tense and in place of that general statement inserting a list of the actual transfer of functions orders as we understand it and as Sir Peter Kemp informed the union in a technical note —all those transfer of functions orders listed in the amendment. If Amendment No. 1 is agreed to, we do not need subsection (5) and therefore Amendment No. 10 seeks to delete it.
I remind the Committee, because I am not sure what the Government will say, that the Government have repeatedly told us that they are concerned only with past TFOs. The best example of that we have had is a statement saying that it was typically—that was the phrase used—the power to determine numbers, pay and other conditions of service. In other words, only those typical functions are to be affected. Of course, there might be other atypical functions. If the amendment is not passed, I submit that the Bill could be read to mean that further transfer of functions orders could be passed which would not simply affect the past, because once they are passed they are for the purposes of the Bill the past. Everything could then be introduced and a wide number of issues could be said to be personnel. One could reorganise offices, shift work, take away work, completely redeploy staff and then call that personnel deployment. But that is not what the Government say they want to do. The Government say that they merely want to take these powers of delegation for existing TFOs and past TFOs.
One of the curious facts about the face of the Bill and one of the reasons why staff were concerned—it was not because of leaks but because they could read the face of the Bill—is that it is couched in general terms. There is nothing on the face of the Bill about personnel management. The term does not appear. There is nothing on the face of the Bill about pay and conditions. The Preamble to the Bill states:
"An Act to make provision with respect to functions relating to the management".
It does not refer to personnel management. It does not refer to personnel functions. Clause 1 of the Bill states:
"This section applies to any function".
It does not refer to personnel functions. It is not clear why it should not apply to past functions or future functions. Yet the Government have told us that it is only intended to apply to those TFOs which they have already passed and that those TFOs typically concern personnel matters. Well, as I said, they can prove that beyond peradventure by supporting the amendment. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I am happy to support the amendment with a few brief remarks. The TFOs named in the amendment are, I believe, of the Government's own selection; in other words, they are the ones named in the Notes on Clauses. One of the questions which concerns us here is why primary legislation has been necessary for the Bill. It is, therefore, relevant to ask whether primary legislation is necessary specifically for some reason connected with the particular TFOs that have been mentioned, or for some reason relating

1073
to all TFOs—that is, past, present and even future. Answers to that and to the amendment, which is a probing one, would help us to understand why the Bill has been tabled and why it has been tabled in the form of primary legislation.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Perhaps I may make an observation on the amendment. Usually, an enabling Bill is constructed and debated in the context of a purpose which is clearly understood. In many cases, enabling clauses of Bills are merely to give delegated powers to the Minister to carry out the broad intentions of the Bill and of Parliament. But here we have an enabling Bill which has a very obscure object: to relieve Ministers of the need to get a transfer of functions order before they can pass on to some one else delegated authority which has been given to them. In other words, the Bill seeks to open the field for the transfer of functions from one department to another, provided that there is a civil servant at the end of the transfer, without having to come back for further functional transfer orders.
We should bear in mind the fact that these are not statutory instruments; they are Orders in Council; we are dealing with the Royal prerogative. That is what makes it so tricky and difficult. I fear that this may be the only Bill that it will be necessary to bring before Parliament before the Government can set about what appears to be promised in newspaper headlines—for example, "130,000 Jobs Are Put at Risk". It really is an astonishing situation. It is done under the procedures whereby Parliament has no direct control over some of the functions of the Crown; they are taken by law and under certain conditions. The clause proposes to remove those conditions. That makes us all the more reluctant to go along with what the Government propose. We really do not know where they are going. Enabling powers of that sort ought to be accompanied by some indication of what use is to be made of them.
Can the Minister give Members of the Committee an example of what they may want to do with the powers that the clause would confer on certain Ministers? We were not really impressed by the condition—although the Minister seemed to think that we should be—that the transfer on and on and on could only be to a civil servant. We thought that the Government, in their subtle approach to the whole question of privatisation and so on, might create a Civil Service post to which these delegated powers could be transferred within the meaning of the clause; for example, that they could create a director of delegated services in a particular region and give him the power of an inspector, an ombudsman, a referee or whatever with the duty to look at the propriety of some of the practices that may be undertaken on a contract which is transferring work, without coming to the House or to the Crown for an order.
I wish we knew what the Government have in mind. They are asking for such powers without disclosing what is up their sleeve. That is the trouble. Who is in danger here? What kind of work will it be? Will it be statutory work under the income tax Acts? Will it be
1074
statutory work under the Customs and Excise Acts? What is to be? Alternatively, will it affect supporting services?
So far as I understand it, Blue Arrow in Nottingham is contracted to supply supportive services and not to come into the field of actual tax assessing. The company will not lay any charge on the citizen. But let us be careful, if we have a transfer of functions it is possible that under an Act of Parliament —for example, a finance Bill—certain taxation duties may be required and they could be passed on to a private firm to administer. The Bill is full of mischief and potential trouble. I cannot believe that noble Lords on the opposite side of the Chamber understand what is afoot. Therefore, if they do not understand what is afoot, they must not be astonished if they find that the Civil Service rises in its wrath a year from now and says, "We won't stand for it". I do not want to rumble dire threats of trouble ahead, but already this year the conferences of some of the unions have had great difficulty in keeping to the constructive line of discussion when so many people want militant display. That may not be so easy to do a year hence when people begin to see what can happen.
Finally, without knowing what the Government propose to do, without knowing what the terms of the contract will be to transfer government work to private enterprise and without knowing about the conditions of service that they will impose on the workers—and all the other matters that give rise to friction and difficulty when dealing with staff and the distribution of work—I believe that there is room here for a bundle of trouble. Yet nothing has been said either by the Minister in the other place or by the noble Earl. Do they have one single item in their minds about what should be done and about what use they should make of the clause? If they do not have that, it seems to me that they are asking us to buy a pig in a poke. When they have the powers, they can then dispose of the prerogative where they like so long as a civil servant of one grade or another, or one of their own creation, is waiting to take direction over it. We shall come later to discuss what type of civil servant will be there; indeed, that is the importance of linking one thing with another. But, unless we know where we are going, we must be careful before we go from one stage to another. I make the plea: we are entitled to know where we are going. What have the Government in mind?
4.15 p.m.
Earl Howe: Perhaps I may first deal with one fundamental questions which was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. It concerns the purpose of the Bill; namely, why do we need primary legislation? I think that I can encapsulate the reasons threefold. At present, we have a system whereby Orders in Council, by means of transfer of functions orders (TFOs, for short), transfer responsibilities between the Treasury and the Minister for the Civil Service. No delegation beyond the Minister for the Civil Service or the Treasury can take place. Therefore, the transfer of functions orders can only be used to transfer functions

1075
between Ministers, and not to permanent heads of departments or agency chief executives. That is the shortcoming of TFOs. There is also a need to delegate selectively—by function, by department or by agency. That potential number of delegations makes TFOs an impractical way of setting about the process of delegation.
As Members of the Committee will be aware, there is a system of discretions under which powers can be partially passed down the line; but they do not properly decentralise responsibility. There is always the need to refer back at the end of the day to the Minister for the Civil Service or to the Treasury. That is why we need a Bill of this kind. I have given that explanation off the top of my head but—if the Committee will forgive me—I do not believe that I shall need to correct myself. In broad terms, that is why we need legislation.
As it stands, Clause 1(1) defines the scope of the Bill in precise terms. Since 1968, various governments have transferred management responsibilities for the Civil Service between the Treasury and the Minister for the Civil Service. Those reallocations, as I have said, have been made by transfer of functions orders. They include all aspects of the determination of pay and other conditions of service of the Civil Service. It is those functions which the Bill is intended to cover. Other matters, such as the responsibility of the Civil Service Commissioners to ensure fair and open competition for entry to the Civil Service, have never been transferred, and are thus outside the scope of the Bill. Pension arrangements which also form a condition of service are also outside the Bill, being covered by separate legislation.
It may be of help to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, if I list the management functions itemised in the latest Civil Service Order in Council which was promulgated last year. That records that the Treasury has responsibility for numbers, grading, remuneration, expenses, allowances, hours of work, retirement and redundancy, reinstatement and redeployment, and qualifications for recruitment. The Minister has responsibility for regulating conduct and all other conditions of service.
As the Committee is aware, the Bill's intention is to facilitate the decentralisation of the Civil Service by allowing the central departments to delegate the management functions I have spelt out to departments and agencies. Typically it will be, as I said on Second Reading, to Ministers in charge of departments or the heads of Next Steps agencies. Many of those agencies and departments are substantial employers. We believe, subject to conditions which may be set by central departments, that the interests of good management dictate a need, where justified, to grant those organisations greater freedom to manage their own affairs.
The amendment lists all the transfer of functions orders which have been introduced since 1968. I hope that I can persuade the noble Lord, after consideration, to withdraw the amendment. I can, first, confirm that the Bill applies currently to those orders listed in the amendment only. The amendment
1076
therefore adds nothing to the Bill as it stands. However, the effect of the amendment would be to place an arbitrary time limit on the operation of the Bill. Future transfer of functions orders, intended to switch responsibilities between departments, might define existing functions in different terms. The amendment would have the effect of introducing an area of doubt as to whether those functions could be delegated. I trust that the noble Lord will accept that that would be an undesirable and confusing state of affairs. On that basis, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.
Lord McCarthy: I thank the Minister for that answer which was unsatisfactory. In the answer he gave to my noble friend Lord Houghton he said that the purpose of the Orders in Council was to transfer responsibilities from one department to another. He said that that meant one could not transfer down to agencies. We do not understand why—if there is a transfer from one department to another, and that department has the powers—that department itself cannot decentralise and push those decisions further down. We do not understand that, because it has happened all over the place. The Government have given us one concrete example. On 15th June the Minister gave us examples of what the Government would use the power for. He said:
"I cite as an example HMSO's responsibility for the pay of its staff".
That has been decentralised. He then said:
"There are many others which we would like to delegate; for example, the power to determine pay and grading structure". —[Official Report, 15/6/92; col. 30.]
That has been decentralised. He talked about performance-related pay. That is going on all over the Civil Service. In other words, the very powers that he claims are so essential in the Bill are already being operated and practised by chief executives and other people. If the Minister wishes to intervene I shall of course give way.
Earl Howe: I said that, under the system which currently operates, those powers are partially delegated under what are termed "discretions". It is not a complete delegation. A discretion is given to set various terms of service, but in the end Ministers, or whoever has those discretions, have to refer back again up the line. They do not have freedom of action. They are discretions and therefore an unsatisfactory form of delegation. That may be what the noble Lord has in mind.
Lord McCarthy: I have to ask again—since a degree of delegation and decentralisation has been done with discretion—what can be done further that can be done only with the Bill. I pass on, because I want to come to what the Minister said about the amendment. What he said shows that the Government do not mean exactly what they have said. He said that at some time in the future the Bill could be used to introduce TFOs which go beyond personnel. He said they could go into pensions and recruitment and such things which the Government do not intend them to go into. With the Bill they could go into those things.

1077
The only way to stop them is to accept the amendment, which is what the Minister does not want to do.
Earl Howe: The noble Lord is incorrect. A future transfer of functions order would be caught by the Bill but it must relate to management functions in respect of the Home Civil Service. That is the point. Those management functions, as I have said, embrace staff pay, staff terms and conditions of service, and those functions that I listed earlier. Future TFOs will have to follow that pattern. I hope that that is a reassurance.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Is there a working model of this anywhere? Has a pilot scheme of any kind been carried out? We have heard only pure theory about all these matters. They have not been translated into practical or feasible terms. In those circumstances, we may be walking in the dark. This is a momentous change which Mr. Waldegrave in his Sunday Times seminar lecture said would have an enormous effect. When one is embarking upon something which is capable of having an enormous effect I should have thought that someone would have wanted to carry out an experiment in branches of work in particular departments which are already available for transfer to find out what will happen.
The Nottingham scheme—I do not know from where the authority came to start it—has not yet begun. However, preparations have been made and, as I understand it, the contract has been placed. I do not know whether that is a standard form of contract. I have seen a ministerial letter of some kind relating to guidelines on the transfer of legal services. What does that mean? Guidelines to what? The position is uncertain. One wonders where one goes for information. We have the curious set-up of the Duchy of Lancaster with a Parliamentary Secretary. In this place there is a Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. That is based no doubt on the fact that he knows a great deal about sheep, and the Government think that sheep we are all going to be.
The Bill is ill-prepared from top to bottom. There is no sign of any constructive work being done by those engaged in the tasks that anyone can observe or understand. That is one of the reasons why there should be a meeting of the Civil Service National Whitley Council. I hope that the staff side will demand one, because it would bring to the council all the permanent heads of department involved. At present no such gathering, so far as I am aware, has taken place.
4.30 p.m.
Earl Howe: I have already given the Committee an assurance about consultations with the unions. We have had extensive talks with them and have replied to their questions in detail. I believe that on the whole they are satisfied with those answers. I have also given assurances about future consultations on delegations.
Regarding specific points raised by the noble Lord, at present there is a need to act in accordance with a central legal framework, which means that residual
1078
central rules have to be retained even when they are unnecessary and where it would otherwise be desirable to delegate completely to departments and agencies. For example, we have had to abandon proposals to allow departments and agencies to devise their own rules on probation, on age limits for recruitment and on performance pay and incremental progression for home workers, because that would have resulted in the central departments giving up too much of the responsibility placed upon them by the Order in Council.
The noble Lord asked whether we have a pilot project. No, we have not, precisely because we need primary legislation of this kind before we can put a pilot project in place. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, asked why we could not use TFOs in relation to departments to allow them to decentralise. The main reason for that is the sheer range of delegations that may be required. There are many departments and agencies. We may wish to delegate to all of them, to some of them, to a few of them or only to one. Delegations may need to he altered or withdrawn. TFOs would be an impossibly cumbersome way of achieving what we want and I think that, as we proceed with the Committee stage, the noble Lord will understand that the Bill is a much more flexible and amenable way of achieving what he, I am sure, wishes: namely, the better management of the Civil Service.
Lord McCarthy: I do not want to drag this debate on because the noble Earl will have many opportunities in regard to subsequent amendments to show that he is in fact flexible. I therefore beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 8, at end insert:
("( ) In this section "servant of the Crown" means a Minister of the Crown, a member of Her Majesty's Home Civil Service or a holder of a statutory office.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the amendment standing in my name and the names of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. As the Committee will be aware, this amendment lies at the heart of our concern about this Bill, and its objective is pivotal. There have been discussions on the issue both during and after Second Reading, and the Chancellor of the Duchy was good enough to deal with it in his letter to me dated 18th June. I will read the relevant paragraphs out of respect for the right honourable gentleman. They are as follows:
"The drafting of the Bill restricts its scope to the delegation of management functions to 'a servant of the Crown'. That immediately renders the Bill quite useless as a mechanism for contracting out a task or transferring an organisation to the private sector. Its purpose is rather to permit management responsibilities within the Civil Service to be reallocated, where appropriate, within the Civil Service itself.
I am afraid the confusion may have been caused by the phrase 'servant of the Crown'. This is a technical term covering Ministers, civil servants, members of the armed forces, diplomats and a new small group of public servants and it is used in the Bill on legal advice. The term explicitly excludes private citizens and private companies. The Bill

1079
cannot therefore empower ministers to delegate the management of Civil Servants to the private sector and cannot therefore be used in any way to support contracting out or privatisation.
Market testing and, where appropriate, contracting out, remain important elements in the Government's strategy for continuously improving value for money in the public sector. It is right that we should be tested on matters of policy and principle in the Second Reading stage. But I hope you will recognise that the issues raised are not in any practical sense related to the Bill itself."
I say at once that we must give due weight to the words of the right honourable gentleman. Notwithstanding that, the Bill as drafted has raised many questions about the term "servant of the Crown". I am informed that there has been a "lexis search", which has shown there is no particular reason why the phrase "servant of the Crown" is used in preference to "Crown servant". The two terms seem to be interchangeable and have been used in a number of statutes over the years, as many of your Lordships may recall. In a recent Act, the Companies Act 1989, both terms are used. There appears to be no definitive explanation why in any particular Bill one term is used in preference to the other. Further, we are told that there is no distinction between the terms, and then we hear that the Treasury cannot prove that there is no difference.
I must stress that it is crucially important that there is no ambiguity about this term in the Bill, not least because the Government have made plain their aim to contract out civil servants' work. It is therefore essential that there should be a clear and unambiguous definition of the category of person to whom delegation may be made. Furthermore, I understand that the Civil Service unions received a note from the Cabinet Office on the 23rd June, stating that:
"the precise boundary of the definition of 'servant of the Crown' is not established."
The object of this amendment is to define and clarify beyond reasonable doubt that group of individuals to whom delegation may be made. If the noble Earl argues that it is not wide enough to embrace members of the diplomatic service or the armed forces, it must be for the Government to make out the case for their inclusion. If the Minister does so, we shall be very glad to listen to the arguments.
Our chief concern, however, is not solely the term "servant of the Crown". It is the qualifying words in Clause 1(2); namely,
"a servant of the Crown of such description as he may specify".
That is where the ambiguity lies. We have been told that those qualifying words are there to require a Minister to be specific about to whom the delegation is to apply. The nub of the problem is that the term "servant of the Crown" may be legally recognised, but it does seem that there is no clear established definition. In other words, the phrase,
"of such description as he may specify",
could be used to delegate management functions to virtually anyone. I hope the Minister will be able to clarify this for us when he replies. For example, could the words not give Ministers authority to extend the meaning of "servant of the Crown"? The definition must be made clear in this Bill, as a lack of clarity
1080
could mean that Ministers or, more importantly, some future Administration may totally redefine what is meant by this term. Ministers have given an assurance that the term is designed to be specific. If that is the case and if they are ready to stand by their assurances they should have no problem whatever in accepting this amendment. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for the answers he has given so far. I have found them very helpful and I entirely accept the assurances that he and indeed the Secretary of State, in the letter just quoted, have given about the intention of the phrase which we are now considering, "servant of the Crown". What I am not certain of is whether the drafting of the clause is sufficiently precise to achieve what I accept is the Government's intention and therefore whether it might be further tightened. I have no trouble with the assumption that "servant of the Crown" means the same as Crown servant. I accept the considerable body of usage behind it. However, I should be glad to know whether there is law as well as usage behind it. I should like to know whether we have any statute law or any case law that gives a clear definition to the phrase "servant of the Crown". I am not myself aware of any. I have consulted academic colleagues who are also not aware of any.
If there is no clear, standing legal definition of the phrase, we are driven back to usage over quite a long period of our history. With that in mind I consulted an academic colleague who has been engaged in work on the meaning of the related term "King's servant". The advice which he gave me I found interesting. It was that the clause in the Bill is an entirely circular statement because anyone to whom a ministerial function is delegated in virtue of this order thereby and ipso facto becomes a servant of the Crown. Therefore the statement is simply tautological and the clause becomes our old friend, "the Secretary of State may do whatever he likes".
That has quite far-reaching implications. It means that under the clause as drafted it would be possible to transfer functions into the private sector, and anyone in the private sector to whom such functions were transferred would automatically become a servant of the Crown. I do not believe that that is the Government's intention. I look forward to co-operation in the tightening of the phrase to make clear exactly what is intended. By using an undefined term the Government slightly remind me of the candidate who entered for the Chancellor's English essay prize and began in the following manner: "I shall not define my terms; I do not like playing with marked cards." In this Chamber it may be rather more convenient to mark our cards and know exactly what we are playing at.
I should be glad to know whether the meaning of the term "servant of the Crown" is the same in Scottish law as it is in English law. I regret to say that the question occurred to me only at breakfast time today. The advice I have been able to obtain in the intervening time seems to indicate that the terms are

1081
the same in the two different legal systems. However, I should be glad of further reassurance before we leave the words as they stand.
The amendment defines the term more precisely. I do not think that we are wedded to the particular definition of what is meant. If the Government wish to put forward a different definition, which is equally tight, I am sure we would be prepared to consider it sympathetically. The trouble is that although all civil servants are servants of the Crown, not all servants of the Crown are necessarily civil servants. It is, for example, the effect of this amendment to block the transfer of functions to the Armed Forces who are servants of the Crown. There are certain circumstances in which I would be perfectly happy to see functions transferred to the Armed Forces, but I would wish to see those functions fairly carefully and tightly defined before the Bill leaves this Chamber. Lest I be misunderstood, I should say that I believe every noble and gallant Lord in this Chamber would say the same.
Similarly, Her Majesty's judges are Crown servants. Again, I can imagine certain functions which could properly be transferred, but one would want to know which these were. Members of the Forestry Commission are Crown servants but if we were to transfer the making of foreign policy to members of the Forestry Commission, the rain forests would be taken a great deal more seriously than they have been hitherto. I am sure the Committee will see why I should like a little more definition in the Bill.
4.45 p.m.
Earl Howe: As has been explained, the effect of the amendment is to define the term "servant of the Crown" in such a way as to restrict the range of persons to whom management functions may be delegated under the Bill. The Government believe the proposed restriction is unnecessary, and unacceptable as it stands, because, as the noble Earl said, the amendment does not include the diplomatic service and Her Majesty's Armed Forces. Members of those groups are servants of the Crown, but they may also be chief executives of Next Steps agencies with management responsibility for members of the home Civil Service. The chief executive of a Defence Research Agency, the Hydrographic Survey, is for example a serving naval officer. That is why members of the Armed Forces have to be brought within the scope of the Bill. The effect of the amendment would be to prevent delegation to such chief executives.
It is the intention of the Bill to enable the central departments, if they so wish, to delegate management functions directly to chief executives of agencies, all of whom are Crown servants. The many improvements in efficiency and customer service which Next Steps agencies have achieved are directly related to the management discretion they have been given to enable them to meet the exacting targets imposed by their parent departments. As I said, we believe that the process can be extended further by delegation to agencies which are ready to take on more responsibility for managing their own staff.
I turn now to the definition of "servant of the
1082
Crown". This is a difficult matter. I assure the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that the meaning of the term "servant of the Crown" is identical to that of Crown servant. There is no legal distinction that my officials can produce. Indeed in the 1989 Companies Act both terms are used. The noble Earl asked whether the term means the same in Scots law. My advice is that it does.
The noble Earl also asked about Clause 1(2) which states:
"a servant of the Crown of such description as he may specify".
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, also asked about that subsection. What does it mean? The phrase,
"of such description as he may specify"
does not permit any kind of redefinition of the term "servant of the Crown".
People to whom delegations are made must in the first instance be servants of the Crown. The qualification means only that the Minister may, if he wishes, specify either a named individual or the holder for the time being of the office. I am also advised, contrary to what the noble Earl told us, that the phrase is not circular. However, I shall he happy to go away and reconsider the matter before the Report stage.
I have heard with surprise some remarks in relation to an earlier amendment—I perhaps skirted over the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, on the previous amendment —that constitute what I would call scaremongering on the Bill. I hope that I have been clear enough in what I have said as regards what the Bill does and does not enable us to do. I should be interested to hear from the Opposition Benches any explanation of how contracting out can possibly be carried forward under this Bill. It cannot be done. I hope that I have allayed any residual worry to that effect.
If someone is in the employment of the Crown, he is a Crown servant. If he is not in the employment of the Crown, he is not a Crown servant. The Bill allows delegation and sub delegation where relevant only to servants of the Crown. No amount of ingenuity of interpretation can create the situation in which the Bill is used somehow to disenfranchise civil servants. The Bill does not empower the Government to allow a private sector employer to determine the terms and conditions of Civil Service staff. It cannot therefore empower privatisation. Having said that, I concede that there are some problems of definition in that area. The Bill uses terms which can be recognised as having some reasonably clear legal standing. It therefore uses the term "servant of the Crown", which includes Ministers, civil servants, judges, diplomats, members of the Armed Forces and members of the Forestry Commission. It also includes a wide range of smaller bodies which carry out functions on behalf of the Crown and statutory office holders.
As I said at Second Reading, the Government intend that in practice the vast majority of delegations will be made to Ministers and, to a lesser extent, to agency chief executives, who may come, as I have explained, from a number of different groups within the Crown service. The term "servant of the Crown" is used in the Bill to ensure that there is sufficient

1083
flexibility in the power to delegate while clearly retaining the management function within the public sector.
Nevertheless, I appreciate the points that have been made by Members of the Committee opposite. I should be happy to assure them that the Government will consider between now and Report stage whether it is possible to amend the Bill to make it explicit that delegation is only possible to servants of the Crown who are responsible for managing members of the home Civil Service. I hope that in the light of that assurance the amendment will be withdrawn.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: I wonder whether the noble Earl could clarify one point relating to delegation to the Armed Forces. I understand that there are problems about extending the definition to members of the Armed Forces. It has been argued that if there is to be an extension to the military it should be confined to existing agency functions which are currently undertaken by members of the Armed Forces in the Ministry of Defence. Can the noble Earl please throw light on that question?
Earl Howe: The noble Lord has bowled me out with that question. I shall write to him on that particular point. I hope that that does not affect his decision whether or not to press the amendment.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: I am much obliged to the noble Earl for his explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 10, after ("may,") insert ("by order made by statutory instrument").
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to Amendment No. 4 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 with which it has been grouped. The three amendments are connected and have the same purpose. The intention is to try to satisfy the desire of Parliament to have the opportunity of scrutinising what is being done under the Bill when it becomes an Act.
It seems to me that the discretionary powers conferred on Ministers by the Bill are very wide. Nowhere is a limit to those discretionary powers laid down. Therefore the purpose of the amendments is to ensure that there is an obligation on the Minister when he exercises those powers to present them for parliamentary scrutiny via the affirmative procedures of both Houses. The point is a short and simple one. The Civil Service works for us and for the public; and Parliament is a public watchdog in these matters.
I accept that, as the noble Earl said this afternoon, it is not intended and indeed would not be possible to privatise without primary legislation. I am grateful for having that assurance on the record. However, the noble Earl said that it would be possible to contract out without further legislation, utilising the powers conferred on Ministers by the Bill. The object of this exercise is to ensure that when such proposals are
1084
made there is some means by which Parliament may scrutinise the way in which the powers are being exercised. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I am happy to support the amendment and what the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, said about it. However, it is not only a matter of parliamentary scrutiny. It is necessary that within the Civil Service it should be known what functions have been delegated to whom. The Bill as it stands contains no provision whatever that the Minister should actually tell anybody when he has delegated a function. I should have thought that that was a necessary condition of delegating functions effectively. I should be very glad to hear the noble Earl's answer to that point.
Lord Prentice: Reading the amendments I was not sure whether they were intended as probing amendments or were to be taken literally. Having listened to the noble Baroness it appeared that she was asking the Committee to take them literally. If so, I can only suggest that they would make a very unsatisfactory situation a great deal worse.
Surely the situation we are dealing with is this. At present the Treasury and the Civil Service Department have to regulate all matters of importance. The Bill is intended to amend that situation. It is intended to create a more flexible system and to enable managers within departments or within the Next Step agencies to have responsibilities commensurate with comparable managers throughout the rest of our society. Under the present situation they are given the responsibility for management without the basic powers of management. The amendment would not merely cancel out the advantages of the Bill; taken literally, it would make a bad situation worse. It would create detailed supervision by Parliament of the administration of the Civil Service in a way we have never had before and which as far as I know no one has ever demanded before and no other major country in the world operates.
The amendment would be a prescription for long delay; it would be a prescription for overloading both Houses of Parliament to a considerable extent. Above all, I am worried about the effect on line management within the Civil Service and the agencies. People in line management would be discouraged from suggesting reforms which would mean delegation of powers to themselves or their colleagues. At best it would mean that, when delegations were being framed for which statutory instruments would have to he brought before Parliament, managers would try to pack in as much as possible so that the proposals would become general rather than specific, leading to all kinds of difficulty. At worst, those managers unwilling to ask for extra responsibility and to show the initiative that we require would say, "Well, I had better not do it because it might upset my superiors as they would have to go to Parliament".
I suggest to the Committee that the amendment sends the wrong message. The message that we—in all parties—ought to be sending to managers within the Civil Service and the new agencies is: seize the new powers; take initiatives; work out ways in which you

1085
can give a better service to your clients; and then ask for the changes which are needed. What should not be sent is a negative message, and I fear that that would be the effect of the amendment.
Earl Howe: The three amendments have an almost identical effect. As the noble Baroness explained, they would require the Government to achieve each delegation by statutory instrument. Amendment No. 11 goes further by requiring the draft of such a statutory instrument to be subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament.
I have to say, with great respect to both the noble Baroness and the noble Earl, that the amendments would run entirely counter to the better management of the Civil Service, which is the sole aim of the Bill. The Bill deals with an inflexibility of the management system which has hampered decentralisation. It gives the central departments a flexible power to introduce, extend, restrict and withdraw delegations. It allows them to delegate across the board, to some departments or to only one department. The amendments would not only prevent that flexibility but make decentralisation extremely difficult and cumbersome to achieve.
There may be many delegations of quite small matters to departments and agencies. An agency may perhaps be given the right to introduce a tailor-made pay scheme to encourage home working. A department may be given the right to determine its own probation arrangements. Another agency may be given the power to determine its own arrangements for dealing with disciplinary matters.
Is the noble Baroness saying that such small management adjustments, possibly many hundreds of them, should be subject to the affirmative or negative resolution procedure? Does she believe that that will be an appropriate use of parliamentary time? If the amendment were carried the effect would be to encourage the central departments to make sweeping, across-the-board delegations to avoid the need to take up parliamentary time on minor matters. That cannot be what the noble Baroness wants. Surely it is better for delegations to be considered carefully and individually tailored to the circumstances of each department and agency.
The implicit worry of the noble Baroness is about the enabling powers under the Bill. I have already tried to explain the limited scope of those enabling powers in terms of the functions which could be delegated. I say to her again that the Bill has nothing to do with contracting out. In that context I find it very odd that noble Lords who usually complain vociferously about government by regulation should now be advocating a vast proliferation of statutory instruments. I cannot believe that the noble Baroness or the noble Earl considers that to be desirable.
There is another, wider point. We should remember that the management of the Civil Service is exercised under the Royal prerogative. The effect of Amendments Nos. 4 and 11 is for Parliament to take a new power to intervene directly in the management of the Civil Service in a way that has never been considered necessary before and to do so in a way that will hamper better management.
1086
The noble Baroness who proposed the amendment made the point that it was important for the Civil Service staff to know how and where delegations had been made, so that they knew who was responsible for determining their terms and conditions. That is a very fair point and one which the Government accept. We have no doubt about the importance of individuals knowing with whom they have to deal on their terms and conditions of service. The central departments will be entirely open about the process of delegation.
The noble Baroness made the point that it was important for Parliament to give its prior approval to any delegations made by the Treasury or the Minister for the Civil Service. While we can have no objection to Parliament taking an interest in the use made of the powers we are now seeking, the Government cannot accept that it is necessary or practicable for Parliament to give its prior approval to any and all delegations. Delegations will be capable of being amended or revoked at any time. Parliament will be able to test the Government on the delegations that they have made and on the conditions that have been attached to them. So Parliament and others will have ample opportunity to make their views known on any delegations and to influence the Government's use of the powers that will be granted by the Bill. The Government accept that Parliament, the unions and others may have a legitimate interest in the delegations that are made by virtue of the powers in the Bill.
In reply to the question asked by the noble Earl, we propose to make that information available at regular intervals by publishing lists of the delegations made. The method by which the Government will do that is a matter for further consideration; but there is no wish on the Government's part other than to be wholly open about what they do. In summary therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment in the light of the assurances that I have given.
5 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: The trouble with the Government is that in their attempt not to give us any idea about what they are going to do they caricature the process. Surely it is not a process which is going backwards and forwards. It is not as though the Government will delegate and then draw that delegation back, delegate again and draw it back again. In a concrete case the noble Earl told the House what kind of things would be delegated. He listed some of them again this afternoon. In effect they are one-offs. The Government will give heads of agencies the power to determine grading structure and they will not take it back subsequently. They will give them that power. They will give them the power to introduce performance-related pay, to determine age limits on recruitment, and so on. Those things will not flow backwards and forwards like the tide. There will be one or two occasions when they provide for what those delegations will be in the main agencies.
We on these Benches, through the amendment, seek to know how we are to find out precisely what the Government propose. We suggested that it might be done by the normal procedures of a statutory order. If

1087
the Minister says that that is not right, how is it to be done? At the end of his speech he said that the Government will enable it to be tested. He said that they would publish something to indicate what they were doing. Will that be a regular publication? In what sort of detail will it go into? Shall we know before this Bill has gone through its various stages exactly what the Government propose as an alternative to the proposal of my noble friend?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord overlooks the complexity of the public service. It may well be the case that there will be a considerable number of quite small delegations. If so, solemnly to provide that a statutory instrument will have to be laid and be approved by both Houses would be a very cumbrous way to proceed. Moreover, there is great force in what my noble friend the Minister said; namely, that if that is insisted upon, a considerable temptation is offered to the departments to take much more sweeping powers of delegation in order to be quite sure of not having to come back again and again.
It is also the fact that if one does not have this provision for a statutory instrument Ministers can always anyhow be held to account if they do anything which Members of this Chamber feel is inappropriate. Ministers have to answer Questions in either Chamber. Members of this and of another place will be well aware, particularly perhaps through the trade unions, of any transaction which appears to be excessive or improper in any way. The Minister can be called to the Dispatch Box and forced to answer Questions about it. Therefore, it seems to me not only unnecessary to put this provision into the Bill but also an extremely cumbrous and difficult way to proceed.
Finally, there is the point not touched upon by the noble Lord of the delay that it will cause. For example, if a delegation takes place at this time of year, when there is no time for a statutory instrument to be brought before Parliament until, say, towards the end of October at the earliest, it will delay changes which flexibility may indicate ought to be made and made quickly. To justify such a situation of delay it must be shown that it is necessary to impose this restriction. For my part, having listened to the debate, I do not believe that it is necessary. I hope that my noble friend will continue to reject the amendment.
Earl Russell: It may be helpful to the Committee for me to say that on these Benches we entirely accept the noble Earl's answer, which satisfies us.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Before my noble friend makes further observations, I suggest that the power of a Minister to do as he thinks fit is comparatively rare in our legislation. It is a statutory power—to do as he thinks fit. Clause 1(2) shows how wholesale is that power. It states that he may:
"to such extent and subject to such conditions as he thinks fit, delegate the function to a servant of the Crown of such description as he may specify".
That is an absolute power given to the Minister subject to any challenges—I am not very clear as to what they are—against the misuse of power or where his "thinking fit" may have been without thought or
1088
without fit. There is a challenge in Parliament if one can find the basis for it. I wonder whether the Minister might consider some other form of check on the use of those absolute powers by a Minister. There are the Public Accounts Committee, the Audit Commission and various forms of check upon the use of power. There is not the slightest doubt that constant challenge to the power of Ministers or of bureaucracy is one of the conditions for the survival of our democracy; otherwise one has dictatorship. Many Ministers who believed that they could do as they thought fit would soon be in a dictatorship. We have to beware. We are the guardians of good legislation. Other noble Lords are much better hands at deciding what is good legislation than I am. However, the provision strikes me as being too unusual to pass without question.
During the past 18 years in your Lordships' House I can recall only one other piece of legislation in which such words have been used. I refer to the power given to the Home Secretary under the Dangerous Dogs Act. That was a scandalous piece of legislation. But a provision giving the Minister powers to act "as he thinks fit" without some check upon his action—even if such check is the requirement that he consults, as provided in the Dangerous Dogs Act—should be looked upon with disfavour. I defer to what my noble friend on the Front Bench says, but to allow the legislation to go forward in the terms that the Minister described would be unwise.
One must bear this factor in mind. When seeking enabling powers, the strong urge is to ask for as much as one can attain. I have never heard of any civil servant saying to a Minister, "That is going too far". When seeking enabling powers one grabs what one believes one might need and leaves the legislature to put in the limitations on the use of such power. That is the point of view from which I consider the issue. I hate the words "think fit" in any legislation, especially in the hands of Ministers. After all, they are political animals.
There is a disturbing aspect in this provision. It goes further than increasing the flexibility of administration. The provision gives power to do things which hitherto have required oversight of Ministers' actions. Ministers ought to be prepared to submit to some requirement which enables the watchdogs of Parliament to pick up such actions during the course of their examination.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the Minister for his response to the amendment. It was originally intended as a probing amendment to find out what means there would be for scrutinising the way in which the legislation was being applied. I am grateful for his assurance that it is intended to make available information on delegations through lists. That is extremely useful.
I accept that provisions via statutory instrument are not perfect. However, far more complicated questions have sometimes formed the basis for such procedures. Such procedure is sometimes quicker than having to rely simply on Parliamentary Questions. In view of the statement that the Minister made, I shall withdraw the amendment at this stage. We may wish to come back at Report stage to consider whether we

1089
can have the provision in the Bill to which the Minister made reference. That would allay some of the fears that have been expressed to us. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 12, at end insert ("and may at any time revoke that delegation").
The noble Earl said: The amendment raises a small but important point as to whether delegation once made can he revoked. The Minister told us that there had been no pilot scheme. He explained carefully and persuasively why that was so. We cannot and should not complain of that. However, since that is the case it necessarily means that whatever is first provided in the Bill will to some extent be of an experimental character. Not every delegation will necessarily be absolutely perfectly judged the first time. No political circumstance is eternal. Therefore, no delegation which is appropriate when introduced will necessarily remain so. The Minister will relieve us considerably if he explains that a delegation once made is not irrevocable and can be revoked when circumstances seem appropriate. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: I well understand the noble Earl's point. As he might have expected, I asked my officials to seek appropriate legal advice. I can assure the noble Earl that parliamentary counsel advise that the power of revocation is implicit in the power of delegation. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.
Delegation is to a marked degree different from a transfer of functions order through which the functions once transferred can be taken away only by a further transfer of functions order. Delegation is a much more flexible instrument.
On a more general note, it would create an unhelpful precedent to insert an explicit power on the lines of the amendment. I am not sure that the noble Earl wishes to do so. But if we were to do so it might call into question other statutes in which the power is not made explicit, or it might suggest that there is something novel about the power of delegation in this Bill which requires such explicit provision. In the light of legal opinion, I hope that the noble Earl will agree not to press the amendment.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister for that reply. It was extremely helpful. He said what I hoped to hear. In those circumstances I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 12, at end insert ("and after consulting those trade unions recognised as representing members of Her Majesty's Home Civil Service in the government department, agency or organisation concerned.").
The noble Baroness said: At Second Reading, and again today, great anxiety has been expressed on these Benches at what we regard as a failure to consult the recognised trade unions before the Bill was printed and in advance of Second Reading in this House. I am
1090
grateful to the Minister for the assurances that he has given today. However, it is clear that the Bill is part of an ongoing government strategy in line with the philosophy of so-called decentralisation. That is apparent from the material sent with the Notes on Clauses in which there is reference to the development of the agency system. The Minister has referred to that again today. Clearly the Bill may involve substantial innovations in the way in which the work of some Civil Service departments is carried out. If that were not so, it would scarcely have been necessary to have legislation.
As we all know, the Civil Service employs large numbers of people, many with professional qualifications. They are represented by unions which have long been recognised for the purposes of consultation and collective bargaining. There is no gainsaying the fact that the way in which the Government have proceeded with the Bill—they introduced it in the wake of a speech by the Minister which was widely reported, and which gave the clear impression that it was the Government's intention to turn the Civil Service upside down and to create situations in which senior civil servants would have to compete for jobs with people from outside the Civil Service—has led to enormous suspicion on the part of the unions representing people working in the Civil Service. We have been assured today that there will he consultation; that there never was any intention that there should not be. I believe that it would be a good idea to write that into the Bill. The Civil Service is a public service. Generally speaking, I believe that we in this country are well served by it. However, if reforms are necessary it is essential that they should be effected in consultation with, and preferably with the co-operation of, those whose job it is to provide the service. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: The Government fully accept that the unions and staff will need to know with whom they are dealing on matters relating to the terms and conditions of the staff whom they represent. Accordingly, the present arrangements for consulting the unions before discretions are given to the departments and agencies will extend also to delegations.
However, we do not believe that it is right to place such arrangements on the face of the Bill. The Bill is about the management of the Civil Service. Surely it is a proper duty for management to decide by whom particular management powers will be exercised. To put a requirement on the face of the Bill that Civil Service unions must be consulted before a delegation of powers can be made would be to give them a statutory role in determining who manages the staff. That is without precedent; no other trade union has been given such a role; nor have the Civil Service unions ever held such a role.
The proper way of dealing with the matter is on the basis of the undertaking that I have given; that the Government accept the need of the Civil Service unions to know when powers are being transferred from one level of management to another and to be

1091
given the opportunity to express any views that they may have both on the delegation and on the conditions that may be attached to it.
They have consistently been given that opportunity in respect of discretions, and continuation of the present arrangements will ensure that that still occurs. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that assurance and will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McCarthy: Did the Minister say that the present arrangements for discretions will be extended to delegations?
Earl Howe: Yes, I did.
Lord McCarthy: The Minister has already admitted that the arrangements for consultation on the Bill leave a great deal to be desired. I thought that he also said that he intended to improve them. However, his comments suggest to me that the present arrangements for consulting the unions about discretions, since the Bill is far more important than discretions, leave a great deal to be desired. Will the Minister say that he intends to improve those arrangements too?
Earl Howe: As I said in my opening remarks before we went into Committee, we must distinguish three kinds of consultation. The first is consultation about the Bill itself. I have acknowledged that, with hindsight, that could have been done in a way which suited the unions rather better.
Consultation on discretions is a different issue. We have regularly consulted the unions when discretions have been made. I was seeking to say only that the same procedures will continue when and if delegations are made. I hope that that reply clarifies the issue.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the Minister for his assurances. I do not intend, to press the amendment but shall read closely in Hansard what he said. I am glad that the Minister has assured the Committee that the Government's policy is to ensure that unions are consulted and that that will be done on delegations as well as on discretions. On the basis of those assurances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 1, line 18, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Earl said: I am mindful of the Committee's time but I hope that I shall be forgiven if I spend a few minutes explaining the amendment. The issue is a little complicated and I should not wish to mislead the Committee. The amendment deals with the Carltona principle; that by which the Minister is accountable for the actions of a junior civil servant of whom he may never have heard. The principle was made famous through Crichel Down.
It was perhaps parodied on another occasion by the affair of Jimmy Carter's signature. During the presidential election campaign of 1976 Jimmy Carter was horrified to discover that not all letters from the President were signed or even seen by the President. He rashly promised that he would sign them all
1092
personally. After his election his staff, with great labour and trouble, finally persuaded President Carter that the task would take him precisely 24 hours a day. That is why the Carltona principle is good and necessary.
The effect of the Bill is to extend the Carltona principle to acts committed in the name of a person who is not the Minister. Perhaps I may give an obvious example; the head of the benefits agency may commit actions for which the Secretary of State for Social Security is accountable. In that case it is sensible that that should be so. But if, for example, the deputy keeper of the public records should perform actions which concern us, it is not as obvious to me that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor should be held responsible.
There are difficulties about the extension of the Carltona principle in this way. It appears to me that what the Bill is attempting to do is in danger of leading to one or other of two rather unfortunate situations. First, it may make the Minister accountable for actions over which he has no control. No Minister likes that. When Ministers are put in that position they may be expected to make efforts to increase their control over actions for which they fear later to be held accountable. Therefore, we might obtain out of the actual operation of the Bill an extension rather than a decrease of centralisation. That would defeat the Government's objectives and would not he welcome on these Benches.
The alternative effect, which I am not sure I should welcome, would be to end accountability to Parliament for the agency function or whatever it might be. There may be cases in which that effect would be necessary. It has been clear for some time that ministerial responsibility covers a wider area than most Ministers are in practice capable of answering for. But that is a large nettle indeed and I believe that it is one that needs grasping by a rather larger and more leisurely prepared Bill than the one now before us. The issue also needs to be discussed by people with the kind of administrative experience to which I can make no claim whatever.
I am not opposed to the intentions of the Government's proposal, but I wonder whether the clause requires a little more thought to be given to it before it leaves this Chamber. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: As the noble Earl has explained, the effect of the amendment would be to prevent persons, other than Ministers to whom the Carltona principle would still apply, from authorising others to carry out a function which had been delegated to them. In practical terms it would lead to one of three results. The first possible result would be that delegations which would most appropriately be given directly to agency chief executives or to other officials would instead have to be given to departmental Ministers in order that local managers would be able to carry out the functions on the Minister's behalf. The Carltona principle applies to departmental Ministers but not to civil servants.
The second possible result of the amendment would be that delegations would have to be made directly to the lowest operational level at which the function was

1093
to be carried out. For example, a delegation allowing managers to make local arrangements for part-time or home working might need to be made to the manager of each separate office of the benefits agency rather than simply to the agency's chief executive. The third possible result of the amendment would be that agency chief executives would need personally to carry out every management function delegated to them.
The whole thrust of the Bill is to allow central departments to make delegations flexibly: that is, to tailor individual delegations to the needs and capabilities of particular departments and agencies; to ensure that responsibility for management powers is taken at the most appropriate level; and to ensure that the holders of those powers are held directly accountable for their operation.
The amendment would frustrate those aims. It would mean that in some cases responsibilities would be held in the centres of departments when they would more appropriately be exercised by agency chief executives. In other cases responsibilities would need to be given to individual local office managers by the central departments. That in turn would cut across lines of accountability through chief executives or through departmental Ministers. They are lines of accountability which will otherwise be much more effective. In fact, the amendment undermines and frustrates accountability whereas I assume that it aims to safeguard it. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Earl will reconsider the amendment and will not see fit to press it.
5.30 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: While the Minister has answered the arguments for the amendment—and I suspect that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, may withdraw it—as far as I can see, he has shown no understanding of the problem which prompted it.
In a way this matter goes back to Amendment No. 4. Once the Minister disappears, unless we know clearly who is responsible for carrying out the function, we know no more about what happens to it. If that individual, whom we do not know, can delegate the function to somebody else, whom we do not know, and that person can then delegate it to someone else, whom we do not know, then there is an infinite process of delegation. That is the problem. We know who are the Ministers and, therefore, under Crichel Down, we can assume that it is their responsibility; but we do not know who those persons are. Perhaps on Report the Minister will get to the heart of the problem which lies behind the amendment.
Earl Russell: I thank the noble Earl for his reply. He has explained extremely clearly why I would never have dreamt of pressing the amendment. However, there is an underlying problem here; namely, what effect the Bill will have on accountability to Parliament.
I do not know what the Government should do in that regard, but before the Bill leaves us I should be grateful if we could know a little more about what they are doing and what will be the effect of the Bill on accountability if the matter is left as it stands.
Earl Howe: I need clarification from the noble Earl as to what he is asking me. If he is asking me how accountability will manifest itself once the Bill becomes law, I should say to him, as I said earlier, that lists of the delegations will be published. That will put all delegations into the public domain. It will be possible for Ministers to answer to Parliament about those delegations and the way in which they have been handled.
On the other hand, if the noble Earl is asking how accountability will manifest itself if the Bill does not become law, I am not sure that I have a ready answer. So far accountability extends only to the Treasury and the Minister for the Civil Service. In general terms delegations have not been made because the Bill has not been made law. The most that we have are discretions. Therefore, as I understand it, the Treasury and the Minister for the Civil Service are accountable to Parliament.
Earl Russell: I am concerned about the effect of accountability when functions are delegated to an agency. Accountability as regards agencies is something which we have not yet got right. Functions are delegated to somebody over whom the Minister has no control but if the Minister is still accountable for those functions he is in something of a dilemma. However, if the Minister is not held accountable because he does not control the person, then Parliament is not able to hold anybody to account for those functions. There is a difficulty here, but I do not know what we should do about it.
Earl Howe: I now understand the noble Earl's question. Of course, the Minister will be answerable to Parliament on the delegations that he has made. If it turns out to have been misplaced in some way, the Minister will have to answer to Parliament for that.
The noble Earl assumes that the delegation will be complete, without strings or conditions attached. In the early days when the Bill becomes law that may not happen. Very strict conditions may be attached to a delegation; for example, a delegation may be time-limited or limited to a person rather than the holder of an office. In a real sense there will be accountability right up to the Minister, if it is a Minister, who has delegated. I hope that I can perhaps clarify what I have said at a later stage or by writing to the noble Earl. However, he has raised a useful point which we shall wish to pursue.
Baroness Seear: Before the noble Earl sits down, I am not happy about this. As I understand it, the whole point of delegation is that more power to make decisions is being passed to the person to whom the delegation is given. Is there not a real problem about accountability to Parliament at the end of the day? If the person to whom the function is delegated does something discreditable or wrong, will the Minister still be answerable in the way that he was in regard to Crichel Down? If that is the case the Minister has responsibility without authority, because he has delegated that authority. I should not like to be the Minister—not that I ever shall be—who has delegated authority but who, in reality, has no hope of

1095
controlling what the person is doing to whom he has delegated the function. If the Minister is not answerable, all parliamentary control has gone.
Earl Howe: We have all heard of cases where the chairman or chief executive of a public company has resigned because of the actions of one of his subordinates, actions which he may have known nothing about.
I make this distinction. Delegation is entirely different from abrogation. Delegation implies that you still retain accountability in the sense that you are answerable for the delegation that you have made and you are ultimately answerable for the actions of your subordinates.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister for the trouble he has taken with this. I am not convinced that he is right and I am not convinced that I am right. I am grateful for his assurance that he will think further about this matter and I shall try to do the same. We may have to return to this matter but, meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Power to authorise exercise of functions without approval etc.]
[Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Corresponding Northern Ireland legislation: parliamentary procedure]:
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Turner of Camden: I gave notice to oppose the Motion that Clause 3 stand part of the Bill because I should like to ascertain a little more from the Government about what they have in mind.
There are some questions which I should like to put to the Minister before I decide whether or not to proceed with my opposition. For example, if Clause 3 remains in the Bill, will the remit of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration extend to the organisations headed by a servant of the Crown? Secondly, for the purposes of Article 3(a) of the Fair Employment (Specification of Public Authorities) (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, will organisations headed by servants of the Crown be regarded as public authorities in that context?
Those are issues which I understand relate quite specifically to Northern Ireland and I should be grateful for a response from the Minister.
Earl Howe: The purpose of Clause 3 is to simplify the procedure required to keep the provisions in respect of the Northern Ireland Civil Service in line with those for the home Civil Service. It will avoid the necessity for a repetition of the proceedings on this Bill on a separate Northern Ireland Order in Council. The first point to note is that the clause restricts the scope of a Northern Ireland order dealing with Civil Service management functions to measures which correspond directly with Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill. Like those clauses the Northern Ireland order which would be
1096
made under Clause 3 would be of an enabling nature only. The Government see no distinct issues in respect of the Northern Ireland Civil Service on the substance of the Bill which would justify separate debate. On that basis the negative resolution procedure is entirely appropriate.
The noble Baroness asks what the effect would be if Clause 3 were not in the Bill. My understanding is that home civil servants who happened to be working in Northern Ireland would be covered by Clauses 1 and 2. The Northern Ireland civil servants, if they were to be brought within the scope of the Bill, would require affirmative resolutions through Parliament.
With regard to the noble Baroness's second question, I shall, if she will forgive me write to her. I hope that the noble Baroness is not unhappy about the scope of the Bill extending to the Northern Ireland Civil Service, which is central to the clause.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the Minister for his response and shall await with interest his letter in regard to my second question. I am grateful to him also for what he said. At the beginning I said that my Motion was simply to enable me to ask some questions. It is not my intention to proceed with it. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Criminal Justice Act 1991 (Contracted Out Prisons) Order 1992
5.43 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers rose to move that the draft order laid before the House on 21st February be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee session 1991–92].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Criminal Justice Act 1991 enables the Government to sign a contract with the private sector for the management of new remand prisons. One contract has already been signed, and Her Majesty's prison Wolds started taking prisoners in April.
The purpose of the order before your Lordships today is to extend the application of the 1991 Act so that similar contracts can be signed for the management of new prisons—and only new prisons—which will hold sentenced prisoners. The Government have always made it clear that, if we bring in private sector management to the prisons, there must be suitable safeguards, controls and accountability. Those are provided in the 1991 Act so that the well-being of prisoners who are in the hands of the private sector contractors should be assured.
I thought your Lordships would want to know what those safeguards are. First, there is a legally binding contract between the Government and the contractor which specifies tightly the standards of the service which the contractor must provide. It also specifies the cost at which he will do that.
Secondly, there is to be a controller. He is a Crown servant, a governor grade who is a member of the Home Office Prison Service. He—or she—will be

1097
based at each privately managed prison and his or her job is to make sure that the contract is being correctly carried out. Any disciplinary proceedings against prisoners which may prove to be necessary will be undertaken by the controller and not by the private sector director who will be responsible for the management of the prison. The controller also has the task of investigating any allegations which may be made against staff of the prison.
Thirdly, the prison has a Board of Visitors in the normal way. Their independence and public-watchdog role is just the same as it is in any other prison. Fourthly, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons can visit the prison at any time, just as he can with any public sector prison. Fifthly, a prison, which is privately run will be run in accordance with the Prison Act 1952 and the Prison Rules.
A year ago, we were speaking of the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act in theoretical terms. We now have behind us the experience of having invited tenders, and of having signed a contract for one prison, and from that we have learnt that the private sector has a great deal to offer. It is in the light of that experience that the Government have decided to make use of the power in the 1991 Act to extend the use of the private sector to a new prison which is holding sentenced prisoners.
Wolds Prison, which will hold an unsentenced population of 300, is unique in the prison service. It is the only prison ever to have been built specifically for remand prisoners. There is no other establishment like it. The Government are, therefore, keen to broaden the test for the private sector by inviting competitive tenders for the management of a local prison.
On 5th December 1991 it was, therefore, announced that competitive tenders would be sought for the management of Blakenhurst Prison. This is at present being constructed near Redditch in Worcestershire, which, in modern parlance, is more usually described as Hereford and Worcester. It will be a local prison with a capacity of 649 prisoners and it will hold, like any other local prison, remand and convicted prisoners and sentenced adults.
With the issue of the invitations to tender for Blakenhurst on 15th June, it was possible also to publish the operational specification for the prison. A copy of that specification has been placed in the Library of the House. It gives a clear indication of the standards which we expect to see achieved by the prison management. I expect that some noble Lords may have taken the opportunity to look at it. If so, your Lordships will see that we are looking for a regime which maintains security for the public. Contractors must produce proposals which will cover a number of points. They will have to provide arrangements for maintaining and monitoring security at all levels. That covers physical means, management systems and procedures and, most important, personal vigilance. They will have to provide high standards of health, safety, food and hygiene. They will have to provide medical care, which will be particularly closely scrutinised by the
1098
Government. Suicide prevention is an important aspect of that, and will probably involve voluntary agencies such as the Samaritans.
There will be a carefully monitored initial reception procedure. The process of assessing prisoners, particularly those who will spend some considerable time at the prison, will be important. It is envisaged that the sentenced prisoner's time in prison will be determined by means of an agreement between the prisoner and the management. That will set out for all parties their understanding of the goals and the activities which have been agreed in order to ensure that the sentence is time which is spent constructively.
The contractors will have to prepare for early release. That will be an important part of their duties. They will have to provide at least six hours of education and six hours of physical education each week for each prisoner. They will be asked to provide opportunities for prisoners to engage in productive activity for at least seven hours a day. They will be urged to link up with local industrial and commercial interests and to try to involve those local interests in such a way that prisoners can be paid for their work at something which may approach normal pay rates. That is so that prisoners have an opportunity to provide some support for their family, as well as for victim reparation. It is expected that prisoners will be out of their cell all day. Certainly, a cell-free period of 12 hours a day must be achieved. It is expected that there will be generous provision of telephones, letter-writing facilities and visits, so that family ties can be maintained.
Many of these proposals are in place at Wolds for remand prisoners, and the Blakenhurst specification will extend these high standards to sentenced prisoners. The fact is that these new prisons will be operating to standards at a level to which the existing prisons can only aspire.
The Prison Service carries out a very difficult task in often very difficult circumstances. As a result of the report of Lord Justice Woolf, the service is making considerable efforts to improve the standards to which it operates. Work on a code of standards is in hand at present.
There is room to pursue the Woolf recommendations; and to bring in the spur of competition, and to bring in new ideas and new ways of doing things in order to assist in the process of raising standards all the way round.
The experience of the Wolds tendering exercise showed that the private sector has those new ideas. It has the imagination to look at things afresh, and it has the freedom to consider new procedures and management methods and, at the same time, it has shown that it understands the complexities and the difficulties which are inherent in running a prison.
A new prison provides a perfect opportunity for seeing if we can extend these new ideas further. It is right to explore all the options which are available to provide the most effective prison care system for the future. I believe that contracting-out offers fresh opportunities, and it should offer the opportunity to improve the quality of life for the prisoners who are in

1099
our care. It is for these reasons that I commend the order to your Lordships. I hope that it will receive your Lordships' approval.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st February be approved. [14th Report from the Joint Committee session 1991–2].—(Earl Ferrers.)
5.52 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl who, in his usual graceful way, has unfolded a lovely picture of privatisation. He has given us the idea that the experience of the Wolds reinforces his own inclination towards privatisation. I do not know how many Members of your Lordships' House sitting here or elsewhere have actually visited that centre. I felt it my duty to make the very arduous journey there. I am now speaking from a first-hand study of the Wolds.
Nothing at the prison would convince any fair-minded person that new lessons had been learnt. The noble Earl has set out the theory, but that is very different from what goes on. I am not saying that theory is denied by the experience and I am certainly not saying that it is confirmed by it. For example, the noble Earl did not mention the fact that there have been three quite serious disturbances at the Wolds. Three disturbances within three months is quite good going. That brings the average up to that of a prison filled with difficulties.
We must not simply say that the Wolds is privatised and therefore it is a better place. I shall come back to this again at the end, but in my view privatising prisons is obscene. It may be said that I went with a closed mind. I retain sufficient academic scepticism to disbelieve even my own theories and certainly those of anyone else. Perhaps I may just convey an impression of the Wolds to the House. When I visited there were about 100 prisoners out of 300 who were due to arrive. I believe that the operational staff will number about 100 when they are all there. In total there will about 170 staff. They do not come from places where they would have had experience. At least half-a-dozen out of 100 have had some experience of running a prison. The others are completely new to it and they are novices. The deputy director was one of the half dozen. I spent the morning with him and I found him to be a most enlightened man. I hesitate to quote the things he said because they might not help his career.
He had had considerable experience of the Prison Service and he was one of the few who had. He had been a deputy governor. He admitted that there were certain advantages at the Wolds. He said that there were more flexible working arrangements. That arises from the fact that there is not a trade union to deal with. Those Members of your Lordships' House who dislike trade unions will say, "What a heaven on earth; a place without any trade unions! That is the kind of prison that we want". I do not know whether many noble Lords will be surprised to hear that there have already been three disturbances in three months and already they may be feeling the breeze a little.
I am not one of those who believe that you can permanently run any state institution without a trade union of any kind. However, there are some
1100
advantages. For example, it is possible to employ a full-time staff at the weekend. That is an advantage. Apart from the deputy director and others, I talked to two other members of the staff in quite responsible positions. One had been a physical education teacher at a private school. He had also taught a little French. Another member of the staff was a junior management consultant. They are the people in responsible positions in this prison.
It is far too early to say whether the prison will work out well. It is far too early to say that these people will be able to control prisoners, re-educate them or do anything else. It is all in the melting-pot. It is all in the eye of the noble Earl at the moment. It should be understood that it is extremely early. It is rather absurdly early to say that experience of the Wolds gives any extra reason for privatising prisons.
If anyone should ask me why I call the privatisation of the prisons obscene, I would try to put it briefly. When we take it on ourselves to deprive any human being of liberty we are taking on a very heavy responsibility. The state cannot abdicate and abandon that responsibility to profit makers. The noble Earl may have said at the beginning, because I was a minute or two late, that the Wolds is owned by an international security company. Like other international security companies, it is in it for the profit. I certainly do not believe that it is right, moral or decent to hand over the responsibility which belongs only to the state to such a body. I do not say that it is better or worse than any other international security company. However, they are the kind of people to whom we propose to hand over citizens whom we have taken responsibility for incarcerating. I have said in this House more than once that to hand over prisons and to privatise them is obscene. I repeat that now with more emphasis after the visit which I suggest other noble Lords should imitate.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, when the Minister of State at the Home Office introduced this order in another place late last night he described it as rather a technical order. Obscure as it may be as a legislative provision, because of the way in which the change has been made, we should make no mistake that it is a turning-point in English penal policy. Moreover, it has been reached with remarkably little public debate. There was no mention of contracting out in the Green or the White Papers which preceded the Criminal Justice Bill in the last Session.
When the Bill was published, the power to contract out was limited to new prisons which would hold remand prisoners only. The extension of that power to new prisons for convicted and sentenced prisoners came at the Report stage in the House of Commons and followed from amendments that had been tabled in Standing Committee by a Government Back-Bencher. The convoluted wording of what is now Section 84 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 is witness of the problems experienced by the draftsman in trying to fit this extension within the ambit of the original clause. The section prescribes that no extension of contracting out beyond remand prisons

1101
can be made without the specific approval of both Houses by way of the affirmative resolution procedure. Hence this order in your Lordships' House today.
The Minister of State at the time, Mrs. Rumbold, speaking on the Criminal Justice Bill in the House of Commons last year, was pressed to say what were the Government's intentions on privatisation. She explained that the proposal was to "experiment"—a word used by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, again in our debate this afternoon. The experiment was to be confined to a single remand centre on Humberside which was under construction at the time. During the Commons Report stage of the Criminal Justice Bill on 25th February 1991, Mrs. Rumbold stated:
"The Government are taking the first step in considering contracting out a remand prison. We believe that this opportunity will not easily arise again… If, and only if, the contracted-out remand centre proves to be a success we might move forward towards the privatisation of other parts of the prison service".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/2/91; col. 720.]
I was interested to hear what the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said about Wolds Remand Prison because I, too, have had an opportunity to visit it. It became operational in April of this year, when the first inmates, remanded in custody from two Crown courts—Doncaster and Sheffield—were received. As the noble Earl told us, it is still operating at well below its capacity, which is for approximately 300 inmates. I was impressed by what I saw. I too formed a good impression of the director, who was formerly a governor in the Prison Service. I also had an opportunity to meet the Home Office Controller, who is a Crown servant responsible to the Secretary of State. Earlier in her career she had been an assistant governor in the Prison Service and she now has the responsibility for monitoring the contract on site, and for the disciplinary powers that are normally exercised by a governor in a Prison Service establishment.
I found that standards were high—as they should be in a brand new institution and one which is only little more than one-third full. The standards are written down, contractual obligations that have been agreed between the Home Office and the company which is providing the management service. They cover such matters as visits, integral sanitation in single or double cells, exercise, hygiene, and a number of the other matters that were itemised more fully by the noble Earl in his opening speech.
It is all a far cry from the squalor and humiliation that exist in the local prisons where a large majority of untried persons on remand are held. I have argued before, in this House and elsewhere, that one of the fundamental flaws—perhaps the biggest single flaw—that could be put right in the prison system, and the main cause of overcrowding, is the fact that between 20 and 25 per cent. of the overall prison population is made up of persons who are being held on remand awaiting trial. Some of them will be acquitted. Some will receive non-custodial sentences. They are being held in custody to protect the public. They are detained for reasons of prevention, not to be punished. It is totally wrong that we should have allowed ourselves to drift into a situation in which
1102
such people are held in circumstances which are virtually identical to those of convicted prisoners who are serving their sentences as the punishment imposed by the court, and sometimes worse.
There has been a strong case for separate provision being made for remand prisoners so that they are no longer held in local prisons. That would allow Prison Service staff to concentrate on what they are trained to do, which is to hold in secure conditions sentenced prisoners. Remand prisoners should be held in separate remand centres. I shall not repeat that line of argument today. Although it was not the only factor, it was one of the factors that led to the original proposal that there should be an experiment at one remand centre. I should have welcomed it if the experiment had applied to more than one remand centre. We are now going much further down the road of contracting out, and in the process moving away from that degree of separateness of status for remand prisoners. That is a matter of regret.
It is impossible to say whether the experiment at The Wolds is successful or not. It has been operational for a few weeks only. How can there be any realistic evaluation of success or failure? To claim, as Ministers now seem to be claiming—I refer both to the noble Earl and to Mr. Lloyd last night in the Commons—that the tendering exercise for The Wolds is a success in showing what the private sector has to offer is quite a different matter. The Home Office has had to allocate broadcast franchises, and a number of your Lordships know what a gap can open up between promise and performance.
What seems to have driven policy forward is simply the fact that another new prison is nearing completion. This time, it is a large establishment with a capacity of 650 at Blakenhurst near Redditch. It is said that it is too large for remand prisoners only; hence the need to fill up the rest of the space with sentenced prisoners. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said just now that the experiment was being widened by adding Blakenhurst, a local prison holding both remand and sentenced prisoners, to The Wolds, and that as a result the experiment could be evaluated on a wider front. The noble Earl's opening speech corresponded closely with what Mr. Lloyd said last night, except for the fact that I did not hear the noble Earl say what I noticed Mr. Lloyd say, to the effect that from now on, as it reaches completion, each new prison will be subject to competitive tenders from the private sector, and possibly to tenders from the Prison Service as well.
This is all a curious way to make a major departure in public policy. I must admit that it leaves me in two minds. If, as a consequence, higher standards resulted across the prison system I should not be alone in welcoming that. It would be a great prize, and one we should work for. The idea of enforceable standards laid down by contract, within the accountability developed in the Criminal Justice Act, is one that holds out promise for the future. Certainly, there is opportunity for further public debate.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, not perhaps for the first time, I find myself in almost complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. I have made my views on the matter quite clear. I favoured the idea of an experiment when Mr. Hurd first indicated that that was his position. I was concerned, as was the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, when this rather strange amendment was pushed through the Commons and a major change in the Government's intentions took place while the Bill was being considered, as a result, I believe, of Back Bench pressure. The issue then came before this House. It is instructive to consider what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, told us was the Government's position on the matter.
We discussed the issue of the privatisation of prisons on 23rd April last year. The noble Earl referred to the new Wolds Remand Centre in Humberside. He went on to say:
"If a suitable tender is received that prison may be contracted out. No new remand centres are being built or planned. Therefore, in regard to contracted-out remand centres, that will be the only one for the foreseeable future. At present there are no plans to contract out prisons for convicted prisoners or for existing establishments".
It should be borne in mind that those words were uttered only in April of last year. The noble Earl added:
"If we decided to go down that road we should first wish to see how well the contracting out at Wolds had gone, and whether there were any lessons to be learned from that".—[Official Report, 23/4/91; col. 211.]
How could any lessons have been learnt in an establishment which was only opened in April and which has had at best one third of its CNA occupied by remand prisoners? The noble Earl has to justify, as I am sure he is anxious to do, the relationship between the speech he made last April and the Government's position which he expressed from the Front Bench today and which, as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, indicated, was expressed in the House of Commons yesterday. That is the first matter.
I certainly should be grateful for any information that the noble Earl would like to give us on how well the Wolds experiment, as it was described by Mrs. Rumbold, the noble Earl's former colleague, in justifying the Government's position to the House of Commons, has gone. What kind of analysis has taken place in regard to what has developed at Wolds since April this year? Can the noble Earl tell us, from the basis not of the tendering exercise—that is not what the noble Earl said last year—but on the basis of what has actually happened at Wolds, how he can justify widening the procedure to include a new establishment?
When Mr. Hurd indicated his position on the matter I did not find myself in agreement with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, whose position I respect and understand, who said that he was wholly opposed in principle to the project. I could not possibly take that view if remand prisoners were to have far better facilities than would otherwise be the case. Those of us who know the conditions in which remand prisoners are held in gaols in this country would find it difficult to oppose the experiment as a matter of principle. But
1104
we are not discussing a single experiment. We are talking about extending it, and substantially extending it. I have to point out that the noble Earl's speech today cannot be related to the speech he made in April of last year.
There is another consideration. I wonder whether the noble Earl will tell us what is the Government's true position. Those of us who read the Guardian of 2nd July will have seen an extremely interesting interview by John Carver, the home affairs correspondent of that newspaper, with the present Home Secretary, Mr. Clarke. Mr. Clarke said a large number of things with which I found myself in complete agreement. But the article stated:
"Turning to the Home Office's responsibility for prisons, Mr. Clarke disclosed that he was considering extending privatisation from new jails to existing establishments, presently staffed by the Prison Officers' Association. He recognised the strains this could cause in his relations with the POA".
That is one of the most profound understatements I have read for a substantial period of time.
As I have pointed out in the House on a number of occasions, some branches of the POA have behaved with disgraceful irresponsibility in recent years. Their attitude has been wholly indefensible. But having said all that, I do not believe that we should take this massive step in the dark without clear evidence as to the benefits which have been secured as a result of the Wolds experiment. There is now an onus on the noble Earl to explain clearly how he can relate what he said in April of last year to what he said today.
6.17 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I listened with great sympathy to the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Windlesham and Lord Harris of Greenwich, and of my noble friend Lord Longford. I agreed with almost every word that they said. We are now in a very strange position. Blakenhurst is due to open its gates to prisoners next spring. It is a brand new category B prison. It was built at taxpayers' expense and has cost us £50 million. It is designed to hold more than 649 prisoners. It will operate as a local prison and will therefore hold convicted as well as unconvicted prisoners. The Government are proposing to hand the prison over to a private contractor.
Like the noble Lords, Lord Windlesham and Lord Harris of Greenwich, I should like for a moment to look at the history of this process. It is instructive not only in relation to government penal policy but in relation to the way in which the Government have gradually—almost imperceptibly—moved on this issue from the state that they were in as recently as four or five years ago to the state they are in now. It began in 1988 with a consultation process about prison privatisation. There was the publication of a Green Paper entitled Private Involvement in the Remand Sector—only the remand sector. It argued the case for a limited experiment with privatisation confined to the remand sector. It ruled out privatisation for prisons holding convicted prisoners. That was in 1988—not so long ago. It stated:

1105
"Because of the different purpose of remand as opposed to the sentence of imprisonment, and the character of the remand regime, the running of the remand centre by a private company would raise fewer difficult issues of principle".
The distinction is clearly made between remand prisons and prisons holding convicted prisoners, a point made with some force by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham.
When the Criminal Justice Bill first entered the House of Commons, the clauses relating to prison privatisation were confined to the area of newly built remand prisons. The experiment was to take place at the Wolds, a remand prison which accepted its first prisoners as recently as last April. Even while the Bill moved through the parliamentary process and the Government accepted some Back-Bench amendments extending the Home Secretary's powers to privatise any category of prison, the then Minister in charge of prisons, Mrs. Rumbold, reassured Parliament on 25th April 1991 (at col. 720 of Hansard) that further prison privatisation would go ahead, if, and only if, the contracted-out experiment at the Wolds proved to be a success—not, if, and only if, the tendering process at the Wolds proved to be a success; but if, and only if, the contracting-out experiment proved to be a success. At the time, senior civil servants said that a proper assessment of success at the Wolds would take no fewer than three years. But prisoners first arrived at the Wolds in April. I assume that the assurance means what it says. When Ministers give assurances as specific in character as that, one assumes that they mean what they say, that they mean to bind the Government and that, if the Government are re-elected, they mean to bind their successors. Therefore, I make that assumption of good faith on the part of the Government at the time that the assurance was given.
How can one conceivably say that one is in a position to judge whether the contracted-out experiment at the Wolds, to use Mrs. Rumbold's phrase, has been a success or a failure? Prisoners only arrived there in April. If that assurance means what it says and if it is still valid—if it is not valid, then it is incumbent upon the Government to tell us why they are withdrawing it—it cannot be squared with government policy as expressed in the order.
It is quite extraordinary to note that last December the Government announced that they planned to privatise Blakenhurst. No formal consultation presaged the Government's change of heart on the principle of handing over convicted prisoners to the private sector. There was no consultation, and everyone is now presented with the order which, I believe, opens the doors extremely wide.
What about the Wolds? Let us look at the Wolds experience and the contracting-out experiment to see whether we can draw any possible lesson from it which will help us in relation to Blakenhurst. The Wolds was built at public expense at a cost of £38 million. I suppose that that is a similarity between the two prisons. It was handed over to Group 4 to run. The contract struck between Group 4 and the Home office guarantees prisoners—that is, at least on paper—the kind of prison conditions and activities that prison
1106
reformers have unsuccessfully campaigned for on behalf of the the state prison system for a decade or more.
However, despite the excellent facilities that were handed over to the private contractor running the Wolds, prison privatisation has not exactly got off to a very auspicious start. As the Minister mentioned in the other place last night, since it opened in April, there have been three serious disturbances. They have occurred despite the prison holding just one-third of the prisoners that it will hold if, and whenever, it reaches full capacity. But it does not stop there. We are asked to judge whether the contracting-out experiment is or is not a success.
A shroud of secrecy surrounds the whole operation at the Wolds. For example, we have been denied information about the cost that Group 4 is charging the taxpayer to run the Wolds. I should have thought that that was rather a basic piece of information upon which we could judge whether the contracting-out experiment will or will not be a success. But we cannot get it. Parliamentary Questions relating to costs and related profit margins have been rebuffed on the spurious grounds of commercial confidentiality. I hope that tonight the Minister will be able to lift the veil of commercial confidentiality just a little and tell us just how much Group 4 is actually making out of the contracting-out experiment at the Wolds.
The Crown controller installed in the Wolds to monitor performance and report back to the Home Office has yet to publish a public report. Indeed, the first disclosure that there was anything wrong at the Wolds was made by the Yorkshire Post on 4th June and related to a disturbance which took place on 28th May. Therefore, information which might enable us to come to a conclusion as to whether the contracting-out experiment is or is not a success is not exactly flowing out of the prison.
The Government have said that any extension of privatisation of prisons would be conditional upon a full assessment of the Wolds experiment. With the greatest respect, it seems to me that the noble Earl has come here tonight in an attempt to persuade us that really what they were talking about was the success of the tendering experiment—presumably, the way in which the tenders are put in, the way in which the Government consider them and the way in which they are then accepted. However, we do not know the details because of the doctrine of commercial confidentiality. If the Government are really telling us that that is what Mrs. Rumbold and indeed the noble Earl had in mind last year when they talked about a contracting-out experiment in relation to the Wolds, it is a bit like Alice: words mean really what they want them to mean. The prison at the Wolds is, as yet, only one-third full; and, indeed, will not reach capacity until the autumn.
I am afraid that the Government have clearly reneged upon their promise to be cautious. Instead, they have chosen to pursue their dogma with, I think, unseemly and potentially disastrous haste. Perhaps I may echo the words of my noble friend Lord Longford. In my view, prison privatisation is wrong in principle. I believe that the state should retain direct

1107
responsibility for imprisonment which is an eminently sensitive and often dangerous task. The cost of crime and the dispensation of justice ought to be a social cost borne by all members of society.
However, privatisation will create a vested interest in high crime rates and full prisons. I am bound to say that I think the word "obscene" is not too strong in this respect —in fact, it was used by my noble friend—if one imagines that, as the crime rates go up, the directors of Group 4 rub their hands and say, "Jolly good, the Wolds will be fuller and Blakenhurst will have more prisoners. We shall make more money out of it". I am bound to say that I find that unethical. In my view, it is unethical that the shareholders of private security firms should profit from punishment handed down by the state.
As I see it, the other problem is where the policy is designed to lead. I believe that the Minister in another place last night let the cat somewhat out of the bag when he said:
"As I said, the order empowers the Government to contract out the management of new prisons. Naturally, the occasion is Blakenhurst and I have concentrated on our plans for that establishment. However, I want to make it clear that we expect to invite private sector tenders for each new prison that opens after Blakenhurst". [Official Report, Commons, 6/7/92; col. 122.]
Therefore, if the policy is carried through and if the Government mean apparently what they say they mean, we shall find ourselves at the end of the day with a two-tier prison system. If what the Government tell us about how marvellous the private prisons will be comes to pass, we shall have one set of prisons: the private ones in which prisoners are treated well, humanely and in ways which prison reformers have for many years been urging the Government to treat all prisoners; and we shall then have the mass of prisoners housed in old Victorian prisons which were totally condemned by the Woolf Report.
I must tell the Government that that seems to me to be a recipe for potential danger. They are playing with fire. I say that because the man who is in the old Victorian prison and locked up for 22 hours a day will not take it kindly if someone convicted of a comparable crime and sentenced to a comparable term of imprisonment is sent to one of the new privately run show-pieces that the Government propose to establish. Moreover, who will decide which convicted prisoner goes to which prison? Who will decide the way in which prisoners are moved from the good prisons—that is, the privatised ones about which the Government are so proud —into the Dartmoors, the Wandsworths and the Pentonvilles? If ever there was a situation in which the Government were playing with potential fire, it seems to me that this is it.
I have to tell the Government that I believe they have reneged upon the assurances that were given to Parliament during the passage of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. I also have to say to them that the privatisation of the prison service in relation to convicted prisoners is of a totally different character to the possible privatisation of a purpose-built establishment and facility for remand prisoners.
1108
Finally, if the Government are going down that road, then to create a two-tier system in our prison service is fundamentally dangerous and foolhardy. They would do far better to concentrate their efforts and energy upon implementing the provisions of the Woolf Report, which relates to the mass of prisoners, and not put them into the provision of one or two show-piece prisons which, in the end, will prove to be more trouble than they are worth.
6.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I always view following the noble Lord, Lord Richard, with a certain amount of apprehension, because his powers of advocacy are such that he can make a nonsense out of anyone's argument. He has done his best this evening to make a nonsense of the argument for the order which the Government put forward.
Lord Richard: My Lords, it is a bit of a nonsense.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord is good enough to agree with me on that point. I wonder whether I can encourage him to agree with me on a few of the other points. I find the debate a little trying in some ways as, over the years, when I have had the privilege of standing at this Dispatch Box, and before, one has heard nothing but the castigation of all governments over the standards of our prisons. Everyone has said that the conditions are awful; that the prisoners should be treated better and given better conditions.
Along we come with a proposal which gives, and will give, prisoners better conditions, standards, education, time out of their cells, opportunities to earn money, and yet noble Lords say that that is a retrograde step in so far as it was handing prisoners over to the private sector. I do not accept that. We are trying to accept that we have prisoners who have to be kept in prisons and that the standards in those prisons must be high. Whether that is to be done by a private firm or the prison service is relatively immaterial. The important point is that the standards should be high.
I do not see any reason, in principle, for saying that it is only the prison service that can produce those high standards. It is that service which has been criticised by noble Lords in the past. We are trying to ensure that the standards will be even higher than they have been, and that has proved to be the case. In so far as the system that we are encouraging and have seen at the Wolds is producing higher standards, I should have thought that that would have met with the accord of your Lordships and would not—in the words of the noble Earl, Lord Longford—be considered obscene.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am surprised that the Minister believes in the Wolds experiment, which he has no doubt studied at first hand. Has he been there?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, no.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, he has not been there. I suggest that the Minister has a good look. That is enough.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I realise that the noble Earl is delighted at having been to the Wolds and seen what is happening. I am glad that he has. That only makes me more surprised to know that he considers it obscene, because that is not the impression that we have gained. The noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that there had been incidents at the Wolds. There have been two passive sit-downs.
Lord Richard: My Lords, three.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, there have been three incidents.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, there have been two passive sit-downs and one sit-down. There is a difference between a sit-down and a passive sit-down. The noble Earl seems to think that is funny. A passive sit-down is when someone sits down and does not do anything. A sit-down is when one sits down and—
The Earl of Longford: And what, my Lords?
Earl Ferrers: —and causes some trouble, my Lords. As the matter is causing such enormous jocularity, I cannot see what the noble Earl is fussing about. Obviously the incidents are not causing too much anxiety.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps I may explain what I am laughing at. I did not know one could do many thousands of pounds worth of damage while sitting down.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I was not there—no doubt the noble Earl was—to see how that peculiarity came about. However that may be, there were those three incidents: two of a less substantial nature and one of a small nature. That averages three such incidents in three months which is the average for Prison Service establishments. Of course, the noble Earl is well aware that the start of a prison is always a difficult time.
My noble friend Lord Windlesham said that this was a change in the penal system. Of course it is. I do not deny that. But for ages noble Lords have been asking for a change in the penal system. They have been asking the Government to try to find ways of encouraging, improving and uplifting standards in prisons. We are now doing so. I return to the point that I do not believe that there is anything intrinsically sacrosanct about the Prison Service being the only body which can run a prison. That has been shown to be the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said something which I found to be curious: that it is bad that Group 4 should have a vested interest in crime rates and the profits to be made from crime. That is an extreme view. He is well aware that there is a job to be done. If prisoners are to be looked after by a security firm or other company that does not mean that such companies profit from crime or become excited because the crime rate is going up. That was an extreme exposition by the noble Lord, and one that is unusual for him.
The noble Lord then said that there was a two-tier system: the better system and the less good system. He thought that it was bad to have a two-tier system and
1110
that it would be better not to have the better system so that all prisoners could be in the worse system. I find that a hard view to follow. Obviously we must try to raise standards. In so far as this policy helps to raise standards, then it is a good thing.
My noble friend Lord Windlesham and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, asked why we had to go ahead so quickly with Blakenhurst. There is encouraging evidence from the Wolds tendering experience and from what is being done at the Wolds. Those who have tendered have undertaken to deliver high standards, and that must be better for the prisoners.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, asked what analysis there had been of what was happening at the Wolds. He castigated me for saying something in April last year which he believed to be directly opposed to what is happening now. That is not so. I admit that there has been a movement in thought and approach but there is nothing contradictory in what I said way back in April with what is happening now. Of course we had to have the experience of the Wolds, of tendering and of contractors wanting to take on the job and of doing it.
A Home Office controller is based full-time at the Wolds. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked what analysis there had been. She monitors performance against the contract. She is there daily. She establishes that the contractor is delivering the standards required by the contract. She has found that to be successful. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, castigated the Government once more—he has been doing well in castigating the Government this evening—over being secretive about the price of the tender. He was not born yesterday. He knows that the Government do not say what the tender prices are.
Lord Richard: My Lords, why not?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, because future tenderers will know what others tendered.
Lord Richard: My Lords—
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I shall give way but the noble Lord is well aware that the Government do not say what prices have been tendered.
Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps I may make two points for the Minister to consider. First, we are not asking people to reveal their tender prices at the time that the contract is being negotiated. We are asking merely how much the taxpayer will have to pay Group 4 for running the prison. That is an entirely different thing. Secondly, if the Minister cannot disclose that on the grounds of commercial confidentiality, does he not realise that that, in itself, is a damning indictment of the policy that the Government are pursuing? We should know those facts.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, says he does not want to know how much they tendered for but that he simply wants to know how much it cost the Government. I cannot see any difference between the two. What I can tell the noble Lord, and I know this will satisfy his deep curiosity, is that the price given by the contractors for the Wolds

1111
is less than it would have cost if operated by the Prison Service. The noble Lord asks, "How do we know that?" I can tell the noble Lord that, although I am not going to divulge to him the price, it is a great deal lower than it would have been. Perhaps we can move on after that completely unnecessary intervention.
My noble friend Lord Windlesham said that he felt it was not possible to say that the Wolds has been a success. I accept that it is early days, but the fact is that it has been running and that to date it has been shown to be a success. We believe that where a new prison is being built it is right to give the private sector the opportunity of tendering for it—tendering not to make money but to ensure that the facilities which the prison is offering to prisoners are better and cheaper than they could have been. If that is so, it must be to the benefit not only of the Government and the taxpayer but ultimately to the prisoner as well.
I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich—I may be mistaken but I think it was he—who quoted the speech of my right honourable friend the Minister of State in another place. He said that we are proposing to invite private sector tenders for any new prison which will open after Blakenhurst. That does not mean to say that a private contractor will necessarily always get the contract. It may well be that the Prison Service will tender and get the contract. We are trying to provide the best service and one which will give the prisoner the best form of life in his surroundings in the most cost-effective way. I hope that will prove to be the case. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, looks agitated and so I will sit down to allow the noble Lord an opportunity to speak.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I am never agitated when the noble Earl is speaking. I merely wanted to draw his attention to a rather significant fact. He has omitted to give any reply to this remarkable interview given by the Home Secretary in the Guardian newspaper on 2nd July. That indicated he was considering extending privatisation from new gaols to existing establishments. Is that the position and, if so, could we be given a little detail about this?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if that were to happen it would be necessary to produce a new order because at the moment the Act does not permit that. If my right honourable friend feels that such action would be correct for the future an order will be produced, but no order is being produced at the moment so he cannot extend privatisation.
I am grateful to your Lordships for taking part in this debate although I am bound to say that I would have wished for a little more encouragement, particularly from those who have for so long wanted to try to increase the standards of the Prison Service. Nevertheless, I hope that your Lordships will give this order your approval.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Fund
6.44 p.m
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham rose to ask Her Majesty's Government when they will publish the Social Policy Research Unit's research on the Social Fund; and whether, in the light of the Social Security Advisory Committee's report The Social Fund; a new structure, they will restructure the Social Fund.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Government in 1988 introduced the Social Fund to replace one-off payments for cookers and the like to families on income support. The aim was to cut expenditure, to increase local office discretion and to target help on the neediest. It should be need-led not demand-led, said the Secretary of State. So loans displaced most grants, and loans now represent 70 per cent. of the budget. Local offices were given cash-limited budgets and their discretion was enhanced by abolishing independent rights of appeal.
Every professional agency and every charity working with families and children warned the Government. Never has a fund been so closely monitored for its effects on the poorest and neediest. Indeed, never have there been so many reports: from the CABs, from the Children's Society, from the local authority associations, from the Family Welfare Association, from the CPAG, from the Rowntree Trust, from the Social Security Research Consortium, from the Public Accounts Committee, from the Government's National Audit Office and, earlier this year, from the Government's own Social Security Advisory Committee.
Never have there been so many reports of such unanimity. What do they all say? They say that the Social Fund has been a disaster, even though it represents only half of one per cent. of the social security budget. It has indeed cut expenditure: after loan repayments, it is down to a third of what it was. However, it has not helped those in need at the time of their need. My criticism of the Social Fund is that it has met one objective—cuts—precisely by failing to meet the other, which is targeting help on those most in need. Had the Government listened in 1988 much misery and hardship would have been avoided, and had the Government listened in 1988 this debate and many others before it would not have been necessary. What further evidence do the Government need? Will they tell us?
I do not know what the York Social Policy Research Unit report, which is mentioned in the Question, will say, but the Minister does, because he has been sitting on it for some time. That is presumably because it damns the Social Fund still further. I understand that it is due to be published on Thursday. Will the Minister answer me just one question? Given that the Social Fund has saved money on single payments, what evidence is there that the money is going to people in the greatest need? And does the York report show that this is happening? I press the Minister to answer that question, because after all he knows the answer to it.
Expenditure on the Social Fund has been cut. Single payments in 1985–86 amounted to £334 million; the 1992–93 budget, after the pre-election bonus, was £302 million gross but only £130 million net after the repayment of loans is included. Those are, quite simply, cuts because most people in need are refused help. For community care grants the refusal rate is 73 per cent. and rising; for budgetary loans the refusal rate is 44 per cent. and rising. Even for those who need a crisis loan, often simply because their benefit is paid two weeks in arrears, the refusal rate is 17 per cent. and rising.
Even worse, such refusals are too often "a lottery"—not my phrase, but that of the Government's own Social Security Advisory Committee—because local office budgets are cash limited. If your cooker, your marriage, your partner, or your job expires, make sure it happens in September and not November. Equally, if as a single parent your wheelchair gets stolen and you live in the North-East you will have it replaced by the Social Fund; if you live in the South-East you will not. It is welfare by calendar, welfare by geography and welfare by chance, but not welfare by need.
Perhaps people are being refused help because they really do not need it. Is that true? Those on long-term subsistence level benefits experience routine poverty and are unable to afford, for example, to replace the cooker when it breaks down. For social security benefits to be adequate to cope with replacements of equipment and such extraordinary expenditure, benefit levels would have to be at a much higher level than this Government feel they can afford. Many other applicants need help when they face a life crisis: births and deaths, moving home, ending a job, losing a partner, or when the house is burgled or burnt down. Their expenditure increases at just the time when their resources have diminished. Their need too is surely undeniable.
Finally, there are those like ex-offenders and the young homeless who are waiting for their regular payments but are utterly destitute because they are paid two weeks in arrears. Does anyone doubt their destitution? We see it around us, and yet half of all pensioners and one-quarter of the sick and disabled who have applied for grants have been refused. Also, 80 per cent. of the unemployed and 20 per cent. of the single parent families who have applied for loans have been refused.
Let us look more closely at the reasons for refusal. A quarter of the refusals were decided because the applicants were not on income support or had not been on income support for six months. A 19 year-old girl, raped by her stepfather, was rehoused as an emergency by the local authority in a totally empty flat. She sleeps on the floor because she has not received income support for six months. A client with multiple sclerosis was discharged after two years in hospital with no furniture of his own but was refused help from the Social Fund because he was on invalidity benefit. In some cases that benefit is only a few pence higher than income support.
Another quarter of the refusals were decided because the applicants were deemed not to have high enough priority. Families and the single drop off the
1114
list when local office money runs out. A family with six children, including a pregnant 17 year-old, after two years spent in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, was offered housing by the local authority but was refused a start-up grant for furniture from the Social Fund because it was not considered a high enough priority. That Yorkshire family is currently taking it in turns to sleep in the two beds it possesses.
A single homeless man was allocated a council flat but was refused both a grant and a loan for furniture because the officer considered a single man could live in a hostel and therefore did not need a flat. The officer also considered that the man could eat out and therefore did not need a cooker. An ex-offender was refused money for clothing when he returned home to find that his ex-wife had disposed of it. His probation officer now believes he will never be interviewed for a job.
Even where applicants are in a high priority group, such as the disabled, they can be refused help for what officers regard as non-essential items. A tetraplegic young man was rehoused after a year in hospital and two-and-a-half years in residential care. He was refused a grant for a fridge-freezer, which would have reduced his need to shop as shopping for him was almost physically impossible, on the grounds there was no indication that,
"without a grant you would have to enter residential institutional care".
Inquiries about grants are regularly fobbed off by staff who prefer to talk about loans. If grants are pursued, staff warn—I believe that is the polite word—of delay. Worst off are those who do not qualify for a grant and are too poor for a loan. Some 27,000 people, the poorest of the poor, were refused help for their poverty on grounds of poverty. A 20 year-old pregnant woman with a nine-month old child was refused a crisis loan because she could not repay it even though her husband had deserted her taking the benefit money with him. Until regular benefit was paid—it took a fortnight—she survived, pregnant and with a child in her arms, largely by begging.
The Social Fund has constructed a policy of defer, deter and refuse. Only a quarter of those in need applying to the Social Fund for grants, and only half of those applying to it for budgetary loans, are helped. However, their distress and destitution do not disappear. How could that be otherwise? They still need a cooker and bedding. What do they do? For some their destitution is displaced on to social services and charities.
At a meeting of 36 charities convened in March by the Family Welfare Association it was found that half of the people in need it had helped had been refused help from the Social Fund. The association was providing income support because neither the state nor local authorities would do so. Indeed the association had had to close its lists for eight months as it was besieged by those denied help from the Social Fund.
For others their destitution was displaced into debt. The National Audit Office has reported that two-thirds of all families with children applying to, and being refused by, the Social Fund are in debt.

1115
Rent, fuel and loans all make a multiple debt the repayment of which pushed those families still further into destitution from which only a Social Fund grant would have relieved them. However, that was refused.
Destitution can disappear into the dodges of the immoral economy, for example, thefts from washing lines or shoplifting to order, and into the street markets of secondhand goods where people buy back what was stolen from them in the first place. That is why the report of the Government's own Social Security Advisory Committee, which calls for a restructuring of the Social Fund, is so significant.
The report states that families and others on benefit need mandatory start-up grants when they move into their home for the first time. Secondly, the report calls for more grants and less loans and for easier repayments on loans. The report states that the Government should especially reconsider paying benefits two weeks in arrears as that generates the need for crisis loans, thus putting a claimant into debt before he even starts.
Thirdly, the Government's own advisory committee insists that the Social Fund budget is inadequate and fails to meet legitimate need. Those are the words of the Government's own advisory committee, not mine. The report states that while an element of discretion is sensible, the present Social Fund is a lottery and,
"the element of chance is unacceptable".
For the longer term, the Government's own advisory committee would like to see the Social Fund extended to others on low income, for example those on family credit and on housing benefit. Do the Government accept the report of its own advisory committee? I repeat my earlier question to the Minister. Does the York research, on which the Minister has sat for so long, confirm that those in need are not being helped as they should be?
The Rowntree Trust states that social work in the 1990s should be about care in the community, child protection and tackling young offenders. The Social Fund is deforming those aims. It ensures instead that social work is about containing petty criminality, debt management and aiding families in financial stress.
I have tried to make just one simple point which is that the Social Fund is failing to help those in legitimate need. The Social Fund's net discretionary expenditure is a third of what it was because it helps with grants only a quarter of those who need them. It does not alleviate deprivation and therefore people go cold, hungry, homeless or into debt. Will the Government restructure the Social Fund?
6.57 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, this is the second day running on which we have debated the reforms which are necessary to obviate the worst miseries caused by extreme poverty in this country. Yesterday we discussed the plight of those unfortunates with children who live in bed and breakfast accommodation. It was splendid that your Lordships firmly recorded their opinion on that matter. Today
1116
we are discussing the plight of those faced with special or unexpected calls on what may be referred to, not very laughingly, as their resources.
I shall spare your Lordships a repetition of my short recital of yesterday on the duty of government to relieve extreme poverty and on the duty of the Church to campaign for such relief, as I am still under the dwindling illusion that almost everyone is in agreement in principle with that. In saying that, I take great pleasure in welcoming the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham to our debate tonight. I first heard him speak at the opening conference of Church Action on Poverty. I have been associated with that body ever since. The speech of the right reverend Prelate was wonderful and it set the whole conference alight. It moved Church Action on Poverty to do some serious work. Let us hope that the speech of the right reverend Prelate tonight will have a similar effect on the Government.
The problem occurs when we come to the practical implementation of the necessary measures for helping people in debt. The Government seem to be so frightened that a few people will undeservedly find a way to benefit from any reforms that they become paralysed and unable to do anything. However, it is only fair to say that what is needed in this particular instance is not just a minor reform but rather a complete change of emphasis. There needs to be a change of emphasis from loans to grants.
The case for loans can be and has been well argued. It is a case against pauperism and against dependency. It is a case worth supporting when pauperism and dependency are avoidable. But our present economic system is such that a large number of the poor are necessarily dependent and necessarily pauperised. It is most important to stop that, but there is no danger of avoiding it by giving grants.
To digress, but not too far, one might think that we had learned a lesson from the way in which we had worsened the situation of the third world by a policy of loans. How much better and less expensive it would have been to have had a policy of outright grants in that field.
This need for grants is greatest in meeting the one-off needs which are experienced by any family in crises or even in the course of ordinary life. All of your Lordships are used to such crises, but most of us have enough reserves to enable us to cope financially with the daughter getting married, the husband falling ill, a burglary or—dare I mention it—the demand from Lloyds. However, we are talking of those who, often through no fault of their own—and I remind your Lordships and the Government that unemployment now and in the foreseeable future is not avoidable in certain parts of the country—have no resources, no cushion of any kind and who, if they are pushed by demands which their weekly dole is unable to meet, are driven into deeper debt, sometimes into crime and even to suicide.
Charities cannot meet that need. The noble Baroness has already mentioned the experience of the Family Welfare Association and its report on this matter. Charities rightly exist to deal with the unusual cases; here we are talking about the usual, basic cases.

1117
For such persons it is vital that we establish a system of grants, which are theirs by right as citizens of this country. The Government's own Social Security Advisory Committee's report goes a long way towards the establishment of such a system. We must hope for acceptance of that by the Government today.
7.3 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, I wish to emphasise to the Minister who will reply on behalf of the Government and to the Government that the matter of reconsidering and at least considerably re-ordering the Social Fund is a matter of very deep significance in the life and cohesion of our country and society.
When the proposals for the Social Fund were in Green Paper form, and subsequently on their way to becoming the legislation which emerged from 1986 onwards, our General Synod Board for Social Responsibility, on behalf of the Church of England, commented among other things:
"We are concerned about the use of the Social Fund to meet special needs. Cash limits will introduce an arbitrary factor in its operation and there would be no appeal. It will mean that one claimant may qualify for assistance at the beginning of the financial year, but another, in exactly the same circumstances, fail at the end simply because the money has run out. This seems to us a potentially unjust system which will create hostility and incomprehension."
The report of the Social Security Advisory Committee, and much other evidence, to some of which the noble Baroness referred, surely shows those fears to be justified by what has happened and what is happening in practice.
The report also pointed to what it called the alienation and indignity which many claimants experience in their progress through social service offices. Again, I fear, that continues to be true. Of course, it is important to emphasise that, as that report pointed out and as I know very well, that is not the fault of the social security staff but, as the report states, of a system which devalues those who receive state benefits.
That is the underlying point—the devaluing of those who receive state benefits. It seems to remain true, despite the issue of a Citizens' Charter, with supplementary charters, including one for those in receipt of benefits. The way the Social Fund operates, the way it is so seriously cash limited, and the way in which very poor people in desperate circumstances are forced to turn to it, does not suggest that those people are what one might term chartered citizens. The point I wish urgently to press upon the Government is: please at least heed the recommendations for a new structure for the Social Fund urgently and seriously. I suggest that any government needs to consider the effects of social security payments in general and of the Social Fund regulations and resources in particular with a proper mixture of compassion, control and respect for citizenship.
Behind the statistics, the directions and the financial decisions, as we have already been reminded, are people who in the vast majority of cases are in great need of compassion, even if it has to be limited by statistics and resource availability. Surely anyone who is in direct touch with social workers, clergy and
1118
active local citizens on so many housing estates and inner city areas, knows that behind the requests for a replacement for a cooker that has broken down or a pair of shoes that have been ruined is real and persistent misery, frustration and dull despair. Life in concentrated areas is very tough indeed.
A few days ago I attended a visit by a distinguished and gracious lady to an estate in my diocese. As she left the community centre she walked across the road and stopped to speak to a builder working on the building site opposite. The following conversation ensued. First bystander, somewhat wryly: "Oh, now she's talking to one of the ordinary people"—people like myself having been left on the other side of the road. Second bystander, like a flash: "Oh no, he's not ordinary, he's got a job". I think it very important not to be sentimental about that but to be aware that ordinariness for very many people is simply something about which most of us hardly have a clue.
Therefore, it seems to me that it is essential to remind those in power how great is the need for sensitive compassion and respect for the citizenship of all. Of course, it must go with control. We do not have limitless resources and we do not want people to be encouraged in dependence. However, so many people need a boost up, not a put down if they are to develop in responsibility and self help. I must testify to the immense resilience of so many poor people in pretty desperate circumstances as they struggle to make something of their lives. So surely the Government must let control be informed by compassion. Let it also be directed by some strong sense that all those people, too, are citizens, citizens who have rights as such to be given some chance of decency and self help when they are caught up in groups or areas of deprivation and difficulty.
I do not wish to take up time by citing facts and cases, though as I speak I can recollect seeing many faces and hearing many voices concerning these matters. The documentation on the need for change and expansion is surely well provided, and it is reflected also in the advisory committee's report. Therefore, I simply ask the Government to approach the matter of restructuring the Social Fund as a serious and urgent invitation to their compassion and as a challenge to them to take the charter of citizenship with full seriousness so that the controls can be opened up, resources enlarged and opportunities given for a compassionate response which will enable more poor and deprived people to know that they, after all, are also citizens. Especially I appeal for easing up on the matter of loans and especially crisis loans, so that desperate people are not pushed into more misery.
Such an approach of compassion to control for the sake of citizens would surely be a great contribution to enabling many of our poor to become what they so clearly desire: citizens who are active contributors to rather than receivers from our society.
7.10 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said how much he was looking forward to the speech of the right reverend Prelate. He can now look back on that expected pleasure. I hope

1119
I do not exceed my standing when I say that most of us in this House would like to see him in the Chamber more often. We realise that he has some way to come but all the same in these days of modern travel we should like to see more of him. I think his bold spirit is indeed what is needed occasionally in this very mature place. I hope that he will, indeed I believe that he can, take it as the opinion of most of us in this Chamber.
I was told many years ago when I joined this House that there was only one rule, which was never to speak more than once in a day. I have already made one speech today and even asked a Question, which aroused a certain amount of interest. So I am banned from any further oratory. However, I have got a new average for a short speech. I notice that I spoke yesterday but for only two minutes. I shall not take much longer than that today, and hope that I shall not be in the position in which Professor Laski found himself when the then Mr. Attlee wrote to him and said, "A period of silence on your part will be welcome". Noble Lords may remember that famous message.
I speak to curry favour with the noble Baroness. There are worse reasons than that for speaking. Certainly I have been remarkably homeless for long enough. On the other hand the homeless have a great champion in her and in other speakers. So I do not think that many words from me are necessary.
I should like to give noble Lords one example from the New Horizon youth centre, with which I have been associated for 20 years, and ask your Lordships to reflect on it for one moment. In the autumn of 1991 New Horizon successfully placed a young homeless man aged 20 in a self-contained flat made available through the Department of the Environment, for the department's homelessness initiative. The young man had previously been staying in a hostel in central London. He was unemployed. His new home was an unfurnished one bedroom flat. New Horizon helped him to apply for a community care grant from the Social Fund but he was refused on the grounds that he failed to meet the criteria. New Horizon then helped him to appeal, as he clearly fitted what were understood to be the criteria—the one criterion being people without a settled way of life undergoing resettlement. His appeal was in fact refused on the grounds that people coming from care backgrounds would be given priority. He therefore lives in his new flat, which is empty except for a sleeping bag on the floor.
That is a case where a certain judgment was delivered about the priorities. It is easy enough to discuss priorities and no doubt they could be much improved. In my eyes the rearrangement of priorities only carries one a certain distance. I agree with those who think that as long as there is a cash limited fund, much need will be denied and in many cases much cruelty inflicted. I personally think that the fund has reached a position where a completely new start has to be made. I hope I have not said anything which will lose me the good will of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis.
7.15 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, has chosen an appropriate time to ask her Question. I am grateful that she has done so. Doubts were expressed, before the Social Fund replaced the single payments scheme, that funding would be insufficient to meet the needs of those most in need. Those much scorned doubters have sadly been proved right in their prognostications, as the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee so clearly demonstrates.
The report is to be welcomed. It highlights the arbitrary nature of the Social Fund and the need for an adequate budget, though the committee stresses that throwing money at the problem will not provide all the solutions. From its inception, distribution of Social Fund loans and grants has been haphazard, dependent upon the size of the local budget and the time of the financial year. We all know that the needs of the poorer members of our society cannot be programmed to occur at specific times in a specific locality. The planners have got it wrong and even after four years' experience they have not managed to right the wrongs. The committee has made some very constructive suggestions which would go some way towards making the distribution of loans and grants fairer.
The fact that community care grants are discretionary undermines the community care policy objectives. There is an absence of a clear right to help when setting up a home on moving from institutional or residential care into the community. The SSAC's recommendation that grants should be mandatory in particular circumstances is to be commended, but I should like to add a word of caution. Before the amount of a mandatory grant is specified, the Department of Social Security should adequately research the cost, for example, of setting up home with minimum standard requirements. The fixing of the maternity grant at £100 without any allowance for increasing costs of providing for a new baby is an example of the failure of the fund to meet basic needs. Secondhand clothes and equipment are not easy to purchase, even with £100. It strikes me that the committee's recommendation of £500 for the community care grant sets the target too low. It is important that purchases of appliances such as cookers and fridges are made with guaranteed safety; and that guarantee does not come for a few pounds.
The recommendation for mandatory grants is limited, especially as all other circumstances are to be dealt with by loans. The stress on loans and the stipulation that a substantial part of the loan should be paid off before another is considered may well force applicants to live without essentials or force them into the hands of loan sharks.
If the committee considers that the cost of providing a bed to replace a cot for a child of 18 months or more should be met by a grant, I wonder why they do not include the cost of bedding. There is also the recurring problem of replacement clothing for those who, because of particular illnesses or disabilities, wear out their clothes far faster than the average person.

1121
Only last night this House debated the effects that homelessness has upon families. Would the Minister be prepared to take up the suggestion that loans should be given to enable clients to pay rent in advance, so that they can escape the horrors of temporary accommodation such as we heard about yesterday? He spoke about the action being taken by housing associations to provide low cost accommodation for the homeless. That is another way in which they can be helped. He could also help the young, single homeless, who do not appear in the statistics and about whom we are very concerned.
The power given to Social Fund officers to use their discretion when deciding whether or not to award a grant or a loan puts the officers in an invidious position. Criticism has been levelled at them for being unnecessarily harsh in their refusals. They have an extremely difficult task to perform. Dealing with individuals who are distressed and very vulnerable is never too easy, as I am only too well aware for I receive a considerable number of letters from people who believe that the system has dealt unfairly with them. To have to face a daily barrage of criticism from disappointed applicants must make a difficult task soul-destroying. Does the Minister consider that a system of entitlement to loans of particular amounts for particular needs would work more effectively and be seen by applicants to be fairer than the present system, where loans are awarded at the discretion of officials according to the level of their local budgets?
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, also asked when the research on the Social Fund by the Social Policy Research Unit will be published. The Minister will recall that, in his reply on 30th January this year to my Question for Written Answer on the same subject, he could not say when the report would be published. In view of the length of time that has elapsed, perhaps I may ask him whether there is any foundation to the rumours that the draft report was so damning that its authors were asked to rewrite it in less critical terms.
I have moments, albeit very brief moments, when I feel sorry for the noble Lord, Lord Henley. With increasing frequency he must stand at the Dispatch Box to defend the indefensible. I am concerned that the noble Lord may not be aware that in his stalwart defence of Government policy he does not always afford to noble Lords who have taken part in debates the proper answers to their questions and on occasions is very close to treading on the hem of discourtesy.
The noble Lord knows that I have tried to deal with the matter privately. I believe that he should know that noble Lords who take part in social security debates do so because they have a genuine anxiety for, and a good knowledge of, their subject. To come away at the end of a debate knowing that one has been given short shrift is not satisfactory. I have chosen my words very carefully and use them with the kindest of intentions. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, will take heed.
7.20 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, it is a tribute to the importance of the Social Fund as a topic that so many speakers have chosen to speak today. I
1122
am grateful to my noble friend Lady Hollis for raising the issue. I am not an expert on the social security system but it is clear from other speakers that the Social Fund has been a disaster. We have heard about the iniquity of providing loans in crisis to people who are on marginal incomes. I wish to reinforce the practical problems of running cash limited budgets when one is dealing with emergencies.
I had experience over many years of dealing with police overtime budgets and of trying to fit them into situations which one could not anticipate over a financial year. When one is dealing with the unpredictable, trying to cope with a cash limited budget does not work. One cannot spread the allocation evenly throughout the year. Crises do not occur according to regular seasons. Inevitably one either overspends at the start of the year, leaving nothing for later police emergencies such as public disorders, a murder inquiry or whatever, or one underspends carefully at the start of the year and therefore retains a lump sum at the end of the year. One is then obliged to dispose of that lump sum by spending it at that stage on items which may seem trivial or inappropriate for fear that one's allowance will be withdrawn the following year and that one will receive a lower cash limit. That lumpiness of expenditure inevitably produces the lottery effect that one has in the Social Fund. Rules are applied unfairly and unpredictably, and in the eyes of the applicants the scheme seems totally without rules or logic. The system is thrown into total disrepute.
Even if one applies objective criteria to the situation, the lack of consistency in the system inevitably makes it disreputable to the outsider. I therefore support the recommendations of the Social Security Advisory Committee that mandatory grants should be available for a very restricted range of people in particular situations. One can achieve the same financial rigour by applying clear rules as one can by applying cash limits. But people would know what those criteria were. They would know what the rules were. One would not have the effect of a lottery and uncertainty. People would not feel that someone else down the street had been treated more fairly than they were.
There are clearly situations such as setting up a home or coming out from institutional care in which people need mandatory assistance to obtain furniture, a stove and so on. It is important if we treat, for example, community care as a reality that a person should be given the wherewithal to stand on his own two feet so that he does not end up either returning to an institution or on the streets as a vagrant, prostitute or beggar. Similarly, in relation to domestic emergencies, which one cannot predict, there should be mandatory grants for people who have had their houses burnt out or flooded, or whatever. With tight, clear rules one can achieve the same degree of financial control as by having cash limits.
Cash limits may be appropriate for discretionary grants and lesser emergencies. But the concept of loans is suspect when one deals with people at the bottom end of the income gradient. I urge the

1123
Government to restructure the Social Fund in line with the advisory committee's report and the recommendations of the other speakers tonight.
7.25 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I welcome the Unstarred Question of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. After reading the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee, The Social Fund: a new structure, perhaps I may say that it is a grave matter and of considerable urgency. The Social Security Advisory Committee recommends that a non-repayable grant should be linked to certain defined circumstances. I shall return to that point.
The present discretionary criteria are so strictly applied that only an immediate threat of loss of independence would qualify for a community care grant. Surely that is against the Government's policy of general community care, allowing more people to live in the community. I shall confine my remarks to a few points. I have grave misgivings as to the wisdom of granting loans to persons who are obviously already in reduced circumstances and would find repaying a loan a severe financial burden. They need a non-repayable grant, at least where it can be shown that it will relieve great hardship.
Until 1988, through the single payments scheme, help with the cost of deposits was available to people claiming supplementary benefit. However, under the Social Fund—which replaced the single payments scheme—help with deposits and premiums was specifically excluded. Therefore when the size of deposits was increasing sharply, help with deposits was withdrawn completely.
CAB evidence indicates that those two policies together are causing severe difficulties. A CAB in Sussex reports on a client who had been illegally evicted after harassment and violence from the landlord. He moved into bed and breakfast accommodation with cooking facilities for residents. But the client did not have any utensils. He applied for a loan from the DSS and was told that he could afford a can of coke, could he not, and that he could cut off the top and use it as a saucepan in which to heat food. But how does one cut the top off a tin without a suitable utensil? I realise that the officers are hard pressed but I find it hard to believe that anyone could give such a callous and unkind reply to someone who was already in considerable distress.
The suggestion made by the Social Security Advisory Committee in its report The Social Fund: a new structure, that the award of a non-repayable grant should be linked to defined circumstances, is to be warmly supported. Some circumstances that are listed are the setting up of a new home, a new move from institutional care and domestic emergencies. There are very strong arguments also for the provision of a proper bed for a child at the age of 18 months. It is vitally important that a growing child should be properly supported in bed. Likewise, there are strong arguments for grants for starting work when otherwise an individual would be unable to accept the offer of a job. Such payments depend on actual events
1124
and could be made mandatory and non-repayable. Will the Minister say whether daily travel costs to a job for at least a week will be met until a wage has been earned to enable fares and other needs to be met? There are also other considerations for some types of work, such as protective clothing or the acquisition of special tools. Those items all need to be paid for. If necessary, receipts could be required where a grant has been given or help has been supplied from the Social Fund.
The CAB has evidence that some of its clients are considered too poor to repay loans from the Social Fund. Therefore they are not given loans despite the fact that there is clear evidence of financial hardship. A clear case is cited in a report in Manchester. A 24 year-old client has no furniture in a rented home. She cannot afford a Social Fund loan because she is too poor on income support to repay the loan. But how does she acquire even the minimal amount of furniture that she needs? It is surely illogical for the Social Fund to fail to help the very people whose needs it was designed to help. Therefore will the Government consider a restructured Social Fund in the light of all the evidence of hardship? Research by the National Audit Office indicates that there is a growing number of people nationwide who are falling deeper into debt to the Social Fund, including those with multiple loans.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister to consider all those matters with sympathy and understanding. I ask too that loans should no longer be made to people who cannot be expected to repay them—rather, ought they not to be given outright grants? What may have been a right decision in 1989 is not necessarily right in 1992.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lady Hollis for introducing the debate. I remember that when the Social Security Bill, which set up the Social Fund, was going through this House noble Lords criticised several aspects of it. Many of us said that the idea of meeting social needs with a cash-limited budget was bound to cause real hardship and would not be workable. We also begged—I put it as strong as that—the Government to accept that the accent should be on grants rather than on loans. That suggestion too was rejected. We also tried to obtain the re-imposition of the independent review which was being withdrawn by that Bill. Many of us said that those in the poorest sections of the community would suffer most from the introduction of the Social Fund.
We received great reassurance on all counts. However, our point about a cash-limited budget was borne out because whether people receive a grant depends on where and when they apply. If they apply for a grant in an area which has already used its budget or if they apply late in the year, they will not receive it. I was glad that my noble friend Lady Hilton dealt with the question of what happens when one has a cash-limited budget.
All those points were made when the Bill was passing through this House. However, Ministers and their supporters proceeded to ride roughshod over the suggestions of Members of this House. The truth is

1125
that we have been proved right. I hope that the Government will realise that they have made a mistake and be big enough to say, "We got it wrong and we shall change it".
The Social Security Advisory Committee has given the Government a chance to change the situation because its recommendations will help. I hope that the Government will take them on board. I should like to go further than the recommendations. I believe that the statement that some people are too poor to be helped indicates the complete failure of the Social Fund. In saying that some people cannot be given a loan because they cannot repay it, the Government are saying that they are too poor to be helped. None of us would turn against a poor person in need merely because he could not pay us back. However, on our behalf the Government are doing just that. That is the most disgraceful side of the issue.
In consequence, people who could be housed if they were correctly helped are being allowed to be homeless. It is absurd to suggest that they cannot be given a loan in order to pay rent in advance. By lending them money the Government will enable them to take a home. Many landlords now ask for rent in advance. We all know that because it is the world in which we live—in fact, it is the world of which Members opposite are proud. That being so, we must understand that the way to help poor people who wish to move into such housing is to lend them money to pay their rent in advance. The refusal to do so is the quintessence of stupidity.
There are also those who are just above the level of family support but who are just as much in need as those who are in receipt of family credit. In that respect I go beyond the recommendations of the Social Security Advisory Committee because I believe that they too should be considered. In addition to accepting the committee's recommendations I hope that the Government will accept that discretionary grants should be available to people in that position.
In introducing the Bill, John Major said that there should be a residential discretion to give grants which will ensure a decent life in the community for the most vulnerable groups. I hope that his Government will act in that spirit. The committee's recommendations need to be put into action as does the possibility of making grants in the way that I have outlined. The ability and the power to wipe off the loans if people have difficulty in repaying and then to give grants should be part of the system. Although we need to increase the budget, it is important that there should be a contingency fund centrally and locally so that those in need can be helped. I hope that we shall hear an encouraging answer from the Minister.
7.38 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for introducing this important and timely Question. I am looking forward to hearing my noble kinsman's reply. I have often had occasion to admire the courage with which he stands up to the hordes who come after him on this subject. I am reminded of a verse that used to be recited to us at school. It described how:
1126
"In days of Roman cricket
How well Horatius kept the wicket".
In this profession we make our wishes to each other at the beginning of the Summer Recess rather than at the New Year. What I wish for my noble kinsman over the Recess is better policies to defend.
The Government have been a little unwise, from their point of view, in delaying the report of the Social Policy Research Unit's research on the Social Fund. We know that it was in the hands of the Minister before 11th May but we do not know how long before. On 8th June the Minister's right honourable friend Mr. Scott told my honourable friend Mr. Kirkwood that the report would be published before the Recess. It is a pity that it has not been published just a little more before the Recess so that it was available for this debate.
The reason why I say that the Government have been unwise is that the delay may well give rise to suspicions that may be quite unfounded. It could lead people to wonder whether the research is a great deal more critical than it perhaps turns out to be. It may lead people to wonder whether it has been more carefully edited than is the case.
In that context, the Government were unwise not to accept the amendment to the Health and Medicines Act 1988 which urged them to abandon the rule that academic research should not be published without the prior consent of the Secretary of State. We have an example here which illustrates why that rule may diminish the credibility of the academic research, and may do so undeservedly for all we know.
I should like also to ask my noble kinsman whether the Secretary of State has considered the effect on the finances of the University of York. Every university now is financed through the research assessment exercise in proportion to its publications, so that every publication means money. For that publication to be counted for the research assessment exercise, the Secretary of State would have had to write to the University of York by 30th June to say that it had been accepted for publication. I should be glad to know whether he has done so.
I turn now to the formal business of the Social Fund. One of the major disagreements between us, which needs exploring more than it has been, is what proportion of need we think arises in the form of single emergencies giving rise to a need for single payments. Last year the Social Fund accounted for 2.7 per cent. of the total social security budget. I shall ask whether there are any noble Lords in this Chamber for whom, in their last year's budget, emergencies, accidents and casualties amounted to as little as 2.7 per cent. of their spending. I do not regard myself as a particularly unfortunate person but for my part the figure was rather nearer 10 per cent. in what was not an extraordinary year.
I am very much in agreement with the opinion of the seventh report of the Social Security Advisory Committee that the budget is inadequate. This year it is £302 million, should like my noble kinsman to clarify how that is calculated because I am not sure

1127
how recycled money—repayment of loans fed back into the fund—is calculated. Is the recycled money included in that £302 million or is it additional to it?
The Child Poverty Action Group has described that process as recycling money from one set of income support recipients to another. That is accurate. It gives rise to a considerable burden of debt, as has been mentioned. It means that people are borrowing privately in order to repay Social Fund loans. Therefore, I ask my noble kinsman whether he will add one more to the qualifying purposes for a Social Fund loan: the repayment of Social Fund loans.
Following the remarks of my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley, I ask him further whether the Government have learned anything in that context from the problem of rescheduling third world debt. Do the Government see any sense in the principle of proportioning the total size of the budget to the total pool of people who have to draw on it, because the number of people on income support has risen most remarkably. It seems to continue to rise and with more people demanding money from the fund, inevitably there will be less to go round.
I ask my noble kinsman to think again about the rates and period of repayment. Many people find it cheaper to borrow money through catalogues at greater ultimate cost because the payments are spaced out longer in more manageable, immediate instalments. I take what I admit is an extreme example. A citizens' advice bureau in Cheshire found somebody repaying £13.57 per week from benefit of £33.60, leaving him £20.30 on which to live. I do not believe that my noble kinsman will say that that is adequate.
The problem of deductions exacerbates that further. There is a rule that deductions should be restricted to 15 per cent. but as my noble kinsman explained to me in a Written Answer on 20th May, for which I thank him, that excludes gas, water, electricity and overpayment of benefit. I regret that I was not able to speak in the debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Ezra last week because I should have said a good deal about deductions of benefit, particularly for repayment of water charges. If people on benefit are finding that their utility bills are increasing as fast as mine they are probably in great difficulty; and that seems to be the case.
I agree with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, that it is curious to say that people are too poor to be helped through the social security budget. I had supposed that the basic purpose of the social security budget was to relieve poverty. I have never heard from any government spokesman any coherent justification of why it is right to have a system in which people are said to be too poor to benefit from the social security system. I cannot get my mind round that. It does not make sense.
We have gone into the problem of variable entitlements in different parts of the country on previous occasions. I give a couple of examples of the kind of thing which happens. In the office in Edinburgh East Lowlands the budget has been overspent by 11 per cent. The result is that there is
1128
nothing available from the Social Fund for heaters, pots and pans, crockery, essential home repairs, pushchairs or prams, fridges, washing machines, tables or chairs or utility reconnections. One wonders exactly what is available from the office in Edinburgh East Lowlands.
Another Scottish CAB found a family of two parents and six children playing box and cox at the task of sleeping in two beds. I thought that we were rather more concerned about child abuse than that. It seems a most unsatisfactory arrangement. I agree with the Social Security Advisory Committee that that type of variation between areas must be regarded as unacceptable.
Even more importantly, I believe that the system creates a bottleneck. It is making it much harder than it needs to be for people to climb out of dependency on benefit and to get back in employment. The Prime Minister, speaking to the Adam Smith Institute on 16th June, said that he wanted the state to offer a hand up and not a hand out. I have no problems with that statement; I agree with it entirely. However, I do not see how the Government's policy is providing that.
Paragraph 46 of the Social Security Advisory Committee's report states:
"We have found, particularly in Northern Ireland, that the lack of adequate cash can preclude a person from taking up a job offer".
Surely that is the opposite of what we should all be working for. That is why I agree with what the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, said about work related expenses—tools, uniform and travel for interviews. Surely those are practical matters with which to help people. I agree also with what the noble Lady and the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, said about deposits.
It is a familiar and sensible remark: no home, no job; no job, no home. That produces people like the person found by a citizens' advice bureau in north London who was sleeping on the streets with no income but the income support personal allowance. People cannot obtain employment while they are in that situation. They cannot climb out of that situation until they have access to housing. That means they need a deposit. The Government are therefore forcing people into dependence upon benefit, which is the opposite of what we all want and of their declared policy.
However, the Government are right that there is such a thing as a dependency culture. However, they do not understand what it is. There are few people who want to be on benefit. In a dependency culture one ceases to have hope, one ceases to think, like the person mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, who said he was not normal, he had a job.
When one loses hope of getting out of a situation, that is the time to begin adjusting to it—a process the 17th century described as "kissing the rod." That is what a dependency culture is. It is what happens to people if they are not given a decent opportunity to leave the benefit situation and obtain work. To stop the dependency culture we need more hope, which means more opportunity. In that context I cannot think of anything more likely to increase the dependency culture than the rule that one cannot

1129
obtain help from the Social Fund until one has been on benefit for 26 weeks. Anyone who knows anything about unemployment knows that one's best chance of obtaining work occurs in the first few weeks before the rot of discouragement has set in. The 26-week rule tells people to, "depend a little longer, please." In fact it is encouraging the dependency culture.
I make only one final point. My noble kinsman will undoubtedly raise the question of cost. I agree that he is right to do so. One must calculate the cost and the cost-effectiveness of a new scheme. One place where he could easily look for the money is the rule of paying income support in arrears. That places a quite unnecessary strain on the fund. In a Written Answer yesterday— for which I thank him—he said that that was taking £7.6 million out of a budget of £302 million and 20 per cent. of the budget for crisis loans. That is a wasteful use of money. We should save it.
7.53 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, I am grateful to my noble kinsman for finding some savings for my right honourable friend. I am sure that he will take note of those comments.
My noble kinsman and the noble Countess, Lady Mar, praised me for defending what the noble Countess described as the "indefensible". I have no problem whatever in defending the social security provisions and social security system that exists in this country. In terms of the safety net provisions built into our social security system, we probably have the most comprehensive in the European Community. Of that there is no doubt.
As I mentioned yesterday, our social security system costs £70 billion a year. That amounts to expenditure per week of £25 on every man, woman and child in the country. Most importantly, it is a social security system that costs each individual taxpayer and national insurance contributor £10 per day. Those are large sums of money. It is right that we should always bear in mind the cost of any new provisions suggested for the social security system.
I note also the accusation made by the noble Countess, that I treated her with less consideration than she deserves. On these occasions and on general social security debates I attempt to answer as many of the more important points as possible. But it is important to bear in mind the constraints of time. However, on the occasions when I do not answer noble Lords or the noble Countess herself, I hope that I shall be able to write to them on some later occasion.
Many hard cases have been cited. I do not intend to deal with any of the individual cases mentioned. It would be wrong to do so. But it is always easy to find emotive examples; that ignores the good points of the fund and the large number of people the fund has helped since it was started with awards to over 5½ million different people and expenditure of over £1 billion.
I should say also in response to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, who said that it is a system which devalues people on state benefit, that we share his concern for the individual. The fund, like the
1130
rest of the social security system, is geared to encouraging individual responsibility; hence, income support plus loans allows those on income support to budget like other people. In specific circumstances grants are on offer where other external events intervene.
It has been the nature of successive schemes for meeting exceptional needs to attract a degree of attention and controversy which is in marked contrast to the necessarily limited role of such schemes in the overall provision of social security benefits. That indicates to me both the importance of the subject, particularly to those who are eligible to receive those payments; and at the same time the difficulty of managing a scheme of this nature, which is at the extreme edge of the social security system, making payments for unusual and exceptional needs by means of discretionary and difficult decisions. Meeting the needs which do not fit into the regulated structures is even more difficult than addressing the general problem of providing for regular needs.
The Social Security Advisory Committee's report—referred to by many noble Lords—looked in detail at the current scheme, the Social Fund, and has made many valuable points. As I said last March in response to a Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, we welcomed the report, particularly its endorsement of many of the principles on which the Social Fund rests; and its acknowledgement of the excellent service which Social Fund officers provide. We must take into account the Social Policy Research Unit report before we can respond in detail to the report of SSAC.
When the fund was established, it was clear that it would be essential to have reliable and detailed information about how it was operating. Many statistics are collected by the Department of Social Security, and those provide the essential information needed to monitor how the fund is operating on a day-to-day basis. But the knowledge that that basic information would need to be supplemented, to help us evaluate the new policy approach in 1989, prompted us to commission the Social Policy Research Unit to carry out that major research study. The aim was to provide us with a detailed and statistically valid source of information, which could be used to assess the general impact of the new Social Fund scheme. After thorough planning, the main fieldwork was carried out in a sample of 39 office areas involving nearly 2,000 respondents in the summer of 1990, and an exhaustive analysis of the research data was conducted throughout 1991. That has been a detailed and extensive study, yielding a wealth of data. The findings are correspondingly complex, and the report will clearly need to be thoroughly examined.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is aware that I replied to him in the form of a Written Answer to announce that we will publish the report following examination by Ministers. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, claims that the report will be published on Thursday. I cannot comment on that. But I can reassure the noble Baroness that it will be published as we promised before the Summer Recess.
The noble Countess, Lady Mar, claimed that the SPRU report was allegedly so damning that it had to

1131
be rewritten. I can assure her that the production of the report has gone very smoothly. The research done has been conducted by an independent—I underline that word "independent"—body; namely, the Social Policy Research Unit at York University. We shall publish its findings in full.
My noble kinsman asked whether my right honourable friend the Secretary of State had written to the university allowing it to clear the report for publication so that it could be included in the returns of the research assessment exercise. Clearance has been given for the report to be published, but I regret that I cannot tell my noble kinsman whether that has enabled it to be included in the returns for the research assessment exercise. So far as I am aware, that will be a matter for the university to arrange. I understand the importance that he attaches to that point from the point of view of York University.
In considering both the SSAC and the SPRU reports, if I may refer to them by their initials, and the many others which have been written about the Social Fund, we must not forget that it was introduced because previous schemes had failed. It has always been—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I am not sure whether he is leaving the actual detail of the SPRU report which we are awaiting, but, if he is, will he be so kind as to answer the question which I repeated twice? Will he comment on my suspicion that the SPRU report will find that the Social Fund expenditure is not helping the most needy?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I made it quite clear that the report is about to be published. I do not intend to comment on it before its publication. The noble Baroness will have to wait for its publication, which, as I have said, will be before the Recess.
Perhaps I may continue with the reasons for the introduction of the fund and the fact that it was introduced because all previous schemes had failed. It has always been an extremely difficult job to find an effective but simple system for meeting exceptional needs at the fringes or edges of the social security system, and we were pleased to note that the Social Security Advisory Committee acknowledged that in its report. I believe that it has also been generally recognised that the old single payment system was open to abuse: for example, too many single payment awards were going to a small and disproportionate minority of those who were eligible. As I said in response to a Question last March, about 80 per cent. of the money was going to about 17 per cent. of eligible claimants.
A system for helping people on the lowest incomes with exceptional one-off expenses has to be fair both to the people who use it and to others on lower incomes who have to manage without extra help. We believe that the Social Fund has achieved both these aims by encouraging people to manage on their income support with the help of interest-free loans when they have exceptional and large expense which is difficult to cope with. What is more, the repayable
1132
loans, together with the budgetary framework of the fund, have succeeded where previous schemes have failed in helping large numbers of people with their most essential one-off needs while keeping public expenditure under control.
I do not accept, as has been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley and others, that the solution to this problem is the conversion of loans into grants. The cost of, in effect, reverting to what was the old single payment scheme would be enormous. I suspect that it might be as much as £172 million just in the first year. That is only the beginning of the replacement of loans with grants and that would inevitably lead to the growth in expenditure which we experienced under the old system.
There is clear evidence that the fund is providing extensive help for those people who need it. As I said earlier, since the start of the scheme, nearly 1 million non-repayable community care grants have been awarded and over 4.5 million interest-free loans. The total cumulative expenditure, including the regulated maternity, funeral and cold weather payments, now exceeds £1 billion. The initial budget of the discretionary part of the scheme for 1992–93, set at £302 million, is almost 32 per cent. more than the original 1991–92 budget. Expenditure on this part of the scheme has increased by 35 per cent. in real terms.
I give an assurance to my noble kinsman that these are gross figures and not the net figures which he was thinking of. The important thing about those figures is that the money is being recycled. It can be allowed to reach more and more people. I fail to see how, as my noble kinsman put it, anyone can find it cheaper to repay a commercial loan than the interest-free Social Fund loan. Does my noble kinsman wish to intervene?
Earl Russell: My Lords, I believe the explanation is simple, is it not? There is a longer period of repayment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I simply do not accept that. If there is no interest to pay, then in the end it is going to be cheaper. The noble Baroness and others quoted the SSAC report and referred to the Social Fund as being a lottery. Again, that is something I dealt with during Questions last March. By definition the fund is meant to respond to individual needs. The whole point of it is that it is not meant to be a regulated scheme. Total consistency is only possible in the kind of system that we had under the single payments scheme. That scheme was abused and many needs were not met. One needs to allow discretion to individual Social Fund officers so that they have flexibility to meet the needs which are most pressing.
The noble Baroness also asked what evidence there was that money was going to those with the greatest need. Again, one of the main achievements of the fund has been to set responsive, discretionary decision-making within a budgetary framework which ensures that the highest needs are met. Again, that is unlike the old scheme, which operated under rigid, inflexible rules.
The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, and others, observed that there was little help with job offers. I believe the claim was that some job offers were being

1133
forfeited because of the lack of financial assistance. We believe that it is more appropriate for the employer, rather than the state, to help the newer employee with work related expenses such as tools, clothing or fares to work. Many of the more responsible employers do that. The Social Fund is mainly intended to help people who have to continue to manage on income support rather than those who are about to start or return to employment.
We have made a commitment to pilot a number of back-to-work bonus schemes in certain inner city areas for the long-term unemployed in an attempt to provide additional assistance in getting people back to work. The noble Countess, Lady Mar, talked about the inadequacy of the maternity payment. It is intended only as a contribution towards the expense associated with a baby and we believe that £100 is a reasonable contribution from the state. However, it is an event which, in normal circumstances, can be planned for and help is often given by the wider family. Also, help is available in the usual income support rates and the extra premiums available on the birth of children.
The noble Countess and, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, asked for help for people in terms of rent in advance. At the moment the fund can already help people with loans for rent in advance. But what it does not provide help for is deposits or what used to be called "key money". In the past, as many noble Lords know, that system was grossly abused. Landlords and tenants colluded to obtain money and costs certainly were spiralling.
As I mentioned at the start, it must be remembered that the Social Fund is only a small part of the Government's benefit provision. Weekly income-related benefits such as income support, housing benefit, community charge benefit and family credit, are the main ways in which the Government help people who have insufficient resources to meet their living expenses. One of the main aims of the 1988 reforms was to encourage people to budget for regular
1134
living expenses such as food, fuel and clothing, and for the replacement of household items out of their weekly income without extra help from public resources. Our monitoring of the scheme suggests that people are generally managing on their benefit and very few grants or loans are used for food or other everyday needs other than in a crisis.
We have focused more resources on the income support schemes since the research for these reports was carried out. In April 1992 income support rates were increased by 7 per cent.—that is nearly 3 per cent. more than the retail prices index over the same period. On top of this, the premium for older pensioners was raised at a cost of £60 million in a full year. In November all pensioner premiums will he raised again at a cost of £305 million in a full year. Furthermore, from April 1993 income support recipients will no longer be required to contribute to local taxation. That will mean that income-related benefit levels will be at least £1.40 per week higher for single people and £2.80 per week higher for couples than the annual benefit increase they would otherwise have received. That measure alone is estimated to be worth around £700 million at the 1992–93 benefit rates.
I appreciate the various concerns that all speakers have raised. I understand their concern that additional information on these issues should be made available soon and, more particularly, that the SPRU report should be published as soon as possible. As I said, I can assure the House that Her Majesty's Government have not delayed publication. Arrangements are well in hand to publish the SPRU's report on the Social Fund before the Summer Recess.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said that the Social Fund has a policy of "defer, deter and refuse." On the contrary, I should like to say that the fund is flexible, fair and focused on exceptional circumstances.
House adjourned at eleven minutes past eight o'clock.

  EC AIR TRANSPORT POLICY
  EC AIR TRANSPORT POLICY
  CHANNEL TUNNEL NIGHT SERVICE ROLLING STOCK
  CHANNEL TUNNEL NIGHT SERVICE ROLLING STOCK
  RIVER SAFETY: REPORT
  RIVER SAFETY: REPORT
  EDUCATION ACT 1973, SECTION 2: TRUSTEES
  EDUCATION ACT 1973, SECTION 2: TRUSTEES
  NAVAL VESSELS: SALES BY CIS MEMBERS
  NAVAL VESSELS: SALES BY CIS MEMBERS